In a letter to House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) today, Justice Department official Monica Goodling's lawyer informed the committtee that she would plead the Fifth if called.

The committee struck a deal last night for the testimony of eight Justice Department officials, Goodling among them.

Goodling's letter was nearly identical to an earlier letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

But there was one interesting detail in the letter: "Ms. Goodling remains actively employed by the Department of Justice, though she is temporarily and voluntarily using some of her accrued leave time," John Dowd, Goodling's lawyer, writes [my emphasis].

So just to be clear: the departure from the Justice Department of the two aides (Goodling and Kyle Sampson) at the center of the U.S. attorney firings has lent the appearance that they were called to task. But that's not at all true. Sampson left voluntarily, even remaining on the payroll for a number of days after he resigned -- until questions were raised. And Goodling hasn't really left at all. And, despite having pled the Fifth, she apparently plans to return to her job as if nothing ever happened.

Inspiring words from the AG:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, amid a growing clamor for his resignation, acknowledged Friday confusion about of his role in firing eight U.S. attorneys but said he doesn't "recall being involved in deliberations" over which prosecutors were to be ousted.

"I believe in truth and accountability and every step that I've taken is consistent with that principle," Gonzales said when asked why he is not heeding calls to resign. "I am fighting for the truth as well."

Gonzales said he had his former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, coordinated performance evaluations for the 93 U.S. attorneys "to see where changes might be appropriate."

"I signed off on the recommendations and signed off on the implementation plan, and that's the extent of my involvement," he told reporters....

Of course, Gonzales' denial that he was involved in "any deliberations" about firing the U.S. attorneys doesn't mean much. If Sampson's testimony yesterday was any guide, there doesn't appear to have been any deliberations at all.

Maybe it's a coincidence.

White House political director Sara Taylor is out the door at the White House, according to Washington Wire. Taylor came up a number of times yesterday during the Kyle Sampson hearing as having worked closely with Sampson (along with another Karl Rove aide Scott Jennings) to install Rove's former aide Tim Griffin as the U.S. Attorney in eastern Arkansas.

"Barry Jackson, a longtime aide to Karl Rove, also is thought to be leaving soon.... All the departures appear to be more-or-less routine turnover," reports the Washington Wire.

Straight from the horse's mouth.

Joseph D. Rich was chief of the voting section in the Justice Department's civil right division from 1999 to 2005. Today he penned an Op-Ed in The Los Angeles Times, and he didnt' mince words:

Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.

It has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.

And Rich gives a specific example of the type of U.S. attorney this administration prefers -- a "loyal Bushie" to be sure:

In March 2006, Bradley Schlozman was appointed interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City, Mo. Two weeks earlier, the administration was granted the authority to make such indefinite appointments without Senate confirmation. That was too bad: A Senate hearing might have uncovered Schlozman's central role in politicizing the civil rights division during his three-year tenure....

Missouri had one of the closest Senate races in the country last November, and a week before the election, Schlozman brought four voter fraud indictments against members of an organization representing poor and minority people. This blatantly contradicted the department's long-standing policy to wait until after an election to bring such indictments because a federal criminal investigation might affect the outcome of the vote. The timing of the Missouri indictments could not have made the administration's aims more transparent.

Read the whole thing.

The Wall Street Journal continues (sub. req.) to make life miserable for Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons. The paper first reported a month ago that Gibbons was under federal investigation for improper gifts (possible bribes) from a defense contractor.

Now the paper reports that Gibbons' business as a legislator was intertwined with a second defense contractor:

The wife of Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons was hired as a consultant to a defense contractor at the same time that her husband, who was then a member of Congress, helped the company get funding for a no-bid federal contract.

Dawn Gibbons got about $35,000 in consulting fees in 2004 from Sierra Nevada Corp., of Sparks, Nev., the company said. Mr. Gibbons, a five-term Republican who served on the armed services and intelligence committees, sought funding that year for Sierra Nevada for a $4 million contract to develop a helicopter radar-landing system.

If this seems like déjà vu, it's because the role of wives has been key in the Jack Abramoff investigation. Abramoff often selected lawmakers' and staffers' wives for busy work --- one former staffer, Tony Rudy, has pled guilty for accepting bribes from Abramoff in the form of consulting work for his wife.

There are more than shades of similarity here. Gibbons has the same defense lawyer as Abramoff: Abbe Lowell. And Lowell tells the Journal that Mrs. Gibbons "had a pre-existing relationship" with the contractor that began long before Mr. Gibbons was elected to Congress and had "no knowledge" of the federal contract. Just a coincidence.

Now, there's another major revelation in the Journal story, one that touches on the U.S. attorney scandal. John Wilke reports that "a federal grand jury in Washington has begun to issue subpoenas for documents, according to witnesses contacted in recent weeks."

A lot of the suspicion over U.S. Attorney for Nevada Daniel Bogden's firing has centered on the assumption that it was his office leading the investigation against Gibbons. Not the case, reports Wilke: "Mr. Bogden wasn't involved in the Gibbons probe, which was initiated by prosecutors in Washington."

The House Judiciary Committee has worked out an agreement to have transcribed interviews with at least eight current and former employees of the Justice Department behind closed doors. The committee said that the deal followed a series of phone and written negotiations.

The first interview will be today with Michael Elston, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty's chief of staff. Following will be interviews with McNulty, Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis; the former director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys Michael Battle; Monica Goodling, the DOJ's liaison to the White House (now on leave); acting Associate Attorney General William Mercer; and Assistant Attorney General William Moschella. Goodling, of course, has already said that she'd plead the Fifth. Congressional interviews are typically not under oath, but false statements are prosecutable (just ask David Safavian and Steven Griles).

Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and the other leaders have agreed that "investigators would keep the content of the interviews confidential pending consultation with Department officials." It's not clear when or if such a release might come, or if the interviews will be followed by open hearings.

Here it is, the culmination of the hearing, where a very, very tired Kyle Sampson admits that if he had it to do all over again, well...

Still fightin'. Reacting to Kyle Sampson's testimony that "I don't think the Attorney General's statement about not being involved in any discussions about USA removals is accurate," Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse released the following statement:

The Attorney General recently clarified his statements from a March 13 press conference, as Mr. Sampson stated during the testimony. The Attorney General explained in a recent interview on March 26, 2007, "[f]rom time to time, Mr. Sampson would tell [him] something that would confirm in [his] mind that that process was ongoing." During the interview, the Attorney General stated he "was never focused on specific concerns about United States Attorneys as to whether or not they should be asked to resign." Rather, as the Attorney General has already explained, his discussions with Mr. Sampson were focused on ensuring that appropriate people were aware of and involved in the process. Furthermore, the Attorney General explained -- consistent with Mr. Sampson’s testimony today -- in an interview on March 14 that he directed Mr. Sampson to lead the evaluation process, was kept aware of some conversations during the process, and that he approved the recommendations to seek the resignations of select U.S. Attorneys.

Here, Kyle Sampson claims that it didn't even cross his mind, nor was it an issue, that Carol Lam was in the middle of a sprawling public corruption investigation when she was fired.

Here it is, under questioning by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Kyle Sampson admits that Carol Lam was never told of the Justice Department's disaffection with her performance on immigration prosecutions, the supposed reason for her firing.

Under questioning from Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Sampson testifies about his "bad idea" to circumvent Senate confirmation for the appointment of Tim Griffin as the U.S. Attorney in Eastern Arkansas.

"I did not think the White House would consider doing that in 92 districts," he said, meaning that he only intended to use it for Griffin. "In my discussions at the staff level with folks at the White House, I believe it was a consideration then... at the staff level, we discussed it." But he says it wasn't adopted by "the principals" (meaning Harriet Miers).

Upon further questioning by Specter, he admits that he spoke with Gonzales about the idea. "I don't think he liked the idea very much," Sampson says. He's then asked whether Gonzales specifically rejected it and says that he did after speaking with Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) about the appointment of Griffin. But it's unclear when that conversation was.

Sampson says it could have been in late December or early January. When Specter asks whether that was after Sampson wrote in a December 19, 2007 email that they should use the provision, Sampson says it was.

He says he has no recollection of Harriet Miers rejecting the idea.

Sen. Pat Leahy asks Kyle Sampson how David Iglesias ended up on the list of prosecutors to be purged, and Sampson replies,

"I don't remember hearing any complaints or anything about Mr. Iglesias' handling of corruption cases in New Mexico -- I do remember learning from, I believe, the attorney general, that he had received a complaint from Karl Rove about U.S. attorneys in 3 jurisdictions, including New Mexico. The substance of the complaint was that they were not pursuing voter fraud complaints aggressively enough."

The video:

Here's Kyle Sampson's testimony about suggesting to White House counsel Harriet Miers and deputy White House counsel Bill Kelley that they remove U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) asks if Fitzgerald was ever considered for removal?

Sampson says:

"On one occasion in 2006, in discussing the removal of U.S. attorneys... that I was speaking with Harriet Miers and Bill Kelley and I raised Pat Fitzgerald, and immediately after I did it, I regretted it. I thought, I knew it was the wrong thing to do, I knew it was inappropriate. And I remember at the time that Harriet Miers and Bill Kelley just looked at me.... I said, "Patrick Fitzgerald could be added to this list."... They just looked at me."

Durbin asks why he suggested that. And Sampson says he doesn't know why, that maybe it was just to "get a reaction out of them."

Watch Kyle Sampson thread the needle on Karl Rove's involvement in the appointment of his former aide Timothy Griffin to be the U.S. Attorney for Eastern Arkansas.

While Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) was talking, Senate Judiciary Chairman suddenly interrupted him to say,

"we've just received word that the Republicans have objected under the Senate rules to this meeting continuing. I think that's unfortunate, but I will follow the rules of the Senate... The Republicans are the ones who don't want to have the hearings, the Republicans have the right under the rules to do that.... we will stand in recess until the Senate recesses."

Whatever the disruption, apparently it was immediately reversed. Republicans are saying that it was based on a misunderstanding. Now we're back on.

Obviously unimpressed with the qualifications of the people (Sampson, Monica Goodling) who seem to have driven the U.S. attorney purge, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) grills Sampson on what actual lawyering experience Sampson and his colleague has.

Here Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) questions Kyle Sampson about the preparation for Justice Department officials to testify before Congress. Counter to earlier remarks by Alberto Gonzales, Sampson says that "I was very open and collaborative in the process."

Here Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) questions Kyle Sampson about whether it ever occurred to him when he was making the list of U.S. attorneys whether there would be a "perception problem" with firing U.S. attorneys in the middle of important investigations. Sampson says no.

Two big things came out of Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-CA) questioning of Kyle Sampson.

The first was a glowing letter about Lam that Feinstein presented from the Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency. Lam was supposedly fired, remember, because she performed poorly on immigration prosecutions. You can read the letter here.

The second was the revelation that after the FBI bureau chief in San Diego complained to the press about Lam's firing, Samspon called FBI headquarters to complain.

Here it is. Kyle Sampson explains (away) what a "loyal Bushie" is.

Here Kyle Sampson says that he did have the idea to use the Patiot Act provision to avoid Senate confirmation for the administration's U.S. attorney picks, but that the Attorney General and White House counsel nixed it.

Here you go. Sen. Arlen Specter asks Sampson about why he wrote on May 11th that the "real problem" we have "now" is with Carol Lam. Sampson dodged at first, but then said that the "real problem" referred to her "office's prosecution of immigration cases." Nothing to do with Lam's search warrant of CIA Executive Director Dusty Foggo.

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with Kyle Sampson is set to begin. I'll be providing running updates on the testimony to this post below the fold.

We'll also be providing clips of the testimony as it goes forward.

The hearing is being broadcast through the committee's website and also on C-Span3. Those watching at home are invited to weign in with a comment.

Read more »

So what, exactly, will Democrats be grilling Kyle Sampson about, starting in a couple minutes?

U.S. News has a general rundown which is a good start, but there a few key things to look for, a couple of which they touch on.

1) Sampson claims that the firings were the result of a broad, "consensus based" process. So let's hear the reasons, however subjective or unscientific they were. How was it, for example, that the Justice Department's second most senior official wrote two days before the firings that he was getting "a little skittish" about firing U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden?

2) On May 11, 2006, Sampson emailed deputy White House counsel William Kelley: "The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires." It was sent the day after Carol Lam had notifed the DoJ that she intended to serve search warrants to Foggo. It'll be interesting to hear Sampson explain that away.

3) Sampson repeatedly advocated for using the Patiot Act provision to circumvent Senate confirmation for Timothy Griffin, Karl Rove's former aide. Senators will want to hear about that, and why Alberto Gonzales and other DoJ officials told Congress that they did indeed plan to seek Senate confirmation.

4) How did Sampson know that Griffin's appointment was "important" to Karl Rove? And why did he tell Congress that Rove had no role in Griffin's appointment?

5) What was Rove's role in the firings in general? How often did he communicate with Rove, who is reportedly deeply involved in the appointment process, about the firings?

6) Why did he rate Patrick Fitzgerald as an "undistinguished" U.S. attorney?

7) Before he left, then Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who managed the U.S. attorneys, made up his own list of incompetent U.S. attorneys. It was completely different from Sampson's final list, save one -- the only one who indisputably had real performance issues. Why the difference?

There's more, to be sure. Are there other questions you're listening for answers to? Let us know in the comments.

Well, it's finally time to hear from Kyle Sampson. You can read his opening statement for this morning's hearing here (pdf).

Josh already gave a good introduction to the central aspect of Sampson's testimony, his assertion that there's nothing wrong with "political" motivations for the firings. It's an idea Sampson most succinctly formulates here:

A U.S. Attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective, either because he or she has alienated the leadership of the Department in Washington or cannot work constructively with law enforcement or other governmental constituencies in the district important to effective leadership of the office, is unsuccessful.

The key question, of course, is how some of these U.S. attorneys managed to "alienate" Washington. Sampson denies that any of them were removed for "improper" reasons, which he defines in a lawyerly cadence as
to "interfere or influence the investigation or prosecution of a particular case for political or partisan advantage."

So why were these eight U.S. attorneys removed? How did the department establish which prosecutors were "unsuccessful?" The "process was not scientific," Sampson admits. "But neither was the process random or aribitrary." It was a "consensus-based process based on input from senior Justice Department officials." But how they arrived at that consensus, nobody knows.

For instance, here's what Sampson is expected to say about U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias, via The Washington Post:

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said Sampson will describe the firing as the culmination of a series of complaints about Iglesias that hinged in part on three phone calls from [Sen. Pete] Domenici (R-NM) to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales in 2005 and 2006 and another to Gonzales's deputy last October. Iglesias was not added to the list of prosecutors to be fired until fall.

How did those complaints lead to that consensus-based decision? And what precisely were the complaints about? It'll be interesting to hear Sampson tell the "benign story" that he says this is.

But there's more. Sampson will also give a rather unflattering portrait of his boss, Alberto Gonzales. Here's how this morning's New York Times paints that portion of his testimony:

... over time, friends and former colleagues say, Mr. Sampson noticed what three people who worked with the attorney general separately called a pattern of “imprecision” in Mr. Gonzales’s public statements.

...friends said Mr. Sampson could not defend the accuracy of all of Mr. Gonzales’s statements in the case like his insistence that he had no personal involvement in planning the removals or selecting prosecutors.

Justice Department records show that Mr. Gonzales discussed the removals at a meeting on Nov. 27, 2006.

Mr. Gonzales “is not a litigator, and he is not an accomplished public speaker,” said a friend of Mr. Sampson who also worked with Mr. Gonzales, known as Judge Gonzales because he was on the Texas Supreme Court. “When the judge says, ‘I wasn’t involved,’ he means something specific. If you teased it out, you would figure out what it was he meant. But in the political world where you only get one shot, it comes across as misleading.”

Your attorney general: a lawyer who even his closest advisors admit is imprecise with language.

From the AP:

Eight federal prosecutors were fired last year because they did not sufficiently support President Bush's priorities, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' former chief of staff says in remarks prepared for delivery Thursday to Congress.

"The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial," said Kyle Sampson.

The aide, who quit because of the furor over the firings, is to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. A copy of his prepared remarks was obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press.

"A U.S. attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective ... is unsuccessful," Sampson said.

This is gonna be fun.

Another crucial detail from the documents just released: the White House is also complicit.

On February 22, Kyle Sampson wrote, "Because this letter mentions Rove and alludes to Harriet, I'd like to send it to [the White House Counsel's Office] today for their review, with an eye on getting it out tomorrow." The letter was sent the next day.

The mention of Rove, of course, was that he wasn't involved in the appointment of his former aide as U.S. attorney, something shown to be false by the Justice Department emails.

Reacting to the released documents, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said:

“The plot continues to thicken. It seems the Justice Department rarely acted without the knowledge and approval of the White House. In effect, the White House was involved in denying its own involvement. This makes the need for Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and others in the White House to testify under oath, with transcripts even greater.”

The Justice Department turned over yet more documents to Congress today -- documents which seem to show that Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff Kyle Sampson was responsible for misleading Congress about Karl Rove's role in replacing a U.S. attorney.

On February 23, acting Assistant Attorney General wrote Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and other senators in response to questions about the appointment of Timothy Griffin, a former aide to Rove. In the letter, Hertling stated "The Department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin."

But emails subsequently released by the Justice Department showed that wasn't the case. Last December, for example, Sampson wrote in an email that Griffin's appointment was "important to Harriet, Karl, etc." Other emails showed that Rove's deputy had been intimately involved in the effort to get Griffin installed as the U.S. Attorney in Eastern Arkansas.

In a letter accompanying documents sent to Congress today, Hertling admits that the assertion in his letter isn't true, adding, "We sincerely regret any inaccuracy." And to answer questions about who was responsible for that inaccuracy, he accompanied his letter with 202 pages documents "reflecting the preparation and transmittal of the February 23 letter."

Among the documents is a February 8th email from Kyle Sampson providing what ultimately, with a few small revisions, comprised Hertling's letter. And in that email Sampson wrote that Hertling should say, "I am not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the Attorney General's decision to appoint Griffin."

Now, Hertling might not have known of Rove's role in Griffin's selection, but Sampson sure did.

You can bet that Sampson will be questioned about this during the hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow morning.

Update: Those documents are now online.

In a letter (pdf) to White House counsel Fred Fielding today, the chairmen from the House and Senate judiciary committees sought to renew negotiations over the testimony of Karl Rove and other White House officials.

"[W]e have not heard from you" since last week, the two write. They then lay out the terms for proceeding.

The White House's offer of testimony behind closed doors, with no transcript or oath is still a non-starter, they say. But there is something else "worth pursuing" in the meantime: the White House could hand over records of communications between White House officials and members of Congress, as Fielding has already offered. The White House has said that it willl not hand over "internal" emails, a stand to which Democrats object. But that shouldn't totally stop the flow of material, they say: "Recognizing we have a dispute over those documents should not delay the Committees receiving the other documents that you indicate you are willing to provide." So let's see those third party emails.

The chairmen close by telling Fielding that they want to see more than just correspondence from White House email addresses -- since people in the White House seem to frequently use RNC-provided email addresses instead:

"we trust that you will be collecting and producing emails and documents from all email accounts, addresses and domains and that you are not artificially limiting your production to the official White House email and document retention system."

From U.S. News:

...just a week after E-mails in the U.S. attorneys case became a main focus of congressional Democrats probing the firings, several aides said that they stopped using the White House system except for purely professional correspondence.

"We just got a bit lazy," said one aide. "We knew E-mails could be subpoenaed. We saw that with the Clintons but I don't think anybody saw that we were doing anything wrong."

The Washington Post has a mostly flattering profile of Kyle Sampson in the Style section today. And I just had to laugh at this section in particular:

A devout Mormon born and bred in Utah and educated at Brigham Young University, where he met his wife, Noelle, Sampson coveted the U.S. attorney's job in Salt Lake City and twice approached the man who still had the job, Paul Warner -- now a federal magistrate -- to ask him when he'd be stepping down. The first occurred in a conference room in Utah, Warner said, and the second took place during a lunch in Washington on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Though they shared the same home state, Warner and Sampson followed different public service narratives. A former JAG attorney, Warner had spent 17 years in various capacities in the U.S. attorney's office, saying it "was where I wanted to be, not where I wanted to be from."

In speaking to the eager Sampson, Warner asked him to slow his motor.

"I let him know he would be helped with practical experience as a prosecutor," Warner said. "I told him he should spend some time as an assistant U.S. attorney. If you're going to be chief surgeon, it's nice to do some surgery."

Yep, and Sampson's the guy who was in charge of replacing U.S. attorneys all over the country. Too bad Warner, that relic of a prior age, didn't understand what being a U.S. attorney is really about.

Kyle Sampson says that Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty misled Congress just because the topic of White House involvement didn't come up in the prep meetings. He's expected to say the same thing under oath tomorrow.

But McNulty apparently has a very different story. From The New York Observer:

...Mr. McNulty subsequently told [Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)] that he had been purposefully kept in the dark by senior staffers inside Mr. Gonzales’ inner circle. “McNulty told me he asked explicit questions: Did you do this, this, this? And he did not get affirmative answers from Sampson,” said Mr. Schumer.

No wonder Monica Goodling, who was also at those meetings, has taken the Fifth.

Yesterday, FBI Director Robert Mueller appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee to grovel for forgiveness. Over the past several years, the FBI has used thousands of National Security Letters to improperly obtain private information on citizens. The reasons, according to Mueller: "mistakes, carelessness, confusion, lack of training, lack of guidance and lack of adequate oversight."

The senators spent some time scolding him, but relented after it was clear he wouldn't fight back. Mueller's penitence, Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) soothingly observed, "seems to be a break from many in this administration now."

But the hearing was also a golden opportunity to grill Mueller on the firings of the U.S. attorneys.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wanted to know whether Mueller had ever gotten wind of election fraud cases that should have been indicted, but were not (remember, U.S. attorneys work hand-in-hand with the FBI). Mueller responded that he'd never heard, nor asked about such a thing. Schumer followed up, asking whether the administration had consulted him about the prosecutors' performance on election fraud investigations. Again, no. Was he consulted at all about any of the prosecutors' performance before the firings? No.

The bottom line: though powerful Republicans were upset with the decisions not to indict Democrats for voter fraud, the investigators on the ground were not. Mueller said that regional offices do customarily pass complaints about U.S. attorneys up the chain for "serious cases."

There was another fruitful line of questioning.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) wanted to know why the bureau chief for San Diego Dan Dzwilewski had complained to the press about Carol Lam's firing, said that he "guaranteed" politics was involved, and that without her, a number of ongoing investigations might be jeopardized. Specter didn't want to hear that from the press -- he wanted to hear that sort of thing from Mueller.

Mueller responded that Dzwilewski hadn't passed such complaints up the chain, and that "my understanding is that our chief out there believes he was misquoted, but that our investigations were continuing, without any diminishment."

Misquoted? Sen. Dianne Feinstein followed up:

FEINSTEIN: Well, we followed up and I had my chief counsel call them to verify what they said. And they said, yes, they said it. But they also said they'd been warned to say no more. Are you aware that they had been warned to say no more?

MUELLER: Yes, I am.

FEINSTEIN: And why would that be?

MUELLER: Because I do not think it's appropriate for us to comment on personnel decisions that are made by the Department of Justice....

FEINSTEIN: Well, I profoundly disagree that he was commenting on a personnel matter per se. He was simply saying that it would affect cases that were ongoing. And I think he's entitled to his opinion.

The Chicago Tribune has video of today's press conference -- in it, you can see that after the third question about the U.S. attorney firings, Gonzales decided he didn't want any more and simply left. No one got to ask him why his chief of staff thought Patrick Fitzgerald was a mediocre prosecutor. From The Tribune:

Gen. Alberto Gonzales today cut short a press conference about Internet safety, leaving the room at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse in Chicago when reporters questioned him about the firings of U.S. attorneys.

The questioning was to have lasted about 15 minutes, but it ended after less than three.

Having spent some time digging into the administration's stated reason for U.S. Attorney Carol Lam's firing, it's time to cleanse the palate with the reasons why we're so suspicious.

So here we go.

-- Lam was never confronted over her approach to immigration prosecutions, the given reason for her dismissal.

-- In November, shortly before Lam was fired, a Justice Department official brainstormed about how to explain firing several U.S. attorneys: "The one common link here is that three of them are along the southern border so you could make the connection that DoJ is unhappy with the immigration prosecution numbers in those districts."

-- Lam was fired midway into a historic, wide-reaching public corruption investigation that targeted a number of Republican members of Congress and the executive director of the CIA. Even Karl Rove has acknowledged the reasonableness of not dismissing U.S. attorneys who are leading "high profile cases, important investigations" -- though for some reason, this one didn't qualify.

-- Despite the fact that it was one of the highest profile federal investigations being undertaken at the Department, Lam's investigation into Duke Cunningham and others is never mentioned in the Justice Department emails that have been released. Not once. This must have been discussed at the highest levels, but we've seen no record of those communications.

-- The FBI's bureau chief in San Diego has said, "I guarantee politics is involved" in Lam's firing. When asked about the given rationales for her ouster (that she pursued corruption cases to the detriment of gun and border prosecutions), he responded “What do you expect her to do? Let corruption exist?”

-- May 11, 2006, the day after Lam informed the Justice Department that she planned to execute a search warrant on CIA Executive Director Kyle "Dusty" Foggo and the same day that it was reported that her investigation had spread to Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff Kyle Sampson wrote to a White House official: "The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires."

-- On January 5th, 2007, less than a month after Lam had been told she was fired, but before it had been made public, Sampson wrote to his Justice Department colleagues, "... we granted 1-month extensions for [U.S. Attorney for Nevada Daniel Bogden] and [Western Michigan's Margaret Chiara], but not Carol -- right?" Lam was widely known to be leading a grand jury investigation into Foggo and others. Ultimately, she was granted a fifteen day extension, from January 31 until February 15; she ordered her office to bring the indictment against Foggo before she stepped down, and she succeeded.

The administration has repeatedly argued that U.S Attorney for San Diego Carol Lam was fired because she failed to make immigration cases a priority. Either that's true, or it's a cover story.

Yesterday I laid out Lam's performance on immigration. It's clear that in another administration, Lam would have been commended, not fired.

But it's clear from the emails that certain senior Justice Department officials just didn't like Lam -- and seemed to harbor a wish that she not succeed.

"There are good reasons not to provide extensive resources to [Carol Lam's district]," wrote Bill Mercer, a senior Justice Department official in May of 2006, responding to a suggestion that the Department provide Lam with more prosecutors. "Other border districts have done substantially more. It will send the message that if your people are killing themselves, the additional resources will go to folks who haven't prioritized the same enforcement priority."

Five days later, Mercer suggested a "range of options" for dealing with Lam, the first one being "replace Carol." The third one was to add prosecutors "immediately after Carol's successor is named."

Read more »

From The Chicago Tribune:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is likely to face questions about the allegedly mediocre status of U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald when he arrives here Tuesday for a scheduled round table discussion and press conference.

Gonzales is supposed to be at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse to discuss the "Project Safe Childhood" campaign designed to protect kids from online predators. But he's likely to be asked to field inquiries about Fitzgerald being ranked as undistinguished on a chart sent to the White House from the Justice Department in 2005, as well as the controversial fall firings of a group of U.S. attorneys.

We'll get you word of how that went later. Via Firedoglake.

Josh broached the issue of Monica Goodling's invocation of the Fifth last night, and since then a number of lawyers have written in to say that it's really not so complicated.

Here's TPM Reader/Lawyer DL:

Although Dowd's letter on Goodling's behalf is a model of lawyerly obfuscation, Ms. Goodling's affidavit, which is attached to the letter, invokes the magic word "self-incrimination," and therefore appears to satisfy the foundation for asserting the privilege.

And another TPM reader, this one a lawyer in D.C., is even more frank:

Monica Goodling does have a good faith basis for pleading the Fifth Amendment - just not the ones in her lawyer's letter that are getting all the attention.

Under the federal False Statements statute, 18 USC 1001, it is a felony to cause another person to make a false statement to Congress. Since McNulty has allegedly told Senator Schumer that he made a false statement to Congress based on information provided to him by Monica Goodling, Goodling could very well be prosecuted for a Section 1001 violation.

All the rest of the crap in her lawyer's letter is intended to sooth as much as possible White House anger at her for invoking the Fifth.

Soon, it will be on its way to the president's desk. And for those curious about the roll call, only 72 Republicans voted against.

So both houses voted overwhelmingly to ensure Senate confirmation for U.S. attorneys. What a difference a scandal can make.

From an interview tonight with NBC:

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I asked for their resignation not for improper reasons. I would never have asked for their resignations to interfere with a public corruption case or in any way to interfere with an ongoing investigation. I just wouldn't do that. And if you look carefully at the documentation we've provided to Congress, there's no evidence of that....

I directed the Department officials participate in interviews and hearings before the Congress. As I've indicated, I've asked OPR to be involved, to work with the Office of Inspector General so we can reassure the American public that nothing improper happened here. I've got nothing to hide in terms of what I've done. And we now want to reassure the American public that nothing improper happened here.

If I find out that, in fact, any of these decisions were motivated, the recommendations to me were motivated for improper reasons to interfere with the public corruption case, there will be swift and -- there will be swift and decisive action. I can assure you that.

PETE WILLIAMS: Meaning people would be fired?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Absolutely. Because there is no place for that. Our prosecutors have to-- there has to be no question about the integrity, the professionalism, undue influence of prosecutions in connection with public corruption kinds of cases. And if I find out that any of that occurred here involving the Department of Justice officials, yes, they will be removed.

Gonzales also explains the discrepancy between his March 13 statement that "I was not involved in any discussions about what was going on" and the revelation that he participated in just such a meeting about what was going on ten days before the firings.

What he really meant, he explains, was that he wasn't involved in the nitty-gritty: "I was never focused on specific concerns about United States Attorneys as to whether or not they should be asked to resign." And no wonder. The reasons kept changing.

Don't worry, Senate Judiciary Committee. Monica Goodling's choice to take the Fifth notwithstanding, Kyle Sampson will keep that date on Thursday. Just out from his lawyer, Bradford Berenson:

"Kyle plans to testify fully, truthfully, and publicly. Hearings in a highly politicized environment like this can sometimes become a game of gotcha, but Kyle has decided to trust the Congress and the process."