What is with this fixation with boy's freckles?
It's not a good look, whichever way you point the camera.
They are boys. Let them have a childhood.
You freaks.
Alberto may want to resign to get himself out of harm's way. It is a crime to lie to congress even if you are not under oath. In fact, a former Interior official served time for this.
It will be interesting to see whether he tries to stick it out. Does anyone know when his former chief-of-staff, Sampson, will testify?
Quote:
None of this is about Alberto Gonzales. This is about the president and the White House, which is where this entire plan was hatched. Gonzales was just following orders, executing the president's plans. This is about this president and this White House, which ... let's be honest, everyone on both sides of the aisle already knows.
- Joshua Marshall
That's all I ask, Righties. Be
honest with yourself.
Cycloptichorn
What kind of twisted thinking was that that was presented in the assistant AG letter?
Makes one wonder about Jeff Gannon, the allegations of GHW's boy toys, Republicans and Pages,
and any number of other cases found with a simple Google search. No wonder they want their own lockstep prosecutors and Supreme Court justices.
As many of you know, there is a similar situation concerning the General Services Administration. The chief and political appointees there are accused of illegally using the agency to benefit Republican politicians.
Oh well, just another scandal for this administration.
Ex-Prosecutor Says He Faced Partisan Questions Before Firing
Ex-Prosecutor Says He Faced Partisan Questions Before Firing
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 26, 2007; A03
One of the eight former U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration said yesterday that White House officials questioned his performance in highly partisan political terms at a meeting in Washington in September, three months before his dismissal.
John McKay of Washington state, who had decided two years earlier not to bring voter fraud charges that could have undermined a Democratic victory in a closely fought gubernatorial race, said White House counsel Harriet Miers and her deputy, William Kelley, "asked me why Republicans in the state of Washington would be angry with me."
McKay said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the question -- which he took as a challenge to his 2004 decision -- surprised him because the issue had been carefully reviewed by his office and the decision was supported by the FBI's office in Seattle. "We expected to be supported by people in Washington, D.C., when we make tough decisions like that," McKay said.
He added that he took umbrage at the idea that he had other responsibilities beyond focusing "on the evidence and not allow[ing] politics into the work that we do in criminal prosecutions." Those involved in the scandal over the firings who acted unprofessionally "or even illegally" must be held accountable for what they did, he said.
McKay's disclosure of an explicit White House question about the damage his decision caused to his standing among party loyalists added new detail to his previous statement that Miers accused him of having "mishandled" the voter fraud inquiry.
The use of the word "mishandled" left open the possibility that White House officials -- who in September were weighing whether to recommend McKay for a federal judgeship -- merely disputed McKay's professional judgment. But his statement yesterday lent new credence to suspicions that partisan political concerns weighed heavily in his firing.
His remarks came amid increasing criticism of the administration by other fired prosecutors. Bud Cummins, who was dismissed last year to make way for a protege of Karl Rove, noted on CBS's "Face the Nation" that among the documents released by the administration, "there is no evidence of a credible performance-review process as the attorney general has described."
Former prosecutor David C. Iglesias of New Mexico, asked on "Meet the Press" if he believes he was removed for political reasons, said, "Absolutely, yes." Iglesias, a Republican, also said that "right now, I've got serious doubts" about the integrity and leadership of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.
Iglesias also challenged a recent statement by White House counselor Dan Bartlett that Iglesias was fired in part because of frustration that his prosecution of a former New Mexico state treasurer had produced a conviction on only one of 23 counts.
Iglesias said Bartlett is "out of touch" and "looking at talking points" because "he doesn't know the facts underlying what we do as U.S. attorneys." He said that the former state treasurer was sentenced to three years in prison and that "had he been convicted of 10 out of 23 counts, I doubt he would have done a lot more time."
Although President Bush said Saturday that he wants Gonzales to remain in his post, political support for that position continued to erode yesterday because of the disclosure Friday that Gonzales had chaired a November meeting where the firings were discussed -- contrary to Gonzales's past assertion that he was "not involved in any discussions about what was going on."
Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the Judiciary Committee's senior Republican, said on "Meet the Press" that "we have to have an attorney general who is candid, truthful, and if we find he has not been candid and truthful, that's a very compelling reason for him not to stay on."
The Justice Department's effort to portray the new disclosure as consistent with Gonzales's depiction of his role did not appear to be getting much traction on Capitol Hill. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said on ABC's "This Week" that Gonzales has "a problem. You cannot have the nation's chief law enforcement officer with a cloud hanging over his credibility."
Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), the minority whip, said on "Fox News Sunday:" "I think it is a fact that it hasn't been handled well. . . . There needs to be a way to find out exactly what went on and why this was done."
Democratic lawmakers were more scathing. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), on the Fox program, accused Gonzales of lying to her about his role at the outset of the scandal. "I think he's been damaged very badly," she said, and called for Gonzales to resign.
Advocate wrote:As many of you know, there is a similar situation concerning the General Services Administration. The chief and political appointees there are accused of illegally using the agency to benefit Republican politicians.
Oh well, just another scandal for this administration.
Yes. We'll hopefully be hearing the name Doan a lot more in the coming weeks.
And, the Novak article BBB posted as a seperate thread indicating the GOP representatives are not standing by Bush is a good indication that it's NOT just partisan politics, so Bush might want to stop crying about that before he pisses off even more citizens.
What we really need to see is convergence of scandals. That's what will tie together the perfidy into a more cohesive picture.
NONE of what has gone on was a mistake; the AG and Bush meant to do exactly what they are doing. They just didn't figure on the Dem. Congress calling their bluff, and they had a poor bluff when it happened. Now, trouble.
Cycloptichorn
Why, what do we have here?
Quote:A Unifying Theory
By Paul Kiel - March 26, 2007, 11:09 AM
A glimpse of the supra-scandal?
The Washington Post's front page story today is about a meeting in January between the head of the General Services Administration, Lurita Doan, top agency officials, and Scott Jennings, Karl Rove's deputy. The topic: how the agency could help "our candidates."
The GSA is the government's landlord and heads up nearly $60 billion per year in government contracts. The meeting was about how to turn that buying power to Republican advantage.
The angle of the Post's story is that Doan's eagerness to join the scheme (get Republicans to take credit for the opening of federal facilities around the country, while preventing Democrats like Nancy Pelosi from doing so) seems a blatant violation of the Hatch Act, a law that prevents federal employees for using their positions for politics.
But there's another lens through which to view the story, a lens that may be helpful in understanding the purging of the U.S. attorneys. I yield the floor to a long-time TPM reader:
Quote:....on January 26, Lurita Alexis Doan, the administrator of the government's contracting agency, sent an e-mail to its top-level political appointees inviting them to attend or videoconference into a presentation by J. Scott Jennings, deputy director of the White House political office. The subject of the presentation? Why, polling data from the 2006 elections. And then, the article (and the indefatigable Rep. Waxman) alleges, the administrator solicited ideas for helping "'our' candidates in the next elections." Doan, of course, denies that such ideas were solicited. The White House explains that it was "a factual assessment of the political landscape." But just looking at what's already been admitted - that the conference call took place, and that Jennings presented polling data on the elections - offers prima facie evidence of a Hatch Act violation. Why on earth would regional administrators for the GSA need to be made aware of the political landscape? The White House isn't even claiming that there's a policy-driven reason for the presentation. The *defense* here is that Jennings gave an unabashedly political presentation to a group of government officials. Unbelievable.
The reader continues:
Quote:It also brings into sharper focus an emerging pattern of misconduct. Note the timing, and the subject of the presentation. The GOP got spanked in the midterm elections. The president lost his congressional majorities. By late fall of 2006, it was clear that the GOP was in a tailspin. The only remaining levers of power in Republican hands were held by the administration, and it had just two years left to reverse the tide. Evidently, Karl Rove decided that he had been insufficiently aggressive in using federal agencies to bolster the chances of Republican candidates. So he dispatched Jennings to convince the minions at GSA to ensure that every new federal project would have a Republican cutting the ribbon. (It's worth noting that no one has bothered suggesting that Doan invited Jennings. That's not how this works. Jennings was there because the White House sent him, and Doan went along. She's likely to take the fall here, but this came straight from the White House.)
One of the puzzling aspects of the US Attorney purge is that it wasn't completed until after the 2006 elections. So far, most allegations have focused on the notion that these US Attorneys failed to do enough to help Republican candidates win in 2006, by failing to investigate enough Democrats or to pursue scurillous allegations of voter fraud. But it's looking more and more like what happened here has more to do with 2008 than with 2006. Only two USAs were asked to step down before the elections: Cummins, to make room for a specific Rove disciple, and Chiara, whose office was a mess. The plan to dismiss the rest had festered for well over a year, but it kicked into high gear immediately after the elections. Sampson sent out the formal plan on Nov. 15, marking its importance 'High'. "An associate of Rove" told the Times that Rove learned of the plan in November. And...wait for it...remember that 18 day gap? It begins on November 15.
What we're going to find, if Congress successfully subpoenas officials or their e-mails, is that after the Republicans got routed in November of 2006 a panicked Karl Rove turned up the flame under lots of schemes that had simmered on the back burners for months or years. New orders went out - learn the lessons of the exit polling, and make sure that 2008 brings success. The White House, in its panic, abandoned caution, and got sloppy. It left its fingerprints all over the sorts of things it had generally manipulated at arms-length. And the man who headed up the effort, by all indications, was Karl Rove's right hand, J. Scott Jennings.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002874.php
Cycloptichorn
Attorney General Gonzales faces showdown with Senate
Attorney General Gonzales faces showdown with Senate
By Margaret Talev and Marisa Taylor
McClatchy Newspapers
3/25/07
WASHINGTON - Three Republican senators expressed skepticism Sunday about Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' credibility, setting up what one of them called a "make or break" moment for him when he testifies before Congress about his role in firing eight U.S. Attorneys.
"The attorney general has a lot of explaining to do," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "Attorney General Gonzales' testimony will be a make or break situation for him."
The committee is scheduled to hear from Gonzales on April 17 but could move that date forward.
Democrats and a handful of Republicans have voiced concerns that the Bush administration's firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year was rooted in a bid to make the federal law enforcers servants of partisan politics rather than the even-handed rule of law.
While President Bush stands behind Gonzales and resists calls for his resignation, if enough lawmakers turn against him, especially his fellow Republicans, it would be difficult for Gonzales to discharge his responsibilities for lack of confidence in Congress. The Senate Judiciary Committee is the primary panel overseeing the Justice Department.
The looming showdown with Gonzales centered Sunday on the shifting accounts of his role in the attorneys' dismissals - he said at a March 13 press conference that he'd known nothing about it, then was apparently contradicted by e-mails released Friday night revealing that he'd attended an hour-long meeting to discuss the dismissals 10 days before they occurred.
Specter said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he spoke with Gonzales on Saturday, after Friday night's release of e-mails and documents.
"I told him that he would have an opportunity, as far as I was concerned, to present his case, but that he was going to have to have an explanation as to why he said he wasn't involved in discussions - that's the key word -and now you have these e-mails which appear to contradict that."
Specter said it's critical to determine if Gonzales was truthful about his role - and that lying would be grounds to get rid of him.
"We have to have an attorney general who is candid, truthful, and if we find he has not been candid and truthful, that's a very compelling reason for him not to stay on."
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also a member of the Judiciary Committee, said that Gonzales has been politically wounded. "He has said some things that just don't add up," Graham said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
Two prominent Republican senators defended Gonzales, saying he did nothing illegal or improper, even if the firings were bungled.
"He's an honest man," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said on CNN's "Late Edition." He, too, is a senior member of the Judiciary Committee. "He's honest, he's decent and he's honorable. But let's be honest about it, the Justice Department has bungled this attorney thing. There's no question about it. There's no excuse for it."
"I see no evidence that anything illegal was done or improper," Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said on the "Fox News Sunday" program. He's the second-ranking Senate Republican leader as whip. "It is a fact that it hasn't been handled well. ... But the president has every right to fire U.S. attorneys."
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said that Gonzales has been damaged and suggested he cannot serve effectively - but stopped short of urging that he be fired.
"I think the president is going to have to make a tough choice here," Hagel said on ABC's "This Week."
---------------------------------------------------
McClatchy Newspapers correspondents Ron Hutcheson and Steven Thomma contributed.
Quote:Monday, March 26, 2007
Administration Oversight
Committee Directs RNC to Preserve White House Emails
Citing evidence that senior White House officials are using RNC and other political email accounts to avoid leaving a record of official communications, Chairman Waxman directs the Republican National Committee and the Bush-Cheney '04 Campaign to preserve the emails of White House officials and to meet with Committee staff to explain how the accounts are managed and what steps are being taken to protect the emails from destruction and tampering.
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1225
Explosive stuff here. Watch the REpublicans holler 'politcal partisan witch hunt!' over and over again.
Cycloptichorn
There is a growing amount of evidence that the USA's, under the direction of the AG, shut down investigations into many top Republicans, including Rick Renzi, Tom DeLay, and the Guam firings at Rove's request.
Cycloptichorn
Bush has expressed anew his confidence in Alberto, and Justice is implying that Alberto merely suffered from Libbyheimer's.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401196.html
It is going to be very difficult for Alberto to stay on as the AG. The AG has to work closely with congress on legislation, including budgetary matters, and must have the requisite credibility with the House and Senate. Right now, trust in Alberto is zilch.
Attorneys for Monica Goodling, a senior counselor to Mr Gonzales (but now on leave), have said that she will use the 5th amendment to the Constitution to avoid testifying before Congressional committees. I have no problem with that; it is her right.
What is interesting in the growing number of chinks in the Bush Admin armor as folks involved seek to cover their butts.
I would not be too surprised should Alberto take the fifth. As I mentioned before, lying before congress, even when not under oath, is a crime.
I was trying to figure out why Spector was saying what he was... Now I realize I mistakenly said earlier that it was Spectors assistant that slipped the no need to confirm US attorneys section into the Patriot Act.
It was Hatch's (R-Utah) assistant, who did the deed and then was awarded the US attorney position in Utah... And, Hatch is still backing Gonzales according to what Cyclo posted above.
That makes more sense.
