« Sara Taylor Sends Horse Heads to the USAs | Main | Why Did Comey Fire Thomas DeBiagio? »

May 02, 2007


They're actually rather slow. Somebody faxed and emailed them roughly 6 weeks ago and asked them to question the FUSA's and AUSA's who were interviewed but not accepted as to the rationale provided for not getting the USA slot.

"I, an ordinary citizen....". No Marcy, you, an extraordinary citizen!

"Somebody faxed and emailed them roughly 6 weeks ago..."

Ted Stevens has been parking his dump truck on the tubes again.

EW, You hit the nail on the head - "those that direct DOJ--are going to try to prevent Goodling from spilling her guts."

As Josh Marshall points out Bush cannot fire AbuG since that would open the floodgates with a real investigation into how the the DoJ became an arm of the Rove Republican party to further their corruption.

This is going to take a lot of persistence and courage on the part of the Congressional investigators to uncover the gross abuse of power. And of course a few good people in the DoJ who are what Comey said they were to provide the incriminating evidence.

One thing we know for certain the Rovians will kick up as much sand as possible that the umpire cannot discern.

Fitz! EW!!

I would feel better about an OIG/OPR investigation than one by Bloch/OSP, but frankly am wary of any internal probe. It is simply not possible that this doesn't have an enormous conflict appearance of impropriety. The revelation of this double super secret assignment document and arrangement places both Gonzales and Sampson directly within criminal perjury crosshairs; there simply is no longer any question but that a special/independent prosecutor is required. I said back when the immunity for Goodling was first announced that DOJ was going to bugger up the pie and not to get to excited. Kreskin I am not; this was easy to see. Special prosecutor with plenary powers now; if a stipulation cannot be reached immediately on a person for the job, impeachment proceedings on Gonzales begin.

can I give tokyo jodi the worm tongue her BIG FAT GO FUCK YOURSELF now ???

or do I got to wait until the actual immunity agreement spells it out in english

can I get a ruling on that ???

Well now EW, see, if you'd attended a major institution like Regent University you could be as quick on the uptake as these bozos are.

Why are we worried about the OSP "investigation" anyway? That's not going to stop the various congressional investigations from proceeding. Let the WH whine about internal investigations and how they can't release evidence to Congress. I'll just buy more popcorn for when Henry quietly explodes up there in the chairman's seat.

EW, I have run hot and cold about whether immunity should be offered to Goodling, but consistently maintained that nothing more than use (testimonial) immunity should even be considered. I now finally convinced that Goodling has enough goods to be considered for immunity, maybe even a broader grant. However, there must be an awe inspiring proffer made, before anything goes further. The revelations of the last two days have placed a mass of exposure the weight of a small planet over her; it is time to turn up the pressure. I now think she can likely roll the whole bunch. I don't care if she has John Dowd in her corner or not; if she has a lick of common sense, she is completely soiling her drawers right about now. If I were her, I would also be a might concerned where Dowd's loyalties and priorities were as well. Dear Monica has become as much the "hub" of this conspiracy as Gonzales. Dear Monica has a problem.

So, real honest to goodness graduated/bar accepted attorneys had their rights trampled on and these poor unknowing timid folk didn't know how to complain, to post the continuously alluded to, but strangely never shown loyality oaths they had to take in the dead of night in the cemetary under the full moon, and to sign in their blood as well.
These poor misinfomed barristers didn't know how to avail themselves of any legal aid? These poor put upon solicitors couldn't dial a number to the Times or mouse up a blogger?

I may yet be surprised and I will admit it when I am, but so far this is like the Rove Carrot dangled before the Democratic Donkey driving him forward pulling the Liberal Wagon of Hope on and on, faster and faster.

tokyo freepatriot/xxx the wormtongue the cards speak for themselves!

Show me the oaths. List the poor mistreated little shrinking violet attorneys! or just go sit in the corner and sulk.

On Countdown today - Keith's guest Turley said that Congressional investigators should dig into their investigations before Goodling's immunized testimony. Or else she would pull a Ollie North.

I wonder what evidence Waxman, Conyers and Leahy already have stashed away and what else they need to connect all the dots. Maybe Monica's testimony should just be the icing on the cake? Anyway, what do I know - I am just a citizen that would like to see all this corruption and criminality fully exposed and our long nightmare come to an end.

It's always nice to know stuff, via reading EW, weeks before everyone else.

I don't trust the OIG/OPR investigation--I don't trust anyone in Justice, not even the mice living in the building--Rove probably has them working on voter fraud. I fear that they are throwing Monica under the bus to prevent her from talking to Congress. Congress better fight hard for her testimony. There was a NYT piece today (behind the firewall) talking about Rove's beginnings as a grunt for Nixon but how he looked up to Donald Segretti. And it was mentioned that at one time Rove was under scrutiny by the Watergate prosecutor but he was too small a fish so they dropped it. So I just kept thinking all day, what if Rove had been indicted back then, where would he be now? I liked the thought of him being a used car salesman...

Please James Comey, don't let us down tomorrow.

Jodi - ever hear of the term "blacklisted"? Sure doesn't sound like you have. Unless there was a critical mass of USA's, FUSA's, AUSA's that came out, there would not be enough pressure to overcome the inevitable blacklisting that would follow.

Not to mention the beating from paid propagandists they would also take, casting aspersions on their reputations. I have a feeling you do understand this particular point operationally.

EW @ top: "I'm most curious, incidentally, by the timing of this story, following as it does just two days after Murray's latest bombshell. I wonder whether, two days ago, the prospect of Goodling's immunized testimony wasn't that dangerous. But now that it's clear how central her role in this scandal really is, DOJ--and those that direct DOJ--are going to try to prevent Goodling from spilling her guts."

Yep. This ties in directly to the secret order delegating hiring/firing authority to Goodling and Sampson over the non-civil service DoJ employees.

Most of the articles I've seen focus on the authority this gave Goodling/Sampson over political appointees. But the real story, I think, is in the ostensibly NON-political employees. For two reasons:

1) Assuming Goodling was asking prospective DoJ employees about their political affiliations, that's probably a violation of the Hatch Act and other civil rights and civil service statutes.

2) As these are non-political employees, it undercuts -- obliterates, actually -- the Republican talking point that the only employees affected were those who 'served at the pleasure of the President', and also negates the other talking point about 'appropriate politicization'.

The US Attorney scandal is a little complicated and subtle for people not following politics regularly to understand -- if they're 'political' appointees, what's wrong with hiring or firing them for 'political' reasons?

But once it becomes a story about hiring and firing NON-political employees for political reasons, well, that's something that everyone can understand is wrong, even without much explanation or interest in politics.

Can't wait to start seeing written evidence implicating their puppet master(s). You know these "kids" didn't come up with this on their own.

(i) Daniel Metcalfe said these people are too stupid to realize that they don't know. They're incurious and, ultimately, they do not care that they don't know.

(ii) A professor who'd retired from teaching at Messiah College commented somewhere that the overarching characteristic of students at these type of colleges is not their religious devotion but their devotion to Authority.

PS - OT, sorta, but I wonder if David "I Am Robot" Addington is involved somewhre here.

Jodi posts from Missouri, the show me state, deep in the heart of the St Louis Zoo, from the Allen's Swamp Monkey cage, between hear-no-evil and speak-no-evil.

I'm going to namedrop but not really because I don't really know anyone important. Although the Queen is coming to Richmond, Va--where I live--tomorrow.

My husband works with a guy who knows Comey pretty well. So when my husband went off to work, I said if you should bump into "friend of Comey" in the hall just say to him, "Jane wants to know will Comey speak truth to power." My husband only just now thought to tell me this, despite teasing me about putting Comey's testimony on our family calendar.

The report of his colleague is Comey will tell it straight and he doesn't care who is asking the questions. So add these words to Looseheadprop's compelling portraits of Comey's utter perfection.


That's the point I've been making for weeks, but you say it so well. I wonder at which point the conversation about Monica moves away from one about immunity and to one of a plea?


Addington's former deputy Courtney Elwood is now a counselor in DOJ--she shows up in some of the emails. Is that close enough for you?

The pressure builds...

NPR: Fired U.S. Prosecutors Slam Former Bosses
by Ari Shapiro
LINK to audio.

All Things Considered, May 2, 2007 · The U.S. attorneys fired by the Justice Department last year describe their former leaders at the Department of Justice and the White House as "selfish," "self-serving" and "inept" in written testimony to the House Judiciary Committee.

Their scathing chorus of opinion is especially striking when one considers that all of the federal prosecutors were appointed by President Bush.

EW and JGabreil - They are not mutually exclusive; in fact, many of the immunity agreements I have been involved in were a combination of the two.

As an addendum to the above post: For the life of me, I don't see how the DOJ can negotiate and execute any of the above at this point. They are so far past the point of appearance of impropriety/conflict now that it cannot even be seen in the rearview mirror. It is flat out inherent and direct conflict.

bmaz 21:55 -- but I don't see how the DOJ cannot but try to negotiate and execute, if doing so will defer or derail this investigation from going any deeper and wider. There is at least one enormous monster in the deep here, already outlined in the posts by ePM's luaptifer and Todd Johnston on the gwb43.com server and related RNC infrastructure. They are going to engage in the "spaghetti defense" at this point, throwing anything at all at the wall to see if it sticks even up to and including obstruction. If they don't try it all to buy time, well, that monster out there could make Nixon's resignation look like a walk in the park.

Now there are several possibilities on this.

Check it out, from the Post:

The allegation against Goodling was referred to investigators several weeks ago by U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg of Alexandria, who was serving temporarily as Gonzales's chief of staff.

But also note that the Justice Department is being so open and happy to talk about this investigation of Goodling, it's enough to make you really suspicious.

Oh and also, the Post notes that Dowd said today that Goodlin would testify under the immunity agreement. But we don't know now what's going to happen with it. My previous understanding was that even if DoJ said immunity would interfere with an ongoing criminal probe, Congress could effectively override or sidestep that. But now I'm not sure.

Also, you have to figure that Goodling and DoJ are gaming it out where if she gets immunity, she basically just takes all and entire responsibility and blame for everything bad that happened.

Jeff, you are spot on, Goodling and DoJ are gaming it out.

Next gambit is another internal investigation into hiring practices, according to a new story out of NYT.

Must be trying to muddy the waters while tidying up all the loose ends at the same time...what's the next gambit we take on our side?

Great work! Makes me wish for a 'Progressive's X-Prize' - what a hoot it would be if some wealthy radical lefty put up a million dollar prize for the blogger who digs up evidence that leads to impeachment or incarceration of Bush/Cheney or Rove.

One can only dream.....

Thanks, JGabriel. I expect there are others like me who are "following politics regularly" but don't have a legal background who find this particular scandal very hard to get on top of. Clarifications like yours are one of the reasons I read the comments almost as carefully as the posts.

Just an aside to state the obvious: With this particular scandal, commenters here and elsewhere are constantly referencing Watergate and Iran Contra. I'm sure that part of the reason is real similarities in legal maneuvering etc. But I think there's something else. We smell blood. The more I read of what the well informed bloggers write and decent politicians say, the more apparent that there's a groupthink that this is finally it - like Watergate and Iran Contra were finally it. Bu$hCo stepped too far over the line on this one - didn't cover their tracks well enough to withstand the kind of Congressional scrutiny that's coming their way.

They even seemed to know it, from all the jockeying and revising they did between the election and the day William Kelly wrote, We're a go for the U.S. Atty plan. WH leg, political, and communications have signed off and acknowledged that we have to be committed to following through once the pressure comes. Both of the recipients of that email are already casualties, as well as many other principles, and it's still early in the end game.

Anyone know who is paying for Goodling's attorney bills?

With the caveat that Comey's appearance tomorrow could so significantly alter the playing field as to render tonight's discussions moot ...

1) The Senate could still change its mind about granting Monica immunity, right?
2) Should they?
3) Am I too optimistic in hoping that at 39 and 33, Sampson and Delilah are less likely that Scooter to fall on their swords to protect Bush & Rove? Or is the promise of a full pardon their best legal option?
4) What are the chances that Comey blows this thing wide open?


Please let Leahy & Schumer be smart enough not to let this happen ... please!

Although I think it's likely that the internal investigations are a cover-up or stall attempt, but you have to wonder how these are being coordinated. Isn't there a big risk they will step on each others' toes, or inadvertently leak information that harms the other coverup?
One thing I'm pretty confident of---if there is some way to knock Rove out of the loop, the jig will be up. Remember back when Rove was trying to save his skin from Fitzgerald, and apparently not working at the White House so much? The message discipline was GONE while he was saving his own ass. So, whatever coordination of these coverups is occuring is being done by Rove.


I think they wait on Goodling until at least tomorrow, certainly until they see if they have anyone else. Given that Elston is now (bc of the dump today) at risk of perjury, I'd start with him first.

I don't think Comey will blow it wide open. Think about how they insulated McNulty. I'm sure they insulated COmey more. Plus, the bulk of this stuff happened after he left.


you are not the only one waiting for written evidence!

I fear we both may be grey before that happens though.

Am I insane? Joe diGenova is Toensing's husband, right?

So, what does this quote from him in tonight's AP story signify?

"An official using political affiliation in choosing such applicants clearly would violate traditional Department of Justice policy and practice, said Joe diGenova, who was the U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia during the Reagan administration.

"There is no justification for it," diGenova said. "Politics should play no role in the decision-making process of career prosecutors. And if it does, that's clearly improper, and clearly a violation of all of the traditional policies in the Justice Department.""


I am in no way affiliated with Jodi, BTW.

I think one of the valuable things Comey could provide, if they ask him the right questions, is an understanding of the nature and significance of the secret memo from Gonzales that Waas reported on. Just who was covered by that order? And what was the significance of taking power away from the DAG - which was Comey's position after all - and redelegating it to the AG's Chief of Staff and White House liaison?

For whatever reason, DiGenova has been really anti-Gonzales for a while.

Rayne - I agree; and that may be how it plays out. It is not, however, how it should play out. There are basic ethical rules and obligations that lawyers, any lawyers, all lawyers, should adhere to. If the pervasiveness of the direct and obvious conflicts of interest on the part of the DOJ was not yet of a level that required a special/independent counsel before, it irrefutably is now. The taint is seeping in to fast, to strongly and from to many fronts now. Consider that there was no desire whatsoever to admit such a situation on Plame, and for a while they fought it off, but it reached a threshold where even Ashcroft had to bail. It sure appears to me that we are much further into that realm than the situation was in Plame when the call was made. The true nature of where we really stand is so screwed up it is hard to come to grips with. The average citizen may not see nor understand all the different facets; but for anyone halfway schooled in the law, and how the system should function, it is simply overwhelming and mind numbing.


All we really need is one first-class canary.

I'm completely puzzled on DiGenova. I thought the whole strategy was to keep Gonzales in place as a firewall and tough it out.

As for written evidence of Rove's complicity, he's probably figured out how to get around that, but the one thing he can't protect against is somebody having a come to jesus moment, something that at least some jesus-freaks are predisposed to. Scooter's a soldier - maybe one of the others is either running scared or answering to a higher power. There's always the chance that one of these faith-based ferrets is actually a Christian.

Depending on what Conyers gets this morning from Comey, and what he already has from staff investigative work, he may be in a position to offer DOJ "an offer you can't refuse" either appoint a high-quality and non-activist non-Republican as Special Prosecutor with full plenary authorities, or, we table immediate impeachment resolutions against Gonzales (and others in DOJ confirmed by the Senate), and begin the hearing process.

I suspect from what has been said locally vis a vis Heffelfinger and Paulose that former USA's have been very busy drawing the bright lines and developing core positions, which may be why DiGenova is saying what he is saying. His choice is defend the Bushies or be a member in good standing of the class of former USA's, many of whom enjoy respected and highly paid positions in quality law firms, both Republicans and Democrats. Likewise, former USA's are very well positioned to know the content of interviews with new AUSA's over the past year or so -- both those appointed, and those who failed the possible loyality tests. No matter who appointed them, they are not about to let the Bushies knock the pins out from under their profession. I doubt if there is a sitting Senator or Rep who has not recently had a heart to heart talk with the leadership of the local Bar in their State or District where this message was clearly delivered.

And this goes beyond just the Federal Courts as so many decisions about whether to take a case through the Federal System, or through the State Courts has to be based on trust and relationships among the key actors. State Attorney Generals, even local prosecutors and many State and Federal Judges are going to have positions on all this, because in the end the public's view of their honesty and trustworthiness is now open to question. So I suspect there is much support for a very powerful push-back, and it will not be just from one party. I only hope they do a good deal of it in public -- the public needs to know all about the rot.

So, was everyone in the upper echelons of the DoJ breaking the law? We can't trust any part of it to investigate any other part.

“If you must break the law, do it to seize power: in all other cases observe it.” ---Julius Caesar

Gonzales probably has been told to hang in until Memorial Day. He'll have to take a few more arrows, slings, stones, and rotten vegies... but if he holds fast, his replacement will be waiting, he can get a medal for service to the country, and a nice retirement (non-working job offer at something like Carlyle or AEI).

Anything, even the contempt of the country, is possible to endure if there is an end-date.

They can even tell him that, with so many fish in the barrel, he won't be taking all the hits.

How many vacancies are there now in Justice alone? If both Houses of Congress take the same week off, Bush will be busy appointing people right, right, and center. He doesn't dare send anybody up for confirmation.

Can government work until summer with vacancies like this? Well, it is continuing to function, so my suggestion might be to not fill these positions at all and save some significant money. What was Gonzales doing for that salary, anyway? If all these administrators and assistants were going to prayer meetings and rah-rah revivals, they can go to them on the weekends. On their own time. And if 95% of their emails are on private accounts, dock them 95% of their pay for not doing the government's job on the government's time.

At this point, I'd talk to Goodling about a plea bargain. The shit under her is much too deep and too foul to consider immunity.

If indictments will keep these people out of government for the rest of their lives, then indict them. We really don't want to smell this stench again. Ever.




Ex-Aide to Gonzales Accused Of Bias

To say there's 'nothing here, move along' is just head in sand behavior. ignore emptywheel's documentation at your own risk. This Texas columnist has had enough (HT philinmaine).

Revelations no longer spur defense of Bush

The framed photo of my dad and me with the smiling Bushes now gathers dust on a cluttered desk. And new revelations of White House dysfunction and dishonesty, like those aired on 60 Minutes the other night by former CIA director George Tenet, no longer spur a defense from my father.

He has lost faith in the president, for many reasons: He failed to build consensus. He misled Americans on Iraq. His "go-it-alone attitude" has strained relations with our allies. Our name, our handshake, our words are no longer credible.

drip, drip, drip

bmaz 00:35 -- IANAL, but have worked for attorneys; I concur with your perspective, having noted the same in what is a fairly conservative corporate law department. There are things that are simply beyond the pale, and they've done them, again and again. One of the things that was sacred was reputation. Badmouthing about other lawyers in public venue was simply not done, being defamatory -- and this administration has done it. But in the reality in which they work, there is nothing sacred except the retention of power, and all conventions and laws are mere chaff if they impede that end. It is this separate reality that makes it so damned difficult for some of us to understand how they can do this, creating a kind of cognitive dissonance. They have no care whatsoever for their future roles as attorneys that they would harm their own reputations by demeaning others, elevating only those most like them in ruthlessness? It makes no sense.

Unless, though, there is an understanding within their own separate reality and community that these Schutzstaffel will be employed by others like them, who find what they've done as purgatives within the Justice Department, to be a credit to their skills rather than a detriment to employment. Agh. It makes my skin crawl.

Jodi -- there's a reason nobody has offered you personally any smoking gun-type evidence on a silver platter; ever hear of "obstruction of justice"? Maybe you should look that up in an encylopedia. And then perhaps you should ponder how emails and memos can be deleted, rerouted, or simply destroyed to create a black hole of evidence. Assuming you do actually comprehend the work of astronomers on black holes, you'll realize that it's the characteristics about the periphery that defines the void. To that end rational persons already have plenty of evidence to define a specific but gaping void.

I thought everyone might enjoy this story. Last week I was in Washington with a pretty conservative business group and we had an audience with Karl and Cheney. Everyone was asking softball questions (like "why doesn't the press talk about all of the progress we are making in Iraq?"), so when Turdblossom picked me to ask a question, I asked him if anyone in the WhiteHouse put together the list of the 8 US attorneys to be fired by the Justice Department. Karl was pissed. You could tell. He answered with an abrupt "NO!" but then must have changed his mind. He asked me if I had a follow up. I demurred (hostile crowd,Karl Rove's beady eyes boring down into mine...sorry )but Karl went ahead anyway and launched into an extended diatribe about how unfair everyone was being,that they could fire whoever they wanted and besides, mean Senator Leahy didn't say anything when Janet Reno fired all of those attorneys. I must of hit a nerve. It was really funny.

"They can fire whomever they want to", they slander the USattornies they fired, they are "selfish", "self-serving" and "incompetent". There is no ethical restraint, and the methods of frustrating the law so often inurring to business are well deployed. Here the list of the qualities of the wounded socio-paths who have elevated their own personal interests over the interest of the people begins. Conspicuous consumption and polymorphous pervesity meld giving rise to strange monstrous accidents of character.

The untemprered loyal underlings play mischieviously to please their masters, the father ineed has been slain. So at this point it really devolves into a question of decency. This break in the fundamental sense of decency which in the end alienates them from their own party. Transparency, honor, respect are relegated to a place of mere rhetorical boilerplating in moving ahead in the exercise of personal power in the name of pleasure. The dark sado-masochistic dimensions of these righteous christian apparatchik centurians become begrudgingly exposed as the cloak of plausible deniability is torn away thread by thread.

George Tenet in his facile and calculated "mea culpa" protests that the claim that he has blood on his hand is repugnant. But blood has been spilt.

This is the moral price of seeking economic and personal gratification in the enterprise of others without a critical self-awareness of the lowly opinion of humanity such practices emobdy. Domestically the macabre charade remains political and economic but it is a slippery slope indeed.

I'm wondering whether Monica's checklist included the question of religion as well, just so as to be certain the new hires 'fit in'.

I have a number of comments but since each takes up space I'll separate them.

First - Don't everyone get all worked up about DoJ or the US District Court shutting down an immunity deal to Goodling.

Here is the relevant statutory language [slightly edited but not paraphrased]18 USC 6005 entitled "Congressional proceedings":

"[a] In the case of any individual who has been or may be called to testify or provide other information at any proceeding before or ancillary to either House of Congress, or any committee, or any subcommittee of either House, or any joint committee of the two Houses,

a United States district court shall issue, in accordance with subsection [b] of this section, upon the request of a duly authorized representative of the House of Congress or the committee concerned, an order requiring such individual to give testimony or provide other information which he refuses to give or provide on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination, such order to become effective as provided in section 6002 [the immunity section] of this title.

[b] Before issuing an order under subsection [a] … a US district court shall find …

[1] in the case of a proceeding before or ancillary to either House of Congress, the request for such an order has been approved by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Members present of that House;

[2] in the case of a proceeding before or ancillary to a committee or a subcommittee of either House of Congress or a joint committee of both Houses, the request for such an order has been approved by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the full committee; and

[3] ten days or more prior to the day on which the request for such an order was made, the Attorney General was served with notice of an intention to request the order.

[c] Upon application of the Attorney General, the United States district court shall defer the issuance of any order under subsection [a] of this section … not longer than twenty days from the date of the request for such order, as the Attorney General may specify."

The above language does NOT provide either the DoJ or the US district court justice ANY DISCRETION to turn down the Congressional committee's power to pursue testimony from an immunity offer, so long the committee vote to authorize immunity is proper. All Section 6005 does is provide that the Congressional committee must give advance notice to DoJ of ten days & DoJ can cause an additional delay of up to 20 days more, and that DoJ can only halt the process if the US district court justice finds there is no evidence that the various steps have not been followed.

Bottom line: It's a very simple certification process, with the 10 days PLUS 20 days being to provide DoJ enough time to get the witness dealt with in whatever proceedings DoJ has control over - such as the internal investigation by OPR or a grand jury.

Of course, this begs the question on whether Rep Conyers' HJC SHOULD be offering immunity - because it's pretty clear that John Dowd is gone all Pavlovian over it.

I should point out that a reader at TMP Muckraker named "Glenn" posted first on this. As Glenn pointed out "IANAL". Well, IAAL and Glenn is correct. Here's a link to the that comment:


Desertwind at 0001 - As a former prosecutor at federal and other levels I can assure you that for those who actually worked on prosecutions - as opposed to screwing around with who does them and limiting their scope - there is something about the experience which crosses all the blood barriers separating Rubs from Dems, cons from progs, & religiots from humanists. Not so much a Skull & Crossbones thing, more like a Band of Brothers effect. The most extraordinary of friendships get formed. I mean - even Ashcroft couldn't help himself in giving over to Comey the power to appoint the special prosecutor into the Plame leak.

Which brings this up: Didn't you do as Ms. E. Wheel directed and read Comey's Goodby Mr. Chips talk from August 2005?

When at TNH there are certain rules, among them being:

[1] No UPPER CASE RANTS [my freshman gaffe].

[2] When citing the good work of others always post a link if possible.

[3] Don't feed the trolls

Caveat: Except that freepatriot is the designated feeder of Jodi.

[4] Do as Ms. E. Wheel directs. Some have a Decider. We have a Director.

Ok, unless I missed it, if you ask me the questioning of Comey by the Committee was overall pretty lame, or at least incomplete. Clearly the most interesting moment was when Comey explained the seriousness of the possible political tests for the hiring of AUSAs. Personally, I cannot believe they did not follow up with questions about his perspective on the secret order from March 2006 taking hiring, firing and administration power away from the DAG, as well as as the Associate AG, and giving it to the AG's Chief of Staff and White House liaison. Since he was, after all, the DAG - he left before the order was put into effect, but the point is he has a unique perspectrive on what that order meant.

Rep Conyers HJC vote to offer immunity to Goodling, Part I:

Maybe its the ex-prosecutor in me, but I would prefer this approach:

[1] First put the Divine Ms. G in front of Leahy's SJC & get the spawn of Regent U School of Law-like Stuff to say the magic words.

That would take away the bad taste from the possibility that Dowd has finessed Congress into giving Monica an unmerited firewall.

[2] Use the magic of email to get out a message to each and every single AUSA requiring a response to a series of questions directed the Kyle & Monica franchise qualification process, and give them the means to provide a secure response to act as whistleblowers.

The waterplant-like facilitation of AlG to Rove Box experiments in human political behavior can make chickens out of even those inclined and trained to fight the good fight. And in this regard lawyers can be cowed as much as anyone. But they're not sheep. [Stop me before I get to domesticated llamas.]

Career types now are able to see that all but 20-25% of the King George's Reign of Error is done and not even if Rudy puts on that fetching strapless number and attracts Fred Thompson to dumps his over-stuffed escort are the Rubs going to survive the 2008 election.

There is a potential witness list in the several hundreds [I don't think Goodling had time waterboard in the thousands] which Congress could give a blanket assurance to protect - and Voila! no more relying on Monica as an immunized witness.

Like I gather Ms. E. Wheel does, I much prefer my finks under indictment.

While I agree that the Administration is likely using the internal investigations to whitewash/delay/sidetrack, they face a real danger. In each of these executive branch investigative offices there are people who take their jobs seriously. They are probably really sweating it right now. They've seen how the Administration treats even Republicans who get in their way (see Iglesias, David). The Administration is counting on that fear, but we're approaching the point where people are going to face the choice between selling out everything they believe in, but still risking ruin or standing up for truth, justice and the American way while facing certain ruin. Somebody is going to decide to be a hero. Heroes come from the most unlikely places (see Butterfield, Alexander and Dean, John).

Oddly enough, Chuck Shumer's love of hearing himself talk is one of our greatest weapons. Oh, and I am eagerly awaiting someone asking Dick Cheney is he still thinks it was good idea to tell Patrick Leahy to "go fuck your self".

Conyers' HJC immunity offer Part 2:

Ms. E. Wheel - You write: "You see, I think it highly likely that one of the reasons Goodling is pleading the Fifth is because she caused Paul McNulty to commit perjury."

It may have been a perjurious statement [Well, it clearly was.] but the first problem with prosecuting McNulty for it is that he didn't have the necessary knowledge and intent.

But there is another concept which I think might work just as well.

I'll start by admitting that, given his 'careerist' status, I had this early image of McNulty as a dupe. However, it's now pretty clear he started drinking the King George KoolAid to advance his career.

Next, not just Sampson & AlG, but McNulty [& Moschalla] also 'neglected' to point out the order AlG signed giving Sampson & Monica their franchise rights over qualifications for USA and AUSA positions. And it's not as if a careerist would miss that.

So what would have been McNulty's mental state as he sat down in front of Leahy's committee? Well, he knew - OR OUGHT TO HAVE KNOWN - that he was relying on information coming from those enfranchised to break the law.

I think that this would be a pretty good place to raise the prospect of Ostrich Instructions with McNulty's lawyer.

It's not McNulty that would be prosecuted but Monica herself for suborning false testimony. Same issue I raised in the other thread--suborning perjury or false testimony is a crime jsut as much as making the false tesitmony. This goes all the way to Rove and his top minions.

The problem, of course, is which fox can prosedute these chickens, since they have corrupted so many of the USAs, and stacked the judiciary. Congress can't negotiate a plea, can it? Isn't this the jod of the USA for DC? (Maybe DiGenova wants to be the next special prosecutor or even AG.)

Here's what they were doing. In offices with interim USAs main Justice had to sign off on hires--not normally the case. So they went to Monica, which gave her the opportunity to use her loyalty tests (a better term, since as Jodi is fond of pointing out, they weren't asked to swear fealty, as people were in the McCarthy era loyalty oaths, but there was a test, GOP conservative activism, federalist society membership etc) appliedd to all these applications).

As Marshall points out, what they were doing was trying to remake from top to bottom several crucial USA offices--San Diego and the ones with extensive Native American practices, plus Western Missouri and Arkansas. Corruption issues, Native Am issues, "voter fraud" and oppo research on Hillary Clinton. A few swing states thrown in too.

It was all about winning elections, protecting cronies in the graft machine and getting their pals' hands on energy resources.

LabDancer and Mimikatz - If we want to keep this mess moving at any semblence of speed, isn't Goodling still the key? There is no reason this should be considered in the context of plea v. immunity. I would be happy to grant Ms. Goodling immunity, maybe a broader grant than has been contemplated to date, IF 1) She has a good proffer; and 2) She enters a guity plea. Plea can be to any threshhold level crime, and can contain provisions for subsequesnt redesignation, dismissal, expungement or whatever based upon complete cooperation. This accomplishes two things; it allows Ms. Goodling to see a light at the end of the tunnel if she copens up and cooperates completely while leaving the fear of no legal future whatsoever if she does not, and at the same time establishes a predicate criminal offense that has been committed at the most senior levels of the Department of Justice smack dab in the middle of all this mess. That provides the basis for then going pretty much wherever you want with the remainder of the investigation (which should be wide open from Goodlings debriefing. Goodling is almost as much a "hub" of this conspiracy of lies, obstruction and obfuscation as Gonzales at this point. What with the double super secret assignment of duties memo, you could argue she is a bigger hub. Why not crack this cookie? I think that is what would occur under a criminal case if the same facts here known about the DOJ/WH management were applied to a corporate setting.


I try to do what Einstein was so good at which was to escape the formalism, and use the common vernacular.

Bush should be impeached for gross incompetence, for dereliction of duty, for careless endangerment of our brave men and women. For negligence, for treason! ...
I am not a lawyer. I will not try to format the litany of charges.

Everyday! Each day! Without end. And far beyond the end of his term in Jan 2009 the body bags fill.

Simply put, a vain little boy took his little stick, and poked a hole in the dyke, and now all his daddy's friends can't put the dyke back together, and everyone is drowning.

If there is progress in Iraq, it is only because Bush has become desperate worrying about his legacy, and so has decided to listen to the military instead of the yes men he has surrounded himself with. Here it is common to blame Cheney, or Runsfeld, Gonzales, or Miers. These people surround Bush because they anticipate what he wants and deliver.

Bush is worrying about his legacy, ok.
Well the Democratic Congress should worry about it's own legacy and challenge the monster in the house down the street. Not pick and pick like so many pigeons at the leavings outside on the street. DemFromCT keeps saying the Democrats can "Govern well." Well I would like to see it.

When I said the Congress wouldn't impeach Bush, it wasn't because of any desire on my part that they choose another path, it was because I see only another layer of charlatans at work. Sure you can say that they are your charlatans now, but still nothing is being done.

emails? Crap! I think everyone expects to see the soap opera thing, where a diary is found, that a blogger or columnist or reporter can breathlessly bit by bit feed to the public, continually building network share, and print space.

And worse of all is the lack of reality I see here and over at FDL, and other places I have only become acquainted with recently.
You, and they think, you can just get out of Iraq immediately, and everything will be ok! NOT! NOT! And no, I don't offer a quick easy solution. I don't think there are any.


I got a revelation from my older brother a few weeks ago. He, like I, didn't vote for Bush in 2004. "... but duty is still duty..."


Bull! If you don't won't to hear me point out the holes in your theories, then just say at the top of the page, something like "only certain liberal (Democratic, progressive, leftist, or what ever) self serving viewpoints are desired below and instant and complete agreement with all cockeyed stories is preferred, and I won't be here.

A few years ago Sen Joe Biden was on the KHYY radio interview show, before NPR became a Republican filtered news source, complaining that the conference committee rules were altered when both chambers were Republican, so provisions were added to laws in conference committee without the approval of the chambers.
Ewheel once wondered What Else besides the non advise and consent rule for the attorney general to appoint US attorneys went into the 2006 revision of the Patriot act. I found an interesting article in the Washington Post yesterday about a Department of Justice attorney who has a dual employment as the MT US attorney, but the regulations require the US atty to live in the state. The MT US atty says he visits MT 3 days a month, which qualifies as residency in MT. DiFi is riled, as the residency exemption was another accretion to Patriot. Difficult to figure how all this pertains to the urgency of Patriot and its aims. It looks more like the conference committee made an omnibus reconfiguration of DoJ bill out of Patriot. WaPo, DiFi. Footnote; somewhere in this search I read a Luskin disclaimer that Fitzgerald had the opportunity to examine the drive out of KR's portable computer. I wonder if they imaged the coordinates of and contents of emails at that time, though the US atty purge strategem, referencing Comey's testimony this morning, evidently was pretty nascent around the timeslice Fitzgerald would have had that opportunity.

I think that last column on the US-A vetting worksheet that Goodling and Sampson put together, the one with "Fed.Soc." (Federalist Society) as a header, pretty much provides all the proof necessary to make a case for patent politicization of the DOJ hiring and firing process.

This, along with Gonzales' and Mercer's now-revealed conspiracy to mislead a district judge, then change the law seriptitiously ON THE SAME DAY give Congress every possible incentive and ammo to IMPEACH GONZALES...NOW!

PS. EW for Congress! (Blogger in da House!)




I agree completely.

"DemFromCT keeps saying the Democrats can "Govern well." Well I would like to see it."

I'd start with LBJ's Civil Rights legislation in the 60's. It ended centuries of LEGALIZED white supremacy.

Then I'd invite you to review legislation that tears down centuries of LEGALIZED male supremacy and unequal pay for the two genders. There are many other examples, but in both cases I think you'll find that it was the Democrats, not the Republicans, who passed that legislation.

bmaz: I was not commenting one way or the other on whether immunity for Monica Goodling is a good idea or not; I was just asking whether Congress could negotiate a plea, or wouldn't that require DOJ or the USA for DC to do it? IANLAL (no longer) and I never did criminal law, but would't someone from DOJ have to actually negotiate a plea to charges, since that is an executive function?

I was also commenting that suborning false testimony seems to be one of the charges she is open to. A pretty serious charge for someone who wants to continue as a lawyer, but presumably she doesn't.

I'd like to see her testify too, especially if she will implicate higher-ups. There has to be something big in return for immunity. I'd say she is in a real pickle, along with Sampson, Elston and Mercer, maybe McNulty but less clearly so.

But the key is who is going to prosecute. Bush thinks that the Pres is above the law, and obviously those working for him to implement his will think it insulates them too. Gonzo isn't going to appoint a special prosecuter, and Bush isn't going to sign any new independent counsel law. They've stacked the relevant offices with loyalists.

Another point--to the extent picking USAs. like judges, is a patronage perk of the Party in Power that was usurped by the Unitary Executive, there may be a wedge here, as we saw when Congress by huge margins took away the AG's power to appoint interim USAs without Senate confirmation.

Federalist Society and Patriot Act changes -

In telephone interviews, William Moschella and Daniel Collins both said Collins had floated the idea of taking district judges out of the vacancy-filling process back in 2003, when he was still at Justice. A former assistant U.S. attorney, Collins said the ability of a district court judge to appoint an interim U.S. attorney if the Senate did not confirm a nominee raised constitutional questions about the separation of powers.

Daniel Collins
He clerked for the Honorable Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court during the October 1991 Term (1991-1992)... after September 2003 he went to work in the Los Angeles firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP with Henry Weissman.

Henry Weissman
From the Fall of 1988 through the Spring of 1989, Mr. Weissmann was an associate at Munger, Tolles & Olson. Mr. Weissmann then served as law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court during the 1989-90 term. ... Mr. Weissmann is President of the Conference of California Public Utility Counsel and President of the Los Angeles Lawyers Division of the Federalist Society.

(Also wonder if the California Public Utility Counsel had anything to do with the Bajagua water treatment facility that Cheney intervened on behalf of? -- the fish-kill power scandal?)

Marcy - I've followed your work through Libby's trial and now the DOJ USA scandal so far. And as another commenter stated, "You are quite an extraordinary citizen!" I hope that you fax some questions for Conyers and Sanchez -- I think they need you.

I'm worried that the DOJ's internal investigation might become a vehicle for obstructing justice and ruining the Judiciary Committee's inverstigation.

I hope Comey shares more with the committee behind the scenes or gives names of people that can elaborate on what the process was at DOJ.

I'm with Labdancer. I want the spawn of church-law school to utter the majic words in front of the cameras. It would be powerful stuff, that MSM would have no choice but to cover. I think people in general begin to pay more attention when those words are uttered. The pressure on Gonzo will surely increase if we make her plea.

Patriot Act change - Brett Tolman said "That there had been questions raised about "the propriety of their appointing power because of separation of powers." The only other time I have read about this mysterious concern for separatin of powers is when Daniel Collins said those exact same words (in link above).


Mimikatz - Yes there would have to be a representative of the "United States"; this is the job of the DOJ/US Attorney. But there is a direct insurmountable conflict here necessitating the appointment of a non-conflicted (special/independent) representative. If you want my two cents worth, I think they are already committing ethical violations for still being invloved at this point. These DOJ twits are not only lawyers, they are governmental/prosecutorial lawyers that have heightened ethical duties under the rules of Professional Responsibility in every jurisdiction I have ever seen. As to the suborning perjury, as Goodling is not the specific attorney for those that have appeared to have perjured themselves (Gonzales, Sampson, maybe McNulty); however, there is another statute relating to knowingly allowing false testimony (don't have cite, but it has been discussed here before) that is dead on point. Frankly, if I were a Virginia resident. I would file an ethics complaint against her as well just as another hammer over her head to motivate her in the right direction. She should have resigned much earlier; I guess her Regent Law education and zero experience as a practicing lawyer didn't quite prepare her well. Goodling has giant problems, but our congresscritters have to get off their butts and quit treating this like some political issue and start prosecuting this on behalf of the American people. And in light of the corrupted and conflicted leadership in the Justice Department, it is the absolute duty to do so. There should also be an absolute demand for the appointment of a non-conflicted representative for the DOJ; crikey, I think it is of somewhat questionable ethics to continue to deal with DOJ knowing that they are unquestionably conflicted and likely obstructing justice.

Mimikatz - As an aside, and I don't think it is you, but I went to law school with a girl named Mimi Katz.


...any way we can get that on a bumpersticker?

Saw this in a comment over at TPMuck. Provides a decent discussion of the immunity application process for a congressional committee. Thought folks mike like to see it:

Application of U. S. Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities
361 F.Supp. 1270
D.C.D.C., 1973.

"On its face, § 6005 casts the role of the Court in terms of ministerial duty. The language is mandatory: “... a United States district court shall issue, ... upon the request of a duly authorized representative of the House of Congress or the committee concerned, an order ....” (emphasis added). The statutory language imposes only two prerequisites or conditions,FN10 both procedural, for issuing the requested*1276 order: (1) if the proceeding is before a House of Congress, the request for an immunity order must have been approved by a majority of the Members present; if the proceeding is before a committee, subcommittee, or joint committee, the request must have been approved by two-thirds of the full committee membership, (2) at least ten days prior to filing the immunity request with the court, the committee or House must have provided the Attorney General with notice of an intention to seek immunity for the named witness or witnesses. In short, judicial discretion cannot be found on the face of the statute."

"It is significant also to note that when the immunity relates to congressional proceedings the Attorney General is deprived of the discretion he enjoys under other sections of the statute. For grand jury and court proceedings (§ 6003) and certain administrative proceedings (§ 6004) the Attorney General may deny permission to seek an immunity order from the Court. Although § 6005 permits the Attorney General to apply to the court for a 20-day extension in which the court “shall defer the issuance of any order,” no veto power or other authority is bestowed."

"If then, neither the Attorney General nor the court may deny a congressional application, the question naturally arises, “For what purpose does § 6005 require notice to the Attorney General and approval by the court?” Though the statute itself is silent here, the Working Papers again include a comprehensive discussion. With respect to the Attorney General, the Working Papers state at page 1440:

In the special instance of congressional inquiries, in contrast to administrative proceedings, it would be virtually unthinkable to give the Attorney General the additional power of disapproval of conferment of immunity, because in a Teapot Dome-type congressional investigation the Attorney General himself would be the focus of the inquiry.

Nevertheless, the Commission and the Congress did recognize the seriousness of immunization against punishment for crime and the potential adverse effect the conferring of immunity might have on criminal law enforcement. It was with the intent of minimizing any prejudicial impact on present and future law enforcement plans that the provision requiring notice of intended immunization was adopted. It was expected that timely notice would allow the Attorney General to assess the effect of a grant of immunity on investigations or prosecutions and then, should he feel it necessary, communicate with the concerned House of Congress or committee to “lobby” for a modification of immunity plans. (Working Papers at 1406). The memorandum filed by the Special Prosecutor indicates that he has made use of this opportunity although to no avail, as yet. It was also anticipated that a period of time up to 30 days would permit the Attorney General to “insulate from the immunity grant any incriminating data already in his files prior to the witness' testimony.” (Working Papers at 1406). Presumably, if such incriminating data is available to the Special Prosecutor in this case, he has taken advantage of the opportunity to “insulate” it. Thus, though he is accorded no right to be heard in court in opposition to an immunity request, the Attorney General is given some protection in his role as the *1278 administrator of Federal law enforcement by the notice requirement of § 6005."

Posted by: case law

"Prosecute, don't procrastinate"

bmaz –

Is the blog handle “bmaz” in tribute to the Pirate glove artist? Do you have a blog soul mate somewhere here along the Mighty Missouri with the handle “osmi”? Or “ozsmi”? What are the odds that two best ever around the keystone both would have a “z” in their name?

Sorry about the baseball riff, but it connects to my theory on Dowd.

You may recall Dowd reported to the late MLB Commissioner Bart Giamatti [actor Paul’s father, master of Ezra Stiles College at Yale, President of Yale, Commissioner of MLB when King Dub was titular owner of the Texas Rangers – hey! Do you think it’s possible that King Dub took, or more accurately cut, a class or two by Prof Red Sox Fan?]. You can read Dowd’s entire report on Rose’s betting at http://www.dowdreport.com.

Apart from its direct purpose, Dowd’s report suggests his strengths as a trial lawyer include:

[1] a particularly facility with large complex fraud & corruption cases – the kinds of cases which his style of short, simple declarative sentences would help him in avoiding the pitfalls of over-caveating judgments, and

[2] an inclination to make the sort of definitive, practical judgments about people which, as anyone who has read his recent book would know, George Tenet sorely lacks.

I won’t bother with the link unless someone asked, but I left a rant about Buzz Saw Goodling at TPM Muckraker within a day or two of Sampson’s first public parsifying in front of the SJC.

Basically I called her a political thug. Based on her lost girl website & her – ahem - academic record & a bunch of other info Josh Marshall & Paul Kiel pulled together there & on TPM, I just don’t see her as very bright.

I expect Dowd didn’t need even one meeting with her to come to that conclusion. Given Dowd’s primary instinct would be to protect his client

[Having regard to the superficially odd appearance of a very inexperienced civil servant having the bling to retain him, I’m not saying Goodling’s best interests would be his sole agenda - but given his track record it seems clear he never loses sight of his highest duty, like any good trial lawyer.]
and that’s why I thought his spin on her taking the Fifth was so nuanced – as ti which nuance I include even his own shall-we-say blunt prose with Sen Leahy, which Ms. E. Wheel suggested was not exactly from the School of How To Get Along with Major Politicians [from which I demurred, feeling that given his own career as a US attorney Leahy would understand].

From that I deduce the Dowd would be VERY uncomfortable being specific on anything Buzz Saw might say under pressure – hell, with or without pressure. Which segues back to the starting point of your argument for giving Goodling anything she wants in the way of immunity, your words now: “IF 1) She has a good proffer”.

You could Sing Sing an opera’s worth of difference between the type of deal which, for example, Laurence Fleischer made with Fitz, under which he could bounce all around the parameters of carelessness, inconsistency, incomprehensibility, creative gap filling, dittsiness & perjury, and a concise, detailed, binding proffer of testimony for immunity.

The first is a ticket on the train bound for freedom.

The second is simply a stage en route to having one’s promising career as the pseudo lawyer extinguished, losing out on a promising research support career at the American Enterprise Institute or the Hudson Institute or writing captions for one of Billy Kristol’s cartoon shops, & being indicted for perjury in the bargain.

Hey, I could be wrong. For all I know the chief lawyer on staff at Conyers’ committee could already have worked out this incredibly detailed & itemized virtual road map of evidence right to the bulls-eye located specifically where Rove’s heart should be.

But - as I say – I’m from Missouri.

P.S. Per your pull-over from TMP Muckraker - I covered the same territory earlier in this thread.

bmaz--but under the law as it is now, doesn't the AG appoint the special prosecutor AS Ashcroft via Comey appointed Fitz. Abu G is presumably disqualified, so his current deputy would then have the authority if he isn't disqualified. Congress could pass a new Independent Counsel/Special Prosecutor statute, but Bush would veto it. To negotiate a plea, you need a negotiating partner. This is like the enforcement of the subpoena problem Kagro writes about.

And no, we probably didn't go to law school together. My name is not actually Mimi Katz. I had a cat named Mimi, though, and another one, her sister, named Tosca. When i went to law school I was 32-35, and I am retired now. But I was a government lawyer, and I agree absolutely with your and Comey's description of how a gov't lawyer must conduct him/herself.

LabDancer - Remember Mazeroski from when I was a kid; had one of his later cards, probably 1966 or so. az in bmaz is Arizona. And kind of in response to both you and Mimikatz, yes, there must be something done as far as a special prosecutor or whatever. Mimikatz, what you described as to the problem on who even has the authority and sufficiently "clean hands" to accomplish such an appointment, is exactly my point; the situation is so totally buggered up that the DOJ has a conflict in trying to resolve their freaking main conflict. My best idea is to have Congress and DOJ/Administration stipulsate to the person and parameters. Cannot, however, see the Administration negotiating in good faith. Then what? Submit to the court (which court?) for a special master or something? There is probably an answer out there, but I have no clue.

LabDancer @ 10:58

Exsqueeze me?

Shorter LabDancer @ 10:58:

Dowd is a smart lawyer who doesn't lose sight of his client's interests. He knows Ms. Goodling ain't the brightest, and that she's where she is because she's a political thug (loyalty tests, etc.). Given this, he is highly unlikely to give a good proffer to the committee. He'd be loath to provide a specific account of what Goodling would be likely to say under pressure -- that could be a direct path to killing Goodling's "career" in law and getting her nailed for perjury to boot -- and is almost surely angling for the kind of super-elastic immunity deal that Fitz seems to have given Ari Fleischer. So it's very unlikely that the committee has sewn up a detailed "roadmap of evidence" from Goodling leading straight to Rove. Don't get the hopes up.

Or something like that.

I'd like to request a link to the LD TPM post. Can't have too much LD.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad