What took so long?
The fact that Dick Cheney considers his office distinct from the executive branch seems to have captured the political world's attention this week, and given the bizarre nature of the story, that's undoubtedly an encouraging development. Consider the lede from a piece in yesterday's LA Times:
For the last four years, Vice President Dick Cheney has made the controversial claim that his office is not fully part of the Bush administration in order to exempt it from a presidential order regulating federal agencies' handling of classified national security information, officials said Thursday.
Cheney has held that his office is not fully part of the executive branch of government despite the continued objections of the National Archives, which says his office's failure to demonstrate that it has proper security safeguards in place could jeopardize the government's top secrets.
One of the angles that's gone largely unnoticed about all of this is that it's actually old news. Cheney started holding himself out as some kind of unaccountable, pseudo-fourth branch of government way back in February. The blogs noticed, and explained how crazy the argument is, but the media yawned. No one pushed the White House to explain, the Republican-led Congress barely lifted an eyebrow, and everyone just moved on, satisfied that Dick Cheney had established his own superbranch.
It's interesting -- and if anyone can explain the reasoning, I'm all ears -- but the same important story that was ignored in February is suddenly fascinating in June. The same questions that bloggers asked then are unexpectedly interesting to everyone else now.
As Digby noted, "Nobody gave a damn until Henry Waxman decided to issue a report that wondered why Dick Cheney was trying to shut down the agency that had crossed him. Then everyone 'discovered' that Dick Cheney has created a fourth branch of government that answers to no one -- something we were talking about months ago."
Don't get me wrong, I'm delighted to see everyone asking, "Does Cheney really think this"? But I am curious: what took the non-blogging political world so long?
--Steve Benen
Reynolds and Patterson
Since the outset of the war in Iraq, Bush and his administration have enjoyed almost unfettered control over policy. Everything the president has asked for, the president has received.
Of course, more than four years after Bush launched the war, we now know that every decision the administration has made falls into one of three categories: a) wrong; b) tragically wrong; or c) you've-got-to-be-kidding-me wrong.
Therefore, when searching for someone to blame for the failures, it's only natural to target the one group of Americans who've had no influence on administration policy whatsoever.
IN THE MAIL: Col. Buzz Patterson's War Crimes: The Left's Campaign to Destroy Our Military and Lose the War on Terror.
I don't think that the left wants to lose the war on terror, exactly -- they just want Bush to lose the war on terror. I suspect, however, that Patterson's theme is one that we'll hear more in the future, especially if things go badly in Iraq.
As Kevin Drum responded, "You can almost smell the stink of desperation from the pro-war crowd. The next couple of years is going to be a nonstop frenzy of books, articles, TV shows, op-eds, radio segments, blog posts, and white papers about how everyone except George Bush and his enablers were responsible for our catastrophe in the Middle East."
What worries me is that some of these clowns actually believe their talking points. The RNC and Republican lawmakers churn out a lot of nonsense in the hopes of directing attention away from the White House's foreign policy fiascos, pointing the finger at those who had no power to speak of from 2003 to 2006. The rhetoric is more pitiable than infuriating; one gets the sense that GOP flacks know how pathetic it is.
But Reynolds, Patterson, and some on the right actually seem to buy into the claptrap. There's a disconcerting sincerity to it. Indeed, Patterson was recently asked, "Surely you're not calling Democrats traitors. Or are you?" To which he responded, "I am." He did not appear to be kidding.
Honestly, it's like watching a Twilight Zone episode.
--Steve Benen
McCain and lobbyists
In an odd column a few months ago, Richard Cohen praised John McCain for having "a visceral hostility toward the ways of Washington's K Street lobbying crowd."
It looks like the Arizona Republican has come around on the lobbyists he claims to disdain.
John McCain, who made his name attacking special interests, has more lobbyists working on his staff or as advisers than any of his competitors, Republican or Democrat.
A Huffington Post examination of the campaigns of the top three presidential candidates in each party shows that lobbyists are playing key roles in both Democratic and Republican bids -- although they are far more prevalent on the GOP side. But, all the campaigns pale in comparison to McCain's, whose rhetoric stands in sharp contrast to his conduct.
"Too often the special interest lobbyists with the fattest wallets and best access carry the day when issues of public policy are being decided," McCain asserts on his web site, declaring that he "has fought the 'revolving door' by which lawmakers and other influential officials leave their posts and become lobbyists for the special interests they have aided."
In actual practice, at least two of McCain's top advisers fit precisely the class of former elected officials he criticizes so sharply.
For the candidate who based his 2000 campaign on challenging lobbyists and "entrenched" special interests, McCain has put together quite a crew: two of Washington's most powerful, high-paid lobbyists -- Tom Loeffler and Slade Gorton -- are co-chairmen of the senator's presidential campaign. "All told," Tom Edsall reported, "there are 11 current or former lobbyists working for or advising McCain, at least double the number in any other campaign."
To be sure, McCain's "clean" image was always more rhetoric than reality. Regardless, McCain still bills himself as a "reformer" who's wiling to challenge the DC establishment, and a surprising number of political journalists still buy into the hype.
It's what makes reports like these so damaging.
--Steve Benen
Try again, Jonah
Matt Yglesias had an amusing item this morning, mocking Jonah Goldberg for arguing that the media steered clear of embarrassing FDR photos "because the press almost unanimously agreed that -- despite the huge news value -- depicting FDR as a cripple would be bad for the war effort." Since Roosevelt had polio when he took office in 1933, and World War II didn't start until 1941, Yglesias is able to deduce -- using arithmetic -- that perhaps Goldberg is confused.
But as long as we're having fun at Goldberg's expense, let's also take a moment to review his recent LA Times op-ed, in which he recommended eliminating the national public school system and replacing it with a private system, subsidized through vouchers.
Consider Washington, home of the nation's most devoted government-lovers and, ironically, the city with arguably the worst public schools in the country. [...]
Private, parochial and charter schools get better results. Parents know this.
Condemning the nation's public schools by cherry-picking one troubled school district seems like the basis for a poor argument. For that matter, it's hardly an apples-to-apples comparison -- private schools in DC can discriminate against applicants based on everything from test scores to behavioral problems, while public schools in DC have to take everyone.
But even if we put all of that aside and consider Goldberg's argument at face value, he still runs into empirical trouble: "Students in the D.C. school voucher program, the first federal initiative to spend taxpayer dollars on private school tuition, generally performed no better on reading and math tests after one year in the program than their peers in public schools, the U.S. Education Department said."
And what about Goldberg's contention that charter schools also perform better? Well, Bush's Education Department found that charter schools nationwide under-perform, with test scores showing "charter school students often doing worse than comparable students in regular public schools." (The Bush administration responded to the report by announcing it would sharply cut back on the information it collects about charter schools.)
Try again, Jonah.
--Steve Benen
Good for Rahm
In Washington, I think this is what one might call a "winning argument."
Washington, D.C. House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel issued the following statement regarding his amendment to cut funding for the Office of the Vice President from the bill that funds the executive branch. The legislation -- the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill -- will be considered on the floor of the House of Representatives next week.
"The Vice President has a choice to make. If he believes his legal case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive branch. However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice President should be consistent. This amendment will ensure that the Vice President's funding is consistent with his legal arguments. I have worked closely with my colleagues on this amendment and will continue to pursue this measure in the coming days."
Very clever. Good for Rahm.
If the Office of the Vice President is a branch unto itself, I'm sure Emanuel will consider Cheney's own appropriations bill, independent of any actual executive-branch spending.
--Steve Benen
The company he keeps?
Following up on Election Central's piece, it looks like Rudy Giuliani has a real problem here. Time's David Von Drehle asked a highly relevant question in his latest piece: "How many alleged criminals can a law-and-order candidate be associated with before it starts to hurt?" Von Drehle posed the question after Thomas Ravenel, the chairman of Giuliani's presidential campaign in South Carolina, was indicted on cocaine distribution charges, which, of course, comes on the heels of revelations about Giuliani's connections with Bernard Kerik.
But if Von Drehle's deadline was just one day later, he would have been able to include an even more damaging example of Giuliani's questionable associations.
Giuliani employs his childhood friend Monsignor Alan Placa as a consultant at Giuliani Partners despite a 2003 Suffolk County, N.Y., grand jury report that accuses Placa of sexually abusing children, as well as helping cover up the sexual abuse of children by other priests. Placa, who was part of a three-person team that handled allegations of abuse by clergy for the Diocese of Rockville Centre, is referred to as Priest F in the grand jury report. The report summarizes the testimony of multiple alleged victims of Priest F, and then notes, "Ironically, Priest F would later become instrumental in the development of Diocesan policy in response to allegations of sexual abuse of children by priests." [...]
Placa has worked for Giuliani Partners since 2002. As of June 2007, he remains on the payroll. "He is currently employed here," Giuliani spokeswoman Sunny Mindel confirmed to Salon, adding that Giuliani "believes Alan has been unjustly accused." Mindel declined to discuss what role Placa plays with the consulting firm, or how much he is paid. Says Richard Tollner, who testified before the grand jury that Placa had molested him, "[Giuliani] has to speak up for himself and explain himself. If he doesn't, people shouldn't vote for him." Adds Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org, which tracks suspected priest abuse, "I think Rudy Giuliani has to account for his friendship with a credibly accused child molester."
The Salon piece, by Alex Koppelman and Joe Strupp, touches on some very serious allegations. This is more than just Giuliani sticking up for a long-time friend after he came under fire. As Marc Ambinder explained, in 2003, "a grand jury concluded that Placa was at the center of a diocese-wide effort to cover up nearly 60 allegations of sexual abuse by its priests." The same report found that Placa was "cautious but relentless" in "pursuing his victims," but was never charged because the statute of limitations had run out.
Von Drehle's Time article noted, "[A]ll candidates live in fear that a prominent supporter will become an embarrassment in the middle of a campaign."
In Giuliani's case, there are three (Kerik, Ravenel, and Placa). And counting.
--Steve Benen
Despite mounting outcry, Rudy still refuses to sever ties to priest accused of sexually abusing children. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Saturday Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
He didn't 'listen to our military'
The president was in Alabama the other day for a couple of events, including a fundraising reception for Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who's up for re-election next year. Bush delivered a fairly predictable speech on Sessions' behalf, but one comment stood out.
The president was explaining how his current war policy came together:
"I listened very carefully to senators like Jeff Sessions and senators who didn't agree with what Jeff and I believed was necessary. I listened to our military. That's what you want your President doing. [...]
"So I made the decision to name a new commander, as well as send troops into Baghdad, all aiming to give this young democracy a chance to survive the relentless attacks from extremists and radicals who want to prevent their emergence." (emphasis added)
This comes up from time to time, but the president is simply wrong. He makes this claim quite a bit, but Bush didn't shape his policy on the advice of "our military." Remember this from January?
When President Bush goes before the American people tonight to outline his new strategy for Iraq, he will be doing something he has avoided since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003: ordering his top military brass to take action they initially resisted and advised against. [...]
It may also be a sign of increasing assertiveness from a commander in chief described by former aides as relatively passive about questioning the advice of his military advisers. In going for more troops, Bush is picking an option that seems to have little favor beyond the White House and a handful of hawks on Capitol Hill and in think tanks who have been promoting the idea almost since the time of the invasion.
In November, after the election, CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid rejected the notion of a so-called surge, saying that he "met with every divisional commander, Gen. Casey, the core commander, Gen. Dempsey" and asked them if bringing "in more American troops now, [would] add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq and they all said, 'No.'"
Indeed, Bush fired Gen. Casey, in large part because he neglected to tell the president what he wanted to hear.
And yet, here we are, just a few months later, watching Bush brag about how his policy followed the advice of the generals -- which is "what you want your President doing." Please.
If Bush wants to reject the advice of top military leaders, that's his prerogative; he is regrettably the Commander in Chief. But he really needs to drop this I-listened-to-our-military schtick.
--Steve Benen
Executive Order-gate
For a White House that has offered a bountiful stream of substantive scandals for six years, the latest dust-up might be the most bizarre.
The background details are surprisingly straightforward. In 1995, the Clinton White House issued an executive order establishing uniform rules for protecting classified information. In 2003, the Bush White House revised it. The order plainly includes any executive-branch agency, any military department, and "any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information." The entire branch of government, the order said, is subject to oversight.
This week, however, in light of revelations about the White House ignoring its own E.O., the Bush gang started spinning like a top.
The White House said Friday that, like Vice President Dick Cheney's office, President Bush's office is not allowing an independent federal watchdog to oversee its handling of classified national security information.
An executive order that Bush issued in March 2003 -- amending an existing order -- requires all government agencies that are part of the executive branch to submit to oversight. Although it doesn't specifically say so, Bush's order was not meant to apply to the vice president's office or the president's office, a White House spokesman said.
Look, I can appreciate the fact that the White House is in a jam here. Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the gang repeatedly mishandled classified materials during a time of war, got caught, ignored their own rules, and is now struggling to rationalize their conduct. When the federal agency responsible for oversight tried to do its job, the Vice President reportedly tried to abolish the agency. This isn't a fact-pattern that's easy to spin.
But the explanations thus far have been transparently ridiculous, up to and including the notion that the Vice President, as defined in Article II of the Constitution, isn't actually part of the executive branch of government.
Perhaps it's best to take a moment to summarize the questions that need answers:
* Why did Bush and Cheney abide by the executive order in question in 2001 and 2002, and then stop in 2003? Is it a coincidence they started ignoring the E.O. on handling classified materials just as they started mishandling classified materials?
* Why did Cheney abide by the E.O. in 2001 and 2002 if he's not part of the executive branch?
* Why did the President exempt the Vice President from an executive order he was already following? Why did he later exempt himself?
* When, precisely, did the White House decide that Bush and Cheney should exempt themselves from their own rules?
* Does Bush consider Cheney part of the executive branch? Why has the White House thus far refused to respond to this question? Does the President consider this a trick question?
* In its response to questions about the E.O., why did the White House point to a provision of the E.O. that doesn't exist?
* The White House insists, "There's no question that [Cheney] is in compliance" with the E.O. If there is no oversight, and Cheney is unaccountable, how does the White House know?
* In yesterday's press briefing, the president's spokesperson dismissed the oversight provision of the E.O. as "small" six times. Does the White House believe only "big" provisions need to be followed? How does the administration make the distinction?
Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said yesterday, "Vice President Cheney is expanding the administration's policy on torture to include tortured logic. In the end, neither Mr. Cheney nor his staff is above the law or the Constitution."
At this point, I think they might quibble with that assertion.
--Steve Benen
Olbermann Fact-Checks White House
In yesterday's painfully-amusing White House press briefing, spokesperson Dana Perino argued, without explanation, that the president exempted Dick Cheney from an Executive Order on preserving classified materials. In fact, she got rather specific about it, telling reporters that on page 18 of the E.O., "There's a distinction regarding the Vice President versus what is an agency." Perino added that this is "clear."
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann's staff looked at page 18. Take a wild guess what they found.
"No exemption at all for the Vice President on page 18. So we emailed the White House, which referred us to section 1.3 -- which is about something else altogether -- and 5.2 -- which makes no mention of the Vice President. In fact, there is no exemption for the President or the Vice President when it comes to reporting on classified material.
Faiz added that the language of the E.O. is rather sweeping: "Sec. 6.1(b) of Bush's 2003 executive order governing classified material explicitly states that it applies to any 'Executive agency...any 'Military department'...and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information.'"
Sounds "clear" to me.
--Steve Benen
I'm sure it's just a coincidence
I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
William Mercer, the Acting Associate Attorney General, resigned on June 22, 2007.
Michael Elston, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, resigned on June 15, 2007.
Monica Goodling, Alberto Gonzales' White House liaison, resigned on April 6, 2007.
And what do all of these dates have in common? They're all Fridays. (And, in each instance, the resignations were announced in the late afternoon.)
The Late-Friday-Media Trick has been around since before Bush took office -- release embarrassing news when it's least likely to get noticed -- but no White House has ever been this shameless.
--Steve Benen
Army intel officer outlines flaws in 'enemy combatant' review program in court filing.
--Josh Marshall
So how does Sen. Ted Stevens 
(R-AK) slice off a few slabs of bacon from all that pork he sends up to Alaska? At TPMmuckraker.com we're closely following the federal investigation into Sen. Stevens and his son, former Alaska state senate President Ben Stevens.
It turns out that it's not just about the oil services business.
Stevens and son also have a little angle with the state fishing industry that's got the feds attention. Ted put his son Ben in charge of a board that distributed $12 million in federal money in grants to state fisheries companies. Ben in turn pulled down at least three-quarters of a million dollars in 'consulting fees' from the same fisheries companies for services the nature of which has never been disclosed.
Laura McGann has the story.
--Josh Marshall
Fred Thompson heading to early primary states. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
This is fun.
Senator James Inhofe made a lot of noise today by claiming he overheard Senators Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer saying that they want a "legislative fix" for talk radio.
One problem: He's now told two versions of the story, and let's just say that they're strikingly, even comically, at odds with one another.
--Greg Sargent
Your Justice Department resignation o' the week: Acting Associate Attorney General William Mercer.
--Paul Kiel
Today's New York Times has an enormous front page story today suggesting that John Edwards' antipoverty programs were set up merely to provide a "bridge" to his 2008 Presidential campaign.
But guess what -- the Edwards campaign tells us that The Times refused the chance to speak to people who actually benefitted from his programs.
--Greg Sargent
TPM Reader SM writes in ...
It's a curious thing that, over the past 10 - 12 days, the news from Iraq refers to the combatants there as "al-Qaida" fighters. When did that happen?Until a few days ago, the combatants in Iraq were "insurgents" or they were referred to as "Sunni" or "Shia'a" fighters in the Iraq Civil War. Suddenly, without evidence, without proof, without any semblance of fact, the US military command is referring to these combatants as "al-Qaida".
Welcome to the latest in Iraq propaganda.
I don't know if SM's claim is accurate in the particular. But it's very true as a general matter.
I've long been amazed at how freely reporters accept it when this or that Arab or Muslim with a gun is labelled as "al Qaida." And the issue is complicated by the fact that a new group -- a post-invasion group with a very uncertain connection to the actual al Qaeda -- has taken the name of al Qaeda in Iraq.
But is the standard bamboozle getting ramped up a notch? As Andrew Sullivan noted yesterday, even David Patraeus acts like the whole issue in Iraq now is just al Qaeda and Iranian arming of, I guess, al Qaeda. Otherwise things would be great.
This is the sort of thing that requires a close watching of the news and how things are being reported. Is 'insurgent' now being replaced across the board by al Qaeda. Keep an eye out and let us know what you see. We'll do the same.
--Josh Marshall
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino on the vice president's "unique" role: it's "an interesting constitutional question that legal scholars can debate."
The Bush administration is just full of interesting constitutional questions, isn't it?
--Paul Kiel
Over the coming weeks and months we're going to be lining up interviews with the presidential candidates that will run on TPMtv. We're already talking to several of them. And we want you to be part of it.
Specifically, we want your questions.
So if you've got a question for Hillary or Obama or Edwards or Richardson or any of the rest, send us an email with the text of the question to our comments address with the subject heading "TPMtv Question: [Candidate's name]". We'll save them up for when we do the interview.
Of course, we can only pose the question if the specific candidate agrees to sit down with us for an interview. But I'm optimistic we'll be able to schedule most of them. And if we choose your question we'll credit you by name or you can remain anonymous. Your choice.
We'll keep you posted on what we've got scheduled.
--Josh Marshall
Hapless Romney aide Jay Garrity, under investigation for impersonating a trooper, realizes he's become a problem for his boss and takes a quiet leave of absence.
Late Update: Apparently Garrity was pulled over on his way to work today for speeding on the Mass Turnpike by Sherrif Cletus T. Romney and hauled off to the slammer -- jmm.
Later Update: Yes, that's parody.
--Greg Sargent
Okay, put this down as utterly irrelevant trivia, certainly in the context of American politics. But it's stuck in my head.
Clement Attlee was Labour Prime Minister of Great Britain from 1945-1951, also Deputy Prime Minister in Winston Churchill's wartime national unity government. It was under Attlee's government that most of the British welfare state was created. And, depending on your judgment of Tony Blair's premiership, he is arguably the most successful Labour Prime Minister in UK history.
These days, former Prime Ministers are often ennobled and thus given a seat in the House of Lords. However it's virtually always as 'life peers', i.e., they're 'Lords' for their lifetimes but their eldest child doesn't inherit the title. Half a century ago, however, it was still common for ex-Prime Ministers to become hereditary peers. (Winston Churchill actually declined the offer to become hereditary 'Duke of London.')
And -- yes, I'm getting back to the point -- when he retired from the House of Commons in 1955 Attlee was ennobled as Earl Atlee and Viscount of Prestwood as an hereditar peer.
Now, today the title is held by Atlee's grandson John Atlee, 3rd Earl Attlee. And Atlee sits in the House of Lords as a member of the Conservative Party.
So, Clement Attlee's grandson sits in the House of Lords as a Tory!
That's all I got. But it's just too much of an irony for me, just had to pass it on.
--Josh Marshall
Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer flatly deny a Drudge-flacked tale claiming they're seeking a "legislative fix" for talk radio.
--Greg Sargent
Talk about a false alarm. Not only is the Guantanamo Bay detention facility not on the verge of closing, but the Defense Department announced this morning that it's gained its first new prisoner in months.
--Paul Kiel
Yesterday we brought you the news that GOP Rep. Steve King was introducing a measure to prevent Nancy Pelosi from using State Department funds to consort with the enemy.
Well, the measure has just gone down to crushing defeat.
--Greg Sargent
A top good-government expert claims Obama is the most reliable Democratic Presidential candidate on goo-goo issues.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read: that developing consensus within the administration about closing Gitmo? Not so much.
--Paul Kiel
Ha! Newsweek had Bush at 26%? Fuggedaboutit. ARG has him charging ahead to 27%.
--Josh Marshall
Ralph Nader discloses more details about his possible 2008 Presidential run. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
This should be fun ...
State Police are investigating one of Mitt Romney's top campaign aides for allegedly impersonating a trooper by calling a Wilmington company and threatening to cite the driver of a company van for erratic driving, according to two law enforcement sources familiar with the probe.Jay Garrity, who is director of operations on Romney's presidential campaign and a constant presence at his side, became the primary target of the investigation, according to one of the sources, after authorities traced the cellphone used to make the call back to him. The investigation comes three years after Garrity, while working for Romney in the State House, was cited for having flashing lights and other police equipment in his car without proper permits.
The New Hampshire attorney general, according to the Associated Press, has also opened an investigation into a report that a Romney aide, later identified as Garrity, pulled over a New York Times reporter in New Hampshire and said he had run his license plate.
Would sorta like to hear this call ...
In the phone call to the Wilmington company, which was recorded by an answering service and obtained by the Globe, a man who identifies himself as "Trooper Garrity with the Massachusetts State Police" complains about the driving of a van owned by Wayne's Drains Middlesex Sewers of Wilmington. The caller repeatedly says he is a trooper and questions when the driver will return to the office.
I thought this sort of stuff only happened in low-budget teen movies. Anyway, fake cop, fake candidate. Of a piece.
--Josh Marshall
From The Hill: "Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) is expecting a significant drop-off in campaign contributions for the second quarter that might look like a pittance compared to the dollar amounts Democratic rivals Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) are expected to raise."
--Josh Marshall
At least someone's paying attention.
Fred Kaplan takes a good hard look at Rudy's greedy decision to rake in cash rather than learn about what's actually happening in Iraq.
Any chance the WaPo editorial page takes a gander at this?
--Josh Marshall
New Goodling document dump from the DOJ.
And early this evening new documents on the Todd Graves' firing.
Let us know what you find.
Late Update: The only blockbuster I've come across so far is that Kyle Sampson was apparently fond of referring to Bradley Schlozman as "the Schloz". (note: OAG000002180)
Later Update: Also of some interest, Sampson to Goodling and Oprison, Feb. 2nd, 2007: "Tim needs to be managed very carefully." (note: OAG000001853)
Never Too Late for Monica Update: On a quick review, most of the Goodling documents appear to be the work product of her after-the-fact efforts to come up with justifications for the firings. There are reams of prosecution statistics, some Nexis searches trying to find ammunition for the 'Clinton did it too' defense and a lot of emails about how they're going to deal with Tim Griffin.
--Josh Marshall
John Edwards is bringing back his "two Americas" refrain tonight in a major policy speech here in New York City.
The policy centerpiece of his proposal? Longtime TPMCafe regular Elizabeth Warren's "Family Savings and Credit Commission."
Warren offers her thoughts here.
--Andrew Golis
Sen. Stevens' (R-AK) pal who had to have a chat with the grand jury also turns out to be his business partner. And for Stevens a pretty lucrative one.
--Josh Marshall
National Dems may be on the verge of scoring two big candidates for key 2008 Senate races. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Need some attention? Just dust off the ol' Pelosi-to-Syria flap.
GOP Congressman Steve King introduces legislation to restrict Pelosi's travel to enemy countries.
--Greg Sargent
Administration to close Gitmo and send prisoners to mini-gitmos. From the AP ...
The Bush administration is nearing a decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and move the terror suspects there to military prisons elsewhere, The Associated Press has learned.President Bush's national security and legal advisers are expected to discuss the move at the White House on Friday and, for the first time, it appears a consensus is developing, senior administration officials said Thursday.
--Josh Marshall
Rahm Emanuel to Cheney: If Veep's office is not an entity in the exec branch, then please move out of the White House.
--Greg Sargent
Oh, you mean the very highest levels?
During today's hearing, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) finally asked a question we've been waiting to have asked for quite awhile here at TPM. The response was telling.
In early January, Paul McNulty's chief of staff Michael Elston put the screws to Carol Lam, the U.S. attorney for San Diego, when she asked for more time in office in order to deal with several important prosecutions in her office. Chief among those cases, of course, was the ongoing Duke Cunningham investigation.
But Elston told Lam that she should forget about her cases, that she had to resign within "weeks, not months," and that these orders were "coming from the very highest levels of the government."
What did Elston mean by that? Sanchez wanted to know.
“He was referring to his interactions with the attorney general‘s office in particular," McNulty replied. Huh. Given that Elston's regular contact in the attorney general's office was Gonzales' chief of staff Kyle Sampson, does that mean Sampson was the "very highest levels?" It's certainly seemed like that at times.
When Sanchez asked if McNulty was sure about that, he waffled: "I'm not sure specifically who Mike was referring to there."
--Paul Kiel
Mike Bloomberg, last year: "What chance does a five-foot-seven billionaire Jew who's divorced really have of becoming president?"
From a Reuters article on how a Bloomberg candidacy might face "anti-New York bias."
--Josh Marshall
The deputy attorney general that wasn't.
That, at least, is the impression Paul McNulty gave today.
In March of last year, Alberto Gonzales signed a secret order to give Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson the ability to hire and fire junior political appointees (such as, say, McNulty's own staffers) with only the attorney general's say-so, and McNulty was intentionally kept out of the loop. The order effectively gave two young aides with close ties to the White House the ability to make hires without the knowledge of the department's career leadership.
Today, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) asked McNulty when he first found out about this. When National Journal published a story on it in April, McNulty said.
And what did McNulty think about the fact that he was kept in the dark? It "definitely was a concern" to him when he discovered that, he said, somewhat blithely.
Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) also wanted to know about McNulty's non-involvement.
McNulty had nothing to do with the firing process until October of last year (about 18 months after Sampson began) -- so "you were left out of that process?"
"I'm not saying it was intentional or not, I just know I was," McNulty said.
Delahunt pressed on, asking about Alberto Gonzales' earlier remarks, shortly after McNulty announced that he was stepping down, that Gonzales had relied on McNulty's judgment in making the firings. If McNulty was out of the loop, how could Gonzales say that?
Well, McNulty had an easy answer for that, pointing out that on another occasion, Gonzales had said that one of his regrets was that McNulty had not been more directly involved in the process.
It's a dynamite alibi -- and an increasingly popular one, too -- the guy in charge who didn't know what was going on around him.
--Paul Kiel
In April, a group of anonymous Justice Department employees wrote to the House and Senate judiciary committees and accused Paul McNulty's chief of staff Michael Elston, of leading an effort to eliminate applicants to the Justice Department who were Democrats.
And what did McNulty have to say when asked whether his right-hand man was working to politicize the hiring process at the Department.? He doesn't know. Faint comfort.
--Paul Kiel
World Exclusive: Elizabeth Edwards slams Matt Drudge, questions his intelligence!
--Greg Sargent
Amid his flirtation with an indy Presidential run, Bloomberg has been careful to distance himself from Bush and his foreign policies.
So where was Bloomberg on Bush and the Iraq War back in 2002 and 2003, when it really counted? Answer here.
--Greg Sargent
You might call this circular reasoning.
Monica Goodling testified last month that Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty had told her not to join him in a closed-door meeting with the Senate Judiciary Committee because her presence might raise questions about White House involvement in the firings.
When asked about that today, McNulty confirmed that that had happened. But he had a different explanation why.
Here's his story: he thought that the Justice Department had made the firings at its own initiative, he said. It was his "own view" that the firings were not political and were based on substantive reasons. So he didn't see any reason to have the White House liaison in the meeting, because she was a political figure. Got that?
--Paul Kiel
Let's see what Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says about this.
Sen. Schumer has said that McNulty told him in a private conversation that Kyle Sampson and other aides, like Monica Goodling, were to blame for his incomplete testimony. According to Schumer, McNulty told him, "I was not told that these things were happening by the people who were supposed to brief me." McNulty had asked direct questions, Schumer said, and Goodling and Sampson had stayed mum about the White House involvement in the firings.
But today, McNulty testified that he hadn't "accused anybody of withholding information." He'd simply acknowledged in the conversation that he hadn't had that information when he testified -- "that was basically the extent of it." So just one big misunderstanding.
--Paul Kiel
As many of you likely know, just after 9/11, the White House forced the EPA to suppress warnings about the possible toxicity of the air and dust in lower Manhattan. The culprit was an outfit called the Council on Environmental Quality headed up by a guy named James Connaughton, a former polluter lawyer and lobbyist.
Connaughton, back in 2003, claimed the press releases were rewritten in the name of 'national security'.
Well, yesterday, Connaughton got called up to Capitol Hill for a hearing into what happened and why. And the result was such a tour de force of testimonial BS that we wanted to show you some of it. We see a lot of congressional testimony and thus a lot of non-denial-denying, obfuscation and generally bamboozling crap. But this performance stood out. Watch these excerpts of Connaughton's explanation in today's episode of TPMtv and see if you can figure out even what he's saying and why the guy is still in office ...
Late Update: For a transcript of today's episode, click here.
--Josh Marshall
Lying under oath? That's no big deal, says Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX).
Here he is during this morning's hearing lamenting how the U.S. attorney firings investigation has taken to scrutinizing misstatements under oath -- not "real wrongdoing." It's part of a pattern, Smith says, of "so-called scandals" (presumably referring to Scooter Libby).
--Paul Kiel
Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty is just about to start his testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. He will, as expected, field a number of pointed questions about his February testimony before the Senate.
Is it true, as Monica Goodling testified, that McNulty had not been “fully candid” about his knowledge of White House involvement in the U.S. attorney firings, of Karl Rove’s involvement? What about Goodling’s statement that McNulty had asked her not to join him at a closed door meeting with Congress, because her presence might raise questions about the White House?
But as I’ve argued before, McNulty has a lot more to answer for beyond his testimony. The deputy attorney general acts as the direct supervisor of all U.S. attorneys, yet McNulty let himself be steamrolled by junior aides like Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson – in one case agreeing to fire a U.S. attorney because he was a bachelor and thus didn’t have a family to feed (a fact that didn’t prevent him from telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that the attorney, Daniel Bogden, was removed for “performance related” reasons).
And it’s worth pointing out that McNulty’s chief of staff, Michael Elston, is also at the center of the firings. Three of the fired U.S. attorneys have come forward to say that Elston threatened them that the Justice Department would detail the reasons for their firings if they did not say quiet. National Journal reported last month that Elston had made the calls on McNulty’s orders. And that wasn’t all Elston was up to.
McNulty so far has passed for something of an innocent bystander. Let's see if today's hearing changes that.
--Paul Kiel
We're working on a server upgrade at TPMmuckraker.com today, so we'll be bringing you our coverage of today's House Judiciary Committee testimony from Deputy AG Paul McNulty right here on TPM.
--Josh Marshall