Justice Department

It appears now that the Justice Department may have delayed the investigation into Rep. Rick Renzi until after the elections last year:

As midterm elections approached last November, federal investigators in Arizona faced unexpected obstacles in getting needed Justice Department approvals to advance a corruption investigation of Republican Rep. Rick Renzi, people close to the case said.

The delays, which postponed key approvals in the case until after the election, raise new questions about whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales or other officials may have weighed political issues in some investigations. The Arizona U.S. attorney then overseeing the case, Paul Charlton, was told he was being fired in December, one of eight federal prosecutors dismissed in the past year. The dismissals have triggered a wave of criticism and calls from Congress for Mr. Gonzales to resign.

Investigators pursuing the Renzi case had been seeking clearance from senior Justice Department officials on search warrants, subpoenas and other legal tools for a year before the election, people close to the case said.

No wonder why Gonzo has the approval of Bush. We already know Bush's goal is to bring the federal government into a more darker world of politics (sound familiar former Soviet Union?).

Oh and before people run off on the "liberal media" claim, it should be noted that this article is from the Wall Street Journal.

This will certainly become a big thing at this week's hearings:

In the spring of 2006, Domenici told Gonzales he wanted Iglesias out.

Gonzales refused. He told Domenici he would fire Iglesias only on orders from the president.

At some point after the election last Nov. 6, Domenici called Bush's senior political adviser, Karl Rove, and told him he wanted Iglesias out and asked Rove to take his request directly to the president.

Domenici and Bush subsequently had a telephone conversation about the issue.

The conversation between Bush and Domenici occurred sometime after the election but before the firings of Iglesias and six other U.S. attorneys were announced on Dec. 7.

Now we have Bush directly involved in this, as well as Karl Rove. Now why would the White House's "political adviser" be involved in something that isn't supposed to involve politics, and why was the President allowing this? Only one answer makes sense - Bush knew and allowed a political firing of a U.S. attorney.

To make this issue stick even more, it looks like people in Domenici's own office are getting scared and now talking:

The Journal confirmed the sequence of events through a variety of sources familiar with the firing of Iglesias, including sources close to Domenici. The senator's office declined comment.

Good thing for Pete he has already lawyered up. With this big story coming out, it is no wonder why Fred Feilding is starting to be a little more cooperative with Congress. He must think this White House is worse off than Nixon's.

Josh has more on this.

Today's New York Times has a look at a newly released report on voter fraud that is very interesting. It appears that a lot of politics may have gone into this report to change the outcome, and the final report was approved by the 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat on the commission.

A federal panel responsible for conducting election research played down the findings of experts who concluded last year that there was little voter fraud around the nation, according to a review of the original report obtained by The New York Times.

Instead, the panel, the Election Assistance Commission, issued a report that said the pervasiveness of fraud was open to debate.

The revised version echoes complaints made by Republican politicians, who have long suggested that voter fraud is widespread and justifies the voter identification laws that have been passed in at least two dozen states.

So there wasn't fraud before there was. This is the Republican's red herring - that the evil Democrats have colluded to keep Republicans from the polls. Remember - the attorneys were purged for not going after "voter fraud" cases, even though they couldn't even get indictments on them.

Read the entire article. It shows you the great risk our democracy is at. Not because of this "voter fraud" stuff, but because the Republicans are trying to criminalize democracy to their benefit.

Today'sNYT:

Four senators said Monday that they suspected that the Justice Department had failed to turn over all relevant documents related to the dismissals of eight United States attorneys.

The department has released more than 3,000 pages of e-mail messages and other files. But, the senators wrote in a letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, “We are concerned that additional documents relevant to the committee’s investigations are missing or have been withheld.”

The letter expressed skepticism about whether lawmakers had all the material they needed to evaluate the motives for the removals and raised questions on the scope and methods used to assemble the material. A spokesman for the department, Brian Roehrkasse, said officials would not comment until they had reviewed the letter.

Now we got the Justice Department trying to block justice. Orwell was so right.

The ship continues to sink!

From the Muckraker:

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

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

It's always the subordinates, but never the bosses with this administration. If I were a subordinate, I would certainly be walking, just so I don't end up with the blame for something coming from higher ups.

Think Progress has this:

A new Justice Dept. document dump appears to “clearly show that [Gonzales’ ex-chief of staff Kyle] Sampson attempted to mislead Congress by proxy — that is to say, he gave false information to DOJ officials who were preparing to provide information to Congress.” That’s illegal. But Sampson says it isn’t true, and he’s testifying under oath tomorrow.

Will we need a new batch of prosecutors to handle cases of lying to Congress? With this administration, it is very possible.

The House has passed the Senate bill to remove the power of the White House to appoint attorney's without confirmation. The final vote is 329-78, making the bill veto proof.

A lot of discussion has been brewing over the revelation that people like Karl Rove use a email address from the RNC as compared to the whitehouse.gov email address assigned to all employees. The biggest question lies within the possible violation of the presidential records act. CREW has been following this closely:

Washington, DC – In light of e-mails released by the House Judiciary Committee this week in response to the on-going U.S. Attorney firing scandal, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sent a letter today to Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), asking for an investigation into whether the White House has violated its mandatory record-keeping obligation under the Presidential Records Act (PRA).

[SNIP]

CREW has learned that to fulfill its statutory obligations under the PRA, the White House email system automatically copies all messages created by staff and sends them to the White House Office of Records Management for archiving. It appears that the White House deliberately bypassed the automatic archiving function of its own email system that was designed to ensure compliance with the PRA.

CREW currently is involved in several lawsuits challenging other improper and illegal record keeping practices of the Bush administration. In this matter, CREW cannot bring a lawsuit challenging the White House on its compliance with the PRA because of a legal precedent that relies on presidents to honor the mandatory record-keeping practices, with no judicial review.

Now Henry Waxman is getting into this debate and has told the White House and RNC not to destroy any emails (via Think Progress):

The e-mails of White House officials maintained on RNC e-mail accounts may be relevant to multiple congressional investigations. For this reason, the Committee directs you to preserve all e-mails sent or received by White House officials using e-mail accounts under your control.

In addition, the Committee requests that you or your designee meet with Committee staff during the week of April 2,2007, to discuss the following five matters:

– Who has access to the e-mail accounts maintained by the RNC; […]

– What steps have been taken to preserve the e-mail accounts maintained by the RNC that have been used by White House officials;

– What assurance can the RNC provide the Committee that no e-mails involving official White House business have been destroyed or altered.

This isn't limited to the White House nor the RNC. A commenter on Firedoglake pointed this out yesterday:

why are DOJ employees using Yahoo email addy?

That is a very good question and one that raises alarms of not only national security, but also accountability in our government. I am sure there is laws being violated by this practice, and at the very least policy violations. So why is the Bush government so lax on their use of emails? Hopefully Henry will be able to find out.

Perhaps this from the WSJ Blogs gives a good reason:

If there’s any doubt about the importance of getting a record of Senate investigative interviews, consider the case of J. Steven Griles.

Griles, the former deputy Interior secretary, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Washington today to lying to Senate investigators when he was asked about the nature of his relationship with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was trying to help clients on matters before the Interior Department. Abramoff, in prison after pleading guilty to felony charges, has been aiding a wider investigation that has netted eight convictions or plea deals for the Justice Department.

A transcript of the Senate interview is what helped get Griles in trouble. (See the plea agreement.) Former White House aide David Safavian found himself in similar hot water, and was convicted earlier this year on charges that included lying to Senate investigators.

So we have a conviction based upon administration officials lying to Senate and with that we should just "trust them"? Sure and I bet Bush has a war he wants to sell us also!

(h/t TPM)

Yeah right! I am talking about old Gonzo, who has now landed in even more hot water:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales approved plans to fire several U.S. attorneys in a November meeting, according to documents released Friday that contradict earlier claims that he was not closely involved in the dismissals.

The Nov. 27 meeting, in which the attorney general and at least five top Justice Department officials participated, focused on a five-step plan for carrying out the firings of the prosecutors, Justice Department officials said late Friday.

There, Gonzales signed off on the plan, which was crafted by his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson. Sampson resigned last week in the wake of the political firestorm surrounding the firings.

So we find yet another lie the nation's top law enforcement official told Congress. And with this kind of behavior we are to expect Bush's people to tell Congress the truth not under oath? Bull shit!

I say the House and Senate need to just go ahead and put the subpoenas out. Clinton had 49 aides testify under oath, so we have a precedent. Congress wants to discuss Rove and Mier's conversations with Gonzales, not Bush, which takes the cover of "executive privilege" off the table. This is a showdown the White House will loose.

After 6 years you think we would all get used to "Bush speak":

Six of the eight U.S. attorneys fired by the Justice Department ranked in the top third among their peers for the number of prosecutions filed last year, according to an analysis of federal records.

In addition, five of the eight were among the government's top performers in winning convictions.

The analysis undercuts Justice Department claims that the prosecutors were dismissed because of lackluster job performance. Democrats contend the firings were politically motivated, and calls are increasing for the resignation or ouster of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Yup - that sounds like poor performance to me. And Brownie did a "heckuva job".

Miers and Rove will be getting their subpoenas:

A House panel on Wednesday approved subpoenas for President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove and other top White House aides, setting up a constitutional showdown over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.

By voice vote, the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law decided to compel the president's top aides to testify publicly and under oath about their roles in the firings.

The White House has refused to budge in the controversy, standing by embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and insisting that the firings were appropriate. White House spokesman Tony Snow said that in offering aides to talk to the committees privately, Bush had sought to avoid the "media spectacle" that would result from public hearings with Rove and others at the witness table.

"The question they've got to ask themselves is, are you more interested in a political spectacle than getting the truth?" Snow said of the overture Tuesday by the White House via its top lawyer, Fred Fielding.

"There must be accountability," countered subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez, D-Calif.

Yes this will get even more interesting now. I wonder what Snow will say today.

From the Muckraker:

“I was glad to meet Mr. Fielding and I welcome the fact that these issues have his full attention.

“I don’t accept his offer. It is not constructive and it is not helpful to be telling the Senate how to do our investigation, or to prejudge its outcome.

"Instead of freely and fully providing relevant documents to the investigating committees, they have only selectively sent documents, after erasing large portions that they do not want to see the light of day. Testimony should be on the record, and under oath. That’s the formula for true accountability.“I hope the President will agree to be forthcoming. The straighter the path to the truth, the sooner we will finally know the facts.”

Let's get ready to rumbleeeeeee!!!!!!

One thing that really stood out at me was when Bush said he was offering the truth by letting Miers and Rove talk to Congress. How can he justify that statement if he refuses to let them do so under oath?

You know we are in a dangerous place when the President can continue to stand before the cameras and lie to the American people with a straight face.