FBI Chief that Backed Carol Lam Retiring?

Carol Lam , as you might know, is the fired US Attorney from San Diego. She was intrumental in the investigation of the corruption of Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Her investigation also pulled other republicans into the investigation. She also found that FBI's, Dusty Foggo, had a part in this investigation. He has since resigned.

Now San Diego FBI Cheif, Dan Dzwilewski, has announced his retirement. Dzwilewski is the one who wrote that glowing letter about Carol Lam and her department's handling of the immigration cases in the San Diego area.

Sign on San Diego has more:

San Diego FBI chief Dan Dzwilewski, who was rebuked by superiors for publicly defending ousted U.S. Attorney Carol Lam, has announced his retirement. Dzwilewski, who has been at the helm of the San Diego office since July 2003, sent an e-mail to his agents and staff Wednesday saying he planned to take a post as director of security at Sempra Energy. His last day at the bureau is to be April 30.

Some colleagues found the timing of the announcement curious. On Tuesday, FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that one of his subordinates, John Pistole, told Dzwilewski that his statements on Lam were inappropriate and that he should keep quiet.

Dzwilewski had said Lam's firing was political and would adversely affect ongoing corruption cases.

So Mueller admitted that one of his subordinates asked Dzwilewski to keep quiet. For what reason? And the excuse that has been given:

However, some people familiar with Dzwilewski's plans said he was ready for a change after 27 years with the bureau and had been job hunting for months. Dzwilewski, who had held numerous assignments in Los Angeles, Washington, D.C.,
San Diego and Honolulu, had made it clear he planned to get off the FBI career
ladder and retire in San Diego, they said.

Officials declined to say whether Dzwilewski's retirement was forced as a result of his comments on Lam.

So he's been job hunting outside of the FBI and he made these comments because he knew he was leaving? Hmmm! Sounds a bit trumped up to me. The only reason he might have been job hunting, in my opinion, is because of pressure from above. After all it was under his leadership that this happened:

During Dzwilewski's tenure, local FBI agents investigated the Randy “Duke”
Cunningham bribery scandal and its spinoff cases as well as the corruption investigation involving San Diego city councilmen.

I can see a subpoena coming his way!

Fired US Attorney, Bud Cummins is not happy!

Bud Cummins, at first, was not really joining the others. When he spoke on TV of the firings, he soft soaped the Bush admin and the DOJ. Not any more!!!

From the Times Record:

Fired federal prosecutor Bud Cummins took strong exception Thursday to testimony by a former Justice Department official about the firings of Cummins and seven
other U.S. attorneys.

Cummins objected to the testimony of Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in Sampson’s appearance Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sampson told senators he believed each of the federal prosecutors fired late last year by the Justice Department was replaced because of problems related to his or her performance in office.

“If they’re starting to say that I had performance problems, then I have the same gripe the other seven have, because it’s a lie,” said Cummins, a Republican Bush appointee who was removed as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas and replaced by Tim Griffin, former assistant to White House political adviser Karl Rove.

Cummins said if he were to comment further on Sampson’s testimony, “I’d need a censor.”

Sampson appeared to contradict the previous testimony of Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty, who told senators in February that Cummins was removed to make room for Griffin and not because of performance-related problems.

However, Sampson also said he believes the distinction between “political” and
“performance-related” reasons for removing a U.S. attorney is an artificial distinction.

While Sampson was testifying Thursday in Washington, Cummins spoke and answered questions at the Clinton School of Public Service in Little Rock. He also met with reporters after his talk.

Cummins said in his Little Rock speech he was “astounded” by Sampson’s suggestion that political success and success as a prosecutor are one and the same.

snip

He acknowledged that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and can be removed for any reason. But he said he is troubled by evidence suggesting some prosecutors were pressured about specific cases, including David Iglesias of New Mexico, who has said he felt “leaned on” by Republican members of Congress concerning the investigation of a local Democrat.

Nothing could have a more chilling effect on prosecutors than knowing that pursuing the wrong case or resisting pressure to obtain an indictment means that “you’re going to be gone,” Cummins said. Cummins said he never would have come forward to talk about his firing if Justice Department officials had not stated that at least some of the fired U.S. attorneys were removed for performance-related problems.

Ahhh! The worm is turning. It's like watching a soap opera! But much more important. Stay tuned,

Top Rove aide soon to step down, faces subpoena

Again Raw Story has the story.

Key Rove aide fingered in US Attorney investigation to step down; Could face subpoena

Multiple sources reported today that a top aide to President George W. Bush's key adviser Karl Rove will soon step down from her job in the White House. The aide, Sara M. Taylor, was identified in yesterday's hearing with a former top Justice Department official as seeking the resignation of a US Attorney in Arkansas. She could still face a subpoena, RAW STORY learned.

Last week, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees authorized subpoenas of Scott Jennings, a deputy to Taylor, who is a top aide to Karl Rove. A House Judiciary Committee aide told RAW STORY she could still face a subpoena today.

"The people for whom subpoenas were authorized were a result of the document review, and it could be could be that Jennings' name was more prevalent," said a House Judiciary Committee aide. "Other subpoenas can be authorized or issued should any other names come up."

Taylor and Jennings were both fingered yesterday by Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, as playing key roles in the elevation of Tim Griffin, a top staffer in the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign and a Army Judge Advocate General, as the interim US Attorney for Arkansas in place of Bud Cummins.

Much more at Raw Story.

My own favorite moment from the Kyle Sampson Testimony

This is my favorite "gotcha" moment from yesterday, thank you very much Sen. Feinstein. Feinstein was questioning Sampson on the firing of Carol Lam, the San Diego US attorney. She was fired because she supposedly didn't do enough about the immigration cases.

Here's what happened:

Sampson claimed that the “real problem” with Carol Lam that Sampson referred to in an email “was her office’s prosecution of immigration cases.”

Feinstein told Sampson, “It is a real surprise to me that you would say here that the reason for her dismissal was immigration cases.” She then revealed a letter of commendation to Carol Lam dated Feb. 15, 2007, signed by the director of field operations of the United States Customs and Border Protection Agency.

Here's some of the excerpts from the letter that Sen. Feinstein read and the whole letter can be seen here:

In support of Border Patrol referrals for prosecution, your office maintains a 100 percent acceptance rate of criminal cases while staunchly refusing to reduce felony charges to misdemeanors and maintaining a minimal dismissal rate and supporting special prosecution efforts.

“I speak for my entire staff when I say that we are honored to have had the privilege of working with you and your staff for the past four years. … Again, thank you for your support; you will be missed.”


Oh, slam, Sen Feinstein!

Also at a hearing with FBI Director Robert Mueller this week, Feinstein said that Dzwilewski’s office had told her it had subsequently been contacted and “warned to say no more.” Under questioning today, Sampson acknowledged he had made a call to complain about Dzwilewski’s statement. But Sampson said he had merely “asked…why an FBI employee was commenting on that issue.”

OOOOps!

What you can find on blog comments....Gems!

First of all I have to give a hat tip to Bunky who posted this on the Sam Seder Show blog! A great list of the high points of what happened at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Kyle Sampson's testimony yesterday. Great work Bunky!

Yesterday was an 'oversight & popcorn' day for me. I was glued to C-SPAN from about 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. It was fascinating to watch. I heard a guest say on C-SPAN that no one was expecting a smoking gun from Kyle Sampson's testimony. Apparently, Kyle Sampson's opening statement had been leaked.


1) Kyle Sampson said "I don't remember" 122 times.

2) Revealed the fact that he even brought up firing Fitzgerald and later withdrew.

3) He suggested using the Patriot Act loophole to circumvent Congress.

4) Implicated Gonzales, Miers, and Rove as decision makers.

5) Stated that Gonzales statements were not accurate.

6) Revealed sub standard record keeping. Little pieces of paper documenting which AG's should be fired.

7) Revealed his lack of experience as a lawyer.

8) His testimony revealed that congress will need more testimony.

9) Never clearly explained why the AG's were fired.

10) Never advised Carol Lam that they had issues with immigration.

11) Never revealed who put Iglesis name on the list.

Maybe there was no smoking gun, but I think the Dems got a lot more than
they were expecting.

Judicial Committee session stopped by Republicans

Senator Leahy just announced that the hearing would need to be frozen while Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) was reading a statement.

Sen Grassley: "Does that apply to Republicans?" Grassley asked.

Sen Leahy: "It's the Republicans who want it to stop,"

And Raw Story reports the reason:

A live broadcast on MSNBC explained that Senate rules state that hearings
can only occur for a certain number of hours before they must be concluded so
that Members will pay attention to activities on the Senate floor.

Leahy: We will stand — we will not adjourn, we will stay in recess until the Senate recesses. We will come back, and Sen. Grassley, if he wishes to be heard further, will be the first one to be heard.

More as we hear.

Update: From Rawy Story

But the cause of the delay was not clear. A spokeswoman for Senator Arlen Specter, Ranking Republican on the Committee, said the hearing would resume.

"It seems that there was confusion as to why and if there was a hold as it came from the cloakrooms," wrote Courtney Boone, Specter's spokeswoman to RAW STORY. "It will be resuming shortly."

A live broadcast on MSNBC explained that Senate rules state that hearings can only occur for a certain number of hours before they must be concluded so that Members will pay attention to activities on the Senate floor.

"Whatever objection there was on the Republican side has been withdrawn," Senator Leahy then explained around 2:37 PM. "I've been here 33 years and I've never seen it happen before," he added, referring to the rules objection.
He added that the hearings cannot be stopped, and he'd hold them on nights and weekends if he needed to.

TPM Muckraker live blogging Sampson Testimony

If you can't watch the Sampson testimony, today, go to TPM Muckraker

Also, I just found out that Firedog Lake is also live blogging.

Patrick Fitzgerald hosts a meeting in Chicago to ask Gonzales questions about the US Attorney Firings

This is interesting. When Gonzales was in Chicago, recently, promoting his Safe Kids campaign, he met with several federal prosecutors. This meeting was hosted by Patrick Fitzgerald. It doesn't sound like it was an easy meeting for Gonzo. The federal prosecutors weren't to happy with the firings and said complained that complained that the dismissals had undermined morale and expressed broader grievances about his leadership.

Here's more from the NY Times:

About a half-dozen United States attorneys voiced their concerns at a private meeting with Mr. Gonzales in Chicago.

Several of the prosecutors said the dismissals caused them to wonder about their own standing and distracted their employees, according to one person familiar with the discussions. Others asked Mr. Gonzales about the removal of Daniel C. Bogden, the former United States attorney in Nevada, a respected career prosecutor whose ouster has never been fully explained by the Justice Department.

While Mr. Gonzales’s trip was part of a long-scheduled tour, he has been meeting in recent days with prosecutors in an effort to repair the damage caused by the dismissals. President Bush has backed Mr. Gonzales, but his tenure at the Justice Department may still be in peril as lawmakers in both parties have called for his resignation, questioned his credibility and raised doubts that he can lead the department.

snip

In Chicago, some prosecutors accused Mr. Gonzales’s subordinates of operating as if the prosecutors were an obstacle to be side-stepped instead of a resource to be tapped in developing departmental policy, one person said.

At least one prosecutor complained that United States attorneys had been excluded from deliberations that led to a change in policy on prosecuting corporate crime, a person familiar with the discussions said. He and others would speak only on condition of anonymity because the discussions were confidential.

The policy change at issue happened in December, when Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty rolled back a requirement that corporate defendants waive the confidentiality of their discussions with lawyers to obtain leniency. Justice Department officials said Wednesday that some prosecutors had been involved in those deliberations.

snip

The host of the Chicago meeting was Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the United States attorney there, who recently successfully prosecuted I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former White House official, on perjury charges. Mr. Fitzgerald’s spokesman declined to comment on the meeting.

Several other prosecutors declined to discuss the meeting. Justice Department officials said the participants included Steven M. Biskupic and Erik C. Peterson of Wisconsin; Joseph S. Van Bokkelen of Indiana; Craig S. Morford of Tennessee; and James A. McDevitt of Washington State.

Behind the prosecutors’ complaints is what several officials have described as their anger about the seemingly arbitrary manner used to identify the United States attorneys selected for dismissal.

Today, Kyle Sampson testifys!

This just keeps pulling people in...

Now it's a Congressman that wrote a letter to US Attorney, Carol Lam, about a case she dropped.

From Raw Story:

A letter sent by a Republican Congressman to Carol Lam, former US Attorney for the Southern District of California, appears to violate the Ethics rules established by the House of Representatives, RAW STORY has learned

However, another attorney who specializes in Congressional ethics said that although rules may have been violated, there were mitigating factors.

When RAW STORY brought Issa's letter to the attention of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, they confirmed that it appeared in violation of the same ethical rules that had prompted them to file complaints against two additional Congress members earlier in the month.

"CREW will be sending an ethics complaint to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct regarding Rep. Issa’s letter to former U.S. Attorney Carol Lam," Naomi Seligman Steiner, the group's Deputy Director, confirmed to RAW STORY this afternoon.

Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-CA) spokesman Frederick Hill told RAW STORY he wouldn't comment on a complaint he had not seen.

"You want me to comment on something that hasn't been filed and you can't send me?" Hill wrote in an e-mail.

CREW's complaint concerns a letter written by Rep. Issa to Lam on Feb. 2, 2004, seeking information concerning the release of and dropping of a case against Antonio Amparo-Lopez, whom the letter alleges was "a known alien smuggler with a long criminal record."

"I respectfully request that your office provide me with information about the facts surrounding [Amparo-Lopez's arrest] and, if applicable, the rationale behind any decision made by your office to decline or delay prosecution of Mr. Amparo-Lopez or any other action that may have contributed to his release," Issa then wrote.
The full letter, a signed copy of which was provided to RAW STORY by Rep. Issa's office, can be accessed at this link.

This is snowballing. I am sure there is more to come.

Sampson's Testimony released to News Media today

I don't have it all yet but here are a few things Smapson said:

From the AP

Sampson, in remarks obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, spoke dismissively of Democrats' condemnation of what they call political pressure in the firings.

"The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial," he said. "A U.S. attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective ... is unsuccessful."

He goes on to say:

In his prepared testimony, he maintained that adherence to the president's and attorney general's priorities was a legitimate standard. He strongly denied Democrats' allegations that some of the prosecutors were dismissed for pursuing Republicans too much and Democrats not enough in corruption cases.

"To my knowledge, nothing of the sort occurred here," he said.

In his written testimony to the Senate committee, Sampson also refers to the White House role in the firings, beginning with the quickly rejected idea of replacing all 93 U.S. attorneys after the 2004 election. He said he periodically provided to the White House over two years updated lists of U.S. attorneys whose dismissals were under consideration.

Sampson said in his testimony that any inconsistencies were innocent mistakes.

"This is a benign rather than sinister story," he said.

This is what Smapson is saying before being questioned. Let's see what tomorrow brings when he's in the hot seat in front of the Senate committee.

"Thank You Karl"

What's this? An email thank you note. To who? From who? And sent where? About what?

To: Karl Rove

From: Pete Domenici's Cheif of Staff, Scott Jennings

Sent to: Rove's political email account

Re: “Thanks for everything,” Here's the name of the replacement for David Iglesias.

From Neesweek:

Did Karl Rove have a hand in replacing the fired U.S. attorney in New Mexico? An overlooked e-mail may provide a clue.

March 28, 2007 - New Mexico Republican Sen. Pete Domenici’s chief of staff sent a cryptic thank-you note to Karl Rove just as the senator was recommending replacements for David Iglesias, the fired U.S. attorney in New Mexico, according to internal White House and Justice Department documents.
“Thanks for everything,” Domenici chief of staff Steve Bell wrote Rove and two other White House officials, including Rove’s political deputy, Scott Jennings, in a Jan. 8, 2007 e-mail that forwarded the name of a candidate to replace Iglesias.

Buried in Justice Department documents released two weeks ago, the Bell e-mail was not initially noticed by congressional investigators because it was sent to Rove’s political e-mail account—not his more clearly recognizable White House e-mail address.

It is not clear from the content of the e-mail what Bell was thanking Rove for. But the thank-you note is the first indication that Rove himself may have been involved in replacing Iglesias. It is the dismissal of Iglesias—fired after Domenici complained about his handling of a local corruption investigation—that has raised the most serious questions of political interference in the U.S. attorney controversy.

So when asked what this email was all about...here's what the answer was:

Asked about the e-mail today, and why Bell was thanking Rove, Domenici’s press secretary, Chris Gallegos said: “We’re not going to have anything to say about that e-mail.” He added that Bell “did not want to discuss a private communication.” White House press spokesman Tony Fratto said the e-mail was "interpreted" by the three White House officials who recevied it as a thank you for considering the names of Domenici's candidates for replacing Iglesias—not for their help in removing Iglesias. Did Rove in fact intervene to have Iglesias removed? Fratto replied: "We're not commenting on that" because of general White House policy not to talk about "internal White House communications."

Hmmm! Internal White House communications? Was this not sent to Rove's Political email address? That is not an internal White House communication.

The e-mail continued: “To repeat [name blanked out] is our overwhelming choice and will take the job …” It was then that Bell added, “Thanks for everything.”

What makes this stand out is that Iglesias was not even on the original list to fire until Domenici complained. And who then put him on the list. Kyle Sampson. We'll find out tomorrow when Kyle Sampson goes in front of the Senate hearing.

To be continued!

Is he Gone-zo yet?

Yet another top Republican is coming down hard on Alberto. I almost feel sorry for him....Nah!!! Peter Hoekstra said he bungled the firings of the US Attorneys.

Bungle - To work or act ineptly or inefficiently

Or in other words incompetent!

Here's more at the NY Daily News:

Gonzo keeps on gettin' hit

BY JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Posted Wednesday, March 28th 2007, 4:00 AM

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took another blow from a top Republican yesterday as his own inner circle fractured over the growing U.S. attorneys scandal.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said Gonzales is "badly weakened" from bungling the firings of eight federal prosecutors.

"The explanation has been absolutely abysmal," Hoekstra told C-SPAN's "Washington Journal."

No Republicans have defended Gonzales. Two GOP senators have said he should quit.

Gonzales' claim that the dismissals were not because of political loyalty and that he was not involved have both been contradicted by White House memos.

Hoekstra spoke out as Gonzales' closest advisers turned on one another, according to documents and sources.

"It's unreal - it's open warfare over there," a former Justice official with close ties to Gonzales' team told the Daily News.

The AG's ex-chief of staff Kyle Sampson will testify in the Senate tomorrow, and Gonzales' ex-counsel Monica Goodling pleaded the fifth and refused to talk. Gonzales has blamed Sampson for mistakes in how the firings were handled.

Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, who privately blames Goodling for misleading him on the matter, may also be jockeying to take over if Gonzales resigns, sources said.

Getting closer!!

UPDATE: Had to add this from Jon Stewart's Gonzo slam...

"Wow. I guess Alberto Gonzales is the Attorney General kind of like the homeless guy is Mayor of the park. He's not actually involved in the day-to-day operations, just kind of like a general observer."

This really hasn't made the Main Stream Media but...

While Alberto Gonzales is traveling the country in support of the Project Safe Childhood Campaign, there's a very disturbing story coming out of Texas that touches Gonzales. It concerns a cover up of a pedophile scandal.

What did Gonzales say the other day..."I'm not going to resign, I am going to stay focused on the kids". Let's just see how "focused" he is on the kids.

From the World Net Daily:

YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK
Teen sex scandal ignored by AG, others for 2 years
Probe widened, involving hundreds of complaints of sexual abuse in system

The Texas juvenile justice sexual abuse scandal – in which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton are accused of failing to take action – is a broader scandal that was covered up for two years, involving hundreds of serious complaints and investigations against dozens of staff members, according to officials.

The Texas Youth Commission scandal went unnoticed, says Texas Ranger Brian Burzynski, despite his numerous attempts, beginning in early 2005, to get local, state and federal prosecutors to investigate allegations teachers, administrators and guards had sex with minor male inmates.

Burzynski exposed the situation March 8 in testimony to the Texas legislature's Joint Committee on Operation and Management of the TYC. He stated he began his investigation Feb. 23, 2005, after a phone call from a teacher at the West Texas state school in Pyote, Texas, alleging another teacher at the school was involved in sexual misconduct with boy inmates.

In his testimony, Burzynski detailed being rebuffed by federal, state and local prosecutors for two years.

Check the link for more on this.

And from Prison Planet:

"Among the charges in the Texas Ranger report were that administrators would rouse boys from their sleep for the purpose of conducting all-night sex parties."

A 2005 investigation led by Texas Ranger Brian Burzynski revealed that systematic abuse of minors was commonplace at West Texas State School in Pyote, Texas. Burzynski presented the findings of the investigation to both Gonzales and Sutton but was rebuffed, and even received a letter from Sutton's office that attempted to legitimize the sexual abuse of children, claiming that "under 18 U.S.C. Section 242," it would have to be demonstrated "that the boys subjected to sexual abuse sustained "bodily injury," states the letter from Bill Baumann, assistant U.S. attorney in Sutton's office.

Incredulously, Baumann's letter goes on to make the case that the minors consented to and even enjoyed the acts of pedophilia, therefore no further action was necessary.
In September 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division also refused to follow up with a prosecution.

According to Corsi, officials implicated in the scandal were hired despite their known criminal backgrounds and were also retained even after it was discovered that they were using state computers to regularly visit pornography websites.

"It basically sounds as if you wouldn't get hired in one of these facilities unless you were a pedophile," Corsi told the Alex Jones Show.

"You've got a culture of pedophilia that is at the core of the Texas Youth Commission, and what that means is you won't get hired or you won't stay as an employee unless you're willing to participate in the boy rape that's going on or keep quiet about it."

Corsi says he has further developments to report tomorrow that confirm the scandal is "Now known to be widespread, all the offices of the Texas Youth Commission throughout the state are involved and employees from the top to the bottom are all involved."

This is widespread throughout the Texas Youth Commission and has this been aired by the MSM? Why? I have been waiting 3 days, since I first heard about this before I posted to see if the MSM would even mention this. Nothing!! And the hypocrisy of the torture meister, Alberto Gonzales allowing this to happen is sadly sickening!

UPDATE: The Chicago Tribune has an article about the cleanup of the Texas Youth Commission but not a mention of Gonzales' part in all of this.

Americans overwhelmingly back Subpoenas

From USA Today, a USA Today Gallup poll has shown the people of the US want investigations in the White House and DOJ firings of the 8 US Attorneys! Will they listen to us this time? I doubt it. The WH and the DOJ seem to be making a stance against what the people want. Will someone tell them that the US is not a dictatorship!

Here's the poll info:

WASHINGTON — Americans overwhelmingly support a congressional investigation into White House involvement in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, and they say President Bush and his aides should answer questions about it without invoking executive privilege.
In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday-Sunday, respondents said by nearly 3-to-1 that Congress should issue subpoenas to force White House officials to testify.


POLL: Complete results

There is skepticism about the motives of both the administration and congressional Democrats:

•By 53%-26%, respondents say the U.S. attorneys were dismissed primarily for political reasons, not because they weren't doing their jobs well — as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has said.

The poll also reports this:

•By 59%-30%, they say Democrats are investigating the dismissals mostly for political advantage, not because of ethical concerns.

Now I don't totally agree here. I think that there is an ulterior motive, and of course it is partially partisan, however the way this admin has responded to this leads me to believe they are hiding something. It is an insight to how they have been able to steer even elections. And it's another way for an investigation of the Senior Aides of the WH. That's my opinion and I could be wrong, but I am sticking with it til proven wrong.

More from the poll:

Even so, the findings underscore the president's risks. The White House last week offered to allow adviser Karl Rove and other aides to answer questions — but only in private, not under oath, and without a transcript being prepared.

The Senate and House judiciary committees have authorized subpoenas.

The poll finds little sympathy for the administration's claim that White House aides shouldn't have to testify to ensure that a president gets candid advice. By 68%-26%, those surveyed say the president should drop the claim of executive privilege in this case.

The rest of the poll asking if Gonzales should resign is a tie and breaks down on party lines.

House Vote: Bush stripped of authority to appoint US Attorneys on an interim basis

The House just joined the Senate on this issue. Here's the excerpt from Raw Story:

In a 329-78 vote last night, the House of Representatives followed the Senate and stripped President George W. Bush of the authority to appoint United States Attorneys on an interim basis, ending the ability of the Bush administration to do an end run around the Senate in putting controversial US Attorneys in office.

The bill sponsored by Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) places a 120-day limit to the term of a United States Attorney appointed on an interim basis. Democrats allege that the previous authority to appoint interim US Attorneys on an unlimited basis, inserted stealthily into the 2006 reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, was used as a 'loophole' to insert Bush administration political loyalists into office.

The congress is finally coming to life and voting to keep their constitutional power.

Rep. Berman pointed to an e-mail from Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who said "We should gum this to death. Our guy is in there so the status quo is good for us. Pledge a desire for a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney and otherwise hunker down."

"They quickly figured out that the provision created the possibility to circumvent the Senate and decided to exploit that power," Berman added.

House Republicans offered thin opposition on the House floor. Rep. Lamar Smith, the Ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, described his objection as primarily procedural, and voted to support the bill.

And now to the president:

The Senate measure passed on a 94-2. The measure will proceed to the White House for approval after being considered in a House-Senate conference.

Gonzo Meter from SLATE

Slate has a Gonzo Meter, the DeathWatch. The hot seat gets hotter! Today's Chance of a Gonzales Departure: 75 percent.

Check it out!

H/T to Alice on the Sam Seder Show blog.

And for a little fun check out Fiore:

Kyle Sampson's Attorney speaks....

Kyle Sampson's attorney confirms he will testify on Thursday. This from TPM Muckraker:

Sampson: Nothing Can Stop Me Now
By Paul Kiel - March 26, 2007, 6:29 PM
Don't worry, Senate Judiciary Committee. Monica Goodling's choice to take the Fifth notwithstanding, Kyle Sampson will keep that date on Thursday. Just out from his lawyer, Bradford Berenson:

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

Kyle Sampson not pleading the Fifth - So Far

From Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo:

Breaking off the AP wire: DoJ official Monica Goodling to take the 5th at upcoming congressional hearing.

(ed.note: The original version of this post, which ran for just under ten minutes, incorrectly listed Kyle Sampson rather than Monica Goodling, as the the DOJ aide who plans to take the 5th at the senate hearing. We regret the error.)

Breaking: Gonzales aide to plead the Fifth

Just announced on TV from CNN and here's the article from the AP:

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
30 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Monica Goodling, a Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.

"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said the lawyer, John Dowd.

He said that members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees seem already to have made up their minds that wrongdoing has occurred in the firings.

I heard but cannot confirm yet that Kyle Sampson will also invoke the fifth amendment. I will post when this is confirmed. He's to testify on Thursday.

You know this is coming from the White House. The problem these people do not understand is that once they invoke the fifth, it doesn't matter wether they are guilty or not, people will take it as being guilty. This is definately heating up and may be the incident that causes more impeachment talk and a pressure from the people to impeach.

Looks like only a few are in Favor of Gonzales staying

Since the last document dump showed that Gonzales was involved with the firings of the US Attorneys there seems to be more Republicans want ing to see him go. Even the right wing blogs are posting their displeasure with Gonzales. Carpetbagger Report has some examples. Here's just one:

Right Wing Nut House:

I will brook no excuses by commenters that Gonzalez “misspoke,” or “forgot,” or “got a note from his mother” that gave him permission to lie, or other excuses from the ever dwindling number of Bush diehards who visit this site . He is the frickin’ Attorney General of the United States fer crissakes! If there is anybody in government who needs to tell the truth, it is the guy responsible for enforcing the laws of land.

And from Roll Call:

* A Republican leadership staffer told Roll Call this week, “We are not throwing ourselves on the grenade for them anymore. There’s now an attitude of ‘you created this mess, you’ve got to get yourself out of it.’”

The Boston Globe has an Op Ed by Robert Kuttner that asks why not impeach Gonzales. Here are some excerpts:

THE HOUSE of Representatives should begin impeachment proceedings against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Gonzales, the nation's highest legal officer, has been point man for serial assaults against the rule of law, most recently in the crude attempt to politicize criminal prosecutions. Obstruction of a prosecution is a felony, even when committed by the attorney general.

The firings of US attorneys had multiple political motives, all contrary to longstanding practice. In some cases, Republican politicians and the White House were angry that prosecutors were not going after Democrats with sufficient zeal. In other cases, they wanted the prosecutors to lighten up on Republicans. In still others, exemplary prosecutors were shoved aside to make room for rising Republican politicians being groomed for higher office.

It's hard to imagine a more direct assault on the impartiality of the law or the professionalism of the criminal justice system. There are several other reasons to remove Gonzales, all involving his cavalier contempt for courts and liberties of citizens, most recently in the FBI's more than 3,000 cases of illegal snooping on Americans.

Why impeachment? In our system of checks and balances, the Senate confirms members of the Cabinet, but impeachment for cause is the only way to remove them. The White House, by refusing to cooperate, has now left Congress no other recourse.

Instead of responding to lawful subpoenas, President Bush has invited congressional leaders to meet informally with Karl Rove and other officials involved in the prosecutor firings, with no sworn testimony and no transcript. Rove narrowly escaped a perjury indictment in the Cheney/Libby/Wilson affair. You might think these people had something to hide.

After the administration refused to cooperate, Republican Senator Arlen Specter inadvertently gave the best rationale for impeachment. Referring to the White House invocation of executive privilege, Specter warned, "If there is to be a confrontation, it's going to take two years or more to get it resolved in court."

Exactly so. By contrast, an impeachment inquiry could be completed in a matter of months. The White House, knowing the stakes, would find it much harder to stonewall. And Gonzales might well be asked to resign rather than exposing the administration to more possible evidence of illegality.

And today, on Meet the Press, two of the fired US Attorneys, John McKay and David Iglasius had something to say about all this also. Crooks & Liars has the transcript and a video. Here's and excerpt of the transcripts:

MR. RUSSERT: When you look at these cases, the situation you’re talking about where there was a close governor’s race in state of Washington, a Democrat won, you looked at it, did not find anything untoward. Mr. Iglesias investigating the activities of Democrats did not act as quickly, perhaps, as some Republican office holders wanted him to. In California, a Republican congressman indicted and convicted, another was under investigation. In each of these districts, a highly controversial, perhaps even explosive political investigation going on. Mr. McKay, what does that tell you in your mind as to why U.S. attorneys were let go?

MR. McKAY: Well, we really don’t—it tells me that, that the Justice Department and, and the administration and the president have a responsibility now to deal with the black cloud that’s hanging over the Department of Justice. The—our former colleagues who were United States attorneys and the career men and women who do the work of the Department of Justice are, are people of great integrity. The last thing they need to deal with is an implication that politics are allowed into the grand jury. You know, when you’re looking at, at the business end of a federal grand jury, chances are someone is going to federal prison. And it’s critical, it’s absolutely critical that no one think that politics enter into that kind of a decision in an—in an individual case. And we work hard as federal prosecutors, and I’m, I’m proud to have served in this position and to know that my colleagues will continue to work very, very hard to make sure politics don’t make the difference, but only evidence does.

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Iglesias, when you hear Mr. McKay talk about the questions he was asked about the governor’s race in the state of Washington, your own situation, a senator, a congressman calling you, California, the removal of a U.S. attorney there when an investigation began about a Republican congressman, do you connect those dots and say, “My God, we, we were removed for political reasons”?

MR. IGLESIAS: It’s extremely troubling. The United States attorneys have a history, under various administrations, of being independent. We look at the facts, we apply the law. If we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, we go forward. Politics have historically not played a part. I recall John Ashcroft sitting me in, in his office and saying, “Politics have no part of your job as a U.S. attorney.” So it is troubling connecting those political dots. And I hope when this scandal is over, the tradition is returned to that as United States attorneys keep politics out and just focus on what the evidence is.

I don't think it will be long, now, before Gonzales is asked to resign. The question is, who will take his place?