House approves Comey Subpoena

From TPM Muckraker:

By Will Thomas - May 1, 2007, 4:01 PM
The House Judiciary Committee has approved a subpoena for former Deputy Attorney General James Comey. Comey was the number two figure at the Justice Department during the decision-making "process" regarding the firings; his list ranking then-US Attorneys stands in sharp contrast to the one prepared by Kyle Sampson.

Comey is set to testify in an open hearing this Thursday at 9:30 AM.

Thursday, hopefully, we will find out more on this.

Will Monica Goodling testify with her immunity, or will she stand in contempt of Congress.

Gonzales is slated to return, also, to fill in the gaps. His homework from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

GOP is in a bad spot

And who better to determine this? William F. Buckley. He writes in the National Review "The Waning of the GOP".

The political problem of the Bush administration is grave, possibly beyond the point of rescue. The opinion polls are savagely decisive on the Iraq question. About 60 percent of Americans wish the war ended — wish at least a timetable for orderly withdrawal. What is going on in Congress is in the nature of accompaniment. The vote in Congress is simply another salient in the war against war in Iraq. Republican forces, with a couple of exceptions, held fast against the Democrats’ attempt to force Bush out of Iraq even if it required fiddling with the Constitution. President Bush will of course veto the bill, but its impact is critically important in the consolidation of public opinion. It can now accurately be said that the legislature, which writes the people’s laws, opposes the war.

snip

But beyond affirming executive supremacy in matters of war, what is George Bush going to do? It is simply untrue that we are making decisive progress in Iraq. The indicators rise and fall from day to day, week to week, month to month. In South Vietnam there was an organized enemy. There is clearly organization in the strikes by the terrorists against our forces and against the civil government in Iraq, but whereas in Vietnam we had Hanoi as the operative headquarters of the enemy, we have no equivalent of that in Iraq, and that is a matter of paralyzing importance. All those bombings, explosions, assassinations: we are driven to believe that they are, so to speak, spontaneous.

So Buckley sees that the Iraq war is not going well. Mr. Buckley, please talk to the president!

Gonzales gives Extrodinary Powers to Aides

So here is where the political reasons come into play for the firings of the US Attorneys. He gave powers to Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling. No wonder Monica took the 5th, and no wonderSampson resigned. Sampson never made mention of this at the Senate Judicial Committee hearing.

Murray Waas at the National Journal has the story:

Secret Order By Gonzales Delegated Extraordinary Powers To Aides

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales signed a highly confidential order in March 2006 delegating to two of his top aides -- who have since resigned because of their central roles in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys -- extraordinary authority over the hiring and firing of most non-civil-service employees of the Justice Department. A copy of the order and other Justice Department records related to the conception and implementation of the order were provided to National Journal.

In the order, Gonzales delegated to his then-chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, and his White House liaison "the authority, with the approval of the Attorney General, to take final action in matters pertaining to the appointment, employment, pay, separation, and general administration" of virtually all non-civil-service employees of the Justice Department, including all of the department's political appointees who do not require Senate confirmation. Monica Goodling became White House liaison in April 2006, the month after Gonzales signed the order.

The existence of the order suggests that a broad effort was under way by the White House to place politically and ideologically loyal appointees throughout the Justice Department, not just at the U.S.-attorney level. Department records show that the personnel authority was delegated to the two aides at about the same time they were working with the White House in planning the firings of a dozen U.S. attorneys, eight of whom were, in fact, later dismissed.

A senior executive branch official familiar with the delegation of authority said in an interview that -- as was the case with the firings of the U.S. attorneys and the selection of their replacements -- the two aides intended to work closely with White House political aides and the White House counsel's office in deciding which senior Justice Department officials to dismiss and whom to appoint to their posts. "It was an attempt to make the department more responsive to the political side of the White House and to do it in such a way that people would not know it was going on," the official said.

You have to read this whole article. Just a bit more...

Robert Litt, who served as a deputy assistant attorney general under former President Bill Clinton, said in an interview that during the Clinton presidency "it was routine that senior appointments in the department would be vetted by the White House. Appointees were often placed by the White House." Such a process is typical under most presidents, Litt said, because they "want to ensure that their administration's policies and priorities are carried out."

But Litt also called Gonzales's secret delegation of authority to Sampson and Goodling unprecedented. It was distressing, he said, that many of the most sensitive appointments at the highest levels of the Justice Department were to "be made by these two people with no law enforcement experience... that this extraordinary authority was being delegated to these two young puppies," and apparently without much input by more-experienced and less-partisan officials.

And a bit more....

Based on a review of the delegation order, the official said, the Criminal Division chief's principal deputy, his counselor, any of his special assistants, and a score of other aides were also among those who could be fired and replaced by Sampson and Goodling, and then subject to final approval by Gonzales.

"It would be an act of insanity and, frankly, implausible that the attorney general would grant authority to Kyle [Sampson] and Monica Goodling to make these decisions," the official said, "But it would be frightening if they were serving as proxies for the White House. You do not want to allow for the possible politicization of your Criminal Division like that."

Stay tuned for the continuing saga of the ousted US Attorneys!!!

UPDATE: From Think Progress...

In a new statement, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said the secret order “would seem to be evidence of an effort to hardwire control over law enforcement by White House political operatives,” and demanded that it be turned over to congressional investigators immediately:

This memorandum should have been turned over to Senate and House committees as part of requests made in ongoing investigations. I expect the Department of Justice to immediately provide Congress with full information about this troubling decision as well as any other related documents they have failed to turn over to date.

Read what Leahy said here.

McClatchy: Administration considered firing at least a dozen U.S. attorneys last year before paring its list to eight

More would have been fired, two left of their own accord.

From McClatchy News:

Congressional sources who have seen unedited internal documents say the Bush administration considered firing at least a dozen U.S. attorneys before paring down its list to eight late last year. The four who escaped dismissal came from states considered political battlegrounds in the last presidential election: Missouri, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Two of the four said they resigned voluntarily before the mass firings of U.S. attorneys on Dec. 7. Two continue to serve as federal prosecutors.

The latest revelation could provide new evidence to critics who contend that politics, not performance, played the determining role in the firings. The White House and the Justice Department have repeatedly denied that politics played any role.

Congressional sources, who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to discuss the information publicly, Friday confirmed two additional names to McClatchy Newspapers: U.S. Attorney Todd Graves of Kansas City, Mo., and U.S. Attorney Thomas Marino of Scranton, Pa.

Graves resigned in March to return to private legal practice. Marino kept his job as the chief federal prosecutor in central and eastern Pennsylvania.

McClatchy had previously identified two other prosecutors who dropped off the final "hit" list - former U.S. Attorney Thomas Heffelfinger of Minneapolis and U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic of Milwaukee.

Heffelfinger resigned in February to go into private legal practice. Biskupic remains at his federal post in Wisconsin.

You remember Biskupic:

Before the 2004 election, he went after state employee Georgia Thompson for awarding a contract to a contributor to the campaign of her boss, Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle. Thompson was sent to jail. Republicans cried corruption and made great hay with the Thompson charges in campaign advertising. Doyle won anyway. When Thompson appealed her conviction, judges on the Seventh Circuit last week sprung her from prison, immediately after oral argument and even before issuing a ruling.

Abramoff Investigations Continue

Looks like the Abramoff investigation has fired up again. Let's see who is being investigated or re-investigated recently or indicted:

We know about Bob Ney

In February, 2007, it was Will Heaton, ex Chief of Staff to Bob Ney

March, 2007:

Former Deputy Interior Secretary Steven Griles will plead guilty to one count of obstruction of justice in the Jack Abramoff corruption investigation.

Jack Abramoff's former personal assistant, Ralston became Karl Rove's assistant in 2001, where she was his "implant" at the White House.

But after a report last October by Waxman's committee (then chaired by Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA)) showed that Ralston had accepted thousands of dollars in gifts from Abramoff without compensating him, she abruptly resigned.

Italia Federici, the founder of a conservative environmental group that served as Jack Abramoff's gateway to the Interior. She was also romantically involved with Steven Griles.

April, 2007:

Conrad Burns, the senator from Montana who narrowly lost re-election last November due in large part to his association with Abramoff, continues to spend big money on his lawyer.

Yet another shoe drops in the Jack Abramoff investigation. A former aide to Rep. Don Young (R-AK), Mark Zachares, looks set to plead guilty to corruption charges.

Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) says he is not worried that the Justice Department is looking into his ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and is voluntarily cooperating with the investigation....
...Feeney denied having any kind of relationship with Abramoff.

Next on the list, apparently, is Tom DeLay's former right-hand man Ed Buckham.

The Jack Abramoff investigation continues to burst with renewed vigor. Now, it's ex-Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) -- who was defeated back in November due in large part to his ties to Abramoff -- who might be in trouble.

And the newest from Think Progress:

“A senior Justice Department official has resigned after coming under scrutiny in the Department’s expanding investigation of convicted super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff,” McClatchy reports.
Making the situation more awkward for the embattled Department, the official, Robert E. Coughlin II, was deputy chief of staff for the criminal division, which is overseeing the Department’s probe of Abramoff.
He stepped down effective April 6 as investigators in Coughlin’s own division ratcheted up their investigation of lobbyist Kevin Ring, Coughlin’s long-time friend and a key associate of Abramoff.

Looks like I will have to update this list in the future. How many more were in the Abramoff web?

Meeting in Seattle for fired US Attorneys

Well three of them anyway. John McKay, the fired US attorney from the State of Washington, is now a visiting professor at the Seattle University School of Law. He is hosting David C. Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney for New Mexico, and Paul K. Charlton, the former prosecutor for Arizona. This meeting will take place in Seattle and is a forum on the mass firings last year.

From the Washington Post:

McKay, Iglesias and Charlton are three of the most controversial firings of the eight ousted prosecutors, because they were either conducting sensitive investigations of Republicans or under fire for not prosecuting Democrats around the time of their dismissals on Dec. 7. All three were also contacted by members of Congress or their staff at a sensitive time regarding ongoing criminal corruption investigations.

The four-hour symposium could spark sharp criticism of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the White House for alleged politicization of the Justice Department. One session is titled: "The 2007 Experience -- Myths and Realities: explanation of the current incidents, with comparison of historical similarities and differences."

McKay told the Senate and House Judiciary committees in early March that the chief of staff to Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) contacted him in early 2005 to inquire about alleged Democratic voter fraud in the 2004 gubernatorial election. McKay said he cut off the staffer -- Ed Cassidy, who now works for Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) -- before Cassidy ventured into inappropriate talks about an ongoing case.

Iglesias testified that Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) called him in the weeks before Wilson's razor-thin reelection last November. Iglesias said he felt pressured him to bring indictments against Albuquerque Democrats.
And Charlton has been in the news this week because of reports that his office was also contacted by a staffer about a probe, this one an ongoing corruption investigation of the aide's boss, Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.).

snip

McKay's legal eagle panel also includes two law professors who've been highly critical of the political nature of the Justice Department under President Bush.

James Eisenstein, a law professor at Penn State and author of a book on U.S. attorneys, told The Washington Post's Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein that it was "very unusual" for Gonzales to appoint so many of his own top aides to the federal prosecutor outposts around the country.
And Laurie L. Levenson, professor at Loyola Law School, testified before Senate Judiciary Feb. 6 that "the increasing politicization of federal law enforcement" was having a "devastating impact on the morale" in U.S. attorney's offices around the nation.

Incidentally, former Rep. Rick White (R-Wash.), one of three finalists to replace McKay, may want to attend the legal forum -- and not just to learn of the travails of being a federal prosecutor. White isn't allowed to practice law in Washington because he still needs 20 to 30 "continuing law education" credits. While White can't practice law, he has run a TechNet, a large high-tech lobbying association in Washington. And he's been a GOP donor, including $1,000 checks the past two election cycles to Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.), the lawmaker who forwarded White's name to the White House for consideration.

It will be interesting to see what this meeting brings about. There is still a legal issue of the contact between congressmen and these ousted US attorneys.

Breaking: Monica Goodling given immubity

From Think Progress:

The House Judiciary Committee voted moments ago to grant immunity to Monica Goodling — former counsel to Alberto Gonzales and the Justice Department’s liaison to the White House — and issue a subpoena compelling her to testify.

Maybe we'll get some truth now. Maybe!

Sen. Feinstein investigating another US Attorney whose name was brought up to be fired.

Senator Feinstein has been questioning, through interviews, that Harriet Miers had considered ousting US Attorney Debra Yang. Yang left her government post, voluntarily, last fall. But why did Miers want her out? One reason is Rep. Jerry Lewis.

Here's the story from the Hill:

Miers weighed Yang’s firing according to Sen. Feinstein
By Susan Crabtree
April 24, 2007

Former White House Counsel Harriet Miers discussed firing ex-U.S. Attorney Debra Yang, who was leading an investigation into lucrative ties between Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) and a lobbying firm before she left her government post voluntarily last fall, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) charged in a hearing last week.

Feinstein has repeatedly questioned the circumstances surrounding Yang’s departure, but until last week she provided no reasons for her suspicions. Last Thursday, however, during the questioning of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales late in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Feinstein flatly stated that Miers had discussed “whether to remove Debra Yang from Los Angeles.”

A Feinstein spokesman indicated only that the senator had learned that Miers had considered ousting Yang “through interviews” and did not respond to repeated questions to elaborate. Andrew Koneschusky, a spokesman to Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who is leading the probe, also did not respond to questions about whether Miers had targeted Yang and any evidence Feinstein may have about it.

Yang resigned last October, months before Democrats began reviewing the Justice Department’s decision to fire eight other federal prosecutors. According to a report in the American Lawyer, she was lured away by a $1.5 million-plus offer to become a partner at Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, which is defending Lewis in the probe.

Yang will co-chair the firm’s crisis-management practice group, along with Theodore B. Olson, the former solicitor general of the Bush administration who is now at the firm’s D.C. office. Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas Fuchs, Yang’s colleague at the Los Angeles U.S. attorney’s office, also has joined her at Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher. Yang and Fuchs have recused themselves from working on Lewis’s defense.

Fuchs did not respond to The Hill’s queries. Yang responded by e-mail yesterday but gave no details, saying only she had been busy with work and had not followed Feinstein’s comments about Miers.

In an interview with The Hill last month, Yang dismissed questions about the timing of her departure, which occurred about a month before seven other U.S. attorneys were fired late last year. She argued that she left for personal reasons based on financial concerns and the fact that she is a single mother.

She said it had nothing to do with the firings of other U.S. federal
prosecutors. More here.

Another rock turned over and what will we find? Yang left for personal reasons, she said. But why did Miers have her on the firing list?

No Confidence Vote say the Senate Dems

Gonzales says he won't resign. Bush thinks Gonzales did a great job and stands by him. So what's left to do? The Senate Democrats are considering bringing to the floor a No Confidence Vote against Gonzales and will discuss this during the Senate Democratic Lunceon today.

More at Roll Call:

The vote would be nonbinding and have no substantive impact, but it would force all Republican Senators into the politically uncomfortable position of saying publicly whether they continue to support Gonzales in the wake of the scandal surrounding the firings of eight U.S. attorneys. Democratic leaders have not yet set an exact time frame for when they would bring such a resolution to the floor.

The continuing saga.....contiues!

Gonzales testimony of "I don't recall" leaves questions unanswered.

Hours and hours of testimony from Gonzales and other DOJ officials and the main question has yet to be answered. The question? Who in the Bush White House conceived the plan to fire these attorneys? Gonzales seems to know little of what is happening in his department, so the Senators say all signs seem to point to someone in the WH.

David Iglesias puts forth his advice to congress, from McClatchey Newspapers:

David Iglesias, the former New Mexico U.S. attorney and one of the eight fired last year, said investigating the White House's role is the logical next step - one that would follow existing clues about Rove's involvement.

"If I were Congress, I would say, `If the attorney general doesn't have answers, then who would?' There's enough evidence to indicate that Karl Rove was involved up to his eyeballs."

Iglesias said another clue that the White House may have been the driving force is the relative lack of Justice Department documentation for the firings in the 6,000 pages of documents turned over to Congress.

"If you want to justify getting rid of someone, you should have at least some paper trail," Iglesias said. "There's been a remarkable absence of that. I'm wondering if the paper trail is at the White House."

Even if Gonzales decides to step down - he says he won't despite widespread Republican disappointment with his performance - Democrats say they'll continue their probe into whether politics inappropriately influenced the firings.

"The arrow points more and more to the White House," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "The one thing I can assure you of: This is not over, far from it."

That's why some Republicans think Gonzales should stay on the job.

snip

Rove has acknowledged passing along complaints to the Justice Department, and a former Rove aide was chosen to replace one of the fired U.S. attorneys. E-mail traffic between Gonzales' chief of staff, who's since resigned, and a Rove deputy, reveals another connection.

Another e-mail released as part of the investigation shows a Rove deputy kept Rove abreast of turns in the controversy via Rove's Republican Party e-mail account rather than Rove's White House e-mail address.

The White House isn't authorizing Rove to testify publicly or to testify privately but with a transcript.

And when Congress told the Republican National Committee to turn over all pertinent e-mails, the administration instructed the RNC to give the e-mails to the White House, not to Congress. That standoff appears headed to court.

It always seems to come back to Rove!

Waxman Considering Four Subpoenas

From the Committee for Oversight and Government Reform's web sight.....


Friday, April 20, 2007Administration Oversight
Committee to Consider Four Subpoenas to Further Investigations
The Oversight Committee will hold a business meeting on Wednesday, April 25, at which four subpoenas for testimony and documents will be considered. The subpoenas under consideration are for:

The testimony of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice regarding the fabricated claim that Iraq sought uranium from Niger and other issues;

The testimony of former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card regarding the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson’s covert identity and White House security procedures;

RNC documents related to possible violations of the Presidential Records Act and the Hatch Act by White House officials;


Contacts between the White House and MZM, a federal contractor implicated in bribery charges.

Gonzales: I can't recall, I dont remember!

I like best what Jon Stewart of the Daily Show said:

"After weeks of mock testimony, there you have it. Alberto Gonzales doesn't know what happened but he assures you, what he doesn't remember was handeled
properly."

"Alberto Gonzales used the phrase "I don't recall" 45 times before lunch". "I should point out, at this time, that's alot".

Here's the video, you have to listen to a comercial first.

President Bush said he was please with Gonzales testimony. Did he listen? Really listen?

The White House insiders weren't too happy with Gonzales testimony. Here's what CNN reported from a Think Progress link:

CNN’s Dana Bash:

Loyal Republican after loyal Republican in this hearing room, and more specifically, in private to CNN today have made it clear that they are frankly flabbergasted by how poorly they think the attorney general has done in this hearing. … During the lunch break, in private, several very loyal Republicans made it clear to CNN that they were really dripping with disappointment.

CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux:

[White House officials] believe Gonzales is in trouble. … Two senior White House aides here describing the situation, Gonzales’ testimony, as “going down in flames.” That he was “not doing himself any favors.” One prominent Republican describing watching his testimony as “clubbing a baby seal.”

Since yesterday, many have come out asking Gonzales to resign. Republicans and Democrats both!. But will Gonzales resign, it's a good bet that Bush will not ask for the resignation.

Gonzales appearing before the Seante Judiciary Committee today

The committee meeting has just started on C-SPAN. The opening statements by the Senate committee members. And the Gonzales.

He's been practicing for this meeting for quite awhile. Will he evade? Will he tell the truth?

From the NY Times:

Investigators have already determined that Mr. Gonzales spoke directly three times with Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, about his complaints regarding David C. Iglesias, the states former top federal prosecutor.

Administration officials have confirmed that Mr. Gonzales also spoke with President Bush and Karl Rove, the presidents chief political adviser, about the perceived lack of enthusiasm in Mr. Iglesiass office, among others, for prosecuting voting fraud cases, a top Republican Party priority. And investigators know that Mr. Iglesiass name was among the last to be added to the ouster list.

Lets see what shakes out of this committee meeting.

Virginia Tech and Iraq

The carnage at V-Tech is horrible! The idea that one deranged person was able to buy two guns and all that ammunition means we do need to look at our gun control in this nation. We are all grieving for the lost lives and trying to deal with it. Our news media is filled with coverage of this massacre. Listening to all these young people talk about what has happened and speak of their friends that were injured and were killed just makes you sick. The whole nation is grieving.

Now to Iraq. This just in from AP:

4 bombs kill 127 people in Baghdad
By SINAN SALAHEDDIN, Associated
Press Writer 4 minutes ago

Four large bombs exploded across Baghdad on Wednesday, killing at least 127 people and wounding scores as violence climbed toward levels seen before the U.S.-Iraqi campaign to pacify the capital began two months ago.

In the deadliest of the attacks, a parked car bomb detonated in a crowd of workers at the Sadriyah market in a mostly Shiite area of central Baghdad, killing at least 82 people and wounding 94, said Raad Muhsin, an official at Al-Kindi Hospital where the victims were taken.

A police official confirmed the toll, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.

Several cars were set afire at the market, where a car bombing in February killed 137 people. About an hour earlier, a suicide car bomber crashed into an Iraqi police checkpoint at an entrance to Sadr City, the capital's biggest Shiite Muslim neighborhood and a stronghold for the militia led by radical anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

The explosion killed at least 30 people, including five Iraqi security officers, and wounded 45, police said.

Black smoke billowed from a jumble of at least eight incinerated vehicles that were in a jam of cars stopped at the checkpoint. Bystanders scrambled over twisted metal to drag victims from the smoldering wreckage as Iraqi guards staggered around stunned.

Earlier, a parked car exploded near a private hospital in the central neighborhood of Karradah, killing 11 people and wounding 13, police said. The blast damaged the Abdul-Majid hospital and other nearby buildings.

The fourth explosion was from a bomb left on a minibus in the northwestern Risafi area, killing four people and wounding six others, police said.

Also in Baghdad, four policemen were killed Wednesday afternoon when gunmen ambushed their patrol south of the city center, police said. Six pedestrians were wounded in the gunfire.

U.S. officials had cited a slight decrease in sectarian killings in Baghdad since the U.S.-Iraqi crackdown was launched Feb. 14. But the past week has seen several spectacular attacks on the capital, including a suicide bombing inside parliament and a powerful blast that collapsed a landmark bridge across the Tigris River.

"We've seen both inspiring progress and too much evidence that we still face many grave challenges," Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman, told reporters Wednesday. "We've always said securing Baghdad would not be easy."

What some people don't understand, the people that started this war in Iraq and the people that want to continue this war in Iraq, is that the Iraqis live with the carnage we saw at V-Tech every day. As hard as it is for us to accept the deaths of these young people at V-Tech, the Iraqis are having to deal with it and have dealt with it for over four years. There seems to be a hypocracy, here, in the thinking and actions of these people, these chickenhawks, these war mongerers that want this Iraq war to continue.

We have a chance to change this for this war in Iraq, this occupation, must be changed. WE cannot continue in the same direction the Bush admin insists we continue to stay the course. The surge is not working! The surge will not work!

There needs to be unilateral talks with the Arab States, the UN, and everone that is and could be effected by this unrest the Bush admin has created in that area so we can control the carnage that is Iraq today. If that means talking to Iran and Syria, so be it. But not to talk will only exacerbate the problems in the middle east. I've had more than enough of this admin. Have you?

UPDATE: From the Independent, UK:

Virginia Tech, of course, is the worst incident of its kind in US history - and at one level, you would gain the impression from American television that Cho Seung-Hui has literally stopped the world.

He hasn't of course. On Tuesday, in what passes for a relatively quiet news day in Iraq, wire services reported the deaths of 56 people in violence across the country: some of them gunned down, some killed by a suicide bomber, some discovered as decomposed or decapitated corpses. But we heard not a word of that, nor of the trial in absentia in Italy of a US soldier accused of shooting dead an Italian intelligence agent, nor of the report that North Korea may be about to shut down a key nuclear reactor (which would be very big news indeed if true.) And somebody shot dead the Mayor of Nagasaki. But who cares? Instead, nothing but Virginia Tech.

Yet, however exceptional the event, there is something formulaic, even routine, about the coverage. There is no soul searching, no wondering what might be wrong with a society where such things happen so frequently. You hear no new arguments, for deep down there is nothing new to be said.

No detail of the tragedy is too tiny to recount; from where Cho went to high school to the thoughts of the postman who delivered mail, to where the family lived in the Virginia suburb of Centreville (and never met him). Yet America is showing scant sign of addressing the far bigger issue - of whether it is finally time to get serious about gun control.

Pew Research: What Americans Know - Still not much

There is 24/7 Cable News, and the Internet to search for information and yet people people haven't changed much as far as knowledge of National and International affairs. Pew Research did a survey which shows that people, today, know as much as they did in the 80's.

From the Pew Research web site:

On average, today's citizens are about as able to name their leaders, and are about as aware of major news events, as was the public nearly 20 years ago. The new survey includes nine questions that are either identical or roughly comparable to questions asked in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In 2007, somewhat fewer were able to name their governor, the vice president, and the president of Russia, but more respondents than in the earlier era gave correct answers to questions pertaining to national politics.

In 1989, for example, 74% could come up with Dan Quayle's name when asked who the vice president is. Today, somewhat fewer (69%) are able to recall Dick Cheney. However, more Americans now know that the chief justice of the Supreme Court is generally considered a conservative and that Democrats control Congress than knew these things in 1989. Some of the largest knowledge differences between the two time periods may reflect differences in the amount of press coverage of a particular issue or public figure at the time the surveys were taken. But taken as a whole the findings suggest little change in overall levels of public knowledge.

The survey provides further evidence that changing news formats are not having a great deal of impact on how much the public knows about national and international affairs. The polling does find the expected correlation between how much citizens know and how avidly they watch, read, or listen to news reports. The most knowledgeable third of the public is four times more likely than the least knowledgeable third to say they enjoy keeping up with the news "a lot."

Here is the surprising part of the research. Pew breaks down the knowledge by the different news outlets:

There are substantial differences in the knowledge levels of the audiences for different news outlets. However, there is no clear connection between news formats and what audiences know. Well-informed audiences come from cable (Daily Show/Colbert Report, O'Reilly Factor), the internet (especially major newspaper websites), broadcast TV (NewsHour with Jim Lehrer) and radio (NPR, Rush Limbaugh's program). The less informed audiences also frequent a mix of formats: broadcast television (network morning news shows, local news), cable (Fox News Channel), and the internet (online blogs where people discuss news events).

Interesting that the Daily Show and Colbert Report have the most well-informed audience and Fox News Channel have the less informed audience.

Domenici to Bush: "I want Iglesias gone!"

There's a great article in the Albequerque Journal about Sen. Pete Domenici and his role in the firing of David Iglesias. Seems he did more than just call Iglesias. He called Gonzales and he called Rove and finally he spoke to Bush complaining that Iglesias has to go.

So here is what happened according to the Albequerque Journal:

Domenici Sought Iglesias Ouster
Albuquerque Journal-->By Mike Gallagher

Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was fired after Sen. Pete Domenici, who had been unhappy with Iglesias for some time, made a personal appeal to the White House, the Journal has learned.

Domenici had complained about Iglesias before, at one point going to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before taking his request to the president as a last resort.

The senior senator from New Mexico had listened to criticism of Iglesias going back to 2003 from sources ranging from law enforcement officials to Republican Party activists.

Domenici, who submitted Iglesias' name for the job and guided him through the confirmation process in 2001, had tried at various times to get more white-collar crime help for the U.S. Attorney's Office— even if Iglesias didn't want it.

At one point, the six-term Republican senator tried to get Iglesias moved to a Justice Department post in Washington, D.C., but Iglesias told Justice officials he wasn't interested.

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 theissue. 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.

There's much more at the link. Domenici said he was getting complaints about Iglesias from "law enforcement officials to Republican Party activists". The article explaines some of this:

White-collar

In September 2005, Iglesias announced the arrests of state Treasurer Robert Vigil and his predecessor, Michael Montoya, on extortion charges. Both are Democrats in a state where Democrats control the Legislature and most statewide offices. Republicans who had complained about political corruption in the state for years saw an opportunity to do more than complain. And this was an issue with political traction.

The point man would be Iglesias. During one of his few news conferences while U.S. attorney, Iglesias called political corruption "endemic" in New Mexico. The FBI also put a high priority on public corruption, naming it its top priority behind terrorism.

According to Justice Department memos turned over to congressional investigators, Domenici approached Iglesias in late 2005 and asked if he needed additional prosecutors for corruption cases. Iglesias, according to the memo, told Domenici he didn't need white-collar crime prosecutors. He needed prosecutors for immigration cases. Domenici was disappointed in the response.

After that conversation, Domenici decided he would try to get Iglesias help, whether Iglesias wanted it or not.

In 2006, Domenici asked Gonzales if he could find additional experienced white-collar crime prosecutors to send to New Mexico. Gonzales had a number of prosecutors who were finishing the ENRON prosecutions and were quite experienced at complex white-collar crime cases.

None was sent here.

So Domenici's roll in the Iglesias firing was huge. It does show a
definate partisan slant. It also shows that Gonzales knew more about these
firings then he has admitted. Tuesday's committee meeting with Alberto
testifying will be quite interesting. And where will the Senate go with
Domenici? There's a rumor he might retire after this term.

UPDATE: From McClatchy Newspapers: Gonzales says he has `nothing to hide'

Declaring he has "nothing to hide," embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Sunday said he never sought the resignation of any U.S. attorney to influence a prosecution for political ends, but acknowledged that he and other officials made mistakes in how the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys were handled.

While acknowledging mistakes, particularly in the way the dismissals were carried out, Gonzales argued that they involved no sinister motives and no inappropriate attempt to influence prosecutions.

"I want this committee to be satisfied, to be fully reassured, that nothing improper was done," Gonzales said. "I want the American people to be reassured of the same."

He said he recalled discussions of two possible candidates to become U.S. attorneys, but indicated he could not remember what he said about them. "I do not recall making any decisions" about who should replace any of the fired prosecutors, he said.

Gonzales said he left a review of the attorneys' performance up to deputies, then signed off on their recommendations.

And what of Bush and the White House involvement:

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the president did not tell
Gonzales to fire Iglesias. He also said that Gonzales did not recall discussing
with Domenici whether or not to replace Iglesias.

A White House spokesman, Trey Bohn, pointed to comments made by President Bush and his adviser Dan Bartlett last month when asked about the conversation with Domenici.

Bush said that in speaking to Gonzales about U.S. attorneys, "I never brought up a specific case nor gave him specific instructions." Bartlett said that "there was no directive given, as far as telling him to fire anybody or anything like that."

Domenici spokesman Chris Gallegos said Domenici would have no comment.

CREW asks Fitzgerald to re-open the Plame investigation

Raw Story reports, with the news of the missing emails from the WH, and the admission by the Lawyer of the RNC that there are 4 years of Rove's emails missing from the RNC-issued email accounts, CREW, Citizens for Responsible Ethics, has asked Patrick Fitzgerald to re-open the Plame Investigation into Rove's role in the identity leak. Again, another by-product of the DOJ investigation of the firings of the US Attorneys. Four years of emails missing or deleted by Rove. And not from the WH emails....but from the RNC email account. The web is definately tangled.

Rove's attorney denies that Rove intentionally deleted these emails. And Leahy and his committee are now asking for the emails to be investigated. Leahy said:

"They say they have not been preserved. I don’t believe that!” Leahy shouted from the Senate floor. “You can’t erase e-mails, not today. They’ve gone through too many servers. Those e-mails are there, they just don’t want to produce them. We’ll subpoena them if necessary.”

When the Plame trial against Scooter Libby ended with a conviction, Patrick Fitzgerald was asked if any further investigation was planned, he said "If new information comes to light, of course we'll do that."

So Melanie Sloan of CREW, in light of the missing emails and what they might contain has urged that Fitzgerald "should immediately reopen his investigation into whether Rove took part in the leak as well as whether he obstructed justice in the ensuing leak investigation."

Here is CREW's press release:

Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) asked Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to reopen his investigation of Karl Rove's role in disclosing Valerie Plame Wilson's status as a covert CIA operative in light of recent revelations about missing White House email.

Press reports indicate that Mr. Rove uses a Republican National Committee (RNC) email account for 95% of his communications. In addition, the RNC's counsel has admitted that all of Mr. Rove's emails prior to 2005 have been destroyed. Moreover, the White House has admitted that - as CREW reported yesterday - five million emails are missing from the White House servers. All of this raises serious questions about whether Mr. Rove knowingly destroyed evidence relevant to the Special Counsel's inquiry and whether Mr. Fitzgerald received all relevant documents.

Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director, said today, "It looks like Karl Rove may well have destroyed evidence that implicated him in the White House's orchestrated efforts to leak Valerie Plame Wilson's covert identity to the press in retaliation against her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson." Sloan continued, "Special Counsel Fitzgerald should immediately reopen his investigation into whether Rove took part in the leak as well as whether he obstructed justice in the ensuing leak investigation."

CREW serves as legal counsel to Joe and Valerie Wilson in their civil suit against Karl Rove, Vice President Dick Cheney, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Richard Armitage.

House Judiciary Committee may offer Goodling immunity

Look out Alberto, Goodling may not be a goodling for you!! If she get immunity I am sure her religious upbringing would bind her to telling the truth. Ya think?

From MSNBC's First Read:

From NBC’s Mike ViqueiraThe House Judiciary Committee is "strongly considering" offering former DoJ official Monica Goodling immunity in exchange for her testimony in the U.S. Attorney matter, according to one very solid congressional source.

Goodling had preemptively asserted her Fifth Amendment rights and has declined to be interviewed or to testify before Congress. Last week Goodling's lawyer exchanged sharply worded letters with House Judiciary over her refusal to testify and over whether or not she had rightfully invoked the Fifth.

Per Pete Williams, Goodling's attorney, John Dowd, has no comment on the immunity question.
As a reminder, Goodling has resigned from DoJ.

WH say no Rove , no emails

The White House Counsel Fred Fielding sent a letter to Conyers and Leahy saying they won't budge on their decision to not allow Rove and the other WH aides to testify under oath. He's also trying to head off Conyer's attempt to get the emails about the US attorneys firing from the RNC.

Politico has the story:

White House Counsel Fred Fielding, in a letter today, told Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary committees, that the White House has not budged in its refusal to allow the panels to question several White House aides, including Karl Rove, about what they know regarding the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys, moving the two sides closer to a constitutional battle over the scandal.

Fielding also appears to be trying to head off an attempt by Conyers to obtain e-mails and documents from the Republican National Committee regarding the firings. Roughly 50 White House officials, including 22 curent aides, used e-mail accounts controlled by the RNC to send messages, including some related to the prosecutor firings, and Conyers asked RNC Chairman Mike Duncan to turn over those records today.

Fielding also said that "it was and remains our intention to collect e-mails and documents from those [RNC-controlled] accounts as well as the official White House e-mail and document retention systems" as part of a broader deal with the two committees on staffer testimony.

Fielding has offered to allow Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and other Bush aides to be questioned by committee investigators, but only behind closed doors, and not under oath. Fielding also won't allow any transcript of those interviews to be made. Conyers and Leahy have rejected the offer as woefully inadequate, and while both committees have authorized subpoenas for Rove, Miers and the others, only Conyers has issued up until now and those were for documents only.

Conyers immediately countered Fielding's letter, dismissing it as an attempt by Fielding to extend executive-privilege protection to e-mails sent by White House officials on RNC servers, which Conyers suggested was legally suspect.

The utter arrogance of this administration is unbelievable. It seems we do have an emporer and his Richelieu.

Froomkin - White House emails deleted, illegal?

Dan Froomkin from the Washington Post has a great, informative article about the missing White House emails. Sen Leahy has already said that he thinks the White House is lying about the emails that went missing from the RNC. Here's what he said:

"They say they have not been preserved. I don’t believe that!” Leahy shouted from the Senate floor. “You can’t erase e-mails, not today. They’ve gone through too many servers. Those e-mails are there, they just don’t want to produce them. We’ll subpoena them if necessary.”

“Like the famous 18-minute gap in the Nixon White House tapes, it appears likely that key documentation has been erased or misplaced. This sounds like the Administration’s version of ‘the dog ate my homework.’”

Now to Froomkin's article:

Countless e-mails to and from many key White House staffers have been deleted -- lost to history and placed out of reach of congressional subpoenas -- due to a brazen violation of internal White House policy that was allowed to continue for more than six years, the White House acknowledged yesterday.

The leading culprit appears to be President Bush's enormously influential political adviser Karl Rove, who reportedly used his Republican National Committee-provided Blackberry and e-mail accounts for most of his electronic communication.

Until 2004, all e-mail on RNC accounts was routinely deleted after 30 days. Since 2004, White House staffers using those accounts have been able to save their e-mail indefinitely -- but have also been able to delete whatever they felt like deleting. By comparison, the White House e-mail system preserves absolutely everything forever, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act.

The White House yesterday said it has no idea how many e-mails have been lost.

Why was the business of the White House done over the RNC email system in the first place? Something to hide? Makes you wonder, doesn't it. Let's look at more of the article:

In an afternoon conference call with reporters, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel spread the blame all around. "White House policy did not give clear enough guidance," he said. "The oversight of that wasn't aggressive enough." And individual White House staffers "did not do a good enough job of following existing preservation policy -- or seeking guidance."

Said Stanzel: "I guess the bottom line is that our policy at the White House was not clear enough for employees."

But when I asked Stanzel to read out loud the White House e-mail policy, it seemed clear enough to me: "Federal law requires the preservation of electronic communications sent or received by White House staff," says the handbook that all staffers are given and expected to read and comply with.

"As a result, personnel working on behalf of the EOP [Executive Office of the President] are expected to only use government-provided e-mail services for all official communication."

The handbook further explains: "The official EOP e-mail system is designed to automatically comply with records management requirements."

And if that wasn't clear enough, the handbook notes -- as was the case in the Clinton administration -- that "commercial or free e-mail sites and chat rooms are blocked from the EOP network to help staff members ensure compliance and to prevent the circumvention of the records management requirements."

Stanzel refused to publicly release the relevant portions of the White House staff manual and denied my request to make public the transcript of the call, which lasted more than an hour but which -- due to Stanzel's refusal or inability to provide straight answers on many issues -- raised more questions than it answered.

Stanzel said that "some people" may have used their non-government accounts for official business due to "an abundance of caution" in order to violating the Hatch Act, which prohibits the use of government e-mail for overtly political purposes, such as fundraising -- and due to "logistical convenience."

Let's skip down in the article to the point where we find out an unknown lawyer is also on this conference call:

Stanzel was joined in the conference call by a White House lawyer who Stanzel insisted not be referred to by name. What is the penalty for violating internal White House policy, I asked? "I don't believe the staff manual contains penalties for failure to preserve," the lawyer said.

Stanzel, possibly unwittingly, offered one possible explanation for why the rule on preservation was flaunted so widely: Because there was apparently no prospect of personal consequences. "There are no personal violations of the Presidential Records Act, but you can have a personal violation of the Hatch Act," he said.

The lawyer criticized the crystal-clear (to me) ban on using non-White House e-mail for official purposes as being "too concise" and described a new, more extensive White House policy that has now been issued that further clarifies the obligations of those staffers who have RNC accounts. Stanzel also described another recent change; White House staffers no longer have the ability to delete their RNC e-mail under any circumstances.

Among the many questions Stanzel ducked was this one from me: Had this never come up as an issue in the previous six years? Had no one ever raised a concern about such an obvious evasion of the most basic White House document-preservation rules? Stanzel wouldn't say.

So an unknown lawyer was there to make sure Stanzel didn't inadvertantly say something. And now that they have been discovered using the RNC email account, the rules have changed. And in the meantime, where are the missing emails and what do they say?

UPDATE: From CREW:

BREAKING: White House lost Over FIVE MILLION e-mails in two year period

Today, CREW issued a new report, WITHOUT A TRACE: The Missing White House Emails and Violations of the PRA, and made the shocking new disclosure that the Bush White House has lost over FIVE MILLION e-mails in a two year period. The report also details the legal issues behind the growing controversy over the White
House e-mail scandal.

More at the CREW Link.