Rove was Deposed today!

That's right! News we missed because the MSM was busy showing the "Memorial Service" for Michael Jackson, more newsers by Sarah Palin, and the swearing in of Al Franken as the 60th Dem Senator.

Politico reporting today:

Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove was deposed Tuesday by attorneys for the House Judiciary Committee, according to Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the panel’s chairman.

Rove’s deposition began at 10 a.m. and ended around 6:30 p.m, with several breaks, Conyers said.

Conyers would not comment on what Rove told congressional investigators, what the next step in the long-running Judiciary Committee investigation would be or whether Rove would face additional questioning.

“He was deposed today,” Conyers said in an interview. “That’s all I can tell you.”

Remember the firings of the nine US Attorneys? Conyers finally got Rove to tell what he knows. (I cannot recall?)

There's not much more to the story except that Rove was deposed. Meier was deposed in June. Hopefully we'll be hearing something soon.

Some Breaking News - Miers, Bolton Face Contempt Charges

From the Gavel

Judiciary Committee to Consider Contempt Proceedings for Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolton
July 23rd, 2007 by Jesse Lee
From the Judiciary Committee:

House Judiciary Committee to Consider Contempt Proceedings for Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolton

(Washington, DC)- Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) announced that the Committee will meet Wednesday, July 25, at 10:15 am in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building to vote on contempt citations for former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolton, following their refusal to comply with subpoenas issued in the U.S. Attorney investigation.

“This investigation, including the reluctant but necessary decision to move forward with contempt, has been a very deliberative process, taking care at each step to respect the Executive Branch’s legitimate prerogatives,” Conyers said. “I’ve allowed the White House and Ms. Miers every opportunity to cooperate with this investigation, either voluntarily or under subpoena. It is still my hope that they will reconsider this hard-line position, and cooperate with our investigation so that we can get to the bottom of this matter.”

The contempt of Congress citations are being considered in response to Miers and Bolton’s failure to comply with subpoenas issued by the Committee for documents and testimony, including Miers’ refusal to even appear at her scheduled hearing on July 12. White House Counsel Fred Fielding alerted the Committee on June 28 that the White House would not provide the documents as required by the subpoena, asserting the President’s executive privilege.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi signaled her support over the weekend:

Pelosi promises congressional contempt charge for Harriet Miers
Wyatt Buchanan, San Francisco Chronicle - July 22, 2007

Congress this week will take the next step to force the Bush administration to hand over information about the dismissal of U.S. attorneys and the politicization of the Justice Department, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Saturday.

The House Judiciary Committee will bring contempt of Congress charges against the administration this week, said the San Francisco Democrat. She did not specify who the subject of the action would be, but Pelosi spokesman, Brendan Daly, said later it would be former White House counsel Harriet Miers, who defied a House Judiciary Committee subpoena to appear.

“They have disregarded the call of Congress for information about their politicizing the Department of Justice. We can document that. Those are actual facts and we will bring the contempt of Congress forth,” said Pelosi, who spoke with reporters at a San Francisco workshop for people who want to become U.S. citizens.

This is good news and necessary. The idea of executive privilege has been used wrongly in this instance. Pelosi is bending. Let's see if she will take impeachment off the table now. Just keep sending letters and emails and call her office.

Inbetween the Doan hearing info - Breaking News

From Think Progress with updates:

BREAKING: Top White House Officials Subpoenaed Over Attorney Scandal
Former White House counsel Harriet Miers and former top Karl Rove aide Sara Taylor, who served as White House political director before resigning last month, have been issued subpoenas over their connections to the U.S. attorney scandal.


UPDATE: These are the first subpoenas delivered to the White House regarding the attorney firings. The House Judiciary Committee issued the subpoena to Miers, and the Senate Judiciary Committee issued the subpoena to Taylor. Emails showing Taylor and Miers deeply involved in the Justice Department’s response to the scandal were released last night.

UPDATE II: The AP reports, “The Senate Judiciary Committee’s subpoena for Taylor compels her to testify on July 11, while the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena for Miers compels her testimony the next day.”

UPDATE III: CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin reports, “The White House has made clear it will cite executive privilege for conversations that took place within the White House on the U.S. attorney matter, and if the people with those conversations happen to have subsequently left the White House, that doesn’t matter. They’re still going to cite executive privilege, and these people are not going to be allowed to testify anytime soon, it appears, if the White House remains as it has been. … Even if they want to testify.”

UPDATE IV: Statement from House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI):

Let me be clear: this subpoena is not a request, it is a demand on behalf of the American people for the White House to make available the documents and individuals we are requesting to help us answer the questions that remain. The breadcrumbs in this investigation have always led to 1600 Pennsylvania.

Statement from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT):

The White House cannot have it both ways — it cannot stonewall congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents and witnesses, while claiming nothing improper occurred. … Some at the White House may hope to thwart our constitutional oversight efforts by locking the doors and closing the curtains, but we will keep asking until we get to the truth.

UPDATE V: In Leahy’s letter to Fielding today subpoenaing White House documents, he expresses his frustration that the White House continued to offer only “off-the-record interviews” related to the U.S. attorney investigation. ThinkProgress has obtained a copy of White House counsel Fred Fielding’s June 7 letter to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, reiterating the White House’s narrow offer HERE.

UPDATE VI: Subpoena for Harriet Miers is HERE.

Monica Goodling Testifies

C-SPAN is airing it now at C-SPAN 3

C-SPAN 3

UPDATE: Firedoglake is live blogging the testimony here.

And TPM Muckraker is posting video clips and comment on the pertinent testimony here.

Monica is being difficult

The subpoenaed documents the House committee wanted were never received. Seems that Monica is refusing to hand over these documents.

From Raw Story:

Former top Justice Department aide Monica Goodling was chided by the House Judiciary Committee for failing to turn over documents that had been subpoenaed as part of the investigation into the firing of 8 US Attorneys. Goodling is set to testify before the Committee on Wednesday.

"I am concerned, however, about your statement that Ms. Goodling is going to refuse to produce documents in her possession that are responsive to the subpoena," Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the committee's chairman, wrote to Goodling's attorney John Dowd.

In responding to an argument made by Dowd on why Goodling did not need to turn the documents over, he added, "We are aware of no authority that permits internal Department administrative regulation to allow a former employee of the Department of Justice, or any other person, to avoid the subpoena power of the House of Representatives, as that power is central to the House's ability to carry out its Constitutional oversight mandate and certainly trumps internal agency regulations."

At issue were a set of documents that Dowd, an attorney for the Washington, DC law firm Akin, Gump, Straus, Hauer, and Feld, acknowledged his client possessed.

"Ms. Goodling has copies of other electronic documents and emails that would be responsive to the Committee's subpoena but which are copies of official Department of Justice documents, including un-redacted copies of documents produced to date only in redacted form," wrote Dowd with additional counsel.

So it seems, even with immunity, Ms. Goodling doesn't want to or has been threatened not to comply with the subpoena. Lets see what she has to say tomorrow, if she does say anything. I am sure she has been preped by her attorney on how to skirt questions.

From Think Progress

Impeach Gonzales. Robert Greenwald’s Brave New Foundation is airing a new online video that calls for the House Judiciary Committee to begin impeachment proceedings against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. You can sign the petition here. Watch the video:

Interesting Week Ahead

Today the Senate readies a no-confidence vote on Alberto Gonzales which is an extremely rare vote in Congress. There are now at least 6 Republicans that have asked Gonzales to resign according to Arlen Specter and Specter thinks that Gonzales will resign before the vote according to the AP.

Monica Goodling is scheduled to testify for the House Judicial Committe this Wednesday, May 23, at 10:15 AM EDT. Goodling is the DOJ aide that invoked the Fifthe amendment right and was given immunity which compells her to testify. But now she has immunity for self incrimination for this matter. I'm definately going to watch this one.

So this will be a very telling week for Alberto. Can't wait til Wednesday!

More Republicans ask Gonzales to leave

The last time Alberto Gonzales appeared before the Senate Judicial Committee, he was looking and acting smug. I don't think, after the fallout of Comey's testimony, he will act that smug any more.

Senators Shumer (D-NY) and Feinstein (D-CA) called on the Senate to hold a no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. And there have been more from the Republican side of the aisle who have also called for Gonzales' resignation. TPM Muckraker is keeping score of the Senate and House members who are saying (or hinting) that the Attorney General should go.

The two newest are Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, asking for Gonzales to resign and Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri who is asking Bush to consider ejecting Gonzales.

The investigation into the firings of the US attorneys, which is a big story, has led to an even bigger story. And both seem to lead straight to the White House.

These investigations have uncovered not only the Rovian plan to replace the US attorneys with "loyal bushies" in the swing states who would use their office to try to alter the outcomes of the elections, but also uncovered the White House's illegal use of warrantless wiretapping. What was uncovered is what we did not know. That these warantless wiretappings were happening much earlier.

Since this fact was hidden, was it just the supposed terrorist who were wiretapped? Or could this administration have used the wiretaps to gain knowledge of their political opponents as well.

This is just the start and there will be more discoveries of underhandedness within this admin.

Monica Scheduled to testify May 23

Monica Goodling Testimony Scheduled
May 16th, 2007 by Jesse Lee
From the Judiciary Committee:


JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
NOTICE OF HEARING

TIME: 10:15 a.m.
DATE: Wednesday, May 23, 2007
PLACE: 2141 Rayburn House Office Building

Hearing on: The Continuing Investigation into the U.S. Attorneys Controversy and Related Matters.

Witness: Monica Goodling, former Justice Department White House Liaison
By Direction of the Chairman

Monica Goodling....Wildcard?

Gonzales seemed very cocky the last time he appearedin front of the House Judicial Committee. So did the republican members of this committee. Although the Dems were pressing for answers to their questions, several of the Repubs were asking him about completly different matters.

I think they forgot about Monica! And now that she has immunity she is compelled to testify.

From Law.com:

All Eyes on Monica Goodling
With Gonzales testimony complete, Capitol Hill probe to shift gears
Jason McLure
Legal Times
May 14, 2007

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales emerged mostly unscathed from last week's face-off with Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee over his role in the U.S. Attorney firings. And with Republicans on the committee offering Gonzales near-universal support, the tone on Capitol Hill shifted from "Gonzales is going" to "Gonzales is staying."

But there's one big wild card that's yet to be thrown into play, and that's Monica Goodling, Gonzales' former White House liaison. Last week, Chief Judge Thomas Hogan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approved a House request to grant limited immunity to Goodling in exchange for her testimony.

Goodling, who resigned her post April 7, previously told the committee that she would assert her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. She now has the opportunity to shed light on her key role in a firing process that has remained shrouded in mystery, despite the release of thousands of Justice Department e-mails and the testimony of a number of top officials. According to congressional staffers, Democrats hope to have her testify publicly before Memorial Day.

"She's worked very hard," says John Dowd, a lawyer for Goodling at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. "She'll do her level best to be candid and forward in her testimony."

That promise isn't likely to reassure Gonzales or other Bush administration officials involved in the dismissal of at least eight U.S. Attorneys. Democrats contend that the prosecutors were fired to shield Republicans targeted in public corruption probes or to punish those U.S. Attorneys who failed to push voter fraud investigations.

And though there may be a feeling that Gonzales has at last stemmed the tide against him, it looks premature to declare victory before Goodling says what she knows about the attorney general's and the White House's involvement in the firings.

"Before people get too cocky about the attorney general surviving, [they] need to sit back and await that event," says a senior administration official close to the investigation.

Will Monica bring down this White House? Something about that name!!

Federal Judge grants immunity to Monica Goodling

From SF GATE:

A federal judge approved an immunity deal Friday allowing former Justice Department aide Monica Goodling to testify before Congress about the firing of eight federal prosecutors.

Goodling, who served as the department's White House liaison, has refused to discuss the firings without a guarantee that she will not be prosecuted. Congress agreed to the deal, Justice Department investigators reluctantly agreed not to not oppose it and U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan gave it final approval Friday.

"Monica Goodling may not refuse to testify," Hogan began his brief order, which said that Goodling could not be prosecuted for anything other than perjury in connection with her testimony.

Lawmakers want to question Goodling as part of an inquiry into whether the Justice Department played politics with the hiring and firing of department officials. What began as an inquiry into whether U.S. attorneys were fired for political reasons has grown to include the role of the White House in the firings and whether the Justice Department officials misled Congress about them.

Goodling's lawyer has said that, with an immunity deal, she would cooperate and testify honestly.

Justice spokesman Dean Boyd confirmed earlier this month that the department's inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility were investigating Goodling's role in hiring career attorneys — an unusual responsibility for her to have had.

I just hope she WILL testify honestly, as her lawyer has said. This may be the tesitmony that blows the top off this investigation of wrong doing by the DOJ and the White House.

And then there were nine!

Number nine. Todd Graves, US attorney from Kansas City, Mo., was asked to step down from his job by a senior Justice Department official in January 2006, months before eight other federal prosecutors would be fired by the Bush administration.

From the Washington Post:

Graves said he was told simply that he should resign to "give another person a chance." He said he did not oppose the department's request, because he had already been planning to return to private practice. He did appeal to Missouri's senior senator to try to persuade the White House to allow him to remain long enough to prosecute a final, important case -- involving the slaying of a pregnant woman and kidnapping of her 8-month fetus. Justice officials rejected the request.

The former prosecutor's disclosure, in an interview on the eve of a second appearance today by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales before lawmakers investigating the firings, means that the administration began moving to replace U.S. attorneys five months earlier than was previously known. It also means that at least nine prosecutors were asked to resign last year, a deviation from repeated suggestions by Gonzales and other senior Justice officials in congressional testimony and other public statements that the firings did not extend beyond the eight Prosecutors already known to have been forced out.

snip

Graves said he received a telephone call shortly after New Year's Day 2006 from Michael A. Battle, then director of the department's Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. Graves said Battle told him that department officials wanted to change leadership in the Kansas City office, emphasizing "there are no performance issues."

The characterization -- that Graves was being moved out simply to give someone else a turn -- is practically identical to the explanation that Bud Cummins, the former U.S. attorney in Little Rock, has said he was given last June, when he, too, was asked to leave. He was replaced by a former aide to President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove. The seven other U.S. attorneys were dismissed on a single day in December.

Graves said his conversation with Battle "made clear to me the fact I was getting a push." "I felt like I was no longer welcome in the department,"
he said. "It wasn't like I was trying to hang on."

I wonder if there are more out there. More from Graves:

The brother of Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.), Todd Graves is a former state prosecutor and was a GOP candidate for state treasurer. The Bush administration installed him as the chief federal prosecutor for western Missouri in 2001.

The same month he was asked to step down, Graves's name was included in a Jan. 9, 2006, list assembled by Gonzales's then-chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, of seven U.S. attorneys the administration was considering forcing from their jobs. That April, Sampson sent another e-mail noting that two of the prosecutors on that list had already left. Three names, including Graves's, were redacted when Justice officials released the January list.

Graves said yesterday that he never knew he was on the list and was not
given a specific reason he was asked to leave.

During the spring of 2005, an aide to Bond urged the White House to replace Graves, because the prosecutor's wife and brother-in-law recently had been given state patronage contracts to run private offices for driver's licenses and other motor vehicle services. A spokeswoman for Bond confirmed that interaction but said Justice officials later told the senator's staff that the contracts issue was not why the administration wanted him to leave.

Graves acknowledged that he had twice during the past few years clashed with Justice's civil rights division over cases, including a federal lawsuit involving Missouri's voter rolls that Graves said a Washington Justice official signed off on after he refused to do so. That official, Bradley J. Schlozman, was appointed as interim U.S. attorney to succeed Graves, remaining for a year until the Senate this spring confirmed John Wood for the job. Wood was a counselor to the deputy attorney general and is a son of Bond's first cousin, although the senator's spokeswoman, Shana Marchio, said Bond did not recommend him for the job.

UPDATE: Alberto Gonzales, today, said to the committee that they should move on and focus on issues other than the US attonrneys firings and he would investigate the matter. Conyers to Gonzales:
"My hope is that the members will focus their questions today on the US Attorneys and related matters". Conyers also suggested that the White House had tried to create "a bigger Republican farm team" full of "loyal Bushies" within the Justice Department. The Michigan Democrat warned that there was a "cover up" going on.

"One asks whether the administration is trying to cover up two simple truths: who created the list, and why?" he asked, referring to the list of US Attorneys that were fired by the Justice Department.


UPDATE II: Murray Waas:

The Bush administration has withheld a series of e-mails from Congress showing that senior White House and Justice Department officials worked together to conceal the role of Karl Rove in installing Timothy Griffin, a protégé of Rove's, as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

The withheld records show that D. Kyle Sampson, who was then-chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, consulted with White House officials in drafting two letters to Congress that appear to have misrepresented the circumstances of Griffin's appointment as U.S. attorney and of Rove's role in supporting Griffin.

In one of the letters that Sampson drafted, dated February 23, 2007, the Justice Department told four Senate Democrats it was not aware of any role played by senior White House adviser Rove in attempting to name Griffin to the U.S. attorney post. A month later, the Justice Department apologized in writing to the Senate Democrats for the earlier letter, saying it had been inaccurate in denying that Rove had played a role.

Brad Berenson, an attorney for Sampson, said in an interview that his client did not intend to mislead Congress. Sampson, he said, signed off on the February 23 letter based on representations made by the White House that it was accurate.

The withheld e-mails show that Sampson's draft was forwarded for review to Chris Oprison, an associate White House counsel, who approved the language saying that Justice was not aware of Rove having played any role in supporting Griffin. But an earlier e-mail from Sampson to Oprison that has already been made public indicates that the two men discussed Rove and then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers as being at the forefront of Griffin's nomination.

Gonzales and the White House are trying to weasle out of this, with the help of the GOP members of the committee and the House, by trying to make it a non-issue but as more is revealed, they don't seem to have a leg to stand on.

McKay and Iglesias Say Charges may result from USAs Firing

From the Seattle Times:

Two former U.S. attorneys said today they believe ongoing investigations into the dismissals last year of eight federal prosecutors could result in criminal charges against senior Justice Department officials.

John McKay, the former U.S. attorney for Western Washington, and David Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney for New Mexico, also said they believe White House political operative Karl Rove and his aides instigated the dismissals and ultimately decided who among the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys should be fired.

McKay and Iglesias, who were among those fired, made their assertions during a meeting this morning with Seattle Times editors and reporters. The two are scheduled to appear this afternoon along with Paul Charlton, the former U.S. attorney for Arizona, during a public-policy forum on the dismissals at Seattle University's School of Law.

"I think there will be a criminal case that will come out of this," McKay said during his meeting with Times journalists. "This is going to get worse, not better."

McKay cited ongoing investigations into the dismissals by the Senate and House Judiciary committees, and inquiries now under way by the Justice Department's inspector general and its Office of Professional Responsibility.

McKay said he believes obstruction-of-justice charges will be filed if investigators conclude that the dismissal of any of the eight prosecutors was motivated by an attempt to influence ongoing public-corruption or voter-fraud investigations.

But is Gonzales worried? His opening statement for tomorrow's hearing starts out with an arrogant statement to the House Judiciary Committee.

From Think Progress:

Gonzales to Congress: Move on. In his opening statement to be read at tomorrow’s House Judiciary Committee hearing, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales challenges Congress to “move on” past the U.S. Attorney scandal and allow “the Justice Department to focus on its mission: fighting crime.”

Fredo....not a great opening statement to a House that can impeach you!!

Rep. John Conyers - Goodling will get immunity

That's right! In spite of the DOJ investigation of Monica Goodling, Conyers and the House Committee still want to give her immunity.

Today the Department of Justice gave notice that it would not object to the House Judiciary Committee's grant of use immunity for Monica Goodling. I believe obtaining her testimony will be a critical step in our efforts to get to the truth about the circumstances surrounding the US Attorney firings and possible politicization in the Department's prosecutorial function. The Committee will be moving xpeditiously to apply for the court order so that we can schedule a hearing promptly.

The DOJ? Too Little, too late!

From Talking Points Memo: Click here to read the letter from the Justice Department's inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility informing Congress that they will not object.

Monica Goodling investigated by the DOJ!

From the AP via the Seattle Times:


DOJ probes politics' role in hiring U.S. attorneys
By Lara Jakes Jordan
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is investigating whether its former White House liaison used political affiliation in deciding who to hire as entry-level prosecutors in U.S. attorneys' offices around the country, The Associated Press has learned.
Doing so is a violation of federal law.

The inquiry involving Monica Goodling, the former counsel and White House liaison for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, raises new concerns that politics might have cast a shadow over the independence of trial prosecutors who enforce U.S. laws.

Justice spokesman Dean Boyd confirmed Wednesday that the department's inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility were investigating Goodling's role in hiring career attorneys — an unusual responsibility for her to take.

Goodling "may have taken prohibited considerations into account during such review," Boyd told the AP. "Whether or not the allegation is true is currently the subject of the OIG/OPR investigation."

Goodling quit the Justice Department last month after refusing to testify to Congress about her role in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year, which Democrats say might have been politically motivated.

The House Judiciary Committee has voted to give Goodling immunity for her testimony — an offer that is being reviewed by the Justice Department to make sure it does not interfere with any ongoing criminal investigations.

Her attorney, John Dowd, did not immediately return two requests for comment Wednesday.

Keeps piling on!!

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.

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!

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.

Subpoenas, Subpoenas, Subpoenas!!!

The Senate is back today so the subpoenas are flying. Rep. John Conyers issues some too!

Here's what's going on from TPM Muckraker:

One last chance, or the subpoenas come out.

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee along with ranking member Arlen Specter (R-PA) wrote Attorney General Alberto Gonzales yesterday to ask again for certain withheld documents relevant to the U.S. attorney firings. If Gonzales
doesn't turn them over by tomorrow, the committee will issue subpoenas for
them on Thursday, they write. You can read the letter here.

And more documents:

They also targeted documents reported on by The American Spectator last week. The mag reported that certain files in the Deputy Attorney General's office had not been turned over to Congress: "the files include overviews and evaluations of at least a dozen current and now-former U.S. Attorneys, which were prepared by DAG and EOUSA staff to brief Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and his chief of staff Michael Elston."

Dems Demand Docs Related to Wisconsin Case:

First see my post here, and then to TPM Muckraker's report:

At TPM, we've been taking a hard look at the U.S. Attorney in Milwaukee, Steven Biskupic. And so, apparently, have Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
A number of Democratic committee members signed a letter today to Alberto Gonzales seeking answers:

We are concerned whether or not politics may have played a role in a case brought by Stephen Biskupic, the United States Attorney based in Milwaukee, against Georgia Thompson, formerly an official in the administration of Wisconsin’s Democratic governor.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals was reportedly so troubled by the insufficiency of the evidence against Ms. Thompson that it made the unusual
decision to issue an order reversing Ms. Thompson’s conviction and releasing her
from custody immediately after oral arguments in her appeal.

Democrats are seeking all documents related to Biskupic's handling of that case, including "[a]ll communications between the Department of Justice and any other outside party, including political party officials, regarding the case against Ms. Thompson or the United States Attorney’s handling of that case."

And from Rep Jon Conyers at the AP:

WASHINGTON - The House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed new documents Tuesday from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as part of its investigation into
the firings of federal prosecutors, with the panel chairman saying he had run
out of patience.

"We have been patient in allowing the department to work through its concerns regarding the sensitive nature of some of these materials," Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., wrote Gonzales in a letter accompanying the subpoena.

"Unfortunately, the department has not indicated any meaningful willingness to
find a way to meet our legitimate needs.,"

"At this point further delay in receiving these materials will not serve any constructive purpose," Conyers said. He characterized the subpoena as a last resort after weeks of negotiations with Justice over documents and e-mails the committee wants.

The Justice Department did not have an immediate comment.

Will the DOJ give these documents to the Senate or will the Senate have to subpoena them. Really makes you think they have something to hide, doesn't it. Ya Think?

Monica may soon be on the hot seat.

No, not that Monica! Monica Goodling, the Justice Department Official. First Reps. Conyers and Sanchez and now Sens. Leahy and Whitehouse are corresponding with her lawyer and Alberto Gonzales about meeting with them to find out what she is taking the 5th for.

From TPM Muckraker:

It's a busy day for Monica Goodling's lawyer.

House Democrats asked again today to question Monica Goodling, the Justice department official who has pled the Fifth. Goodling notified the House Judiciary Committee last week that, as she had with regard to a potential Senate committee hearing, she planned to invoke the Fifth rather than participate in interviews with House committee staff -- as seven other Justice Department offiicals have been and will be doing over the coming week.

But in the letter today from committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and subcommittee Chair Linda Sanchez (D-CA), they wrote that Democrats weren't
convinced that Goodling was invoking the Fifth for valid reasons. Goodling's
lawyer John Dowd had cited earlier comments by Democrats to show that they had "reached conclusions" about the matter under investigation.

Conyers and Sanchez aren't buying it.

"The fact that a few Senators and Members of the House have expressed publicly their doubts about the credibility of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General in their representations to Congress about the U.S. Attorneys' termination does not in any way excuse your client from answering questions honestly and to the best of her ability," they wrote.

And more from TPM Muckraker:

For perhaps the first time in history, a Justice Department official has invoked the Fifth Amendment -- and remains in her position at the Department. In a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales today, Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) and committtee member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) asked what the
Justice Department was going to do about it.

The first order of business, they said, was to figure out who to talk to at the Justice Department about Goodling. Ordinarily, they wrote, they would ask the Department about how to proceed, so as not to interfere with a possible criminal investigation. But "the office of the Attorney General appears to be hopelessly conflicted," they wrote. So who's it going to be?

The senators also want to know whether Goodling will be cooperating with the internal Justice Department investigation of the firings, given that career Department employees are required to cooperate with such investigations.

Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington Law School who's handled a number of high-profile clients in his career, said that Goodling, having invoked the Fifth with regard to Congress' investigation, is in a bind.

"It's a very clever question, because if she does not invoke the Fifth [for the internal Justice Department investigation], then she obviously has a fundamental contradiction in her legal position. She would basically be saying that despite having a high-ranking position in the Justice Department, she will not cooperate with a coequal branch... Congress has oversight responsibiilty over the Justice Department, over Monica Goodling. It would be an obvious contradiction with her job description."

It looks as though her Lawyer's little stunt might not work. But as I said before, just invoking the 5th makes people think you are guilty.