« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
Immediately following Alberto Gonzales' now famous March 13 press conference, during which Gonzales accepted full responsibility for (while expressing total ignorance of) the U.S. attorney firings, the White House said that Gonzales would soon be making the trek to Capitol Hill to explain himself.
The next day, Bush said that he'd talked to Gonzales "about his need to go up to Capitol Hill and make it very clear to members in both political parties why the Justice Department made the decisions it made, making very clear about the facts.” Tony Snow added soon after: "the attorney general, I think, is going to be doing some outreach to members of Congress to explain what went on."
But that outreach never occurred. And when the Senate Judiciary Committee finally scheduled Gonzales' testimony, the two parties agreed on April 17, a full month after Gonzales' press conference. Chairman Pat Leahy says that the committee wanted an earlier date, but Gonzales objected.
That was before Kyle Sampson testified.
Now, the administration has suddenly realized that postponing Gonzales' testimony only feeds the fire. Now, Gonzales can't testify soon enough. Gonzales had a Justice Department official ask for an earlier hearing date. And White House counselor Dan Bartlett hit the airwaves this Sunday to say, "Let's move it up and let's get the facts.... Let's have the attorney general there sooner rather than later."
But the Democrats are just fine with the way things are.
That's because in the meantime, staffers for the House and Senate judiciary committees will be conducting private interviews with seven Justice Department officials involved in the purge. And when Gonzales appears before the committee, senators will be armed with transcripts from those interviews to check the AG's story. Says Leahy: "We're, in effect, interrogating a number of people leading up to it... The 17th is now the time…. It's the date the hearing will take place."
Given Gonzales' penchant for memory lapses, it'll be handy for the senators to know just what he's forgetting.
Comments (85)
CBR wrote on April 2, 2007 9:20 AM:I had to post becasue the security word is "smile" :)
T wrote on April 2, 2007 9:34 AM:Too bad for Gonzo that those interviews are private. It makes it that much harder for him to craft his testimony to match theirs.
Brent wrote on April 2, 2007 9:39 AM:Best bet, Gonzo will quietly resign on Friday afternoon, hoping that the story is largely ignored by people celebrating Easter.
Of course, my security word is "wrong".
Charles Bowman wrote on April 2, 2007 9:41 AM:Do not disparage Bush's next to last human shield!
Punchy wrote on April 2, 2007 9:42 AM:Seventeen days of distraction is enough time to repair the bunker for the final armageddon of investigators now on the prowl!
Question--Can Al Gonzo plead the 5th? I know that sounds crazy, but he HAS to know that testifying after all his aides will most certainly catch him lying.
So is he allowed to invoke the 5th?
HA! security word "fear"!!
samg wrote on April 2, 2007 9:43 AM:maybe the torturer's apprentice should get a little waterboarding by the senate judiciary committee. vice president cheney would approve of that.
vox clamantis in red state wrote on April 2, 2007 9:43 AM:Can they interview Abu while garroting him?
Peter Principle wrote on April 2, 2007 9:43 AM:An old way of beheading whilst turning a screw attached to a noose attached to a neck. I read last night its making a comeback in the drug wars in Mexico.
I mean, if the noose fits, wear it. Torture's ok with Abu.
Once again, the Mayberry Machiavallis have out Mayberried themselves.
If they had sent Gonzo up to testify early, they could have set the spin and then used the White House media machine to trash any subsequent witnesses who contradicted it.
Or, if they'd allowed the staffers to testify in public, they'd have a clear idea of what the Commmittee was looking for and what it had already learned. As it is, they'll have to trust their own people to report back their testimony accurately and honestly.
I ask you: If you were a snake in that snake pit, would you trust the other snakes?
vox clamantis in red state wrote on April 2, 2007 9:44 AM:Can they interview Abu while garroting him?
DtheO wrote on April 2, 2007 9:49 AM:An old way of beheading whilst turning a screw attached to a noose attached to a neck. I read last night its making a comeback in the drug wars in Mexico.
I mean, if the noose fits, wear it. Torture's ok with Abu.
The phrase "twisting slowly, slowly in the wind" comes to mind.
Odbasta wrote on April 2, 2007 9:49 AM:Is it really feasible that the AG _won't_ get the details of what the other JD officials testified? I mean c'mon...It seemed to me that Sampson and Hatch worked out their little exchanges last Thursday like a script, despite what the squirrelly little jerk said when asked about it.
One downside of this is that the officials will probably play the "I don't recall" card a lot more now, in hopes of not tripping over each other and screwing Gonzo. The bottom line is that the committee won't be "armed" with anything actually useful.
TheraP wrote on April 2, 2007 9:51 AM:Of course this administration speaks with forked tongue. Remember all the times bush has said one thing and cheney another? That's another of their tactics - to say opposite things out of the mouths of different people - and thus make it appear they want things both ways.
So they stall with the later (agreed on) date.
While pleading for an earlier date.
This has happened over and over. Nothing new here.
Unless this time they truly miscalculated.
No advice from the security word: unless it is to "sound" public opinion - or listen to the tea leaves.
FMArouet wrote on April 2, 2007 9:52 AM:I trust that House and Senate staffers are securing depositions from the IT System Administrator at the DOJ (specificially the individual who is in charge of the IT infrastructure in the office of the AG and his close assistants) and from any of his/her assistants who are in charge archiving relevant documents and e-mails.
The staffers deposing such DOJ IT personnel need to ask specifically about the archiving of electronic documents and e-mails (and .doc, .pdf, .xls, .ppt attachments) not only within the DOJ, but also those e-mails (and attachments) to and from outside entities, including the White House and the now famous RNC servers, such as gwb43.com.
Securing depositions from such IT professionals at DOJ should reveal whether, and from whom, orders may have come down to delete the flurry of relevant e-mails in the "gap" beween mid-November until early December. IT pros know how to use RAID drives and make sure that the data can be retrieved, no matter what. They have probably made backups on DVDs for archives, some of which may be stored at a secure facility outside of DOJ headquarters. This is a standard practice in government agencies.
Professionals running the IT infrastructure at DOJ in general, and for the AG's office in particular, will not be inclined to lie about orders received to wipe such files and thereby subject themselves to possible charges of "obstruction of justice." They would not fall on their hard drives to shield the AG and his zealous apparatchiks, such as Monica Goodling and D. Kyle Sampson, from legal scrutiny.
Even if the order came from Karl Rove and down the line to wipe the incriminating evidence, there surely will be a number of IT professionals at DOJ who will put the Constitution and the law above all pressures to conceal any efforts by their DOJ leadership to destroy evidence and obstruct justice.
It would be literally impossible to erase all of the backup and archived copies of the relevant e-mails and attachments.
3G wrote on April 2, 2007 9:52 AM:Security Word: nail. They are gonna nail him!!
Anonymous wrote on April 2, 2007 9:54 AM:I had to post, because the security word is "meat".
osage wrote on April 2, 2007 9:56 AM:A feast for a hungry seanate. ;-)
Gonzales will resign BEFORE testifying. In the meantime, the WH/Rove will be trying to find a ploy for making Gonzo take all the hits to prevent incriminating the likes of Rove and Bush. This is really getting good. I think between Schumer, Leahy, Conyers and Waxman, the WH is going to look more and more guilty of cover-ups and lying to the American people. I don't care who the GOP finally comes up with as their candidate in 2008. No matter who it is, he/she hasn't got a chance in hell! The GOP is going to get exactly what they deserve for supporting/enabling the most dishonest, corrupt and wholly incompetent president our country has had to suffer.
JW1141 wrote on April 2, 2007 9:56 AM:The Republicans have made it a point that its a crime to lie to Congress so there is no need for an oath. If this is the case, why haven't Gonzales and McNulty been charged?
TheraP wrote on April 2, 2007 9:59 AM:Security word:
JUDGE!
FMArouet - your theory works, unless even the IT people were hired due to fealty to bush. Remember, they have done this type of hiring in every corner of our government. And surely there are IT programs at the fundie college? Specifically to make sure all IT is infused with the correct "spirit" of bushism.
I hope I'm wrong and you're right. And we'll have to see how the IT folks "judge" their chances here.
Big Red wrote on April 2, 2007 9:59 AM:What if Gonzo resigns in the next week. Can W then make a recess appointment? (Maybe even Bolton). But seriously, can a cabinet member be appointed in this way? It looks like W has a lot to hide and he needs a crony at DOJ.
paradocs2 wrote on April 2, 2007 10:00 AM:(1)You should not omit to point out that in his TV interview, Dan Bartett insisted that a prerequisite of earlier testimony by Mr. Gonzales was that Senator Schumer recruse himself from the hearings because he is too partisan since he is citing DOJ failings and obfuscation in a Democratic fundraising letter.
Anonymous wrote on April 2, 2007 10:04 AM:(2) Both Gonzales and Sampson can really both be telling the truth if Gonzales is a rubber stamp for GWB policy and pays no attention to substantive DOJ matters and Sampson is really staffing the White House as well as DOJ and did all the substantive work. Then Golzales merely rubber stamps what he is given without actively participating in any actual personel discussions.
(3) Attorney McKay said in his Senate testimony that 27 DOJ employees spent 2 weeks doing a performance review of his office. There should be lots of paper documentation aof tis review (as well as of other US Attorney's offices). Let's get these papers out in public! Contrast this with Sampson's testimoney that he kept the firing evals in a loose file in his right hand desk drawer. Any government department would have to do a much more substantive job to fire a janitor would't you think.
(4) How in heavon's name can Sampson testify that he knows only about Wilkes and Foggio from the news papers. And why has't Hatch and Sessions had to respond to the overridding significance of Carol Lam's conviction of Cunningham, accusations against Foggio and Wilkes, and cases against the Ariano Felix cartel. These are HUGE cases with overridding national significance, yet these Senators are allowed to focus on minor immigration and gun law case statistics. Why don't you ask the the give you a statement on this matter?
BigRed
I have feared the same.
mayan wrote on April 2, 2007 10:05 AM:So...they petulantly want a "do-over" after making a political (and perhaps legal) miscalculation? Too bad. Hoist, I'd like to introduce you to petard.
While I realize that Rove is supposed to be a mastermind who combines all the nefarious of skills of Dr. Moriarity, Fu Manchu, Lex Luthor, and Doc Ock...it seems to me that they've been doing nothing but stepping daintily from wet cow pie to wet cow pie since stealing their last election. I'm sure he's to be feared as a propaganda czar with his own broadcast channel but these miscalculations are beginning to really kill them (including of course, his miscalculating the "math" on the 2006 elections which got them into this to begin with.)
Legalize wrote on April 2, 2007 10:07 AM:Abu Al Gonzales will not be the AG by the time the 17 rolls around.
code: "loss"
rmadilo wrote on April 2, 2007 10:10 AM:We're going to toruture Abu just like those Iraninans are torturing the British: show 'em all undignified on international tv. Make 'em fess up to stuff their boss wants 'em to lie about.
Humble Nailbanger wrote on April 2, 2007 10:13 AM:Security word: HOPE!!!!
Mehitabel wrote on April 2, 2007 10:18 AM:"Whom the gods would destroy they first make promising."
Cyril Connolly
RP wrote on April 2, 2007 10:18 AM:The security word is "stiff".
HaHa!
The joke's on Abu...
Randy wrote on April 2, 2007 10:22 AM:If Gonzo gets the boot then how about Meirs as AG.
I think that Bush only has so many friends to give jobs to. Maybe the guy who lubes his bike would make a good AG.
Otter wrote on April 2, 2007 10:24 AM:security code: taste like in this tastes like sh*t
[re: FMARouet on deposing IT staff]
There are a number of misconceptions above. As someone with experience in IT as the subject of these kinds of discovery requests and depositions, here are some important points:
--Obstruction of justice and other charges against IT staff are almost always impossible if established backup and retention policies are followed. Only if some exceptional action was taken (i.e. backup tapes overwritten before they are scheduled to be) would there be a problem.
--Backups capture the state of the system at the time of the backup. Mass deletions don't matter to the backups.
--RAID drives protect against drive failure. They don't have anything to do with backup or retention.
--DVDs are rarely used in organizations with defined retention policies (I certainly hope DoJ is such).
--It is not at all impossible to erase all backup and archived copies, if the retention system has been designed in advance to do so.
That said, it's unlikely that any of this relatively recent information would have been aged out of backups yet. Subpoenas should be able to get it all, provided the Congress can find all of the places the Bushies have hidden their e-mail.
moe99 wrote on April 2, 2007 10:24 AM:Play the scenario out though. If Gonzalez resigns, who are they going to appoint w/ a Dem controlled Senate? Confirmation will be next to impossible with an admin tool, so right now they're better sticking w/ Gonzo than risking the appointment of someone who might take his/her oath of office seriously.
Mary wrote on April 2, 2007 10:30 AM:I would agree with Odbasta above. Senator Hatch --based on his absurd defense of Gonzales et al on Meet the Press---will MAKE SURE Gonzales has all relevant information gleaned from these 'private' interviews before he testifies. Hatch's leading of the witness in the Sampson questioning was a sight to behold---as in disgustingly soft. I would guess Sampson was ready for those questions just like Gonzales will be ready for his.
kbanginmotown wrote on April 2, 2007 10:38 AM:I truly hope that cool heads prevail as the Iran/UK standoff progresses. Dissappointing that so many trigger-happy Bush Administration officials, including Gonzales, are still at their posts.
Interesting to see how much the Iranians have picked up on "spinning" the news, e.g. the British soldiers are being treated much better than the prisoners at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. This would make an excellent question to put to Gonzales on the 17th - if any of the Senate chairpeople have the courage to do so.
Security word "waste"...ain't it the truth!
jeffgee wrote on April 2, 2007 10:42 AM:Gonzo resigns on Easter weekend? I can see the rightwing cartoons now from Ramirez or Ariail - Alberto carrying a cross with the Democrats as the Party of Pilate, whipping him as he carries his cross through the streets with jeering liberals throwing stones.
YOYO now, Alberto. Gonzales is just the next fall guy for Bush the Beseiged and Rappin' Karl Rove.
Jeff (no, the other one) wrote on April 2, 2007 10:43 AM:As an IT professional, I have to backup the above. And everything else, too. Only 2 kinds of drives in this world: those that have failed, and those that are about to fail.
We use DVDs as just one more tool for off-site backup, in addition to our disk-based archiving. Convenient for restore, and distributes the load a bit, if needed. Cheap, also, as we are a poor state agency.
Now, as for inside jobs, covering tracks, etc. -- it can be done. But done improperly, it will still leave a trail, or a noticeable gap, or something.
60th Street wrote on April 2, 2007 10:45 AM:"Abu Al Gonzales will not be the AG by the time the 17 rolls around."
Posted by: Legalize
Date: April 2, 2007 10:07 AM
I agree only because that would be the most incompetent move by the administration.
I don't think that will get him out of having to testify, though. Sampson resigned before he testified.
In fact it will probably hurt the admin more if Abu-Al resigns the week before having to testify. Death by a thousand cuts! Delicious!
security word = "mine"!
shrubsy wrote on April 2, 2007 10:45 AM:Wait a minute! What possible need for AG AG to go and testify? Everytime ANYONE from Justice or AG showed up they lied and obfuscated.
Why do we allow bantering between the WH and Congress over who will or won't testify? Chewing up months. Do we need testimony? Can't proof of malfeasance and obstruction be enough to begin legal actions?
Why fight so hard to get SleazyGonzales or Turdflower, just so they can slime and slide and spew and cloud issues? They are probably shredding documents and backup systems 24/7 while we twiddle. Why give them any podium?
They have proven lies laying all over them. What use is digging up a witness when they have proven hostility, perjury, criminal acts. You TRY a perp, you don't interview them. You TRY them as criminals, you don't invite constitutional crisis over simple testimony. If they won't testify...that is a criminal act in itself. They are members of our govt. Paid by us. Sworn to uphold...and criminal to pervert or obstruct.
Apple Canyon 2 wrote on April 2, 2007 10:48 AM:As things stand, why in hell not serve the subpoenas, rather than let the WH string out the defense and find shredding holes?
Regarding the Gonzales resignation, our local paper quoted Patrick Leahy as saying that even if Gonzales resigned, there would be no approval given to any replacement AG until they get to the bottom of the firings.
FMArouet wrote on April 2, 2007 10:49 AM:I thought that sent a clear message to GWB that this is not going to go away with any resignation of the Atty. Genl.
Sorry, no link.
Otter:
Thanks for your notes. Your experience in such depositions is going to be of great help in this thread.
I think that the investigators need to follow two main trails with the IT staffers at DOJ:
(1) Did any IT staffers receive instructions to delete potentially relevant documents and attachments--especially from the critical mid-November through early-December, 2006 time frame?
(2) Where are the archival backups? (You are of course right about RAID's primary purpose to guard against drive failure, but mirrored RAID drive arrays can also be integral to a backup and data recovery process). Where is the secure outside facility for archives, and are the backups--in whatever digital format (tape, DVD)--still at that site?
In short, follow the backups.
portia.vz wrote on April 2, 2007 10:55 AM:Karl must be losing his touch just as I thought he would. He's got a multitude of investigations and stories to keep straight, a lot of pressure and a time crunch. He can't spin and mutate like he normally does. The congress is no longer run by friendlies. I suppose he could still pull this off but he will have to be a *real* evil genius, not justa clever and unscrupulous human being.
Davcbr wrote on April 2, 2007 11:01 AM:Gotta wonder about how much these guys testifying in closed sessions trust the Bushies. After all, what is it they are testifying about?
I only wonder if Hatch will be in there.
dc
Johnsnottoodistracted wrote on April 2, 2007 11:05 AM:It's amazing to listen to this discussion. Do you hear what you are saying? These guys were going to arrest and prosecute people because they are not thinking they way they want.They needed the right people in place to decide who to go after.Who was closest to the truth.The biggest threat. These up way past their bedtime whiners want to put regular people away. Are you listening? Isn't this a little deeper than a trained hand doing a poor job. No need to answer. I remember that sticker from an era or so ago saying "if your not outraged your not paying attention". Like I said last night, the turnoff for sanity was way back there and there is not another one coming up. This has to stop before all the lines are so blurred we can't tell one from the other.See what I mean? It's already happening.
stephen wrote on April 2, 2007 11:12 AM:To clever by half I'd say. WHen they agreed to the hearing on the 17th they were still under the impression that the whoopla would die down by then and no one would even care that Abu was in front of the congress. Oooops Big Mistake BIG MISTAKE! Wasn't there an e-mail in the mix that said" Oh this won't be a national story. It might get a bit heated but it will die down and we just have to hold our position." I think it was that Goodling chick. Oh and by the way Monica Goodling....Now is the time to use all of that good Christian schooling you received....STAND UP LIKE A GOOD LITTLE CHRISTIAN AND TELL THE TRUTH YOU WON"T GO TO HELL IF YOU TELL THE TRUTH. REMEMBER???? YOU CHRISTIAN COWARD!
RWN wrote on April 2, 2007 11:23 AM:I watched the entire Sampson testimony over the weekend along witht the Sunday news/talk shows sick in bed. Here is my take:
Sampson tried his hardest not to name the real crafter of the lists but it appears to be the Oval Office...Myers/Rove office. The mechanics are how were they added or deleted and from whom? The mechanics also of why is obvious.
This process is no different than how the 'final solution' was crafted in a house in Berlin. Everyone intuitively knew what they had to do to please or 'serve at the pleasure of', it is loyalty, but loyalty to whom or what? Loyalty to the advantaged position of the Bushies.
It now is quite clear, when GW Bush went out and rebuilt the party after Watergate he did so under the basis of building it for their purpose. Gonzalez is nothing without that position in the bushie camp, neither is Rove or Myers. Look who came and went after the 1st Admin, Powell, Thompson, O'Neil, Ridge & Ashcroft are gone. They were loyal Republicans but not bushies.
This will be interesting for it will take a Dean like person to flip....will it be Myers again or someone like McNulty or a Rove assistant.
What really is necessary is that the Congress needs to appoint Fitzgerald as a special prosecuter somehow and pry to drive cabal open
bluegrass wrote on April 2, 2007 11:29 AM:where can you find a true believer IT professional willing to do your evil bidding in the name of Jesus?
At Liberty University, of course:
https://www.liberty.edu/academics/index.cfm?PID=541
stew wrote on April 2, 2007 11:36 AM:Rove still has to keep one eye on Pat Fitzgerald.
Patrick wrote on April 2, 2007 11:37 AM:I don't know much about AG Gonzales, but he strikes me as a man who's loyalties have limits, and that is (one reason) why the Administration is desperate to keep him around.
Should he be unencumbered by employment, he might be free, as Colin Powell is, to criticize and question an Administration he'll say he too was loyal to, but had severe doubts about their decisions and actions, especially in hindsight.
Bush and Rove probably feel it necessary to keep Gonzales close for this reason, not because they particularly like him. Gonzales, for his part, simply wants to avoid the added disgrace that resignation carries with it, so for now they're working in that mutual interest.
Gonzales was chosen for AG precisely because he would put loyalty to his patron Bush above the rule of law and high ethical standards his cabinet office demands.
If the Democrats manage to force his resignation and Bush concedes his ground, even after Gonzales has done his job and said not a disparaging word, he will no longer be under obligation to Bush.
Should a book deal be forthcoming, I suggest "The Devil's Advocate" for a working title. Security Code: snake
stew wrote on April 2, 2007 11:38 AM:How many hours of grand jury testimony did Karl give?
djcrow22 wrote on April 2, 2007 11:56 AM:As Josh noted yesterday,at this point Orrin Hatch has proven he no longer deserves to even be on the Senate Judicary. His performance on MTP was the most aggregious display of blind partisanship
global yokel wrote on April 2, 2007 11:57 AM:I have ever seen. His pathetic line of "questioning" during the Sampson hearing betrayed his extreme contempt for the rule of law and the American people. He behaves like a spoiled, petulant child. At one point I was sure he was going to take his ball and go home. Hatch is a prime example of what needs to be excised from government, added to the long list of the Republican Old Guard:(McCain,Specter,McConnell et. al)
The various scandals that the Bushniks are fending off have the beneficial effect of keeping them busy and less able to enact policy. This is good.
OhnnyP wrote on April 2, 2007 12:02 PM:I had to post only because I figured out after about 20 posts what was being referred to by the "security code."
Mine is "birth," and Gonzales will give it to a great many lies, errr. . . . inaccuracies.
Pompano Pete wrote on April 2, 2007 12:11 PM:shrubsy, as Speaker Pelosi has said, "Take a deep breath and relax". For those who have followed these scandals, it's already been proven that serious crimes were committed. But for the great majority of voters that's just not the case. They must be presented with this very deliberatly, all the while the Dems must protect themselves from charges of "withc hunt" or "partisan".
Always remember, it took almost a year to nail Nixon, but he got nailed so completely that practically no one at the time believed he shouldn't be impeached. The revisionists crawled out from under their rocks only after Reagan was elected.
Anonymous wrote on April 2, 2007 12:28 PM:FEAR - is the word.
Anonymous wrote on April 2, 2007 12:49 PM:Security code: "sheep"
As in, anyone who still believe anything/everything comming from the WH...
rlogan wrote on April 2, 2007 12:55 PM:Security code: Boobies.
Hatch. What a shameless hack.
Since a jury has not convicted anyone of a crime yet, let's not even investigate because you need a conviction in order to start an investigation into whether crimes were committed.
draftedin68 wrote on April 2, 2007 12:55 PM:.
To better understand why AG-AG (pronounced like you have a chicken bone stuck in your throat) has been such a dismal failure heading the DOJ, all one needs do is look into his work record from the time he passed the bar up to just before Duhhbya brought him to D.C.
Heckuva job, Gonz.
patrick wrote on April 2, 2007 1:00 PM:.
I don't know much about AG Gonzales, but he strikes me as a man whose loyalties have limits, and that is (one reason) why the Administration is desperate to keep him around.
Should he be unencumbered by employment, he might be free, as Colin Powell is, to criticize and question an Administration he too was loyal to, but had severe doubts about their decisions and actions, especially in hindsight.
Bush and Rove probably feel it necessary to keep Gonzales close for this reason, not because they particularly like him. Gonzales, for his part, simply wants to avoid the added disgrace that resignation carries with it, so for now they're working in that mutual interest.
Gonzales was chosen for AG precisely because he would put loyalty to his patron Bush above the rule of law and high ethical standards his cabinet office demands.
If the Democrats manage to force his resignation and Bush concedes his ground, even after Gonzales has done his job and said not a disparaging word, he will no longer be under obligation to Bush.
Should a book deal be forthcoming, I suggest "The Devil's Advocate" for a working title. Security Code: snake
tbhull wrote on April 2, 2007 1:01 PM:Posted by: Punchy
Date: April 2, 2007 09:42 AM
Yes, Gonzales could invoke the 5th Amendment. The Constitution applie to all.
However, if he does, I would imagine his impeachment proceedings would follow in fast fashion.
efc1918 wrote on April 2, 2007 1:09 PM:PompanoPete is right. Most faithful TPM readers are likely convinced that serious crimes and perversions of the Constitution have been committed by the Bush Administration. Further, while we might be surprised by some of the details, we are not shocked by the revelations of malfeasance. But Purgegate (is that what we're officially calling it now?) is a complex story and if you tune in during the middle of it, you have a lot of catching up to do. Sort of like starting to watch "Twin Peaks" in episode 4. Come to think of it, the cast of charcaters in the Admin is nearly as strange as the cast of that old David Lynch production.
Security code is "much," as in "Much Ado about Something," and much more work to be done.
Woodhall Hollow wrote on April 2, 2007 1:13 PM:If the Attorney General of the United States, the nation's top law enforcement were to pull a Monica Goodling and take the 5th -- WITH the support of the President (citizens have a right under the constitution, blah, blah, blah), I think that we would be in a Constitutional crisis that would make Watergate look tame by comparison.
Impeachment proceedings could be brought against him, and my gut feeling is that at least 2/3 of the Senate would vote to convict. And that would only be the beginning of the mess.
And Orin Hatch will never be confirmed by Leahy's committee as a replacement for Gonzales. His body language was all over that on MTP.
USA Today Reader wrote on April 2, 2007 1:35 PM:**Josh & Co.**
It's been brought up before: a visual diagram linking all the players, organizations and investigations is needed at this point. The fog is starting to clear and the various articles, accusations and investigations are revealing what looks to be a TSUNAMI of a scandal. However, it is hard to piece together without visual aid, at this point.
It will also serve to find additional yet undiscoved links buried in the details.
TexasEllen wrote on April 2, 2007 2:00 PM:Right before Abu gets to testify the committee ought to sideswipe him with testimony from Texas Ranger Brian Burzynski on the refusal of USAttorney Johnny Sutton and the DOJ to follow up on his investigation of sexual abuse at the Pyote Texas Youth Commission facility in Spring of 2005. It has finally broken loose big time in Texas. Ranger Burzynski testified before the Texas Lege and they were horrified. The entire board (Republican appointed) has resigned. At long last, the DA of Wade County has convened a grand jury. Looks like the refusal to take the case has political reasons, Gov. Perry in a tough race, etc. And after all, Texas is where Abu, Rove, Harriet, and W are from.
Google Brian Burzynski TYC for articles in Texas papers.
Code word salt as in Salt in their wounds.
whidbeygrl wrote on April 2, 2007 2:02 PM:When I was looking up info. on Harriet Meirs, I found a quote from her::
criticalthinker wrote on April 2, 2007 2:29 PM:" George Bush is the most intellectually stimulating man I have ever met"
In my disbeief and nausea, I failed to remember the source of this...think maybe wiki.
What makes you think the shadowy figures would hesitate for a minute to make the IT guys an offer that they cannot refuse?
Andy G wrote on April 2, 2007 2:29 PM:I love the linked article on the Politico even if I don't love the Politico. Abu is shown pratically choking himself and the title could be read as "Testimony: Delay Is Hurting Gonzales" if you're just glancing at it. I wondered for a second how the bug man was involved before I figured out that testimony was delayed.
Security code: flag. In a rainbow background.
Michael Stevens wrote on April 2, 2007 2:37 PM:A precedent set during Watergate may be the thin strand of spider silk keeping Gonzales in office. In the midst of Watergate, Nixon appointed Elliot Richardson as the new AG. Richardson's Senate confirmation was predicated on a promise to the Senate that he would appoint a Special Prosecutor once he was confirmed.
Were the next AG to make a similar promise during his confirmation hearings, that Special Prosecutor's mandate would force him to look deeply into behavior at the White House. This current scandal suggests that even the White House doesn't know all of the things Karl Rove has been up to, or what else a Special Prosecutor might find.
If Gonzales were honestly cognizant to his level of criminal exposure, I think he would resign immediately and retain the best counsel he could afford. Gonzales is not the sharpest tack, but he's not the dullest either. I suspect he knows he needs to be out before his April 17th date with Congress.
One wonders if the White House has temporarily forced his hand by refusing his letter(s) of resignation?
Kurt K wrote on April 2, 2007 2:45 PM:Ahhh, Orrin Hatch. I've never been prouder to be an alumnus of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law (me - 1993; Orrin - 1962)...
vicissitude wrote on April 2, 2007 3:22 PM:I think Gonzo lacks the technical and legal expertise to figure himself a way out of this. He is just spending time in the bathroom because he can't control his bowels, even though he will proclaim he is fully responsible and accountable to do so.
code security...expert
hahahahahahaha
Jay Severin has a small pen1s wrote on April 2, 2007 3:30 PM:There's a bunch of individuals in the White House that will be able to hide their own Easter eggs this coming Sunday.
BarnOwl wrote on April 2, 2007 3:36 PM:The WH insists that in order for Rove, et al, to testify, it must be done without the oath. The GOP minions, mouthing their Talking Points say, "It really doesn't matter - perjury under oath carries the same 5-year penalty as lying to the Senate even without the oath.
If that's really the case, why is the WH so insistent on the 'no oath' requirement?
sandy wrote on April 2, 2007 4:34 PM:abu gonzo has to be THE dumbest member of their gang. He needs to opt out of testifying and just resign for goodness sakes.
Keith Gore Wiseman wrote on April 2, 2007 4:48 PM:Can we sane people quit repeating the Nixon Party meme that Rove is a genius? As Bush pointed out after Rove put up the Mission Accomplished banner, the geniuses behind Bush aren't really too smart at all. Rove believes he's a genius, but is about to be proved wrong again.
Michael Stevens wrote on April 2, 2007 5:50 PM:Sandy, I don't think that Congress will let Gonzo off the hook that easily.
Some of the Democratic committee members have already said that Gonzo will be called to testify whether he quits or not.
That said, resigning would almost certainly help Gonzo's personal legal situation. Government employees can't typically accept legal defense donations or pro bono legal assistance. As a private citizen he would no longer be bound by those rules. Private citizens can also plead the 5th, something a standing AG could never get away with.
domga wrote on April 2, 2007 6:06 PM:Orin Hatch/clarence thomas orin hatch/gonzales nothing changed same grass... same snake... sandra d. o'connor for ag
slb wrote on April 2, 2007 6:30 PM:>> The Republicans have made it a point that its a crime to lie to Congress so there is no need for an oath. If this is the case, why haven't Gonzales and McNulty been charged? <<
So why are they so afraid of the oath itself? Are they concerned that the Almighty will strike them with a bolt of lightning?
Ross Best wrote on April 2, 2007 8:03 PM:Gee, I hope the Attorney General doesn't forget his appointment on the 17th.
steambomb wrote on April 2, 2007 10:11 PM:Can those closed door interviews be kept private until the 18th of April? Just curious. I do hope that the Dems aren't doing Fredo any favors.
Dave wrote on April 3, 2007 12:08 AM:I thought everyone had learned how these people operate during all those years watching J.R Ewing STEP on everyone in Dallas in the 80's! Art imitates Life, imitates Art.
security code: "step"
a fellow ashamed Texan
Wretched Refuse wrote on April 3, 2007 12:30 AM:"There are a number of misconceptions above. As someone with experience in IT as the subject of these kinds of discovery requests and depositions, here are some important points:
--Obstruction of justice and other charges against IT staff are almost always impossible if established backup and retention policies are followed. Only if some exceptional action was taken (i.e. backup tapes overwritten before they are scheduled to be) would there be a problem.
--Backups capture the state of the system at the time of the backup. Mass deletions don't matter to the backups.
--RAID drives protect against drive failure. They don't have anything to do with backup or retention.
--DVDs are rarely used in organizations with defined retention policies (I certainly hope DoJ is such).
--It is not at all impossible to erase all backup and archived copies, if the retention system has been designed in advance to do so.
That said, it's unlikely that any of this relatively recent information would have been aged out of backups yet. Subpoenas should be able to get it all, provided the Congress can find all of the places the Bushies have hidden their e-mail."
Except, the use of RNC emails and other offsite email tells us that those inside the WH were NOT in total control of the IT. SO, therefore, the IT IS the hingpin.
As for DVDs as backup medium, usually it is massive multi-tpae carousels, that change out a tape at the appropriate time, or date. The systems that are being backedup are usually redundant, so there are 2 sources for all data.
WOW code word is "lying pieces of shit"
not really
Wretched Refuse wrote on April 3, 2007 12:32 AM:Code = memory
Patrick Fitzgerald FOR AG.
chuckles wrote on April 3, 2007 7:53 AM:I believe that Monkey-Boy is going to miss the little Mexican. Monica lost her tongue and God only knows what the next Attorney General will bring. Just wishing for a breath of integrity versus the "Republican Rule Forever" mentality that has only one place...DW's little mind.
steambomb wrote on April 3, 2007 8:13 AM:Patrick Fitzgerald FOR AG.
Posted by: Wretched Refuse
Great Idea! But sadly will only happen perhaps in a new administration. There is no doubt he would be an excellent one. However that is the problem for Bush, he would be an excellent one.
Imelda Blahnik wrote on April 3, 2007 9:17 AM:No - I like Patrick Fitzgerald right where he is, a skillful prosecutor who can nail these malefactors.
code word: please
juddy@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 8:23 AM:hello
kate@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 8:38 PM:hello
Free Music Downloads wrote on October 7, 2007 10:34 PM:Hi, there!..e71e4333e8a37297d23ed8c342bf2faf