A.G.'s spokeswoman: 'We are trying to muddy the coverage up a bit'

Tasia Scolinos, the attorney general's spokeswoman, provided some insight into the Justice Department's public-relations activities in a March 5 message about the furor surrounding the removal of the prosecutors. Below is an excerpt from the documents that the committee released, with emphasis added to the part where Scolinos says she wants to "muddy the coverage":

In preparation for tomorrow's hearing where six of the dismissed US Attorneys will be testifying, we have drafted some talking points that we were going to insert into Will Moschella's testimony (the DOJ witness) that get out the message that although we stand by the decision to remove these folks the process by which they were informed was not optimal. Right now the coverage will be dominated by how qualified these folks were and their theories for their dismissals. We are trying to muddy the coverage up a bit by trying to put the focus on the process in which they were told - I suspect we are going to get to the point where DOJ has to say this anyway. First, it is true. Second, we are having morale problems with our other US Attorneys who understand the decision but think that these folks were not treated well in the process. I think from an internal management perspective it needs to be said.

We are also discussing internally if we can/should release more information about why these folks were let go if we can address the privacy act aspects. I think it cuts both ways - it does prolong the story in a sense because I suspect that the US Attorneys will just go away at some point when they feel they have vindicated their reputations. On the other hand, I don't know if the Senate Dems will let this go until it is all out in the open. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks.

(Interesting tidbit: Scolinos worked for Judge Lance Ito during the O.J. Simpson murder trial.)

Update at 2:34 p.m. ET: Right before another official testified about the firings on Capitol Hill, Scolinos wrote in a March 6 e-mail that she was "concerned that the format of this dribbling out in questions may muddy things a bit. The DAG said that they are actively working with the members to tee the right questions up but I am a bit concerned on this same point and am pushing Will to be aware of this when he is up there."

Posted by Mike Carney at 02:20 PM/ET, April 13, 2007

Avoiding Secret Testimony

March 31, 2007

Editorial

The House Judiciary Committee has begun conducting closed-door interviews with some of the key officials involved in the Bush administration’s purge of United States attorneys. The interviews may be harmless as long as they are merely a first step in the investigation. But they must not become a substitute for what this investigation really requires: sworn public testimony under oath by Karl Rove, the presidential adviser; Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel; and everyone else involved.

--MORE--

When Will Fredo Get Whacked? : FRANK RICH - Bush and Gonzales

THE COMPLETE ARTICLE WITH ALL HYPERLINKS
THE NEW YORK TIMES
OP-ED COLUMNIST

When Will Fredo Get Whacked?

By FRANK RICH

Published: March 25, 2007

Alberto Gonzales has been present at every dubious legal crossroads in President Bush’s career.

PRESIDENT BUSH wants to keep everything that happens in his White House secret, but when it comes to his own emotions, he’s as transparent as a teenager on MySpace.

On Monday morning he observed the Iraq war’s fourth anniversary with a sullen stay-the-course peroration so perfunctory he seemed to sleepwalk through its smorgasbord of recycled half-truths (Iraqi leaders are “beginning to meet the benchmarks”) and boilerplate (“There will be good days, and there will be bad days”). But at a press conference the next day to defend his attorney general, the president was back in the saddle, guns blazing, Mr. Bring ’Em On reborn. He vowed to vanquish his Democratic antagonists much as he once, so very long ago, pledged to make short work of insurgents in Iraq.

The Jekyll-and-Hyde contrast between these two performances couldn’t be a more dramatic indicator of Mr. Bush’s priorities in his presidency’s endgame. His passion for protecting his power and his courtiers far exceeds his passion for protecting the troops he’s pouring into Iraq’s civil war. But why go to the mat for Alberto Gonzales? Even Bush loyalists have rarely shown respect for this crony whom the president saddled with the nickname Fredo; they revolted when Mr. Bush flirted with appointing him to the Supreme Court and shun him now. The attorney general’s alleged infraction — misrepresenting a Justice Department purge of eight United States attorneys, all political appointees, for political reasons — seems an easy-to-settle kerfuffle next to his infamous 2002 memo dismissing the Geneva Conventions’ strictures on torture as “quaint” and “obsolete.”

That’s why the president’s wild overreaction is revealing. So far his truculence has been largely attributed to his slavish loyalty to his White House supplicants, his ideological belief in unilateral executive-branch power and, as always, his need to shield the Machiavellian machinations of Karl Rove (who installed a protégé in place of one of the fired attorneys). But the fierceness of Mr. Bush’s response — to the ludicrous extreme of forbidding transcripts of Congressional questioning of White House personnel — indicates there is far more fire to go with all the Beltway smoke.

Mr. Gonzales may be a nonentity, but he’s a nonentity like Zelig. He’s been present at every dubious legal crossroads in Mr. Bush’s career. That conjoined history began in 1996, when Mr. Bush, then governor of Texas, was summoned for jury duty in Austin. To popular acclaim, he announced he was glad to lend his “average guy” perspective to a drunken driving trial. But there was one hitch. On the juror questionnaire, he left blank a required section asking, “Have you ever been accused, or a complainant, or a witness in a criminal case?”

A likely explanation for that omission, unknown to the public at the time, was that Mr. Bush had been charged with disorderly conduct in 1968 and drunken driving in 1976. Enter Mr. Gonzales.

--MORE--

House Panel Votes to Subpoena Rove, Miers

NewsMax.com Wires
Wednesday, March 21, 2007

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

By voice vote and without dissent, the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law decided to compel the president's top aides to testify publicly and under oath about their roles in the firings.

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

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

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

The panel approved subpoenas for Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, their deputies and Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff, who resigned over the uproar last week.

The committee rejected Bush's offer of a day earlier that his aides could to talk privately to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, but not under oath and not on the record.

Would he fight Democrats in court to protect his aides against congressional subpoenas?

"Absolutely," Bush declared.

Democrats promptly rejected the offer.

"Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"Our reasonable offer that Mr. Fielding presented to Congress yesterday is our reasonable offer and nothing has changed during the 12 hours since Mr. Fielding spoke to the Congress," White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday. "If they are truly serious about wanting to obtain the facts, they have right in front of them the opportunity to do that."

Bush said he worried that allowing testimony under oath would set a precedent on the separation of powers that would harm the presidency as an institution.

If neither side blinks, the dispute could end in court - ultimately the Supreme Court - in a politically messy development that would prolong what Bush called the "public spectacle" of the Justice Department's firings, and public trashings, of the eight U.S. attorneys.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the Senate panel's former chairman, appealed for pragmatism.

"It is more important to get the information promptly than to have months or years of litigation," Specter said.

Bush, in a late-afternoon statement at the White House, decried any attempts by Democrats to engage in "a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants."

"It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available," the president said.

Bush defended Gonzales against demands from congressional Democrats and a handful of Republicans that Gonzales resign over his handling of the U.S. attorneys' firings over the past year.

"He's got support with me," Bush said. "I support the attorney general."

Democrats say the prosecutors' dismissals were politically motivated. Gonzales initially had asserted the firings were performance-related, not based on political considerations.

But e-mails released earlier this month between the Justice Department and the White House contradicted that assertion and led to a public apology from Gonzales over the handling of the matter.

The e-mails showed that Rove, as early as Jan. 6, 2005, questioned whether the U.S. attorneys should all be replaced at the start of Bush's second term, and to some degree worked with former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and former Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson to get some prosecutors dismissed.

In his remarks Tuesday, Bush emphasized that he appoints federal prosecutors and it is natural to consider replacing them. While saying he disapproved of how the decisions were explained to Congress, he insisted "there is no indication that anybody did anything improper."

Nonetheless, the Senate on Tuesday voted 94-2 to strip Gonzales of his authority to fill U.S. attorney vacancies without Senate confirmation. Democrats contend the Justice Department and White House purged the eight federal prosecutors, some of whom were leading political corruption investigations, after a change in the USA Patriot Act gave Gonzales the new authority.

"What happened in this case sends a signal really through intimidation by purge: 'Don't quarrel with us any longer,"' said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., a former U.S. attorney.

The White House had signaled last week that it would not oppose the legislation if it also passed the House and reached Bush's desk.

Bush said that Fielding, told lawmakers they could interview Rove, Miers, deputy White House counsel William Kelley and J. Scott Jennings, a deputy to political director Sara Taylor - who in turn works for Rove. Any such discussions would occur on the president's terms, Fielding said, in private, "without the need for an oath" and without a transcript.

The president cast the offer as virtually unprecedented and a reasonable way for Congress to get all the information it needs about the matter.

"If the Democrats truly do want to move forward and find the right information, they ought to accept what I proposed," Bush said. "If scoring political points is the desire, then the rejection of this reasonable proposal will really be evident for the American people to see."

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who is leading the Senate probe into the firings, dismissed the White House offer.

"It's sort of giving us the opportunity to talk to them, but not giving us the opportunity to get to the bottom of what really happened here," Schumer said.

In his statement Tuesday, Bush said: "I also want to say something to the U.S. attorneys who have resigned. I appreciate your service to the country. And while I strongly support the attorney general's decision, and am confident he acted appropriately, I regret that these resignations turned into such a public spectacle." The president did not refer to any of the prosecutors by name or elaborate further.

In an op-ed in Wednesday's editions of The New York Times, one of the eight, David Iglesias of New Mexico, responded to the president: "I appreciate his gratitude for my service - this marks the first time I have been thanked. But only a written retraction by the Justice Department setting the record straight regarding my performance would settle the issue for me."

© 2007 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

House Panel Votes to Subpoena Rove, Miers

NewsMax.com Wires
Wednesday, March 21, 2007

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

By voice vote and without dissent, the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law decided to compel the president's top aides to testify publicly and under oath about their roles in the firings.

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

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

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

The panel approved subpoenas for Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, their deputies and Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff, who resigned over the uproar last week.

The committee rejected Bush's offer of a day earlier that his aides could to talk privately to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, but not under oath and not on the record.

Would he fight Democrats in court to protect his aides against congressional subpoenas?

"Absolutely," Bush declared.

Democrats promptly rejected the offer.

"Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"Our reasonable offer that Mr. Fielding presented to Congress yesterday is our reasonable offer and nothing has changed during the 12 hours since Mr. Fielding spoke to the Congress," White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday. "If they are truly serious about wanting to obtain the facts, they have right in front of them the opportunity to do that."

Bush said he worried that allowing testimony under oath would set a precedent on the separation of powers that would harm the presidency as an institution.

If neither side blinks, the dispute could end in court - ultimately the Supreme Court - in a politically messy development that would prolong what Bush called the "public spectacle" of the Justice Department's firings, and public trashings, of the eight U.S. attorneys.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the Senate panel's former chairman, appealed for pragmatism.

"It is more important to get the information promptly than to have months or years of litigation," Specter said.

Bush, in a late-afternoon statement at the White House, decried any attempts by Democrats to engage in "a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants."

"It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available," the president said.

Bush defended Gonzales against demands from congressional Democrats and a handful of Republicans that Gonzales resign over his handling of the U.S. attorneys' firings over the past year.

"He's got support with me," Bush said. "I support the attorney general."

Democrats say the prosecutors' dismissals were politically motivated. Gonzales initially had asserted the firings were performance-related, not based on political considerations.

But e-mails released earlier this month between the Justice Department and the White House contradicted that assertion and led to a public apology from Gonzales over the handling of the matter.

The e-mails showed that Rove, as early as Jan. 6, 2005, questioned whether the U.S. attorneys should all be replaced at the start of Bush's second term, and to some degree worked with former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and former Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson to get some prosecutors dismissed.

In his remarks Tuesday, Bush emphasized that he appoints federal prosecutors and it is natural to consider replacing them. While saying he disapproved of how the decisions were explained to Congress, he insisted "there is no indication that anybody did anything improper."

Nonetheless, the Senate on Tuesday voted 94-2 to strip Gonzales of his authority to fill U.S. attorney vacancies without Senate confirmation. Democrats contend the Justice Department and White House purged the eight federal prosecutors, some of whom were leading political corruption investigations, after a change in the USA Patriot Act gave Gonzales the new authority.

"What happened in this case sends a signal really through intimidation by purge: 'Don't quarrel with us any longer,"' said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., a former U.S. attorney.

The White House had signaled last week that it would not oppose the legislation if it also passed the House and reached Bush's desk.

Bush said that Fielding, told lawmakers they could interview Rove, Miers, deputy White House counsel William Kelley and J. Scott Jennings, a deputy to political director Sara Taylor - who in turn works for Rove. Any such discussions would occur on the president's terms, Fielding said, in private, "without the need for an oath" and without a transcript.

The president cast the offer as virtually unprecedented and a reasonable way for Congress to get all the information it needs about the matter.

"If the Democrats truly do want to move forward and find the right information, they ought to accept what I proposed," Bush said. "If scoring political points is the desire, then the rejection of this reasonable proposal will really be evident for the American people to see."

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who is leading the Senate probe into the firings, dismissed the White House offer.

"It's sort of giving us the opportunity to talk to them, but not giving us the opportunity to get to the bottom of what really happened here," Schumer said.

In his statement Tuesday, Bush said: "I also want to say something to the U.S. attorneys who have resigned. I appreciate your service to the country. And while I strongly support the attorney general's decision, and am confident he acted appropriately, I regret that these resignations turned into such a public spectacle." The president did not refer to any of the prosecutors by name or elaborate further.

In an op-ed in Wednesday's editions of The New York Times, one of the eight, David Iglesias of New Mexico, responded to the president: "I appreciate his gratitude for my service - this marks the first time I have been thanked. But only a written retraction by the Justice Department setting the record straight regarding my performance would settle the issue for me."

© 2007 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

Giving Aid and Comfort to the 'Enemy': the Plame Affair

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy: the Plame Affair

Valerie Plame Wilson, whose career Karl Rover and Vice President Dick Cheney wanted destroyed in a fit of pique, was finally allowed to testify before Congress on Friday. Some in the blogosphere are arguing that the outing of Plame Wilson was an impeachable offense.

Defenders of Rove and Cheney say that if they did not know that Valerie Plame Wilson was an undercover operative, then they did not break the law by trying to out her. But first of all, as high officials of the US government, they had a responsibility to excercise prudence in this regard. The "reasonably prudent person" is always invoked in tort trials, why not in national security affairs? Can anyone argue that Rove and Cheney were being prudent in their actions? Shouldn't they have to be to stay in office?

Moreover, they did know that Plame Wilson was involved in counter-proliferation efforts, including against Iran. By leaking her name with the intent that journalists such as Judy Miller publish it, they were conveying information about a CIA operation to Iran. That is high treason, even if they did not know she was covert. All they had to know is that she was trying to impede Iran's nuclear program, and that the Iranians did not know that that was what she was doing. You can't make her public without also letting the Iranians know. Here is what the Constitution says:

Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

It aided and comforted Iran to know that Valerie Plame Wilson and her dummy CIA corporation, Brewster Jennings & Associates, had been engaged in counter-proliferation efforts against it. Bush put Iran in the Axis of Evil, thus declaring it an enemy of the US.

Therefore, Rove and Cheney (and maybe Bush himself) gave aid and comfort to an enemy of these United States by a deliberate act of outing a CIA operative who was not known to Iran and whose cover and activities had not been.

That's treason. That warrants impeachment.

posted by Juan @ 3/17/2007 06:29:00 AM 0 comments