Buck Naked Politics

Who Will The Pardoner Pardon?

by Damozel | Apparently, the power to issue presidential pardons is one more way Bush and his pals can make a bad job look even worse.  At The Politico, Josh Gerstein reminds us of Bill Clinton twelfth-hour pardoning frenzy and does a bit of speculation about what Bush might do.

Bush is...facing pressure from conservative allies, who see pardons of former Bush administration officials and some others as a more realistic possibility. At the top of their lists: Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, still under investigation for his role in a series of U.S. attorney firings. (via Memeorandum)

Firing US Attorneys: GOP Tools Buchanan (Cyril Wecht & Tommy Chong) & Martin (Scrushy, Siegelman, & Schmitz) Refusing to Leave

by Damozel | Political apppointees to the DoJ traditionally tender their resignations when a new administration comes in ---- but not these ladies. Well, Buchanan did say back in December that she wasn't going anywhere of her own volition.  (BN-Politics)  Guess she wasn't kidding.

At The Daily Beast (via Memeorandum), Scott Horton explains the "reason" why Buchanan and Bush administration pick Alice Martin are now refusing to leave:  too many corrupt Dems need prosecuting! 

Uh-huh. 

This is all all quite hilarious coming---as it does--- on the heels Tuesday's internal Justice Department memo:

Burris Sought Death for Innocent Man -- Despite Other Prosecutor's Objections

by Deb Cupples |   Whether Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has a legal right to appoint Barack Obama's replacement in the U.S. Senate is still up for debate. 

His choice for Obama's replacement (former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris) is also up for debate -- apparently based on Burris' fitness or lack thereof.  Politico reports:

Alberto Gonzalez Promises a "Tell-All" Book, Though He Still Can't Remember Doing Anything Wrong

by Damozel |   Larisa Alexandrovna sums up the problem for Gonzo:  "So either he lied under oath about not recalling anything or his entire book will be a lie."  Otherwise, as Jonathan Stein remarks, it will be the shortest tell-all memoir in the history of the world. Perhaps that's why he's having trouble finding a publisher.

In the last 16 months---has it really been that long since we waved our unfond farewells to Gonzalez?  Why yes it has, though it seems like only yesterday---Gonzalez has been frustrated by being portrayed, in his words, "as the one who is evil in formulating policies that people disagree with."

His own view of himself is different.  He views himself as "a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror."  The Wall Street Murdoch has the full story.

Justice Dept: More Breaking of Rules & Wasting of Tax Dollars?

by Deb Cupples  |   In June, the Justice Department's inspector general released a report concluding that Department hiring practices had been politicized, in violation of Department policies and civil service laws that prohibit consideration of political affiliations.  Yes, this includes the time that ex-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was in charge, and he's being sued over his apparent misconduct.

Reportedly, a Justice Department official decided that we taxpayers should pay "up to $24,000 per month" for a private lawyer to represent Mr. Gonzales -- and Congress wasn't informed.  Understandably, Congress isn't happy. 

House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers and Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy wrote a letter to our current Attorney General Michael Mukasey, which states in part:

State Judge Publicly Calls Mukasey a Tyrant, Mukasey Later Faints

by Deb Cupples  |   Conservative judge Richard Sanders from Washington's State Supreme Court was at a Federalist  Society Dinner, listening to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey give a speech.  Here's what happened next, according to the Seattle Times:

"After listening to Mukasey defend the Bush administration's counterterrorism policies — its detainment practices at Guantánamo Bay, its interpretation of the Geneva Conventions' reach — Sanders stood and shouted "Tyrant! You are a tyrant!"

New York Times: New Twist in Siegelman Appeal

by Deb Cupples  |  The New York Times reports:  

"New accusations have emerged during the appeal of the bribery conviction of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama that could buttress Democrats’ claims that the case against him was politically tainted, even as he prepares to argue against his conviction in a federal appeals court in Atlanta early next month.

"The accusations, from a Justice Department employee, suggest that the Republican United States attorney whose office prosecuted Mr. Siegelman remained substantially involved in the case, long after she insisted that she had removed herself from it because of her partisan connections."

Bush Puts Executive Branch Above the Law Yet Again

by Damozel | Did you know that George W. Bush is still president?  Someday, looking back, our descendants will stand amazed at a Congress---and I'm looking at BOTH parties now---too spineless to impeach him.   Though to be fair, Congress has been busy with other things during the last couple of months.  Even so, note the following:

The Bush administration has informed Congress that it is bypassing a law intended to forbid political interference with reports to lawmakers by the Department of Homeland Security....[N]ewly disclosed documents show that the Justice Department issued a legal opinion last January questioning the basis for that restriction, and that Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, later advised Congress that the administration would not “apply this provision strictly” because it infringed on the president’s powers.(New York Times)

A Republican, Arlen Specter---who has fought the good fight against the Bush Administration's expansion of its powers---called him out.

Judiciary Committee Sets Deadline for Subpoena Compliance

by Deb Cupples |    Last week, a federal court essentially ruled that ex-White House Counsel Harriet Miers had to testify and produce documents regarding the House Judiciary Committee's investigation of Justice Department politicization.

The White House had claimed that Miers didn't have to testify, which is the opposite stance that the federal court recently took.  Since the court ruling, the Judiciary Committee has set a deadline for compliance:

Progress on those White House Subpoenas?

by Deb Cupples |   Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee released the following statement:

"Today, United States District Judge John Bates denied the Administration’s request for a stay of his July 31 ruling that no White House official is immune from Congressional subpoena.  The effect of the denial of the stay is that Harriet Miers must appear and testify before the House Judiciary Committee regarding her role in the politicization of the Department of Justice, including the firing of U.S. Attorneys in 2006.

Conyers Comments on Mukasey's Unwillingness to Prosecute

Recently, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey publicly said that he would not be criminally prosecuting Justice Department employees (and ex-employees) over the reportedly illegal hiring practices, because Mukasey thinks that the violations were not criminal. I've no idea whether Mukasey is right, but the proclamation seems a bit premature given that investigations are still ongoing.

Yesterday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers responded to Mukasey's public statement.  I got the press release via email, and it's not yet up at the Committee's website, so I can't link to it.  I did, however, copy and paste Conyers' response below:

Mukasey Says No Evidence of Crimes by Justice Employees

The New York Times reports:

"In a speech Tuesday morning to the American Bar Association in Manhattan, Mr. Mukasey condemned the political abuses in his most forceful language to date, saying “the system failed.” He also acknowledged that some critics and commentators had called on the Justice Department to take what he called “more drastic steps,” including prosecuting those at fault and firing those hired through flawed procedures. But he rejected both those approaches.

White House Targeted in Fired U.S. Attorney Probe?

Huffington Post's Murray Waas has a great article on the various probes into the Fired U.S. Attorney Scandal (see scandal overview here).  The upshot seems to be that investigators are focusing on "whether top Justice Department political appointees and senior White House officials purposely mislead Congress about the firing" of the nine U.S. Attorneys.   

The article is chock full of sources and quotes, and it's too long for me to do it justice by quoting snippets, so I recommend that you read it here. See commentary at Memeorandum.

Senior White House Aides Can Be Subpoenaed, Says Bush Appointed Federal Judge

by Damozel |  Legal expert Marty Lederman thinks the 93-page opinion--- an extraordinarily thorough, scholarly and thoughtful opinion -- surely one of the best opinions ever written on questions relating to executive/congressional disputes---will be a 'landmark decision.'  District Judge John Bates (a George W. Bush appointee, who Lederman points out,  'worked on the Starr Whitewater team'):

The Daily Show on Monica Goodling

Jon Stewart strolls down memory lane and that little scandal in the Justice Department.  ('Ideologically pure robo-lawyer...with a degree from Messiah College.')

An Interesting Comment on the Privilege-to-Avoid-Subpoenas Argument

Posted by Damozel | I found this comment at the end of Larissa Alexandrovna's post (cited in my previous note).  To quote Jeeves, it touches the matter with a needle:

More on the Bush Administration's Policy of Political Hiring: A Rove Connection?

Posted by Damozel | On May 17, 2005, the White House sent a letter to agencies throughout the executive branch instructing them to find jobs for certain 'Bush loyalists.'   The passage shows that even if Goodling and Sampson weren't working under direct orders from the White House, they were acting in line with its policies. (NYT)  And Larissa Alexandrovna asks the question that is troubling inquiring minds everywhere. 

The White House is a building. Who actually sent the memos instructing these activities?

Alexandrovna argues that the trail seems to lead back to Karl Rove...i.e.,the Political Affairs Office.

Democrats Call for Contempt Charges Against Rove

by Teh Nutroots | The House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to hold him in contempt.  (NYT) I find it extraordinary that everyone, including all Republicans, doesn't hold him in contempt.  Why do Republicans insist on shielding wrongdoers within the Bush administration?(NYT)  Lying to Congress got Bill Clinton impeached in the House. 

But defying Congress?  That's apparently fine, even for people who aren't the president.  'The White House has invoked executive privilege in asserting that current and former top officials cannot be forced to testify before Congress, because the president’s right to confidential advice from his trusted aides would then be compromised.' (NYT) 

Will Goodling be the Bush Administration's Scapegoat?

by Damozel | Yesterday, I posted in some depth about Goodling's work at what legal scholar Jonathan Turley has called 'The Voldemort Department of Human Resources.' (Countdown, embedded below)  Via The Raw Story:

The White House's silence on the Justice Department report should indicate, perhaps, at least a tacit endorsement of Goodling's tactics, Turley says.

"The question really is why isn't the president coming forward and saying there's a shame factor here at what occurred at the Justice Department," he said. "Alberto Gonzales picked this person, not because of the merits -- she lacked anything on the merits. She was picked because she was an extremist, and this is the result." ( The Raw Story discusses the segment in depth.)

The Monica Goodling Files: Notes on the Investigation

by Damozel | Joe Windish has provided some background,  some blogger reactions,  and some other useful links. JI  spent a couple of hours this afternoon browsing the report (h/t to  Sadly No! where I found the link to the report (actually entitled 'Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General') (pdf.file)  I've set out relevant quotes below.  I felt angry while I was reading it---which probably shows in my commentary; I don't know---but now that I'm done I just feel sad.  I certainly don't feel disposed to rejoice, but I do want to see these people held accountable.