Well, we never reached my liveblog number for Alberto Gonzales' House Judiciary Committee hearing before it adjourned just moments ago. But I wanted to put up this thread to discuss today's events, and to put down my thoughts about the hearing.
It is clear from the statements of Chairman Conyers that there is one central question in this entire scandal that remains unanswered: who generated the list of US Attorneys to be fired, and why? And it's clear that Conyers will not quit probing this scandal until he gets a satisfactory answer to that question. Referring to Republican derision that the scandal is based on mere "bread crumbs" and conjecture, Conyers said in his closing statement, "The bread crumbs seem to be leading to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."
Over for some of my thoughts, specifically on one piece of today's testimony:
I thought Florida's Robert Wexler gave a bravura performance (and Tennessee's Steve Cohen did a great follow-up job). This entire US Attorney scandal comes down to that one question that nobody can answer, and Wexler asked it over and over. Who put these US Attorneys on the target list to be fired? The Attorney General claims he didn't do it. No deputy or top official in the Justice Department did it. According to Abu G, the President or Vice President didn't do it. (Though Cohen made the great point that "Harriet Miers asked about whether to fire all 93, why should we be surprised if the White House decided to fire 8?")
So who did it? Who made this target list? Nobody seems to be owning up to it.
Gonzales has a cute answer for this, claiming that out of respect for the integrity for this investigation, he hasn't asked anybody who might have this information. Like I said, a cute answer, but it's information you would think the Attorney General would know BEFORE he would fire 9 US Attorneys. Essentially he's saying that he accepted the recommendations on federal prosecutors without knowing who made the recommendations or why. And Wexler hammered him.
Ultimately, that's what this entire thing is about. And there's a simple answer to the question, an answer that David Iglesias said just today.
In an interview with the Albuquerque Tribune today, ousted U.S. attorney David Iglesias states, “I think all roads lead to Rove. I think that’s why the president is circling some pretty major wagons around him to keep him from testifying under oath, which subjects him to criminal prosecution.”
Meanwhile, it's come out today that the Administration withheld emails about Rove's role with respect to the US Attorney for Arkansas Bud Cummins, and the installation of Rove oppo research guy Tim Griffin in that position.
The question that they won't answer is about Karl Rove. Scooter Libby was his firewall, and now it's Alberto Gonzales.
Use this as a thread to discuss today's hearing.
UPDATE: I do want to add that the best non-US Attorney questioning today was William Delahunt's queries about Luis Posada Carriles, who you might know as the international terrorist that a judge set free yesterday because of the incompetence of the prosecution's case against him (which had nothing to do with terrorism, it was an immigration case). There is documented proof that Carriles helped blow up an airplane, bombed apartment complexes, and attempted to assassinate a foreign leader. The difference, of course, is that this terrorist was trying to bomb Havana and kill Fidel Castro, and that the CIA trained and supported him. The DoJ has never attempted to label him a terrorist for fear that they would anger anti-Castro Cubans. Emptywheel gives the rundown of Delahunt's excellent questioning:
As Delahunt pointed out to Gonzales, under the PATRIOT Act the Attorney General retains sole discretion for naming someone a terrorist. Gonzales has sole discretion whether we start treating Posada with the same seriousness with which we treat young men from New Jersey caught training with paint ball guns to attack Fort Dix. Delahunt went further, too, reading the disgust voiced by the judge who dismissed the charges:
In addition to engaging in fraud, deceit and trickery, this Court finds the Government's tactics in this case are so grossly shocking and so outrageous as to violate the universal sense of justice. As a result, this Court is left with no choice but to dismiss the indictment.
While he didn't say it specifically, Delahunt seemed to suggest deliberate negligence on the part of the government in drawing its case against Posada.
Delahunt used the oversight hearing as an opportunity to confront Gonzales about why he hadn't considered naming Posada a terrorist. Presumably, Gonzales will be forced to provide an answer to Delahunt in writing. But at least in that hearing, Gonzales made his typical evasions, refusing to commit because of factors that he wouldn't really describe.
This is maybe the clearest example of how the war on terror has been illegitimately applied, and I'm glad Delahunt made Abu G sweat on this issue.