A Chorus of "Didn't Make List" from Justice Department =White House

Paul McNulty, Deputy Attorney General ("the DAG" in Justice Department parlence) told Congress that he had limited involvement in firing the U.S. Attorneys during the December purge.  So, if the DAG, the "PayDAG" (the principal associate deputy attorney general), and the AG's former chief-of-staff all say that they didn't choose who was on the hit list, that leaves Monica Goodling and/or the White House, both of which are problematic.

I'm makin' a list
Changing it thrice
Gonna find out who's loyal
and who's mice
Ka-rl Rove is coming to town . . .

Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty told Congress (behind closed doors, so I can't provide a link) that he had limited involvement in the firing of the eight former U.S. Attorneys who were all sacked at once.  It gets better.  He said he perjured himself before Congress (uh, excuse me, gave "erroneous testimony") because he had not been informed that Attorney General Gonzales and his aides had been working hand-in-glove with the White House on the firing scheme for a good two years.  McNulty has a special place in my heart because he was the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia during the whole John Walker Lindh debacle in which I was involved.  See http://www.patriotictruthteller.net

If the DAG (McNulty), the PayDAG (William Moschella)--he fessed up to inserting the stealth provision in the Patriot Act that allowed the AG to appoint new U.S. Attorneys and bypass Senate confirmation--and Gonzo's former chief-of-staff (Kyle Sampson) had little or no involvement in drawing up the hit list, then that means Monica Goodling did it.  Or, more likely, the White House.   Either scenario is bad--Monica because she is a recent Regents-grad and political operative in a huge position of power for which she is unqualified, and the White House because it shows how politicized the Justice Department is and how willing 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is to interfere with federal prosecutions and dilute the system of checks and balances.

•  fantastic as usual, Jesselyn

  recommended.

  by BlueInARedState on Tue May 01, 2007 at 03:47:48 AM PDT

  •  Excellent diary...

    However, I have some questions.

    It is clear that the DOJ under Gonzo is beyond awful.  My question to the group is...in what way does Waas' article or the McNulty/Moscehlla revelations implicate criminality?  Yes...seriously flawed...FUBAR'd in fact.  Yes...close to fascism.
    BUT...was Gonzo's order in fact, illegal?  Unethical?  I'm just not sure.  

    Perhaps the "illegality" is in what has been testified to by Sampson and Gonzo.  Without a transcript, it's hard for me to remember the minutae of their testimony (although, it certainly seems that Sampson was doing more than "aggragating.")  And perhaps it's also the failure to produce the memo (although at least one news source reports that it's in the Federal Register.) But I'm not sure that the memo itself, as bad as it is, evidences an impeachable offense.

    Perhaps it does.  So, I'm interested in what others can say to help me connect the dots.  Thanks.

    by mayan on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:29:57 AM PDT

    •  According to another diary on the rec list

      the original order -- the one that internal DoJ lawyers said was unconstitutional -- was in the Federal Register as a DRAFT order (for which comment was solicited).  Then the draft order was pulled, the order was revised to require Abu G to "sign off" on the decisions made "in his name."  THAT order explicitly says it was not to be published in the Federal Register.

      By not putting it in the Federal Register, after publishing the prior draft in the Federal Register, it is possible that the final order does not comply with the Administrative Procedures Act.  Any APA experts out there?

      by litigatormom on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:48:19 AM PDT

      •  I just read that fantastic diary.

        We need a list of kossacks working on the DOJ crimes.  It would be nice to link them together.

        by Silence is Complicity on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:52:56 AM PDT

        •  I'll try to cross-post and refer to the other one

          by Jesselyn Radack on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:55:14 AM PDT

          •  Sadly funny

            I'm makin' a list
            Changing it thrice
            Gonna find out who's loyal
            and who's mice
            Ka-rl Rove is coming to town . . .

            Sad, because it appears to be too true.
            Funny, because it shows great wit and humor in the face  of this outrageous affair.

            by TexDem on Tue May 01, 2007 at 10:24:14 AM PDT

        •  There is a group already:

          It's called ePluribus Media

          Stories we've published on the USA/DOJ scandals

          The Gonzales Seven

          The Alberto Gonzales Appointments: How the Process Has Changed and Why this is so Important

          Alberto Gonzales: Gaming the System Again in Arizona?

          The Gonzales Seven: Who They are and Who is Replacing Them

          Who IS Alberto Gonzales

          Meet the new boss? Same as the old boss ...

          and many more...

          by Timroff on Tue May 01, 2007 at 10:05:29 AM PDT

          •  I'm registered there, but I can't keep track

            of who is working on what.  Do they post in both places?  Is there a working list or an underground investigative strategy?  

            by Silence is Complicity on Tue May 01, 2007 at 11:13:32 AM PDT

            •  Contact one of the admins over there

              and they can help you through it.

              The basic answer to all of your questions, by the way, is yes.

              by Timroff on Tue May 01, 2007 at 12:32:01 PM PDT

          •  sorry for my questions, but I've only slightly

            mastered d-kos.  Haven't figured out how the other sites work yet.

            by Silence is Complicity on Tue May 01, 2007 at 11:14:26 AM PDT

        •  From TPMmuckraker

          Former DoJ Official: I Left Due to "Institutional Sabotage"

          by TexDem on Tue May 01, 2007 at 10:28:01 AM PDT

      •  Not an APA expert

        but my question is whether the AG had a valid authority to fire USAs in the first instance.

        Follow me.  The authority of the president in Art II, Sec 2, Par 2 is to appoint, with the advice and consent of the Congress, "all other officers of the US whose appointments are not herein otherwise otheriwse provided for, and which shall be established by law." I think that is the clause that gives the president the power to appoint the USAs, and is the foundation for the statement that the USAs 'serve at the pleasure of the president."  So if the can appoint, he must be able to fire, as well.  Althought I cannot find anything in the Constitution that says the president has authority to remove [fire] these officials, I will assume he has that power by virtue of his power to appoint.

        The provision inserted into the PATRIOT Act gave, by law, the authority to appoint and remove USAs to the AG.  Under Art II, Sec 2, Par 2, Congress can do that.  But I think Congress would be constrained to give to the AG only that power which the president has, which was a limited power - it's limited by the "advice and consent" clause.  Since the appointment power in the PATRIOT Act does not specify that it is limited by the "advice and consent" clause, the argument that the AG can appoint without ever seeking the advice and consent of Congress is specious.

        So if the provision in the PATRIOT Act is facially invalid, what's the remedy?  There are two possible - declare the PATRIOT Act provision unconstitutional, or declare it constitutional, but limited by the same provision in the Constitution that limits the original power, that it exists only with the 'advice and consent" clause attached to it.

        The second option would be much stronger if it was not for the fact that the Administration has proceeded to appoint "interim" USAs, and has never even begun any process to present its candidates to Congress for "advice and consent" in spite of all of Gonzales' protestations.  So combining the facts that the statute is facially unconstitutional and that it has been used in practice in an unconstitutional manner, it must be stricken down as unconstitutional.

        Since the enabling statute granting the AG power to fire USAs was unconstitutional, he had no valid power to delegate.

        Okay, now all you constitutional scholars/authorities have at it.

        by WiddieDawg on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:37:15 AM PDT

        •  Yes

          I've wondered this--and wondered why no one has asked if this law is unconstitutional (moot point now I know.)

          But I am far, far from being a lawyer. . .

          by Last Lemming on Tue May 01, 2007 at 08:43:23 AM PDT

    •  Obstruction of justice.

      Both in lying to Congress, and in pressuring/firing federal prosecutors in the first place because of their action or inaction in federal investigations.

      by Jesselyn Radack on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:53:39 AM PDT

      •  Jesselyn

        Have you read the piece from TPMmuckraker I posted above?

        by TexDem on Tue May 01, 2007 at 10:30:05 AM PDT

      •  Also this one

        From TPMmuckraker.

        by TexDem on Tue May 01, 2007 at 10:33:55 AM PDT

    •  I had the same thought

      What's the effective difference between Gonzo hiring and firing and other DOJ people hiring and firing?  Gonzo is just as much an administration tool as Goodling, just as capable of carrying out the purges.

      Yes, the delegation makes it easier to carry it out beneath the radar.  And yes, it may be a violation of the APA, as litigator mom points out.  And yes, their failure to turn over the order in compliance with the request is deceptive and may be illegal.  And yes, it is disgusting to pack the DOJ with Regent clones.

      But it just doesn't seem to be hard evidence of obstruction of justice -- the heart of the scandal.  The real issue is whether prosecutions were either pushed or obstructed through hirings and firings.  The mechanism (e.g., delegation) is evidence of a cover-up (though maybe not illegal) and not the underlying crime.

      by Upper West on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:56:07 AM PDT

      •  Has anyone

        found, seen, testified about, or described the actual delegation orders?  Are they supposed to have been written or oral? generic ("act in place of me when required") or specific ("fire them")?  Having worked in bureaucracies, I know there has to be some kind of delegation trail, however fragmented.  A flunky does not just go out and fire a bunch of people without direction from someone with authority to fire.  That would get the flunky fired (or committed for observation).

        by Rona on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:08:34 AM PDT

        •  Which is why I have been asking

          whether any of the fired actually got a document noticing their dimissal or accepting their resignations.  There has to be some paper trail to present to the payroll office, if nowhere else.

          Be that as it may, I would argue that once a public official has assumed an office (and sworn an oath to carry it out) he's got a presumed interest in that office (as GWB did once he was sworn) and cannot be removed except for cause.  Perhaps it comes under the law of torts.
          Now, when an official has a definite term of office, he can be relieved of that office at the end of the term without explanation or justification.  So, where it seems the Bushies messed up was in removing the office holders after a new term had effectively begun (with the exception of Lam who was supposed to be removed as soon as her term expired), which opened them up to the charge of having created an expectation of being kept in office that was then negated.  Maybe there's even an issue of contract law.

          It would be ironic if it all turned out to be a matter of poor timing.

          The timeline.  

          by hannah on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:59:37 AM PDT

          •  For whom the Clock Docked? tick tick tick nt

            by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Tue May 01, 2007 at 08:10:00 AM PDT

          •  This Was a Self-Inflicted Debacle

            What sent up red flags was forcing these folks out mid-term, relying on a stealth provision of the Patriot Act to insert their successors, and then blaming their dismissals on poor performance.

            But now deeper issues have come to light about WHY the purged prosecutors were forced out.  Almost have of them were inappropriately contacted by Members of Congress or their senior staff about ongiong federal criminal investigations, often into Democrats.

            by Jesselyn Radack on Tue May 01, 2007 at 08:30:34 AM PDT

            •  That is not all according to Bob Kengle

              formerly a Deputy Chief in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division.

              Mr. Kengle states that;

              I no longer could insulate the line attorneys I supervised from the political appointees.

              From 2001 on there were repeated occasions on which I discovered after the fact that front office personnel (that is, the political appointees) had directly contacted attorneys I was supervising without first advising me or the section chief. Before this Administration such contacts were extremely rare and generally only occurred under exigent circumstances. This was a serious problem for several reasons. First, the front office personnel lacked the specialized litigation experience needed to successfully litigate voting rights cases at the highest level. Even if such direct contacts were well-intentioned, the political appointees' judgment often was poorly informed. By first discussing a matter with me or the section chief we could ensure that the appointees were aware of the relevant legal, factual, policy and tactical considerations before any directions were given to the line attorneys. What may appear to be a good argument in a particular case may be inconsistent with longstanding positions that in fairness should be adhered to absent a convincing reason to change. States, political subdivisions and public officials (who are the parties against whom the Voting Section generally litigates) have every right to expect the Department to be consistent. Ad hoc arguments are de rigeur for private litigants but the Department must be judged by a higher standard. Direct contacts with the line attorneys undermine these policy considerations.

              Worse, such contacts could be less than well-intentioned, often seeming to occur after the front office had obtained some piece of information, or received a question or "helpful suggestion" from Republican officials or attorneys. This was a particular problem in a highprofile redistricting case involving the State of Georgia that we litigated from 2001-2003. I felt that it took every bit of my abilities to prevent the Voting Section from being hijacked in that case by pressure from the Georgia Republican Party. While I believe that with the unwavering support of my section chief Joe Rich I was successful in doing so, by late 2004 I became convinced that we no longer would be able to intercede in the same way.

              by TexDem on Tue May 01, 2007 at 10:45:01 AM PDT

        •  I would think...

          that delegation orders are written and explicit.  Otherwise, there is no legal delegation.  As to whether they have been produced is another question...I cannot believe that they wouldn't be produced...but then again, there has been much that has happened over the last seven years that I couldn't believe.  

          BushBizarroWorld...making the outrageous day to day realities.  They may have the Overton Window...but we have the Oversight sunlight that can stream through the Window.

          by mayan on Tue May 01, 2007 at 08:47:42 AM PDT

      •  The Cover-up and Not the Crime

        Often people get convicted for the cover-up and not the crime.  While causation is more difficult to prove on whether or not certain criminal investigations were accelerated or shut down due to partisan political pressure, there are a number of high-level folks who lied to or willingly misled Congress--Gonzales, McNulty, Sampson, . . .  

        So on either ground (the initial interference with federal criminal investigations, or the later perjury to Congress0, there are criminal grounds.  And finally we have a Congress that doesn't like being lied to.

        by Jesselyn Radack on Tue May 01, 2007 at 08:26:05 AM PDT

    •  He is guilty of violating his oath

      to the constitution.  And that constitution included the Bill of Rights before the War on Drugs and now Bush's never ending war(s).  One of the articles of the Bill of Rights was the separation of Church and State.  I think we can safely say that they were dismantling that separation as fast as they could.

      And there were other parts of that constitution that he has figured is just toilet paper!

      That is the one major irritant I have about the repubs - why swear an oath if you don't mean it?  Why not just once be honest and say you hate the constitution and the paper it was written on and the people who created it?

      by glitterscale on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:04:21 AM PDT

      •  Ironic coming from self-proclaimed

        "strict constructionists" and "originalists."

        by Jesselyn Radack on Tue May 01, 2007 at 08:31:45 AM PDT

        •  That's one of their more specious lies...

          Calling "librul" judges "activists" whereas "conservative" judges are "well-reasoned strict constructionists."

          That's their invariable and most powerful game plan.   Take their weakest point (in this case, that there are judges salivating at the opportunity to fling the country back to the oligarchic good old days of the 1800s) and attack the "other side" for exactly the same thing that the Bushists/Rovists could be accused of.  (I don't think I said it eloquently or articulately but perhaps you get my point.)

          They do this by seizing the language...i.e. "activist judges" and by having the cynicism to use it as a launching point for an attack...regardless of whether it's a bald-faced lie or not.

          by mayan on Tue May 01, 2007 at 08:53:43 AM PDT

        •  Ironic

          Does that word still mean anything, or have they rendered it obsolete yet?    Since it describes everything they do, how can anything they do still to be called ironic.  

          Irony will soon be joining words like Patriot, Christian, Conservative, etc in the land of mutilated meanings, polluted beyond recognition.   One more victim of the Bush Regime.

          by enough already on Tue May 01, 2007 at 10:05:30 AM PDT

  •  Thanks.

    by Jesselyn Radack on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:51:07 AM PDT

    •  Edit suggestion

      Parlance

      Stopped me cold while starting to read the diary (my problem, of course).  Please fix.

      by Dem In VA on Tue May 01, 2007 at 09:21:55 AM PDT

•  Jesselyn - What are your thoughts regarding

  Ms. Goodling lying under oath concerning the Evangelical thought process that considers God's law to be above man's law?  By that, I mean that she has been taught it is OK to not tell the truth if it does not further the plans of the "movement".

  I just find it hard to believe that even if she is assured she will not be prosecuted for any wrong doing she herself perpetrated, that she will still tell the whole truth.

  by funluvn1 on Tue May 01, 2007 at 03:48:15 AM PDT

  •  When I was in Nursing School, a Sister

    of Mercy, told us in an Ethics Class that a lie of ommission was not a sin in Gods Eyes. Now this was a while back but just think how they have refined that teaching x's 100.

    by Owllwoman on Tue May 01, 2007 at 04:18:34 AM PDT

    •  Or we can go way back...

      ..."God is not opposed to deceit in a righteous cause"-Aeschuylus

      by Hillbilly Dem on Tue May 01, 2007 at 04:40:18 AM PDT

      •  That God ... he's got long legs for ...

        ... something that slithers on its belly.

        by Yellow Canary on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:59:31 AM PDT

        •  What happens when Gonzales takes Viagra?

          He gets taller.

          by Jesselyn Radack on Tue May 01, 2007 at 08:32:50 AM PDT

          •  LOL!!

            OMG I needed that after such a depressing day!!!!

            by tamarlively on Tue May 01, 2007 at 12:47:28 PM PDT

    •  That nun

      should have read more Augustine.

      by newfie on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:14:10 AM PDT

      •  I think that puzzle is "Honesty=Crucifixion"nt

        by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:44:07 AM PDT

    •  I wonder if that same sister

      was employed for the much hyped White House staff ethics classes a couple of years back.

      by stevej on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:15:14 AM PDT

    •  Thou shalt not lie.

      --Ten Commandments

      by Jesselyn Radack on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:57:54 AM PDT

      •  Thou shalt not...

        ... bear false witness against thy neighbor.

        Exodus 20:13b, see also Deuteronomy 5:17b. (wiki)

        Of course, lawyers can tell you, there are some great wiggle words in there.

        by jwb95 on Tue May 01, 2007 at 09:04:17 AM PDT

    •  asdf

      [a sister] of Mercy, told us in an Ethics Class that a lie of ommission was not a sin in Gods Eyes.

      Well, she might have been right.

      Let me (selectively) quote another source

      IV. RESPECT FOR THE TRUTH

      2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

      2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.

      
      I support that stance (unsurprisingly), and your teacher may have referred to such cases.

      by cris0000 on Tue May 01, 2007 at 08:43:45 AM PDT

      •  Would you tell

        the Nazis where the Jews were hiding? Probably not. The present-day problem is the Bushies view the opposition (the Democratic Party) as an obstacle to their goals and therefore have no remorse about lying to them.

        by wayoutinthestix on Tue May 01, 2007 at 12:07:07 PM PDT

    •  But....

      Fantasizing about sex is the same as committing adultery.  Go figure. . .

      by enough already on Tue May 01, 2007 at 10:10:20 AM PDT

  •  Monica Goodling = Dominion Cog Gal

    A good anagram always cheers me up.
    Now, back to work.

    .

    by slowheels on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:27:15 AM PDT

  •  I would like to see Leahy ask

    her simply
    "Do you believe the US Constitution as drawn up by the Founding Fathers is the absolute rule of law?". This is why I've written on my concern for groups like the Masons, Christian Coalition-because of thier belief that they have the right to lie based on these cultish laws. they do not supercede the Constituition-which is written in stone as "absolute rule of law".There is none higher.
      I'm tired of seeing Yoo trotted out like a trick pony to talk about Executive privelege. He's one guy and he's wrong. The US population is behind the Constitution no matter how hard this WH tries. Should the Supreme Court, or any court try to go against the will of the people. I've read the public can remove judges as well.

    by bethincary on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:27:14 AM PDT

    •  Skull&Bones secret oaths would overSEE all becaus

      of the "blackmail factor".

      Crossing the fingers when swearing on the bible are an easy act to pull off.

      Note the Methodists have nothing to do with Shrubs bogus religiosity.

      by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:32:10 AM PDT

      •  that crosses

        that crosses deep into conspiration theory territory.

        Once you start arguing this way, it's not far to go for black helicopters.

        by cris0000 on Tue May 01, 2007 at 08:25:07 AM PDT

        •  Can you please explain then why the DOJ is gettin

          lawyers from Christian schools like Regents' and Liberty-of course it's to interpret the law the way thier religion sees it. I'm sorry but it's time you awoke to reality-I'm not trying to be snarky here-this is a constitutional crisis waiting to happen.

          This is not conspiracy-we're way past that-over a third of people moved into DOJ have been Regents'-are we supposed to just ignore that?

          Sorry, but I happen to like my Constitution and think it's worth fighting not only for my rights but of the those generations up and coming.

          by bethincary on Tue May 01, 2007 at 08:53:35 AM PDT

          •  Tense correction

            this is a constitutional crisis waiting to happen.

            IMO, it's a Constitutional crisis IN PROGRESS.

            cdn

            by grndrush on Tue May 01, 2007 at 09:14:13 AM PDT

            •  True-but it hasn't been tested by them

              yet-and won't be at least. Just saying that thier decsions thus far have not influenced any changes. Hope it was caught in time. You don't have to tell me it's a crisis-and differ over the details-need to be blogging people who think it's all conspiracy theory. (Hopefully those on here are smarter than that.)

              by bethincary on Tue May 01, 2007 at 09:57:04 AM PDT

          •  it is a centuries-old ploy

            to attack members of unfavorable religious or civil groups as  untrustworthy because of their faith and their rituals is a classic smear.

            Discourse in a civilzed society has to assume allegiance to law and constitution of every citizen until proven otherwise.

            Everything else is more witch hunt than discourse.
            

            by cris0000 on Tue May 01, 2007 at 10:03:43 AM PDT

            •  Maybe it's classic because it's true

              You're assuming by your 2nd sentence that these people will conform to the Constitution-I'm sorry, but I'm just not so sure about that.
              I'm not willing to give the religious fundies the benefit of the doubt either.

              Look at the reasons of past wars, past controversies...it is usually involving a faction of extremist points of view who wan to take over. Why would anyone think religion could not be used to gain power?

              by bethincary on Tue May 01, 2007 at 10:15:28 AM PDT

              •  you are not entitled to be sure

                you are not entitled to be sure.  You are required to give everyone the benefit of doubt. That's how democracy works.

                Go read a little history. Whenever a religious group of people was attacked, it's first their patriotism that is doubted. Even today the internet is full of smears against this or that group. There is only a millimeter's difference between your argument and prohibiting Jews (they are all obeying Israel's orders, you know), Catholics (they are subordinates of this italian pope guy) or Muslims (they all want to introduce shariah instead of the constitution) from public service.

                Thanks, but a modern democracy can not work based on such premises.
                

                by cris0000 on Tue May 01, 2007 at 11:04:41 AM PDT

                •  You make my point.

                  All 3 of these groups that you speak of Jews, Catholic, Muslim, Baptist have the right to practice thier religion in this country. As long as religion is put separately from politics I'm fine.

                  Hiring lawyers from a school who are taught to fight for thier(operative word-as opposed to my) religious rights in court-working for federal jobs
                  violates that separation.

                  That is the federal government imposing "its'" religious choice on my civil liberties.

                  by bethincary on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:08:46 PM PDT

            •  Exactly backwards in your comment.

              Discourse in a civilzed society has to assume allegiance to law and constitution of every citizen until proven otherwise.

              WRONG  The Regents,Liberty people are picked for their positions at DOJ by the screeners for their loyalty to a "Godly" person, the top of the cabal,not the upholding of ethics:spirit and rule of law.

              by Pete Rock on Tue May 01, 2007 at 11:11:56 AM PDT

              •  We don't know if its' for loyalty

                or otherwise.
                As I've said before maybe it has not been tested.

                Do you want to take a chance on the upcoming elections being compromised by party loyalists-working under the guise of religion-on losing the elections?
                Do you want to take a chance on Democrats being accused of bogus voter fraud violations in Democratic districts?

                The facts are already out there that that is EXACTLY what these people were doing. what was the ratio Dems were investigated as opposed to GOP-7:1.

                What more evidence do you need than this?

                by bethincary on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:10:07 PM PDT

    •  Article III (federal) judges are there for life

      as per the Constitution.  However, they are appointed by politically-elected officials, whom we are free to vot out of office.

      by Jesselyn Radack on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:00:15 AM PDT

      •  Yes

        They are, however, impeachable -- yes?

        by mspicata on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:45:37 AM PDT

        •  Is that a Yes?

          I read it on Wik-will look up again.

          by bethincary on Tue May 01, 2007 at 08:55:56 AM PDT

          •  It is a yes

            federal judges can be impeached.

            by mspicata on Tue May 01, 2007 at 11:18:00 AM PDT

    •  The so-called Christian Coalition

      should consider Christ's teaching about rendering unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God's. That's what the "Christ" in "Christian" taught. He didn't teach his followers to become Ceasar; to lie, cheat, and steal; or to advance a religious war.

      Guess they don't teach that at fundamentalist law schools.

      by cotterperson on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:38:11 AM PDT

  •  Separation of Church & State is in Constitution

    for a reason.  These utilitarian arguments of "serving a greater good," when grounded in the religion, are misplaced when you are acting as a public servant.

    by Jesselyn Radack on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:57:20 AM PDT

    •  Don't forget Gonzales' backflips on

      the right to Habeus Corpus. Don't you think he could do the same for the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses?

      by davewill on Tue May 01, 2007 at 11:05:08 AM PDT

•   We may be stuck with Gonzales

  One of the Congresswomen that was around during Watergate has written a OpEd on the how and why Bush may be forced to keep Gonzales. It should be read by everyone who plans on during any critical thinking about Gonzales future.

  All this is reminiscent of the Watergate scandal. In 1973, as the coverup was unraveling, the Senate imposed a condition on the confirmation of President Nixon's nominee for attorney general, Elliot Richardson. Richardson's predecessor had resigned because of Watergate troubles. Concerned that the Justice Department would not get at the truth, the Senate insisted that Richardson would name a special prosecutor to investigate Watergate. Richardson duly appointed Archibald Cox.

  The rest is history. Cox's aggressive investigations led to the prosecution of top administration officials and the naming of Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator in the coverup.

  It's a LAtimes piece, I'm not sure if you will need to register to read it or not, registration is free. http://www.latimes.com/...

  by OneCrankyDom on Tue May 01, 2007 at 03:50:11 AM PDT

  •  I have to say that this is likely not a bad thing

    for Democrats.  With the albatross of Gonzo hanging from Bush's neck throughout the next two years, more and more it weighs down the entire Republic party.

    by funluvn1 on Tue May 01, 2007 at 03:53:51 AM PDT

    •  We still have to rip out that Regents/Federalist

      society "stain".

      This Litmus testing, Ashcroft resume padding insider job needs to be COMPLETELY dismantled.

      Lifetime appointments of uber-Moralists is a deathwith for a freethinking democracy.

      by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Tue May 01, 2007 at 04:07:06 AM PDT

      •  yep, we need to clean the stain

        fumigate the DOJ

        by pickandshovel on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:58:31 AM PDT

        •  Whistleblowers Unionize !!! W U- HOO eom

          by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:01:40 AM PDT

        •  Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant

          --Brandeis

          Keep shining those flashlights into the bowels of the Executive.

          by Jesselyn Radack on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:05:32 AM PDT

      •  Federal judges are there to stay

        but the honest, career public servants can take back the Justice Department and the Honors Program, which is its primary recruitment vehicle.

        by Jesselyn Radack on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:04:43 AM PDT

        •  Federal Judges can be impeached

          And impeachment belongs on the table.  It's what's for dinner!

          The Music Room.

          by madhaus on Tue May 01, 2007 at 11:53:02 AM PDT

    •  It will however

      Be a bad thing for another quarter million Iraqis and thousand or so americna soldiers.

      Pardon me if I don't see your optimism.

      by Demena on Tue May 01, 2007 at 04:30:40 AM PDT

      •  I Am A Realist

        so didn't mean to be overly-optimistic.  Remember, I am still suffing the fallout of a political campaign of retaliatory harassment that put me under criminal investigation, referred me to the state bars in which I'm licensed as an attorney, and landed me on the "no-fly" list. It's been 5 years, and I still am suffering the effects (e.g., the D.C. Bar complaint is still pending after nearly 4 years.)

        I know the wheels of justice turn slowly, but I'm chipper because the tide IS starting to finally turn.

        by Jesselyn Radack on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:08:18 AM PDT

        •  I apologise for the remark.

          I am quite sure you are.  The remark was meant for others who might miss the implications of the continued war.  You, as a person, have my admiration.

          It is my doom to play 'that still small voice'.

          by Demena on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:18:41 AM PDT

          •  No Apologies Necessary. If I Were Braver

            I'd write about it being the fourth anniversary of the "Mission NOT Accomplished" and suggest sending scarlett "V's" to any Member of Congress who won't override Bush's promised veto of the funding bill that sets a time table for withdrawal.

            by Jesselyn Radack on Tue May 01, 2007 at 08:37:06 AM PDT

    •  It's a terrible thing for the Rule of Law...

      which has been getting its ass routinely kicked since the stay of the FL recount on 12/9/00.  Gonzo enabled torture before he became AG, and he has turned the DOJ into an adjunct of the RNC since becoming AG.  He needs to be removed ASAP.

      I understand why W will never be impeached.  I sorta understand why Cheney will never be impeached.  I don't understand at all why impeachment hearings against Abu Gonzales have not been initiated.

      by RFK Lives on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:16:02 AM PDT

      •  I think they haven't been initiated because

        the committees still haven't even talked to Goodling yet for starters.  They have more to do in this investigation.  I am not at all convinced that they won't impeach Gonzales.  They need a solid basis for doing it which right now they don't quite have.  They are closing in though.

        by inclusiveheart on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:30:22 AM PDT

        •  The e-Mails will do the trick eom

          by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:33:36 AM PDT

          •  Perhaps in a court of law, but impeachment

            is a political animal.  The politics of the situation have to get hot enough so that the House members would have no choie but to vote in favor of impeachment lest they be viewed as corrupt themselves.  The public must be convinced enough of the evidence presented that the Senate would have no choice but to convict.  So keep in mind that the the committees are effectively building two cases here - one legal and one for the court of public opinion.  Impeachment can't be undertaken without both solidly in place.

            by inclusiveheart on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:38:17 AM PDT

            •  The list keeps getting longer and longer, GOPers

              lest they be viewed as corrupt themselves.

              are NUMB.  Everyday not one, but 3 flashfires erupt in this administration.

              And on the backburner is a hopeful NEIL BUSH indictment, that would get personal fast.  Spelling and DOdeducation....then EPA? Agriculture?  

              The stinking political cronies were stuck in every possible place, no telling HOW pitiful our ambassadorships are doing, there is no time to look into those usual suspects.

              by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:43:51 AM PDT

              •  Hopefully...

                The stinking political cronies were stuck in every possible place,

                The DC Madam will take care of getting at least a few of these folks out of office for us, but it is going to be an arduous task identifying and expelling these ideologues from our government.

                by inclusiveheart on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:49:58 AM PDT

      •  Aschroft turned the DOJ into the RNC first.

        Jesselyn's book reveals the initial politicalization of the DOJ through Ashcroft and the support of Bush's illegal and unethical policies.  They ruled the DOJ with an iron glove to keep people silent.  They committed cover ups.  And it was within this environment that Jesselyn became a whistleblower.  But what they did to her was also a veiled threat to all who still remained there after she was forced out.

        The rules of the game...

        1.  Keep your mouth shut.

        2.  Open your mouth and we'll throw you to the sharks and destroy you.

        SOunds like the mafia, right?

        Sorry if I make no sense.  I'm not fully awake yet!

        by Silence is Complicity on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:59:47 AM PDT

        •  The Bush family acts like the Soprano family...

          One follows orders, and there are dire consequences if one doesn't.  While I've never cared for Poppy, the current generation is much worse.  They're obviously all their mother's sons.

          by RFK Lives on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:50:16 AM PDT

          •  Rove has dirt on so many enablers

            through Abramoff bribes, sex rings and ass-covering, they now have little choice but to "play along" to save their political careers.

            by wayoutinthestix on Tue May 01, 2007 at 12:22:32 PM PDT

    •  Gonzales & Wolfowitz Hanging On

      Yes, as much as it bothers me that they're hanging on, it does give us more time to unearth and scrutinize their dirty deeds.

      by Jesselyn Radack on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:03:12 AM PDT

  •  It may be great to have...

    Gonzo around.  It will help the Death of 10,000 cuts.

    However, it's my uninformed belief that what we are seeing are the opening acts of a very grand opera with libretto by Conyers, Leahy and Waxman, et.al.  Things are not slowing down...I think the pace is quickening and I think there's ALOT more information and testimony coming our way.  Hence, it's just too early to make prognostications as to Gonzo's (or any Bush/Rovist's) tenure.

    by mayan on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:33:25 AM PDT

  •  I have a good source who says that the document

    Waas cites makes Gonzo's stay VERY difficult. I believe that my source said thatif the document is as described, there is possible criminal behavior.

    by mswsm on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:42:28 AM PDT

  •  I Agree. I Wrote About the Need for a

    special proseutor the other day.

    by Jesselyn Radack on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:01:55 AM PDT

  •  From your great link:

    If Gonzales resigns, the vacancy must be filled by a new presidential nominee, and the last thing the White House wants is a confirmation hearing.

    by cotterperson on Tue May 01, 2007 at 07:41:31 AM PDT

•  Tip Jar

  by Jesselyn Radack on Tue May 01, 2007 at 03:58:08 AM PDT

  •  Monica Goodling = Karl Rove

    Isn't it true that Monica Goodling's main function was to be the "liaison" between DOJ and the White House?  As if having Karl's boys [Sampson] as Gonzo's chief of staff were not enough.  

    The reason no DOJ personnel will take responsibility for drawing up the list of USA's to be fired is because they didn't:  the list came from the White House, which means Karl Rove.  This is increasingly obvious.  But in and of itself this is not illegal -- just pernicious and deeply unethical.

    Illegality comes from the reasons for the firing:  obstruction of justice and voting rights violations.  It also comes from the perjury, false statements (also illegal, Mr. McNulty) and obstruction involved in covering up the actions around the firing.  "Executive privilege" will not stretch infinitely far to cover illegal activity.  I hope Congress has its lawsuits almost ready.

    by Dallasdoc on Tue May 01, 2007 at 05:44:26 AM PDT

    •  good til the last line

      No way does something like this go to a lawsuit - it goes to impeachment or Congress will have admitted they're powerless and irrelevant. When you're hiding behind your car while someone is shooting at you and you've got an M249 squad automatic weapon lying next to you the last thing you do is shout "I'll sue".

      by Iowa Boy on Tue May 01, 2007 at 06:33:43 AM PDT

      •  Sorry, don't buy it

        I know Kagro X is warning us all about the "You'll never get me, copper" option for the administration, but I'm not buying that yet.  Even the Nixon administration obeyed the Supreme Court and gave up the tapes.  I'm not yet ready to think we live in such lawless times that the courts wouldn't enforce the law, or that the Bush administration would flout both Congress and the Supreme Court.

        Could happen, of course, and with this crew anything is possible.  But I'll believe it when I see it.  If it happens, impeachment will be a no-brainer in the public eye.