Now that we know that Dick Cheney’s lawyer was working DOJ to make sure that James Tobin would not be indicted until after the 2004 election, it’s probably worth returning to another few aspects of this story that involve the White House.

First, recall that the RNC paid for Tobin’s legal bills–to the tune of $3 million, most of that to Cheney’s lawyer’s firm.

The Republican National Committee, in turn, has paid $3 million in legal fees in criminal and civil cases growing out of the controversy. The RNC has paid at least $2.8 million to Williams & Connolly and other firms for Tobin’s defense, and about $150,000 to Covington & Burling to defend the RNC in a civil suit brought by the New Hampshire Democratic Party.

The RNC’s legal fees exceed the $2.4 million spent by Sununu, the winner of the U.S. Senate race.

Also recall that the NH GOP was on the phone with the White House just as the phone-jamming scandal was blowing up in its face.

Most tantalizingly to Democrats, evidence filed in Tobin’s trial in December shows 22 phone calls from Tobin to the White House between 11:20 a.m. Election Day, two hours after the phone jamming was shut down, and 2:17 a.m. the next day, four hours after the outcome of the election was announced.

Obviously, both details would seem to point to direct White House involvement. But conveniently for the White House, Ed Gillespie hid the White House’s direct involvement by claiming he made the decision to have the RNC pay Tobin’s bills.

Former RNC chairman Ed Gillespie decided to pay Tobin’s legal fees. "He was accused of doing something in his capacity as an RNC consultant, and we believed him to be innocent," Gillespie said. While the RNC had no contractual obligation, "it’s the custom, not written anywhere, that you covered your people," Gillespie said.

Gillespie said he informed the White House, but did not seek formal approval, before authorizing the payments. Mehlman said that under his chairmanship, consulting contracts now explicitly declare that independent contractors must be prepared to pay their own legal costs in civil and criminal cases.

Though, the New Hampshire Union Leader (from their paid archives; story date is May 19, 2006) notes that Gillespie’s story about whether he informed the White House before or after he authorized the payments changed a bit.

The former Chairman of the Republican National Committee remembers telling someone at the White House that he had decided to have the RNC pay the legal defense bills for convicted phone-jamming conspirator James Tobin, but he can’t remember who.

Ed Gillespie told the New Hampshire Union Leader yesterday he informed the White House after he decided to authorize payment.

The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Gillespie told its reporter that he had "informed the White House, without seeking formal approval, before authorizing the payments."

Gillespie told the Union Leader the two accounts were "consistent" because he decided to authorize the payments before telling the White House and actually authorized the payments after telling the White House.

[snip]

Gillespie yesterday told the Union Leader he could not remember who at the White House he informed of his decision to pick up Tobin’s legal bills. "I’m not going to guess," he said. "It was years ago, but as a matter of routine, I would have told somebody over there."

If someone at the White House had expressed displeasure with his decision, Gillespie said, "It was too late. I had made the decision and they were not involved in it."

Gillespie’s story stank, long before the news that Cheney’s own lawyer was involved in the defense, and long before Gillespie got brought in to replace Dan Bartlett and Karl Rove in the era of exploding scandals. But now that we know Cheney’s lawyer was involved, it gets stinkier.

One thing that’s unclear is when Gillespie made this decision–in 2002 or 2004? In 2002, Gillespie was working for Liddy Dole. Gillespie was appointed RNC chair in July 2003 (and served until January 2005). So if he made the decision to pay for Tobin’s defense while Chair (a reasonable assumption), then it may well have been in 2004, just as the election season was heating up. In other words, this conversation that Gillespie conveniently can’t remember? It may well have been a discussion held during the campaign to pay Dick’s personal lawyer (and friends) to postpone the indictment until after the election.

Finally, there’s this tidbit from McClatchy’s story.

On Oct. 1, 2004, Hinnen got the green light to prepare an indictment, but was directed to first give Tobin lawyer O’Donnell a chance to make his client’s case. O’Donnell requested delays and then told Hinnen, Parsky and other senior officials that an unidentified lawyer had advised Tobin that the jamming was legal. [my emphasis]

I irresponsibly speculated that this unidentified lawyer is Ben Ginsberg, who was Bush-Cheney’s outside Counsel in 2000 and 2004–until he had to step down in 2004 when it was revealed he was working for the Swift Boaters at the same time as he was advising Bush-Cheney, which amounts to illegal coordination between the two campaigns. He also regularly represents the RNC and the NRSC (remember, the election in question was the Sununu Senate election). In short, Ginsberg is both the kind of guy who is happy to straddle between official campaigns and dirty tricksters, as he did in 2004. And he’s a man with a proven appreciation for dirty tricks. Then again, perhaps the person who approved the program was in the White House–though that would be astonishing even for the Bush thugs.

So imagine, if you will, that either Ben Ginsberg or someone very like him had given Tobin the legal green light to do the phone jamming. It would sure change the implications of that $3 million legal defense the RNC bought Tobin. Not only would that $3 million be an attempt to protect whomever it was at the White House involved in the scandal. But it would protect the decision-makers who approved of the phone jamming ahead of time–people who likely were and are central figures in RNC circles.

John Conyers is calling on DOJ to start answering some questions about this investigation. Which may well implicate top Republicans faster than the USA Purge, not least because it goes through the RNC to get to the White House. 

I feel like I’ve gone back through time. We’re back to talking about Plame. And nolo discovered another USA Purge document dump. There’s a potentially damning email in here–all redacted (I’ll return to that in a later post). But there’s also proof of something we’ve long suspected. Congressional Republicans were getting talking points from Gonzales’ DOJ to use in hearings on the USA purge.

Or let me be more exact: the White House (in this case  Christoper Frech) is making sure that the Office of Legislative Affairs at DOJ (in this case, Richard Hertling) is giving the Republicans in the House Judiciary Committee tips on strategy for the hearing with four fired USAs.

This is what it looks like when the White House (which isn’t supposed to be involved in this scandal, remember) makes sure DOJ prepares the HJC Republicans.

Frech:  Good morning Richard, regarding the Tuesday hearing with the USAs, have you had any conversation with the committee and specific members on strategy, etc?

Hertling:  We have had some preliminary conversations and will be meeting internally to finalize questions and strategy to provide HJC Rs.  They will get all of that later today.

No wonder the Republican Congress never exercised any oversight over the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration never gave them  the script so they could do so. 

For the record, I heartily approve of both of Newsweek’s recent pundit hires–Rove and Markos. After all, news outlets dump a lot of money to pay pundits whose predictions turn out to be wrong year after year. So why not hire two guys who at least have contributed historic innovations to elections–the guys who execute campaigns, rather than talk about doing so? Plus, there’s a wonderful bit of symmetry here. Rove, direct mail, and the Republican party represent the past. Markos, online, and the Democratic party represent the future. I even love that it pits a fat white guy from Utah against a multicultural guy living in the Bay Area.

So I’m not necessarily gleeful with the news that Time Magazine rejected Rove’s advances, at least not because it might validate the opinion that Rove was a poor choice for Newsweek. Rather, I’m curious by the terms by which Time rejected Rove.

For its part, Time magazine said nothing publicly about Rove’s arrival at Newsweek, but a well-placed source told me that Bob Barnett (every Washington literati’s favorite lawyer, including Bill Clinton) had traveled to the Time-Life building on Sixth Avenue to offer Rove’s services before Newsweek snared them. Time‘seditors apparently felt the cost/benefit analysis wouldn’t be in theirfavor if they embraced the man who has done more than anyone to keepthe spirit of Joe McCarthy alive and well in American politics. (Read Joshua Green’s definitive profile from the Atlantic in 2004.) "Time thought this wouldn’t be like hiring George Stephanopoulos," my source explained. "They think Karl is essentially like an unindicted coconspirator in a whole string of felonies."

Well, yeah, I wonder whether Newsweek has done its due diligence on Rove. After all, it would suck for them if the Abramoff scandal USA Purge scandal email scandal wholesale politicization of government scandal  anything arose to hurt Rove’s brand.

But I’m most amused that Time magazine–the company that spent very large chunks of cash to withhold  details about Rove’s nefarious leaking of Valerie Wilson’s name from Patrick Fitzgerald–would call him "an unindicted coconspirator in a whole string of felonies." Time, after all, probably could have swung the election in 2004 (and they thought they could, too), had Matt Cooper simply revealed that Karl Rove leaked Valerie Wilson’s identity. ("I’ve said too much already," Rove said.) That would have saved the American public from at least one out of a string of felonies.

So nice that Time magazine takes this moment to object.

Even more than Mukasey’s woozy answers on waterboarding, I’m disturbed by his opinions on executive privilege and contempt, partly because I suspect Mukasey would make sure no waterboarding happened going forward, and that his answers on waterboarding are designed primarily to avoid putting those who waterboarded–or signed off on it–in the past at legal risk. But Mukasey’s opinions on executive privilege appear designed to protect the White House from any consequences for the USA purge. They appear ready to shore up the firewall preventing further investigation of Rove and Bush.

When Pat Leahy asked Mukasey about executive privilege, Mukasey suggested that DOJ couldn’t prosecute Harriet or Josh Bolten or Turdblossom for contempt, because they relied on a DOJ opinion in deciding not to testify.

LEAHY: Judge, I want to go back to your last answer to me yesterday. And you and I discussed this a little bit outside.

Yousaid a U.S. attorney could only refer a contempt citation of Congressto a grand jury as required by law if he or she believed reliance onthe president’s executive privilege claim was unreasonable.

Ihave some trouble with that. I don’t think that rules on claims ofprivilege when they’re raised by — whether they’re reasonable, butwhether they’re valid — so let’s talk a little bit about this. IfCongress were to refer a contempt citation — and there is a realprobability there will be some as a result of the U.S. attorney scandal– you’re indicating that the U.S. attorney would undertake anindependent analysis, assess the claim of privilege, in determiningwhether to bring the matter before a grand jury.

Is that right?

MICHAEL MUKASEY, NOMINATED TO BE U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Well, let me flesh out a little bit what I understand the process to beand to have been, and maybe put a little bit of flesh on the bones ofmy answer.

As I understand it, when the White House gets asubpoena, they refer it to the Department of Justice, as, in fact,happened here, because I was shown the letter from Paul Clementrelating to the assertion of the privilege.

If the White Housethen, relying on that letter, I mean, if the president, since he is theonly person who owns the privilege, if he, relying on the JusticeDepartment, asserts the privilege and there is, nonetheless, a contemptcitation, we’re in the position where the Department of Justice wouldhave to prosecute someone who followed the advice that originated withthe Department of Justice.

I am told that there are not one,but two, opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel, one of them from TedOlson, and the other from a man I know and whose name I can picture,and I can’t come up with it now, who served in the Clintonadministration, who I referred to yesterday. I’m sure I’ll think of itafter I leave here.

But, anyway, there are two OLC opinions, saying that that would not be appropriate and…

LEAHY: What would not be appropriate?

MUKASEY:That for the U.S. attorney to prosecute someone for a contempt, basedon reliance on an opinion letter that originated in the Department ofJustice, would not be appropriate.

So basically, Mukasey is arguing that DOJ can’t enforce contempt of Congress, because DOJ has already told the White House officials that they won’t be held in contempt. If you look at his written answer to this question, you see why–if DOJ told the White House official they could invoke executive privilege, there would be no way to prove criminal intent, and therefore no reason to call a grand jury.

Here’s my favorite exchange from Stanford Lawyer’s interview of Carol Lam (h/t bmaz):

YOU SERVED UNDER BOTH JOHN ASHCROFT AND ALBERTO GONZALES.  HOW DID THAT TRANSITION FROM ASHCROFT TO GONZALES AFFECT YOUR LIFE AND YOUR DUTIES AS A U.S. ATTORNEY?

The structures of the department were in place, so I didn’t expect a lot of impact from the change in attorney general under the same administration. There are a great many traditions that have built up over the years at the Justice Department that should carry the institution forward on its own momentum. The people come and go, but the institution carries on. So I was surprised by how much change there was.

Note carefully. The question was "How did the transition from Ashcroft to Gonzales affect your life?" To which Lam answers "It shouldn’t have–all the structures of DOJ should have prevented it–but it did, to a surprising degree." Not really an answer to the question, but telling nonetheless.

The only place where Lam really provides any hint of what those changes are is when she describes DOJ having a "straight shot" to the White House.

What these events did show me is that you can’t have a Department of Justice that’s a straight shot to the White House, and that was really the problem here.

We’ve been told the investigation into the USA Purge is ongoing. And Senator Whitehouse’s bill to expose the involvement of the White House in DOJ matters passed out of SJC with large bipartisan support. But we don’t yet know the extent of the White House’s involvement in everyday DOJ operations. And Carol Lam isn’t really telling about those details, either.

This is my outtamyarse guide to the potential replacement candidates for AGAG floated so far:

Michael Chertoff: I think someone in the Administration floated Michael Chertoff as a replacement candidate before that someone really thought things through. Sure, Chertoff has been approved by the Senate before. But that was before 11/7–and we know that 11/7 changed everything. Not to mention Katrina. Part of me wonders whether the urge to make Chertoff AG was just an attempt to get him out of DHS, where he’s screwing things up royally. And once Fran Townsend refused to take the DHS job as Chertoff’s replacement, the Administration was left with no way to make the transition gracefully and has likely abandoned the idea.

Laurence Silberman: Democrats may be weak-kneed. But there’s no way (I hope) that they’ll accept Silberman as a replacement candidate for AGAG. Silberman has been the fixer for Republican scandals going back to Watergate, with a particularly prominent role in Iran-Contra. Allowing Silberman to serve as AG would be getting rid of an incompetent hack and replacing him with a competent, more dangerous hack.

Ted Olson: Another of the candidates floated long ago, when BushCo would have been nominating a replacement from a position of strength, rather than one of desperation. Since that time, the curious circumstances around Debra Wong Yang’s hiring as Olson’s close associate at Gibson Dunn have arisen; that involves Olson in the USA Purge in a tangential enough way that you’d think it’d prevent him from being confirmable. Unfortunately, I wouldn’t put approving Olson beyond the weak-kneed Democrats.

Larry Thompson: Thompson was Deputy Attorney General when BushCo first set about shredding the Constitution, which is a major strike against him. It’s unclear whether Thompson was actually read into many of the most egregious programs. But still, one would hope that we wouldn’t approve anyone (besides Jim Comey) who has been through the Bush DOJ already. Unfortunately, early on in this process, Chuck Schumer listed Thompson as an acceptable choice for him as a replacement AG, though it has been reported that Thompson is uninterested in leaving his cushy job at Pepsi to clean up Gonzales’ mess.

Paul Clement: Clement’s stock as a replacement seems to be rising, with lots of folks hearkening back to profiles quoting people from both sides of aisle complimenting Clement for his intelligence. But note closely what these profiles hail Clement for: his ability to argue either side of an argument very effectively. That’s great when he’s defending Russ Feingold’s Campaign Finance before SCOTUS. But in the position of Attorney General, he would be arguing Bush’s side of the argument exclusively. Furthermore, Clement has already proven himself willing to rewrite the Constitution in the name of defending BushCo’s executive privilege claims. Lucky for us (because I suspect Democrats would pass his nomination), appointing Clement as AG doesn’t solve BushCo’s gaping holes in every management position at DOJ, since they’d just have to find another Solicitor General. So I suspect we will be spared this sophist as AG.

George Terwilliger: I find it curious that the name receiving most attention–after BushCo realized what a disaster appointing Chertoff would be–is one of Poppy’s guys, with close ties to Bush family consigliere James Baker. Terwilliger has been specializing in white collar defense of late, which might be considered a huge plus to those trying to get through the rest of Bush’s term with no indictments. Terwilliger’s ties to Republican scandal fixing are more remote than, say, Silberman. He was on the Bush Recount legal team. And, more ominously, Terwilliger oversaw the BCCI settlement, which saved the US some money in bailouts, but probably also increased the comfort level of the Saudis who had bankrolled the giant money-laundering scheme. I can’t imagine the Democrats opposing Terwilliger in force, which is probably why he’s a leading candidate.

Michael Mukasey: Mukasey is the former senior judge in SDNY (so I’m hoping maybe our local expert on that area might pipe in with an opinion) and he sounds like–given the options–a pretty good choice. Most notably, Mukasey took a "split the baby" position on an early Padilla decision; he ruled that Bush could designate him an enemy combatant (a decision that did not stand on appeal), but he also insisted that BushCo had to allow Padilla to see lawyers. I suspect that his name has been forwarded by the Democrats, most likely Chuck Schumer, who has supported him for a SCOTUS appointment as well. Which probably means his name is floating out there solely because Democrats are floating it, and not because BushCo is giving it serious consideration.

Marty Lederman notes that Cheney’s latest dodge includes a reference to the ruling that limits Congress’ oversight over the Executive strictly to those areas where it pertains to legislation. From that, he argues that Cheney’s response was premised on the belief that FISA itself is an illegal restriction on the Executive.

Finally, the letter lists numerous reasons whythe VP’s office might not release the requested documents. The secondof those reasons is this:

The Office of the Vice President reserves the limitations on congressional inquiries set forth in Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109 (1959), which makes clear that the power to inquire extends no further than the power to legislate.

Now,I happen to think that this so-called "limitation" on congressionalinquiries is not nearly so clear: Many of the earliest legislativeinvestigations were not for the purpose of designing statutoryamendments, but were instead "only" to investigate wrongdoing ormalfeasance in the Executive branch; and the better view is probablythat Congress has at least some such broad investigative power,unrelated to its lawmaking functions. (The Court has even indicatedthat Congress has an important interest in Executive branchtransparency simply in order to facilitate "the American people’sability to reconstruct and come to terms with their history." Nixon v. Administrator, 433 U.S. at 452-453.)

Buteven if it were the case that Congress can only investigate in areaswhere it can legislate, . . . so what? Such an objection would only bemeaningful in the context of this subpoena if there were some question about Congress’s power to legislate with respect to the relevant Executive branch conduct. 

Sothink about what the VP’s letter is suggesting — that perhaps Congresscan’t legislate on the topic of the government’s domestic electronicsurveillance!

This is, I think, a fairly audacious assertion tobe making at this late date. After all, just a few days ago thePresident himself insisted that Congress legislate forthwith on thisvery subject, and then showered praise on Congress for enacting the "Protect America Act," without suggesting any constitutional disability.

Whatthe letter is getting at here, of course, is the Vice President’slongstanding view that FISA is unconstitutional, and that Congresssimply can’t regulate the Commander in Chief’s collection ofintelligence. In other words, Who Needs the Protect America Act?:Nothing would or could stop us from warrantless surveillance, anyway.

Lederman may be correct in this particular instance. But his conclusion does not necessarily follow from the available evidence. As I have repeatedly shown, the Administration has made precisely the same argument when Congress subpoenaed testimony relating to the USA purge. And as with the warrantless wiretapping program, the claim that Congress had no legislative interest in the matter at hand came after the Administration had very happily accepted the legislation Congress had passed on precisely that matter (in the case of USA Purge, the legislation was the provision of the PATRIOT Act that gave the Attorney General the power to appoint interim USAs).

But unlike the FISA case Lederman examines, there can be no dispute–not even from the Unitary nuts–that Congress has the authority to legislate on interim USAs. The authority is inscribed in the Constitution. Nevertheless, the Administration wanted to contest Congress’ legislative interest in it anyway.

So while Lederman may be right, I don’t think he is. I think the Administration is making a grander argument, one that makes an expansive claim that Congress cannot legislate away any authority enjoyed by the Executive, even one limited by the Constitution.

Joe at AmericaBlog says most of what needs to be said about this Eric Lichtblau article, which very gently call BS on White House attempts to discredit a James Risen article from the previous day.

Okay, the height of hypocrisy is anyone in the Bush administrationchallenging anything as "highly misleading." Liars don’t have thestanding to call anyone else a liar. But, that doesn’t prevent the Bushteam from doing it anyway. Because everyone in the Bush administrationknows that the media will dutifully report their lies:

TheWhite House issued a statement that criticized as “highly misleading” afront-page article in The New York Times on Monday that described thelegislation as having “broadly expanded the government’s authority toeavesdrop on the international telephone calls and e-mail messages ofAmerican citizens without warrants.”

The White House took issue not with the article’s account of the newlaw’s provisions, but instead with its characterization of the measureas having “broadly” strengthened the government’s authority.

In a telephone briefing for reporters on Monday, officials said theadministration had set out to resolve a “narrow” technical problem thathad called into question whether intelligence officials needed to get acourt warrant to intercept foreign-to-foreign communications thathappened to pass through American telecommunication switches. But infact the legislation as enacted not only provides that no warrant isneeded in such a situation but also goes further, in giving theadministration discretion to eavesdrop on foreign communications thatmight involve Americans.

The officials who participated in the briefing spoke on condition ofanonymity, saying only that doing so would allow them to talk morefreely.

Onemore time we see just how boldly the Bush administration is willing tolie. Some anonymous officials, probably including Stephen Hadley, hadan a conference call to challenge the NY Times.

Eric Lichtblau, who wrote this article, basically discounts what theanonymous White House official said. When he wrote "But in fact….",Lichtblau was intimating that what he heard wasn’t based on facts. Inother words, the anonymous Bush sources lied and misled. You won’t hearor read those actual words from any reporter — and the Bushies knowthat. Instead, most of the White House press corps will dutifullyreport what they heard, even if they know it’s a lie. That’s what thesereporters always do.

I’ll just add two points. First, this is not just any reporter, defending his colleague. This is Eric Lichtblau defending James Risen, one reporter who broke the story on the illegal wiretapping defending his partner in breaking that story. Presumably, both Lichtblau and Risen have plenty of details they could provide to refute the White House attempt to push back. A pity then, that Lichtblau can’t use stronger language–calling the anonymous briefers "liars" would be just the start of it.

Second, this anonymous lying briefer thing is becoming a bit of a habit. As I pointed out recently, Fred Fielding did an anonymous briefing so he could claim that Bush had no involvement in the USA Purge, in spite of reports that he did. And there have been a number of similar briefings of late.

Which means it would be nice if the entire White House press corps could call them on this. Starting the article with, "In the latest anonymous briefing designed to spread disinformation, the White House said…" Because if you continue to let them get away with couching their lies behind anonymity, what will ever make them stop?

Oh, this is getting fun.

Remember how I pointed out that Steven Bradbury, the guy who wrote the opinion declaring Harriet immune from having to appear before Congress, was not acting with proper authority?

Well, Leahy, Durbin, Feingold, and Kennedy have raised the stakes on that issue.

We write seeking information about a memorandum issued on July 10, 2007, by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), concluding that former White House Counsel Harriet Miers should be absolutely immunized from responding to a subpoena to appear and testify before Congress. The White House and Ms. Miers are relying on this opinion as the basis for Ms. Miers’ refusal to appear yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee.

There is a serious question about whether this OLC opinion was properly issued. Under applicable law and regulations, the Attorney General has delegated to the Assistant Attorney General of OLC the authority to render opinions and legal advice to the various agencies of the government. The Assistant Attorney General may delegate this authority, but he or she must supervise the delegated work. When there is no Assistant Attorney General, confirmed or acting, the Attorney General must supervise the delegated work. Since you have recused yourself from matters relating to the U.S. Attorney’s scandal, it is unclear under whose supervision the July 10th OLC opinion was issued.

The letter goes on to describe why Bradbury cannot be the acting AAG, explaining what I reported yesterday about the Vacancies Act violation, and therefore had no authority to write the letter.

This move is so priceless on a number of levels. The letter goes on to place this against the background of Bush’s attempts to game the appointments process with the original PATRIOT provision. The suggestion is that this is another attempt to do so (one that parallels his apparent attempt to stretch out the tenure of the USAs currently serving under the PATRIOT provision). It also emphasizes that Bradbury was never approved as AAG (by a Republican Senate) because of his implication in the NSA scandal. And then reminds Gonzales that the problem is that Bush refused to allow OPR to investigate whether the OLC acted improperly under Bradbury. This letter has it all: USA Purge, NSA Scandal, and abuse of Executive Privilege, all rolled up into one.

And if the letter was written without the proper authority? Well, then, Harriet is in contempt by anyone’s measure, not just John Conyers’.

Remember how Senator Whitehouse busted Alberto Gonzales for trying to bury the DOJ’s internal investigation of the USA firing into the Office of Professional Responsibility, which has no authority over potential illegalities and doesn’t issue public reports? Remember how Paul Clement, who has ostensibly been in charge of DOJ’s internal investigation since the time Gonzales recused himself, has at the same time been defending the White House’s ability to keep materials from Congress? Well, that’s not the only way AGAG has managed to avoid any incrimination on this matter. Here’s the second bombshell question Leahy asked AGAG:

Other Inspectors General can investigate misconduct throughout their agencies.  Apparently, the Department of Justice Inspector General suffers under a limitation that restricts his ability to investigation misconduct by you, the Deputy Attorney General, and other senior Department lawyers.  Will you agree to the removal of this limitation on the Department of Justice Inspector General so that the Inspector General may investigate misconduct by you, other senior Department of Justice officials, lawyers, and law enforcement agents?

In other words, all those assurances that DOJ was conducting an investigation into this issue? Well those assurances were utterly cynical and false. DOJ’s IG, apparently, can’t investigate AGAG and his clique!!! Yet we’re supposed to rest assured that DOJ can investigate this themselves???

Frankly, I don’t know why Leahy bothers. At this point, it’s time to call for a Special Counsel to take over the USA Purge investigation. Alternately, HJC can take it on, under the full weight of an impeachment investigation. But it’s well past clear that 1) Alberto Gonzales is actively obstructing any investigation into the USA Purge with his little games and 2) there is no way DOJ can conduct the investigation themselves.