Posts

The Only Picture on Dick’s Wall

/75 Comments/in , /by

picture-81.thumbnail.png

I hate to keep harping on Politico’s blowjob for Cheney. But I’ve been obsessing all morning by this picture accompanying the story, showing the sole picture hanging on the wall of Cheney’s office (click to enlarge; the other Politico pictures show a lot of family pictures on furniture, but this appears to be the only one on the wall).

How odd, first of all, that an article trying to redeem the Bush-Cheney failed presidency gives pride of place to an earlier historically unpopular President, Gerald Ford. And how odd that this picture accompanies this statement–highlighted by Peterr. 

Not content to wait for a historical verdict, Cheney said he is set to plunge into his own memoirs, feeling liberated to describe behind-the-scenes roles over several decades in government now that the “statute of limitations has expired” on many of the most sensitive episodes. [my empahsis]

See, I’m interested in Cheney’s focus on statute of limitations and on that picture for several different reasons.

Cheney talks about statutes of limitations going back decades. But of course, the ones that would be expiring now would be those for crimes he committed (he seems to be admitting) during the Bush Administration–those crimes committed about five years ago, in many cases.

A number of smart lawyers have been reminding me via email of late that, while the statute of limitations on things like FISA violations may be expiring in the coming weeks, the statute of limitations on any conspiracy to cover up those crimes would not expire until the conspiracy to cover-up those crimes was over. 

Except.

Except that that is only true for as long as Bush and Cheney tried to hide their crimes from law enforcement. You know–from people over at DOJ like Alberto Gonzales and John Ashcroft. If, for example, Cheney ordered the future AG to go to then-current AG John Ashcroft and tell him they were going to violate FISA even though Jim Comey told them not to, then they couldn’t very well be accused of covering up the crime from DOJ, could they? Keeping DOJ in the loop at each stage of the process seems to innoculate the White House–to some degree–from this kind of cover-up charge.

Maybe the smart lawyers can explain in comments how this works. Read more →

Margaret Chiara’s Falsely-Accused “Lover” Re-Hired

/39 Comments/in /by

I’m really happy to see that DOJ has re-hired Leslie Hagen, the woman who was falsely tied to Margaret Chiara in the US Attorney firing scandal. But I’m a little curious about the timing.

On Monday, the Justice Department undid a small part of the damage that top officials caused in a scandal of politicized hiring and firing during the Bush administration. The department rehired an attorney who was improperly removed from her job because she was rumored to be a lesbian.

NPR first broke the story of Leslie Hagen’s dismissal last April, and the Justice Department’s inspector general later corroborated the report. Now, Hagen has returned to her post at the department’s Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys.

In 2006, Hagen was the liaison between the main Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys’ committee on Native American affairs.

[snip]

Last year, the Justice Department posted Hagen’s old job again. The department conducted a national search. Applications came in from around the country. After several rounds of interviews, Hagen eventually won the job.

The paperwork makes it official as of Monday, Feb. 2. Hagen now has her old position back, but this time it’s a little different. Her contract no longer comes up for renewal every year. Now, the job is permanent.

This appears to be effectively a re-hired based on a national search, and not the Mukasey (or Filip, as Acting AG) undoing some of the damage that the Gonzales DOJ did.

And speaking of Gonzales, there’s one more part of this that will make you spit: as NPR points out, Hagen has had to pay her own legal fees throughout this process.

Nobody official from the department ever apologized to her for what happened. She still owes thousands of dollars in attorney fees, and the Justice Department has refused to pay those bills.

Meanwhile, you and I are paying Gonzales’ legal fees, so he can defend himself against charges that he politicized hiring by–among other things–okaying Hagen’s firing because she was alleged to be a lesbian.

The Justice Department has agreed to pay for a private lawyer to defend former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales against allegations that he encouraged officials to inject partisan politics into the department’s hiring and firing practices.

Lawyers from the Justice Department’s civil division often represent department employees who’re sued in connection with their official actions. Read more →

Alberto Gonzales Tells the Tale We've Been Waiting For

/in /by

Alberto Gonzales did a long interview with NPR’s Michel Martin on his tenure as Bush’s Fredo. As part of it, he gave a long discussion of his actions on March 10, 2004 and thereafter, starting with his insistence that he was not trying to take advantage of Ashcroft when he was in ICU (my transcript–apologies in advance for any errors). 

AGAG: Neither and or I, and obviously, I can’t really speak for Andy, but I’m comfortable saying that neither Andy or I would have gone there to take advantage of someone who was sick. Um, Andy and I both, in fact, talked about the importance of satisfying ourselves as we talked with General Ashcroft that he was in fact competent. We talked about it over at the White House and talked about it in the sedan over to the hospital. We were concerned about that. We were sent there on behalf of the President of the United States. We had just left a very important meeting with the Congressional leadership about a very important intelligence program that the Congressional leadership agreed with the President should continue because it was a particularly heightened period of threats against the United States and against our allies. And I might remind your listeners that the very next morning, you had the Madrid train bombings. It was a very serious period of time, we had a very important program, and everyone–the Congressional branch leadership and the Executive branch leadership seemed to feel that this was something that should continue.

MM: Are you saying the President told you to go?

AGAG: What I’m saying is I was sent there on behalf of the President of the United States. The Chief of Staff, the Counsel to the President, we went to the hospital on behalf of the President to make sure that General Ashcroft had this information. That’s why we went to the hospital.

MM: You mean had information about the Madrid bombing or had information that this was of importance to the President and the Congressional leadership?

AGAG: The Madrid bombing had not happened yet. That would happen then the next morning. We went to the hospital to make sure that the Attorney General had information about the approval of the Congressional leadership. We felt that as a former Member of Congress that that would make a difference for him and as someone who had been involved in the reauthorization of the program for three years we felt that that would make a difference. Read more →

Bush Opts for Continued Protection Over Payback

/in /by

When Cheney’s people wanted to shore up the cover story for Dick Cheney’s involvement in leaking Valerie Plame’s identity, they went to Michael Isikoff. So I guess it’s not surprising that Isikoff would be the outlet for conservative fury over the news that Bush did not pardon Scooter Libby.

In a move that has keenly disappointed some of his strongest conservative allies, President Bush has decided not to pardon Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, for his 2007 conviction in the CIA leak case, two White House officials said Monday.

[snip]

But the decision not to pardon Libby stunned some longtime Bush backers who had been quietly making the case for the former vice presidential aide in recent weeks. A number of Libby’s allies had raised the issue with White House officials, arguing that as a loyal aide who played a key role in shaping Bush’s foreign policy during the president’s first term, including the decision to invade Iraq, Libby deserved to have the stain of his felony conviction erased from the record. In the only public sign of the lobbying campaign, The Wall Street Journal published an editorial strongly urging Libby’s pardon.

"I’m flabbergasted," said one influential Republican activist, who had raised the issue with White House aides, but who asked not to be identified criticizing the president. Ambassador Richard Carlson, the vice chairman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a neo-conservative think tank, added that he too was "shocked" at Bush’s denial of a pardon for Libby.

"George Bush has always prided himself on doing the right thing regardless of the polls or the pundits," Carlson said. "Now he is leaving office with a shameful cloud over his head." Carlson, who was among those who recently weighed in on behalf of Libby with the White House and previously raised money for his legal defense fund, said that Libby had taken a "knife in the heart" from critics of the president and deserved to have his conviction erased.

Apparently, none of these conservative wailers understand that pardoning Libby would negate Libby’s ability to invoke the Fifth Amendment if, say, John Conyers ever held a hearing on George Bush’s role in leaking Valerie Plame’s identity. And so Scooter Libby will remain a felon–at least until the time when another Republican lands in the White House and pardons him.

Read more →

Abu G's New Book

/in /by

You know, these fuckers will keep us in business for at least the next two years, debunking their attempts to rewrite history.

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who resigned last year amid congressional investigations, is working on a book to tell his side of the story of the political demise of the highest-ranking Hispanic in the history of the federal government.

"This is not about writing a best-seller," the Texan said in an interview. He said the book would be a success even if read only by his sons, now 13 and 16, "to set the record straight so they know what happened."

"I think there is so much misinformation out there, not just about me but about the Bush administration and what we were about. It’s important for our side of the story to be told. If it’s not told by us, no one is going to tell it," he said.

Since leaving office in August 2008 amid an investigation into the firing of U.S. attorneys, Gonzales said he has concentrated on cooperating with ongoing investigations. He also has given speeches, done some consulting and mediating and talked with law firms about jobs.

So far, nothing has panned out on the job front.

"It’s a rough economy right now, and it’s a tough time for a lot of law firms right now. Obviously they are very careful about bringing on new people, and they are going to be careful about bringing on people where there are questions about things that may have happened in their past," he said. "Over time, I’m confident those things will be resolved, and things will work themselves out." [my emphasis]

The best part, though: Gonzales is angling for Bush’s hoped-for future job: Commissioner of Baseball.

"I’m very wide open. I’ve had some people say I’m very fortunate that I’m at a point in my life where if I wanted to do something completely different — be baseball commissioner, for example, I would love a job in baseball, a plug there — I can do it." [my emphasis]

I suspect that Loyal Bushie code; it’s really a super-secret request for a pre-emptive pardon so Abu G doesn’t have to compete for the job Shrub wants.

Is Cheney Relying on Gonzales’ Retroactive Notes?

/99 Comments/in /by

Glenn picked up on Cheney’s recent reiteration of a claim that Alberto Gonzales has made (and may be in trouble for lying to Congress for): that he briefed Congressional leaders on the illegal warrantless wiretap program and they all agreed it should go forward without Congressional approval.  Glenn calls on those Congressional leaders who were at the briefing to respond to Cheney’s claims. But I’m more interested in the way Cheney’s willingness to repeat Gonzales’ story puts the notes Gonzales made to (presumably) back his side of the story back in play.

As I emailed Glenn and Barton Gellman explains to Rachel Maddow (at 6:30 and following), the meeting in question is the March 10, 2004 meeting at which Cheney tried to go around Jim Comey so as to get legal cover for their warrantless wiretap program.

Gellman: He’s talking about a meeting on March 10 of 2004. He’s never previously talked about it in public. And he’s backing up the official story which is that eight members of Congress–four Republicans and four Democrats–came in and were told "The Justice Department thinks this program is illegal, should we go ahead with it anyway, despite there’s no law in Congress authorizing it?"And that four Republicans and four Democrats said "Yes, go right ahead. Do the illegal thing." Now, I talked to four people who were in that meeting and not all of them were Democrats and all of them dispute that that’s the way it happened.

Maddow: Isn’t there some way that could be checked? Doesn’t somebody write down what happens at those things?

Gellman: Yeah, and it was Top Secret code word classified and remains so. 

First, let me correct Gellman. Cheney’s making a somewhat different claim–one apparently disproven by the facts. He’s claiming he briefed all nine Congressional leaders: that is, the Gang of Eight, plus Tom DeLay.

CHENEY: We brought in the chairman and the ranking member, House and Senate, and briefed them a number of times up until – this was – be from late ’01 up until ’04 when there was additional controversy concerning the program.

At that point, we brought in what I describe as the big nine – not only the intel people but also the speaker, the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate, and brought them into the situation room in the basement of the White House.

I presided over the meeting. Read more →

“And while you’re indicting Alberto Gonzales for lying to Congress…”

/100 Comments/in , /by

"…why not add another charge too?"

That seems to be the immediate message of Henry Waxman’s 11-page memo exposing Administration lies about the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium in Niger. As he describes, when Congress approached her with questions about the Administration’s use of the uranium in Niger claim, Condi Rice had Alberto Gonzales answer on her behalf.

On January 6,2004, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales sent a letter on behalf of Condoleezza Rice, who was then the National Security Advisor, to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, writing that "Dr. Rice has asked me to respond" to questions raised by the Committee about the uranium claim.

But the testimony the Oversight Committee has collected seriously challenges the veracity of Gonzales’ memo.

The information the Oversight Committee has received casts serious doubt on the veracity of the representations that Mr. Gonzales made on behalf of Dr. Rice.

Basically, George Tenet, former Deputy Director of Intelligence Jami Miscik, and former NSC speechwriter John Gibson testified that Condi and other NSC staffers had received multiple warnings not to use the Niger uranium claim, in addition to the insistent warnings before the Cincinnati speech that we already knew about.

As I suggested, DOJ may well already be considering charges against Alberto Gonzales for lying to Congress about the US Attorney firings (and, for that matter, about the illegal wiretap program). Waxman lays out one more instance where Bush’s Fredo appears to have lied about Administration activities.

Not that it’ll do much good: there’s a five year statute of limitation on lying to Congress, and the memo in question was written four years and eleven months ago. (The Administration didn’t turn over the memo in question until November 12 of this year.)

I’ll have more to say about the substantive details in Waxman’s memo after I do some Christmas shopping. But for now, if you needed any more proof that the SSCI report on prewar intelligence on Iraq was a whitewash based on Administration lies, now you’ve got it. 

It’s Not Alberto Gonzales’ Fault that Rachel Paulose Is an Authoritarian Nut, Really

/14 Comments/in /by

A couple of you pointed out the news that Office of Special Counsel had concluded that Rachel Paulose acted improperly when she demoted the guy who busted her for mishandling classified information:

Today, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) announced the settlement of a prohibited personnel practice complaint filed by John Marti, an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the District of Minnesota. Mr. Marti previously served as the First Assistant United States Attorney (FAUSA) to the former U.S. Attorney, Rachel K. Paulose. He alleged that in April 2007, Ms. Paulose demoted him to a staff attorney position because he had reported to officials within the Department of Justice that she had mishandled classified material. OSC’s investigation showed that Ms. Paulose retaliated against Mr. Marti for making whistleblower disclosures in violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act.

[snip]

 Based on considerable evidence of intent, animus, and motive, OSC concluded that Ms. Paulose constructively demoted Mr. Marti.

Today, OSC issued a second press release clarifying yesterday’s news:

The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) announced yesterday the settlement of a prohibited personnel practice complaint filed by John Marti, an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the District of Minnesota. Mr. Marti previously served as the First Assistant United States Attorney (FAUSA) to the former U.S. Attorney, Rachel K. Paulose. He alleged that in April 2007, Ms. Paulose demoted him to a staff attorney position because he had reported to officials within the Department of Justice that she had mishandled classified material.

In yesterday’s press release, OSC did not note that the settlement agreement reached between Mr. Marti and the U.S. Attorneys’ Office for the District of Minnesota was entered into by the Department of Justice as a no-fault agreement and was not to be construed as an admission of liability by DOJ. The settlement agreement specifically states this. [my emphasis]

Gosh, it was just a few weeks ago that we learned that Alberto Gonzales is sticking taxpayers with the bill for his defense against suits that he allowed partisan considerations to unfairly influence hiring and firing decisions.

The Justice Department has agreed to pay for a private lawyer to defend former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales against allegations that he encouraged officials to inject partisan politics into the department’s hiring and firing practices.

Read more →

Shorter Terwilliger: Don’t Extend the Investigation Past January 20

/20 Comments/in /by

We interrupt the focus on the auto industry to look briefly at the subpoenas Nora Dannehy–the special prosecutor investigating the US Attorney firings–has sent out.

A prosecutor who is investigating the dismissals of nine U.S. attorneys has been meeting with defense lawyers, dispatching subpoenas and seeking information about the events, according to legal sources familiar with the case. 

[snip]

Dannehy, a longtime assistant U.S. attorney in Connecticut, in recent weeks has met with lawyers and government officials involved in the case. A grand jury in the District has issued subpoenas, the sources said. 

There are two worthwhile details here. First, the news that Kyle Sampson has taken a leave from his law firm.

D. Kyle Sampson, who served as the chief of staff to Gonzales until his March 2007 resignation, recently took a leave from his job as a partner at the law firm Hunton & Williams while the investigation proceeds. A spokeswoman for the law firm said he is on leave "pending admission to the D.C. bar." 

I can see how a swank firm wouldn’t want one of its partners indicted on its payroll.

The other, amusing, tidbit comes from George Terwilliger, Alberto Gonzales’ lawyer, making a pathetic case that the investigation–at least as it pertains to Gonzales–should end now. 

George J. Terwilliger III, an attorney for Gonzales, said that his client had engaged in no wrongdoing, "making it patently unfair and unwarranted to prolong an investigation that has no substantive justification. By the department’s own standards, this matter should be closed now as to Judge Gonzales." 

You don’t suppose he wants this to end yesterday because an Obama Administration might be less willing to shield Gonzales’ role by sustaining Bush’s executive privilege claim, do you?

Fredo’s Fredo and Ford

/12 Comments/in /by

I’m going to steal this catch from MadDog shamelessly. He notes that the author of the Ford "beg" is David Leitch:

An interesting bit of trivia – Based on the document’s properties, I’m guessing the author of the Ford Beg document is: David G. Leitch, group vice president and general counsel for Ford Motor Company

Leave it to a lawyer to plea-bargain with Washington. *g*

Ah, but it’s not trivia at all. You see, David Leitch is Fredo’s Fredo–or rather, the top deputy to Alberto Gonzales when he was White House Counsel.

Prior to joining Ford as general counsel in April 2005, Leitch served in the White House as Deputy Counsel to President George W. Bush. In that capacity, he advised the President and his staff on a variety of legal issues, including issues involving the war on terror, judicial nominations, legislative proposals and ethics.

Another example of Ford’s tin ear, I guess. You really ought to hide that detail before you hand over a document to a Democratic Congress.