I guess I’m writing a series of posts canvassing readers to clarify whether I heard or read something DiFi said in the Gonzales hearing correctly. This bit has to do with whether or not we knew that Miers discussed ousting Deborah Yang. Here’s the exchange:
FEINSTEIN: Now, I’d like to go on with something else.
Fromdocuments and interview, we know the following: The White House wasinvolved in the removal of Bud Cummins. Karl Rove called you and askedabout three districts: Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Albuquerque.
GONZALES: Senator, I don’t recall whether he called or if there was a visit. It may have been a call.
You got a call from the president about New Mexico in the fall of ’06.
GONZALES: Senator, I think that was a conversation. I don’t think it was a phone call.
FEINSTEIN: OK — conversation, thank you.
And Harriet Miers discussed whether to remove Deborah Yang from Los Angeles. Now, she resigned so she was not part of this.
Butgiven all these inquiries that we know about, how could you say justthree weeks ago that the White House did not play a role in adding ortaking off names? [my emphasis]
Now, as a reminder, Read more
It’s weird, blogging the Libby trial. I’m putting out details at such a tremendous rate all day that I have a real hard time getting the big picture–though I do get that by the time I talk it through with others here. But I do feel like I’m missing the middle ground.
Except relating to one thing. David Addington. By far the biggest surprise to me, in terms of personal impressions, is David Addington.
As I’ve been reminding at every opportunity, David Addington is Mr. Unitary Executive, the guy who has provided legal justification for many of Cheney’s biggest power grabs: torture, extraordinary rendition, domestic spying, and so on.
I truly expected his interviews to be terribly hostile. I truly expected to see Addington bristle at every question. But that didn’t happen.