If you are not happy with the results below please do another search
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 involves the White House.
The latest document dump proves what we’ve long suspected: Congressional Republicans were getting talking points from Gonzales’ DOJ.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
