Birmingham Blues

AG Alberto Gonzales has maintained that he wasn’t involved in any discussions regarding the firings of eight US Attorneys.  That’s his story, and he was sticking to it — until the Justice Department made another document dump late last night.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales met with senior aides on Nov. 27 to review a plan to fire a group of U.S. attorneys, according to documents released last night, a disclosure that contradicts Gonzales’s previous statement that he was not involved in “any discussions” about the dismissals.

…The hour-long November meeting in the attorney general’s conference room included Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty and four other senior Justice officials, including the Gonzales aide who coordinated the firings, then-Chief of Staff D. Kyle Sampson, records show.

Documents detailing the previously undisclosed meeting appear to conflict with remarks by Gonzales at a March 13 news conference in which he portrayed himself as a CEO who had delegated to Sampson responsibility for the particulars of firing eight U.S. attorneys.

“I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on,” Gonzales said.

Of course, the Justice Department is parsing the whole thing, saying the documents don’t contradict Gonzales’ previous statement.

Spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said last night that there is no “inconsistency” between the Nov. 27 meeting and Gonzales’s remarks. She argued that Gonzales was simply emphasizing at the news conference that he was not involved in the details of Sampson’s plans.

Sorry, Ms. Scolinos, but, “I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on,” does not square with, “Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales met with senior aides on Nov. 27 to review a plan to fire a group of U.S. attorneys…”

The Justice Department also announced that the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Department’s Inspector General are conducting a joint investigation into the circumstances surrounding the firings.  Given how well that went the last time, I don’t expect much in the way of results.

As for Gonzales’ underlings, who did the actual dirty work, they don’t seem to share his job security:

Sampson, who resigned March 12 after the discovery of e-mails contradicting assertions that the White House was not closely involved in the firings, may be the official best positioned to describe the roles top Justice and White House officials played in the ouster of the federal prosecutors.

The Justice Department also said yesterday that Monica Goodling, a senior counselor to Gonzales who worked closely with Sampson on the firings, took an indefinite personal leave from her job on Monday. A Justice official said that she is still employed there but that it is not clear when she will return.

Sampson has agreed to testify before Congress and is scheduled to appear on Thursday.

Sampson’s planned testimony complicates the standoff that developed this week between Democrats and the Bush administration, which has refused demands for public testimony from presidential adviser Karl Rove and other White House aides. The House and Senate judiciary committees have authorized, but not issued, subpoenas for the testimony.

Gonzales and other Justice Department officials have said that Sampson quit because he withheld information from other officials and Sampson’s action may have led them to give misleading testimony before Congress. Sampson’s attorney has disputed that characterization and has said that others in the Justice Department were fully aware of “several years” of discussions with the White House about dismissing the prosecutors.

The point is crucial because Justice officials said in previous statements and testimony that the White House was involved only tangentially, at the end of the process.

This whole mess reminds me of peeling an onion, layer after layer.  Will the “loyal Bushies” ever come clean?  Stay tuned. 

Ongoing indiscretion, actually.

Rick Ousley, founding pastor of The Church at Brook Hills and chaplain for the Samford University football team, has been suspended from his evangelistic ministry after he admitted to “moral and spiritual indiscretion.”

Yeah, an affair that has been going on since 1981?  Pastor Rick only admits to one ”indiscretion”, and he subtly blames his girlfriend for going public.

“In the fall of 2005, I committed a moral and spiritual indiscretion with a woman not my wife. That woman has decided to make this public. I have acknowledged my sin to God, my wife, my family and to my ministry team. We are all now attempting to deal with this as God leads. I ask for your prayers during this difficult time.”

His girlfriend gives a different account:

Donna Jones of Katy, Texas, said that the reference to an indiscretion in fall 2005 refers to a weeklong trip she and Ousley took together to a cabin at Lake Fork near Dallas.

Wes Hendrix, who rented them the cabin, said Ousley and Jones spent the week together and he assumed they were old friends. “They were so upfront about it, they showed up together,” Hendrix said. “I thought it was risky for him in the position he was in.”

Jones, 43, said that she began a sexual relationship with Ousley in 1981 and met him twice in recent years for trysts on his trips with Samford’s football team, to Waco, Texas, and Martin, Tenn. Ousley has been team chaplain for 15 years at Samford, where he graduated in 1975.

…Jones said her last trysts with Ousley were Dec. 10-17, 2006, when he preached two consecutive Sundays at Champion Forest Baptist Church in Houston.

Jones said she began baby-sitting Ousley’s children when she was 15, and began a sexual relationship with Ousley in Houston when she was 18 and he was 29, after he and his first wife divorced. Jones said Ousley continued the relationship with her after he married his current wife, Joyce.

Nice.  Sleeping with the babysitter.  At least he waited till she was eighteen.

[Ousley spokesman and attorney Gordon] Pate said this has been a difficult month for Ousley.

“He’s devastated, emotionally and spiritually devastated,” Pate said. “God has used Rick in a great way. I don’t think he’s through with him.”

Yeah, it’s always tough when you get caught.  Does anyone want to place bets on how soon he’ll go into rehab?

The Alabama Democratic Party Blog reports that former President Bill Clinton will headline the party’s Jefferson-Jackson celebration on April 20 in Birmingham.  There will be a reception for $1,000+ donors, followed by a $150 a plate dinner.  The dinner is open to anyone who wants to buy a ticket, but seating is limited.  If you’re interested, you can click here to order tickets.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is bringing in Dick Cheney for a $1,000 a plate invitation-only lunch on April 2 at The Club in Birmingham.  If I were Jeff, I’d be running as fast as I could away from Cheney, but this is Alabama, and there are probably enough true believers left to fill the seats.  No link for tickets here; if you weren’t invited, you can’t go.  For those who do, they can at least be sure that the orange rolls will be good.

I’m so sorry to hear this.  Mrs. Edwards’ breast cancer, first diagnosed in 2004, has recurred in the bone.  This cancer is considered treatable but not curable.  John Edwards will remain in the race for the 2008 Democratic nominee for President.

These are tough people; they’ve come through major adversity before.  Please send prayers and good thoughts their way.

Want a closer look at the doings of the Alabama legislature?  Check out Goat Hill Gazette for updates and live blogging.  Having attended last year’s Senate committee hearing on constitutional reform, I admire Helen Hammons’ ability to sit through these meetings day after day and maintain her sanity.  Of course, after covering the Siegelman/Scrushy trial, the Legislature may seem tame. 

I’m really glad to see this.  I know it was a difficult decision, but it’s a principled one.

Responding to an ultimatum from leaders of the worldwide Anglican Communion, bishops of the Episcopal Church have rejected a key demand to create a parallel leadership structure to serve the conservative minority of Episcopalians who oppose their church’s liberal stand on homosexuality.

The bishops, meeting privately at a retreat center outside Houston, said they were aware that the stand they were taking could lead to the exclusion of the Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion, an international confederation of churches tied to the Church of England.  

They said they had a “deep longing” to remain part of the Communion, but were unwilling to compromise the Episcopal Church’s autonomy and its commitment to full equality for all people, including gay men and lesbians.

…What really agitated the American bishops was the primates’ insistence that the Episcopal Church accept a parallel authority structure composed of a “primatial vicar” and a five-member “pastoral council,” a majority of whose members would have been appointed by the primates. Bishops said they had a sense of urgency because names of potential pastoral council members were already being proposed.

Several bishops at the meeting said there was an overwhelming aversion to this plan, shared even by some of the theologically conservative bishops. The Episcopal Church defines itself, in part, by its democratic approach to decision-making, in which the bishops share power with the clergy and the laity. Many bishops feared that this new arrangement would grant too much power to foreign primates, many of whom have a more authoritarian approach to church leadership.

…In a strongly worded assertion of autonomy, the bishops said in their statement that any attempt to impose this scheme “violates our founding principles as the Episcopal Church following our own liberation from colonialism.” The bishops included a reminder that the Episcopal Church long ago declared itself independent from the Church of England.

Several bishops also said in interviews that they believed that the pastoral council arrangement was intended to strengthen the position of conservative parishes or dioceses that want to leave the Episcopal Church and take their property with them. The breakaway parishes could claim that they came under the new pastoral council guided by the primates, and that the council was the highest authority in the Episcopal Church’s hierarchy.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has so far refused to meet with the US bishops, and has pronounced the bishops’ statement “discouraging”.  I find his response discouraging.

UPDATE:  The Alabama Democratic Party Blog has linked to Patricia’s first post here.  Thanks! 

Rep. Todd highlights the pay raise vote, discussion of a bill that would penalize state contractors who hire illegal immigrants, and her proposed minimum wage bill:

Yesterday was the countdown vote on the legislative pay raise and I again voted in opposition to this pay increase.  The resolution to overturn the Governor’s veto subsequently passed thereby increasing legislative pay.  I could not vote in favor of this pay raise when so many residents of House District 54 live in poverty.  Hopefully with this vote behind us the Legislature can now get onto the business of helping the citizens of our state.

On Tuesday, we also considered a bill that would penalize state contractors who hire illigal immigrants.  The bill was amended about 4 times and we ended the day asking the interested party to clean up the bill and present it to us on Thursday.  There is strong support for the bill, but some of the language was too vauge to stand up in court.  I am supportive of this bill but want a bill that clearly defines enforcement and punishments.  There has been so much discussion about the illegal immigration problem and many states have been waiting for Congress to act, but they have not passed any meaningful legislation to date.  I have always believed that companies (especially those who are getting money from the state government) should not be hiring illegal immigrants…but enforcement is an issue.  Who is going to go to jobsites and review employment records?  What if the employer didn’t know the employee was illegal (fake paperwork, etc.)?  These issues need to be resolved before the House can act on the bill.

Next week I will be holding a press conference on the Alabama Minimum Wage Law bill that I have sponsored.  The bill is currently in the Commerce Committee and the Chair told me this morning that it is not yet scheduled for a hearing.  If he schedules my bill, he will also bring up Rep. Jack Williams’ bill that would restrict any government entity [such as the Alabama Legislature] from raising the minimum wage to a level that’s higher than the federal minimum wage.  This bill contradicts, or at best, significantly limits, the intent of the bill I am sponsoring.  Rep.Williams assured me yesterday that the timing of the introduction of his bill coinciding with mine was merely coincidence as he originally planned on introducing his bill last year, but ran out of time.

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law voted today to approve subpoenas compelling the testimony of Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, their top aides, and Kyle Sampson, former aide to Alberto Gonzales.

The committee rejected Bush’s offer a day earlier to have his aides talk privately to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, but not under oath and not on the record.

…Would he fight Democrats in court to protect his aides against congressional subpoenas?

“Absolutely,” Bush declared Tuesday.

Democrats promptly rejected the threat. The Senate Judiciary Committee planned to approve subpoenas for the same officials on Thursday.

So — more “bring it on” from Bush.  Doesn’t he remember how well that worked for him last time?  And of course Tony Snow wants to claim “politics”:

“The question they’ve got to ask themselves is, are you more interested in a political spectacle than getting the truth?” Snow said of the overture Tuesday by the White House via its top lawyer, Fred Fielding.

No, Tony, the question is why are Rove and the others so afraid to testify under oath, in public, with a transcript of the questions and answers?

(Now former) Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, just a month shy of pleading guilty to charges brought by US Attorney Carol Lam, signed on to a letter criticizing her “lax” handling of immigration cases.  That is the definition of chutzpah.

But I’m sure there was no political motivation whatsoever.

(Oh, btw, Cunningham’s now serving eight years and four months for conspiracy and tax evasion, and despite Carol Lam’s firing, his associates Kyle “Dusty” Foggo (former #3 at the CIA) and Brent Wilkes, also face serious charges.  I guess Gonzales didn’t get rid of her fast enough.) 

via If I Ran the Zoo

Could this be a way station on the return to reason?

WASHINGTON - Republicans and Democrats alike sternly warned the FBI on Tuesday that it risks losing its broad power to collect telephone, e-mail and financial records to hunt terrorists because of rampant abuses of the authority.

The threats were the latest blow to the embattled Justice Department and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is already on the defensive and fighting to keep his job over the firings of federal prosecutors.

The warnings came as the department’s chief watchdog, inspector general Glenn A. Fine, told the House Judiciary Committee that the FBI engaged in widespread and serious misuse of its authority to issue national security letters, which resulted in illegally collecting data from Americans and foreigners.

Rampant abuses of authority.  Can anyone tell me they’re really surprised?  Well, anyone other than Alberton Gonzales, that is.  It’s good to see that there is bipartisan concern over illegal collection of information.