Birmingham Blues

And it’s not just any document; it’s a 2006 memo from the office of the National Director of Intelligence to then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert.  Gonzales insisted during yesterday’s testimony that emergency meetings held in March 2004, including a briefing for the “Gang of Eight” congress members, were not related to controversy over the Terrorist Surveillance Program but instead to another intelligence program.

Gonzales, who was then serving as counsel to Bush, testified that the White House Situation Room briefing sought to inform congressional leaders about the pending expiration of the unidentified program and Justice Department objections to renew it. Those objections were led by then-Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey, who questioned the program’s legality.

“The dissent related to other intelligence activities,” Gonzales testified at Tuesday’s hearing. “The dissent was not about the terrorist surveillance program.”

Unfortunately, it appears Gonzo’s spotty memory has failed him again.  Or he’s lying.

A four-page memo from the national intelligence director’s office says the White House briefing with the eight lawmakers on March 10, 2004, was about the terror surveillance program, or TSP.

The memo, dated May 17, 2006, and addressed to then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert, details “the classification of the dates, locations, and names of members of Congress who attended briefings on the Terrorist Surveillance Program,” wrote then-Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte.

It shows that the briefing in March 2004 was attended by the Republican and Democratic House and Senate leaders and leading members of both chambers’ intelligence committees, as Gonzales testified.

Let’s review.  In 2006, Gonzo told Congress that there was no controversy within the Justice Department regarding the Terrorist Surveillance Program.  Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey’s testimony blew that story out of the water, and in June Gonzo confirmed that Comey was referring to the Terrorist Surveillance Program.  Yesterday, Gonzo says, “I didn’t mean that Terrorist Surveillance Program.  I was talking about another Terrorist Surveillance Program.”  Now documents show it was indeed that Terrorist Surveillance Program.

Asked for comment on the documents Wednesday evening, Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said Gonzales “stands by his testimony.”

Yeah, but which testimony?  The testimony he gave to Congress — or perhaps some previously undisclosed testimony?

TPM Muckraker has analysis of AG Alberto Gonzales’ testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday.

Among other things, the Committee members wanted an explanation for Gonzales’ 2006 testimony that there was no disagreement within the White House and Justice Department over the legality of the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), in light of Deputy AG James Comey’s subsequent testimony that he had refused to reauthorize the program (which led to then-White House Counsel Gonzales’ and Andy Card’s trip to John Ashcroft’s hospital room to try to get his signature while he was heavily medicated).

In June, Gonzales affirmed that Comey was referring to the TSP, which would have made his previous testimony — um, well, shall we say misleading?  Yesterday, however, he claimed that the controversy involved a different surveillance program.  Interesting.  He also tried to blame his rush to the hospital on Congress, saying that the “Gang of Eight” that was privy to the details of the TSP was eager to overrule Comey and go ahead with the reauthorization.  At least three of the members of that “Gang” dispute Gonzales’ recollection — and, given how many times he’s answered questions with some version of “I don’t recall”, I’d be more likely to trust their memories.

Republicans as well as Democrats on the Committee expressed their frustration with Gonzo and strongly suggested, yet again, that he should resign.  That ain’t happening — he’s going to stay the course, just like his boss.  And Bush continues to express complete confidence in his lying, incompetent Attorney General.  Is anyone suprised?

AG Alberto Gonzales is testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee again today.  He’s not covering himself with glory — I know you’re surprised.  TPM Muckraker is live-blogging and posting video clips.  Here’s Gonzo’s ever-changing story about his visit to John Ashcroft’s hospital room.

You can watch on C-Span 3 or listen on C-Span Radio.

The House Judiciary Committee has sent a request to Alberto Gonzales for documents pertaining to three recent federal prosecutions, including the Siegelman case.

…In the letter, the lawmakers cite the Siegelman case; the recently overturned conviction of Wisconsin state official Georgia Thompson; and the prosecution of Dr. Cyril Wecht, a coroner in Pennsylvania, whose trial was set in October 2006, shortly before congressional elections.

The full text of the letter is available at the link.

Again?  Why exactly is he still Attorney General?  Perhaps we should begin referring to his fiefdom as the “Justice” Department.

As he sought to renew the USA Patriot Act two years ago, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured lawmakers that the FBI had not abused its potent new terrorism-fighting powers. “There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse,” Gonzales told senators on April 27, 2005.

Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information that they were not entitled to have. It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations that Gonzales received in the three months before he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee, according to internal FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.

The acts recounted in the FBI reports included unauthorized surveillance, an illegal property search and a case in which an Internet firm improperly turned over a compact disc with data that the FBI was not entitled to collect, the documents show. Gonzales was copied on each report that said administrative rules or laws protecting civil liberties and privacy had been violated.

The reports also alerted Gonzales in 2005 to problems with the FBI’s use of an anti-terrorism tool known as a national security letter (NSL), well before the Justice Department’s inspector general brought widespread abuse of the letters in 2004 and 2005 to light in a stinging report this past March.

Oops.  Not to worry, though.  “Justice” officials said they couldn’t recall if he’d actually read the reports.

Justice officials said they could not immediately determine whether Gonzales read any of the FBI reports in 2005 and 2006 because the officials who processed them were not available yesterday. But department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said that when Gonzales testified, he was speaking “in the context” of reports by the department’s inspector general before this year that found no misconduct or specific civil liberties abuses related to the Patriot Act.

To borrow yet again from Buffy, “Nothin’ to see, move it along, I’ll never tell!”  Ya think Gonzo can dance too?

Melissa McEwan has whiplash over the White House’s latest flip-flop re: Dick Cheney’s role in government.  Dick wanted to argue that his dual role as president of the Senate somehow exempts him from executive branch oversight — because he isn’t part of the executive branch.  Now White House officials are claiming that he’s exempt from executive branch oversight because he has executive privilege.

And, in an amazingly arrogant and illogical statement, White House spokesman Tony Fratto says, “It’s not appropriate for a subordinate office like that to investigate or require reporting from the enforcer of the executive order.”  Yeah, it’s just totally wrong for the public — Cheney’s collective employer — to expect his office to adhere to the same standards it demands of others.  Others including the National Security Council, which for some reason has had no problem complying with requests from the National Archives Information and Security Oversight Office.

It seems to me Mr. Secrecy would be all about guaranteeing that classified information is appropriately safeguarded, but it appears he thinks it’s more important to deliver a big ol’ “go fuck yourself” to anyone who dares to question him.

Not to worry, though.  The dispute has been referred to that bastion of legal excellence and objectivity, Alberto Gonzales.  Problem solved.  Aaaaaaarrrrrgh!

(Note: Melissa and her pals at Shakesville have been dealing with a Denial of Service attack for the past week.  While Shakesville is moving to a more secure server, the Shakers are posting at the old Shakespeare’s Sister site.  Head over and give them some love.  Sorry, trolls — you can’t keep good bloggers down.)

Today’s the first day of summer, and the weather forecast is dry and hot in Birmingham.  I’m stunned.

Posting will be light today; I have to add to the ground-level ozone by driving to various meetings around town.  Deputy AG Paul McNulty will be testifying in front of the House Judiciary Committee today at 11 am CDT; perhaps he will be able to clarify some of his previous less-than-truthful testimony to Congress.  You can watch on C-Span 3 or listen on C-Span Radio.

Also, check out Dan’s interview on the Matt Murphy show here.

Why, exactly, would we be surprised that candidates aren’t lining up to apply for US Attorney positions?

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration’s decision to fire nine U.S. attorneys last year has created a new problem for the White House: The controversy appears to be discouraging applications for some of the 22 prosecutor posts that President Bush needs to fill.

Of the nation’s 93 U.S. attorneys, 22 are serving without Senate confirmation as interim or acting prosecutors. They represent districts in Alaska, Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, West Virginia and Washington.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the administration is committed to nominating candidates for all 22 open positions, but so far the administration has submitted only four nominees.

But, of course, Mr. Fratto is spinning like crazy:

“It has nothing to do with recent events,” Fratto said. “The closer you get toward the end of the second term, you’re going to have fewer people.” He also said the administration continues to attract “really, really talented people for top jobs.”

Oh, really?  People like Monica Goodling?  And doesn’t that second point contradict the first just a bit?  All those “really, really talented” people lining up for White House jobs will lose their positions in January 2009 as well.  So why should well-qualified attorneys turn down the opportunity to serve in high-profile positions that would, at least in theory, look fantastic on their résumés?

David Iglesias, the ousted New Mexico U.S. attorney, said that timing may be a contributing factor, but that the administration is in denial if it doesn’t believe there are concerns about low office morale, the ability to remain independent or even the odds of being confirmed by a suspicious Senate controlled by the Democrats.

“The Justice Department is embattled, and people aren’t readily applying to be U.S. attorneys because of this dark cloud,” Iglesias said. “Given the incredible scrutiny by the Senate, you’re not guaranteed being confirmed anymore. They’re going to start looking at every U.S. attorney for the rest of this administration to make sure that person wasn’t put in for purely political reasons.”

Gee, I can’t imagine why they’d do that.  Thanks, Alberto.  Heckuva job.

TPM Muckraker has frequently updated summaries of Monica Goodling’s testimony.  I listened while driving to Jacksonville to help Zach move his stuff, and it boiled down to:

• I don’t know.
• I don’t remember.
• I broke the law, but I didn’t know any better (she’s a lawyer, fer cryin’ out loud!).
• I’m not the decision-maker, but we made decisions.
• It was Paul McNulty’s fault.
• No, wait, it was Kyle Sampson’s fault.
• But I don’t know who decided which attorneys to fire.
• The Attorney General may have tried to influence my testimony.

Yep.  So far that about covers it.

She’s scheduled to testify at 10:15 EDT.  TPM Muckraker has some background links on Ms. Goodling that are pretty interesting.  Check out her testimony on C-Span Radio or C-Span 3.