Zed? Now to read the post.

A Watergate story about AG removal (since current events seem so Watergate-ish) …

The background.

In 1973, Archibald Cox had been established as the special prosecutor for the Watergate case, with the assurances of then attorney general Elliot Richardson that he would not be removed if his investigation got too close to president Nixon. Cox subpoenaed the WH tapes whose existence had been disclosed in the Senate hearings in the Ervin committee that summer.

The break-in occurred in June 1972. John Dean’s “cancer on the presidency” talk with Nixon occurred in March 1973. The Senate hearings took place in summer 1973. And Nixon’s order to fire Cox occurred in October 1973, which resulted in Richardson’s decision to resign rather than to conduct the firing, followed by deputy AG Ruckelshaus’ decision to resign rather than to conduct the firing, followed by Solicitor General Robert Bork’s decision to fire Cox.

The “Saturday Night Massacre,” as the resignation of two principled public servants and the firing of a third was called, was the tipping point in the Watergate saga, but it took many more months before articles of impeachment were prepared and Nixon was ultimate persuaded to resign. The entire event took time to transpire.

The story.

Archibald Cox taught my First Amendment law seminar in law school. My classmates and I took him to lunch. We were not sure if he would be sick of talking about Watergate (this was 12 years later), but we were delighted to find that he was very much willing to tell stories from that time.

The key story he told was about Elliot Richardson. Richardson and Cox were both New England WASPs and Harvard grads, and Richardson had been Cox’s student. Before accepting the special prosecutor position, Cox went to Richardson and asked Richardson, upon his word of honor, for the assurance that he (Cox) would not be removed no matter where his investigation took him. Richardson gave Cox that assurance.

When Richardson was later instructed by President Nixon to remove Cox, Richardson went to Cox somewhat hesitantly and informed him that Nixon had demanded his removal. Cox reminded Richardson of the no-removal promise.

Richardson acknowledged that he had promised Cox no removal. He also told Cox that the president would, in the end, work his will and that Cox would, in the end, be removed. Implicitly, Cox said, it was clear that he was asking to have Cox release him from his promise, and resign.

Cox’s reply was, “Elliot, you are a man of honor. I trust that you will do what you must.”

Ultimately, and to his credit, Richardson decided to give up being AG rather than break his promise or continue to serve the ends of a faithless and manipulative executive. That Cox held Richardson’s feet to the fire in no means diminishes the valor or ultimate correctness of Richardson’s resignation.

Moreover, Richardson’s adherence to scruple contrasted brightly with Nixon’s low and dark ethical standard. It made it possible for everyone to perceive the Nixon impeachment as an ethical act, and not a simple matter of low politics.

In the end, the revelations of Nixon’s abuses led Republicans and Democrats, and the public at large, to see Nixon as no longer constituting a viable head of a democratic government.

In this time, the public has turned against Bush on the war. The public became convinced of Bush’s incompetence and indifference to average Americans following Katrina. He has a core support that is unwavering, and he has alienated everyone else.

To the public at large, the case is not yet made, either intellectually or emotionally, that Rove, Cheney and Bush have been acting to subvert the electoral system through abuse of power in the DOJ and the GSA.

I think the public is prepared to believe that case, over time. I wonder whether the currently constituted Republican party is ready (maybe some weak polling closer to 2008 will do it).

Hopefully, as with Watergate, the accretion of detail of the abuse of power, developed through the Congressional committees, and abetted by the White House’s ongoing desperate and obvious attempts to conduct a cover-up, will make Bush’s removal (or at least removal of his noxious minions) a political inevitability.

Marcy!

The missing emails remind me of what my mom always said, “If you have to sneak, you know you’re doing something wrong.”

Hello Emptywheel and everyone.

Fred is just a very good lawyer who always seem to have really creepy clients.
It’s the American Way

I was wondering too about the slush fund Lieberman couldn’t account for during the election. Would this be a Connecticut story of corruption that wasn’t investigated?

Great one, as usual, Marcy.

Seems to me that Fred sees an out. He can have all the outward appearances of being a fierce advocate for his client(s), while simultaneously washing his hands of secret communications he didn’t know about. At the end of the day he gets to walk and say “I did my best.”

Heh! I should have known that you’d have already seen that AP piece on Fred being all “conciliatory”. Hell, he knows as well as anyone that Waxman and Conyers can — in fact, should — tell him and the Bushistas to go pound salt.

Fielding, like so many of his brethren, got too used to having a nice widdle Republican Congress around to protect them from the consequences of their own actions.

Anyone who signs on the sinking ship will get the blame. I doubt that even Jose Padilla would accept the job of War Czar. I’m sure that Fred Fielding gets his paychecks in advance and quite possibly by certified check.

–MARCY WITH THE WONDERFUL MIND. YOU’RE AS CUTE AS A SPECKLED PUP IN A RED PICKUP. DO YOU RECOGNIZE TEXANEEZE WHEN YOU READ IT? THESE ROTTEN REPUBLICANS HAVE NO IDEA WHO’S ON TO THEM, STILL. YOUR TIME IN THIS UNIVERSE SEEMS ORDAINED FROM ON HIGH. THANKS FOR ALL YOU DO.

ew -

Ya got any predictions about how this bushco “We’ll let you sit down & have a nice, friendly chat.” (no transcript/no oath/etc) plan is gonna wring out in the final analysis?

*Surely*? the good guys won’t go for the no transcript part…….but that’s only in my more optimist moments.

cfeddy @ 7

I was wondering too about the slush fund Lieberman couldn’t account for during the election. Would this be a Connecticut story of corruption that wasn’t investigated?

You mean investigated by the guy who just got named COS to AGAG?

I’ve been thinking about that–I’m not sure whether or not it goes through DOJ before it goes to FEC. Anyone know?

After such knowledge, what forgiveness? Think now
History has many cunning passages, contrived corridors
And issues, deceives with whispering ambitions,
Guides us by vanities. Think now
She gives when our attention is distracted
And what she gives, gives with such supple confusions

That the giving famishes the craving. Gives too late
What’s not believed in, or if still believed,
In memory only, reconsidered passion. Gives too soon
Into weak hands, what’s thought can be dispensed with
Till the refusal propagates a fear. Think
Neither fear nor courage saves us. Unnatural vices
Are fathered by our heroism. Virtues
Are forced upon us by our impudent crimes.
These tears are shaken from the wrath-bearing tree.
T.S. Eliot Gerontion 1920 Lines 33-47

Albert Fall, I loved your comments. I was a Journalism student before and during the time Watergate was taking place, and was fascinated by the whole story. In the end, as now, it will all come down to ethics… Nixon, in some respects, was a brilliant man, despite his lack of ethics. With the current bunch in office, I have not seen any evidence of ethics, and what brilliance there is has been badly mis-used to subvert some decidedly American tenets.

And, EW, as usual, I loved your reporting… It is like a serial novel! Any way you can let me in on the ending? ;-)

Waccamaw @ 12

ew -

Ya got any predictions about how this bushco “We’ll let you sit down & have a nice, friendly chat.” (no transcript/no oath/etc) plan is gonna wring out in the final analysis?

*Surely*? the good guys won’t go for the no transcript part…….but that’s only in my more optimist moments.

I don’t think they’ll budge on that any time soon. They’ve still got a few more things to get to before tehy need to get Rove’s testimony. My hope is that Sampson, realizing he just perjured himself, might consider trying to fix that in a way that would be useful to the Dems. But we shall see.

I remember thinking, when Fiedling was appointed, what on earth is he thinking of? Does he really want this?

But he does have a history of creepy clients, and well, if he sticks to lawyering and makes sure none of the mud sticks, he’ll walk away unscathed. And probably win some brownie points with someone, somewhere.

It takes a lot for a Watergate lawyer to come into a job, look at Harriet and Abu Gonzales as his predecessors, and think ‘oh, shit’.

I still think that Conyers and Leahy should draw the line on allowing Fred and company to ‘aggregate’ ( la Sampson) the RNC-mails. That’s an attempt to sprinkle some magic executive privilege pixie dust over them. The appropriate approach is to start invoking the Presidential Records Act and noting that it’s not up to the White House legal eagles to determine, after the fact, the status of records they should have bloody well preserved in the first place.

Wow, Albert Fall. That was a great recap of Watergate insider info.

To clarify some of the reporting we’ve seen about this destruction of public records by the administration (especially now that the attorney for Rove, Robert Luskin, is peddling his wares to the press):

1. Members of the media: the Democratic Party is not requesting this information from the Bush administration [”Democrats vs. The Bush Administration” is the storyline they’re using]. Members of Congress are requesting this information from the Bush Administration/the President. In short, the Legislative Branch is examining how the Executive Branch has been executing its duties with regard to the operations of the Department of Justice, compliance with the Presidential Records Act and the Hatch Act, etc. Democratic Members of Congress must stop quietly accepting this inherently politicized characterization of their role by reporters, that implies that partisan members of a political party are questioning an apolitical President and his staffers — they need to stand up for their own independent branch of government! [And never mind if most members of the Republican Party in Congress decline to fulfill the sworn duties of their powerful offices.]

2. It’s not simply “political business” that prompted Karl Rove and dozens of other White House staffers to use separate email accounts and equipment provided by the RNC political party (allegedly to comply with the Hatch Act). It’s non-governmental political business conducted on behalf of a political party. Rove’s job for the American people, as a member of our government’s Executive Branch has been almost entirely “political” from day one: but his political job in the White House is designed to serve the President of the United States, the head of our Executive Branch of government. While working in his “day job” on behalf of the President, Rove’s political communications should have been conducted on the official, taxpayer-provided equipment and software, and should’ve been automatically archived accordingly in compliance with the PRAct. A small minority of Rove’s time during the average workday should have been spent on any political party business and equipment because his taxpayer-provided salary was not intended to finance Rove’s labors for the RNC, or for the Bush re-election campaign.

3. Perhaps Congress (and the media) needs to query Robert Luskin, his client Rove, and the RNC, about exactly how and why Karl Rove was led to believe (as Luskin asserts to the media is the case) that a political party’s communications were being “archived” for the public record. [Quote from the NY Times article today by Sheryl Gay Stolberg : “Karl Rove has always understood that his R.N.C. e-mails were being archived” - Attorney Luskin.] By and for whom and how were a political party’s political communications being “archived” for or by a taxpayer-funded government entity, or otherwise??

Http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04…..176578695- AIaQRYclDrAaqBlHEB//A

The closing of Stolberg’s article:

The White House on Friday allowed reporters to examine the old and new policies. The old policy, issued in February 2001 and revised on several occasions, made scant mention of use of political computer equipment, except to say that if staff members were concerned about “gray areas” they could consult the White House counsel’s office.

In June 2006, Harriet E. Miers, the White House counsel, updated the policy to remind employees that e-mail not on the White House system was not automatically stored, and “must be printed and preserved.”

This week the White House required officials to receive permission from the counsel’s office to use R.N.C. computers, to preserve their R.N.C. e-mail each week and to sign a statement agreeing to abide by the new policy.

And Stolberg clarified from the RNC counsel Kelner on Friday that the workaround of Rove’s personal email deletion activity was implemented in January, 2006 at the RNC: apparently just when Special Counsel Fitzgerald finally had received a clear picture of the primary (RNC) email system Rove used, as a result of revelations provided when Rove attempted to defuse his pending indictment (Rob Kelner refused to confirm the reason for the 1/06 change to Stolberg).

Fielding and Company know darn well that public employees in the White House have violated the Presidential Records Act, and the media needs to start clearly differentiating between the taxpayer-funded public political and the privately-funded party political activities of public servants like Karl Rove before the full extent of the violations will become clear to the public at large.

Hey EW, I have a question for you? Do you think that there is a possibility that we might see a Rove resignation anytime soon?

Or is the sullied prince too stubborn?

pseudonymous in nc @
18

It takes a lot for a Watergate lawyer to come into a job, look at Harriet and Abu Gonzales as his predecessors, and think ‘oh, shit’.

I still think that Conyers and Leahy should draw the line on allowing Fred and company to ‘aggregate’ (� la Sampson) the RNC-mails. That’s an attempt to sprinkle some magic executive privilege pixie dust over them. The appropriate approach is to start invoking the Presidential Records Act and noting that it’s not up to the White House legal eagles to determine, after the fact, the status of records they should have bloody well preserved in the first place.

This is the correct Hotmail account.

Poor, poor Freddy. I’m thinkin’ he prolly knows he’s got some idjits for clients and is trying to make the best of a bad situation. He’ll probably want (and need) a L-O-N-G vacation after this all plays itself out. Too bad the Chimpenfuhrer still doesn’t understand that thar’s some new shuriffs in town. My predicion is the SCOTUS will end up at least 5-4 in favor of Congress. And a win is a win.

EW @ 13
If it is like most things, it starts with the FEC and goes to the Justice Department for prosecution.

We can only hope that my hero Waxman doesn’t deal with Fielding until after he gets everything he wants.

Even after he gets all the White House emails sent to executive agencies from the alternative email addresses Waxman will still be missing the emails sent between the (approximately 50) White House employees who inappropriately used non-White House email addresses for their official work.

Marcy, you predicted more about the WI. What’s the WI?

I’m pretty sure Fred’s a weenie with no soul; he’ll do whatever it takes to save his own skin.

Marcy, Marcy, Marcy!

So great to see you. Hope the ‘Beer Faerie’s been” by a lot for you lately.

Great post! This man sounds evil. Don’t often hear his name though.

When millions of emails are “found” will they come out like the recent document dumps?

SusanD @
4

The missing emails remind me of what my mom always said, “If you have to sneak, you know you’re doing something wrong.”

Funny how moms know that sort of thing.

WaPoCritic @ 25

We can only hope that my hero Waxman doesn’t deal with Fielding until after he gets everything he wants.

Even after he gets all the White House emails sent to executive agencies from the alternative email addresses Waxman will still be missing the emails sent between the (approximately 50) White House employees who inappropriately used non-White House email addresses for their official work.

Ah, but he already did!!!

The announcement of the other day–that they had lost a bunch of emails–came at least partly as a result of Waxman’s meetings with BushCo and the RNC (and supposedly–though he said nothing about it–Susan Ralston). So Fielding already let the first step take place–the admission that they couldn’t comply with reasonable document requests.

Eureka Springs @ 30

When millions of emails are “found” will they come out like the recent document dumps?

Oh I think they exist. Suspect someone is holding them ransom.

Loo Hoo @ 26

Marcy, you predicted more about the WI. What’s the WI?

Oh, back on the day Sampson testified, I predicted we’d learn one of the almost-but-not-fired USAs would be from WI.

So I take it emptywheel = Marcy ?

Pleased to meet you. I enjoy your writing.

suspend all funding of the white house!
everyone in america is this admin’s boss.
we need to embarrass them with calls to congress
to cut THEIR funding.
sayin’…

Are there any recent polls on any of this? Just wondering if any of the Bushspeak is being listened to anymore.

Bush/Cheney seem to be trying to stay on the talking point of the Dems and the war budget, but it seems to be more and more distanced from reality. The thing is, I always thought that, and still Bush got re-elected, so I wonder if the email scandal is being listened to by the base. I’ve heard less Repug commentators standing up for him. The WaPo editorial is about as strong as it gets in favor of Bush, but if you look at the comments, I didn’t see one that agreed. They were all mad.

GeorgeSimian @ 37

Are there any recent polls on any of this? Just wondering if any of the Bushspeak is being listened to anymore.

Bush/Cheney seem to be trying to stay on the talking point of the Dems and the war budget, but it seems to be more and more distanced from reality. The thing is, I always thought that, and still Bush got re-elected, so I wonder if the email scandal is being listened to by the base. I’ve heard less Repug commentators standing up for him. The WaPo editorial is about as strong as it gets in favor of Bush, but if you look at the comments, I didn’t see one that agreed. They were all mad.

This is the sort of scandal anyone can understand.

tommy yum @ 8

Great one, as usual, Marcy.

Seems to me that Fred sees an out. He can have all the outward appearances of being a fierce advocate for his client(s), while simultaneously washing his hands of secret communications he didn’t know about. At the end of the day he gets to walk and say “I did my best.”

A-yep. He knows that if the Bushies are even going to pretend to stay within the rule of law, as opposed to just saying “screw it” and openly establishing a dictatorship, that they’re goners on this. They don’t have a legal leg to stand on, at all. Fielding’s just trying to put a pretty face on it.

But in the meantime, the tenacious Waxman is going to piece together not just Rove’s USA Purge emails, but all of it, no doubt covering a range of scandals that we don’t even know yet!

I’ve changed Marcy’s words of emphasis. It is amazing how many unintended consequences are coming out of these document dumps. So many references to other disinformation campaign felonies at the edge of our peripheral vision. Did you see Trex’s proposed title for your next book, Anatomy of Delete?

Hey Marcy!

And to think, it’s just been four months since the Dems took over.
I’m loving this. It’s so exciting, like when you first start dating someone new and you get all tingly inside everytime they call or in this case, start a new investigation.

Is it too early in this relationship to say… I love you Henry.
:-P

wow. albert fall @ 2 – thank you.

Marcy, you predicted more about the WI. What’s the WI?

I think it has to do with the USA there, Steve Biskupic. Link is from today’s Milwaukee Journal, front page, above the fold: Steven Biskupic on Firing List

OT, wrt Executive Priveledge, at least wrt emails, imvho, that ship may have sailed. If you’re running emails over non secure lines outside the WH email’s archiving system, how can you then turn around and claim EP?

I used to work (thankfully no longer do) at FF’s law firm, a vile nest of repub vipers old and young. (hey, I needed a job!) Once had a conf call in the office of another partner who had no ornament in there of any kind…….EXCEPT for a little plastic plaque proclaiming his service in the “Bush 2000 Florida Recount.”
Oh my God, I thought…….I am in the PRESENCE of evil.

TexasBetsy @ 35

So I take it emptywheel = Marcy ?

Pleased to meet you. I enjoy your writing.

If you have not already done so, please buy her book: ANATOMY OF DECEIT.

Wow, those Waxman letters are REALLY going to ruffle some feathers. The entire cabinet is now getting dragged into this. I think a lot of people are going to spend the weekend fuming that they don’t see why they should take the fall for the dumbass Attorney General and Karl Rove, which is pretty much what’s happening. Gonzales has to go by 2PM Monday, because that’s the only way they’re going to be able to defy Congress’s document subpeona. (If he misses that deadline, there’s a potential impeachment charge for Contempt of Congress.)

Trouble is, tossing Gonzo this late in the game isn’t going to staunch the bleeding. The USA firing scandal has led to the e-mail scandal, and that goes well beyond Gonzo. The noose is rapidly closing around Rove. And there’s a very real chance that a broad Congressional investigation of e-mail “mishandling” will lead back to the betrayal of Valerie Plame and its subsequent cover-up, which already has an appointed special prosecutor.

Does anyone know who are the “FIFTY EXECUTIVE OFFICE STAFFERS” that received NRC email addresses? Does this include staffers from the Office of the Vice President?

Why doesn’t Mr. Libby use email? Didn’t Fitz ask him a question about this? Also didn’t Fitz ask him about a special phone that Libby had and made calls from? There were lots of calls made that had no official record of existing in the WH documents supplied.

I think Fitz has known all along that there was a “second” covert line of communication to avoid Federal Record Keeping rules and to obstruct justice. If it turns out that Libby, or anyone in his staff, was issued an NRC “Blackberry” then the investigation will suddenly be “ON” again!

In reading Texas Betty I’m reminded of how much I miss another Texas lady, who’s sad, untimely death recently deprives all of us of the wit and wisdom she brought to the party.

albert fall @ 2:

IIRC, Richardson and Ruckelshaus talked Bork out of also resigning in order to maintain some continuity at DoJ and keep the entire department from blowing up even more. God, summer of ‘73 was fun watching Ol’ Sam do his thing.

Off Topic…But this could be the origin of the name “Turd Blossom”

http://www.orange-papers.org/o…..lowers.jpg

De Turd Reich liked Prarie Flowers too!

I assume that Mr. Rove’s non-government e-mails would not be subject to redaction as they surely would not include any matters of a sensitive nature vis-a-vis national security. After all, those systems are not secure enough for transmitting such sensitive material nor is such material relevant to Mr. Rove’s non-governmental responsibilities, surely.

Umm, what a tasty stew this could be.

One thing the criminal dolts in the White House may not grasp is that every e-mail has both a sender and a receiver, and that the sender and receiver usually have a copy of the e-mails on their own systems, in addition to those stored on the mail server.

So deleting the files on the mail server only pisses investigators off and tips your hand. Investigators can go to the “Sent Mail” folders of every person who has a GWB43.com account and reconstruct most if not all of the files deleted from the GWB43.com system itself.

This is to say nothing of GWB43.com system backup records, deleted but not overwritten files, and the spectre of latent magnetic resonance on the hard drive itself.

If someone would patiently sit down and explain Modern Technology to Shooter, maybe he and the Boy Wonder can be convinced to resign rather than undergo a full impeachment. President Pelosi is likely to be merciful…

John Casper @ 43

I think it has to do with the USA there, Steve Biskupic. Link is from today’s Milwaukee Journal, front page, above the fold: Steven Biskupic on Firing List

Yup — and the thing that save Biskupic’s neck with the Bushies? Ruining an innocent woman’s life in order to try and defeat Wisconsin’s Democratic governor at the polls.

THAT is going to be big, folks.

OT, wrt Executive Priveledge, at least wrt emails, imvho, that ship may have sailed. If you’re running emails over non secure lines outside the WH email’s archiving system, how can you then turn around and claim EP?

You can’t. And Fielding knows this. He’s just trying to huff and puff for the peanut gallery, and hoping that nobody on the evening news or drive-time radio points out that his position is legally untenable.

Bill Durbin @ 48

In reading Texas Betty I’m reminded of how much I miss another Texas lady, who’s sad, untimely death recently deprives all of us of the wit and wisdom she brought to the party.

OT, back pre-Libby indictment, the WH could spin everything via the Compost and NYT’s via “anonymous sources” such as Bob gold bars Luskin. Statements attacking whistleblowers or defending the WH always originated from outside the WH. Those days are gone. Now it’s NPR reporting that the Shrub doesn’t agree with his latest lawyer, Fielding.

Abu Gonzo Lizard Skin will be out next week, one day after the hearings. Although, he may decide the hearings aren’t worth the trouble and resign before.

The rest of them will then declare, “story over”. I don’t know if that will work or not. I hope not, but I’ve been surprised by a lot in the last six years.

There’s another part of this story that’s not getting out, which is, Congress is going to get blocked up with all this stuff. The President is going to get blocked up, if it isn’t already. Nothing is going to get done until Bush steps down.

John Casper 2 43

Not to mention government business on non-government accounts. I don’t think that people are going to be happy about that, especially if it can be framed in terms that are analogous to income taxes and home businesses, which many people do understand.

So I have had my emotional purge today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwDzATryei8

Roger Waters – Leaving Beirut

Wow, the world does not like GW or the Christofacists.

TexasBetsy @ 35

So I take it emptywheel = Marcy ?

Pleased to meet you. I enjoy your writing.

Emptywheel = M T Wheeler = Marcy = the smartest, funniest, cute-as-a-speckled-pup-in-a-red-pickup, DREAMIEST, rugby-playing super woman around.

Did I mention she kicks major ass?

Albatross @ 52

One thing the criminal dolts in the White House may not grasp is that every e-mail has both a sender and a receiver, and that the sender and receiver usually have a copy of the e-mails on their own systems, in addition to those stored on the mail server.

So deleting the files on the mail server only pisses investigators off and tips your hand. Investigators can go to the “Sent Mail” folders of every person who has a GWB43.com account and reconstruct most if not all of the files deleted from the GWB43.com system itself.

This is to say nothing of GWB43.com system backup records, deleted but not overwritten files, and the spectre of latent magnetic resonance on the hard drive itself.

If someone would patiently sit down and explain Modern Technology to Shooter, maybe he and the Boy Wonder can be convinced to resign rather than undergo a full impeachment. President Pelosi is likely to be merciful…

No. No mercy. Not this time.

There’s a very frank and enlightening interview by Tony Mauro of a just-retired career DOJ attorney (Daniel J. Metcalfe), here:

http://www.law.com/servlet/Con…..LawArticle

A couple of excerpts of Metcalfe’s answers from the transcript:

DOJ Attorney D.J. Metcalfe:

Under Gonzales, though, almost immediately from the time of his arrival in February 2005, this changed quite noticeably. First, there was extraordinary turnover in the political ranks, including the majority of even Justice’s highest-level appointees. It was reminiscent of the turnover from the second Reagan administration to the first Bush administration in 1989, only more so. Second, the atmosphere was palpably different, in ways both large and small. One need not have had to be terribly sophisticated to notice that when Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey left the department in August 2005 his departure was quite abrupt, and that his large farewell party was attended by neither Gonzales nor (as best as could be seen) anyone else on the AG’s personal staff.

Third, and most significantly for present purposes, there was an almost immediate influx of young political aides beginning in the first half of 2005 (e.g., counsels to the AG, associate deputy attorneys general, deputy associate attorneys general, and deputy assistant attorneys general) whose inexperience in the processes of government was surpassed only by their evident disdain for it.

Having seen this firsthand in a range of different situations for nearly two years before I retired, I found it not at all surprising that the recent U.S. Attorney problems arose in the first place and then were so badly mishandled once they did.

[snip]

But that strong tradition of independence over the previous 30 years was shattered in 2005 with the arrival of the White House counsel as a second-term AG. All sworn assurances to the contrary notwithstanding, it was as if the White House and Justice Department now were artificially tied at the hip — through their public affairs, legislative affairs and legal policy offices, for example, as well as where you ordinarily would expect such a connection (i.e., Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel). I attended many meetings in which this total lack of distance became quite clear, as if the current crop of political appointees in those offices weren’t even aware of the important administration-of-justice principles that they were trampling.

This matters greatly to Justice Department employees of my generation. They are now the senior career cadre there, with the high-grade institutional knowledge that carries the department from one administration to the next, and when they see a new attorney general come from the White House Counsel’s Office with a wave of young “Bushies” in tow and find their worst expectations quickly met, they just as quickly lose respect for nearly all of the department’s political leadership, not to mention that leadership’s “policy concerns.” That respect is a vital thing, as fragile as it is essential, and now it’s gone.

In the end, I hope only that Mr. Fielding gets what is his due for eagerly participating in three of the most dishonest, horrendous and dreadful regimes in American history.

How long can Condi ignore Waxman?

oddmommy @ 44

I used to work (thankfully no longer do) at FF’s law firm, a vile nest of repub vipers old and young. (hey, I needed a job!) Once had a conf call in the office of another partner who had no ornament in there of any kind…….EXCEPT for a little plastic plaque proclaiming his service in the “Bush 2000 Florida Recount.”
Oh my God, I thought…….I am in the PRESENCE of evil.

So here’s my FF Q. One of my favorite binaries for the human race is solid citizens vs. flakes. A softer version (i.e., one with fuzzier edges) is adult vs. child. So which is FF?

There’s a correlary Q that I can’t judge because IANAL. Lawyers must defend their clients, even if their clients are flakes. So how far would a solid citizen lawyer have to go in defense of a flake client?

TexasBetsy @ 35

So I take it emptywheel = Marcy ?

Pleased to meet you. I enjoy your writing.

Emptywheel = M T Wheeler = Marcy = the smartest, funniest, cute-as-a-speckled-pup-in-a-red-pickup, DREAMIEST, rugby-playing super woman around.

Did I mention she kicks major ass?

Oh, and like our beloved John Casper says, buy her book!

CTMET has a diary at dkos with interesting comments from slashdot techies with thoughts about email recovery:

Slashdot Techie opinions on White House e-mail scandal

among the comments, one idea i found especially intertesting was the suggestion to subpeona the IT people – to find out what was done and who gave the orders…

Oklahoma kiddo @
62

In the end, I hope only that Mr. Fielding gets what is his due for eagerly participating in three of the most dishonest, horrendous and dreadful regimes in American history.

He’s already getting what he deserves – He’s Bush’s lawyer at the time when the house of cards comes crashing down.

Go! Marcy, Go!!!!
I love it here at the Lake!

Let’s think for a moment about who all them cabinet members might be? Would they include the Attorney General? Umm, yes.
But CIA? VP? Apparently not. Nor do they seem to be in the list of Waxman’s addressees. Do you suppose Waxman will find some correspondence that might be of interest to, say, Patrick Fitzgerald?
Suppose, for example, communications between the AG’s office and the OVP or Mr. Rove?

Bob in HI

From Fromkin (WaPo?) summarization article a couple of days ago – some issues. Mentions historians warned Gonzales about necessity of keeping e-mails when he was President’s attorney (2003 or so)- per Alexis Simondinger – sorry if I mispelled the name; violation of PRA. 2. Per someone named David Hotlzman lost files can be recovered. 3. Per Susan Wheeler – at least what I take from the comments – sloppy security to have Rove using Wifi. If they are not using encryption then that would be very bad management techinique. Corporate managers would be warned about that with trade secrets. Remember, BushCo is very concerned with national security according to them. Rove has security clearance – right?

Finocchio!

Loo Hoo @ 63

How long can Condi ignore Waxman?

Right up until the contempt citation following the subpoena, I should imagine. I suspect Waxman is working toward that, but Gonzales has decided to be first in line.

Jacqrat @ 59

TexasBetsy @ 35

So I take it emptywheel = Marcy ?

Pleased to meet you. I enjoy your writing.

Emptywheel = M T Wheeler = Marcy = the smartest, funniest, cute-as-a-speckled-pup-in-a-red-pickup, DREAMIEST, rugby-playing super woman around.

Did I mention she kicks major ass?

Excellent! Thank you for the explanation.

I keep thinking and hoping (beyond hope?) that there is someone, somewhere, who has tidbits that would bring this whole group of criminals down.

All it would take is one insider Republican with a conscience (and serious cajones). Surely there must be good Republicans out there that are as horrified by all this as we are.

Come out, come out, wherever you are!

Oklahoma kiddo @
62

In the end, I hope only that Mr. Fielding gets what is his due for eagerly participating in three of the most dishonest, horrendous and dreadful regimes in American history.

I bet he winds up in hell, with “Christopher, his dad and Paulie Walnuts” in that Irish bar where the Irish guys keep winning all the poker hands. (a reference to a Sopranos’ episode where Christopher has a near-death experience and sees Hell as explained above.)

Ed*ard Teller @ 67

Oklahoma kiddo @
62

In the end, I hope only that Mr. Fielding gets what is his due for eagerly participating in three of the most dishonest, horrendous and dreadful regimes in American history.

He’s already getting what he deserves – He’s Bush’s lawyer at the time when the house of cards comes crashing down.

;0)

marcy – one question… is waxman requiring the inventory list of emails – or the actual emails, by may?

btw, excellent (as always) post. thank you.

OfT a little, per pow wow’s great link above at 1:52, this is an update on the Milwaukee Journal web site regarding Biskupic:

U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic released a statement this morning in response to a McClatchy New Service story, carried in today’s Journal Sentinel, that quoted a source saying Biskupic was once on a Bush administration firing list.

Here is the statement:

- Until the recent controversy surrounding the firings of eight United State Attorneys around the country, it was never communicated to me that my job could be in jeopardy or that I was considered to be disloyal to President Bush’s agenda.

- It is my understanding that my name appears on a list, which was a ranking of United States Attorneys. My name appeared in a category questioning my performance and loyalty to the President. That same list characterized esteemed Chicago United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald as “mediocre.” I believe the list has no credibility.

- The charging decision in the Georgia Thompson case was made in consultation with the then-Democratic State Attorney General, and the Democratic District Attorney for Dane County. The decision to charge Thompson was based solely on the facts, and was not made with consideration of my job status. To my knowledge at the time, my job status was entirely secure.

- I am a career prosecutor, selected as United States Attorney through a bipartisan commission. My numerous public corruption cases include prosecutions of Democrats and Republicans. Our records show that since 2002 when I became United States Attorney, I have brought at least 12 cases against individuals who donated money to Republican candidates or who were aligned with the Republican Party.

Bold is mine. I don’t really believe Biskupic’s statement in a general sense. I think he knew. I think it’s very relevant, however, that Fitz is becoming the new “rock/safe harbor” that all USA’a look to.

So where are we at with the key players right now? Here’s my take:

These people need to cut deals as quickly as possible before things get any worse for them:

1. Scooter Libby–Convicted felon with setencing scheduled for June. He simply cannot be pardoned right now. Waxman would have him subpoenaed even before the ink dried. His legal team has to realize that they aren’t going to be able to keep him out of jail until November 2008. So he has to do SOME jail time, and he can’t trust Bush to pardon him when he’s done. His lawyers should be telling him that he’ll get a MUCH better deal if he talks now than he will if he waits until after sentencing. Admitting guilt and expressing remorse at the sentencing will go a long way to cutting his jail time down.

2. Monica Goodling–Schumer looks like he already has the goods on her. I suspect that there are quite a few people who will come forward with “loyalty oath” stories. That’s going to look really awful, and if it ever goes to trial, she’s going to lose. She’ll be less despised than Linda Tripp, but not by much. She just seems totally unsympathetic so far, and her Fifth Amendment gambit just made her look worse. Her lawyers need to cut a deal where she pleads guilty to a bunch of minor crimes, gets off with probation and disbarment, and spills her guts. Asking for blanket immunity is VERY risky right now, because this scandal seems to be moving too quickly to keep up with. Too many shoes dropping.

3. Kyle Sampson–Couldn’t remember much, and he STILL managed to be inaccurate. No replacements in mind, huh? Try again. Your lawyer is no doubt telling you that you’ll never be convicted for perjury for that one “inaccurate” statement. I would agree, but you need to take the long view here. Was that the only lie you told under oath? Probably not. And we all know there are more documents to come. You hung the Attorney General out to dry, so you can’t count on a pardon. They’re going to do everything they can to discredit you. You’ve got to beat them to the punch.

No. No mercy. Not this time.

Does this mean “mercy killing” is not an option, either?

These guys are learning that they can be the prey of overzealous information collection as well as the predator. Their crimes are bigger, more evil and less likely to remain hidden!

Wheelie!
another good one!
Thank you.

Here’s what I can’t figure: that Rove did not realize how stupid it was to think that switching to RNC-server emails would cover his sorry ass.

How dumb can you get?

This entire “lost the emails” trip: who did they think they were kidding?

Bill Durbin @ 54

Bill Durbin @ 48

In reading Texas Betty I’m reminded of how much I miss another Texas lady, who’s sad, untimely death recently deprives all of us of the wit and wisdom she brought to the party.

Ah, yes. She would be just giddy (and vindicated) to see all this going down. In some way I believe her passing may have paved the way for the sunlight. Having said that…I miss her work and spirit immensely!

About those requests from Waxman to each of the Cabinet departments and comparable agencies . . .

Each department has its own legal counsel, comparable to Fielding’s position at the White House. I’m guessing that as soon as Waxman’s request went out, there was a big inter-agency legal counsel meeting, so as to present a unified response. If the meeting hasn’t happened yet, you can be damn sure it’s on Monday’s calendar.

I haven’t tried to check yet, but it would be very interesting to know who those legal beagles are, and what their views on Congress might be. Given that they are Bush political appointees, I’m not holding my breath.

pow wow, I hope Waxman et al are aware of the issues raised in the article you cited. Everyone should read that

Get Rove. And it’s a bye-bye, baby.

Slothrop @ 81

Here’s what I can’t figure: that Rove did not realize how stupid it was to think that switching to RNC-server emails would cover his sorry ass.

How dumb can you get?

This entire “lost the emails” trip: who did they think they were kidding?

Not dumb, ARROGANT!

Slothrop @ 80

Here’s what I can’t figure: that Rove did not realize how stupid it was to think that switching to RNC-server emails would cover his sorry ass.

How dumb can you get?

This entire “lost the emails” trip: who did they think they were kidding?

This all happened with the Rubber-Stamp Congress in power. It sounds like Rove really believed that oversight could never happen.

Welcome to New Math, KKKarl.

My dog Jake tells me he thinks Marcy is headed soon back to
Washington D.C. where she will telepathically guide Waxman,
Conyers and the Senate investigative crew. He also tells me he
wants to hire her to go gold digging in the Sierra Nevada Mtns.
With gold around $685 oz and going higher due to Bush crashing
our economy he could use her excellent nugget skills. In the meantime he wants to donate to her beer fund. Go Marcy!

The big question for me is are we getting closer to impeachment hearings?

Bob gold bars Luskin

What’s the ‘gold bars’ reference? Not the same as some SC Justice, I don’t suppose?

2. Monica Goodling–Schumer looks like he already has the goods on her. I suspect that there are quite a few people who will come forward with “loyalty oath” stories. That’s going to look really awful, and if it ever goes to trial, she’s going to lose. She’ll be less despised than Linda Tripp, but not by much. She just seems totally unsympathetic so far, and her Fifth Amendment gambit just made her look worse. Her lawyers need to cut a deal where she pleads guilty to a bunch of minor crimes, gets off with probation and disbarment, and spills her guts. Asking for blanket immunity is VERY risky right now, because this scandal seems to be moving too quickly to keep up with. Too many shoes dropping.

FWIW, there was some speculation on an enptywheel thread over at TNH, iirc, that the “discovery” of these emails allow Congress to circumvent Monica. Before giving her immunity, let’s read her emails. She may have blown her best chance at immunity with her defiance.

Frank Probst @ 77

So where are we at with the key players right now? Here’s my take:

These people need to cut deals as quickly as possible before things get any worse for them:

1. Scooter Libby–Convicted felon with setencing scheduled for June. He simply cannot be pardoned right now. Waxman would have him subpoenaed even before the ink dried. His legal team has to realize that they aren’t going to be able to keep him out of jail until November 2008. So he has to do SOME jail time, and he can’t trust Bush to pardon him when he’s done. His lawyers should be telling him that he’ll get a MUCH better deal if he talks now than he will if he waits until after sentencing. Admitting guilt and expressing remorse at the sentencing will go a long way to cutting his jail time down.

2. Monica Goodling–Schumer looks like he already has the goods on her. I suspect that there are quite a few people who will come forward with “loyalty oath” stories. That’s going to look really awful, and if it ever goes to trial, she’s going to lose. She’ll be less despised than Linda Tripp, but not by much. She just seems totally unsympathetic so far, and her Fifth Amendment gambit just made her look worse. Her lawyers need to cut a deal where she pleads guilty to a bunch of minor crimes, gets off with probation and disbarment, and spills her guts. Asking for blanket immunity is VERY risky right now, because this scandal seems to be moving too quickly to keep up with. Too many shoes dropping.

3. Kyle Sampson–Couldn’t remember much, and he STILL managed to be inaccurate. No replacements in mind, huh? Try again. Your lawyer is no doubt telling you that you’ll never be convicted for perjury for that one “inaccurate” statement. I would agree, but you need to take the long view here. Was that the only lie you told under oath? Probably not. And we all know there are more documents to come. You hung the Attorney General out to dry, so you can’t count on a pardon. They’re going to do everything they can to discredit you. You’ve got to beat them to the punch.

Nice Frank. You can do this post every week, as far as I’m concerned.

Jacqrat @
59

TexasBetsy @ 35

So I take it emptywheel = Marcy ?

Pleased to meet you. I enjoy your writing.

Emptywheel = M T Wheeler = Marcy = the smartest, funniest, cute-as-a-speckled-pup-in-a-red-pickup, DREAMIEST, rugby-playing super woman around.

Did I mention she kicks major ass?

You left out the wicked wit.

eCAHNomics @ 89

Bob gold bars Luskin

What’s the ‘gold bars’ reference? Not the same as some SC Justice, I don’t suppose?

I am so glad you asked. Luskin once took payment from a client (drug dealing money launder, iirc) in “gold bars.”

1,486 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..

Citizen albert fall and the Firepup Patriots:

Thank you for the insider shots of the Saturday Night Massacre…I was finishin’ undergrad school at one of the University of California campuses and, as a Viet Nam vet, I followed the demise of our first fascist President closely and with much emotional investment. I would like to remind you that, it may seem like a long period between the break-in and the articles of impeachment but once the independent counsel was invested the process gained a momentum of its own and really moved VERY quickly. This scandal is moving faster because a majority of the public have rejected the basic argument for supporting this administration and are more prepared to accept any evidence of wrong doing about anything involving these folks. Nixon started the Watergate mess with approval ratings in the 60%’s and even his war support was in the high 50%’s. It took time for Nixon’s support to unwind and because of the pardons and the cauterizing of the public investigation into the wider crimes of Nixon’s regime people weren’t given the time to come to a complete understanding of what had happened. Hence, we end up with a new fascist regime made up of a cast of characters lead by many of the goblins who cut their teeth on the “Imperial Presidency” of America’s first fascist President.

Now, Bush enters this crisis with his numbers in the low 30%’s and a solid majority who have rejected not only his political positions but a majority who have rejected the leader himself. Therefore, this crisis will move faster than Watergate and the only thing that might save ‘im from a guilty verdict in an impeachment trial is that the Democrats might not be able to get 16 Republican Senators to vote for removal.

Look for this thing to start movin’ so fast that I think we’re gunna see resignations before the end of the summer…to let the Republican Party retreat and collect itself for the ‘08 elections.

Thank you again for sharing a small nugget of our history with us, it’s a treat to hear from you.

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, THERE’S GUNNA BE A LOTTA SHIT TA CLEAN UP AFTER THEY CUT AND RUN!!!

John Casper @ 93

eCAHNomics @ 89

Bob gold bars Luskin

What’s the ‘gold bars’ reference? Not the same as some SC Justice, I don’t suppose?

I am so glad you asked. Luskin once took payment from a client (drug dealing money launder, iirc) in “gold bars.”

LOL

Jacqrat @
59

TexasBetsy @ 35

So I take it emptywheel = Marcy ?

Pleased to meet you. I enjoy your writing.

Emptywheel = M T Wheeler = Marcy = the smartest, funniest, cute-as-a-speckled-pup-in-a-red-pickup, DREAMIEST, rugby-playing super woman around.

Did I mention she kicks major ass?

emptywheel plays rugby?

jayackroyd @ 93

You left out the wicked wit.

I did say “funniest” but yeah, “wicked wit” is a more apt description.

I get excited and make mistakes. I’m human.

Here’s my nomination for the next scandal: DoEd. From 4/10 NewsHour

GWEN IFILL: You’re referencing Andrew Cuomo, the New York attorney general. Is this widespread? Is this extending beyond, say, just New York?

ANYA KAMENETZ: Oh, absolutely. And it’s interesting, actually. It’s not just a state investigation. Cuomo has been in contact with a hundred colleges all over the country that he believes are promulgating these relationships with students that have agreed to sign a code of conduct.

And so what’s interesting to me is, why isn’t this a national investigation? And I believe that’s because the corruption goes higher. It goes into the Department of Education. There are many former lenders who are in the Department of Education, and that’s why we’re not seeing the oversight on the federal level that we’d like to.

My bold.

In comparing Watergate and our current, Everything-and-the Kitchen Sinkgate, I’ve been wondering about how much time was left in Nixon’s term when the Articles of Impeachment were served? Is it comparable to the amount of time the Shrubbery has left in his term? Did Nixon ever have the idea of trying to run out the clock like Clusterfuck (someone who comments here always refers to him that way!) appears to be trying to do?

If this is a RICO squeeze, Waxman’s letter to the Agency Heads represents a Rubicon for the BushCo Loyalists.

The risk the Loyalists run is that Waxman already has the e-mails – if they lie and cover-up, they’ll be caught red-handed and likely rounded up along with the other Traitors for what is looking more and more like a massive conspiracy trial, the likes of which hasn’t been seen since Nuremburg.

The back-channel e-mail/text accounts could end-up being used to ferret them all out, en masse, without going through a lengthy personnel-review, HR process for each *appointed* individual.

No wonder Bush said he didn’t like the idea of ‘Show Trials’ recently. He knows the ‘right’ remedy for the Hell he put the World through is Televised Humiliation and Punishment.

Wouldn’t that be sweet Justice!

America may yet redeem itself in the community of nations.

EW – when you say 95% of the e-mail correspondence, am I correct that you are talking about the fact that Karl reportedly does 95% of his work on non-WH servers?

Will there be a long delay before the Cabinet submits the inventories to Waxman, or do they have to comply fairly quickly?

Thanks

kdh22 @ 82 says:

Ah, yes. She would be just giddy (and vindicated) to see all this going down. In some way I believe her passing may have paved the way for the sunlight. Having said that…I miss her work and spirit immensely!

I disagree to the extent that I do not believe she would be giddy at being proven correct. I thnk she would be very sad due to the effects on the country and constitution and sorry that it had to come to this. Just my NSHO.

pow wow @ 61

There’s a very frank and enlightening interview by Tony Mauro of a just-retired career DOJ attorney (Daniel J. Metcalfe), here:

http://www.law.com/servlet/Con…..LawArticle

I second the recommendation–this would have been my post if I hadn’t already had one written. This is one of those civil servants who has watched the civil service go to political shit at these people’s hands. Worth the read.

Here’s one of the “and Clinton Did it” stories that may be helpful in interpreting the RNC story to the lesser informed.

Everyone remember John Deutsch? The former deputy Secretary at DOD who replaced Woolsey at CIA as DCI???

He got fired by Clinton after an investigation for the sin of taking a disk with CIA information home to read, and reading it on the family computer which was AOL enabled. He didn’t use AOL to read the material, it was just that he put the disk into an AOL linked computer, and the experts believed it possible that a hacker could get into his system and read CIA documents that might reside in latent form on his hard disk.

For that, he lost his CIA Job, and was relieved of all of his security clearances. Clinton actually fired him. Without security clearances, Deutsch could not even do much consulting.

Apply to Rove (and others) using RNC servers for Government business that might include classified information.

George — you have to fire your brain.

Perhaps Pelligrino Rodino, Jr. is watching.

OLD TPM references to “gold bars” Luskin Court forced him to return most of the money he made off selling the gold bars.

OT, Victoria Toesuck Toensing and her husband, must have been so pissed when Rove chose Luskin. AFAIK, he’s an “out of the closet” gay Democrat! Can you imagine the hypocrisy? When Rove’s back is to the wall, the architect of GOP glbt bashing, protect the sanctity of marriage, hires a gay, DEMOCRAT, at around $800/hour?. Boy were Boris and Natasha pissed not to reap that revenue windfall. It may have accounted for why Victoria was so out in front about Plame before Waxman’s committee. She may have been advertising to all her GOP intimates to “hire Republican” when seeking counsel.

how does fred feel? DING!

Brought to you by means of the Way Back Machine:

Prom Night at the 2004 Federalist Society Hook-Up Convention.

Basking in the glow of the 2004 election fraud victory, Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo, Richard Epstein, Rachel Brand, and the rest of the Consitution-hating wingers distinguished legal scholars dance the night away.

kdh22 @ 100

In comparing Watergate and our current, Everything-and-the Kitchen Sinkgate, I’ve been wondering about how much time was left in Nixon’s term when the Articles of Impeachment were served? Is it comparable to the amount of time the Shrubbery has left in his term? Did Nixon ever have the idea of trying to run out the clock like Clusterfuck (someone who comments here always refers to him that way!) appears to be trying to do?

Nixon resigned within days after the articles being voted on in August 74. He would not have left office until 1/20/77 (over 2 1/2 years).

Citizen Mae:

This is a bit later in the second term than Nixon but it will work out to be the same if this thing keeps movin at the speed it is now.

keep the faith, pass the ammunition and keep yer popcorn dry!!!

TexasBetsy @ 35
“So I take it emptywheel = Marcy ?”

This post reminds me, why do we assume all of the Bushco’s used their own names? Really, what prevented them from being any name, sending emails to each other on whatever web hosting site? Was their hubris such that they actually used their actual names and only used the RNC and sometimes WH accounts? The document dumps suggest this, they were so in love with their power that they wanted every exchange to be recorded. I just can’t figure out this conundrum, WHY didn’t they just hide their identities?

Frank at 78,

But if Monica and Kyle aren’t convicted of their felonies, they might return in 20 years.

dakine01 @ 103

kdh22 @ 82 says:

Ah, yes. She would be just giddy (and vindicated) to see all this going down. In some way I believe her passing may have paved the way for the sunlight. Having said that…I miss her work and spirit immensely!

I disagree to the extent that I do not believe she would be giddy at being proven correct. I thnk she would be very sad due to the effects on the country and constitution and sorry that it had to come to this. Just my NSHO.

You’re right, of course. I recall that in her writing she often alluded to her sorrow over the what was happening to the country and the constitution. I guess it’s me who is giddy — giddy over the fact that this crime organization will eventually be brought down. Again, I miss her writing and spirit, and I stand corrected.

eyesonthestreet @ 111

TexasBetsy @ 35

So I take it emptywheel = Marcy ?

This post reminds me, why do we assume all of the Bushco’s used their own names? Really, what prevented them from being any name, sending emails to each other on whatever web hosting site? Was their hubris such that they actually used their actual names and only used the RNC and sometimes WH accounts? The document dumps suggest this, they were so in love with their power that they wanted every exchange to be recorded. I just can’t figure out this conundrum, WHY didn’t they just hide their identities?

Arrogance lack of imagination = stupidity

dakine01 @ 102

kdh22 @ 82 says:

Ah, yes. She would be just giddy (and vindicated) to see all this going down. In some way I believe her passing may have paved the way for the sunlight. Having said that…I miss her work and spirit immensely!

I disagree to the extent that I do not believe she would be giddy at being proven correct. I thnk she would be very sad due to the effects on the country and constitution and sorry that it had to come to this. Just my NSHO.

I have a 1980 photo of Molly & several other female luminaries, all decked out in shorts & holding oars from a white water rafting trip. If someone can instruct me where to post it (I recently scanned it into my computer), I’ll make it available for others to see.

selise @ 76

marcy – one question… is waxman requiring the inventory list of emails – or the actual emails, by may?

btw, excellent (as always) post. thank you.

The inventory.

Much of it wouldn’t be pertinent to Waxman’s ostensible reason for the request–his investigation into possible Hatch Act violations (though trust me, he’ll turn up many many more than the ones he knows about). But you could learn a lot from such an inventory, stuff the Dems otherwise wouldn’t have the reason to demand. Such as who the lackeys for Rove are within each agency, where the lines of connection are. One of the keys to putting breaking the Enron puzzle, IIRC, was network analysis that basically reconstructed who talked to whom (they were able to find the people at the nodes who, irrespective of title, knew everything). While this won’t be an exhaustive map, it’ll be a map of the most crucial emails and people.

Loo Hoo @ 113

Frank at 78,

But if Monica and Kyle aren’t convicted of their felonies, they might return in 20 years.

Only works for the senior people. Their best bet would be right-wing radio. And that’s looking shaky these days, too.

something bugging me…

wrt the surrepticious insertion of the language into the Patriot Act by Specter’s aide, without the Senator’s knowledge, which allowed DOJ to circumvent Senatorial approval for replacement USAs: have any documents come to light that implied or showed this to be a planned strategy and act, and isn’t that illegal, somehow?

John Casper @ 77

Bold is mine. I don’t really believe Biskupic’s statement in a general sense. I think he knew. I think it’s very relevant, however, that Fitz is becoming the new “rock/safe harbor” that all USA’a look to.

Well, as to whether he knew or not, this is one bit of lawyerly parsing:

it was never communicated to me that my job could be in jeopardy or that I was considered to be disloyal to President Bush’s agenda.

Shorter Biskupic: “It was never said in as many words, but I knew.”

For most of Fielding’s professional career he does seem to have surrounded himself with high paying hoods.

TexasBetsy @ 114

eyesonthestreet @ 111

TexasBetsy @ 35

So I take it emptywheel = Marcy ?
WHY didn’t they just hide their identities?

Arrogance lack of imagination = stupidity

I’m banging my head against the wall………

emptywheel @ 117

selise @ 76

marcy – one question… is waxman requiring the inventory list of emails – or the actual emails, by may?

btw, excellent (as always) post. thank you.

The inventory.

Much of it wouldn’t be pertinent to Waxman’s ostensible reason for the request–his investigation into possible Hatch Act violations (though trust me, he’ll turn up many many more than the ones he knows about). But you could learn a lot from such an inventory, stuff the Dems otherwise wouldn’t have the reason to demand. Such as who the lackeys for Rove are within each agency, where the lines of connection are. One of the keys to putting breaking the Enron puzzle, IIRC, was network analysis that basically reconstructed who talked to whom (they were able to find the people at the nodes who, irrespective of title, knew everything). While this won’t be an exhaustive map, it’ll be a map of the most crucial emails and people.

A flow chart of the rovians embedded in all the agencies. For future planning purposes of course, i.e., rooting out the moles. :})

One thing you can depend on as sure as the sun sets in the west is that Dubya will dig in his heels at any opportunity. Its the one thing he appears to be good at – the media supports him in the role. He’s good at being obstinate. No sense of timing or artistic license, but that lends itself to support his raw pig-headed obstinance.

Frank, Have you got a role for Abramoff in this play?

Marcy – this post gave me goosebumps.

Henry Waxman is more impressive by the day.

Riesz Fischer @
97

emptywheel plays rugby?

It is so.

WASHINGTON – President Bush said Saturday that a Democratic plan to set an end date for the war gives “our enemies the victory they desperately want.”

dakine01 @ 110

kdh22 @ 100

In comparing Watergate and our current, Everything-and-the Kitchen Sinkgate, I’ve been wondering about how much time was left in Nixon’s term when the Articles of Impeachment were served? Is it comparable to the amount of time the Shrubbery has left in his term? Did Nixon ever have the idea of trying to run out the clock like Clusterfuck (someone who comments here always refers to him that way!) appears to be trying to do?

Nixon resigned within days after the articles being voted on in August 74. He would not have left office until 1/20/77 (over 2 1/2 years).

Thanks. That clears up a lot in my mind and with regard to Madame Speaker’s “impeachment is off the table” declaration.

eCAHNomics @ 99

Here’s my nomination for the next scandal: DoEd. From 4/10 NewsHour

GWEN IFILL: You’re referencing Andrew Cuomo, the New York attorney general. Is this widespread? Is this extending beyond, say, just New York?

ANYA KAMENETZ: Oh, absolutely. And it’s interesting, actually. It’s not just a state investigation. Cuomo has been in contact with a hundred colleges all over the country that he believes are promulgating these relationships with students that have agreed to sign a code of conduct.

And so what’s interesting to me is, why isn’t this a national investigation? And I believe that’s because the corruption goes higher. It goes into the Department of Education. There are many former lenders who are in the Department of Education, and that’s why we’re not seeing the oversight on the federal level that we’d like to.

My bold.

Agree. That’s one of the agencies (along with HHS and FDA and Interior) that is really going to be heartsick at Waxman’s request to turn over the RNC emails. Luckily, because of the RNC trick, Waxman can ask for them NOW rather than waiting for the scandal to fully break out.

At this point, we should care less about what the internal white house emails say, ‘cos ALL THE GOOD STUFF is on a non-white house email address! And guess what — they can’t claim, in good faith, that those emails are privileged as “official” white house comms, because they are by definition UN-official! Just go get it all, already!! And if the WH insists that a neutral go through all of the emails to find only relevant documents, we’ve got LOTS of key words that will be relevant for producing those documents.

Even more fun will come only IF Fitz decides to re-open his investigation, based upon more “key words” he might be interested in, like “Valerie,” “Plame,” “Flame,” “wife,” and so forth. He would need some evidence that his original document requests encompassed the RNC emails, but were not properly produced, in order to reopen the investigation. Does anyone know if he ever asked the RNC for relevant communications? Or if the original subpoena encompassed internal WH emails to RNC accounts?

John Casper @ 107

OLD TPM references to “gold bars” Luskin Court forced him to return most of the money he made off selling the gold bars.

OT, Victoria Toesuck Toensing and her husband, must have been so pissed when Rove chose Luskin. AFAIK, he’s an “out of the closet” gay Democrat! Can you imagine the hypocrisy? When Rove’s back is to the wall, the architect of GOP glbt bashing, protect the sanctity of marriage, hires a gay, DEMOCRAT, at around $800/hour?. Boy were Boris and Natasha pissed not to reap that revenue windfall. It may have accounted for why Victoria was so out in front about Plame before Waxman’s committee. She may have been advertising to all her GOP intimates to “hire Republican” when seeking counsel.

Hmmm. If that’s true about Luskin, someone should tell his girl friend

pseudonymous in nc says:

April 14th, 2007 at 1:20 pm

“. . .I still think that Conyers and Leahy
should draw the line on allowing Fred and
company to ‘aggregate’. . .

. . .some magic executive privilege pixie
dust over them. The appropriate approach
is to start invoking the Presidential Records
Act and noting that it’s not up to the White
House legal eagles to determine, after the
fact, the status of records they should have
bloody well preserved in the first place. . .”

pseudo. in nc –

i think this is clearly correct.

anything less gives bushco. new
wormholes to slither through. . .

and — i quite agree with marcy (in
fact, i said so, only yesterday!) — that
these april 12 waxman “save your e-mail”
love letters to all cabinet-dwellers are
going to be huge — huge, beyond anything
we can now imagine. . .

see — our minds lack the criminal imagining
prowess of cheney, and rove. . . [the toddler-
in-chief is really just “along for the ride”,
in my opinion. . .]

so — buckle up! — going into tuesday is
gonna’ be a pixel-frying, document-ifying
great time!

i’d look for the minnesota USAs to be
every bit as big a story as the WI ones.

[can you say rachel paulose? sure you can.
she is apparently fond of quoting scripture
in the office, to everyone, including her
career track government employees. . .

hatch act — anyone? — any one?]

DC @ 129

At this point, we should care less about what the internal white house emails say, ‘cos ALL THE GOOD STUFF is on a non-white house email address! And guess what — they can’t claim, in good faith, that those emails are privileged as “official” white house comms, because they are by definition UN-official! Just go get it all, already!! And if the WH insists that a neutral go through all of the emails to find only relevant documents, we’ve got LOTS of key words that will be relevant for producing those documents.

Even more fun will come only IF Fitz decides to re-open his investigation, based upon more “key words” he might be interested in, like “Valerie,” “Plame,” “Flame,” “wife,” and so forth. He would need some evidence that his original document requests encompassed the RNC emails, but were not properly produced, in order to reopen the investigation. Does anyone know if he ever asked the RNC for relevant communications? Or if the original subpoena encompassed internal WH emails to RNC accounts?

I think there will be plenty of “good stuff” on the white house internal memos for the period before they got RNC servers. And I am also willing to wager that they were careless at times even with the WH email accounts.

Mae @ 102

EW – when you say 95% of the e-mail correspondence, am I correct that you are talking about the fact that Karl reportedly does 95% of his work on non-WH servers?

Will there be a long delay before the Cabinet submits the inventories to Waxman, or do they have to comply fairly quickly?

Thanks

Yeah, 95% was an oblique reference to Karl’s email habits. Though Scott Jennings seems to be pretty high up there on percentage of “business” he does off the books.

I think some (Treasury is a guess) will go quickly, some (the HHS, FDA, and Interior) will stall like nobody’s business. Unless they get together and develop a response together, which is possible but not definite.

While Olmert is spinning hopes for the future and launching peace balloons, the head of military intelligence, Amos Yadlin, is warning the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Israel could be facing a war in the North this summer.

emptywheel @ 116

selise @ 76

marcy – one question… is waxman requiring the inventory list of emails – or the actual emails, by may?

btw, excellent (as always) post. thank you.

The inventory.

Much of it wouldn’t be pertinent to Waxman’s ostensible reason for the request–his investigation into possible Hatch Act violations (though trust me, he’ll turn up many many more than the ones he knows about). But you could learn a lot from such an inventory, stuff the Dems otherwise wouldn’t have the reason to demand. Such as who the lackeys for Rove are within each agency, where the lines of connection are. One of the keys to putting breaking the Enron puzzle, IIRC, was network analysis that basically reconstructed who talked to whom (they were able to find the people at the nodes who, irrespective of title, knew everything). While this won’t be an exhaustive map, it’ll be a map of the most crucial emails and people.

thank you, that’s what i thought, but then the language got fuzzy. another date to put on the calendar. *g*

datamining via network analysis… hmmm…. karma.

kdh22 @ 100

In comparing Watergate and our current, Everything-and-the Kitchen Sinkgate, I’ve been wondering about how much time was left in Nixon’s term when the Articles of Impeachment were served? Is it comparable to the amount of time the Shrubbery has left in his term? Did Nixon ever have the idea of trying to run out the clock like Clusterfuck (someone who comments here always refers to him that way!) appears to be trying to do?

Nixon split in August of 74, 3 months before the mid-term election, which was a disaster for the Republicans. Ford had 2 years and 3 months as president, to consolidate things as best he could before the 76 presidential election.

To have left at an analogous time to Nixon, GW would have to have left in August of 2006.

What has Scottish Law to do with Arlen Specter?

frank said:

“. . .2. Monica Goodling–Schumer looks like he already has the goods on her. I suspect that there are quite a few people who will come forward with “loyalty oath” stories. That’s going to look really awful, and if it ever goes to trial, she’s going to lose. She’ll be less despised than Linda Tripp, but not by much. She just seems totally unsympathetic so far, and her Fifth Amendment gambit just made her look worse. Her lawyers need to cut a deal where she pleads guilty to a bunch of minor crimes, gets off with probation and disbarment, and spills her guts. Asking for blanket immunity is VERY risky right now, because this scandal seems to be moving too quickly to keep up with. Too many shoes dropping. . .”

great stuff, here!

published reports already say she
is in talks to testify, in return
for a multi-front immunity package. . .

perhaps a civil rap for the hatch act
stuff — but perhaps no criminal conviction.

that is, unless we haven’t
seen “it all”, on her. . .

ew @ 133

I think some (Treasury is a guess) will go quickly

My read on Paulson is that he is a solid citizen & will not want himself or his department to be caught up in an email mess. Remember (and he will too) that the stock analysts who were successfully prosecuted after the bubble burst were convcted on their own emails, even though Wall St. (like govt) warns all employees every year what NOT to put in emails & why.

I have my eye on him as possibly the canary in the mine. If things get too bad, perhaps he’ll quit. I don’t know enough about him to speculate about what ‘too bad’ would mean to him.

emptywheel @
134

Mae @ 102

EW – when you say 95% of the e-mail correspondence, am I correct that you are talking about the fact that Karl reportedly does 95% of his work on non-WH servers?

Will there be a long delay before the Cabinet submits the inventories to Waxman, or do they have to comply fairly quickly?

Thanks

Yeah, 95% was an oblique reference to Karl’s email habits. Though Scott Jennings seems to be pretty high up there on percentage of “business” he does off the books.

I think some (Treasury is a guess) will go quickly, some (the HHS, FDA, and Interior) will stall like nobody’s business. Unless they get together and develop a response together, which is possible but not definite.

The Unitary Executive at the head of the unified crime syndicate.

-GSD

TexasBetsy @ 35

So I take it emptywheel = Marcy ?

Pleased to meet you. I enjoy your writing.

emptywheel=Marcy=speckled pup
I enjoy your writing also.
Marcy’s writing, that is.

Mae @ 130

John Casper @ 107

OLD TPM references to “gold bars” Luskin Court forced him to return most of the money he made off selling the gold bars.

OT, Victoria Toesuck Toensing and her husband, must have been so pissed when Rove chose Luskin. AFAIK, he’s an “out of the closet” gay Democrat! Can you imagine the hypocrisy? When Rove’s back is to the wall, the architect of GOP glbt bashing, protect the sanctity of marriage, hires a gay, DEMOCRAT, at around $800/hour?. Boy were Boris and Natasha pissed not to reap that revenue windfall. It may have accounted for why Victoria was so out in front about Plame before Waxman’s committee. She may have been advertising to all her GOP intimates to “hire Republican” when seeking counsel.

Hmmm. If that’s true about Luskin, someone should tell his girl friend

Mae, I apologize.
I was just repeating what I heard.

kdh22 @ 128 says:

Thanks. That clears up a lot in my mind and with regard to Madame Speaker’s “impeachment is off the table” declaration.

We’re at a comparable point in this ‘gate as things were in early ‘73. The congressional hearings are just beginning. There were another 18 months of hearings, court actions, appeals, etc before the trickster resigned.

The primary benefit of continuing to do everything possible to shine the light on these cock-a-roaches is to get the public totally disgusted with the adminsitration’s lawlessness. Get these people into courts then into jail so that we can reclaim the republic from teh facists and christianists (pseudo Christians who are more pharisees and money changers/lenders than actual Christians). These are far more serious crimes than lying about an oval office BJ!

Oklahoma kiddo @ 127

WASHINGTON – President Bush said Saturday that a Democratic plan to set an end date for the war gives “our enemies the victory they desperately want.”

Yahoo carries a similar headline. This is the kind of cover that the media constantly provides. The fact is that Dubya has provided victory to our enemies through recruitment of new enemies in Iraq and across the globe. Bush’s GWOT is an open ended war without end without any conceivable victory. In this respect, it is not unlike the war on drugs.

The Administration Folk knew about the Wages Of Sin – they didn’t think they’d be caught. They still don’t believe it.

What a braintrust we have on line… I am humbled by the assembled wisdom.

dakine01 @ 142

The primary benefit of continuing to do everything possible to shine the light on these cock-a-roaches is to get the public totally disgusted with the adminsitration’s lawlessness. Get these people into courts then into jail so that we can reclaim the republic from teh facists and christianists (pseudo Christians who are more pharisees and money changers/lenders than actual Christians). These are far more serious crimes than lying about an oval office BJ!

This matters a lot for the 08 election, whether or not impeachment or resignation actually happens. The more the R dirt becomes public, the more the public votes D. 06 was largely about the Iraq war, but R corruption played a measureable role if I remember post-election analyses.

eCAHNomics @ 64
l

So here’s my FF Q. One of my favorite binaries for the human race is solid citizens vs. flakes. A softer version (i.e., one with fuzzier edges) is adult vs. child. So which is FF?

There’s a correlary Q that I can’t judge because IANAL. Lawyers must defend their clients, even if their clients are flakes. So how far would a solid citizen lawyer have to go in defense of a flake client?

Not sure which side of the binary Uncle Fred is on. I would venture that nothing more than pure ego gratification could have motivated him to take this job, since he’s getting on in the years, and has enough money and contacts for 300 big-name K street lawyers.

Oh wait…..heroically serving his country! That’s what it was (and that was the theme of his big sendoff from WRF, which — again, thank God — I missed.)

Ugh.

As far as solid citizen lawyers with flake clients….the rules of ethics require that “a lawyer represent his client zealously within the bounds of the law.” (immortally quoted by Robert DeNiro in “Cape Fear”). Of course, there ARE no “bounds of the law” in the Bush white house, so who knows……

The difference between this mess and Nixon is that the next election is a presidential, not a mid-term. The Republicans of 74 had more time to do the awful calculus of whether to throw Nixon overboard to save themselves. And there weren’t a bunch of nervous presidential candidates milling about. I’m not sure if that accelerates the dynamic or not.

Mae, I should never have thrown that in. I don’t want to play by Rove’s rules and attribute anything to orientation.

All I needed to know about Luskin’s character, I got in the publicly available information about the “gold bars.”

Del says

April 14th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
What has Scottish Law to do with Arlen Specter?

Quote This Comment

quoth emptywheel, in 2005:

“. . .Which leaves the other possibility, that Scottish Law Specter was sending a message with his absence. Perhaps that he doesn’t support Bolton but wouldn’t go on the record one way another on cloture. It seems important for us to know this, because it would illuminate the possible numbers on the other side. For example, did Specter tell the Mainiacs that he was going to bail, allowing them to vote for cloture, but ensuring the actual vote would not pass. . .”

– Posted by: emptywheel at May 27, 2005 11:59 AM, the washington note

thus the scottish law moniker?

cleter @ 137

kdh22 @ 100

In comparing Watergate and our current, Everything-and-the Kitchen Sinkgate, I’ve been wondering about how much time was left in Nixon’s term when the Articles of Impeachment were served? Is it comparable to the amount of time the Shrubbery has left in his term? Did Nixon ever have the idea of trying to run out the clock like Clusterfuck (someone who comments here always refers to him that way!) appears to be trying to do?

Nixon split in August of 74, 3 months before the mid-term election, which was a disaster for the Republicans. Ford had 2 years and 3 months as president, to consolidate things as best he could before the 76 presidential election.

To have left at an analogous time to Nixon, GW would have to have left in August of 2006.

The return on Impeachment would not be greater than the time, energy and $$ invested to pursue it. Plus, the Dem leadership must be very confident wrt ‘08 (me,too!) especially if you look at the numbers from 7/06 thru today. What a glorious time in our country! This little “experiment” in democracy appears not to be over just yet. I attribute that to good ole American perservence. Those forefathers sure did know what they were doing…such foresight and an uncanny ability to understand human nature.

John – Absolutely no apology necessary!! It is so rare I have an inside scoop about anything. A good friend (who knows I am obsessed with the evil intrigues of the Bushies) recently told me that her friend is dating Mr. Luskin, and that supposedly he is a really nice guy. I personally have no idea.

emptywheel, thanks for your 2:21.

OT, and riffing off of Sara’s latest gem at 2:15; I hope the Democrats can make some serious hay out of the fact that the Bush WH cannot even properly f*cking archive email. We trust Bush to provide national security and he lost five million emails?

eCAHNomics @ 147

dakine01 @ 142

The primary benefit of continuing to do everything possible to shine the light on these cock-a-roaches is to get the public totally disgusted with the adminsitration’s lawlessness. Get these people into courts then into jail so that we can reclaim the republic from teh facists and christianists (pseudo Christians who are more pharisees and money changers/lenders than actual Christians). These are far more serious crimes than lying about an oval office BJ!

This matters a lot for the 08 election, whether or not impeachment or resignation actually happens. The more the R dirt becomes public, the more the public votes D. 06 was largely about the Iraq war, but R corruption played a measureable role if I remember post-election analyses.

Exactly. And maybe we can get some more liberal/progressives in office (especially the senate where 22 out of I think 33/34 seats up are currently held by republics). Get enough in there to make toothless Mitch McConnell R-Big Bidness (Mr Chao) the marginal a** he is. Gawd it hurts to know that the state I was born and raised in and love is electing idiots like him!

emptywheel @ 133

Mae @ 102

EW – when you say 95% of the e-mail correspondence, am I correct that you are talking about the fact that Karl reportedly does 95% of his work on non-WH servers?

Will there be a long delay before the Cabinet submits the inventories to Waxman, or do they have to comply fairly quickly?

Thanks

Yeah, 95% was an oblique reference to Karl’s email habits. Though Scott Jennings seems to be pretty high up there on percentage of “business” he does off the books.

I think some (Treasury is a guess) will go quickly, some (the HHS, FDA, and Interior) will stall like nobody’s business. Unless they get together and develop a response together, which is possible but not definite.

I’d say that it’s a guaranteed thing that they will get together for a coordinated response. The way this White House rides herd on the Cabinet, there is no way in hell they’d let one rogue agency respond in a way that the WH doesn’t want them too.

Unless the Agency General Counsel/Solicitor has a huge backbone, that is.

cleter @ 149

The difference between this mess and Nixon is that the next election is a presidential, not a mid-term. The Republicans of 74 had more time to do the awful calculus of whether to throw Nixon overboard to save themselves. And there weren’t a bunch of nervous presidential candidates milling about. I’m not sure if that accelerates the dynamic or not.

And the Republics still lost a bunch of seats in ‘74.

Me @ 153

I meant to type 11/06 obviously not 7/06.

Sometimes my fingers are faster than my brain. Sometimes I quesiton the existence of my brain, but that’s a whole nuther conversation.

cleter @ 150

The difference between this mess and Nixon is that the next election is a presidential, not a mid-term. The Republicans of 74 had more time to do the awful calculus of whether to throw Nixon overboard to save themselves. And there weren’t a bunch of nervous presidential candidates milling about. I’m not sure if that accelerates the dynamic or not.

It just might, cleter. There’s also the fact that the investigation is likely moving a LOT faster, even with traditions within Congress and waiting periods. I’m way to young to have been around at Watergate(born in Carter’s term), but from what i’ve read and observed? The presidential elections in 08 are a huge factor(one of many!) in things. We’ll see how party loyalty and ShrubCo loyalty plays out fairly soon, i think.

In the end, Bush will say he didn’t concern himself with little details about what was legal or not, since he had much bigger fish to fry, like perpetual illegal war…ooops.

oldmommy @ 147

As far as solid citizen lawyers with flake clients….the rules of ethics require that “a lawyer represent his client zealously within the bounds of the law.” (immortally quoted by Robert DeNiro in “Cape Fear”). Of course, there ARE no “bounds of the law” in the Bush white house, so who knows……

Exactly my query. FF’s clients are acting completely outside the bounds of the law, so what must FF do to represent them within the bounds of his professional oath? As I remember from L&O, he cannot allow his clients to perjure themselves or commit other unlawful acts that FF knows about. Doesn’t that put him in a terrible bind, unless he’s as bad as them?

dakine01 @ 144

kdh22 @ 128 says:

Thanks. That clears up a lot in my mind and with regard to Madame Speaker’s “impeachment is off the table” declaration.

We’re at a comparable point in this ‘gate as things were in early ‘73. The congressional hearings are just beginning. There were another 18 months of hearings, court actions, appeals, etc before the trickster resigned.

The primary benefit of continuing to do everything possible to shine the light on these cock-a-roaches is to get the public totally disgusted with the adminsitration’s lawlessness. Get these people into courts then into jail so that we can reclaim the republic from teh facists and christianists (pseudo Christians who are more pharisees and money changers/lenders than actual Christians). These are far more serious crimes than lying about an oval office BJ!

I agree that we are at about early 73, investigation-wise. Except Bush is in a much weaker position at this stage than Nixon was. Nixon was fresh off an electoral landslide, had job approvals in the upper 50s, and was a potent political force who was used to having an opposition Congress. Bush, on the other hand, has approval ratings about 5 points above Nixon’s BOTTOM numbers. He’s not in the 50s. He’s 5 points shy of Nixon at resignation time. Hearings shaved 30 points off of Nixon’s approval. Bush doesn’t have that cushion. And Bush just suffered a humiliating electoral defeat, and has zero experience dealing with an opposition Congress. He has nether Nixon’s skill nor Nixon’s political clout.

Questions:

Do we have enought evidence so far to warrant a special prosecutor to investigate the overall mis-management of the DoJ? If not, what more do we need?

Is this a good idea?

It looks to me that there is enough to find probably cause that justice has been obstructed on a variety of fronts. And I think Congress should be both demanding the AG’s resignation (never mind his testimony) and a thorough house cleaning done by a consensus replacement. Is there some reason we should not be asking for this?

Remember how so many of us felt that this past election was so damn important? Because we felt the very fate of our democracy was hanging in the balance?

We don’t need to question those beliefs anymore now, do we.

-GSD

Jacqrat @
126

Riesz Fischer @
97

emptywheel plays rugby?

It is so.

So emptywheel is brilliant, beautiful and athletic?

Life ain’t fair.

That was my comment. selise @ 66

CTMET has a diary at dkos with interesting comments from slashdot techies with thoughts about email recovery:

Slashdot Techie opinions on White House e-mail scandal

among the comments, one idea i found especially intertesting was the suggestion to subpeona the IT people – to find out what was done and who gave the orders…

That was me. I was going to repost the comment here to see what people think. It seems to me that obstruction is the charge that is going to bring the cabel down, and the best way to do that is to work through the technicians who would have executed the obstruction.

I think Arlen “Scottish Law” Specter came about because of his vote on the Clinton Impeachment articles in the Senate in 1998. Rather than vote guilty or innocent, he voted not proven — which is a special feature of Scottish Jury Trials. (3 choices).

How do we know Luskin is a Democrat?

cleter @ 150

The difference between this mess and Nixon is that the next election is a presidential, not a mid-term. The Republicans of 74 had more time to do the awful calculus of whether to throw Nixon overboard to save themselves. And there weren’t a bunch of nervous presidential candidates milling about. I’m not sure if that accelerates the dynamic or not.

Add in the fact that the Republican Senators are unbelievably vulnerable.

aliasofwestgate @ 159

cleter @ 150

The difference between this mess and Nixon is that the next election is a presidential, not a mid-term. The Republicans of 74 had more time to do the awful calculus of whether to throw Nixon overboard to save themselves. And there weren’t a bunch of nervous presidential candidates milling about. I’m not sure if that accelerates the dynamic or not.

It just might, cleter. There’s also the fact that the investigation is likely moving a LOT faster, even with traditions within Congress and waiting periods. I’m way to young to have been around at Watergate(born in Carter’s term), but from what i’ve read and observed? The presidential elections in 08 are a huge factor(one of many!) in things. We’ll see how party loyalty and ShrubCo loyalty plays out fairly soon, i think.

I was in college while all the H2Ogate was playing out. Even though it took over two years from break-in to resignation, things still played out pretty fast. In those days no toobz but the Network TVs ALL broadcast the Senate Select Watergate Committee hearings as well as the Impeachment hearings. It PO’d the folks who wanted their soaps but it was a live and welcome civics lesson.

emptywheel @
117

selise @ 76

marcy – one question… is waxman requiring the inventory list of emails – or the actual emails, by may?

btw, excellent (as always) post. thank you.

The inventory.

Much of it wouldn’t be pertinent to Waxman’s ostensible reason for the request–his investigation into possible Hatch Act violations (though trust me, he’ll turn up many many more than the ones he knows about). But you could learn a lot from such an inventory, stuff the Dems otherwise wouldn’t have the reason to demand. Such as who the lackeys for Rove are within each agency, where the lines of connection are. One of the keys to putting breaking the Enron puzzle, IIRC, was network analysis that basically reconstructed who talked to whom (they were able to find the people at the nodes who, irrespective of title, knew everything). While this won’t be an exhaustive map, it’ll be a map of the most crucial emails and people.

I wish we had a system for rating comments, maybe like how DailyKos has a “recommended” feature. But I’d like to go further with a recommended rating feature, and give this one of EW’s FIVE STARS. I would love to see the same network analysis out of the OVP.

Bob in HI

Del @
138

What has Scottish Law to do with Arlen Specter?

both are extremely dour?

Sara @
168

I think Arlen “Scottish Law” Specter came about because of his vote on the Clinton Impeachment articles in the Senate in 1998. Rather than vote guilty or innocent, he voted not proven — which is a special feature of Scottish Jury Trials. (3 choices).

Thanks Sara.

Fred Fielding!!!! Oy, that name. My memory is imprecise, but the association and feeling is vivid. He was there for Watergate. He was there for Iran Contra. He’s Baaaaaaaaaaaack!

It’s just incredible that they would even be willing to be associated with him… but it’s not incredible…. after all, all of their key players thought Nixon and Reagan were doing God’s work.

These Bush Cheney people are simply unadulterated evil…

I don’t mean it in the enlightened positive sense in which it is usually used when I say that Fielding is the Devil’s advocate.

Unfortunately the Devil is currently running the proceedings.

DC @ 130 – Here’s some detail that Isbister and I posted in EPU-land of EW’s post yesterday, about what Fitzgerald’s investigators were up to in 2004, according to Luskin through the media (ABC News), and from a sworn affidavit by Fitzgerald:

Isbister’s excerpt (from an ABC News article) yesterday:

Rove, who was cleared of any wrongdoing in the investigation in June 2006, had been subpoenaed for all of his e-mail accounts by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. The investigation looked into whether an administration official had leaked the name of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, and resulted in the perjury and obstruction conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis Scooter Libby.

Luskin explained, “Fitzgerald issued subpoenas for the White House, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the Republican National Committee. There was no issue for documents for this period of time,” he said, referring to a time frame from which the White House is missing e-mails.

“Karl volunteered to image all the hard drives — the RNC hard drive, his own personal home computer and his BlackBerry. The FBI performed the imaging. Fitzgerald was interested in documents for the spring, summer and fall of 2003. They were copied the summer of 2004 and given to Pat Fitzgerald without conditions” Luskin said.

And then note this language from Special Counsel Fitzgerald’s August 27, 2004 Affidavit, which he submitted to the D.C. District Court in opposition to Motions to Quash grand jury subpoenas — in this case motions filed to quash subpoenas issued to Judith Miller and (apparently) Walter Pincus [from Page 29 of the Affidavit, emphasis added]:

“…An experienced team of FBI agents has been working on the case since October 2003, led by Special Agent Jack Eckenrode then of the Inspection Division. At least six agents have been assigned to the case at any time and extensive forensic computer and telephone work is being done…Besides my own participation in the factual investigation, the First Assistant United States Attorney, the Chief of the Criminal Division, the Chief of Appeals and the Chief of Public Corruption have participated to varying degrees in the discussion of legal issues, including analyzing the relevant statutes, analyzing the First Amendment issues and determining the available means to obtain electronic evidence…”

Riesz Fischer @ 166

So emptywheel is brilliant, beautiful and athletic?

Life ain’t fair.

And Married. Tell me about it, bud.

Maybe Fielding’s worrying about this – posted yesterday:

DAG2294-2519, p.165 (doc#DAG00002458)

[Damage control in February.]

From: Jennings, Jeffrey S.
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 10:17AM
To: ‘KR@georgewbush.com’; Fielding, Fred F.; Sullivan, Kevin F.; Perino, Dana M.; ‘kyle.sampson@usdoj.gov’
CC: ‘Sara Taylor’
Subject: NM USATTY – urgent issue
Importance: High

I just received a telephone call from Steve Bell, Sen Domenici’s CoS, who urgently reported the following:

1. Outgoing USATTY David Iglesias holding a press conference at 11:30 Eastern this morning.
2. He is allegedly going to say that he was contacted by two Members of Congress last Fall regarding the investigation into the courthouse construction corruption case. Information on this is in the following article: http://www.abqtrib.com/news/20…..-investig/

[page break]

3. He is allegedly going to say that the Members urged him to deliver indictments before November’s election. He will further say that one of the Members, frustrated with his answer, hung up on him in anger.
4. He is allegedly going to link these phone calls with the current news – saying that he believes this ultimately led to his being asked to resign by DOJ.

Bell said Domenici’s idea is not to respond, and hopefully make this a one day story. They have already been contacted by McClatchey. Unfortunately, I do no think that they can make an allegation such as this go away so easily. They have not confirmed to the reporter they were one of the Members.

I am available to discuss further – clearly, once this happens in Albuquerque the reporters will be asking DoJ and the White House
Posted by: Brett
Date: April 13, 2007 03:49 PM

From over at TPM comments

How do we know Luskin is a Democrat?

Puff piece in the Compost from April 2005:

Karl Rove’s greatest defender in Washington these days is a Democratic lawyer and onetime newspaper reporter named Robert Luskin. He is Rove’s attorney in the high-stakes CIA leak case, and is widely credited with sparing his client from indictment so far.

mike @ 174

Fred Fielding!!!! Oy, that name. My memory is imprecise, but the association and feeling is vivid. He was there for Watergate. He was there for Iran Contra. He’s Baaaaaaaaaaaack!

It’s just incredible that they would even be willing to be associated with him… but it’s not incredible…. after all, all of their key players thought Nixon and Reagan were doing God’s work.

These Bush Cheney people are simply unadulterated evil…

I don’t mean it in the enlightened positive sense in which it is usually used when I say that Fielding is the Devil’s advocate.

Unfortunately the Devil is currently running the proceedings.

Bottomline, Fielding is adept at shoveling mass quantities of sh*t.

This is a fucking cover-up of massive proportions.
The White House will dig deep until their
cover is blown…
Fitzy can no longer issue statements of
“no comment”
Something has to give…
All this stonewalling is driving me mad

Jack

Del @ 138

What has Scottish Law to do with Arlen Specter?

His propensity for splitting the baby in all matters that take courage or decisiveness. MOst notably played out in this speech:

My position in the matter is that the case has not been proved. I have gone back to Scottish law where there are three verdicts: guilty, not guilty, and not proved. I am not prepared to say on this record that President Clinton is not guilty. But I am certainly not prepared to say that he is guilty. There are precedents for a Senator voting present. I hope that I will be accorded the opportunity to vote not proved in this case.

A more recent notable example is when he voted “present” for the vote to subpoena the administration on the USA Purge, even though he claims his lips moved to say yes.

It’s all almost as comical as his theories on the Kennedy Assassination.

I was in college while all the H2Ogate was playing out. Even though it took over two years from break-in to resignation, things still played out pretty fast. In those days no toobz but the Network TVs ALL broadcast the Senate Select Watergate Committee hearings as well as the Impeachment hearings. It PO’d the folks who wanted their soaps but it was a live and welcome civics lesson.

I’ll bet it was! I was barely old enough to understand the Iran Contra scandal as a kidlet in teh 80s. I was bored silly by the hearings even though my mom and my dad watched them. Litte did i know i’d be involved in my own version with a very corrupt press this time, about 20 odd years later. I was always aware of the politics around me, but this last 6 years has brought it into sharp relief for me.

We HAVE to do this right this time, or we’ll be haunted by them in another 20 or 30 years.

Peterr @ 157

I’d say that it’s a guaranteed thing that they will get together for a coordinated response. The way this White House rides herd on the Cabinet, there is no way in hell they’d let one rogue agency respond in a way that the WH doesn’t want them too.

Unless the Agency General Counsel/Solicitor has a huge backbone, that is.

I would agree in general. But I just don’t know if they can do so. Moreover, there may be some (I’ll again raise Paulson) who might choose to just comply.

John Casper @ 179

How do we know Luskin is a Democrat?

He is also a gay man who rides a motorcycle, fwiw. (mr. oddmommy used to work at THAT dc law firm)

among the comments, one idea i found especially intertesting was the suggestion to subpeona the IT people – to find out what was done and who gave the orders…

Ding! This should be the committees next move in my opinion. They were the people who “did” whatever they were ordered to do with the supposed missing email. They will without question know what happened to the data and under who’s direction it occurred.

emptywheel @ 182

It’s all almost as comical as his theories on the Kennedy Assassination.

I cannot look at him or listen to him without thinking “magic bullet.” And while he’s demonstrated that he can always sink further, I think it will be hard to top voting to eliminate Habeas immediately after explaining that it will take us back centuries.

Arlen “Feigned-Bluster” Specter always buckles and ultimately toes the Bush line. always.

(alternate nickname: “Rollover for Tummy Rub” Specter)

A slight digression.

Catherine Crier gets it on Imus.

-GSD

I always think of Specter as the defender of murderer Ira Einhorn. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

-GSD

oddmommy @ 184

John Casper @ 179

How do we know Luskin is a Democrat?

He is also a gay man who rides a motorcycle, fwiw. (mr. oddmommy used to work at THAT dc law firm)

Uh oh! I’d better tell my friend to tell her friend.

When I first looked, I thought it said
Catherine Crier gets it on with Imus.

Which made me throw up in my mouth a little.

GSD @ 190

I always think of Specter as the defender of murderer Ira Einhorn. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

-GSD

he helped him get away

eCAHNomics @

Exactly my query. FF’s clients are acting completely outside the bounds of the law, so what must FF do to represent them within the bounds of his professional oath? As I remember from L&O, he cannot allow his clients to perjure themselves or commit other unlawful acts that FF knows about. Doesn’t that put him in a terrible bind, unless he’s as bad as them?

Absolutely…..though we certainly can’t rule out that he’s as bad as them. Perhaps this is the reason he’s insisting that Rover and
Miers not testify under oath.

On this day in 1865, Abraham Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth, according to C-SPAN2.

albert fall @
2

A Watergate story about AG removal (since current events seem so Watergate-ish) …

….

Thanks for recalling this story. Oh Republican Party, how far you have fallen! Where are the Coxes, Richardsons, and Ruckelshauses of today? Gone like the snows of yesteryear, it would seem. If I were of that (GOP) persuasion, I would be damn worried…

Of course, along with the rest of that package our emptywheel brings to the table, are fingers that fly across the keyboard. “Dealing Lightning With Both Hands” was used in another venue, but apt here.

Sara @ 168

I think Arlen “Scottish Law” Specter came about because of his vote on the Clinton Impeachment articles in the Senate in 1998. Rather than vote guilty or innocent, he voted not proven — which is a special feature of Scottish Jury Trials. (3 choices).

Ding!

Bob in HI

eCAHNomics @ 195

On this day in 1865, Abraham Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth, according to C-SPAN2.

and yesterday was the anniversary
of apollo 13’s “houston, we have a
problem. . .” radio transmission. . .

karma is cool, no?

eCAHNomics @ 195

On this day in 1865, Abraham Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth, according to C-SPAN2.

how different the world would be if that hadn’t happened…

Is there proof of Monica administering loyalty oaths? I’d just love to read one.

cleter @ 163 says:

I agree that we are at about early 73, investigation-wise. Except Bush is in a much weaker position at this stage than Nixon was. Nixon was fresh off an electoral landslide, had job approvals in the upper 50s, and was a potent political force who was used to having an opposition Congress. Bush, on the other hand, has approval ratings about 5 points above Nixon’s BOTTOM numbers. He’s not in the 50s. He’s 5 points shy of Nixon at resignation time. Hearings shaved 30 points off of Nixon’s approval. Bush doesn’t have that cushion. And Bush just suffered a humiliating electoral defeat, and has zero experience dealing with an opposition Congress. He has nether Nixon’s skill nor Nixon’s political clout.

True, the Chimpenfuhrer’s polls are far below the Tricksters just as the Chimpenfuhrer is far less politically adept. However, we are up against an entire judiciary/justice dept/and overall adminsitration that is far more politicized than the trickster ever dreamt of having. The facists have spent the last thirty years buidling their infrastructure and it accelerated massively in the last six years so it balances things unfortunately. They have the keys to everything far more than Nixon or even J Edgar would have thought possible. Far more compliant/pet judges. At best, we might have a 5-4 SCOTUS (I believe). Even the Republics on SCOTUS during H2Ogate were appalled by the trickster’s actions. We can’t say that about Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Scalito. I just hope that Kennedy still loves the Constitution as he’s the swing vote.

I have always maintained that if Imus had just said, “nappy headed,” nothing would have happened. His mistake was “crossing over” from widely accepted white supremacist language, that his audience loves, to male supremacist language. It was also critical imho, that two of the women on the team were European American.

I go to a ND football sports blog and almost everyone except me is lamenting the victimhood of the Xtian white, male Don Imus (who they decry because he is such a f*cking liberal). ESPN poll shows 55% against CBS and MSNBC firing Imus.

New thread with Phoenix Woman is available upstairs.

PW is upstairs

emptywheel @ 182

Del @ 138

What has Scottish Law to do with Arlen Specter?

His propensity for splitting the baby in all matters that take courage or decisiveness. MOst notably played out in this speech:

My position in the matter is that the case has not been proved. I have gone back to Scottish law where there are three verdicts: guilty, not guilty, and not proved. I am not prepared to say on this record that President Clinton is not guilty. But I am certainly not prepared to say that he is guilty. There are precedents for a Senator voting present. I hope that I will be accorded the opportunity to vote not proved in this case.

A more recent notable example is when he voted “present” for the vote to subpoena the administration on the USA Purge, even though he claims his lips moved to say yes.

It’s all almost as comical as his theories on the Kennedy Assassination.

Right. But he was sure ready to accuse Anita Hill of perjury (during the Clarence Thomas nomination hearings) on the basis, as I recall, of a very minor change in her testimony from morning to afternoon. Only seems to have the courage of his convictions when it’s to his advantage, it seems.

Who is paying FF’s salary?

dakine01 @ 171

aliasofwestgate @ 159

cleter @ 150

The difference between this mess and Nixon is that the next election is a presidential, not a mid-term. The Republicans of 74 had more time to do the awful calculus of whether to throw Nixon overboard to save themselves. And there weren’t a bunch of nervous presidential candidates milling about. I’m not sure if that accelerates the dynamic or not.

It just might, cleter. There’s also the fact that the investigation is likely moving a LOT faster, even with traditions within Congress and waiting periods. I’m way to young to have been around at Watergate(born in Carter’s term), but from what i’ve read and observed? The presidential elections in 08 are a huge factor(one of many!) in things. We’ll see how party loyalty and ShrubCo loyalty plays out fairly soon, i think.

I was in college while all the H2Ogate was playing out. Even though it took over two years from break-in to resignation, things still played out pretty fast.

That’s exactly right. Only 18 months from the appointment of Archie Cox as special prosecutor to Nixon’s resignation.

In those days no toobz but the Network TVs ALL broadcast the Senate Select Watergate Committee hearings as well as the Impeachment hearings. It PO’d the folks who wanted their soaps but it was a live and welcome civics lesson.

The main difference so far was the Saturday Night Massacre, which whipsawed Nixon’s popularity. Do we need to have something like that before Congress will do its duty?

Bob in HI

John Casper @ 179:

So, in other words, a call girl.

Loo Hoo @ 199

Is there proof of Monica administering loyalty oaths? I’d just love to read one.

You have to take a loyalty oath before you’re allowed to read one.

emptywheel @ 184

Peterr @ 157

I’d say that it’s a guaranteed thing that they will get together for a coordinated response. The way this White House rides herd on the Cabinet, there is no way in hell they’d let one rogue agency respond in a way that the WH doesn’t want them too.

Unless the Agency General Counsel/Solicitor has a huge backbone, that is.

I would agree in general. But I just don’t know if they can do so. Moreover, there may be some (I’ll again raise Paulson) who might choose to just comply.

Here are the legal advisors for each cabinet secretary. Some have links to official bios, while others do not. I’ll break this into groups, so as not to offend the mod filters.

Group 1:
Agriculture: Marc L. Kesselman, General Counsel
Commerce: John J. Sullivan, General Counsel
Defense: William “Jim” Haynes II, General Counsel
Education: Kent Talbert, General Counsel
Energy: David R. Hill, General Counsel
Health and Human Services: Daniel Meron, General Counsel

Loo Hoo @ 201

Is there proof of Monica administering loyalty oaths? I’d just love to read one.

i am not aware of it.

we do have an easy read image
of the documents showing that
on febrary 12, 2007, she received
a spreadsheet ranking attorneys, by,
among other criteria, membership in
the federalist society. . .

now, just like race, sex, religion,
it can be argued rather forcefully, i
think, that TRACKING such data plainly
infers its use. . . its use in employment,
promotion or retention decisions, at least
as to career USAs, is verboten, by my
lights, under the hatch act. . .

i think that is a fair summary of
where we are, at this point, on her. . .

Loo Hoo @ 205

Who is paying FF’s salary?

Perfect question. IIRC, taxpayers are. Where should that place his loyalites? He’s W’s lawyer in W’s conduct of presidential duties, not W’s personal lawyer. Lawyers on line chime in on this complication plz.

Group 2:
Homeland Security: Gus P. Coldebella, General Counsel (Acting)
Housing and Urban Development: Robert Couch, General Counsel (Acting)
Interior: David Longly Bernhardt, Solicitor
Justice: Paul D. Clement, Solicitor General
Labor: Jonathan L. Snare, Solicitor (Acting)

Jacqrat @ 59

TexasBetsy @ 35

So I take it emptywheel = Marcy ?

Pleased to meet you. I enjoy your writing.

Emptywheel = M T Wheeler = Marcy = the smartest, funniest, cute-as-a-speckled-pup-in-a-red-pickup, DREAMIEST, rugby-playing super woman around.

Did I mention she kicks major ass?

Jaqurat did you ask Marcy about her little sister? *g*

Loo Hoo @ 207

Who is paying FF’s salary?

erh, the white house.

which is to say, we are.

Group 3:

State: John B. Bellinger III, Legal Advisor [Asst. Sec. rank]
Transportation: Rosalind “Lindy” Knapp, General Counsel (Acting)

OT sorry but I went to see Obama in Atlanta today and they are now saying the crowd was at least 20,000.

Mae @ 191

oddmommy @ 184

John Casper @ 179

How do we know Luskin is a Democrat?

He is also a gay man who rides a motorcycle, fwiw. (mr. oddmommy used to work at THAT dc law firm)

Uh oh! I’d better tell my friend to tell her friend.

well, it DOES kind of put him in the Mary Cheney club, in my humble.

Group 4:

Treasury: Robert F. Hoyt, General Counsel
Veterans Affairs: Paul J. Hutter, General Counsel (Acting)

Of these legal officers, note that five are “acting,” and in looking at the bios, several of the others are new in their positions (within the last year). That could make for some interesting dynamics. Some could be hoping for the permanent position, and thus be unwilling to stand up to the White House. Others may be rather upset with their predecessors over this mess, and thus be more than willing to help Waxman out.

JPL @ 218

OT sorry but I went to see Obama in Atlanta today and they are now saying the crowd was at least 20,000.

How was it?

GSD @
189

A slight digression.

Catherine Crier gets it on Imus.

-GSD

As I show my vestigial remnants of sexism, she is getting it on a lot of topics these days. Do a search on her name at C&L, and there’s a whole bunch of things where she’s smacking the chimpy, or O’Lielly or someone else down. And she looks fine (Hot!) doing it!

eCAHNomics @ 213

Loo Hoo @ 205

Who is paying FF’s salary?

Perfect question. IIRC, taxpayers are. Where should that place his loyalites? He’s W’s lawyer in W’s conduct of presidential duties, not W’s personal lawyer. Lawyers on line chime in on this complication plz.

but he’s still an advocate for the president — in the conduct of his official duties, as you say. And all of this mess, godawful though it is, did arise out of W’s, er, “performance” of his official duties. Thus, it’s different from…..oh, say, defending a president whose “high crime” was getting a f******g blow job.

great piece!

From “go Cheney yourselves”
to “looks like we me be Cheney”d”

Keeping my fingers crossed!

Peterr @ 220

Group 4:

Treasury: Robert F. Hoyt, General Counsel
Veterans Affairs: Paul J. Hutter, General Counsel (Acting)

Of these legal officers, note that five are “acting,” and in looking at the bios, several of the others are new in their positions (within the last year). That could make for some interesting dynamics. Some could be hoping for the permanent position, and thus be unwilling to stand up to the White House. Others may be rather upset with their predecessors over this mess, and thus be more than willing to help Waxman out.

Very nice work, Peter. I’ll go post all of these into one post in a few minutes.

I like the fact that they’re acting. It means they might just be honest.

emptywheel @ 225

Peterr @ 220

Group 4:

Treasury: Robert F. Hoyt, General Counsel
Veterans Affairs: Paul J. Hutter, General Counsel (Acting)

Of these legal officers, note that five are “acting,” and in looking at the bios, several of the others are new in their positions (within the last year). That could make for some interesting dynamics. Some could be hoping for the permanent position, and thus be unwilling to stand up to the White House. Others may be rather upset with their predecessors over this mess, and thus be more than willing to help Waxman out.

Very nice work, Peter. I’ll go post all of these into one post in a few minutes.

I like the fact that they’re acting. It means they might just be honest.

Sad, isn’t it. As if a government official has to be an actor to be honest…

Knut Wicksell @ 165

That was my comment. selise @ 66

CTMET has a diary at dkos with interesting comments from slashdot techies with thoughts about email recovery:

Slashdot Techie opinions on White House e-mail scandal

among the comments, one idea i found especially intertesting was the suggestion to subpeona the IT people – to find out what was done and who gave the orders…

That was me. I was going to repost the comment here to see what people think. It seems to me that obstruction is the charge that is going to bring the cabel down, and the best way to do that is to work through the technicians who would have executed the obstruction.

i thought it was a great comment – would love to see the IT folks in a waxman hearing…. explaining all the details….

but must have all of them – EOP, RNC, and rove’s buisness email, another email servers used….

wonder if marcy knows if their names can be tracked down.

“they may be cheney’d”

Great find!

This would make a great “acquisition” for our 21st century Reconstruction.

The wingnut diploma mills released tens of thousands or Reichwing sleeper agents into all branches of our Federal, State, and local governments.

Reichwing militarist academies and General Staff rank United States Air Force officers conspire to force religious tests and theological inidoctrination upon the Air Force Academy.

Our Constitution forbids any relgious test for public office.

Authoritarian Bushies appointed throughout our Executive and Judicial Branches (as well as those in the USAF academy) occupy Federal positions in violation of our Constitution.

How can Reconstruction ‘07 identify them?

Before the ‘net – yearbooks and school papers.

Now: virtual yearbooks, class announcments, etc. (and physical yearbooks from “Bushie Taliban” schools like Liberty U when availble).

Before the apple-cheeked Apparatchniks for Authoritarian Theocracy figure out their resumes scream “Stasi-wannabe”, the social network data they’ve already given the web is up there.

Their social network data – stored and placed in secure public databases – records their presence and willing assistance when the Rethugs attempted one-party rule.

Recording (legally) and storing of their public social network data now will help us identify and stop this cohort the next time they attempt to establish theocratic one-party rule.

The Republic we save will be our own.

[PS - Scholastic yearbooks are still published! Students can buy them - those living near a wingnut campus can often pay someone to pick up the new yearbook (sports are great excuse - starry-eyed love of the school another. fake it.)

But wait! There’s more:

the school yearbooks will usually capture grad school/professional school wingers.]

(”Restoration” suggests itself – we are throwing off Cromwell – but we ain’t bringing back a monarch. Just deposing a pretender.)

allan_in_upstate @
109

Brought to you by means of the Way Back Machine:

Prom Night at the 2004 Federalist Society Hook-Up Convention.

Basking in the glow of the 2004 election fraud victory, Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo, Richard Epstein, Rachel Brand, and the rest of the Consitution-hating wingers distinguished legal scholars dance the night away.

Where I work, we do daily backups on disks and then we file them. If we were asked for data, we would simpy give up the disks. If we couldn’t, that means we destroyed the disks.

Here is Peterr’s list in one place. Did I just reconstruct somethign that’s already on a govt website?

Loo Hoo @ 207

Who is paying FF’s salary?

megacorps and their bagmen

same as it ever was

oddmommy @ 223

eCAHNomics @ 213

Loo Hoo @ 205

Who is paying FF’s salary?

Perfect question. IIRC, taxpayers are. Where should that place his loyalites? He’s W’s lawyer in W’s conduct of presidential duties, not W’s personal lawyer. Lawyers on line chime in on this complication plz.

but he’s still an advocate for the president — in the conduct of his official duties, as you say. And all of this mess, godawful though it is, did arise out of W’s, er, “performance” of his official duties. Thus, it’s different from…..oh, say, defending a president whose “high crime” was getting a f******g blow job.

Will the Republican controlled congress ever live this one down. Their extreme efforts to hold a standing Prez accountable for lying about a b job under oath and then completely failing to hold the Bush administration for an INTELLIGENCE SNOWJOB…resulting in the loss of hundres of thousands of dead, injured and millions displaced.

Drowning in American and Iraqi blood ,all of them!

kathleen @ 233

oddmommy @ 223

eCAHNomics @ 213

Loo Hoo @ 205

Will the Republican controlled congress ever live this one down. Their extreme efforts to hold a standing Prez accountable for lying about a b job under oath and then completely failing to hold the Bush administration for an INTELLIGENCE SNOWJOB…resulting in the loss of hundres of thousands of dead, injured and millions displaced.

Drowning in American and Iraqi blood ,all of them!

Great point, kathleen. Wish I had the power to force the media to play this up. Most people don’t make the connection.

It’s looking like Fitz held back on revealing the extent of his electronic surveillance awareness in the Libby trial, except to note -

- that Libby didn’t seem to be big on e-mail (Cooper’s number doesn’t start appearing in the WH phone logs either until after the story breaks, hmmmm), and

- Judy never communicated with him by e-mail (”phone only,” she said.)

This suggests that Rove’s RNC Blackberry Communication system was the default system for coordinating (managing) the Press, and that the phonecalls placed from the WH beginning July 8 were part of a cover-up to establish a ‘dummy’ phone trail to hide the use of the Blackberry network (wouldn’t it be funny if it turned out they named their “insider’s” network ‘Aspen’?)

The ’shadow’ network of political manipulation to subvert our democratic processes may yet be the rope with which they hang themselves.

It’s hard to call ‘American’ anyone who would heartlessly drive an Agenda of the Politics of Hate through the back corridors of Power, while limiting our Freedoms and keeping us at each others’ throats.

To do it, they needed Rove’s network.

Enough is enough! Isn’t this the “proverbial” Bank-Vault Camera Video of the Theft of OUR Country? What’s it going to take to get people mad enough to rise up and demand a political righting of our sinking ship of State?

Bob Schacht @ 208,
We need a sharp contrast between good and bad, moral and immoral, and we need it to be seen by everyone.
That’s what I remember so sharply from the Watergate days, the people who acted with conscience were so brightly distinguished from the ones who didn’t.

Margot @ 236

Bob Schacht @ 208,
We need a sharp contrast between good and bad, moral and immoral, and we need it to be seen by everyone.
That’s what I remember so sharply from the Watergate days, the people who acted with conscience were so brightly distinguished from the ones who didn’t.

Yes. You really saw who had integrity, and who didn’t.

lolo @ 215

Jacqrat @ 59

TexasBetsy @ 35

So I take it emptywheel = Marcy ?

Pleased to meet you. I enjoy your writing.

Emptywheel = M T Wheeler = Marcy = the smartest, funniest, cute-as-a-speckled-pup-in-a-red-pickup, DREAMIEST, rugby-playing super woman around.

Did I mention she kicks major ass?

Jaqurat did you ask Marcy about her little sister? *g*

lolo @ 215

Jacqrat @ 59

TexasBetsy @ 35

So I take it emptywheel = Marcy ?

Pleased to meet you. I enjoy your writing.

Emptywheel = M T Wheeler = Marcy = the smartest, funniest, cute-as-a-speckled-pup-in-a-red-pickup, DREAMIEST, rugby-playing super woman around.

Did I mention she kicks major ass?

Jaqurat did you ask Marcy about her little sister? *g*

lolo @ 215

Jacqrat @ 59

TexasBetsy @ 35

So I take it emptywheel = Marcy ?

Pleased to meet you. I enjoy your writing.

Emptywheel = M T Wheeler = Marcy = the smartest, funniest, cute-as-a-speckled-pup-in-a-red-pickup, DREAMIEST, rugby-playing super woman around.

Did I mention she kicks major ass?

Jaqurat did you ask Marcy about her little sister? *g*

lolo @ 215

Jacqrat @ 59

TexasBetsy @ 35

So I take it emptywheel = Marcy ?

Pleased to meet you. I enjoy your writing.

Emptywheel = M T Wheeler = Marcy = the smartest, funniest, cute-as-a-speckled-pup-in-a-red-pickup, DREAMIEST, rugby-playing super woman around.

Did I mention she kicks major ass?

Jaqurat did you ask Marcy about her little sister? *g*

Wasn’t she lovely during the precedent setting live blogs during Scooter’s Trial? Sighhh!!!

Uhoh! sorry I’m an FDL pup!

MASSIVE ZIG ALERT

Zig? ?Que pasa?

Margot @ 234

Bob Schacht @ 208,
We need a sharp contrast between good and bad, moral and immoral, and we need it to be seen by everyone.
That’s what I remember so sharply from the Watergate days, the people who acted with conscience were so brightly distinguished from the ones who didn’t.

Now don’t go getting too much “you’re either with us or against us.”

Kesselman: Agriculture

abandon all hope for his backbone –

he’s on the Rachel Brand track

Marc L. Kesselman will serve as general counsel of the Department of Agriculture. Kesselman currently serves as deputy general counsel in the Office of Management and Budget, where he previously served as associate general counsel. Previously, he served as senior counsel in the Office of Legal Policy at the Department of Justice

usda

CTuttle @ 241

Zig? ?Que pasa?

Your comment @ 238. Ziggurat (ancient babylonian temple) turned on its side, i.e., zig.

eCAHNomics @ 242
lol….I promise I won’t.

CTuttle @ 239

Uhoh! sorry I’m an FDL pup!

Yes CTuttle,

We are so lucky to have Marcy working so hard,
finding all these gems of posts that I read each and every day. Sometimes she will miss a day and I keep checking hoping that she will be lurking in the comments of a previous day where she takes such patience explaining the answers to the questions of the readers. Thank you Marcy. Please don’t stop you are such a great teacher and an inspiration too.

lolo

CTuttle—welcome to the Lake.

dakine01 @ 244

CTuttle @ 241

Zig? ?Que pasa?

Your comment @ 238. Ziggurat (ancient babylonian temple) turned on its side, i.e., zig.

Capische! I’m trying to edit it out! Vas Los?

Edited by Mod

Bernhardt: Interior

gee – who’d a thunk it – no backbone here either..

he’s on the Griles career path (work for industry, come to Interior and still work for them)

David Bernhardt
– Government: Director of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, Department of the Interior
– Industry: Previously an attorney with Brownstein, Hyatt, and Farber, Bernhardt; lobbied Congress and federal administrative agencies on behalf of mining, oil, chemical companies and power plants

source watch

(kjm – great resource!)

Ctuttle, anfter 5 min the original comment goes beyond editing by mere mortals.

So the 3:40 can’t be changed – you can still (barely) tinker with your next comment.

Good luck and welcome!

CTuttle—don’t worry about the zig. It’s not a margin buster and even I’m not sure how best to edit that one.

Diana West of the Washington Times floats the Hiatt balloon..”I just don’t understand what is important about the emails..”

she looks like a junior liz trotta

Has anyone been watching the feud brewing over Markos and NH/MLW…et.al…… I must confess I was a Dkos fanatic, however, Booman and FDL Rocks!!! Much mahalos for all your insightful comments to EW, PW, T-Rex,….!!!

I bow to the most excellent mods in blogtopia.

kirk murphy @ 249

Bernhardt: Interior

gee – who’d a thunk it – no backbone here either..

he’s on the Griles career path (work for industry, come to Interior and still work for them)

David Bernhardt
– Government: Director of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, Department of the Interior
– Industry: Previously an attorney with Brownstein, Hyatt, and Farber, Bernhardt; lobbied Congress and federal administrative agencies on behalf of mining, oil, chemical companies and power plants

source watch

(kjm – great resource!)

Kirk sourcewatch is full of interesting tidbits. Have you ever been here:

http://www.newsfollowup.com/

check out the site guide. They have amazing time lines and a lot of data. Good for cross checking and seeing who has been in cahoots with whom.

selise @
66

CTMET has a diary at dkos with interesting comments from slashdot techies with thoughts about email recovery:

Slashdot Techie opinions on White House e-mail scandal

among the comments, one idea i found especially intertesting was the suggestion to subpeona the IT people – to find out what was done and who gave the orders…

I’m sure this will be EPU’d, but I agree (maybe I can report in next thread). I made this comment yesterday after spending hours and hours the previous night trying to figure out who these present and past IT people were inside the OA – because surely (hopefully maybe) they would know what’s up. It seems like a logical next step to me to at least talk to these people.

Because frankly, this whole scandal of 5 million-mails going missing is not just utterly appalling on its face but in my view utterly impossible to not solve – and quickly. Those e-mails are eminently traceable and recoverable. Backups, archiving, and redundancy are such ubiquitious features of server software these days that to actually permanently lose those files, one has to either physically destroy hard drives beyond all recognition or seriously overwrite files with a bunch of 0’s a bunch of times. Deleting isn’t deleting, it’s just pulling an index card. And if someone does try to delete this stuff by overwriting it – like in those date-to-date fields Marcy suggested yesterday – there’s a log of that. Lots and lots of logs of lots and lots of user decisions are in there for anyone with a subpoena to see. Also, not just anybody can go into the archiving servers, I would presume. You’d have to be a system administrator with a heavy duty password. Would Rove have such a password? Although I wouldn’t put anything past this WH, that seems unlikely. And if those logs are destroyed – if there’s tampering – there’s a log (or evidence) of that, too. C’mon. This isn’t some small business with a few Macs or Dells. This is the freakin’ WH. (I know, it’s Bush’s and Cheney’s and Rove’s WH…)

Where I work, our servers may have problems from time to time, but we never ultimately lose any files. If something like hundreds or thousands of e-mails were discovered missing on our system, our system administrators – our handful of IT people – would be all over it like white on rice – immediately – fixing the problem, both because it’s their job and because it’s something of a matter of pride. And we backup to tape. Every night. Nothing gets lost.

I would imagine the White House’s IT guys would – if they’re honest employees – be utterly horified and embarrassed by the CREW revelations (though interestingly, it was 2 anonymous sources in OA that told CREW about the missing mail, IIRC), but more than that, they would be wanting to recover these damn e-mails tout de suite, because if they can’t, they would suck as IT systems admins, and no one would hire them. At least in the reality-based community. (Again, I know.)

Now, I’m going to assume that the White House IT guys don’t suck, and I’m going to assume that they’re honest people. So who are the key people, then, that Congress might consider talking to? It’s amazing how hard it is to find out who these people are. (OA’s White House site is oddly devoid of any helpful employee information. It took some serious Googling over several hours to find this stuff.)

First, how about starting with the two former CIO’s (Chief Information Officer’s) who were supposed to head IT strategy within the Executive Office of the President. This position was specifically created by Bush himself under Executive Order on June 4, 2001. The first CIO was an ex-military guy named Tim Camden. He served until October, 2002, when he was bumped up to be Director of OA, and his deputy, Carlos Solari, became CIO. Interesting magazine write-up on him here. Somewhere I read that under Solari, the EOP went from a lousy (2-star) tech-rating to the highest (5-star), according to a GAO report. He was largely responsible for developing “enterprise architecture” which (techies out there?) seems basically like an over-arching IT paradigm to cover EOP and keep everything running smoothly. In a GAO report, it’s described as a “blueprint for operational and systems modernization.” You think under a 5-star “systems modernization” program, 5 million e-mails can just get lost? I don’t think so. Why don’t we talk to Solari? Or get him back in there with those servers right now. (Didn’t Dana Perino suggest in her presser that they were talking to former staffers. I wonder if Solari’s been contacted).

Now as far as I can find out, both Camden and Solari stepped out of their roles as DOA and CIO respectively in mid-February, 2005. Camden took a job with SRA International; Solari went to work for his own company and now works for Bell/Lucent Labs. The current CIO is apparently one Theresa Payton (hard info to find), but I cannot find out yet when she came aboard. The 5 million mail gap spans March 2003 to October 2005. Payton used to work for Bank of America and Wachovia, CIO. She attended a “CIO Boot Camp” this past year in her capacity as the EOP’s CIO, but I can’t find when she came aboard. This boot camp was on November 8-9 (right after the election). Looks like they have these annually and they’re around this time.

These CIO’s would all have extensive staffs, of course, but I would start with them. It seems they would have the most direct access to and responsibility for the integrity of the EOP’s systems. Remember, this was a position created especially within EOP (as there are lots of other CIO’s in lots of other departments) to make sure the kind of archiving problems that beset the Clinton administration did not happen. I would think these CIO’s – if honest – would want to come forward and either explain this fiasco and/or start fixing it.

Just my $.02. (Hope all my links turned out okay. Sorry for the long comment.) Thanks, selise, for prompting me to write this.

One correction for my post above: it was Tim Campen, not Camden.

wow lolo – thanks for the tip. what a great place to play in!

_________________________

Fiyero -

Strong and thorough work!

You are a gentlepup and a scholar.

Also, here’s a link on Payton’s attending the CIO boot camp. The original link is a Word document.

radiofreewill @ 235

It’s looking like Fitz held back on revealing the extent of his electronic surveillance awareness in the Libby trial, except to note -

- that Libby didn’t seem to be big on e-mail (Cooper’s number doesn’t start appearing in the WH phone logs either until after the story breaks, hmmmm), and

- Judy never communicated with him by e-mail (”phone only,” she said.)

This suggests that Rove’s RNC Blackberry Communication system was the default system for coordinating (managing) the Press, and that the phonecalls placed from the WH beginning July 8 were part of a cover-up to establish a ‘dummy’ phone trail to hide the use of the Blackberry network (wouldn’t it be funny if it turned out they named their “insider’s” network ‘Aspen’?)

The ’shadow’ network of political manipulation to subvert our democratic processes may yet be the rope with which they hang themselves.

It’s hard to call ‘American’ anyone who would heartlessly drive an Agenda of the Politics of Hate through the back corridors of Power, while limiting our Freedoms and keeping us at each others’ throats.

To do it, they needed Rove’s network.

Enough is enough! Isn’t this the “proverbial” Bank-Vault Camera Video of the Theft of OUR Country? What’s it going to take to get people mad enough to rise up and demand a political righting of our sinking ship of State?

What was Fitz’s exact statement when he mentioned that Libby was not into e-mails. I am with you we have had enough of this Bushshit. The corruption that permeates the Bush administration is enough to sink this “supposed” Democracy.

I will never forget one of Peter Bergens description of a comment that Osama Bin Laden made when Bergen spent time with him long ago. OBL said that “he would like to witness the U.S. become a shadow of its former self”

Seems the Bush administration has been working on this OBL agenda for the last 7 years.

I concur with Kirk, nice link lolo!!

Thanks kirk,

I must admit I’m very flattered, given the company here.

eCAHNomics @ 194

On this day in 1865, Abraham Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth, according to C-SPAN2.

And I have a brother born exactly 100 years later. To the hour.

emptywheel @
225

Peterr @ 220

Of these legal officers, note that five are “acting,” and in looking at the bios, several of the others are new in their positions (within the last year). That could make for some interesting dynamics. Some could be hoping for the permanent position, and thus be unwilling to stand up to the White House. Others may be rather upset with their predecessors over this mess, and thus be more than willing to help Waxman out.

Very nice work, Peter. I’ll go post all of these into one post in a few minutes.

I like the fact that they’re acting. It means they might just be honest.

Thanks, Marcy. (I had to run out for a bit.)

As Kirk has noted, some of these are clearly of the invertebrate variety of Bush appointees. I’m hoping there’s at least one in the bunch with a spine.

Fiyero @ 261

Thanks kirk,

I must admit I’m very flattered, given the company here.

I’m flattered these smart strong women even let me hang around in teh comments…

Fiyero, when Marcy replied to me in a comment, I just left that window as it was and opened a new one.

Didn’t want to ruin the moment by scrolling past her reply.

PeterK @ 221

JPL @ 218

OT sorry but I went to see Obama in Atlanta today and they are now saying the crowd was at least 20,000.

How was it?

Awesome speaker, as PeterK @ 221

JPL @ 218

OT sorry but I went to see Obama in Atlanta today and they are now saying the crowd was at least 20,000.

How was it?

Awesome speaker, made all the right statements and addressed global warming and how we could create jobs in the USA by looking for alternative resources. He also stated that we have to solve Iraq diplomatically. Definitely made strong anti administration comments.

I hear ya ;)

Osama Bin Forgotten! Kudos Kathleen! I believe the proverbial rope will be found by Waxman, not Conyers or Leahey, in that, He has subpoenaed All cabinet heads’ correspondence!! Not the specifics, but, the Logs and synopsises of said communications! HMMMMM!!!!

oddmommy @ 223

eCAHNomics @ 213

Loo Hoo @ 205

Who is paying FF’s salary?

Perfect question. IIRC, taxpayers are. Where should that place his loyalites? He’s W’s lawyer in W’s conduct of presidential duties, not W’s personal lawyer. Lawyers on line chime in on this complication plz.

but he’s still an advocate for the president — in the conduct of his official duties, as you say. And all of this mess, godawful though it is, did arise out of W’s, er, “performance” of his official duties. Thus, it’s different from…..oh, say, defending a president whose “high crime” was getting a f******g blow job.

Edited by MOD [Preview is your friend.]

I read on another blog today:

Impeach Bush for Blowing His Job!

A’57@14 et al.

Do you think the right-wing blogs are quoting eliot and making great Haiku?

Donna thang so.

Fiyero @ 254 –

wow, thank you for that info… i’m bookmarking your comment for later linkage. please, let’s make sure that marcy sees it.

even if the emails can’t be recovered – at the minimum, it ought be possible to find out what happened to them.

Hey – we seem to have a vertebrate as (Acting) General Counsel at Transportation.

heh. a woman. of course.

meet Rosalind A. Knapp

Acting General Counsel

Rosalind Knapp (”Lindy”) is currently the Acting General Counsel of the Department of Transportation. Ms. Knapp is the Department’s Deputy General Counsel and a member of the Career Senior Executive Service. The General Counsel’s Office provides legal service to the Secretary and secretarial officers and supervisory support of legal advice given to the operating administrations. The Office of the General Counsel supports and facilitates Department program goals cross-cutting all other Strategic Objectives, advancing the Department’s ability to manage for results and innovation.

Ms. Knapp joined the Department of Transportation as an Honors Attorney in 1973. She served as the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Transportation (1974- 1977), as an Attorney-Advisor (1977-1979), and as Assistant General Counsel for Legislation (1979-1981). She has held the position of Deputy General Counsel since 1981.

Ms. Knapp received her law degree from Stanford Law School in 1973 and her bachelor of arts from Stanford University in 1967. She is a member of the District of Columbia and California Bars. Before attending law school, Ms. Knapp worked at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

[dot]

CTuttle @ 261

I concur with Kirk, nice link lolo!!

Glad you liked it. It’s fun poking around in the weeds. Never know what you will find.

lolo

selise @ 271

Fiyero @ 254 –

wow, thank you for that info… i’m bookmarking your comment for later linkage. please, let’s make sure that marcy sees it.

even if the emails can’t be recovered – at the minimum, it ought be possible to find out what happened to them.

Thanks selise. There are a few other edits/tweaks that it needs, too, to be accurate. The most glaring is that the first CIO’s name is Campen, not Camden. Also, I mentioned Bush’s Executive Order to create the position was on June 4, 2001. My bad. That was the date it was reported by a journalist that the CIO position was going to be created within EOP, but I think the Exec Order was a little later. Whenever the Executive Order was, I think Campen got the job as CIO officially in August of 01. Again, I should have bookmarked all my own research on this (i’m retracing it now), but I’m pretty sure about that.

Fiyero @ 256
“Where I work, our servers may have problems from time to time, but we never ultimately lose any files. If something like hundreds or thousands of e-mails were discovered missing on our system, our system administrators – our handful of IT people ….. And we backup to tape. Every night. Nothing gets lost.”

As a previous employee of a large city community colleges, and spending time with IT employees, anything saved and/or received on the college computer system is retrievable on tape, microfisch and is backed up on the mainframes located off campus. The WH press believes that the general public (rightfully so) will accept the “oops, I deleted the emails,” due to the fact that most assume that once they hit delete that it’s not retrievable and vanished for all time. And the RNC wants us to believe that oh, gee, we gave them laptops and blackberries and there’s no backup system for retrieval. Here’s a question; if they used the blackberries wouldn’t they have to use Cingular, Verizon, etc… to gain cellphone access? Hmmmmmmm, where are those records of calls and messages? Inquiring minds want to know. If it was me working in the WH, and knowing one day I would need a “get outta jail free card,” I would definitely have saved top WH administration emails onto CD-RW’s labeled as music of Beethoven.

Kirk –

Knapp jumped out at me, too, as I was preparing the list of legal folks. Any time an “acting” person’s bio says “career civil service” or words to that effect, that’s a good thing in my book.

I wanted to get the list out fast, before the thread got too much further away, so I didn’t read much of the bios. Also, I figured that some of those more attuned to the finer points of legal education might notice things I didn’t. Glad you are following up.

And I’ve got to say, some departments have much better websites than others.

emptywheel @
231

Here is Peterr’s list in one place. Did I just reconstruct somethign that’s already on a govt website?

No. Or at least, not that I know of. I went to each deparment’s website, and pulled them together one by one.

Should have mentioned this earlier.

kdh22 @
82

Bill Durbin @ 54

Bill Durbin @ 48

In reading Texas Betty I’m reminded of how much I miss another Texas lady, who’s sad, untimely death recently deprives all of us of the wit and wisdom she brought to the party.

Ah, yes. She would be just giddy (and vindicated) to see all this going down. In some way I believe her passing may have paved the way for the sunlight. Having said that…I miss her work and spirit immensely!

Reading her columns early on in the maladministration kept the light shining with the snarkalicious, and with that ‘MORE POTS & PANS’. Thankyou EW!

What I can’t understand is: Why is there even COMPROMISE? A normal citizen, when “asked” to come to court, GOES. Compromise? LOL

Yes, yes, I realize we are talking about Karl Rove, but since when does he get more privileges with the law than any other American?

tbsa @
186

among the comments, one idea i found especially intertesting was the suggestion to subpeona the IT people – to find out what was done and who gave the orders…

Ding! This should be the committees next move in my opinion. They were the people who “did” whatever they were ordered to do with the supposed missing email. They will without question know what happened to the data and under who’s direction it occurred.

I work in IT for a government contractor. I would suspect that whoever the IT person(s) ordered to erase/delete/whatever would have had it drilled into him what the WH technical policies were. ALL organizations, and especially government organizations, have them, along with what is called an “Acceptable Use Policy” that sets out what you can and cannot do with the computer resources at your disposal.

Anyway, if I were that particular IT person who was asked/told/ordered to do something of that order, I would have written it all down in great detail and stashed the notes somewhere in case I ever needed them…

This is the kind of thing that really gives lawyers a bad name:

The proposal reflects a series of balanced compromises designed to respect and accommodate your interests in obtaining information while also protecting the institution of the Presidency. Although it consists of individual components, the proposal reflects a unified offer that, if accepted, would result in your Committees receiving a significant amount of information.

Translation: “I’ve already taken your interests into account and have balanced them against my client’s need to avoid embarrassment and inconvenience. Having negotiated with myself and reached a satisfactory resolution, there is no need for me to negotiate with you.”

Who is paying FF’s salary?

Perfect question. IIRC, taxpayers are. Where should that place his loyalites? He’s W’s lawyer in W’s conduct of presidential duties, not W’s personal lawyer. Lawyers on line chime in on this complication plz.

but he’s still an advocate for the president — in the conduct of his official duties, as you say. And all of this mess, godawful though it is, did arise out of W’s, er, “performance” of his official duties. Thus, it’s different from…..oh, say, defending a president whose “high crime” was getting a f******g blow job.

Actually, the job of the White House Counsel is supposed to be to counsel the President on how to perform his duties lawfully.

eCAHNomics @ 162

oldmommy @ 147

As far as solid citizen lawyers with flake clients….the rules of ethics require that “a lawyer represent his client zealously within the bounds of the law.” (immortally quoted by Robert DeNiro in “Cape Fear”). Of course, there ARE no “bounds of the law” in the Bush white house, so who knows……

Exactly my query. FF’s clients are acting completely outside the bounds of the law, so what must FF do to represent them within the bounds of his professional oath? As I remember from L&O, he cannot allow his clients to perjure themselves or commit other unlawful acts that FF knows about. Doesn’t that put him in a terrible bind, unless he’s as bad as them?

If Fielding knows that his clients will lie under oath, he must either keep them off the stand, or resign. Resignation is the “nuclear” option for a lawyer with a bent-on-lying client, because the impact of the resignation is, as you can imagine, very negative, even though the counsel cannot say WHY he/she is resigning.

Fielding need not resign if he learns that his clients have lied or obstructed justice in the past. The clients are entitled to a zealous defense for past acts, which includes as much stonewalling (i.e., delay) on discovery as they can get away with. But Fielding cannot allow himself to become involved with, condone, or permit continuing obstruction of justice.

Actually, the job of the White House Counsel is supposed to be to counsel the President on how to perform his duties lawfully.

yes, one would think that would be part of the job description — in a lawful administration.

So, litigatormom, you’re a mom and a litigator? I am too, in addition to being, obviously, odd.

Unless impeachment includes Dick Cheney, then impeaching George W. Bush would accomplish nothing more than elevating the very, very corrupt Dick Cheney officially into the Oval Office. (Even though, he’s been unofficially the shadow president for over six years).

Thus, the only way to deal with the Republican Hydra of the Bush administration is to cut off all their heads at once, conducting simultaneous impeachment hearings of all of them, kind of like the Nuremberg Trials.

Of course, cutting off the heads of the Republican Hydra will not guarantee that these arrogant, anti-American creeps won’t reappear. Just look at how many corrupt Republicans from the Nixon administration and Reagan administration have shown up again in the Bush administration, pulling the very same nefarious, anti-American stunts. But at least, once the Republican Hydra’s heads start to roll, it will take them awhile to find their heads again and screw them back on, which will give all the rest of us patriotic Americans a little breathing room…before the Republican Hydra attempts it’s next totalitarian takeover of our democracy.