The democratically lead House, via the House Judiciary Committee has just subpoenaed Alberto “I like Torture” Gonzales to hand over the documents the committee has requested. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote in the letter than followed the subpoenas “I look forward to your timely compliance so that we can proceed with getting to the truth”

What now Alberto? You had your chance to comply and still cover some of your ass, but you stalled, and now we want to see it all!

From the Reuters, via the Washington Post

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales received a subpoena on Tuesday from a U.S. congressional panel for documents related to the firing of federal prosecutors, a controversy that has prompted calls for his resignation.

"I look forward to your timely compliance so that we can proceed with getting to the truth," Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote in a letter to Gonzales that accompanied the subpoena.

The House of Representatives and the Senate are investigating the Bush administration's dismissal last year of the eight U.S. attorneys.

While the administration has insisted the firings were justified, Republican and Democratic critics question if the dismissals were politically motivated.

Gonzales, who with President George W. Bush's public support has rejected calls to resign, is to appear next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which plans to authorize subpoenas of its own on Thursday for administration documents.

 

It is said, “Sunlight is the best antiseptic” for the slow among us, it means that exposing something to public scrutiny is often the best way to clean house. Sunlight, or the lack there of, is what has allowed Bush to commit the countless crime, by hiding and obfuscating their actions. This is the case in the still forming scandal over the White Houses’ use of a parallel email system, to avoid a law that requires all email in the White House to be saved and archived.

Karl Rove and the Republican National Committee setup and ran an email system within the White House so that they could attempt to get around violating the Hatch Act.

The LA Times has more (Bolds are mine)

When Karl Rove and his top deputies arrived at the White House in 2001, the Republican National Committee provided them with laptop computers and other communication devices to be used alongside their government-issued equipment.

The back-channel e-mail and paging system, paid for and maintained by the RNC, was designed to avoid charges that had vexed the Clinton White House — that federal resources were being used inappropriately for political campaign purposes.

Now, that dual computer system is creating new embarrassment and legal headaches for the White House, the Republican Party and Rove's once-vaunted White House operation.

Democrats say evidence suggests the RNC e-mail system was used for political and government policy matters in violation of federal record preservation and disclosure rules.

In addition, Democrats point to a handful of e-mails obtained through ongoing inquiries suggesting the system may have been used to conceal such activities as contacts with lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was convicted on bribery charges and is now in prison for fraud.

Democratic congressional investigators are beginning to demand access to this RNC-White House communications system, which was used not only by Rove's office but by several top officials elsewhere in the White House.

The prospect that such communication might become public has further jangled the nerves of an already rattled Bush White House.

Some Republicans believe that the huge number of e-mails — many written hastily, with no thought that they might become public — may contain more detailed and unguarded inside information about the administration's far-flung political activities than has previously been available.

The fact is you know Bush is lying because his lips are moving. Bush is playing Chicken with our troops. He keeps tiring to peddle a lie that if HE vetoes the Iraq Spending supplemental the troops will run out of money by April 15^th. Keep in mind the Congress passed the bill to fund the troops, it is the “President” that is going to veto the funding.

The fact is, the April 15^th date is something he pulled out of his ass, like most things.

PRNewswire-USNewswire

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the following statement upon receipt of a Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of the Army's ability to finance its operational needs with existing funds well beyond the April 15th date asserted by President Bush.

In a thorough review of Army data and the Defense Department's existing legal authorities, non-partisan budget experts at CRS informed the Congress that the Army could maintain its wartime operations well into July 2007 with funds the Army has already been provided.

"This study confirms that the President is once again attempting to mislead the public and create an artificial atmosphere of anxiety. He is using scare tactics to defeat bipartisan legislation that would change course in Iraq. After waiting months for this Administration to send us its funding requests, both houses of Congress worked quickly to pass the emergency supplemental bill for our troops. Congress has acted in good faith and will send the President a conference report for his signature well ahead of the July 2007 date CRS identified. If the President vetoes this bill, he is making the choice to continue down the same failed path in Iraq.

"Instead of holding press events to score political points, I call upon the President to tone down his rhetoric, stop the veto threats of a bill he has not yet seen, and sit down with the congressional leadership to discuss how our two co-equal branches of government can get an emergency spending bill passed that funds our troops and makes America more secure."

TPMmuckraker is reporting that Sara Taylor, the aid to evil Karl Rove, resigned today. She was very much part of the events arounf purgegate, and was tossed under the bus by Kyle Sampson. Rats rushing off the ship?

ThinkProgress has a great story on how the White House started using NON-White House email systems so that they could avoid the law.

From ThinkProgress

U.S. News reported recently that several White House aides “said that they stopped using the White House system except for purely professional correspondence. … ‘We knew E-mails could be subpoenaed,’” said one aide.

In a new letter to White House counsel Fred Fielding, House Government and Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman reveals new e-mail communications that provide further evidence that White House employees were trying to circumvent the archives system:

New Scott Jennings E-Mails. Scott Jennings, the deputy director of political affairs in the White House, and his assistant used “gwb43.com” e-mail accounts to communicate with the General Services Administration about a partisan briefing that Mr. Jennings gave to political appointees at GSA on January 26, 2007. When Mr. Jennings’s assistant emailed the PowerPoint presentation to GSA, she wrote: “It is a close hold and we’re not supposed to be emailing it around.”

New Job Appointment E-Mails. Mr. Jennings also appears to have used his “gwb43.com” account to recruit applicants for official government positions through the “Kentucky Republican Voice,” an internet site that describes itself as “the best source for Kentucky Republican grassroots information.” One posting from May 2005 advertised 17 vacancies on assorted presidential boards and commissions. A second posting from May 2006 sought applicants for various boards within the Small Business Administration. In each case, these postings encouraged applicants to contact Mr. Jennings at his “gwb43.com” address.

New Abramoff E-Mails. Susan Ralston, who was Karl Rove’s executive assistant, invited two lobbyists working for Jack Abramoff to use her RNC e-mail account to avoid “security issues” with the White House e-mail system, writing: “I now have an RNC blackbeny which you can use to e-mail me at any time. No security issues like my WH email.” Ms. Ralston similarly wrote Mr. Abramoff: “I know [sic] have an RNC laptop at the office for political use. I can access my AOL email when necessary so if you need to send me something that I need to read, you can send to my AOL email and then call or page me to check it.”

Asked about White House policy and procedures regarding use of e-mail accounts, spokeswoman Dana Perino did not cite any specific policy or guidance issued to White House staff for the preservation of presidential records, and she acknowledged that certain officials in the White House have been given access to political e-mail accounts. In his letter to Fielding, Waxman requests “all policies, guidance, and other communications provided to White House officials regarding appropriate use of nongovernmental e-mail accounts.”

The White House e-mail system has been crafted to comply with the Presidential Records Act. Ordering White House employees to use the in-house e-mail system “is intended to establish procedures for former and incumbent Presidents to make privilege determinations.”

The irony — as Kevin Drum writes — is that by not using the White House system, staffers “using private accounts specifically to evade legitimate congressional oversight” might lose their claim to executive privilege.

Kyle Sampson, former Chief of Staff of the Justice Department, and right hand man to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will throw Gonzales under the bus when he testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee later this week reports The US News and World Report.

Sampson will show that Alberto knew what was going on, and in fact was very much in the loop, contrary to the Attorney General’s statement. This means that the United States top law enforcement officer has knowingly lied to the Congress and the American people. This is a great precedent for Bush’s America.

They write

When Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s former chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee this Thursday about the controversial firings of eight U.S. attorneys, he’s unlikely to throw any big bombs at the Bush administration that are of the magnitude of a direct link between Bush’s political advisor Karl Rove and the dismissals, a close associate of Sampson’s tells U.S. News. But Sampson will set off some fireworks by contradicting a key assurance that Gonzales made to Congress and the American public last Tuesday that he was not in the loop during the long deliberations leading up to the firings.

Gonzales probably spoke to Sampson 20 times a day and had a daily morning management meeting on a range of issues with Sampson and other key officials also involved in the U.S. attorney deliberations. Gonzales had delegated the replacement plan for U.S. attorneys largely to Sampson and was monitoring it at “the 30,000-feet level,” Sampson’s associate says. But Sampson will testify that the attorney general not only discussed the idea while he was still White House counsel and signed off at the end but also was “aware of the arc of the whole process” in between, says this source. “The idea that there were no discussions on this overall issue,” says the source, “the attorney general could not have meant to say that.”

While Sampson’s testimony won’t implicate White House officials, it won’t rule out their involvement– including Rove’s–in the selection of the fired U.S. attorneys either. In fact, it will only give Democrats in Congress new fodder to demand the testimony under oath of Rove and other key Bush officials– something Bush has so far said he won’t tolerate, citing executive privilege. Sampson is likely to testify that although he exchanged E-mails and had discussions with then White House counsel Harriet Miers and her deputy, William Kelley, what happened “behind the curtains” in the White House was largely invisible to him.

Things just went from bad to worse for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, it has just been announced that his aid, Monica Gooding plans to plead the fifth when called to testify in front of Congress.

John Aravosis over at Americablog says it best, “that means someone is afraid she may have committed a crime. This issue is no longer about politics, it's now a criminal investigation of the Attorney General of the United States.”

John goes on to post an explanation from finelaw on Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives individuals the right to refuse to answer any question or make any statement, when to do so helps to establish the person committed a crime or is connected to any criminal activity.

This even further warrants the question, “if everything is so above the board as the president has stated as well as the attorney general, why are we now pleading the fifth amendment”

Here is the AP story (bolds are mine)

Monica Goodling, a senior Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.

"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said the lawyer, John Dowd.

"One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby," he said, a reference to the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff in the CIA leak case.

The White House, meanwhile, continued to stand by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales despite new calls over the weekend for his resignation and documents that indicate he may have been more involved in the dismissals than he has previously acknowledged.

Democrats have accused the Justice Department and the White House of purging the prosecutors for political reasons. The Bush administration maintains the firings were not improper because U.S. attorneys are political appointees.

Goodling was Gonzales' senior counsel and White House liaison until she took a leave of absence earlier this month. She was subpoenaed last week by the Senate Judiciary Committee along with several of Gonzales' other top aides.

There have been questions about whether Goodling and others misinformed Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty about the firings just before he testified before the Senate committee in February.

Well it is a sad day in American, but under Bush not a shocker, that the Attorney General of the United States, Alberto Gonzales lied to congress about that he knew. In face new documents (Friday news dump) says he not only knew about it, but did it!

Last week he said

QUESTION: How could your chief of staff be working closely with the resident on which U.S. attorneys to be let go and you not know the pecifics?
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, again, as — I accept responsibility
for everything that happens here within this department. But when you have
110,000 people working in the department obviously there are going to be
decisions that I'm not aware of in real time. Many decisions are delegated.
We have people who were confirmed by the Senate who, by statute, have been
delegated authority to make decisions

Well this was a ball face lie! The AP Has this.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales approved plans to fire several U.S. attorneys in a November meeting, according to documents released Friday that contradict earlier claims that he was not closely involved in the dismissals.

The Nov. 27 meeting, in which the attorney general and at least five top Justice Department officials participated, focused on a five-step plan for carrying out the firings of the prosecutors, Justice Department officials said late Friday.

There, Gonzales signed off on the plan, which was crafted by his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson. Sampson resigned last week amid a political firestorm surrounding the firings.

The five-step plan involved notifying Republican home-state senators of the impending dismissals, preparing for potential political upheaval and naming replacements and submitted them to the Senate for confirmation.

The documents indicated that the hour-long morning discussion, held in the attorney general's conference room, was the only time Gonzales met with top aides who decided which prosecutors to fire and how to do it.

The Dems have made statements

Nonetheless Democrats pounced late Friday.

 

"If the facts bear out that Attorney General Gonzales knew much more about the plan than he has previously admitted, then he can no longer serve as Attorney General," said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who is heading the Senate's investigation into the firings.

Added House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers:

"This puts the Attorney General front and center in these matters, contrary to information that had previously been provided to the public and Congress."

The developments were not what Republicans, skittish about new revelations, had hoped.

Richard Wolffe and Holly Baile of NewsWeek do a great job at looking at the facts behind the AG scandle and the very odd speech given by the "President" Tuesday.

I really want everyone to go and read the whole thing, but I want to point out this paragraph

Reasonable, right? It almost sounded convincing. But wait! Who was it that had provided those confusing and incomplete explanations in the first place? Hadn't it been … the president and the attorney general? And hadn't previous administrations agreed to let key aides testify before Congress under oath? Meaning, the level of cooperation was perhaps slightly less "extraordinary" than the president presumed. But perhaps the most interesting, um, irony in the president's press conference was his approach to Democrats on Capitol Hill. They'd better not launch off on a partisan fishing expedition, Bush warned. They'd better not "waste time" investigating the firings, or "promote confrontation." There were too many important issues to address. But the firings themselves smack of a partisan fishing expedition in the eyes of the president's critics. After all, one of the criteria in weighing who got canned was whether prosecutors were "loyal Bushies," as Gonzales's former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, wrote in one telling e-mail. And arguably, the firings themselves were what was distracting Congress and the country from more vital matters at hand. In other words, Bush seemed to be saying, it's fine for me to play politics. But it's not OK for the Democrats to do it.

It was not the first time a little inconsistency crept into the White House's efforts to control the damage over the Justice Department firings. In fact, things have been a bit wobbly ever since the story broke.

Oh, and they are right, so far everytime Bush opens his mouth more reasons to dig deeper fall out. He spent 15 mins telling the Dems not to push, or he will turn this into a political thing, yet that is the very reason these AG's were fired.

Also, what of the missing documents George, if we are to trust you, and we do not, nothing happened in the White House from November 15th to December 4th, because all of the documents from that time period are missing. The firings took place on Dec 7th, it sure did get quite in the weeks leading up to this, or, and I think I am right, you "Forgot" to put them in the dump, reason?

This is all real simple, if everything was so above the board, why the secrets? Sunlight is the best way to see the truth, and unless you are a liar, you should not fear the sun. I am sure that nothing would make your case more clear, and show the American people that you did nothing wrong by putting it ALL out there, and allowed those involved to be sworn to tell the truth… But you are not allowing that and begs the question, what do you have to hide?

From Salon.com (there is a lot to this story, so please go and read it, it is worth it)

– Start of Salon Quote —

In any event, here are some thoughts about “executive privilege” and its heinous truth-suppressing attributes, expressed in 1998 by people who will undoubtedly be defending its grave importance over the next several days:

Tony Snow - Op-Ed - St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 29, 1998 :

(HEADLINE: “Executive Privilege is a Dodge”)

Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public’s faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law.

Tony Snow, Fox News, March 18, 1998:

In our latest Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll, we asked a series of questions about executive privilege. Most believe it’s an attempt to stonewall Ken Starr’s investigation. There’s an even split on whether the White House has something to hide. And a majority thinks conversations with the first lady should not be covered. Did the president invoke executive privilege to preserve the presidency or hold Ken Starr at bay?

Paul Gigot, Fox News, March 8, 1998:

GIGOT: Senator Torricelli, the president has from the very beginning pledged to cooperate with the investigation, said he wants to get the truth out sooner rather than later. Would you define claims of executive privilege as cooperation? . . . But aren’t claims of executive privilege usually reserved for national security matters — in particular, matters of state secrets and foreign affairs?

Kate O’Beirne - Capital Gang - May 2, 1998:

O’BEIRNE: Let me say, Mark, I think Newt Gingrich delivered a really good speech. He gave voice to that which millions of people know to be true. I don’t think it’s good news for the Democrats. The Republicans have had trouble finding their voice on this and they’re scared off by being told it just has to do with the president’s personal, private behavior. And Newt Gingrich, I think, has given voice to them in a way that’s not helpful to Democrats.

He says there are two principles involved, the public’s right to know, because secrecy has so benefited Bill Clinton, and second, no one is above the law. Now, if the public increasingly sees this scandal about their right to know, so much for executive privilege and Secret Service privilege, and no one is above the law, Bill Clinton’s in a lot of trouble.

Tony Snow’s Show - Fox News - May 10, 1998

SNOW: Mr. Burton, back to your committee — if you cannot immunize those witnesses, that’s the kiss of death. You’re not going to have any more hearings. . . . .

BRIT HUME: And have you been assured, sir, that you will remain as chairman of that committee through the coming months.

GOP COMMITTE CHAIR REP. DAN BURTON: Yes. I have no problem with that, and I don’t think the speaker does either.

We’re going to continue on it until we get the truth for the American people, or at least do our dead-level best to get the truth for them.

You know, the president could solve a lot of this problem if he wouldn’t hide behind executive privilege, if he’d just come out and tell the American people the truth.

In 1998, when Bill Clinton invoked it, “executive privilege” was a cynical and corrupt tool to prevent Americans from learning the truth about scandal and keep the President above the law. In 2007, now that George Bush has invoked it (and it’s hardly the first time, but this time it will likely be tested), it will be a doctrine of the gravest importance and steeped in our most cherished democratic traditions and it must be defended at all costs in order to preserve the Power and Honor of the Presidency.

– End of Salon Quote —

Well it is being reported that the White House is looking for a new Attorney General, the one they have now may need to go soon, and if we are luck it will incluse some jail time.

From McClatchy

The White House began floating the names of possible replacements for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Monday as the Justice Department released more internal documents related to the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year.

One prominent Republican, who earlier had predicted that Gonzales would survive the controversy, said he expected both Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty to resign soon. Another well-connected Republican said that White House officials have launched an aggressive search for Gonzales' replacement, though Bush hadn't decided whether to ask for his resignation.

Support for Gonzales appeared to be collapsing under the weight of questions about his truthfulness and his management ability. White House spokesman Tony Snow offered a tepid defense when asked if Gonzales would stay on the job until the end of President Bush's term.

"We hope so," Snow said. "None of us knows what's going to happen to us over the next 21 months."

3 leading Democrats are calling for Alberto Gonzales to get the hell out of Washington. The Democrats tire of polotics over the law.

From the AP

The Senate's No. 3 Democrat said Sunday that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should resign because he is putting politics above the law. Sen. Charles Schumer cited the FBI's illegal snooping into people's private lives and the Justice Department's firing of federal prosecutors.

Schumer, D-N.Y., said Gonzales repeatedly has shown more allegiance to President Bush than to citizens' legal rights since taking his job in early 2005.

He branded Gonzales, a former White House counsel, as one of the most political attorneys general in recent history.

"Attorney General Gonzales is a nice man, but he either doesn't accept or doesn't understand that he is no longer just the president's lawyer, but has a higher obligation to the rule of law and the Constitution even when the president should not want it to be so," Schumer said.

"And so this department has been so political that I think for the sake of the nation, Attorney General Gonzales should step down," he said.

As vice chairman of the Democratic caucus, Schumer is No. 3 in the Senate leadership.

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., a member of the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee, said Gonzales would be "better off" if he resigned.

"There is very little credibility in the Justice Department right now," Biden said. He cited what he said were abuses of power dating to Gonzales' tenure as White House counsel in which he advocated aggressive interrogations of suspected terrorists that pushed the boundaries of the law.

"I think Gonzales has lost the confidence of the vast majority of the American people," he said. "I think he's lost the confidence of the Congress."

CREW just asked the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) for his role in the growing scandal surrounding the dismissal of David Iglesias, the U.S. Attorney from New Mexico. As noted below, Senator Domenici called Mr. Iglesias to discuss the status of a pending corruption case. The release and our complaint against Senator Domenici can be found here:

Today Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) asked the Senate Select Committee on Ethics to investigate whether Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM) violated Senate Rules by contacting the U.S. Attorney in Albuquerque, New Mexico, David C. Iglesias, and pressuring him about an ongoing corruption probe.

Sen. Domenici has acknowledged that he contacted Mr. Iglesias to inquire about an ongoing corruption probe of Democrats. Mr. Iglesias previously stated that in mid-October, he was pressured about the pace of the investigation by two New Mexico lawmakers. Initially, when asked about Mr. Iglesias’s allegations, Sen. Domenici stated, “I have no idea what he’s talking about.” Sen. Domenici has now admitted that he called Mr. Iglesias, stating “I asked Mr. Iglesias if he could tell me what was going on in that investigation and give me an idea of what time frame we were looking at.”