The New York Times editorial board calls for the dismissal of Alberto Gonzales.
--David Kurtz
Back on March 5th I wrote a lengthy post in which I explained that the defenses offered up by Rep. Wilson (R) and Sen. Domenici (R) actually weren't that different from the charges being levelled against them. This became clear when you reviewed all the facts then becoming available 
and reading between the lines of their carefully crafted public statements. When these two now-disgraced members of Congress said they were reacting to constituent complaints about US Attorney David Iglesias's slow rate of prosecutions, what they really meant was that prominent Republicans back in New Mexico kept complaining that Iglesias wasn't bagging enough Democrats.
That was fairly obvious then with a little close analysis and informed speculation. Now we have the concrete details in Sunday's stories from the Times and McClatchy.
Republican players wanted their Bush-appointed US Attorney to indict more Democrats. The head of the party took the Iglesias problem up with Karl Rove on multiple occasions. "He's gone," Rove assured him at the White House late last year. They got Rep. Wilson and Sen. Domenici to lean on him too. And when he didn't come through with the indictment of Manny Aragon in time to guarantee Wilson's reelection, he was, as Rove put it, gone.
We're now well past the point where anyone can pretend that Iglesias wasn't fired because he refused to use his office to advance the interests of the New Mexico Republican party by indicting Democrats. The evidence, at this point, is overwhelming and beyond dispute. Indeed, it's not even being disputed, as you can glean pretty clearly from tomorrow's stories in the Times and from McClatchy. Rather than continuing to deny it, state party leaders are giving on the record interviews in which they make the case for the rightness of their attempts to get Iglesias fired for not indicting enough Democrats.
We know something very 
similar happened in Washington state.
Now let's cut to the chase, the big story at the heart of all of this: San Diego and the firing of Carol Lam.
Given what we know about New Mexico and Washington state, it simply defies credulity to believe that Lam -- in the midst of an historic corruption investigation touching the CIA, the White House and major Republican appropriators on Capitol Hill -- got canned because she wasn't prosecuting enough immigration cases. Was it the cover? Sure. The reason? Please.
I'm not sure Lam would have been canned simply for prosecuting Cunningham. His corruption was so wild and cartoonish that even a crew with as little respect for the rule of law would have realized the impossibility of not prosecuting him. But she didn't stop there. She took her investigation deep into congressional appropriations process -- kicking off a continuing probe into the dealings of former Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis. She also followed the trail into the heart of the Bush CIA. Those two stories are like mats of loose threads. That's where the story lies.
--Josh Marshall
As Josh noted below, Rove's involvement with the U.S. Attorney purge is hardly a surprise. Here's what the Washington Post reported in early February:
One administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in discussing personnel issues, said the spate of firings was the result of "pressure from people who make personnel decisions outside of Justice who wanted to make some things happen in these places."
Hmmm. People outside of DOJ who make DOJ personnel decisions? That's a one-item list: the White House. Yet, as late as Friday, even the esteemed Dan Froomkin said, "Just how closely was the White House was involved in these firings remains a mystery."
The precise details are yet to be determined, but the White House involvement in this purge hasn't been a mystery for more than a month.
--David Kurtz
We edge a bit closer to the truth on where the list of 8 canned US Attorneys came from. From Newsweek ...
Justice officials say the dismissals were for "job-performance reasons," as well as for failure to pursue Bush administration policy priorities. But where did the list of particular U.S. attorneys to fire come from? Two senior Justice officials, who didn't want to be named discussing the dismissals, tell NEWSWEEK that Kyle Sampson, Gonzales's chief of staff, developed the list of eight prosecutors to be fired last October—with input from the White House. In a recent statement, the White House said it approved the firings, but didn't sign off on specific names.
"With input from the White House." I'll bet.
Here's a bit on Sampson's background from a DOJ press release: "Prior to his service with Attorney General Gonzales, Kyle Sampson served in the Department as Counselor to Attorney General John Ashcroft and in the White House as Associate Counsel to the President. He also served as Counsel to Senator Orrin G. Hatch on the Senate Judiciary Committee."
--Josh Marshall
The New York Times has more on top New Mexico Republican officials urging action against then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias:
“I fall into the category of those who were ultimately very disappointed in David,” said Pat Rogers, a Republican lawyer in Albuquerque who has represented Mr. Iglesias, Ms. Wilson and the State Republican Party.Mr. Rogers said he spoke with Mr. Iglesias at a private lunch last October in Albuquerque to discuss the perception that he was not pursuing indictments in the courthouse corruption inquiry expeditiously.
“I asked him, ‘Do you understand that everyone in this community is talking about why there hasn’t been any follow-up?’ and he said: ‘Boy, you’re right about that. Someone even told my wife about sealed indictments,’ ” Mr. Rogers said. “I came away from that meeting feeling stunned.”
Mr. Rogers said he thought Mr. Iglesias was shying away from the kinds of career-making cases prosecutors typically jump at, so he voiced doubts to Mr. Domenici.
Mickey D. Barnett, another top Republican lawyer in the state, who once served as an aide to Mr. Domenici in Congress and represented the Bush campaign in New Mexico in the 2000 and 2004 elections, said he had also complained.
“I would say to Pete and Heather: ‘Look, you guys have some influence; I don’t have any influence. Can we get something done?’ ” Mr. Barnett said.
Against the backdrop of complaints from top Republicans, Domenici and Wilson called Igelsias about the courthouse investigation just days before the mid-term elections only for informational purposes? Please. At least we know who they were talking about when Domenici and Wilson said they were getting constituent complaints about Igelsias.
--David Kurtz
McClatchy blows it open. Just out ...
Presidential advisor Karl Rove and at least one other member of the White House political team were urged by the New Mexico Republican party chairman to fire the state's U.S. attorney because of dissatisfaction in part with his failure to indict Democrats in a voter fraud investigation in the battleground election state.In an interview Saturday with McClatchy Newspapers, Allen Weh, the party chairman, said he complained in 2005 about then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to a White House liaison who worked for Rove and asked that he be removed. Weh said he followed up with Rove personally in late 2006 during a visit to the White House.
"Is anything ever going to happen to that guy?" Weh said he asked Rove at a White House holiday event that month.
"He's gone," Rove said, according to Weh.
"I probably said something close to 'Hallelujah,'" said Weh.
Let's not pretend we didn't see this coming.
--Josh Marshall
A question, probably for our congressional staff readers:
In his recent New Yorker piece on the Bush Administration's "redirection" in the Middle East, Sy Hersh recalled the Iran-contra scandal as he reported on clandestine activities being conducted by the Department of Defense deliberately outside of the purview of the congressional intelligence committees:
Iran-Contra was the subject of an informal “lessons learned” discussion two years ago among veterans of the scandal. [Elliott] Abrams led the discussion. One conclusion was that even though the program was eventually exposed, it had been possible to execute it without telling Congress. As to what the experience taught them, in terms of future covert operations, the participants found: “One, you can’t trust our friends. Two, the C.I.A. has got to be totally out of it. Three, you can’t trust the uniformed military, and four, it’s got to be run out of the Vice-President’s office”—a reference to Cheney’s role, the former senior intelligence official said.. . .
“This goes back to Iran-Contra,” a former National Security Council aide told me. “And much of what they’re doing is to keep the agency out of it.” He said that Congress was not being briefed on the full extent of the U.S.-Saudi operations. And, he said, “The C.I.A. is asking, ‘What’s going on?’ They’re concerned, because they think it’s amateur hour.”
The issue of oversight is beginning to get more attention from Congress. Last November, the Congressional Research Service issued a report for Congress on what it depicted as the Administration’s blurring of the line between C.I.A. activities and strictly military ones, which do not have the same reporting requirements.
So here's my question: if an administration can avoid the congressional oversight mechanism put in place after the CIA abuses of the 1970s by shifting the covert activity to the Pentagon, cutting out the CIA, and running the operations out of the Office of the Vice President, is serious legislation pending to close this loophole?
I don't mean to concede the argument that in fact the intelligence oversight mechanism cannot legally be circumvented so easily. But set that aside. If there's a purported loophole that top level Bush Administration officials believe is big enough to run a black-bag squad through, is Congress taking steps to close that loophole?
Late Update: Steven Aftergood, of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy, responds:
In response to David Kurtz's question, Congress appears to be at an early stage of grappling with apparent loopholes in its oversight of quasi-covert actions conducted outside of established CIA channels.Among the questions posed by the November 2006 Congressional Research Service report cited by Hersh are such elementary ones as these (at page 11): "How should Congress define its oversight role? Which committees should be involved?" Thirty years after the establishment of the intelligence oversight committees, one might have expected such questions to be answered long ago. But no.
That CRS report is available from the Federation of American Scientists here.
--David Kurtz
Pelosi blasts President in new statement: Bush offers nothing but "war without end."
--Greg Sargent
A gay man living in New York writes a powerful letter to the hometown paper he delivered as a boy imploring that it drop Coulter's column.
--Greg Sargent
John Edwards raising cash off the fact that he was the first to pull out of the Fox-hosted debate.
--Greg Sargent
When Republicans eat their own, from Legal Times:
It was an uncomfortable -- and perhaps unprecedented -- airing of private personnel matters. Granted, U.S. Attorneys are "at-will" employees who serve at the pleasure of the president and can be fired without cause, yet even some of the administration's staunchest supporters were embarrassed at the breach of decorum."They have the right to fire them; they do not have the right to smear them," says Joseph DiGenova, a conservative commentator who was U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia during the Reagan administration. "Everybody involved in it at the Justice Department and White House should be taken to the woodshed. This is really a pathetic way of running government."
Other former U.S. Attorneys, all Republicans, said they were "stunned" or "flummoxed" or found the way the firings were handled "insulting."
"It is unfortunate that the department felt the need to attack the performance of these people," says Thomas Heffelfinger, who served as U.S. Attorney in Minnesota from 2001 until last year. "It wasn't necessary and it wasn't warranted."
Of course, the U.S. Attorney's job is inherently political; in the past, however, departures were handled with considerably more tact.
"It was handled discreetly, it was handled professionally, and people were given every opportunity to have a soft landing," says Mark Corallo, who was Justice Department spokesman under then-Attorney General John Ashcroft. "These are people who worked hard in the pursuit of justice. To go out and trash their reputations -- it's galling."
By the end of last week, some of the most conservative Republican senators were publicly assailing the department's handling of the matter. Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter, a moderate, even suggested that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales might have to step down. And in an about-face, Gonzales said on March 8 that he would support a change in the law that would limit the attorney general's ability to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys.
"Regardless of the substance of the dismissals, it was so poorly handled that one has to question the leadership at the department," Corallo says. "Was anybody awake? Was anyone paying attention?"
Legal Times asked Republican superlawyer and former Solicitor General Ted Olson if this past week's hearings were like a circular firing squad: "That's a good way to put it," Olson said.
Update: I was bemused by the Republican infighting and the spectacle of GOP talking head Joe DiGenova suddenly becoming a champion of civility in politics. But be careful, some readers have warned me: this is faux GOP outrage designed to diminish the scandal. Writes TPM Reader GC:
Note that the Republican criticism of the Justice Department centers on the wrong issue. (They have no right to smear good people etc). All that may be true-but it's a minor/trivial issue compared with whether or not these new appointments were made because the agenda of the replaced US-As was not sufficiently political. i.e. The Republican crit/outrage is centered on an issue of personal dignity & not the administration malfeasance. In my view some of this Republican criticism may be designed to deflect attention from a far more significant issue.
That's true, as far as it goes. But there is both a substantive legal aspect and a political aspect to this scandal. Right now, as is usually the case when a scandal is breaking hot and heavy, each aspect feeds the other in what, for the targets of the scandal, is a vicious cycle. GOP senators began abandoning the White House on the purges on Thursday, and now big-wig Republicans are scampering away, too. With fewer defenders, the White House is in a weaker position to fend off congressional Democrats' efforts to get at the substance of what happened here. That is to say that the legal and political are inextricably linked.
--David Kurtz
Here's the letter Harry Reid sent to Fox News saying that Dems are pulling out of the debate.
--Greg Sargent
I just got this press release from the Committee to Protect Journalists ...
New York, March 9, 2007— The Committee to Protect Journalists is disappointed that a freelance video blogger will remain in jail after a court-appointed arbitrator was unable to mediate a settlement that could have led to the journalist’s release. Joshua Wolf has spent 198 days in jail, the longest incarceration of a journalist in U.S. history, for refusing to provide the court with a videotape of a 2005 protest.“We’re disappointed these talks have thus far failed to lead to the release of Joshua Wolf,” said CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon. “There is no useful purpose in continuing to imprison this journalist.”
Wolf’s tape documents clashes between demonstrators and San Francisco police during a June 2005 protest by anarchists over a Group of 8 economic conference. One police officer was injured, and some protestors allegedly tried to set a police cruiser on fire. A federal grand jury is investigating the alleged crimes. U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup held Wolf in contempt of court and ordered him jailed on August 1. Wolf was briefly released on bail pending appeal but was ordered back to jail in September.
Last month, a federal judge appointed U.S. Magistrate Joseph Spero to arbitrate the dispute. Wolf’s attorney, Martin Garbus, had asked the judge to consider privately viewing the videotape to determine whether the contempt charges against Wolf could be dismissed.
Spero said in a court filing that four hours of negotiations on Thursday had failed to reach a settlement, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. He said he would consult with lawyers in the case as to whether to schedule another meeting. Wolf could remain in jail until July when the grand jury’s term expires.
Freelance writer Vanessa Leggett, who was jailed in 2001, had been the longest incarcerated U.S. journalist. Leggett spent 168 days behind bars in Texas for refusing to disclose to a federal grand jury her research and sources for a book she was writing on a murder trial.
Here's a letter we received here at TPM on July 19th of last year from Wolf ...
Tomorrow about this time, I will be in front of Judge William Alsup facing contempt in Federal Court. I am an independent video journalist who asserted my constitutional rights when commanded by the Federal Grand Jury to turn over the unedited tape of a protest that I shot on July 8th of last year.The Federal Government is attempt to circumvent the California State Shield law through this grand jury proceeding, and their only claim to juridiction on this case is that an SFPD patrol vehicle was allegedly vandalized, and as the City gets some of it's money from the Federal Government, the US feels that they have a legal and fiscal interest in this possible vandalism.
Supervisors Ross Mirkarimi and Chris Daly introduced a resolution yesterday to the Board of Supervisors that would establish that the City of SF opposes these actions of the US Government.
Please help publicize this issue for me, as I may be in jail tommorow afternoon and unable to continue speaking publicly about my case.
Thanks.
I have set-up a resource page with all the documents and media associated with my case at http://joshwolf.net/grandjury/
If you have any questions feel free to contact me via e-mail at mail@joshwolf.net or give me a call at (415)794-2401
Josh
--Josh Marshall
I was going to summarize this report from Louisville television station WHAS-11. But I think it's best just repeated in toto. Note the points emphasized with italics ...
WHAS 11 NEWS HAS LEARNED THAT INFORMATION ABOUT POSSIBLE FEDERAL LAW VIOLATIONS BY STEVE HENRY HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE U-S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN LOUISVILLE.U.S. ATTORNEY DAVID HUBER CONFIMS HIS OFFICE HAS RECEIVED WHAT HE CALLS QUOTE "A MATTER" INVOLVING THE FORMER LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND CURRENT DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR.
HUBER WOULDN'T SAY WHAT INFORMATION HIS OFFICE HAS RECEIVED ABOUT HENRY -- BUT TELLS US IT'S BEEN REFERRED TO THE U-S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IN WASHINGTON.
WHAS ELEVEN NEWS HAS OBTAINED THESE DOCUMENTS, WHICH SHOW HENRY GOT CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR WHAT HE SAYS WAS N EXPLORATORY CAMPAIGN FOR U-S SENATE.
CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS ARE ILLEGAL AND ARE USUALLY INVESTIGATED BY THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION.
Henry's campaign manager C.D. Marshall says this is old news. He says Henry followed the law when he was collecting donations for his exploratory committee. Henry earlier told WHAS11 News that he was returning those contributions.More info for you blog readers: Huber says a "matter" does not imply that there's any sort of investigation going on, only that his office has received information it has agreed to look into. Also, Huber says he's in the process of personally recusing himself from any matter involving Henry because he doesn't want to be accused of playing politics. Huber used to work for Sen. Mitch McConnell.
I guess this doesn't need a lot of explanation.
Did he get a call?
And it's quaint, isn't it, how Huber chooses to recuse himself from the case after discussing it with a local tv news reporter and possibly giving him xeroxes of the documents in question.
--Josh Marshall
Fox-hosted debate is effectively dead as Richardson and Nevada Dems pull out.
--Greg Sargent
A suddenly chastened Alberto Gonzales on his department's firing of prosecutors: "it's something that we're looking at internally about how we got to where we are today."
--Paul Kiel
Okay, so we've made a little progress in solving today's mystery.
We've managed to get just a little closer to figuring out what the deal is with this new group "Firefighters for Rudy." But only a little.
Update: You won't want to miss this one. The Associated Press got snookered so badly in its coverage of "Firefighters for Rudy" that it has to be seen to be believed.
--Greg Sargent
The House Dems extend their purged prosecutor investigation into the White House.
--Paul Kiel
Bluejersey.com is asking their readers to call up the six Republican members of the New Jersey congressional delegation and ask whether any of them contacted US Attorney Chris Christie about the Menendez investigation, in the lead up to the November election. So far they've got one answer, from Rep. Michael Ferguson (R) who says he didn't call Christie.
--Josh Marshall
Did the administration intend to replace the fired U.S. attorneys wtih handpicked party loyalists and then avoid Senate confirmation?
Well, that's what Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) said one of the former prosecutors told him.
--Paul Kiel
This is getting good.
A seventh newspaper has now given the hook to Ann Coulter with some very tough language.
--Greg Sargent
Get ready for the latest winger attack: John Edwards could become our "first woman President."
--Greg Sargent
Isn't it a little odd that in all the uproar over Domenici, Wilson, and Hastings leaning on U.S. attorneys, there has not been one word about it from the Justice Department?
I don't mean an investigation, though that may be warranted (criminal, internal, or otherwise). But not a peep about how DOJ will not tolerate elected officials attempting to influence its prosecutors, how DOJ has its prosecutors' backs, how DOJ would remind prosecutors to report any such contacts, and would urge anyone who has not previously reported such contacts to come forward now.
Not a peep.
Seems strange to me. Bet you feel alone on an island if you're an independent U.S. Attorney with a story to tell --if any independent U.S. Attorneys are left.
--David Kurtz
The hits just keep on coming. A sixth newspaper has now dropped Ann Coulter's syndicated column in the wake of her "faggot" comment.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read: a new inspector general report finds that the FBI is breaking the law.
--Paul Kiel
Krugman ...
For those of us living in the Garden State, the growing scandal over the firing of federal prosecutors immediately brought to mind the subpoenas that Chris Christie, the former Bush “Pioneer” who is now the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, issued two months before the 2006 election — and the way news of the subpoenas was quickly leaked to local news media.The subpoenas were issued in connection with allegations of corruption on the part of Senator Bob Menendez, a Democrat who seemed to be facing a close race at the time. Those allegations appeared, on their face, to be convoluted and unconvincing, and Mr. Menendez claimed that both the investigation and the leaks were politically motivated.
Mr. Christie’s actions might have been all aboveboard. But given what we’ve learned about the pressure placed on federal prosecutors to pursue dubious investigations of Democrats, Mr. Menendez’s claims of persecution now seem quite plausible.
In fact, it’s becoming clear that the politicization of the Justice Department was a key component of the Bush administration’s attempt to create a permanent Republican lock on power. Bear in mind that if Mr. Menendez had lost, the G.O.P. would still control the Senate.
This raises a key point we've hinted at several times as the US Attorney story has risen to a boil over the last three weeks. We've now heard enough to know that using federal prosecutions to score political points was an accepted way of doing business in the Gonzales Justice Department. The two cases we know about are ones in which the US Attorney refused to play along and paid the price. So what about the ones who did play along?
Given what we know now, does anyone think the Iglesias and McKay cases are the only ones?
As Krugman says, perhaps the Christie subpoenas were aboveboard. But they did they play directly into the campaign narrative Tom Kean, Jr. was trying to run on against Bob Menendez, they came at a very convenient time in a bitterly contested race and, as we reported at the time, the alleged infraction was patently silly.
Of course, to the best of my knowledge, Kean's defeat seems to have sapped all the interest out of the investigation. So go figure.
We're focused now on what happened to the US Attorneys who didn't play ball. It's time to focus on just what kinds of games Alberto Gonzales has been playing.
--Josh Marshall
Gonzales grins and takes it. From the Post ...
Specter emerged from the meeting saying he still had no clear understanding why the prosecutors were dismissed. He said he instructed Gonzales to take back remarks he made in an op-ed in Wednesday's USA Today, in which he called the issue an "overblown personnel matter." Specter also asked Gonzales to do something to help remove the "significant blemish" now on the records of the fired prosecutors.
--Josh Marshall
What USAgate tells us? Without congressional oversight, bad acts never see the light of day.
--Josh Marshall
Here's a behind-the-scenes glimpse of some of the backstage tensions that abounded among House Dems today over what to do about Iraq.
--Greg Sargent
And the House Dems are pressing forward in their investigation of the prosecutor purge too. Today they sent a letter to AG Gonzales requesting testimony from six Justice Department officials.
--Paul Kiel
Partial success! We've made radio contact with the president of the syndicate that distributes Ann Coulter's column!
And as per your requests, there's also a list of the papers that carry her weekly efforts.
--Greg Sargent
Purge update: the administration backs down. In a meeting with senators from the Judiciary Committee today, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said that he would not oppose their efforts to change the law governing the appointment of U.S. attorneys back to what it was.
--Paul Kiel
This is weird. Earlier today I linked to a supposed post by Michael Barone attacking the Bush administration over the fired attorneys scandal. It certainly seemed out of character, given the tone of Barone's commentary over recent years. Some readers have been pointing out that though the post itself shows up on the specific URL, it doesn't show up on the main blog page. The post in question very much seems to reside on the US News website. It's not an instance of spoofing. But Michael Barone has confirmed to Andrew Sullivan that he did not write the post. According to Sullivan, relaying on Barone I assume, a hacker got into Barone's site and inserted the post.
Late Update: Well, it's hard to know at this point with the US News blogging platform. But it appears now that the non-post from Michael Barone actually wasn't a hack. It shows up right there on the front page of Bonnie Erbe's US News blog. So perhaps it's a glitch rather than a hoax? Given it's a US News blog, at this point I'm not making any assumptions.
(ed.note: Here at TPM we were noting that this did seem like very much a niche sort of hacking, with a rather rarefied audience. Imagine the chatter on the hacker underground discussion boards: "Dude! Just uploaded a sane post on the US Attorney story to BARONE's blog! Freaky ..."
--Josh Marshall
GOP House leader responds: We will defeat Democratic efforts to end the war.
--Greg Sargent
Former New York Daily News columnist Jim Sleeper on why Rudy Giuliani really shouldn't be president.
--Andrew Golis
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) today: "One day there will be a new attorney general, maybe sooner rather than later."
--Paul Kiel
From the Arkansas Times, Karl Rove answers questions about the US Attorney flap ...
See the Arkansas Times website for more info.
Update: We have a transcript of Rove's remarks here. Help us catalogue the distortions.
--Josh Marshall
Here are some questions we've emailed to the president of United Press Syndicate, which is under mounting pressure to stop distributing Ann Coulter's column in the wake of her "faggot" remark.
Maybe you can help us get him to answer them.
--Greg Sargent
CREW files ethics complaint against the ethics committee's ranking member, Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA).
--Paul Kiel
Purge update: Senators to meet with AG Gonzales later this afternoon about the testimony of Justice Department officials.
--Paul Kiel
Things are starting to move. A fourth newspaper has now dropped Ann Coulter's syndicated column in the wake of her "faggot" comment.
--Greg Sargent
Will the House ethics committee actually chase Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM)?
It depends on whether Democrats will do anything more than talk about doing something.
--Paul Kiel
[ed.note: The post by Michael Barone referenced below was subsequently revealed to be a hoax. Someone apparently hacked into the US News website and added it to Barone's blog.]
Even Michael Barone goes off the reservation?
From his US News blog from yesterday ...
The emerging scandal surrounding the dismissals of eight former U.S. attorneys should signify to American voters the depth, breadth, and permeation of corruption in the Bush administration.When a U.S. senator (to wit, Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican) feels free to call a prosecutor at home and hang up on him for resisting political pressure in the course of executing his prosecutorial duties, the line between politics and law enforcement has been so thoroughly violated that it no longer exists.
What will Jay Carney say?
--Josh Marshall
House Dem leaders unveil their plan to end Iraq war. Key provision: We'd be out of Iraq by September 2008 at the latest.
--Greg Sargent
Not all the senators up in arms about the administration's prosecutor purge are Democrats. Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), for one, "can't even tell you" how upset he is.
--Paul Kiel
Dear Alberto, We don't believe you.
Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) write AG Alberto Gonzales about the prosecutor purge.
--Paul Kiel
Liberal House Dems have just concluded their press conference laying out their plan for ending the Iraq War. Details on what they said here.
--Greg Sargent
Today is a key day for anyone watching the internal battles among House Dems over what to do about Iraq.
We'll be providing periodic updates over at TPM Election Central.
--Greg Sargent
Things are heating up among House Dems right now over what to do about Iraq.
Speculation was swirling tonight that the House Dem leadership had reached a deal with liberal Dems over an approach to ending the war, but liberal House Dems have just shot down those rumors.
--Greg Sargent
In case you missed it, Huffington Post got juror #9, Dennis Collins, to discuss his experiences on the Libby jury.
--Josh Marshall
Senate to vote tomorrow on issuing subpoenas to five Justice Department officials.
--Paul Kiel
Liberal House Dems prepare to go public with their own plan to halt Iraq War.
--Greg Sargent
It's good to be the spouse of a former President.
An internal Hillary fundraising email says that Bill is hosting five private fundraisers for her in March alone.
--Greg Sargent
I guess we're not watching the same White House.
David Gergen: "This is an administration that has been mostly free of scandal over the last six years and now they have the taint that they cannot erase. It has damaged this White House, and I think it's damaged the Republican prospects for 2008 in taking the White House and keeping it."
Thanks to TPM Reader RB for the catch.
--Josh Marshall
We know they had the ear of the White House. But here are details on Washington Republicans' campaign to sack U.S. Attorney John McKay.
--Paul Kiel
Politico editors John Harris and Jim VandeHei respond to the criticism voiced here and elsewhere over their Dan Gerstein screw-up.
--Greg Sargent
We're just finishing up a major chapter in the Plame-Niger-Uranium scandal. The core of that story is that when the Bush administration's back is against the wall, the accusers have to be destroyed. Usually by a campaign of leaks and anonymous accusations delivered to reliable, pro-administration reporters.
Any guess who's going to get the call?
--Josh Marshall
Paging all wingers: Keith Ellison, the first Muslim Congressman and a frequent right wing target, is now working in concert with the Bush administration to promote America's image abroad.
--Greg Sargent
The Justice Department official who called ousted U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins to let him know that if the fired prosecutors kept talking, the dirt on them would come out, has written a letter to tell his side of the story.
He's "shocked and baffled" at the prosecutors' interpretation of that as a threat.
--Paul Kiel
If you missed the canned attorneys hearing yesterday, here's Sen. Schumer's (D-NY) opening statement ...
And here's Sen. Specter's (R-PA) questioning of the witnesses ...
--Josh Marshall
Two more papers have now dropped Ann Coulter's syndicated column in the wake of her "faggot" comment.
--Greg Sargent
If a President can be impeached for lying about a blow job then by God a Vice President should be impeached for setting in motion the forces that destroyed an intelligence network during a time of war.
--Andrew Golis
DOJ spokesman's new phrase for the fired US Attorneys: "former disgruntled employees grandstanding before Congress."
--Josh Marshall
Universal Press Syndicate responds to calls that it drop Ann Coulter's syndicated column in the wake of her "faggot" comment: Sorry, no can do.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read: Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) and his former chief of staff get their damage control messages scrambled.
--Paul Kiel
Straight to the top.
John McKay, the former US Attorney from Washington state who didn't open an investigation into claims of voter fraud in the 2004 state gubernatorial election, heard from someone else beside Rep. "Doc" Hastings (R-WA).
From the Post ...
In remarks after the hearings, McKay said that officials in the White House counsel's office, including then-counsel Harriet E. Miers, asked him to explain why he had "mishandled" the governor's race during an interview for a federal judgeship in September 2006. McKay was informed after his dismissal that he also was not a finalist for the federal bench.
--Josh Marshall
Some puffs of deceit and ridiculousness need to be lined up next to each other for full effect.
First, the decription of Mr. Iglesias's testimony on Sen. Domenici (R-NM) from the Post ...
Domenici also began asking about the local corruption case, which involves Democrats and a courthouse construction project, specifically inquiring about indictments."Are these going to be filed before November?" Domenici asked, according to Iglesias's testimony. Unnerved by the call, Iglesias said he responded no.
"I'm sorry to hear that," Domenici replied, according to Iglesias, who added that the senator then hung up on him. "I felt sick afterward. . . . I felt leaned on, I felt pressured to get these matters moving," Iglesias told the committee.
From the testimony this conversation appears to have happened toward the end of October, 2006, placing it within two weeks of election day.
Then Sen. Domenici's (R-NM) response to Iglesias's testimony ...
In his testimony today, Mr. Iglesias confirmed that our conversation was brief and that my words did not threaten him, nor did I direct him to take any course of action. While I recall, as I stated previously, that I asked Mr. Iglesias about timing of the investigation, neither I nor those who overheard my side of the brief conversation recall my mentioning the November election to him ... In his own testimony, Mr. Iglesias confirmed that nothing I actually said was threatening or directive. I did not pressure him. I asked him a timing question. He responded. I concluded the conversation.
"I concluded the conversation."
Remember, this was a call to Iglesias's home. Domenici's Chief of Staff placed the call. And led with claims that "there were some complaints by constituents" about Iglesias's tardy pace in indicting Democrats.
Pity Mr. Iglesias got the wrong impression.
--Josh Marshall
Looking back over today's testimony what stands out aren't just the big lies that have been alleged but the small ones. In particular I'm thinking about cases in which Justice Department appointees said one thing only to have one or more of the US Attorneys come back and say the statements were simply false.
For instance, William E. Mo