Or so it seems:

Separately, in written answers to questions from Sen. Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Comey confirmed that Vice President Cheney blocked a subsequent promotion for a Justice Department official, Patrick Philbin, who played a key role in blocking the recertification of the NSA warrantless wiretap program.

In a telling detail about Gonzales, the Attorney General apparently planned to promote Philbin to be principal deputy solicitor general. In other words, it would appear that for all the rest we have learned about Mr. Gonzales, he was not inclined to punish Philbin for his role in the Ashcroft-Comey recertification incident. However, Cheney intervened. In Comey’s words: “I understood that someone at the White House communicated to Attorney General Gonzales that the vice president would oppose the appointment if the attorney general pursued the matter. The attorney general chose not to pursue it.”

The Washington Post adds:

Vice President Cheney told Justice Department officials that he disagreed with their objections to a secret surveillance program during a high-level White House meeting in March 2004, a former senior Justice official told senators yesterday.

The meeting came one day before White House officials tried to get approval for the same program from then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, who lay recovering from surgery in a hospital, according to former deputy attorney general James B. Comey.

Comey’s disclosures, made in response to written questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, indicate that Cheney and his aides were more closely involved than previously known in a fierce internal battle over the legality of the warrantless surveillance program. The program allowed the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls and e-mails between the United States and overseas.

It’s getting messier and messier for the White House. Too many dirty tricks, too many secrets, too many lies, too many deceptions.

I do wonder in how far it’s normal for a VP to have as much power as Cheney has. Something tells me that Gore had much less influence than Cheney when the former was Clinton’s VP.

Murray Waas writes for National ReviewJournal:

The Bush administration has withheld a series of e-mails from Congress showing that senior White House and Justice Department officials worked together to conceal the role of Karl Rove in installing Timothy Griffin, a protégé of Rove’s, as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Several of the e-mails that the Bush administration is withholding from Congress, as well as papers from the White House counsel’s office describing other withheld documents, were made available to National Journal by a senior executive branch official, who said that the administration has inappropriately kept many of them from Congress.

The senior official said that Gonzales, in preparing for testimony before Congress, has personally reviewed the withheld records and has a responsibility to make public any information he has about efforts by his former chief of staff, other department aides, and White House officials to conceal Rove’s role.

The anonymous official said: “If [Gonzales] didn’t know everything that was going on when it went down, that is one thing. But he knows and understands chapter and verse. If there was an effort within Justice and the White House to mislead Congress, it is his duty to disclose that to Congress. As the country’s chief law enforcement official, he has a higher duty to disclose than to protect himself or the administration.”

The secrecy is unbelievable, firstly and, secondly, the White House isn’t even good at keeping its secrets, you know, secret. This has the potential to hurt the image of Gonzales, of Karl Rove, and of the White House in general, quite tremendously. It will increase calls for thorough investigations, it will embolden Democrats in Congress, it will force Republicans to take a tougher stance against the White House; all in all, extremely bad news for Bush (Rove, and Gonzales).

What I am interested in is whether someone will actually be held responsible and accountable. Some leading officials seem to have stepped out of line, they have acted in a not so honorable manner… they should, yes, go.

Incompetence and secrecy rule. Never a good combination.

The effort of the White House, if the article at National Journal is accurate, to obstruct the investigation of Congress is impardonnable.

How anyone can actually defend the conduct of Gonzales, Rove et al. in this affair is beyond me.

Where’s the personal, and professional, responsibility?

More at The Washington Monthly, Think Progress, Balloon Juice and Obsidian Wings.

Cross posted at The Moderate Voice.

The Politico reports that Senator John McCain has called for Gonzales’ resignation. As the Politico’s Mike Allen points out, this makes McCain “the most prominent Republican to desert the White House over the bungled firing of U.S. attorneys.”

McCain said: “Out of loyalty to the president, he should obviously step down.”

I agree with that. He should - indeed - step down; he’s doing great damage to Bush’s reputation / image.

McCain went on to say: “He’s not serving the president well.”

Again agreed, see above.

Next: “I reached that conclusion a long time ago. I just haven’t been asked.”

Uh, what? “I just haven’t been asked”? Since when do politicians wait until someone asks them something before saying what they think about it? If he what he says is true, he should have said so a long time ago.

Anyway - this will increase the likability that other candidates will turn against Gonzales publicly as well. We will see more and more people, including conservative Republicans, call for Gonzales’ to resign.

The question is, will - for once - Bush give in?

Well, well, well, the House Judiciary Committee voted, 32 to 6, to grand immunity to former aide to US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Monica Goodling. The Committee also, immediately, subpoenad her, although most members (still) hope that she will be testify voluntarily (fat chance). Representative John Conyers: “I do not propose this step lightly. We can always stop the process before the court issues an order.”

Besides the House Committee, ‘the Senate Judiciary Committee was also meeting to consider subpoenas in the continuing investigation of the firings. The Senate panel voted to authorize a subpoena of Sara Taylor, the White House political affairs director, to get around what Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who heads the panel, called White House “stonewalling”.’

It is becoming more and more serious. I repeat what I said when this story broke: if Gonzales / the White House would have admitted to having made mistakes, share (most of) what happened, etc. this controversy would have died a quick death. Now, however, the behavior of “Gonzo” et al. encouraged Democrats (the media and, yes, Republicans) to dig deeper and… well, it has already hurt Bush, Gonzales, Rove, etc. tremendously, and it will damage them / their reputation even more.

According to quite some people Goodling was at the very center of everything: she was the weakest link. She knows exactly what happened, how it happened, why it happened, who decided what, etc. If Goodling testifies, well, it seems to me that Gonzales, Bush and Rove will get very nervous.

In the past, I wrote that Goodling should not be granted immunity. I still stand by that… mostly. First and foremost, I think that it is incredibly sad that people who are supposed to do what is in the best interest of the American people, to serve them, are only willing to answer the questions of the people they are supposed, are only willing to be accountable, if they are granted immunity for everything they possibly did / are doing wrong. Second: how do they know that she won’t lie to protect, not her legal status, but her reputation? They don’t, they can’t.

That being said, it seems to be necessary to this. So, as such, if they want to know what really happened, this is the logical, albeit cynical, step to make.

Meanwhile, there seems to be a real subpoena frenzy going on now: the House Oversight Committee also approved a subpoena for Condoleezza Rice.

By 21-10, the House oversight committee voted to issue a subpoena to Rice to compel her story on the Bush administration’s claim, now discredited, that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa.

Some would say: “finally, some real oversight,” others would say: “dear God, here comes the whitch hunt.”

And both sides would be right.

H/t Shaun.

NewsMax (yes, NewsMax) reports that another Republican leader has called for Gonzales’ resignation:

Rep. Adam Putnam of Florida, chairman of the Republican conference in the House of Representatives, said it was important for the head of the U.S. Justice Department to have “unwavering” credibility.

“For the good of the nation, I think it is time for fresh leadership at the Department of Justice,” Putnam said in a brief telephone interview. He said a lack of credibility by the Justice Department chief puts in jeopardy the president’s legislative agenda.

Putnam is joining a growing list of U.S. lawmakers expressing a lack of confidence in Gonzales a day after he testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee on the firing of eight U.S. prosecutors last year. The dismissals raised concerns among Democrats that they were politically motivated.

Normally, if a president would continue to support an Attorney General who is as incompetent and, now, unpopular as Alberto Gonzales it would be astonishing. It would surprise everyone. With Bush it’s not. Bush demands loyalty of those close to him, in return he’s loyal, Bush is stubborn, refuses to give up, no matter how difficult the circumstances… all, normally, virtues, but - I am afraid - what would normally be virtues are, with Bush, developing into vices because he is exaggerating them. Aristotle wrote that true virtue is always ‘the middle’ option; moderation. Bush, seemingly, disagrees with that.

The result: a loss of credibility, a loss of support and, quite frankly, mismanagement and incompetence on more levels and in more departments than one.

Limbaugh defended Alberto Gonzeles today saying that “he might be an idiot”… “he might be a weak attorney general”, but Republicans should “circle the wagons” around him nonetheless. He also said that “whatever happened to Gonzales is beside the point.” Listen Limbaugh say it at Think Progress.

This is amazing. Rush is actually saying that competence is irrelevant: what matters is that the one under attack is a Republican. Republicans should defend Republicans no matter how incompetent they are.

I am right of center, of course, but I do not have any sympathy for Limbaugh. Limbaugh cares more about the Republican Party than about America, or so it seems.

It’s D-Day for U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales:

When Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales’s top aide contemplated the mass dismissal of chief federal prosecutors two years ago, he advocated keeping the “loyal Bushies.” Two years later, the question confronting President Bush is whether to keep Gonzales, the very model of a loyal Bushie.

As Gonzales heads to Capitol Hill today for a long-anticipated public interrogation about the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, at issue is the very concept of loyalty in Bush’s world. With any other president, many in Washington say, the attorney general would already be gone. Bush has defied the drumbeat from both parties to remove Gonzales, but even the White House considers today’s Senate hearing make or break.

“Loyal Bushies.” Not ‘loyal to the nation,’ not ‘loyal to justice,’ but loyal to Bush. Do they also have to take a Bush-oath?

Everybody knows that Bush considers ‘loyalty’ to be incredibly important. Above all else, his aides, advisors, etc. need to be ‘teamplayers’. Gonzales is such a ‘teamplayer’ and… it is this extreme loyalty that has brought him (and continues to bring him - and the White House) in trouble.
(more…)

The New York Times reports that the White House said yesterday that “some of the missing e-mails may include some relating to the firing of eight United States attorneys.”

I was talking to a good friend today who said “I think this administration is far worse than nixon’s. It is the very worst in my lifetime.”

I agree with that. I get the impression that the Bush White House is even more secretive than Nixon’s was. Furthermore, this White House seems to be dedicated to politicize just about everything, every part of the executive branch and then some.

Truly, I do not see how traditional American conservatives can keep their silence about this matter. They should stop being partisan, and be a bit more dedicated to their ideology.

More at The RBC and Balloon Juice.

Good Lord:

Countless e-mails to and from many key White House staffers have been deleted — lost to history and placed out of reach of congressional subpoenas — due to a brazen violation of internal White House policy that was allowed to continue for more than six years, the White House acknowledged yesterday.

This is unbelievable. This White House seems determined to lose every bit of credibility it once had.

More:

The leading culprit appears to be President Bush’s enormously influential political adviser Karl Rove, who reportedly used his Republican National Committee-provided Blackberry and e-mail accounts for most of his electronic communication.

Until 2004, all e-mail on RNC accounts was routinely deleted after 30 days. Since 2004, White House staffers using those accounts have been able to save their e-mail indefinitely — but have also been able to delete whatever they felt like deleting. By comparison, the White House e-mail system preserves absolutely everything forever, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act.

Wondering how many e-mails have been lost? So is the White House: it says that it has “no idea”.

My estimation: many.

Leahy is - rightfully - outraged:

“They say they have not been preserved. I don’t believe that!” Leahy shouted from the Senate floor as the dispute over the firing of federal prosecutors continued at a high pitch.

“You can’t erase e-mails, not today. They’ve gone through too many servers,” said Leahy, D-Vt. “Those e-mails are there, they just don’t want to produce them. We’ll subpoena them if necessary.”

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino responded:

“I understand his point, but he’s wrong. We’re being very honest and forthcoming. I hope that he would understand the spirit in which we have come forward and tried to explain how we screwed up our policy and how we’re working to fix it.”

Aww, poor babies. Screwed it up huh? They’ve admitted it, apologized, that’s that, right?

Wrong. This is outrageous. Justin Garnder concludes:

1. Karl Rove is an idiot;

2. Karl Rove thought the rules didn’t apply to him;

3. Karl Rove deliberately circumvented the records laws.

The answer, for now, appears to be #2

Rrright. I agree with Libby Spencer: the rules are crystal clear.

Amy Goldstein and Dan Eggen for the Washington Post:

About one-third of the nearly four dozen U.S. attorney’s jobs that have changed hands since President Bush began his second term have been filled by the White House and the Justice Department with trusted administration insiders.

The people chosen as chief federal prosecutors on a temporary or permanent basis since early 2005 include 10 senior aides to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, according to an analysis of government records. Several came from the White House or other government agencies. Some lacked experience as prosecutors or had no connection to the districts in which they were sent to work, the records and biographical information show.

And before Republicans start shouting “but everybody does” it, well, as Prairie weather notes, no everybody does not:

No other administration in contemporary times has had such a clear pattern of filling chief prosecutors’ jobs with its own staff members, said experts on U.S. attorney’s offices. Those experts said the emphasis in appointments traditionally has been on local roots and deference to home-state senators, whose support has been crucial to win confirmation of the nominees…

Still, academics and other experts say, the appointments appear to alter a long-standing culture of autonomy for the nation’s chief prosecutors. James Eisenstein, a Pennsylvania State University political scientist who has written a book on U.S. attorneys, said that historically, federal prosecutors have regarded operating “in a politically neutral, nonpartisan manner” as a cornerstone of their roles. Hiring people from Justice, Eisenstein said, “was very unusual.”

I do not quite see how this could not worry Americans, whether they’re Democratic or Republican. Federal prosecutors as political tools.

Dana Milbank wrote a good, interesting article for the Washington Post about Kyle Sampson’s testimony yesterday. Sampson seemed to be willing to take one for the team, but made matters worse for Gonzales nonetheless when he confessed that Gonzales’ testimony wasn’t accurate.

As Prairie Weather points out, “Speaking of falling on swords, what seems to be happening is mass hari kiri on the part of Republicans.”

An ‘accident’ happened as well: Schumer was informed that Republicans objected to the hearings continuing, so he interrupted Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who was questioning Sampson. When Schumer said “we’ve just received word that the Republicans have objected, under the Senate rules, to this meeting continuing”, to which Grassley replied “does it apply to a Republican, too?”

Later, “Republicans blamed a procedural mistake in their cloakroom for the false alarm”.

Strangely, Sampson’s memory didn’t serve him well. “He used the phrase ‘I don’t remember’ a memorable 122 times.”

Damn. I cannot help but wonder how Sampson could ever have worked at the White House.

With such a memory, it is impossible to graduate from high school, let alone from University with a bachelor or master degree.

E.J. Dionne wrote a marvelous column for the Washington Post about the USA’s controversy.

There are too many questions that have to be answered. Bush can cry foul, or ‘partisan!’, if he wants to, but Congress’d better demand answers.

William F. Buckley wrote a good article for Townhall.com about the USA controversy. His conclusion: “Of one thing Mr. Bush is manifestly guilty. It is the criminal (in the metaphorical sense) mismanagement of the whole business of the U.S. attorneys. The fault is not personal; it was probably the attorney general and other advisers of the president who took so many clumsy steps. But Mr. Bush’s stress on his rights invites a coordinate stress on his responsibilities. “These attorneys,” he said, “serve at my pleasure.” Right. But presidential pleasures have to rest on defensible grounds.”

Read the entire article at Townhall.

Former Nixon counsel John W. Dean wrote a great article for FindLaw’s Writ. He explains that the clash between U.S. Congress and the White House over the firing of eight USA’s, is about much more than just that. The real conflict isn’t that “Congress wants information, and Bush does not want to provide it if it means breaching the sanctity of the realm in which he receives advice from his aides privately.”

No, according to Dean the real issue here is that Bush, Cheney et al. want to create an “all-powerful presidency.” It “is all about presidential power. Moreover, underlying the Administration’s defense of unchecked power, is a term that has not been heard since Justice Alito’s confirmation hearings: “the unitary executive theory.” Once, conservatives rejected a strong presidency. Today, however, the opposite is the case, and the unitary executive theory is central to their argument.”

A strong presidency, Dean explains, lies at the very core of Bush’s kind of conservatism.

Which, in my opinion, makes the philosophy automatically not conservative. Conservatism is rooted on the idea that government power should be limited. Conservatives distrust the government. Hence, when people advocate a strong presidency, they cannot rightfully be labelled ‘conservatives’. They can be described as “to the right, righties, authoritarians” even… but not as Conservatives.

Is Dean’s assessment of Bush’s view on the presidency, on his own power, accurate?

I’m afraid so.

More at The Impolitic and FDL.

“In his first weeks as defense secretary”, the New York Times reports, “Robert M. Gates repeatedly argued that the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had become so tainted abroad that legal proceedings at Guantánamo would be viewed as illegitimate, according to senior administration officials. He told President Bush and others that it should be shut down as quickly as possible.”

Although supported by Condoleezza Rice, he failed to convince Bush - mostly because both Gonzales and U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney “expressed strong objections to moving detainees to the United States.”

An anonymous senior administration official said, however, that the battle isn’t over yet: Gonzales might be forced to step down as a result of the scandal involving the dismissal of the USA’s. Perhaps Gonzales’ successor will be less fervently opposed to closing Guantanamo Bay, or, perhaps, he’ll have less influence…

Even if Gonzales doesn’t resign the battle will continue: he is severely weakened. He already has less influence.

I hope that Gates and other ‘realists’ will win this debate. Gitmo should be closed ASAP. Guantanamo Bay isn’t just in breach with everything America stands for or at least used to stand for, it also does great damage to America’s image abroad. People like myself, pro-America, have great difficult defending America as long as America seems to be dedicated to turn the entire world against itself.

The Washington Post reports that Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the Libby case, ‘was ranked among prosecutors who had “not distinguished themselves” on a Justice Department chart sent to the White House in March 2005, when he was’ working on before mentioned case.

Yeah… Fitzgerald… the middling prosecutor:

Apparently, the guy who successfully prosecuted Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and who convicted Illinois Governor George Ryan of bribery, was considered a middling prosecutor by Kyle Sampson. I wonder if it had anything to do with that prosecutor’s pending prosecution of Scooter Libby (which also resulted in a conviction)?

Interesting to note, by the way, that Patterico gives up trying to defend the Bush administration (on this). Quite likely that more and more people will rebel before this controversy fades away again.