Anonymous Liberal has unearthed what appears to be an incriminating e-mail in which Monica Goodling instructed DOJ personnel to destroy documents that were clearly pertinent to an ongoing Congressional investigation. The e-mail, dated February 12, 2007, states in relevant part:

These are new and updated USA documents which can be used with the media or friendlies. Please delete prior versions. . .

Why could this be a criminal situation? Because of the federal obstruction statute. This article provides a nice background on the subject:

President Bush was pleased with the performance of his Attorney General:

President Bush was pleased with the Attorney General's testimony today. After hours of testimony in which he answered all of the Senators' questions and provided thousands of pages of documents, he again showed that nothing improper occurred. He admitted the matter could have been handled much better, and he apologized for the disruption to the lives of the U.S. Attorneys involved, as well as for the lack of clarity in his initial responses. The Attorney General has the full confidence of the President, and he appreciates the work he is doing at the Department of Justice to help keep our citizens safe from terrorists, our children safe from predators, our government safe from corruption, and our streets free from gang violence.

I have a theory Bush figures Gonzo is the one guy who can make Bush look less incompetent. For example, 'you think Bush is incompetent, you should see Gonzales.' My alternate theory is Bush enjoys seeing baby seals get clubbed.

h/t Meteor Blades

CNN's Suzanne Malveaux talking to folks in the White House and DC Republicans and they have panned AG Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' performance today.

Malveaux says that Republicans described the hearing as being akin to "clubbing a baby seal."

Senator Feinstein was the final nail. Part of me wishes Gonzales would tell the GOP Senators now grandstanding to go stuff it, they know what he did and why - the WH told him to do it and he always does what the WH says to do. We all know this is true.

Update [2007-4-19 16:50:58 by Big Tent Democrat]: Schumer passes on second round. Sees no point to continuing given Gonzales' performance. He urges Gonzales to resign. I'm done too.

Gonzales provided one of the most pathetic displays I've ever seen. I am embarrassed for him.

Update [2007-4-19 16:54:46 by Big Tent Democrat]: Specter's stemwinder will lead to calling for his resignation I think. Let's see.

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing "starring" beleaguered Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, begins this morning. Watch it on C-Span3 and CNN (for now), or, on line here.

Give us your thoughts on the hearings.

Via Kevin Drum, "Liberal" intern applicants summarily rejected by Gonzo Justice Dept.:

After choosing potential candidates to interview, the division personnel forwarded their lists to the Office of Attorney Recruitment Management for what was traditionally final approval. This is no longer a final step, however, because the list had to go higher — to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. When the list of potential interviewees was returned this year, it had been cut dramatically. ....When division personnel staff later compared the remaining interviewees with the candidates struck from the list, one common denominator appeared repeatedly: most of those struck from the list had interned for a Hill Democrat, clerked for a Democratic judge, worked for a "liberal" cause, or otherwise appeared to have "liberal" leanings. Summa cum laude graduates of both Yale and Harvard were rejected for interviews.

But Gonzales tells us that the Justice Department does not make decisions based on political considerations. As usual with Gonzo, the exact opposite of what he says appears to be the truth.

Via Josh Marshall, McClatchy reports:

For six years, the Bush administration, aided by Justice Department political appointees, has pursued an aggressive legal effort to restrict voter turnout in key battleground states in ways that favor Republican political candidates.

The administration intensified its efforts last year as President Bush's popularity and Republican support eroded heading into a midterm battle for control of Congress, which the Democrats won.

And Attorney General Gonzales says his department does not based policies on politics. Riiiiight.

The New York Times asked four attorneys what questions they would ask Alberto Gonzales. Truth be told the questions are, imo, pretty awful and not much related to the issues at hand. But only one set of questions had me bursting in laughter. Read what the co-founder of the Federalist Society would ask:

Congress’s Role By Steven G. Calabresi

1. Can politics truly be kept out of the investigations into the recent dismissal of several United States attorneys if such oversight is being led by a senator who is himself responsible for the election of Democratic senatorial candidates in 2008?

[He's talking about Schumer and the silly GOP talking point that somehow a Senator involved in electing Dems can't do his job as Senator. First, the investigation is being led by the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy, not Schumer. Second, every Senator will be involved in getting folks of their party elected. By Calabresi's logic, no one in Congress can investigate anything ever. This is one of the stupidest talking points in the history of talking points.].

2. Doesn’t the Constitution make the president the law enforcement officer in chief precisely so he can make sure that all 93 United States attorneys are following the law enforcement priorities that he was elected to enforce? And doesn’t the Constitution specifically limit Congress’s role in removal of United States attorneys to impeaching them or their superiors for high crimes and misdemeanors?

[More nonsense. The President and his Attorney General are supposed to enforce the priorities of the Congress, to wit, enforce the laws passed by Congress, not his "law enforcement priorities." As for the Congress' role, this is not a subject Calabresi should be bringing up since the Bush Adminsitration engaged in some dirty stealth language changes in laws in orer to circumvent Congress' role in CONFIRMING US attorneys]

As the chickens came home to roost with Justice Alito casting the deciding vote today in the SCOTUS' upholding of a federal ban on a pregnancy termination procedure used primarily late in the pregnancy term, I thought I would trot out a post I wrote on the politics of choice, when the Alito nomination was pending.

The post:

Just as in every other Supreme Court nomination, the ScAlito nomination has at its center the issue of Roe v. Wade. Many other issues of course are always significant, but Roe is the touchstone. Inevitably, at least here, the arguments lead to whether it is "good politics" for Dems to support Roe. Of course, for many if not most of us, politics simply won't be a consideration on the issue. But I also think these folks are wrong to argue that Dems should retreat on Roe.

A new revelation about Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' propensity for untruths:

In October of last year, President Bush had a conversation with Gonzales about U.S. attorneys. According to the White House's public statements, the conversation was a broad one, about voter fraud in three districts. Gonzales has said publicly that he doesn't remember such a conversation taking place. But that's not what Kyle Sampson told congressional investigators this past weekend. According to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sampson said that in early March of this year, Gonzales told him about a conversation he'd had in October with Bush that was specifically about U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias. Remember that the White House was getting heavy pressure from Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and other New Mexico Republicans to can Iglesias.

The problem here for Gonzales is while he insists he did not remember the meeting, Sampson seems to think Gonzales did remember when he spoke to him in March:

[I]f Schumer's relation of Sampson's testimony is accurate, it seems clear that Sampson had not been under the impression that Gonzales himself didn't remember the conversation when they spoke about it in early March.

Gonzales simply has no credibility. None. He has told too many untruths. To me, the biggest whopper remains this:

Josh Marshall's vlog on tomorrow's Alberto Gonzales hearing asks the question "what would you ask Alberto Gonzales?"

Having seen Gonzales too many times before, I know that he can't and won't answer anything, so to me the first question to ask yourself is what are you trying to accomplish? To me this is more of a public relations event than anything else. So what is the goal? Expose Gonzo? He'll do that himself. Expose Rove? Gonzo can't and won't. He'll pretend he does not remember or was not involved. Expose Bush? Same answer.

Here's what I would do. First, make the Senators divvy up the topics. And try, if possible to give them yes or no questions to answer. In this case, that should be easy.

Documents and the testimony of Kyle Sampson allow for the questions to write themselves. For example, show Gonzales an e-mail that discusses the White House's role in making the fired USAs list. Read it. Ask Gonzo if it is true that, for example, "Harriet Miers said . . ." Is it true that "[what Kyle Sampson testified]"

And so on. I would not look to Gonzales to provide anything except obvious obfuscation but let the questions and the documents be the testimony.

What do you folks think?

I find this hard to believe but let's make this a baseline position:

[Senator Arlen] Specter [R-PA] said he and the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, had reached agreement on Friday with the White House counsel, Fred F. Fielding, on naming an outside expert to help search for the missing e-mails. “He thought it was a good idea,” Mr. Specter said on “This Week” on ABC. “He said they have nothing to hide.”

Great. An outside expert will likely recover the missing e-mails and find out how, when and who deleted those e-mails.

That will probably tell the why too. I bet the White House reneges on the deal.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' Sunday WaPo piece just confirms that he should never have been nominated, confirmed or allowed to remain as the nation's chief law enforcement. Forget his mendacity. Forget his outrageous opinions. Consider only his gross incompetence. What kind of Attorney General would defend his running of the Justice Departmenr saying this:

During those conversations, to my knowledge, I did not make decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign.

The man running the Justice Department did not decide who would or would not be fired is his defense.

That would be a firing offense imo even if the firings were perfectly kosher. How could that be acceptable?