Calling All Wingnuts

The audio will be difficult to make out, so this will work better through speakers… but… the country’s top lawyer, Solicitor General Paul Clement, spoke at U. VA. Law today. Of course, I attended. And I was fortunate enough to be called on to ask a question.

The SG spoke about the Supreme Court’s year (it’s past and remaining docket), so when I asked him about the USA scandal, it was a bit out of place. But you don’t get many opportunities to ask these people the questions you have on your mind, so you take the chance when it arises.

If you haven’t been following the USA scandal, the essence of the issue is whether or not United States Attorneys have been fired for inappropriate political reasons. The administration’s defense is that these are political appointments and the USAs serve at the pleasure of the President, so there’s not “there” here.

That may be so, but I can’t imagine this will continue to be the case after this mess gets resolved. You see, according to the administration, the President has ultimate and unfettered authority to hire and fire these guys. If you look too closely at a corrupt network of Republicans, you’re fired (USA Carol Lam, who convicted Congressman Duke Cunningham (a Republican, of course) in a bribery scandal (and indicted/had under investigation several other powerful Republican officials). If you don’t indict enough Democrats on trumped up charges, you’re fired (David Iglesias, USA in New Mexico who was pressured to indict a Democrat in October of last year to provide cover for Heather Wilson (R, of course). In fact, Wilson and New Mexico’s Senator, Pete Domenici (R, of course), actually called Iglesias to pressure him on the indictments. Domenici actually called him at home!! When they didn’t get the results they wanted, they spoke with Karl Rove. Rove, when asked about Iglesias at a Holiday party, said, “He’s gone.”

Furthermore, in Wisconson, a USA managed to hang on to his job by indicting and convicting a Democrat just before the elections. The state republican party was ready with election advertisements as soon as the indictment was announced. Her conviction was just overturned and the Appeals Court that heard her case took the extremely unusual step of springing her from jail before issuing a written opinion, saying the USA’s evidence was “beyond thin”.

So the blade cut both ways - do your job (which means “do what your political handlers tell you to do” and the Republican Party’s bidding, and you won’t be fired. Act like a non-partisan law enforcement attorney, and your job is in jeopardy.

Folks - to be perfectly clear, this is barely a step removed from having your political opponents arrested for, say, child pornography, the week before the election. The administration’s argument is - and it may be correct - that if a USA refuses to take direction, no matter how outlandish - from the President’s political team, they are vulnerable to being fired. That’s why I think we’ll see substantive safeguards put in place before this is all over.

Unfortunately for the administration, there is a larger story to be told, and as a result, in their incompetent efforts to obfuscate and confuse, several high ranking officials at the Justice Department, up to and including Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, have given false testimony to Congress. Of course, their defense is that they were simple misstatements - not intentional lies - but the evidence is cutting against them.

So we just saw the go-between for Karl Rove and Attorney General Gonzalez, Monica Goodling, resign. She resigned after several weeks of paid leave, during which she said that if called to testify before Congress, she’d assert her 5th Amendment right to silence in an effort to avoid self-incrimination. This was a highly unusual circumstance. I’m not sure if there has ever been a Justice Department official on the payroll that relied on that privilege. So I asked the SG about it.

There have also been news reports that AG Gonzalez is sweating his way through “murder boards” - committees of allies that act as enemies in an effort to toughen you up for testimony before an adverse body. I asked the SG if he could offer any insight on why the AG of the USA would feel the need to go through this process if his intent was to go before Congress and tell the simple truth.

As soon as I get a chance, I’ll edit the post and add a transcription. Until then, feel free to dowload the audio, and rely on my synopsis:

SG answer to question #2: The AG is going through this process out of respect for a co-equal branch of government. He wants to give Congress what they are entitled to. (Editorial comment: this is laugh out loud funny - the executive branch has openly defied Congress at every step of this process. Congress just sent a letter noting how pissed off they are that Justice isn’t honoring legitimate requests for documents, despite promises to the contrary.)

SG answer to question #1: Justice was in a tough spot. If they compel testimony of their employees, there may be 5th Amendment implications that would justify a grant of immunity to said employee. “Testify or you’re fired” would constitute compulsion.

That’s all for now, check back later tonight.