by emptywheel
As regular readers may have noted, I've got a bit of grudging respect for Richard Hertling, the Acting Assistant Attorney General who seems to have intervened to prevent Fitzgerald from sharing any details of his investigation with Waxman's committee and who has repeatedly prevented Congress from getting details on USA Purge. Compared to the other bozos over at DOJ, Hertling comes off as fairly intelligent and shrewd--though he's definitely every bit as much a political hack as they are.
But now, according to Mike Isikoff, the job of running interference has been turned over to Courtney Elwood. And who is Courtney Elwood, you might ask? Well, does this inspire any confidence?
Courtney Elwood, a former deputy to Dick Cheney's chief counsel David Addington, who is now working for Gonzales, has taken on a bigger role, shutting down responses to most inquiries from Congress and the news media because she views the firings flap as a purely "legal" issue. [my emphasis]
Where to start? Apparently, Ms. Elwood believes she can shut down inquiries from Congress because USA Purge is a "legal" issue. A "legal" issue. Is this the tired "ongoing legal investigation" dodge, recycled from its use with the CIA Leak? Because, last I checked, there was only an internal investigation, no real legal investigation (though how would we know, since Ms. Elwood refuses to respond to Congressional and media inquiries?). And how refreshing to know that one of Addington's flunkies has taken over the response to USA Purge. (Though, for the record, with Cathie Martin back in media at the White House, we've got two of Cheney's former minions dealing with response on this.)
Anyway this detail may explain why Pat Leahy is getting so frustrated with the pace of response.
We are approaching three months since the last hearing, yet you and the Department seem to be repeating the practice of not responding in a timely manner. Instead, if you respond at all, you do so only as a hearing appearance approaches. Although the Committee was informed weeks ago to expect your answers to our questions on a rolling basis, we have yet to receive a single answer. Please ensure that the Committee receives your answers to the oversight questions from the January 18th hearing without further delay.
As I noted in a letter to you last month, the Committee had also not received answers to the questions we had propounded to the FBI Director following his appearance in December. We proceeded with a hearing on March 27th without the benefit of those answers. I had received a letter from his staff indicating that the Director had provided the Department of Justice with his responses to the questions propounded to him following his December appearance. It is now four months since those questions were propounded and we still do not have answers from the Department of Justice.
You would not tolerate this kind of response time in a Justice Department investigation where months go by without answers and when those answers are finally provided they are outdated or superseded by events. That is not conducive to effective oversight.
No doubt Senator Leahy doesn't understand, with him being a real lawyer and all, but he's not going to get a response. Because Courtney Elwood has decided that this "legal" matter supercedes Congress' consitutional duty to exercise oversight.
Elwood was a Luttig and Rehnquist clerk. So I'm sure she's got nothing but the utmost respect for the law.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 09, 2007 at 10:01
And I'm not sure, but this seems to be Elwood trying to explain to reporter David Kris that Bush does have the ability to wiretap us.
Posted by: emptywheel | April 09, 2007 at 10:06
I hope Leahy and his cohorts are aware that the history of the "ongoing investigations" dodge is that it has been no barrier to Congressional inquiries.
As far back as Teapot Dome, courts have ruled that Congressional investigations are not limited by the fact that there are investigations or even court cases pending. In Sinclair v. United States (279 US 263 (1929)), the Supremes told us, "It may be conceded that Congress is without authority to compel disclosure for the purpose of aiding the prosecution of pending suits; but the authority of that body, directly or through its committees to require pertinent disclosures in aid of its own constitutional power is not abridged because the information sought to be elicited may also be of use in such suits."
Posted by: Kagro X | April 09, 2007 at 10:17
Actually, Kagro, I bet if we look, we can find no higher expert on such a concept than Dick Cheney, around about the time he intervened and fucked up Walsh's investigation.
Probably worth looking for...
Posted by: emptywheel | April 09, 2007 at 10:23
If history is any guide, Rove will roll out the "New Story" beginning with the AG's testimony. It doesn't matter that the "New Story" holds as little water as the old stories, it is simply a matter of throwing the Committee off its stride and buying another couple of months.
IANALly speaking, the idea that this is "legal" and so not subject to oversight is too lame even for the current White House. I have no idea what it might be, though (AG seems to favor the line that the political priorities are a relevant criterion for evaluating performance, so it might be an updated whiny version of the immigration canard -- this also seems lame, though.)
During all of the AG's preparations, I hope that the members of the Committee are each researching their own thread of the coverup that is arcane enough to have been overlooked by characters like Gillespie, but holds the possibility of unravelling a "New Story" before it can gain traction with the disinformation providers.
Posted by: MarkC | April 09, 2007 at 10:41
Marcy, I just sent an email to David Kris asking for the redacted email with a Cc to [email protected], and the Cc bounced. How do we contact you?
Posted by: anwaya | April 09, 2007 at 11:16
Since Abu can't seem to keep his story straight even in practice sesssions according to Newsweek, plan B seems to be gaining ground. Plan B would be to enhance the Goodling/McNulty perspective to add Abu to her list of people she misled. Abu can't get his story straight because it was her story.
And just what ingredients make Monica's brownies so special?
Posted by: mainsailset | April 09, 2007 at 11:21
anwaya
emptywheel at gmail dot com
Posted by: emptywheel | April 09, 2007 at 12:15
There are going to be a lot of appointments and budgets to hold up if this continues, as it is almost certain to.
Posted by: Mimikatz | April 09, 2007 at 13:21
So, they have Addington's assistant in the trenches defending Fredo now. Seems they have fewer and fewer competent people to call on to fill the lines.
This reminds me of the last few weeks before the Fall of Berlin. They stripped out the Luftwaffe units, handed their last remaining pilots rifles, and put them next to old men and small boys to face the Russian tanks rolling in from the East.
Shockingly high attrition rates in those last ditch units.
Posted by: Mark Levey | April 09, 2007 at 16:24
Mark Levey -- on another Blog, I have been making argument about the last days of the DDR's Stasi -- and as a result have been re-reading my stash of books and articles on the Stasi of the 1980's -- and all the diseases you can apply to the Bush Bubble Administration had their parallels there. Details that seem to be parallels make me giddy with laughs.
Posted by: Sara | April 09, 2007 at 17:46
smells like the subpoena you were smelling was emanating from a different and equally malodorous
investigation
Posted by: obsessed | April 10, 2007 at 14:46