by emptywheel
Aside from the fact that he is currently overseeing the slow collapse of VA's GOP party? After all if Ed Gillespie does--as rumors suggest--take over where Dan Bartlett left off, then the VA GOP might have a much better shot at retaining John Warner's seat after he retires.
But I'd like to ask a different question. Why bring back a guy who, when the Republicans were about to get caught for illegally tampering with an election, played the fix-it and firewall role perfectly (well, kinda). I'm speaking, of course, about the New Hampshire phone-jamming scandal, in which Gillespie took all responsibility for the decision to pay James Tobin's legal bills, even though it's fairly clear the White House (the same White House that Tobin had called repeatedly during his phone-jamming operation) bought off on the decision too.
So here's the whole story as Gillespie tells it. He made an arbitrary decision that the RNC would cover Tobin's legal bills. Why? Because "it's the custom, not written anywhere, that you covered your people." - (N.B. according to Ken Mehlman, the RNC has since revoked this honorable, unwritten custom: "consulting contracts now explicitly declare that independent contractors must be prepared to pay their own legal costs in civil and criminal cases.") Having made that decision, he then informed someone at the White House, he can't remember who, that he was going to abide by this unwritten rule. But this was just a heads up, a courtesy, not a dialogue. It was non-negotiable.
Of course, Gillespie's forgetful stance looked dorky when he took it last May. But now that Tobin's conviction got thrown out because of the flawed language the NH USA used in the jury instructions, it looks downright brilliant. The GOP, caught red-handed trying to disrupt an election, is now off mostly scott-free. And those high ranking Republicans who were taking Tobin's calls to the White House as he decided what to do with his phone jamming scandal--people like Ken Mehlman? Off scott-free, too.
Which all suggests a guy like Gillespie could come in handy again, now that the Judiciary investigations have nowhere else to go but to Karl Rove, Scott Jennings, the recently-departed Sara Taylor, and the long-departed Harriet Miers (presumably some of the same folks who signed off on paying Tobin's legal bills). After all, it's just about the same kind of issue, right? Trying to explain away the calls people like Pat Rogers or Allen Weh made to the White House to fire USAs because they wouldn't tamper with elections? Trying to explain away the increasingly apparent plan to use the Justice Department to interfere with elections? It will all seem so familiar to Gillespie.
And of course Gillespie will waste no time coming up to speed, since he had the difficult task of prepping Gonzales for his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing back in April.
All of which makes the timing of Dan Bartlett's departure all the more interesting. After all, the same day that Bartlett announced his departure, Gonzales called a press conference to announce he was going to "sprint to the finish line" and serve as AG through the rest of Bush's term.
Did Bush have to choose between Bartlett and Fredo?
Bizarre. Brazen. Criminal. Traitors.
Posted by: John B. | June 04, 2007 at 09:17
WAS IT THIS US ATTORNEY?
The head US Attorney for the District of NH is Thomas P. Colantuono, appointed to his post by George W. Bush in 2001. *
In the 2004 Presidential campaign, Colantuono's wife made election-law news (Concord Monitor, October, 2004):
It's illegal for clergy to campaign for a candidate on church property, but that didn't stop a staffer for the Republican National Committee from soliciting help re-electing President Bush last week.
In an e-mail to "pastors, church leaders and ministries,"Pam Colantuono, wife of Tom Colantuono (a Bush-appointed U.S. attorney for New Hampshire), asked clergy for help getting a pro-Bush flier to parishioners. Colantuono was clear about how priests could do this without breaking the law.
"Please place these in your parking lot, or when you have a church activity have someone hand them out outside the church. This is very important," the e-mail read. It continued in bold letters: "Pastors, do not display within the church and make sure you are not handing these out personally within your church. Assign someone to do this for you. We want to protect you."
(Monica was doing the interviewing then -- maybe Ed had something to do with this appointment - another stellar lawman.)
Posted by: Maeme | June 04, 2007 at 09:19
I have been unable to keep mental track of Bartlett. He seems to me to be the guy who is never in the room when anything happens. I don't know if this impression is valid, but it would jive with the choice with Gonzo. Finally the Decider's role in continuing this death spiral may have tipped off Bartlett that maybe something was up.
Reminds me of my own naive self finally discovering, at the old age of 20, that other people (besides myself) lie.
Posted by: TomJ | June 04, 2007 at 10:45
Hi EW.
apologies for OT question, but does anyone know if/why FDL AND Huffington are both "down" right now? Or is it my local connection. arrrrggghhhh!?!
Posted by: Adie | June 04, 2007 at 11:20
May well be your local, I'm on FDL fine right now.
Posted by: emptywheel | June 04, 2007 at 11:27
thanks much!
DANG! we're being switched from defunct adelphia to hyper warner in these parts. right now not funny. not fun. not at all a'tall!!!
i'll get my smart hubby to reboot & yank those hamsters awake again. ;->
Posted by: Adie | June 04, 2007 at 11:31
EW - its 'scot-free' not 'scott-free'
Posted by: Lurcher | June 04, 2007 at 12:05
Damnit. I had scot and changed it. Will change it back when I get to DC.
Posted by: emptywheel | June 04, 2007 at 12:15
What a great question! "Did Bush have to choose between Bartlett and Fredo?"
You might think Gillespie's work as Swiftboat Group counsel would conflict him out as President's counsel but no, it qualifies him.
Posted by: Neil | June 04, 2007 at 12:55
Somewhat Off Topic, but right in the Same City of WA-DC and on the Same Day, which will be tomorrow:
Schlozman hearing tomorrow; LAT's meandering new journalism describes the anticipated hearing as about the USA in MO, but I think the first link, to Legal Times, is equally accurate in depicting the coverage as going to examine the politicization of career bureaucracy in DoJ civil rights section. I follow these topics in a desultory way; here is more about the purge at the civil-voting rights section from epluribusmedia, who also published a helpful compendium of the specifics of what happened in 2003-2005 in the voter rights section of DoJ there.
Posted by: John Lopresti | June 04, 2007 at 13:04
I still think Bartlett sees that Bush is going off his rocker and doesn't want to be around when it all falls apart completely.
It is hard to believe that someone around Bush for that long could actually have a line he wouldn't cross, but who knows.
Gillespie is a great choice for them. Right in his element, as you point out, with such transferable skills.
Posted by: Mimikatz | June 04, 2007 at 13:43
I see putting Gillespie in the Executive Branch as either a serious misstep or a serious Cheney yourself to the rest of the world.
Misstep) Replacing Bush's reported 'son he never had' with a political operative.
Cheney yourself) Hey we don't need to worry about election fraud and all those petty details - Hey they couldn't even get the charges right (aside: I just wonder why).
Not nice either way.
Posted by: Sailmaker | June 04, 2007 at 19:43
There are only so many "made" men. We all know that they are barely staying one step ahead of impeachment/incarceration, so it was imperative to bring back a "Bushie".
No one who wasn't neck deep in unlawful activities would could within a stone's throw of this crowd right now, it's the career kiss of death.
Posted by: Urban Pirate | June 13, 2007 at 11:56