As I've mentioned, we're working on a redesign of this site. And that process has meant putting a lot of time into thinking about web design. Not just the pure aesthetics of what looks nice or doesn't -- but how news reporting and political writing can best be arranged on a page.
One thing that recently occurred to me -- obvious, but it had never occurred to me -- is how print newspapers are highly formulaic in their graphic presentation. They're pretty much all the same with relatively minor differences at the margins. There's the tabloid and the broadsheet. But within those two broad categories the basic way layout is remarkably similar -- at least in comparison to the wild variety of modes of presentation on the web. To get some examples, see this page from Newseum, which shows daily front pages of hundreds of newspapers around the country and around the world.
I bring all this up because there are two questions I want to throw out there. One is, which papers do you think are the best designed ones on the web? The second is a bit broader. Is a basic formula emerging for publishing 'newspapers' on the web? Are certain idioms and styles becoming more and more common while fewer and fewer papers diverge radically from the standard model?
For my money, the New York Times is a very nicely designed site. The Post, on the other hand, just a did a limited redesign. And I think the result is disappointing. They tried to make the front page less busy and add more white space. But the result has an oddly unsegmented and ordered quality. And the fonts seem lifeless. (Yes, you can tell I've been thinking a lot about news site design.)
One of the design issues that interests me most about newspapers online is how you recapture the topical serendipity that is a lot of the magic of real newsprint. As you'd probably expect, I gravitate pretty heavily toward political coverage. And in doing so I miss a lot of stuff I don't know I want to read. I want to read that story on such and such in India or ... well, I don't know what it is. That's the point. But I want to read it. And it will enrich my day and turn my mind in different directions. Newsprint has that quality that you see these pieces sitting alongside the articles you're accustomed to reading. There are various ways designers try to capture this experience online -- mostly by putting collections of story links adjacent to the article you're reading. But somehow it's not quite the same.
Your thoughts about newspaper design online? And what do you think -- setting aside the underlying quality of the journalism -- is the best designed newspaper website?
--Josh Marshall
Jonathan Landay explores the curious case of Amir Mohamed Meshal, a U.S. citizen with alleged, albeit obscure, ties to al Qaeda who fled the fighting in Somalia earlier this year, was detained upon his arrival in Kenya, reportedly with U.S. help, and was subsequently deported to Ethiopia, where he now sits in a secret prison in the custody of Ethiopia's intelligence service, even though the FBI interviewed him twice and declined to pursue charges. Confused? Landay maps out what is known to this point about the status of the 24-year-old from New Jersey.
--David Kurtz
As anyone who has paid a lick of attention to the U.S. Attorney scandal knows, it is just one example--perhaps the most egregious example--of the Bush Administration's deep and widespread politicization of the Justice Department:
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.The pattern from Bush's second term suggests that the dismissals were half of a two-pronged approach: While getting rid of prosecutors who did not adhere closely to administration priorities, such as rigorous enforcement of immigration violations and GOP allegations of voter fraud, White House and Justice officials also have seeded federal prosecutors' offices with people on whom they can depend to carry out the administration's agenda.
--David Kurtz
Judith Miller: The media should have "hung together" instead of caving in to Patrick Fitzgerald's subpoenas.
--David Kurtz
The Bush Administration is ratcheting up the pressure on Syria:
The State Department in recent weeks has issued a series of rhetorical broadsides against Syria, using language harsher than that usually reserved for U.S. adversaries. On Friday, the administration criticized a planned visit there by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif."It's the new Cuba - no language is too tough," said one of the officials, who like others insisted on anonymity to discuss internal government planning.
The campaign appears to fly in the face of the recommendations last December of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which urged President Bush to engage diplomatically with Syria to stabilize Iraq and address the Arab-Israeli conflict. The White House largely ignored that recommendation, agreeing only to talk with Syria about Iraqi refugees and to attend a Baghdad conference where envoys from Iran and Syria were present.
Some officials who are aware of the campaign say they fear its real aim is to weaken or even overthrow Assad and to ensure that he can't thwart the creation of an international tribunal to investigate the February 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. A U.N. report has implicated Syrian and Lebanese officials in the murder.
The officials say the campaign bears the imprint of Elliott Abrams, a conservative White House aide in charge of pushing Bush's global democracy agenda.
Elliott Abrams--with the way Republicans rehabilitate their own, Kyle Sampson will be attorney general in 20 years.
--David Kurtz
You only get one chance to hold on to your credibility. My team, which holds temporary custody of the Department of Justice, has blown it in this case. The Department of Justice will be paying for it for some time to come. Lots of sound investigations and convictions are now going to be questioned. That is a crying shame, because most of the 110,000 employees to whom the attorney general referred in a recent news conference, are neutral, nonpartisan public servants and do incredible work. A lot of President Bush's political appointees have done a lot of great work, too. Sadly, because of the damage done by this protracted scandal, which the administration has handled poorly at every turn, none of that good work is currently being recognized. And more ominously, the credibility of the Department of Justice may no longer be, either.
--David Kurtz
David Broder, September 4th, 2005, six days after Katrina's landfall ...
It took almost no time for President Bush to put his stamp on the national response to the tragedy that has befallen New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, a reminder that modern communications have reshaped the constitutional division of powers in our government in ways that the Founding Fathers never could have imagined.Because the commander in chief is also the communicator in chief, when a crisis emerges the nation's eyes turn to him as to no other official. We cannot yet calculate the political fallout from Hurricane Katrina and its devastating human and economic consequences, but one thing seems certain: It makes the previous signs of political weakness for Bush, measured in record-low job approval ratings, instantly irrelevant and opens new opportunities for him to regain his standing with the public.
We have seen this before. Bill Clinton was foundering in his third year in office when the destruction of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City shocked the nation and set the stage for his flawless performance of the symbolic rites of healing and comfort for the victims.
--Josh Marshall
The case of Gitmo detainee David Hicks of Australia is a travesty on so many levels, but consider the following terms of his plea bargain:
The deal included a statement by Mr. Hicks that he “has never been illegally treated” while a captive, despite claims of beatings he had made in the past. It also included a promise not to pursue suits over the treatment he received while in detention and “not to communicate in any way with the media” for a year.Critics said those requirements were a continuation of what they say has been a pattern of illegal detention policies. “It is a modern cutting out of his tongue,” said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a legal advocacy group, based in New York, that is coordinating the representation of detainees in many suits challenging Guantánamo detention.
What we have here is a plea bargain in which the government leverages its vast control over the life, liberty, and body of the defendant to obtain for itself a release from potential liability for its own conduct and a one-year protection from bad PR. Truth, justice, and the Gitmo way.
--David Kurtz
WaPo:
Federal prosecutors have told Bernard B. Kerik, whose nomination as homeland security secretary in 2004 ended in scandal, that he is likely to be charged with several felonies, including tax evasion and conspiracy to commit wiretapping.Kerik's indictment could set the stage for a courtroom battle that would draw attention to Kerik's extensive business and political dealings with former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who personally recommended him to President Bush for the Cabinet. Giuliani, the front-runner for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination according to most polls, later called the recommendation a mistake.
Mistakes were made.
--David Kurtz
As I wrote a few days ago, Cunningham briber Mitchell Wade often bragged about his juice with Vice President Dick Cheney. Now Laura Rozen has more on the Wade-Cheney connection.
--Josh Marshall
In an interview, James Carville responds to the liberal blogosphere's case that he should be identified as a Hillary supporter when he criticizes Barack Obama on CNN.
--Greg Sargent
Howard Dean proving he can win over major Democratic contributors once intensely skeptical of his tenure as DNC chair.
--Greg Sargent
Another hearing to look forward to. Dems want to hear from Karl Rove's (and Jack Abramoff's) former aide, Susan Ralston.
--Paul Kiel
There's a lot of speculation now about what might have spooked the White House about Carol Lam's expanded Cunningham investigation, if indeed that is why she was sacked. There's good reason to look at what she was investigating on Capitol Hill and also at the CIA. Indeed, some have even suggested that the White House might itself have been brought into the mix. The Hill and the CIA certainly. But there's another part of the equation others are missing: the Pentagon.
Remember, part of the brilliance of Cunningham's and Wilkes' scam (if that word can ever be associated with the disgraced Duke) was hiding their crooked deals deep in the black parts of the Pentagon budget, where thick layers of classification protected their schemes from virtually all scrutiny.
My reporting on the Duke Cunningham story from last year suggested that top political appointees at the Pentagon were aware of what Duke and other members of Congress were up to but looked the other way in return for help 
and/or non-interference with various Pentagon programs of dubious constitutionality, like domestic spying operations and monitoring.
Next up, whatever happened to Tommy Kontogiannis? He's one of the four bribers of Duke Cunningham, according to Duke plea agreement (coconspirator #3). Whatever else you can say about Cunningham, Wade and Wilkes, they each had clean records before they got busted in the Duke scandal. Not Kontogiannis. He pled out in a 2002 bid-rigging scheme that had to do with computers contracts for the Queens, New York school district. And back in 1994 he pled guilty in a visa fraud case after he and an employee of the US Embassy in Athens were arrested for taking bribes to provide phony US visas.
Out of the four named coconspirators in the case (one of whom is Kontogiannis's nephew, John T. Michael), Kontogiannis is the only one who hasn't been indicted. Nor, according to my reporting, does any plea deal or indictment appear to be in the works. What's that about?
--Josh Marshall
Sigh. Bush Fish and Wildlife Service appointee not only sends internal government reports to industry lobbyists but also to online gaming 'virtual friend' for unbiased second opinion.
--Josh Marshall
Check out our new and improved chart comparing Iraq votes -- this time with Joe Lieberman's votes added to the mix.
--Greg Sargent
President Bush says the Iraq/Afghanistan emergency budget supplemental is needed by mid-April or funding for the US troops in those countries will run out. A new Congressional Research Service report says that's not true. Current funds could last them through July. (ed.note: The news report is behind the subscription wall of NJ Congress Daily.)
--Josh Marshall
Radar Mag: Creeping Carneyism! This week's Time mag has no US Attorney Purge coverage.
--Josh Marshall
As we've sought to explain over recent weeks, the US Attorney Purge story connects to another extremely important story -- the way the Bush administration has moved, on political and legal fronts, to use bogus 'vote fraud' claims to depress (particularly minority) voter turnout. At least two of these US Attorneys were canned because they wouldn't make themselves partisan tools in that effort. Now ex-DOJ officials are coming forward to explain how Bush administration appointees at DOJ have been using their enforcement powers to shift election outcomes.
Definitely give this a look. There's a lot more here.
--Josh Marshall
So who's been better on Iraq over the years, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?
Check out our massive and handy chart comparing all their votes on the war and decide for yourself.
--Greg Sargent
On the New Mexico indictment noted below, TPM Reader LS writes in ...
Did I miss the 'voter fraud' part?That's the issue Domenici was floating, I thought. This seems like a kickback case...I didn't see the voter fraud part.
Here's the answer I sent LS ...
To the best of my knowledge, two separate issues. The history of complaints re: Iglesias from Domenici and Republicans in the state was about his failure to pursue vote fraud allegations stemming from the 2004 election. The particular issue with those two calls was about this case -- political corruption, but not vote fraud. Sampson's argument yesterday was that it was that general complaint about lax vote fraud enforcement that got him canned.Late Update: In response to this TPM Reader SB writes in ...
There may be another issue of timing to yesterday's indictment of Aragon. The timing of the indictment, at the same time the hearings are going on, gives off the impression that Iglesias' replacement is saying "See, something WAS going on all along". Who's to say the indictments aren't premature now and won't be thrown out next month. Another example of this Administration's total lack of finesse when it comes to how what they do looks or sounds.
Maybe. This is a good example of one of the many reasons why political appointees and members of Congress shouldn't start trying to game criminal indictments. Once you start mucking around, politicizing the process, it's very hard to restore any faith that indictments aren't being used as proxies for spin and electioneering. Having said that, there's plenty of wrongdoing in this scandal for which we have plenty of evidence. I'll assume this is on the level until I see evidence that suggests otherwise.
--Josh Marshall
A lot of people have noted today's news that New Mexico Democrat Manny Aragon was indicted yesterday by the guy who replaced David Iglesias. This was the indictment that Sen. Domenici (R-NM) and Rep. Wilson (R-NM) wanted Iglesias to pop before the November election, to help Wilson head off the challenge from Democrat Patricia Madrid.
Now, the first thing to say is that I don't know enough about the particulars of the Aragon case to comment on it specifically. But I will say that my assumption has always been that Iglesias was investigating this case as a very real and serious criminal inquiry and probably intended eventually to bring indictments. The article notes that three of the four people indicted had actually reached sealed plea deals earlier this year. So those may actually have been secured during Iglesias's tenure.
However that may be, I would caution people against jumping to the conclusion that Iglesias's successor has brought an indictment that Iglesias himself was unwilling to seek. Given how much wrongdoing we've found in this story I wouldn't say it's impossible either. But my impression has always been that the issue here was timing. Domenici and Wilson wanted Iglesias to rush an indictment in time for the election to help Wilson hold on to her House seat. He refused.
If we hear anything that indicates otherwise, we'll let you know.
--Josh Marshall
Your media. Behold the wit and wisdom of columnist Margaret Carlson on Bill Clinton:
"Only Hillary thinks he has changed his ways."
Update: Don't miss the exchange on video, where the buffoonery really shines.
--Greg Sargent
More muck on Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons (R), courtesy of The Wall Street Journal.
--Paul Kiel
House Dems strike deal for private testimony from Justice Department officials.
--Paul Kiel
Today's Must Read: who will emerge as the most shameless hack of the Bush administration? A little known Bush appointee at the Fish and Wildlife Service vies for the title.
--Paul Kiel
A little more info on Tim Griffin, the Rove protege who was installed as the US Attorney in Arkansas ..
If you're interested in reading Josh Green's Atlantic article on oppo researchers mentioned in the video, click here.
--Josh Marshall
A question from TPM Reader PE: "Did Sampson ever explain how names got put on the list? Who was responsible for that? It seems he just kept saying he just kept the list."
No. No. And you're right.
A slightly longer answer would be that on every delicate particular Sampson said that he was collecting viewpoints from various administration officials about their views on particular US Attorneys but that he couldn't remember specifics and that no one issue was ever determinative. He also said whatever records or notes he kept about the process likely no longer exist.
--Josh Marshall
Remember San Diego FBI chief Dan Dzwilewski? He's the one who said he "guaranteed[d]" politics was at the bottom of Carol Lam's firing and that her dismissal would adversely affect her public corruption investigations. He just announced he's resigning from the Bureau.
--Josh Marshall
Back in 2000, did Patriot Act-appointed US Attorney Tim Griffin really say he makes the bullets in the war against Democrats? Stay tuned.
--Josh Marshall
It's interesting. There's certainly no question that on balance the Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee have been more critical and aggressive than the Republicans. But most of the latter have at least gone through the motions of taking Sampson's bad acts seriously. Some I think more than that. Certainly Specter. I'd even say Sessions and Kyl have asked some solid questions. But no one has been as shameless and undignified as Sampson's former employer, Sen. Hatch (R-UT), even including clear false statements. I mean, his sheer lickspittlehood is bracing in its magnitude and scope.
--Josh Marshall
Check out the comments section of this post at TPMCafe. Two giants of progressive organizing discuss what went wrong over the last 30 years.
--Andrew Golis
Coming this evening: did the Rumsfeld Pentagon also get a pass on the Cunningham investigation?
--Josh Marshall
Attention all chumps who think that Carol Lam was canned for not following administration immigration enforcement policy. Sampson has just confirmed that for all their deep concern about her border enforcement policy, no one from the DOJ ever raised the issue with Lam. Ever. That's what Sampson says.
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Leahy (D-VT) gets an answer out of Sampson on why Iglesias was fired: not aggressive enough pursuing (bogus) voter fraud accusations from Republicans.
--Josh Marshall
Gotta tell ya. Still waiting to hear this question: If the Department of Justice's problem with Carol Lam was her immigration enforcement policy, why did no one from the Department of Justice ever raise the issue with Lam? I'd hate to see this hearing end without that very germane question ever being asked.
--Josh Marshall
Memo to Time's Rick Stengel: Here's still more clear evidence that the idea that the public doesn't want aggressive Dem probes of GOP is totally bogus.
--Greg Sargent
New poll: More Americans think the Democratic Party is the one with "stronger" and "better" leaders.
--Greg Sargent
Sampson very, very carefully explains Karl Rove's role in the appointment of GOP oppo research Tim Griffin as US Attorney.
--Josh Marshall
Breaking: Republicans put the kibosh on Sampson hearing? More soon. See video here.
Late Update: Kibosh now removed.
--Josh Marshall
Sampson: Arizona US Attorney Charlton fired because of difference of opinion over recorded confessions and death penalty, not his on-going criminal investigation of sitting Republican member of Congress. Also not about poor performance, as originally claimed.
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) makes a very good point. The prosecutor firings and replacements just happen to be in all the key 2008 swing states, and not in any states that are safe for either party -- with the exception of California, where the Lam -Cunningham investigation is. Why do you think that would be?
--Josh Marshall
Read the letter the head of the US border control field office sent to Carol Lam. This is the subtext of Sen. Feinstein's (D-CA) question below.
--Josh Marshall
A question I haven't heard yet and really want to hear: If immigration was the problem with Lam, why didn't anybody at the Justice Department ever raise the issue with her?
--Josh Marshall
Feinstein gets some more information from Sampson about Carol Lam's firing.
--Josh Marshall
To evaluate the DOJ's credibility on the various explanations for the firings, a good place to start is this November 21st 2006 email in which DOJ officials brainstorm about rationales for the firings. One pipes up: "The one common link here is that three of them are along the southern border so you could make the connection that DoJ is unhappy with the immigration prosecution numbers in those districts."
--Josh Marshall
Hatch hatches a whopper. Sen. Hatch (R-UT) just said that the positive performance evaluations for the US Attorney that people have been referring to were purely statistical in nature. That's false.
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Specter (R-PA) asks Sampson what the "real problem" was with Carol Lam.
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Hatch (R-UT) is now questioning Mr. Sampson. Remember, Sampson used to work for Hatch.
--Josh Marshall
Mr. Sampson is now saying that he believes that US Attorneys should follow the president's policy priorities. But he won't answer why certain US Attorneys were fired for not prosecuting Democrats for what turned out to be bogus claims of voter fraud or using their prosecutorial powers to turn a congressional election, as occurred in New Mexico. Hopefully he'll be pressed on this.
--Josh Marshall
Senate passes Iraq bill.
For the first time, both Houses of Congress have voted for withdrawal from Iraq.
--Greg Sargent
Muckraker's got running coverage of the Sampson hearing this morning. But here are some questions I'll be listening for from the senators. 1) Did anyone from the Department of Justice speak to Carol Lam about the Department's alleged concerns about her immigration enforcement policy? Lam says no one ever did. Did she lie? 2) Is it true that the Department of Justice long delayed okaying the indictments of Rep. Cunningham, Brent Wilkes and Dusty Foggo? 3) Did Lam's corruption investigations ever come up in the context of the debate over her dismissal?
Given the context of these questions, they could and should of course be more tightly and narrowly tailored. But that's the essence of them.
--Josh Marshall
We'll be providing running updates on the Senate hearing with Kyle Sampson, which just started, here.
--Paul Kiel
Today's Must Read: a taste of Kyle Sampson's testimony. Turns out the Attorney General isn't so good with words.
Update: Here are some key things to look for in Sampson's testimony.
--Paul Kiel
So who's behind the anti-David Iglesias radio ad now running in New Mexico?
The website of the group running the ad, New Mexicans for Honest Courts, says that the group's chairman is Linda Chavez Krumland.
Krumland was an at-large delegate to the 2004 Republican National Convention.
FEC records show, not surprisingly, that Krumland is a major contributor to Republican candidates in New Mexico. And she lists her business as Roswell Toyota.
A year ago, Krumland's husband Tom -- also a 2004 RNC delegate -- got in a heap of trouble after he and state Rep. Dan Foley tricked the New Mexico state National Guard into arranging an F-16 flyover to mark the opening of his new dealership. When first confronted about the scam, Krumland said, “If we offended anybody, then they’re unpatriotic.” As the controversy continued to grow, he eventually was forced to apologize.
In any case, you can see the Krumlands seem to be real pieces of work.
There's probably more to find out about New Mexicans for Honest Courts and the Krumlands. If your sleuthing bears fruit, let us know.
--Josh Marshall
Just in time -- an oped in the Washington Post explaining what everyone who's really studied the subject knows: that the GOP 'voter fraud' claims are themselves a fraud. The whole thing is a scam designed to make it harder for people -- especially members of minority groups -- to vote.
--Josh Marshall
The corruption runs very, very deep. Hear the radio attack ad Republicans are running against David Iglesias in New Mexico. Some weird mix of parody and infamy. But give it a listen. As I said, the depth of the moral corruption of the GOP at the moment is profound. And it shows itself in both the contemporary (bribery and self-dealing) and Early Modern (bodily and moral decay) senses of the word.
--Josh Marshall
Before Mr. Sampson goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow, let's 
get one big chunk of administration bamboozlement out of the way. In a much-quoted passage from the prepared remarks he'll deliver tomorrow, Sampson says "The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial."
This use of the word 'political' is at the heart of Sampson's and others effort to lie their way out of what happened here.
'Political' can mean many things in different contexts. US Attorneys are 'political' appointees, in that they are overwhelmingly, though not exclusively, drawn from among the president's political supporters. They are also subject to 'political' direction, in that they are expected to follow the administration's law enforcement priorities -- more or less gun prosecutions, crack downs on dead beat dads or pornography, etc.
Neither of these meanings of the word 'political' are what this investigation is about. And, like others, Sampson is using these multiple meanings of the word as a dodge. The charge against Sampson and crew is not that they fired them for 'political' reasons. The charge is that they fired these prosecutors for not using their law enforcement powers to help the Republican party.
Set aside for the moment whether the charge is proven or whether you think it's true. That is the charge. That's what this is about.
The evidence with respect to John McKay in Washington state and David Iglesias in New Mexico is copious and overwhelming. They were fired because Republicans in their states were angry they weren't seeking indictments against Democrats over bogus claims of voter fraud -- claims which are themselves cudgels in the GOP political arsenal. In the case of Iglesias his unwillingness to use his prosecutorial powers to turn a congressional election in the Republicans' favor also played a key, perhaps the decisive role. In the case of Carol Lam, the case remains circumstantial though very strong that she was fired for pursuing the expanded Cunningham investigation.
In the cases of the other US Attorneys it is not always clear precisely why they were fired. In a case like Arizona, scuttling an investigation into a Republican congressman seems a reasonable hypothesis. But we don't know enough to say. Yet in those cases where we lack clear evidence of a partisan political aim behind the firing, the lack of any other credible explanation and the clear-cut cases of McKay, Iglesias and Lam make an assumption of wrongdoing reasonable and the need for further scrutiny unquestionable.
But this is getting ahead of ourselves. This is all about the investigation and what it may or may not uncover. But Sampson's claim and conceit is not so much that he and his crew are innocent of the charge but that the charge doesn't even really exist, that it's all just a misunderstanding or a witch-hunt. What he did is fine, he says. The problem is just the "confusion, misunderstanding and embarrassment" caused by how the thing was handled.
So, have your eyes out for Sampson's word play and games. This investigation is about whether Sampson and his crew corrupted the justice system by purging US Attorneys who wouldn't use their prosecutorial powers to help the Republican party.
--Josh Marshall
GQ gets a Q&A with canned New Mexico US Attorney David Iglesias.
A few choice nuggets: Mike Battle, the apparently apolitical former Director of the Executive Office of the United States Attorney, was the one who actually placed the firing calls to the seven US Attorneys. During Iglesias's call, Iglesias asked Battle what was going on. "I don't know, and I don't wanna know. All I know is that this came from on high," Battle told Iglesias.
Battle resigned his post in early February.
One telling question and answer ...
Q: Do you feel as if this scandal is of a piece with how the White House seems to view executive power? There's been the unitary executive theory, the suspension of habeas corpus…A: Which you can do during wartime and not get the court's restrictive powers. You can do that when your party has the House and Senate. But—and I don't think the White House factored this in enough—there was a significant sea change when the Democrats came back to power last November. The White House wasn't used to any real Congressional oversight because there hadn't been for any for six years.
And another ...
Q: Do you still consider yourself a Republican?A: Yes.
Q: Do you consider the people in the White House to be Republicans?
A: I think they've lost their way. They've lost their moral compass. On paper, we would probably be in agreement on most of the major issues, but in terms of actual practice and treating people fairly and respectfully and decently, I've lost my faith in our leadership.
--Josh Marshall
Not good, not good. The White House Counsel's Office gave explicit sign off to the DOJ's letter falsely claiming Rove and Miers played no role in Tim Griffin's appointment as US Attorney. And the sign off came from Chris Oprison, the guy at the Counsel's office who Sampson had told about Rove's and Miers' role only a couple months earlier.
--Josh Marshall
Hmmm. Looks like the new document dump may contain some bad emails for the White House. More soon.
--Josh Marshall
Interesting. In Newsweek, Mike Isikoff notes that Karl Rove is one of the recipients of an email Sen. Domenici's Chief of Staff, Steve Bell, sent on January 8th thanking Rove and two other White House aides for help getting Iglesias replaced. "Thanks for everything," writes Bell.
The direct reference in the email is to Iglesias's possible successors. But the context definitely suggests a role in the firing itself.
Here's the email Isikoff is talking about.
--Josh Marshall
According to the AP, in his prepared remarks, Kyle Sampson will tell the senate Judiciary Committee: "The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial."
--Josh Marshall
New mini-document dump just out from the Department of Justice -- and just in time for tomorrow's Kyle Sampson testimony.
They appear to clearly show that Sampson attempted to mislead Congress by proxy -- that is to say, he gave false information to DOJ officials who were preparing to provide information to Congress.
Update: And it looks like those false statements were cleared by the White House.
--Josh Marshall
Dems make another approach to the White House for discussions over the U.S. attorney investigation.
--Paul Kiel
Time managing editor Rick Stengel speaks: Dems should be wary of aggressively probing Karl Rove, lest they be seen as "obsessively concerned with settling scores."
--Greg Sargent
You've never seen such a tongue-tied witness. Here's a clip from this morning's House hearing with GSA party-hack-in-chief Lurita Doan.
--Paul Kiel
In advance of tomorrow's testimony by arch-Purgemeister and former Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson, we're trying to assemble all the relevant information together so you can best understand and interpret just what Sampson says and whether and how it comports with the facts as they are presently known.
One part of the story which is coming into focus pretty quickly is the position of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and the coterie around Gonzales himself.
McNulty was the one who went up to the Hill and said the firings were for poor performance. But McNulty has since told Sen. Schumer that he explicitly asked Goodling and others, who were briefing him for his testimony, various questions about what had happened in the attorney firings and that they lied to him. 'Misled' him might be the term of art. But the key point from what McNulty is saying is that if he misled Congress it wasn't intentionally. It was because Goodling et al. misled him. If true, that would be a crime. And that's almost certainly the real reason Goodling will take the fifth when called to testify.
In any case, we're going to have all this information laid out for you in time for the big event tomorrow. And with so much muck around, that reminds me that our DC Muckraking Fundraiser (for details click here) continues!
If you want to help us hire new DC reporter-bloggers to help rake all the muck that looks certain to pile up this year, click on the button below to make a contribution online or click here for instructions on contributing by mail.
--Josh Marshall
Dobson gives the thumbs down to a Fred Thompson candidacy. "I don't think he's a Christian."
--Josh Marshall