Kkdoq6ejtoq9xs0cnqas

David Kurtz

David Kurtz is Managing Editor and Washington Bureau Chief of Talking Points Memo where he oversees the news operations of TPM and its sister sites.

Articles by David

A short time ago in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing at which Alberto Gonzales is appearing, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) posed the question we were pondering this morning: Did Karl Rove or his crew give political briefings to officials at the Justice Department, as they did at more than a dozen other departments and agencies?

Here is Kennedy's exchange with Gonzales:



So Gonzales claims he is not aware of any such briefings at DOJ, saying he thinks he would know about them if they had occurred (of course there's been a whole lot going on in his department that you would think Gonzales should know about but hasn't). As for whether such briefings elsewhere in the federal government violated the Hatch Act, Gonzales said, "We'll look to see whether or not there's something there." Left unsaid was that Gonzales was White House Counsel when some of the earliest briefings were being given.

You may have also noticed in the clip Kennedy's emphasis on today's WaPo report that Rove's political briefings were given to Peace Corps officials. That has to be a particularly bitter pill for Kennedy since the creation of the Peace Corps was one of the crowning accomplishments of his brother's presidency.

“We are going to try a dozen different things. Maybe one of them will flatline. One of them will do this much. One of them will do this much more. After a while, we believe there is chance you will head into success. I am not saying that we are absolutely headed for success.” --A senior U.S. military officer, quoted in The New York Times, on the new new New Way Forward in Iraq

Paul Kiel and Spencer Ackerman are live blogging the Alberto Gonzales hearing at TPMmuckraker, where they will have commentary and video highlights.

Here are the federal departments and agencies that have been confirmed as having received political briefings on U.S. domestic politics from Karl Rove's shop, courtesy of the Washington Post:

State Department

Treasury Department

Agriculture Department

Interior Department

Labor Department

Department of Education

Energy Department

Commerce Department

Department of Veterans Affairs

Transportation Department

Department of Health and Human Services

Department of Housing and Urban Development

General Services Administration

Environmental Protection Agency

NASA

Small Business Administration

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Office of National Drug Control Policy

U.S. Agency for International Development

Peace Corps


The Department of Homeland Security should probably be on the list, too, but DHS has been vague about what kind of briefing it received.

If you've seen reporting that suggests additions to the list, let us know. And if you have first-hand knowledge of unreported briefings, we'd certainly like to hear from you, too.

Here's a good question for Alberto Gonzales at today's hearing.

We already know that some 15 federal agencies and departments were subjected, at various times during the Bush Presidency, to briefings from Karl Rove's White House political shop on the key battleground races facing the GOP. In today's front page story in the Washington Post, we learn that even U.S. diplomats have been given Rovian briefings on GOP electoral priorities, as recently as January of this year.

What we don't know is whether Rove or his crew gave similar briefings to DOJ officials.

Will someone press the Attorney General on this point today? And if he doesn't know whether it happened, does he think it would have been appropriate if it did?

I'd been wondering lately about our old friend, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA). A year ago, Lewis was at the center of a widening federal investigation into congressional earmarks, lobbying practices, and the revolving door between congressional staff positions and DC lobbying firms. Then Los Angeles U.S. Attorney Debra Yang, whose office was leading the Lewis investigation, stepped down to enter private practice (with the firm representing Lewis); and San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam, whose conviction of then-Rep. Duke Cunningham spawned the Lewis probe, was canned in the U.S. Attorneys purge. Since then, things have been awfully quiet (whether that was by design remains to be determined).

Until now. CBS News is reporting about a questionable new Lewis earmark, this one on Capitol Hill itself. According to CBS, Lewis has earmarked $2.4 million since 2004 to Barracks Row, a commercial development on the Hill, just four blocks from a million-dollar home owned by Lewis' wife. With the infusion of federal dollars, property values in the area have been soaring, the network reports. There's also another lobbyist connection:

But CBS News has found another link between Lewis and Barracks Row: Tip Tipton, property owner and director of the redevelopment project. It turns out he's a top Washington lobbyist, and a longtime Lewis friend and donor.

He says Congressman Lewis only has the national interest at heart.

“It’s important that the area surrounding the Capitol look like an area that the United States citizens would be proud to show their neighbors and friends,” Tipton, who is [on] the Barracks Row Board of Directors, said.

Lewis wouldn't talk to us but in a statement said it's "ridiculous" to suggest he supports Barracks Row for any reason other than to help residents and visitors in a once-shabby area.


I missed ol' Jerry. Nice to have him back.

In response to our inquiries, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has issued a statement responding to the uproar over the letter from Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman to Sen. Hillary Clinton condemning her for reinforcing "enemy propaganda." Says Gates:

I have long been a staunch advocate of Congressional oversight, first at the CIA and now at the Defense Department. I have said on several occasions in recent months that I believe that congressional debate on Iraq has been constructive and appropriate. I had not seen Senator Clinton’s reply to Ambassador Edelman’s letter until today. I am looking into the issues she raised and will respond to them early next week.


I'd stop short of calling that a rebuke to Edelman, but just barely short. Greg, who has been dogging this story for the last couple of days, has more at Election Central.

How does the GOP record of obstruction in the Senate compare to past Congresses? McClatchy does the legwork to get the numbers:

Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes. If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes — 58 each in the two Congresses from 1999-2002, according to the Senate Historical Office.


McClatchy also puts the filibuster in historical context and notes that the Democrats used it more in recent years than in the past. In short, we've been on an upward trend for almost two decades, but the GOP is on pace to use the filibuster more than ever before in the history of the Senate.

TPM Reader TM digs deeper into President Bush's broad assertion of executive privilege:

I think David's point is an excellent one, but he doesn't sink the point home.

While everyone seems to recognize that some form of executive privilege exists, everyone also seems to agree that it doesn't really apply to federal agencies that are created by the Legislative Branch. The Attorney General, for instance, only has the powers he has due to Acts of Congress, and Congress can ask him any questions it wants to about holding him accountable for how he has used those powers and carried out acts of Congress. Getting straight answers is another story, but Congress has clear powers there.

But what if, "hypothetically", political appointees ostensibly accountable to Congress were either:

A) Puppets, taking orders from the White House, without regard or knowledge for why those decisions were being made; or

B) Pretend Puppets, feigning ignorance of how or why decisions were made, pointing the finger at the White House.

And in either case, the White House stonewalls, using claims of executive privilege to withhold information that could explain the actions of executive agencies clearly under the purview of Congressional oversight?

What we would have is the overthrow of de facto congressional oversight.

That's what this is all about.


I don't hold myself out as an expert on executive privilege, but I think TM is right that this is the most dire implication of the President's sweeping application of the theory of the unitary executive to executive privilege. And by "dire" I don't mean to suggest that it's a remote or speculative implication. It is very real.

However, I still maintain that in debating the scope of executive privilege as a policy matter, it concedes too much to say that of course the President can get good advice only if that advice is protected legally from congressional oversight. By then, you are already well down the slippery slope.

As you've probably seen already, President Bush today, for what must be the millionth time, asserted that failure in Iraq “would send an unmistakable signal to America’s enemies that our country can be bullied into retreat.”

To which TPM Reader MR replies:

I say what the rest of the world already knows, that failure in Iraq would send an unmistakable signal that no matter how well prepared your military is, it does you no good if your Commander in Chief over-rides the judgment of the military professionals and fires any general who dares to suggest anything that might be politically inconvenient for the President.


In the course of his comments, the President also criticized the Democrats for having a debate on Iraq while at the same time saying, "Our nation deserves a serious debate about Iraq."

I don't know about you, but that clears things up for me.

LiveWire