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

It's shaping up as perhaps the most crucial piece of testimony from Alberto Gonzales today in his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In explaining why he and then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card made a dramatic visit to the hospital bedside of a seriously ill Attorney General John Ashcroft, Gonzales points to a key meeting earlier that same day, March 10, 2004.

At that meeting, according to Gonzales, the bipartisan group of congressional leaders known as the Gang of Eight, which oversees the most sensitive aspects of the intelligence community, demanded that a top secret surveillance program (widely believed to be the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program) be continued despite the refusal of the Department of Justice to sign off on the legality of the program.

It was upon that basis, Gonzales says, that he and Card went to Ashcroft to present him with this important new information.

But tonight Democratic leaders who were at that meeting dispute Gonzales' version of events. Spencer Ackerman is reporting that Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi, at the time the Democratic minority leaders in the Senate and House respectively, dispute Gonzales' account. The Washington Post is likewise reporting that Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), the ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time, strongly takes issue with Gonzales' version of events.

Why would an embattled attorney general whose credibility is in tatters spin a version of events that others are in a position to debunk? That's not clear at this point. But if it comes down to which version of events to believe, who is going to believe Alberto Gonzales?

Since Alberto Gonzales has about as much credibility left as professional cycling, maybe it's no surprise that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are hinting that Gonzales may be subject to an inquiry into whether he perjured himself before the committee in denying that there was any serious dispute within the Justice Department about the legality of the President's warrantless wiretapping program. (Spencer Ackerman and Paul Kiel have the details.)

While it may not be surprising per se, think about what it means for the institutions of justice in this country that the sitting Attorney General of the United States is suspected of perjury, by senators from his own party, who are willing to say so publicly, in matters involving national security and the fundamental constitutional rights of American citizens; yet, the President does nothing but voice his support for man.

I suppose we should not be surprised, but we should also not lose our capacity to be outraged.

There were serious questions shortly after former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) was shipped off to prison about whether federal prosecutors had (or should have) secured Cunningham's ongoing cooperation as a condition of his plea agreement. At one point, the Pentagon's lead investigator in the case complained publicly about his access to Cunningham, and The New York Times reported that Cunningham was not cooperating.

But it appears that Cunningham is now cooperating, at least to some extent:

Cunningham arrived Sunday night in the custody of federal prison authorities, wore an orange jumpsuit and was placed in a fifth-floor special segregation unit in the downtown federal jail.

Law enforcement sources said Cunningham was brought to San Diego from a prison in Tucson, where he has been serving his sentence of eight years and four months, for follow-up interviews with federal prosecutors.

The prosecutors are preparing for three trials of Cunningham's alleged co-conspirators: Poway defense contractor Brent Wilkes, former CIA official Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, and New York mortgage broker John Michael.

Cunningham is expected to remain in San Diego until prosecutors are certain they no longer need his help to prepare for the trials, according to federal law enforcement sources who requested anonymity because they are not supposed to speak publicly about ongoing investigations.

His presence should not be interpreted to mean he has cooperated enough to earn a reduction in his sentence, the sources said.

That last line is telling. There may be some tension remaining, but over what and to what extent, remains unclear.

In a related matter, the San Diego Union-Tribune also reports that admitted Cunningham briber Thomas Kontogiannis is also cooperating with the feds in the upcoming trials. His cooperation did not appear to be a condition of his guilty plea either.

Alberto Gonzales really is a national embarrassment. Even Arlen Specter displays a sneering contempt for the man. And that was before Gonzales began today's soft-shoe shuffle in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

How many U.S. Attorneys has he fired? He's not sure.

Why is he the man to fix the department he broke? That's a good question, he admits.

Why didn't the President's new executive order on torture specifically ban waterboarding? "[S]ome acts are clearly beyond the pale, and that everyone would agree should be prohibited," he testified. "There are certain other activities where it is not so clear, Senator."

And so on.

We have ongoing coverage of the hearing at TPMmuckraker.

Law professor Frank Askin has more on the history of Congress' inherent power to enforce its own contempt citations.

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


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?