There you go. Another small fish about to get indicted in the Abramoff investigtion. This time it’s Italia Federici. But what about the big fish in that one? Sure Jack himself is going to do serious time. And Bob Ney is already in the slammer for a relatively short stint. But for all the very real consternation about the eight fired US Attorneys and the Cunningham probe, in many ways, the Abramoff investigation is really the dog that never barked. What about Tom DeLay’s fixer Ed Buckham? What about Tom DeLay for that matter? And the other members of Congress implicated in the scandal? The prosecutorial turnover in the Abramoff scandal bears a lot more attention, as does the current US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeffrey A. Taylor.

And here’s a bonus for you guys in the White House press corps. When do we get to see those pictures of Vice President Cheney with alleged Cunningham briber Brent Wilkes? Maybe it’s time for someone up there to put in the question.

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell confirms her scoop: GOP Senators privately say they’ll withdraw support for the war if the “surge” doesn’t show progress by late August.

I’m not sure why no one brings this up. The president keeps saying that the Democrats are substituting their judgment for that of the generals on the ground. But this is an easily rebutted statement. The entire story here is that the president substituted his judgement for that of the generals on the ground. Remember, they didn’t think the surge was a good idea. So what happened? He fired them. That’s why Gen. Petraeus is there. The president looked around until he could find a general willing to agree with him. And when he did he put him in charge. This isn’t about the ‘generals on the ground’. It’s about President Bush, whose judgment has been catastrophically abysmal from the start. Who can deny that?

The president just refused to answer the question of what role Bush ‘loyalty’ should play in hiring and firing US Attorneys. He didn’t allow follow up. No answer.

The Democrats need a more frontal response to the lies the president is now telling about Iraq funding. The president, of course, wants to force this into a discussion about funding for soldiers — readiness, health care, armaments, etc. That’s funny given the president’s atrocious record on these issues. But whatever. He’s a liar. What’s new? But here’s the key. The public overwhelmingly supports a timeline for leaving Iraq. Overwhelmingly. Every poll shows this. For the first time the Congress has passed a law to do just that — to put a time limit on our presence in Iraq. So the Democrats are on the side of a timeline for withdrawal (very popular) and the president is for staying in Iraq forever (not popular). And the president says he’s going to veto that bill. The president is vetoing the Iraq timeline bill. Why? Because he supports staying there forever. Public wants a timeline. Democrats pass the law. President vetoes the law. Any Democrat is a fool who doesn’t start every comment on this story with, “The president is vetoing the bill to set a timeline to get out of Iraq.” They have to say it over and over and over. It’s accurate. It cuts politically. And to overcome the president’s ability to spread lies about this it has to be said over and over and over. So who’s going to say this more clearly?

Late Update: TPM Reader JC responds …

Josh,

You said “Any Democrat is a fool who doesn’t start every comment on this story with, ‘The president is vetoing the bill to set a timeline to get out of Iraq.'” I disagree. I would say that any democrate is a fool who doesn’t start every comment on the story with, “The president is vetoing the bill to provide money for soldiers — readiness, health care, armaments, etc and a timeline to get out of Iraq.”

Thanks,

JC

I don’t disagree with this. I’d say the two points can be made in unison since they are two sides of one coin. The president is vetoing this money bill because it sets a timeline. And he wants to stay in Iraq forever which almost no one left in America agrees with. The point is, don’t hang back and let the president’s lies hold the stage. At the moment that’s what I’m seeing.

Celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos tries to get the case against (alleged) Duke Cunningham briber, Brent Wilkes, tossed by attacking Carol Lam.

Let’s remember on this one — Duke and Mitchell Wade have already been sent to jail or pled guilty. The big fish, Wilkes, is still out free. And his lawyer may use the White House’s interference in the Lam investigation as the wedge to help his guy beat the rap entirely.

And what about those pictures of Wilkes hanging out with the Vice President?

Here’s the key passage in the piece (emphasis added) …

Geragos contended that Lam wanted the indictments to happen before she was forced from office by the Bush administration. But Lam was meeting resistance from bosses in the Justice Department, who had rejected drafts of indictments against Wilkes and former CIA official Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, saying they needed revisions.

Lam, Geragos theorized, wanted to force reluctant officials to go along with her plans by leaking details of the indictments before they were officially released. Geragos has said he learned about indictments from reporters.

“These indictments as to my client were returned hours before Ms. Lam was to exit. . . . If it did come back to Carol Lam, it would strike me as the most compelling reason for dismissal,” Geragos told the court.

From separate reporting, I know this to be true: the DOJ was holding up the indictments. Why was that? And in that context what does her subsequent dismissal tell us? Let’s not be fooled on this one. The White House and the politicals at the DOJ were and are doing everything it can to spring Wilkes and Foggo.

Remember, Mitchell Wade really only gets you to Duke Cunningham, the little-lamented hapless federal inmate. Wilkes was tied in with DeLay, Cheney, Doolittle, the whole rotten crew. And he skates.

Kerry: McCain approached me about getting on the 2004 Dem ticket.

“I hope we can take this opportunity to put aside stereotypes and identify some common ground.” DLC Chair Harold Ford, Jr., blogging this week at TPMCafe, calls for a truce. If the comments are any indication, it’ll be an uphill battle.

Bush just keeps on asserting that public opinion is with him on Iraq.

Did Alberto Gonzales lie to Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) when he promised to put Karl Rove’s former aide up for Senate confirmation? All indications are that he did.

It’s just one line of questioning that’s sure to make Gonzales’ April 17 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing a memorable one.