Matt Ortega

Think Progress picked up on a Dan Froomkin column that questions the legality of White House officials using e-mail accounts registered to the Republican National Committee to conduct official ‘government business.’ However, that may just be ironic since critics believe that the firings were political decisions anyhow.

One curious aspect of yesterday’s document dump is that it shows e-mails from J. Scott Jennings, who is Karl Rove’s deputy at the White House, coming from an e-mail address at gwb43.com — a domain owned by the Republican National Committee.

It makes some sense that White House officials might have and use such accounts when they conduct party business, rather than White House business. But the distinction between party and government business seems to have been forgotten here — which I guess is exactly the point.

Eggen and Kane write in The Post: “Democratic congressional aides said they will investigate whether using the private address for government business violated laws against using taxpayer resources for political work or signaled that White House officials considered the firing of U.S. attorneys to be primarily a political issue. Jennings did not return a call to his office seeking a comment.

“‘As a matter of course, the RNC provides server space and equipment to certain White House personnel in order to assist them with their political efforts,’ RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said.” [emphasis added by Think Progress]

Senator John Sununu (R-New Hampshire) became the first GOP senator to call for the firing of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. However, this move by Sununu, the beneficiary of the New Hampshire phone jamming scandal in 2002, was likely a political maneuver to help his electoral chances next year.

In May 2006, James Tobin, the New England campaign chairman for Bush-Cheney ‘04, was sentenced to 10 months in prison for his involvement. Phone traffic between Tobin and then-White House Political Director Ken Mehlman suggested involvement of the Bush administration but Mehlman denies the calls were related to the phone jamming scheme.

The initial defense in the prosecutor firings from last December was that the eight U.S. attorneys were canned due to “performance-related issues.” TPMmuckraker found yet another hold in that claim. Paul Kiel writes:

U.S. News reports that Comey, when he was still with the department (he left in August of 2005), produced his own list of “weak U.S. attorneys” who, in his opinion, were under performing.

Only, it was, well, different:

…a former Justice official says that Comey’s list bore little resemblance to the list of those fired last year. The only prosecutor on the fired list who also was on Comey’s list was Kevin Ryan, in San Francisco, who, the Washington Post reported Tuesday, had “widespread management and morale problems in his office.”

As we pointed out before, Alberto Gonzales’ chief of staff Kyle Sampson had Ryan on his list as a “strong” U.S. attorney. In other words, not only was he not to be fired, he was to be commended.

Kiel notes that the basis for a “strong” classification by the chief of staff to the Attorney General, Kyle Sampson was described as loyalty to President George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzales. (Speaking of Comey’s list of “weak U.S. attorneys,” San Diego-based prosecutor, Carol Lam? Not on it.)

It is another sign that the White House, in conjunction with highest levels of the Department of Justice, were going after U.S. attorneys that were not “playing ball” and making the party proud.

As for the “resigned” chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, it turns out that the administration is so upset his behavior that while he looks for another job, Sampson will remain at his post indefinitely.

Good eye, or good ear, from TPM Reader JB. Apparently, the White House and Alberto Gonzales are so miffed with Kyle Sampson for doing the whole Attorney Purge on his own that they’re letting him stay on the job — from which he supposedly resigned on Monday — indefinitely as he “goes job hunting.”

The chairman of the Washington State Republican Party, Chris Vance, said he contacted the U.S. attorney, John McKay, who was fired last year.

TPMmuckraker reported that Lam was targeted prior to an article in the San Diego Union-Tribune that exposed the corruption scandal of Rep. Randall “Duke” Cunningham (R-San Diego, Calif.). However, it would be difficult to dispute the correspondence regarding Lam being a pain to the administration in May 2006, when the Cunningham scandal was expanding.

Will they appear? Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and William Kelley.

The furor over the prosecutor purge at the Department of Justice has connections to the 2008 presidential race for the Republican nomination.

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-New York City, N.Y.) has a history in the U.S. attorney’s office in the administration of President Ronald Reagan. Much of the aura surrounding Giuliani, in addition to the phony 9/11 hero worship, involves his days as “Rudy the Crime Fighter” as an Associate Attorney General in 1981 and as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

Josh Marshall, writing at Talking Points Memo, wonders why Giuliani, of all people, is choosing to be silent on the purge. Marshall says that with Rudy’s background as a federal prosecutor, Giuliani would have a “unique” perspective on the matter.

2008 presidential tie-in question: Can Rudy Giuliani really get away with refusing to comment on the US Attorney Purge story? Rudy made his name as a mob-busting US Attorney in New York. I’m pretty sure he’s the only former US Attorney in the race in either party. And I’m pretty sure he worked at Main Justice early in the Reagan administration before becoming US Attorney. So he’s uniquely positioned to have something relevant and knowledgeable to say. But he won’t answer. How long can that last?

So how ’bout it, Rudy? What’s your take?

In a television appearance on NBC’s Today Show, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defended the actions of the Department of Justice, including his own, in the prosecutor purge.

“I think you can look at the record of the department in terms of what we’ve done … going after child predators, public corruption cases,” he said on NBC’s “Today” show. “I think our record is outstanding.”

Gonzales acknowledged, as he had on Tuesday, that mistakes were made in the handling of the U.S. attorney firings and said he wanted to remain in the job to make things right with Congress.

“I think we’ve done a good job in managing the department. .. Things are going to happen,” he said. “We are going to work with Congress to make sure they know what happened. … We want to ensure that they have a complete and accurate picture of what happened here.” [emphasis added]

Gonzales’ assertion that the Justice Department wants to “ensure” Congress has the “complete and accurate picture” of what happened is nothing short of laughable. Administration officials tried to distort what they did after they the mass firings on December 7.

There was a concerted effort on the part of the administration to force out U.S. attorneys that were uncooperative with the White House’s partisan political agenda. Since the story of the firings broke, the administration has continually used falsities and outright lies to defend their actions.