senator schumer's "sunday surprise" for sir alberto gonzales

"or, i am RE-grilling some good d. kyle sampson,
today -- SUNDAY -- stop. by. on. tuesday. for. your. ice-cold. left-overs!. . ."

oops! -- i forgot ! -- you're the main course!

from senator schumer, this afternoon:

“. . .Last week, I sent the Attorney General some major questions that I will ask him on Tuesday. I did that in advance so he can’t possibly fall short in his testimony and so that he has plenty of time to prepare. Among those questions were who put David Iglesias’ name on the list of U.S. Attorneys targeted for dismissal, and what role Karl Rove played in the firings.

New documents we received on Friday and the interviews that my staff has conducted with Justice officials last week have given rise to new questions - questions that we cannot have the Attorney General duck or avoid:

Did the Attorney General ever use an RNC email account? Did he ever use an RNC email account, or other non-official email account, for official business? Did he discuss the firings of U.S. Attorneys with anyone over an RNC email account, or other non-official email account?

Why was the Justice Department tracking U.S. Attorney memberships in the Federalist Society? Why were they tracking the political campaign activity of U.S. Attorneys?

Why were we told that there we no replacements in mind for seven of the fired U.S. Attorneys when clearly there were?

Documents we got on Friday still had information redacted, including the names of at least three additional U.S. Attorneys who were also considered for dismissal but were not ultimately fired. Were replacements considered for them too? If so, who?. . .”

– sen. schumer's statement 04.15.07

[warning: sen. schumer's statement
is presently in a word for windows
format over at CSPAN.]

well -- it is all over, except for
the shouting now. . . i won't bother
to link to alberto gonzales' statement
released today, nor his editorial that
ran in the wa po today. to the extent
he makes any statement at all in those
remarks, it is all stuff we've heard be-
fore -- or stuff we'd be silly to believe.

so -- i'll ask again -- who
was watching kyle sampson and monica
goodling, mr. gonzales? who?



the senate judiciary commttee, rather
adroitly, seems to have anticipated
mr. gonzales' move, by not only releasing
their talking points, but also by announcing
the fact that they are re-interviewing kyle
sampson, today -- sunday, april 15, 2007.

extraordinary, that! -- and, in this way,
they are putting a "fuzzy" i dunno
defense well-beyond the "straight-faced"
horizon for mr. gonzales on tuesday.

there surely will be more wailing and
gnashing of teeth in republican ranks here,
but i think it really is all over, save
for the shouting. how can his answer be,
as it seems to be, that he merely approved
kyle sampson's recommendations "blindly"?

if "non-vote" specter says he should con-
sider resigning, as specter did say this
morning, who is left to stand for him?

[and, here i mean someone with any credibility.]

what answer can mr. gonzales possibly make
to the question about why the process tracked
USAs' membership in the federalist society,
as a "plus factor" for making the decisions, if
he did simply approve kyle's list?

now, if he let this bunch of thirty-some-
things, with scant experience (sampson,
goodling, paulose, et al.), run amok inside
justice, without any meaningful oversight,
how can he be fit to serve any longer?

he must be done. and my bet for friday
the 20th at 5:30 pm edt looks pretty good.

ben & jerry's, on me, for a year.