In an interview tonight, NBC News’ Pete Williams asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales a simple question: “Can you be certain that none of these U.S. Attorneys were put on that list [to be fired] for improper reasons?”

Gonzales wouldn’t give a straight answer, and in fact left open the possibility that attorneys were fired for partisan politics. “If I find out that, in fact, any of these decisions were motivated, the recommendations to me were motivated for improper reasons to interfere with the public corruption case, there will be swift and — there will be swift and decisive action. I can assure you that.”

Gonzales also suggested that other evidence of his personal involvement in the firings may come to light. “[T]here may have been other conversations [I had] about specifically about the performance of US attorneys” that I don’t remember, he said.

Watch it:

Gonzales bemoaned critics who are questioning his credibility. “Let me begin with the attacks on my credibility, which really have pained me and my family. You know, I have grown up — I grew up with nothing but my integrity.” This coming from a man whose early career as counsel to then-Gov. George W. Bush included helping to get Bush excused from jury duty, “a situation that could have required the governor to disclose his then-secret 1976 conviction for drunken driving in Maine.”

Read the full transcript HERE.

Digg It!

Glenn Greenwald highlights new results from a USA Today poll:

14. Do you think Congress should — or should not — investigate the involvement of White House officials in this matter?

Yes, should – 72%; No, should not – 21%

15. If Congress investigates these dismissals, in your view, should President Bush and his aides — [ROTATED: invoke "executive privilege" to protect the White House decision making process (or should they) drop the claim of executive privilege and answer all questions being investigated]?

Invoke executive privilege – 26%; Answer all questions – 68%

16. In this matter, do you think Congress should or should not issue subpoenas to force White House officials to testify under oath about this matter?

Yes, should – 68%; No, should not – 24%

But remember, members of Congress shouldn’t investigate Karl Rove because it will be “so bad for them.”

Digg It!

Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS) defended the Bush administration’s refusal to allow Karl Rove and other top White House aides to testify before Congress under oath, in public, and with a recorded transcript, claiming Bush had a “right to executive privilege.”

LOTT: The question is are the Democrats in the Senate interested in information or confrontation. In my mind, I think if the president would agree for his close advisers in the White House to testify before Congress under oath, he’d be making a huge mistake. There is a thing called executive privilege.

Watch it:

A vigorous defender of executive privilege today, Lott — like Tony Snow — has flip-flopped on executive privilege. Lott led the charge against President Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky saga, seeking out everything from tapes to sworn testimony from the White House. In March 1998, Lott appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press and lambasted the Clinton White House for invoking executive privilege:

LOTT: I think they’ve made a mistake by [invoking executive privilege]. I think it will damage the credibility. It looks like they are hiding something, so I think they shouldn’t have done it. I think it’s an improper use, and the courts will have to decide whether or not that’s a proper use. And it may wind up in the Supreme Court, like it did in the Watergate matter.

As Think Progress has noted, Clinton was far more transparent than Bush when Congress requested that his aides testify, allowing 31 of his top aides to appear in sworn testimony in front of Congress compared to Bush’s one.

Lott was exactly right — invoking executive privilege makes the Bush White House “look like they are hiding something.”

UPDATE: More at Media Matters.

by the health care forum, but some important news was made this past weekend. SEIU President Andrew Stern and Center for American Progress CEO John Podesta break down the key messages and the new ideas that emerged from the event. Watch it:

By a 329-78 vote, the House today followed the Senate in passing legislation that repeals a Patriot Act provision “that grants the Attorney General the authority to make indefinite interim appointments of U.S. Attorneys, who can then serve indefinitely without Senate confirmation.” The Gavel has details and video from the floor debate.

Politico’s Roger Simon covers Saturday’s CAPAF/SEIU presidential health care forum with the headline, “More Than You Wanted to Know About Health Care.” His lede:

Because you did not want to spend your Saturday sitting in a room for three hours listening to Democratic presidential candidates tell you how they are going to provide universal health care for America, Politico did it for you.

Simon may be bored by health care, but the American public isn’t (especially the 47 million who don’t have health insurance). A recent NBC/WSJ poll finds that Americans rank health care just below the war in Iraq as the “highest priority” for the federal government to address. Eighty percent believe it is an extremely or very important issue that Congress and the President need to deal with.

Simon’s insights top off what was a very bad week for the Politico. A round-up:

Politico (Tuesday): “Republican sources also disclosed that it is now a virtual certainty that Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty, whose incomplete and inaccurate congressional testimony about the prosecutors helped precipitate the crisis, will also resign shortly.”

FACT: McNulty has not yet resigned.

Politico (Thursday): “John Edwards is suspending his campaign for President, and may drop out completely, because his wife has suffered a recurrence of the cancer that sickened her in 2004.”

FACT: “Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, seeking to overcome doubts he can stay focused while his wife undergoes treatment for an incurable cancer, said on Saturday he will campaign until the very end. ‘I’m definitely in the race for the duration,’ he said.”

Politico (Friday): “The Politico will be co-hosting a debate among the major Republican presidential candidates on May 3 in Simi Valley, Calif., where for the first time citizens will be able to submit real-time questions for the candidates via politico.com.” (Press Release)

FACT: On Saturday, March 24, citizens were able to submit real-time questions for the candidates via ThinkProgress.org.

White House senior adviser Karl Rove once speculated that Politico “would prompt regional papers to dismantle their Washington bureaus.” Reporting that’s wrong won’t have that effect.

To the people who brought us slow-bleed: We wish you better luck in your reporting this week.

UPDATE: Media Matters has more on Politico’s reporting problems.

Last Monday, ThinkProgress questioned whether fired U.S. attorney Carol Lam was targeting the White House prior to her dismissal.

We noted the following information that stemmed from Lam’s investigation into former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA): the White House awarded a one-month, $140,000 contract to MZM contractor Mitchell Wade, who had never previously held a federal contract. Two weeks after Wade got paid, he used a cashier’s check for exactly $140,000 to buy a boat for a now-imprisoned congressman (Cunningham) at a price that the congressman had pre-negotiated.

Today, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) wrote a letter to White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten demanding “all contracts, subcontracts, and task orders between MZM, Inc. … and the Executive Office of the President“:

According to the Federal Procurement Data System, the Executive Office of the President awarded a one-month, $140,000 contract to MZM, Inc. in July 2002. This appears to have been the company’s first prime contract with the federal government, and it came only two months after MZM was placed on the General Services Administration’s Federal Supply Schedule. Published reports suggest that the contract was to provide computers and office furniture to the Office of the Vice President.

Subsequent investigations have uncovered serious inegularities, and in some cases criminal conduct, by MZM employees, members of Congress, and Bush Administration officials relating to MZM contracts with the federal government. To date, however, there has been no examination of the circumstances surrounding MZM’s initial federal contract and the role that White House officials played in the award and execution of the contract.

In the letter, Waxman requests that the White House provide documents relating to the White House-MZM contracts as soon as possible, but in no case later than Friday, April 6.

Read the full letter here.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino was forced to admit the “inconsistency” of the White House position on transcripts during today’s press briefing. CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux said, “No one has really missed the irony of what is happening here at the White House.”

During the briefing, Perino again defended the notion that Karl Rove and other top aides should be able to talk to Congress without a written transcript, calling the White House offer “quite generous and extraordinarily open.” But moments later, when asked about new documents showing Alberto Gonzales approved the U.S. Attorney firings, Perino pointed to transcripts of Gonzales’ remarks on CNN that she claimed exonerated Gonzales.

A reporter pointed out that Perino’s defense of Gonzales “illustrate[s] perfectly why a transcript is necessary.” Perino responded, “I see your point,” sparking laughter from reporters. “I understand that some people would think that that is not a good idea, and I understand the inconsistency of my own statement of referring back to a transcript.” Watch it:

UPDATE: Here’s the full exchange from the briefing:

Digg It!

Transcript: Read more