Today, the Department of Justice Inspector General testified on his recent report documenting the rampant and unlawful politicization of the Justice Department. He told the Senate Judiciary Committee that former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales “said he was unaware of what was going on” at his own department, and that he “basically said he didn’t have knowledge of the role the office of the Attorney General played in identifying candidates” for career positions.

After two days of silence from the White House press corps on the subject, a reporter finally asked White House press secretary Dana Perino about the report today. She refused to say that President Bush was “disappointed” in Gonzales, admitting only “overall disappointment in the situation”:

QUESTION: Does this mean — can I infer from that that President Bush is disappointed in Alberto Gonzales?

PERINO: I think that, if you look at the report, and it is in line with what the attorney general said at the time, which was that he was not aware of that — of that going on. And so I don’t think there’s anything – the disappointment doesn’t necessarily go to the attorney general. [...]

QUESTION: But you won’t go so far as to say that, looking at Alberto Gonzales’ Justice Department, President Bush is disappointed this was going on?

PERINO: Well, I think that we are — overall disappointment in the situation, sure.

Watch it:

The President refuses to punish his most loyal Bushie because he carried out his orders. Even after stalwart conservative Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) acknowledged Gonzales’ “incompetence” today, Bush continues to “stand by Al Gonzales.”

Transcript: Read more

Desipite yesterday’s explosive report confirming that top Justice Department officials, including Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson, had violated federal law, the White House press corps has not asked White House press secretary Dana Perino a single question about it. Both yesterday’s and today’s press briefings included no discussion of the report, nor a question on whether Attorney General Mukasey would follow through on a criminal perjury referral from Congress.

Today’s Justice Department report — which faults department aide Monica Goodling for “violating federal law” through politicized hiring practices — reveals Goodling’s bizarre and thorough way of ensuring she hired only the most tried and true conservatives. Besides asking applicants, “Why are you a Republican?” or “What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?”, Goodling also judged applicants by asking them to name public officials they admired:

Several candidates interviewed by Goodling told us they believed that her question about identifying their favorite Supreme Court Justice, President, or legislator was an attempt to determine the candidates’ political beliefs. For example, one candidate reported that after he stated he admired Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Goodling “frowned” and commented, “but she’s pro-choice.”

The report noted that Goodling refused to hire one Assistant U.S. Attorney because she thought he was a “‘political infant’ who had not ‘proved himself’ to the Republican Party by being involved enough in political campaigns.”

A federal judge ruled today that the White House Office of Administration, which likely has records of the White House’s knowledge of the millions of missing e-mails, is not subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and thus does not have to turn over its e-mail record. The Office of Administration had responded to FOIA requests since its creation in 1978 until the Bush administration reversed that policy last year — after Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed this lawsuit.

The right wing is trotting out a variety of counter-attacks to deal with the explosive allegations found in former White House press secretary Scott McClellan’s new book. Yesterday, defenders repeated they were “puzzled” by the book, “as if,” the New York Times noted, “Mr. McClellan had undergone some kind of emotional breakdown.” By afternoon, attacks were more charged, with White House officials calling McClellan a “traitor” and “Benedict.” By last night and into this morning, Fox News pundits were insisting the book is the work of a nefarious, left-wing publisher.

Now several prominent conservatives are dismissing the book by insisting that no one outside of “people who follow Washington issues” really even cares about McClellan’s allegations:

Ari Fleischer: This is a very Washington and people who follow Washington issue, and people tend to read these types of books. What is interesting, Bill, is TV shows, for example, millions watch the news at night, a great selling book only sells about 100,000, so it’s kinda gonna be a self-contained story.

Bill O’Reilly: McClellan says Mr. Bush did not handle Katrina very well. Gee, I’m stunned. He says the president used propaganda to justify Iraq. Again, is that a bulletin? … McClellan also believes that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby conspired in the Valerie Plame case. Forgive me if I’m bored.

Newt Gingrich: No. I don’t want to shock you, Alan, but I actually don’t care. … I mean my lack of interest in Scott McClellan’s personal odyssey of self-discovery is a negative. I’m more concerned about American Idol than I am about Scott McClellan.

Mary Matalin: I don’t care, like Newt, I don’t really care to analyze this kind of betrayal.

Watch a compilation:

Despite what these pundits suggest, Americans are paying attention. McClellan’s book rose rapidly yesterday to become Amazon’s number one bestseller. McClellan’s story has dominated the airwaves, with three major appearances today and at least three more — including a stint on the Daily Show — in the next few days.

The public is sure to pay particular attention to McClellan’s charges about manipulating Iraq intelligence. A poll from Februrary showed that a majority — 53 percent — of Americans believe the White House “deliberately misled” the public about the existence of WMD in Iraq.

In November, President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued a “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship.” Recently, the Bush administration has refused to say whether it believes there is “a constitutional requirement” for the White House to “consult with Congress…in the commitment of U.S. forces in a battle zone.”

Yesterday, Ambassador Ryan Crocker stated that the status of force agreement (SOFA) would be negotiated with Iraq as an “executive agreement,” which he said did not require congressional approval. Crocker also said that the Iraqi government may submit the agreement to its parliament, while the White House refused to do the same for Congress.

During today’s White House briefing, Press Secretary Dana Perino reiterated that, regardless of what the Iraqi parliament might do, the U.S. Congress would be shut out of its advise and consent role:

PERINO: An executive agreement like this isn’t something that is subject to a yes-or-no by the United States Senate. Other countries, under their constitutions, may have that type of rule, but we don’t. But that doesn’t mean we’re not going to work very closely with Congress.

QUESTION: (inaudible) make an end-run around the…

PERINO: No, it’s not.

QUESTION: Well, why can’t you submit it to Congress?

PERINO: I just explained why.

Watch it:

In fact, there is nothing precluding the White House from submitting the agreement to Congress. Indeed, as Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) pointed out yesterday, negotiating such a treaty without Senate approval would represent a break from past practice. In 1951, for example, the Senate ratified a U.S./NATO SOFA to preside over the hundreds of thousands of U.S. forces stationed in over 40 countries, including Germany and Japan.

Conservative columnist George Will wrote recently, “Hundreds of such agreements, major (e.g., NATO) and minor (the Reagan administration’s security commitment to the Marshall Islands and Micronesia), have been submitted to Congress.”

Presidential aide Felipe Sixto has resigned “because of an alleged misuse of grant money from U.S. Agency for International Development and his former employer, a Cuban democracy organization.” Since Sixto “stepped forward” on March 20, the matter has been turned over to the Justice Department. CNN’s Ed Henry reports:

Significance of the group Center for a Free Cuba, of course, could be the President has spent a lot of time — especially with the transfer of power in Havana — talking about, and pushing for, freedom and democracy to go to Cuba. So this, obviously, very embarrassing for the administration that a White House aide, Felipe Sixto — now a former White House aide — had allegedly misused federal grant money.

Watch it: