Short diary tonight. Michael Isikoff has written a story which sheds a different light on Rove's activity regarding USAGate.
http://tinyurl.com/...
Isikoff's story is about a March 5 meeting to prep Moschella for his appearance before the House on March 6. Isikoff suggests that Rove's coaching may have been used to mislead Congress. Apparently Paul McNulty, was there as well and told investigators that Rove counselled Moschella to "explain what you did and why you did it." Kyle Sampson, Fred Fielding and William Kelly were also in attendance, according to a DOJ official who was also present but unnamed by Isikoff.
The problem, according to the Democratic aide, is that Rove and Kelley never told Moscella about the White House’s own role in pushing to have some U.S. attorneys fired in the first place. Moscella followed the coaching by Rove and others—and made no mention of White House involvement in the firings during his March 6, 2007 testimony to House Judiciary. "They let Moscella come up here without telling him the full story," said the Democratic staffer.
Moscella at one point even appeared to specifically deny that Rove pushed to have one of his former aides, Timothy Griffin, installed at a top job at Justice. "I don’t know that he played any role," Moscella said when asked by one committee member what Rove played in recommending Griffin to Justice. Since then, the Justice Department turned over to Congress a department email that showed Griffin was installed as U.S. attorney in Arkansas because it was viewed as "important" to Rove and then White House counsel Harriet Miers.
This is the first a new aspect of the case for me. This puts Rove much closer to chain of events. (I note that the article states that Sampson was there as well...according to a DOJ official). It comes as no surprise that Rove's greasy fingerprints would be all over this case but this is the first time that that direct acts of Rove have actually been brought into the occasion. (At least that I've seen). Isikoff's source suggests that this gives the Congressionals greater cause to seek a broader scope of documents and testimony.
I'm not sure how this impacts Sampson's testimony, if at all...I don't remember (aghghghg it's catching) whether Sampson testified to meeting with Rove or not.
The White House has downplayed the story, saying that it was natural for Rove to be at the meeting.
UPDATE: The Isikoff article also states that Rove told the March 5 participants that DOJ needed:
to provide specific reasons why it terminated the eight prosecutors in order to rebut Democratic charges that the firings were politically motivated.
Josh Marshall, discussing a McClatchey article on this same meeting, (see http://tinyurl.com/... sees other significance:
Remind me. Why do you need to 'agree on clear reasons why each prosecutor was fired' if the reasons were actually clear when you did the firing and if the reasons can be stated publicly? Think about it. Why do Rove and the other heavies from the White House need to tell these guys how important it is to get their stories straight? If I fire someone, I know why I fired them. I don't need to get my story straight unless the real reason can't be stated and I need to come up with a defensible and plausible alternative explanation.
UPDATE 2: I just read the full McClatchey article here's an interesting excerpt:
McNulty said that White House officials never revealed during the meeting that they'd been discussing plans to replace some prosecutors with Gonzales aides, the congressional aide said.
McNulty recalled feeling disturbed and concerned when he found out days later that the White House had been involved, the congressional aide said. McNulty considered the extent of White House coordination to be "extremely problematic."