In my first sweep through the DOJ firings docudump, I’m not finding any answers to a question that I posed to David Iglesias during his book salon.

And I’d looooove to know the answer.

It’s John Anderson’s fault. When I was reading his fabu book, Follow The Money, I noticed a cryptic note about some Rove tactical maneuvering that stuck in my mind.

The tidbit in a footnote on page 277: details of Rove’s prior use of a pliant USAtty office in San Antonio for payback against political opponents as a template for the current USAtty scandal and politicization questions embroiling the DOJ. So many of Rove’s actions are repeats of successful smaller oppo actions in his past — what other predictors are we missing?

In David’s book, he mentions that he had a conversation with the USAtty from San Antonio, Johnny Sutton, who warned Iglesias that he’d been given a sneak peek at a list that David’s name was on that was not going to be good news.

What list did Sutton see? From whom did he get that sneak peek? And why?

I’ve asked and asked about this, and still haven’t found any answers. But I’d sure like to see someone ask Mr. Sutton. Wouldn’t you?

With the recent release of a myriad of e-mails, documents and breathy reportage and leakage, it’s no wonder that Rove and Gold Bars Luskin tried to get themselves out in front of the wave by giving multiple "exclusives."

Oxymorons notwithstanding, when you have bad PR coming your way, it’s always better to stand in front of it shouting "look, over there!"

It’s like the dogs in Up.  Except Rove and Luskin have better Beltway material to offer up than a squirrel sighting, I’m certain.

Any day now, I expect to see anonymous exclusives about the Cheneyites or some other poor, expendable sap or deserving payback offendee cropping up in a news exclusive near me.

Honestly, it’s been their M.O. for ages, so it’s not exactly a shocker when it happens, now is it?

Deflect, deny, desensitize. Rinse, lather, repeat.

What’s funny is the breathless tone of Isikoff’s latest in Newsweek.

In perhaps the most significant passage in the new material, former White House counsel Harriet Miers—questioned by the judiciary committee for the first time in June—described getting a phone call from a "very upset" Rove telling her that Iglesias was "a serious problem and he wanted something done about it."

Who here didn’t know about the ruckus caused by NM GOP politicos and Rove having their fingers in this particular political pie? Don’t be shy, raise your hand. *crickets*

The more intriguing question for me is: will Harriet, also being in this up to her overly-eyelinered eyeballs, spill on the Turdblossom to save her own scrawny hind end? Or, more importantly, to deflect any tarnish from Dubya’s hiney?

Will Rove get a polite little card with to the effect of "roses are red, violets are hokey, get some more lawyers or head to the pokey," in Harriet’s swirly handwriting?

A girl can dream.

Evil cat via gagilas.

The House Judiciary Committee will question Karl Rove and Harriet Miers regarding two distinct but interrelated subjects: the USAtty firings and the Siegelman prosecution.

As Marcy reported, the questioning will be done on the record, transcribed and given under penalty of perjury.

More importantly, the committee will also receive all of the documents they’ve been requesting for quite some time prior to the testimony, including a number of missing e-mails. When you add that to the already large trove of documentary evidence in this matter, it’s a lot to sift through for particularized questions.

Will it also include the illicit ones from Karl’s blackberry?

Which made me wonder what all of you would ask, if you had the opportunity? I’m not talking the usual snarky fare, I’m asking seriously what would you really ask given the opportunity on the USAtty firings and allegations of politicized prosecutions, including but not limited to Siegelman.

Please give some thought to this, because I plan on getting pertinent questions into the hands of a few folks who might ask them. I know how much you relish the opportunity to dig in on these issues, so please do.

Note that Bush’s conversations with his aides were taken off the table. That freed him up to okay testimony from his former staffers because his ass was no longer in the direct line of fire.

Guess once his own CYA was covered, and without Fred Fielding running interference, exposure for Miers and Rove was less crucial. Go figure.

Wonder if that will show in Miers testimony, especially, given her loyalty to Bushie through the years and how she was left dangling out on this mess on her own in the end? Interesting dynamic.

(more…)