In light of the SCOTUS' decision upholding as constitutional a federal ban of an abortion procedure, intact dilation and extraction, much activity on abortion ban legislation in the States is now expected:

Both sides of the abortion debate expect a new push for restrictions as state lawmakers around the country digest the implications of the Supreme Court decision Wednesday upholding a federal ban on a type of abortion.

So despite the attempts of many Democrats to avoid the Politics of Contrast, particularly on social issues such as choice, it appears the Democrats will be forced to battle the Party of Dobson on social issues. This is politically fortuitous for the Democrats, particularly on the issue of choice.

Some more discussion on the Politics of Contrast on the flip.

Conservative and liberal bloggers alike are predicting a downfall for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

If you missed today's hearing, and don't have the time to watch it, here's the full transcript.

And this from the New York Times news article (not editorial) on the hearing:

In more than five hours of often-combative testimony, Mr. Gonzales, who sat grim-faced, clasping his hands and hunched over, struggled to offer a coherent explanation for the dismissals. He apologized for his mistakes in what he described as a flawed process, but defended the removal of eight United States attorneys as proper.

I'm not as charged up about this as most people. What will change with Gonzales gone? Bush will appoint another one of his loyal faves to replace him. The war on drugs, war on civil liberties and trend towards draconian sentences will continue. Say what you want about Gonzales, he's nowhere near the threat to constitutional rights that John Ashcroft was. He's continued Ashcroft's policies, but he seems to be more of a follower than a take-charge innovator of new ways to deprive people of their freedom.

More...

Via Think Progress: Former President Bill Clinton said on Larry King Live tonight that Alberto Gonzales should resign.

In light of the Virginia Tech shootings, the testimony that Alberto Gonzales was to give tomorrow has been postponed until Thursday. Although Gonzales was given the extra time because he "may be preoccupied on Tuesday with matters related to the shootings" (it's hard to see how), he now has two more days to get his story straight.

Last week I gave my analysis of the wrongfully convicted Georgia Thompson and what may have motivated Wisconsin U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic.

Adam Cohen writes about the case in the New York Times today, raising new questions about Mr. Biskupic's handling of the case.

One of the biggest weaknesses in the case against Ms. Thompson was that to commit the crime she was charged with she had to have tried to gain personally from the contract, and there’s no credible evidence that she did. So Mr. Biskupic made the creative argument that she gained by obtaining “political advantage for her superiors” and that in pleasing them she “enhanced job security for herself.” Those motivations, of course, may well describe why Mr. Biskupic prosecuted Ms. Thompson.

Should Mr. Biskupic resign? Can the citizens of Wisconsin have confidence in his ability to impartially judge the facts and make appropriate decisions about who to prosecute after the Georgia Thompson debacle?

Christy at Firedoglake notes that the Department of Justice has released AG Gonzales' opening statement for Tuesday's Judiciary Committee hearing on the U.S. Attorney fireings. C-Span has it in full here.  (PDF)&nbsp.

He says he has nothing to hide and nothing improper occurred. Some quotes:

I know that I did not, and would not, ask for a resignation of any individual in order to interfere with or influence a particular prosecution for partisan political gain.

I also have no basis to believe that anyone involved in this process sought the removal of a U.S. Attorney for an improper reason. Based upon the record as I know it, it is unfair and unfounded for anyone to conclude that any U.S. Attorney was removed for an improper reason.

More

Legal Times has a profile of the Judiciary Committee lawyers who are framing Tuesday's hearing at which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will testify.

Preet Bahara is Sen. Schumer's chief counsel.

Bharara leads a small team of Senate lawyers that includes Jeremy Paris, a former Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld associate, and Jennifer Duck, the chief counsel to Judiciary Committee member Feinstein. On the House side, Republican Daniel Flores is handling duties for ranking Judiciary Committee member Lamar Smith, R-Texas, while Mincberg is leading the investigation for committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich. One of Mincberg's deputies, Robert Reed Jr., is also a former assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia.

In advance of Gonzales' April 17 hearing, Bharara, representing Senate Democrats, and three other lawyers -- representing Senate Republicans and House Democrats and Republicans -- spent two full days querying top Justice officials behind closed doors.

Bahara is a former AUSA from the Southern District of New York.

More....

Some self-helper, I can't remember who, wrote a book "Don't sweat the small stuff." Alberto Gonzales should have read it.

When it comes to credibility, I think this statement about the U.S. Attorney firings says it all:

"I value their independence, their professionalism, what they do in the community, and these decisions were not based on political reasons," Gonzales said.

Those of us who toil in the federal courts, particularly in criminal cases, know how it works. The job of U.S. Attorney is a political plum. It's awarded based on recommendations from the district's senators, it almost exclusively goes to a member of the President's party and very often it's based on the person's contributions, including fundraising efforts, to the successful presidential candidate.

That's the way the system has always worked for both parties. The position of U.S. Attorney is an administrative job -- very few of them actually try cases.

I haven't read anyone on either side of the aisle reporting differently. Alberto Gonzalez chose to pretend otherwise. I hope it sinks him.

The document dump Friday showed a chart of U.S. Attorneys to be fired and potential replacements that listed their political loyalty and their membership in the conservative Federalist Society. That totally belies Gonzales' statement.

More...

Earlier, I linked to this Newsweek article today in which a data recovery expert was interviewed on the missing e-mails. The interview includes this q and a:

What would you do if you were pulled into this White House case?

If they were really doing their job, they would have to give access to forensic specialists. Those companies can go in and find that e-mail file and then sort through it using proprietary software and hardware. But the government is going to have to open their doors. Top secret stuff is on there, I'm sure, and they'd make it hard.

But, the RNC files are not top secret and those are the missing files now at issue, at least with respect to Karl Rove.

And, if there was anything "top secret," wouldn't that be an incredible breach of security for the information to reside outside secure government servers?

This may become a Catch-22 for Bush. Either the Administration was incredibly lax about top secret information or there was no top secret information.

Marcy (Empty Wheel) has some terrific posts up about the Rove-Hadley e-mail and Fiztgerald and the missing e-mails.

Also not to be missed, Glenn Greenwald. Jack Cafferty at CNN highlighted it -- Crooks and Liars has the video.

In case it has not been made clear enough, Ed Kilgore is someone I consider a friend and generally very very astute. On top of that, Ed writes on politics as well as anybody, in terms of clarity, persuasion and the goal of being interesting. I wrote about one of his posts, and in the interest of fairness, I want to highlight his response to my post.

As I said, discussion with Ed is always fruitful. I will reply to him in a later post.

Update: Newsweek interviews an expert on whether it's really possible to lose e-mails.

******
Original Post

Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, says his client didn't intentionally delete any e-mails and cooperated fully with Fitzgerald's request for e-mail in PlameGate.

Rove's lawyer said the senior presidential adviser had no idea that his e-mails were being deleted from the RNC server. "His understanding starting very, very early in the administration was that those e-mails were being archived," Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said.

The prosecutor probing the Valerie Plame spy case saw and copied all of Rove's e-mails from his various accounts after searching Rove's laptop, his home computer, and the handheld computer devices he used for both the White House and Republican National Committee, Luskin said.

The prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, subpoenaed the e-mails from the White House, the RNC and Bush's re-election campaign, he added. "There's never been any suggestion that Fitzgerald had anything less than a complete record," Luskin said.

The only deletions Rove made were done to clean up his inbox.

More...

Uh-Oh. Firedoglake reports things just got a lot worse for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his former sidekick, Kyle Sampson. As spotted by a commenter at Daily Kos in today's document dump, Set 5 p 14. (pdf) (2/12/07 From Monica Goodling):

"This is the chart that the AG requested. I'll show it to him on the plane tomorrow if he's interested"

He requested the chart. But when? When it was made? The chart (scroll down from the email on page 14) shows the fired U.S. Attorneys and their proposed replacements, some of whose names have been redacted.

Gonzales testified under oath he did not have this information and was not involved in the replacements. Kyle Sampson said he did not have a list. Here's a list, from January, 2006.

Are dates a factor here?