Comments (37)

Peter Principle wrote on March 19, 2007 7:59 PM:

From U.S. Snooze: "But if he decides to let him go, then who can fill Gonzales's place? . . . 'The trouble,' says one former official, 'is that no one comes to mind.' "

A failure of imagination. One name vey quickly comes to mind: Joe Lieberman.

Think about it. Bush get's a lackey Dem as figurehead AG, with minimal confirmation problems, plus a brand-new appointed Republican Senator from Connecticut and a restored GOP Senate majority. Lieberman gets to polish his resume and look forward to the day when his skill at fellating GOP presidents earns him a seat on the Supreme Court.

From Karl Rove's point of view, what's not to like?

JD Brooks wrote on March 19, 2007 8:24 PM:

>> plus a brand-new appointed Republican Senator from Connecticut and a restored GOP Senate majority <<

Which is precisely why this scenario ain't gonna happen...

hungrycoyote wrote on March 19, 2007 8:47 PM:

No, and after the fight to keep his seat, Lieberman isn't going to give up a six-year term for less than two years in a Republican administration with all the scandals errupting.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 19, 2007 8:56 PM:

Was Gonzales involved in firing the USAs or not?

3/13 Gonzales press conference:

"ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: What I know is that there began a process of evaluating strong performers, not-as-strong performers, and weak performers. And so far as I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers. Where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district, and that's what I knew. But again, with respect to this whole process, like every CEO, I am ultimately accountable and responsible for what happens within the department. But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That's basically what I knew as the Attorney General...

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, again, as -- I accept responsibility for everything that happens here within this department. But when you have 110,000 people working in the department obviously there are going to be decisions that I'm not aware of in real time. Many decisions are delegated. We have people who were confirmed by the Senate who, by statute, have been delegated authority to make decisions....

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I just described for Pete the extent of my -- of the knowledge that I had about the process. I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood. What I knew was that there was ongoing effort that was led by Mr. Sampson, vetted through the Department of Justice, to ascertain where we could make improvements in U.S. attorney performances around the country...'

Dab wrote on March 19, 2007 9:00 PM:

And McNulty will lose his job because he told the truth....geeezz

freepatriot wrote on March 19, 2007 9:29 PM:

"And McNulty will lose his job because he told the truth"

welcome to bushworld

Anonymous wrote on March 19, 2007 10:02 PM:

Dab, What Paul is overlooking is that Kyle Sampson sent an email to Harriet Miers in March 2005 with an attachment, "US Attorneys - Summary Appointments". The summary listed all of the USAs and an evaluation of them.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/attorney-firelist/?resultpage=1&

According to the summary, Bud Cummins was considered by the DOJ to be, in Kyle Sampson's words, one of the "weak US Attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administrative initiatives, etc".

The summary is the only evidence offered to date that Bud Cummins was rated poorly by the DOJ.

McNulty may not have been aware of the summary's existence or how Bud Cummins was evaluated. But now it appears that Gonzales viewed Cummins negatively.

I don't know why that is a problem for the DOJ other than the fact that Gonzales said in a 3/13 press conference that he was not party to any discussions about evaluating and firing the USAs.

If Bud Cummins was out of favor with the Bush administration in 2005, it was not well-known. The National Journal's Hotline updated its 2003 rising state political stars list in December 2005 by relying on interviews with consultants, state party officials and journalists familiar with each state's political landscape.

This is how Cummins was listed:

"U.S. Atty Bud Cummins (R): "Still happy being U.S. Attorney, ... but he's a rising star."

It will be interesting to learn why Cummins was rated so poorly and what other documentation exists to support the evaluation. Why someone at the DOj did not warn Cummins to keep quiet about performance reviews is beyond me. Now Cummins will look like a fool if he indeed was regarded by Gonzales to be a terrible USA.

Imagine working for these clowns?

Michael Stevens wrote on March 19, 2007 10:06 PM:

I've been following this pretty closely for the past month or so, but there is one fundamental question which I cannot answer.

Why is the Bush administration releasing these documents?

The documents haven't been subpoenaed. Thus far, this document dump certainly hasn't been in the best interests of the Bush admin. What is the upside for the Bushies to release all this stuff? My only guess at an answer is that White House council Fred Fielding told the Bushies to use the Clintonesque strategy of "quickly getting everything out there, all at once". If that is the case, one would think Fielding wasn't made aware of the content of those documents.

One other aspect of the document dump I've been unable to answer. Who is deciding which documents and e-mails are being released? Is it possible that especially damning e-mails and documents are being held back? Since there is no subpoenas, would holding back documents even be a crime? I suspect nothing short of a whistle-blower or independent special prosecutor could even determine that documents had been held back.

melior wrote on March 19, 2007 10:22 PM:

The latest AJC editorial calls for AG^2 to be fired, and as a bonus includes a 2002 flashback mention of Rick Thompson, Bush's appointee as USA for the Southern District of Georgia, who was forced to resign after a Justice Department investigation revealed he "had been using his office to help fellow Republicans by targeting Democrats.

"The investigation concluded that Thompson had indeed 'abused his authority and violated the public trust' by announcing a federal probe of Democratic officials just before Election Day, 'without having any evidence of wrongdoing, and without conducting any investigation.'"

Why was it wrong then, but okay now?

FatKat wrote on March 19, 2007 10:32 PM:

There up!!! the emails at the web site of the rep.jud.commitee.

FatKat wrote on March 19, 2007 10:35 PM:

Ok...they seem to be having tec problems...the links are not working...

http://judiciary.house.gov/default.aspx

FatKat wrote on March 19, 2007 10:36 PM:

ok there really up
! 49 of them as of now

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt1-1070319.pdf

Uppity Gal wrote on March 19, 2007 10:39 PM:

Michael Stevens @ 10:06 p.m.
Exactly! I was browsing and had the tv on in the backgrond, when Anderson Cooper came on CNN (at start of his show with a big announcement). He was incredibly *breathless!* about the BREAKING news, and rough quote was:
just getting confirmation tonight of a huge document dump, 3000 pages, sent to Capitol Hill, from DOJ and not in chronological order...and Abu is in trouble.

(3000 is a grand higher than US News & world reports 2000 number in their breaking update online)

I think you are correct, and I also think they are getting pretty worried about Leahy subpeona for Karl. Is it time for Leahy to tell the WH to "Go Cheney Yourself!" ???

If they can stir this up in MSM, then say- immediately- look! nothing here! move along (as if 3000 documents can be parsed that carefully, that fast) , then can hold that off for just awhile longer. (is this their thought? really?)

When everything's falling apart, they choose to tighten the circle, more and more. I think there's a big danger in letting the "little" guys (lower in the hierarchy) feel desperate and hung out to dry.

five will get you ten, some of those young people are throwing documents on zip drives, and deciding they still want some future in Washington...could still blow up on them.

Security code: nail (!!!!)

powwow500 wrote on March 19, 2007 10:52 PM:

Ain't this the truth!

Posted by: Michael Stevens
Date: March 19, 2007 10:06 PM

"One other aspect of the document dump I've been unable to answer. Who is deciding which documents and e-mails are being released? Is it possible that especially damning e-mails and documents are being held back? Since there is no subpoenas, would holding back documents even be a crime? I suspect nothing short of a whistle-blower or independent special prosecutor could even determine that documents had been held back."

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 19, 2007 11:10 PM:

I skimmed through the first 49 emails and I'd say that Issa was the designated hitman in May 2006. The exchange between Bill Mercer and Michael Elston sounds like they were out to make Lam's life miserable in July 2006. Fucks.

FatKat wrote on March 19, 2007 11:14 PM:

Wow...lots of repeated notes, emails memo...

But, there are some that stand out than others.
The urgency to dump US Attorneys in certain state areas and the focus on Issa in San Diego. Lots of "call me ASAP" I'm going to connect my phone in now, so call me! (what was talked about and not emailed about) I know for me I will have to go back and read and re-read the documents again. I am sure they are going to be up all night posting the doc's.

bye...there must be a pattern in there, I cant print and do the connection thing. So good luck to those who can. I only see doc's starting in year 2003...I hope more comes in with earlier years.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 19, 2007 11:17 PM:

Note, too, that the Border Patrol was working hand in hand with Issa. Gee, I wonder if the Border Patrol was still ticked at Lam for prosecuting some of their own on bribery charges.

cbr wrote on March 19, 2007 11:26 PM:

Someone call Fitzgerald and tell him to get back to D.C. Either he can be the next AG or be the independent special prosecuter. Since he survived Plamegate maybe he will respond to this one. It's like lighting the "bat signal".

On another note I can only imagine what the server traffic at DOJ looks like tonight.

Califlander wrote on March 19, 2007 11:40 PM:

On another note I can only imagine what the server traffic at DOJ looks like tonight.

Posted by: cbr
Date: March 19, 2007 11:26 PM

No need to imagine. NSA and FBI are tracking it very closely, I'm sure.

fnook wrote on March 19, 2007 11:41 PM:

Little bit of muckraking and speculation following on Mrs Panstreppon's comments re the July 8, 2006 e-mail exchange b/w Bill Mercer and Michael Elston: there's a redaction in the Subject line reading "Re: Carol Lam/[REDACTED]/Please call." Seems reasonable to assume that the word or phrase smashed b/w "Carol Lam" and "Please call" relates in some way to agenda of discussion items. Plus, in some place, the redaction seems like a sloppy white out job suggesting hurried decisionmaking during the last moments before the docs go public.

Michael Stevens wrote on March 19, 2007 11:42 PM:

I suppose one way to help ensure no documents have been held back would be for the congressional committees to ask DOJ officials under oath if they are aware of any relevant documents that have not been released... Of course, the officials would probably answer with the caveat "to the best of my knowledge".

One thing I've learned from working in large organizations is that to avoid being a scape-goat, you must cover your butt with e-mail. Doing so has kept me on the right side of any number of squabbles and other people's screw ups.

I'm thinking the lower echelon DOJ employees who are being thrown to the wolves will have recently verified exactly what they sent and received via e-mail. If documents go missing which exonerate those underlings, perhaps one of them will speak up? Short of that sort of whistle-blower or the appointment of a special prosecutor, I see few ways to verify that no documents have been purposefully held back.

Anonymous wrote on March 19, 2007 11:48 PM:

Is this the quote that will blow the lid off the scandal?:

Margaret Chiara attempting to blackmail McNulty into getting her a plum job, calls it "the witness protection program."

Ie, if he'll find her a quiet (but lucrative, powerful) position away from reporters, she won't talk.

She goes further. To give him a taste of how bad it could be if he won't get her the job, she writes that maybe the administration should tell the truth: I think I've found the quote in the document dump that will blow the lid off. Check out my diary at DKos: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/19/232250/520

Margaret Chiara seeks a recommendation from McNulty, describing his willingness to get her a job elsewhere as "the witness protection program", saying she's willing to elude reporters if he'll get her the job she wants. Beautiful.

She also says, by way of establishing her threat, that if she can't get the job, then maybe the administration should tell the truth, because ""Politics may not be a pleasant reason, but the truth is compelling."

Please take a look at my DKos diary: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/19/232250/520

EH wrote on March 19, 2007 11:53 PM:

No need to spam your kos thingy, just paste the quote.

FatKat wrote on March 20, 2007 12:08 AM:

ok, heads up on these emails,
the number is the file listed on the Jud committees site and the email # is the page number on pdf files...

#10 pdf, email #25
#9 pdf, email #36 (visit to white house at 5pm)
#9 pdf, email #36 Visit to white house at 5pm, to go over US Attorneys, (who is DOJ leg, pa, Battle, Will)
#9 pdf, email #38/39/40 white house again
#9 pdf email #48 - the wording is changed from "administration to President and AG" This shows that the WH knew what was going on (intent) and needed the doc to state both...so the wh all along was running the show!

anon wrote on March 20, 2007 12:20 AM:

Very interesting indeed. Ooops. Guess we'll need some more testimony. Thanks, Fat Kat.

As for the Margaret Chiara e-mail. It's interesting but it's about her kinda embarassing the administration over her passing on the death penalty, no? Am I missing something? (Or, reading the right page?)

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 20, 2007 12:20 AM:

1-2 #17 - Issa channeled Border Patrol complaint to Sensenbrenner, according to Lam in August 2006. Both Issa and Sensenbrenner met with Lam, presumably in San Diego, and Sensenbrenner was most concerned about coyotes.

Is it usual for the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to travel to California to discuss relatively minor border problems with a USA investigating members of Congress and the CIA?

How many other USAs has Sensenbrenner met with in their districts?

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 12:36 AM:

anon @ 12:20,

The Margaret Chiara e-mail is essentially blackmailing McNulty that if he doesn't get her the spot, she's going public with the fact that they fired her for political reasons, and that she'll bring a host of Western Michigan republicans along with her. The Phil Green death penalty thing is just an aside, a way of saying, you've already got enought problems - you don't need to add me to your enemies list.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 20, 2007 12:39 AM:

2-8 #1 - Senator Feinstein's letter about the prosecution of border cases is dated 6/15/06 and was instigated by the Border Patrol.

The Border Patrol sure was busy last spring going after Carol Lam. Again, was the Border Patrol unhappy with Lam's prosecution of some of their own on corruption charges?

7/6/06 - Carol Lam: "These are Border Patrol agents who smuggled illegal aliens. It doesn't get much worse than that."

So far, no emails about sacrificing continuity in a major corruption case versus prosecuting more of those coyotes and tossing them in jail for 60 days.

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 12:42 AM:

and the Chiara e-mail is PDF9 pg. 26.

By the way, sorry if I violated local norms pimping my DKos 'thingy'. I'm a longtime reader of TPM and TPM-M, but really never noticed the commentary until a day or two ago. I didn't think anyone wanted me to repeat the whole diary in a comment here, so I thought I'd include the link, but the most incriminating comments from the e-mail were in my post above anyway -- the "witness protection program" quote and the "politics may not be a pleasant reason, but the truth is compelling."

These aren't quotes that give us much of a new understanding or show us deeper levels of corruption or new leads, which is really what Josh is looking for. But these are vivid quotes, the kind that the media can latch onto. Calling her proposal for McNulty to get her a job so she'll shut up "the witness protection program" is salacious. It's more valuable to us than another hundred ways in which Lam is tied to Cunningham is tied to Foggo.

But I'll keep digging, cause if we tie Foggo to Cheney a little more closely, then the substance will be more valuable than the soundbite.

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 12:51 AM:

Joe- this is soo true!
"These aren't quotes that give us much of a new understanding or show us deeper levels of corruption or new leads, which is really what Josh is looking for.
*But these are vivid quotes, the kind that the media can latch onto.*
Calling her proposal for McNulty to get her a job so she'll shut up "the witness protection program" is salacious. It's more valuable to us than another hundred ways in which Lam is tied to Cunningham is tied to Foggo.

But I'll keep digging, cause if we tie Foggo to Cheney a little more closely, then the substance will be more valuable than the soundbite."

I didn't mind the post- I immediately checked out your diary, and found it valuable. I would promote or push it there, but frankly, I don't like the comments and account bit at dkos. I will however, be happy to send your link around. :o) I appreciate that you perused and pulled that out- we need everyone's efforts! Keep working on it- your diary will get attention.
:o)
Speaking of that, more such sifting going on upstairs at a new thread. Thanks Citizen Muckrakers!

ahem wrote on March 20, 2007 1:07 AM:

The Chiara case is a bombshell.

She announced her resignation on 2/23, but before that was frantically emailing McNulty about her job prospects, then complaining that the 'poor performance' explanation harmed her chances. McNulty looked to shuffle her into EOUSA, possibly to keep her quiet.

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 1:16 AM:

Could the reason Gonzales doesn't use e-mail be that he uses a blackberry, and doesn't consider text messages on a blackberry e-mail?

Just a thought as I peruse "sent from my blackberry handheld" on one of Moschella's messages.

bohdi wrote on March 20, 2007 2:27 AM:

I am quite concerned at this point. Democratic Underground is connecting Cheney now in a payoff scheme to Duke Cunningham that was potentially the next target of the Lam probe. It looks cut and dried like the intiation of a money laundering and racketeering setup in the grand tradition of Al Capone that ensnares Fogo,Goss and many others including the Republican National Committee.

Lam was the real target the other 7 were just padding to hide the fact that Lam had to be silenced. What option does Cheney have now if Waxman calls Lam before Congress and heavies like Seymour Hersh start asking questions. We are talking 700 million in taxpayer money shoveled out of the Dept of Defense to bogus defense companies operated by Republican bagmen who then skim some cream off the top and give all the rest back to the Republican campaign war chest with personal payouts as well to 'high ranking officials'. This could end up being a simple follow-the-money case.

so Cheney could be pushed to the limit. What do snarling,wounded dogs do when backed into a corner? Does he false flag something and then attack Iran to create the ultimate distraction. Does he false flag an American city? AIPAC is fully behind Cheney and Bush and they want us going in. The madman Olmert wants us going in. Will we see an Israeli false flag in our own country or in the Persian Gulf. AT this juncture I am quite disturbed by any of these possibilities.

Jim wrote on March 20, 2007 5:37 AM:

How pathetic that as the sun begins to set on his failed Presidency, he blames the people of our Nation, saying we have some psychological trauma rather than learning the lessons of his enormous mistakes. He will never understand that a grateful nation would rise with relief, if he only had the wisdom to learn and change, and a grateful world will rise with relief, when his days in
office are done.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for using 9-11 to create fear throughout the land, rather than bravery, courage and valor.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for using 9-11 to launch partisan and dishonest attacks on genuine American war heroes because they happen to be members of the other political party.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for using 9-11 as a reason to become the only President in our history to become a world-wide advocate for torture and detention practices that every leader, of every democratic nation, everywhere in the world, has publicly or privately pleaded with
him to abandon.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for showing contempt for the advice of our military commanders by allowing the man he compares to Hitler, to escape from Tora Bora, to pursue an obsessive war in Iraq, that many of those same commanders warned him about, while he publicly claimed he always follows their advice.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for treating the Chief of Staff of the Army with ridicule and contempt, when General Shinseki so honorably tried to warn him.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history, for putting his hand on the Bible and pledging to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution while using 9-11 to claim the unilateral power to break it.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history by accepting the sacred duty to faithfully execute the laws of the land, while using 9-11 to create fears to claim the unilateral powers to violate them.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for dishonoring a spirit that had Democrats and Republicans singing God Bless America at the doors of our Capitol, to personally promote a politics so venomous, vile and vindictive that he fills the air with talk of treason and enemies lists compiled by hate filled supporters.

Even when one of his media partisans slanders the Army that landed at Normandy and the Marines who took Iwo Jima with preposterous falsehoods that they committed war crimes, the self-styled war president lacks the moral integrity to speak out, for fear of offending what he proudly regards as his base.

Even when the trailer park trash of American politics slanders and demeans some widows of 9-11, this partisan who promised to bring honor and integrity to Washington lacks the moral stature to speak out, even against that.

George W. Bush will be morally impeached by the court of history for trying to frighten our people into war with Iraq, with tall tales of Saddam Hussein working with Osama Bin Laden to create mushroom clouds of nuclear extermination that would kill the people of New York.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for using 9-11 to fan the flames of fear so violently, that at one point, the Capital City of the land of the free and the home of the brave was turned into a panicked hutch of rabbits running to the stores for duct tape, gas masks, bottled water, and bullet proof vests while the Vice-President of the United States fled to hiding spots at undisclosed locations.

How ironic, how pathetic, and how fitting that as America prepares to honor the heroes of 9-11 the Senate Intelligence Committee issues a report detailing fraudulent exploitation of false intelligence, one of America's national networks exploits 9-11 with a docu-fraud of falsehoods, while our "wartime" President exploits 9-11 one more time, with one more taxpayer financed tour of fear, desperately trying to win one more national election.

Five years ago some of the finest Americans who God ever put on this earth gave their lives for their brothers and sisters, for their neighbors and families, for the country that they and we love so much, so deeply and so passionately.

No one ever took a poll to determine whether these American heroes were Democrats or Republicans, because it does not matter.

RWN wrote on March 20, 2007 10:58 AM:

I still think through this as cover to fire Lam who was the most threatening to the overall scheme of permanent majority. Opportunity to fire others as non loyal or non activists in the light of the strategy. Fitzgerald's discussion is most revealing and displays great arrogance and hubris miscalculations

Daniel DiRito wrote on March 20, 2007 1:58 PM:

See a tongue-in-cheek visual of Alberto & Karl starring in the new White House presentation of "Justice Is Served"...here:

http://www.thoughttheater.com/2007/03/justice_is_served.php

Mr.Murder wrote on March 20, 2007 2:24 PM:

Cummins outser was as much about cover for Huckabee as it was the real intention of the Hunting of Hillary.