Comments (742)

TK wrote on March 20, 2007 1:04 AM:

2-8

Pages 15-16 are Tim Griffin's resume (!).

Pages 11-48 are all resumes.

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 1:05 AM:

2-9 -- all resumes. Brett Tolman's resume is at the end.

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

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 1-3 page 25.

From: Kyle Sampson
I am only in favor of executing on a plan to push some USAs out if we really are ready and willing to put in the time necessary to select candidates and get them appointed — it will be counterproductive to DOJ operations if we push USAs out and then don’t have replacements ready to roll immediately. In addition, I strongly recommend that, as a matter of Administration policy, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments. We can continue to do selection in JSC, but then should have DOJ take over entirely the vet and appointment. By not going the PAS route. We can give far less deference to home-State Senators and thereby get (1) our preferred person appointed and (2) do it far faster and more efficiently, at less political cost to the White House.

JPV wrote on March 20, 2007 1:08 AM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 1-6 page 20.

From: Chiara, Margaret M. (USAMIW)[MM.Chiara@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 3:41 'PM
To: McNulty, Paul J .
Cc: Elston, Michael (ODAG)
Subject: WDMI

Paul: February 1 seems to be the right date to provide a status report. I continue to vigorously pursue employment. In addition to applying to numerous public agencies and organizations, I am now working with a "headhunter". Who knew this could be so difficult?
Michael Elston informed me that I must vacate my position by March 1. Therefore, I plan to announce my resignation on the afternoon of February 14 or the morning of February 15. I need all the time, salary and benefits available so my resignation will be effective on February 28. The first question within WDMI will be who is the nominee? When will I be able to answer that question?
FYI: Everyone who knows about my required resignation, (primarily our USA colleagues and people who are providing references ), is astonished that I am being asked to leave. Now that if has been widely reported that departing USAs have either failed to meet performance expectations or that they acted independently rather than follow DOJ/EOUSA directives, the situation is so much worse. You know that I am in neither catagory. This makes me so sad. Why have I been asked to resign? The real reason, epecially if true, would be a lot easier to live with. Margaret

Chris wrote on March 20, 2007 1:11 AM:

1-4

On Page 18, Michael Elston writes to Kyle Sampson (and others, including Paul McNulty) ----

Kyle:

Kevin Ryan's FAUSA, Emui Choi, just called to let us know that Kevin is not returning calls from Sen. Feinstein or Carol Lam and doing his best to stay out of this. He wanted us to know that he's still a "company man." I gave her my talkers for McKay and Charlton and asked her to convey them to Kevin.

Mike

tes wrote on March 20, 2007 1:11 AM:

2-5,

Pages 20-26: "Draft" Table outlining performance "issues" compared to EARS for ousted USAs. Includes handwritten notes commenting on various issues.

Pages 29-34: Handwritten outline - apparent talking points, including:
Page 31: "We do not need cause, so there is not necessarily an objective record/ ...Margolis involved and supportive.

Page 32: [Re: Cummins] "not peformance related."

Page 34: " White House personnel & counsel consulted -- POTUS appointments "

fwiffo wrote on March 20, 2007 1:12 AM:

1-1 seems to have a lot of actual upsetness about a couple USAs inaction on immigration prosecutions. In particular, Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) is yelling at Carol Lam a lot about a report saying something like only 6% of aliens and alien smugglers caught by the border patrol actually going to prosecution.

Ru wrote on March 20, 2007 1:12 AM:

2-5 28-34 are handwritten notes.

On page 31, notes explaining USAs weren't told why they were being dismissed because it would lead to their objections or comparisons.

On page 34, notes explaining WH personnel and counsel consulted.

dday wrote on March 20, 2007 1:13 AM:

Great work, guys.

1-1

A lot of this dump is about an AP story on May 18, 2006 about the lack of immigration prosecutions in the SD area. One interesting part is that Iglesias is emailed the story by Rebecca Seidel, and she says "see below story. We are going to need to ensure that you David have enough info to respond to questions you may get on this. We need to respond with our good prosecution numbers..."

In other words, DoJ was actively trying to knock down the AP story, and appealed to none other than Iglesias and his "good prosecution numbers" in the border state of New Mexico. I don't know off-hand if immigration cases were given as a rationale for his firing.

More later. This is kinda fun.

TK wrote on March 20, 2007 1:14 AM:

1-6

Page 21. Margaret Chiara struggles to figure out the real reason for her dismissal in a Feb. 1 e-mail. Sad.

JPV wrote on March 20, 2007 1:14 AM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 1-8 page 21.

From: Scolinos, Tasia
Sent: Thursday, February 22. 2007 5:13 PM
To: Elston Michael (ODAG); Goodling, Monica; Sampson, Kyle
Cc: Roehrkasse, Brian
Subject: FW: Margaret Chiara Press Release
Attachments:’ 2007 MMC press release.wpd

FYI - Michigan is going to push this out tomorrow. The first question will be whether she was asked to leave. The first assistant said he did not know what Margaret planned to say in response to that. Has anyone talked to her this week to get a feel for where she is at with this? She is also faxing a copy of her resignation letter to the AG and the WH -the first assistant did not know what it said. Has she discussed it with any of you? I believe this will generate another round ‘of rough stories as expected- her press release paints a pretty dam good record and emphasizes her many “firsts” as a woman which the media will no doubt play up. I am planning to decline comment out of here with respect to whether she was as to leave.

sara wrote on March 20, 2007 1:15 AM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 1-9 page 26.
Chiara requests a change from McNulty regarding firing. Please state truth as political not due to performance.

tes wrote on March 20, 2007 1:16 AM:

2-4
Page 17-20: "USA Attorney Assessment": Bullet list of alleged performance issues with each USA; appears to be similar to table/chart, which appears at 2-5, pp20-26.

TK wrote on March 20, 2007 1:16 AM:

1-6

Page 23. Sampson decides that he doesn't want Bud Cummins to appear to answer questions. He poses a whole list of questions that he appears not to want answered under oath -- presumably because Sampson either knows what the answers would be or doesn't

JPV wrote on March 20, 2007 1:17 AM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 1-10 page 9.
From: Chiara, Margaret M (USAMIW)
Sent: Tuesday, November 07. 2006 8:00 AM
To: McNulty, Paul J
Subject: Re: USA/WDMI

Paul: As soon as the “election dust settles”, I ask that you tell me why my resignation may be requested. Since you have not taken exception to the eventually, I now assume that it is likely. I need to know the truth to live in peace with the aftermath. (Of course, we do need to retain control of the Senate to facilitate confirmations.) Perhaps you are not aware that Michael Elston informed me, per Monica Goodling, that a congress person, who is expected to lose in today’s election, will be offered the leadership of the VAW office. I am already actively but discretely pursuing self-help options. However, I will need assistance to retain federal gov’t financial security, as stated in my previous e -mail. Know that I appreciate your response and offer to assist. Margaret

Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

—–Original Message—–
From: McNulty, Paul J
To: Chiara, Margaret M. (USAMIWj
Sent: Tue Nov 07 07:22:51 2006
Subject: Re: USA/WOMI

Margaret, I received your message and I appreciate your perspective. I know of your interest in the VAWA job and will let you know if any other opportunities come up. Paul

Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

—–Original Message—–
From: Chiara, Margaret M. (USAMIW)
To: McNulty, Paul J
Sent: Sun Nov 05 15:13:03 2006
Subject: USA/WOMI

Paul: On November 3, Michael Elston conveyed professional shocking news. I had previously consulted him about the feasibility of a brief leave of absence to serve as the interim dean of the Michigan State University College of Law. (Note: MSU is interested in me only if I am the USA for WOMI.) Mr. Elston informed me that such a leave is only an option when the alternate service is within the federal government. He further informed me that I should expect contact from the White House requesting my resignation as USA shortly after the November 7 elections. He could offer no explanation other than that I erroneously assumed that good service guaranteed longevity because other USAs have been asked for their resignation without cause. In my case the service has exemplary in a difficult district in addition to being an active contributor since appointment on 3 of the A.G.’s subcommittees. While I live in hope that this dire prediction is untrue, I am contacting you because I need assistance to remain in federal service with a comparable compensation or, quite frankly, I will lose everything that I have been working toward for the past five years. My chronology will not allow me to recoup from such an unanticipated financial catastrophe. I trust that I can count on you to intervene or provide an alternative. Margaret

Ned wrote on March 20, 2007 1:17 AM:

I am curious about the manually redacted names on DAG 545 and DAG 558 (zeros omitted). The redactions were obviously done by hand. DAG 558 has two names redacted and 558 has one, and given the context, it makes me wounder.

Rob Z wrote on March 20, 2007 1:17 AM:

1 10 Page 1

Cummins writing to his fellow fired attorneys about the message he recieved:

------------------
...if they feel like any of us intend to continue to offer quotes to the press, or organize behind the scenes congressional pressure, then they would feel forced to somehow pull *their* gloves off and offer public criticisms to defend their actions more fully.... I was tempted to challenge him and say something movie-like such as "are you threatening ME???"...
-------------------

MillionthMonkey wrote on March 20, 2007 1:19 AM:

Halfway through Document 1.10...

This email appears on pages 1 - 4 twice (along with some Outlook fluff indicating an active ongoing coverup)-

--- snip snip ---

From: H.E. Cummins
Sent: Tue 2/20/2007 5:06 PM
To: Dan Bogden; Paul K. Charlton; David Iglesias; Carol Lam; McKay, John (Law Adjunct)
Subject: on another note

Mike Elston from the DAG's office called me today. The call was amiable enough, but clearly spurred by the Sunday Post article. The essence of his message was that they feel like they are taking unnecessary flak to avoid trashing each of us specifically or further, but if they feel like any of us intend to continue to offer quotes to the press, or organize behind the scenes congressional pressure, then they would feel forced to somehow pull their gloves off and offer public criticisms to defend their actions more fully. I can't offer any specific quotes, but that was clearly the message. I was tempted to challenge him and say something movie-like such as "are you threatening ME???", but instead I kind of shrugged it off and said I didn't sense that anyone was intending to perpetuate this. He mentioned my quote from Sunday and I didn't apologize for it, told him it was true and that everyone involved should agree with the truth of my statement, and pointed out to him that I stopped short of calling them liars and merely said that IF they were doing as alleged then they should retract. I also made it a point to tell him that all of us have turned down multiple invitations to testify. He reacted quite a bit to the idea of anyone voluntarily testifying and it seemed clear that they would see that as a major escalation of the conflict meaning some kind of unspecified form of retaliation.

I don't personally see this as any big deal and it sounded like the threat of retaliation amounts to a threat that they would make their recent behind doors senate presentation public. I didn't tell him that I had heard about the details in that presentation and found it to be a pretty weak threat since everyone who heard it apparently thought it was weak.

I don't want to stir you up conflict or overstate the threatening undercurrent in the call, but the message was clearly there and you should be aware before you speak to the press again if you choose to do that. I don't feel like I am betraying him by reporting this to you because I think that is probably what he wanted me to do. Of course, I would appreciate maximum opsec regarding this email and ask that you not forward it or let others read it.

Bud

--- snip snip ---

Pages 5 through 24 contain original and redacted (?) versions of William E. Moschella's testimony before the US house of representatives on March 6. You can see all the WH edits.

Page 25 contains a confrontational email dated March 6, 2007 from Margaret Chiara to Paul McNulty and Michael Elson immediately after she found out that she was one of the 8 prosecutors (not sure if this is related to Moschella's testimony or not):

-- snip snip --

From: Chiara, Margaret M. (USAMIW)
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007
To: McNulty, Paul J
Cc: Elston, Michael (ODAG)
Subject: WDMI

Importance: High

Today's Congressional events make clear that I am, indeed, among the "USA - 8".
Shortly after his opening statement, but before citing the perceived deficiencies of my former colleagues, Will Moschella stated that the two United States Attorneys not present were dismissed because of management problems. Apparently Kevin Ryan (whom I do not know) and I share the same reason for termination.

Michael Elston told me on more than one occasion, that the rationale for dismissal was on a continuum of sorts and that I am on the de minimus end after Dan Bogden. It is abundantly clear that this regrettable situation could have been better managed if the reasons for the dismissals were initially communicated to the affected United States Attorneys.

So, I now need to know what is the management problem to which Mr. Moschella referred?

Margaret

--snip snip--

Pages 26 on through the end of this document are all testimony from a full-committee hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on "Preserving Prosecutorial Independence: Is the Department of Justice Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys?" chaired by Charles Schumer (D-NY). Testimony from deputy attorney general Paul J. McNulty starts on page 37 and continues through the end. I assume this was a public hearing so I didn't read it more carefully than this.

Pat Smith wrote on March 20, 2007 1:19 AM:

In 2-1, p.43, a 1/5/07 e-mail exchange between Sampson, Goodling, Elston and McNulty shows that Chiara, Bodgen and Lam asked for extensions on their sudden firings. Sampson writes, "And we granted 1-month extensions for Dan and Margaret, but not Carol -- right?"

No extension for Lam--politically motivated?

Anyone notice how concerned and "sad" Margaret Chiara was about her firing and not being able to procure another government job?

steve ex-expat wrote on March 20, 2007 1:21 AM:

Pt. 2 1070319 pdf is basically a how-to-fire the U.S. Attorneys, and what to say. It has a pleading from Margeret Chiara (sp?) to save her job.

Interesting reference on page 14 to "Karl's shop".

TomT wrote on March 20, 2007 1:21 AM:

1-2, first three pages are a letter to Issa about Lam. On page 4, this comment seems possibly interesting: "I didn't realize Issa and Carol and met -- do we need to acknowledge anything more about this meeting?"

AdamSC wrote on March 20, 2007 1:22 AM:

1-10, pg 25
Email from Margarate Chiara (USAMIW) to Paul McNulty.

In congressional hearings on 3/6/07..."Will Moschella stated that the two USAs not present were dismissed because of management problems. Apparantley Kevin Ryan (whom I do not know) and I share the same reason for termination."

"Michael Elston told me on more than one occasion, that the rationale for dismissal was on a continuum of sorts and that I am on the de minimus end after Dan Bogden...."
...
"So, I now need to know what is the management problem to which Mr. Moschella referred?"

Rich Wickline wrote on March 20, 2007 1:22 AM:

2-19

Resumes

Newsie8200 wrote on March 20, 2007 1:23 AM:

Document 1-11.

Most of this is testimony from a hearing.

Last two pages has some handwritten notes. I can't make out anything on page 39. It appears as though someone wrote on the back of a page where there's lots of writing that's tough to make out.

Page 38 is interesting.

"The list
-Menus for recording statements
-SDCA-dealing w/ Carol
-AUSA phone call project
-Kevin Ryan-EARS-Margolis"

I think the first item is "Menus" but I'm not sure. The writing is kind of hard to make out there.

What do SDCA and EARS stand for? Margolis? I think the one item that jumps out is "dealing w/ Carol". I guess that means Carol Lam?

rita wrote on March 20, 2007 1:23 AM:

1-10 (AP article and Issa Letter discussion begins here and runs for several pages)

Issa attempts to smear Carol Lam in mid-May 2006

6 Days After the FBI served search warrants on Dusty Foggo, May 18, 2006, the AP ran a story on an unofficial Border Patrol document they had received from Darrell Issa. The article included details from the document and Lam’s and other
federal officials’ responses.

The lead sentence in the story is, “The vast majority of people caught smuggling immigrants across the border near San Diego are never prosecuted for the offense, demoralizing the U.S. Border Patrol agents making the arrests,
according to an internal document obtained by The Associated Press.” The article also states, “Judges and federal attorneys are so swamped that
only the most egregious smuggling cases are prosecuted.”

According to a press release on Issa’s website Lam’s response to him was, “Representative Issa has been misled. The document he calls a "Border Patrol Report" is actually an old internal Border Patrol document, relating to a single
substation that has been substantially altered and passed off as an official report. Many of the comments in the document to which Representative Issa refers are editorial comments inserted by an unidentified individual, and they were not approved by or ever seen by Border Patrol management.”

And, Issa admits in a May 24th, 2006 letter to Lam that the memo “could not be embraced and released publicly as a report representing the views of Border Patrol management”.

But Issa has continued to use that document to this day. On June 29, 2006 he cites it as a memo from a “Department of Homeland Security” source. He used it in his testimony before Congress on March 6, 2007 and attributes it to a “senior
source within the Border Patrol”.

Issa stated, “only 6 percent of 289 smuggling suspects caught by Border Patrol agents from the El Cajon station east of San Diego in the 12 months ending in September 2004 were prosecuted.” But the AP article goes on to say of the 289
cases, “Some were instead prosecuted for another crime. Other cases were declined by federal prosecutors, or the suspect was released by the Border Patrol.”

The AP article notes that “Issa’s office said it was an internal Border Patrol report written last August. It was unclear who wrote it.”. Issa has variously referred to the document as a “memo” or a “report.” He has never published this
41-page document on his website.

Rich Wickline wrote on March 20, 2007 1:24 AM:

Sorry, 2-9 are resumes. I haven't looked at 2-19.

TK wrote on March 20, 2007 1:25 AM:

1-6

Page 42. Paul McNulty discusses the possibility of hiring Margaret Chiara into "a EOUSA slot and then send[ing] her down to the NAC". This is a job that she sees available.

Michael Elston notes that "This idea may help us avoid linking this to the others."

EasyRider wrote on March 20, 2007 1:25 AM:

I would suggest a couple of things.
1.) record all the text of the message you are reporting about.
2.) Collect all of your reports into a document that is a mirror of the source PDF file. That will make it easier to collect a master text set of each PDF here on TPM.
3.) Begin reading emails from the ends (bottom) to the top. This will make them easlier to read and understand the communication.
4.) Use color codes to identify and classify your text as you collect it.

Just suggestions, maybe other have other thoughts of how to do analysis of these files.

JPV wrote on March 20, 2007 1:25 AM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 1-10 page 14.

From: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 200612:08 PM
To: 'HarrieLMiers@who.eop.gov'; William_K._Kelley@who.eop.gov
Cc: McNulty, PaulJ
Subject: RE: USA replacement plan

Who will determine whether whether this requires the President's attention?

-----Original Message-----
From: Harriet Miers@who.eop.gov [mailto:Harriet Miers@who.eop.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15,' 2006 11:39 AM
To: Sampson, Kyle; William K. Kelley@who.eop.gov
Cc: McNulty, Paul J
Subject: RE: USA replacement plan

Not sure whether this will be determined to require the boss's attention. If it does, he just left last night so would not be able to accomplish that for some time. We will see. Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kyle.Sampson@usdoj.gov [mailto:Kyle.Sampson@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 11:02 AM
To: Kelley, William K.; Miers, Harriet
Cc: Paul.J.McNulty@usdoj.gov
Subject: USA replacement plan
Importance: High

Harriet/Bill, please see the attached. Please note (1) the plan, by its terms, would commence this week; (2) I have consulted with the DAG, but not yet informed others who would need to be brought into the loop, including Acting Associate AG Bill Mercer, EOUSA Director Mike Battle, and AGAC Chair Johnny Sutton (nor have I informed anyone in Karl's shop, another pre-execution necessity I would recommend); and (3) I am concerned that to execute this plan properly we must all be on the same page and be steeled to withstand any political upheaval that might result (see Step 3); if we start caving to complaining U.S. Attorneys or Senators then we shouldn't do it -- it'll be more trouble than it is worth.

We'll stand by for a green light from you. Upon the green light, we'll (1) circulate the below plan to the list of folks in Step 3 (and ask that you circulate it to Karl's shop), (2) confirm that Kelley is making the Senator/Bush political lead calls, and (3) get Battle making the calls to the USAs. Let us know.

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 1:25 AM:

I mentioned in the previous thread that Margaret Chiara's e-mail at 1-9 p. 26 is just wonderful. The two best quotes are

- when she labels the proposal that McNulty find her a new job "the witness protection plan", meaning that if he doesn't protect, she'll decide to be a witness after all.
- when she suggests that if McNulty doesn't find her a job, she'll go public with the reason for her dismissal: she writes "Politics may not be a pleasant reason, but the truth is compelling."

I love this second quote, because it's a new twist on the old quote from Huey Long (at least apocryphally): if you're with me in the election, you'll get a piece of the pie. If you're not with, all you gonna get is good government." The subtext in both quotes is that "neither of us wants good government" -- "neither of us wants the 'compelling truth' to come out, Paul, so get me a job and everybody's happy.

And she even mentions her monetar contributions once more -- actually making explicit the fact that in this administration, giving money to the campaign carries an expectation of a job.

tekel wrote on March 20, 2007 1:25 AM:

2-2 page 14:

From: Sampson
To: Elston, Richard Hertling
CC: Goodling, Moschella, McNulty, Rebecca Seidel(who is Rebecca?)
RE: Bud Cummins
Date: Feb 1

In response to mail from Elston, telling Hertling that Schumer was asking Cummins to testify.

Sampson writes:
"I don't think he should [testify]. How would he answer:

Did you resign voluntarily?
Were you told why you were being asked to resign?
[...]
Did Griffin ever talk about being AG appointed and avoiding Senate confirmation?
[...]

-------

Yes, those turned out to be difficult questions, didn't they.

hungrycoyote wrote on March 20, 2007 1:26 AM:

Oh, I sent an email before I saw this. I'll just post here:

2-6

On pages 4 through 6, there is a letter from Richard A. Hertling, Acting Assistant Attorney General, to Senator Mark Pryor in Arkansas dated January 31, 2007. The first page of the letter defends the reasons for selecting Tim Griffin. However, on page two of the letter there is a long paragraph about why they inserted the change to the Patriot Act:

"Last year's amendment to the Attorney General's appointment authority was necessary and appropriate. Prior to the amendment, the Attorney General could appoint an interim United States Attorney for only 120 days; thereafter, the district court was authorized to appoint an interim United States Attorney. In cases where a Senate-confirmed United States Attorney could not be appointed within 120 days, the limitation on the Attorney General's appointment authority resulted in numerous, recurring problems. For example, some district courts -- recognized the oddity of members of one branch of government appointing offices of another and the conflicts inherent in the appointment of an interim United States Attorney who would then have many matters before the court -- refused to exercise the court appointment authority, thereby requiring the Attorney General to make successive, 120-day appointments. In contrast, other district courts -- ignoring the oddity and the inherent conflicts -- sought to appoint as interim United States Attorney wholly unacceptable candidates who did not have the appropriate experience or the necessary clearances. Contrary to your letter, nothing in the text or history of the statute even suggests that the Attorney General should articulate a national security or law enforcement need for making an interim appointment. Because the Administration is committed to having a Senate-confirmed United States Attorney for all 94 federal districts, changing the law to restore the limitations on the Attorney General's appointment authority is unnecessary."

If as the DOJ says, "the Administration is committed to having a Senate-confirmed United States Attorney for all 94 federal districts," then why didn't they replace Tim Griffin with somebody who was willing to submit their name for Senate confirmation, when Griffin announced on February 15 that he would not go before the Senate for confirmation?

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/National/182004/print/

ahem wrote on March 20, 2007 1:27 AM:

2-1 Chiara / McNulty emails, followed by emails discussing Chiara

p. 9 (Nov 7, election day)

Chiara: "I need to know the truth to live in peace with the aftermath."

2-2,

p. 33 (Feb 9)
Chiara sends job posting to McNulty. McNulty to Elston: "Could we make this happen? Hire her into an EOUSA spot and send her down to the NAC?"

p. 38 (Feb 13)
Chiara sends another job posting to McNulty: "Your intervention would be needed"

[Feb 12, Levin and Stabenow send a letter to Gonzales asking if any Michigan US Attorneys are being resigned. Chiara's fate is still a secret]

p. 42 (Feb 21)
Chiara emails McNulty with details of resignation announcement, set for 2/23 and asks for clarification on departure date

[what happened between Feb 12 and Feb 21? Did McNulty pull strings to get Chiara a job, and her silence?]

2-3,

p. 1 (Mar 4)
Chiara emails McNulty asking him to 'reconsider the rationale of poor performance'... 'Politics may not be a pleasant reason but the truth is compelling. And as you surely realize, the unresolved Phil Green situation has definitely complicated the perception of DOJ in WDMI.'

p. 2
McNulty replies, 'you know well how we have worked with you to help you make as smooth a transition as possible to your next opportunity'. Says 'performance' is truthful.

p. 19 (Mar 6)
Chiara to McNulty, complaining about Moschella's reference to 'management problems' in his statement to the House subcommittee.

sara wrote on March 20, 2007 1:27 AM:

1-9 page 42
Elston email reply to Goodling and Moschella wondering about specific reasons why AG replaced in AZ and NV...is it really obscenity cases?

Nathan wrote on March 20, 2007 1:27 AM:

this margaret chiara sounds rather pathetic -- a former ausa cant find employment? financial catastrophe? normally ausa's leave their posts to windfalls...

TomT wrote on March 20, 2007 1:28 AM:

Just to sum up, first 25 pages of 1-2 is back and forth about Lam's record on border cases and various drafts of letters to Feinstein and Issa about it. Then at page 26, it starts in with Timothy Griffin's CV. Stopped around page 30.

CMG wrote on March 20, 2007 1:28 AM:

2-2 pg 14: Bud Cummins offers to testify -- mostly in support. In VERY REVEALING response dated Feb 1, 2007, Sampson thinks it's a bad idea because

"How would he answer:
Did you resign voluntarily?
Were you told why you were being asked to resign?
Who told you?
When did they tell you?
What did they say?
Did you ever talk to TimGriffin about his becoming U.S. Attorney?
What did Griffin say?
Did Griffin ever talk about being AG appointed and avoiding Senate confirmation?
Were you asked to resign because you were underperforming?
If not, they why?"

Kathleen de la Pena McCook wrote on March 20, 2007 1:29 AM:

2-5

Harsh remarks about why firing, scribbled in on grid...
EXAMPLES:
Bodgen-lack of energy
Iglesias-absentee landlord

pp. 20-26
======

HANDWRITTEN NOTES ON WHY FIRING
includes elitist remarks about universities as if state universities aren't "as good."
pp. 29-33
=========
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt2-5070319.pdf

roger wrote on March 20, 2007 1:29 AM:

1-10

p 1. is Bud Cummins' widely discussed 2/20/07 email to fellow fired U.S. Attorneys, describing a phone call in which someone named Mike Elston from the justice dept attempted to intimidate him out of talking to the press or congress.

ahem wrote on March 20, 2007 1:30 AM:

No extension for Lam--politically motivated?

Looks like it.

And it looks like she went to the press, because 2-2, p.2 shows the SD Union-Leader story forwarded to McNulty.

His response to Elston: "Wow. Has she been called yet?"

hungrycoyote wrote on March 20, 2007 1:30 AM:

1-3 (Page 34)

From: Elston, Michael (ODAG)
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 6:29 PM
To: Sampson, Kyle
Subject: Re: U.S. Attorney Replacement Plan

This looks fine to me -- trying to get Paul's input as well.

The only concerning I have is that Paul just visited __________ and asked that _______ not be on the list. He does not seem to be running things well (if somewhat independent of DOJ). On the other hand, Matt mentioned a scandal rumor that is of great concern to me. Should we mark him as tentative while we talk that out?
------
Who did Paul visit? What scandal?

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 1:30 AM:

All of document 2-9 is a collection of resumes of various assistants (including Phil Green, whose curious case is referenced in one of the Chiara e-mails.)

Chuck Rosenberg felt it was relevant to his effort to find a primo AG spot that he was a "Cross Country bicyclist." He describes his trek as a "9500-mile trip". Umm, Chuck, it's only about 3,000 miles from LA to NY.

Maybe instead of just crossing the country, he circumnavigated it. I doubt it though. It seems like puffing up the mileage on a cross-country trip is just the sort of thing that WOULD recommend you to this administration.

dday wrote on March 20, 2007 1:31 AM:

1-1

The William Moschella letter to Dianne Feinstein is on page 44 of PDF 1-1. A similar one was sent out to Rep. Darrell Issa. Moschella defends DoJ policy on immigration cases and the work of USA Carol Lam in that department. Moschella is either lying to Congress in this letter, or he and his office lied to Congress under oath when he determined that Lam was fired due to her work in failing to properly prosecute border cases. So which is it?

Ghost of Tom Joad wrote on March 20, 2007 1:32 AM:

Pat Smith,
Notice how she is very upset. It seems like she is in deep financial trouble and can't afford to take any time off. Weird. What's up with that? How much do USA's get paid a year?

Robin wrote on March 20, 2007 1:33 AM:

CAUTION!!!

NO offense to TK, who posted above, but we have to be extremely careful about characterizing what the 'sense' of the email might mean.

TK WRote:

1-6 Page 21. Margaret Chiara struggles to figure out the real reason for her dismissal in a Feb. 1 e-mail. Sad.
Posted by: TK
Date: March 20, 2007 01:14 AM

It seems clear to me reading this email that Chiara KNOWS the reason she is leaving, but she is not able to disclose that. She is talking about the only reasons USAs are asked to leave (performance or acting independent of DOJ initiatives/guidelines), and she is SAD only because she hates people thinking she was asked to leave for those denegrating reasons. She says outright: "The real reason [she was asked to leave], especially if true, would be a lot easier to live with."

*******So, I caution Josh and team to read the synopsis that people give for a document with much caution. This email is tragic for the DOJ. Chiara can't even SAY what the reason is! Don't we want to know.

Again, sorry to call you out TK... but maybe it's better to just transcribe the email.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 20, 2007 1:33 AM:

The Border Patrol appears to have instigated congressional complaints about Carol Lam's prosecution of coyotes sometime last spring. At the time, Lam was prosecuting two Border Patrol agents for smuggling aliens.

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

1-1 #10-22 5/18/06, Rep. Darrel Issa releases internal "report" provided by Border Patrol to press. Issa appears on Lou Dobbs on 5/22/06 to discuss report. Lam disputes authenticity of report. Issa also sends letter to Lam on 5/24/06.

1-2 #17 Issa channeled Border Patrol complaint to Rep. James Sensenbrenner, according to Lam in August 2006. Both Issa and Sensenbrenner met with Lam, presumably in San Diego, and Sensenbrenner was mostly concerned about the lack of prosecution of coyotes.

Is it unusual for the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to travel to California to discuss the prosecution of coyotes who would likely be sentenced to 60 days?

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

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

1-1 #25 - 10/25/05 letter from California GOP members of Congress to Gonzales complaining about the prosecution policy of "catch and release." Specifically nmentions two cases. No followup documents in 1-1.

So far, these documents appear to constitute the basis for the DOJ's position that Lam did not adequately pursue immigration cases.

Andrew wrote on March 20, 2007 1:34 AM:

2-1, p. 20:
"Plan for Replacing Certain U.S. Attorneys"

Includes list of who will be calling the Republican home-state Senators/home-state "Bush political leads" to inform them of the USA firings.

The only DOJ member to make a call was AG:
"AG Calls Jon Kyl (re Charlton)"

The rest were made by the White House Counsel's Office or White House Office of Political Affairs.

tekel wrote on March 20, 2007 1:34 AM:

2-2, page 41:

Kevin Ryan sends email to Mike Elston, kissing his ass. "you have been a gentleman in your dealings with me, and I appreciate it."

Elston fwds mail to Goodling, McNulty, Sampson.

Kevin's email is significant (to me) becuase the tagline says "Sent from my GoodLink synchronized handheld (www.good.com)" which, to me, means he's using a Treo, on a public cell network, to send USA emails.

Which means it should be possible to get at all of his email via subpoena of his cellular provider, if DOJ isn't as forthcoming as some may like.

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 1:34 AM:

Hmm. At 2-8, p. 1, Feinstein does actually complain about poor prosecution of immigration cases. "It is my understanding that the US Attorney's Office Southern District of California may have some of the most restrictive prosecutorial guidelines nationwise for immigration cases, such that many Border Patrol agents end up not referring their cases."

We'll likely here more of that from the other side, unfortunately.

taylormattd wrote on March 20, 2007 1:36 AM:

I don't know if anyone has photoshop or some high quality picture editing/manipulation program, but if you head over to the last set of scaned DOJ documents at the House Judiciary website (scan number 11), the last page is actually a "back side" that shows quite a bit of the previous page, which was redacted. The page numbers are DAG000000942 and 943.

I just spent some time trying to sharpen / highlight contrasts to figure out what the redacted lines say, but I have a feeling that someone with a better program and more experience might have some luck figuring out what the redacted lines say.

I should add, however, I am pretty sure I see a line that says something like "AG prior testimony" . . .

circuithead wrote on March 20, 2007 1:37 AM:

2-5
page 20 in middle of ag descriptions, and problems associated with them.
the listing for bogden is rather strange.

the bulleted lists talk about how las vegas is a large city with potential for terrorist attack... and there is a high crime rate there... all to say...that they have a right to expect "excellence and agressiveness in the prosecution of high priority areas"

The weirdness is in the next bullet point. which gives as a reason for his ousting is because he failed to support the prosecution for a case involving the "federal crime of obscenity".

high priority there huh mr. "give your middle finger to a camera while governor" while your vp is mr. "drop an f bomb on the senate floor"

StuartH wrote on March 20, 2007 1:37 AM:

anybody smell a rat regarding Darryl Issa's involvment in the Lam firing? It's time somebody suggests to Waxman and Feinstein that they start an investigation into Issa's involvement which figures heavily in this new email dump....wherever there's scandal, there seems to be Issa...

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 1:38 AM:

After the Feinstein letter, a law review article from Griffin Bell on replacement of USAttys; a news article about the replacement of Mullins in SD, and a brief summary of the vacancies, the rest of 2-8 is more resumes (with some repeats, including the above mentioned bicyclist.)

RobinLynne wrote on March 20, 2007 1:39 AM:

1-4 page 21-22
Specter's position: use DOJ talking points
interesting email
january 25, 2007
from: Rebecca Seidel to: 10 different DOJ people

re: SJC hearing on USA firings
(the first hearing, february 2007)

"just got off the phone with Matt miner on Specter's staff who called to discuss the hearing. He said we will be getting an invite shortly. Has there been further thought on the DOJ witness?
He asked for a few things......

He is organizing a republican amendment strategy so the dems don't divide and conquer. he asked if we have any amendments to please draft and get them to him. I re-sent him the talking points (as he had given his copy away) he realized we had a lot of info in there.

so specter wants the DOJ to actually write the amendments, and uses their talking points directly. This says to me that he should be relieved of his position in this particular investigation! He is asking the very people he is supposed to be investigating to write his talking points...

MillionthMonkey wrote on March 20, 2007 1:39 AM:

More on 1-10:

Apparently I didn't read what I typed in. The email from Chiara on page 25 is in direct response to Moschella's testimony about "management problems" implying in his testimony that she was a f_ckup.

If you are only beginning to read document 1-10 I believe the "Sunday Post" article they are referring to up there at the very beginning of the document is 6 of 7 Dismissed U.S. Attorneys Had Positive Job Evaluations by Dan Eggen, Washington Post Staff Writer, published on February 18 (their emails about it are two days afterward). Both the email and the Washington Post article with its anonymous-fired-prosecutor source refer to "pulling off gloves" in similar language.

Jason

Eleny wrote on March 20, 2007 1:39 AM:

They talk about "pushing out" certain USA's:

Page 22 of http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt1-3070319.pdf

My capture uploaded here of the list they want to push out:
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a169/eleny/pushouts.jpg

Pat Smith wrote on March 20, 2007 1:40 AM:

1-5 seems mostly worthless. It is an e-mail thread discussing various edits and "redlines" and comments to a draft of "DAG's" testimony (is this Elston? Sampson?) IMHO, it's not worth spending much time on.

Frank Furtive wrote on March 20, 2007 1:40 AM:

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt2-6070319.pdf

PP 11-12 contain a letter from AK Rep Mark Pryor to express his displeasure re Tim Griffin's appointment to AK AG.

It's very hard to read. Paragraph 3 says something about how Gonzalez' office cited pregnancy and motherhood as factors in the appointment, perhaps for firing the former AG.

Paragraphs 4 and 5 seem to address Pryor's concerns about the Patriot Act or assurances he was given about same.

Here's a tender morsel from p 27, "when I hear you talk about politicizing DOJ it's like a knife in my heart". (Paul McNulty? It's not clear who said this.)

There is a somewhat interesting email from Tim Griffin regarding a Greg Palast article alleging that black military votes were suppressed in 2004.

Other than that this contains only documents that are already public, such as the text of bills, congressional minutes, and resumes.

PaulE wrote on March 20, 2007 1:41 AM:

2-6 (page 11)

1/11/07 letter from Mark Pryor (AR senator) to AG Gonzales. Numerous complaints:

1. " ...it is clear (from the events that occurred in July and August 2006), that there was an attempt to force then USA Cummins to resign"

2. "astonished" that interim appt given to Tim Griffin rather than the First Assistant USA because latter is "on maternity leave and therefore would not be able to perform the responsibilities of the appt"

3. Appt undermines confirmation process and AG has failed to justify the replacement pursuant to recent Patriot Act modification.

Pryor closes by saying he believes the new appt rule is being abused and has signed on to reverting the law back to the original 120-day rule.

Duke from jail wrote on March 20, 2007 1:42 AM:

the link above and below is to a special report by U.S News on what Carol Lam was working on - Duke, Faggo, MZM, etc.

http://www.chitraragavan.com/usnews/25MZM.pdf

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 1:42 AM:

these documents seem to be a bunch of smoke and mirrors. Tons of irrelevant junk intended to divert our attention.

While there are some interesting documents there, it seems that many may still be being withheld.

butcher wrote on March 20, 2007 1:42 AM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 2-6 page 11

1) Mark Pryor (Arkansas) refers to attempts in July & Aug 2006 to force USA Cummins to resign. What were these attempts?

2) Pryor's letter continues, describing the rationale for firing Cummins (as of Jan 11/2007), which was: The First Assistant USA was ON MATERNITY LEAVE. That's a pretty big stupid rationale, but Pryor says it was public. Have you guys covered this angle?

sara wrote on March 20, 2007 1:42 AM:

2-6 page 4
page 4 DOJ letter to Senator Pryor about Griffin appointment

page 11 Senator Pryor response

page 13 AR Times newspaper cut-out on Cummins desire to stay on and next page he's on way out

pages 17-20 Griffin emails to Goodling regarding voter fraud cases

hilzoy wrote on March 20, 2007 1:42 AM:

At 1-7, pp. 16-18, Kyle Sampson drafts a letter that flat-out lies, to be sent on behalf of Richard Hertling (Acting AAG) to Harry Reid. Quote:

"The Department of Justice is not aware of anyone lobbying, either inside or outside of the Administration, for Griffin's appointment." (p. 17.)

And:

"The department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Griffin."

filchyboy wrote on March 20, 2007 1:43 AM:

From document DOJDocsPt2-4070319/pdf 48 pages - Identified as 3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 2-4 on DOJ website.

Hand scrawled on email apparently used for PR on firings:

"The Number: The media has repeatedly referred to the number as 7 including Arkansas. It's actually 7, *not* including Arkansas. One name has never been mentioned publicly and this individual has not yet made an announced(sp). I said "less than 10" in my testimony."

dday wrote on March 20, 2007 1:43 AM:

2-7

Page 23 is a letter to Alberto Gonzales from the National Association of Former United States Attorneys, STRONGLY disapproving of the policy of firing the USAs for "what may have been political considerations." Interesting.

Kathleen de la Pena McCook wrote on March 20, 2007 1:43 AM:

Griffin writing Michael Elston that Greg Palast has identified vote suppression of African American soldiers. Reprint article.16-20

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt2-6070319.pdf

MillionthMonkey wrote on March 20, 2007 1:43 AM:

Link to above "6 out of 7" WP article referenced at outset of 1-10: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701509.html

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 1:44 AM:

2-7 seems to be entirely documents already in the public realm -- a transcript of Gonzales being questioned by Sen. Sessions; letters from Leahy and Feinstein and other Dems from early January as the issue is breaking; some fact-sheets from the AG on who has resigned, etc.; and editorials from the Chgo Trib, the NY Times, etc.

I don't know if anyone finds it helpful that I'm attempting to catalogue documents that I'm not delving closely into. I'm sure many people will eventually get to all of it, but I'm just starting from the back and narrowing out things that don't seem worth immediate focus.

tekel wrote on March 20, 2007 1:44 AM:

2-2 page 49:

3/4/07 McNulty email to Tasia Scolinos, at her Yahoo email address (what a bunch of assclowns. Yahoo? Ferchristsake, people).

McNulty approves a set of talking points created by Tasia that we've all become familiar with. Condensed version:

1. be good managers
2. enforce DOJ policies
3. Clinton did it too.
4. communication mistakes were made, get over it.

TK wrote on March 20, 2007 1:45 AM:

1-10

Page 24. Margaret Chiara e-mails to McNulty. Says that she has had a conversation with Elston in which he said that "the rationale for dismissal was on a continuum of sorts and that I am on the de minimus end after Dan Bogden." She asks to know what management problems lead to her dismissal.

Also, does that put Carol Lam on the maximal end?

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 1:46 AM:

by the way, I suggested in a different thread the possibility that Gonzales "doesn't use e-mail" because he doesn't consider text messages "sent using my blackberry handheld" as e-mails. Anyone think that it's possible they've withheld blackberry messages from AGAG, or is he really that technophobic?

ThatsBad wrote on March 20, 2007 1:46 AM:

2-6 page 4 last bullet point "The Attorney General has assured Senator Pryor that we are not circumventing the process..."

see URL for the pdf

sponson wrote on March 20, 2007 1:47 AM:

1-3, page 28, There are NINE US Attorneys listed for the purge, 3 names are redacted. Immediately below it is a list of SEVEN Senators to contact, FOUR names are redacted. All of the remaining names are GOP Senators. Are they redacted the names of any Democratic Senators, or simply the names of the patrons of the 3 redacted US Attorneys?

Twin Planets wrote on March 20, 2007 1:47 AM:

1-2 has a great lead -- a letter from William Moschella (Asst. AG) defending the immigration prosecution record of Carol Lam. This letter was sent to Darryl Issa, apparently in response to a complaint about Ms. Lam. Letter is undated, but in response to Issa's mail of 24 May 2006.

Jane wrote on March 20, 2007 1:47 AM:

1-1

Page 41, in an email (June 8, 2006) from Bill Mercer to Michael Elston, Mercer seems to be making a joke about firing Lam for incompetence: "What that Carol Lam can't meet a deadline or that you'll need to interact with her in the coming weeks or that she won't just say, "O.K. You got me. You're right. I've ignored national priorities and obvious local needs." Etc. Mercer says something about "these humorous missives."

This part I just found interesting -- Page 26 seems to be a Who's Who of California Republicans. A page of signatures - including Cunningham, Pombo, Dolittle, Bono, possibly Issa as the first signature on p. 25 - writing to Gonzales 10/20/05 to complain about the administration's alien policy and find out the SD of CA's prosecution guidelines. I don't know what the status of Cunningham's investigation was at that time.

Ned wrote on March 20, 2007 1:48 AM:

Here are the manual redactions so far:

On p.23 of the third batch of 3/19 documents, bates# DAG 545 (zeros omitted) from Meiers to Sampson, "Kyle, any current thinking on the hold over US Attorneys? Any recent word on (name redacted) intentions?"

On p.36, 3rd batch of 3/19 documents, bates# DAG 558 (zeros omitted) from Elston to Sampson "The only concern I have is Paul just visited (name redacted) and asked that (name redacted) not be on the list."

These are obvious physical redactions, consistent with the use of white-out.

Bill wrote on March 20, 2007 1:48 AM:

1-7

Page 7:

"Richard - Schools is informing his staff right now. Nowacki is calling the judge. Elston is calling Kevin Ryan. You are clear to go ahead and call the Senators."

This is concerning steps taken before this press release was issued: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/can/press/2007/2007_02_15_Interim.USA.appointments.press.html
(Note: I believe this is the press release in question).

HarpboyAK wrote on March 20, 2007 1:48 AM:

2-9

Starts off with Feinstein's letter regarding complaints of lack of prosecution of immigration cases. Then an undated typed summary of "Vacancies after Amendment of Attorney General's Appointment Authority", followed by resumes of many of the newly appointed USAs.

Frank Furtive wrote on March 20, 2007 1:48 AM:

(My last entry was about 2-6)

2-9 is only resumes.

Chris wrote on March 20, 2007 1:48 AM:

2-1

Page 45

From Elston e-mail of 9 p.m. January 5 to Battle, Sampson, McNulty and Goodling:

"Both [Carol Lam and Kevin Ryan] expressed continuing dismay at the situation and the timing. Carol also shared with me that she and several others (presumably Paul [Charlton], David [Iglesias], and Kevin) have been comparing notes. I said that I was not going to discuss any other personnel situation."

ThatsBad wrote on March 20, 2007 1:50 AM:

2-6 first bullet point on same page (4) , falshood on why Cummings is resigning.

see URL for pdf

rita wrote on March 20, 2007 1:50 AM:

1-1 beginning on page 10
(AP article and Issa Letter discussion begins here and runs for several pages) sorry I misposted the doc number in my first post on this. I had sent you an e-mail on this about 7 pm est.

Issa attempts to smear Carol Lam in mid-May 2006

6 Days After the FBI served search warrants on Dusty Foggo, May 18, 2006, the AP ran a story on an unofficial Border Patrol document they had received from Darrell Issa. The article included details from the document and Lam’s and other
federal officials’ responses.

The lead sentence in the story is, “The vast majority of people caught smuggling immigrants across the border near San Diego are never prosecuted for the offense, demoralizing the U.S. Border Patrol agents making the arrests,
according to an internal document obtained by The Associated Press.” The article also states, “Judges and federal attorneys are so swamped that
only the most egregious smuggling cases are prosecuted.”

Lam's response to media inquiries regarding this border patrol report was, “Representative Issa has been misled. The document he calls a "Border Patrol Report" is actually an old internal Border Patrol document, relating to a single substation that has been substantially altered and passed off as an official report. Many of the comments in the document to which Representative Issa refers are editorial comments inserted by an unidentified individual, and they were not approved by or ever seen by Border Patrol management.”

And, Issa admits in a May 24th, 2006 letter to Lam that the memo “could not be embraced and released publicly as a report representing the views of Border Patrol management”.

But Issa has continued to use that document to this day. On June 29, 2006 he cites it as a memo from a “Department of Homeland Security” source. He used it in his testimony before Congress on March 6, 2007 and attributes it to a “senior source within the Border Patrol”.

Issa stated, “only 6 percent of 289 smuggling suspects caught by Border Patrol agents from the El Cajon station east of San Diego in the 12 months ending in September 2004 were prosecuted.” But the AP article goes on to say of the 289
cases, “Some were instead prosecuted for another crime. Other cases were declined by federal prosecutors, or the suspect was released by the Border Patrol.”

The AP article notes that “Issa’s office said it was an internal Border Patrol report written last August. It was unclear who wrote it.”. Issa has variously referred to the document as a “memo” or a “report.” He has never published this 41-page document on his website.

HarpboyAK wrote on March 20, 2007 1:50 AM:

Oops that last was 2-8, not 2-9. Sorry, too many documents...

SilentPatriot wrote on March 20, 2007 1:53 AM:

Am I the only one who noticed that there are 5 pages missing between documents 1-3 and 1-4?

1-3 ends with 00568 and 1-4 starts with 00574.

It's important to note that 00568 is a Seattle Times article with handwritten notes and special attention paid to a certain section about USA John McKay.

comadrejo wrote on March 20, 2007 1:54 AM:

I found this sort of ironic in ...

Document 1-7

page 29, the report is about gun prosecutions and the report is to try to prove that Carol Lam should had been terminated..

This is the ironic part...

"F. Other Noteworthy Districts

Margaret Chiara Has been the U.S Attorney for the Western District of Michigan since the Fall of 2001. The number of Federal firearms cases filed by that district increased from 72 in FY 2004 to 109 in FY 2005- A 51.4 increase. Nationally, the district had the seventh highest percentage increase in cases filed in FY 2005. With the exception of a dip in prosecution numbers in FY 2004, the district has steadily increased its firearms prosecutions, which have nearly doubled since 58 cases in FY 2001."

I can't decipher much of the report because much of info is blanked out, except David Garcia, I believe a US Attorney..

However to use this report againt Carol Lam, as a reason for termination while praising another US Attorney that was also fired for poor job performance is kind of schizophrenic.

Alex wrote on March 20, 2007 1:56 AM:

Do we need OCRs of these? I can make searchable text, if that's helpful.

Bill wrote on March 20, 2007 1:56 AM:

1-7

Page 18:

[In a letter by Richard A. Hertling, Acting Assistant Attorney General, responding to questions from Sen. Reid]

"The Department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Griffin."

mbbsdphil wrote on March 20, 2007 1:56 AM:

No. 82, the professor is R. (Bob) Altemeyer, Asssoc. Prof., Dept of Psychology, Universit of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.

Author of "The Authoritarians (2006)". John Dean made considerable use of his work.

donjo wrote on March 20, 2007 1:56 AM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 2-8

A letter from Sen. Diane Feinstein to Gonzales dated June 15, 2006, asking what's up with the prosecuting of illegal aliens in Southern CA; are they doing a good enough job down there, or what? Reports are that the border agents aren't too happy with the seeming lack of interest in prosecution of people they arrest. Please look into it.

Pat Smith wrote on March 20, 2007 1:57 AM:

Agree with Joe Falcone above, 1-9 p. 26 is GOLD.

To his questions, I would add-- what is the "unresolved Phil Green situation"?

I found a reference to a Phillip Green who was nominated in Illinois Southern District, but was apparently never confirmed:

http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/2/22/205548/359

...but Chiara seems to reference Western Michigan ("WDMI")

What's this all about?

mbbsdphil wrote on March 20, 2007 1:57 AM:

No. 82, the professor is R. (Bob) Altemeyer, Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.

Author of "The Authoritarians (2006)". John Dean made considerable use of his work. Essential reading for understanding Mr. Bush and his followers.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 20, 2007 1:58 AM:

1-1 #42-43 - The tenor of the 7/8/06 exchange between Michael Elston and Bill Mercer about Carol Lam is quite sarcastic. Mercer makes it sound like Elston was charged with putting the screws to Lam.

Elston: This is so sad - I am not adjusting well to this change.

Mercer: What that Carol Lam can't meet a deadline or that you'll need to interact with her or that she won't just say "O.K. - you got me. You're right, I've ignored national priorities and obvious local needs. Shoot, my production is more hideous than I realized."

Elston: ...Carol Lam is sad, too, but that was not what I was thinking!

If those two pricks thought Lam was sad, wait until this is over and we'll see how sad they are.

Kathryn wrote on March 20, 2007 1:59 AM:

Regarding the mysterious border patrol document that can't be traced and Ms. Lam questioned....where have we heard about questionable documents suddenly appearing before? Who is famous for creating bogus documents and is up to his eyeballs involved in this scandal? I'll give you three guesses.

butcher wrote on March 20, 2007 1:59 AM:

2-3 page 3

Kyle Sampson forwards the Moschella Oral Testimony to 'Dana and Cathie' "and whomever else in the White House you deem appropriate"

joejoejoe wrote on March 20, 2007 1:59 AM:

1-2, pg. 46-50, 8/30/06

Letter sent by 18 US Attorneys (drafted in John McKay's office) to Paul McNulty regarding the LInX (Law Enforcement Information Exchange, a law enforcement database sold to Navy CIS by Northrop Grumman that integrates DoJ, DHS, ICE, and local law enforcement data in one system). USAs endorse the LInx concept and are 'puzzled by delays' in implementation and express 'growing skepticism' at delays in implementation.

Signed, McKay (WA), Anderson (VT), DeGabrielle (TX), Hanaway (MO), Heavican (NE), Iglesias (NM), Immergut (OR), Kubo (HI), Lam (CA), Larson (IA), McDevitt (WA), Perez (FL), Rosenberg (unsigned) (VA), Suddaby (NY), Van Bokkelen (IN), Whitaker (IA), Wood (GA), Yang (CA)

1-3, pg. 1

Response from McNulty (unsigned, undated)

"Dear Colleages:

I just finished reading your letter on the law enforcement information sharing issue, and I must say I am quite disappointed that you have chose to communicate with me this way. It appears that you are trying to force me to take specific actions. It reads like a letter from Capital Hill, not friends on the same team. This is particularly distressing because it is shared with folks outside of the Department. This is not the way we should be working through difficult issues. [...]

I hope you realize that the Department may not be able to deliver on all that you seek. There are other important considerations in this matter. Does anyone see the problem with the Department "endorsing" a specific brand of info sharing when there are other types being used with success in various regions? That is why it's best to talk these things through a bit before laying down a challenge in writing which will set the Department up for failure. [...]"

- - -

Q: Is there some procurement angle to this scandal regarding one security database provider over LInX by Northrup Grumman?

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 2:00 AM:

On the plus side, Paul Charlton in Arizona, in a handwritten note to the side of the checklist of 'reasons' he was being asked to resign, was described as "personable."

How's that for faint praise? Paul, you're insubordinate, lacked management skills and judgment, but you ARE personable.

I know it's not an amazing revelation, but I do like the between-the-lines story in which these people are feeding on their own. After all, these are 8 (or maybe 9) GOP patronage hires being sacked. It's not like they're getting rid of Dems or independent. They're savaging their own.

EasyRider wrote on March 20, 2007 2:00 AM:

PDF: DOJdocsPt4070313

Resume Phillip J. Green pages 1-3, Note: this guy moved up fast to USA from First Assistant to Deputy Chief Criminal Division, USA, Western District Michigan, was appointed by AG to USA in Jan 2001 to Oct 2001.
Resume Rodger A. Heaton pages 4-7, special note: Work Experience, United States Attorney (Appointed by Attorney General Gonzales), Central District of Illinois (December 2005-present) (my observation is that this guy needs not investigation he had his fingers on a lot of issues Bush want suppressed.)
Resume George E. B. Holding page 8
Resume Marty J. Jackley page 9-10
Resume Rachel K. Paulose page 11
Resume Erik C. Peterson page 12
Resume Sharon L. Potter pages 13 on fax 04/26/01 10:23 FAX 304 234 011 USA-CR WHG page 3
Resume Deborah J. Rhodes pages 14 15
Resume Rosa Emilia Rodriguez-Velez First Assisstant USA Dis of Puerto Rico page 16-18
Resume Chuck Rosenberg 19-21
Resume Brett L. Tolman page 22
Resume John Frederick Wood page 23

CalifSherry wrote on March 20, 2007 2:01 AM:

E PluribusMedia is asking for related research support concerning witch hunts and a list of electeds and officials who considered that they might have been targeted for investigation/prosecution. It might be useful for folks scanning these documents for TPM to also watch for the names of anyone on the EPM list, which is here: http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/3/15/13642/3362

sara wrote on March 20, 2007 2:01 AM:

1-1

page 15 letter from USA Lam to USAG Gonzales regarding Rep. Issa's use of doctored report on Border Patrol's statistics on Lou Dobbs/CNN

animus?

jgnca wrote on March 20, 2007 2:02 AM:

2-1

p 15-17

This is the Plan for Replacing US Attorneys. This is certainly, if not the smoking gun, the gun itself. What I find interesting is Step 5: Selection, Nomination and Appointment of New US Attorneys. This lays out a plan for soliciting names of permanent nominees and then sending them up to the Senate for confirmation. But from everything I've read, they seemed to have "skipped" this part. Has there ever been any news about permanent USAs being nominated?

John wrote on March 20, 2007 2:02 AM:

1 – 11 39 pages (DAG000000905 through DAG000000943)

Senate testimony begins on page 1 with:

SEN SPECTER: Well, I just wanted to comment to Senator Feinstein...

and ends on page 37.

Pages 38 and 39 are handwritten notes

Page 38 seems to be a scan of a page where handwritten material on the other side of the original bleeds through. On the left top of the page is “DAG” and on the right side “me to do”
Beneath “DAG” appear the words “The List”, but a number of the entries on the remainder of the page have been redacted.

page 39 seems to be a scan of the backside of a page and handwriting on the reverse side bleeds through but is very hazy and unreadable (and mirror image). Handwritten on this backside are the words:

Mike's admin

with a circle drawn around the words.

Don Pickens wrote on March 20, 2007 2:02 AM:

2-1 page 14:

Sampson attaches the plan in email to Harriet Meirs and Bill Kelley (copying McNulty) and says of "Karl" (nor have I informed anyone in Karl's shop another pre-execution necessity I would recommend).

Meirs Replies (in passive voice):
"Not sure whether this will be determined to require the boss's attention. If it does, he just left last night so would not be able to accomplish that for some time. We will see.

Sampson replies again, in what seems like a voice pleading for an answer:
"Who will determine whether this requires the President's attention?"

There is no reply to this question...is there any in other docs?

docreview wrote on March 20, 2007 2:03 AM:

2-1, page 45

Very Important!!

From Mike Elston to Michael Battle, 1/5/07

"I spoke separately with both [Lam] and [Ryan] this evening. Both of these are in essentially the same posture . . . In addition to the office/case related concerns (which is still their primary focus), both are now concerned that they cannot get it [what?] together in three weeks."

The implication seems clear. Lam has expressed concern that her resigning at that time would hinder an investigation. In response, DOJ tells her to prepare to leave. She doesn't even get a month extension. This is the path that folks need to follow...

JPV wrote on March 20, 2007 2:03 AM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 1-10 page 23.

From: McNulty, Paul J
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:44 AM
To: Sampson, Kyle
Subject: RE: US Atty Plan
I'll talk to Johnny. I'm still a little skittish about Bogden. He has been with DOJ since 1990 and. at age 50. has
never had a job outside of government. My guess is that he was hoping to ride this out well into '09 or beyond. I'll
admit have not looked at his district's performance. Sorry to be raising this again/now; it was just on my mind last
night and this morning.

A_B wrote on March 20, 2007 2:04 AM:

PDF: DOJDocsPt2-1070319.PDF

DAG000000018

From: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 6:12 PM
To: 'Kelley, William K.'
Cc: Miers, Harriet.
Subject: RE: US Atty Plan
Importance: High

Great. We would like to execute this on Thursday, December 7 (all the U.S. Attorneys are in town for our Project Safe Childhood conference until Wednesday; we want to wait until they are back home and dispersed, to reduce chatter). So, on Thursday morning, we'll need the calls to be made as follows:

*AG calls Sen. Kyl
*Harriet/Bill calls Sens. Ensign and Domenici (alternatively, the AG could make these calls and, if Senators express any concern, offer briefings re why the decision was made -- let me know)
*White House OPA calls California, Michigan, and Washington "leads"

EOUSA Director Mike Battle then will call the relevant U.S. Attorneys. Okay?

From: Kelley, William K. [mailto: William_K_Kelley@who.eop.gov]
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 4:48 PM
To: Sampson, Kyle
Cc: Miers, Harriet
Subject: US Atty Plan

We're a go for the US Atty plan. WH leg, political, and communications have signed off and acknowledged that

DAG000000019
we have to be committed to following through once the pressure comes.

butcher wrote on March 20, 2007 2:04 AM:

2-3, page 19

Margaret Chiara says:

"Michael Elston told me on more than one occasion, that the rationale for dismissal was on a continuum of sorts and that I am on the de minimus end after Dan Bogden."

What does that sentence even mean?

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 2:05 AM:

2-9

Initial review of 2-9; all pages are attorney resumes. No email or other documents

ET wrote on March 20, 2007 2:08 AM:

2-9.pdf

Pages 1-23
Resumes in this order:
Phillip J. Green
Rodger A. Heaton
George E. B. Holding
Marty J. Jackley
Rachel K. Paulose
Erik C. Peterson
Sharon L. Potter
Deborah J. Rhodes
Rosa Emilia Rodriguez-Velz
Chuck Rosenberg
Brett L. Tolman

jimmyhat wrote on March 20, 2007 2:08 AM:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/De+minimus

de minimis adj. (dee-minnie-miss) Latin for "of minimum importance" or "trifling." Essentially it refers to something or a difference that is so little, small, minuscule, or tiny that the law does not refer to it and will not consider it. In a million dollar deal, a $10 mistake is de minimis.

(Not only did she spell it incorrectly, I'm not sure she's using it properly either.)

HarpboyAK wrote on March 20, 2007 2:09 AM:

2-7

pp 1-5, apparent transcript of a Senate hearing with Gonzales.

pp 7-8, letter from Richard Hertling, Acting Asst Atty Gen, to Conyers regarding Carol Lam, denying that her dismissal had anything to do with ongoing corruption cases.

pp 9-10, Conyers/Berman letter to Gonzales

pp 12-13, Hertling letter to Leahy & Feinstein

pp 14-18 expanded version of list of resignations and appointments also in 2-8

pp 19-20 Leahy/Feinstein letter to Gonzales requesting info on resignations

pp 21-45 Text copies of newspaper columns and editorials on the USA resignations

pp 47-50 Letter to Feinstein from Moschella with immigration prosecution stats from San Diego office.

moe99 wrote on March 20, 2007 2:09 AM:

2-9 buncha resumes. They must be candidates and a lackluster group overall they are. Sorry, I interview law students and lawyers in my legal job and I've seen much better mostly

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 2:09 AM:

2-5, p. 24.

In reference to John McKay, what does "Noncompliance with Ashcroft memo noted" mean? There is a handwritten asterisk next to this typed comment, apparently to highlight its iimportance.

glowbawl wrote on March 20, 2007 2:10 AM:

2-1 Page 14

Sampson emailing Miers Cc: McNaulty

RE: USA Replacement Plan
"who will determine whether whether this requires the President's attention?"

"we'll stand by foe a green light from you. Upon green light we'll 1) circulate the below plan to the list of folks in step 3 (and ask you circulate it to Karl's shop)"

MillionthMonkey wrote on March 20, 2007 2:10 AM:

The "de minimis" thing indicates that she was told her case would be the easiest of the eight prosecutor firings to explain. The opposite end of the continuum (the stickiest case) would be Carol Lam.

Serpent's Choice wrote on March 20, 2007 2:11 AM:

A lot of duplicated material and public domain junk: Congressional records, law journals. I've started some analysis at my own blog, mostly just commenting on the cold precision with which these USAs - especially Chiara - were handled.

However, I'd like to examine one of the manual redactions noted above.

On p.36, 3rd batch of 3/19 documents, bates# DAG 558 (zeros omitted) from Elston to Sampson "The only concern I have is Paul just visited (name redacted) and asked that (name redacted) not be on the list."

This text appears multiple times, and is unevenly redacted. The first redaction clearly ends with an "a" and seems to only be 4-5 letters long. Rather than a name, could this be Iowa? A scandal is mentioned ... has anything touched a USA from Iowa? Just fishin' at this point...

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 2:11 AM:

2-5 p. 26, in reference to the appointment of Rove's buddy Tim Griffin, a handwritten note:

"Originally recommended by Rep. [long blank space] for WDAR."

Is that blank space a white out of a congressman's name?

sara wrote on March 20, 2007 2:12 AM:

1-1

last few pages of pdf
DOJ responds to Rep. Issa as effectiveness of USA Lam's District in meeting targets, states drops in prosecutions are due to resourcing

moe99 wrote on March 20, 2007 2:14 AM:

2-8 WTF?

6/15/06 Feinstein letter to Gonzo where she is concerned that Lam is not prosecuting enough immigration cases? Isn't Feinstein therefore guilty of speaking out of both sides of her mouth??? I'd like her to explain the genesis of this letter where it seems like she's trying to take down Carol Lam???????

JPV wrote on March 20, 2007 2:15 AM:

The one thing that becomes very clear, reading these e-mails, about the "USA replacement plan", is that this was a concerted, planned effort to remove all of these attorneys during a certain specific frame of time. It's not just the random realization that certain ones were not performing their duties. it was a specific plan.

The question is, what else was going on during that time period that made this effort so imperative?

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 2:16 AM:

Oddly, a short ways after the seemingly edited reference to Griffin's possible Congressional sponsor, there is a reference to the fact that Cummins (who Griffin replaced) was "politically active" and then there is the word "cong(illegible)". This seems to be another reference to the Congressman who was involved in the Cummins/Griffin swap-over, and again it seems to have been redacted, in this case by letting the document number obscure what is written.

Any significance? Who is this and why would they try to hide his role?

EasyRider wrote on March 20, 2007 2:16 AM:

ET,

We did the same one. You left off the last resume:

Resume John Frederick Wood page 23

I think the first two indiviuals may be interesting. Another USA was appointed by Gonzales in 2005.

docreview wrote on March 20, 2007 2:16 AM:

2-4, pages 162-166

Looks like questions for Lam and McKay -- to attack Lam and McKay, that is. But why is this here?

Were these questions that DOJ sent to the GOP members on the Judicary Committee to ask the fired USAs and deflect attention? Any significance to the fact that its Lam and McKay, both of whom are targets... Very, very odd. Really looks like an attempt to attack Lam and McKay.

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 2:17 AM:

The reference to a redacted congressman in relation to Cummings is on 2-5 p. 32.

JGabriel wrote on March 20, 2007 2:17 AM:

2-1

Page DAG000000009

3 E-Mails - Margaret Chiara confirming that she will be asked to resign, and seekin assistance in the aftermath:

From: Chiara, Margaret M. (USAMIW)
To: McNulty, Paul J.
Sent: Sun Nov 05 15:13:03 2006
Subject: USA/WDMI

Paul: On November 3, Michael Elston conveyed professionally shocking news. I had previously consulted with him about the feasibility of a brief leave of absence to serve as the interim dean of the Michigan State University College of Law. (Note: MSU is interested in me only if I am the USA for WDMi.) Mr. Elston informed me that such a leave is only an option when the alternative service is within the federal government. He furhter informed me that I should expect contact from the White House requesting my resignation as USA shortly after the Novemeber 7 elections.

He could offer no explanation other than that I erroneously assumed that good service guaranteed longevity because other USAs have been asked for their resignation without cause. In my case the service has been exemplary in a difficult district in addition to being an active contributor since appointment on 3 of the AG's subcommitees.

While I live in hope that this dire prediction is untrue, I am contacting you because I need assistance to remain in federal service with a comparable compensation or, quite frankly, I will lose everything that I have been working towards for the past five years. My chronology will not allow me to recoup from such an unanticipated financial catastrophe. I trust that I can count on you to intervene or provide an alternative.

Margaret

*****************

From: McNulty, Paul J. (Paul.J.McNulty@usdoj.gov)
To: Chiara, Margaret M. (USAMIW) (MChiara@usa.doj.gov)
Sent: Tue Nov 07 07:22:51 2006
Subject: Re: USA/WDMI

Margaret: I received your message and I appreciate your perspective. I know of your interest in the VAWA job and will let you know if any other opportunites come up. Paul
------------------------
Sent from my Blackberry Wireless Handheld

*****************

From: Chiara, Margaret M. (USAMIW)
To: McNulty, Paul J.
Sent: Tue Nov 07, 2006, 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: USA/WDMI

PAul: As soon as the "election dust settles", I ask that you tell me why my resignation may be requested. Since you have not taken exception to the eventually, I now assume that it is likely. I need to know the truth to live in peace with the aftermath. (Of course, we do need to retain control of the Senate to facilitate confirmations.) Perhaps you are not aware that Michael Elston informed me, per Monica Goodling, that a congress person, who is expected to lose in today's election, will be offered the leadership position of the VAW office. I am already actively but discretely [sic] persuing self-help options. However, I will need assistance to retain federal gov't financial security, as stated in my previous e-mail. Know that I appreciate your response and offer to assist. Margaret
------------------------
Sent from my Blackberry Wireless Handheld

kirk murphy wrote on March 20, 2007 2:17 AM:

2-9

Jeebus Figleafed Cheese.

Really juicy USA resumes.

My fave so far:

Rachel J. Palouse

Interim USA (March 2006 to present): District chief federal enforcement officer.

[snip - kjm]

Dorsey & Whitney (October 2003 to December 2005): Trial lawyer. Work involved successful representation of Rebuplican party in election lawsuit; defense of faith-based health care program; [snip].

[snip]

Federalist Society (2001 to present)

tralmadore rocks wrote on March 20, 2007 2:18 AM:

1-3

p. 1
Note (from whom? to whom? When?) complaining that "colleagues" sent a "letter on the law enforcement information sharing issue" that "appears like you are trying to force me to take some specific actions. It reads like a letter from Capitol Hill, not one from friends on the same team. This is particularly distressing because it is shared with folks outside of the Department. This is not the way we should be working through difficult issues. I have worked hard to maintain an open line of regular communication with all U.S. Attorneys. I know as well as anyone how important it is to include the USA community in DOJ poolicy-making. I've spent 5 1/2 years working to strengthen that relationship."

p. 2-3
Email, 2/22/06 7:40pm from Michael Elston to Monica Goodling and Paul J McNulty. One line of the email is Elston's; the remainder is a story in the 9/22 Seattle P-I about McKay's office being short on funding and staff. Elston: "Even when he is in Ireland he causes problems! He needs to stop writing letters."

pp 4-5
Email, printed from Michael Elston's Outlook, from Brian Roehrkasse to Elston, Kimberly Smith, John Nowacki, Paul McNulty, Tasia Scolinos.
Again, it's the P-I article. one line of orig text: "I happened to see this article when I was traveling last week in the Northwest. These comments are not exactly helpful. John, anything we can do?"

pp 6-11
email from David Margolis, 10/6/06, to Battle, John Kelly, Parent, Nowacki, Elston, Moschella, Mercer, Shults, Barnes. Subj: "Thought you might be interested in this; It's from a local weekly"
Entire text is a lengthy article about Kevin Ryan, accusing him of being a lousy manager. Article opens "Kevin Ryan must have felt like a man invited to his own stoning."

pp12-20
Email, 10/5/06, (cover sheet, p. 12; memo, pp. 13-17) describing resignation procedural guidance for USAs. Memo claims that some USAs were seeking guidance on this (true?).
p. 18 sample letter to president; p. 19 to AG; p. 20 press release;

p. 21
series of emails b/w Elston and Charlton, 10/16/06, the two of them trying to arrange a call or meet as Charlton arrives from Phoenix, ending with "You're off the hook on the second capital case -- although I was told that it was AZ, when I asked for the name of the case it turns out it was another district."

p. 22-23
Ooh, fun!
Email from Sampson to Elston, 10/17/06.
Top line: "See below for my olist of U.S. Attorneys we should consider replacing. Does it match up with yours."
Next most recent email below was from Miers to Sampson, saying thanks and saying she needs to follow up.
Next message below is Sampson to Miers, 9/13/06. "Harriet, the U.S. Attorney ranks curently break down as follows:" I, II, and III are existing, people who will be nominated for other stuff, and people who are rumored to be leaving. There might be some blanking out here; I can't tell.
IV is "USA in the Process of being Pushed Out" listed as Bud Cummins.
V is "USAs we should consider pushing out" listed as Charlton, Lam, Chiara, Bogden, McKay, and apparently others who are blacked out.
(now p 23)
V is "Summary," Says they need to be "ready to roll" with replacements if they "push USAs out".
Next email below is Miers to Sampson, 9/13/06. "Kyle, any current thinking on holdover U.S. Attorneys? Any recent word on [blacked out]'s intentions?

Donp wrote on March 20, 2007 2:19 AM:

2-1 page 15-18

THE 18 MINUTE GAP??? (Are these in chronological order?)

The email of Nov 15 ends with "Who will determine if this requires the President's attention" and Meiers says it will take a while as he is gone. The plan attached (page 15) to that says to begin making calls on Nov 15. Sampson had also recommended informing Karl.

The next email is dated Dec 4! From William Kelley at 4:48 pm it says:
"We're a go for the US atty plan. WH leg, political, and communications have signed off and acknowledged that we will have to be committed to following through once the pressure comes."

(so Nov 15 says it's time to talk to Karl and maybe the President, but that would take time...and the plan had been to start Nov 15. In this email, the plan has been changed to start calls Dec 7 - 2-1 page 20)

What happened between Nov 15 and Dec 4 to hold up the plan and require a change in execution from Nov 15 to Dec 7? The answer is from Kelley: We're a go for the US atty plan. WH leg, political, and communications have signed off"

Monkey++ wrote on March 20, 2007 2:19 AM:

2-1, p.23 from McNulty to Sampson:
"I'll admit have not looked at his district,s performance" (re Bogden)

1-1, p.45

to The Honorable Dianne Feinstein:

Although felony immigration filings in the Southern District of California dropped from FY 2004 to FY 2005, that result flowed from a conscious decision to focus resources on seeking higher sentence for more serious offenders. And, in fact, the number of immigration defendants prosecuted who received prison sentences of between 1-12 months dropped from 896 in 2004 to 338 in 2005, while the number of immigration defendants who received sentences between 37-60 months rose from 116 to 246, and the number of immigration defendants who received sentences greater than 60 months rose from 21 to 77.

1-1, p. 48, to the Honorable Darrell Issa from William E. Moschella, Assistant Attorney General:

"Finally, we are aware that you recently spoke personally with USA Lam. If you are still interested in a meeting, please let us know."

Ottoe wrote on March 20, 2007 2:20 AM:

in re Serpent's Choice's passage

On p.36, 3rd batch of 3/19 documents, bates# DAG 558 (zeros omitted) from Elston to Sampson "The only concern I have is Paul just visited (name redacted) and asked that (name redacted) not be on the list."

Wouldn't "Issa" fit better in context than "Iowa"?

edward ripple wrote on March 20, 2007 2:21 AM:

2-8

48 page bundle here. Pages 11-48 are attorney resumes. Resumes continue into bundle 2-9.
Pages 1-10 contain; 6/15/2006 correspondence from Sen Feinstein, a 1990's law review summary on USA appointment by former AG Griffen Bell, and a South Dakota Rapid City Journal article on W's appointment of Steve Mullins.
Am reviewing pages 1-10 for content.

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 2:21 AM:

filchyboy,

Who is the additional US Atty who is 'unannounced.' Do we already know who this is, or is there someone who hasn't resigned yet who is on the list? Pretty funny if so -- now that it's such a controversy, they probably don't want to add fuel to the fire, so he may get to keep his job.

Donp wrote on March 20, 2007 2:22 AM:

2-1 page 20:

Also note the difference between the Nov 15 and Dec 7 plan is the inclusion of Kevin Ryan, of Northern California. This change came after a WH review...???

but from these docs we can't tell who added him to the list, since there's the Nov 15-Dec 4 gap.

butcher wrote on March 20, 2007 2:23 AM:

2-3, page 37

Discusses correspondence with USAs and Paul McNulty around Sep 8, 2006. Lots here that seems significant, but I don't understand the context enough to know what the 'letter' that the USAs 'signed on to' was, and why they'd fail to get back to McNulty because they were 'chagrined and embarassed'. Perhaps because 'a number signed on without really reading it or thinking it through." And why would they be 'mad at John McKay"?

Also, "Don is a very good man and I know he is upset that he joined the letter".

Pat_AlexVA wrote on March 20, 2007 2:24 AM:

1-9
PDF page 43. Looks like finding rationale for firing based on CRIM Obscenity task force (AZ / NV).

JGabriel wrote on March 20, 2007 2:25 AM:

Just realized the e-mails I posted between Chiara and McNulty were previously submitted -- guess I'm not a fast enough typist here.

Anyway, it's interesting that several people have noted Chiara got some pretty raw treatment. Kind of hard to feel especially sorry for her -- she should have known what she was signing on for when joined up with the Republicans. But still...

RobinLynne wrote on March 20, 2007 2:25 AM:

doc 2-1 page 9

timing of firings "right after the election"

email from chiara to Paul McNulty

"Michael Elston further informed me that I should expect contact from the white house requesting my resignation as USA shortly after the nov 7 election."

Monkey++ wrote on March 20, 2007 2:27 AM:

2-1

several versions of the bulleted list of firings and senator phone calls. Note the blanks left in the earlier versions, filling in in subsequent versions.

Were these redactions? or does it reflect their process (e.g., leaving room for a fixed number of individuals they wanted to place)?

2-1, p. 21 Here's a key criteria gleaned from their planned process document:
"giving that person the opportunity to serve for a full two years"

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

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 2-3 page 1.

From' Chiara Margaret M (USAMIW) [MM Chiara@Iusdoj gov]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 11:00 PM
To: McNulty, Paul J
Cc: Elston, Michael (ODAG)
Subject: WDMI

Paul: I respectfully request that you reconsider the rationale of poor performance as the basis for my dismissal It is in our mutual interest to retract this erroneous explanation while there is still time. Please simply state that a presidentially appointed position is not an entitlement. No other explanation is needed.

As you know, I have assiduously avoided public comment by pursuing an informal version of the "witness protection program" in order to elude reporters I However, the legal community in Grand Rapids and organizations throughout Michigan are outraged that I am being labeled "a poor performer". Politics may not be a pleasant reason but the truth is compelling. Know that I am considered a personification of ethics and productivity. And as you surely realize, the unresolved Phil Green situation has definitely complicated the perception of DOJ in WDMI.

The notoriety of being one of the "USA-8" coupled with my age being constantly cited in the press is proving to be a formidable obstacle to securing employment. The best resolution with regard to both timing and outcome is the assistant director position at the NAC. I have already made it clear to the OLE Director that you do not consider former United States Attorney status a barrier to continued DOJ service. I ask that you endorse or otherwise encourage my selection for reasons discussed in previous e-mails. Given the quality and quantity of my contribution during the past 5+ years, I am confident that you are willing to provide affirmative assistance.

Margaret

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

Q: Was the WH aware of the testimony W Moschella would give at the 3/6 hearing?

A: They helped shape it.

2-7

From: Tasia Scolinos
To: Kyle Sampson

"Below are draft message points that we could insert into Will's testimony or figure out another tactic to move it. I think this will get some traction with media but without it going under the AG's name less so[sic]. Let me know what you think- I would like to send these over to Dan before the 1PM WH meeting."

I'm assuming Dan is Dan Bartlett.

ALSO: Why has Margaret Chiaria (USAWDMI) been the most silent of the group of 8?

A: She was granted a very generous job extension, in part so that she could attend a meeting of the NAIS for which she had been scheduled to chair, but would have been handled by her interim if she had left in the same time as the others. She mentions in her back and forth emails that part of the group of 8 would be at the meeting and "It would make good sense for me to prepare..and chair the meeting. This makes particular sense because 4 NAIS members are part of the "group" (Charleton, Bogden, McKay, Iglesias) ." (2-7, p 27-30)

She was also consulting with Paul McNulty about helping her with obtaining a job as a detail at the NAC. Paul then emails Micheal Elston about putting her into an EOUSA slot so she then could apply for the NAC job. (2-7, p 33)

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

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 2-3

Page 45, DAG000000146
From: Elston, Michael (ODAG), "Even when he is in Ireland he causes problems! He needs to stop writing letters."

"Seattle PI, Sept 22, 2006: Federal prosecutor for Western Washington has seen his budget steadily shrink... "his office is stressed to the limit"...U.S. Attorney John McKay issued this warning...."

Page 47, DAG000000148, From: Roehrkasse, Brian; Sept 26, 2006: "I happened to see this article when I was traveling last week in the Northwest. These comments are not exactly helpful." (Reference to above Seattle PI article)

Page 50, DAG000000150, McNulty, Paul J; Oct 05, 2006; From:USAEO-OTD; Resignation Guidance.pdf; Resignation Guidance Attach. pdf.

tekel wrote on March 20, 2007 2:28 AM:

2-4, pages 32-48 (end) is a long table of caseloads in various categories for all 93 of the USA's offices, from 1995-2006. cases include immigration, kiddie pr0n, 18 USC 922/924, and corporate fraud. Not sure what to make of it, unless it's being used to defend the "Carol Lam was soft on immigration" talking point.

Anyone else notice there's only ~1000 pages uploaded so far? Where's the rest?

Random wrote on March 20, 2007 2:29 AM:

Y'know, it struck me just a minute ago that all of us who are helping with this effort are like the "Baker Street Irregulars" that Sherlock Holmes employed.

Indeed, we are the "TPM Irregulars!"

RobinLynne wrote on March 20, 2007 2:30 AM:

doc 2-1 page 14

email from sampson to harriet myers: saying that rove and bush have not yet been informed. asks: who will determine whether this requires the president's attention?
and states: It is a pre-execution necessity to inform Karl's shop.

Historicus wrote on March 20, 2007 2:31 AM:

Re: 1-11, redacted page 39 (DAG000000943)

I've flipped the image and used a bunch of filters on it. Some of it is legible, most of it less so (for me, anyway; may be moreso for those who know the names and words involved better than I). Here are two versions, one a little blurrier than the other.

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u3/historicus/p39a.jpg
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u3/historicus/p39b.jpg

Maybe it's the late hour, but I swear I see the word 'Pardon' there, fifth line from the bottom.

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 2:31 AM:

First of all- people, you ROCK! amazing effort displayed here.
second - josh, someone, answer Alex!
"Do we need OCRs of these? I can make searchable text, if that's helpful.
Posted by: Alex
Date: March 20, 2007 01:56 AM"
Alex- if you are offering to pull pdf files into a big old OCR file (via Writer?) that would be most helpful later on- understand some of this needs to remain as graphic files as well.
Very good suggestion upthread to assign a systemic structure as well. I would post more from docs, but i am slower than most here. again, THANKS
(security code: nation - as in, thank you, patriots, for attempting to save what is left of this nation!)

Monkey++ wrote on March 20, 2007 2:31 AM:

regarding 2-1, p. 21 Here's a key criteria gleaned from their planned process document:
"giving that person the opportunity to serve for a full two years"

Any confirmation would not, by their own account, start until January at the earliest. To get the full two years would require being in place no later than December 2006.

This puts the lie to Step 5 of the plan (2-1 p.22) to get confirmation of anyone other than the interim appointments.

Serpent's Choice wrote on March 20, 2007 2:32 AM:

In re: Ottoe (Iowa/Issa/etc.)

Possibly. I'm having trouble with a chain of events that makes sense there. Issa was primarily involved with the issues surrounding Lam, and that doesn't seem to make sense in context.

We might know more when the other USAs targetted but not actually forced out are revealed. The manual redaction on DAG 554 (1-3) is amateurish. Someone with a full list of USAs may be able to reconstruct several of those names.

tralfmadore rocks wrote on March 20, 2007 2:32 AM:

1-3

p.26-27, interesting stuff.
Email from Sampson to Elston, 11/7/06 6:21 PM.
"Please review and provide comments ASAP. I'd like to get this to Harriet tonight, if possible."
The document pasted into the email is headed, "PLAN FOR REPLACING CERTAIN UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS"
"Step 1 U.S. Attorney calls: On or about November 8-10, Mike Battle contacts the following U.S. Attorneys:" Listed are Charlton, Lam, [two blanked out], Chiara, Bogden, [blanked out], McKay, Iglesias.
Game plan for what Battle tells them
"Step 2 Senator calls: On or about November 8-10 (very important that Senator calls and U.S. Attorney calls happen simultaneously), Bill Kelley or appropriate Associate Counsel contacts the following Senators:" Listed are Kl re Charlton, [three blacked out], Ensign re Bogden, [one blacked out], Domenici re Iglesias.
NOTE that that's NINE bullet points for USAs to be forced out, but SEVEN bullet points for Senator calls. Maybe some of the blacked-out ones were to be consulted re two pushed out USAs; or maybe some USAs from states with two Democratic senators were to be forced out, so their input wouldn't be sought.
Game plan for Kelley script, including "If pushed, this determination is based on a thorough review of the U.S. Attorney's performance." Ask for 3 names.
"Step 3 Evaluation and Selection of "Interim" Candidates" set for Nov-Dec., for DOJ "in consultation with the Office of the Counsel to the President".
"Step 4 Selection, Nomination, and Appointment of New US Attorneys".

JPV wrote on March 20, 2007 2:32 AM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 2-3 page 21.

From: Kelley, Wjlliam K. [mailto:Wiliiam K. Kelley@who.eop.gov]
Sent: Monday, March O5, 2007 1:57 PM
To: Sampson, Kyle
Subject:

Kyle-We've been tasked with getting a meeting together with you, Paul. Will, DO] leg and pa, and maybe Battle - today - to go over the Administration's position on all aspects of the US Atty issue, including what we are going to say about the proposed legislation and why the US Attys were asked to resign. There's a hearing tomorrow at which Will is scheduled to testify, so we have to get this group together with some folks here asap. Can you look into possible times? Thanks, and sorry to impose.

Arabiflora wrote on March 20, 2007 2:33 AM:

This sort of project fairly screams out for a Wiki implementation.

Disputo wrote on March 20, 2007 2:35 AM:

Phillip Green was the former USAtty for Western MI under Clinton.

JPV wrote on March 20, 2007 2:35 AM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 2-3 page 25.

From: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Monday, March OS, 2007 2:49 PM
To: McNulty, Paul J; Moschella, William; Hertling, Richard; Scolinos, Tasia; Battle, Michael (USAEO)
Cc: Elston, Michael (ODAG); Roehrkasse, Brian; Goodling, Monica; Washington, Tracy T
Subject: RE:
Importance: High

Okay - two things:

1. We are set for 5pm at the White House. I need WAVES info from each of you: DOBs and SSNs.
2. Kelley says that among other things they'll want to cover (1) Administration's position on the legislation (Will's written testimony says that we oppose the bill, raising White House concerns); and (2) how we are going to respond substantively to each of the U.S. Attorney's allegations that they were dismissed for improper reasons.

res wrote on March 20, 2007 2:36 AM:

1-11

as noted before, it's all testimony until pp 38-9 (DAG 942, 943)

however if someone is REALLY dedicated ...
p.38 the list is mostly hidden, but
on p.39 is the reverse page with the original text faintly visible

if you think there are relevant list items that have been blanked out you might try to reproduce the original
it would take quite a bit of work, or maybe just the right type of image processing software

Matt wrote on March 20, 2007 2:36 AM:

Joe Falcone: The 'unnamed' USA is Margaret Chiara

Bcre8ve wrote on March 20, 2007 2:37 AM:

2-3

What is "the unresolved Paul Green situation has definitely omplicated the perception of DOJ in WDMI" that Margaret Chiara is referring to in the first email in this section?

I can find no reference to this anywhere else.

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 2:37 AM:

Pat Smith,

The Phil Green situation seems to be the fact that Green, an AUSA in Chiara's district, was nominated for the USAtty position in the Southern District of IL. But then, somebody made an objection, pointing to a sentencing issue. Others surmise that he didn't recommend death penalty, and that some conservative group has put a block on him. So he hasn't been confirmed, and Bush has not even renominated him (apparently the first one expired.) I'm not clear how this would explain the context of Chiara's comment, but it's possible that Green has friends f