Comments (49)

Smartypants wrote on March 21, 2007 1:43 AM:

Paul, thank you and the rest of the TPM for organizing the diving party.

A couple of us have been having a discussion in the comments on an earlier post about how to better plan for the next one to reduce duplication of efforts and also get the documents into a searchable format.

So far we've come up with some kind of online sign up to divide up the documents to scan them with OCR or hand-enter them in a searchable database or wiki.

Can we devote some thought on this thread to developing our plan of attack for the next round -- cuz I'm sure we're going to be seeing LOTS more document releases with all the investigations.

Ron Robertson wrote on March 21, 2007 1:48 AM:

I would like to caution against too much divvying up the material. While some of it can only be interpreted one way, much of it is not so clear, and several people thinking through the same piece might come up with some important angles that just a few people reviewing might overlook.
--Ron Robertson

hungrycoyote wrote on March 21, 2007 1:58 AM:

7-1, pp 31-32

From: Richmond, Susan
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 8:15 PM
To: Long list of USA and people in DOJ

Subject: Transition Guidance

Many of you have sought guidance regarding the Administration transition to the President's second term. This message serves to convey the entirety of the information we have at this point, and as more information becomes available it will be shared with you.

First, the President is tremendously grateful to you, and to every member of his team for your hard work over the past four years. He recognizes the sacrifices that you and your family have made to enable you to serve, and he is deeply appreciative. America has looked at he President's record -- continuing success in the war on terro, violent crime at a 30-year low, and declining drug use among America's youth, among other successes -- and asked him to stay on the job. He is honored and humbled by the privilege to serve, as I know each of you are.

Second, as we move into this transition period, [underlined]the President has decided that he will not ask for letters of resignation[/underlined]. That said, as always, each of us serves at the pleasure of the President.

Third, some of you have expressed interest in serving in other capacities in the Administration, both within the Department and elsewhere. If you would like to be considered for other opportunities, please let me know what position(s) and agency or agencies you are interested in and I will work together with White House Presidential Personnel on those matters.

Additionally, if you are intending to leave the Administration within the next three months, please let me know that as well.

As we move forward, the Attorney General thanks you for your continued service and asks that you stay focused on the job at hand. While it is appropriate and good to celebrate successes, we cannot let it detract from the ongoing critical mission of the Department. Thank you again, and please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Susan
Susan M. Richmond
Advisor to the Attorney General & White House Liaison
Office of the Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
-----------------
So, on November 4, 2004 the President has made the decision not to ask for Resignation letters and an email goes out saying so, but later Miers/Rove are discussing whether or not to fire all 93 after this email went out to everybody? Maybe the President forgot to tell Miers/Rove that he had decided not to ask for those letters.[/snark]

Smartypants wrote on March 21, 2007 2:10 AM:

Ron,

I completely agree that many eyes looking at each document helps assure different perspectives and interpretations. What I'm interested in doing would support that by getting the documents into a searchable format.

These would be complementary efforts and would actually make it easier to, for example, review everything that refers to Carol Lam to put together a timeline, identify any discrepancies or changes in what the different officials are saying.

Uppity Gal wrote on March 21, 2007 2:33 AM:

hi. I guess this is OT, and I am not a lawyer, but I posted this at bottom of last thread, and I wanted to post here as it seems like something that should have some attention called to it:
"hello. I just wanted to call attention to this wonderful post I saw at Huffington Post:
"Some crimes that a special prosecutor might one day look at

1. Misrepresentations to Congress. The relevant provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, is very broad. It is illegal to lie to Congress, and also to "impede" it in getting information. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty indicated to Congress that the White House's involvement in firing the United States attorneys was minimal, something that Justice Department e-mail messages suggest to be untrue.

2. Calling the Prosecutors. As part of the Sarbanes-Oxley reforms, Congress passed an extremely broad obstruction of justice provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (c), which applies to anyone who corruptly "obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so," including U.S. attorney investigations.

3. Witness Tampering. 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b) makes it illegal to intimidate Congressional witnesses. Michael Elston, Mr. McNulty's chief of staff, contacted one of the fired attorneys, H. E. Cummins, and suggested, according to Mr. Cummins, that if he kept speaking out, there would be retaliation.

4. Firing the Attorneys. United States attorneys can be fired whenever a president wants, but not, as § 1512 (c) puts it, to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding.

NY Times opinion

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/opinion/19mon4.html?_r=1&bl&ex=11...

Will invoking executive privilege stop the oversight and investigations at the White House's gates?
By: mrJJ on March 21, 2007 at 01:53am"

My aplogies is I am too zealous with multiple posts, but Paul mentioned "others" reading, and any cite of the law is always interesting; the point about SOX really sticks; these mayberry machiavellis feel they are so clever, or that politics trumps all, but these little things can hang up the hubris...I have to believe we are a nation of laws, and that justice can and will prevail. thanks muckrakers! :o)

JulieL wrote on March 21, 2007 2:33 AM:

7-9 p 32:
email from William Kelley to Kyle Sampson, cc Harriet Miers, Subject: US Atty Plan. Sent Mon, Dec. 4, 2006 4:46 PM:

"We're a go for the US Atty plan. WH leg, political and communications have signed off and acknowledged that we have to be committed to following through once the pressure comes."

This is followed by the plan itself on p. 33. I won't quote the whole thing, since I have to actually type it but basically:

Step 1 is "Senator Calls" The first: AG calls Jon Kyle (re Charlton)'
remainder of the calls (re Boden, Iglesias, Lam, Ryan, Chiara, McKay would be done by either WHCO or WH OPA. The calls would "inform the Senators/Bush political leads" that the Admin has "determined to give someone else the opportunity to serve in (relevant district) for the final two years of the Administration"

Also, they were to ask the Senator/Bush political lead(?) to recommend candidates.

Step 2: U.S. attorney calls. These are calls to the fired USAs by Mke Battle. There's a note: (very important that Senator calls and U.S. Attorney calls happen simulaneously.

Step 3: "Prepare to Withstand Political Upheaval"
The "political upheaval" they were concerned about was "U.S. attorneys desiring to save their jobs" by appeals to "various WH offices, including the AG's (Gonzales himself as well as Sampson). It goes on to say that "Recipients of such "appeals" MUST respond identically." There's a bulleted list of responses, beginning with the old "serve at the pleasure of the President"

Step 4 is "Evaluation and Selection of "Interim" Candidatets"

Step 5 is "Selection, Nomination and Appointment of New U.S. Attorneys" (beginning in Nov. 2006). It suggests the normal appontment process: recommendation from "Senators/Bush political leads and other sources" evaluations, recommendations to the Pres, backgtround investigations, nomination, work to secure confirmations.

Obviously, the "AG", Gonzales was heavily involved. Someone should ask Jon Kyle about the call he got from Gonzo.

JulieL wrote on March 21, 2007 2:45 AM:

I do like the idea of searchable docs. I don't have an OCR progie myself...does anyone out there? The pdfs weren't set up as text, obviously, but as scans.

hungrycoyote wrote on March 21, 2007 2:56 AM:

I don't have an OCR either, but in a previous life I was a legal secretary and can type rather fast. I've been typing the entire passages in Notepad and then pasting them here thinking that it would be easy for somebody to just copy and paste into a database if they wanted the information.

But if somebody has an OCR that can convert all this stuff, I won't spend all this time typing.

Geoff wrote on March 21, 2007 3:30 AM:

Perhaps the administration's bulldog attitude on this and what also explains their boldness in starting this political witch-hunt against the US Attorneys, is that they know the two Supreme Court justices they were able to install will protect them in a full blown constitutional crisis.

I guess it partly depends on how much of this took place before the court nominations and confirmations of Alito and Roberts. (Jan06 and Sep05)

comadrejo wrote on March 21, 2007 3:33 AM:

i went through documents 7-7 to 7-11 and there is alot of repetitions of public documents like congressional testimony and huge amount of repetitions in intra-office email. There alot of holes, and the letters from King County and Evergreen Freedom Foundation about John McKay are part of the campaign for the Washington Republican Party Court case that was settled in late May-June 2005. Basically there are parts missing and if the DOJ leadership had only a diet of the Washington Gubnatorial Race 2004 election and recount from those letters, they would have a myopic view of John McKay. (Their allegations are pretty much baseless, as any Seattlite as myself knows from following the Court Case in 2005)

hungrycoyote wrote on March 21, 2007 4:09 AM:

From: Moschella, William
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 4:46 PM
To: Sampson, Kyle
Subject: FW: Heads Up on WSJ USA Story

Is the AG ready to answer these questions on Thursday?

-----------------
From: Roehrkasse, Brian
Sent: Monday, Janaury 15, 2007, 4:06 PM
To: Gooding, Monica; Elston, Michael (ODAG); Moschella, William; Sampson, Kyle
CC: Scolinos, Tashi
Subject: Heads Up on WSJ USA Story

Our new Wall Street Journal beat reporter will publish a story tomorrow about the recent resignation of U.S. Attorneys. Through his reporting, he believes at least six U.S. Attys were forced to resign including USAs Ryan, Cummins, Lam, Bogden, Igelsias and Charlton. I didn't confirm, deny or otherwise comment beyond cautioning him that he better be careful his sources are accurate. He did speak with at least Cummins and Igelsias, and possibly others.

When he first contacted me about this story he raised questions about political motivations and the correlation to the recent legislative changes on the AG's appointment authority. However, with all of the background information we provided on the appointment authority and pointing him towards our recent nominations, I don't think it will be as politically focused. More likely, he will write that the Department is pushing out USAs because they are underperforming or not embracing the Department's priorities.

The story will be very critical of how the Bud Cummins situation was handled. He thinks despite the political pedigree, that Griffin is very qualified, but just the way in which it was handled with Cummins and Pryor will make it nearly impossible for him to be nominated or confirmed. he good news on this front is he finds Feinstein and Pryor's criticism that we don't intend to nominate USAs suspect and unwarranted.

Talking Points

- In every case, it is a goal of this Administration to have a U.S. Attorney that is confirmed by the Senate. It is inconceivable for a member of Congress to believe that use of an appointment authority to fill a vacancy is in any way an attempt to circumvent the confirmation process. When a United States Attorney submits his or her resignation, the Administration has an obligation to ensure that someone is able to carry out the important function of leading a U.S. Attorney's office. Following such a situation, we consult with the home-state Senators prior to the nomination regarding candidates for Senate consideration.

- Our record since this authority was amended demonstrates we are committed to working with the Senate to nominate candidates for U.S. Attorney positions. Specifically, since March 9, 2006, the Administration has nominated 13 individuals to serve as U.S. Attorney (12 have been confirmed). Additionally, since the appointment authority was amended, there have been 11 vacancies created by outgoing U.S. Attorneys -- of those 11 vacancies, the Administration nominated candidates to fill four of these positions to date and has already interviewed candidates for the other seven positions.

Brian Roehrkasse
Deputy Director of Public Affairs
U.S. Department of Justice

hungrycoyote wrote on March 21, 2007 4:11 AM:

Forgot to say, the above is from 7-2, Page 52

hungrycoyote wrote on March 21, 2007 4:28 AM:

7-2, Page 29

From: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 10:11 PM
To: Elston, Michael (ODAG); Scolinos, Tasia; Roehrhaske, Brian; Goodling, Monica; Moschella, William
Subject: Re: "Without Cause"

Got it.

------------
From: Elson, Michael (ODAG)
To: Sampson, Kyle; Scolinos, Tasia; Roehrkasse, Brian; Goodling, Monica; Moschella, William
Sent: Wed Jan 17 22:07:03 2007
Subject: "Without Cause"

I am not going to discuss whether a particular United States Attorney has been asked to resign or what the reasons might be for such a decision. But when a United States Attorney leaves, we have a process for filling that vacancy which we have followed throughout this Administration and which we will continue to follow. Than process includes nominating a candidate for consideration by the Senate. For each vacancy, we will seek well-qualified candidates who will suport the Administration's priorities and enforce the law to the fullest extent.

While I will not comment on any particular United States Attorney's resignation, let me say this: I would never, never consent to the removal of a United States Attorney for political reasons. To suggest that a U.S. Attorney was removed to influence a case for political reasons is irresponsible, reckless and harmful to the criminal justice system.

-------------------------------

Under oath, before Congress, Gonzales made this statement on January 18:

"I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it."

Greg wrote on March 21, 2007 4:49 AM:

Gee, reading all the material that your divers have assembled gives the impression that this White House has been up to something odd...I don't have a good feeling about this.

Bob wrote on March 21, 2007 5:08 AM:

11-2

Moschella's letter, (drafted by David Smith, Leg. Counsel for the Ex. Office for USAs, and perhaps never sent) responding to Issa's letter complaining about Lam, does a good job of touting the impressive performance of her office.

E.g., at pages 52-53:

--At the end of FY 2005 Lam's office had the highest number of alien smuggling pending and open cases that the office ever had.

--For FY 2000 through FY 2005 "well over half of all criminal cases filed by the SDCA" were filed under the criminal alien statutes. (Of the SDCA's 20,481 criminal cases, a daunting 10,482 were illegal alien cases.)

Yup, sounds like poor performance to me, and also like Lam was flat out ignoring immigration.

hungrycoyote wrote on March 21, 2007 5:09 AM:

Sorry, my post just above ... it's 7-2 Page 55, not page 29.

Bob wrote on March 21, 2007 5:17 AM:

11-2

Page 53

wish I could copy and paste the document...

But, there's an amazing footnote at the bottom of the page (in the Moschella letter to Issa, drafted by David Smith, the Leg. Counsel for EOUSA) warning against Congressional meddling.

"As you know, all Department attorneys are asked to render unbiased, professional judgments about the merits of potential criminal and civil law enforcement cases. If deliberations were made subject to CONGRESSIONAL challenge and scrutiny, we would face a grave danger that they would be chilled from providing the candid and independent analysis essential to just and effective law enforcement or, just as troubling, that they might err on the side of prosecution simply to avoid public second-guessing. This in turn would undermine public and judicial confidence in our law enforcement process."

Amazing.

Should we have this guy call Dominici?

brantgirl4 wrote on March 21, 2007 5:17 AM:

Looks like there's a strategy for continuing executive branch control of interim appointments - regardless of any change to the Patriot Act (see cite after mention of repeal of 546):

10-53

From: O'Quinn, John C
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 1:17pm
To: Mercer, William W
CC: McDonald, Esther Slater
Subject: US Attorney appointments

(later forwarded to William Moschella, Paul McNulty, Kyle Sampson, Michael Elston, and John Nowacki)

Attached are 2 pages of talking points on why the AG and not the courts should be appointing interim US Attorneys. Also attached is a 1 page proposal that would make the appointment of interim US Attorneys by the AG more or less consistent with the appointment of persons as "acting" under the Vacancies Reform Act. It would give the AG a lot of breathing space on appointing interim US Attorneys, but make it so that appointments were not indefinite; it would also give the Senate incentive to act on nominations. Note a different approach to consider -- if section 546 were simply repealed altogether, that the provisions of the Vacancies Reform Act would apply (5 USC 3345), and the President could simply name acting US Attorneys just as he does with other nominated/confirmed executive branch positions.

-- Note that the referenced attachments are not in PDF 10.

David wrote on March 21, 2007 5:18 AM:

I know there's plenty of diving in this batch of material, but there's also a good project in diving through the records of the rest of the Bush US Attorneys, past and present. For instance, the Guam investigation from 2002: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/08/bush_removal_ended_guam_investigation/ I think, with a bit more digging, we'll find out that this purge isn't remarkably different from how the administration has been operating from the beginning. While it's a bit late, I'm pretty sure that there have been other examples in the past 6 years of US Attorneys getting replaced or getting plum assignments while in the middle of interesting cases. Also, how many more USAs have been good Bushies, like the USA in Pittsburgh?

brantgirl4 wrote on March 21, 2007 5:19 AM:

Note that the above email is in document 10-1 p53 (oops).

amig wrote on March 21, 2007 5:19 AM:

viA dailykos. a cool tool:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/20/17716/3612

amig wrote on March 21, 2007 5:20 AM:

viA dailykos. a cool tool:

Smartypants wrote on March 21, 2007 6:08 AM:

Great editorial cartoon on the DOJ scandal by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Dave Horsey. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=1558

Nan wrote on March 21, 2007 6:09 AM:

10-1

p 1-3 - 11/14 Email between T Griffin & "USAEO-Candidates" / Deborah Hardos about Griffin's 30-minute interview scheduled for Dec 8th at 10 via video-teleconference.
p 4 - 11/14 Email from John Nowacki to Griffin asking for "a sort of narrative bio" as well as resume.
p 8 - 11/14 Email from Griffin to Debbie asking if in-person interview Dec 4-6 when Griffin will be in town for conf is possibility (after talking to Monica)
p 16 - Griffin's email with resume and "narrative bio"
p 18 - Griffin's narrative bio
p 19-20 - Griffin's resume

Next several pages are resignation letters, most of which include the stock phrase "Serving the United States as a United States Attorney has been the highest honor and most fulfilling duty of my public career."

p 21 - 12/14 resignation letter of John McKay to Judge Gonzalez. Mentions pride in "extensive use of Title III wiretaps and unprecedented law enforcement information sharing through...LInX"
p 22 - 12/14 resignation letter of John McKay to Pres Bush
p 23 - 12/18 resignation letter of Paul Charlton to AG
p 24 - 12/18 resignation letter of Charlton to Pres Bush
p 25 12/19 resignation letter of Bud Cummins to AG. Includes "Your leadership has been marvelous."
p 26 - 12/19 resignation letter of Cummins to Pres Bush
p 27 - 1/16 - resignation letter of Carol Lam to AG
p 28 - 1/16 resignation letter of Lam to Pres Bush
p 29 - 1/17 resignation letter of Daniel Bogden to AG
p 30 - 1/17 resignation letter of Bogden to Pres Bush
p 31 - 1/17 resignation letter of David Iglesias to AG. Includes "As the son of an immigrant father from Panama, this job has been the culmination of the American dream...It was a tremendous honor to serve for a trailblazer like yourself...I respectfully recommend FAUSA Larry Gomez to serve as Interim United States Attorney....I will be sending you a token of my appreciation - a hand-made mola my cousin in Panama made for you. I think you will like it. Vaya con Dios."
p 32 - 1/17 resignation letter of Iglesias to Pres Bush. Refers to being part of administration "in a watershed period of America's history" and knowing he "wanted to be part of [Bush's] team" the first time they met in summer 2000.
p 33 - 2/23 resignation letter of Margaret Chiara to AG

Next pages are from Michael Battle's e-mail inbox
p 34-35 - 2/7 Email from Michael Battle to USAEO-USAttorneysOnly announcing with "mixed feelings" he is leaving EOUSA. Mentions importance of mission post-9/11 and pride in people and efforts. Includes exchange with David Iglesias in response to Battle's announcement. Iglesias made comment to Battle: "I don't envy some of your duties since you are a good and honorable man."
p 36 - 2/16 farewell message from Carol Lam to USAEO-USAttorneysOnly list
p 37 - 3/4 email from Lam informing Battle that she has been subpoenaed to testify before House and Senate judiciary committees.

Next pages are emails from Ashley McGown (USAEO) computer
p38 -1/24 email from Debbie Hardos to Nowack and McGowan forwarding Iglesia's resignation letters.
p 41-42 - email exchange among women at USAEO regarding request by Bogden to "change the employee's reasons for resignation" which apparently can't be done after the fact. It can only be "condensed." Jean Dunn suggested "Requested to step down." Kit Mann had tried to get it changed to "Term expired 10-28-05. Employee was in a holdover status." Apparently no go on the latter but McGown was asked to add the exchange to the "info [Hardos] had given [McGown] for John's review."

Looks like the final pages were emails from Sean Murphy's computer (USAEO).

They are all related to the DAG's 2/7 testimony. Includes:
- email exchange clarifying who was working on the testimony. Initially Richard Hertling thought OLP was drafting it (because OLP was doing "the views" but Ryan Bounds indicated "OLP probably should not draft it anyway."
- Kyle Sampson's draft outline for DAG testimony (1/29) - p 46
- Fact Sheet: United States Attorney Appointments -p 47-49
- TalkingPoints: U.S.Attorney Nominations and Interim Appointments by the Attorney General - p 50-52 (includes section on why amending the statute was necessary)

p 53 - Sampson forwarded email with two attachments (talking points, US Attorney language) to Nowacki "for the draft DAG testimony") One email was from William Mercer on 1/29 to William Moshella with ccs to McNulty, Sampson, and Elston. Mercer apparently generated "some talkers based upon the Bell/Meador and Wiener articles." The second email is from John O'Quinn on 1/26 to Mercer with cc's to McDonald and Esther Slater and references two attachments: 2 pages of talking points and a one-page proposal re the appointment of interim US Attorneys. O'Quinn points out a different approach - simply repealing section 546 would mean the provisions of the Vacancies Reform Act would apply and the President could simply name US Attorneys. I'm not sure why Sean Murphy had these on his computer as he wasn't cc'd on them.

JoyceH wrote on March 21, 2007 6:12 AM:

Here's a suggestion for another avenue to look down - I saw in the news that a Senator (Feinstein?) was saying that six of the eight fired attorneys were investigating Republican officials. It made me wonder - are there any US Attorneys investigating Republican officials who DIDN'T get fired?

brantgirl4 wrote on March 21, 2007 6:18 AM:

11-1

This pdf has a 3/10/06 memo on district performance against the goals of Project Safe Neighborhoods. The review is presented in a long memorandum (starts page 20) to Michael Eston from John S. Irving with copies to William Mercer and Uttam Dhillon.

p. 23 Lam's district stats from a 3/10/04 memo are included in a list of districts identified as "prosecuting Federal firearms offenses below their potential." The list is based on FY 2003 stats, national stats, violent crime stats, and EARS reports.

p.25 Lam's stats on federal firearms cases from FY 2002 to 2005. Ranks her district 86 out of 94.

p. 30 In section subtitled "Other Noteworthy Districts":
"Margaret Chiara has been the US 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 FY2004, the district has steadily increased its firearms prosecutions, which have nearly doubled since 58 cases were filed in FY 2001."

p. 31 & 32
A section specifically on Carol Lam's district. Note that this is the first of 16 districts discussed in detail in the memorandum. The section on San Diego starts with a table noting a 33% decrease in firarm cases prosecuted despite a 6.8% increase in ATF referrals. This text follows:

"Of the listed districts, the Southern District of California stands out as the only one with the same U.S. Attorney since 2002, a substantial urban population, almost no increase in cases filed from FY 2003 to FY 2004, a 33% decline in cases filed in FY 2005 (to a total of 12), and increased ATF referrals -- despite a call frmo DAG Jim Comey in June 2004. The Southern District of California's cases filed are at their lowest since 1994 - and that is the earlies year for which EOUSA provided records - despite 152 case referrals from the ATF in FY 2005."

"The Southern District of California was among those identified as underperforming in the March 2004 memo from EOUSA to Kyle Sampson. The memorandum notes that the PSN Task Force was established in October 2002, after Carol Lam became the US Attorney. The memorandum notes, however, that "[t]he most glaring statistic for this district is the overall dearth of firearms prosecutions." In a conference call with DAG Jim Comey prior to July 20, 2004, Us Attorney Carol Lam acknowledged that there were problems with the district's PSN initiative, but explained that part of the problem was that the district had an enormous immigration problem and lacked adequate prosecutorial resources to focus on PSN. US Attorney Lam expected the district's PSN effort to improve through a new case-screening system with local prosecutors and a new point of contact in the US Attorney's Office who was to oversee the intake of all firearms cases."

-- The memo goes and quotes at some length information provided by Carol Lam (on the district's use of PSN funds) that the DOJ used in a letter to Sen. Feinstein intended to "educate Congress about the success of PSN and the need for state and local grant funding in FY 2006". Following this, the memo continues:

"The district has made some efforts, and US Attorney Lam's assistance in the appropriations process is appreciated, but there ought to be more to say about the district's PSN enforcement efforts in its fourth year than citing to a 2003 grant and six search warrants."

"In its October 2005 report to the Attorney General on its PSN efforts, the district acknowledges a need for technical assistance in the areas of prosecution protocols, media outreach, and law enforcement strategies. The district reports that it does engage in case screening and it focuses those efforts on domestic violence and aliens-in-possession as the source of its gun violence problem. It notes that the effectiveness of its strategies has not been assessed and that one if (sic) its obstacles has been 'turnover of key personnel.'"

"Crime statistics do show a decrease in the number of violent crimes and homicides in San Diego. According to the FBI's UCR data, violent crime in the first half of 2005 declined there 8.8% from the same period in 2004, and the homicides declined 23% from 30 to 23. I was unable to find crime statistics for El Cajon, the primary focus area of the district's task force."

p.56 Kyle Sampson memorandum to Guy A. Lewis, Director EOUSA, 3/10/04 on these 16 underperforming districts. Strong indictment of Carol Lam's district. All other district names redacted. We can assume that the districts of the other fired USA's were not included in the 16 underperforming districts, otherwise I'm sure their district's names wouldn't have been redacted.

amig wrote on March 21, 2007 6:20 AM:

Here's an old, yet still great, special report on what LAM must have been after:

Capitol Crooks

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

brantgirl4 wrote on March 21, 2007 6:29 AM:

11-2 p.15
Seems DOJ agreed with Lam that she was short on resources.

Memo from Kyle Sampson to TC Spencer Pryor, 7/20/04 summarizing phone calls with USA's from 16 districts underperforming on PNS goals (specifically firearms prosecutions).

Southern District of California (Carol Lam)
Conference call where USA acknowledged problems with PSN initiative, but also stated that:
- SDCA did not receive any PSN resources. Actually, they received one new PSN prosecutor; [Last sentence in bold type.]
- With the enormous immigration problem in the district, need more resources to devote to PSN;
- PSN case screening process with the state and local prosecutors was broken. Have a new system in place which should help PSN prosecutions;
- Have a new firearms point of contact in the office who will oversee the intake process for all firearms cases;
- California's tough firearms laws are partially responsible for low PSN prosecution numbers;

Follow-up:
- I plan on visiting the district with someone from ATF HQ in September to follow-up on the discussions we had and confirm that the PSN initiative in SDCA is on the right track. Badly need more prosecutorial resources to focus on PSN initiative. [Last sentence in bold type.]

Pat Smith wrote on March 21, 2007 7:21 AM:

To all those who suggested converting to a searchable format, EPluribusMedia has already done it:

http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/3/20/1665/33040

(not sure if they have completed ALL the pdfs but they have a large number.)

waterboy wrote on March 21, 2007 8:15 AM:

For the earlier posters: If you have a scanner attached to your PC, you probably have an OCR program, since most scanners have such software bundled with the scanner. Look for ScanSoft, for instance. You can open it, select a pdf file and the perform OCR on that file.

Sholom wrote on March 21, 2007 8:18 AM:

Continuing the thought on the "next time". I second the idea of converting to text, then entering it into a wiki. This way comments, etc., could be organized, reducing duplication of effort, repetitiveness, etc.

Collaborative journalism at its best!

Phoenix Woman wrote on March 21, 2007 8:20 AM:

Fully searchable database of the doc dump (with instructions) is here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/20/17716/3612

Terminus Est wrote on March 21, 2007 9:18 AM:

Over the next few weeks, expect the final, big diversion from the WH to stop these investigations: attacking Iran.

Keep that in the back of your minds as you dream dreams of investigations, firings, criminal indictments, and even impeachment: an attack on Iran is THE Hail Mary and it would be unlikely that BushCo would NOT run that play.

JOToole wrote on March 21, 2007 9:39 AM:

Document number OAG000000155

MEMO from Kyle Sampson, April 2004, identifying only David Iglesias as a candidate to run EQUSA, states "diverse up-and-comer; solid"

MWS wrote on March 21, 2007 10:06 AM:

General - all the documents.

The documents appear to be dumps of files. I think of someone going through filing cabinets looking for files related to the fired US Attorneys.

Do we have any information on:

Whose files each document came from?
What subjects each file cover?
For documents that are not emails, can we find the "boundaries" between docuents.

One clue is in the document numbers stamped at the bottom left of many documents. For example OAG000000809. My guess is OAG stands for Office of Attoney General. The number appears to be a sequential number, probably stamped either by the DOJ when the dump was gathered or stamped by the committee when the dump was received.

Scattered throughout the dump are individual pages that have little or no context when looking at the surrounding pages. If we can figure out the context of some of them, they may offer clues as to their meaning.

moe99 wrote on March 21, 2007 10:32 AM:

I've done my share of reviewing large document dumps as a civil prosecutor and may I make a suggestion that you have several threads open at a time with a clearly indicated title where you can gather the analysis of the readers. It could be:

A. Documents 1-1 through 2-11
B. Documents 2-12 through 3-11
C. Documents 3-12 through 4-11

etc.

That way folks can break up on their own and congregate later where posts are thin. It's easier to keep track of for us readers who do want to help but do not have the time to start at the top of a 628 post thread to determine what has and has not been covered. Just my 2 cnets.

nobody special wrote on March 21, 2007 10:40 AM:

Here's something I haven't seen any comment on: one of the reasons Dan Bogden (Nevada) was sacked was his supposed refusal to take obscenity cases. (See, for example, the griping from Brent Ward, head of the Criminal Division Obscenity Task Force, in his 8/29/06 email to Matt Friedrich in OAG. That's in batch 1-2, page 34, Bates stamp DAG-507.)

Stop for a moment and ponder the underlying idea: bringing an adult obscenity prosecution -- where the trial would require proving a violation of "community standards" -- in LAS VEGAS? Are these people insane?

The marginalia -- presumably Mike Elston's -- seem to relate the DAG's view that such a case is "easier than a drug conspiracy," but it's still hard to see how you get a conviction in Vegas unless it's a copro-necrophiliac snuff film.

A Fan wrote on March 21, 2007 11:45 AM:

This collaborative document digesting process was engineered to perfection by Groklaw.com in dealing with SCO's Copyright claims case against IBM about Linux. Could be beneficial to see how they did it.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 21, 2007 3:04 PM:

amig@March 21, 2007 06:20 AM - Thanks for the link. That is a great story about MZM.

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

rita wrote on March 21, 2007 5:37 PM:

Was there an 9-month gap in e-mails? The dump last week by the DoJ includes e-mails from early 2005 until March 2 when Sampson discusses his USAtty Appointment Summary with Miers. I didn't find any e-mails appear again until Jan. 1 2006. Were there any e-mails in the latest dump that covered the months of April thru Dec. 2005?

MWS wrote on March 21, 2007 10:57 PM:

7-11 pg 54 OAG 809
11-06 pg 20 ASG 330

I call your attention to these two documents. They read almost the same. Neither is an email document. Instead they look like print outs of a document. Each is a solitary page. Each document describes phone calls from Bogden and Charlton to Mercer.

Based on the first few paragraphs where most of the differences lie; 7-11 pg 54 seems more a description of what happened, while 11-05 pg 20 describes the messages Mercer wanted to communicate.

In both the first message given to Bogden and Charlton is (quoting from 7-11 pg 54)

"The Administration is grateful for your service, but wants to give someone else the chance to serve in your district."

Not performance, not policy, simply politics.

Both end with these two paragraphs. They sound to me like a typical lawyer spliting hairs.

"Saying that a U.S. Attorney is being asked to leave to allow another person to serve in the role is not inconsistent with the fact that the Department had concerns regarding performance and/or policy compliance.

It also cannot be interpreted as an admission that others had been identified to take over as U.S. Attorney."

Clearly they did not want to admit (to Bogden or Charlton) that they were fired for performance reasons or that their replacements had been made.

They also wanted to keep open the possibility of saying there were performance problems after the fact. And so the reasons given to the two were carefully crafted to be "not inconsistent" with that.

Typical, don't lie, but don't tell the whole truth either.

Open questions:

When did these calls happen? Probably within days after the US Attorney's were first told they were fired.

Who wrote the document? Probably Mercer, but it could have been someone documenting what Mercer told the author.

Why the differences in the documents from OAG and ASG?

Which was written first? Probably 11-06 pg 20 because it is less specific on the deadline. It says "end of January" while 7-11 pg 54 says "January 31st".

LDE wrote on March 23, 2007 12:33 AM:

regarding OCR, the professional version of Acrobat has an OCR convert to text option built in. Open a scanned PDF file and do a convert. Don't know if there are locked file issues with it though.

poll@hotmail.com wrote on April 26, 2007 11:23 AM:

penis sucking whores

rice@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 11:12 PM:

Generic Cialis. Buy Generic Cialis

margaret@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 1:49 PM:

hello

harry@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 2:35 AM:

hello

rick@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 2:09 PM:

hello

rick@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 2:09 PM:

hello

rick@gmail.com wrote on May 7, 2007 3:40 AM:

hello