Comments (64)

rxbusa wrote on March 24, 2007 10:17 AM:

One thing I found interesting was the comment about Karl's office, item 2 in list in e-mail pasted below. Has anyone seen a follow-up that this was done?

From: Kyle.Sampson@usdoj.gov [mailto:Kyle.Sampson@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 11:02 AM
To: Miers, Harriet; Kelley, William K.
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.

CatStaff wrote on March 24, 2007 10:42 AM:

The thing I find interesting about this email is the last statement: ". . . it'll be more trouble than it is worth." This says to me that there really weren't pressing "poor performance / immigration / cover story of the day" issues in play here. These firings were obviously something they wanted to do for their own -- dare I say it? -- nefarious reasons, hoping that they could fly under the radar and not get caught, but certainly not something they'd go to the mat for just "for the good of the country."

Bob wrote on March 24, 2007 10:44 AM:

Moschella lie?? He seems like such a nice young man in the photo. Is that also him in the AOL ad?

r€nato wrote on March 24, 2007 10:46 AM:

I wonder if Michael Kinsley would like to reconsider his opinion of USAttorneygate...

Rusty wrote on March 24, 2007 10:52 AM:

Hope the respective bar associations, societies of barristers etc. send a very strong message to other attorneys who are considering lying to congress. these guys should be disbarred as soon as congress is done with them. at best they have no credibility.

Anonymous wrote on March 24, 2007 10:54 AM:

I wonder if Michael Kinsley would like to reconsider his opinion of USAttorneygate...

Never.

This has been another in a series of simple answers to simple questions.

OxyCon wrote on March 24, 2007 11:08 AM:

I'm so glad Arlen Spectre is my Senator. He makes me proud every day. The way the Bushies use him as a dupe, and he keeps on supporting them nonetheless is a great quality to have in a Senator.

Jack wrote on March 24, 2007 11:10 AM:

If I were a Defense attorney in Federal court, I'd be raking the prosecution over the coals with the dozens of lies to the public and acts of perjury before Congress that have been revealed. What a laughing stock the Justice Department has become, all courtesy of the Googler in Chief and the "Architect" of his deceptions. They will follow that path all the way to where it ends. Where's that? Ask Richard Nixon.

Tomg802 wrote on March 24, 2007 11:12 AM:

Has William Moschella testified to congress?

Does anyone know if it is a crime for congressmen to lie to congress? I have always liked Specter and I understand none in congress read the patriot bill. But its hard to believe that he was not aware of this. I guess being personable and a good congressmen are two different things.

ahem wrote on March 24, 2007 11:23 AM:

Has William Moschella testified to congress?

And ask Daniel P. Collins to come in from Los Angeles. He's got sufficient free time to guest-post at Protein Wisdom. And see why a private-sector attorney was providing handy hints to his DOJ buddies on how to fillet the law on the sly.

db wrote on March 24, 2007 11:28 AM:

Specter knew. Or he knew not to know and purposefully turned his head away at the appropriate moment.

When i asked a judiciary committee staffer how this would be possible without the senator knowing, he sneered and said it would not be, or it would be extremely unlikely to just get slipped in like that without the senator's knowledge or consent. I mean, this was a change in the balance of power, taking power away from congress and giving it to the executive.

IMO, Specter is fully capable of even 'illegal' conduct in pursuit of partisan goals. He has shown he will say and do anything to serve his right-wing masters in the WH. The constitution is nothing more than toilet paper as far as he is concerned.

pol wrote on March 24, 2007 11:28 AM:

Slightly OT, but E.J. Dionne's oped is spot on:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301450.html

Also, I guess I've been under a rock, but I just learned this from Froomkin:

"The outgoing U.S. attorney at the time, Paul Warner, left in February 2006 to become a U.S. magistrate. Warner said Monday that the move was "a natural progression for me."

These judicial positions do not come open that often," he said in an interview. "I never felt any pressure to leave."

Warner said he had long known that Sampson wanted his job, however.

Sampson was the Bush administration's choice for Warner's replacement. But Utah Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett backed former Senate Judiciary Committee staffer Brett Tolman.

The contest resulted in a standoff of sorts. Bush ultimately picked Tolman last summer.

And who is Brett Tolman? None other than the staffer for Senator Arlen Specter who snuck that provision into the Patriot Act that allows Bush to appoint interim U.S. attorneys indefinitely -- thereby allowing him to circumvent the traditional process that calls for approval by home-state senators and requires Senate confirmation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

Pity the Fools wrote on March 24, 2007 11:36 AM:

It's now pretty clear to me that Specter struck some sort of bargain with the White House to get the Patriot II provision in. Maybe he agreed to let it flow through the committee "unbeknownst to him." Maybe something else.

But evidence here is that the White House/DOJ wanted the provision and Specter made it happen.

So what did Specter get in return? Or what "goods" does the White House have on him to keep him so subservient.

And, most importantly, why did Tolman get the job over White House favorite Sampson? Wasn't the whole purpose of this exercise to give the Attorney General unrivaled power to appoint the USA's.

Did someone touch Tolman 'in a private place?'

Anonymous wrote on March 24, 2007 11:37 AM:

Moschella looks like a Bill Frist love child.

EasyRider wrote on March 24, 2007 11:58 AM:

Senator Spector's may have been bribed, blackmailed, or just wanted to stand by his man (Bush). Spector want that chairmanship and the only way that was going to happen was to accept Tolman on his staff and let him put that change in that Bush wanted.

Spector is in this over his head. Where is the FBI when we need them?

DiFi Fan wrote on March 24, 2007 12:15 PM:

As Dahlia Lithwick put it in her "Specter Detecter" article in Slate (link pasted below):

"But this was not some minor technical amendment. It was a substantial enhancement of executive power."

Where are the emails and memoranda from William Moschella to his compatriots about how "his" revision to the Patriot Act would apply to the appointment of USAs?

Document Gap.

benjoya wrote on March 24, 2007 12:42 PM:

Where is the FBI when we need them?

they've got millions of 'domestic terrorists' to spy on

jinny wrote on March 24, 2007 12:43 PM:

specter |ˈspektər| ( Brit. spectre) noun a ghost. • something widely feared as a possible unpleasant or dangerous occurrence : the specter of nuclear holocaust.

Joe wrote on March 24, 2007 12:48 PM:

Why are the media not going after Specter on this? I'm sure he's gonna get his mug on one of the Sunday programs tomorrow. Whoever is interviewing him should hammer him about this.

undecided wrote on March 24, 2007 12:51 PM:

I'm so glad to see you focusing on Moschella. I only recently discovered who he was, but I have noticed that he often sits directly behind Gonzales when the AG testifies before Congress.

Someone should spend some time looking into Moschella's background.

ahem wrote on March 24, 2007 12:57 PM:

"Where are the emails and memoranda from William Moschella to his compatriots about how "his" revision to the Patriot Act would apply to the appointment of USAs?"

Tolman. Quid pro quo. It's quite something to engineer the means by which you get your next job.

jdw wrote on March 24, 2007 1:23 PM:

One of the Muckers needs to break off the Warner-Tolman stuff into it's own Muckeracker post. It really comes across as a double quid pro. Warner gets taken care off. Then Tolman benefits from law he snuck into the Patriot Act.

Anonymous wrote on March 24, 2007 1:25 PM:

This scandal has always been about the hiring. The Patriot Act was deliberately abused to create the means for Bush/Republicans to install loyal cronies without 1.) Formal nomination by Bush, i.e. fingerprints; 2.) Senate approval- background checks, hearings, etc.; and 3.) Home state senator's control. But it does not end there. The real objective is to control the USA positions in order to control the hiring and assignments of the CAREER procecutors. Changing the Patriot Act was the cornerstone for their permanent Republican judiciary, and thereby, permanent Republican control of our government.

Kali wrote on March 24, 2007 1:49 PM:

8
In Oct 05 there were all the letters from Issa, and signed by Cunningham, Doolittle, Jerry Lewis, Hunter, Herger, complaining about Lamm. The story broke regarding the bribery scandal of Cunningham in June of 2005 and in a little more than a month after these letters, Cunningham plead guilty (Nov 2005.)

pol wrote on March 24, 2007 2:01 PM:

"Changing the Patriot Act was the cornerstone for their permanent Republican judiciary, and thereby, permanent Republican control of our government."

Gee, I wonder what else is in there?

mr juicy wrote on March 24, 2007 2:11 PM:

Ok,this is a very interesting email.
It's hard to keep track of everything that has already been covered here in T.P.M., so I apologize if it's off topic and already been pointed out.
Here is my take on it. My notes are in caps and brackets.First the original e-mail then...

Full e-mail:
From: Goodling, Monica
Sent: Friday, August 18,2006 12:09 PM
To: Sampson. Kyle
Subject: Re: Conf Call, re: Tim Griffin

Fyi - to catch you up on the latest here (unless something else has happened this week), scott and I spoke last thurs or fri and this is what’s going on… We have a senator prob, so while wh is intent on nominating, scott thinks we may have a confirmation issue. Also, WH has a personnel issue as tim returns to the states this week and is still on WH payroll. The possible solution I suggested to scott was that we (DOJ) pick him up as a political, examine the BI completed in May pursuant to his WH post, and then install him as an interim. That resolves both the WH personnel issue and gets him into the office he and the W want him in. I asked Elston to feel out the DAG on bringing Tim into one of the vacant ADAG spots there, just for a short time until we install him in Arkansas. The DAG wanted to look at his resume, and I sent it him before I left. Was going to run this plan by you once I knew the DAG was onboard. If not, I suppose we can look at CRIM, but knowing Tim, my guess is he’d prefer something else given that he was in CRIM in 2001. (Tim knows nothing about my idea for a solution at this point - wanted your signoff, and a home for him, before I called him.)

Full e-mail:
From: Goodling, Monica
Sent: Friday, August 18,2006 12:09 PM
To: Sampson. Kyle
Subject: Re: Conf Call, re: Tim Griffin

Fyi - to catch you up on the latest here (unless something else has happened this week), scott...

{ SCOTT JENNINGS ? ,AIDE TO KARL ROVE }

...and I spoke last thurs or fri and this is what’s going on… We have a senator prob,
so while wh...

{wh IN LOWER CASE = ROVE OR BUSH}

...is intent on nominating, scott thinks we may have a confirmation issue.

Also, WH...

{WH IN CAPS = BUSH OR ADMINISTRATION?}

... has a personnel issue as tim returns to the states this week and is still on WH payroll.

{ WHAT WAS THE ISSUE? TIM GRIFFIN SERVING IN IRAQ AND STILL ON PAYROLL, OR DO WE REALLY WANT TO NOMINATE SOMEONE FOR USA THAT IS STILL ON WH PAYROLL AS ROVE'S AIDE,OR BOTH ?}

The possible solution I suggested to scott was that we (DOJ)...

{DOJ IN CAPS = DEPT.OF JUSTICE}

... pick him up as a political,

{KEEP PAYCHECKS COMING AS POLITICAL CONSULTANT
TO DOJ,I THOUGHT THE DOJ ISN"T POLITICAL,DO THEY HIRE POLITICAL CONSULTANTS ?}

...examine the BI...{ WHAT IS THIS?}
... completed in May pursuant to his WH post, and then install him as an interim. That resolves both the WH personnel issue and gets him into the office he and the W want him in....

{ GETS HIM OFF WH PAYROLL AND INTO DOJ PAYROLL}

I asked Elston to feel out the DAG...

{DAG = THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR THE DEPT. OF..}

...on bringing Tim into one of the vacant ADAG spots there, just for a short time until we install him in Arkansas.

{ HERE IT COMES!!! }

The DAG wanted to look at his resume, and I sent it him before I left.

{ "DAG" IS A HIM !!
NOT THE DEPT. OF ATTORNEY GENERAL,IT MUST BE GONZALEZ HIMSELF!
"DAG" WANTED TO SEE GRIFFIN'S RESUME, SHE SENT IT TO HIM BEFORE SHE LEFT.
WHO DID SHE SEND HIS RESUME TO BEFORE SHE LEFT?
DOES DAG ALWAYS MEAN "DA ATTORNEY GENERAL" ? }

Was going to run this plan by you once I knew the DAG was onboard. If not, I suppose we can look at CRIM, but knowing Tim, my guess is he’d prefer something else given that he was in CRIM in 2001. (Tim knows nothing about my idea for a solution at this point - wanted your signoff, and a home...

{READ PAYCHECK}...

...for him, before I called him.)

Frederick wrote on March 24, 2007 2:17 PM:

I think the Justice Department is trying to get there story
out before Kyle Sampson testifies next Thursday. I believe this guy is going to drop the bunker buster on
this whole Attorneygate.

Anonymous wrote on March 24, 2007 2:20 PM:

"It's now pretty clear to me that Specter struck some sort of bargain with the White House to get the Patriot II provision in."

How is this clear?

Giant Teapot wrote on March 24, 2007 2:25 PM:

Mr. Juicy, "DAG" is Deputy Attorney General.

mr. juicy wrote on March 24, 2007 2:35 PM:

oops, thanks giant teapot.

Mad Dog Rackham wrote on March 24, 2007 2:40 PM:

"Mr. Juicy, "DAG" is Deputy Attorney General."

Well, that makes more sense. I'd been thinking that "DAG" meant "that Dick, Alberto Gonzales".

cs, art is bread wrote on March 24, 2007 2:51 PM:

CAtstaff -- These firings were obviously something they wanted to do for their own -- dare I say it? -- nefarious reasons

Those "nafarious reasons" are what I'm wondering about. With only half of a second term to go, why was the Bush administration so eager to dump less than cooperative USAs?

Reasons like giving a Rove protege a chance to pad the old resume just doesn't seem worth it. Nor does revenge alone so late in the game.

I'm wondering if they had some future scam in the works -- 2008 elections perhaps -- and needed to know friendlies were in place in advance.

anon wrote on March 24, 2007 3:15 PM:

Sorry to lower the tone, but does anyone remember the Eric Lipton article in the NY Times from about a week ago in which Kyle Sampson was referred to as Gonzales' chief assistant and "frequent travelling companion"? The phrase jumped out because it seemed so odd in a professional context. It sounded intimate rather than business-like.

Is there a subtext here and are reporters dropping some coded words into articles to indicate that?

Giant Teapot wrote on March 24, 2007 3:28 PM:

BTW, the DAG is Paul J. McNulty.

@ cs, Art is bread: It's ALL about the 2008 elections. They were poised to place voter suppression operatives (formerly known as US Attorneys) in almost every swing state, to dig up/manufacture dirt on Democrats and to "run out the clock" on the investigation or prosecution of Republican scandals. They started planning this as early as 2004, when someone conceived of slipping that clause in the Patriot Act reauthorization so they could directly place the (unconfirmable by the Senate) operatives.

The code is "school." Word.

asher wrote on March 24, 2007 3:29 PM:

mr. juicy,

BI = Background Investigation, me thinks.

Giant Teapot wrote on March 24, 2007 3:50 PM:

I find it strange that the EOUSA doesn't seem in the loop on either the "constitutional anomaly" plan or the USA firing plan. EOUSA is the management office at DOJ that services, trains, coordinates ... everything to do with the USA field offices. It's the HQ for USA's.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
The Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) was created on April 6, 1953, by AG Order No. 8-53 to provide for close liaison between the Department of Justice (DOJ) in Washington, D.C., and the 93 United States Attorneys located throughout the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Marianas Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U. S. Virgin Islands.

See also "Mission and Functions"
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/mission.html

In a sane world, EOUSA would be smack in the middle of alll the details of both the "anomaly" plan and the firing plan, because both are major EOUSA management issues.

Selected EOUSA staff indicates several current vacancies in the "Deputy" ranks:

Steve Parent, Acting Director
John Kelly, Deputy Director and Chief of Staff
Steve Parent, Deputy Director
John Nowacki, Principal Deputy Director
Judith Beeman, AGAC Liaison / US Attorneys' Manual
John Nowacki, Acting Counsel to the Director

Where are the emails to and from these folks? Why wouldn't they be involved in "performance" issues of USA's? Any recent departures from EOUSA management, and if so, where did they "land"?

The word is "flag." Amen to that.

Mash wrote on March 24, 2007 4:03 PM:

Moschella worked on the plan with Daniel Collins as early as 2004. Collins is a neo-con lawyer that represents the "Citizens for the Common Defense" and works at Munger, Tolles & Olson. He and his crew were prominent advocates that testified on Congress against the Supreme Court ruling on Hamdan. He is also nicely connected to Berenson, DOJ, and the White House.

The new doc dump has the correspondence between him and Moschella on how to get the interim appointments changes made. (Document 3, starting on page 6).

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 24, 2007 4:33 PM:

anon@March 24, 2007 03:15 PM

I wondered about "frequent traveling companion" too. I don't know what it was supposed to imply but I doubt it has to do with an untoward personal relationship (Darn!).

I would guess that Sampson is the eyes and ears of Karl Rove in the DOJ and his job is to keep Gonzales on message.

But I'm just guessing.

noshrub wrote on March 24, 2007 4:40 PM:

Has Kyle Sampson worked out some deal? Is that why his testimony was delayed? Just askin'

Cowboy wrote on March 24, 2007 5:00 PM:

They supported removing the "courts" role in appointments, and took the Senate's along with it.

Ridiculous.

bross wrote on March 24, 2007 5:09 PM:

From W's radio talk today, as quoted in NYT:
“I strongly support the attorney general in his decision” to remove the United States attorneys, Mr. Bush said.

Isn't that somewhat at odds with AG AG:
“I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on.”

ahem wrote on March 24, 2007 5:18 PM:

It's time to start asking for emails originating from accounts with gwb43.com addresses, and asking very loudly if they're being archived.

Giant Teapot wrote on March 24, 2007 5:25 PM:

Awww, isn't this adorable? The DOJ kid's page on "What is a U.S. Attorney?"
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/kidspage/prosecutor.html

"The main point about the role of a federal prosecutor is that with each case, the prosecutor tries very hard to do what is both morally and legally right to ensure that justice is served."

What kind of traitorous pre-9/11 thinking is that?

foggylady wrote on March 24, 2007 6:27 PM:

The question keeps coming up...WHY all the changes in hiring.

I have been working on a possibility that the USAs are being replaced by members of the Federalist Society.
and finding that the replacements did not START with the Gonzales 8.
Example: Rachel K. Palouse, former Gonzales and McNulty aid, worked as Minnesota interim for a full year before she was sworn in on Dec. 2006.
She is staunch Repub and Federalist Society.
" Her appointment departed from normal practice. For the first time in decades, an interim U.S. attorney was sent directly from the Department of Justice to fill the job in Minnesota. Traditionally, interim appointees have come from within the Minnesota office, promoted either from first assistant U.S. attorney or chief of the criminal division.
Source:http://www.mncampaignreport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=298

And Mr. Juicy...Tim Griffin WAS in Iraq from May to August, bulding a resume as a :"veteran",
( he had office job) so if he was drawing double pay.....somebody needs to tell Leahy or Feinstein, or...?

Anonymous wrote on March 24, 2007 7:04 PM:

I dug through the e-mails and found a reference that dates back to July of 2003 in regards to seeking some sort of change to the way interim USAs were appointed.

See here: http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=11685

bcg wrote on March 24, 2007 7:12 PM:

Specter's role in all of this seems to be a mystery to some of the writers on this thread. He talks positions contrary to those of the administration often enough to appear to be independent; but, it's only talk, and talk is cheap. When it comes time to legislate, if he doesn't pick up the administration's program (say, trial by military commission), what he proposes preserves that program. He's no more independent than Senators Stevens and Dominici, Reps. Wilson and Watson, the New Hampshire Republican Committee, former Secretaries of State Blackwell and Harris, and so on.
In my opinion, all of these politicians are not just joined by being Republicans: they're joined by being members of the same national level political machine. To all appearances, it's as corrupt and grasping as NYC's Tammany Hall, only bigger. The main way in which it appears to discipline its members was on display during that over-time vote in the house (for the drug benefit?), when the then majority whip and/or speaker (?) were reputed to have nailed down support for the legislation by tying it to party support for congressmen's re-election. Judging from DA Iglesias' testimony, that support wasn't just financial. Being a "team player," then, is crucial to staying in office.
I think it is a mistake to see the Bush administration as the central player on that team: they did not create the machine that put them in office. As long as they are the most politically powerful part of that machine, however, they will command the deference of the Republicans in Congress. In the attorney firings scandal, that deference can be seen in their party's members willingness, contrary to all reason, to pick up the line that this scandal is about ineptitude. Incompetence is a reason to request individual resignations, but not to gut, either, the administration or its program. It's damage control. Individuals can be sacrificed (whatever that means, given the president's power to pardon), but the program must be protected. I suspect that, if the investigation widens, that will be the governing rule.

impeachcheneythenbush wrote on March 24, 2007 7:28 PM:

Full e-mail:
From: Goodling, Monica
Sent: Friday, August 18,2006 12:09 PM
To: Sampson. Kyle
Subject: Re: Conf Call, re: Tim Griffin

Fyi - to catch you up on the latest here (unless something else has happened this week), scott and I spoke last thurs or fri and this is what’s going on… We have a senator prob, so while wh is intent on nominating, scott thinks we may have a confirmation issue. Also, WH has a personnel issue as tim returns to the states this week and is still on WH payroll. The possible solution I suggested to scott was that we (DOJ) pick him up as a political, examine the BI completed in May pursuant to his WH post, and then install him as an interim. That resolves both the WH personnel issue and gets him into the office he and the W want him in. I asked Elston to feel out the DAG on bringing Tim into one of the vacant ADAG spots there, just for a short time until we install him in Arkansas. The DAG wanted to look at his resume, and I sent it him before I left. Was going to run this plan by you once I knew the DAG was onboard. If not, I suppose we can look at CRIM, but knowing Tim, my guess is he’d prefer something else given that he was in CRIM in 2001. (Tim knows nothing about my idea for a solution at this point - wanted your signoff, and a home for him, before I called him.)

This statement seems to implicate Bush ("W"): "That resolves both the WH personnel issue and gets him into the office he and the W want him in."

If that is who the email refers to, it contradicts what Bush said about his not being involved in any substantial way other than having general knowledge.

Mooserm wrote on March 24, 2007 7:43 PM:

Readers here are like nowhere else. Fantastic!

Security code: memory!

Giant Teapot wrote on March 24, 2007 9:03 PM:

@foggylady:

My tinfoil hat has really been vibrating about the Federalist Society, too. Everybody who's anybody in all three branches is a member or alleged member, including most of the Supreme Court. It was founded in 1982 by "law students" who supposedly felt oppressed by liberals on law school campuses, but was actually founded and is funded by all the usual neo-con suspects.

Federalist Society was extremely effective at packing the Federal judiciary during the Reagan/GHWBush years. Judicial appointments during the Clinton years barely scratched at what the Federalist Society had accomplished by appointing lifetime judges (as young as possible), and you may recall how resistant the Senate was to confirming any Clinton judicial nominees. Senate Republicans went to any and all extremes to minimize Clinton's judicial appointments. Anyone not pledged allegiance to the Federalist Society is considered "far left."

Once they'd co-opted the judicial branch (ironically by puffing up the supremacy of the legislative branch), it looks like they've been working VERY hard to institutionalize their control of the executive branch with the unitary executive theory and all these various plots. Meanwhile, were *already in control of the legislative branch* (until Nov. 7, 2006).

The USA purge plot had multiple methods/benefits, a hallmark of Rove strategy:
1) It wrested control from non-hacks who were or might have pursued Republican criminal activity, particularly in swing states
2) It put hacks in place to kick up dust towards local swing state Democrats (and the home states of potential Dem nominees like HRC and Obama) through 2008 elections
3) It put hacks in the pipeline for Federal judicial nominations, *without requiring Senate confirmation*. By the time they'd be nominated to the bench by a future Republican president, they would have shined up their resumes with "Federal Prosecutor" and could accuse anyone who looked back at their thuggish origins with making a "partisan" attack
4) It eroded the power of both the judiciary and the Senate, who (before the sneaky Patriot Act Reauthorization) had the power to appoint interim USA's, and placed that power into the executive branch, yet another brick in the structure of the dictatorial executive authority they're trying to build

Probably more angles that I'm missing.

This plot requires 4-dimensional thinking. It's ALL connected to ALL the OTHER scandals. Each one is a subplot, consequence, or precursor to the others, from torture to Iraq/war/oil to secret wiretapping to Plame/Libby to Indians!

Kimberly wrote on March 24, 2007 9:21 PM:

"We support eliminating the court's role" in appointing interim U.S. attorneys, Moschella wrote to officials, including Michael Battle, the director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, "and believe the AG should have that authority alone."

This statement may change the entire dynamic of this from a struggle between the Executive, and Legislative branches by adding the Judiciary who could be interested in defending their authority.

Giant Teapot wrote on March 24, 2007 9:55 PM:

@ Kimberly:

Sorry, not likely. The judiciary is already packed with Republican lifetime appointees who don't WANT the judiciary to have power. (Except when the Supremes want to flout the constitution in Bush v. Gore to appoint Dubya as POTUS.)

Legal reasoning has nothing to do with this. It's all about power, authority, control, and punishment.

zen wrote on March 25, 2007 2:26 AM:

all this attention on gonzalez - yes I hate the smirk on his face too - but go after what the real monsters that drove the replacements - and more importantly - what they "were" after - It is Karl Rove you need to be after. Gonzalez being dismissed is the easy way out. Go after the real muck-raker. Go after the fundamental nuclear-weapon threat - it is Karl Rove - You know, you really need to worry about the nerd that is not really that intelligent - you need to let him know what a f***ing nitwit he really is. Tragically, he is unaware!

alton wrote on March 25, 2007 4:25 AM:

My question for others on this thread:

While the WH is stonewalling Leahy, is there anything preventing the Judiciary Committee from investigating the tentacles of this plot that slipped the provision into the Patriot Act. There is a source of information sitting literally in the next chair. Would it be considered too grave a breach of congressional etiquette for the committee to put Specter or his staff under oath? If he slipped in the provision at the WH's request, wouldn't there be some sort of communication trail between his office and the WH? Where did it originate? What was the rationale given for asking congress to voluntarily give up authority?

I am wondering if these questions have already been asked quietly, or if this is the elephant in the committee room.

wmholt wrote on March 25, 2007 4:58 AM:

My understanding for the reasons behind the attorney purge was in 2005, Karl Rove determined that the Republican scandals were going to hurt the Republicans in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Rather than have the Republicans clean up their act, Rove came up with the plan to replace U.S. Attorneys that were not enhancing the Republicans reputation.

Tim Griffin, Karl Rove's chief "researcher" (read: digger of dirt on Democrats) needed to be placed as the U.S. Attorney in Arkansas so he could investigate the Clintons and mitigate the Hilary threat in 2008.

Mark Andresen wrote on March 25, 2007 5:09 AM:

For too long now the repugs (The Corporate elite) have consumed our resources and our people for too long. Now, as we begin to wipe the sand out of our eyes, we still our unable to fight our war against the forces of evil in this country. We are too consumed with consumption, a diversion to make us feel whole. Why do we always choose the path of least resistance? Because we don't like to struggle, we don't like confrontation. If I truly could predict the future, I would say that in less than 100 years, man will be in remission, and eventually extinct. Good night, and Good Luck.

sagacious wrote on March 25, 2007 10:22 AM:

Giant Teapot

re: it is about power, authority, control and punishment

You are right 'this is the rise of the Reich' unfolding.' The purge is actually a purge of democracy. We are a nation built on a democracy based on the rule of law. He who controls the law controls the democracy.

Let's not forget that our system of governance relies on the law to make definite judgement. No matter what facts or evidence are available, it is the determination by and under the law that prevails.

Every single American citizen should be outraged and up in arms about the purge, the electoral system being effectively held hostage, and the politicization of the law to decide which cases will be prosecuted.

Karl Rove does not believe in a large majority necessitating who reigns. He always seeks the narrowest margin of majority 51%. That makes it far easier to duped the citizenry into thinking that it was a hard fought challenge but their side won, but they must be ever vigilant as the majority is whisper thin. Pretty soon the MSM, will start talking about how close the 2008 elections will be. Once the public beleives that it is so much easier to uphold any 'voter fraud' charges. Make no mistake however, we have been robbed of our democracy where all rights and freedoms have been vested in the power of the vote.

The scary part is that now that the masses are awakening from our long nationa1 nightmare we have no legal recourse. The legal system is corrupt. We have no legal means to enforce the law, once Guiliani 'perpwalk' is elected in 2008 we will live under martial law. Guiliani will not hestitate to do so as "America's Mayor" to protect the Homeland!!

In America THE LAW RULES..they stole the LAW

MLK said: " Never forget every thing Hitler did in Germany was legal"

So also it will be with the destruction of our American democracy.

Robin wrote on March 25, 2007 11:01 AM:

What I want to know about the interim appts provision that was snuck into the bill is how someone physically/technically DOES it.

The bill is obviously on a computer.

Due to changes and recommendations congressmen make in the development of a bill, surely it has tracking software for showing the changes, which any wordprocessing professionals knows can have multiple people accessing said bill on an intranet, but ALWAYS with a trail to who/when/what for changes.

The way specter describes the matter, it's like someone went in at night and inserted a piece of paper in the middle of a bill, and whoopsies, that paper became part of the bill. And that's BS.

So, the questions about Specter explaining this whole thing could be answered simply by a full review of all technology and paper drafts of this bill.

(Ha, I can really see it. Me working as the legal asst for an atty in a big contract matter, where my atty and the OPPOSING side's atty are sending revisions, and me just ACCEPTING any and all changes the opposing side put in a draft. Yeah, that's the ticket!)

Philip Mahnken wrote on March 25, 2007 1:12 PM:

"One central aspect of the U.S.attorneys firing is that the Justice Department (via a staffer for then -Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA)) was able to slip in a provision to the Patriot Act Reauthorization bill . . . ."

Slip in a provision? Was a crime perpetrated here?

elrapierwit wrote on March 25, 2007 1:19 PM:

Robin,
this is no mystery. The person who inserted the change was Brent Tolman, the present USA in Utah, who formerly was the associate lawyer on the Crime and Terror subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee while chaired by Hatch and Spector.

Tolman benefitted from inserting the change. Sampson who was ousted was the person that Rove backed for the USA position in Utah, he lost out to Tolman, who was backed by Hatch, McConnell, Spector and Frist.

In other words, this was not surreptiously inserted it was quid pro quo.

Robin wrote on March 25, 2007 4:19 PM:

Thanks elrapierwit (great screen name).

I know.. but how would someone, anyone be able to do it? Did he walk into Specter's office, sit down at a computer, and type it in? Literally... how would someone do that?

Cause on a bright note, there's a number of things I would like to add to legislative bills! Oh yeah...

That's just snark. But Tolman had access TO the actual document. That strikes me as a crime. Or Specter's office was all for it.

sec word: blood.

pre amerikkkan wrote on March 25, 2007 5:03 PM:

Not much time to act if this is some kind of worldwide orchestration by haves to make the world their personal playpen at the expense of the rest of us and what's left of our constitution.

What to do?

The impeachment question will take too long to make any difference, and somehow even that is not enough of a consequence. Everything citizens thought they knew of government is blown now, so some political apparatus has to form to re-learn how to effectively govern.

The repugnantcans are lost, lost, lost and democrats are too cautious or too focused on '08, which they should be and what is an independent anyway and what can they do?

Whatever it is, it can't be from established quarters. Granted, no one is clean, but at least they can't have had a hand in creating this mess in the first place. Once congress does it's job and "woodsheds" W and his handler, the oversight can also root out who not to work with and who never to allow in positions of responsibility and trust again.

Other than that, if Indians are not careful, we may end up having to give it back due to Amerikkkan incompetence. It's either that or real third and fourth parties of the people have to rise. Troglodytes unite.

georgia wrote on March 25, 2007 7:13 PM:

As much as I hate to say it, I'm not really sure how telling this e-mail is. As I noted in the doc review thread, it seems Moschella was being a bit deceptive. He really didn't take credit for the legislation. He attributed it to "one of our friends[.]"

It'd be interesting to know if it was understood who those "friends" were. They did seem to have a good working relationship with the House Judiciary Committee. Moschella himself had worked there.

Coincidently, another former Judiciary employee moved over to DOJ, Jay Apperson. Him, Daniel Collins, and Chertoff seemed to have gotten legislation through in a similar manner. They got Tom Feeney offer his "Feeney Ammendment" during the last day of a conference. That legislation to restricted the authority of the judicial branch, but it was eventually shot down.

What this tells me is that even if Moschella really acted alone here, he was still following established policy.

djcrow22 wrote on March 25, 2007 8:41 PM:

Specter is dirty here. Leahy must know that. And what was Leahy thinking by agreeing to wait until April 17 for Gonzo to testify? That is three weeks away! Time is of the essence here. Gonzo should testify this week. Giving these criminals time to scheme, bribe and intimidate people is stupid! As Hunter S. Thompson used to say, "the fat is in the fire", and as Americans we must demand of Sen. Leahy that he stop being so goddamn nice and nail these bastards. Specter is a liar and a Bushie no matter what he says. Specter, Tolman, Collins, Moschella and Goodling must be put under oath to get some answers. Sen. Leahy, do your job now, not in three friggin weeks. You are letting these clowns stretch this out!

georgia wrote on March 25, 2007 9:35 PM:

I might have been bit wrong about how "Feeney" got passed. It seems it was passed in the House, and was actually tamed down in conference, but even that was still unconstitutional.

Another piece of legislation that came out of Senesnbrenner's committee was "Real ID". It too put restrictions on District Court authority. Again, the original version was worse that the one that was amended to an appropriation bill.

It might be important to note that the e-mails show Moschella nd Collins talking about the changes in June of 2003, even though they didn't make their way into legislation until 2005. Maybe they need to find out what Moschella told Ashcroft.