« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Justice Department Doc Dump Comment Thread
The House Judiciary Committee has made the new documents available on their website here.
We'll be diving in -- and looking to see what readers come up with in the comments below.
Advertisement
Comments (310)
Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 11:38 AM:Here we go!
Joe wrote on April 13, 2007 11:39 AM:It's been a while since I've done much document production, but isn't the producing party supposed to write in "[Redacted]" whereever they do a redaction?
How else is the recipient supposed to know what parts of the original document were blank and what parts were redacted?
joel wrote on April 13, 2007 11:39 AM:Set 1 consists of multiple drafts of the "replacement chart" (already seen) as well as some talking points preparation trying to justify the experience levels of Bush DOJ appointees (compared to Clinton's, naturally).
Documents look to date from Feb 2007, so they have no bearing on the actual reasons leading up to the dismissals....they're all after-the-fact and appear to be responses to the growing political controversy.
Rusty wrote on April 13, 2007 11:40 AM:Lots of white paper in this one. Looks disappointing at a glance. Sigh... lunch at the computer again.
Ruby K wrote on April 13, 2007 11:40 AM:Set 3, pg 1- guess they were doing fine with immigration in New Mexico:
The overall quality and quantity of the criminal workload was appropriate; however, the
bobh wrote on April 13, 2007 11:40 AM:increase in immigration cases was straining the USAO's resources. Virtually all
immigration cases in the District were filed by the Las Cruces branch office because the
I defendants were usually arrested in close proximity to the border. The vast majority of
immigration cases were disposed of through the USAO's Fast-Track Plea program. Were
it not for this program, the USAO would have been overwhelmed by the sheer number of
immigration cases.
From:Elston, Michael (ODAG)
Sent:Thursday, February 01,2007 4:35 PM
To:Sampson, Kyle; Hertling, Richard
Cc:Goodling, Monica; Moschella, William; McNulty, Paul J; Seidel, Rebecca
Subject:Re: Bud Cummins
Elston, Michael (ODAG)
Thursday, February 01,2007 4:35 PM
Sampson, Kyle; Hertling, Richard
Goodling, Monica; Moschella, William; McNulty, Paul J; Seidel, Rebecca
Re: Bud Cummins
Agreed.
----- Original Message-----
From: Sampson, Kyle
To: Elston, Michael (ODAG); Hertling, Richard
CC: Goodling, Monica; Moschella, William; McNulty, Paul J; Seidel, ~ebecca
Sent: Thu Feb 01 16:15:00 2007
Subject: RE: Bud Cummins
I don't think he should. 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 Tim Griffin 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, then why?
Etc., etc.
- - - - - Original Message-----
From: Elston, Michael (ODAG)
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 3:52 PM
To: '~ertling,Ri chard
Cc: Sampson, Kyle; Goodling, Monica; Moschella, William; McNulty, Paul J; Seidel, Rebecca
Subject: Bud Cummins
just called to let me know that Pryor's and Schumerts staff have called and asked him to
testify on Tuesday. He declined, but wanted to know if we wanted him to testify -- would
tell the truth about his circumstances and would also strongly support our view of S 214.
Thoughts?
PAGE 97 OF DOC DUMP SET 3
mc wrote on April 13, 2007 11:43 AM:*Makes it all tie together: Someone begging for his career future - tell the truth about him?
some crappy redaction in pdf2. any young'ins out there with better eyes than me? or photoshop jockies?
Nina Katarina wrote on April 13, 2007 11:43 AM:I didn't do the last document dump. Did they have that spreadsheet where the 'political experience' of each sitting USA was outlined (from the first doc. link). Did they really track which USAs were members of the 'Fed. Soc'?
Federalist Society membership was a determinant on whether you kept your USA job?
bobh wrote on April 13, 2007 11:43 AM:page 100 set 3 is heavily redacted - supposedly a 'experience' chart fo the new attorneys
motherlowman wrote on April 13, 2007 11:44 AM:Interesting that one of the columns for USA experience is whether or not each was a member of the Federalist Society.
bobh wrote on April 13, 2007 11:44 AM:http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroom/release.cfm?id=270978
the s214 mentioned in the page 97 set 3 email exchange
steve wrote on April 13, 2007 11:45 AM:The last doc in dump #3 is a chart of a bunch of attorneys. It lists expereince, etc, but also has columns for political experience(?) and a column marked "Federalist Society"
The political column lists who was a convention delegat, for example, and there's a handful of 'yes's" in the federaliust column...
Doesn't that indicate that their rankings were taking into account political participation and #2, participation in a outside activity that, I would think, shouldn't have any influence on hiring or retention?
neil wrote on April 13, 2007 11:45 AM:Set 2 p.9: PLEASE TREAT THIS AS CONFIDENTIAL, from Sampson to Miers in Jan. 2006. A list of 7 attorneys is given; three are redacted, #1, #2 and #4. One of these must be Fitzgerald -- is he #1?
"If a determination is made to seek the removal of these folks, then we should similarly seek to remove and replace" ... the rest of that sentence is redacted.
Taste the Cheesesteak wrote on April 13, 2007 11:47 AM:Set 3, page 97.
Date: 2/1/07
Email from Michael Elston to Richard Hertling w/ cc: Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling, William Moschella, Paul McNulty, Rebecca Seidel,
Subject: Bud Cummins
Elston says that Pryor and Schumer's offices called and asked Cummins to testify. Cummins declined but wants to know if they want him to testify.
Reply email from Kyle Sampson:
"I don't think he should. 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 Tim Griffin about become US 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, then why?
Etc etc"
Elston replies, "Agreed."
Rusty wrote on April 13, 2007 11:48 AM:---All of this sounds familiar, so I don't know if this doc was included in an earlier dump?
been looking around and it the dump seems to have much less data for the emails. No addresses, just names.
Code: smell - as in something is stinky here.
bobh wrote on April 13, 2007 11:48 AM:also look at page 90 set 3
some redacted attorney names there as well
tanya wrote on April 13, 2007 11:49 AM:that's it :/ ?
RockGolf wrote on April 13, 2007 11:49 AM:Nothing political in this note, but a fascinating factoid. On page 11 of the third file is a bio of fired NM USA David Iglesias. It claims that Iglasias was "a defense counsel in a Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, court-martial which inspired the
movie 'A Few Good Men'."
Tom Cruise (or perhaps Debra Winger) played a character based on David Iglesias.
Mike H. wrote on April 13, 2007 11:51 AM:A blatant indicator of DOJ mindset of withholding information from Congress can be found on page 70 of third set of pages:
From: Seidel, Rebecca
Mary V. wrote on April 13, 2007 11:51 AM:Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 12:12 PM
TO: Sampson, Kyle; Goodling, Monica; Moschella, William
Cc: Hertling, Richard; Elston, Michael (ODAG)
Subject: Feinstein staff on USAs
Received a voicemail from Jennifer Duck saying sorry she missed my call, would I please try to return it again. Her number
is 224-6975
Kyle, I undertand Paul McNulty thinks we should go up in person? Do you want us to set that up? Not sure how we do
today if that is the case given how booked the day is. Phone call easier, and may be easier to get out of (i.e. not trapped up
there) when she doesn't get the info she wants (i.e. why they were fired).
Some of the redacted portions can be easily read by copying to a program (e.g. Photoshop, Apple's Preview) that allows enlargement of the document. For instance, the blacked out portion of the first document in the second dump, Kurt Sampson's "Memorandum for the Counsel to the President" date January 1, 2006, begins: "you have asked whether President Bush should remove and replace "U. S. Attorneys...."
sverre88 wrote on April 13, 2007 11:51 AM:From Iglesias's bio: "He was a defense counsel in a Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, court-martial which inspired the movie 'A Few Good Men.'" Apparently, Mr. Iglesias is still running afoul of those who think we "can't handle the truth!!"
sverre88 wrote on April 13, 2007 11:52 AM:From Iglesias's bio: "He was a defense counsel in a Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, court-martial which inspired the movie 'A Few Good Men.'" Apparently, Mr. Iglesias is still running afoul of those who think we "can't handle the truth!!"
RockGolf wrote on April 13, 2007 11:52 AM:Turns out we CAN handle the truth.
Security code: Butter. As in let's see how far this spreads.
Dan wrote on April 13, 2007 11:53 AM:Pages roughly 8-10 of the first dump (EQUSA...134-136) show a check column for each USA for "FedSoc".
My initial interpretation of this would be membership in the Federalist Society. Isn't that a bit odd to be tracking in what otherwise seems to mostly be tracking job experience?
kathleen wrote on April 13, 2007 11:53 AM:So which attorney's were offered the opportunity to quietly leave? "to save face"
Jimi wrote on April 13, 2007 11:53 AM:Set 3 pg 60+ Carol Lam under performer in Project Safe Neighborhood - hand written.
Dan wrote on April 13, 2007 11:54 AM:Hadn't even seen that the Federalist Society was showing up in dump 3 as well. That's almost certainly what FedSoc means in dump 1 then.
Jon Bell wrote on April 13, 2007 11:55 AM:What's the legality of redacting sections? Can't they just release every document but redact the entire thing?
Or redact the parts where they're breaking the law? Is there a way to compel them to release everything, at least to the committee?
eric wrote on April 13, 2007 11:58 AM:Just genrally: It is bizzare how these people have put together all of these charts and tables of numbers about these US Attorneys. Who would think that it was the job of justice to police US Attorneys and constantly develope dirt on them?
It occurs to me that it *is* possible that some of these people really *did* think that they were going after these US Attorneys for legitimate performance issues. The documents show this. However, it is also pretty obvious that someone higher up unleashed these dogs for political purposes.
My guess: Sampson was probably given his marching orders to take certain attorneys out by Rove with a RNC email.
neil wrote on April 13, 2007 11:58 AM:3rd PDF, pg. 60. list of US Attorneys to evaluate which will be on the AG Advisory Committee. Handwritten notes attached to Carol Lam's name appear to read: "issues w/ 4th floor" (???) and "very independent"
What's on the 4th floor of the DOJ building? Apparently the FISA hearing room is...
FGF wrote on April 13, 2007 11:59 AM:Can I get you folks to finish my dissertation for me?
pwapvt wrote on April 13, 2007 11:59 AM:Kyle, I undertand Paul McNulty thinks we should go up in person? Do you want us to set that up? Not sure how we do
today if that is the case given how booked the day is. Phone call easier, and may be easier to get out of (i.e. not trapped up
there) when she doesn't get the info she wants (i.e. why they were fired).
Tracking: Recipient Read
Seidel, Rebecca Read: 1/12/2007 2:12 PM
Goodling, Monica Read: 1/12/2007 1 :43 PM
Moschella, William
Hertling, Richard Read: 1/12/2007 1:44 PM
Elston, Michael (ODAG) Read: 1/12/2007 2:04 PM
My bold.
Siedel e-mail re: the Feinstien Hearing.
doc num, 1152 pg 70
Richard wrote on April 13, 2007 11:59 AM:If I am not mistaken, these documents have been redacted in a rather unusual way: by using white-out or something similar. Normally, documents are redacted using a black marker so that it is clear where lines have been removed. This would make it clearer how many name are on some of the lists in emails (where redaction appears to have occured).
Is this another White House delaying/obfuscation tactic?
Raph Levien wrote on April 13, 2007 12:00 PM:I'm reading set 3. The first 60-odd pages are just copies of performance evaluations of Iglesias, Cummins, Bogden, Arizona (this packet is more scattered), and Lam.
These documents, like so many before, are heavily redacted. Even the list of criminal division significant cases for Iglesias has its Narcotics/Immigration section heavily redacted, with much lighter redaction of other sections. What is the justification for these redactions?
P. 1101 would make a nice image. It's a calendar page for January 15, 2007, entirely redacted except for a single entry that says "Senate Judiciary Hearing Prep" and a label at the bottom saying "Otus2007, AG". 1105 is even uglier, with just "US Attorneys Meeting", and not even the date and times legible.
1107 is interesting. It says "we will be losing 9 members in December", and all are redacted excect for David Iglesias.
The memo on p 1116 covers a conference call, same content as 3-19-2007 documents 11-2 pp 14-17.
A few other memos, like the "I don't think he should. How would he answer:" one, I've seen before.
In sum, not much new here.
Shawn wrote on April 13, 2007 12:00 PM:Set 5 has some hand written notes which are really hard to read, but its interesting the phrase "in over his head" appear handwritten for at least two attorneys - one being Iglesias - Is this a legal term? In over head? I also enjoy the hit sheet on Carol Lam where in big CAPS it says "ADD GUNS" to the list of knocks against her - like the list wasnt good enough so someone had a placeholder in there to add gun prosecutions at a later time.
Whose hand written notes are those in Set #5?
sverre88 wrote on April 13, 2007 12:00 PM:Part 3, page 60 of 102: Carol Lam circled - marginalia notes "very independant" (the ultimate sin) and "issues w/ 4th Am" (??).
joel wrote on April 13, 2007 12:01 PM:Redacted Set 2 opening document is reproduced in plain text in the e-mail from Sampson to Miers immediately following.
Jon Bell wrote on April 13, 2007 12:01 PM:Holy crap, Mike H. You're totally right.
I'm zooming into these docs with Preview and I can read them just fine. (a little squinting is required :)
Peter Mark wrote on April 13, 2007 12:01 PM:Set 3, Page 60:
In a memo from 9/30/03 memo from Judy Beeman to Guy Lewis regarding AGAC vacancies, there are the following handwritten annotations next to Carol Lam's name:
"Very independent"
EmanG wrote on April 13, 2007 12:04 PM:"issues w/4th floor"
OAG12-22
pgs 1-8 are redacted completely
pg 9 is a letter from kyle to harriet discussing the broad outlines of what firing the prosecutors would encompass. It ends with a list of possible names for replacement but is missing #'s 1,2 and 4 (the others are Cummings, Lam, Chiara and Ryan) and ends with:
i list these folks based on my review of the evaluations of their offices conducted by EOMA and my interviews with
dfficials in the Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, and the Criminal Division. If a
determination is made to seek the removal of these folks. then we should similarlv seek to remove and replace.
Please let me know how you would like to proceed. The first steps, I think, would be (1) to agree on the target list of U.S.
Attorneys and (2) ask EOUSA to'begin quietly calling them to ascertain their intentions for continued servicelindicating to
them that they might want to consider looking for other employment.
pg 11 is from May 11, 2006 from Sampson to William Kelly and copies the above message as well as including:
Phi yotir inquiry yesterday after JSC, this is'the e-mail I sent to ~ a b nleas~t m oith at Harriet's request. Pleaseqcalml e at .
barrett wrote on April 13, 2007 12:04 PM:your cdnvenience to discuss the following:
i -Rachel Brand fbr W.D. Mich.;
i. :Tim Griffin for ED. Ark.; and - . Tihe real pi'oblein we have right now with Carol Lam that leadsme to conclude that we should have someone ready to . '
be riaminated on 11118, the day her 4-year term expires.
. .
. ,. .... .. , .. . . .. . .
Fm-h.: Sampson, Kyle
.Serit: Friday, April 14,2006 9:31 AM
To: 'Dabney-Friedrich@wfio.eop.gov'
sSeinrsbil;jukit Y:
Ftk Removal and Replacement of U.S. Attorneys Whose +year Terms Have Expired
Confidential
Aldo,. I wbuld note that two others on my original list already have left office. They are: (names don't appear)
Section 2 page 1-4, read through the redaction is just a draft of the email to Myers that appears on pp9-11. There's more info in the later email, nothing bad in the redacted draft.
can't read 5-8 as well, but it looks like more of the same.
nick wrote on April 13, 2007 12:06 PM:On Page 89 of the 3rd package there are Roman Numeral I next to each attorney that has 2 democratic Senators in his/her state. I suppose that makes it easier to only tell the Republican Senators about firings as Kyle Sampson has said, especially since there doesn't appear to be any Republican Senators in at least 4 of these choices.
pwapvt wrote on April 13, 2007 12:09 PM:Another e-mail address to look into ?
griffinjag@comcast.net
Tim Griffin
Andrew Trexler wrote on April 13, 2007 12:09 PM:looking at the forest rather than trees, these seem to be a bunch of draft documents that slowly add on reasons for dismissal (well after the actual dismissals) in response to criticisms.
sverre88 wrote on April 13, 2007 12:10 PM:I think Peter Mark is probably right - the margin note on Pt.3-p.60 looks like "4th floor" rather than "4th Am."
neil wrote on April 13, 2007 12:11 PM:PDF #3, pg. 82: Christopher Oprison's edit of a draft letter to Reid changes "The Department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin..." to "..aware of Karl Rove playing a role..". For what that's worth.
anon wrote on April 13, 2007 12:12 PM:Mike H., the crappy redaction includes a list of attorneys recommended for replacement. Starts top of page 3 of PDF2. Working to read it now.
Scott wrote on April 13, 2007 12:12 PM:PDF #5 Pages 1-3:
Interestingly, the only USA's where they are awaiting home-state Congressional recommendations are when the Congressmen are Republicans:
Sen. McCain, Sen. Kyl, Sen. Ensign, Rep. Reichert, Sen. Domenici.
Rep. Reichert is interesting because he's from WA and both WA Senators are Democrats, so it appears they're planning on going around the home-state Senator recommendations in that case.
The other recommendation sources are the "Parsky Commission", and in Cummins' case, "home state Senators" which we know to be false. Of course, they don't actually list either Senator, despite the fact they do everywhere else.
Anna S. wrote on April 13, 2007 12:12 PM:The section 2 redacted stuff reads:
(pg1)
"You have asked whether President Bush should remove and replace U.S. Attorneys whose four-year terms have expired. I recommend that the Department of Justice and the Office of the Counsel of the President work together to seek the replacement of a limited number of U.S. Attorneys.
United States Attorneys are appointed to a four-year term of office and thereafter may holdover until a successor is appointed.
a)The President shall appoint by and with the advice and consent of the Senate a United STates Attorney for each judicial district.
b)Each United States Attorney is subject to removal by the President.
2 U.S. C &452 During the Reagan and Clinton administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys they had appointed whose four-year terms had expired but instead permitted such U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision.
There likely are several explanations for this. In some instances, Presidents Reagan and Clinton may have been pleased with the work of the U.S. Attorneys who, after all, they had appointed. In other instances, Presidents Reagan and Clinton may simply have been unwilling to commit the resources necessary to remove the U.S. Attorneys, find suitable replacements (not ??? the advice of the home state senators), complete background investigations, and secure Senate confirmations.
There are practical obstacles to removing and replacing U.S. Attorneys. First, wholesale removal of U.S. Attorneys would ??? disruption to the work of the Department of Justice. Second, Individual U.S. Attorneys were originally recommended for appointments by home state senators, who may be opposed to the President's determination to remove the U.S. Attorneys. Third, a suitable replacement must be found in consultation with the home state Senator, the difficulty of which would vary from state to state. Fourth, a background investigation must be completed on the"
(end pg 1)
Doug Bostrom wrote on April 13, 2007 12:12 PM:Fascinating that the table of USAs prepared by Monica Goodling and sent to John Nowacki (at the very end of the 3rd PDF) notes whether the USA is a member of the Federalist Society. Is this now an official part of the criteria for evaluation of USAs?
( GWB.xls, found at end of "Set 3" )
Midwest Product wrote on April 13, 2007 12:13 PM:3rd Set, OAG000001110--
Carol Lam's name is circled, scrawled beside it in pen is "very independent" and "issues w/[illegible]"
kathleen wrote on April 13, 2007 12:13 PM:"Call me if you have any questions. If you pushed, I'd have 3-5 additional names that the WH mught want to consider"
anon wrote on April 13, 2007 12:15 PM:First bit, starting bottom page 2, doc 2...
If a decision is made to remove and replace a limited number of US Attorneys, then the following might be considered for removal and replacement:
Margaret M Chiara US Attorney for the Western District of Michigan
David wrote on April 13, 2007 12:15 PM:Term expired 1/2/2005(?)
Replacement candidates: Rachel Brand
Home state senator/political leaders Levin(D) and Stabenow (D); numerous
Sec 5 page handwritten notes appear to be from MONICA GOODLING! Look at page 8 and the handwritten comment "Domenici says he doesn't move cases." I believe the email is to Elston and Sampson.
Is this news? Have we seen this link before?
Jim Clausen wrote on April 13, 2007 12:16 PM:Ist time commenter...long time lurker
neil wrote on April 13, 2007 12:17 PM:Doc Dump 6? pages 1165 and 1166 are handwritten excuses for why attorneys were fired.In a batch with Monica Googlings mail.
#3, pg. 92, handwritten page with header "Griffin, EDAR" (eastern district arkansas)
"Priorities: 1) CT 2) violent crime (PSU) 3) child expl 4) public corruption -- real prob w/ that"
Ron Byers wrote on April 13, 2007 12:17 PM:Andrew,
Great point. These emails demonstrate that they were making up "reasons" for the firings. The only conclusion is that to the extent they repeated these made up "reasons" these emails support the conclusion that the staffers did not tell the truth at the hearings.
Candyce wrote on April 13, 2007 12:18 PM:Pdf #3, page 60.
Carol Lam's name is circled in pencil and an arrow is drawn to the annotation "very independant" and "issues w/ 4th "
This is a document titled, "United States Attorneys by Judicial District." Most has been whited out.
anon wrote on April 13, 2007 12:19 PM:continues...
Harry L. Bud Cummin III US Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas
Term expires 1/9/2006
Replacement Candidates, Tim Griffin
[...]
Carol Lam
Ape Man wrote on April 13, 2007 12:19 PM:[...]
I've transcribed the first blacked-out Sampson memo. I have no special tools for this, so it's just a best-effort based on the fact that you can kind of read it.
You have asked whether President Bush should remove and replace US Attorneys whose four year terms have expired. I recommend that the Department of Justice and the Office of Counsel to the President work together to seek the replacement of a limited number of US Attorneys.
United States Attorneys are appointed to a four year term of office and thereafter may hold over until a successor is appointed as the US Code provides.
(a) The President shall appoint by and with the advice and consent of the Senate a US attorney for each judicial district.
(b) Each US Attorney shall be appointed for a term of four year. On the expiration of this term, a US attorney shall continue to perform the duties of this office until his successor is appointed and qualifies.
(c) Each US Atty is subject to removal by the President.
28 USC 54 (?) During the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace US Attys they had appointed whose four-year terms had expired, but instead permitted such US Attys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision.
There likely are several explanations for this. In some instances, Presidents Reagan and Clinton may gave been pleased with the work of the US Attys who after all they had appointed. In other instances, Presidents Reagan and Clinton may simply have been unwilling to commit the resources necessary to remove the US Attorneys, find suitable replacements (seek the advice of the home state senators) complete background investigations and secure Senate confirmations.
There are practical obstacles to removing and replacing US Attys. First, wholesale removal of US Attys would cause significant disruption of the work of the Department of Justice. Second, individual US Atty’s who were originally recommended for appointment by home state Senators who may be opposed to the President’s determination to remove the US Atty. A suitable replacement must be found in consultation with the home state Senator, the difficulty of which would vary from state to state. Fourth, a background investigation must be completed on the replacement, a task often complicated if the outgoing US Atty remains in office. Fifth, after nomination the Senate must confirm the replacement.
None of the above obstacles are insuperable. First, a limited number of US Attys could be targeted for removal and replacement, mitigating the shock to the system that would result from an across the board firing at the Department of Justice. Executive Office of the US Attorneys (EOUSA) could work with the targeted US attorneys to encourage them to leave governement. This would allow targeted US Attys to make arrangements for work in the private sector and to save face both in the DoJ community and in the local legal communities. Third, after targeted US Attorneys have left office or indicated publicly their intention to leave office the the Office of the Counsel to the President can work with home state Senators and/or other political leaders in the state to secure recommendadtions for a replacement US Atty. Finally, after background investigations are completed and the replacement candidate is nominated, the AG can appoint the nominee to serve as Interim US Atty, reducing the time during which the leadership of the office is uncertain.
If a decision is made to remove and replace alimited number of US Attorneys, then the following mught be considered for removal and replacement:
Margaret M. Chiara – US Atty for the Westerns District of Michigan.
Term expired 1/2/2005
Replacement Candidate: Rachel Brand
Home State Senators/political leaders: Levin and Stabenow, numerous
Harry E. “Bud” Cummins III US Atty for the Eastern District of Arkansas
Term expires 9/2/2006
Replacement candidates: Tim Griffin
Home State senators/political leaders: Pryor (D) and Lincoln (D) Gov Huckabee )
Kevin V. Ryan US Atty for the Northern District of California
Term expires 8/2/2006
Replacement candidates Dan Levin
Home state senators/political leaders Feinstein(D) and Boxer (D), Parsky commission.
Carol Lam US Atty for the Southern District of California
Term expires 1/18/2006
Replacement candidates Jeff Taylor, Deb Rhodes
Home State Senators/political leaders Feinstein (D) and Boxer (D), Parsky commission.
I like these folks based on my review of the evaluations of their offices conduced by the EOUSA and my interviews with officials in the Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, and their Criminal Division. If a determination is made to seek the removal of these folks then we should similarly seek to remove and replace.
Please let me know how you would like to proceed.
Ape Man wrote on April 13, 2007 12:22 PM:The point being, of course, are there any differences between the blacked-out version and the non?
APS
Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 12:22 PM:correction, doc dump 5 has the charts with deletions on McKay, Lam, Inglsies etal as well the the handwritten excuses for firing. Apologies all.
aaron wrote on April 13, 2007 12:22 PM:The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified December 15, 1791: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
anon wrote on April 13, 2007 12:23 PM:I find this particularly interesting. I wonder if they were concerned that certain US Attorneys were going to start going after Feds (FBI NSA etc.) for the illegal use of national security letters etc.
I'm wondering if there is a connection between the attorney purge becoming a scandal and the sudden push by the wingers for widening the Patriot Act (weakening of 4th amendment protections) ... particularly because one of the politicos at the heart of the attorney purge (the disHonorable Heather Wilson, R., New Mexico) is now pushing this new legislation.
It seemed like it was a coincidence, until "4th amendment issues" started coming up in this document dump.
Hm, it appears that much of the redacted info in doc 2 is actually what appears on page 9 in unredacted form.
mayan wrote on April 13, 2007 12:25 PM:No substance to add...But reading this reminded me of Sherlock Holme's helpers...hence I dub those pawing through these redacted documents:
The Raker Street Irregulars.
Nina Katarina wrote on April 13, 2007 12:26 PM:Does this seem rather sparse to you guys? There's a bunch of repeats of the same document - that chart shows up in several iterations, as does the blacked-out memo.
Anna S. wrote on April 13, 2007 12:27 PM:More redactions from Section 2:
(pg2)
"replacement -- a task often complicated if the outgoing U.S. Attorney remains in office. Fifth, after nomination, the Senate must confirm the replacement.
None of the above obstacles are insuperable. First, a limited number of U.S. Attorneys could be targeted for removal and replacement, mitigating the shock to the system that would result from an across-the-noard firing. Second, the Department of Justice Executive Office of the U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) could work [until?] with the targeted U.S. Attorneys to encourage them to leave government service voluntarily. This would allow targeted U.S. Attorneys to make arrangements to work in the private sector, and could save face -- both in the Department of Justice community and the local legal communities. Third, after targeted U.S. Attorneys have left office or indicated publicly their intention to leave office, then the Office of the Counsel to the President can work with home state Senators and/or other political leaders in the state to secure recommendations for a replacement U.S. Attorney. Finally, after background investigations are completed and the replacement candidate is nominated, the Attorney General can appoint the nominee to serve as Interim U.S. Attorney, reducing the time during which the leadership of the office is uncertain.
If a decision is made to remove and replace a limited number of U.S. Attorneys, then the following might be considered for removal and replacement:"
(end pg 2)
dwemer wrote on April 13, 2007 12:27 PM:OAG1159-1234.pdf
Page: 17
From: Goodling, Monica
Sent:Monday, February 12,2007 9:10 PM
To:Elston,. Michael (ODAG); Sampson, Kyle
Subject:Draft chart for AG review - NONPUBLlC
Attachments: US Attorney chart- AG.doc
b
This is the chart that the AG requested. I'll show it to him on the plane tomorrow, if he's interested.
Candyce wrote on April 13, 2007 12:27 PM:Tracking: Recipient
Elston, Michael (ODAG)
Sarnpson, Kyle
Read
Read: ZlZ2007 9:15 PM
Read: 2/12/2007 9:34 PM"
.pdf #3, page 70.
From: Seidel, Rebecca
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 12:12pm
To: Sampson, Kyle; Goodling, Monica; Moschella, William
Subject: Feinstein staff on USAs
Received a voicemail from Jennifer Duck saying sorry she missed my call......
Kyle, I understand Paul McNulty thinks we should go in person? Do you want us to set that up? ....
alex f wrote on April 13, 2007 12:28 PM:Phone call is easier, and may be easier to get out of (i.e. not trapped up there) when she doesn't get the info she wants (i.e. why they were fired).
set 7 is inaccessible.
BD wrote on April 13, 2007 12:29 PM:Tim Griffin used griffinjag@comcast.net repeatedly. Here are examples, all from the 3rd set of docs:
Page 73. Forwarded E-mail regarding 2-7-07 meeting with Schumer staff: Tim Griffin sent the notice using a griffinjag@comcast.net e-mail. Doesn't appear he forwarded another message but probably copied & pasted it into the e-mail.
Page 85. Tim Griffin again, using same Comcast account to contact Kyle Sampson.
Page 86. Griffin again on Comcast to Richard Hertling. Upset about a Bud Cummins article in the Arkansas Gazette-Democrat.
Also, non-Griffin - Page 78. In the middle of several e-mail exchanges is a message to Kyle Sampson from Rebecca Seidel that she's currently in a meeting and responding on her Blackberry. Does her Blackberry have a .gov address?
The Witch wrote on April 13, 2007 12:32 PM:Very end of set 7 involves "DAG is working with members to tee up the right questions." (meaning they are trying to get congress members to ask them Qs that will lead into their talking points at hearing.) Can they do that? I mean, I have never doubted that they do, but can they?
Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 12:33 PM:link to set 7 is fixed, or just switch the P and the A in the filename
Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 12:37 PM:Doc 7, page 21: letter from Diane Feinstein complaining about lax enforcement on the southern California border. Strengthens admin's story about Lam. Poop.
Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 12:39 PM:In Set 7, there's a long list of talking points starting on page 12. It is undated, but probably pretty recent. It might be worth using it as a lens on the rest of the documents to see which points are totally false. The dissemination of these points can also be traced through the media.
parrot wrote on April 13, 2007 12:40 PM:EOUSA127-150.pdf set 1
pages 23-24
Interesting attempt at the top of page 23 to compare the average age of USAs under Clinton with those of Bush. If the firings were justified for job performance...why bother? Seems like an attempt to justify the firings, not based on anything substantive, but based on some odd notion that somehow the Clinton administrations methods for firing somehow justify the firings in this case.
alex wrote on April 13, 2007 12:41 PM:set 6 p. 1-5 have an exchange between Carol Lam, Rachel Frank and Michael Brand of the Office for Legal Policy in which Lam urges them to focus on amending two statutes (1325 and 1326) that would aid prosecutions of 'alien smugglers,' while she is under the impression that these statutes are being ignored in order to focus on another 'alien smuggling statute.'
not sure about the implications, but this on the surface provides evidence that there was some conflict re: immigration with Lam as well.
dwemer wrote on April 13, 2007 12:41 PM:OAG1159-1234.pdf
Page: 68-73
Guy wrote on April 13, 2007 12:42 PM:These pages document teleconferences that were held between Monica Goodling, William Moschella, Kyle Sampson and Sen. Domenici.
Part 5 - pages 7-8 (OAG1164-1165)
Note - (?) means unable to read writing.
All handwritten notes (Monica Goodling?):
P7
Reasons?
Who recommended Griffin?
What was told to FAFSA?
Was any DOJ dissent?
May want to see EARS(?) reports?
Was Pre(?) told about this?
Any outside calls about Lam?
.............................................
over course of past 5yb, all over - some great, some not so much;
Some problematic.
DOJ put together list of problematic people;
Sent to WH; WH cleared;
Who/Why?
Chart
district (-4year march) departmedates (-trying to be partial) interim/active perm status
Wrtteup Griffin (smz?)
EARS chart
----------------
Kevin - EARS terrible manager; bad (?)
-----------------
Carol - Immigration - guns ---failure to trans (?) time management
Charlton (-no margolis) - insubordination; (cmhary? of instructions or clearly unaughroized
-DP (inorb?);
-no signed seek order + he went to court to (petition [struck out]) a - went into ct + asked more time to consider despite fact that decision was made
-no one else
-refused to (de???)
-gave leave of absence to employee to (?) against Napolitano
-(?) in AG's call
-didn't (work??) approp (pricenals?) in terms of sec
-underachievers in very important district
P8
Iglesias
-absentee landlord
-border district
-in over head
Domenici says he doesn't more cases
McKay - poor judgement in way relates to law enf. community
-didn't (blank or redacted)
-put Dept in bad light in relation to (LE?) issues
-circulated a letter demanding DAG to order LE (???) to turn over info (conf 5m rces) told calls - not approp way to ---- share other USAs trusted when (garbled)
-mislead (?) to (?) DAG
-several times he tried to jam or corner (partner of) main insub on info sharing
-temperament issues
-traveled outside district (?)
-policy when his (?) was to run policy
Bogden - very important - terror, violent crime, drugs
-in important districts
-resistant to AG priorities (obscenity task force)
-margolis
-in over his head
Chiara - disarray in office (?garbled)
Tim wrote on April 13, 2007 12:42 PM:-incredibly fracured office
-morale low
-lost confidence of her subordinates + superiors
-not public
Regarding Lam's meeting with Issa/Sensenbrenner, set 6, p.78 reads: "Sounds like she handled well and it was actually constructive." i.e. she explained well that she had lower immigration prosecution rates, but longer sentences.
In set 6, p. 90, somebody notes on 01/16/06, that Feinstein "was saying on the floor that she is hearing a lot of rumors about what is going on, and pointed out that they are just rumors, but it would be better if they knew what is really going on," and that Feinstein "has seen press stories that quote an FBI agent as saying USA Lam's departure will be disruptive to their cases."
... that must be a typo in the document and actually be 01/16/07?
fwiffo wrote on April 13, 2007 12:44 PM:Set 1 Page 7
The last paragraph seems to have some juice, but it's really a tough slog to read it.
----------------------------
Replacement candidate Dan Levin
Home state Senators/political leaders: Feinstein (D) and Boxer (D), Parsky? ??????
Carol C. Lam, US Attorney for teh Southern District of California
??????????????????????????????
Replacement candidate: ??? Taylor? Deb Rhodes?
Home state Senators/plotical leaders: Feinstein (D) and Boxer(D), Parsky? ???????
First? these ???? based? on? preliminary? review? of the? ???? of their? office? conducted? by?
EOUSA? and ???? the? views? of the offices? ??? Office of the Attorney General ????????
the? Deputy? Attorney? General? and the ??????????????????? department?
???? removal of these ??? then? ????????? should ??????? seek to remove? and replace.
Please let me know how you would like to proceed.
m wrote on April 13, 2007 12:46 PM:Set 6, p. 58: Meeting with POTUS!
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/PDFS/OLP1-197.pdf, page 58, Douglas Baker from the White House says a question about marijuana prosecutions by USAttorney for Arizona "was raised in meeting with POTUS".
This clearly means George Bush was personally in at least one meeting where replacement of USAs was being discussed.
Pat_AlexVA wrote on April 13, 2007 12:46 PM:It occurs to me that the e-mail's we see are from the person that has received the e-mail. I wonder if anyone with a funny e-mail address is on blind copy. Would be a simple question for staff to ask.
Julie wrote on April 13, 2007 12:47 PM:I haven't looked at the documents, yet, but reading the comments it appears a notation was made concerning Lam's alleged problems with either the 4th am. or 4th fl.
If it's 4th fl., 4th floor of what? What's/who's on the 4th floor of the EOB? DoJ? House/Senate office buildings? Does the White House have 3 floors, or 4, including the basement?
Packerland Progressie wrote on April 13, 2007 12:48 PM:"Issues with 4th floor"
as several above have noted, set 3 page 60 (bates #0AG000001110) has hand-written notes next to Carol Lams name, saying both "very indendent" and "issues with 4th floor".
Don't know what else is on 4th floor of the Main Justice Building (Neil above said FISA Hearing Room is), but the Office of the Inspector General (responsible for internally investigating DOJ personnel and programs to detect and deter fraud, abuse and misconduct) also appears to be on the 4th floor.
Wild speculation here, but might Lam have relayed concerns to OIG that she could have had about friends of Duke Cunningham et al within DOJ improperly intervening to try to mess up/shut down her investigation? -- hence the "issues with 4th floor" as well as the "real problem we have right now with Carol Lam" per Kyle Sampson's previously-disclosed May 11, 2006 email to Deputy White House Counsel William Kelley?
Dave in RI wrote on April 13, 2007 12:50 PM:Amazing. Enlarging some of the docs to 400% in Acrobat, you can read the redactions no problem. Nice catch, whoever... Mike?
Richard Hollinger wrote on April 13, 2007 12:50 PM:The reference to the Carol Lam's problems with the "4th floor" appear to be a reference to the DOJ Office of Legal Policy, which, according to their web page, coordinate priorities and policies for the DOJ.
The office is headed by Assistant Attorney General Rachel Brand. According to her bio, she "she manages...the Department’s role in the confirmation of the President’s judicial nominees."
Brand's name has come up in relationship to the attorney firings in a number of contexts. Currently she is coordinating Gonzalez' preparatory practice sessions.
JEP wrote on April 13, 2007 12:50 PM:Page 9 of section 2 (after many blank or blotched pages) is a real eye-opener, we have heard about this one before (I don’t know if they know this, but some of their black-ed out passages can still be read, at least in part…)
first line from the second blacked-out paragraph on page 6 of the 2nd set, “none of the above obstacles are insurmountable”
I’ll see if I can find those obstacles hiding in the shades…
Anyone notice how Griffin’s qualifications are continually and progressively amplified and expanded as these documents progress?
Check out page 2 vs. page 19 in the first set of documents…
The first, short entry is at 2:43 PM and the longer, exaggerated version shows up after 8PM…
first blacked-out paragraph, page 6, “replacement a task often complicated if the outgoing U.S. attorney remains in office (eifht?) senate must confirm the replacement” followed by that “not insurmountable” redacted
Tom Hilton wrote on April 13, 2007 12:51 PM:paragraph…
"The other recommendation sources are the "Parsky Commission""
Earlier draft said 'home state senators' for Lam; it was changed to Parsky sometime the afternoon of February 12.
greenchilecheeseburger wrote on April 13, 2007 12:52 PM:Page 14 has a reference to a failed Attorney General candidate as replacement for Iglesias. It's Jim Bibb. Click on my handle (sorry, don't know how to embed links on this board)
parrot wrote on April 13, 2007 12:52 PM:What I'm finding hard to understand is why any of the stuff in set 2 was redacted or not turned over sooner. There seems to be no reason for it...other than to delay the work of the committee...??? Or maybe it was...incompetence?
bo wrote on April 13, 2007 12:52 PM:http://judiciary.house.gov/media/PDFS/OAG1159-1234.pdf
Set 5: pp 7-8 Handwritten notes; pp 68-76 calls btw office and Domenici - times and participants only Gonzales in at least one.
Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 12:53 PM:That's page 14 of DOJ doc set 1.
m wrote on April 13, 2007 12:53 PM:Followup on "meeting with POTUS"
I wrote "This clearly means George Bush was personally in at least one meeting where replacement of USAs was being discussed."
Incorrect. I should have said he was in a meeting where USAttorney of AZ policy was discussed.
MWS wrote on April 13, 2007 12:55 PM:set 7 p36
email from Tasia Scolinos, on talking points for the congressional hearing with the 6 foired prosecutors is this quote
"Right now the coverage will be dominated by how qualified these folks were and
their theories for their dismissals. We are trying to muddy the coverage up a bit by
trying to put the focus on the process in which they were told - I suspect we are going to
get to the point where DOJ has to say this anyway. First, it is true. Second, we are
having morale problems with our other US Attorneys who understand the decision but think
that these folks were not treated well in the process."
That attempt to muddy the waters by focusing on process, not the substance of why the attorneys were fired, has been a key strategy of the administration in their attempt to cover-up what happened. They continue muddying the waters today.
parrot wrote on April 13, 2007 12:56 PM:Okay! Carol Lam replacement info:
Set 2 OAG12-22-NEW-.pdf
Possible replacements
Jeff Taylor, Deb Rhodes
an email from Jan 9, 2006
Just above, it mentions Tim Griffins as a possible replacements but has a "?" mark next to his name, for Bud Cummins spot. Why the question mark here but not for Jeff and Deb? Could be an innocent explanation...or?
WormInTheWood wrote on April 13, 2007 12:58 PM:This is multiple copies of the same document, or at least the same text in different documents.
JEP wrote on April 13, 2007 12:58 PM:set 5, page 7, handwrtitten document, about midway down does it say "Line up Griffin story.."?
poop wrote on April 13, 2007 12:58 PM:set 6, OLP1-197.pdf
pg 29
29-99
lots about weeeeeeed
pg 99-144
drafts of McNulty and Moschella 2/07 testimonies, stylistic revisions
pg 144-158
2005 discussion re: taped interrogations
pg 159-170
9/15/06 redacted list of 8
172-176
5 resignation letters
176-197
parrot wrote on April 13, 2007 12:59 PM:more about weeeeeed, some info redacted earlier now present
Oops, Set 2 page 10 for those possible replacements for Ms. Lam.
JEP wrote on April 13, 2007 1:01 PM:just above that griffin story reference handwritten "Was President told about this?" Does anyone see where it states who wrote this handwritten statement?
Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 1:01 PM:Set 2--Looks as if some content from redacted first pages, as transcribed in one or more earlier tpm posts, is repeated or overlaps with content not redacted in set 2, beginning on p. 9
JA
Anne wrote on April 13, 2007 1:03 PM:All I can say is, that for something these people keep trying to portray as "no big deal," "happens all the time," they sure spent a LOT of time making charts and brainstorming reasons why this one had to go or that one had to go. The paper trail on who was going to say what, and how they were going to frame and explain the amendment to the appointment authority is damning all by itself. If the position is one where the standard is "at the pleasure of the president," they didn't need to do anything except inform the current USA that he was being asked to resign, and nominating someone for the position. So why all the planning and plotting?
The column on the list of USAs for whether the USA was or was not a member of the Federalist Society - what does that have to do with anything? And doesn't its inclusion as a category of information cast this in a political light?
JEP wrote on April 13, 2007 1:05 PM:page 14, section 5... Monica to Kyle "This is the chart the AG requested..." you mean the same AG who knew NOTHING???
bo wrote on April 13, 2007 1:05 PM:http://judiciary.house.gov/media/PDFS/OAG1159-1234.pdf
Set 5: pp 7-8 Handwritten notes
"Reasons?
Who recommended Griffin?
Was any DOJ dissent?
May want to see EARS[?] reports?
Was Pres[?] told about this?
Any outside calls about Lam[?]?"
[best guess]
"over course of about 5 yrs all over - some great, some not so much;
some problematic."
"DOJ put together list of problematic people;
fwiffo wrote on April 13, 2007 1:06 PM:Sent to WH; WH [illegible - agreed, maybe]
OK, bit of a waste of time trying to read redacted pages in Set 2. Page 1-3 and 5-7 are just (as far as I can tell) redacted copies of pages 9-10. However, candidates for removal #1, #2 and #4 have been scrubbed more thoroughly. Interestingly, they also seem to have been removed from the redacted copies.
This set has been redacted twice. The candidates for removal that are completely missing (not just blacked out) are what's being hidden. The blacked out redacted pages are a just a distraction, since they're just repeats of non-redacted text. They're just there to draw attention away from the parts that are really being hidden.
Dreggas wrote on April 13, 2007 1:06 PM:Code word...shame.
Oh the ways this could be used.
BTW anyone ever consider running these through an OCR program to see if anything can be lifted and corrected?
JEP wrote on April 13, 2007 1:07 PM:Who wrote the handwritten statement???
fatkat wrote on April 13, 2007 1:08 PM:
MWS wrote on April 13, 2007 1:09 PM:AG000001102
Who is Otus2007?
set 7 p70-71
A list of all the USA who have resigned over the previous year. Josh was looking to track down who had left, and when they left to identify the two names listed as having resigned and thus were taken off the list in the fall of 2006. I don;t have the timeframe with me to determine which they are. Here's the list.
Full list of resignations since last March in reverse date order (13 total):
Janice wrote on April 13, 2007 1:10 PM:John McKay, ED WA, 1/07 (has said he will teach at a law schooI)
Paul Charlton, AZ, 1/07 (going into private practice)
Bud Cummins, EDAR, 12/06 (pursuing private sector opportunities)
Chuck Larson, NDIA, 12/06 (to take federal retirement)
Deb Yang, CDCA, 11/06 (to go into private practice)
Jim Vines, MDTN, 10/06 (to move to D.C. and go into private practice)
Mike Heavican, NE, 10/06 (to become Chief Justice on the state's Supreme Court)
Ken Wainstein, DC, 9/06 (to become AAG of NSD)
Frank Whitney, EDNC, 6/06 (to become federal district court judge)
Bert Garcia, PR, 6/06 (to return family to home state of Texas)
Tom Johnston, NDWV, 4/06 (to become federal district court judge)
Todd Graves, WDMO, 3/06 (started his own firm)
Paul McNulty, EDVA, 3/06 (to become DAG)
Set 5 shows how they sat down, made up the cover stories about why they had to fire the US Attorneys. It shows how those cover stories are transformed into documents to document those same cover stories.
donviti wrote on April 13, 2007 1:12 PM:You can see it come together
with Fact Sheets.
I'm only a third of the way through...
Interesting statement regarding Carol Lam page 23 of 76
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/PDFS/OAG1159-1234.pdf
"She continually failed to perform in relation to significant leadership priorities -
these were priorities that were well-known within the Department. They were
discussed at our annual mandatory USA conferences, in speeches by Department
leaders, in memos, in conference calls, and in a host of other ways."
seems there could be a trail that way too...especially that last line "and in a host of other ways."
Ken wrote on April 13, 2007 1:13 PM:I agree with Anne above.
All these meetings in March of this year to determine their reasons for firings which have already happened?!?
This latest batch of documents are smoking guns not of the firings themselves, but of the creation of cover story for the firings. Post hoc much?
Leedsichthys wrote on April 13, 2007 1:14 PM:Don't know if this is new - Set 6, 93-98: "Talking Points: USA Nominations and Interim Appointments by the AG"
Looks like the "gum it to death" playbook.
melior wrote on April 13, 2007 1:14 PM:A snarky Monica Badling edit:
"In a post-911 world, this situation was unacceptable."
They just don't know when to quit, do they?
steve-o wrote on April 13, 2007 1:18 PM:Someone may have already caught this.. On set 5 pages 24 -25, they criticize Lam for not prosecuting enough immigration cases, comparing her unfavorably to NM and AZ USA totals. Their rationale: (Pg 24) "Border enforcement is a top priority". Fair enough, i guess (ignoring that she just prosecuted the largest corruption case in congress in 20 years). but then they go on to criticize the AZ USA on the next page even though he was, according to their comments under lam, going gangbusters on border security cases, which again is a "top priority". Even worse they then criticize Iglesias on page 25 for not being tough enough on border issues, when they just used his good record as evidence carol lam wasnt doing enough!! none of this is new, it's just funny to see it on consecutive pages of the same document.
fatkat wrote on April 13, 2007 1:21 PM:
off2xtremes wrote on April 13, 2007 1:21 PM:Talking Points, duties of the AG and more...Important because AG is not do this!
Set 7 - 0PA000000042
Judging from donviti's summary as to http://judiciary.house.gov/media/PDFS/OAG1159-1234.pdf it strikes me that there was no independent documentation concerning Carol Lam or documentation that would support telling her about her "failing to follow priorities" or even telling her what the priorities were.
In order to come up with something, they went to the general statements made at conferences and conference calls for "notice" to Carol Lam of the priorities for which they claim she fell short.
Angered Taxpayer wrote on April 13, 2007 1:21 PM:Hmmm....
JEP wrote on April 13, 2007 1:22 PM:page 3, section 7, reads like Griffin hired a PR firm to make his resume seem worthy and promote his lack of experience as an asset... is this goodling's work?
Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 1:22 PM:Re Donviti's post: Priorities were "discussed at our annual mandatory USA conferences, in speeches by Department leaders."
Anyone know how to find out about "mandatory USA conferences" and if their agendas are publicly available? Any speeches by DOJ leaders that stand out as showing their priorities?
DR wrote on April 13, 2007 1:23 PM:fatcat: OTUS 2007: Is there "AG" somewhere before that? If so, it's "Attorney General of the United States".
The same thing was in the previous doc dump.
Barbara B wrote on April 13, 2007 1:24 PM:Document set 6, page 17
email from ??
sent 10/2/2006
to Rachel Brand
Subj. A Day in the Life
Attachments: tmp.htm
So, Rachel . . .
This past Friday Miss Margaret called a mandatory all-staff meeting of AUSAs and support personnel--the entire office--and publicly announced who was getting bonuses and who wasn't. She stated that all those who got anoutstanding performance evaluation were the ones who got a bonus. She then read a list of names of the AUSAs and support personnel who were getting bonuses (with the deafening silence of those who were omitted . . . pretty much half-and-half).
Publicaly-shamed secretaries started sniffling in the meeting then broke down in heart-rending sobs in their cubicles. Angry and disgusted AUSAs--both those who got bonuses and those who didn't--retreated in groups behind closed office doors, saying they'd never seen anything like it.
So at 7:09 AM this morning, Miss Margaret commences damage control...
Oh, yeah, almost forgot . . . you can guess the one person who got the largest bonus and presumably the best rating.
(end of transcription)
Following is a forwarded email from Margaret Chiara to staff, about this.
Following that (page 19) is another copy of the same memo (beginning "So, Rachel"), this time as a document, not an email, with the heading file:///Cl/Documents and Settings/rbran../Temporary Internet Files/OLK5A/tmp.htm
followed by "Thanks, Rachel, you're a life-saver."
Not clear to me who is thanking Rachel...
kt wrote on April 13, 2007 1:27 PM:Set 5 p 31. Has the "justifications" for the insertion of words into patriot act that let AG appoint interim people, notably: "the previous provision was constitutionally-suspect and the Senate respects the Constitution." p30-35 of set 5 interesting talking points.
Amending the Statute:
We are aware of no other federal agency where federal judges, members of a separate branch of government and not the head of the agency, appoint interim staff on behalf of the agency.
In early 2006, the statute that authorizes the appointment of interim United States Attorneys (28 U.S.C. fj 546) was amended by section 502 of Public Law 109-1 77 to eliminate the provision of a 120-day appointment and to allow the Attorney General to
char wrote on April 13, 2007 1:28 PM:appoint interim United States Attorneys to serve until the nomination and confirmation of a United States Attorney under 28 U.S.C. fj 541.
The statute was amended for several reasons: 1) the previous provision was constitutionally-suspect and the Senate respects the Constitution; 2) some federal judges, recognizing the inherent problems, have refused to do appointments, creating a situationwhere the Attorney General had to do multiple 120-day appointments; 3) a small number of federal judges, disregarding the Constitutional issues, attempted to appoint individuals
other than those proposed by the Department - in one case, someone who had never been a federal government official and hence had never been subject of the required national
security clearance process, an unacceptable risk given the responsibilities and operations overseen by our U.S. Attorneys.
I see so many duplicate pages in and among the 7 groups of documents, it's ridiculous.
FlyOnTheWall wrote on April 13, 2007 1:28 PM:RE: Fourth Floor
I'm going to go with the simplest possible explanation here. There're a host of offices on the fourth floor of Justice, but the offhand reference suggests that the writer is employing a common shorthand.
MWS wrote on April 13, 2007 1:29 PM:Generally speaking, "fourth floor" means the office of the Deputy Attorney General (Paul McNulty) and "fifth floor" means the Attorney General (John Ashcroft).
So McNulty (or his office) had problems with Lam.
set 7 pg 73-76
Monica Goodling email of Talking points on why Griffin is good, and why Cummins is bad.
Cunmmins bad because:
* "Unlike Mr. Griffin, he did not attend top-rated universities."
* "However, like Mr. Griffin, he had political experience. In 2000, he served as
Arkansas Legal Counsel to the Bush/Cheney campaign, was part of the GOP
Florida Ballot Recount Team in Broward County, and was an Arkansas Elector.
He was also the Republican nominee for the U.S. Congress 2nd Congressional
District in 1996."
As part of the ongoing "Clinton did it too defense" they also knock Paula Jean Casey, Clinton's appointment for USA Arkansas.
* "Unlike Mr. Griffin, she did not attend top-rated universities."
* "Unlike Mr. Griffin, she did not have military or federal prosecution experience."
* "However, like Mr. Grzfin, she had political experience. She volunteered on the
political campaigns of the President who nominated her and was a former student
of his. In addition to owing the President her job, then-Governor Clinton had also
appointed her husband to a state agency position. She was also a law student of
then-Professor Bill Clinton. (See Associated Press, 1 1/10/93)."
The talking points go on to knock the Western Arkansas USA as well, along similar lines.
At the time of this email (Feb 07) they seem to be focusing on defending Tim Griffin's appointment against the idea that it was a purely political move.
Dave in RI wrote on April 13, 2007 1:31 PM:The black, largely readible redacted sections look to be drafts of final documents provided below the redaction. Looked promising at first, but the parts redacted with while in the final document are also redacted in white above.
neil wrote on April 13, 2007 1:31 PM:Set 7, p. 113. Incomplete redactions show that Tasia Scolinos is using an email address that ends in .com, and appears to contain '@g'. The White House has begun redacting people's illegal email addresses, it appears.
Jack Neefus wrote on April 13, 2007 1:32 PM:Here's an interesting but lurid "note to self" from Rachel Brand on the evaluations and bonuses. I suppose she's referring to herself when she says: "You can guess the one person who got the largest bonus and presumably the best rating."
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/jackneefus/RachelBrand.jpg
p 2:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/jackneefus/RachelBrand2.jpg
donviti wrote on April 13, 2007 1:33 PM:seems to me there should be some documentation of the speeches, powerpoint and phone calls that referred to the priorities regarding carol lam...
HeyThereItsEric wrote on April 13, 2007 1:36 PM:Intriguing revision:
OPA7-217.pdf., p. 202. This appears to be a markup of Moschella's opening statement by Christopher Oprision [though the chain of authorship isn't entirely clear]
"Second, the Department has not [underline] asked anyone to resign[end underline] to influence any public corruption case - and would never do so."
Change indication: "Deleted: taken any action"
This suggests one of two things: 1) the department didn't like the less specific wording or 2) the department has taken action to influence a public corruption case - just not asking anyone to resign.
JEP wrote on April 13, 2007 1:36 PM:google this "smartechcorps scientology"
security code word "goat," maybe this will get "theirs"
OtisIsHungry wrote on April 13, 2007 1:38 PM:Set 6, pg 14 BY by Douglas Baker WHO.EOP.GOV to Rachel Brand USDOJ: Talks about inquiry to Arizona USA about why they are only prosecuting over 500 lb. marijunan cases in Nogales, TX. Wants answers because: "THIS WAS MENTIONED (by Speaker Hastert) IN MTG WITH POTUS!!!" Answer to question at pg 57 forward.
neil wrote on April 13, 2007 1:42 PM:Set 7, p 175, from Richard Hertling: "I am trying to get the Senate to pass the Feinstein bill tomorrow night in wrap-up if at all possible" -- this is the bill that removes the interim AG power. Why would he try to get it passed? On p173 Scolinos says "at this point we just want it to move" about the same bill.
fatkat wrote on April 13, 2007 1:44 PM:7 - OPA0000000119
"I think this will get some traction with the media but w/o it going under the AG name less so."
Read the whole part
Over the Edge wrote on April 13, 2007 1:48 PM:Re: Posted by: greenchilecheeseburger
Date: April 13, 2007 12:52 PM
"Page 14 has a reference to a failed Attorney General candidate as replacement for Iglesias. It's Jim Bibb. Click on my handle (sorry, don't know how to embed links on this board)"
From the Abq Tribune profile on Bibb for his NM AG campaign:
"What would your top priorities be in office? What specific steps would you take to achieve them?
My campaign is about specifics, and I have laid out specific plans for:
Getting serious about cracking down on criminals guilty of public corruption by enforcing the laws we already have on the books and dedicating specific investigators and prosecutors to a Public Corruption Division of the AG's office. No complaint or tip will go uninvestigated."
Dave of Maryland wrote on April 13, 2007 1:52 PM:Good OCR programs are $500 - $1500 & have amazing powers. Omni Page Pro, ABBYY are two good ones. When they can't read it, they give clues, which by themselves may spur the researcher. Anybody want to donate one for the cause?
Security code: bent
ahem wrote on April 13, 2007 1:53 PM:"Incomplete redactions show that Tasia Scolinos is using an email address that ends in .com, and appears to contain '@g'. The White House has begun redacting people's illegal email addresses, it appears."
We already know that Tasia Scolinos used a yahoo.com address, and that's probably a gmail.com address to add to the list of off-books email.
Lindsey wrote on April 13, 2007 1:54 PM:Since DOJ did these as image files, they are not really searchable, however since they appear to be relatively clean images I am going to run OCR on at least one to see how it comes out. If it is reasonably accurate, I will try and get it onto the web because it will then be possible to search for specific words, such as Rove.
It will not be perfect, so anything that might be found this way needs to be confirmed against the PDF as scanned.
Leedsichthys wrote on April 13, 2007 1:55 PM:Who does the redacting? Seems a little over-the-top to redact almost everything from the 3/30/07 "United States Attorneys - Appointment Summary," which just shows districts, USAs, and their appointment dates. Isn't this stuff already public information, in which case there's no reason to redact?
HeyThereItsEric wrote on April 13, 2007 1:57 PM:OPA7-217.pdf., p. 202
Correction to my comment on the change from "taken any action" to "asked anyone to resign" (suggesting the DOJ could have action to impair ongoing corruption investigations):
William Moschella explicitly suggests this change in OPA7-217.pdf p. 190 (OPA 196)
Lindsey wrote on April 13, 2007 2:02 PM:FYI, I am using Adobe Acrobat Pro for the OCR (it's part of the program).
I'm doing Doc 6 (I think, I will confirm) it has 197 pages so it's going to take at least another 15-30 minutes.
ahem wrote on April 13, 2007 2:02 PM:Actually, looking at that page, I'm sure that's her yahoo.com email address which has been redacted, as seen in the earlier doc dump which includes the same DRAFT Talking Points message:
http://snipurl.com/tasiascol
Embarrassed much by it, DOJ?
fatkat wrote on April 13, 2007 2:07 PM:7-pg121
bottom of this page read the last paragraph very important regarding internal aspects and prolonging and the Senate Dem's.
7-pg131 - email talking about meeting with White House?
7-pg190 - email is a decision about the language being changed regarding the President and Attorney General
Lindsey wrote on April 13, 2007 2:14 PM:So far the scan looks pretty good. I'm going to do a couple of quick searches.
fatkat wrote on April 13, 2007 2:14 PM:6-195
Emails regarding the amount of pot that they prosecute is over 500 lbs.
This is crucial because Lam was asked this over a period of time about who and why she does not prosecute drug cases, per Issa!
HeyThereItsEric wrote on April 13, 2007 2:17 PM:The handwritten comments on p. 7-8 of OAG1159-1234.pdf look like a draft, by Monica Goodling, of the center column of the table "U.S. ATTORNEY RESIGNATIONS" on p. 10-12. On p. 9, Goodling's e-mail has the subject, "DRAFT (am still working on second column)"
giark65 wrote on April 13, 2007 2:17 PM:One comment:
Is it a correct assumption these emails and documents are only relevant to the USA purge?
Wouldn't the congressional request expect there to be other emails and documents included, or does it appear these were hand picked as part of the 'selective screening process?
My limited impression was that it isn't up to the DOJ to selectively pick the documents but to allow the congressional review to assess what is and isn't relevant from the DOJ correpondence.
giark
Lou Cabron wrote on April 13, 2007 2:19 PM:Some random observation:
SET 5
* Page 7 -- "Was Prez told about this?" (Handwritten) "Any outside calls about Lam?"
"Some great, some not so much, some problematic."
"DOJ put together list or problematic people; sent to WH; WH cleared."
* Very top of page 8 -- Hand-written note says Ygleisias "Underachieves in a very important district."
"Domenici says he doesn't move cases." [It also says "absentee landlord," something I can't make out,
and "in over head,"]
* Does it seem weird that there were several phone calls to Senator Domenici's office
in April of 2006 -- and the required attendees were Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling, and
William Moschella? (At the end of set 5) There's also talking points to defend
the installation of Rove's pal Griffin around page 48.
Page 13 -- It's apparently about US Attorney Margaret Chiara, who wanted a few more weeks
(according to the NYT).
Set 6
Two years ago (Jan of 2005)
Michael Frank at the Office of Legal Policy says
"I'm starting to not like Roger Haines. He forwarded my quick
response to his U.S. Attorney [Carol Lam] and I got the attached [from Lam]..."
Lam is urging that they help her prosecute illegal alien smugglers under
USC 1325 and 1326. Lam points out that 2200 of 3500 felonies prosecuted (about two thirds) are
already alien smuggling cases -- and more than half of their trials.
Page 6: discussion of the rule requiring recordings of interviews.
Page 13 (July, 2006): Complaints from USAG in Arizona that their office is stretched to the limit.
Page 18: Someone tells Rachel Brand that USAG Margaret Chiara hurt the feelings of some staffers
by announcing the names of those who did and didn't receive performance bonuses. (Although
Chiara follows up with an email saying this was standard policy.)
Page 27: It looks like Domenici is very interested in appearing tough on immigration, and was
Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 2:19 PM:talking to the DOJ about that. (And a few pages down, they talk about passing on information
to the White House Immigration Task Force.)
OK, I think this is worth posting right away:
This is from my OCR of Doc 6, page 185:
I'm rushing a bit, but this appears to be from Kyle Sampson
If the President has already approved Griffin, then part of our "consultation" (to meet the "advice and consent" requirements of Constitution) would be to tell them we were going,to start a BI on Griffin. I assume this has already happened. If so, then it shouldn't be a surprise that we're looking at Griffin, and I would have no
Phredd wrote on April 13, 2007 2:20 PM:objection to a meeting (is Tim back from Iraq?).
Set 6 p 6-12
Development of document named "US Attorney Resignations"
Neal wrote on April 13, 2007 2:21 PM:Marked as "sensitive" following handwritten notes on the AG tables, a revised table of USAs with "leadership assessments." The middle column consists of the proposed talking points regarding the fired USAs failures, e.g. LAM "Failure to perform in relation to significant leadership priorities" with a notation "ADD GUNS". Page 7 handwritten notes say "DOJ put together list of problematic people; sent to WH; WH cleared;"
It is telling that DOJ has chosen to redact the documents so extensively despite the pending subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee that requires DOJ to produce unredacted copies by Monday (April 16). Why would DOJ undertake such a redaction effort only to produce unredacted copies on the next business day? I suppose they might argue that the subpoena doesn't cover the documents produced today, but even so much of what they are redacting here is the same information that will be revealed when they produce unredacted copies of the earlier document dumps.
Does this mean that DOJ is planning to defy the Congressional subpoena on Monday?
Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 2:21 PM:FYI, in OCR of Doc 6,
No hits on Rove (accept within other words like approve)
12 hits on Sampson
js wrote on April 13, 2007 2:22 PM:http://img409.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture12nn2.png
fifth line:
"the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam"
js wrote on April 13, 2007 2:23 PM:http://img409.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture12nn2.png
fifth line:
"the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam"
HeyThereItsEric wrote on April 13, 2007 2:28 PM:The handwritten comments on p. 7-8 of OAG1159-1234.pdf mentions "Margolis" for USA's Bogen and "no Margolis" for Charlton. Margolis may be Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis.
The following may be old news, but it's intriguing.
From the June 2006 OIG Special Report relating to the selection of U. S. Attorney for Guam: ".. Margolis ... has been involved in the U.S. Attorney selection process for Guam since 1993"
First graph of report: "This report describes the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) investigation regarding allegations raised by Frederick Black, the former interim U.S. Attorney for Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Black alleged that he was replaced as the interim U.S. Attorney because he called for an investigation of Washington, D.C., lobbyist Jack Abramoff and also because he supported applying federal immigration law to the CNMI, a position Abramoff opposed."
parrot wrote on April 13, 2007 2:29 PM:Set 3 OAG1051-1152.pdf
Second half is lots of emails, while first half is district evalations. In a quick look over I noted:
around page 94, unredacted version of the Harriet Miers memo(es) from Set 2 are here and in a quick look at the bottom of the set noted the following:
Page 100 an attachment to an email sent Feb 2007 (Goodling)
A chart, for the possible replacements for Bogden, the persons interviewed or asked to replace him are whited out. The committee should probably know who those folks are...if they don't, they should anyways.
Set 3 will take sometime to pour over...going on to the next set.
steve-o wrote on April 13, 2007 2:33 PM:Here's one re: Moschella's testimony with edits:
Batch 7, pg 202 (OPA000000208):
the sentence in the concluding paragraph was changed from:
"Second, the Department has not taken any action to influence any public corruption case - and would never do so."
to:
"Second, the Department has not asked anyone to resign to influence any public corruption case - and would never do so. "
For some reason the editor (looks to be Moschella himself) felt the statement that DOJ hasnt taken "any action to influence any public corruption case" needed to be edited. makes you wonder why.
parrot wrote on April 13, 2007 2:34 PM:Set 4 OAG1153-1158.pdf
Page 4, again, the folks who were slated to replace Bogden are whited out. Hmm...were these people Sen. Reid would have gone ballistic over?
Codeword: spade
anon wrote on April 13, 2007 2:36 PM:The Iglesias letter of resignation is in there. Just breaks your heart, this guy's loyalty.
"Dear Mr. President:
I am hereby submitting my resignation as United States Attorney for the District of New
Mexico, effective midnight February 28,2007.
I hew when I first met you at the El Pinto restaurant in Albuquerque, New Mexico in the
Summer of 2000, that I wanted to be part of your team. I deeply appreciate the opportunity to have
served as United States Attorney and being part of your administration in a watershed period of
America's history. Along with my service in the United States Navy, I count being U.S. Attorney
as my greatest honor. Thank you for giving me a chance to give back to a country that has given me
so much. As the son of an immigrant father from Panama, I know the American dream lives on.
I pray for you frequently and trust the Almighty grant you the wisdom of Solomon during the
DavidW in SF wrote on April 13, 2007 2:38 PM:rest of your administration."
Has the text of the Bud Cummins "they're trying to intimidate us" email been available before? I know we've at least had the generalities. Anyway, a pointer to it at http://judiciary.house.gov/media/PDFS/OPA7-217.pdf page 208 (OPA000000214).
anon wrote on April 13, 2007 2:42 PM:Doc 5 page 20
TRANSITIONS IN ARKANSAS
Spring 2006:
r wrote on April 13, 2007 2:47 PM:White House Counsel asks if there will be a vacancy as Tim Griffin will be
returning fiom Iraq and is interested.
conspiracy to obstruct a prosecution?
"The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires."
email from Kyle Sampson to William Kelley 5.11.06
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/PDFS/OAG12-22-NEW-.pdf
anon wrote on April 13, 2007 2:53 PM:second set at page 11
Doc 3 page 86
From: Tim Griffin
Sent: Wednesdav. Februarv 28.2007 153 AM
To: Hertling, Richard; wi~.m~schella@usdoj.~ov
Cc: Sampson, Kyle
Subject: Your Hill Briefing on U.S. Attorneys
It would be helpful in my estimation if someone would take the time to educate Members of Congress and disabuse
LnGrrrR wrote on April 13, 2007 2:58 PM:them of the idea that it is extraordinary when the White House Counsel gets involved in the selection of U.S.
Attorneys. In fact, it was my experience when workmg at the White House and attending the meetings where such
decisions were made that White House Counsel's involvement in the selection of U.S. Attorneys--as with judges--is
entirely ordinary and has long been customary. Someone at DOJ left the press with the impression that Harriet
Miers vouching for me was some sort of extraordinary event. It wasn't.
I see from set 7 that the new story is, "The temp appointments are necessary to sustain 'separation of powers'... you know, can't have the Judicial appointing itself a temporary while they wait for Congressional approval."
And of course, more CYA...
Anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 2:58 PM:Parsky Commission links:
"Another GOP vulture capital firm owner tied to USA firing scandal"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/10/21543/2678
"by leveymg
Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:33:49 AM PDT
...operators of a huge global hedge fund, Cerberus-Gabriel, are implicated in the GOP funding scandal involving former Appropriations Committee Chair Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA). Lewis was under investigation by former US Attorney Carol Lam when she was fired this past January.
...the Lam firing also involved a major California GOP funder, Gerry Parsky, who is a described as a close friend of California Governor Schwartzenegger and of President George W. Bush.
It turns out that Parsky runs Aurora Capital, a so-called vulture capital firm with large Pentagon contracts, and that he was a partner in the LA law firm that late last year hired another former US Attorney, Debra Wong Yang, under some highly questionable circumstances."
LnGrrrR wrote on April 13, 2007 2:59 PM:Wow, this guy appears to have 'bought' a USA selection. The daily Kos has done a lot of homework on this guy and his connections.
Also, can these neocons go five seconds without comparing something to Clinton?
kirk murphy wrote on April 13, 2007 3:00 PM:Document set 6 (OLP-917)…
Page 29
OMG!
Senior DOJ officials talking about how to use their official knowledge of a SEALED indictment to help the White House’s immigration messaging.
They have so politicized JUSTICE that not just any attorney, an attorney who is now…
in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General of the United States of America..
asks her legal peers “can we use this” SEALED INDICTMENT?
Why do the Bushies hate Justice?
__________________________________________
re:
“Alien Smuggling Arrests - SEALED INDICTMENT”
“this sounds like a story that the WH-1 immigration working group should be aware of and perhaps highlight.“
(from)
Courtney Simmons Elwood
Deputy Chief of Staff and Counselor to the Attorney General
(to - includes Kyle Sampson and Jeffery Taylor at DOJ, as well as the aforementioned Brand)
Brand (ODAG) asks “Can we say anything about it at this poinnt?”
Taylor (OAG): “Not until it is unsealed, an then, of course, we would have to be careful.”
Ryan W. Bounds (OLP) observes to Brand (ODAG) …and only Brand:
“That is all very serendipitous, since we were just talking with Taylor yesterday about criticism for the lack of alien smuggling prosecutions in So Cal….”
[first posted at firedoglake 10:20 AM April 13 - kjm]
kirk murphy wrote on April 13, 2007 3:03 PM:set 6 (OLP-917)
Page 80.
Executive Branch (DOJ) attempts (and conspires?) to provide false and misleading testimony to Congressional oversight.
USA Lam busts them.
DOJ claims 29% growth in AUSA’s in the Southwest. Lam caluclates less than 6%.
DOJ is lying to Congress by a five-fold factor.
Overestimating by five hundred percent. That’s 500%.
Lam:
“I assume nobody is taking credit for the 29% figure, and I’m on my own?”
(in another message)
“Can anyone tell me how the 29% increase was calculated, in case the Congressmen use this figure in our discussion?”
fatkat wrote on April 13, 2007 3:04 PM:they have dumped more docs and this is what I found
DAG00000002519
sent from Bill Mercer, to B. Winnie from his handheld from www.good.com
this is a third party communication!
anon wrote on April 13, 2007 3:04 PM:Doc 7 page 131
From: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 2:49 PM
To: McNulty, Paul 3; Moschella, William; Hertling, Richard; Scolinos, Tasia; Battle, Michael (USAEO)
Cc: Elston, Michael (ODAG); Roehrkasse, Brian; Goodling, Monica; Washington, Tracy T
Subjed: 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.
parrot wrote on April 13, 2007 3:06 PM: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.
Set 5 OAG1159-1234.pdf
Okay, more Bogden replacements whited out, page 1
ALSO page 1, either two replacements for Iglesias whited out OR one whited out AND the person making nominating suggestions whited out. Which is it? And whom are they?
PAGE 7-8 Hand-written notes, unidentified, possibly from a brainstorming session on the firings, date unknown, author? (sampson?)
Page 22 Email attachment March 5, 2007 to E. Moschella
Page 23-??? Talking points for why USAs were let go. Interesting stuff...where are the 5th Amendment moments for Goodling in this document(s)? It's not clear where the attachment begins and ends. I hope they've got this one in electronic format over on the Hill...
Page 75-76 The Nov 27 meeting 9AM-10AM attendees list from the meeting planner software
Codeword: chin as in taking it on the
Angel wrote on April 13, 2007 3:08 PM:code word: clean
Let's clean the house of these thugs.
LnGrrrR wrote on April 13, 2007 3:11 PM:Also, not sure if it's mentioned, but in set 7, pg 113, it mentions how Congress asked specifically for Paul, but DoJ said that they would have to deal with Will (Moschella I presume)...who seemed to be the guy that they were pumping up with their talking points.
JGabriel wrote on April 13, 2007 3:13 PM:This is important:
"From: Seidel, Rebecca
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 12:12 PM
TO: Sampson, Kyle; Goodling, Monica; Moschella, William
Cc: Hertling, Richard; Elston, Michael (ODAG)
Subject: Feinstein staff on USAs
[...]
Kyle, I undertand Paul McNulty thinks we should go up in person?
[...]
Phone call easier, and may be easier to get out of (i.e. not trapped up there) when she doesn't get the info she wants (i.e. why they were fired)."
It shows not only that the DoJ loyal Bushies were not only trying to hide information from Feinstein, and Congress by extension, but also that there is a *specific*, known, reason the US Attorney's were fired, and that the DoJ officials are *still* withholding it.
fatkat wrote on April 13, 2007 3:21 PM:new set dumped...
set10 has lots of hand written notes everywhere...
cant make them out some one who can, please read!
parrot wrote on April 13, 2007 3:23 PM:Set 6 OLP1-197.pdf
Pages 17-18 A Dilbert-esque moment--ugh!! M. Chiara makes a big management mistake and continues it up with a less than wise wording of an apology for screwing up what was supposed to be a team building meeting. Poor management for sure.
(Man, it hurt to read that! Much worse if one was actually in the room, I'm guessing. On behalf of the tax-payers, I hope that the folks in that office will accept the apology of the USG and their fellow citizens.)
Georgia wrote on April 13, 2007 3:24 PM:5-41
The USA appointment for the Eastern District of Oklahoma is an interesting case. The document fails to really get at the details. It implies that the AG needs appointment authority because the courts would not do their duty.
What really happened was that Bush himself was derelict in his duties. He failed to nominate a new USA to replace Robert Bruce Green, who resigned. When Bush finally got aroung to making a nomination, the nominee, Shelly Sperling, was confirmed shortly after.
It would make sense for the courts to act if the congress was delaying an appointment, but I believe they were right to refuse to act in the absense of a nomination.
To counter the Court's refusal, the AG (John Ashcroft) made four consecutive 120 interim appointments, which he did not have the authority to do.
The DOJ uses this as an example of why the AG appointment authority is necessary? How does that argument go? - 'We need to make sure that if the executive branch refuses to give the Senate the opportunity to excercise its "advice and consent" authority, we need to be able to deny the Senate of its "advice and consent" authority.' ???
From the document:
2. Eastern District of Oklahoma: In 2000-2001, a vacancy occurred in the EDOK.The court refused to exercise the court's authority to make appointments. As a result, the Attorney General appointed Shelly Sperling to three 120-day appointments before Sperling was nominated and confirmed by the Senate (he was appointed by the Attorney General to a fourth 120-day term while the nomination was pending).
fatkat wrote on April 13, 2007 3:26 PM:Question...
When did Monica go on leave from the DOJ before she quit?
I ask this because she was still getting updates from the dept while she was on leave, and if so she may have been getting updates from her home computer and they need to get it! and all the others who chat from home...
PrgrsvArchitect wrote on April 13, 2007 3:30 PM:Didn't Sampson testify that there was no documentation or charts or notes about the reasons potential USAs were to be fired? I believe Sen Schumer asked him this during his first round of testimony. From the comments above and the charts in the documents it seems somebody may have committed perjury.
fatkat wrote on April 13, 2007 3:32 PM:dump 9
pg152 has AG talking with Domenici back in Sept. 2005.
So they were talking over 2 years ago!?
ohthehugemanatee wrote on April 13, 2007 3:33 PM:Can someone help me with something from the House Judiciary page regarding today's documents?
Earlier they just had the seven sets released this morning, now they have 16 CD-ROM sets on the same page (see below). Are these previously released or new documents also?
http://judiciary.house.gov/Printshop.aspx?Section=472
parrot wrote on April 13, 2007 3:35 PM:Set 6 After the Chiara moment, there isn't much here except a tedious bunch of duplicate info about Hastert and whether or not Arizona USAO will prosecute marijuana cases involving less than 500 lbs and surrounding bureaucratic foo.
LnGrrrR wrote on April 13, 2007 3:35 PM:Look at this...
set 7, p 190
From William Moschella...
"In the second graph, replace "the President's and the Attorney General's priorities and the Department's policies" with "the Administration's policies and priorities".
In the last graph, I suggest replacing "taken any action" with "asked anyone to resign"
This is really good. Thanks everyone for the collaboration"
Yet, that phrase doesn't seem to appear in the rest of the set 7 documents. (At least, verbatim, I just did a search.)
Shows that they were trying to protect Abu G, perhaps?
Code: Mother... which is half the word needed to describe many of these people...
fatkat wrote on April 13, 2007 3:41 PM:dump 9
pg 26
they are asking for ONLY republican reps staff member names.
This could be a match game, those staff names and who (DOJ) and other offices emailed docs or memos to and kept the other parties out of any loop! So the names are there and cross reference needs to be done
LnGrrrR wrote on April 13, 2007 3:43 PM:Update on my last post...the deleted phrase shows up on page 201 of set 7...
Seems that it changed the focus of fulfilling the DoJ's wishes to the Administrations.
Brett wrote on April 13, 2007 3:49 PM:DAG2294-2519, p.165 (doc#DAG00002458)
[Damage control in February.]
From: Jennings, Jeffrey S.
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 10:17AM
To: 'KR@georgewbush.com'; Fielding, Fred F.; Sullivan, Kevin F.; Perino, Dana M.; 'kyle.sampson@usdoj.gov'
CC: 'Sara Taylor'
Subject: NM USATTY - urgent issue
Importance: High
I just received a telephone call from Steve Bell, Sen Domenici's CoS, who urgently reported the following:
1. Outgoing USATTY David Iglesias holding a press conference at 11:30 Eastern this morning.
2. He is allegedly going to say that he was contacted by two Members of Congress last Fall regarding the investigation into the courthouse construction corruption case. Information on this is in the following article: http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2006/dec/19/federal-attorney-plans-step-down-iglesias-investig/
[page break]
3. He is allegedly going to say that the Members urged him to deliver indictments before November's election. He will further say that one of the Members, frustrated with his answer, hung up on him in anger.
4. He is allegedly going to link these phone calls with the current news - saying that he believes this ultimately led to his being asked to resign by DOJ.
Bell said Domenici's idea is not to respond, and hopefully make this a one day story. They have already been contacted by McClatchey. Unfortunately, I do no think that they can make an allegation such as this go away so easily. They have not confirmed to the reporter they were one of the Memebrs.
I am available to discuss further - clearly, once this happens in Albuquerque the reporters will be asking DoJ and the White House
parrot wrote on April 13, 2007 3:51 PM:Set 2 OAG12-22-NEW-.pdf
Page 52 Jan 15, 2007 Attendees list for AG briefing meeting prior to testifying before Congress. Long list of "core" folks and "additional attendees".
Page 54 Jan 17, 2007 1:45PM - 4PM meeting Attendees list, etc.
Page 56 Feb 12, 2007 3-3:30PM meeting attendee list to brief McNulty in the AG's conference room, Sampson, Scolinos attendees
Page 60 handwritten notes on a document implying that Lam is "very independent", also other USAs have notes next to them, date unknown, author unknown.
lestatdelc wrote on April 13, 2007 3:51 PM:the redactions in pdf 2 asay the exact same thing that the unredacted portion says. (Photoshop professional here)
In fact the redactions are two set of the same thing as the unredacted portion. This is page count padding for PR flaking purposes (i.e. "see how many documents we produced, we are being forthcoming, blah blah blah")
Brett wrote on April 13, 2007 3:53 PM:DAG2294-2519, p. 169-170 (doc#DAG00002462. doc#DAG00002463)
Phone logs from 10/3/06, indicating several calls from Senator Domenici to Paul [McNulty?], but not content.
Aaron G. Stock wrote on April 13, 2007 3:55 PM:OK people! Read the thread above and the TPM main page, THEN post, to avoid duplicates. It's great you're discovering things on your own, but we don't need to see the item discovered if it's not new to TPM, just your theory (more so if it's new).
LnGrrrR wrote on April 13, 2007 3:55 PM:haha...another fun deletion...
from cd release set 15, p 23/45
Here's the opening line...
"Attorneys are never-repeat, never-removed, or asked or encouraged to resign, in an effort to
retaliate against them, or interfere with, or inappropriately influence a particular investigation, criminal prosecution, or civil case."
And what was deleted after that?
"Deleted: Any suggestion to the contrary I is unfounded, and it irresponsibly
i undermines the reputation for impaniality
the Department has earned over many
years and on which it depends."
Haha. Even the DoJ knew better than to make THAT claim.
james wrote on April 13, 2007 3:56 PM:Not sure if anyone pointed this out already, but Brett has an interesting email up above, with the following address:
'KR@georgewbush.com';
Does Karl have a second email account somewhere? And is that one backed up?
ahem wrote on April 13, 2007 3:57 PM:Lots more dumpage:
Goodling, Jan 17: "WH Political reached out to Sen. Sessions and requested that he ask helpful questions to make clear that Tim Griffin is qualified to serve. They requested that someone in our OLA call the Senator's staff and make sure that we take advantage of the offer,"
Followed by TPs on Griffin.
OLA555-599.pdf
HeyThereItsEric wrote on April 13, 2007 3:59 PM:I never, ever, ever want to see another copy of Moschella's testimony.
ahem wrote on April 13, 2007 4:00 PM:OLA600-639.pdf is basically a dupe of OLA555-599.pdf
pamela wrote on April 13, 2007 4:04 PM:I haven't been able to follow the document dumps closely, so maybe I'm missing something. It seems that all these communications are from the past few months, but my understanding was that converstions about firing USA's had been going on for a couple of years. Have they already released the older documents relating to this investigation?
LnGrrrR wrote on April 13, 2007 4:04 PM:lol heythereitseric,
It does seem to be a bit profuse, hm?
anonymous wrote on April 13, 2007 4:05 PM:LOL, in the last PDF, we see Duke Cunningham’s signature on an Issa complaint about two of Carol Lam's immigration prosecutions, dated 10/20/05.
(Page 17 of OPA7-217, DOJ Document Set 7 in the second group--the ones not released on CD Rom)
Hillarious.