« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
DOJ Document Dump Muckraking Thread
A big new bundle of documents just got dumped by the Department of Justice. Here's a link to the documents in PDF form at the House Judiciary Committee website. As per our routine in recent document dumps, if you'd like to help us cull through the mails and reports, use this thread to share your findings with us and other TPMm Readers.
Identify the items you find by document dump set number and page number.
Advertisement
Comments (228)
PrgrsvArchitect wrote on April 27, 2007 6:46 PM:Let the fun begin! The Reader commment that Josh quoted on TPM this morning seems to be dead on...
"So. It's Friday, and the Pentagon leaks word that a top al-Qaeda operative has been captured. Or, actually, that he was captured last year, but that he's just been transferred from the custody of the CIA to DoD. Wait, that's not quite right. He was transferred earlier in the week. But still. It's important news. Right?
Only here's the thing. When you have a story like this, you don't release it on a Friday. There's nothing time-critical about it. There's no reason to squander the positive headlines on the slowest media day of the week."
T. Scheisskopf wrote on April 27, 2007 6:49 PM:My candidate for the one to watch? The USAID guy story. USAID pushes quite a large budget around. Lots of potential for hanky-panky there.
"Harmonic convergence"? More like a backed up sewer pipe is erupting.
kady wrote on April 27, 2007 6:52 PM:Honest-when I read the headline I exclaimed: Hot Damn!!! Is that wrong of me???
Who comes up with the security codes: judge. The American People are so ready to!!!
Dreggas wrote on April 27, 2007 6:54 PM:Document Set 1:
The pages are too numerous to list but the letter sent to Ed Royce and Issa regarding Lam and Immigration prosecutions seems to defend Lam's policies and practices as well as correcting false assertions.
Also of Note Duke Cunningham is one of the signatories for this letter.
Seems the dept was really going to Bat for Lam before they were against her...that is before Cunningham was knocked off.
jg wrote on April 27, 2007 6:55 PM:Interesting email in doc set 6, page 41 about DOJ talking points to "fired" USAs.
Phill wrote on April 27, 2007 6:56 PM:Document set 7 seems to be Goodlings emails setting out talking points to support circumventing senate confirmation.
Claims that Griffin went to a 'top university' while Cummins and the Clinton appointee did not seem to be somewhat tenuous. I would consider a top university to be a Harvard, Yale or such. Only real top university in Griffin's resume was a one year course at Oxford.
Its not like Griffin was exatly a star performer at these schools. The bar here is not that he was qualified but that he was an overwhelming improvement on Cummins.
Englischlehrer wrote on April 27, 2007 6:56 PM:shit, it's already 1am here in germany, was hoping that there would already be 50 comments to read about the document dump.
It's amazing how our elected officials are allowed to act. Someone wrote about "prosecutors pleading the fifth", like the very people we have to rely on to help us sleep easy at night or breaking the law.
Dreggas wrote on April 27, 2007 6:57 PM:Page 11 Document Set 1:
Looks like Issa was tipping off the DOJ on what would be asked at certain hearings. Not sure if this matters much
Colleen wrote on April 27, 2007 7:01 PM:Looking at set #4:
1t document (bates#00000128) is an email from Rebecca Seidel to Sampson, Elwood, Freidrich, Elston and is cc'ed to many others.
The document indicates that Seidel spoke w/ Feinsteins COS, and DiFi was "ginned up" about the FBI agent who thought Lam's dismissal would cause disruption. An Attachment is provided "called "Intel" on Senate Judiciary Committee members.
The following two documents (B# 000001239 and 1240) appear to be the "intel" report, but only Feinstein's info is listed. It looks like "intel" on other committee members may have been redacted.
The rest of group 4 appears to be an email from Roehrkassse to Elwood. The email acknowledges that Elwood is appearing on some redacted show and includes attachments for Elwoods use to prepare- talking points about the Patriot Act revision, McNulties testimony, etc.
jg wrote on April 27, 2007 7:02 PM:Doc set 3, pg. 9 Email from Bud Cummins about what the WH "was doing about this appointment," how "there might be some stick about this down the road", about him having to strike a bargain with "Jody" to keep her mouth shut about this...
Dreggas wrote on April 27, 2007 7:03 PM:Pages 27-29 and counting on Doc Set 1:
Emails from Charlton to Justice trying to get them to greenlight the pilot program for taping interrogations.
Dreggas wrote on April 27, 2007 7:08 PM:Page 32 Doc Set 1 -
Email to Bill Mercer from Margret Chiara, shows Goodling was setting directives on how long to keep certain "detailees" whatever they are.
lhs wrote on April 27, 2007 7:08 PM:Major Cock-n-bull: Document 7, page 14:
[addressing arguement for necessity of Patriot Act amendment for AG]
"Previous provision was constitutionally-suspect in that it is inappropriate and inconsistent with the sound separation of powers principles to vest federal courts with the authority to appoint a critical Executive Branch officer....."
(cough...cough....worked well enough for 200 years!)
"Because the Administration is committed to having a Senate-confirmed United States Attorney in all districts, changing the law to restore the limitations on the Attorney General's appointment authority is unnecessary."
Englischlehrer wrote on April 27, 2007 7:08 PM:(uhmmm....Sampson's email pretty much proves this to be a fib.)
sorry, I'm not a good catalogger yet but in group 6 there was a quote from McNulty's opening statements:
"The Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General are responsible for evaluating the performance of the US Attorneys and ensuring that they are running their offices effectively."
That's a good enough reason for Gonzales to be fired by the president. He's responsible for this important thing before firing people and he completely neglected it!
enough wrote on April 27, 2007 7:08 PM:Are they going to try to get some of the story out ahead of Goodling's testimony?
Englischlehrer wrote on April 27, 2007 7:09 PM:it might have been Moschella's opening statement.
bo wrote on April 27, 2007 7:10 PM:The excluded list of 155 docs is all stuff where Sampson is the custodian. Mostly communiques from him. Think this has already bee covered in the news.
John wrote on April 27, 2007 7:14 PM:I'm not typically one to jump the gun, but the very first thing I read has to be seen to be believed. Set 8, last page: Iglesias' letter of farewell. Where he manages to "name drop" each and every reason he knows he's been fired, pointing them out as huge successes. An incredible f* you to his former boss.
PeterB wrote on April 27, 2007 7:15 PM:WTG USA DI!
I scanned through Set 7. Dates were Feb 7 through Feb 12th, I believe.
Much of it concerned with talking points for why 120 days isn't enough to nominate and confirm a new USA.
I really loved this bullet point, which appears to have survived intact for over five days without being corrected:
Simply adding the two averages of 273 and 58 days would mean a combined
Guy wrote on April 27, 2007 7:16 PM:average of 331 days from resignation of one USA to confirmation of the next.
Doc 7
Repeated versions of talking points and parsing comparisons of Bush nominees vs. Clintons.
Interesting math point though:
"The average number of days between resignation of one Senate confirmed USA and the nomination of one by the president" = 273 days.
"The average number of days between nomination of a new USA and confirmation" = 58 days.
The combined 331 days is WAAAY TOO LONG!!!!
My comments: Well why wait 273 days to nominate someone then......
sr wrote on April 27, 2007 7:21 PM:Set 5 p. 38-39, continued in set 6 p. 1: a table labeled "U.S Attorney Resignations" that lists the 8 fired USA's with columns for "leadership assessment" (possibly the AG's/Bush's opinion) and "EARS" (Evaluation And Review Staff = the internal performance reviews). Margaret Chiara, John McKay, Carol Lam and Bud Cummings have absolutely no negative comments in either column, and very positive remarks in the EARS column. This seems to confirm that they were not fired for performance issues or failure to follow DOJ priorities (ie, there were no legitimate reasons to fire them). Paul Charlton is criticized in both columns, and Kevin Ryan is harshly criticized in the EARS review. Dan Bogden and David Iglesias' "leadership assessment" reads "important district being underserved"--not sure what that means--but their EARS' are both strongly positive also. Hard to tell who put this document together. It follows an email from Courtney Elwood.
TR wrote on April 27, 2007 7:23 PM:Set 5 (and possibly others) contains a transcript of one of the senate hearings. Seems like a pretty transparent attempt to pad the document dump.
kis wrote on April 27, 2007 7:26 PM:My sense is that there is nothing to this dump other than the 155 excluded documents. That is where the real story is. And to the other excluded documents/emails that they are not even fessing to yet (perhaps because they are on the RNC servers)...
TR wrote on April 27, 2007 7:26 PM:More padding. Sets 3 and 8 contain the same transition docs and start out with this:
Examples of Difficult Transition Situations
Mote Dai wrote on April 27, 2007 7:27 PM:Examples of Districts Where Judges Did Not Exercise Their Court Appointment
(Making the Attorney General's Appointment Authority Essential To Keep the
Position Filled until a Nominee Is Confirmed)
Doc Set 5, Pages 38 and 39.
There are these great write ups about the USAs that left. Of note is the one about Charlton in AZ on page 38. Charlton is noteworthy because of the Renzi case and his known refusal to deal with "obescenity" cases. Here is the blurb about him in the leadership assessment column:
Repeated instances of insubordination
Actions taken contrary to instructions
Actions taken that were clearly unauthorized
One of the examples given to support these claims was that he "worked outside of proper channels, without regard to the damage caused to others.
HMMMM...didn't follow "instructions" and was "insubordinate" for taking "clearly unauthorized" actions without consideration for "damage caused to others."
I wonder if his little investigation of a certain AZ congressman had anything to do with this. If anything, there should be emails or "instructions" warning him of his actions. I would LOVE to see those.
Anonymous wrote on April 27, 2007 7:29 PM:A follow-up to sr's comment above (7:21pm)
On the second page of the chart sr refers to, it looks like a name is redacted right above Bud
Cummins. (bates #1320, set 5)
The initial 35 pages of set 5 are McNulty's testimony.
Matt wrote on April 27, 2007 7:30 PM:jg - re: keeping 'mouth shut' -- jody is cummins' wife
Jack wrote on April 27, 2007 7:31 PM:Set #4 says someone has let a stranger into their house. Time for Feinstein to tie her shoes.
HeyThereItsEric wrote on April 27, 2007 7:32 PM:OAG1282-1320.pdf (#5)
Transcript of congressional testimony - McNulty, Gearson, Levenson (1282-1316). [I did not read this at any length.
E-mail exchange (1317-1318) between Courtney Elwood and Richard Hertling:
"Elwood. Courtnev
From: Hertling, Richard
Sent: Tuesday, March 06,2007 10:12 AM
To: Elwood, Courtney; Moschella, William; Sampson, Kyle; Goodling, Monica
Subject: RE: Call from Bill Kelley on QFR responses on USA firings
Yes, and nothing is moving very quickly. I emailed Oprison about that subject this morning.
[quoted]
From: Elwood, Courtney
Sent: Tuesday, March 06,2007 10:ll AM
To: Moschella, William; Sampson, Kyle; Hertling, Richard; Goodling, Monica
Subject: Call from Bill Kelley on QFR responses on USA firings
Importance: High
Bill called this moring and spoke to me in Kyle's absence. Chris Oprison told Bill that DOJ was preparing QFR answers
that addressed contacts between WH, Hill, and DOJ on USAs. He wants to make sure that he is given, in advance,
whatever DOJ plans to say in response to these questions. I told him that QFR responses are always circulated through
OMB and WHCO, and I am sure that happen in this case.
I know nothing 'bout this, so I pass this along to those of you who may.
I suggest that Kyle or someone else give Bill a call for clarification, if necessary,"
Another draft of the reasons for firing attorneys - probably rougher draft than most of the typed ones (1319-1320)
Matt wrote on April 27, 2007 7:32 PM:also re: the 'mouth shut' email : note that at the top it's relayed to 'monica.' seems like the standard operating procedure then would be to keep monica goodling clued in on all the political happenings
Pinson wrote on April 27, 2007 7:33 PM:Set 1, first few pages, discussion of Issa letters to AG, there are multiple references to "catch and release" and how it's a DHS/immigration issue, and not at all a Justice Dept. issue.
Email from Rebecca Seidel:
"I know the "catch and release" thing is a DHS issue, however, note the reference to USA declining to prosecute."
Translation: We know the immigration issue is complete BS, but we got nothing else, so let's keep talking it up.
pablue wrote on April 27, 2007 7:34 PM:Set 5 pg 38 chart on USAs Resignations
Paul Charlton (USA-AZ) - Leadership Assessment:
- Repeated instances of insubordination; actions taken contrary to instructions; or actions taken that were clearly unauthorized
- Ex: multiple failures to follow AG's instruction on death penalty cases
- Ex: worked outside of proper channels, without regard to the damage caused to others
Ex:
- Ex: refusal? to comply with a leadershp priority (obscenity)
Also noted - Leadership Assessment comments blank (deleted?) for other USAs.
Well someone was pretty upset with Charlton - interesting. Seems like it would be in Mr. Charlton's best interest to talk to Congress - especially after seeing this document.
daCascadian wrote on April 27, 2007 7:36 PM:Guy >"...Interesting math point though:
"The average number of days..."
First thing I would want to know about those averages was where did the data come from. What time span did they use to get the averages etc. Did it include the entire 20th Century, only the post WWII period, from Reagan on, just Clinton & Bush II or what ?
The devil IS in the details.
code = part (as in part of a criminal enterprise)
"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." - Ansel Adams
regular lurker wrote on April 27, 2007 7:39 PM:Set 8 p29 AOG000001428-31
Redactions in FACT SHEET: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON VACANCIES AND AUTHORITIES USED TO ENSURE CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS
Sample section:
"In 5 cases,the Department selected another Department employee to serve as interim until a nomination was submitted to the Senate. Those districts include:
Eastern District of Virginia - Chuck Rosenberg, who was the pending nominee, was given an interim appointment when Paul McNulty vacated the position to take oath as Deputy Attorney General (Rosenberg was confirmed shortly thereafter
Matt wrote on April 27, 2007 7:42 PM:Eastern District of Arkansas - Tim Griffin was appointed interim (he has expressed interest in the position; no nomination yet ready)
District of Columbia - Jeff Taylor [1.5 lines redacted]
Nebraska - Joe Stecher [1.5 lines redacted]
Middle District of Tennessee - Craig Morford [1.5 lines redacted]
Apparently DOJ doesn't think the immigration 'problems' in Lam's district were actually her responsibility:
PDF #1, page 2, bates#357
John Crews email to David L. Smith and Natalie Voris looking for rebuttal talking points for the AG to use in a conversation with Rep. Issa re: Lam and 'catch and release' -- email from April 6, 2006
[email also sent to Bill Mercer, Michael Elston, others I don't recognize]
"I am not aware of any talking points on this. The issue of catch and release is an administrative, which is to say - non criminal context. The USAOs don't get involved in this part of immigration enforcement"
trifecta wrote on April 27, 2007 7:43 PM:They really seem to be pumping up Griffin and trashing others as a way to do it.
My favorite bit from set eight was where they listed the fact on page 5 that he was the Undersecretary and Treasurer of the Oxford Clay Pigeon Shooting Club.
That means qualified if nothing else does my friends.
pencil wrote on April 27, 2007 7:45 PM:Note that David Iglesias' lovely farewell e-mail was received by Monica Goodling at 8:01 am February 27, 2007 (PDF 8, page 42) and immediatedly forwarded (page 43) by Monica (noting, "FYI--mass e-mail today") to Michael Elston (Chief of Staff, DOJ Office of Deputy AG, resigned 3/26/07), William Moschella (Principal Associate Deputy AG, responsible for indefinite terms of interim US Attys), and Kyle Sampson (White House counsel and Gonzalez' Chief of Staff, resigned 3/12/07).
regular lurker wrote on April 27, 2007 7:46 PM:Set 8 contains alot of redactions that appear as just white page space so they might be easy to miss. Starts around page 25.
HeyThereItsEric wrote on April 27, 2007 7:48 PM:Another carefully hidden reference to a call from Bill Kelley
OAG1321-1361.pdf (Set 6) Page 1361
It's on the last page of the set, preceded by two copies of the Moschella testimony and other familiar editing-related e-mails.
"From: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Wednesday, December 13,2006 2:25 PM
To: Battle, Michael (USAEO)
Cc: McNulty, Paul J; Elston, Michael (ODAG); Moschella, William; Mercer, William W; Goodling,
Monica; Sutton, Johnny K. (USATXW)
Subject: USA replacements
Mike, Bill Kelley called to report that they are weathering two main complaints: in making the calls, Battle (1) wasn't clear whether the USAS in question would be permitted to resign, or instead were being fired; and (2) was too abrupt. Bill seemed nonplussed by the complaints, but nevertheless passed them on to me.
Perhaps a second round of calls from you, Mike, to the relevant USAs is in order? Talkers would be something like:
• I wanted to be sure you understood that DOJ intends not to say anything about your leaving, but instead allow you to announce your resignation and the reasons for it;
• We want to work with you over the next six weeks to ensure a smooth transition; and
• It's in our interest for you to land on your feet and maintain our good relations with the Department -- how can I help?
Perhaps this is a bad idea? Thoughts?
Kyle Sampson"
Matt wrote on April 27, 2007 7:50 PM:PDF #1, p. 20, bates#375
More evidence that DOJ had no problem with Lam, and that they didn't take Issa's complaint seriously:
5 April 2006 email from Otis Lee to Bill Mercer, Michael Elston, Ron Tempas:
"The two felonies in the district business is from Issa's letter. I have no reason to believe it is an accurate description of the
southern district's pros guidelines. That said that even if they are accurately described as I believe they are in the background
portion of the tps you are right that Issa likely will not be satisfied with them because they have some holes in terms of who they don't pick up."
---
PDF #1, page 12, bates#367
Talking points for AG in his testimony to Darrell Issa: Apparently Lam was responsible for a strong majority of immigration cases in the entire US:
"The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California, along with the USAOs for just four other districts, prosecuted over two-thirds of the criminal immigration cases nationwide last year."
They were so behind Lam that they put this particular talking point in bold.
xo wrote on April 27, 2007 7:51 PM:re: the above -- why is Johnny Sutton included in that email?
John wrote on April 27, 2007 7:52 PM:GROUP 8:
paul lukasiak wrote on April 27, 2007 7:52 PM:OAG000001402
author unknown - talking points about quality of replacements for fired usas.
OAG000001403-1405
author unknown - appears to be out of order from above, detailed “examples of difficult” usa transitions
OAG000001406-1407
author unknown - biography of Griffin, with talking points comparing him to Cummins
talking points about Casey
OAG000001408-1409
author unknown - brief bios of WDAR Balfe, Gean, and Clinton’s appointee Holmes
OAG000001410-12
author unknown detailed praise of Griffin
OAG000001413-OAG000001415
author unknown - appears to be out of order from above -
sections of an (incomplete) letter asking for reasons behind firings. From Reid/Conyers/?
OAG000001416-1417
author Hertling - Letter in response to Reid’s questions.
OAG000001418-1419
author Hertling - Letter in response to Reid’s questions - appears to be same letter, ccd to others
OAG000001420-1422
author Hertling - Letter in response to Reid’s questions - appears to be same letter, ccd to others
but this is a markup edited version
OAG000001423-1428
“Transitions in Arkansas” talking points history
OAG000001429-1431
fact sheet on vacancies filled before and after patriot act change
OAG000001432-1434
nominations, vacancies, appointments after patriot act change
OAG000001435
vacancies since march 2006 talking points
“There are many reasons why a USA may retire or resign.”
OAG000001436
Email - Nowacki-Goodling: charlton resig date
OAG000001437
email - McKay-USA-OEO-Goodling - press release of McKay’s new position
OAG000001438
email - Goodling to Sampson et al. - forward previous email
OAG000001439
email - Paulose-Goodling - same McKay email as 37
OAG000001440
email - Nowacki-Goodling 2/5/07: Lam says Conyers wants her to testify, but provided no answer.
OAG000001441-42
email - Goodling-Hertling 2/28/07: Subpoenad: Cummins, Lam, McKay, Iglesias.
OAG000001443
email - Iglesia’s fascinating farewell letter to USA dist list.
Page 1 of set 6 is a continuation of the document in set 5, pgs 38-39, and refers to Bud Cummins.
There is nothing in either the "Leadership" or "EARS" columns. Instead, in the name column is the note
"Term expired Jan. 9, 2006.
In April 2006, Cummins repeated previous statements that he would not stay for the whole second term and that he was leaving for private sector later that year
Called" June 2006
Resigned: December 2006"
It would thus appear that this was a document prepared very early in the DoJ's response to questions about the Attorney firings -- they are still trying to pretend that Cummins was asked to resign based on some (supposed) previous statement of intent to leave by the end of the year. (I don't recall hearing about this...does anyone know?)
El Camino wrote on April 27, 2007 7:54 PM:You're all desperate. There's nothing even slightly sinister in anything posted here. Quotes from Moschella's opening statements? Do you realize that he testified publicly? Almost everything cited in this thread so far was released previously.
Code is loss. As in yours.
neil wrote on April 27, 2007 7:59 PM:El Camino, some interesting things have slipped through in the emails. I don't understand why people would read the multiple copies of draft testimonies though.
I know they are sloppy with this stuff -- in the first dump they included a lot of people's email addresses which has led directly to whole new set of subpoenas and headaches for the admin. In all subsequent dumps, they redacted all email addresses (even in dupes of emails that were in the first dump). So, they can make mistakes.
ponderer wrote on April 27, 2007 8:03 PM:Set #4 says someone has let a stranger into their house. Time for Feinstein to tie her shoes.
Posted by: Jack
Isn't that standard spy speak? I've felt for the past 6 years that this WH is being run like a covert coup operation. Read anything about the CIA and you see the similarities over and over again.
moe99 wrote on April 27, 2007 8:06 PM:.
in #8 John McKay sends an email to the other USAttys listing his new posting to Seattle Univ. Law School. Rachel Paulose fowards it on to Monica Goodling, her BFF. I'll go back and get the page numbers later.
melior wrote on April 27, 2007 8:07 PM:This dump has been sanitized for Karl's protection.
El Camino wrote on April 27, 2007 8:11 PM:neil -
If your point is that the document dumps have caused the Department more pain than pleasure, I agree, but not because they reveal any wrongdoing. The two dirtiest things to come out of all of this so far are:
1. KS's "gum it to death" email.
2. The emails and calendar entries showing AG's attendance at meetings, receipt of memos, etc.
The fixation in this forum on the fact that the Dept. initially defended these prosecutors against criticism by members of Congress is juvenile and unserious. I can only imagine what the same posters would say if the Dept. had turned its back on these USAs at the first sign of congressional dissatisfaction. The point is that these USAs were subject to frequent criticism. There's nothing wrong with firing a USA who's causing the Dept. a bunch of headaches with Congress.
paul lukasiak wrote on April 27, 2007 8:12 PM:Doc set 9 isn't showing up.
Doc set 8. Page 1 talks about the "high quality" of the "15 Acting/Interim Attorneys since [the law was changed" citing the fact that "14 of the 15 had prior experience as federal prosecutors 93%"
This might explain why certain DoJ employees were given AUSA assignments for a few months... to be able to claim they had "experience as federal prosecutors"
Page 10 -11 Griffin's Resume (although undated, this resume appears to have been prepared FOR the investigation. It lists his job as "US Attorney (Interim) Eastern District of Arkansas")
Page 10
Griffen worked as a Special Asst to then Asst Atty General (criminal division) Michael Chertoff(March 2001-August/September 2001)
Page 11: Griffin's Resume
moe99 wrote on April 27, 2007 8:12 PM:Lists the job he had working for Rove, but doesn't mention Rove's name. (Special Asst to the President and Deputy Director, Office of Poliical Affairs)
page numbers:
1436-1439
McKay included Goodling in his original email around 8:05pm and she turned it around in 2 minutes to Sampson, Moschella, Elston and others.
Paulose's email to Goodling clocks in at 8:13pm. Just a little late.
Tom wrote on April 27, 2007 8:13 PM:Here is an interesting memo
trueblue wrote on April 27, 2007 8:14 PM:jack
what's the number for "stranger in house" doc?
El Camino wrote on April 27, 2007 8:19 PM:paul lukasiak
Cummins's statement that he was considering retirement was published in the Arkansas Gazette. It is not "supposed," it is "actual," and "on record."
Anonymous wrote on April 27, 2007 8:20 PM:Here is an interesting memo
Posted by: Tom
Date: April 27, 2007 08:13 PM
Whats the memo, Tom?
rotophonic wrote on April 27, 2007 8:22 PM:Dull, dull, dull.
Most of the document dump's page count comes from reprints of house testimony and multiple copies of Monica Goodling's talking points--on the USA firings and the need for the AG to be able to appoint USA's without Senate confirmation.
I can't imagine the Al Queda announcement was meant to provide cover for this.
Tom wrote on April 27, 2007 8:23 PM:Look at page 33 in the first document dump I tried cutting and pasting but was unsuccessful.
The comment not bad for a white woman on Leslie Hagen is a bit Imus esqe.
"Leslie is credible; no small accomplishment for a white woman!"
sponson wrote on April 27, 2007 8:28 PM:Set #8, page 12 - Seems to be "prep" material with anticipated Senator questions for Gonzales' hearing. It starts off with what seems to be a hypothetical excoriating Leahy opening statement and then is followed by "Questions" note this practice question:
Why Was Carol Lam Fired?
Because her office was in the middle of a high-profile public corruption
investigation? ["We do not doubt that removing Ms. Lam from the U.S.
Attorneys' office in San Diego now will disrupt this investigation."]
Christopher Reader wrote on April 27, 2007 8:32 PM:Where are they quoting from in that bracketed quote above?!
OAD000001396 is interesting. It is Talking Points: U.S. Attorney Nominations and Interim Appointments by the Attorney General.
In point 1 it says "Whenever a vacancy arises, we consult with the home-state Senators about candidates for nomination." We know that in several cases, even with R Senators, this was not the case. The memo is amusing from there on out.
I don't remember hearing a lot of these, so perhaps they were designed to pick and chose from.
Christopher wrote on April 27, 2007 8:33 PM:That'd be in set #7
El Camino wrote on April 27, 2007 8:34 PM:You're all acting like the fact that these people emailed each other is itself something to get excited about.
To help you distinguish dirty from dull, you should keep in mind what the Dept. has already conceded:
1. It fired Bud Cummins to make room for Tim Griffin.
2. "Performance related reasons" includes the failure to prioritize Bush policies and failure to work successfully with home state MCs.
3. Gonzales was aware of the process, attended meetings, and received memos. His contrary statements to the press were inaccurate.
4. Staff beneath Gonzales openly considered using the interim appointment authority to avoid Senate confirmation. KS and AG both say AG rejected this plan.
5. White House was aware of and approved the plan.
6. DOJ received complaints from Domenici about Iglesias.
They have admitted all of this! Emails confirming these facts are not news.
Kevin J-M wrote on April 27, 2007 8:35 PM:The quote that sponson refers to, "We do not doubt that removing Ms. Lam from the U.S. Attorneys' office in San Diego now will disrupt this investigation," comes from a letter that Reps. Conyers and Berman sent to Alberto Gonzales on January 17, 2007:
sponson wrote on April 27, 2007 8:42 PM:http://www.house.gov/list/press/ca28_berman/carollam.html
Thanks Kevin - OAG000001413-1415, which are labeled QUESTIONS and start on Group 8, Page 12: anyone seen these pages before in any form? They seem to be mock questions and suggested answers for a hearing.
Anonymous wrote on April 27, 2007 8:43 PM:Even you guys get trolls, too bad.
UC
paul lukasiak wrote on April 27, 2007 8:44 PM:Document set 8 pages 28-29
Describes how Acting/Interim USAs were appointed after the law had changed.
(don't know if this has been discussed before)
interestingly, in the 5 cases where the First Assistant was appointed, they were appointed to "Acting" positions.
Whereas, in the 6 cases where someone else from inside the DoJ was appointed, they got "Interim" positions.
There were two cases (Eastern Tennessee and Puerto Rico) where the First Asst had been serving as "Acting" but no nomination was submitted within 210 days -- they were then appointed "Interim" (for being "good Bushies?)
And a final case (Alaska) where the First Asst had been "Acting", but when the 210 period ran out, someone else "from the Department"(Nelson P. Cohen)
In other words, once the new law was passed, if a "First Assistant" was put in charge, they were only "Acting USA". (and if they were 'loyal bushies' they got an interim appt after 210 days?) If "someone else from outside the department" was selected, they were "Interim".
(
foggylady wrote on April 27, 2007 8:46 PM:Index of Withheld Documents consists of brief descriptions of 163 lost e-mails and 8 documents from 1-28-06 to 3-08-07.
Rove is recipient of only 1 e-mail ( # 132 in the batch).
Missing e-mail 98 is a 10 page
" Discussion concerning DOJ response to Sen.
Pryor's letter re: Griffin, attaching Sen. Pryor's
letter and draft response"
Sure would ike to have seen that one.
the summaries DO show KS (kyke Sampson, I assume) very much in the middle of the communicating, but also show the apparent concensus process used at DOJ.
paul lukasiak wrote on April 27, 2007 8:47 PM:NO e-mails addressed to Gonzo, or AG or Judge or whatever else they called him.
Cummins's statement that he was considering retirement was published in the Arkansas Gazette. It is not "supposed," it is "actual," and "on record."
sorry, but that statement was published in 2004. The document refers to statements made in 2006. (other documents refer to "public discussions" Cummins had at some USA meeting, but its very vague.)
Minsane wrote on April 27, 2007 8:48 PM:First impression, on Doc Set 1:
What the hell is DOJ doing emailing DHS about getting talking points in re Carol Lam?
Further evidence that this administration viewed the government as one giant Republican entity.
prostraedragon wrote on April 27, 2007 8:51 PM:Set 2:
pp. 1--2: Press release on impending visit of EARS team to USA/SF Kevin Ryan, from Luke Macaulay, USAO Public Affairs Officer, no date
pp. 3--4 Nov 1, 2006 (11:07) Michael Elston reply to Kathleen M. Blomquist of OffPubAffairs, seeking instruction on replying to media inquiries about Ryan EARS process, appends a related article from The Recorder; Elston's reply on voice-mail.
pp. 5--45: Memo to "acting DAG" through Uttam Dhillon, Assoc.DAG and Elston, Re: Project Safe Neigh. (firearms & gangs) review ofdistricts, FY2005, background from FY2004 review.
(DAG should "express concern" to SDCA office, USA Carol Lam passim and esp. pp.16--18 of bundle; minor, approving mention of USA Margaret Chiara p. 15 of bundle; other district/attorney names seem to be redacted, except passing mentions of USA Washington, and district of Delaware)
p. 46: Call log for M.J. Elston, CoS, week of Oct 30, 3006, showing 4:42 on 10/30 call from Marg. Chiara (left msg)
p. 47: Elston log week of Jan 29, 2007, 3:36 on 2/1 call from Bud Cummings --- "has something quick to tell you ~ Pryor's office has called as well as [??] --hearing"
p. 48: Elston log, week of Feb 5, 2007, 3:30 on 2/7 from Cummings "will e-mail you"
p. 49: Elston log week of Feb 12, 2007, 8:40 on 2/13 from Chiara (no msg); 12:52 from Elaine[?] Choi, "USAD -- San Francisco", "has one quick question"
pp.50--55: unannotated copy [Moschella's?] of memo from David Margolis to Battle et al. from USAEO, Elston and Shults from ODAG, Moschella, Mercer, and Barnes (USAOHS); subj., "interested", reprints article from "local weekly" about Kevin Ryan and situation in USA/SF office.
p. 56: Moschella printout of Jan 17, 2007 (sent 22:07) e-mail from Kyle Sampson to Elston, Scolinos, Brian Roehrkasse, Goodling, Moschella, Re: " 'Without Cause' " [sounds like Sampson's heads-up on what he's going to say:
I am not going to discuss whether a particular United States Attorney has been asked to resign or what the reasons might be for such a decision. But when a United States
Attorney leaves, we have a process for filling that vacancy which we have followed throughout this Administration and which we will continue to follow. Than process includes nominating a candidate for consideration by the Senate. For each vacancy, we will. seek well-qualified candidates who will support the Administration's priorities and enforce the law to the fullest extent.
While I will not comment on any particular United States Attorney's resignation, let me say this: I would never, never consent to the removal of a United States Attorney for political reasons. To suggest that a U.S. Attorney was removed to influence a case for political reasons is irresponsible, reckless and harmful to the criminal justice system. ]
pp. 57--58: Moschella hardcopy, Mar 6, 2007 from Richard Hertling (8:24) to WM, Sampson, 'christopher~g.~oprison@who.eop.gov', and 'Michael-Y.-Scudder@who.eop.gov' subj "RE: Letter For Tomorrow's Hearing from HJC" [thread of e-mails beginning with Catalina Cabral, OLegisAff at DOJ, forwarding attachment LettertoWEMfromHJCreUSA2.5.07.pdf, on Mar 5 at 6:26PM to long list; short version, Christopher Oprison wants to know if DOJ plans a response to questions 4 and 5, presumably from HJC letter, and Sampson/Moschella/Hertling appear to agree to a stall instead; somebody --- is it Moschella? --- says "Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld"]
pp. 59--65: press release, "U.S. Attorney Kevin V. Ryan Announces Departure"
Jane wrote on April 27, 2007 8:53 PM:To El Camino:
Sure a President might want to get rid of USAG's who were giving him grief with Congress. Whether it is legitimate depends on whether the complaints from Congress are valid (Which is why the kudos -- deserved for Lam's immigration work are telling) or whether they are just complaints from or inspired by Cunningham and company and the WH acts on them to obstruct further prosecutions.
sponson wrote on April 27, 2007 8:54 PM:Obviously a lot of this stuff is redundant and/or not particularly informative garbage, this is always the case, and this very dump is accompanied with a list of the withheld documents. Funny how El Camino is quite passionate about telling us that all of this is a waste of time but has nothing negative to say about the withholding of all this obviously-relevant material as listed in the pdf.
S Lyons wrote on April 27, 2007 8:55 PM:Set 2 1-5 continuation. Discussing flak for sending a second EARS team to investigate Kevin Ryan's bad management style.
Set 2 pgs 5-45
Memorandum dated February 2 1, 2006
Project Safe Neighborhoods
Review of FY 2005 District Performance
From:John S. Irving
Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General
This is heavily redacted, but possible and useful to find out who they're talking about in most cases, I would guess.
Basically a review of the various districts to identify exceptional and underperforming districts for the PSN initiatives, noting that some should be commended and some chastised by the DAG. Clearly this is to be used as part of the justification for firing Carol Lam, who is included in the 12 districts who should be chastised (although her numbers are not the worst of the list--it would be interesting to find out who those others were).
Also revealing is the later unredacted mention of Margaret Chiara, the first district mentioned on page 16 under "Other Noteworthy Districts"
Margaret Chiara has been the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Michigan
since the Fall of 2001. The number of Federal firearms cases filed by that district increased from 72 in FY 2004 to 109 in FY 2005 - a 51.4% increase. Nationally, the district had the seventh highest percentage increase in cases filed in FY 2005. With the exception of a dip in prosecution numbers in FY 2004, the district has steadily increased its firearms prosecutions, which have nearly doubled since 58 cases were filed in FY 2001.
Seems like she was following Department Priorities. Code face, as in two-faced.
Anonymous wrote on April 27, 2007 9:01 PM:Even I'm starting to believe that the whole goddamn house of cards is collapsing.
Picard: There are FOUR LIGHTS!!
Priscilla wrote on April 27, 2007 9:02 PM:DOJ Document Set 8 OAG1402-1445 Page12-14
Paul wrote on April 27, 2007 9:05 PM:QUESTIONS
Firings
I am deeply concerned about the recent firings of qualified and demonstrably capable
U.S. Attorneys and their replacement with individuals who lack the traditional
qualifications for the position [and instead have a deeply political, partisan background].
The perception of many is that this reveals a growing politicization of the work of federal
prosecutors. How can you explain this action?
The Attorney General's actions are unlike anything that has occurred before. Never
before [except in rare instances of misconduct or for other significant cause] have we
seen the type of turnover now in progress, where the Attorney General, not the President,
is asking mid-term that demonstrably capable U.S. Attorneys submit their resignations.
Why did he do it? Why now?
WE HAVE THE SMOKING GUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Compare this (Doc Set 1, p. 18)
Letter from Richard A. Hertling, Acting Assistant Attorney General to Senator Harry Reid
"Although the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin to replace Mr. Cummins was first contemplated in the spring or summer of 2006, the final decision to appoint Mr. Griffin to be interim U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Arkansas was made on or about December 15, 2006..."
But we have this letter from Bud Cummins Dated July 6, 2006 (Doc Set 3, p. 5) where he is tipping off MIchael Battle about what has happened and how the Congress has caught wind of it:
"I was contacted for confirmation that I was being ousted to make room for another appointee, and I politely refused to get into it with them specifically..."
"I just wanted to let you know that a) there may be some stink about this down the road; and b) I absolutely did not instigate or provike it, the information came from elsewhere and I went to great pains not to confirm it specifically, though I honestly imagine he feels like he got his confirmation in light of my failure to deny his proposed account... I don't want it coming back on me, especially by someone in DC thinking I am orgainizing a protest because I am not (I did have to strike a bargain with Jody to keep her mouth shut over this, but as far as I know, she is not talking about it either!)"
"Bottom line is that I told them I am fine and plan to be moving on soon."
Thomas Charles wrote on April 27, 2007 9:06 PM:So,the DOJ has lied about the Bud Cummins timeline to Harry Reid. Cummins knew he was getting the ax back as early as July 2006.
Here is more context on the Bud Cummins email in Batch #3 and how it may have impacted Cummins' investigation of Missouri Governor Matt Blunt, son of Rep. Roy Blunt.
http://www.firedupmissouri.com/cummins_cya
Tom wrote on April 27, 2007 9:07 PM:Set 3 page 5 is a pleading from Bud Cummins that he did not leak that he was being replaced by Rove protege Tim Griffin and asks that the blowback not be directed at him.
Here is an excerpt
I just wanted to let you know that a) there may be some stink about this down the road; and b) I absolutely did not instigate or provoke it, the information came from elsewhere and I went to great pains to not confirm it specifically, though I honestly imagine he feels like he got his confirmation in light of my failure to deny his proposed account. Anyway, just a heads up for you in case somebody starts a squabble over this. I don't want it coming back on me, especially by someone in DC thinking I am organizing a protest because I am not (I did have to strike a bargain with Jody to keep her
mouth shut over this, but as far as I know, she is not talking about it either!).Bottom line is that I told them I am fine and plan to be moving on soon. Whatever else happens is entirely their doing. I don't want to get invited out even sooner cause someone perceives that I am game playing cause I am not, so you are now my witness.
Regards,
ahem wrote on April 27, 2007 9:08 PM:Bud
Is El Camino using its rnchq.com address tonight? It doth protest way too much.
wrb wrote on April 27, 2007 9:11 PM:Depose Jody
georgia wrote on April 27, 2007 9:11 PM:Set2 - p23
Why is "Donald Washington" not redacted, while all other USA's, besides the fired ones, are?
It's actually funny that they redacted the district but not the USA.
John Carragee wrote on April 27, 2007 9:11 PM:Note to TPM Muckraking team:
I think it's a great idea to have readers comb through the document dumps, and I hope it will have real value in pushing the investigation along through private/public channels.
But wouldn't we achieve a quantum improvement in efficiency if someone posted a couple of basic reference documents. For instance, who's who at the key DOJ agencies (i.e. who's initials are on the "Withheld Documents) and frequently used acronyms.
If we had these, then we could get more useful contributions even from people like me who have not devoted a hundred hours to internalizing all the minutia.
Has TPM posted such material on a Web page yet? Would that be a valuable task?
John Carragee
starwheel wrote on April 27, 2007 9:15 PM:DOJ Document Set 4 Released on 4-27-2007 - OAG000001262:
[From hearing of Senate Judiciary Committee 2/6/2007]
SEN. MARK PRYOR (D-AR): "Rumors began to circulate in October of 2006 that the White House was going to make a recess appointment which, of course, I found troubling. This rumor was persistent in the Arkansas legal and political community. I called the White House on December 13, 2006 to express my concerns about a recess appointment and spoke to then-White House Counsel Harriet Myers. She told me that she would get.back to me on this matter. I also called Attorney General Gonzales expressing my reservations. And he informed me that he would get back to me as well.
DOJ Document Set 6 Released on 4-27-2007 - OAG000001334:
[Kyle Sampson email dated 2/8/2007]
In the spring of 2006 [Monica, please verifyl, White House Counsel Harriet Miers asked the
Department if Mr. Griffin (who then was on active duty) could be considered for appointment as U.S.
Attorney upon his return from Iraq. As Griffin was well known to the Department (from his service in the Criminal Division, the U.S. Attorney's Office, and the White House), this request was considered favorably.
---------------------------------------------
Why did Harriet Miers need to "get back" to Senator Pryor in December 2006 about the appointment of a U.S. attorney she personally lobbied for that spring????
hawaiilaw wrote on April 27, 2007 9:15 PM:Camino's obviously a mole, but not a very good one. Just ignore him/it.
mayan wrote on April 27, 2007 9:17 PM:With Coughlin resigning because of Abramoff we're getting a confluence of Abramoff with USAgate. That's a might heady brew to quaff. Particularly Coughlin's role as overlord of the Abramoff criminal investigation.
litigatormom wrote on April 27, 2007 9:19 PM:Set #1, page 14 (Bates stamp # ASG 369: April 2006 e-mail discusses the possibility of calls from Main Justice to various US Attorneys' offices to encourage more immigration prosecutions. However, "we don't want to call it an 'initiative' or a 'priority.'"
Most of this is stuff we've seen before. I still don't understand the rationale for withholding the documents on the index, given that they've produced many document from February 2007 and beyond concerning preparation for the various SJC hearings, and discussing news coverage, Senatorial inquiries (there's even an attachment containing "intel on SJC member").
J Volk wrote on April 27, 2007 9:20 PM:Set 5, p.38-39
The bullets are blanks.
The interesting thing about this segment of the doc is what is NOT there. The EARS reviews are filled out, and there are lone bullets in the column representing reasons for termination - the lone bullets are searching for meaning.
Disinterested wrote on April 27, 2007 9:22 PM:Set 7, pp. 3-4
On the morning of Feb. 8, 2007 Monica Goodling sends an email to Kyle Sampson et al. with the subject line "8 Examples of Difficult Transition Situations (and there are others we are still confirming)"
The body of her email then lists seven (not eight) examples of instances where either judges didn't make a court appointment (one from Reagan, three from Bush Jr.) or the judges "discussed appointing or attempted to appoint unacceptable candidates" (one from Reagan, one from Clinton, and one from Bush Jr.).
They were considered unacceptable because they weren't DOJ employees and hadn't had thorough background checks. Pretty ironic coming from this administration.
Can't be too hard on her for the math error, though. She was probably tired because she was up late the previous night calculating the average length of time Bush and Clinton took to nominate and get confirmed USA appointments. She sent off that email at 10:30 PM on the seventh.
georgia wrote on April 27, 2007 9:23 PM:I assume the redactions are (in brackets):
"Donald Washington has been the U.S. Attorney for the [Western] District of [Louisiana] since October 2001. The district has been engaged in PSN, and its decrease in Federal firearms prosecutions are in large part due to the substantial increase in cases filed in 2004. However, due to some increasing crime statistics and in order to better assess the district's program in the wake of [Hurricane Katrina], I recommend further contact with the district on a staff level to obtain additional information and offer assistance.
Tom wrote on April 27, 2007 9:27 PM:Document set 5 page 39
Accuses Paul Charlton of insubordination, actions taken contrary to instruction or actions that were clearly unauthorized.
1. Accused of not following instruction of AG on death penalty cases.
2. worked outside of proper channels without regard to the damage caused to others (my comment Renzi investigation?)
3. refusal on obscenity cases an Ag priority
1 and 3 are trumped up but reason 2 needs a follow up from questioning.
The EAR in column 3 past of this chart seems to be the reality based while column 2 seems to be the official talking point on why the guy was fired.
daCascadian wrote on April 27, 2007 9:30 PM:El Camino,
You can go and tell Karl that you have done your assigned task and deserve to be paid.
Now move along out of the way. The adults have work to do.
"The future will be a struggle between huge competing systems of psychopathology." - J. G. Ballard
Anonymous wrote on April 27, 2007 9:38 PM:litigatormom >"...I still don't understand the rationale for withholding the documents on the index, given that..."
Maybe they haven`t been "sanitized" enough yet
J Volk >"...The bullets are blanks...the lone bullets are searching for meaning."
Possibly the redacting material was the same color as the base material of the document. That wa the redacting wouldn`t be so obvious.
Anonymous wrote on April 27, 2007 9:41 PM:litigatormom >"...I still don't understand the rationale for withholding the documents on the index, given that..."
Maybe they haven`t been "sanitized" enough yet
J Volk >"...The bullets are blanks...the lone bullets are searching for meaning."
Possibly the redacting material was the same color as the base material of the document. That way the redacting wouldn`t be so obvious and might lead "someone" to conclude there was never something there (hello misdirection !).
code = face (as in face the music crooks)
"If you don't know what your government is doing, you don't live in a democracy." - Jane Anne Morris
mbbsdphil wrote on April 27, 2007 9:41 PM:The juvenile behavior is not on this blog. It is having this set of junior unprofessionals marshall after the fact explanations to explain decisions made for wholly unconnected reasons. We would not be going through another Friday at Five document dump if the DOJ or this administration were being candid or professional.
The tenor of these documents does not suggest a contemporaneous evaluation of ninety-three high-profile professionals. Any good HR pro would see these descriptions as what they are: isolated analyses of individuals who have been targeted for disposal. As the AG and others have admitted, neither he nor they actually looked at their real evaluations.
The explanations of Griffin's qualifications, for example, are pretty bald. A year as a visiting, non-degree student at Oxford - among the lawyers competent to serve as USAs - is a dime a dozen qualification. Technically correct, not characteristic of his achievements, and wholly unremarkable. That's precisely because he's competing with those who were exceptional and he's not competitive. They are promoting him anyway for reasons they know the public and Congress would not buy, so they make stuff up.
georgia wrote on April 27, 2007 9:42 PM:it'd be nice if these were marked "DUPLICATE". The forty-one page DAG memo of 3/21/06 from set 2 was also provided on 3/20
Mooser wrote on April 27, 2007 9:43 PM:'fear'
Tom wrote on April 27, 2007 9:49 PM:The last set of documents (9) seems to be a broken link.
A lot of repetition of past documents dumps. You have to do a big search to find tiny nuggets of information. It seems to try and hide info by boring you to death with repetitive e-mails.
Anonymous wrote on April 27, 2007 9:52 PM:OAG000001439
Thursday, January 25, 2007 8:13 p.m.
Rachel Paulose to Monica Goodling
Rachel Paulose, the Acting USAttorney in Minnesota, took time out from planning her coronation to forward her BFF Monica Goodling with ousted USAttorney John McKay's email telling his colleagues his new contact information. Why was she emailing Monica Goodling about the Washington State USAttorney? Makes me think that she was in on the plan while she was still back at Justice working for Gonzales. She was nominated to replace the Minnesota USAttorney on February 17, 2006, so she was still at Justice during the time the plan was being made.
paul lukasiak wrote on April 27, 2007 9:54 PM:Document set 8 pages 15-27
(apologies if these inconsistencies have already been noted)
These are three versions of a letter sent to Harry Reid in response to his letter of 2/8/07). None of them are dated... so one assumes they are all drafts. These are followed by three versions of a document called "Transitions in Arkansas", which appear to be bullet points to be hit in responding to Reid.
Of particular note is that the "Transitions" documents all tell of how Griffin was acheduled to be nominated for the WESTERN district in Arkansas in 2004....but went to work for BC04 instead. In one of the transitions documents, Griffin "would likely have been the nominee....however, the White House indicated" they wanted Griffin for the campaign (in oppo research) and Griffin took that job. In the other version, Griffin would have been the likely nominee, but "withdrew his name from consideration because he had decided to accept an offer to join the staff of the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign"
possibly significant -- in the first instance, its clearly the White House (i.e. Karl Rove) that offered him the job. In the latter instances, "White House" involvement is not mentioned.
And there is one big problem with this narrative. According to his resume (Section 8, pgs 10-11) Griffin started working for BC04 in June 2002, and the vacancy in the Western District did not occur until 2004.
None of this is mentioned in any of the versions of the letter to Reid. Instead, all we are told is that "[t]he Department of Justice is not aware of anyone lobbying for Mr. Griffin's appointment." Then things get murky... in the original "the decision regarding Mr. Griffin...was discussed and made jointly by the Department of Justice and the White House." In later versions "in the spring or summer of 2006" Harriet Miers "inquired...as to whether Mr. Griffin (who was then on active military duty in Iraq) might be considered for appointment to US Attoney upon his return."
The "Transitions" documents describe Miers role differently...in various formulations, they have her (in "Spring 2006") asking "if there will be a US Attorney vacancy in the Eastern District of Arkansas" because Griffin in interested in the job. (one version does mention the district).
Finally, in all versions of the Reid letter, the sentence "The Department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin".
In other words, we're expected to believe that Rove -- who got Griffin to turn down the job for the Western District of Arkansas in order to do opposition research for BC04 -- played no role in getting him the job for the Eastern District. Instead, it was all Harriet Miers idea. (I guess Miers and Griffin were pen pals, while he was in Iraq, and that is how she knew that Griffin was interested in the job....and Harriet was on top of all the gossip concerning the possibility that Cummins might want to leave. )
anon, too wrote on April 27, 2007 10:05 PM:May be nothing - but in the index of emails withheld, the "custodian" of all of these documents is shown as "KS" which I assume is Kyle Sampson. But Sampson's no longer employed at DoJ. So did he take all those documents with him, or is there someone else with initials "KS" who is holding those documents, or does "custodian" refer to who had the docuemnts at some time in the past, and if that's the case, who has them now? I thought Kyle Sampson said he threw stuff in a folder in a drawer in his desk and that he left everything there when he left.
It just seemed a little off.
cosette wrote on April 27, 2007 10:07 PM:"Stranger in the House" sounds like Biblical code to me.
georgia wrote on April 27, 2007 10:07 PM:Genesis 18 Abraham and Sarah welcomed strangers into their house and had a baby after many years...
Joseph welcomed stranger into his house..Jesus
If anything sounds "odd" in these emails it could be religious coding. imo.
2-49
Michael Elston call log, with a "quick question" from Eumi Choi.
I don't know much about Kevin Ryan's story, but it seems he and Choice addressed the Options Backdating Taskforce at IQPC Securities Litigation Conference on 11/30, before Ryan "resigned" a week later.
Choi was the First Assistant, so normally he(she?) would have been the Acting USA, but Scott Schools seems to have gotten the interim appointment instead. Additionally, Choi was replaced by Elise Becker.
----
Here's an interesting external link, unrelated to documents:
Before his ouster in February, Ryan said about half of more than 50 criminal probes were in his district. Of those, about 15 to 20 percent raised serious concerns, he said. After a stormy 4 1/2-year tenure as U.S. attorney, Ryan, a former prosecutor and judge, said this week that he has joined the San Francisco office of the Allen, Matkins, Leck, Gamble & Natsis law firm as a white-collar litigator.
Schools said he would continue the investigations. "Securities fraud in general is a priority for the office," he said.
But the momentum to bring such cases could be waning, observers say. Although more than 160 companies are under investigation, a relatively small number of indictments is expected.
- http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/20900
-----
Why were Ryan and Choi both removed? It'd be interesting to see which of the options cases they were pursuing were allowed to expire (due to the statute of limitations) during the change of hands.
With the active cases, it seems to make little sense to cause such disruption unless it was intentional.
Pruitt wrote on April 27, 2007 10:16 PM:"Set #4 says someone has let a stranger into their house. Time for Feinstein to tie her shoes.
Posted by: Jack
Isn't that standard spy speak? I've felt for the past 6 years that this WH is being run like a covert coup operation. Read anything about the CIA and you see the similarities over and over again."
Jack is just being a wiseguy - it's a reference from The Good Shepher...
whitewidow wrote on April 27, 2007 10:23 PM:very interesting in section 8 bates 1420
the letter to harry reid, but it's the marked up version All of the deletions are shown so you can see how it evolved
pluk or litigatormom - you would be good at looking at this type of thing
also right after that a timeline
Donald from Hawaii wrote on April 27, 2007 10:36 PM:"Transition in Arkansas"
Minsane: "What the hell is DOJ doing emailing DHS about getting talking points in re Carol Lam?"
DHS is the parent department for the INS. DOJ was probably just looking for INS to backstop their claim that Lam neglected illegal immigration cases.
whitewidow wrote on April 27, 2007 10:37 PM:pluk
section 8 1422 or so
Finally, in all versions of the Reid letter, the sentence "The Department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin".
did you notice that they changed it to "a role"?
and deleted "on an interim or acting basis"
Elvis Elvisberg wrote on April 27, 2007 10:42 PM:Set 4: is a dud as far as I can tell.
pages 5-17 are administration talking points.
pages 18 to the end is text of a senate committee hearing.
pages 1 is a transmittal email from Seidel to many others, including Sampson, about what Dem and GOP counsel at sen judiciary committee were saying-- Feinstein's staff sounds concerned, but measured, asking for answers on why Lam was let go.
Some redactions on the email on page 4; why is it a secret that Brian Roerkasse emailed some unknown person because "I understand that you've been asked to go on ______ tonight on the US Attorney issue."
The email we have is Roerkasse forwarding that email, and a series of attachments that comprise the rest of set 4, to Courtney Elwood w/o comment.
Jim Randell wrote on April 27, 2007 10:48 PM:apologies if someone else has already posted this, but this struck me as a memo saying Herriet instructed DOJ to place Griffin as USA.
Doc 8
page 26
money quote:
"The White House Counsel asks if there will be a U.S. Attorney vacancy in the
Eastern District of Arkansas, as Tim Griffin will be returning from Iraq and is
interested in being appointed as U.S. Attorney in that district."
sundog231 wrote on April 27, 2007 10:53 PM:TRANSITIONS IN ARKANSAS
February 2004:
U .S. Attorney for the Western District of Arkansas.
The panel interviews four individuals for the W.D. Ark. vacancy:
Bob Balfe, John Threet, Stephen Tabor, and Tim Griffin. Griffin is panel's first
choice, and Griffin likely would have been approved by the JSC at that time;
however, before he could be selected, Griffin withdrew his name firom
consideration because he had determined to accept an offer to join the staff of the
Bush-Cheney reelection campaign. I' December 30,2004:
Arkansas Times article notes that Cummins had said in 2004 that, with four kids
to put through college, he was likely to begin exploring career options. Report
states that Cummins said that it wouldn't be "shocking" for there to be a change
in his office before the end of President Bush's second term.
I
February 27,2006-March 1,2006:
At the U.S. Attorneys Conference, Cummins openly discusses his intention to
pursue private sector opportunities later that year.
Spring 2006:
The White House Counsel asks if there will be a U.S. Attorney vacancy in the
Eastern District of Arkansas, as Tim Griffin will be returning from Iraq and is
interested in being appointed as U.S. Attorney in that district.
"PDF #1, page 2, bates#357
John Crews email to David L. Smith and Natalie Voris looking for rebuttal talking points for the AG to use in a conversation with Rep. Issa re: Lam and 'catch and release' -- email from April 6, 2006
[email also sent to Bill Mercer, Michael Elston, others I don't recognize]
"I am not aware of any talking points on this. The issue of catch and release is an administrative, which is to say - non criminal context. The USAOs don't get involved in this part of immigration enforcement""
I know everyone's focused on the firing of the USAs, but isn't an 'administrative' policy which violates US law - in this case immigration law - a high crime? And doesn't this email, among others, demonstrate that catch and release came from the WH?
chipper wrote on April 27, 2007 11:19 PM:To Monica Goodling, Regent U. Law grad, Tim Griffin might indeed look like a graduate of a "top law school."
Phill wrote on April 27, 2007 11:34 PM:Well El Camino is right about the documents not telling us anything we didn't know already.
At this point we know that the USAs were all fired for partisan political purposes. In six cases to obstruct pending prosecutions of Republicans, in two cases to enable trumped up charges to be brought against Democrats.
We know that Gonzalez was not the prime mover here, someone in the White House was, almost certainly Karl Rove. We know that crimes have been committed and that there is more than adequate evidence to impeach.
That said, the more information available to back the impeachment process the better. In particular the more claims that can be demonstrated to have been deliberate lies, the better.
We also know that as a direct result of the investigation of Gonzalez, the DoJ has stopped its attempts to obstruct the myriad corruption charges against Republicans.
Can't prove it beyond resonable doubt yet, but on the balance of probabilities its a slam dunk. Why should these people deserve a higher standard of evidence than they required for the existence of WMD?
So boring as it is, the work is pretty important.
katie g wrote on April 28, 2007 12:18 AM:i love seeing Randy "Duke" Cunningham sign the letter to Gonzalez asking for the criminal prosecutions...
the irony of it all...
katie g. wrote on April 28, 2007 12:29 AM:The "Draft" response letter to Rep. Issa defends Carol Lam and the SDCA's immigration prosecution policy.
but yeah, that's why she was fired...
katie g. wrote on April 28, 2007 12:37 AM:on ASG 00000388: Chiarra refers to Leslie as "credible" - which is "no small accomplishment for a white woman."
awesome...makes professional white women attorneys like me so proud.
dogeatdogi wrote on April 28, 2007 12:46 AM:Hi Josh,
I just wanted to say thank you so so much1 I am watching you now on Bill Moyers journal. I read all of your site numerous times a day, including the doc dumps you have posted.
Anonymous wrote on April 28, 2007 12:48 AM:You make me feel like we may just survive all this after all. So keep up the excellent work and thank you for all you do. We are listening.
Sincerely, Corey Butler
although i am not as "serious" as el juvenile, here is a interesting list:
NOMINATIONS AFTER AMENDMENT TO ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
APPOINTMENT AUTHORlTY
Since March 9,2006, when the Congress amended the Attorney General's
authority to appoint interim United States Attorneys, the President has nominated 15
individuals to serve as United States Attorney. The 15 nominations are:
Erik Peterson - Western District of Wisconsin;
Charles Rosenberg - Eastern District of Virginia;
Thomas Anderson - District of Vermont;
Martin Jackley - District of South Dakota;
Alexander Acosta - Southern District of Florida;
Troy Eid - District of Colorado;
Phillip Green - Southern District of Illinois;
George Holding - Eastern District of North Carolina;
Sharon Potter - Northern District of West Virginia;
Brett Tolman - District of Utah;
Rodger Heaton - Central District of Illinois;
Deborah Rhodes - Southern District of Alabama;
Rachel Paulose - District of Minnesota;
John Wood - Western District of Missouri; and
Rosa Rodriguez-Velez - District of Puerto Rico.
All but Phillip Green, John Wood, and Rosa Rodriguez-Velez have been confirmed
Someone here has a relationship and they might NOT be crooks. Brett and Rachel are already WAY too famous, ay?
pre AmeriKKKan wrote on April 28, 2007 12:56 AM:Full list of resignations since last March in reverse date order (14 total):
Lisa Godbey Wood, SDGA (confirmed to be federal district court judge, but not yet appointed)
John McKay, KD WA, 1/07 (has said he will teach at a law school)
Paul Charlton, AZ, 1/07 (going into private practice) ,
Bud Cummins, EDAR, 12/06 bursuing 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, lot06 (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 fm)
yet another list. potential witness list, ay? i'm sure the committee has them on their schedule if they haven't see them already.
pre AmeriKKKan wrote on April 28, 2007 1:05 AM:So this is what an axis of evil looks like?
From: Monica Goodling
Recipient
Elston, Michael (ODAG)
Moschella. William
Sampson. Kyle
Read
Read: 2/28/2007 8:58 AM
Read: 2/27/2007 9:25 PM
Read: 2/27/2007 9:45 PM
boy, these guys work late! we have to work LATER!
Britisher wrote on April 28, 2007 1:05 AM:There's a lot of stuff in set 7 ( all I've looked at so far that seems duplicate of the previous dumps "Why 120 days is not a realistic time period" from Goodling.
Nothetheless some thing that caught my eye ( apart from getting the same old stuff):
Dump set #7, OAG1362-1401
Here's a beauty!
PAge 5
Goodling to Kyle Sampson (and others):--
"These are new or updated USA documents, which can be used with media and friendlies. Please deleteprior versions."
Friendlies? and is the instruction to delete contrary to the need to preserve documents? I personally don't know.
Anyway,, here's other stuff that doesn;t really add up to me:--
Page 1 --the argument about '120 days too long to find replacements...'
Page 11 --she argues that the AMendment to the AG's appoint authority was necessary because judges appointing interims was consitutionally 'iffy'---AND YET
Page 18 she provides examples of courts SPECIFICALLY REFUSING to appoint interimm or acting USAs, reguiring the AG to extend interim appointments every 120 days until a senate approved nomination!! SO what's the big deal?
Tim Griffin--it takes some sorting out but I calcualte he has had 3 years total of actual prosecution experience and 1/3rd of that was in the military--not civilian courts---and the one case cited involved a soldier shooting a sergeant in front of a bunch of other soldiers! Hardly a tough case!
So how does Griffins 2 years in civil prosecutions and 7 years with the RNC machine compare to other USAs and the one he replaced?
That's all I have at the moment
Vulture Breath wrote on April 28, 2007 1:19 AM:Mrs. Jody Cummins is gonna be pissed that Bud is talking to his colleagues about having her keep her mouth shut...
This document dump is putting me to sleep...
Leon Kowalski wrote on April 28, 2007 1:20 AM:Harmonica Virgins?
...oh, nevermind,
LK
John S wrote on April 28, 2007 1:38 AM:Read through the whole dump. That was interesting (not). What a waste (code) of electrons.
I did pick up on one reason why Monica Goodling is so interesting. In document set 6, p14 para 1 (as noted by others, starwheel in particular) Sampson was putting together a timeline and talking points for the Griffin appointment, and kept frequently requesting confirmation of dates from Monica.
Makes it seem that not only was Monica the WH liaison but that she either kept very detailed records or was copied on just about every communication between the DoJ and WH. Bottom line, she knows everything about WH communications with the DoJ. ALL the details.
Of course, this means that her computer has a very extensive and complete record of these communications. Was it wiped? If she wiped it before she left, could she plead the fifth if she doesn't get full immunity? If she wiped it, then she faces obstruction charges; doesn't matter what she says to Congress. In this case, the improper prepping of McNulty story could be a red herring.
Seems like it's time for another subpoena, this time for the HD of Monica's computer.
Vulture Breath wrote on April 28, 2007 1:49 AM:Iglesias' "Auf Wiedersehen" email leaves me a little skeeved. Maybe it's the profuse thank you's to Bush and Ashcroft. At least he had the good taste to leave Gonzales off the "gracias" list. It also kind of bugs that he quotes so many Bible verses. It's great that he's a Christian, but lordy, does he have to include it in all his government communications?
security code salt, as in "Lo, forsooth, Lot's wife and daughter turned around to look at Sodom and Gomorrah and were turned into pillars of salt."
Vulture Breath wrote on April 28, 2007 1:59 AM:Ewwwww! Bud Cummins was part of the 2000 GOP Florida Ballot Recount Team in Broward County? Get thee behind me, Satan!
Vulture Breath wrote on April 28, 2007 2:17 AM:Johnny Sutton (USA from West Texas) is on the receiving end of many of these emails because he chairs the Attorney General's Advisory Committee of U.S. Attorneys (as of March 2006).
cmg wrote on April 28, 2007 2:25 AM:Re document set #9, they goofed up on the url. Type in the following in your browser, and you'll get it:
http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/OLA1588-1626.pdf
Agent86 wrote on April 28, 2007 2:31 AM:Sorry for the long post here, folks, but this may be a 'heads-up' here in matters of further obstruction, induced delays, assorted monkey wrenches and even the 'offshoring' of crucial evidence in the ongoing corruption investigations.
Set 8: Page OAG - 1404:
NOTE: This reads almost like a flow chart, yet also like an instruction of sorts, you know, the kind where one is quietly told to do something by 'indirect directives.'
>>> Examples Where Judges Discussed Appointing or Attempted to Appoint
Unacceptable Candidates:
1. Southern District of West Virginia: When a U.S. Attorney in the Southern District
of West Virginia, David Faber, was confirmed to be a federal judge in 1987, the
district went through a series of temporary appointments. Following the Attorney
General's 120-day appointment of an individual named Michael Carey, the court
appointed another individual as the U.S. Attorney. The court's appointee was not a
DOJ-employee at the time and had not been subject of any background investigation.
The court's appointee came into the office and started making inquiries into ongoing
public integrity investigations, including investigations into Charleston Mayor
Michael Roark and the Governor Arch Moore, both of whom were later tried and .
convicted of various federal charges. The First Assistant United States Attorney,
knowing that the Department did not have the benefit of having a background
examination on the appointee, believed that her inquiries into these sensitive cases
were inappropriate and reported them to the Executive Office for United States
Attorneys in Washington, D.C.The Department directed that the office remove the
investigative files involving the Governor from the office for safeguarding. The
Department further directed that the court's appointee be recused from certain
criminal matters until a background examination was completed. During that time,
the Reagan Administration sped up Michael Carey's nomination. Carey was
confirmed and the court's appointee was replaced within two-three weeks of her
original appointment.
South Dakota:
In 2005, a vacancy arose in South Dakota. The First Assistant United States
Attorney (FAUSA) was elevated to serve as acting United States Attorney under the
Vacancies Reform Act (VRA) for 2 10 days. As that appointment neared an end
without a nomination having yet been made, the Attorney General made an interim
appointment of the FAUSA for a 120-day term. The Administration continued to
work to identify a nominee; however, it eventually became clear that there would not
be a nomination and confirmation prior to the expiration of the 120-day appointment.
Near the expiration of the 120-day term, the Department contacted the court and
requested that the FAUSA be allowed to serve under a court appointment. However,
the court was not willing to re-appoint her. The Department proposed a solution to
protect the court from appointing someone about whom they had reservations, which
was for the court to refrain from making any appointment (as other district courts
have sometimes done), which would allow the Attorney General to give the FAUSA a
second successive, 120-day appointment.
The Chief Judge instead indicated that he was thinking about appointing a
non-DOJ employee, someone without federal prosecution experience, who had not
been the subject of a thorough background investigation and did not have the >> necessary security clearances. The Department strongly indicated that it did not
believe this was an appropriate individual to lead the office.
The Department then notified the court that the Attorney General intended to
ask the FAUSA to resign her 120-day appointment early (without the expiration of
the 120-day appointment, the Department did not believe the court's appointment
authority was operational). The Department notified the court that since the Attorney
General's authority was still in force, he would make a new appointment of another
experienced career prosecutor. The Department believed that the Chief Judge
indicated his support of this course of action and implemented this plan.
The FAUSA resigned her position as interim U.S. Attorney and the Attorney
General appointed the new interim U.S. Attorney (Steve Mullins). A federal judge
executed the oath and copies of the Attorney General's order and the press release
were sent to the court for their information. There was no response for over 10 days,
when a fax arrived stating that the court had also attempted to appoint the non-DOJ
individual as the U.S. Attorney.
This created a situation were two individuals had seemingly been appointed by
two different authorities. Defense attorneys indicated their intention to challenge
ongoing investigations and cases. The Department attempted to negotiate a resolution
to this very difficult situation, but was unsuccessful. Litigating the situation would
have taken months, during which many of the criminal cases and investigations that
were underway would have been thrown into confusion and litigation themselves.
Needing to resolve the matter for the sake of the ongoing criminal prosecutions
and litigation, after it was clear that negotiations would resolve the matter, the White
House Counsel notified the court's purported appointee that even if his court order
was valid and effective, then the President was removing him from that office
pursuant to Article I1 of the Constitution and 28 U.S.C. ss 541(c). Shortly thereafter,
Mr. Mullins resigned his Attorney General appointment and was recess appointed by
President Bush to serve as the U.S. Attorney for the District of South Dakota. The
Department continued to work with the home-state Senators and identified and
nominated a new U.S. Attorney candidate, who was confirmed by the Senate in the
summer of 2006. >> What incentive does the Executive Branch have to nominate a successor in a timely
fashion [and give the Senate the opportunity to fulfill its constitutional responsibility of
evaluating and deciding whether to confirm the candidate]? <<<
NOTE: If I were a covert DoJ political operative and reading these pages as "instructive," I would respond (by phone): "The Executive Branch has a large number of highly-charged incentives to nominate a successor in an 'untimely' fashion by means of 120-day appointments, court refusals to appoint, recusals and doubled-up overlapping appointments, and the resulting confusion and litigation ought to assist us in giving the Senate 'an opportunity to fulfill its [sic] responsibilities,' subject to our cover provisions in the Patriot Act, of course."
What this means, in French, is: "The Dems are demned if they do and demned if they don't. Timing is everything. Now, where is my monkey wrench?"
Set 8: Pages 1410 & 1411:
NOTE: Tim Griffin's credentials are oddly sterling. Oxford Union Society? I don't think it gets more sterling than that, but it does stick out among his Arkansas credentials and his executive position at the Oxford University Clay Pigeon Shooting Club. Tulane (NOLA), though not ivy, is well regarded, however. Okay, silver plated.
Set 8: Page 1424:
NOTE: Somebody's timeline gets redacted on this page. Was the diary too sensational at the end?
Set 8: Page 1431:
NOTE: Somebody's 'FACT SHEET' gets redacted on this page, right after Schlozman is mentioned for one of his many interim appointments. This redaction occurs in an area describing "authorities used to ensure continuity of operations." QUESTION: Would the redacted authorities be connected to some shadow government process? If so, one would not advertise the fact, and simple redaction ought to cover until all is 'offshored' for "safeguarding" the moment any criminal investigation of this or any related matter is announced. (Which see, precedents: Pages 1404,1405, above.)
(And NOTE: Who would be the carrier for this document move? MZM Limousine Service? There is lots of new storage space at the Baghdad embassy.)
QUESTION: To lawmakers and lawyers everywhere: When a document gets redacted before release, can it be too much trouble to stamp "REDACTED" in those areas of the document that are redacted? Otherwise, how is anyone to know for sure? In some jurisdictions elsewhere, it is legally prescribed to mark all redactions as "redacted."
Set 8: Page 1444:
We see here the character of the man, David C. Iglesias. He seems to be a good fellow, with a lot of wit and grace, whose meticulous aim is true, and despite his slip in process (not reporting those pressure calls from 'his' senators), he is very impressive. He will suffer many things, but not the label 'incompetent' or 'poor performer.' He is very hurt by this. He needs a good mentor right now. He might be open to 'conversion,' but would it be too difficult to usurp Ashcroft as mentor? Iglesias is a talent that should not go to waste.
Set 8: Overall, I find Pages 1404 to 1415 unsettling. They could be deliberately leading a team of subordinates to perform obstructive acts.
little d wrote on April 28, 2007 2:47 AM:This is interesting.
The documents being sought include correspondence with
lawmakers and journalists about the firing.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/27/fired.prosecutors.ap/index.html
Journalists?
ahem wrote on April 28, 2007 2:59 AM:"Makes it seem that not only was Monica the WH liaison but that she either kept very detailed records or was copied on just about every communication between the DoJ and WH. Bottom line, she knows everything about WH communications with the DoJ. ALL the details."
She's also the oppo researcher, in the Comstockian tradition: the person who has the dirt (or knows where to look for it) when a Bush cultist leaves the flock.
"is the instruction to delete contrary to the need to preserve documents? I personally don't know."
I think that's harmless: it's not so much about preservation as the desire not to send out an older version of a document.
the truth will out wrote on April 28, 2007 3:45 AM:"axis of evil"
"cult"
criminal conspiracy to defraud the American public
They have opened the "door" of hell.
The circles of hell are tightening around them and there are precious few in the inner circle now.
HillBillie wrote on April 28, 2007 3:52 AM:Set 8: Page OAG - 1404:
1. Southern District of West Virginia:
...
The court's appointee came into the office and started making inquiries into ongoing
public integrity investigations, including investigations into Charleston Mayor
Michael Roark and the Governor Arch Moore,
For full description see post from Agent86 above
The unnamed Court appointee for USA during Reagan Administration began investigations into Mayor Roark and Governor Moore, both are Republicans...needless to say she was canned a loyal "Reaganite" was appointed think this is where the "Bushies" got their ideas from?
JGabriel wrote on April 28, 2007 4:28 AM:Phil @ 6:56p: "Document set 7 seems to be Goodlings emails setting out talking points to support circumventing senate confirmation. Claims that Griffin went to a 'top university'..."
Seems like as a graduate of 4th tier Regent University, Goodling really isn't in a position to be judging someone's qualifications on the basis of what college they attended.
tjallen wrote on April 28, 2007 5:11 AM:Question above asks about why persons in one dept might write to someone in an apparently unrelated dept. - Answer: these may be database lookup requests among plants in various depts.
People in each dept have access to restricted databases, so you casually ask your friend, What do you know about (person or event or title) A? And your friend understands, Query about A in my databases and reply.
Rove and Co have plants/moles in each dept who can access restricted databases as part of their job duties. It's like the game where you ask your cop-friend to get the name and phone number of the cute girl with license plate #AGL-439.
tja
party-of-one wrote on April 28, 2007 7:15 AM:My comment relates to paul lukasiak's post (April 27, 2007 09:54 PM) on document set 8 pages 15-27
paul lukasiak wrote on April 28, 2007 8:12 AM:Luksasiak says: "Of particular note is that the 'Transitions' documents all tell of how Griffin was acheduled to be nominated for the WESTERN district in Arkansas in 2004.... however, the White House indicated" they wanted Griffin for the campaign (in oppo research) and Griffin took that job."
This information seems consistent with the view that Griffin's appointment in Arkansas was intended to give him federal subpoena power to conduct Republican opposition research on Hillary Clinton. It is plausible that the plan was hatched in advance of the 2004 election when there was speculation that Hillary might run, abandoned when she did enter the race, and revived for the 2008 election cycle, with the benefit of the Patriot Act provision not requiring Senate approval.
The Northern District of Iowa may bear looking into. The original USA, Charles Larson Sr., took retirement as of December 31, 2006. He was replaced by The First Assistant USA who gets an "acting" position...who suddenly takes retirement herself, and Dummersmith gets appointed interim on January 27.
Dummermuth was only 33, and had spent two years in Ashcrofts civil rights division, then one year in the Eastern District of VA.
Does anyone else find it odd that a FAUSA would take the "acting USA" job for less than a month before retiring? (Larson's retirement is more easily explained--he'd been around since the late 60s, and this may just be a case of groominga "loyal Bushie" to replace him.)
drational wrote on April 28, 2007 8:17 AM:16 volunteers at daily kos are working on a searchable, referenced web-based tool to evaluate the US Atty scandal. See these links to some of the preliminary analysis and contact info to get the database, which for now is a big spreadsheet.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/27/94319/8457
Arkansan wrote on April 28, 2007 8:41 AM:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/25/95422/7576
For his undergrad, Griffin attended Hendrix College in Conway, Arkansas. Admissions requirements there are as, or almost as competitive as Ivy League universities. Whoever rates these things calls it, "one of the colleges that change lives." It may not be top tier, I don't know one way or another, but it is very well-regarded locally.
Now, Griffin is still a lying, unqualified, political hack with a mission.
B W wrote on April 28, 2007 9:10 AM:I just want to but in to say thanks to everyone who has chipped in to decrypt the DOJ dumps here at TPM Muckraker.
I really really appreciate it. :)
Alfred Kelgarries wrote on April 28, 2007 9:24 AM:Breaking News At Daily KOS via WaPo:
Arkansan wrote on April 28, 2007 9:25 AM:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702190.html
The Career Lawyers Are Back In Town
(sung to the tune of "The Boys Are Back In Town")
This week there were two stories in the news about Republican Presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. One was a story about his successor, Mike Bebee, is redecorating the Governor's office. It seems that a friend of Huckabee donated $250,000 to have the office decorated like a dime brothel in 1998. But to add insult to injury Huckabee stole all the furniture which had been donated, presumably to the state, when the Huckster left office.
There are no records which indicate the donation was personal to Huckster, and he paid no taxes on the gift. To start work Bebee had to take the desk his from the Attorney's General's office (where he had served prior). No word on what the new AG used for office furniture.
If you're interested in the rest of Huckabee's end of term corruption extravaganza please Google Huckabee +crushed +"hard drives." Another fun search is Huckabee +"gift registry." Also, try Huckabee +"state plane."
The second story dealt with Republican family values. David Huckabee, Mike Huckabee's son, was arrested at the airport in Little Rock with a loaded 40-caliber Glock in his carry-on luggage. I check my toothpaste before I fly, but he said he forgot about the loaded gun. It could have happened to anyone, right?
But there's more, David's name has been in the paper before. In 1998, while his father was serving as governor, David, then 17, was fired as a Boy Scout camp counselor. David and another Scout captured a stray dog, strung it up to a tree, slit it's throat, and beat it until it was dead. The Boy Scout administrators said "little" David was fired because he violated the part of the Scout oath to "be kind." These stories are available by Googeling "David Huckabee" +dog + "Boy Scout" and "David Huckabee" + "Little Rock" +airport. I can't post multiple links here, they get zapped into spam or I would provide more specifics.
The Huckabee corruption stories are endless, they extend from nepotism to the pressuring the parole board to release a rapist and mass murder because one of of his victims was a Clinton relative. Once released the Huckster's guy raped and killed again. There are so many horrific stories about Huckabee public that it boggles the mind to think about what they bothered to keep quiet.
Huckabee is also the only state-wide Republican with any chance for success in a run against Pryor. Ignoring the crimes of a Republican father-to-a-future-serial-killer is an important administrative objective. Enter Griffin.
Hillary might have been icing, but she is ancient history here, I just can't believe she was the main purpose of the Griffin placement. The investigation of crimes where the statute of limitations has already run just doesn't seem to have the impact, not to mention they'd have to just rehash old stuff.
Bud Cummins was also investigating Republican Missouri Governor Blunt, a problem for the administration. If all that wasn't sufficient Arkansas has become an almost entirely blue state in the South. That alone has to wake them up at night.
Arkansan wrote on April 28, 2007 9:41 AM:The ex post facto rationalizations for the firings are amazing. I'd have to check the time line, but if memory serves Cummins started speaking publicly about moving on after he was told his spot was needed for Griffin.
Also, the brazen lies in the letters regarding the selection of Griffin set a new standard. They directly contradict their own documentation.
One things for sure, they aren't worried about the new oversight.
Alberto Gonzalez wrote on April 28, 2007 9:49 AM:I don't recall any of this. Are you sure these documents are authentic?
Arkansan wrote on April 28, 2007 10:03 AM:Al, you must have also forgotten to take your double martini with the 50 mg Valium chaser. Once you've had your regular breakfast of champions, you'll forget you ever asked.
Arkansan wrote on April 28, 2007 10:07 AM:OOps! I forgot about the "donation" of state funds Huckabee made to the Red Cross on his way out of town. The Red Cross then promptly hired Mrs. Huckster.
There is enough stuff there to keep an honest USA busy until retirement at an old age.
Engineer wrote on April 28, 2007 10:14 AM:Regarding the farewell message from David Iglesias, set 1, document # 420 (or so), I thought it significant that toward the end of the letter he expresses fondness for the tour of Washington monuments he went on with former Attorney General Ashcroft and his wife, and epressing gratitude to President Bush, while never even mentioning his boss, AG Gonzales. He also states the importance of doing the right thing regardless of the consequences (like getting fired?).
MR wrote on April 28, 2007 10:35 AM:In Document set 6, Moschella's (Principal Associate DAG) deposition to the Conyers committee arguing against HR580 "Restoring Checks and Balances...", March 6, 2007, most relevant pages 1346ff.
I don't know if this is important, but this is a deposition, under oath, stating categorically that NO US attorney under Bush has been hired without going through the Senate nomination process. It also states that the DOJ has never had any intention of trying to appoint the US attorneys without Senate oversight. There is no reference (that I can see) to the use of the DOJ's provision in the Patriot Act. Moschella says that while the nomination process is going on, someone has to be in charge, so the First Deputy is appointed on an interim basis (120 days). Moschella references 16 recent nominations at different stages in the nomination process.
Perhaps someone knowledgeable should take a look at this?
wrb wrote on April 28, 2007 12:24 PM:I can't believe that M. would lie under oath about whether these recent appointments were made with Senate confirmation. So no doubt there is some technical reason that I, a non-lawyer, don't understand guaranteeing this statement's validity.
What are the possibilities of prosecuting this pattern under RICO?
TruthSeeker wrote on April 28, 2007 12:46 PM:Seems a perfect fit to me, but I'm not sure if there is some exemption for government organizations.
I know this is unrelated, but Josh I saw you on Bill Moyers' show last night. You nailed it! I was so proud. I hope you told him how much your readers appreciate his reporting.
bcg wrote on April 28, 2007 12:48 PM:paul lukasiak wrote:
Document set 8 pages 15-27
...
"the decision regarding Mr. Griffin...was discussed and made jointly by the Department of Justice and the White House." In later versions "in the spring or summer of 2006" Harriet Miers "inquired...as to whether Mr. Griffin (who was then on active military duty in Iraq) might be considered for appointment to US Attoney upon his return."
I don't know if Miers and Griffin were pen pals; however, it seems to me that her direct involvement in his appointment, with or without consultation with Rove, provides adequate grounds to subpoena her to provide testimony before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees investigating these firings. Maybe they could ask her about how often he wrote, whether or not he liked Iraq, the military rations, was he attentive to her concerns, and whatever else it is pen pals discuss. Congress could find out just how much of that there is in their letters by subpoenaing them, too. Or would that be covered by 'executive privilege' as well?
gail wrote on April 28, 2007 12:51 PM:Why this?? --
starwheel wrote on April 28, 2007 1:26 PM:Withheld Document 73 (1/18/2007) from KS to TS, BR (2 pages) concerning discussion of former AG Griffin Bell's comments in a Journal of Law and Politics article.
Looks like the whole issue is about law and politics (remember this is Scalia's journal) --
Journal of Law & Politics
9 J.L. & Pol. (1992-1993)
Appointing United States Attorneys Politics and the Nation's Lawyer: Perspectives on the U.S. Department of Justice
Bell, Griffin B., Meador, Daniel J.
-- Page 247
Posted by: bcg
Date: April 28, 2007 12:48 PM
--------------------------------------
And in light of her interest in recommending Griffin that spring, I am wondering why she played dumb with Senator Pryor when he expressed his concerns about Griffin to her in December.
If this is all much ado about nothing, then why wasn't she up front with the Senator about her own recommendation?
Anonymous wrote on April 28, 2007 1:54 PM:Q: on p 16 of set 7 (and other places) they do this chart comparing the prosecution experience of Bush's vs. Clinton's nominees . . . but is there any way to figure out HOW MUCH prosecution experience? Didn't Bush just try to get some AUSA's in with less than a yr of prosecution experience (I seem to recall Tim Griffin didn't have much) -
also of course this ties to getting the conservative law students into DOJ programs - so they can give them the experience they need to move up the food chain
Anonymous wrote on April 28, 2007 2:02 PM:p. 11-12 of set 2 - notice here that Chiara (Michigan) is being described in a positive light as having a noteworthy increase in firearms prosecutions (in the context of them trying to criticize Lam)
Anonymous wrote on April 28, 2007 2:19 PM:Set 8 pages 6 and 7
mayan wrote on April 28, 2007 2:24 PM:Talking points
University of Arkansas very clearly disrespected by the Justice Department as "not a top university" The fact that these USAs attended UofA was a negative
I haven't had an opportunity to read all of the above...however (and I hope this isn't repetitious), firedoglake as a story that Anonymous Liberal has found a Goodling e-mail instructing folks to get rid of documents...AFTER the Congressional enquiries had started. The story is a good overview of other related material and can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/3xwkab
RicK wrote on April 28, 2007 2:28 PM:This is the part of the Iglesias 'farewell' e-mail that struck me:
'We need US Attorneys who "maintain justice and do what is right" (Isaiah 56:1) and are willing to pay the price for doing so.'
DI sent this e-mail to all remaining US Attorneys having already concluded that he had been politically fragged. While warning that there will be a price to pay, DI appears [to me, at least] to be recruiting (soon-to-be-former) USA colleagues willing to pay that price to continue to be true to the law, the profession and to their oath to defend and protect the Constitution (i.e., 'maintain justice and do what is right').
He concludes with this admonition: "I wish you all success in the next 22 months in keeping America safe against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
I can think of a few individuals in this administration that DI could have been referring to as 'domestic enemies' of America.
Anonymous wrote on April 28, 2007 2:34 PM:set 7, page 18
bcg wrote on April 28, 2007 2:47 PM:"the USA for the southern district of florida became 'controversial'"
why was he "controversial?"
rumor in fla. is domestic violence
also, this USA was the brother of then governor jeb bush's deputy chief of staff
Starwheel:
I don't think Miers could have been forthcoming about Griffin because he was DOA in the Senate. As a former opposition researcher for Rove, I don't think Griffin could ever have gotten through confirmation or gotten Sen. Pryor's approval. These people's jobs and actions have consequences that they wish to avoid: look what just happened to Fox (the Swift Boat financier). Wasn't Griffin the one Sampson wrote about gumming the works for? The only way the administration could get it what it wanted was with duplicity.
KYJurisDoctor wrote on April 28, 2007 2:47 PM:Since I'm not a lawyer, I can't say whether or not there's a crime here (although I hope there is.) Nonetheless, what this shows is just how much the Bushies take an adversarial stance towards Congress and the American people. They're not interested in arriving a concensus with our elected representatives. What they want to do, by hook or crook, is impose themselves and their views on the country. And it stinks like shit.
It appears that hypocrisy knows NO bounds. Join the conversation here.
ESL wrote on April 28, 2007 2:51 PM:http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/04/aid-head-escorted-out-of-office.html#links
Was wondering why Monica Goodling "put out a directive that detailees would not serve second years" (or words to that effect) Mostly from Set 1.....Was it because these 'detailees" (detail persons?) know the REAL investigations...or evidence gained that might later prove embarrassing to Bushies and not acted upon? Maybe someone should subpeana a detailee involved with some of the 'retired" Attorneys at the times they were in jeapordy?
Anonymous wrote on April 28, 2007 2:56 PM:Code=still....like I still think something is behind that directive.
Thanks to all the Muck Rakers for the fine work y'all are doing. You folks aren't gonna let these crooks get away with it.
bcg wrote on April