Comments (67)

Englischlehrer wrote on June 6, 2007 7:18 PM:

it's 1.15am here in germany, crashing out soon but i'll take a look at a document or two. this is democracy at its finest, private citizens helping oversight.

Anonymous wrote on June 6, 2007 7:21 PM:

They dumped a pile of useless crap.

William Ockham wrote on June 6, 2007 7:24 PM:

Where did you get these? Are there PDFs available? I've checked both judiciary committee sites.

FlyOnTheWall wrote on June 6, 2007 7:30 PM:

2:12 and elsewhere -
In reference to the delegation of personnel authority: "We had given her two options - one formal w/order number, one with informal - no number -- they decided to go with informal unnumbered. She said the cover memo needs to go thru OLC - not DAG or OASG."

In other words, Monica ordered that the authorization be unnumbered (that is, omitted from official logs) and that it pass directly from the authors to her, cutting the Deputy and Associate Attorneys General out of the loop. All they knew was that the rule change in the Federal Register removed their authority and gave it to the Attorney General; they were never informed that he immediately passed it to Sampson and Goodling.

Pretty sleazy stuff.

Woodhall Hollow wrote on June 6, 2007 7:34 PM:

I have very little recall of what I recall about Monica's testimony, but I do have a faint recollection that she testified that she didn't know much/anything about the process which led to the delegation of authority. Do I have that right? And if I do, would these emails show that she was the one who was driving the process?

Perjury?

bo wrote on June 6, 2007 7:35 PM:

2:3 & 3:4

Delegation of AG authorities to Goodling. Approved by Corts.

Goodling: "Okay to send to me directly up to me. Outside of system." ????

Steve5117 wrote on June 6, 2007 7:36 PM:

the only thing in dump 2, on page 4, Monica tells Paul Corts to send the (secret) delegation (of hiring/firing authority) to her OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM

Steve5117 wrote on June 6, 2007 7:36 PM:

the only thing in dump 2, on page 4, Monica tells Paul Corts to send the (secret) delegation (of hiring/firing authority) to her OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM

bo wrote on June 6, 2007 7:37 PM:

ERRATA: That's 2:3 & 2:4

Anonymous wrote on June 6, 2007 7:37 PM:

1:7 An email from Leo Leonard ( Exec. VP, Federalist Society?) to Mary Beth Buchanan. In the email, Leonard recommends Mary Walker of the Air Force for the USA position in San Diego....I imagine this is the Southern District of CA, Carol Lam's job. The email is dated 3/7/05. Was Lam on the list this early???

Apparently Ms. Walker, from the Air Force, is quite a piece of work:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mary_Walker

Anonymous wrote on June 6, 2007 7:38 PM:

1:7 An email from Leo Leonard ( Exec. VP, Federalist Society?) to Mary Beth Buchanan. In the email, Leonard recommends Mary Walker of the Air Force for the USA position in San Diego....I imagine this is the Southern District of CA, Carol Lam's job. The email is dated 3/7/05. Was Lam on the list this early???

Apparently Ms. Walker, from the Air Force, is quite a piece of work:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mary_Walker

cici414 wrote on June 6, 2007 7:46 PM:

sorry about the double post above...that was me. My tubes must have been clogged.
;)

masaccio wrote on June 6, 2007 11:14 PM:

2:7
Paul Corts is the Assistant Attorney General for Administration, Chief Financial Officer, and Chief Acquisition Officer for the DOJ.

Mike Allen is a procurement person for DOJ. PMA is the President's Management Agenda. It is designed to improve management in the agencies. Getting to Green means meeting the objectives. Human Capital and Faith Based are two of the criteria.

Linda M. Springer is the eighth Director of the United States Office of Personnel Management. Clay Johnson is the Deputy Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget. I cannot identify "Mari" or Robert L. Marshall.

Why are Corts, Allen and Marshall involved in the delegation of power to Goodling?

masaccio wrote on June 6, 2007 11:24 PM:

2:14
Reveals Mari's last name:

Mari Barr Santangelo’s appointment as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Human Resources and Administration and Chief Human Capital Officer at the U. S. Department of Justice commenced in May 2005.

At least we might understand why she would need to know about the delegation.

nolo wrote on June 6, 2007 11:28 PM:

is it possible, josh, that this
document dump is simply aimed at
further eroding monica goodling's
credibility, given that largely on
her word, senators leahy and specter
have written DoJ's OIG mr. fine, to
gently hint at perjury, and possible
witness tampering -- by AG alberto
gonzales?

i plainly think so.

i also have the leahy-specter letter,
and partial hearing transcripts for
goodling and gonzales, up at my blog.

click on my name to see my guesses
on how all the timing of this came
to be. . . and, congrats on the scoop, josh!

Slippery Slope wrote on June 6, 2007 11:29 PM:

I have very little recall of what I recall about Monica's testimony, but I do have a faint recollection that she testified that she didn't know much/anything about the process which led to the delegation of authority. Do I have that right? And if I do, would these emails show that she was the one who was driving the process?
Perjury?
Posted by: Woodhall Hollow
Date: June 6, 2007 07:34 PM
********************************
But Monica did have very specific recollection of checking her book regarding when a candidate USA was presented to the President for approval. So where is that “book” in the document dump?
See link with more info:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/dave_keehn/2007/may/26/book_her_danno

Now, on to what is here.

At the top of 1:8, after CONTACT INFORMATION on 1:10, middle of 2:8, and the middle of 2:16 the email routing information (the info after the “@”) is shown. Contrast those with 1:7 & 1:8 where the email routing is redacted. Can we assume that all emails where the routing is redacted are non-official, non-government, commercial email systems?

1:14 Hmmmm. In the absence of an interim US Attorney, no paperwork is necessary for the First Assistant US Attorney (1stAUSA) to “act” as the USA for 210 days. So, the WH stacks the 1stAUSA positions with loyalist, fires a few USAs, then doesn’t submit an interim. What happens after the 210 days?

Roberta wrote on June 6, 2007 11:37 PM:

Notes on 1:1-6

I’m an editor by trade and a former English teacher. Language and shades of meaning are my thing. I know this analysis is rather long, but I see some telling details in the Moschella letter to Issa.

Someone with authority presented a boilerplate statement on what the DoJ was doing about alien smuggling offenses to someone much lower (maybe a secretary, but probably a little higher) to write the undated first draft response to Issa’s committee (pp. 1-3). This statement makes up paragraphs 2-5. Note that in paragraph 4, line 4 of the first draft, “projected” is deleted, since this earlier explanation is out of date.

I’d love to know whose handwriting is on p. 2, because this is either Moschella or someone he trusted a great deal. I do not think it’s too much to believe that this editor was thinking very strategically, even during the time of a Republican-controlled, cooperative Congress.

In the January 4, 2005 draft, not only have the awkwardnesses in paragraphs 1, 6, and 7 been cleaned up, all cooperative and conciliatory language has been removed or revised. Note paragraph 5, lines 3 to 6 and lines 14 to 18: The first sentence, starting, “The Director of the Executive …,” describes contact with the border USAs by the Dir. of EOUSA, to “discuss these issues.” Three reasons for deleting this sentence could be: a) that the information is out of date by Jan. 2005; b) a desire to withhold a feeling of submission to the Congress, which is inherent in the original statement; and c) that a number of these USAs are already slated for replacement, and by leaving out mention of them, they are a group and not individuals. The next deleted sentence, starting, “The Director of EOUSA will …,” removes a source for questioning the DoJ’s dissatisfaction with the USAs’ performance regarding alien smuggling, since there is no basis for Congress to assume ongoing monitoring of their performance. Perhaps, looking ahead, it would be better to be accused of negligence than of providing support that seemed to affirm positive performance.

The 6th paragraph, as first written, implies admiration for, cooperation with, and even subservience to the Congress. The letter is no longer an “explanation,” however; it now is “information.” A final, perfunctory acknowledgement of Congress’s “interest in this matter” moves up to substitute for a compliment to Congress, followed by a promise of cooperation and “additional information … that may be beneficial in addressing this complex problem.” No longer does requested “information relative to” Mr. Amparo-Lopez rate a cooperative scheduled “briefing for staff”; the DoJ will merely “respond to the House Judiciary Committee inquiry regarding Mr. Amparo-Lopez” in the revised version.

Letters of this kind generally have throwaway first and last paragraphs. They are usually mere formalities of salutation and closing. By combining the subject matter of the first draft’s penultimate paragraph and the perfunctory language of its closing paragraph into one closing paragraph in the revision, Moschella and the DoJ are effectively dismissing the concerns the Committee expressed about Mr. Amparo-Lopez.

Where is the final version, I wonder? I suppose the members of the Committee have it, but it would be interesting to see what other revisions were made.

The AG and his staff might just have well have peed on this revised letter before sending it; it establishes territory and dominance and totally disses the Legislative Branch.

code: garden, as in harvesting what has been planted.

Anonymous wrote on June 6, 2007 11:47 PM:

I would be curious to know what the process is for these document reviews and dumps.

Who at DOJ is doing the review?
What standard are they applying for withholding documents?
Who is overseeing the process and making the final determination on which documents to withhold and which to release?

I would also be curious to know what processes have been in place from the get go.

Mark Richards wrote on June 6, 2007 11:51 PM:

Prior to December 2004 the DOJ had no written policy/guidance/procedure for resigning as a USA? That seems rather strange.

I wondered if the date of this document and the purpose of it (to respond to several resignations "over the past few months") is another example of the kind of unpreparedness that has been present in all activities of the current mal-administration, or simply that it was never needed before - which is telling enough.

Otherwise I agree with others: document "dump" this is, as in from the dump.

Roberta wrote on June 6, 2007 11:52 PM:

1:10, 1:13, and 1:19 all have the same silly error, due to obvious cutting and pasting throughout the document.

“After a United States Attorney announces his or her resignation, please be aware that discretionary staff personal changes (e.g., appointments, promotions, and reassignments), at all grade levels, from all sources will be restricted.”

The word “personal” ought to be “personnel,” obviously, but I’m wondering if this is an unconscious reflection of the arbitrary (read political) nature of these appointments (and future dismissals), even as of December 2004, when this guide to USA resignation was written.

code: face, perhaps the hidden one.

Patrick in Chicago wrote on June 6, 2007 11:53 PM:

2:18

It seems to me that Monica was quite involved the whole process.

Patrick

Patrick in Chicago wrote on June 6, 2007 11:54 PM:

2:18

It seems to me that Monica was quite involved the whole process and chain of command.

Patrick

sojourner wrote on June 7, 2007 12:11 AM:

As Patrick just noted, I came away from my reading with the impression that Monica held considerably more power than she was willing to admit in her testimony. She was rather forthright in her directions regarding the delegation of authority.

Based on Josh's memo a little earlier this evening regarding Cheney's more direct involvement in DoJ matters, could Monica and Schlozman be Cheney plants to control activties at DoJ and keep Gonzales in line? I mentioned this in another blog a couple of weeks ago, but I really have to wonder about Cheney's mental faculties. He is on some heavy-duty meds that could cause some serious depression.

This whole administration was sick from the get-go, but it is becoming more and more obvious that Cheney has been working for his own interests the whole stinking time -- and he is answerable to no one!

Roberta wrote on June 7, 2007 12:11 AM:

2:9

I love it that Phyllis Jones sent the WP document “AG Delegation of Authority” THROUGH the system even though Monica G. requested that it be sent directly to her, OUTSIDE the system.

Does Phyllis still have a job there?

code: butter, as in "It was like buttah . . ."

Anonymous wrote on June 7, 2007 12:15 AM:

Christ, the DOJ still uses WordPerfect?

JNagarya wrote on June 7, 2007 1:07 AM:

"1:7 An email from Leo Leonard ( Exec. VP, Federalist Society?) to Mary Beth Buchanan. . . . ."

Note that Buchanan has lawyered up preparatory for her being summoned to talk to Congress.

"Apparently Ms. Walker, from the Air Force, is quite a piece of work:

"http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mary_Walker"

She claims to be an Evangelical Christian. Which eans, as her conduct substantiates, that she is no Christian.

What ever happened to the Christian warning, "Pride goeth before a fall"?

"Posted by:
Date: June 6, 2007 07:37 PM"

SC = sticky. As in, No matter her efforts, Walker's actions sticky to her like cat on mouse.

PK wrote on June 7, 2007 1:08 AM:

2:10
Two observations:
1. Doesnt this read ( ie "enclosed") like the actual "delegation letter" has been redacted since its not with the Memo.
2. This memo clearly states that OLP ( headed by Rachel Brand - another loyal Bushie) wouldnt even sign-off on the request as it apparently violated Article II , Section 2 , Clause 2 !!...ie "might be inconsistent with this clause" ..so they didnt "definitively rule on the question"

Isnt this why Monica was in floods of tears - realizing her career was over as she participated in unconstitutional act?

gohpg wrote on June 7, 2007 1:15 AM:

Where is the Monica to Marshall email when she first inquires about Alberto or whoever's interest in the delegation to begin with?

Also, how did Allen and Goodling resolve what the OLC said about the delegation itself possibly being inconsistent with the Excepting Clause of the Constitution?

Is this another reason why Goodling wanted this kept outside the system?

The OLC is saying that under the "Excepting Clause" the AG is a department head vested with authority reserved to him from Congress by law.

The AG has authority to remove inferior constitutional officers - which here includes USAs and other appointed officers within the Justice Department.

The OLC says it maybe unconstitutional for the AG to delegate authority reserved to him alone by Congress to his staff. In otherwords, the AG maynot have any Constitutional authority to delegate authority reserved to him to his staff. In addition, it maybe unconstitional for those delegates to exercise such authority - non-appointed or confirmed officers hiring or firing appointed officers.

The emails suggest the characters involved are trying to get around this constitutional issue. The OLC wants all decisions made by Goodling etc to be made in the AG's name - to give the appearance the AG had final say so (exercised the authority)when in fact the decision (real authority) was exercised by Goodling etc and Alberto merely rubber stamps it.

Is a signature on personel matters a valid exercise of authority reserved to a department head or is the actual decision on personel matters exercising authority reserved to a department head?

Goodling etc seem to think a signature is good enough.

AntonetteG wrote on June 7, 2007 1:43 AM:

It seems to me the first email of the second batch references a personal meeting between goodling & corts--not an email--in which she tells him the AG wants to delegate hiring/firing authority to COS and WL. Conveniently not on paper...

and

the email from Mari, referencing Stu's relectance to produce the requested memo--suggests that only a few people knew about the order (outside the system) and they didn't want to be the ones breaking the news.

and also

Paul Corts & Michael Allen both don't even seem to have law experience....

Before the DOJ, they both worked at Palm Beach Atlantic College--a christian college in florida...

JNagarya wrote on June 7, 2007 3:20 AM:

Read the following with the "outside the system" phrase in mind --

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/6/182434/8934

anon wrote on June 7, 2007 3:58 AM:

I second reading:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/6/182434/8934

The headline is somewhat misleading but it's still worth reading. It seems to me that the DoJ mess isn't going to get sorted out until Congress and the press stop treating it like business as usual. I think it's pretty clear that much of the take over of the DoJ was handled though non-official communications--RNC Blackberries, off the books conversations, etc. It was a fairly big operation so they must have had some way to keep everything straight and organize their actions. Until we get to see the non-official communications, the second set of books, the fronts, and so on, we just aren't going to know that happened and why. (And, yes, I think that means it was a freaking conspiracy, just like the Mafia is a conspiracy.)

JNagarya wrote on June 7, 2007 4:41 AM:

"http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/6/182434/8934

"The headline is somewhat misleading but it's still worth reading. It seems to me that the DoJ mess isn't going to get sorted out until Congress and the press stop treating it like business as usual. I think it's pretty clear that much of the take over of the DoJ was handled though non-official communications--RNC Blackberries, off the books conversations, etc. It was a fairly big operation so they must have had some way to keep everything straight and organize their actions. Until we get to see the non-official communications, the second set of books, the fronts, and so on, we just aren't going to know that happened and why. (And, yes, I think that means it was a freaking conspiracy, just like the Mafia is a conspiracy.)"

I don't know why you think Congress doesn't know what's going on. As vast as it is, from what one direction does one attack it? From as many as possible.

A few major events just this week:

In AL a Republican lawyer came forward with an affidavit to the effect that she participated in a conference in which it was revealed that Rove engineered the US AG prosecution of the Democratic governor.

A second Norton/EPA aide has plead guilty and agreed to cooperate in the Abramoff investigation.

Schlozman transparently lies -- see the Iglesias email here, and his comments directly to TPM.

Waxman has announced exapnsion of his committee's investigation of Abramoff and his connections to the WH.

Comey's answers to Sanchez's questions reveal that Cheney reached into the DOJ and blocked the promotion of a DOJ staffer because the latter opposed and stood against Cheney's legal opinion re. illegal wiretapping.

Instead of Bashing Democrats, and doubting Congress, look at what they are _actually_ doing.

And add in that the lunatic fringe Republican candidates for president, any number of those to the right of Bushit/Cheney, are embracing his policies -- but not only distancing themselves from him, but also kicking him while he's down.

That ain't good enough: the Republicans in Congress are going to have to do more than call Bushit names if they hope to be re-elected.

And: Leahey announced that the first bill introduced when the Democrats took control of the Seante -- restoring habeas corpus -- is next on the agenda. Good timing: it will be debated while the isue of no-confidence vote is pending.

"Posted by: anon
Date: June 7, 2007 03:58 AM"

anon wrote on June 7, 2007 5:40 AM:

...I don't know why you think Congress doesn't know what's going on. As vast as it is, from what one direction does one attack it? From as many as possible...

Well, yes, of course, some members of Congress have a much clearer idea of what's going on than we do. And, yeah, cleaning up after Bush is big messy job.

However, since the DoJ is the referee (and investigator and enforcer) in charge of nearly all of Bush's messes, it's really important that Congress figure out what went wrong and then deal with it. Duh. I don't think any other current investigation is nearly as important. So, far, we are looking at, what?, a couple more resignations and maybe a few perjury charges? Perhaps a report or two in a few years? It seems to me, based on what we've seen so far, that the whole DoJ has been subverted, top to bottom. The means that the administration used aren't clear, the goals of the coup are somewhat murky, and Congress is more or less stuck with the current DoJ (the votes to move along impeachment or other legal action just aren't there.) Sure, a new president can't gut the DoJ and start over but immediately treating the whole mess as a serious criminal investigation will make that easier and start to sort out some of the damage that's already been done. Trusting current members of the DoJ to tell the truth, to deliver documents, and make wrongs right just isn't going to cut it and, IMO, the current strategy of treating it as business as usual--over zealous ideologues run amuck, dumb management, or even straight up corruption--is counter productive in the long run since it serves to somewhat legitimize and normalize the current DoJ as well as helping run out the clock.

I'm delighted the Dems are holding hearings and doing some investigative work but I think it's vital that they increase the pressure, focus on the methods the administration uses to subvert the law, and treat liars like liars. Another Iran-Contra style investigation isn't going to cut it. (The Walsh report was useful but, in the end, more useful as guide to how serious Iran-Contra was and how Congress should have treated it in the first place. Congress was successfully gamed by the administration and after a bunch of pardons, all we were left with was the Walsh report and a few fond memories of Danny Sugarman's wife.)

Mrs. K8 wrote on June 7, 2007 7:30 AM:

McClatchey Newspapers' Washington Bureau appears to be on top of this new batch of released documents. They've published a hard-hitting article (one which allows the reader to connect plenty of dots) on the email from LEONARD LEO (executive veep of the Federalist Society) to Mary Beth Buchanan at the EOUSA, the email cited by some of you intrepid document dump divers in the comments above.

Here's the name of the article:

"E-mail Questions if Conservative Group was Party to Plan to Fire U.S. Attorneys"
By Margaret Talev and Marisa Taylor

The link is here (but broken into three lines so as not to break margins):

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/
17333161.htm?source=rss&channel
=krwashington_nation

The succinct but punchy report begins this way:

"A leader of an influential conservative legal group recommended a replacement candidate for the U.S. attorney in San Diego just days after the sitting prosecutor's name was secretly placed on a Justice Department firing list..."

And the reporters make sure to let readers know what a piece of work the recommended replacement candidate, Mary Walker, is:

"Walker led a Pentagon working group in 2003, which critics said helped provide the administration with a rationale to circumvent the international Geneva Conventions banning torture in the interrogations of terrorism suspects."

To those of you who spotted this email in the document dump and thought it was noteworthy -- You were right!! Keep up the great work, and thank you!

JEP wrote on June 7, 2007 7:53 AM:

In this dump, Monica kinda reminds me of a ball-hog in a game of basketball, it's like she was heading down the court full speed crying "gimme the ball" and they did.

But that "ball" wasn't some pick-up game, it was unchecked power over hiring and firing.

Once she had it, she wasn't going to give it up, and she planned to pass it ONLY to the players she "liked" no matter what the rules say.

Particularly, her circumnavigation of superiors in the hiring process suggests she was desperately seeking power....and for what reason other than to promote the evangelical agenda?

And always keep in mind, Goodling is from the Ashcroft tribe, not the Gonzales tribe... And it seems those two tribes are at war, with Turdblossom as a double agent...

The Pittsburgh Kid wrote on June 7, 2007 7:54 AM:

I am sorry to hear about Mr. Corts' toothache and related procedure. I hope he is felling better now.

JNagarya wrote on June 7, 2007 8:30 AM:

"Well, yes, of course, some members of Congress have a much clearer idea of what's going on than we do."

Only some? I wouldn't want to have to guess who might not.

"However, since the DoJ is the referee (and investigator and enforcer) in charge of nearly all of Bush's messes, it's really important that Congress figure out what went wrong and then deal with it. Duh."

As Congress has the duty and authority to oversee, by investigation as necessary, and has power of subpoena, it also has the power to not only enforce subpoenas but also to appoint special prosecutors. And if matters are sufficiently urgent, and the vote carries that it is, they can appoint without having to rely on the subject of investigation to sign or veto.

"I don't think any other current investigation is nearly as important. So, far, we are looking at, what?, a couple more resignations and maybe a few perjury charges?"

All of them are important (news reported yesterday or the day before that Buchanan lawyered up because called to talk to Congress -- and that was before the latest dump of emails which include her name). Of especial interest is the revelation coming from AL about Rove being directly involved in directing the DOJ to prosecute a Democratic governor. And there's much of interest coming out of Minnesota. And the Iglesias, Lam, and McNulty firings are still hot. And last night I read a letter to McNulty from a DOJ offical detailing how various methods are used to deliberately drive people out -- and not onlly out of DOJ.

The dailykos "diary" about the Watergate report shows that the subversion is gov't-wide. Certainly Congress has its teeth in the DOJ more than any other entity -- so far as we know. But yesterday, also, it was reported that an aide to EPA's Norton plead guilty and agreed to cooperate in the Abermoff investigation. And that is a separate action from Waxman's expansion, within the last two days, of his investigation in to the links between Abramoff and the White House.

As the Watergate report shows, every agency is tainted with the subversion, the effort to marshall every element of the Federal gov't to partisan Republican purposes.

"Perhaps a report or two in a few years?"

Much more than that. If the Democrats increase their margins in Congress, and a Democrat is elected president, there are going to be investigations and prosecutions for years into the future.

"It seems to me, based on what we've seen so far, that the whole DoJ has been subverted, top to bottom."

There are still non-partisan career professionals there; the internal investigation is their rebellion. The outcome of that investigation will be though and aboveboard. Certainly it's going to take time to essentially rebuild the DOJ from the ground up, because the damage is so extensive.

"The means that the administration used aren't clear, the goals of the coup are somewhat murky, and Congress is more or less stuck with the current DoJ (the votes to move along impeachment or other legal action just aren't there.)"

Aren't clear to the public. Can't say they aren't clear to Congress, because they aren't telling all they know or revealing all they have. And the goal of the Republicans -- Rove -- have been public knowledge for years: permanent Republican majority.

"Sure, a new president can't gut the DoJ and start over but immediately treating the whole mess as a serious criminal investigation will make that easier and start to sort out some of the damage that's already been done."

It'll be Congress that cleans it up -- to ensure it is a transparent public process.

"Trusting current members of the DoJ to tell the truth, to deliver documents, and make wrongs right just isn't going to cut it and, IMO, the current strategy of treating it as business as usual--over zealous ideologues run amuck, dumb management, or even straight up corruption--is counter productive in the long run since it serves to somewhat legitimize and normalize the current DoJ as well as helping run out the clock."

There are career prosecutors at the DOJ who've been there for decades. And some of those have been leaking, and or talking anonymously to Congress. Though I am nowhere near Comey's politics, he does have self-respect and respect for the rule of law. As does Iglesias. And from her answers to Congress, one can discern that Lam is non-partisan and professional.

"I'm delighted the Dems are holding hearings and doing some investigative work but I think it's vital that they increase the pressure, focus on the methods the administration uses to subvert the law, and treat liars like liars."

They chewed up and spit out -- dispensed with -- Schlozman. They got what they wanted from him -- what little he had to offer -- and then essentially kicked him out the door. There's more than one to put pressure; one of the most effective is public scrutiny. Public hearings. Document dumps.

"Another Iran-Contra style investigation isn't going to cut it. (The Walsh report was useful but, in the end, more useful as guide to how serious Iran-Contra was and how Congress should have treated it in the first place. Congress was successfully gamed by the administration and after a bunch of pardons, all we were left with was the Walsh report and a few fond memories of Danny Sugarman's wife.)"

Agreed. But this scandal is an octupus with an arm into each state. It involves far too many to keep it contained and covered-up. The focus on the links between Abramoff and the WH by itself, now that it's in the hands of such as Waxman, is going to speed things up. McCain helped cover up the Abramoff-Indian gaming scandal. Well, the Democrats are in charge of that committee now, so that cover-up is ended.

"Posted by: anon
Date: June 7, 2007 05:40 AM"

JNagarya wrote on June 7, 2007 8:37 AM:

"In this dump, Monica kinda reminds me of a ball-hog in a game of basketball, it's like she was heading down the court full speed crying "gimme the ball" and they did.

"But that "ball" wasn't some pick-up game, it was unchecked power over hiring and firing.

"Once she had it, she wasn't going to give it up, and she planned to pass it ONLY to the players she "liked" no matter what the rules say.

"Particularly, her circumnavigation of superiors in the hiring process suggests she was desperately seeking power....and for what reason other than to promote the evangelical agenda?

"And always keep in mind, Goodling is from the Ashcroft tribe, not the Gonzales tribe... And it seems those two tribes are at war, with Turdblossom as a double agent...

"Posted by: JEP
Date: June 7, 2007 07:53 AM"

Read the following with the above insight in mind --

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/6/182434/8934

Woodhall Hollow wrote on June 7, 2007 8:53 AM:

Musings in response to musings about the Dem strategy.

This is totally out in left field (I mean that metaphorically, not politically), but I heard a curious snippet on the news yesterday that Sheledon Whitehouse had endorsed Hillary Clinton. Which seems kind of early. Maybe not, because I don't know much about his political history in RI.

But then it occurred to me that it may have something to do with long-term thinking about the DoJ. If Hillary is elected as the next Pres--and it could very well happen, one thing she is going to need is a stand up AG, one who both clean and knows his shit & who would be willing to re-instate the firewall which existed under Reno. Esp in light of her difficulties during the early 90s w/investigations etc. And one thing Sheldon wants to do is to get to the bottom of this mess and clean the Doj up. And one of the first things he would want to do is to route out any remaining corruption left behind when Bush leaves in '09 -- and he would be one guy who could do it. There may be some thinking that they will never be able to get to anything resembling the truth until they have one of their own inside that building.

Sheldon Whitehouse as the next AG?

also_anon wrote on June 7, 2007 9:52 AM:

Just FYI, Gale Norton was at Interior, not EPA.

ignatious wrote on June 7, 2007 12:02 PM:

After the revelaions of the last few weeks I think we are looking at a Republican party that follows the dictates of mafia-like Omerta and has completely and almost uniformly abandoned the rule of law so critical to a functioning democracy. I remember whenthe "appearance of impropriety" carried weight. Now, outright, blatantly illegal activity is met with a shrug. Who cares if the DOJ is completely politisized, its reputation for fair arbitration destroyed? Not us!

The letters asking forgiveness for Scooter Libby were for me the final straw. The concerted effort to get him a pardon and the repeated use of the word "loyalty" in these letters looks like a not so subtle, mob-like tactic of insisting on his silence-- telling him he'll be pardoned, rewarded financially, protecting the fall guy.

It's a horrible embarrassment really. Has the Republican party always operated this way or have they sunk to new lows. How can they ever be credible as the law and order party again?

mo2 wrote on June 7, 2007 12:22 PM:

Here is interesting praise from Leo Leonard for another attourney.

"Mary [Neumayr] has been essential in making sure that conservative legal ideas see the light of day in the Bay Area," says Leonard Leo, Director of the Lawyer's Division in Washington, D.C. [Leonard Leo is executive vice president of the Federalist Society]. "She has good strategic judgment and has been able to present our ideas in a way that commands the respect of people who might not otherwise agree with us."

http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/news/newsletter/2000/winter/neumayr.htm

mo2 wrote on June 7, 2007 12:27 PM:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002863.php

Regarding Daniel (Dan) P. Collins -

He worked for the DOJ and in 2003 instigated this idea of changing the process of this "constitutional anomaly." He is a Federalist Society member. Moschella was asking for a refresher from Collins back in 2004 about the issue. Collins at that time was already working as a Partner in the Los Angeles office of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP (MTO.com). Moschella did finally manage to correct this "constitutional anomaly" by hijacking the Patriot Act, with the help of Brett Tolman, from Specter's staff. The emails between Moschella and Tolman are in file 032307_3.pdf (page 16).
Posted by: cars
Date: March 24, 2007 05:30 AM

http://www.mto.com/lawyers/bio.cfm?attorneyID=122
Mr. Weissmann was an associate at Munger, Tolles & Olson. Mr. Weissmann then served as law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court during the 1989-90 term. ... "Mr. Weissmann is President of the Conference of California Public Utility Counsel and President of the Los Angeles Lawyers Division of the Federalist Society. ...
he has represented Shell Oil Company in the appeal of a $220 million jury verdict involving the sale of an oil field interest. In January 1998, the California Court of Appeal reversed the verdict. "

mo2 wrote on June 7, 2007 12:29 PM:

Mary Neumayr - - -
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Whistleblowers_allege_influence_peddling_by_members_0329.html

The Department of Justice initially opposed awarding a sole-source contract to Bajagua. But when the DOJ attorney originally assigned to handle the case, Randall Humm, was replaced in 2003 by DOJ attorney and liaison to the Office of the Vice President, Mary Neumayr, the Justice Department reversed its position abruptly.

http://www.bajagua.org/
It appears that he did, since Randall Humm, the Department of Justice Attorney originally assigned to handle the matter, was replaced in 2003 by Mary Neumayr, a DOJ attorney and liaison to the Office of the Vice President. Most telling, in an email Mario Lewis characterizes Neumayr as nervous that Bajagua "had gotten into high levels at OVP and State (Noriega)."

oghiu wrote on June 7, 2007 12:36 PM:

How did the OLC resolve their doubts regarding the delegation itself possibly being inconsistent with the Excepting Clause of the Constitution?"

What was the OLC's final ruling on that?

Was this delegation of authority more than unusual? Was it...unconstitutional?

mo2 wrote on June 7, 2007 12:59 PM:

oghiu -

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070430nj1.htm

"To give Sampson and Goodling hiring and firing authority, the Justice Department first had to place that authority directly under Gonzales. The department published regulations in the Federal Register on February 7, 2006, stating that the final authority would be reserved for the attorney general. ...
Corts so informed Gonzales in a February 24, 2006, memo: "The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) advises that permitting the Attorney General's delegates to approve [some] appointments … would be inconsistent" with the appointments clause of the Constitution. The "excepting clause" of the Constitution requires the president alone to exercise the appointment power, or his Cabinet officers, who are appointees themselves.

The draft was rewritten to address that concern, and Gonzales on March 1, 2006, signed the final order, which read: "Under the authority of this delegation, any proposed appointments or removals of personnel who are 'inferior officers' within the meaning of [the] Excepting Clause of the Constitution shall be presented to the Attorney General... and each appointment or removal shall be made in the name of the Attorney General." "

Lo Sabia wrote on June 7, 2007 2:22 PM:

How to Get a Job at the Justice Department
April 26, 2005
... So many of Luttig's former clerks have risen to prominence that the group has earned the nickname "luttigators." ... Clerkships land people jobs in part on the basis of connections and references.
A prestigious clerkship is also seen as a reflection that the applicant is bright and hardworking.
But, equally importantly, THEY SERVES AS CUES TO WHITE HOUSE AIDES IN CHARGE OF HIRING that the applicant has the right political views.
"When you're looking for people who have a particular philosophy or political agenda, you're going to place a greater premium on who can vouch for that person," says one lawyer with experience in the hiring process.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1114432514183

Node of Evil wrote on June 7, 2007 2:25 PM:

I posted this a couple of days ago in another thread. I post it again in response the Daily Kos diary linked above which I have just read:

'There's been a wide-scale "softening" of the beauracracy. What I mean by this is competent and apolitical professionals have been replaced by incompetent political hacks. They have a form of government service but lack the power thereof; if they have experience it isn't in the trenches, but in middle management. Why? Why would you want a "soft" beauraucracy? One obvious answer is a "soft" beauraucracy is easier to mold. Another is that a soft beauracracy is a better transmitter. Schlozman was always contacting his "superiors" about this or that; I think it was by design. It guarantees that those further down the chain have to rely on the judgement of those on top, like a gigantic game of telephone. So I agree that his superiors are smart, but being smart and having good judgement are not one and the same.'

'It is poor judgement to want a "soft" beauraucracy, especially if you're concerned about building a successful organization. You have no talent who can manage and innovate except at the top. This means the top-level guys are under enormous amounts of stress, not to mention all of their bad decisions are greatly amplified. They have more control, though, so if that is what they're after then this is the kind of organization they'll create. But having control is a temporary victory because an organization like this will die before too long. Which is odd, because if Karl Rove really wanted a Republican majority far into the future, this is exactly the wrong way to do it. Which makes me wonder, what does he really want?'

Garth wrote on June 7, 2007 3:55 PM:

just perused the dump and one thing stuck with me.

Why was Mary Beth Buchanan sending out to all USAs before Ms. Goodlings arrival and after AG Gonzalez's secret delegation of power instructions on how to handle their resignations?

In her cover letter she says she was prompted to disseminate this information due to a "few" requests about the resignation procedure. Is this correct? Is it unusual. Is this information not already available to USAs or was it a warning shot from the WH?

As an aside, it is also interesting that the policies refer to the old policy of Senate approval. I wonder when or if they sent notice to the USAs of this change in policy.

Something is smelly here when these facts can be construed as Rove's opening gambit in Operation Noble Purge.

Also consider.

If Rove could suppress Democratic Voters, do you think he would?

Mooser wrote on June 7, 2007 6:30 PM:

"Which makes me wonder, what does he really want?"

I wouldn't spend too much time wondering about it.
"Whatever he could get" works for me as an answer, for Rove and the rest.

Whatever they could get.

David in Santa Monica wrote on June 7, 2007 7:10 PM:

2:11 (on the same email thread)

Monica Goodling to Paul R Corts:
Jan 19 2006 7:15pm
"Ok to send to me, outside of system"

Michael Allen (JMD) to Monica Goodling
Feb 16, 2006 2:26p
"I have the AG delegation for personnel actions you requested. I need a few minutes to explain one piece of it. I can come up at your convenience anytime except 3:30-4:30.

INTERPRETATION:
Monica knows they are breaking the law so she instructs communication outside of system but Michael has something so hot he's not writing it anywhere and can only tell Monica personally.

JNagarya wrote on June 8, 2007 12:55 PM:

I suspect the dump which shows Goodling in a negative light isn't intended as a defense of the DOJ, and other wrongdoes, but rather is intended to show her in a more accurate light. During her testimony she sorta wanted it both ways: she crossed the line, but was actually little-girl-naive; and yet when a Republican attempted to minimize her power and role in the DOJ, she directly contradicted that assertion.

I don't see the DOJ defending itself against her by revealing illegalities within the DOJ. I do see the DOJ endeavoring t expose her fuller role, expose her for what she is.

Then again, I tend to believe in good faith until I see evidence to the contrary. There are still career professionals in the DOJ who don't act on or endorse political considerations.

JNagarya wrote on June 8, 2007 1:07 PM:

"The draft was rewritten to address that concern, and Gonzales on March 1, 2006, signed the final order, which read: "Under the authority of this delegation, any proposed appointments or removals of personnel who are 'inferior officers' within the meaning of [the] Excepting Clause of the Constitution shall be presented to the Attorney General... and each appointment or removal shall be made in the name of the Attorney General." "

"Posted by: mo2
Date: June 7, 2007 12:59 PM"

That seems simply intended to give the appearance that the DOJ was acting independently of the WH -- a cover to eliminate paper trail. The opposite extreme from the reality: that the WH was running the DOJ in all particulars.

JNagarya wrote on June 8, 2007 1:18 PM:

Why was Mary Beth Buchanan sending out to all USAs before Ms. Goodlings arrival and after AG Gonzalez's secret delegation of power instructions on how to handle their resignations?

In her cover letter she says she was prompted to disseminate this information due to a "few" requests about the resignation procedure. Is this correct? Is it unusual. Is this information not already available to USAs or was it a warning shot from the WH?

As an aside, it is also interesting that the policies refer to the old policy of Senate approval. I wonder when or if they sent notice to the USAs of this change in policy.

Something is smelly here when these facts can be construed as Rove's opening gambit in Operation Noble Purge.

Also consider.

If Rove could suppress Democratic Voters, do you think he would?

Posted by: Garth
Date: June 7, 2007 03:55 PM

Note that within the last two weeks it was reported that Buchanan has lawyered up -- even though she is a lawyer -- because she has been called to talk to Congress about the DOJ issues. I wonder what Congress may have on her that piques their interest.

I'd love to hear Marty Lederman (former DOJ OLC), over at "Balkinization," review the document dumps. It's likely he could clear up much by filling in the gaps in our knowledge about the workings of DOJ, both proper and otherwise.

jdw wrote on June 8, 2007 1:46 PM:

Is the Muck dead?

Nothing new since Wed.

John

JNagarya wrote on June 8, 2007 5:23 PM:

Is the Muck dead?

Nothing new since Wed.

John

Posted by: jdw
Date: June 8, 2007 01:46 PM

You didn't hear the news? There's no more muck because Bushit, et al., decided to become Christians.

joejoejoe wrote on June 9, 2007 8:18 PM:

2:3 - Letter from Assistant AG for Administration to Monica Goodling titled "AG delegations", 1/10/06

'Monica -
If the AG wants to delegate THIS [my caps] within his immediate office staff he may do so and should do it by position (or, can be by person specific)....'

What is THIS? Compiling the firing list?

Gandhi wrote on June 10, 2007 8:38 PM:

Englischlehrer wird morgen (heute) uebermuedet vor der Klasse stehen, aber jeder muss halt Opfer bringen.

ichi brown wrote on June 14, 2007 10:50 AM:

Hello blogging community.

I have parsed ALL the doj documents, except for the dumps released in june. This is me gathering the urls for the most recent documents... why am i gathering them? I've created and indexed an archive online searchable by individual email elements as well as full text search. If you are researching this, or just want to know what really happened please feel free to use our search to do so and see what you can find.

I don't mean to "spam" about the page, but today is the day i go public with my project, you're the first site i've notified.

kilka wrote on July 31, 2007 12:51 PM:

gmc trucks here www.gmctruck.fora.pl
gmc from america www.gmctruck.fora.pl
real gmc www.gmctruck.fora.pl

and www.emeraldring.fora.pl rings

tiskudvyg vdlqnaz wrote on August 8, 2007 2:38 AM:

vjus ilocrwb bvkctfe wronzlxa meunjxvwt gosah iuwqzd

Anderson wrote on September 28, 2007 12:49 PM:

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
conservation dedicated organization profit

ok.. bitte

Oleg wrote on September 29, 2007 12:58 PM:

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
associate inc international profit

ok.. bitte

Oleg wrote on September 29, 2007 12:58 PM:

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
associate inc international profit

ok.. bitte

Oleg wrote on September 29, 2007 12:59 PM:

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
associate inc international profit

ok.. bitte

Max wrote on October 1, 2007 5:31 PM:

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
dedicated organization policy profit public

ok.. bitte

diller wrote on October 18, 2007 4:31 PM:

wood picnic table