... probably takes less time to put someone on the list that to explain that they are unable to put someone on the list...

Of course, the DOJ, as the rest of our so called public servants, no longer works for "We the People"... IMHO

This is a problem for them because lies take up a lot of bandwidth.

Paul:

You might be missing the further irony here.

It appears as though the "Mr. Hais" you refer to is actually a "Ms. Hais." (She appears to be an ex-Stanford field hockey player and poli sci major).

And, of course, she's all you would expect from a Bush apointee.

Somehow, as a student she managed to give political contributions to Jim Talent.

And her dad is majorly connected to Governor Matt Blunt and the Missouri conservative mafia. Ah, old Missouri. Home of Thor Hearne.

[http://rturner229.blogspot.com/2006/06/gaming-commission-appointment-is-big.html]

You bastards. The Justice Department takes great pride in their criminal behavior, their suppression of Civil Rights, and their co-operation in dismantling of the constitution. And you have the nerve to question both their actions and motives?

Leave Justice alone!! They have feelings too.

Ha! Not enough bits to put you on the distribution list? Maybe if they used small fonts they'd have more space.

No space on the distribution list? That's the stupidest excuse I ever heard in my life. Spammers have millions of addresses on their distribution lists; I suspect the DOJ has considerably fewer than that.

What you need is a front organization with a redirected e-mail address that you can use to mask who you are.

Push for them (and all government agencies, why not) to have an RSS feed for their releases.

I guess they figured sending out one more email would clog the tubes.

mv

Ha! Not enough room on their distribution list. That's the worst excuse I've ever heard. What should give TPM some satisfaction is that somebody had to make the decision to remove you and then order the computer lacky who runs the email system to physically remove you from the list. How petty and sad. What's great is that removing you from the list likely didn't give them the satisfaction they craved; probably it made them feel small and weak instead.

Thanks for catching that, Citzen92.

slb nailed it. Open up a shell website called "Gannon's Goods" or "Dick Cheney's Daily Channelings" and then redirect the press releases to TPM. They're so friggin stupid/lazy/careless over there, they'd never catch it/care.

I think the title of this post should be sung to the tune of Born in the USA.

Lawsuit! Lawsuit!

You should ask them who got your slot. Obviously they added someone and since their list appears to be finite in length, you were dropped to make room. You should also ask who else was dropped. I think a FOIA suit is in your future.

U

The poor little cretin writes a run-on in her first sentence--freshmen English error--and fails to punctuate the second "however" with pair of commas--more freshmen English ignorance. A twit of first order.

I like the song idea:

I asked them to release some spam
They said sorry but the email's jammed..

Banned at the DoJ, Banned at the DoJ...

Put me down for a BANNED by the DOJ coffee mug and a T-shirt, too. And I'd advise you to fire up a fund-raiser ASAP. I promise to donate this time. Put me down for $25.

Since you got those releases until recently, the follow up questions should be 1) Who removed (and by whose authority) TPM from the existing distribution list? 2) With whom was TPM replaced? since the only adequate explanation for dropping TPM would be to add someone else to their limited distribution list.

Hilarious!

I'd rock a TPM: Banned by the DOJ t-shirt or happily park a mug on my desk. Heck I'll even design it pro bono.

Keep up the fantastic work!

BtD

Jamie Hais graduated from John Burroughs High School in Missouri in 2003. As a Political Science major at Stanford, she was a member of The Roosevelt Institute ("The Nation's First Student Think Tank"), and the Center on International Security.

JRoyale, RockGolf and others may be on to something, too. If you were dropped from the list due to a lack of space (it is to laugh), then there must have been others who were dropped recently too. Dropping one outfit wouldn't free up too much space, so who else got the ax? Daily Kos, maybe? Texas Observer, maybe? Political Animal, maybe? So let's not just see who got your space. Let's see who was lopped off. (Those bastards; I'd like to lop something off.)

Getting banned by the DOJ? Beyond any lawsuits TPM could be filing on this matter, you might consider using the FOIA to check what kind of files DOJ and its partner the FBI have been logging on all of you. I wouldn't put anything past those agencies. Muckraking is not a two-way street with these hardballers.

"If you're not catching flack, you're not over the target."

Cleary the DOJ is feeling a little 'Dresden-like' from all the TPM raids.

Good job, well done- and keep dropping the 'bombs' on target!

"Room on an e-mail distribution list"?? That's the 21st century pathetic equivalent to the "dog ate my homework" excuse, or worse.

Then again, a DOJ which can't pay its bills for wiretapping to the phone company may be have to be excused from having to figure out how to extend a mailing list.

I heartily concur with timbnyc's idea:

"We should all e-mail asking if we can be put on the list. All of us. Over and Over."

I would do this in a heartbeat. Any time these godless bastards have to spend dealing with us leaves them less time to do real damage.

I`m with "emerald"...

sing it with us now

"Banned at the DoJ, Banned at the DoJ..."

and it should go well with the t-shirts I think

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." – Edward R. Murrow

Well...DoJ's insolence aside, I can't say I'm too impressed with the prose stylings of their public affairs spokesmodel, Ms. Hais. Her writing is about as effortless and fluid as a square tire.

This argument is puerile and spurious at best. This administration and the Republican party apparatus doesn't seem to be very competent when it comes to email technology, servers and the like. Or, for those among them up to speed on IT, they forget to pay their bills. Sheesh.

The Department of Justice is beholden to the Citizens of this country. Denial of service implies legal action.

BTW, you really did get under their skin, didn't you? I always thought it'd be a mind-crushing IRS audit that'd come your way. Go figure.

Thanks to atr. What a resume. No wonder the Repugnants pride themselves on being the party of small government. The old man should be proud of his kids -- saving their nickels and dimes so they can get involved in government. I'm sure it beats working.

US Atty Scandall reporting fallout: DoJ lost an AG; all they can do in retaliation is remove you from their list?

LOL

Indeed, DoJ "too busy making up BS" to have time to "process warrants" or "follow the Constitution."

DOJ Oversight plan: Monitor mailing lists, yes; monitor the Constitution, no.

Can you put me on the mailing list for a t-shirt?

If they feel "out gunned" by a single website like TPMM, what prospect do they have of monitoring issues on websites that are legitimate national security threats? Oh, that's right: DOJ took AlQueda off the list as well. I feel better. That will show them. Don't you feel safer now, knowing DoJ is "on the watch" and "screening out" those who are threats to tyranny and false hoolds?

No wonder Congress is still "on the list": Congress has been complicit with blindly accepting the DOJ public affairs propaganda. "Got any more illegal activity you in DoJ want rubber stamped? We'll be sure to help you out," says Pelosi's staff. "Whatever you do, don't take us off the list," Pelosi whispers.

@timbnyc
Look at my email upthread.

Here's here Stanford field hockey bio:
http://gostanford.cstv.com/sports/w-fieldh/mtt/hais_jamie00.html

Paul - wow they must really hate you... giving you the brushoff via a recent college grad in the job for no more than 5-6 months...

timbnyc wrote on January 15, 2008 5:39 PM

Check the cache [ http://snipurl.com/1xiqt ], and ask her: The image of "Amanda" includes two people; one of those people is in the "group of three". This common picture would appear to be Jamie.

Why don't you ask her: This number is openly available on the internet, and has her name listed by it: (202) 514-2007. It's the DOJ Public affairs office.

Ask her also: Why is Tyler holding that fish: Is the smell of that fish going to take him of "the list" as well; Milessa: If we spell our names creatively, can be get put "back on the list"?

Makes sense that they don't have space for TPM emails. The trucks be dumping press releases and clogging the Internets. Hence the DOJ very wisely in their infinite mercy on TPM readers is curtailing email activity to free up them trucks and internets. Ask the honorable senator from Alaska.

It looks like censorship and eliminating any dissent in opinions and ideas has become fashionable. Our friends at the Progressive now censor, delete, and only select responses to post that suit their agenda.

Some on the Left are willing to abandon the policy of free speech and open debate. This policy of exclusion is not just confined to the 'wingers'.

Curious that someone would get stressed out about where to study during finals week; but a chance to send money to the Gaming Commission: "No problem."

From Stanford: “Something about the size makes it more pleasant and manageable to study in as opposed to Green,” said senior Jamie Hais. “Going to Green during finals week makes me want to go to sleep or just become completely stressed out.”

Gee: We're under stress, what to do: Sleep, stress; sleep, stress. Can Jamie Decide?

Not to worry: Money to the Gaming Commission, but keep TPMM off the list. "Off, off, off. I'm so stressed out. I didn't make the decision. Let me go to sleep . . . sleep . . . "

wow. DoJ isn't inviting TPM to their clubhouse? Is this Jamie Hais guy in 3rd grade or what?

Not exactly the mature type, either:

http://rturner229.blogspot.com/2006/07/daughter-of-blunts-gaming-commission.html

(Take the following as a blockquote)

TUESDAY, JULY 25, 2006
Daughter of Blunt's Gaming Commission choice says Turner is a moron
Jessica Hais, daughter of Sam Hais, who was appointed to the Missouri Gaming Commission last month by Governor Matt Blunt, says the author of this blog is a moron.
Miss Hais took exception to the June 9 Turner Report which detailed how much money Hais and his family, including his wife and daughters Jessica and Jamie, contributed to Missourians for Matt Blunt, the governor's campaign committee.
In a response posted Monday, Miss Hais said:

"Wow. Who would have ever though Sam Hais would be the next Tom Delay? By the way, masterful neglection of the fact that both daughters are, in fact, financially autonomous and solvent. Moron."

While I am happy to know the Hais girls are autonomous and solvent, I find nothing in my original post that indicates they are subservient and destitute.

What I noted was the amount of money that poured into Blunt's campaign from those connected to Hais, including his family and members of his law firm. "Ethics Commission disclosure forms," I wrote, "indicate that between Hais, his family, and his law firm, Hais, Hais & Kallen, the governor received at least $16,575 between 2003 and 2005.

Had he not contributed that amount, would he still have been considered for the post? While I feel bad about offending Miss Hais, and appreciate her comment, that question remains unanswered."

Check the FEC Data [At link] then enter her name. Here are the screen shots of the results:

snipurl.com/1xisi
snipurl.com/1xisj
snipurl.com/1xisk

She has three listings; the addresses are not consistent. Note the address changes; yet, we're asked to believe that she was a student at Stanford. Curious, while at Stanford, it appears her sister also shared the same address.

GAMING ISSUES

How would Jamie know the exact maximum dollar amount she could donate? Seems like maybe she got some legal advice from her father. But note, someone else gave only 1,000. She and her father are not protected by a communication privilege; this donation is a matter of a public record.

When did Ms. Hais discuss with her father the maximum allowable she could donate; how does she explain both her sister and herself having identical dollar amounts, but a lawyer with Hais only has 1,000 listed?

Is there any record the FBI-DHS can find that suggests funds were reimbursed?

Is there any record the HAIS group or her father provided a "gift" to Jamie, under 10,000 with the alleged intent to bypass rules which appear to prohibit reimbursement?

Are there any records with DHS, Swift, or the DOJ personnel can find suggesting there were simultaneous changes in Hais Group/Daddy Hais banking accounts of dollar amounts of this figure adding up to the maximum amount of money?

Is there a plan of the State AG in Missouri to review this; or, given Hais apparently lived in another state, is there a plan of the FBI to review this?

How does the law firm explain a donation of only 1,000 from a lawyer; but identical dollar amounts from the two sisters, daughters of Mr. Hais in the law firm working group?

Is it possible that law firm could use "less than 10,000"-dollar amounts to move funds that the firm would like to not have attention called to it?

Is there any plan of NSA's McConnel to discuss whether there are or are not plans for NSA to monitor any funds which Hais may have moved in or out of the United States?

Missouri, Missouri, Missouri. Why does GOP fraud always track back to Missouri?

This is hilarious.

But to be honest, I think the real reason TPM was banned was not (necessarily) in fact US Attorney scandal. In fact, I think the turmoil over the Civil Rights Division (which you guys also did a particularly good job reporting) was the straw that broke the camel's back. With all the Civil Rights Division folks commenting here on the public boards, the details that managed to come out on the story via this forum, and the success the stories had in effecting real change in the division, I could see that as providing the impetus to cut off TPM, even though its relatively low profile.

Congrats!
That only deepens my respect for your organization.
Keep it up.

Craig Kallen is/was a partner at Hais, Hais & Kallen, but I don't find any political donations for him.

Take a look at this address: It is the Google listing for the FEC data for Jamie. Note the address matches the address of a _law firm_, where other lawyers are listed: [ http://snipurl.com/1xitn ]

- Why are there three listings of three names on the FEC data

- Note: the satellite map of that address is not a residential address, but an apparent industrial area: [ http://snipurl.com/1xitp ]

Zoom in and out: Notice the problem: The address isnt located near _residential_ units, but is on top of a parking lot with a large office building.

This suggests the following:
- The addresses listed on the FEC data form are consistent because they have been forced to match an industrial area;
- That the addresses listed are not evidence of "indepdendent donations" but the opposite: Names of people who are not living in a common _residential_ area, but are listed in a common _business_ area.

However, the problem: Jamie doesn't appear to have any _business_ connection with the area, but she was in school.

- When did Jamie enter or leave the Missouri area for purposes of her "post Stanford education"

- Did Jamie ever work as a law clerk in her father's law firm; if so, was she lawfully allowed to do this, or is this "unauthorized practice of law"?

- Did Jamie use the address of the apparent law firm on her FEC data because this is where the money was actually sent from; and the law firm did, in fact, act as the source of the money?

- Why not use her California address?

- is the address linked with a residential _apartment complex_ where there are also other lawyers living in the same room; and does this "number of people living in one place" meet or exceed what is permissible under the House Code?

- Has someone used an incorrect address for FEC data that does not match the real living address at Stamford?

Whatever happened to that Government for the people, by the people, for the people? It looks like it has indeed perished from the Earth. I know, I know, 9/11 changed everything! Apparently, this is yet another example of Ari's famous admonition to be "Careful of what you say, what you do".

I want a t-shirt! Maybe two...

The FEC data may have a problem, in that there is just a generic list, but it does not include the suite number for the law firm:
snipurl.com/1xisk

Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 7:00 PM

Correct FEC link is "j", to compare the three names, and addresses without a suite number on Broadway
snipurl.com/1xisj

- Why does this address apparently go to a law firm;
- Why is there no suit address in the FEC data
- Why is Jamie using this as an address, but she would ask that she is "independent" of her sister and father
- How does she explain the satellite images whosing this is not a residential area but an industrial part
- Why is she asking us to believe that there was "no money" from her father; but on the FEC data card there is an incomplete address which matches an apparent law firm?
- How much money is anyone alleging her father's law firm provided "in her name" as a means for the law firm to bypass any federal or state campaign contribution ethics rules?

If Jamie graduated from high school in 2003, how old would she have been in 2002 when she made a $1000 donation to Talent (from the same 100 S. Brentwood address as for Hais, Hais & Kallen)?

Congratulations.

They came up with the stupidest excuse I've ever heard. Everyone knows it doesn't take long to lick the stamps to put them on an email and anyway that's what junior staffers are for.

Why do people like that bother with such nonsensical replies? First, it's like, you know, a PRESS RELEASE! It is by its very nature supposed to get distributed as widely as possible. Second, we've had the technology for electronic mailing lists for what, nearly 30 years now? And the amount of time to add a name ought to be less than replying that they can't.

Just another part of their attempt to alienate people from the very idea of government, by making it thoroughly incompetent.

Department. of. Jackasses.

I can't wait until we're declared terrorists too. This is going to be fun!

I'd like for TPMM readers to consider the following: the above link goes to the US Atty files/e-mails in re US Atty firing. DOJ PA e-mail is included.

Look for this: [ USDOJ-Office.of.Public.Affairs ] -- this is the e-mail header information from the e-mails sent to TPMM. Also, that e-mail information can be cross indexed with various e-mails sent to/from DOJ PA in re US Atty firings; and are subject to subpoena and contempt proceedings in re Rove, Miers, etc.

The key isn't what DoJ PA is or isn't saying; but what information does the public have -- gleaned through the US atty e-mail discovery/disclosures -- that would show us exactly what DOJ PA _did_ send, but is _missing_ from the OVP files in contravention to the retention requirements in 32 CFR 2800.

As an example only, at the link, a PDF["PDF: DoJ PA E-mail in US Atty Firings"] , look at 56 of 73: That is the PA-coordination with McNulty.

It looks as though DoJ PA e-mails would have a "return receipt" file showing who opened them. All that is needed is a review of all the _post deliberative_ e-mails sent to DOJ OLC, WH, Rove's e-mail account, Miers' e-mail account, and to CIA General Counsel to find:
- When did they receive the confirmation of the talking points sent from DOJ PA on that particular issue [rendition, prisoner abuse, JAGs, ICC concerns, AG firing, US atty firings]
- Where are copies of these "we have received this file" kept within DOJ PA
- Are the records of "who opened this e-mail message/file" sent from DOJ PA to DoJ-EOP-WH-OVP-CIA also destroyed?

Is it the intent of DOJ PA to "exclude from TPMM" the DOJ PA information because someone at TPM might connect the dots:
- E-mails that DOJ PA "should have" sent to OVP, EOP, GOP using _non official emails_, but those e-mails have been deleted, and there are _gaps_ in the WH-EOP-GOP files where the DOJ PA e-mails _should be_?

To what extent has the DOJ PA e-mails become an "internal trojan horse" whereby all of the "missing e-mails" can be linked: The DOJ PA e-mails -- as recorded as sent in DOJ PA, and opened at the receiving end -- but it no longer exists at the GOP-OVP-WH-EOP-CIA-DOD-DOJ OLC receiving ends on issues related to rendition, US Atty firings, prisoner abuse, JAG concerns with ICC, rendition, etc?

Is this a method to scope the size of the specific e-mails which RNC-GOP have deleted from the still non-disclosed e-mail accounts, as required by the Court?

When did DOJ PA become concerned that it's e-mail header information, e-mail address, and other information sent to TPMM might become the subject of a FOIA request, or discovery-avenue to review gaps in the DOJ OVP-GOP-WH-CIA e-mail files?

Are there files and records of DOJ PA officials saying, "Delete this e-mail"; when was this decision made; how was it documented; and who was involved with this meeting?

Which records of "e-mails being opened" in WH-EOP-GOP-DOJ OLC shoud be there, but are missing, because: The e-mails were not opened using official government computers, but because the e-mails sent from DOJ PA were opened using _still_ non-disclosed e-mail accounts which the US Federal Court has _still_ not been told, as required by the Court order?

FOIA, FOIA, FOIA!

Coincidence? The contribution receipt immediately before the Hais clan's on 06/02/02 is from the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe.

Question for you, Jamie: was the reference to DeLay a Freudian slip? Can you say 'Abramoff'?

DoJ PA handles FOIAs for DOJ. The link at para 14 shows DOJ PA were not in harmony with the AG on this FOIA request: An expedited request, apparently approved by DOJ PA director, was not allegedly timely met.

Have we seen all the DOJ OPR reviews of DOJ PA internal management issues as they relate to the issues raised in the compliant: In re NSLs, FBI surveillance, and other issues?

Is it the view of DOJ PA that TPMM would connect the dots on apparent issues with DOJ OPR has not been fully informed 2001-2008?

Are there things which DOJ OLC legal counsel told to DOJ PA which were allegedly frivolous reasons for legal decisions, and these were memorialized in memoranda/talking points sent by DOJ PA; but, now that the public knows about "allegedly frivolous legal arguments" there are concerns that the DOJ PA e=mails could subject soe DOJ OLC-EOP-WH-OVP-CIA-DOD staff counsel to review by the District of Columbia disciplinary board?

How many statements in the DOJ PA e-mails issued are, in fact, "frivolous legal arguments" which legal counsel working for the US govrnment and contractors know or should know would attach those legal counsel to the underlying alleged crimes:
+ Obstruction of justice,
+ witness tampering,
+ evidence destruction,
+ false statements to Congress,
+ alleged war crimes/prisoner abuse,
+ illegal rendition,
+ war crimes,
+ ICC-known-interest in JAG-raised issues going forward from 2001 in re prisoner
treatment?
+ DOJ OLC coordination with outside counsel formerly assigned to the WH to create "recollections"
+ Feigned assertions of "belief" on things that were asserted as facts, intended to deceive, and contrary to data known to have been destroyed for purposes of obstructing justice and investigation into alleged Geneva vilations
+ Feigned arguments of "We're not sure waterboarding is torture or not" despite DOJ OLC memoranda citing case law/judicial orders concluding waterboarding _was_ torture
+ Feigned assertions of "we fully coordinated these FISA changes/prisoner treatment plans with Congress" despite incomplete information to Members of Congress
+ Timing of specific discussions, concerns, and other internal "deliberations" -- actually made _after_ a decision, and _not_ part of a bonafide "deliberative shield -- which triggered DOJ PA to release a statement, policy, finding, or talking points
+ The timing of coordination between DoJ PA, DOJ Legislative liaision, and Members of Congress/staff counsel on issues in the MCA related to US government funding for personnel appearing before international tribunals
+ Evidence the "foreseeable risk of torture" were not "foreseeably" managed, but ignored, in contravention to Geneva.

JUDGMENTS/ALLEGATIONS

One reason for DOJ PA cutting off contact with TPMM appears related to concerns DOJ OLC and other legal counsel have raised related to the accuracy of TPMM conclusions on legal issues warranting interest by DC atty disciplinary board, ICC, grand jury, DOJ OPR, and Congress.

There are discussions within DOJ OLC including PA and legal counsel about the "risks" this information posed if analyzed. DOJ PA received communcations from DOJ OLC to shut off any contact with TPMM because the TPMM has the independent resources to analyze trends, connect the dots, and provide valuable information related to the above alleged crimes for international tribunals.

DoJ PA may or may not have been told the full list of concerns DOJ OLC and OVP-EOP counsel had about the accuracy of conclusions in re alleged war crimes, prisoner abuse, and other areas of interest for FOIAs/war crimes discovery.

It is the view of DOJ OLC and PA that there information, in part, could be used to discuss information with current DOJ and WH counsel, thereby disclosing details of information not correctly shielded by the "deliberative privilege" but related to _post deliberative_ efforts by EOP-DOJ-CIA-DOD-GOP to destroy evidence _after_ JAGs raised in 2001 concerns ICC could adjudicate war crimes against civilians.

Evidence has been destroyed, or so the DOJ PA and DOJ OLC throught, but it has been retained outside DOJ control. This information cannot be shielded under any bonafide claim or privilege.

It is the policy of this Administration to provide information to outside counsel for purpose of litigating suspected leaks on the known, false assertion that the information was "illegally obtained," when, in fact, the information was disclosed by the DOJ PA, and analyzed using open sources. The intent of these alleged false assertions in court was to commit fraud upon the court, identify sources of alleged leaks, dissuade public analysis of this open source information, and substantially deprive the voting public of material information.

The intent of these allegedly false assertions in court is to shield information gleaned through open sources behind a shield/privilege which is not warranted, nor consistent with the actual deliberation-decision timelines; and to shift the attention from the disclosure of this evidence of alleged criminal activity to those at TPMM who have correctly reported on this material information of interest to the ICC, grand jury, and Courts.

"Valuable information" related to the above alleged crimes has been impermissibly shielded; yet, was not retained, as required under 32 CFR 2800. DOJ PA memoranda to OVP has been impermissibly redacted/removed in contravention to 32 CFR 2800.

@atr - keep it up!

wondering if little jamie is planning to vote from her parents address in missouri despite living in metro dc... big no-no.

and seriously, any idea if the hais clan somehow links up to anti-gambling nutball missourian mark andrews (also of swiftboats for truth fame)? mark and his wife link up with voting fraudster Mark F. Thor Hearne, II and some interesting dollars - and i'd just love to have more join the party!!

Don't worry, TPM denizens demanding t-shirts, once I figure out the shipping protocols on my website and register my copyrights I'll open up the link to you guys.

Mellor, above, beat me to it! The memo from the DoJ reeks of illiteracy. The law, we know, depends above all on precision of language, yet the Department of Justice's official press representative writes abysmally, vaguely, incorrectly, incompetently.

Abandon all hope!

Gov. Matt Blunt has appointed Samuel J. Hais (R) to the Missouri Gaming Commission

Check: [ Hais, Hais, Kallen & Goldberger ] $2,000 to Fred Thompson; also included in that list: Haliburton.
See: [ snipurl.com/1xj3b ]

Career DOJ wrote on January 15, 2008 9:37 PM

"Show some restraint, dignity and compassion": How would the JAGs feel about that in light of the Guantanamo abuses, allegedly linked with DOJ OLC?

You do your job, and assert your oath. The ICC would like to know more. Thank you for visiting. Is this another Iran-Contra affair?

Career DOJ wrote on January 15, 2008 9:37 PM

"All DOJ did was tell TPM to check the website for press releases"

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

DoJ OPR-reviewable "careerist",

How do you know this: ""All DOJ did was tell TPM to check the website for press releases"

Did you get the memo confirming this?
You know about the "other discussions"?
You're not inrigued by Hais alleged assertion of "independence" but there are FEC documents raising reasonable quetions about her credibility?

Would not for witness impeachment purposes someone want to know she's allegedly said she was "independent" of her father, yet FEC documents raise reaasonable doubts about her assertion?

Have you made any review of the DoJ ethics standards or attorney standards of conduct?

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

What's the plan of DOJ OPR to review these FEC documents; and ccompare them with statements Hais is alleged to have released from DOJ OPR to the contrary?

Does this not raise some questions about this person's integrity?

If Hais were to attempt to go to law school, or become an attorney inside DOJ -- in the future, after passing the bar -- would it not be of interest to the Disciplinary Board in DC that this may have been an issue?

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

From the US Atty Manual: "1-4.100 Allegations of Misconduct by Department of Justice Employees— Reporting Misconduct Allegations "

From: "1-4.200 Public Finance Disclosure Reports"

SF-278: "The Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended (the "Act"), requires the filing of a Public Financial Disclosure Report (SF-278) by employees in statutorily-specified positions."

Required filing: "Schedule C and other civilian employees, regardless of pay grade, whose positions are excepted from the competitive service because of their confidential or policy-making character."

Civil action: "The Attorney General may bring a civil action against any person who does not file, files a false report, or fails to report required information. Employees who file a false report may also be prosecuted. 5 C.F.R. § 2634.701."

FOIA: "This report may be disclosed upon request to any requesting person pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 2634.603."

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

TPMM: What's the plan to review Hais revelations in the FEC documents with those she's allegedly supposed to have filed with the DOJ on the SF 278?

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

Let's look at the Standards of COnduct for Attys:

Rule 8.4 Misconduct
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

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

Has Hais attempted to use his daughter to bypass standards he was required to comply, and raised reasonable questions about his integrity as an attorney?

Up to the Missouri State Discipinary Board to investigate.

TPMM: Any plan to file a coplaint to have Hais reviewed?

===================================

"Careerist"

How can you be "so sure" that there is nothing going on, when there is an apparent inconsistency between:
A. What we're asked to believe;
B. The written record; and
C. The standards of conduct.

You have no answer, but more of the alleged, "Hay, we have no time or interest to investigate [this person, President, alleged questionable conduct ], so let's do nothing."

That is not impressive. It does not inspire confidence that you are a "career" DoJ staffer; but the opposite: Someone, who on the basis of "apparently no information" would like to do nothing, than get straight answers.

Why the speed to assert "nothing is going on" despite written evidence raising questions about her father's apparent "OK' to use this address in MO; and her apparent "misleading statement" in re whether she was or wasn't independent of her father? There are documents we still have to review; and are entited to review; and do exist.

Let's take a look at them. Then forward the issues to DOJ OPR and the Missouri State Disciplinary Board for their review. If needed, the DOJ OPR can provide this information to the FBI and FEC for followup.

There are questions. You have no answers. Sounds like Iran-Contra. Again. what else is going on?

Sounds like it's more the result of someone in the Justice Department media division having a petty hatred to TPM than a grand conspiracy. But then again, like so many other things that have gotten lost with this administration, I'd be more keen to think this is more about covering up incompetence. Being packed full of Regents grads doesn't help either.

Or maybe it's just Rachel Paulose with extra free time on her hands!

See you've all got the wrong end of the stick (the poo end?), if tpmm had a shorter email address there would be space for it.

As for criteria for inclusion, well we all know that blogs aren't real press

Nah, it is another one of their lies. Thanks for sharing that info. But this sort of behavior out of the administration is what all of us fleeing, disgruntled Republicans have come to expect out of this entire administration. Obviously you have found a back door. I love coming to this no BS site to get the facts about this dreadful administration. Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps the DOJ is worried that TPM's email address is like Monty Python's thin mint.

Career DOJ wrote on January 15, 2008 9:37 PM:

I guess my response to your ad-hominen appeal is to inquire instead as to the veracity of the statement that the distribution list is limited.

If it is, and there is reasonable congressional mandate to keep the public informed as to the activities at DOJ which would include 'public releases' then I would inquire along the lines of meeting that congressional mandate and look at why the Information Technology at DOJ is inadequate to meet a simple request.

I would imagine that an examination of the CIO's five year plan, statements to performance of that five year plan, and any contractor performance is relevant to that inquiry.

You're reading this all wrong. It's probably a simple misunderstanding. These mass emails can be a lot of work, having to type in all those email addresses every time you have something to say.

Government offices don't always have the latest technology. Maybe new software will let them put together some sort of "distribution list." With something like that, it would hardly be any work at all to send TPM the press releases -- probably even less work than it takes for Jamie Hais to type out an explanatory email. A win-win situation -- it's not that hard people!

Here is one wiki-scan range for DOJ:

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=193.95.181.192-207&ip2=&ip3=&ip4=

Note the IP numbers are not inclusive of the DOJ PA IP [ 149.101.1.165 ], which has no links/hits at wiki or on the open net. This is unusual: Usually, when DOJ Staff counsel "have time" to make wiki updates, so would the DOJ PA: Why are IPs related to DOJ PA not appearing; have some been deleted?

If there was a bonafide "scrub" effort going on inside DoJ, one would think that the IP numbers for DOJ -- all of them discussed in the open media -- should have been identified, and removed.

Waterboarding was "no problem" for Guantanamo POWs. Is DoJ OLC asking for exceptions for DOJ PA? Maybe DOJ OLC would change their mind if . . .