« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Justice Department Documents on Purge Now Online

The House Judiciary Committee has made the documents available online here (pdf) and here (pdf).

See anything interesting? Let us know. We'll be doing running posts on the documents.

Update: And here are parts 3 and 4 of the documents.


Comments (9)

Splash wrote on March 13, 2007 1:13 PM:

Here's an interesting story from last October on the over-hyping by the GOP of voter fraud.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20061011/1a_lede11.art.htm

Excerpt:

WASHINGTON — At a time when many states are instituting new requirements for voter registration and identification, a preliminary report to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission has found little evidence of the type of polling-place fraud those measures seek to stop.

USA TODAY obtained the report from the commission four months after it was delivered by two consultants hired to write it. The commission has not distributed it publicly.
...
Conservatives dispute the research and conclusions. Thor Hearne, counsel to the American Center for Voting Rights, notes that the Justice Department has sued Missouri for having ineligible voters registered, while dead people have turned up on the registration rolls in Michigan. “It is just wrong to say that this isn't a problem,” he says.

That's one reason the commission decided not to officially release the report. “There was a division of opinion here,” Chairman Paul DeGregorio says. “We've seen places where fraud does occur.”

The consultants found little evidence of that. Barry Weinberg, former deputy chief of the voting section in the Justice Department's civil rights division, reviewed their work. “Fraud at the polling place is generally difficult to pull off,” he says. “It takes a lot of planning and a lot of coordination.”


Look to me like somebody at the White House whose name KARL ROVE I wont mention, didnt like the conclusion described above. Also, this article came out about a month before the last elections.

Hmmn.

Let's_get_real wrote on March 13, 2007 3:38 PM:

Looks like some of the concerns relative to Iglesias' workload were sincere. There were questions raised about effective prosecution of marijuana cases, immigration law, and overall, the caseload that Iglesias was handling.
As a former political appointee (not at DOJ) and Washington resident, let me inform the politically naive: They're not called political appointments for nothing. Both Democrat and Republican Senators and Presidents seek to fill open USA slots with candidates that match their own general political philosophy. If USA's don't toe the administration line, then fine, whatever, they don't get new and better appointments when they move on. However, if USA's don't toe the administration line AND they suck at their jobs, then they are asked to move on.

DeAnna wrote on March 13, 2007 4:51 PM:

Part 1, page 23
On May 31, 2006

Kyle Sampson sends a blueberry message to Bill Mercer(ODAG)

Has ODAG ever called Carol Lam and woodshedded her re immigration? Has anyone?
If the AG ordered 20 more prosecuters to S.D. Cal. to do immigration only, where would we get them from(remember the premise: AG has ordered it)?
Please advise.

I believe this is the setup for Carol Lam.

DeAnna wrote on March 13, 2007 4:55 PM:

Part 1, page 23
On May 31, 2006

Kyle Sampson sends a blueberry message to Bill Mercer(ODAG)

Has ODAG ever called Carol Lam and woodshedded her re immigration? Has anyone?
If the AG ordered 20 more prosecuters to S.D. Cal. to do immigration only, where would we get them from(remember the premise: AG has ordered it)?
Please advise.

I believe this is the setup for Carol Lam.

DeAnna wrote on March 13, 2007 6:09 PM:

The month before on May 11, 2006 (page 22)

From Kyle Sampson to William K. Kelley

Confidential

Per your inquiry yesterday after JSC, this is the e-mail I sent to Dabney last month at Harriet's request. Please call me at your convenience to discuss the following:

Tim Griffin for E.D. Ark and
The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires.

andrew mc wrote on March 13, 2007 6:46 PM:

What is the "real problem" that can't be written, only talked about? Is it immigration 'berried about 20 days later? Is it something like an ongoing investigation springing from Duke's guilty plea and sentencing months earlier?

Doh wrote on March 13, 2007 8:41 PM:

In that email where Sampson talks about how this is important to Rove, I think the best part (IIRC) is at the beginning, where he says they should adopt a strategy to "gum the issue" of Griffin's appt. to death-- just asking for more time, delaying, and then adds at the end "all in 'good faith' of course." I think that pretty much sums of the Bush Administration's notion of "good faith."

SES wrote on March 20, 2007 8:21 AM:

I would remind people to look at the locations of these fired US Attorneys as well. Nevada, home of Harry Reid. San Francisco, home of Nancy Pelosi. New Mexico, home of Bill Richardson, running for president. Arkansas, former home of Hillary Clinton, also running for president. Michigan, home of one of the biggest thorns in the Republicans' side, Carl Levin, up for re-election in 2008. Washington, where elections have been very, very close in recent years. And San Diego, where Duke Cunningham came from and where Lam was reportedly going after other Republicans (Issa??). Arizona, where John McCain, who conservatives do NOT want getting the nomination, makes his home. Look at the bigger picture here.

ojcwy rdptncmwh wrote on September 7, 2007 6:37 PM:

ehgaufiw swumry rebuvi wimlebca ygktfjdl rdng anhtr

Post a comment

Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address