Comments (22)

AS wrote on March 19, 2007 5:44 PM:

Here it comes. We all know you guys are ready. We're counting on you.

And while I'm here: I'm having trouble connecting some dots without the help of TPM.

Now that everybody is finally coming back around to Carol Lam, what's the status of the Foggo and Wilkes cases? Who replaced her? It sure seems like we haven't heard any news about that stuff in a while.

Secondly, "politicization" is getting a lot of attention these days, and when I mention connecting dots, I'm wondering if you guys can help us make the leap to the politicization scheme that was much grander than the one in the Justice Dept.--that is, the one in the CIA under Porter Goss and Dusty Foggo. Even by Bush administration standards, that was an impressive display of hubris and failure.

As former USA's are starting to talk and stand up, aren't there a bunch of CIA people out there with something to say about our new favorite concept, "politicization"? Maybe a lot to say, especially when Plame is testifying about Cheney's visits to Langley and the "chilling effect."

Good luck tonight--happy hunting.

obsessed wrote on March 19, 2007 5:49 PM:

How do we/they know that they're not holding back the really nasty ones?

Anonymous wrote on March 19, 2007 5:52 PM:

My prediction - different versions of the e-mails that were released last week. Then expressions of confusion over "drafts" and "final drafts."

If these documents are coming from DOJ, and they've had the whole weekend to look over them, and there's not a special prosecutor in charge, then expect skulduggery.

kfred wrote on March 19, 2007 5:52 PM:

We're right with you - you are doing a great job, Paul!

Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 19, 2007 5:54 PM:

Two thousand pages each with one letter and a page number-all of them out of order?

Crust wrote on March 19, 2007 5:56 PM:

Why are they doing this? Is someone compelling them to or is it voluntary (or somewhere in between as in technically voluntary but they will be forced to so they might as well do it now)? Is there any assurance the document dump will be comprehensive or may it be somewhat selective?

tekel wrote on March 19, 2007 5:57 PM:

I wonder if they'll include the Rove emails from AOL.com-- or are those covered by executive privilege?

BenL wrote on March 19, 2007 6:08 PM:

AS asked who replaced Carol Lam. Well it was none other than her deputy, Karen Hewitt. Ms. Hewitt had essentially been reponsible for the day to day operations of the office during Lam's tenure.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cas/

TPM Fan wrote on March 19, 2007 6:29 PM:

Keep up the great work Josh, Paul, and the rest!!! Great write up in the LATimes of you guys and your efforts!! Bravo!!!!
You have driven this entire case into the mainstream and exposed these crooks and liars for what they are!!!

AWare wrote on March 19, 2007 6:58 PM:

As a litigator by profession, I can't help but chuckle every time I hear someone describe the DOJ's production of documents in relation to the USA purge as a "document dump." In the age of email, parties to litigation ruitinely produce hundreds of thousands -- and very often millions -- of pages of responsive documents. (I'm working on a case now where each side has produced more than one million pages).

So, far from a "dump," the numbers we're seeing thus far actually suggest widespread withholding of relevant documents, especially given the number of people involved.

FMArouet wrote on March 19, 2007 7:07 PM:

We will still need to wonder what they are holding back to shield from scrutiny. They have had several days to try to delete the most smoking of guns.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 19, 2007 7:07 PM:

7:07 - Where are the docs?

robert gordon durst wrote on March 19, 2007 7:46 PM:

Their problem is: docs they'll release refer to other docs ....

jim wrote on March 19, 2007 8:11 PM:

The documents keep coming because the new team of DOJ lawyers don't want to end up like the previous ones: probably disbarred, at the very least disgraced, and maybe even indicted for obstruction of justice...

Keeping your sorry ass out of jail greatly concentrates the mind of your typical attorney....

expertwitness wrote on March 19, 2007 8:53 PM:

In my experience as an expert witness, jim is right.

Crust wrote on March 19, 2007 9:06 PM:

AWare makes a great point. There's no way 2000 pages is anywhere near comprehensive in this day and age of emails and Blackberries.

Anonymous wrote on March 19, 2007 10:34 PM:

Ha ha.

Yea, the ones directly stating they needed to stymie the Foggo investigation.

Those are in the process of being lost.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 19, 2007 11:54 PM:

What's clear from the documents initially released in .pdf format is that individual Republican Congress people wanted to use immigration as an emotionally charged and possibly racist election tool in 2006, and were stymied by USA's unwilling to accommodate them. See, Cong. Issa related correspondence, pp 15-22.

Issa may have willfully used an altered report, originally from 2003, but remarked to 2004, with other unspecified changes, from a single Southern California border area to accuse Carol Lam of not prosecuting enough cases.

Mr. Issa criticizes individual low-level smuggling cases wholly out of context. It appears that Lam prosecuted the most serious immigrant smuggling cases - devoting half her staff to this - while juggling other high priority matters, including high profile white collar crime that affects government policy. Mr. Issa's criticism fails to address Congress's own role in failing to craft a workable immigration policy or fund current USA and other immigration control efforts.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 20, 2007 12:07 AM:

Paul Charlton's proposed pilot program - p. 27 - to record investigative interviews seems unremarkable, but it was strenuously opposed by most agencies. They might compare the experience of other countries, such as the UK, that apparently routinely record interviews of those arrested as suspects. I don't know what that would reveal, but let's find out. They may not have abandoned the notion that suspects have rights before their convicted, or even afterward.

Jim wrote on March 20, 2007 5:40 AM:

How pathetic that as the sun begins to set on his failed Presidency, he blames the people of our Nation, saying we have some psychological trauma rather than learning the lessons of his enormous mistakes. He will never understand that a grateful nation would rise with relief, if he only had the wisdom to learn and change, and a grateful world will rise with relief, when his days in
office are done.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for using 9-11 to create fear throughout the land, rather than bravery, courage and valor.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for using 9-11 to launch partisan and dishonest attacks on genuine American war heroes because they happen to be members of the other political party.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for using 9-11 as a reason to become the only President in our history to become a world-wide advocate for torture and detention practices that every leader, of every democratic nation, everywhere in the world, has publicly or privately pleaded with
him to abandon.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for showing contempt for the advice of our military commanders by allowing the man he compares to Hitler, to escape from Tora Bora, to pursue an obsessive war in Iraq, that many of those same commanders warned him about, while he publicly claimed he always follows their advice.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for treating the Chief of Staff of the Army with ridicule and contempt, when General Shinseki so honorably tried to warn him.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history, for putting his hand on the Bible and pledging to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution while using 9-11 to claim the unilateral power to break it.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history by accepting the sacred duty to faithfully execute the laws of the land, while using 9-11 to create fears to claim the unilateral powers to violate them.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for dishonoring a spirit that had Democrats and Republicans singing God Bless America at the doors of our Capitol, to personally promote a politics so venomous, vile and vindictive that he fills the air with talk of treason and enemies lists compiled by hate filled supporters.

Even when one of his media partisans slanders the Army that landed at Normandy and the Marines who took Iwo Jima with preposterous falsehoods that they committed war crimes, the self-styled war president lacks the moral integrity to speak out, for fear of offending what he proudly regards as his base.

Even when the trailer park trash of American politics slanders and demeans some widows of 9-11, this partisan who promised to bring honor and integrity to Washington lacks the moral stature to speak out, even against that.

George W. Bush will be morally impeached by the court of history for trying to frighten our people into war with Iraq, with tall tales of Saddam Hussein working with Osama Bin Laden to create mushroom clouds of nuclear extermination that would kill the people of New York.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for using 9-11 to fan the flames of fear so violently, that at one point, the Capital City of the land of the free and the home of the brave was turned into a panicked hutch of rabbits running to the stores for duct tape, gas masks, bottled water, and bullet proof vests while the Vice-President of the United States fled to hiding spots at undisclosed locations.

How ironic, how pathetic, and how fitting that as America prepares to honor the heroes of 9-11 the Senate Intelligence Committee issues a report detailing fraudulent exploitation of false intelligence, one of America's national networks exploits 9-11 with a docu-fraud of falsehoods, while our "wartime" President exploits 9-11 one more time, with one more taxpayer financed tour of fear, desperately trying to win one more national election.

Five years ago some of the finest Americans who God ever put on this earth gave their lives for their brothers and sisters, for their neighbors and families, for the country that they and we love so much, so deeply and so passionately.

No one ever took a poll to determine whether these American heroes were Democrats or Republicans, because it does not matter.

Bugboy wrote on March 20, 2007 9:09 AM:

It took Fitz 3 years to nail Scooter for unrelated charges, there's no way that Bush can be impeached in 21 months. I wish it were any other way but that's the reality.

Thank the American Public (TWICE!) for the CEO President, he's doing exactly as any robber baron would do. Careful what you wish for, as the saying goes. And before anyone says Gore won the popular vote, why the vote was even that close in the first place is beyond me.

Doug wrote on March 20, 2007 7:36 PM:

Do you know the difference between a republican under oath and one that is not? I can't either. Libby's conviction said it all. Oaths don't matter to those who are constantly spinning the truth without regard except their only ethic LOYATY to the Bushies.