Comments (742)

TK wrote on March 20, 2007 1:04 AM:

2-8

Pages 15-16 are Tim Griffin's resume (!).

Pages 11-48 are all resumes.

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 1:05 AM:

2-9 -- all resumes. Brett Tolman's resume is at the end.

JPV wrote on March 20, 2007 1:07 AM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 1-3 page 25.

From: Kyle Sampson
I am only in favor of executing on a plan to push some USAs out if we really are ready and willing to put in the time necessary to select candidates and get them appointed — it will be counterproductive to DOJ operations if we push USAs out and then don’t have replacements ready to roll immediately. In addition, I strongly recommend that, as a matter of Administration policy, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments. We can continue to do selection in JSC, but then should have DOJ take over entirely the vet and appointment. By not going the PAS route. We can give far less deference to home-State Senators and thereby get (1) our preferred person appointed and (2) do it far faster and more efficiently, at less political cost to the White House.

JPV wrote on March 20, 2007 1:08 AM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 1-6 page 20.

From: Chiara, Margaret M. (USAMIW)[MM.Chiara@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 3:41 'PM
To: McNulty, Paul J .
Cc: Elston, Michael (ODAG)
Subject: WDMI

Paul: February 1 seems to be the right date to provide a status report. I continue to vigorously pursue employment. In addition to applying to numerous public agencies and organizations, I am now working with a "headhunter". Who knew this could be so difficult?
Michael Elston informed me that I must vacate my position by March 1. Therefore, I plan to announce my resignation on the afternoon of February 14 or the morning of February 15. I need all the time, salary and benefits available so my resignation will be effective on February 28. The first question within WDMI will be who is the nominee? When will I be able to answer that question?
FYI: Everyone who knows about my required resignation, (primarily our USA colleagues and people who are providing references ), is astonished that I am being asked to leave. Now that if has been widely reported that departing USAs have either failed to meet performance expectations or that they acted independently rather than follow DOJ/EOUSA directives, the situation is so much worse. You know that I am in neither catagory. This makes me so sad. Why have I been asked to resign? The real reason, epecially if true, would be a lot easier to live with. Margaret

Chris wrote on March 20, 2007 1:11 AM:

1-4

On Page 18, Michael Elston writes to Kyle Sampson (and others, including Paul McNulty) ----

Kyle:

Kevin Ryan's FAUSA, Emui Choi, just called to let us know that Kevin is not returning calls from Sen. Feinstein or Carol Lam and doing his best to stay out of this. He wanted us to know that he's still a "company man." I gave her my talkers for McKay and Charlton and asked her to convey them to Kevin.

Mike

tes wrote on March 20, 2007 1:11 AM:

2-5,

Pages 20-26: "Draft" Table outlining performance "issues" compared to EARS for ousted USAs. Includes handwritten notes commenting on various issues.

Pages 29-34: Handwritten outline - apparent talking points, including:
Page 31: "We do not need cause, so there is not necessarily an objective record/ ...Margolis involved and supportive.

Page 32: [Re: Cummins] "not peformance related."

Page 34: " White House personnel & counsel consulted -- POTUS appointments "

fwiffo wrote on March 20, 2007 1:12 AM:

1-1 seems to have a lot of actual upsetness about a couple USAs inaction on immigration prosecutions. In particular, Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) is yelling at Carol Lam a lot about a report saying something like only 6% of aliens and alien smugglers caught by the border patrol actually going to prosecution.

Ru wrote on March 20, 2007 1:12 AM:

2-5 28-34 are handwritten notes.

On page 31, notes explaining USAs weren't told why they were being dismissed because it would lead to their objections or comparisons.

On page 34, notes explaining WH personnel and counsel consulted.

dday wrote on March 20, 2007 1:13 AM:

Great work, guys.

1-1

A lot of this dump is about an AP story on May 18, 2006 about the lack of immigration prosecutions in the SD area. One interesting part is that Iglesias is emailed the story by Rebecca Seidel, and she says "see below story. We are going to need to ensure that you David have enough info to respond to questions you may get on this. We need to respond with our good prosecution numbers..."

In other words, DoJ was actively trying to knock down the AP story, and appealed to none other than Iglesias and his "good prosecution numbers" in the border state of New Mexico. I don't know off-hand if immigration cases were given as a rationale for his firing.

More later. This is kinda fun.

TK wrote on March 20, 2007 1:14 AM:

1-6

Page 21. Margaret Chiara struggles to figure out the real reason for her dismissal in a Feb. 1 e-mail. Sad.

JPV wrote on March 20, 2007 1:14 AM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 1-8 page 21.

From: Scolinos, Tasia
Sent: Thursday, February 22. 2007 5:13 PM
To: Elston Michael (ODAG); Goodling, Monica; Sampson, Kyle
Cc: Roehrkasse, Brian
Subject: FW: Margaret Chiara Press Release
Attachments:’ 2007 MMC press release.wpd

FYI - Michigan is going to push this out tomorrow. The first question will be whether she was asked to leave. The first assistant said he did not know what Margaret planned to say in response to that. Has anyone talked to her this week to get a feel for where she is at with this? She is also faxing a copy of her resignation letter to the AG and the WH -the first assistant did not know what it said. Has she discussed it with any of you? I believe this will generate another round ‘of rough stories as expected- her press release paints a pretty dam good record and emphasizes her many “firsts” as a woman which the media will no doubt play up. I am planning to decline comment out of here with respect to whether she was as to leave.

sara wrote on March 20, 2007 1:15 AM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 1-9 page 26.
Chiara requests a change from McNulty regarding firing. Please state truth as political not due to performance.

tes wrote on March 20, 2007 1:16 AM:

2-4
Page 17-20: "USA Attorney Assessment": Bullet list of alleged performance issues with each USA; appears to be similar to table/chart, which appears at 2-5, pp20-26.

TK wrote on March 20, 2007 1:16 AM:

1-6

Page 23. Sampson decides that he doesn't want Bud Cummins to appear to answer questions. He poses a whole list of questions that he appears not to want answered under oath -- presumably because Sampson either knows what the answers would be or doesn't

JPV wrote on March 20, 2007 1:17 AM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 1-10 page 9.
From: Chiara, Margaret M (USAMIW)
Sent: Tuesday, November 07. 2006 8:00 AM
To: McNulty, Paul J
Subject: Re: USA/WDMI

Paul: As soon as the “election dust settles”, I ask that you tell me why my resignation may be requested. Since you have not taken exception to the eventually, I now assume that it is likely. I need to know the truth to live in peace with the aftermath. (Of course, we do need to retain control of the Senate to facilitate confirmations.) Perhaps you are not aware that Michael Elston informed me, per Monica Goodling, that a congress person, who is expected to lose in today’s election, will be offered the leadership of the VAW office. I am already actively but discretely pursuing self-help options. However, I will need assistance to retain federal gov’t financial security, as stated in my previous e -mail. Know that I appreciate your response and offer to assist. Margaret

Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

—–Original Message—–
From: McNulty, Paul J
To: Chiara, Margaret M. (USAMIWj
Sent: Tue Nov 07 07:22:51 2006
Subject: Re: USA/WOMI

Margaret, I received your message and I appreciate your perspective. I know of your interest in the VAWA job and will let you know if any other opportunities come up. Paul

Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

—–Original Message—–
From: Chiara, Margaret M. (USAMIW)
To: McNulty, Paul J
Sent: Sun Nov 05 15:13:03 2006
Subject: USA/WOMI

Paul: On November 3, Michael Elston conveyed professional shocking news. I had previously consulted him about the feasibility of a brief leave of absence to serve as the interim dean of the Michigan State University College of Law. (Note: MSU is interested in me only if I am the USA for WOMI.) Mr. Elston informed me that such a leave is only an option when the alternate service is within the federal government. He further informed me that I should expect contact from the White House requesting my resignation as USA shortly after the November 7 elections. He could offer no explanation other than that I erroneously assumed that good service guaranteed longevity because other USAs have been asked for their resignation without cause. In my case the service has exemplary in a difficult district in addition to being an active contributor since appointment on 3 of the A.G.’s subcommittees. While I live in hope that this dire prediction is untrue, I am contacting you because I need assistance to remain in federal service with a comparable compensation or, quite frankly, I will lose everything that I have been working toward for the past five years. My chronology will not allow me to recoup from such an unanticipated financial catastrophe. I trust that I can count on you to intervene or provide an alternative. Margaret

Ned wrote on March 20, 2007 1:17 AM:

I am curious about the manually redacted names on DAG 545 and DAG 558 (zeros omitted). The redactions were obviously done by hand. DAG 558 has two names redacted and 558 has one, and given the context, it makes me wounder.

Rob Z wrote on March 20, 2007 1:17 AM:

1 10 Page 1

Cummins writing to his fellow fired attorneys about the message he recieved:

------------------
...if they feel like any of us intend to continue to offer quotes to the press, or organize behind the scenes congressional pressure, then they would feel forced to somehow pull *their* gloves off and offer public criticisms to defend their actions more fully.... I was tempted to challenge him and say something movie-like such as "are you threatening ME???"...
-------------------

MillionthMonkey wrote on March 20, 2007 1:19 AM:

Halfway through Document 1.10...

This email appears on pages 1 - 4 twice (along with some Outlook fluff indicating an active ongoing coverup)-

--- snip snip ---

From: H.E. Cummins
Sent: Tue 2/20/2007 5:06 PM
To: Dan Bogden; Paul K. Charlton; David Iglesias; Carol Lam; McKay, John (Law Adjunct)
Subject: on another note

Mike Elston from the DAG's office called me today. The call was amiable enough, but clearly spurred by the Sunday Post article. The essence of his message was that they feel like they are taking unnecessary flak to avoid trashing each of us specifically or further, but if they feel like any of us intend to continue to offer quotes to the press, or organize behind the scenes congressional pressure, then they would feel forced to somehow pull their gloves off and offer public criticisms to defend their actions more fully. I can't offer any specific quotes, but that was clearly the message. I was tempted to challenge him and say something movie-like such as "are you threatening ME???", but instead I kind of shrugged it off and said I didn't sense that anyone was intending to perpetuate this. He mentioned my quote from Sunday and I didn't apologize for it, told him it was true and that everyone involved should agree with the truth of my statement, and pointed out to him that I stopped short of calling them liars and merely said that IF they were doing as alleged then they should retract. I also made it a point to tell him that all of us have turned down multiple invitations to testify. He reacted quite a bit to the idea of anyone voluntarily testifying and it seemed clear that they would see that as a major escalation of the conflict meaning some kind of unspecified form of retaliation.

I don't personally see this as any big deal and it sounded like the threat of retaliation amounts to a threat that they would make their recent behind doors senate presentation public. I didn't tell him that I had heard about the details in that presentation and found it to be a pretty weak threat since everyone who heard it apparently thought it was weak.

I don't want to stir you up conflict or overstate the threatening undercurrent in the call, but the message was clearly there and you should be aware before you speak to the press again if you choose to do that. I don't feel like I am betraying him by reporting this to you because I think that is probably what he wanted me to do. Of course, I would appreciate maximum opsec regarding this email and ask that you not forward it or let others read it.

Bud

--- snip snip ---

Pages 5 through 24 contain original and redacted (?) versions of William E. Moschella's testimony before the US house of representatives on March 6. You can see all the WH edits.

Page 25 contains a confrontational email dated March 6, 2007 from Margaret Chiara to Paul McNulty and Michael Elson immediately after she found out that she was one of the 8 prosecutors (not sure if this is related to Moschella's testimony or not):

-- snip snip --

From: Chiara, Margaret M. (USAMIW)
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007
To: McNulty, Paul J
Cc: Elston, Michael (ODAG)
Subject: WDMI

Importance: High

Today's Congressional events make clear that I am, indeed, among the "USA - 8".
Shortly after his opening statement, but before citing the perceived deficiencies of my former colleagues, Will Moschella stated that the two United States Attorneys not present were dismissed because of management problems. Apparently Kevin Ryan (whom I do not know) and I share the same reason for termination.

Michael Elston told me on more than one occasion, that the rationale for dismissal was on a continuum of sorts and that I am on the de minimus end after Dan Bogden. It is abundantly clear that this regrettable situation could have been better managed if the reasons for the dismissals were initially communicated to the affected United States Attorneys.

So, I now need to know what is the management problem to which Mr. Moschella referred?

Margaret

--snip snip--

Pages 26 on through the end of this document are all testimony from a full-committee hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on "Preserving Prosecutorial Independence: Is the Department of Justice Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys?" chaired by Charles Schumer (D-NY). Testimony from deputy attorney general Paul J. McNulty starts on page 37 and continues through the end. I assume this was a public hearing so I didn't read it more carefully than this.

Pat Smith wrote on March 20, 2007 1:19 AM:

In 2-1, p.43, a 1/5/07 e-mail exchange between Sampson, Goodling, Elston and McNulty shows that Chiara, Bodgen and Lam asked for extensions on their sudden firings. Sampson writes, "And we granted 1-month extensions for Dan and Margaret, but not Carol -- right?"

No extension for Lam--politically motivated?

Anyone notice how concerned and "sad" Margaret Chiara was about her firing and not being able to procure another government job?

steve ex-expat wrote on March 20, 2007 1:21 AM:

Pt. 2 1070319 pdf is basically a how-to-fire the U.S. Attorneys, and what to say. It has a pleading from Margeret Chiara (sp?) to save her job.

Interesting reference on page 14 to "Karl's shop".

TomT wrote on March 20, 2007 1:21 AM:

1-2, first three pages are a letter to Issa about Lam. On page 4, this comment seems possibly interesting: "I didn't realize Issa and Carol and met -- do we need to acknowledge anything more about this meeting?"

AdamSC wrote on March 20, 2007 1:22 AM:

1-10, pg 25
Email from Margarate Chiara (USAMIW) to Paul McNulty.

In congressional hearings on 3/6/07..."Will Moschella stated that the two USAs not present were dismissed because of management problems. Apparantley Kevin Ryan (whom I do not know) and I share the same reason for termination."

"Michael Elston told me on more than one occasion, that the rationale for dismissal was on a continuum of sorts and that I am on the de minimus end after Dan Bogden...."
...
"So, I now need to know what is the management problem to which Mr. Moschella referred?"

Rich Wickline wrote on March 20, 2007 1:22 AM:

2-19

Resumes

Newsie8200 wrote on March 20, 2007 1:23 AM:

Document 1-11.

Most of this is testimony from a hearing.

Last two pages has some handwritten notes. I can't make out anything on page 39. It appears as though someone wrote on the back of a page where there's lots of writing that's tough to make out.

Page 38 is interesting.

"The list
-Menus for recording statements
-SDCA-dealing w/ Carol
-AUSA phone call project
-Kevin Ryan-EARS-Margolis"

I think the first item is "Menus" but I'm not sure. The writing is kind of hard to make out there.

What do SDCA and EARS stand for? Margolis? I think the one item that jumps out is "dealing w/ Carol". I guess that means Carol Lam?

rita wrote on March 20, 2007 1:23 AM:

1-10 (AP article and Issa Letter discussion begins here and runs for several pages)

Issa attempts to smear Carol Lam in mid-May 2006

6 Days After the FBI served search warrants on Dusty Foggo, May 18, 2006, the AP ran a story on an unofficial Border Patrol document they had received from Darrell Issa. The article included details from the document and Lam’s and other
federal officials’ responses.

The lead sentence in the story is, “The vast majority of people caught smuggling immigrants across the border near San Diego are never prosecuted for the offense, demoralizing the U.S. Border Patrol agents making the arrests,
according to an internal document obtained by The Associated Press.” The article also states, “Judges and federal attorneys are so swamped that
only the most egregious smuggling cases are prosecuted.”

According to a press release on Issa’s website Lam’s response to him was, “Representative Issa has been misled. The document he calls a "Border Patrol Report" is actually an old internal Border Patrol document, relating to a single
substation that has been substantially altered and passed off as an official report. Many of the comments in the document to which Representative Issa refers are editorial comments inserted by an unidentified individual, and they were not approved by or ever seen by Border Patrol management.”

And, Issa admits in a May 24th, 2006 letter to Lam that the memo “could not be embraced and released publicly as a report representing the views of Border Patrol management”.

But Issa has continued to use that document to this day. On June 29, 2006 he cites it as a memo from a “Department of Homeland Security” source. He used it in his testimony before Congress on March 6, 2007 and attributes it to a “senior
source within the Border Patrol”.

Issa stated, “only 6 percent of 289 smuggling suspects caught by Border Patrol agents from the El Cajon station east of San Diego in the 12 months ending in September 2004 were prosecuted.” But the AP article goes on to say of the 289
cases, “Some were instead prosecuted for another crime. Other cases were declined by federal prosecutors, or the suspect was released by the Border Patrol.”

The AP article notes that “Issa’s office said it was an internal Border Patrol report written last August. It was unclear who wrote it.”. Issa has variously referred to the document as a “memo” or a “report.” He has never published this
41-page document on his website.

Rich Wickline wrote on March 20, 2007 1:24 AM:

Sorry, 2-9 are resumes. I haven't looked at 2-19.

TK wrote on March 20, 2007 1:25 AM:

1-6

Page 42. Paul McNulty discusses the possibility of hiring Margaret Chiara into "a EOUSA slot and then send[ing] her down to the NAC". This is a job that she sees available.

Michael Elston notes that "This idea may help us avoid linking this to the others."

EasyRider wrote on March 20, 2007 1:25 AM:

I would suggest a couple of things.
1.) record all the text of the message you are reporting about.
2.) Collect all of your reports into a document that is a mirror of the source PDF file. That will make it easier to collect a master text set of each PDF here on TPM.
3.) Begin reading emails from the ends (bottom) to the top. This will make them easlier to read and understand the communication.
4.) Use color codes to identify and classify your text as you collect it.

Just suggestions, maybe other have other thoughts of how to do analysis of these files.

JPV wrote on March 20, 2007 1:25 AM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 1-10 page 14.

From: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 200612:08 PM
To: 'HarrieLMiers@who.eop.gov'; William_K._Kelley@who.eop.gov
Cc: McNulty, PaulJ
Subject: RE: USA replacement plan

Who will determine whether whether this requires the President's attention?

-----Original Message-----
From: Harriet Miers@who.eop.gov [mailto:Harriet Miers@who.eop.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15,' 2006 11:39 AM
To: Sampson, Kyle; William K. Kelley@who.eop.gov
Cc: McNulty, Paul J
Subject: RE: USA replacement plan

Not sure whether this will be determined to require the boss's attention. If it does, he just left last night so would not be able to accomplish that for some time. We will see. Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kyle.Sampson@usdoj.gov [mailto:Kyle.Sampson@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 11:02 AM
To: Kelley, William K.; Miers, Harriet
Cc: Paul.J.McNulty@usdoj.gov
Subject: USA replacement plan
Importance: High

Harriet/Bill, please see the attached. Please note (1) the plan, by its terms, would commence this week; (2) I have consulted with the DAG, but not yet informed others who would need to be brought into the loop, including Acting Associate AG Bill Mercer, EOUSA Director Mike Battle, and AGAC Chair Johnny Sutton (nor have I informed anyone in Karl's shop, another pre-execution necessity I would recommend); and (3) I am concerned that to execute this plan properly we must all be on the same page and be steeled to withstand any political upheaval that might result (see Step 3); if we start caving to complaining U.S. Attorneys or Senators then we shouldn't do it -- it'll be more trouble than it is worth.

We'll stand by for a green light from you. Upon the green light, we'll (1) circulate the below plan to the list of folks in Step 3 (and ask that you circulate it to Karl's shop), (2) confirm that Kelley is making the Senator/Bush political lead calls, and (3) get Battle making the calls to the USAs. Let us know.

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 1:25 AM:

I mentioned in the previous thread that Margaret Chiara's e-mail at 1-9 p. 26 is just wonderful. The two best quotes are

- when she labels the proposal that McNulty find her a new job "the witness protection plan", meaning that if he doesn't protect, she'll decide to be a witness after all.
- when she suggests that if McNulty doesn't find her a job, she'll go public with the reason for her dismissal: she writes "Politics may not be a pleasant reason, but the truth is compelling."

I love this second quote, because it's a new twist on the old quote from Huey Long (at least apocryphally): if you're with me in the election, you'll get a piece of the pie. If you're not with, all you gonna get is good government." The subtext in both quotes is that "neither of us wants good government" -- "neither of us wants the 'compelling truth' to come out, Paul, so get me a job and everybody's happy.

And she even mentions her monetar contributions once more -- actually making explicit the fact that in this administration, giving money to the campaign carries an expectation of a job.

tekel wrote on March 20, 2007 1:25 AM:

2-2 page 14:

From: Sampson
To: Elston, Richard Hertling
CC: Goodling, Moschella, McNulty, Rebecca Seidel(who is Rebecca?)
RE: Bud Cummins
Date: Feb 1

In response to mail from Elston, telling Hertling that Schumer was asking Cummins to testify.

Sampson writes:
"I don't think he should [testify]. How would he answer:

Did you resign voluntarily?
Were you told why you were being asked to resign?
[...]
Did Griffin ever talk about being AG appointed and avoiding Senate confirmation?
[...]

-------

Yes, those turned out to be difficult questions, didn't they.

hungrycoyote wrote on March 20, 2007 1:26 AM:

Oh, I sent an email before I saw this. I'll just post here:

2-6

On pages 4 through 6, there is a letter from Richard A. Hertling, Acting Assistant Attorney General, to Senator Mark Pryor in Arkansas dated January 31, 2007. The first page of the letter defends the reasons for selecting Tim Griffin. However, on page two of the letter there is a long paragraph about why they inserted the change to the Patriot Act:

"Last year's amendment to the Attorney General's appointment authority was necessary and appropriate. Prior to the amendment, the Attorney General could appoint an interim United States Attorney for only 120 days; thereafter, the district court was authorized to appoint an interim United States Attorney. In cases where a Senate-confirmed United States Attorney could not be appointed within 120 days, the limitation on the Attorney General's appointment authority resulted in numerous, recurring problems. For example, some district courts -- recognized the oddity of members of one branch of government appointing offices of another and the conflicts inherent in the appointment of an interim United States Attorney who would then have many matters before the court -- refused to exercise the court appointment authority, thereby requiring the Attorney General to make successive, 120-day appointments. In contrast, other district courts -- ignoring the oddity and the inherent conflicts -- sought to appoint as interim United States Attorney wholly unacceptable candidates who did not have the appropriate experience or the necessary clearances. Contrary to your letter, nothing in the text or history of the statute even suggests that the Attorney General should articulate a national security or law enforcement need for making an interim appointment. Because the Administration is committed to having a Senate-confirmed United States Attorney for all 94 federal districts, changing the law to restore the limitations on the Attorney General's appointment authority is unnecessary."

If as the DOJ says, "the Administration is committed to having a Senate-confirmed United States Attorney for all 94 federal districts," then why didn't they replace Tim Griffin with somebody who was willing to submit their name for Senate confirmation, when Griffin announced on February 15 that he would not go before the Senate for confirmation?

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/National/182004/print/

ahem wrote on March 20, 2007 1:27 AM:

2-1 Chiara / McNulty emails, followed by emails discussing Chiara

p. 9 (Nov 7, election day)

Chiara: "I need to know the truth to live in peace with the aftermath."

2-2,

p. 33 (Feb 9)
Chiara sends job posting to McNulty. McNulty to Elston: "Could we make this happen? Hire her into an EOUSA spot and send her down to the NAC?"

p. 38 (Feb 13)
Chiara sends another job posting to McNulty: "Your intervention would be needed"

[Feb 12, Levin and Stabenow send a letter to Gonzales asking if any Michigan US Attorneys are being resigned. Chiara's fate is still a secret]

p. 42 (Feb 21)
Chiara emails McNulty with details of resignation announcement, set for 2/23 and asks for clarification on departure date

[what happened between Feb 12 and Feb 21? Did McNulty pull strings to get Chiara a job, and her silence?]

2-3,

p. 1 (Mar 4)
Chiara emails McNulty asking him to 'reconsider the rationale of poor performance'... 'Politics may not be a pleasant reason but the truth is compelling. And as you surely realize, the unresolved Phil Green situation has definitely complicated the perception of DOJ in WDMI.'

p. 2
McNulty replies, 'you know well how we have worked with you to help you make as smooth a transition as possible to your next opportunity'. Says 'performance' is truthful.

p. 19 (Mar 6)
Chiara to McNulty, complaining about Moschella's reference to 'management problems' in his statement to the House subcommittee.

sara wrote on March 20, 2007 1:27 AM:

1-9 page 42
Elston email reply to Goodling and Moschella wondering about specific reasons why AG replaced in AZ and NV...is it really obscenity cases?

Nathan wrote on March 20, 2007 1:27 AM:

this margaret chiara sounds rather pathetic -- a former ausa cant find employment? financial catastrophe? normally ausa's leave their posts to windfalls...

TomT wrote on March 20, 2007 1:28 AM:

Just to sum up, first 25 pages of 1-2 is back and forth about Lam's record on border cases and various drafts of letters to Feinstein and Issa about it. Then at page 26, it starts in with Timothy Griffin's CV. Stopped around page 30.

CMG wrote on March 20, 2007 1:28 AM:

2-2 pg 14: Bud Cummins offers to testify -- mostly in support. In VERY REVEALING response dated Feb 1, 2007, Sampson thinks it's a bad idea because

"How would he answer:
Did you resign voluntarily?
Were you told why you were being asked to resign?
Who told you?
When did they tell you?
What did they say?
Did you ever talk to TimGriffin about his becoming U.S. Attorney?
What did Griffin say?
Did Griffin ever talk about being AG appointed and avoiding Senate confirmation?
Were you asked to resign because you were underperforming?
If not, they why?"

Kathleen de la Pena McCook wrote on March 20, 2007 1:29 AM:

2-5

Harsh remarks about why firing, scribbled in on grid...
EXAMPLES:
Bodgen-lack of energy
Iglesias-absentee landlord

pp. 20-26
======

HANDWRITTEN NOTES ON WHY FIRING
includes elitist remarks about universities as if state universities aren't "as good."
pp. 29-33
=========
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt2-5070319.pdf

roger wrote on March 20, 2007 1:29 AM:

1-10

p 1. is Bud Cummins' widely discussed 2/20/07 email to fellow fired U.S. Attorneys, describing a phone call in which someone named Mike Elston from the justice dept attempted to intimidate him out of talking to the press or congress.

ahem wrote on March 20, 2007 1:30 AM:

No extension for Lam--politically motivated?

Looks like it.

And it looks like she went to the press, because 2-2, p.2 shows the SD Union-Leader story forwarded to McNulty.

His response to Elston: "Wow. Has she been called yet?"

hungrycoyote wrote on March 20, 2007 1:30 AM:

1-3 (Page 34)

From: Elston, Michael (ODAG)
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 6:29 PM
To: Sampson, Kyle
Subject: Re: U.S. Attorney Replacement Plan

This looks fine to me -- trying to get Paul's input as well.

The only concerning I have is that Paul just visited __________ and asked that _______ not be on the list. He does not seem to be running things well (if somewhat independent of DOJ). On the other hand, Matt mentioned a scandal rumor that is of great concern to me. Should we mark him as tentative while we talk that out?
------
Who did Paul visit? What scandal?

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 1:30 AM:

All of document 2-9 is a collection of resumes of various assistants (including Phil Green, whose curious case is referenced in one of the Chiara e-mails.)

Chuck Rosenberg felt it was relevant to his effort to find a primo AG spot that he was a "Cross Country bicyclist." He describes his trek as a "9500-mile trip". Umm, Chuck, it's only about 3,000 miles from LA to NY.

Maybe instead of just crossing the country, he circumnavigated it. I doubt it though. It seems like puffing up the mileage on a cross-country trip is just the sort of thing that WOULD recommend you to this administration.

dday wrote on March 20, 2007 1:31 AM:

1-1

The William Moschella letter to Dianne Feinstein is on page 44 of PDF 1-1. A similar one was sent out to Rep. Darrell Issa. Moschella defends DoJ policy on immigration cases and the work of USA Carol Lam in that department. Moschella is either lying to Congress in this letter, or he and his office lied to Congress under oath when he determined that Lam was fired due to her work in failing to properly prosecute border cases. So which is it?

Ghost of Tom Joad wrote on March 20, 2007 1:32 AM:

Pat Smith,
Notice how she is very upset. It seems like she is in deep financial trouble and can't afford to take any time off. Weird. What's up with that? How much do USA's get paid a year?

Robin wrote on March 20, 2007 1:33 AM:

CAUTION!!!

NO offense to TK, who posted above, but we have to be extremely careful about characterizing what the 'sense' of the email might mean.

TK WRote:

1-6 Page 21. Margaret Chiara struggles to figure out the real reason for her dismissal in a Feb. 1 e-mail. Sad.
Posted by: TK
Date: March 20, 2007 01:14 AM

It seems clear to me reading this email that Chiara KNOWS the reason she is leaving, but she is not able to disclose that. She is talking about the only reasons USAs are asked to leave (performance or acting independent of DOJ initiatives/guidelines), and she is SAD only because she hates people thinking she was asked to leave for those denegrating reasons. She says outright: "The real reason [she was asked to leave], especially if true, would be a lot easier to live with."

*******So, I caution Josh and team to read the synopsis that people give for a document with much caution. This email is tragic for the DOJ. Chiara can't even SAY what the reason is! Don't we want to know.

Again, sorry to call you out TK... but maybe it's better to just transcribe the email.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 20, 2007 1:33 AM:

The Border Patrol appears to have instigated congressional complaints about Carol Lam's prosecution of coyotes sometime last spring. At the time, Lam was prosecuting two Border Patrol agents for smuggling aliens.

7/6/06 - Carol Lam in court after two Border Patrol agents were convicted: "These are Border Patrol agents who smuggled illegal aliens. It doesn't get much worse than that."

1-1 #10-22 5/18/06, Rep. Darrel Issa releases internal "report" provided by Border Patrol to press. Issa appears on Lou Dobbs on 5/22/06 to discuss report. Lam disputes authenticity of report. Issa also sends letter to Lam on 5/24/06.

1-2 #17 Issa channeled Border Patrol complaint to Rep. James Sensenbrenner, according to Lam in August 2006. Both Issa and Sensenbrenner met with Lam, presumably in San Diego, and Sensenbrenner was mostly concerned about the lack of prosecution of coyotes.

Is it unusual for the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to travel to California to discuss the prosecution of coyotes who would likely be sentenced to 60 days?

How many other USAs has Sensenbrenner met with in their districts?

2-8 #1 - Senator Feinstein's letter about the prosecution of border cases is dated 6/15/06 and was instigated by a complaint from the Border Patrol.

1-1 #25 - 10/25/05 letter from California GOP members of Congress to Gonzales complaining about the prosecution policy of "catch and release." Specifically nmentions two cases. No followup documents in 1-1.

So far, these documents appear to constitute the basis for the DOJ's position that Lam did not adequately pursue immigration cases.

Andrew wrote on March 20, 2007 1:34 AM:

2-1, p. 20:
"Plan for Replacing Certain U.S. Attorneys"

Includes list of who will be calling the Republican home-state Senators/home-state "Bush political leads" to inform them of the USA firings.

The only DOJ member to make a call was AG:
"AG Calls Jon Kyl (re Charlton)"

The rest were made by the White House Counsel's Office or White House Office of Political Affairs.

tekel wrote on March 20, 2007 1:34 AM:

2-2, page 41:

Kevin Ryan sends email to Mike Elston, kissing his ass. "you have been a gentleman in your dealings with me, and I appreciate it."

Elston fwds mail to Goodling, McNulty, Sampson.

Kevin's email is significant (to me) becuase the tagline says "Sent from my GoodLink synchronized handheld (www.good.com)" which, to me, means he's using a Treo, on a public cell network, to send USA emails.

Which means it should be possible to get at all of his email via subpoena of his cellular provider, if DOJ isn't as forthcoming as some may like.

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 1:34 AM:

Hmm. At 2-8, p. 1, Feinstein does actually complain about poor prosecution of immigration cases. "It is my understanding that the US Attorney's Office Southern District of California may have some of the most restrictive prosecutorial guidelines nationwise for immigration cases, such that many Border Patrol agents end up not referring their cases."

We'll likely here more of that from the other side, unfortunately.

taylormattd wrote on March 20, 2007 1:36 AM:

I don't know if anyone has photoshop or some high quality picture editing/manipulation program, but if you head over to the last set of scaned DOJ documents at the House Judiciary website (scan number 11), the last page is actually a "back side" that shows quite a bit of the previous page, which was redacted. The page numbers are DAG000000942 and 943.

I just spent some time trying to sharpen / highlight contrasts to figure out what the redacted lines say, but I have a feeling that someone with a better program and more experience might have some luck figuring out what the redacted lines say.

I should add, however, I am pretty sure I see a line that says something like "AG prior testimony" . . .

circuithead wrote on March 20, 2007 1:37 AM:

2-5
page 20 in middle of ag descriptions, and problems associated with them.
the listing for bogden is rather strange.

the bulleted lists talk about how las vegas is a large city with potential for terrorist attack... and there is a high crime rate there... all to say...that they have a right to expect "excellence and agressiveness in the prosecution of high priority areas"

The weirdness is in the next bullet point. which gives as a reason for his ousting is because he failed to support the prosecution for a case involving the "federal crime of obscenity".

high priority there huh mr. "give your middle finger to a camera while governor" while your vp is mr. "drop an f bomb on the senate floor"

StuartH wrote on March 20, 2007 1:37 AM:

anybody smell a rat regarding Darryl Issa's involvment in the Lam firing? It's time somebody suggests to Waxman and Feinstein that they start an investigation into Issa's involvement which figures heavily in this new email dump....wherever there's scandal, there seems to be Issa...

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 1:38 AM:

After the Feinstein letter, a law review article from Griffin Bell on replacement of USAttys; a news article about the replacement of Mullins in SD, and a brief summary of the vacancies, the rest of 2-8 is more resumes (with some repeats, including the above mentioned bicyclist.)

RobinLynne wrote on March 20, 2007 1:39 AM:

1-4 page 21-22
Specter's position: use DOJ talking points
interesting email
january 25, 2007
from: Rebecca Seidel to: 10 different DOJ people

re: SJC hearing on USA firings
(the first hearing, february 2007)

"just got off the phone with Matt miner on Specter's staff who called to discuss the hearing. He said we will be getting an invite shortly. Has there been further thought on the DOJ witness?
He asked for a few things......

He is organizing a republican amendment strategy so the dems don't divide and conquer. he asked if we have any amendments to please draft and get them to him. I re-sent him the talking points (as he had given his copy away) he realized we had a lot of info in there.

so specter wants the DOJ to actually write the amendments, and uses their talking points directly. This says to me that he should be relieved of his position in this particular investigation! He is asking the very people he is supposed to be investigating to write his talking points...

MillionthMonkey wrote on March 20, 2007 1:39 AM:

More on 1-10:

Apparently I didn't read what I typed in. The email from Chiara on page 25 is in direct response to Moschella's testimony about "management problems" implying in his testimony that she was a f_ckup.

If you are only beginning to read document 1-10 I believe the "Sunday Post" article they are referring to up there at the very beginning of the document is 6 of 7 Dismissed U.S. Attorneys Had Positive Job Evaluations by Dan Eggen, Washington Post Staff Writer, published on February 18 (their emails about it are two days afterward). Both the email and the Washington Post article with its anonymous-fired-prosecutor source refer to "pulling off gloves" in similar language.

Jason

Eleny wrote on March 20, 2007 1:39 AM:

They talk about "pushing out" certain USA's:

Page 22 of http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt1-3070319.pdf

My capture uploaded here of the list they want to push out:
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a169/eleny/pushouts.jpg

Pat Smith wrote on March 20, 2007 1:40 AM:

1-5 seems mostly worthless. It is an e-mail thread discussing various edits and "redlines" and comments to a draft of "DAG's" testimony (is this Elston? Sampson?) IMHO, it's not worth spending much time on.

Frank Furtive wrote on March 20, 2007 1:40 AM:

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt2-6070319.pdf

PP 11-12 contain a letter from AK Rep Mark Pryor to express his displeasure re Tim Griffin's appointment to AK AG.

It's very hard to read. Paragraph 3 says something about how Gonzalez' office cited pregnancy and motherhood as factors in the appointment, perhaps for firing the former AG.

Paragraphs 4 and 5 seem to address Pryor's concerns about the Patriot Act or assurances he was given about same.

Here's a tender morsel from p 27, "when I hear you talk about politicizing DOJ it's like a knife in my heart". (Paul McNulty? It's not clear who said this.)

There is a somewhat interesting email from Tim Griffin regarding a Greg Palast article alleging that black military votes were suppressed in 2004.

Other than that this contains only documents that are already public, such as the text of bills, congressional minutes, and resumes.

PaulE wrote on March 20, 2007 1:41 AM:

2-6 (page 11)

1/11/07 letter from Mark Pryor (AR senator) to AG Gonzales. Numerous complaints:

1. " ...it is clear (from the events that occurred in July and August 2006), that there was an attempt to force then USA Cummins to resign"

2. "astonished" that interim appt given to Tim Griffin rather than the First Assistant USA because latter is "on maternity leave and therefore would not be able to perform the responsibilities of the appt"

3. Appt undermines confirmation process and AG has failed to justify the replacement pursuant to recent Patriot Act modification.

Pryor closes by saying he believes the new appt rule is being abused and has signed on to reverting the law back to the original 120-day rule.

Duke from jail wrote on March 20, 2007 1:42 AM:

the link above and below is to a special report by U.S News on what Carol Lam was working on - Duke, Faggo, MZM, etc.

http://www.chitraragavan.com/usnews/25MZM.pdf

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 1:42 AM:

these documents seem to be a bunch of smoke and mirrors. Tons of irrelevant junk intended to divert our attention.

While there are some interesting documents there, it seems that many may still be being withheld.

butcher wrote on March 20, 2007 1:42 AM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 2-6 page 11

1) Mark Pryor (Arkansas) refers to attempts in July & Aug 2006 to force USA Cummins to resign. What were these attempts?

2) Pryor's letter continues, describing the rationale for firing Cummins (as of Jan 11/2007), which was: The First Assistant USA was ON MATERNITY LEAVE. That's a pretty big stupid rationale, but Pryor says it was public. Have you guys covered this angle?

sara wrote on March 20, 2007 1:42 AM:

2-6 page 4
page 4 DOJ letter to Senator Pryor about Griffin appointment

page 11 Senator Pryor response

page 13 AR Times newspaper cut-out on Cummins desire to stay on and next page he's on way out

pages 17-20 Griffin emails to Goodling regarding voter fraud cases

hilzoy wrote on March 20, 2007 1:42 AM:

At 1-7, pp. 16-18, Kyle Sampson drafts a letter that flat-out lies, to be sent on behalf of Richard Hertling (Acting AAG) to Harry Reid. Quote:

"The Department of Justice is not aware of anyone lobbying, either inside or outside of the Administration, for Griffin's appointment." (p. 17.)

And:

"The department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Griffin."

filchyboy wrote on March 20, 2007 1:43 AM:

From document DOJDocsPt2-4070319/pdf 48 pages - Identified as 3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 2-4 on DOJ website.

Hand scrawled on email apparently used for PR on firings:

"The Number: The media has repeatedly referred to the number as 7 including Arkansas. It's actually 7, *not* including Arkansas. One name has never been mentioned publicly and this individual has not yet made an announced(sp). I said "less than 10" in my testimony."

dday wrote on March 20, 2007 1:43 AM:

2-7

Page 23 is a letter to Alberto Gonzales from the National Association of Former United States Attorneys, STRONGLY disapproving of the policy of firing the USAs for "what may have been political considerations." Interesting.

Kathleen de la Pena McCook wrote on March 20, 2007 1:43 AM:

Griffin writing Michael Elston that Greg Palast has identified vote suppression of African American soldiers. Reprint article.16-20

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt2-6070319.pdf

MillionthMonkey wrote on March 20, 2007 1:43 AM:

Link to above "6 out of 7" WP article referenced at outset of 1-10: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701509.html

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 1:44 AM:

2-7 seems to be entirely documents already in the public realm -- a transcript of Gonzales being questioned by Sen. Sessions; letters from Leahy and Feinstein and other Dems from early January as the issue is breaking; some fact-sheets from the AG on who has resigned, etc.; and editorials from the Chgo Trib, the NY Times, etc.

I don't know if anyone finds it helpful that I'm attempting to catalogue documents that I'm not delving closely into. I'm sure many people will eventually get to all of it, but I'm just starting from the back and narrowing out things that don't seem worth immediate focus.

tekel wrote on March 20, 2007 1:44 AM:

2-2 page 49:

3/4/07 McNulty email to Tasia Scolinos, at her Yahoo email address (what a bunch of assclowns. Yahoo? Ferchristsake, people).

McNulty approves a set of talking points created by Tasia that we've all become familiar with. Condensed version:

1. be good managers
2. enforce DOJ policies
3. Clinton did it too.
4. communication mistakes were made, get over it.

TK wrote on March 20, 2007 1:45 AM:

1-10

Page 24. Margaret Chiara e-mails to McNulty. Says that she has had a conversation with Elston in which he said that "the rationale for dismissal was on a continuum of sorts and that I am on the de minimus end after Dan Bogden." She asks to know what management problems lead to her dismissal.

Also, does that put Carol Lam on the maximal end?

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 1:46 AM:

by the way, I suggested in a different thread the possibility that Gonzales "doesn't use e-mail" because he doesn't consider text messages "sent using my blackberry handheld" as e-mails. Anyone think that it's possible they've withheld blackberry messages from AGAG, or is he really that technophobic?

ThatsBad wrote on March 20, 2007 1:46 AM:

2-6 page 4 last bullet point "The Attorney General has assured Senator Pryor that we are not circumventing the process..."

see URL for the pdf

sponson wrote on March 20, 2007 1:47 AM:

1-3, page 28, There are NINE US Attorneys listed for the purge, 3 names are redacted. Immediately below it is a list of SEVEN Senators to contact, FOUR names are redacted. All of the remaining names are GOP Senators. Are they redacted the names of any Democratic Senators, or simply the names of the patrons of the 3 redacted US Attorneys?

Twin Planets wrote on March 20, 2007 1:47 AM:

1-2 has a great lead -- a letter from William Moschella (Asst. AG) defending the immigration prosecution record of Carol Lam. This letter was sent to Darryl Issa, apparently in response to a complaint about Ms. Lam. Letter is undated, but in response to Issa's mail of 24 May 2006.

Jane wrote on March 20, 2007 1:47 AM:

1-1

Page 41, in an email (June 8, 2006) from Bill Mercer to Michael Elston, Mercer seems to be making a joke about firing Lam for incompetence: "What that Carol Lam can't meet a deadline or that you'll need to interact with her in the coming weeks or that she won't just say, "O.K. You got me. You're right. I've ignored national priorities and obvious local needs." Etc. Mercer says something about "these humorous missives."

This part I just found interesting -- Page 26 seems to be a Who's Who of California Republicans. A page of signatures - including Cunningham, Pombo, Dolittle, Bono, possibly Issa as the first signature on p. 25 - writing to Gonzales 10/20/05 to complain about the administration's alien policy and find out the SD of CA's prosecution guidelines. I don't know what the status of Cunningham's investigation was at that time.

Ned wrote on March 20, 2007 1:48 AM:

Here are the manual redactions so far:

On p.23 of the third batch of 3/19 documents, bates# DAG 545 (zeros omitted) from Meiers to Sampson, "Kyle, any current thinking on the hold over US Attorneys? Any recent word on (name redacted) intentions?"

On p.36, 3rd batch of 3/19 documents, bates# DAG 558 (zeros omitted) from Elston to Sampson "The only concern I have is Paul just visited (name redacted) and asked that (name redacted) not be on the list."

These are obvious physical redactions, consistent with the use of white-out.

Bill wrote on March 20, 2007 1:48 AM:

1-7

Page 7:

"Richard - Schools is informing his staff right now. Nowacki is calling the judge. Elston is calling Kevin Ryan. You are clear to go ahead and call the Senators."

This is concerning steps taken before this press release was issued: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/can/press/2007/2007_02_15_Interim.USA.appointments.press.html
(Note: I believe this is the press release in question).

HarpboyAK wrote on March 20, 2007 1:48 AM:

2-9

Starts off with Feinstein's letter regarding complaints of lack of prosecution of immigration cases. Then an undated typed summary of "Vacancies after Amendment of Attorney General's Appointment Authority", followed by resumes of many of the newly appointed USAs.

Frank Furtive wrote on March 20, 2007 1:48 AM:

(My last entry was about 2-6)

2-9 is only resumes.

Chris wrote on March 20, 2007 1:48 AM:

2-1

Page 45

From Elston e-mail of 9 p.m. January 5 to Battle, Sampson, McNulty and Goodling:

"Both [Carol Lam and Kevin Ryan] expressed continuing dismay at the situation and the timing. Carol also shared with me that she and several others (presumably Paul [Charlton], David [Iglesias], and Kevin) have been comparing notes. I said that I was not going to discuss any other personnel situation."

ThatsBad wrote on March 20, 2007 1:50 AM:

2-6 first bullet point on same page (4) , falshood on why Cummings is resigning.

see URL for pdf

rita wrote on March 20, 2007 1:50 AM:

1-1 beginning on page 10
(AP article and Issa Letter discussion begins here and runs for several pages) sorry I misposted the doc number in my first post on this. I had sent you an e-mail on this about 7 pm est.

Issa attempts to smear Carol Lam in mid-May 2006

6 Days After the FBI served search warrants on Dusty Foggo, May 18, 2006, the AP ran a story on an unofficial Border Patrol document they had received from Darrell Issa. The article included details from the document and Lam’s and other
federal officials’ responses.

The lead sentence in the story is, “The vast majority of people caught smuggling immigrants across the border near San Diego are never prosecuted for the offense, demoralizing the U.S. Border Patrol agents making the arrests,
according to an internal document obtained by The Associated Press.” The article also states, “Judges and federal attorneys are so swamped that
only the most egregious smuggling cases are prosecuted.”

Lam's response to media inquiries regarding this border patrol report was, “Representative Issa has been misled. The document he calls a "Border Patrol Report" is actually an old internal Border Patrol document, relating to a single substation that has been substantially altered and passed off as an official report. Many of the comments in the document to which Representative Issa refers are editorial comments inserted by an unidentified individual, and they were not approved by or ever seen by Border Patrol management.”

And, Issa admits in a May 24th, 2006 letter to Lam that the memo “could not be embraced and released publicly as a report representing the views of Border Patrol management”.

But Issa has continued to use that document to this day. On June 29, 2006 he cites it as a memo from a “Department of Homeland Security” source. He used it in his testimony before Congress on March 6, 2007 and attributes it to a “senior source within the Border Patrol”.

Issa stated, “only 6 percent of 289 smuggling suspects caught by Border Patrol agents from the El Cajon station east of San Diego in the 12 months ending in September 2004 were prosecuted.” But the AP article goes on to say of the 289
cases, “Some were instead prosecuted for another crime. Other cases were declined by federal prosecutors, or the suspect was released by the Border Patrol.”

The AP article notes that “Issa’s office said it was an internal Border Patrol report written last August. It was unclear who wrote it.”. Issa has variously referred to the document as a “memo” or a “report.” He has never published this 41-page document on his website.

HarpboyAK wrote on March 20, 2007 1:50 AM:

Oops that last was 2-8, not 2-9. Sorry, too many documents...

SilentPatriot wrote on March 20, 2007 1:53 AM:

Am I the only one who noticed that there are 5 pages missing between documents 1-3 and 1-4?

1-3 ends with 00568 and 1-4 starts with 00574.

It's important to note that 00568 is a Seattle Times article with handwritten notes and special attention paid to a certain section about USA John McKay.

comadrejo wrote on March 20, 2007 1:54 AM:

I found this sort of ironic in ...

Document 1-7

page 29, the report is about gun prosecutions and the report is to try to prove that Carol Lam should had been terminated..

This is the ironic part...

"F. Other Noteworthy Districts

Margaret Chiara Has been the U.S Attorney for the Western District of Michigan since the Fall of 2001. The number of Federal firearms cases filed by that district increased from 72 in FY 2004 to 109 in FY 2005- A 51.4 increase. Nationally, the district had the seventh highest percentage increase in cases filed in FY 2005. With the exception of a dip in prosecution numbers in FY 2004, the district has steadily increased its firearms prosecutions, which have nearly doubled since 58 cases in FY 2001."

I can't decipher much of the report because much of info is blanked out, except David Garcia, I believe a US Attorney..

However to use this report againt Carol Lam, as a reason for termination while praising another US Attorney that was also fired for poor job performance is kind of schizophrenic.

Alex wrote on March 20, 2007 1:56 AM:

Do we need OCRs of these? I can make searchable text, if that's helpful.

Bill wrote on March 20, 2007 1:56 AM:

1-7

Page 18:

[In a letter by Richard A. Hertling, Acting Assistant Attorney General, responding to questions from Sen. Reid]

"The Department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Griffin."

mbbsdphil wrote on March 20, 2007 1:56 AM:

No. 82, the professor is R. (Bob) Altemeyer, Asssoc. Prof., Dept of Psychology, Universit of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.

Author of "The Authoritarians (2006)". John Dean made considerable use of his work.

donjo wrote on March 20, 2007 1:56 AM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 2-8

A letter from Sen. Diane Feinstein to Gonzales dated June 15, 2006, asking what's up with the prosecuting of illegal aliens in Southern CA; are they doing a good enough job down there, or what? Reports are that the border agents aren't too happy with the seeming lack of interest in prosecution of people they arrest. Please look into it.

Pat Smith wrote on March 20, 2007 1:57 AM:

Agree with Joe Falcone above, 1-9 p. 26 is GOLD.

To his questions, I would add-- what is the "unresolved Phil Green situation"?

I found a reference to a Phillip Green who was nominated in Illinois Southern District, but was apparently never confirmed:

http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/2/22/205548/359

...but Chiara seems to reference Western Michigan ("WDMI")

What's this all about?

mbbsdphil wrote on March 20, 2007 1:57 AM:

No. 82, the professor is R. (Bob) Altemeyer, Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.

Author of "The Authoritarians (2006)". John Dean made considerable use of his work. Essential reading for understanding Mr. Bush and his followers.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 20, 2007 1:58 AM:

1-1 #42-43 - The tenor of the 7/8/06 exchange between Michael Elston and Bill Mercer about Carol Lam is quite sarcastic. Mercer makes it sound like Elston was charged with putting the screws to Lam.

Elston: This is so sad - I am not adjusting well to this change.

Mercer: What that Carol Lam can't meet a deadline or that you'll need to interact with her or that she won't just say "O.K. - you got me. You're right, I've ignored national priorities and obvious local needs. Shoot, my production is more hideous than I realized."

Elston: ...Carol Lam is sad, too, but that was not what I was thinking!

If those two pricks thought Lam was sad, wait until this is over and we'll see how sad they are.

Kathryn wrote on March 20, 2007 1:59 AM:

Regarding the mysterious border patrol document that can't be traced and Ms. Lam questioned....where have we heard about questionable documents suddenly appearing before? Who is famous for creating bogus documents and is up to his eyeballs involved in this scandal? I'll give you three guesses.

butcher wrote on March 20, 2007 1:59 AM:

2-3 page 3

Kyle Sampson forwards the Moschella Oral Testimony to 'Dana and Cathie' "and whomever else in the White House you deem appropriate"

joejoejoe wrote on March 20, 2007 1:59 AM:

1-2, pg. 46-50, 8/30/06

Letter sent by 18 US Attorneys (drafted in John McKay's office) to Paul McNulty regarding the LInX (Law Enforcement Information Exchange, a law enforcement database sold to Navy CIS by Northrop Grumman that integrates DoJ, DHS, ICE, and local law enforcement data in one system). USAs endorse the LInx concept and are 'puzzled by delays' in implementation and express 'growing skepticism' at delays in implementation.

Signed, McKay (WA), Anderson (VT), DeGabrielle (TX), Hanaway (MO), Heavican (NE), Iglesias (NM), Immergut (OR), Kubo (HI), Lam (CA), Larson (IA), McDevitt (WA), Perez (FL), Rosenberg (unsigned) (VA), Suddaby (NY), Van Bokkelen (IN), Whitaker (IA), Wood (GA), Yang (CA)

1-3, pg. 1

Response from McNulty (unsigned, undated)

"Dear Colleages:

I just finished reading your letter on the law enforcement information sharing issue, and I must say I am quite disappointed that you have chose to communicate with me this way. It appears that you are trying to force me to take specific actions. It reads like a letter from Capital Hill, not friends on the same team. This is particularly distressing because it is shared with folks outside of the Department. This is not the way we should be working through difficult issues. [...]

I hope you realize that the Department may not be able to deliver on all that you seek. There are other important considerations in this matter. Does anyone see the problem with the Department "endorsing" a specific brand of info sharing when there are other types being used with success in various regions? That is why it's best to talk these things through a bit before laying down a challenge in writing which will set the Department up for failure. [...]"

- - -

Q: Is there some procurement angle to this scandal regarding one security database provider over LInX by Northrup Grumman?

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 2:00 AM:

On the plus side, Paul Charlton in Arizona, in a handwritten note to the side of the checklist of 'reasons' he was being asked to resign, was described as "personable."

How's that for faint praise? Paul, you're insubordinate, lacked management skills and judgment, but you ARE personable.

I know it's not an amazing revelation, but I do like the between-the-lines story in which these people are feeding on their own. After all, these are 8 (or maybe 9) GOP patronage hires being sacked. It's not like they're getting rid of Dems or independent. They're savaging their own.

EasyRider wrote on March 20, 2007 2:00 AM:

PDF: DOJdocsPt4070313

Resume Phillip J. Green pages 1-3, Note: this guy moved up fast to USA from First Assistant to Deputy Chief Criminal Division, USA, Western District Michigan, was appointed by AG to USA in Jan 2001 to Oct 2001.
Resume Rodger A. Heaton pages 4-7, special note: Work Experience, United States Attorney (Appointed by Attorney General Gonzales), Central District of Illinois (December 2005-present) (my observation is that this guy needs not investigation he had his fingers on a lot of issues Bush want suppressed.)
Resume George E. B. Holding page 8
Resume Marty J. Jackley page 9-10
Resume Rachel K. Paulose page 11
Resume Erik C. Peterson page 12
Resume Sharon L. Potter pages 13 on fax 04/26/01 10:23 FAX 304 234 011 USA-CR WHG page 3
Resume Deborah J. Rhodes pages 14 15
Resume Rosa Emilia Rodriguez-Velez First Assisstant USA Dis of Puerto Rico page 16-18
Resume Chuck Rosenberg 19-21
Resume Brett L. Tolman page 22
Resume John Frederick Wood page 23

CalifSherry wrote on March 20, 2007 2:01 AM:

E PluribusMedia is asking for related research support concerning witch hunts and a list of electeds and officials who considered that they might have been targeted for investigation/prosecution. It might be useful for folks scanning these documents for TPM to also watch for the names of anyone on the EPM list, which is here: http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/3/15/13642/3362

sara wrote on March 20, 2007 2:01 AM:

1-1

page 15 letter from USA Lam to USAG Gonzales regarding Rep. Issa's use of doctored report on Border Patrol's statistics on Lou Dobbs/CNN

animus?

jgnca wrote on March 20, 2007 2:02 AM:

2-1

p 15-17

This is the Plan for Replacing US Attorneys. This is certainly, if not the smoking gun, the gun itself. What I find interesting is Step 5: Selection, Nomination and Appointment of New US Attorneys. This lays out a plan for soliciting names of permanent nominees and then sending them up to the Senate for confirmation. But from everything I've read, they seemed to have "skipped" this part. Has there ever been any news about permanent USAs being nominated?

John wrote on March 20, 2007 2:02 AM:

1 – 11 39 pages (DAG000000905 through DAG000000943)

Senate testimony begins on page 1 with:

SEN SPECTER: Well, I just wanted to comment to Senator Feinstein...

and ends on page 37.

Pages 38 and 39 are handwritten notes

Page 38 seems to be a scan of a page where handwritten material on the other side of the original bleeds through. On the left top of the page is “DAG” and on the right side “me to do”
Beneath “DAG” appear the words “The List”, but a number of the entries on the remainder of the page have been redacted.

page 39 seems to be a scan of the backside of a page and handwriting on the reverse side bleeds through but is very hazy and unreadable (and mirror image). Handwritten on this backside are the words:

Mike's admin

with a circle drawn around the words.

Don Pickens wrote on March 20, 2007 2:02 AM:

2-1 page 14:

Sampson attaches the plan in email to Harriet Meirs and Bill Kelley (copying McNulty) and says of "Karl" (nor have I informed anyone in Karl's shop another pre-execution necessity I would recommend).

Meirs Replies (in passive voice):
"Not sure whether this will be determined to require the boss's attention. If it does, he just left last night so would not be able to accomplish that for some time. We will see.

Sampson replies again, in what seems like a voice pleading for an answer:
"Who will determine whether this requires the President's attention?"

There is no reply to this question...is there any in other docs?

docreview wrote on March 20, 2007 2:03 AM:

2-1, page 45

Very Important!!

From Mike Elston to Michael Battle, 1/5/07

"I spoke separately with both [Lam] and [Ryan] this evening. Both of these are in essentially the same posture . . . In addition to the office/case related concerns (which is still their primary focus), both are now concerned that they cannot get it [what?] together in three weeks."

The implication seems clear. Lam has expressed concern that her resigning at that time would hinder an investigation. In response, DOJ tells her to prepare to leave. She doesn't even get a month extension. This is the path that folks need to follow...

JPV wrote on March 20, 2007 2:03 AM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 1-10 page 23.

From: McNulty, Paul J
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:44 AM
To: Sampson, Kyle
Subject: RE: US Atty Plan
I'll talk to Johnny. I'm still a little skittish about Bogden. He has been with DOJ since 1990 and. at age 50. has
never had a job outside of government. My guess is that he was hoping to ride this out well into '09 or beyond. I'll
admit have not looked at his district's performance. Sorry to be raising this again/now; it was just on my mind last
night and this morning.

A_B wrote on March 20, 2007 2:04 AM:

PDF: DOJDocsPt2-1070319.PDF

DAG000000018

From: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 6:12 PM
To: 'Kelley, William K.'
Cc: Miers, Harriet.
Subject: RE: US Atty Plan
Importance: High

Great. We would like to execute this on Thursday, December 7 (all the U.S. Attorneys are in town for our Project Safe Childhood conference until Wednesday; we want to wait until they are back home and dispersed, to reduce chatter). So, on Thursday morning, we'll need the calls to be made as follows:

*AG calls Sen. Kyl
*Harriet/Bill calls Sens. Ensign and Domenici (alternatively, the AG could make these calls and, if Senators express any concern, offer briefings re why the decision was made -- let me know)
*White House OPA calls California, Michigan, and Washington "leads"

EOUSA Director Mike Battle then will call the relevant U.S. Attorneys. Okay?

From: Kelley, William K. [mailto: William_K_Kelley@who.eop.gov]
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 4:48 PM
To: Sampson, Kyle
Cc: Miers, Harriet
Subject: US Atty Plan

We're a go for the US Atty plan. WH leg, political, and communications have signed off and acknowledged that

DAG000000019
we have to be committed to following through once the pressure comes.

butcher wrote on March 20, 2007 2:04 AM:

2-3, page 19

Margaret Chiara says:

"Michael Elston told me on more than one occasion, that the rationale for dismissal was on a continuum of sorts and that I am on the de minimus end after Dan Bogden."

What does that sentence even mean?

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 2:05 AM:

2-9

Initial review of 2-9; all pages are attorney resumes. No email or other documents

ET wrote on March 20, 2007 2:08 AM:

2-9.pdf

Pages 1-23
Resumes in this order:
Phillip J. Green
Rodger A. Heaton
George E. B. Holding
Marty J. Jackley
Rachel K. Paulose
Erik C. Peterson
Sharon L. Potter
Deborah J. Rhodes
Rosa Emilia Rodriguez-Velz
Chuck Rosenberg
Brett L. Tolman

jimmyhat wrote on March 20, 2007 2:08 AM:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/De+minimus

de minimis adj. (dee-minnie-miss) Latin for "of minimum importance" or "trifling." Essentially it refers to something or a difference that is so little, small, minuscule, or tiny that the law does not refer to it and will not consider it. In a million dollar deal, a $10 mistake is de minimis.

(Not only did she spell it incorrectly, I'm not sure she's using it properly either.)

HarpboyAK wrote on March 20, 2007 2:09 AM:

2-7

pp 1-5, apparent transcript of a Senate hearing with Gonzales.

pp 7-8, letter from Richard Hertling, Acting Asst Atty Gen, to Conyers regarding Carol Lam, denying that her dismissal had anything to do with ongoing corruption cases.

pp 9-10, Conyers/Berman letter to Gonzales

pp 12-13, Hertling letter to Leahy & Feinstein

pp 14-18 expanded version of list of resignations and appointments also in 2-8

pp 19-20 Leahy/Feinstein letter to Gonzales requesting info on resignations

pp 21-45 Text copies of newspaper columns and editorials on the USA resignations

pp 47-50 Letter to Feinstein from Moschella with immigration prosecution stats from San Diego office.

moe99 wrote on March 20, 2007 2:09 AM:

2-9 buncha resumes. They must be candidates and a lackluster group overall they are. Sorry, I interview law students and lawyers in my legal job and I've seen much better mostly

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 2:09 AM:

2-5, p. 24.

In reference to John McKay, what does "Noncompliance with Ashcroft memo noted" mean? There is a handwritten asterisk next to this typed comment, apparently to highlight its iimportance.

glowbawl wrote on March 20, 2007 2:10 AM:

2-1 Page 14

Sampson emailing Miers Cc: McNaulty

RE: USA Replacement Plan
"who will determine whether whether this requires the President's attention?"

"we'll stand by foe a green light from you. Upon green light we'll 1) circulate the below plan to the list of folks in step 3 (and ask you circulate it to Karl's shop)"

MillionthMonkey wrote on March 20, 2007 2:10 AM:

The "de minimis" thing indicates that she was told her case would be the easiest of the eight prosecutor firings to explain. The opposite end of the continuum (the stickiest case) would be Carol Lam.

Serpent's Choice wrote on March 20, 2007 2:11 AM:

A lot of duplicated material and public domain junk: Congressional records, law journals. I've started some analysis at my own blog, mostly just commenting on the cold precision with which these USAs - especially Chiara - were handled.

However, I'd like to examine one of the manual redactions noted above.

On p.36, 3rd batch of 3/19 documents, bates# DAG 558 (zeros omitted) from Elston to Sampson "The only concern I have is Paul just visited (name redacted) and asked that (name redacted) not be on the list."

This text appears multiple times, and is unevenly redacted. The first redaction clearly ends with an "a" and seems to only be 4-5 letters long. Rather than a name, could this be Iowa? A scandal is mentioned ... has anything touched a USA from Iowa? Just fishin' at this point...

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 2:11 AM:

2-5 p. 26, in reference to the appointment of Rove's buddy Tim Griffin, a handwritten note:

"Originally recommended by Rep. [long blank space] for WDAR."

Is that blank space a white out of a congressman's name?

sara wrote on March 20, 2007 2:12 AM:

1-1

last few pages of pdf
DOJ responds to Rep. Issa as effectiveness of USA Lam's District in meeting targets, states drops in prosecutions are due to resourcing

moe99 wrote on March 20, 2007 2:14 AM:

2-8 WTF?

6/15/06 Feinstein letter to Gonzo where she is concerned that Lam is not prosecuting enough immigration cases? Isn't Feinstein therefore guilty of speaking out of both sides of her mouth??? I'd like her to explain the genesis of this letter where it seems like she's trying to take down Carol Lam???????

JPV wrote on March 20, 2007 2:15 AM:

The one thing that becomes very clear, reading these e-mails, about the "USA replacement plan", is that this was a concerted, planned effort to remove all of these attorneys during a certain specific frame of time. It's not just the random realization that certain ones were not performing their duties. it was a specific plan.

The question is, what else was going on during that time period that made this effort so imperative?

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 2:16 AM:

Oddly, a short ways after the seemingly edited reference to Griffin's possible Congressional sponsor, there is a reference to the fact that Cummins (who Griffin replaced) was "politically active" and then there is the word "cong(illegible)". This seems to be another reference to the Congressman who was involved in the Cummins/Griffin swap-over, and again it seems to have been redacted, in this case by letting the document number obscure what is written.

Any significance? Who is this and why would they try to hide his role?

EasyRider wrote on March 20, 2007 2:16 AM:

ET,

We did the same one. You left off the last resume:

Resume John Frederick Wood page 23

I think the first two indiviuals may be interesting. Another USA was appointed by Gonzales in 2005.

docreview wrote on March 20, 2007 2:16 AM:

2-4, pages 162-166

Looks like questions for Lam and McKay -- to attack Lam and McKay, that is. But why is this here?

Were these questions that DOJ sent to the GOP members on the Judicary Committee to ask the fired USAs and deflect attention? Any significance to the fact that its Lam and McKay, both of whom are targets... Very, very odd. Really looks like an attempt to attack Lam and McKay.

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 2:17 AM:

The reference to a redacted congressman in relation to Cummings is on 2-5 p. 32.

JGabriel wrote on March 20, 2007 2:17 AM:

2-1

Page DAG000000009

3 E-Mails - Margaret Chiara confirming that she will be asked to resign, and seekin assistance in the aftermath:

From: Chiara, Margaret M. (USAMIW)
To: McNulty, Paul J.
Sent: Sun Nov 05 15:13:03 2006
Subject: USA/WDMI

Paul: On November 3, Michael Elston conveyed professionally shocking news. I had previously consulted with him about the feasibility of a brief leave of absence to serve as the interim dean of the Michigan State University College of Law. (Note: MSU is interested in me only if I am the USA for WDMi.) Mr. Elston informed me that such a leave is only an option when the alternative service is within the federal government. He furhter informed me that I should expect contact from the White House requesting my resignation as USA shortly after the Novemeber 7 elections.

He could offer no explanation other than that I erroneously assumed that good service guaranteed longevity because other USAs have been asked for their resignation without cause. In my case the service has been exemplary in a difficult district in addition to being an active contributor since appointment on 3 of the AG's subcommitees.

While I live in hope that this dire prediction is untrue, I am contacting you because I need assistance to remain in federal service with a comparable compensation or, quite frankly, I will lose everything that I have been working towards for the past five years. My chronology will not allow me to recoup from such an unanticipated financial catastrophe. I trust that I can count on you to intervene or provide an alternative.

Margaret

*****************

From: McNulty, Paul J. (Paul.J.McNulty@usdoj.gov)
To: Chiara, Margaret M. (USAMIW) (MChiara@usa.doj.gov)
Sent: Tue Nov 07 07:22:51 2006
Subject: Re: USA/WDMI

Margaret: I received your message and I appreciate your perspective. I know of your interest in the VAWA job and will let you know if any other opportunites come up. Paul
------------------------
Sent from my Blackberry Wireless Handheld

*****************

From: Chiara, Margaret M. (USAMIW)
To: McNulty, Paul J.
Sent: Tue Nov 07, 2006, 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: USA/WDMI

PAul: As soon as the "election dust settles", I ask that you tell me why my resignation may be requested. Since you have not taken exception to the eventually, I now assume that it is likely. I need to know the truth to live in peace with the aftermath. (Of course, we do need to retain control of the Senate to facilitate confirmations.) Perhaps you are not aware that Michael Elston informed me, per Monica Goodling, that a congress person, who is expected to lose in today's election, will be offered the leadership position of the VAW office. I am already actively but discretely [sic] persuing self-help options. However, I will need assistance to retain federal gov't financial security, as stated in my previous e-mail. Know that I appreciate your response and offer to assist. Margaret
------------------------
Sent from my Blackberry Wireless Handheld

kirk murphy wrote on March 20, 2007 2:17 AM:

2-9

Jeebus Figleafed Cheese.

Really juicy USA resumes.

My fave so far:

Rachel J. Palouse

Interim USA (March 2006 to present): District chief federal enforcement officer.

[snip - kjm]

Dorsey & Whitney (October 2003 to December 2005): Trial lawyer. Work involved successful representation of Rebuplican party in election lawsuit; defense of faith-based health care program; [snip].

[snip]

Federalist Society (2001 to present)

tralmadore rocks wrote on March 20, 2007 2:18 AM:

1-3

p. 1
Note (from whom? to whom? When?) complaining that "colleagues" sent a "letter on the law enforcement information sharing issue" that "appears like you are trying to force me to take some specific actions. It reads like a letter from Capitol Hill, not one from friends on the same team. This is particularly distressing because it is shared with folks outside of the Department. This is not the way we should be working through difficult issues. I have worked hard to maintain an open line of regular communication with all U.S. Attorneys. I know as well as anyone how important it is to include the USA community in DOJ poolicy-making. I've spent 5 1/2 years working to strengthen that relationship."

p. 2-3
Email, 2/22/06 7:40pm from Michael Elston to Monica Goodling and Paul J McNulty. One line of the email is Elston's; the remainder is a story in the 9/22 Seattle P-I about McKay's office being short on funding and staff. Elston: "Even when he is in Ireland he causes problems! He needs to stop writing letters."

pp 4-5
Email, printed from Michael Elston's Outlook, from Brian Roehrkasse to Elston, Kimberly Smith, John Nowacki, Paul McNulty, Tasia Scolinos.
Again, it's the P-I article. one line of orig text: "I happened to see this article when I was traveling last week in the Northwest. These comments are not exactly helpful. John, anything we can do?"

pp 6-11
email from David Margolis, 10/6/06, to Battle, John Kelly, Parent, Nowacki, Elston, Moschella, Mercer, Shults, Barnes. Subj: "Thought you might be interested in this; It's from a local weekly"
Entire text is a lengthy article about Kevin Ryan, accusing him of being a lousy manager. Article opens "Kevin Ryan must have felt like a man invited to his own stoning."

pp12-20
Email, 10/5/06, (cover sheet, p. 12; memo, pp. 13-17) describing resignation procedural guidance for USAs. Memo claims that some USAs were seeking guidance on this (true?).
p. 18 sample letter to president; p. 19 to AG; p. 20 press release;

p. 21
series of emails b/w Elston and Charlton, 10/16/06, the two of them trying to arrange a call or meet as Charlton arrives from Phoenix, ending with "You're off the hook on the second capital case -- although I was told that it was AZ, when I asked for the name of the case it turns out it was another district."

p. 22-23
Ooh, fun!
Email from Sampson to Elston, 10/17/06.
Top line: "See below for my olist of U.S. Attorneys we should consider replacing. Does it match up with yours."
Next most recent email below was from Miers to Sampson, saying thanks and saying she needs to follow up.
Next message below is Sampson to Miers, 9/13/06. "Harriet, the U.S. Attorney ranks curently break down as follows:" I, II, and III are existing, people who will be nominated for other stuff, and people who are rumored to be leaving. There might be some blanking out here; I can't tell.
IV is "USA in the Process of being Pushed Out" listed as Bud Cummins.
V is "USAs we should consider pushing out" listed as Charlton, Lam, Chiara, Bogden, McKay, and apparently others who are blacked out.
(now p 23)
V is "Summary," Says they need to be "ready to roll" with replacements if they "push USAs out".
Next email below is Miers to Sampson, 9/13/06. "Kyle, any current thinking on holdover U.S. Attorneys? Any recent word on [blacked out]'s intentions?

Donp wrote on March 20, 2007 2:19 AM:

2-1 page 15-18

THE 18 MINUTE GAP??? (Are these in chronological order?)

The email of Nov 15 ends with "Who will determine if this requires the President's attention" and Meiers says it will take a while as he is gone. The plan attached (page 15) to that says to begin making calls on Nov 15. Sampson had also recommended informing Karl.

The next email is dated Dec 4! From William Kelley at 4:48 pm it says:
"We're a go for the US atty plan. WH leg, political, and communications have signed off and acknowledged that we will have to be committed to following through once the pressure comes."

(so Nov 15 says it's time to talk to Karl and maybe the President, but that would take time...and the plan had been to start Nov 15. In this email, the plan has been changed to start calls Dec 7 - 2-1 page 20)

What happened between Nov 15 and Dec 4 to hold up the plan and require a change in execution from Nov 15 to Dec 7? The answer is from Kelley: We're a go for the US atty plan. WH leg, political, and communications have signed off"

Monkey++ wrote on March 20, 2007 2:19 AM:

2-1, p.23 from McNulty to Sampson:
"I'll admit have not looked at his district,s performance" (re Bogden)

1-1, p.45

to The Honorable Dianne Feinstein:

Although felony immigration filings in the Southern District of California dropped from FY 2004 to FY 2005, that result flowed from a conscious decision to focus resources on seeking higher sentence for more serious offenders. And, in fact, the number of immigration defendants prosecuted who received prison sentences of between 1-12 months dropped from 896 in 2004 to 338 in 2005, while the number of immigration defendants who received sentences between 37-60 months rose from 116 to 246, and the number of immigration defendants who received sentences greater than 60 months rose from 21 to 77.

1-1, p. 48, to the Honorable Darrell Issa from William E. Moschella, Assistant Attorney General:

"Finally, we are aware that you recently spoke personally with USA Lam. If you are still interested in a meeting, please let us know."

Ottoe wrote on March 20, 2007 2:20 AM:

in re Serpent's Choice's passage

On p.36, 3rd batch of 3/19 documents, bates# DAG 558 (zeros omitted) from Elston to Sampson "The only concern I have is Paul just visited (name redacted) and asked that (name redacted) not be on the list."

Wouldn't "Issa" fit better in context than "Iowa"?

edward ripple wrote on March 20, 2007 2:21 AM:

2-8

48 page bundle here. Pages 11-48 are attorney resumes. Resumes continue into bundle 2-9.
Pages 1-10 contain; 6/15/2006 correspondence from Sen Feinstein, a 1990's law review summary on USA appointment by former AG Griffen Bell, and a South Dakota Rapid City Journal article on W's appointment of Steve Mullins.
Am reviewing pages 1-10 for content.

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 2:21 AM:

filchyboy,

Who is the additional US Atty who is 'unannounced.' Do we already know who this is, or is there someone who hasn't resigned yet who is on the list? Pretty funny if so -- now that it's such a controversy, they probably don't want to add fuel to the fire, so he may get to keep his job.

Donp wrote on March 20, 2007 2:22 AM:

2-1 page 20:

Also note the difference between the Nov 15 and Dec 7 plan is the inclusion of Kevin Ryan, of Northern California. This change came after a WH review...???

but from these docs we can't tell who added him to the list, since there's the Nov 15-Dec 4 gap.

butcher wrote on March 20, 2007 2:23 AM:

2-3, page 37

Discusses correspondence with USAs and Paul McNulty around Sep 8, 2006. Lots here that seems significant, but I don't understand the context enough to know what the 'letter' that the USAs 'signed on to' was, and why they'd fail to get back to McNulty because they were 'chagrined and embarassed'. Perhaps because 'a number signed on without really reading it or thinking it through." And why would they be 'mad at John McKay"?

Also, "Don is a very good man and I know he is upset that he joined the letter".

Pat_AlexVA wrote on March 20, 2007 2:24 AM:

1-9
PDF page 43. Looks like finding rationale for firing based on CRIM Obscenity task force (AZ / NV).

JGabriel wrote on March 20, 2007 2:25 AM:

Just realized the e-mails I posted between Chiara and McNulty were previously submitted -- guess I'm not a fast enough typist here.

Anyway, it's interesting that several people have noted Chiara got some pretty raw treatment. Kind of hard to feel especially sorry for her -- she should have known what she was signing on for when joined up with the Republicans. But still...

RobinLynne wrote on March 20, 2007 2:25 AM:

doc 2-1 page 9

timing of firings "right after the election"

email from chiara to Paul McNulty

"Michael Elston further informed me that I should expect contact from the white house requesting my resignation as USA shortly after the nov 7 election."

Monkey++ wrote on March 20, 2007 2:27 AM:

2-1

several versions of the bulleted list of firings and senator phone calls. Note the blanks left in the earlier versions, filling in in subsequent versions.

Were these redactions? or does it reflect their process (e.g., leaving room for a fixed number of individuals they wanted to place)?

2-1, p. 21 Here's a key criteria gleaned from their planned process document:
"giving that person the opportunity to serve for a full two years"

JPV wrote on March 20, 2007 2:27 AM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 2-3 page 1.

From' Chiara Margaret M (USAMIW) [MM Chiara@Iusdoj gov]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 11:00 PM
To: McNulty, Paul J
Cc: Elston, Michael (ODAG)
Subject: WDMI

Paul: I respectfully request that you reconsider the rationale of poor performance as the basis for my dismissal It is in our mutual interest to retract this erroneous explanation while there is still time. Please simply state that a presidentially appointed position is not an entitlement. No other explanation is needed.

As you know, I have assiduously avoided public comment by pursuing an informal version of the "witness protection program" in order to elude reporters I However, the legal community in Grand Rapids and organizations throughout Michigan are outraged that I am being labeled "a poor performer". Politics may not be a pleasant reason but the truth is compelling. Know that I am considered a personification of ethics and productivity. And as you surely realize, the unresolved Phil Green situation has definitely complicated the perception of DOJ in WDMI.

The notoriety of being one of the "USA-8" coupled with my age being constantly cited in the press is proving to be a formidable obstacle to securing employment. The best resolution with regard to both timing and outcome is the assistant director position at the NAC. I have already made it clear to the OLE Director that you do not consider former United States Attorney status a barrier to continued DOJ service. I ask that you endorse or otherwise encourage my selection for reasons discussed in previous e-mails. Given the quality and quantity of my contribution during the past 5+ years, I am confident that you are willing to provide affirmative assistance.

Margaret

PS wrote on March 20, 2007 2:27 AM:

Q: Was the WH aware of the testimony W Moschella would give at the 3/6 hearing?

A: They helped shape it.

2-7

From: Tasia Scolinos
To: Kyle Sampson

"Below are draft message points that we could insert into Will's testimony or figure out another tactic to move it. I think this will get some traction with media but without it going under the AG's name less so[sic]. Let me know what you think- I would like to send these over to Dan before the 1PM WH meeting."

I'm assuming Dan is Dan Bartlett.

ALSO: Why has Margaret Chiaria (USAWDMI) been the most silent of the group of 8?

A: She was granted a very generous job extension, in part so that she could attend a meeting of the NAIS for which she had been scheduled to chair, but would have been handled by her interim if she had left in the same time as the others. She mentions in her back and forth emails that part of the group of 8 would be at the meeting and "It would make good sense for me to prepare..and chair the meeting. This makes particular sense because 4 NAIS members are part of the "group" (Charleton, Bogden, McKay, Iglesias) ." (2-7, p 27-30)

She was also consulting with Paul McNulty about helping her with obtaining a job as a detail at the NAC. Paul then emails Micheal Elston about putting her into an EOUSA slot so she then could apply for the NAC job. (2-7, p 33)

pigboy wrote on March 20, 2007 2:27 AM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 2-3

Page 45, DAG000000146
From: Elston, Michael (ODAG), "Even when he is in Ireland he causes problems! He needs to stop writing letters."

"Seattle PI, Sept 22, 2006: Federal prosecutor for Western Washington has seen his budget steadily shrink... "his office is stressed to the limit"...U.S. Attorney John McKay issued this warning...."

Page 47, DAG000000148, From: Roehrkasse, Brian; Sept 26, 2006: "I happened to see this article when I was traveling last week in the Northwest. These comments are not exactly helpful." (Reference to above Seattle PI article)

Page 50, DAG000000150, McNulty, Paul J; Oct 05, 2006; From:USAEO-OTD; Resignation Guidance.pdf; Resignation Guidance Attach. pdf.

tekel wrote on March 20, 2007 2:28 AM:

2-4, pages 32-48 (end) is a long table of caseloads in various categories for all 93 of the USA's offices, from 1995-2006. cases include immigration, kiddie pr0n, 18 USC 922/924, and corporate fraud. Not sure what to make of it, unless it's being used to defend the "Carol Lam was soft on immigration" talking point.

Anyone else notice there's only ~1000 pages uploaded so far? Where's the rest?

Random wrote on March 20, 2007 2:29 AM:

Y'know, it struck me just a minute ago that all of us who are helping with this effort are like the "Baker Street Irregulars" that Sherlock Holmes employed.

Indeed, we are the "TPM Irregulars!"

RobinLynne wrote on March 20, 2007 2:30 AM:

doc 2-1 page 14

email from sampson to harriet myers: saying that rove and bush have not yet been informed. asks: who will determine whether this requires the president's attention?
and states: It is a pre-execution necessity to inform Karl's shop.

Historicus wrote on March 20, 2007 2:31 AM:

Re: 1-11, redacted page 39 (DAG000000943)

I've flipped the image and used a bunch of filters on it. Some of it is legible, most of it less so (for me, anyway; may be moreso for those who know the names and words involved better than I). Here are two versions, one a little blurrier than the other.

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u3/historicus/p39a.jpg
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u3/historicus/p39b.jpg

Maybe it's the late hour, but I swear I see the word 'Pardon' there, fifth line from the bottom.

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 2:31 AM:

First of all- people, you ROCK! amazing effort displayed here.
second - josh, someone, answer Alex!
"Do we need OCRs of these? I can make searchable text, if that's helpful.
Posted by: Alex
Date: March 20, 2007 01:56 AM"
Alex- if you are offering to pull pdf files into a big old OCR file (via Writer?) that would be most helpful later on- understand some of this needs to remain as graphic files as well.
Very good suggestion upthread to assign a systemic structure as well. I would post more from docs, but i am slower than most here. again, THANKS
(security code: nation - as in, thank you, patriots, for attempting to save what is left of this nation!)

Monkey++ wrote on March 20, 2007 2:31 AM:

regarding 2-1, p. 21 Here's a key criteria gleaned from their planned process document:
"giving that person the opportunity to serve for a full two years"

Any confirmation would not, by their own account, start until January at the earliest. To get the full two years would require being in place no later than December 2006.

This puts the lie to Step 5 of the plan (2-1 p.22) to get confirmation of anyone other than the interim appointments.

Serpent's Choice wrote on March 20, 2007 2:32 AM:

In re: Ottoe (Iowa/Issa/etc.)

Possibly. I'm having trouble with a chain of events that makes sense there. Issa was primarily involved with the issues surrounding Lam, and that doesn't seem to make sense in context.

We might know more when the other USAs targetted but not actually forced out are revealed. The manual redaction on DAG 554 (1-3) is amateurish. Someone with a full list of USAs may be able to reconstruct several of those names.

tralfmadore rocks wrote on March 20, 2007 2:32 AM:

1-3

p.26-27, interesting stuff.
Email from Sampson to Elston, 11/7/06 6:21 PM.
"Please review and provide comments ASAP. I'd like to get this to Harriet tonight, if possible."
The document pasted into the email is headed, "PLAN FOR REPLACING CERTAIN UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS"
"Step 1 U.S. Attorney calls: On or about November 8-10, Mike Battle contacts the following U.S. Attorneys:" Listed are Charlton, Lam, [two blanked out], Chiara, Bogden, [blanked out], McKay, Iglesias.
Game plan for what Battle tells them
"Step 2 Senator calls: On or about November 8-10 (very important that Senator calls and U.S. Attorney calls happen simultaneously), Bill Kelley or appropriate Associate Counsel contacts the following Senators:" Listed are Kl re Charlton, [three blacked out], Ensign re Bogden, [one blacked out], Domenici re Iglesias.
NOTE that that's NINE bullet points for USAs to be forced out, but SEVEN bullet points for Senator calls. Maybe some of the blacked-out ones were to be consulted re two pushed out USAs; or maybe some USAs from states with two Democratic senators were to be forced out, so their input wouldn't be sought.
Game plan for Kelley script, including "If pushed, this determination is based on a thorough review of the U.S. Attorney's performance." Ask for 3 names.
"Step 3 Evaluation and Selection of "Interim" Candidates" set for Nov-Dec., for DOJ "in consultation with the Office of the Counsel to the President".
"Step 4 Selection, Nomination, and Appointment of New US Attorneys".

JPV wrote on March 20, 2007 2:32 AM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 2-3 page 21.

From: Kelley, Wjlliam K. [mailto:Wiliiam K. Kelley@who.eop.gov]
Sent: Monday, March O5, 2007 1:57 PM
To: Sampson, Kyle
Subject:

Kyle-We've been tasked with getting a meeting together with you, Paul. Will, DO] leg and pa, and maybe Battle - today - to go over the Administration's position on all aspects of the US Atty issue, including what we are going to say about the proposed legislation and why the US Attys were asked to resign. There's a hearing tomorrow at which Will is scheduled to testify, so we have to get this group together with some folks here asap. Can you look into possible times? Thanks, and sorry to impose.

Arabiflora wrote on March 20, 2007 2:33 AM:

This sort of project fairly screams out for a Wiki implementation.

Disputo wrote on March 20, 2007 2:35 AM:

Phillip Green was the former USAtty for Western MI under Clinton.

JPV wrote on March 20, 2007 2:35 AM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 2-3 page 25.

From: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Monday, March OS, 2007 2:49 PM
To: McNulty, Paul J; Moschella, William; Hertling, Richard; Scolinos, Tasia; Battle, Michael (USAEO)
Cc: Elston, Michael (ODAG); Roehrkasse, Brian; Goodling, Monica; Washington, Tracy T
Subject: RE:
Importance: High

Okay - two things:

1. We are set for 5pm at the White House. I need WAVES info from each of you: DOBs and SSNs.
2. Kelley says that among other things they'll want to cover (1) Administration's position on the legislation (Will's written testimony says that we oppose the bill, raising White House concerns); and (2) how we are going to respond substantively to each of the U.S. Attorney's allegations that they were dismissed for improper reasons.

res wrote on March 20, 2007 2:36 AM:

1-11

as noted before, it's all testimony until pp 38-9 (DAG 942, 943)

however if someone is REALLY dedicated ...
p.38 the list is mostly hidden, but
on p.39 is the reverse page with the original text faintly visible

if you think there are relevant list items that have been blanked out you might try to reproduce the original
it would take quite a bit of work, or maybe just the right type of image processing software

Matt wrote on March 20, 2007 2:36 AM:

Joe Falcone: The 'unnamed' USA is Margaret Chiara

Bcre8ve wrote on March 20, 2007 2:37 AM:

2-3

What is "the unresolved Paul Green situation has definitely omplicated the perception of DOJ in WDMI" that Margaret Chiara is referring to in the first email in this section?

I can find no reference to this anywhere else.

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 2:37 AM:

Pat Smith,

The Phil Green situation seems to be the fact that Green, an AUSA in Chiara's district, was nominated for the USAtty position in the Southern District of IL. But then, somebody made an objection, pointing to a sentencing issue. Others surmise that he didn't recommend death penalty, and that some conservative group has put a block on him. So he hasn't been confirmed, and Bush has not even renominated him (apparently the first one expired.) I'm not clear how this would explain the context of Chiara's comment, but it's possible that Green has friends from his tenure in Western Michigan who are angry at how he's been treated, and that this adds to the political problems the administration has in Western Mich.

Or something ...

ahem wrote on March 20, 2007 2:37 AM:

"Is that blank space a white out of a congressman's name?"

Could be. Arkansas has only one GOP congressman: John Boozman. Boozman's now in charge of finding Griffin's replacement. If it's not Boozman whose name was redacted, that's interesting.

On Iowa, Matt Dummermuth (northern district) was appointed at the start of the year to replace Charles Larson Sr., whose son was both a state senator and lobbyist:

http://iowaunderground.com/blog/2006/02/23/its-time-for-chuck-larson-to-resign/

The other Iowa USA is Matthew Whitaker, who was appointed in 2004.

tekel wrote on March 20, 2007 2:37 AM:

DonP at 2:19: great catch!

Where are the emails for the period from Nov 15 to Dec 4?

Serpent's Choice wrote on March 20, 2007 2:37 AM:

In re: tralfmadore rocks

We know that there were targets with Democratic senators. There is reference to "poltical leads" in this context elsewhere in the document heap.

edward ripple wrote on March 20, 2007 2:38 AM:

2-8

6/15/2006 correspondence from Sen Feinstein to Gonzales hammering him and DOJ of lax enforcement of immigration cases.
Summary: We just had meeting on immigration prosecution, I have issues, high apprehension rates and low prosecution rates demoralize Border Patrol, I understand that AG's SoCal office "may have" the most restrictive prosecutorial guidelines in country, give me 5 year prosecution stats for this office, esp alien smuggling, improper entry and re-entry, what are SoCal guidelines and how do they differ from other border sectors. Feinstein cites states for FY05 that indicate prosecution rates have dropped by half from recent past.

Annette Cox wrote on March 20, 2007 2:38 AM:

After reading these comments, I can't see a clear statement of why these eight were fired. One way to get at that issue is to look at the replacements. We know that the Arkansas replacement was a Rove crony. What about the others? Were names of replacements being discussed in the other cases? If we know who the replacements were, we should get right to the nub of the case.

rigel wrote on March 20, 2007 2:38 AM:

2-6

page 27 looks vaguely threatening in the handwritten comments.

Crocodilly_pontifex wrote on March 20, 2007 2:39 AM:

I'm having some trouble figuring out which ones haven't been read, can someone list a few "virgin" pdf's that need reading?

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 2:41 AM:

Ahh, right. Thanks, Matt. PS posted about Chiara wanting to chair some NAIS meeting before she skedaddled. I now understand that meant she was unannounced until somewhat later than the rest.f

TheOtherWA wrote on March 20, 2007 2:41 AM:

2-7 page 7 of pdf- DAG307

Letter to John Conyers from Richard Hertling -Acting Asst Attorney General categorically denying Carol Lam was fired because of the corruption investigation.

2-7 page 13 of pdf DAG312
Letter to Leahy and Feinstein from Hertling-"The administration is committed to having a Senate confirmed United States Attorney in all 94 federal districts."

Hahahahaha, good one.

2-7 page 15 of pdf DAG 315 titled
FACT SHEET: UNITED STATES ATTORNEY APPOINTMENTS

NOMINATIONS AFTER AMENDMENT TO ATTORNEY GENERAL'S APPOINTMENT AUTHORITY
(lists recent openings and pending appointments)
then on page 16 (pdf)
Attorney General's Appointments After Amendment to Attorney General's Appointment Authority.

The Attorney General has exercised the authority to appoint interim USAs a total of nine times since the authority was amended in March 2006. In two of nine cases, the FAUSA had been serving as Acting USA under the Vacancies Reform Act (VRA), but the VRA's 210 day period expired before a nomination could be made. Therefore, the AG appointed that same FAUSA to serve as interim USA. These districts include:
Dist. of Puerto Rico and Eastern Tenn.

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

I thought the change to the Patriot Act allowed the president to appoint USA's without senate approval, but can the AG make appointments? I'm not sure what to make of this.

oppositionradio wrote on March 20, 2007 2:41 AM:

one name you won't find in the document dump is: Duncan Hunter - who is the first name anyone questioning Ms. Lam should ask about... Had her investigation of: Cunningham, Wade, Mitchell, MZM and Lewis also included Duncan Hunter?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103000121.html

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 2:42 AM:

1-3

p.36
This is Sampson's response, night of 11/7, to Elston's "scandal rumor" email that hungrycoyote referred to above.
Sampson writes, interestingly, "I'll wait for the DAG's input (but no longer than tomorrow)."
Does than mean that this was driven by Miers (working with Rove?) and Sampson? Was Gonzales as out of the loop as Specter apparently was about the provision in the USA PATRIOT Act in the first place? Or am I overreading Sampson's urgency here?

Gonzo's Gone wrote on March 20, 2007 2:42 AM:

2-6 Table of Contents:

NOTE PARTICULARLY APPARENT MCNULTY NOTE ON PAGE 26 ABOUT NO INTENTION TO GET A CONFIRMED REPLACEMENT FOR CUMMINS

1-2: Talking Points on alternatives to Griffin
3: Griffin's Qualifications
4-6: Text of Hertling's 1/31/07 reply to Mark Pryor re: Griffin's appt.
7-10: "Fact Sheet" attached to Hertling's Reply, listing USA appointments
11-12: Mark Pryor 1/11/07 Complaint to Gonzalez re: Griffin's appt.
13: 12/04 Arkansas Times gossip column, cites Cummings planning to leave before end of Bush's second term
14-15: 8/24/06 Westlaw article, rumors about Cummings leaving & Griffin replacing
16: 2/5/07 email from Griffin to Monica Goodling, discussing allegations Florida voter suppression allegations against him
17-19: 2/5/07 email Griffin to Goodling, attaching a BBC story by Palast about alleged voter suppression
20-27: marked-up text of McNulty's 2/6/07 testimony, NB: handwritten marginalia "We have not done this in Arkansas" to text saying that there is a commitment to a confirmation process.
28-36: McNlity 2/6/07 statement to Senate Judiciary Committee on S.214
37-39: Hertling to Leahy, 2/2/07, stating DoJ opposition to S.214
40-42: S.214 Text
43: Title Page of DOJ 1/8/07 Oversight Hearing Questions
44-50: Feinstein, Leahy, Cornyn Q&A with Gonzalez

hungrycoyote wrote on March 20, 2007 2:43 AM:

1-6 Page 49

Next to Kevin Ryan's and Carol Lam's name at the bottom of the page: "Parsky Commission will recommend potential candidates."

Rayne at DailyKos spotted this, and has put up a diary:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/20/13155/4678

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 2:44 AM:

** Feb 1- Series of emails between Michael Elston, Kyle Sampson, and Richard Hertlig about B Cummins testifying, which they are against. In particular Sampson says, if he testifies, how will he answer

2-7 , p 15

"Did you resign voluntarily?
Were you told why you were being asked to resign?
Who told you? (He was told, obviously, whereas others, weren't)
When did they tell you?
What did they say?
Did you ever talk to Tim Griffin about his becoming U.S. Attorney? (He did. See next question.)
What did Griffin say?
Did Griffin ever talk about being AG appointed and avoiding senate confirmation? (I'm going with yes.)
Were you asked to resign because you were underperforming?
If not, then why?
Etc., etc."

Looks like Sampson gave us some good questions that haven't been asked of Cummins yet but they at least were answered by Sampson here. So let's see what Cummins will say about this next time he's under oath.

RobinLynne wrote on March 20, 2007 2:44 AM:

doc 2-1 page 45

email from michael elston to various DOJ people
both Carol Lam and Kevin Ryan asked for extensions until april 30 to finish cases they were working on. Elston told them that would be a no, if they got any extension it would be weeks.

"Carol's letter" was mentioned, but it is missing.

Two pages before this, emails mentioned that they granted everyone a one month extension, EXCEPT CAROL. The other attorneys wanted extensions to find jobs. Carol, because of the work she was doing.

Stormwatcher wrote on March 20, 2007 2:44 AM:

1-1 page 25 & 26:

A letter to AG Gonzales complaining about Carol Lam's prosecutorial priorities:

We write to request a meeting with you to discuss our frustration with the current policies within the Administration related to the prosecution of criminal aliens. To date, many illegal aliens, who deserve jail time, fall instead into the current practice of "catch and release".

Signed by among others:

Darrell Issa
Randy "Duke" Cunningham
Richard Pombo
Jerry Lewis
John T. Dolittle
Dana Rohrbacher

rigel wrote on March 20, 2007 2:45 AM:

(continuing 2-6 pg 27)

"if i thought the concerns outlined in your opening statement were true, i would be disturbed. but these concerns are _not_ based on facts. selection process will prove this.

i have a lot of respect for you, and when i hear you talk about politicizing DOJ, it's like a knife in my heart. the ag & i love doj and honor its mission. your perspective is completely contrary to my daily experience. i would love to dispel you of this opinion."

edward ripple wrote on March 20, 2007 2:46 AM:

2-8

page 4
Summary of The journal of Law and Politics, Vol4(1992-1993) By former AG Griffin Bell and Assist AG Daniel Meador supporting the notion that AG appointment of USAs is best way to administer law and "minimize the stigma of political patronage surrounding these appointments"

tekel wrote on March 20, 2007 2:46 AM:

1-5 (all) and 1-6 (1-20)

anyone have insight into why these 50 pages of reforwarded emails might be interesting? Seem to be mostly sent Jan 30 and 31, 2007, and chronicle the back-and-forth edit process to produce "testimony" to the Senate Judiciary Committee...

butcher wrote on March 20, 2007 2:48 AM:

2-3, page 37, 39-43

Followup: The DOD was offering to fund an info-sharing computer system with DOJ & Canada (!) described here:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:3Vn4z8n-dxEJ:www.wa.gov/jin/Meeting%2520docs/December19_2006/JIN_Meeting_December_LInX.ppt+linx+dod+fbi&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=safari

The proposal would merge criminal databases so DOD could access them too. Listed as a "Key Success Factor" was "advocacy of USAs." McNulty at DOJ was getting pressure to endorse the program, so he had John McKay, Chair of the 'Regional Law Enforcement Information Sharing Working Group' send a letter stating that the working group endorsed the program.

Trouble is, many of the USAs that signed the letter were subsequently angry that their names were attached to the letter. Apparently, they didn't endorse the letter's contents, and at least one USA attempted, unsuccessfully, to remove his name.

Is there a bigger story here? Maybe another no-bid military contract? Maybe another domestic spying program (or cover for one, or an enabling technology that could evolve into one with lax oversight)?

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 2:49 AM:

2-3 p. 2 and p. 25.

this could be meaningless, but in the McNulty-Chiara exchange, McNulty's e-mail is missing the From: and Sent: lines. (that's on p.2)

I wondered whether his browser simply didn't routinely put those lines in, but on p. 25, we have another McNulty e-mail that does have those lines. When did he respond to Chiara? Did he not want us to know? Is there anything else missing in the e-mail? His comments don't read like a complete e-mail, since they end abruptly.

It's particularly interesting, since he's responding to a very direct request that he help her get the NAC job. Did he offer help in another paragraph? Is he withholding information?

I think this is the cover-up.

J'accuse.

tekel wrote on March 20, 2007 2:51 AM:

1-6

Page 37: ha ha, Moschella finds out via email that he gets to be the Senate's whipping boy.

PS wrote on March 20, 2007 2:51 AM:

March 20, 2007 02:44 AM post was by PS

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 2:52 AM:

2-1

P. 23

From:McNulty,PaulJ
Sent:Tuesday,DecemberOS,20069:44AM
To:Sampson,Kyle
Subject:RE:USAllyPlan

I'll talk to Johnny.
I'm still a little skittish about Bogden.
He has been with DOJ since 1990 and at age 50 has never had a job outside of government.
My guess is that he was hoping to ride this out well into '09 or beyond.
I'll admit have not looked at his district's performance.
Sorry to be raising this again/now; it was just on my mind last night and this morning.

(Did not look at performance?!?)

Serpent's Choice wrote on March 20, 2007 2:55 AM:

2-3 DAG 106 is an interesting edit to the oral testimony draft. Evidently the "priorities" involved with this action were "the President's and the Attorney Genera's" until Monschella has it scrubbed down to the generic "Administration".

Alex wrote on March 20, 2007 2:57 AM:

Re: OCR

OCR would really seem helpful for this. Adobe Reader 7 does a good job of making a PDF (original image) with searchable text from OCR. I'll truck along with it, as that's easy, and if it's useful I can send it off to the powers that be.

butcher wrote on March 20, 2007 2:58 AM:

2-4, page 4

USA Charlton (AZ): got on their bad side for at least one political reason:

"contrary to guidance from Main Justice that it was poor judgment, put an employee on 'leave without pay' status so she could become a paid press secretary for the 2002 gubernatorial campaign (supporting the candidate who was challenging Napolitano)"

joejoejoe wrote on March 20, 2007 2:59 AM:

1-6, pg. 40-42

1:55 PM, 2/9/07 - Fired USA Margaret Chiara emails Paul McNulty for help getting new job in Office of Legal Education

5:25 PM, 2/9/07 - Paul McNulty forwards Chaira's request to Michael Elston, "Can we make this happen? Hire her into EOUSA slot and then send her down to NAC?"

5:28 PM, 2/9/07 - Paul McNulty forwards email to Elston to Monica Goodling, "This idea may help us avoid linking this to the others. What do you think?"

Conciousness of guilt! McNulty is trying to split off Chiara's firing after the fact and retroactively using Chiara's post-firing request as an explanation for the firing itself.

TheOtherWA wrote on March 20, 2007 3:00 AM:

2-7 pg 22 of pdf DAG322

Letter from Stabenow and Levin saying they've heard about the USA's being fired and asking straight out if either of the MI USA's are being pushed out and demanding any justification for firing. Dated 2-13-07. It doesn't seem they got a response.

2-7 is mainly correspondence and newspaper editorials, both pro-Bush and pro-Constitution.

butcher wrote on March 20, 2007 3:03 AM:

2-4, page 7

Followup to 2-3, page 37, 39-43:

Looks like those earlier pages were included to show justification for McKay's dismissal. On 2-4 page 7, one reason is:

"seeking policy changes without regard to appropriate methods or tactics."

hungrycoyote wrote on March 20, 2007 3:05 AM:

1-6 Page 42

From: Elston, Michael (ODAG)
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 5:28 PM
To: Goodling, Monica
Subject: FW: Solution

This idea may help us avoid linking this to the others. What do you think?
---------------
From: McNulty, Paul J
To: Elston, Michael (ODAG)
Sent: Fri Feb 09 17:25:15 2007
Subject: FW: Solution

Could we make this happen? Hire her into an EOUSA slot and then send her down to the NAC?
---------------
From: Chiara, Margaret
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 1:55 PM
To: McNulty, Paul J
Subject: Solution

Paul: You may recall from earlier communication with me that I have owned a home in South Carolina for serveral years.
The announcement (below) is for a detail at the the NAC for which I am completely qualified and which I would enjoy doing. obviously, I am not currently eligible for a detail position. Will you please intervene to make the position available to me? It would provide a timely and satisfactory solution to my current job search. Thank you.
Margaret
-------------------------------
Okay, Margaret Chiara is asking for help getting a job she isn't currently eligible for.

Anybody see Monica Goodling's response to the final forward?

What does the statement, "This idea may help us avoid linking this to the others" mean?

dano wrote on March 20, 2007 3:06 AM:

1-11

Those last two handwritten pages, pp. 38-39.

I took up the Photoshop challenge on that last page, and I'm still working on it, but the "list" someone mentioned on p38 is indeed seen bleeding through p39, and there's a whole lot more items on the list on p39 than there were on p38. On p38 we've got "Memo for recording statements" (I think, 1st word unclear); "SDCA--Dealing with Carol"; "AUSA Phone Call Project"; "Kevin Regan-EARS-Margolis". I think the first is a reference to the grounds they offered for firing the AZ-USA, right? That he wanted to record confessions relating to molestation cases, which is against general FBI policy? Or was that Iglesias? I dunno.

Interesting thing about these two pages is that it seems like the list on p38 was substantially redacted, but in a way to make the unreadable parts of the page look, well, blank. With redactions, isn't the info usually blacked out? Anyway, the bleed-through on p39 seems to make clear that p38 was, once upon a time, much fuller than in the PDF. Rather than the five visible items on p38, there are 27 lines of stuff on p39. I'm Photoshopping the crap out of p39, and trying to make it readable, but I'm not sure there are enough pixels. I also don't know whether, ultimately, it's important--it's unclear to me from the stuff that got left on p38 what the full list was actually for. I'll keep plugging away, though, and see what I can come up with for the omitted 22 lines of text. Might be good for something.

Really awesome that so many of us are spending our wee hours between Monday and Tuesday doing this. Right on, people! Cheers to all of us.

Dan

John wrote on March 20, 2007 3:11 AM:

1-11 pg 38

A number of entries on this handwritten list are white-out. Why?
Also, material on the other side of the original bleeds through. Does a copy of that side of the original appear in this document dump? If not, why not?

1-11 pg 39

This page has bleed through from the backside of the original. Does a copy of that side appear in this document dump? If not, why not?

Monkey++ wrote on March 20, 2007 3:12 AM:

2-3, p.6

Monday, March 5, 2007, Moschella suggests an edit to wording on the previous page. The wording is draft testimony to Congress, which started out as:

"Second, the Department has not taken any action to influence any public corruption case -- and would never do so."

Moschella writes:
"In the last graph, I suggest replacing "taken any action" with "asked to resign"."

Why would he narrow that? The original statement would be much stronger.

Does this suggest that he was aware of action(s) to influence one or more public corruption cases?

He finishes:
"This is really good. Thanks everyone for the collaboration."

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 3:12 AM:

2-8

Pages 15-16 - Resume, Tim Griffin

Notes:

He's a current member, and twice past chapter president, of the Federalist Society. Don't let him forget that if he's ever nominated for a federal bench. It's now confirmed public record.

Also, Griffin is in the Army Reserve and was on active duty status at the time of his appointment, and presumably will still serve as a reservist. Doesn't this shoot a big gaping 50-caliber hole in one of the ostensible reasons for Iglesias's ouster, namely his absenteeism due to reserve duty?

briand wrote on March 20, 2007 3:15 AM:

2-1, p 24

The 2006 mid-terms seems to have caused at least one firing.

From: Margaret Chiara
To: Paul McNulty
Date: December 7, 2006

--snip--
"The unwelcome news [that my tenure as USA is ending] is not unexpected because Chief of Staff Michael Elston advised me that it was likely a consequence of the recent election."
--snip--

Brad wrote on March 20, 2007 3:17 AM:

2-1

What's the rush?

And they know they're rushing things.

Despite thinking of USA replacements over a year ago (93!) they finally come up with a list of victims this Fall. And, suddenly, they've got to get it done fast.

Kyle Sampson's first draft of the firing plan attached to his Nov. 7 e-mail emphasizes the admitted rush job ("albeit"} (page 11):

Step 4: "...carry out (albeit on an expedited basis) the regular USA appointment process..."

But in the final draft of the plan they've become sensitive to this point (page 22):

Step 5: "...carry out (on an expedited basis) the regular USA appointment process.."

What's so important about having new acting or interim USAs by Jan. 31? Congress?

Why inform the 7 USAs (on Pearl Harbor day, for crying out loud) they've got 1 1/2 months to try to find a new job? Over the Holidays?

Several got 1 or 2 months extensions (but not Lam, as Sampson says in his Jan. 5 e-mail, page 40).

What could Carol Lam have done if she was around another month or two?

Were the other 6 just cover to get rid of her?

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 3:19 AM:

hungrycoyote,

the quote you asked about means that if they move Chiara within the department (NAC is a center within Justice), they can portray this as a positive move, rather than a resignation, and thereby make it look like she's not one of the political demotees.

It's a bit of a stretch, particularly with Stabenow already complaining, but that's probably what they mean.

eag wrote on March 20, 2007 3:23 AM:

FOLKS, I'VE LOOKED THROUGH THE THREAD AND ALL DOCS APPEAR TO BE WORKED ON OR IN THE PROCESS.

PLEASE LET ME AND OTHERS KNOW IF YOU'VE GOT A DOC THAT COULD USE MORE EYES.

THANKS.

EAG

briand wrote on March 20, 2007 3:24 AM:

2-1, page 29

I wonder what the "issue" with Margaret is? Her financial problems? Something else?

From: McNulty, Paul J
Sent: December 14, 2006, 1:03 PM
To: Sampson, Kyle; Battle, Michael (USAEO)
Cc: Elston, Ichael (ODAG); Moschella, William; Mercer, William W; Goodling, Monica; Sutton, Johnny K. (USATXW)

Just had a lengthy chat with Margaret and she is fine, although she has an issue on which I need to get back to her..

Serpent's Choice wrote on March 20, 2007 3:26 AM:

1-9 DAG 830. Chiara to McNulty, "And as you surely realize, the unresolved Phil Green situation has definitely complicated the perception of DOJ in WDMI."

What Phil Green situation? I know he was 1st AUSA for WDMI, but not much else... The Grand Rapids newspaper article archived at venus.soci.niu.edu/~archives/ABOLISH/rick-halperin/apr03/0006.html certainly makes it seem like Green supports Ashcroft over Chiara in regards to the death penalty determination, but surely that's not what she's talking about here?

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 3:30 AM:

2-3

p. 25 McNulty offers "I can take 4 others in my car and there would be no need for WAVES info."

He's referring to a meeting described down the page at the White House at 5pm to:

"cover (1) Administration's position on the legislation (Will's written testimony says that we oppose the bill, raising White House concerns); and (2) how we are going to respond substantively to each of the U.S. Attorney's allegations that they were dismissed for improper reasons.

McNulty sent this to himself, William Moschella, Richard Hertling, Tasia Scolino, Michael Battle (USAEO), with CCs to Michael Elston (ODAG), Brian Roehrkasse, Monica Goodling, and Tracy T Washington.

Sampson was told by William K. Kelley (@who.eop.gov):
"We've been tasked with getting a meeting together with you, Paul, Will, DOJ leg and pa, and maybe Battle - today - to go over the proposed legislation and why the US Attys were asked to resign. There's a hearing tomorrow at which Will is scheduled to testify, so we have to get this group together with some folks here asap. Can you look at possible times?"

So the White House manages DoJ directly, eh?

Who were "some folks"?

RobbyLove wrote on March 20, 2007 3:30 AM:

SO MUCH FOR THE USA LAM STORY

1-1 makes it pretty clear that several people were very upset with her lack of performance regarding illegal immigration prosecutions. Also, the way she responded with her own attack on the Congressman who brought up the issue did not go over well **at all**. It's amazing she didn't get canned sooner.

I guess we'd better not mention her again. Too bad.

Pat_AlexVA wrote on March 20, 2007 3:31 AM:

Ummm... I count 20 links at HJC website. 20 * 50 = 1000. Where's the other 2K?

Eleny wrote on March 20, 2007 3:31 AM:

Cummins writing to Elston about Tim Griffin Page 32 of doc 1-6

Cummins's wife blames Tim Griffin for "getting the controversy started that led to all the hearings, etc"
and...
"If I (Cummins) testified I don't think I could screw this up any worse than Tim and the White House have done---and it might help---DOJ's call."

butcher wrote on March 20, 2007 3:31 AM:

2-5, page 34:

"WH personnel & counsel consulted -- POTUS appointments"

KC wrote on March 20, 2007 3:31 AM:

I'm not seeing anything too incriminating here.

Smartypants wrote on March 20, 2007 3:32 AM:

From DOJDocsPt2-4070319/pdf 48 pages

CATALOG OF DOCUMENTS:

*Page 2 appears to be an attachment with speaking points for all US Attorneys to use when responding to the media. It is from Michael Battle, Director.

The memo has a number of handwritten notes, but the main memo includes the following statements:

* I am here to be candid and accountable, and to assure you that the Department did not act improperly. There was no political motivation. There was no scheme to fill these positions with a hand-picked group of favorites and to circumvent the nomination and confirmation process. (p. 2 of 48)

* Our only intention was to move out a small group of political appointees who served at the pleasure of the President of the United States and to try to do better in these districts. (p. 2-3 of 48)

* The AG and I have used the term "performance-related" as a way of distinguishing these folks from Bud Cummins in Arkansas. Performance is a broad word including the U.S. Attorney's management style, priorities, judgment, aggressiveness, etc. The decisions were based on what they did or did not do. No misconduct issues.

Other documents in this file include:
* Document with labeled DRAFT-For Internal DOJ Use Only "U.S. Attorney resignations" 5 pages (pp. 4-9 of 48)

Three columns labeled District, Leadership Assessment, and EARS (acronym not defined).
Gives name and typically negative assessment of 7 fired attorney, plus Cummings. EARS column includes positive comments from non-DOJ that often contradict the leadership assessment.

* Letter from Senator Leahy to AG Gonzales dated 3/7/07 requesting DOJ cooperatation with Senate investigation of firings. p. 11

* W.D. Washington
Document appears to be questioning activities of US Attorney in Western District of Washington State, including compliance with Blakely decision, also post-Booker. Author/Source of document not noted. pp. 12-13

* S.D. California
Document appears to be questioning activities of US Attorney in San Diego, including prosecution of illegal aliens and other immigration cases, comparing them with other border territories. Also questions prosecution of firearms and child pornography cases. pp. 14-16

* U.S. Attorney Assessment labeled Sensitive/Personnel: Not for distribution PRIVACY ACT PROTECTED
Includes summary of performance assessments for Kevin Ryan, Carol Lam, John McKay, Paul Charlton, David Iglesias, Dan Bogden, Margaret Chiara. pp. 15-20

* Opening Statement of William E. Moschella (pp. 21-22 of 48)

* Joint Statement of Former United States Attorneys Before Senate Judiciary Committee dated 3/6/07 (pp. 23-25 of 48)

* Statement of the Honorable George J. Terwilliger III to House Judiciary dated 3/6/07 (pp. 26-31 of 48)

*United States Attorneys-Criminal Caseload Statistics Immigration Cases Filed FY 1995-2006 "Listing Sorted: Alphabetically by District" pp. 32-33

*United States Attorneys-Criminal Caseload Statistics Immigration Defendants in Cases Filed FY 1995-2006**, pp. 34-35. Documents include some handwritten numbers in margins

*United States Attorneys-Criminal Caseload Statistics Child Pornography/Abuse** Cases Filed FY 1995-2006 "Listing Sorted: Alphabetically by District" pp. 36-37

*United States Attorneys-Criminal Caseload Statistics Child Pornography/Abuse** Defendants in Cases Filed FY 1995-2006**, pp. 38-39.

*United States Attorneys-Criminal Caseload Statistics 18 U.S.C. 922,924** Cases Filed FY 1995-2006 "Listing Sorted: Alphabetically by District" pp. 40-41

*United States Attorneys-Criminal Caseload Statistics 18 U.S.C. 922,924** Defendants in Cases Filed FY 1995-2006**, pp. 42-43.

*United States Attorneys-Criminal Caseload Statistics Corporate Fraud** Cases Filed FY 1995-2006 "Listing Sorted: Alphabetically by District" pp. 44-45

*United States Attorneys-Criminal Caseload Statistics Corporate Fraud** Defendants in Cases Filed FY 1995-2006**, pp. 46-47.

* CRIMINAL CASES HANDLED PER CRIMINAL ATTORNEY WORKYEAR FISCAL YEARS 1997-2006 p. 48
Gives National Average for these years, Average for Five SW Border Districts and Western District of Tennessee

Serpent's Choice wrote on March 20, 2007 3:32 AM:

In re: hungrycoyote and joe falcone

Chiara managed to delay going public with her (forced) resignation substantially longer than any of the rest of the displaced USAs. That quote is a evident of a blatant attempt to make her look like the beneficiary of an internal transfer and not the victim of a forcing-out.

So far, it may be the money quote of this document dump. If this really was just business as usual, why hide it? Especially as a transfer against policy that might have raised questions even in a vaccuum?

Monkey++ wrote on March 20, 2007 3:33 AM:

re: RobbyLove's slam on Lam

Uh, wrong-o there Robby. See Justice's letter to Feinstein (1-1, p.45) regarding the improved performance (bigger bang for the buck) prosecution and conviction statistics.

Ostrakon wrote on March 20, 2007 3:33 AM:

2-5 pg. 37

AG's internal Talking points memo.
"They may be removed for any reason or no reason."

Adrian wrote on March 20, 2007 3:34 AM:

troll alert

RobinLynne wrote on March 20, 2007 3:35 AM:

2-4 pages 4-8
lists and lists of complaints about each attorney. drafts of talking points they will sue to justify the firings; insubordination,failure to perform inr elation to leadership prioirities (Carol), etc. etc.
However there is no sign of the original documents where these complaints originated. only the draft written to present to congress.

Rob wrote on March 20, 2007 3:36 AM:

jgnca & tralfandore rocks:

2-1: pg. 15-16 contain an updated version of "PLAN FOR REPLACING CERTAIN UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS" dated November 15.

1-3: pg. 26-27 contains an earlier redacted version of this same PLAN, in an email from Sampson Michael Elston on Novermr 7.

Why do they keep changing the date to have Mike Battle fire the attorneys? Nov 7 memo says firings to happen Nov 8-10. Nov 15 memo says firings to happen Nov 15-17.

HeyThereItsEric wrote on March 20, 2007 3:38 AM:

1-3 pp 13-18 DAG 535-39

Helpful FAQ from Michael A. Battle, dated 10-05-06

"Resignation Guidance for United States Attorneys"

Note that at least one version of the "Plan for replacing certain [US] attorneys" is dated 11.07.06, one month LATER. (1-3, p 28+, DAG 550)

KC wrote on March 20, 2007 3:39 AM:

RobinLynne,

That's the problem, these emails really give us more questions than they answer. It's clear there's lots of stuff missing.

joejoejoe wrote on March 20, 2007 3:39 AM:

2-5, pg. 25

There is an DoJ document titled 'US ATTORNEY RESIGNATIONS & REPLACEMENTS' that is repeated again and again in the releases. Republican Senators are consulted (or to be consulted) on REPLACEMENTS in AZ (McCain, Kyl), NM (Domenici), and NV (Ensign). Republican Represenitives are to be consulted in WA (Reichert) and MI ("...Administration will seek recommendations from potential candidates from the WH-designated Republican lead"). Only Arkansas with Sens. Pryor and Lincoln has any Democrat that is to be consulted. Why consult Pryor and Lincoln and not Wyden and Murray? Not Levin and Stabenow? What is the DoJ/WH standard?

Is it proper to circumvent Senate recommendations from states with no GOP Sens. like WA and MI?

CA replacements are to be made by the bipartisan 'Parsky commission'

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 3:40 AM:

2-10 p. 47

Another great moment -- Kevin Ryan, granted NO extension on his resignation, nonetheless begins telling people he's making plans to leave on April 27th, three months after the deadline they've given him.

I have to say, some of these folks do sound pretty clueless -- notably the whiny, then blustery and threatening Chiara.

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 3:41 AM:

whoops. 2-1 not 2-10

centavo wrote on March 20, 2007 3:41 AM:

2-6:

p. 43-50: Q & A for 1/8/07 DOJ Oversight Hearing re: fired USAs

p. 37-42: Letter to Sen Leahy from AAAG Hertling opposing S.214 (which would remove PA provision?)

28-35: Notes for McNulty's 2/6/07 Judiciary Committee testimony

21-27: 2/6/07 Notes for testimony (isn't clear whose)

16-20: 2/5/07 emails from Tim Griffin to Monica Goodling (bcc to Michael Elston?) explaining Greg Palast's exposes on 2004 and 2006 elections and Griffin's alleged role

p. 13-15: Excerpts from Arkansas Times. p. 13 from 12/30/04 interview with Bud Cummins on GWB's reelection: "wouldn't be 'shocking' for there to be change in his office before the end of Bush's 2nd term."

p. 14: Ark Times excerpt, 8/24/06, interview with Bud Cummins: "may be leaving job in few weeks or months, certainly by end of year." Also includes speculation by paper on his replacement, including Griffin and fact that Dems may question his role in "massive Republican projects in FL and elsewhere in which tens of thousands of absentee votes challenged, coincidentally in minority districts."

p. 11-12: Letter from Sen Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas) to AG, 1/11/07, expressing displeasure at appointment of Tim Griffin. Notes two phone conversations with AG in Dec 2006 in which he expressed his reservations. Also notes that there was a clear attempt in July/Aug 2006 (see above Ark Times excerpt)to force Bud Cummins to resign. Also notes AG's "liaison" told him, as well as media, that Griffin was appointed because the USA had resigned and the 1st Asst USA was on maternity leave; Pryor considers it discrimination if they used this to justify not promoting her but seems in no doubt that the whole intent was just to get Griffin in.

p. 4-10: 1/31/07 response from AAAG Hertling to Sen Pryor (w/cc to Sen Lincoln, D-Ark) explaining Tim G appointed because of his excellent qualifications. As proof against Pryor's claim the AG's office used the PA provision inappropriately, Hertling says they've always gone through confirmation process and always will. Provides several pages of the 15 appointments made since the PA provision was added March 2006. Of these 15 (doesn't say when appointed), the following have been nominated/confirmed: Sharon Potter, No District of W Virginia; Chuck Rosenberg, E District of Virginia; George EB Holding, E District of NC. The following have been nominated only: John Frederick Wood, W District of MO; Rosa Emilia Rodriguez-Velez, District of Puerto Rico. One was nominated but not confirmed in 109th: Phillip J Green, So District of IL.

Resumes on 12 of the interim appointments are in 2-9. No resume there for Thomas Anderson, District of VT, Alex Acosta, So District of FL; Troy Eid, District of Colorado.

p. 1-3 appear to be talking points to justify Tim Griffin's appointment. p. 1 & 2 list interim USAs (Bush and Clinton) without comparable fed prosecution experience. p. 3 is a fact sheet on Tim Griffin, probably prep work for Hertling's response to Sen Pryor.

RobbyLove wrote on March 20, 2007 3:41 AM:

The department had to defend itself. That doesn't mean they weren't still pissed off about the fact that they were embarrassed by Rep. Issa's public statements. Issa himself was not happy with her response (see page 21). Then Gonzo gets a letter signed by over a dozen congressmen requesting a meeting to discuss the situation (page 25 and 26).
I don't think the AG's office was really happy with her at this point. Do you? Especially since she made a statement without running it past the right people (page 13) and it inflamed the situation with Issa.
I'm right.

Serpent's Choice wrote on March 20, 2007 3:41 AM:

In re: Rob

Although we have nothing on which to base a certainty, my guess at this time is that the date changes indicate redacted and omitted discussion about the fate of the OTHER USAs -- the ones who appear (under redaction) on the list, but weren't removed.

Wish we knew what spared them.

PS wrote on March 20, 2007 3:42 AM:

On the M Chiara job placement front, she finds another opening in the NAC, which is a permanent position rather than detail that would mean P McNulty wouldn't have to intervene. (M Chiara email to P McNulty on Feb 13: 2-7, p 38)

She, M Chiara, then writes an email to McNulty in which she asks that he clarify her departure date because the original date, March 9th, would mean that that she would not be able to attend and chair the NAIS meeting. (2-7, p 42)

After McNulty calls her that same day, Feb 13, she emails him at 5:13 PM to say she did some "quick checking" that found "information about me is beginning to circulate within the district." As such:

"It appears information about me is beginning to circulate in the district. I have expended an extraordinary amount of effort trying to contain this situation. Therefore I believe staying with the Feb 23 announcement date is the best approach. . . I now understand there is to be no mention of an interim appointment in the press release."
(2-7, p 43)

From this we can deduce from the call that one of them suggested moving the announcement date back, possibly to facilitate the pushing back of her departure date from March 9 to March 16. That would allow her to attend the NAIS meeting which I discussed earlier in my post at 2:27 AM.

Apparently, after some checking, people were already aware that she was planning on announcing her departure on Feb 23 and moving it back further might suggest she was getting preferential treatment. (i.e., Lam having to issue an indictment on the day she left) After this the M Chiara emails end in the 2-7 pdf.

Smartypants wrote on March 20, 2007 3:44 AM:

2-4

Sorry for the double post. I didn't get the correct nomenclature the first time. This a catalog of all documents in 2-4

CATALOG OF DOCUMENTS:

*Page 2 appears to be an attachment with speaking points for all US Attorneys to use when responding to the media. It is from Michael Battle, Director.

The memo has a number of handwritten notes, but the main memo includes the following statements:

* I am here to be candid and accountable, and to assure you that the Department did not act improperly. There was no political motivation. There was no scheme to fill these positions with a hand-picked group of favorites and to circumvent the nomination and confirmation process. (p. 2 of 48)

* Our only intention was to move out a small group of political appointees who served at the pleasure of the President of the United States and to try to do better in these districts. (p. 2-3 of 48)

* The AG and I have used the term "performance-related" as a way of distinguishing these folks from Bud Cummins in Arkansas. Performance is a broad word including the U.S. Attorney's management style, priorities, judgment, aggressiveness, etc. The decisions were based on what they did or did not do. No misconduct issues.

Other documents in this file include:
* Document with labeled DRAFT-For Internal DOJ Use Only "U.S. Attorney resignations" 5 pages (pp. 4-9 of 48)

Three columns labeled District, Leadership Assessment, and EARS (acronym not defined).
Gives name and typically negative assessment of 7 fired attorney, plus Cummings. EARS column includes positive comments from non-DOJ that often contradict the leadership assessment.

* Letter from Senator Leahy to AG Gonzales dated 3/7/07 requesting DOJ cooperatation with Senate investigation of firings. p. 11

* W.D. Washington
Document appears to be questioning activities of US Attorney in Western District of Washington State, including compliance with Blakely decision, also post-Booker. Author/Source of document not noted. pp. 12-13

* S.D. California
Document appears to be questioning activities of US Attorney in San Diego, including prosecution of illegal aliens and other immigration cases, comparing them with other border territories. Also questions prosecution of firearms and child pornography cases. pp. 14-16

* U.S. Attorney Assessment labeled Sensitive/Personnel: Not for distribution PRIVACY ACT PROTECTED
Includes summary of performance assessments for Kevin Ryan, Carol Lam, John McKay, Paul Charlton, David Iglesias, Dan Bogden, Margaret Chiara. pp. 15-20

* Opening Statement of William E. Moschella (pp. 21-22 of 48)

* Joint Statement of Former United States Attorneys Before Senate Judiciary Committee dated 3/6/07 (pp. 23-25 of 48)

* Statement of the Honorable George J. Terwilliger III to House Judiciary dated 3/6/07 (pp. 26-31 of 48)

*United States Attorneys-Criminal Caseload Statistics Immigration Cases Filed FY 1995-2006 "Listing Sorted: Alphabetically by District" pp. 32-33

*United States Attorneys-Criminal Caseload Statistics Immigration Defendants in Cases Filed FY 1995-2006**, pp. 34-35. Documents include some handwritten numbers in margins

*United States Attorneys-Criminal Caseload Statistics Child Pornography/Abuse** Cases Filed FY 1995-2006 "Listing Sorted: Alphabetically by District" pp. 36-37

*United States Attorneys-Criminal Caseload Statistics Child Pornography/Abuse** Defendants in Cases Filed FY 1995-2006**, pp. 38-39.

*United States Attorneys-Criminal Caseload Statistics 18 U.S.C. 922,924** Cases Filed FY 1995-2006 "Listing Sorted: Alphabetically by District" pp. 40-41

*United States Attorneys-Criminal Caseload Statistics 18 U.S.C. 922,924** Defendants in Cases Filed FY 1995-2006**, pp. 42-43.

*United States Attorneys-Criminal Caseload Statistics Corporate Fraud** Cases Filed FY 1995-2006 "Listing Sorted: Alphabetically by District" pp. 44-45

*United States Attorneys-Criminal Caseload Statistics Corporate Fraud** Defendants in Cases Filed FY 1995-2006**, pp. 46-47.

* CRIMINAL CASES HANDLED PER CRIMINAL ATTORNEY WORKYEAR FISCAL YEARS 1997-2006 p. 48
Gives National Average for these years, Average for Five SW Border Districts and Western District of Tennessee

Pacificyle wrote on March 20, 2007 3:46 AM:

Who is in charge of updating the TimeLine?

(April 28, 2006 -- 09:54 PM EDT http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008330.php Josh Marshall post announcing FBI opens investigation into something goings on in Missouri... "FBI opens investigation into Missouri Governor Matt Blunt's administration. Blunt is the son of Roy Blunt, House Majority Whip."

This predates everything and it seems all the confusion after... everything on timeline is to cover that over... or maybe "gum up".

That needs to be on Timeline. since Bud Cummins was to decide whether charges merit filing, as the Missouri USAttorneys had to recuse. Nothing is on the Timeline until this... and then Everything happens and there is no mention.

ET wrote on March 20, 2007 3:46 AM:

2-8
pg 1-2
Feinstein letter asks Gonzo 6/15/06 about guidelines & convictions on immigration/alien smuggling & is concerned about low prosecution numbers
pg 3-4
article by Carter AG Bell & Meador suggesting AG should have sole power to appoint USA's
pg 6-7-8
Rapid City SD Journal article on recess appointment of Mullins of Oklahoma to be recess appointment USA in SD instead of Meierhenry to replace Tapken over concern Tapken's son's partnership with Thune friend Dan Nelson in bankrupt partnership subject of consumer fraud lawsuit by state of Iowa
pg 9-10
comments on list of 13 USA vacancies after amendment to AG appointment authority 3/9/06
pg 11
resume George S. Cadona
pg 12
Nelson P. Cohen
pg 13
resume James R. Dedrick
pg 15
resume J. Timothy Griffin
pg 17
resume George E. B. Holding
pg 18
resume Daniel G. Knauss
pg 22
resume Randy G. Massey
pg 23 Craig S. Morford resume, prosecuted Congressman Traficant 2002
pg 26-27-28
profile of Rosa Emilia Rodriguezx-Velez
pg 29-31
resume of Chuck Rosenberg
pg 32
resume of Bradley J. Schlozman Western Missouri USA interim
pg 34
resume of Joe W. Stecher Nebraska USA interim
pg 36-37
resume of Jeffrey C. Sullivan, Washington USA office
pg 38
resume of Jeffrey A. Taylor
pg 39-40
resume of Rita R. Valdrini, USA office N. West VA
pg 41
resume of Judith A. Whetstine, USA office ND Iowa
pg 42
list of 15 nominations post 3/9/06
pg 43
resume of R. Alexander Acosta Asst AG for Civil Rights 2003-
pg 44
resume of Thomas D. Anderson, Asst USA Vermont 2001-
pg 45-48
resume of Troy A. Eid, shareholder in Greenberg Traurig

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 3:47 AM:

As I said above, this crap is nothing but smoke & mirrors and the administration has not released the real damming sh*t.

It took them several days to release this, and they have that same attorney from the Watergate era. At some point, there will be a release of the real documents, but not without a fight.

Caroline W wrote on March 20, 2007 3:50 AM:

Could you post what's already been reviewed and what still needs to get reviewed?

i.e., 1-1 (done)
1-2 (done)
.
.
.
3-1 (done)
3-2 (done)
3-3 (not reviewed)

etc.

Thanks.

Serpent's Choice wrote on March 20, 2007 3:55 AM:

In re: Caroline W

1-1 through 2-9 have all been picked through, althought that doesn't mean there aren't things still to find in there (especially regarding decoding some of the high-school quality manual redaction). Everyone's still waiting for further documents (we're ~2k pages short, still, right?) to become available.

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 4:05 AM:

1-6 p. 23

I think I have a different explanation for Bud Cummins. I think he IS one of the forced resignations.

Someone else pointed too the comments of Sampson when Cummins asks whether the administration wants him to testify -- he says he'll be loyal. But Sampson says no, because how would he answer a series of questions:
Did you resign voluntarily?
Were you told why you were being asked to resign?
[the list goes on]

Remember that early on, Battle is asked to call the USAs, and his first question is what are your plans in reference to continued service, and his next talking points are 'you're fired.' I think Cummins just got notified earlier, took it somewhat better and got lucky, finding a job before anything had been made public. So he put a good face on it. But I think actually he is among the group too, else why is Kyle afraid of his testimony?

buck turgidson wrote on March 20, 2007 4:05 AM:

hungrycoyote and Monkey++ picked up a comment from 2-3 p.1:

"unresolved Phil Green situation"

Phil Green was the 1st A-USA in WDMi in W's first term. I don't know what the "unresolved situation" is, but it sounds intriguing, especially since Chiara is threatening McNulty with it.

Chiara sounds like a competent extortionist--it would be interesting to see what she got from DOJ for her troubles. But now that the cat is out of the bag, she'll sing like a nightingale if pushed by the Senate, especially if they mention "obstruction of justice", which is exactly what she's doing by remaining silent. She knows the real reason for her firing and she blackmailed DOJ into giving her another position. Other comments suggest that she is financially overextended because of anticipation of being in the job for the full 8 years. She also expected to slide in smoothly into an academic position at the end of the term, which will not happen if she's fired. So she asked to resign and to move into another federal job that will 1) keep her finances stable and 2) allow her the leave to take the academic position at MSU. If she gets the latter, one of the MSU law students next fall should ask her what it's like to blackmail the AG.

It's is simply amazing that with the attention on six of the other USAs and on the bumblings of Gonzales and McNulty, a couple of the fired USAs escaped scrutiny. Now, with the document dump, Chiara may well come out front and center. The question for us is to figure out what her "offense" was that lead to the firing. But she seems to have played her cards well until now. What will she do when the shit hits the fan?

PS wrote on March 20, 2007 4:07 AM:

Why wasn't Bud Cummins asked the questions listed below? Kyle Sampson, former CoS to AG Gonzales is afraid if he were asked what he might say (see 2:44 AM post):

From 2-7, p 15

"Did you resign voluntarily?(1)
Were you told why you were being asked to resign?(2)
Who told you?(3) (He was told, obviously, whereas others, weren't)
When did they tell you?(4)
What did they say?(5)
Did you ever talk to Tim Griffin about his becoming U.S. Attorney?(6) (He did. See next question.)
What did Griffin say?(7)
Did Griffin ever talk about being AG appointed and avoiding senate confirmation?(8) (I'm going with yes.)
Were you asked to resign because you were underperforming?(9)
If not, then why?(10)
Etc., etc."

Why were B Cummins and T Griffin talking about Griffin coming in and what were they talking about? Why was B Cummins asked to leave? Did they tell him it was so T Griffin take his spot? Did he confront Griffin about taking his position, and if so, what occurred in that conversation? Why was Cummins not told he was being asked to leave for under performing? Was it because he was told it was so that Griffin could take his position?

2-8 needs to be vetted for info

joe falcone wrote on March 20, 2007 4:10 AM:

1-6

Oh forget it. I now realize what everyone else probably thought of right away, that Cummins WAS QUITE OPENLY asked to resign, but that the difference is it wasn't for cause -- the administration acknowledges it was done to make way for Griffin. I somehow had the idea that he was trying to play it off as really wanting to 'spend more time with his family' or whatever.

JVLM wrote on March 20, 2007 4:11 AM:

3070319 Page 34

From: Elston, Michael (ODAG)
Date: Tuesday Nov. 7, 2006
To: Sampson, Kyle
Subject: RE: U.S. Attorney Replacement Plan

This looks fine to me – trying to get Paul’s as well.

The only concern I have is that Paul just visited [blanked 6 character spaces, plus two spaces—e.g. Rove?] and asked that [approximately 13 characters missing, including two spaces] not be on the list. He does seem to be running things well (if somewhat independent of DOJ). On the other hand, Matt mentioned a scandal rumor that is of great concern to me. Should we mark him as tentative while we talk that out?

lyle wrote on March 20, 2007 4:12 AM:

it probably doesn't mean much, but i thought it was funny that in that petition to Lam bitching about her performance on immigration drug crime prosecutions, the dukester is the last signatory after about 15 other people sign before him.

i wonder if someone was maybe holding back on asking him to add his name to it, but couldn't resist the extra dukester power at the end of the day.

Serpent's Choice wrote on March 20, 2007 4:13 AM:

Virtually pointless un-redaction, but DAG 756-758 (1-8) refers to gun violence in a federal judicial district (section L in the document it is excerpted from) that is disguised by redaction.

That district is almost certianly NDIL, which includes Chicago. Leaving the reference to the well-known Chicago gang "Mafia Insane Vice Lords" but redacting every instance of "Chicago" is an example of how rushed and sloppy this release was.

Ottoe wrote on March 20, 2007 4:16 AM:

SO MUCH FOR THE TROLLYLOVE

RobbyLove wrote: "so much for the Lam story ... 1-1 makes it pretty clear that several people were very upset with her lack of performance regarding illegal immigration prosecutions. Also, the way she responded with her own attack on the Congressman who brought up the issue did not go over well **at all**. It's amazing she didn't get canned sooner ... I guess we'd better not mention her again. Too bad."

Umm ... Gee RobbyLove, what a coincidence that those docs should be the first released ... Sure they do show that the DOJ staffers did not like Lam particularly when she freelanced on rebutting the smears of their winger congresscritter friends, and prioritized other things (like prosecuting those congresscritters!) over their PR games in re immigration (and shame on Feinstein for trying to get cheap points by chiming in, what a mistake that was.)

But just look at the signatories to Issa's letter. The Duke-Stir! Jerry Lewis!

Issa's complaint is coming from the center of THE VERY CROWD LAM WAS INVESTIGATING.

lyle wrote on March 20, 2007 4:16 AM:

"I don't think the AG's office was really happy with her at this point. Do you? Especially since she made a statement without running it past the right people (page 13) and it inflamed the situation with Issa.
I'm right.

Posted by: RobbyLove
Date: March 20, 2007 03:41 AM"

looks like we have a troll in the wire.

macdust wrote on March 20, 2007 4:21 AM:

2-4
Page 1: Cover e-mail for “Resignation Guidance for United States Attorneys”, but the two attachments mentioned do not follow (Resignation Guidance.pdf, Resignation Guidance Attach.pdf.) Undated. The filing data at bottom have not been legibly reproduced.

Pages 2-3: Draft of notes preparatory to Oversight Committee testimony, unidentified provenance, unidentified hand, undated. (Cute example: “private management” stricken, replaced with “Internal DOJ management”.)

Pages 4-8: Draft charts of proposed rationales for firings. Unknown provenance, undated. Marked “Sensitive/personnel”. Eight attorneys, one not identified; Bud Cummins largely blank, awaiting suggestions.

Pages 9-10: Talking points, US Attorney Arizona, unknown provenance, undated. Large blanks next bullets.

Page 11: March 7 letter from Leahy to Gonzales.

Pages 12 & 13: Questionnaire for “W.D. Washington” apparently aimed at hammering US Attorney on conformity to sentencing guidelines. No letterhead, unknown provenance, undated.

Pages 14 - 16: Questionnaire for “S.D. California” apparently aimed at hammering her on immigration, firearms, and child pornography caseloads. No letterhead, unknown provenance, undated.

Pages 16 – 20. Putative “US Attorney Assessments”. No letterhead, no provenance, not dates.

Pages 21-22: Opening statement from Wm. E. Moschella, Asst. Atty. Gen, legislative affairs. “The charges are dangerous, baseless, and irresponsible.”

Pages 23-25: Joint Statement of Former U. S. Attorneys, March 6, 2007., delivered by Carol Lam.

Pages 26 – 31. Ingenious sleeping pill from The Hon. George J. Terwilliger III, prescribed March 6, 2007, finely grinding the issue of whether judges should appoint interim U.S. Attorneys.

Pages 32-47 are lists of caseload statistics, by type of crime, with occasional notes in an unidentified hand. No provenance, no date.

Page 48: Chart comparing number of cases per attorney work-year in Western Tennessee and in the five Southwest Border Districts against national averages. Each is several times more productive than the national average by that measure. No provenance, no date.

End of 2-4.

JVLM wrote on March 20, 2007 4:21 AM:

Lyle, did you see the names above the "Duke"?

Duncan Hunter, appears to be the name second column, second to the end.
Jerry Lewis, appears to be the name second column, third from bottom.

The guys who got the greatest love from MZM, ADCS just happened to sign last.

Actually Doolittle, throws this one for a little loop, he makes it into column one a few signatures below Issa (Doolittle was also in the major recipient of campaign cash). Lesser donor recipients Pombo, Issa, and Bono also make the list.

JR wrote on March 20, 2007 4:23 AM:

2-4 pp 17-20 seems to be a list of reasons to give to the outside world for canning the USAs. Some interesting bits:

Lam:

* "She continually failed to perform in significant leadership priorities…" – no mention of what those are.
* "Third, rather than focusing on the management of her office, this USA spent a significant amount of her time trying cases – this is discouraged in extra-large districts, because these are offices that require full-time managers."

Iglesias:

* "…border security … is important to our national security and to our domestic security. Regardless of what was done by the office in this area, he failed to tackle his responsibility as aggressively and as vigorously as we expected and needed her [sic] to do" (the "her" a sign they were mixing up their rationales about Iglesias and Lam?)
* "There was a perception that he travelled a lot, but that even when he was in the office he still delegated a vast majority of the management to his first assistant. We expect our U.S. Attorneys, particularly those in critical districts, to be hands-on managers…"

I wonder, is personally trying cases as Lam did considered "hands-on management"?

Chiara:

* "TRY TO AVOID SINCE NO PUBLIC STATEMENTS FROM CHIARA:"
* "…out of respect for her silence, we'd only say that this office presented some management issues."
* The reasons to give "IF PUSHED" are that "morale has fallen" and the "problems here have required an on-site visit…"

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 4:23 AM:

2-3
3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 2-3

Margaret Chiara sends a letter to Paul McNulty (Deputy AG) asking him to please reconsider saying they are firing her using the rationale of "poor performance" and asks for him (they) retract the accusation.

She is trying to avoid reporters and not comment on the firing in hopes (so it seems) that the DOJ change their wording. She mentions that the "situation of Phil Green" complicates the perception of the DOG in MDMI. Says xhe is finding it difficult to finding a job due to being one of the 8 US Attorneys along with her AGE being constantly cited.

She sounds desperate and is asking for consideration in other DOJ jobs forthcoming.

buck turgidson wrote on March 20, 2007 4:24 AM:

The following is in response to KC's post of 3:39 AM:

"Republican Senators are consulted (or to be consulted) on REPLACEMENTS in AZ (McCain, Kyl), NM (Domenici), and NV (Ensign)."

This is quite interesting because Ensign has been one of the most pissed off Republicans on this issue and he appears not to have been consulted. Kyl and McCain agreed on a proposed replacement in AZ, but the interim turned out to be someone else (older and not likely to take the "permanent" position). Domenici is in enough hot water now that he won't be consulted on anything.

"Only Arkansas with Sens. Pryor and Lincoln has any Democrat that is to be consulted. Why consult Pryor and Lincoln and not Wyden and Murray? Not Levin and Stabenow? What is the DoJ/WH standard?"

This one's easy--Levin and Stabenow held up judicial appointments in the 6th Circuit because they were not consulted on nominations. This may well be a typical Rovian payback. 6th Circuit is pivotal in many respect since the judgeships are split evenly along party lines. This may well explain why Chiara got the ax--like in Arkansas, they want loyal soldiers to get USA cred to give them background for judgeships and possibly run for Senate and other offices. Chiara was a dead-ender--loyal, but not enough of a soldier. This makes me wonder if "Karl's shop" is Rove's operation to identify potential candidates for future judgeships and elections.

"Is it proper to circumvent Senate recommendations from states with no GOP Sens. like WA and MI?"

Traditionally, party affiliation did not matter when consulting state's Senators on judicial nominations. I would expect the same to be true for USA, but I simply do not know. Bush-43 was the first to break with this tradition in any case, so this is the simple explanation for lack of consultation. But this is not an issue on which the dominoes will fall. That has to come from the firings, not the hires.

PollyTics wrote on March 20, 2007 4:26 AM:

Margaret Chiara was just page one of 2-3

glowbawl wrote on March 20, 2007 4:30 AM:

this all is a bit chaotic to sift thru...really should have wiki dinked this all out

Drew wrote on March 20, 2007 4:31 AM:

You should have made a seperate thread for each document. It's taken an hour to sift through this page and half of it is stuff that was already mentioned futher up the page.

How about it?

RobinLynne wrote on March 20, 2007 4:32 AM:

2-6 pages 11-12.
Senator Pryer says Gonzalez used the patriot act without a national security emergency!

beautiful letter from mark pryor (arkansas) to gonzalez about appointment of Griffin to arkansas.

Pryor mentions that he asked Gonzalez twice to NOT appoint Griffin, and was furious that he "forced Cummins to resign".
The sentence which struck me is:
Thirdly, and most importantly, the appointment undermines the senate confirmation process. The authority given to the AG............was given pursuant to the patriot act. I believe that in using this provision, the AG should articulate a naitonal security need that necissitates such an appointment. you have failed to do so.

This letter also affirms that Gonzales was aware of and in charge of, the firings. This senator spoke with Gonzalez directly and extended Cummins stay by several months.

tk421 wrote on March 20, 2007 4:33 AM:

Anyone got the ability to throw up a wiki?

RobinLynne wrote on March 20, 2007 4:36 AM:

I agree about the confusion. Many people are re-analyzing emails from last week. I also suggest our comments be very separate from the posts, or the posts are worthless. But damn this is great reading.

If you guys re-organize we'll read and post more tomorrow.

PS wrote on March 20, 2007 4:37 AM:

Robin and JR, dates for Griffin and Chiara conversations noted?

PS wrote on March 20, 2007 4:40 AM:

Robin,
Sampson was afraid if Cummins testified he might say that Griffin knew he was being appointed by the AG under emergency measures, thus circumventing the Senate confirmation process.

joejoejoe wrote on March 20, 2007 4:44 AM:

2-3 pg. 9

7:25 PM, 3/5/07 - AG Gonzales CoS Kyle Sampson emails White House Dep. Assistant to the President and Dep.Counsel William Kelley a draft of Assistant AG Moschella's opening remarks before Congress. CC'd to WH Associate Counsel to the President Christopher G. Oprison.

"Bill [Kelley],

Can you forward this on to Dana [Perino? - WH Dep. Press Sec] and Cathie [Martin? - OVP] (and whomever else in the White House you deem appropriate) for review and approval? Thanks!

>"
- - -
9:33 PM, 3/5/07 - WH Associate Council Oprison emails back Moschella

"Will, attached please find a redlined version with suggested edits. Thanks.

Chris"

Cc'd to Kyle Sampson (CoS AG), William Kelley (WH Dep. Ass. to Pres, Dep. Council), Michael Scudder (Ass. Council to President), Fred Fielding (WH Council), Landon Gibbs (WH Staff assistant)
- - - -

If there is any problem with Moschella's testimony before Congress the White House was most definitely aware of it before he went to the Hill. They edited Sampson's initial draft in the WH Office of Legal Council.

comadrejo wrote on March 20, 2007 4:47 AM:

The thing that puzzle me about Gonzales and the firing of Bud Cummins and replacing him with Tim Griffin. Why did Gonzales get all upset about McNulty testimony in February about the truth about Griffin interim appointment? Why call from South America?

My speculative guess and right now it is speculative to try put my own piece in the puzzle that may not fit.... Rove.

I think Karl wanted his fingerprints far away from his handiwork, and probably got on the phone with Gonzales and told him to change the story, Given that Gonzales still try to keep to the line that Cummins was fired and Griffin was qualified, even though McNulty forgot to read the Talking Point on this. Why was Gonzales so upset? If they were fired for cause and there was cause or the President's right, just let it be and tell whoever tough titties, deal with it. Why was Gonzales was keeping to the Party line like his USA Today editorial, (Gonzales should be fired just for that editorial) The Political Appointees really seem to work with little evidence or little knowledge of what all transpired. Why did Griffin refuse to go to the Senate? If he is so qualified as the DOJ blathers about, why does he refuse?

I think we are getting just one bit of story from DOJ, there needs to be more info, and Miers and Rove has to testify for this.
The documents relaying why they fired Lam and McKay are lame, there also needs documents on the other US Attorneys interactions with DOJ to compare and contrast. I don't see what Lam and McKay did as job terminating offenses.

dude wrote on March 20, 2007 4:50 AM:

http://editthis.info/

You can set up a wiki in about ten seconds there.

PS wrote on March 20, 2007 4:50 AM:

From 2-4, p 3,

Michael Battle's opening explainations for firings under General Guidelines he says:

"The AG and I have used "performance-related" as a way of distinguishing these folks from Bud Cummins."

So once again, why was Cummins told he was being fired? We know about Griffin and what was different, but what was the substance of those conversations between Cummins and Justice and Cummins and Griffin?

Cummins and Chiara, please report to the House Jud. Cmte. immediately.

HeyThereItsEric wrote on March 20, 2007 4:52 AM:

One thing stands out to me after looking through all the versions of the "Plan for Replacing Certain United States Attorneys":

In all version I scanned through, "Evaluation and Selection of "Interim" Candidates" ALWAYS has "Interim" in quotes.

Given all the drafts, you'd think someone would fix that. Unless it were relevant.

joejoejoe wrote on March 20, 2007 5:00 AM:

D'oh! I lost the page but there are emails to DoJ and back to Tasia Scolinas from her Yahoo email address and to her Yahoo email address. I'm not sure if that is an issue or not.

tasia_scolinos@yahoo.com

PS wrote on March 20, 2007 5:04 AM:

Should we do it by member of the Group of 8 or by document (i.e. 1-1, 2-1 etc)?

I suggest we do it by each member of the group of 8 that way we can assign chronology to the process. Use the doc #'s as references?

More suggestions?

melvin ridley wrote on March 20, 2007 5:14 AM:

E-mail from Rebecca Seidel sent Thurs. Jan.25 to Kyle Sampson stating " Just got off the phone with Arlen Specter staff asking for talking points so that he could organize a Republican strategy.

Toxic wrote on March 20, 2007 5:15 AM:

2-5.

Page 2: David Iglesais's farewell letter to his friends and colleagues, Dated 27 Feb, 2007

Page 3: Dan Bodgen's farewell letter, dated 1 March.

Page 20: Draft of a chart of US Attorney resignations, showing their (negative) leadership assessment, and a list of their "ears" (the people who they have influence with). Notes that Dan Bodgen is "Resistant to at least one leadership priority" (though this is subsequently struck out). In a similar vein, notes Paul Charlton's "refusal to comply" with the same leadership priority, and failures to comply with AG's instructions on the death penalty.

Page 22/23, continuation of same chart. Notes that Carol Lam has also failed to perform in relation to leadership priorities. More importantly, it says (and is underlined) that although the President has made it clear that he wants her to prosecute gun crimes and immigration enforcement issues, her case load on these issues is low.
{AHEM... she's not doing what the WH tells her, which makes her a candidate for firing}

John Mckay's noncompliance with Ashcroft's memo (?) is noted on page 24.

Page 25 is the list of who has been selected to fill the vacant benches... and who recommended them. Several were recommended by sitting Senators, others by the Parsky commission

Page 26: "[Tim] Griffin was _Always_ our choice"

Page 29: (Handwritten notes that look like talking points for discussing the firings with the public). "USAs have too much integrity" and this gem: "Public corruption is one of our top priorities"

also "Our intent was for this to send _no_ message / Personal Phone Calls" {Sounds like they're letting the press know by personal phone call, rather than public press conference -- not quite a leak, but the same mechanics as one}

PS wrote on March 20, 2007 5:15 AM:

"Interim" does have relevancy, though why I'm not sure yet. Chiara speficially agrees not to mention any "Interim" appointees in her resignation public release statement per request of Paul McNulty.

"I now understand there is to be no mention of an interim appointment in the press release."
(2-7, p 43)

THAT WAS MY POST. ALONG WITH OTHERS, I THOUGHT I WAS WORKING FROM THE 2-7 RELEASE. THIS WAS NOT THE CASE!!! MY ERROR. I'M LOOKING FOR THE CORRECT PDF REF # AND POSTING ASAP. The page #'s will still be correct.

Carl Leichter wrote on March 20, 2007 5:19 AM:

2-7

pp 12-14

Letter from AAAG Hertling assuring Feinstein and Leahy that the Bush Administration has no intention of using interim appts to bypass confirmation process.

Liar, Liar, Constitution on Fire

johnnydrama wrote on March 20, 2007 5:19 AM:

Isn't all the hubbug in CA about Carol Lam based on that phony report that Issa was bandying around everying, including TV, when he had already admitted that it wasn't real?

The names on the anti Carol Lam letter just happening to come from most of the crooks she was investigating is way too easy to figure out for anybody to actually buy the story that she didn't go after illegals that hard.

Oh, and which jails are we going to put all these illegals in? We have tons of openings in jails to put tons of Mexican citizens in?

PS wrote on March 20, 2007 5:19 AM:

ALL OF MY QUOTES ARE FROM PART 2-2.

I APOLOGIZE. Page #'s are still correct.

buck turgidson wrote on March 20, 2007 5:26 AM:

lyle comments at 4:12 AM

"Virtually pointless un-redaction, but DAG 756-758 (1-8) refers to gun violence in a federal judicial district (section L in the document it is excerpted from) that is disguised by redaction.

"That district is almost certianly NDIL, which includes Chicago. Leaving the reference to the well-known Chicago gang "Mafia Insane Vice Lords" but redacting every instance of "Chicago" is an example of how rushed and sloppy this release was."

NDIl is Patrick Fitzgerald's district. He is USA for Eastern Division that includes Chicago and was "hired" in October 2001 (which is what is listed on DAG 756). Western Division is Rockford-based, led by John McKenzie, who's subordinate to Fitz. At one point, Fitzgerald's appointment was not renewed--don't know what the actual termination date is, but it should be later this year. Everyone seems to have forgotten about this. Is this still the case? If so, there is little doubt that this is political payback, although he tried to be deferential at the time the non-renewal was announced.

Same PDF (2-8), p.11:

Following an exchange between Sampson and others over Griffin's qualifications, Richard Hertlings (AA-AG) letter to Reid is included. This contain a number of howling falsehoods, including,

"The Department of Justice is not aware of anyone, either inside or outside the Administration, lobbying for Mr. Griffin's appointment."

"The Department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin."

"When the Department found an able and experienced successor, it moved forward with his interim appointment."

All the other nonsense, such as Cummins's wish to resign before the end of the Bush term and Griffin's experience being superior to Cummins's "when he took office" have been discussed on TPM already--in fact, this is what led to further TPM investigations of the attorney firings.

Most of the letter is pure fiction. Unfortunately, it is not under oath. Still, it qualifies as "lying to Congress".

p. 17: letter to Schumer

EARS = Evaluation and Review Staff reports, DOJ's job performance evaluations

p.37--the Phil Green mystery might be solved. There is a Phillip Green nomination of SDIl. Look for the resume further in 2-9 (p. 1). Green was nominated "but confirmation did not occur." The document that explains the interim appointments in 1-8 is cut-and-pasted differently in 2-8. Some of the information from 1-8 is replaced with the resumes.

buck turgidson wrote on March 20, 2007 5:27 AM:

Correction in the post above--all references are to 1-8, not 2-8, until the last paragraph.

Carl Leichter wrote on March 20, 2007 5:34 AM:

1-7

Top of page 2:
Margaret Chiara writes (emphasis added)

"I am confident Paul deftly handled the senatorial scrutiny. However, I DO NEED TO KNOW IF MY IDENTITY WAS DISCLOSED. Announcement data and departure date must be confirmed"

Sent Wed, ,Feb 14, 2007, 10:27pm from her BlackBerry to Micheal Elston ODAG.

Alex wrote on March 20, 2007 5:36 AM:

OT: WIKI

Okay, we've got a lot of information; should we try a wiki to organize it? I set this up, and started to put some information in it (most of it stolen or linked to tpmmuckraker).

HTTP://DOJMUCK.PBWIKI.COM
Password: muckraker

I nominate PS to set up the front page a little more thoroughly, and perhaps give as much structure as possible. We can also start to migrate all of this information there. Of course, if this turns out to be the wrong format/hosting site, we can just move it later. (That said, I'm going to bed.)

Carl Leichter wrote on March 20, 2007 5:39 AM:

1-7

pp9

From Monica Goodling
To Micheal Elston ODAG

"FYI-Looks like someone is trying to out Chiara and it may break soon....[rest of text sounds like a reporter was trying to follow up]"

Why would someone be trying to "out Chiara"?

Carl Leichter wrote on March 20, 2007 5:47 AM:

1-7
p-13

This is very odd. David Margolis is essentially asking for a CLEARANCE to send a response to Carol Lam's goodbye email. Why is he so worried about what he writes to her? Why does he want Elston to clear it?

(Emphasis added and text order reversed to show chronological order)

From David Margolis
To Micheal Elston (and William Moschella)

"here is my proposed response- any qualms or suggestions?

Carol: sorry that we did not have an opportunity to say goodbye last week. i am confidenet that you will have great success in your new endeavor and I wish you all the best. When you come to DC, i would like to take you to lunch on my expense account.

Best Wishes

David"

Response From Micheal Elston ODAG

"Fine, except that you do not have an expense account"

greenmeddler wrote on March 20, 2007 5:47 AM:

I have set up a wiki for the documents at:

http://editthis.info/tpmmuckraker1/Main_Page

it's wide open, so go to it!

The Green Meddler

Serpent's Choice wrote on March 20, 2007 5:53 AM:

From DAG 554 (1-3): Un-redaction work

There are 4 redacted Senators, related in some manner to the 3 redacted USAs who had also been considered for forced resignations. Working on the theory that understanding what spared the others (and who they were) may yield understanding or reveal influence, I've done some text analysis.

Senators 4 and 6 have been sufficiently redacted as to prevent identification.

Senator 2 begins with M or N. Qualifying Republican Senators are:
Mel Martinez (Florida)
Mike Crapo (Idaho)
Mitch McConnell (Kentucky)
Mike Enzi (Wyoming)
Norm Coleman (Minnesota)

Senator 3 almost certainly begins with C (or, less likely, O). Qualifying Republican Senators are:
Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
Chuck Hagel (Nebraska)
Craig Thomas (Wyoming)
Orin Hatch (Utah)
Olympia Snowe (Maine)

One possibility is that the two redacted names are Mike Enzi and Craig Thomas, and that one of the redacted (and spared) attorneys was from Wyoming. This would explain why there are 4 Senators for only 3 attorneys. This is not, however, the only viable explanation.

Jim wrote on March 20, 2007 5:58 AM:

The man who campaigned as the Great Uniter, and declared himself the Great Decider, will burn in history as the Great Divider with all of the catastrophic consequences that are escalating every hour, of every day.

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.

Serpent's Choice wrote on March 20, 2007 5:59 AM:

In re: Carl Leichter

Why does David Margolis not know that he doesn't have an expense account? That's not one of those job details people usually are mistaken about, I wouldn't think ... but then, I'm not a Republican.

PS wrote on March 20, 2007 6:11 AM:

Note that one of the edits of Moschella's opening statements before Congress on 3/6 is made by Chris Oprison at christopher_g._oprison@who.eop.gov which is lauded by K Sampson(resigned) and who asks Oprison to forward his suggestions directly to W Moschella. (2-3, p 9-15) By p 15 Moschella suggests all of Oprison's changes will be kept.

What's interesting here is that in trying to find out who who.eop.gov is, I simply can't. Neither can the site ICANN WATCH. Here's their page on who.eop.gov. Have a look:
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/19/189213

Another mystery of the WH that this committee could get to by talking to Moschella or Sampson probably any WH official is what is who.eop.gov? Why does it exist/was it created? For what purpose does it serve?

Serpent's Choice wrote on March 20, 2007 6:13 AM:

I am reasonably convinced that the redacted Senators discussed above are in fact those from Wyoming. Redacted (thus spared) attorney #3 from the same source (below Carol Lam) appears to begin with M or N as well. Matthew Mead, USA for Wyoming would therefore be a match both in typeface and list position relative to the Senator list.

Furthermore, Mead, like many of the USAs in question, is a member of NAIS and has been involved in highly successful drug prosecutions regarding illegal-alien Mexican drug trafficking on Native American land.

If the shoe fits... By looking at ways Mead is different from ousted NAIS members we may start to get at the underlaying motivations.

Rob van Stee wrote on March 20, 2007 6:18 AM:

I just added a page at the wiki for page 38 of batch 1-11, the one that is redacted and partially visible on page 39. It looks to me like this page mentions Fred Thompson just above the last unredacted line.

Please help in deciphering this page!

http://editthis.info/tpmmuckraker1/1-11

Biff wrote on March 20, 2007 6:19 AM:

Here's another attempt at merging 1-11 pp. 38-39 (in URL); HTH!

Serpent's Choice wrote on March 20, 2007 6:21 AM:

In re: PS

eop.gov is the Executive Office of the President. There are a large number of subdomains. who.eop.gov is presumably White House O...something (there also exists whc...).

To provide some context, and an example of the sorts of people using these addresses, Ken Mehlman's email address was also at who.eop.gov.

artie wrote on March 20, 2007 6:36 AM:

i am looking at 2-6. grabbed it at random. begins with summary of "western district" GWB USA Balfe's vita.

clinton USA paul holmes described, in bold and italics, as having democratic political experience. this, like "did not attend top-rated universities," appears to be very bad "talker." that is page 2.

griffin, guy apparently proposed as holmes' replacement, has "very strong academic credentials" from those top-ranked schools, Hendrix and Tulane. and he has political experience as republican (huge plus). this is page 3.

this is going to be easy. what corrupt morons wrote this stuff?

the letter to mark pryor (page 4) does not mention his political experience.

pryor not happy p 11-12

page 13, 14 someone has collected arkansas times articles indicating that griffin's appointment is going to look suspicious since he's such an unqualified political hack

tim griffin defends his "caging" work from greg palast in emails with links p17ff.

p25 someone's hearing, USAs serve at pleasure of president, we will never seek to remove a USA to interfere with an investigation or (in handwriting) to retaliate for a prosecution. ??

page 27, someone's impromptu addition to hearing, it's comical. where do they get these teenagers? "I have a lot of respect for you, and when I hear you talk about politicizing the DOJ, it's like a knife in my heart." someone should put these words to a country music ballad. "the AG & I love DOJ and honor its mission. Your perspective is completely contrary to my daily experience." who is this lying tool? mcnulty?

i think it was the rough draft of his thing on pp. 31-36 -- the 2/6/07 senate hearing

what follows is a letter, a draft of a bill, a transcript of a hearing with gonzo and feinstein,

and that is all for DOJDocsPt2-6070319.pdf

PS wrote on March 20, 2007 6:38 AM:

On Mar. 5, the day before Will Moschella is scheduled to testify William K Kelly, @who.eop.gov, writes to Kyle Sampson about the WH and DOJ coordinating the evening before Moschella's testimony:

2-3, p 22

"Kyle-We've been tasked with getting a meeting together with you, Paul (McNulty), Will (Moschella), DOJ leg, pa and maybe (Michael)Battle-today, to go over Administration's position on all aspects of US Atty issue, including what we are going to say about the proposed legislation and why the US Attys were asked to resign."

To which Sampson forwards to P McNulty, W Moschella, R Hertling, T Scolinos, M Battle, M Elston, B Roehrkasse, M Goodling, and T Washington:

"All please see below...(what Kelly just said)...I assume they'll want us to go over there" (meaning the WH)."

No matter what the who.eop.gov is, this shows clear coordination the night before Moschella's testimony between the WH and DOJ.

comadrejo wrote on March 20, 2007 6:41 AM:

Doc 1-8

page 12 email from Sampson on the email chain

"RE:Draft response to Reid/Durbin/Schumer/Murray letter re Cummins Griffin

Sampson's email reply February 22 2007 12:03pm

If you have not already reviewed the letter, please review this version 2 (It includes some nits, plus a new graf from Hertling) Because this mentions Rove and alludes to Harriet, I'd like to send it to WHCO today for their review, with an eye getting it out tomorrow. THx

PS wrote on March 20, 2007 6:50 AM:

MORE

K Sampson writes he needs WAVES info (Sec. Serv. info, I presume because he's asking for SSN and DOB. Some kind of record of who comes to the WH) for their 5 pm meeting to which P McNulty replies to K Sampson, W Moschella, R Hertling, T Scolinos, and M Battle (all DOJ):

2-3, p25, Mar 5, 4 pm

"I can take 4 others in my car and there would be no need for WAVES info."

Another attempt at obfuscation?

XYZ wrote on March 20, 2007 6:59 AM:

So far, it appears to me that these documents have been selected for their C.Y.A. value. What I mean is that the majority are new (emails created after the storm started brewing about the firings), with a few "nuggets" thrown in (such as Sen Feinstein's email from summer 2006) to give the appearance of neutrality. Frankly, I'm going to puke if I have to read one more testimony where the person is "on message" -- this is pure propaganda here, folks.

We're being snowed here and that's my pro opinion.

-- XYZ

Astrid wrote on March 20, 2007 7:01 AM:

I've been working with the hand-written bleed-through in 1-11 on pages 38 & 39. I agree with Historicus that it looks like the word "Pardon" about five lines from the bottom, but I'm getting way too bleary to pull out any more than what you can see here:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u48/happytrout/942.jpg

I'll try to work on it more after I get some sleep. If anyone wants to work with Photoshop, I can email you the tif with different layers for the front and back of the page plus my tracings of the text I've been able to make out so far

artie wrote on March 20, 2007 7:03 AM:

2-9

page 10: marty jackley puts "political service" before "community service"

page 14: thirty years ago deborah rhodes won a kiwanis essay contest!!! these people have some terrible resume-writing skills.

all resumes here

hekebolos wrote on March 20, 2007 7:14 AM:

Here's a post I wrote on my blog about document 1-9, starting on Page 9 of the PDF: talking points! Actual, honest to god talking points. Dear me.

hekebolos wrote on March 20, 2007 7:15 AM:

Link didn't work.

http://www.hekebolos.com/2007/03/us-attorney-doc-dump-includes-talking.html

That's the post.

georgia wrote on March 20, 2007 7:30 AM:

General feeling - I've been through a number of the documents, and I get a sense that a lot of the problems had to do with prosecutorial and sentencing guidelines being handed down by leadership at the DOJ. One document even references guidelines from John Ashcroft.

It seems that the USA, at the direction of the DOJ, were opting to take fewer cases, going after the ones where long prison terms were possible. The prosecution of fewer cases was what seems to have puzzled Issa and Feinstein. It puzzles me too. It doesn't seem to fit with an administration that claims to be tough on immigration and border protection.

I've seen no direct reference to the short-lived "Feeney Amendment", but that was one piece of legislation that may have had a lot to do with what was going on. I was intrigued last week when I found that Daniel Collins was a party to both the "Feeney" and "Section 502", the amendment to the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization which was added in conference. "Feeney" was shot down in court, and Feinstein is introducing legislation to remove "502".

All the info seems to show that DOJ was trying to get a strangle-hold on judges and prosecutors, but to what end? What is the "enterprise" that has been referred to? Why are budgets being cut with increasing case load? Is the administration talking out of both sides of its mouth?

insider wrote on March 20, 2007 7:36 AM:

A few clarifiers:

NAC = National Advocacy Center (in Columbia, SC), the DOJ attorney training facility

Margolis = David Margolis in the Deputy AG's office. Margolis is a (very) longtime career employee -- literally decades of service. He is depicted colorfully in the book "Main Justice" as a chain-smoking wearer of cowboy boots. Def not a political hack, but savvy in his own right. The line about an expense account is a joke: Margolis knows he has no such thing.

2-5, p. 32: I think the "Cong" re Cummins may be a reference to his own run for Congress back in the 90s

Serpent's Choice wrote on March 20, 2007 7:39 AM:

I'm curious why the NAIS membership is so over-represented in this event. The administration answer, if they give one, is certain to be that the NAIS attorneys simply were not living up to the needs of prosecuting drug and immigration cases that were using Native American land to shield themselves from local authorities.

Except that they were.

Four of the forced resignations were attorneys involved in NAIS: Charleton, Bogden, McKay, and Iglesias. I'm reasonably certain that at least one of the others on the short list to push out but who escaped that fate was with NAIS: Matthew Mead of Wyoming. Would the White House or Gonzales have had anything to gain from disrupting NAIS and the efforts to improve information-sharing between the US DoJ and tribal law enforcement?

georgia wrote on March 20, 2007 7:40 AM:

1-2
page 11:
2) We have retained but modified intake guidelines - I know we discussed taking out intake language completely but I'm not sure what the final verdict was. I don't know if the existence of guidelines for this particular district is "out there" already. Please look at the current language - "USAOs take allegations of criminal conduct very seriously and carefully review any investigative evidence presented to support such allegations in light of the Principles of Federal Prosecution." We could omit all refernces to guidelines and just rely on the standard language. Again, I defer to OLA and ODAG. If it has been publicized that immigration guidelines exist for this district, then perhaps we need to retain the intake language to remind Issa and Feinstein that these are not mandatory guidelines.

K-L wrote on March 20, 2007 7:44 AM:

Margaret Chiara seems most worried about getting another job (preferabley near her second home in South Carolina)...is she interested in herwork as a USA and serving the people AT ALL? She comes out selfish and self preoccupied. Evidently the doc.dumpers thought so too as they have certainly made her look self-concerned and self-centered here.

georgia wrote on March 20, 2007 7:48 AM:

1-2

page 14:Mention of the "Ashcroft memo"

Finally, though I am not overly familiar with the Ashcroft memo, my initial read of it leaves me somewhat skeptical of SD CA's claim that its strategy is "true" to the Ashcroft memo. The Ashcroft memo (of 9/23/03, if I've got the right one) gives federal prosecutors a duty "to charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense or offenses that are supported by the facts of the case[.]" SD CA, it seems, is in effect arguing that this duty implies that given the choice between multiple "lesser" prosecutions and a single, more serious prosecution, the prosecutor should opt to pursue the latter. I'm not certain that this directive is part of the Ashcroft memo, and I suspect SD CA's effort to invoke the Ashcroft memo in its defense might be inappropriate, but again, I claim no expertise in this area and wish merely to flag the point to your attention.

ding7777 wrote on March 20, 2007 7:48 AM:

2-8 page 42 DAG000000394

A list of 15 replacement USAs between March 9, 2006 and ???.

All except 3 were confirmed by the Senate.

Nothing remarkable except that this highlights the incorrectness of the Clinton 93, Bush 8 replacement mantra that the rightwing has been echoing for 2 weeks.

jf wrote on March 20, 2007 7:52 AM:

If TPM collates these summaries into either an index or table of contents, TPM would be the goto site for source material.

JE wrote on March 20, 2007 7:53 AM:

Setting up a wiki now...

JE wrote on March 20, 2007 7:56 AM:

Can that - my system's down.

Why not use the dKosopedia wiki for tracking all this? Start a convention of creating articles with a prefix (say, "USADD") and then the document - so finds in 2-8 would be on page "USADD 2-8"?

georgia wrote on March 20, 2007 8:12 AM:

1-3

Page 2: Frustration with John McKay, bad PR (shows political motive for removing him)

"Even when he is in Ireland he causes problems! He needs to stop writing letters."

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

I agree with XYZ above - this is a totally scrubbed document dump. You can't tell me they NEVER discussed Lam's investigation of Cunningham, Foggo, etc. Someone went through his/her files and released selected documents - see all the hand-written notes - these are NOT the emails printed directly from the server.

This is not responsive, nor exhaustive, by any means.

Mehitabel wrote on March 20, 2007 8:26 AM:

How many of these are from RNC server?

Anonymous Liberal wrote on March 20, 2007 8:30 AM:

2-2 has some pretty juicy stuff. In particular, check out p. 15. Some analysis here.

kis wrote on March 20, 2007 8:31 AM:

It is VERY telling what is NOT in the dump.

It defies logic that Lam's investigation would never have some up, even as a potential reason to leave her in position. Like everyone would have so easily avoided talking about the elephant in the room?

This is a heavily scrubbed dump. I'm sure the talking point will be something like 'we already gave them 3000 pages... what more do they want?'

Rob van Stee wrote on March 20, 2007 8:35 AM:

In re: JE

A wiki has already been set up, please go to http://editthis.info/tpmmuckraker1/Main_Page
and contribute!

XYZ wrote on March 20, 2007 8:40 AM:

you're on the money, iris. i'm sure that any discussions of foggo, etc, were purged before this document dump. looking through these, i have to chuckle thinking that rove is having a laugh as we all pore through resumes. the only legitimate reason i can see for withholding docs related to cunningham, foggo, etc would be to not want to jeopardize the prosecution of foggo and wilkes.

but, this is a selective document list, no doubt in my mind. i'll keep sifting but we need to not let our guard down thinking they are being open, because this is exactly what GWB has done to us over and over.

btw, thanks, Josh, and TPM, for showing the world what america is about -- people coming together to defend democracy (sifting through PDF files is our 21st century version)

Terminus Est wrote on March 20, 2007 8:47 AM:

Minor detail/gripe but I sure wish the emails contained the full headers. I am passingly interested in whether or not some of these back and forths are via outside-channel email accounts. They are clearly using the evil Outlook or Outlook Express so email address information is broadly hidden (in To: and CC: lists).

Ah well...digging into the docs now.

JS wrote on March 20, 2007 8:47 AM:

2-2

p. 9 from Elton to Sampson, Goodling, McNulty, Nowacki

"Subject: Kevin Ryan

Internet reports suggest that he has submitted his resignation."

So they get their information the same place we do??

XYZ wrote on March 20, 2007 8:51 AM:

interesting. Doc 2-1, page 12, is the plan that outlines how the USAs will be replaced. it's titled "Plan for Replacing Certain US Attorneys" and is scripted into numbered steps. Its a script sent by Kyle Sampson for comments to Michael Elston. He wants comments ASAP so he can get it to Harriet that evening.

ahem wrote on March 20, 2007 8:54 AM:

"We're being snowed here and that's my pro opinion."

There's a lot of snow here, for sure. But it needs to be ploughed to find out what the judiciary committees need to request next.

MikeBuck wrote on March 20, 2007 8:56 AM:

doc 2-1 page 16

Page contains one of a couple variations on the "Plan for Replacing Certain Uniated States Attorneys."

Step 4 of the plan is "Evaluation and Selection of 'Interim' Candidates" at the bottom of page 16. This section makes reference to "candidates who may become Acting U.S. Attorney by operation of law." I assume this is a reference to short-circuiting the Senate confrimation process. This document is dated November 15. An earlier version of the document (page 10-13), written prior to the election does not reference bypassing Senate confirmation. Presumably Senate confirmation would have been obtained had the GOP retained Senate control.

Throughout this PDF (e.g. page 16) reference is also made to the correct response to the "why" question. The answer is "to give someone else the chance to serve in your district." This is an odd response because it implies that the administration already has someone in mind. At the same time, the document requests that home-state Senators make their recommendations quickly implying that the decision on who will replace is still open. Odd.

georgia wrote on March 20, 2007 8:57 AM:

Another general feeling: Why is everyone focusing on the political motivation of these firings while few are focusing on the fact that the administration has seemingly overstepped the bounds of its Constitutional authority?

This is not just a one time occurence. The fact that the "Feeney Amendment" was followed up by "Section 502" shows that overstepping the bounds and trying to consolidate power with the executive was policy. In both cases, the legisation was written by DOJ, and in neither case was it done at the request of Congress. In addition to taking on a legislative role (itself seemingly stretching the bounds of authority), the DOJ authored legislation that too was arguably unconstitutional. Passage was almost guaranteed by attaching these to bills with bipartisan support.

These actions don't seem to comply with an oath "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". In my view, any and all who enacted or carried out this policy should be removed from office. Impeachment does not just apply to the President, and it does not just apply to those currently in office.

ahem wrote on March 20, 2007 8:57 AM:

"Minor detail/gripe but I sure wish the emails contained the full headers. I am passingly interested in whether or not some of these back and forths are via outside-channel email accounts."

There's one example of a DOJ employee using her Yahoo account, but I wonder if any non-government addresses were scrubbed.

CREW was right to bring this up to Henry Waxman.

Terminus Est wrote on March 20, 2007 8:58 AM:

Docs 2-6 thru 2-9 are basically correspondence between the Justice Department and Senators, transcripts of newspaper articles, and resumes. There may be useful "stuff" in there somewhere but for the first pass perhaps the emails are better focused upon.

Terminus Est wrote on March 20, 2007 9:09 AM:

Pdf 2-3, DAG000000204

Any ideas what this means? Is there a corresponding "significant observations doc" in previous pdfs?

From: Elston, Michael (ODAG)
wed, nov 29, 2006
TO: Long, Linda E

Subject: Fw: Significant Observations for NDCA Special Review

Attachments: tmp.htm; NDCA SIGOBS.wpd

Could you print these for me and for Paul?

---Original Message---
From: Margolis, David
To: Moshella, William; Elston, Michael (ODAG)
sent Mon Oct 30

Subject: FW: Significant Observations for NDCA Special Review

Then there is the attached file "NDCA SIGOBS.wpd" and the message body stating simply

"This is not good."

So...anyone seeing or have seen an NDCA Significant Observations document?

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

doc 2-1 page 23

Evidence of scrubbing. Link to White House?

Top right of page 23 says page 1 of 2. There is no page 2 of 2 provided. Page 2 would include the initiating e-mail that was subsequently forwarded (FW) and replied to (RE). Page 2 contains the replies but the original e-mail is missing.

Presumably the missing page is an e-mail from William Kelly who is the Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel (http://www.whitehouse.gov/results/leadership/bio_856.html). This presumption is based on the fact that the e-mail on the bottom of page 23 is a reply from Kyle Sampson back to William Kelley (with a cc to Harriet Meyers).

What is on the missing page? Context would seem to imply it is William Kelley's approval to proceed with the plan.

Final note: This page is purposefully missing because in the doc dump it is stamped DAG 0000023. The preceeding PDF is stamped DAG 0000022 and the subsequent page is stamped DAG 0000024. The page has been purposefully withheld.

Zach Edwards wrote on March 20, 2007 9:11 AM:

I combined and posted all of the new relevant information on Daniel Bogden and on one bit of information crossed off about Carol Lamb that corresponds with a case Daniel Bogden was working on. All of the information was derived from this Justice Department Dump.

http://misterapologist.blogspot.com/

tereads wrote on March 20, 2007 9:12 AM:

2-2
pp 44-50
Draft talking points, including discussion of Clinton firings v. Bush firings of USA's.
Interesting to watch Republican talking points developed.

p wrote on March 20, 2007 9:13 AM:

2nd package the word scandal got my eye!

From Micahel Elston Nov 7 2006 6:29pm to Kyle Sampson
RE:US Attorney Replacement Plan

"The only concern I have is that Paul just visited WHITE OUT and asked that WHITE OUT not be pn the list. He does seem to be running things well (if somewhat independent of DOJ). On the other hand, Matt mentioned a scandal rumor that is of great concern to me. Should we mark him as tentative while we talk that out?

yellojkt wrote on March 20, 2007 9:14 AM:

2-5,

Toxic noted this as well, but on page 29 the handwritten note says:

"3. USAs have too much integrity." ("integrity" underlined in the original)

I wonder if they view that as a bad thing.

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 9:19 AM:

Might the NAIS link be to Dept of Interior investigations?

NamelessFaceless wrote on March 20, 2007 9:24 AM:

2-8

DAG00000358-59

Woster, Kevin "Bush appoints Steve Mullins as U.S. attorney"

In this news article regarding the South Dakota replacement of the U.S. Attorney, the author quotes Kyle Downey as saying "The president acted to clear up this unnecessary dispute . . ." It may be worthwhile to ask what role the president actually had and whether he had knowledge of the situation.

MikeBuck wrote on March 20, 2007 9:35 AM:

doc 2-1 page 29

Further possible White House link (through the back door)?

Why is Johnny Sutton (USATXW) being cc'd on e-mails about how the fired attorneys are holding up and whether additional "hand holding" is necessary to keep them happy?

Could it be because Johnny Sutton has longstanding ties to Rove and Bush and could be a back door communication channel to the White House?

Notice how all of the e-mail recipients and carbon copies on page 29 are DOJ bigwigs...and then Johnny Sutton is tacked on the end. Why is he being included in e-mails regarding the firing of his peers?

Lindsey wrote on March 20, 2007 9:38 AM:

Re: 3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 1-10 page 9.

posted by JPV at 1:17 a.m.

This quote:

"He could offer no explanation other than that I erroneously assumed that good service guaranteed longevity because other USAs have been asked for their resignation without cause.

really creates an issue for the "performance related" talking point.

I also would note that it seems many of the pdfs, though numbered differently, seem to carry the same communications, I would guess it is because they are from different parties to the same e-mail. It seems a sorting would be in order, but that's going to be a lot of work.

sholom wrote on March 20, 2007 9:41 AM:

total guesses here:

who.eop.gov -- white house office, exec office of pres

whc.eop.gov -- white house counsel, " " "

MikeBuck wrote on March 20, 2007 9:50 AM:

doc 2-1 page 29

Follow-up to my last point about cc'ing Johnny Sutton...

What makes the e-mail on this page even more strange is the fact that Kyle Sampson is initiating the e-mail in response to a phone call from William Kelley (Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel). Wouldn't a courtesy cc back to William Kelley be appropriate? Especially since Sampson is soliciting feedback on whether to carry through on an idea stemming from a conversation with Kelley?

Or is there an attempt here to NOT include the White House in written communication? Hence, the inclusion of Sutton who worked for Bush in Texas from 1995-2000.

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 9:59 AM:

Subject: FW: Significant Observations for NDCA Special Review

Then there is the attached file "NDCA SIGOBS.wpd" and the message body stating simply

"This is not good."

So...anyone seeing or have seen an NDCA Significant Observations document?

Good catch. NDCA is obviously UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA so that's Kevin Ryan. And who uses WordPerfect?? (I'm assuming that's what created the .wpd)

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 10:01 AM:

2nd package the word scandal got my eye! Appears Matt could be Matt Mead WY see later reference and comment above on Wy Seantors.

From Micahel Elston Nov 7 2006 6:29pm to Kyle Sampson
RE:US Attorney Replacement Plan

"The only concern I have is that Paul just visited WHITE OUT and asked that WHITE OUT not be on the list. He does seem to be running things well (if somewhat independent of DOJ). On the other hand, Matt mentioned a scandal rumor that is of great concern to me. Should we mark him as tentative while we talk that out?"

Posted by: p
Date: March 20, 2007 09:13 AM

Steve wrote on March 20, 2007 10:03 AM:

Doc 3-1 Page 27

Starting on page 23 is a draft of testimony for Deputy AG McNulty to give when called before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee:

"United States Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. Like any other high-ranking officials in the Executive Branch, they may be removed for any reason or no reason. The Attorney General and I are responsible for evaluating the performance of the United States Attorneys and ensuring that they are leading their offices effectively. It should come as no surprise to anyone that, in an organization as large as the Justice Department, U.S. Attorneys may be removed, or asked or encouraged to resign. However, U.S. Attorneys are never removed, or asked or encouraged to resign, in an effort to retaliate against them or interfere with or inappropriately influence a particular investigation, criminal prosecution, or civil case. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply irresponsible."

Those last two lines might be construed as perjury.

Crust wrote on March 20, 2007 10:04 AM:

2-2 page 14:

Anonymous Liberal has an analysis at:

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007/03/from-document-dump.html#links

Sara in Stockholm wrote on March 20, 2007 10:06 AM:

Pdf 3-2 page 56
Very troubling mail exchange:

From Richard Hertling:
"Was either of you contacted by NM US Attorney Iglesias last year alerting you to contacts he recieved from two MCs on a specific case?"

From Nancy Scott-Finan:
"I am trying to recall. There was contact with one of the Western USAs about either an environmental or indian case. I recieve reports about members reaching out to USAs about cases all too frequently and have too return calls with the "neither confirm or deny" or provide the public record pleadings."

This is freaking unbelievable. Members of Congress "reach out" to USAs "all too frequently". I say someone needs to have a long talk with Ms. Scott-Finan and find out who these Members are.

JS wrote on March 20, 2007 10:07 AM:

Subject: FW: Significant Observations for NDCA Special Review

Then there is the attached file "NDCA SIGOBS.wpd" and the message body stating simply

"This is not good."

November 2006. Maybe some connection to this?

http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1158582927031

I think this is the key sentence, in the lede graf :

San Francisco U.S. Attorney Kevin Ryan has pursued a number of criminal probes this year — but it's a small number, according to an internal Justice Department document.

And the response from Ryan's office:

http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1161853520641

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 10:07 AM:

To "PS's" comments on WAVES:

"...K Sampson writes he needs WAVES info (Sec. Serv. info, I presume because he's asking for SSN and DOB. Some kind of record of who comes to the WH) for their 5 pm meeting to which P McNulty replies to K Sampson, W Moschella, R Hertling, T Scolinos, and M Battle (all DOJ)..."

WAVES is the White House Automated Vistors Entry System - the Secret Service records system that clears people into the White House for appointments. Anyone visiting the White House for an appointment (not tour) has to provide name, DOB, and SSN# for a background check - and appointment is made.

There is an exception for senior government officials. If you arrive in a government car from a secure location, as long as the car is on the access list, they will not screen the cars' occupants. This is done in very limited sitations, usually only for Cabinet Secretaries and their motorcades.

If there is a wider practice of this going on, then you may have uncovered something.

You may also recall that WAVES data is something the White House has been loathe to release for Abramoff, Guckert/Gannon and the VP's energy task force. These records show all comings and goings from the White House

JS wrote on March 20, 2007 10:08 AM:

Meant to to highlight ***according to an internal Justice Department document*** in my post above.

Ino wrote on March 20, 2007 10:08 AM:

1-11, p 39

Line 7 looks like "A/G prior testimony"

MikeBuck wrote on March 20, 2007 10:10 AM:

doc 2-1 page 41 and page 43

Page 41 is an e-mail from fired attorney David Iglesias requesting to set up a call with Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty. The call is set up for 6:30 p.m. on Friday, January 5, 2007.

Page 43 is an e-mail from DAG McNulty to Kyle Sampson with the read out from the call with Iglesias. The timestamp is 7:07 p.m. on Friday January 5.

On page 41 DAG McNulty said he was "swamped with a short work week." But on a Friday night within minutes of concluding a call with a fired attorney he's providing feedback to the point person on the firings. Goes to show where the DAG's priorities are during this episode.

dzman49 wrote on March 20, 2007 10:11 AM:

3-1
2006-Dec-13 2:25 PM
From Sampson
To Battle

Pushback from the USA'S notified of their termination is cause for concern. Battle's "abrupt" manner in the 7 Dec calls left confusion about the terms of their termination: e.g., some USA's didn't know whether they'd be permitted to resign.

Sampson suggests the idea that Battle make another round of calls to placate the USA's offering these "talkers":

USA's will be allowed to resign (6 weeks to exit)

"DOJ intends not to say anything about your leaving"

DOJ will assist "to ensure a smooth transition"

Continued "good relations with the Department" desired.

Terminus Est wrote on March 20, 2007 10:13 AM:

Who uses wordperfect?

I have heard repeatedly over the years, though not so much recently, that lawyers/legal offices like wordperfect.

chimpeach wrote on March 20, 2007 10:13 AM:

Does the following exchange suggest that Domenici and Wilson's involvement was not an isolated case?

3-2 p.56

From: Hertling, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:59 AM
To: Scott-Finan, Nancy; Burton, Faith
Subject: Urgent

Was either of you ever contacted by NM US Attorney Iglesias last year alerting you to contacts he received from 2 MCs on a specific case?

From: Scott-Finan, Nancy
To: Hertling, Richard; Burton, Faith
Sent: Wed Feb 28 12:05:14 2007
Subject: RE: Urgent

I am trying to recall. There was contact with one of the Western States USAs about either an environmental or Indian case. I receive reports about Members reaching out to the USAs about cases all too frequently and have to return calls with the "neither confirm nor deny" or provide the public record pleadings.

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 10:24 AM:

More clarifications for PS

"...eop.gov is the Executive Office of the President. There are a large number of subdomains. who.eop.gov is presumably White House O...something (there also exists whc...).

To provide some context, and an example of the sorts of people using these addresses, Ken Mehlman's email address was also at who.eop.gov..."

WHO.EOP.GOV is the primary e-mail domain for POLITICAL APPOINTEES WHO WORK AT THE WHITE HOUSE. All the key players, Rove, WH Counsel, etc would have these domains. EOP means "Executive Office of the President" which is the government's official name for the Presidential and First Lady side of the White House.

Others, more specialized at the White House include -

NSC.EOP.GOV - restricted to political appointees and career staff who work for NSC

OA.EOP.GOV - almost exclusively used by the "Office of Administration" of the EOP -- almost 100% career staff - the computer programmers, HR professionals, painters, etc

OVP.EOP.GOV - political appointees whe populate the Office of the Vice President

ONDCP.EOP.GOV - political appointees and career staff of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (an arm of the White House)

OMB.EOP.GOV - political appointees and career staff of the Office of Management and Budget (an arm of the White House)

CEA.EOP.GOV - political appointees at the Council of Economic Advisors.

OSTP.EOP.GOV - political appointees at the Office of Science and technology policy

CEQ.EOP.GOV - political appointees at the Council on Economic Quality

WHMO.MIL - the White House Military office. Active duty officers and enlisteds that run the military side (planes, trains, cars, nuclear codes, military ceremony, etc) of the President's personality. Only one or two politicals here.

WHCA.DISA.MIL - the White House Communications Agency. An Army "activity" that makes the President look Presidential. Furnishes podiums, seals, lighting, communications and sets up communications infrastructure for Presidential and OVP out of town events. White House Senior staff may also have e-mails here, because WHCA handles all classified communications systems (voice and data) and Senior Staff are usually accorded secure accounts.

That's about it for the official e-mail systems that serve the White House.

Will wrote on March 20, 2007 10:24 AM:

Lawyers definitely still use Wordperfect. There was a big-to a few years back because a brief got dinged for being too long: Word did not count the words in footnotes.

nulla bona wrote on March 20, 2007 10:26 AM:

Dems need to insist that carol lam's political fraud etc. investigations go on by special prosecutor or by Lam herself continuing as 1st asst. AUSA for San Diego so there's no appearance of impropriety as Sen Schumer says in opening remarks in 3-10 p. 56. There are over 5,00 documents so far relating to the firing of 8 USAs, and all the falsehoods spread so far about why they were fired. So continuing these investigations w/ independent prosecutor could not be opposed by the Admin. without revealing their real reason in the first place.

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 10:26 AM:

Doc 3-3:

Big meeting at the WHITE HOUSE on 3/5/07 to "cover 1. the Admin's position on the legislation" [assume they mean the change in the appt. of interim US Attys] "and 2. how we are going to respond substantively to each of the US Atty's allegations that they were dismissed for improper reasons." Sampson, McNulty, Moschella & Battle are among those going from DOJ for this WH meeting. This is the day before Moschella tesified.

HCC wrote on March 20, 2007 10:26 AM:

3-2 p.64

emails from sampson to oprison and kelley requesting WH 'review and approval'

mikeh wrote on March 20, 2007 10:31 AM:

How many pages are in this dump? I have grabbed all the pdf files from the judiciary.house.gov site and have converted each page to a .tif file. I'm in the process of OCR scanning them now. I count 934 pages. That's a far cry from the 3000 I keep reading about.

Lindsey wrote on March 20, 2007 10:33 AM:

Doc 2-6
Haven't had time to go through everything, but doc 2-6 seems to be a rich source. It's mostly about Tim Griffin in the beginning and then segues into the testimony given before congress on that day by Paul McNulty.

The Griffin stuff is back and forth between the AGs office and Ark. Sen. Mark Pryor.

Following the McNulty testimony there is what appears to be some official back and forth on the right of the AG to appoint "permanent" replacements under the Patriot Act instead of going for Senate confirmation. the pages in the high 30s are communications from Richard Hertling to the office of Sen Patrick Leahy.

AFter that you have a bill from Calif Sen. Diane Feinstein and Qand A from hearings on 1/8 with Feinstein questioning Gonzalez, with Tex Sen. John Cornyn coming in at the end.

hella troi wrote on March 20, 2007 10:41 AM:

Historicus RE: 1-11, redacted page 39 (DAG000000943)

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u3/historicus/p39b.jpg

"Maybe it's the late hour, but I swear I see the word 'Pardon' there, fifth line from the bottom."

I agree that it may be the word Pardon there, but more interesting to me is the 10th line from the top that seems to read, "phone call project".

Anyone remember James Tobin's conviction in the New Hampshire election phone jamming case?

Tobin was a longtime Republican strategist who was found guilty of conspiring to make more than 800 repeated hang-up calls and of aiding and abetting the making of those calls.

The RNC paid Tobin's legal bills during his trial.

Hmmmm....

anthony baxter wrote on March 20, 2007 10:43 AM:

doc 3-3, p45 onwards has all the gory details of why they claimed various USAs were fired.

My favourite is the bit about Paul Charlton being in trouble for letting a staff member go on "leave without pay" status to campaign for a republican candidate. Uh huh.

JR Lentini wrote on March 20, 2007 10:49 AM:

This is funny: DOJDocsPt1-1070319.pdf, pages 25-26, is a letter to Gonzo from Issa and a plethora of other Reps looking to discuss Lam and immigration.

The request at the end of the letter is "we would like to meet to discuss the disparity between crimes committed and prosecutions conducted at your earliest convenience."

Duke Cunningham signed the letter. Cunningham, in October '05, apparently thought there were crimes being committed that Lam wasn't prosecuting.

Delicious, delicious irony.

http://www.judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt1-1070319.pdf

jethro wrote on March 20, 2007 10:50 AM:

3-7 and 3-8 p.1-17

Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Subject: Preserving Prosecutorial Independence: Is the Department of Justice Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys?
Time: 9:00 AM EST
Date: Tuesday, February 6, 2007

transcript and questions for the record.

already publically available.

covered in part by TMP here:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002487.php

dzman49 wrote on March 20, 2007 10:51 AM:

3-2

A 65 page (incomplete) transcript of testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee. Leahy and Schumer preside.

Page 1

Begins with comments from Sen. Pryor about Griffin replacing Cummins in Arkansas.

"Summer" 2006:

Pryor's office learns of Cummins' supposedly voluntary resignation; Tim Griffin will replace Cummins.

Aug 2006:

Pryor speaks to Griffin, expressing concern about his qualifications, partiality and "temperament" for the USA position.

Pryor learns Cummins was forced out.

Pryor speaks to Griffin again after hearing of Griffin's RNC activities "caging African-American votes... in Florida for voter challenges during the 2004 presidential campaign." In reply, Griffin "... provided an account that was very different from the allegation."

Protests from Pryor and others lead to extending Cummins tenure till the end of the year.

October 2006:

Pryor troubled by rumors WH would impose Griffin by recess appointment.

Dec 13, 2006

Pryor calls Myers and Gonzales expressing concern about the recess appointment.

Dec 15, 2006

Myers and Gonzales inform Pryor Griffin will be appointed as "an interim U.S. attorney... pursuant to the amended statute in the Patriot Act."

Page 2

Dec 20, 2006

Cummins out. Griffin in.

Jan 11, 2007

Pryor writes AG with objections to the appointment:
1) Improper dismissal of Cummins
2) "amazement" at the lame reason offered for hasty, interim appointment.
3) Circumventing Senate confirmation.

Jan 31, 2007

AG replies, denying discrimination or wrongdoing.

(end timeline)

Pryor objects to Cummins' dismissal without cause and talks up Cummins' good record. He notes: "This stands in stark contrast to General Gonzales' testimony before this committee" where AGAG indicated the change was made on the general principal of "good management"

ethans mom wrote on March 20, 2007 10:53 AM:

Re: Chiara's comment on the Phil Green "situation" in Western Michigan.

From an article in the Grand Rapids Press, July 20, 2006. "Claims hold up nominee -
Senator wants anonymous charges checked before moving on prosecutor confirmation"

Phil Green was the chief assistant U.S. Attorney in Western Michigan. In June of 2006, Bush nominated him to be U.S. Attorney in Southern Illinois. The nomination was put on hold at the urging of an anonymous law enforcement official. According to the article:

"On July 7, the unnamed federal law enforcement official wrote letters to all Judiciary Committee members, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and other government officials, alleging Green "obstructed justice and likely accepted a bribe" in exchange for allowing the drug dealer to be released five years before his 10-year sentence was up. The official, who said he has worked with the Kent County Sheriff's Department and the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, offered no proof of a bribe."

There are no follow-ups in the Grand Rapids newspaper on the story. The only thing I've been able to find is this from epluribus media

The president nominated Phillip Green to replace Tenpas on June 9 but the nomination was returned when the 109th Congress adjourned in December 2006. The president has not resubmitted Mr. Green's nomination as of this date.

iris wrote on March 20, 2007 10:54 AM:

4-1 through 4-3 is all the back & forth on Charlton's proposed pilot program for the FBI to tape record all interrogations - don't see much relevance to instant issue.

bp wrote on March 20, 2007 10:54 AM:

A note designed to be helpful for our field operatives!!! Note that Lou Dobbs has been hot on the case of USAs on the immigration thing and he pushes hard for border patroll agents to be freed, not charged etc. Don'get side tracked by that. When reviewing Carol Lam's tenure this is one aspect. Issa is a bit of a scoundrel on this subject. The important isue is the corruption investigations. Rove pals were really engaged on that aspect. I am looking out for that stuff. Slow going.

anthony baxter wrote on March 20, 2007 10:56 AM:

The 2nd half of 3-4 and first half of 3-5 are just dumps of bios of the relevant congresscritters on the committees -looks like grabs of web pages. The 2nd half of 3-5 is a pile of talking points/hatchet jobs to support Tim Griffin, seems like they were very keen to support him in particular.

Terminus Est wrote on March 20, 2007 10:58 AM:

A diary at DKos caught an interesting tidbit in one of the docs I barely looked over because it seemed relatively unimportant. It seems to indicate that it wasn't so much state senators that got to pick the replacement for Carol Lam and Kevin Ryan, but a major-big GOP donor!

The diary is at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/20/13155/4678.

A poster immediately suggested that Rayne (the diarist) forward his observation to TPM, right here. Not seeing it (perhaps I missed it) I offer the link here.

sholom wrote on March 20, 2007 10:59 AM:

2 quick responses:

1. "Who uses wordperfect?" -- some bureaus within DOJ are standardized on the WP-Suite (e.g., the Bureau of Prisons). I have heard rumors the the reason for this is that a while back, when DOJ was suing Microsoft, they didn't want to use MS-Office, and, at least for BOP, budgets are too tight to now switch away from WP. (FWIW, I have also heard that WP handles legal footnotes better)

2. As for "phone call project" noted by "hella troi" above . . . it's an intriguing theory to relate it to the Tobin-NH crime, however, this page appears to be a list relating to the current events of the USA's firing, and so I kinda doubt that they were referring to NH. In any event, the entire line seems to read "AUSA phone call project" (Assistant US Attny) -- which doesn't seem to fit with the Tobin thing.

3. As noted above, somebody created a wiki for deciphering that page 39. It's at http://editthis.info/tpmmuckraker1/DAG942 . It seems to be a terrific idea.

sholom wrote on March 20, 2007 11:02 AM:

If each pdf file is 50 pages, and if there are 30 pdfs . . . that only comes out to 1500 pages. (Hey, my undergrad degree with math!)

Are all the documents up on the House web site, or, if so, how does this square with the 3000 number everyone's talking about?

georgia wrote on March 20, 2007 11:02 AM:

6-1

page 1: Gonzales the executioner, living up to his reputation in a letter to Charlton:

Gonzales: "As described in the United Sates Attorneys' Manual 9-10.100, you may not enter into a plea agreement that requires withdrawal of the notice of intention to seek the death penalty without prior approval of the Attorney General"

greylocks wrote on March 20, 2007 11:03 AM:

4-1, 4-2, 4-3

HELP!

This is all about Paul Charlton's efforts to get a pilot program started in AZ to require (or at least encourage) recordings of confessions and witness interviews.

I could use some help with the context here. I've been googling for references to the Charlton dismissal and am getting nowhere. If someone can post some links maybe I can make more sense of this.

anthony baxter wrote on March 20, 2007 11:03 AM:

To be honest, this appears to be, overall, a snow job (no pun intended). A very large part of it appears to be just dumps of publicly available material (transcripts of hearings &c). Whether that's merely to give the _appearance_ of responsiveness ("see, we gave you 3000 pages!) or a pathetic attempt to try and hide some bad news is an open question. I suspect the former. 3-7 is pretty much entirely a hearing transcript.

MBA wrote on March 20, 2007 11:04 AM:

I dunno who it was who was speaking, but there is a line in document 6-4 that reads...

"Mr. Chairman, I conclude with these three promises to this committee and the American people on behalf of the AG and myself:

1) We never have and never will seek to remove a USA to interfere with an ongoing investigation or prosecution. Such an act is contrary to the most basic values of our system of justice, the proud legacy of the Department of Justice, and our integrity as public servants.

2) In every single case, where a USA position is vacant, the Administration is committed to filling that position with a USA who is confirmed by the Senate. The AG's appointment authority has not, and will not, be used to circumvent the confirmation process. All accusations in this regard are contrary to the clear factual record. The statistics are all laid out in my written statement.

3) Through temporary appointments and nominations for Senate confirmation, the Administration will continue to fill USA vacancies with men and women who are well qualified to assume the important duties of this office.

_______________________________________________

That document doesn't address who it was that was speaking to Mr. Chairman, or whether or not the person offering testimony was sworn, but it sure seems to be indicative of an absolute 180 with what we know to be the case now.

jukeboxgrad wrote on March 20, 2007 11:07 AM:

DOJ email dump: text-searchable files (OCR) now available

Details here.

jukeboxgrad wrote on March 20, 2007 11:08 AM:

Ouch. Pasted link didn't work. Try this:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/20/1129/05437

c wrote on March 20, 2007 11:09 AM:

pg 2 of 3/31/06 from Elston, Michael. Line 4 of the subject the word amendment and emergency amendment seem altered in some way.

jethro wrote on March 20, 2007 11:10 AM:

3-8 p.18-32

CRS [Congerssional Research Service] Report for Congress
U.S. Attroneys Who Have Served Less than Full Four-year Terms, 1981-2006
February 22, 2007

ALREADY PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE

http://www.opencrs.com/document/RL33889/
http://www.slate.com/id/2160965/

Ghost of Tom Joad wrote on March 20, 2007 11:12 AM:

Sholom,
Email them and find out. ;-)

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 11:13 AM:

Speculation on redacted names in 1-3 -- the first name is a Senator ("Akaka") and the USA in question is "Edward Kubo". I know Akaka is a Democrat, but what can I say, it fits. Maybe they tried feeling him out on this one and decided it wasn't worth the fight? Anyhow, if I'm right, then the next question is, what was the rumor in Hawaii? (And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?)

greylocks wrote on March 20, 2007 11:15 AM:

PDF 5

Ryan's resignation letter, nothing else.

anthony baxter wrote on March 20, 2007 11:16 AM:

Ok - this is just nonsense. 3-9 opens with a response to Conyers "requesting personnel data on United States Attorneys".

"We are enclosing from the the publication The Bicentennial Celebration of the United States, a listing of United States Attorneys from 1789 to 1994. We hope you find this useful. Do not hesitate to contact the Department if we can be of service in other matters"

Then follows 15 _pages_ of, well, crap. It's just a big listing that anyone could get. It's a great example of the sheer contempt for oversight that the DoJ seems to have.

p60 of 3-9 refers to attempts in "July and August 2006" to force Cummins to resign (letter from Mark Pryor to the AG). WTF? Haven't seen that before.

dzman49 wrote on March 20, 2007 11:16 AM:

3-2

(Summary)

First 55 pages compose a transcript of Senate Judiciary.

Last 11 pages are emails.

Page
1-4 Sen Pryor comments on Cummins replacement.
4-7 McNulty opening remarks
7-9 Schumer questions McNulty
9-11 Specter questions McNulty
12-14 Whitehouse (D-RI) questions McNulty
14-17 Hatch questions McNulty
17-19 Feinstein questions McNulty
19-21 Sessions questions McNulty

21-36 Schumer questions McNulty at length
36-37 Specter questions McNulty
38-41 Whitehouse (D-RI) questions McNulty
41-44 Sessions questions McNulty

(End of McNulty testimony)

45-47 Mary Jo White (Debovoise & Plimpton) opening remarks
47-49 Professor Laurie Levenson (Loyola) opening remarks
49-51 Stuart Gerson (Epstein, Becker & Green) opening remarks

51-54 Schumer questions witnesses
54-54 Specter questions witnesses

End of transcript

stats-man wrote on March 20, 2007 11:16 AM:

Re: Carol Lam and immigration cases

I went to http://www.uscourts.gov/stats/index.htm, and looked at the "D-3 tables cases commenced", which breaks information down by district.

I looked at the 12-month period ending June 05, it shows Calif-S initiating 1559 immigration cases.

For 12-month period ending June 04, the figure is 2285

My point is that there may indeed be something to Issa's complaint about the decreased prosecution of immigrations cases.

(Yes, the reason may well be that Lam needed so many investigators to untangle the Duke Cunningham-Jerry Lewis-Dusty Foggo-etc., mess).

But, still, readers should be aware that the number of immigration cases initiated _did_ decrease.

(Why is June 05 the most recent publicly available report? Did it go up again after June 05? Whatever the answer is, it is public info, it just hasn't been put up on the web site. I'm sure a call to the Adminitrative Office would answer that question).

Also, someone may want to look at the other districts involved here (N.M., etc.)

Cranky Observer wrote on March 20, 2007 11:19 AM:

> 1. "Who uses wordperfect?" -- some bureaus
> within DOJ are standardized on the WP-Suite
> (e.g., the Bureau of Prisons). I have heard
> rumors the the reason for this is that a
> while back, when DOJ was suing Microsoft,
> they didn't want to use MS-Office

Partially it is a legacy issue: law firms started using word processing early, and standardized on WordPerfect(tm) long before there was an MS-Word. So there are so many documents with such tight formatting in WP format that it is virtually impossible to change.

Partially it is that WordPerfect is vastly superior to MS-Word for high-volume word processing (even in today's bloated versions, although many law firms still use the character-based WP 5.1).

Cranky

Michael Brooks wrote on March 20, 2007 11:19 AM:

New light on McKay firing

By PAUL SHUKOVSKY AND MIKE BARBER
P-I REPORTERS

Two months before U.S. Attorney John McKay was fired, top Justice Department officials traded e-mails excoriating McKay for commenting in a Seattle P-I story about deep budget cuts and layoffs in his office.

The e-mail exchange was released late Monday night as part of 3,000 pages of documents given to the House Judiciary Committee by the office of embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in an investigation into the firing of McKay and seven other U.S. attorneys.

The exchange shows a deepening dissatisfaction with McKay on the part of high-level Republican officials in Washington, D.C., who were already disgruntled by McKay's political neutrality as the top federal prosecutor in the Northwest.

McKay was scorned by some in his party when he declined to prosecute state Democrats for alleged voter fraud in the 2004 Washington gubernatorial election because, as he said recently, "there was no evidence of it."

The e-mails also show that Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty bristled when McKay led a group of U.S. attorneys trying to push the Justice Department to embrace a successful intelligence-sharing system, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission.

The Sept. 22, 2006, story in the P-I said McKay's office "has been hemorrhaging prosecutors and support staff members even as the other Washington is poised to impose another budget cut for the 2006-2007 fiscal year."

In one e-mail, Michael Elston, McNulty's chief of staff, attached the P-I story and wrote, "Even when (McKay) is in Ireland he causes problems! He needs to stop writing letters." The e-mail was sent to McNulty and Monica Goodling, Gonzales' liaison to the White House.

In another, Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse sent the story to McNulty with the remark, "I happened to see this when I was traveling last week in the Northwest. These comments are not exactly helpful ... anything we can do?"

McKay, reached Monday night, at first seemed stunned to learn of the e-mails. He defended his comments in the P-I article, saying that his office tried and failed for three days to get guidance from the Justice Department on how to respond to the P-I's queries about budget cuts.

advertising
"We had pretty serious guidance not to comment on the budget. But it was a serious story, we were down on (prosecutor positions) and I felt I should comment on it. And I think that was right. I thought it was my responsibility to comment on the serious matters you ... raised."

Also within the documents released Monday night were criticisms concerning a letter McKay wrote in August concerning the LInX intelligence-sharing program, signed by 17 U.S. attorneys, and to comments McKay made in a P-I story in September that a shrinking budget had "stressed to the limit" McKay's office.

Two of them, Carol Lam of the Southern District of California, and David Iglesias of the District of New Mexico, were among those fired.

On Aug. 31, Mark Connor, a senior official in McNulty's office, wrote to Elston, saying, "I think McKay is way out of line here," referring to the LInX letter.

Connor claimed that McKay had sent the letter "under the guise of an info sharing" program that should not have been "shared outside of the department unless so authorized" by the deputy attorney general. The letter was apparently shared with other federal government entities.

"I don't know what McKay's motives are, but this is embarrassing and outrageous," Connor added.

LInX has been a sensitive topic with the Justice Department. It is a federal law enforcement information-sharing exchange developed in Seattle to tie together information from all levels of law enforcement for common use against terrorists or criminals.

As the Seattle P-I previously reported, the Naval Criminal Investigation Service had taken the lead on funding LInX from the FBI, which is part of the Justice Department.

Local participants were disgruntled for years because the program did not have access to the local FBI's investigative files. McKay complained at high levels of the Bush administration.

In a Nov. 29, 2003, story, McKay told the P-I that he was encouraged that the naval service had stepped up to fund the program but depressed that the FBI pulled its support. Almost a year later, the FBI committed to share a portion of its digitized records with local law enforcement agencies.

In their Aug. 30, letter to McNulty, McKay and the other U.S. attorneys said that "the need for a leadership role by (the Justice Department) in building regional systems is becoming exceedingly clear."

McKay's letter said that while many law enforcement jurisdictions believed that LInX was the best way to share and obtain critical records in their own efforts to combat terrorism and crime, "there is growing skepticism among those leaders because they see little progress on an issue all consider to be of the highest priority. DoJ policy on regional law enforcement information sharing remains unclear."

McNulty sent a terse, defensive response professing disappointment.

"Dear Colleagues, I've just finished reading your letter on the law enforcement sharing issue and I must say I am quite disappointed that you have chosen to communicate with me in this way. It appears that you are trying to force me to take some specific actions. It reads like a letter from Capitol Hill, not one from friends on the same team. This is particularly distressing because it is shared with folks outside of the department. This is not the way we would be working through difficult issues. ... I look forward to meeting with the working group although now it will be a more challenging conversation."
P-I reporter Levi Pulkkinen contributed to this report. P-I reporter Paul Shukovsky can be reached at 206-448-8072 or paulshukovsky@seattlepi.com.

Noisy Democrat wrote on March 20, 2007 11:21 AM:

3-6 p. 6 has an elaborate explanation of how "EARS REPORTS ARE NOT EVALUATIONS OF US ATTORNEYS." It explains that the information collected in EARS are not the same as performance evaluations by supervisors. This would presumably help to provide cover for the discrepancy we can see in 2-5 starting on p. 20, where they contrast the poor performance reviews attributed to "Leadership" with the glowing reviews that will be found in the EARS reports.

3-6 pp. 15-17 offers an almost comical contrast: Michael Elston's letter to Senator Schumer protesting that there's no reasonable way USA Cummins could've thought Elston was trying to threaten him or discourage him from testifying -- and then Cummins' original email to other USAs describing the tone of veiled threat in Elston's call to him.

peacebug wrote on March 20, 2007 11:23 AM:

just a question: any chance any of the fired USAs would be reinstated? maybe they don't want to be, or have gone on to more lucrative positions, but especially in the case of bud cummins, someone ought to be working on reinstatement. and get that tim griffin OUTTA there!

Zach wrote on March 20, 2007 11:25 AM:

I'm pretty sure Tim Griffin declined to take the position, actually. Even a Karl Rove lackey could smell the stink coming.

dzman49 wrote on March 20, 2007 11:25 AM:

3-2

Page 55-56

From: Richard Hertling
To: Nancy Scott-Finian, Faith Burton
Email chain beginning 28 Feb 07 noon

Inquires if anyone informed of NM USA Iglesias contacted by 2 MCS (members of congress) "on a specific case".

Conclusion: "Nothing from NM in OLA"

markg8 wrote on March 20, 2007 11:26 AM:

3-1 pg 4
Skipping ahead McKay in Seattle writes a nice email to USAEO-USAttorneysOnly on Dec. 14, 2006 which Monica Goodling forwards under the title "Happy Trails" to the Main Justice people sweating the other cranky responses.

3-1 pg 5,6 is McKay's resignation letter the same day which reads like a resume. Still feels privileged to have served President Bush at that point.

There are more resignation letters and notices to follow, email notice from Cummins in AR Dec. 15 (pg 7) and formal letter from Charlton in AZ on Dec. 19 (pg 8).

Interesting, both McKay and Charlton mention that the AG will appoint a temp unitl the President nominates and the Senate confirms a new USA for the office in their formal press release letters.

greylocks wrote on March 20, 2007 11:27 AM:

6-1

Arguments about a death penalty case under Charlton's jurisdiction (AZ). A criminal law expert can probably make more sense of this than I can. Probably not relevant.

gsam wrote on March 20, 2007 11:29 AM:

3-3
p 46 and 48 on the reviews of lam and inglesias the wording is the same for poorly addressing immigration, the one for inglesias even refers to him as "her"

49 says not to go after chiara because she has made public statements

iris wrote on March 20, 2007 11:30 AM:

If you're looking for something to do, get thee over to doc 7-1 - this may be the motherload - Kyle Sampson's files.

I have to go out, but look at page 48, two emails from Jan 2005 re: "A Question from Karl Rove" - the question being "How we planned to proceed regarding US Attorneys?"

(OT, but it's funny that the anti-spam word I'm asked to enter below is "screw")

shrubbit wrote on March 20, 2007 11:30 AM:

I agree about 4-2, it is a different topic, not very interesting at first glance.

6-2 and 6-3 are really interesting...

6-2

Starts with the end of what looks like a determination by USA Paul Charlton. Then about 15 pages of USA Appointment Sched showing the status of USA's. It's mostly redacted except for the names of those USAs who were fired.

Then an email from 2/5/07 1:06pm with the Deputy AG's testimony to Congress. And in the text of the email they indicate that had to change the tesimony to reflect that Leahy is the Committee Leader and Specter is Ranking Member. Too funny....

and then there is Deputy AG Paul McNaulty's written testimony to Congress on 2/6/07.

This continues thru 6-3, and 6-3 consists of drafts of the written testimony.

Where are people posting this stuff? I like the wiki for dojmuck.

Teresa wrote on March 20, 2007 11:33 AM:

Zach -- You are wrong about Tim Griffin. He is the acting AUSA in Arkansas as we speak.

FatKat wrote on March 20, 2007 11:34 AM:

Trying to do 8 things at once, reading and listening to the Committee on Judiciary...
Comment from M. Waters.."how much in dollars is the taxpayers paying the phone companies to spy on them?" response: "Don't Know"

In addition to this hearing she asked if the witnesses were sworn in, Chairman states.."No", and its to late. Why did this slip this of all committees????

greylocks wrote on March 20, 2007 11:35 AM:

6-2

pp 1-2: Rest of the stuff pertaining to the death penalty case in 6-1 plus partial transcripts and statements from

pp 3-18: "Appointment summary" - redacted list of USA appointments and "resignations"; no new info here.

pp 19 - 51: McNulty's statement and Q&A before Sen. Judiciary Committee on 2/6/07.

dzman49 wrote on March 20, 2007 11:35 AM:

3-2

Page 57-58

28 Feb 07 4:50 PM

Memo chain.

Cummins informs Michael Battle he's been served to appear before House committee on Tuesday, March 6.

Battle forwards the message up the chain to Sampson and others adding a terse "FYI".

Daniel wrote on March 20, 2007 11:37 AM:

7-2

Pg. 34

Monica Goodling writes

"Technically, yes, it is a four-year term, but there is an automatic hold-over provision. so the four year term does not really mean anything"

This definitively gives the lie to the oft-repeated defense that these USAs had served out their full terms and therefore there is no expectation that they would be able to continue in their positions. It is now clear that the DOJ itself considered such a claim to be no more than a technicality and to "not really mean anything".

greylocks wrote on March 20, 2007 11:38 AM:

6-3

More copies of McNulty's testimony, just repeating what's in 6-2 for no apparent reason.

triciawrites wrote on March 20, 2007 11:41 AM:

Doc 7-1
pg.53
0AG000000184
Email chain From Kyle Sampson to schedule call from NM senator Domenici to AG regarding staffing shortages in the US Attorneys office in District of NM.
This is dated April 5, 2006.
Daily planner of Kyle Sampson 0AG000000183 pg.52
shows call scheduled with Domenici on January 31,2006 5:00pm-5:30p.m.

Dont know if this is posted yet.

dzman49 wrote on March 20, 2007 11:41 AM:

3-2

Page 59-60

28 Feb 07 4:50 PM

Memo chain.

Cummins informs Michael Battle he's been served to appear before House committee on Tuesday, March 6. He offers to consult with DOJ before House appearance.

Battle forwards the message up the chain to Sampson and others adding a terse "FYI".

Final email adds that Lam, McKay and Iglesias are subpoenaed, also.

Note that Cummins is by this time a consultant for US Canadian Biofuels, Inc. (www.uscbiofuels.net)

Daniel wrote on March 20, 2007 11:42 AM:

Apropos my post just above -- see this link for an example of the Adminstration's use of the canard exposed by Monica Goodling's email:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070315-4.html

Tony Snow:

"Furthermore, as you know, with U.S. attorneys, they've got a four-year term. Each of these folks had fulfilled the four-year term. There are holdover provisions, but it is well within the President's executive authority to replace people."

Midwest Product wrote on March 20, 2007 11:42 AM:

As somebody noted above, PDF 2-1 has several variations on the plan for the firing procedure; in all Step 1 says

"AG calls Jon Kyl" -- did AG actually ever make this call? If so, in his statements, has AG acknowledged making this phone call?

jethro wrote on March 20, 2007 11:42 AM:

3-8 p.33-37, p.41-43

S.214
by Mrs. Feinstein
Purpose: To restore the procedure for the appointment of interim United States attorneys

ALREADY PUBLICLY AVAILBLE

3-8 p.38-40

Letter (DOJ letterhead)
From: Richard Hertling, Acting Assistant Attornet General
To: Patrick Leahy
Date: February 2, 2007

expressing DOJ's "strong opposition" to S.214.

ALREADY PUBLICLY AVAILBLE?

3-8 p.44-56

Q & A from DOJ 1/8/07 Oversight Hearing
Transcript and questions for the record

ALREADY PUBLICLY AVAILBLE:
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=or-110-1-9
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002367.php

3-8 p.60

Email
From: Nancy Scott-Finan
To: Jill Wade (and others)
Date: Feb. 4

requests copy of any QFRs (questions for the record) received last week which involve the USA firings

Email
From: Jill Wade
To: Nancy Scott-Finan
Date: Feb. 5

resonds with attachment of schumer's questions

hella troi wrote on March 20, 2007 11:43 AM:

Sholom,

I don't want to stray off-topic, but I mentioned the phone jamming conviction up-thread as the page being deciphered may not be a list citing reasons for firing USAs, but rather reasons for keeping others on, as loyal Bushies and so forth.

In this case, the USA for Boston, MA during that trial was Michael J. Sullivan, who was announced as AG Gonzo's pick to head up the ATF just about the same time as Tobin's conviction was announced. Link to story: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/09/01/us_attorney_named_acting_atf_chief/

Note that Bush signed off on the "interim appointment" without ever meeting Sullivan, simply on Alberto Gonzales' recommendation.

In reviewing articles about the case, I find this disturbing:

"The records show that Bush campaign operative James Tobin, who recently was convicted in the case, made two dozen calls to the White House within a three-day period around Election Day 2002 — as the phone jamming operation was finalized, carried out and then abruptly shut down."

Who's office was being called?

"Phone records introduced at Tobin's criminal trial show he made 115 outgoing calls — mostly to the same number in the White House POLITICAL AFFAIRS OFFICE — between Sept. 17 and Nov. 22, 2002. Two dozen of the calls were made from 9:28 a.m. the day before the election through 2:17 a.m. the night after the voting.

It's simply Rovian!

"Justice Department has secured three convictions in the case but hasn't accused any White House or national Republican officials of wrongdoing, nor made any allegations suggesting party officials outside of New Hampshire were involved. The phone records of calls to the White House were exhibits in Tobin's trial but prosecutors did not make them part of their case."

This appointment looks like a quid pro quo for not making the phone records part of his case, and thus implicating important RNC and White House Officials. Guess Tobin was scapegoated same as Libby.

knaemald wrote on March 20, 2007 11:43 AM:

7-5 page 4

the begining pages here are reasons for letting them go. Each person by name is listed and the resoning behind their termination.
An interesting one is for Margaret Chiara, to wit:
"...out of respect for her silence..." she hadn't talked to the press so they would only fire her without prejudice. It goes on to show what they would do if they ran into any trouble. Spells out exactly.

FatKat wrote on March 20, 2007 11:44 AM:

7-1

12,13,14,16,18,19,21,23 and many more are a memo from sampson, yet there are many areas that have been blacked out and/or white outed names that are to be there. Very high priority. very interesting in nature.

anthony baxter wrote on March 20, 2007 11:46 AM:

7-1. p6-7

Really. Read it. Read it and try and claim this wasn't all politics.

shrubbit wrote on March 20, 2007 11:46 AM:

7-8 pg 8

From: Tim Griffin
To: Monica Goodling
Sent: Wed July 05 08:47:52 2006

roger. no problem at all.

i didnt know they asked my Senators before they started the background? i thought they only did that after my name was sent up. (both of mine are Dems.)

i am good friends with both Chiefs of Staff to Pryor and Lincoln. Pryor's chief of staff is a good friend and Lincoln's was my high school girlfriend. should i say anything to them? i would hate for my senators to be told without my peeps knowing?

i haven't said a thing to Bud Cummins.

hope yall are well. thanks TG

KA wrote on March 20, 2007 11:49 AM:

3-5
Page 16

Not a huge thing, but William Moschella's Opening Statement for the 3/6/07 H.R. 580 hearing includes "After the seven US Attorneys were asked to resign last December, the Administration immediately began consulting with home-state Senators...about possible candidates for nomination."

While probably true, it was a disingenuous statement when compared to Doc. 1-3 pg 25, as posted by JPV, which shows that the Administration already had its picks lined up.

Kazz67 wrote on March 20, 2007 11:51 AM:

6.1
Refers only to points of law re' death penalty re' case against Jose Rios Rico, AZ.
Nothing incriminating here.

Katerina wrote on March 20, 2007 11:51 AM:

1-1, pg. 25

One of the signatories to Issa's 10/20/05 letter to AG complaining about immigration enforcement in San Diego is Duke Cunningham.

(Note: Cunningham corruption story breaks in SD Union-Tribune on 6/12/05; Cunningham pleads guilty to tax evasion and conspiracy on 11/28/05).

1-1, pg. 48

Letter from AAG Moschella to Issa in response to Issa's May 24, 2006 letter:

"Please rest assured that the immigration laws i the Southern District of California are being vigorously enforced. Indeed, prosecutions for alien smuggling in Fiscal Year 2006 in the Southern District of California are rising dramatically."

....

"Certainly the U.S. Attroney's Office for the Southern District of California devotes substantial available resources to the prosecution of illegal immigration, and to alien smuggling in particular. Fully half of its 110 Assistant U.S. Attorneys are used to prosecute illegal immigration cases."

....

"And, in fact, the number of immigration defendants prosecuted who received prison sentences of between 1-12 months dropped from 896 in 2004 to 338 in 2005, while the number of immigration defendants who received sentences between 37-60 months *rose* (emphasis Moschella's)from 116 to 246, and the number of immigration defendants who received sentences greater than 60 months *rose* (emphasis Moschella's) from 21 to 77."

Richard Lampe wrote on March 20, 2007 11:52 AM:

2-1
DAG000000009

In this e-mail rom Margaret Chiara to Paul McNulty dated Sunday Nov 5, 2006

Chiara writes, "Elstom further informed me that I should expect contact from the White House requesting my resignation as USA shortly after the Nov 7 elections."

hiara continues: "he [Michael Elston ] could offer no explanation other than I erroneously assumed that good service guaranteed longevity because other USA's have been asked for their resignation without cause."

Sounds as if "good service" was not being disputed here; lending further evidence against Gonzales' claim these firings were performance related.

motherlowman wrote on March 20, 2007 11:52 AM:

Midwest at 11:42:
It appears AG did call Kyl. See here:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0318sunlets182.html

greylocks wrote on March 20, 2007 11:55 AM:

7-8

Political stuff:

p.2 Memo from Monica Goodling to Scott Jennings:

"I have a person from New Mexico coming to town this week - he is the President's nominee for the US postal Board Governors. He was heavily involved in the President's campaign's legal team. (new para) His name is Mickey Barnett, and he has requested a metting with someone at DOJ to discuss the USATTY situation there. (new para) Would someone in EOUSA or you or Kyle be available?"

Jennings is the "Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Political Director".

dzman49 wrote on March 20, 2007 11:57 AM:

3-2

Page 62

04 Mar 07 8:17 PM

Email
From: Brian Roehrkasse
To: Sampson, McNulty, et. al.

B.R. reports the talking points he's put out to NYT & AP regarding Sen Domenici's calls to DOJ.

In 13 months, Sen. Domenici made at least 4 calls to badger (my characterization, not B.R.'s) DOJ about Iglesias' unfitness for his position.

Approx dates/DOJ contact:

Sept 2005 (AG)
Jan 2006 (AG)
Apr 2006 (AG)
Oct 2006 (Deputy AG)

Final talking point: "At no time in these calls did the Senator mention the public corruption case."

This seems to be the last item in this document of any significance.

Matt Ruff wrote on March 20, 2007 11:59 AM:

4-1, 4-2, 4-3

While I agree this stuff may not be relevant to the immediate scandal, there's still a fascinating story here about the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies' reluctance to record interrogations.

My favorite line, from a newspaper article reproduced on pgs. 35-36: "[FBI spokeswoman Jerri] Williams said requiring thousands of agents to carry pocket recorders with them on assignments would be impractical."

Gee, it's too bad they can't build recording capability into something most people already do carry, like a cellphone...

KA wrote on March 20, 2007 11:59 AM:

4-3 is all about proposals to create standards on electronically recording confessions and interviews. It's probably not relevant.

Midwest Product wrote on March 20, 2007 11:59 AM:

attn - stats-man re: Carol Lam and immigration prosecutions numbers

in PDF 7-1 page 33 there is a memo from Sampson regarding his own research into the complaints by Southern Cal congresspeople about the supposed "lack" of alien smuggling prosecutions. His findings were:

San Diego - increase of 42% in number of alien smuggling prosecutions over the prior four years
Arizone - 91% increase
New Mexico - 8% increase
West Texas - 12% decrease
South Texas - 77% increase

lisadawn82 wrote on March 20, 2007 12:00 PM:

7-1 the first 3 pages discusses filling empty US attorney seats and on page 3 it discusses the reasons why the statute on how to appoint US attorneys was amended...

- We are aware of no other federal agency where federal judges, members of a separate branch of government and not the head of the agency, appoint interim staff on behalf of the agency

- In early 2006, the statute that authorizes the appointment of interim United States Attorneys (28 U.S.C. 546) was amended by section 502 of Public Law 109-177 to eliminate the provision of a 120-day appointment and to allow the Attorney General to appoint interim United States Attorneys to serve until the nomination and confirmation of a United States Attorney under 28 U.S.C 541.

- The statute was amended for several reasons: 1) the previous provision was constitutionally-suspect; 2) some federal judges, recognizing the inherent problems, have refused to make court appointments, creating a situation where the Attorney General had to do multiple 120-day appointments (itself dubious under the statute, but something we had to do in some situations); 3) a small number of federal judges, disregarding the Constitutional issues, attempted to appoint individuals other than those proposed by the Department - in one case, someone who had never been a federal government official and hence had never been subject of the required national security clearance process, an unacceptable risk given the responsibilities and operations overseen by our U.S. Attorneys.

Page 6 begins where they outline the steps by which they informed the US Attorneys that they were being asked to resign. I have to go to work right now so I can't finish reading 7-1 but it looks like quite a bit if juicy information

shrubbit wrote on March 20, 2007 12:05 PM:

7-8 pg 12

email to Monica Goodling about Carol Lam's meeting with Issa and Sensenbrenner on 8/2/06 about immigration prosecution and her preparation for the meeting.

7-8 pg 17

From: Monica Goodling
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 12:09 PM
To: Kyle Sampson
Subject: Re: Conf Call, re: Tim Griffin

Fyi - to catch you up on the latest here (unless something else has happened this week), scott and I spoke last thurs or fri and this is what's going on...

We have a senator prob, so while wh is intent on nomination, scott thinks we may have a confirmation issue. Also, WH has a personnel issue as tim returns to the states this week and is still on WH payroll. The possible solution I suggested to scott was that we (DOJ) pick him up as a political, examine the BI completed in May pursuant to his WH post, and then install him as an interim. That resolves both the WH peronnel issue and gets him into the office he and the WH want him in. I asked Elston to feel out the DAG on bringing Tim into one of the vacant ADAG spots there, just for a short time until we install him in Arkansas. The DAG wanted to look at his resume, and I sent it him before I left. Was going to run this plan by you once I knew the DAG was onboard. If not, I suppose we can look at CRIM, but knoiwing Tim, my guess is he'd prefer something else given that he was in CRIM in 2001. (Tim knows nothing about my idea for a solution at this point - wanted your signoff, and a home for him, before I called him.)

bill wrote on March 20, 2007 12:06 PM:

2-5 pp. 20-34

Has anyone identified who wrote the notes associated with the draft?

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 12:09 PM:

7-8

p. 11 - Memo from Lam explaining her office's policy in prosecuting "coyote" cases.

Some guy wrote on March 20, 2007 12:10 PM:

There's a post above that asks about the "who.eop.gov" root. This is the root address for much of the policy section of the Executive Office of the President. (As distinguished from, for example, the Office of Management and Budget, which is also part of the EOP.) These are the people who work in the Eisenhower building next door to the White House, and who basically run the government on a day-to-day basis, with a few people assigned to each subject matter or cabinet agency. I believe that "who" may simply stand for "White House Office", but in any event, there are a large number of people -- dozens and dozens -- with that root.

Thad Beier wrote on March 20, 2007 12:11 PM:

I'm trying too to make out the redacted parts of DAG000000942 which is scanned through the back on DAG000000943 (in doc group 11)

I've processed the image, flipped it, and added in the unredacted parts of 942, and put the result on my flickr page at

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/169/428204128_8e9e91b9c9_o.jpg

It is intriguingly just beyond the edge of legibility, however. I think I see something about "MEX Indictments" right under the unredacted AUSA phone call project.

MBA wrote on March 20, 2007 12:11 PM:

7.2 Has got lots of stuff.. I'm still reading but will post when I get time later today..someone else has time, go for it...propaganda, news media rebuke attempts, just absolute pandemonium.

greylocks wrote on March 20, 2007 12:13 PM:

7-8 p. 53

This is a doozy.

Memo from Sampson to Goodling, "What I intend to send to Harriet". It's a list of

"USA in the process of being pushed out" and "USAs we now should consider pushing out", with comments on why they should "utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments".

KA wrote on March 20, 2007 12:13 PM:

7-2
Page 10

Email from Sampson to Andrea Looney 7/25/07:

"If the President has already approved Griffen, then part of our 'consultation' (to meet the advice and consent requirements of the Constitution) would be to tell them that we were going to start a BI on Griffen..."

I'm not an expert on this, but is this normal? Is the President usually involved in actually selecting nominees?

Katerina wrote on March 20, 2007 12:13 PM:

8-2, pg 1

Handwritten notes -- no context given
(this is my best attempt to transcribe)

Philly/Milwak/Aberque ---

-- Philly is a problem
-- Milk(sp?)/Alb: not too bad
rural NM is bad re
(illegible) - PI hears alot
probs but rare they
do much
could be difficulty of cases
NM (illegible) cases well.

Appalachia/South -- biggest prob areas
--------------------
bad: Nevada, NM
MDGa, (illegible)NY
---------------------
good: MW, Phila (crossed out)
MW - good @ local.
-----------------------
Fed level -- 50-50
-----------------------
Philly - indifferent o

dzman49 wrote on March 20, 2007 12:13 PM:

8-2

40 pages.

Resignation letters from USA's and news clippings about voter fraud.

Molly wrote on March 20, 2007 12:14 PM:

3-9

p. 53, 1/31/07 letter to Mark Pryor from Hertling re: Griffin.

"As the Attorney General has also stated to you, the Administration is committed to having a Senate-confirmed United States Attorney for all 94 federal districts. At no time has the Administration sought to avoid the Senate confirmation process by appointing an interim United States Attorney and then refusing to move forward, in consultation with home-State Senators, on the selection, nomination and confirmation of a new United States Attorney. Not once."

[But if it weren't for those meddling kids ....]

p. 54, more emphasis that this is true and applicable to Griffin. If Pryor says yea, all will move forward. If Pryor says no, well, they'll look at his suggestions. And, regardless, Pryor's views will be given "substantial weight".

p. 55, another reference to working with "home-State Senators" -- of course no reference to "Republican leads" as we've seen elsewhere.

FatKat wrote on March 20, 2007 12:15 PM:

7-7

62 - fr: goodings
to: cummings
"...invited to select few of our real racehorses to consider it."

What are they referring to?

7-7
55 - they refer to Environment Working Group, and making sure their is a new chairmanship. What another front?
7-7
56- Sampson email..designing Dugas... What, and who is he referring to/about?
7-7
63- read the quote...by GWB!

Katerina wrote on March 20, 2007 12:16 PM:

8-2, pg 1

Last line should have read:

Philly - indifferent on
fed side

dzman49 wrote on March 20, 2007 12:16 PM:

8-1 (incorrectly identified as 8-2 above)

40 pages.

Resignation letters from USA's and news clippings about voting fraud in Wisconsin and elsewhere.

kahner wrote on March 20, 2007 12:16 PM:

7-8 page 18 Regarding Tim Griffin
From: Monica Gooding
To:Kyle Sampson
8/18/06
We have a senator prob, so while the wh is intent on nominating, scot things we have a confirmation issue. Also, WH has a personnel issue. The possible solution I suggested to scott was that we (DOJ) pick him up as a political....and then install him as interim. This ... gets him into the office he and QWH want him in.

From: Sampson
To: Gooding
I agree.... AG will appoint himforthwith to be USA. (Is Cummins gone?)

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 12:16 PM:

Thad,

See here (also other posts about this upthread; search for "1-11")

anthony baxter wrote on March 20, 2007 12:16 PM:

7-2, p39 onwards. You get to see Operation Monkey Thump go into action. Apparently:

"Sen Kyl is fine"
"Domenici's COS is happy as a clam"

p58 onwards is griping about who should go under the hammer in the congress.

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 12:17 PM:

What ya'll need is a wiki.

jethro wrote on March 20, 2007 12:18 PM:

3-9

in addition the Bicentennial Celebration list of U.S. Attorneys 1789-1994 which anthony baxter mentions upthread (was that a joke?), 3-9 contains:

- Letter to DOJ from Conyers, Sanchez requesting info on other forced resignations from 1981-2006 (which *was* eventually provided by CRS)
- Letters to DOJ from Democrats requesting Carol Lam be appointed as outside counsel to finish Cunningham (and DOJ response form-letters)
- Letter to DOJ from Levin, Stabenow asking if MI attorneys have been asked to resign
- Letter to DOJ from Democrats expressing questions and concerns over testimony from 1/18/2007 committe hearing, regarding bud cummings' replacement (and DOJ response form-letters)
- Letter to DOJ from Pryor complaining abouy Cummings (and DOJ response letter)
- "Fact Sheets" related to DOJ's use of new appointment authority

not much of interest and much of it probably already available to public.

Brett Marston wrote on March 20, 2007 12:19 PM:

8-1 pages 39-40. Documents originally from Karl Rove's computer, apparently. The address of the docs are partially obscured, but they seem to read:

file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\ROVE_K\Local%20Settings\Temporary%20Internet_2/2/2005

The last few characters are hard to read, though.

There's a handwritten annotation on the upper right of 39 that says "Discuss with Harriet," and another annotation that seems to read "Ken."

shrubbit wrote on March 20, 2007 12:21 PM:

7-8 pg 63-65

The USA Appointment Summary from 11/13/2006

All names are redacted except the ones who were fired.

And they all have * next to their name.

They are so screwed.

KA wrote on March 20, 2007 12:22 PM:

7-2
Pages 18-19

A little comic relief for everyone digging through these:

Email exchange (Aug. 9, 2006) from Kyle Sampson to Debra Wong Yang.

K Sampson: I'm sending some missionaries to your house.

D Yang: Could you make them single, good looking and articulate? Oh yeah, and skiiers too and willing to retire to Utah (too much to ask??).

K Sampson: Yes. What's your home address?

benjoya wrote on March 20, 2007 12:23 PM:

thad, i thought that said MEK investments.

here's my photoshop:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=428214699&size=l

benjoya wrote on March 20, 2007 12:24 PM:

sorry, 1-11, p.39:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=428214699&size=l

Gary Schepp wrote on March 20, 2007 12:28 PM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 3-8
Docs DAG000001407-1408 . Response to Conyers/Sanchez for USA personnel data

Docs DAG000001409-1425 . Bi-Centennial Celebration of the United States, a listing of United States Attorneys from 1789 to 1994

Matt wrote on March 20, 2007 12:29 PM:

8-8: p21: March 2004 memo on underperforming districts. Only Lam's district is mentioned---all others are redacted, which means their USAs weren't fired.

RR wrote on March 20, 2007 12:30 PM:

Part 7-3, comment related to AG reaction to stories, page 47. Currently quoted in the press to show AG didn't believe these guys were fired for political reasons.

It doesn't actually say what the AG was upset about re: stories, although it does say he felt some of the DAG comments were inaccurate. Well, we know something was inaccurate because a lot of these guys were forced to resign for political reasons, which is in direct conflict with what the AG testified. Was the AG upset because he actually thought these guys were tossed out for cause, or because he knew they weren't and was afraid they'd get caught lying to Congress (which they did) because of the conflicting stories?

cycloptichorn wrote on March 20, 2007 12:31 PM:

8-2 - the last 40 pages are completely whited out. Fantastic doc dump

scribe wrote on March 20, 2007 12:32 PM:

3-4
Moschella statement at 3, 15/65 of the .pdf. DAG000001185

“This administration has never removed a US Attorney to retaliate against them or to inappropriately influence a public corruption case. Not once.”

This appears to allow for the possibility that there are times and manners in which an Administration can influence a public corruption case. What are those?

Moschella statement at 4, 16/65 of the .pdf. DAG000001186
Re public corruption cases:

“The Department has not pulled any punches or shown any political favoritism. Political corruption investigations are neither rushed nor delayed for improper purposes.”

Yeah. Right. How does that explain:
NM?
Christie in NJ – issuing subpoenas right before the election and letting it out?
7:1 Dem:Rep. prosecution ratio
Sending Duke off to sentencing without ever asking him to cooperate? Without interviewing him? Promoting the head of public corruption to judgeships, stymieing the Abramoff investigation?
Having a “real problem” with Carol Lam?

The remainder of that page is a real hoot – no political considerations….

Moschella statement at 5, 17/65 of the .pdf. DAG000001187
“….the Department has never asked anyone to resign to influence any public corruption case – and would never do so.”

No, but they fired Lam, no? That is different than asking her to resign.

Moschella testimony at 5, 23/65 of the .pdf. DAG000001193

At no time, however, has the Administration sought to avoid the confirmation process in the Senate by appointing an interim US attorney and then refusing to move forward - in consultation with home-state Senators – on the selection, nomination, confirmation and appointment of a new US Attorney. Not once.

Yadda, yadda.

Moschella testimony at 9, 17/65 of the .pdf. DAG000001197

Cites a law review article:
Weiner, Inter-branch Appointment After the Independent Counsel: Court Appointmnent of United States Attorneys, 86 Minn. L. Rev. 363, 428 (2001)(concluding that court appointment of interim US attorneys is unconstitutional).

Who is this Weiner, and who put him up to this?

56-59 /65
Comparison of US Attorneys from Arkansas, to show how superior Griffin is.

I’m sure The University of Arkansas (Cummins’ alma mater), the U. Ark Little Rock School of Law (Cummins’ and Casey’s) and E. Central Oklahoma State (Paula Jean Casey) will be pleased to know that DoJ does not consider them “top rated” or “top tier” universities, and that the Admin considers Hendrix College (Ark., never heard of it), Oxford and Tulane Law (all Griffin’s) to be better. I guess that just makes him a better man.

60/65 Griffin’s resume, including grade points and class ranks.
He found time, while at Oxford for a year, to be under-secretary and treasurer of the “Oxford University Clay Pigeon Shooting Club”. And thought that important enough to put on his resume.
Nice life

Dump 8-1
Contains the resignation letters of Lam, Nev., Chiara, and Iglesias, then the rest of the 40 pages is a file folder bearing the address “The White House Washington, DC 20502.” And the handwritten Name “Kyle Sampson” with a handwritten note “to Matt 10/17/06”. The contents of the folder start with a document headed “Fraud in Wisconsin 2004 – a Timeline/Summary” “prepared by Chris Lato, RPW (Republican Party of Wisconsin) communications director”.
Then follows about 30 pages of news articles showing exactly how the Republican party pushed through a propaganda offensive of alleged vote fraud in Wisconsin to get the picture ID and intimidate voter.

Matt wrote on March 20, 2007 12:33 PM:

8-8: p22: April 29, 2004 email from Susan Richmond to Kyle Sampson

"Here is my list of current USAs who might be enticed to leave their districts and come to Washington to run EOUSA: [...] David Iglesias (D.N.M.) -- diverse up-and-comer, solid"

shrubbit wrote on March 20, 2007 12:33 PM:

Ohhhh damn!

8-2 pg 13

What appears to be an email to everyone (except gonzo) with an urgent fax from Carol Lam to AG Gonzo and DAG. Subject: "Urgent Report (6(e) Material: Indictment Sought for [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]"

At the top of the page above that, you can barely see sticking out of a redacted page:

"...indictment Sought for Foggo and Wilkes."

You can see it again at the top of pg 14 but it is redacted fully that time.

anwaya wrote on March 20, 2007 12:34 PM:

7-1 pp 33-34: 11/04 2004 Kyle Sampson memo to the Chief of Staff comparing Carol Lam's immigration case statistics to AZ, NM, West TX, So TX.

The memo says "the analysis is (1) at the bottom end in the percentage of immigration prosecutions; and 2. has increased only slightly the number of immigration prosecutions per attorney workyear (though some of the other Southwes Border USAOs have decreased) 3. is in the middle of the pack in percentage increase of alien smuggling prosecutions."

Then there's a summary of the data.

1: Lam's 36% increase is the median in a range of 30% to 108%. AZ (30%) and W TX are lower.
2: Lam's 3% increase is only bested by S TX (56%), while AZ (-14%), NM and W TX are all negative.
3: Lam's 42% increase is bested by AZ and S TX (77%). NM (8%) and W TX are lower.

Overall, I get the impression that AZ and W TX's performance figures are worse.

Who's W Texas?

triciawrites wrote on March 20, 2007 12:35 PM:

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt7-10070319.pdf
From Elston, Michael ODAG
to Monica Goodling
Subj: Fw:Solution
This idea may help us avoid linking this to the others? What do you think?

Referring to Chiara request for job

Matt wrote on March 20, 2007 12:36 PM:

8-8: p26: Kyle Sampson e-mail to Jan E Williams: Subject: "Hispanic GOPer DDC list" -- list of Hispanic candidates to be USA for DC.

"Specs: Hispanic. Republican. Some plausible ties to Washington D.C."

Iglesias is the only non-redacted name on the list.

Lindata wrote on March 20, 2007 12:36 PM:

3-19
3/30/07

Page 45 to 50
Bulleted talking points on why each attorney was dismissed

Bulk of pdf concerns editing the opening statement of William Moschella

Of minor interest is removal of admission that the charges were serious:

“One troubling allegation [that has been made] is that certain of the U.S.Attorneys were asked to [move]resign because actions they took or didn’t take relating to public corruption cases. [These charges would be funny if they weren’t so serious.] These [Such] charges are dangerous, baseless and irresponsible. This Administration has never removed a United States Attorney in an effort to retaliate against them or interfere with or inappropriately influence a public integrity investigation. Not once.”

Kent wrote on March 20, 2007 12:37 PM:

http://www.philgreen.ca/

Is this the "Phil Green" Chiara is referring to in email to McNulty March 4, 07?

Who's he? Seems like this may be the beef.

ref. 2-3

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 12:38 PM:

On Page 23 of 2-1 McNulty writes in a December 5th email to Sampson "I'm still a little skittish about Bogden. He has been with DOJ since 1990, and at age 50, has never had a job outside the government. My guess is that he was hoping to ride this out well into '09 or beyond. I'll admit have not looked at his district's performance. Sorry to be raising this again/now; it was just on my mind last night and this morning."

Sound pretty clear that this could not have been performance related.

five toed sloth wrote on March 20, 2007 12:39 PM:

7-11 summary -
Page 1 is a signature page from some earlier letter. Pages 2- 18 are letters to the AG's office about John McKay and the 2004 WA gubernatorial election "fraud" that he declined to investigate.
pp. 19 - 29 are resignation letters from McKay, Cummins, Charlton, Bogden and Ryan.
pp. 30 - 53 look like the written statements for Congressional testimony for a hearing on Feb. 6th 2007. Testimony of Paul McNulty, Mary Jo White, and Laurie L. Levinson.

Page 54 is out of place. It isn't labelled, but appears to be a set of talking points about the way (some?) USA's were told they were fired. Apparently someone named Mercer talked with Bogden and Charlton and told them they were being moved to make room for someone else? The doc is claiming that Mercer was just being nice, that he was just breaking the bad news and not giving a full explanation etc. It ends "It also cannot be interpreted as an admission that others had been identified to take over as U.S. Attorney." No indication of who wrote this or who received it.
pp. 55-56 are another copy of Ryan's resignation letter.

Midwest Product wrote on March 20, 2007 12:39 PM:

7-2

Page 27 - Sampson writes Miers and states:
"I strongly recommend that, as a matter of Administration policy, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments. We can continue to do selection in JSC, but then should have DOJ take over entirely the vet and appointment. By not going the PAS route, we can give far less deference to home-State Senators and thereby get (1) our preferred person appointed and (2) do it far faster and more efficiently, at less political cost to the White House.

Page 39 - Sampson responds to William Kelley's note about Domenici being happy about Iglesias being forced out and says:
"Great. Jon Kyl is fine." --again, does this mean AG called Senator Kyl about the firing(s)?

Page 44 - Kelley writes Sampson on the day of the firings and says:
"FYI Jerry Parski has put in an outraged call protesting the fact of Ryan's departure and the manner in which the msg was delivered. And he's having lunch with the President next week."

Page 46 - Kelley again writes Sampson on December 7 regarding Ryan's complaints over his firing:
"Kyle-Do you mind talking to Scott Jennings about the particulars of Ryan's situation? Ryan is the only one so far calling in political chits (which is reason enough to justify the decision, in my view), but Karl would like to know some particulars as he fields these calls."

Page 52 - on Jan 15 Brian Roehrkasse emails Sampson, Moschella, Elston, and Goodling to say the WSJ is prepping a story about the resignations and states:
"The story will be very critical of how the Bud Cummins situation was handled. He thinks despite the political pedigree, that Griffin is very well qualified, but just the way in which it was handled with Cummins and Pryor will make it nearly impossible for him to be nominated or confirmed. The good news on this front is he finds Feinstein and Pryor's criticism that we don't intend to nominate USAs suspect and unwarranted"

greylocks wrote on March 20, 2007 12:40 PM:

7-6

Can anyone else read this PDF? It keeps freezing up my installation of Aggrobat.

KA wrote on March 20, 2007 12:41 PM:

7-2
Page 48

According to the email thread, Lam, Bogden, and Chiara all asked for extensions. Only Lam was denied.

Unfortunately, there's no information on why, but since her removal is one of the most suspect, maybe this fits in with some of the other data?

MRx wrote on March 20, 2007 12:43 PM:

DOJDocsPt2-4070319 pp 14-16

DoJ talking points for assessment of US Attorney Lam performance

S.D. California

1. immigration

in terms of priorities for your office, where did you rank the prosecution of illegal aliens?

Did your prioritization change at any point in your tenure as USA?

What accounts for the fact that your prosecution of illegal aliens dropped so precipitously? Data reported by the sentencing Commission presents a discernable trend:

USSC-01 -- 1836
USSC-02 -- 1633
USSC-03 -- 2046
USSC-04 -- 2054
USSC-05 -- 1413
USSC-06 -- 1411

Isn't it true that your office charged fewer crimes classified as immigration offenses than it had since the mid '90s?

From EOUSA data -- FY 2005 and 2006 (numbers charged for this category in each 2005 and 2006 are the lowest recorded since 1996)

Immigration cases charged (FY2006) -- 1514

Immigration cases charged (FY2005) -- 1441

Even though the office charged more than 2000 in 2003 and 2004

Did you make any effort to see how your work compared to that of your fellow border district US Attorneys?

Would you agree that such a comparison was a good way to judge your success?

The Southern district of Texas has Houston and a lot of border territory, right? And the district of Arizona has Phoenix and a lot of border territory, right? And the District of New Mexico has Albequerque and a lot of border territory, right?

If I represented you that in fy 2006, in offenses coded as criminal immigration cases by the Sentencing Commission, the WD of Texas has sentencings of 2699 defendants, the D of New Mexico had 1861 defendants, the D of Arizona had sentencings of 2193 defendants, and the SD of texas had sentencings of 4132 defendants, what would you say about your record when you have done half of what they do in Western Texas and a third of what they do in Southern Texas?

2. Firearms cases

Is violent crime a problem in San Diego and other parts of the SD of California?

Are gangs a problem in San Diego and other parts of the SD of California?

In terms of priorities for your office, where did you rank the prosecution of violent crime?

In terms of prioities for your office, where did you rank the prosecution of firearms?

Isn't it true that both Attorneys General Ashcroft and Gonzales prioritized the prosecution of firearms offenses involving dangerous criminals and recidivists under Project Safe Neighborhood?

Did your prioritization change at any point during your tenure as US Attorney?

Did Deputy Attorney General Comey speak with you about your failure to pursue PSN with vigor?

When was that conversation?

Did your prosecution of firearms offenses improve after that point?

Do you contest the Sentencing Commission's data that only 20 defendants have been sentenced for firearms offenses in your district in the past two FYs and only 69 defendants have been sentenced for firearms offenses in the last 5 FYs?

USSC - 02 -- 18
USSC - 03 -- 19
USSC - 04 -- 12
USSC - 05 -- 10
USSC - 06 -- 10

Was your implementation of PSN comparable to that of other urban US Attorneys? Other California US Attorneys?

In FY 2006, according to the Sentencing Commission, sentencings for firearms offenses
included 84 defendants in the ED of California, 96 defendants in the
ND of California, and 103 defendants in the CD of California.

When we compare your firearms prosecution record with that of your fellow US Attorneys on the border, do you know how your record compares?

For the 5 year period of time when your office successfully prosecuted 69 defendants
in firearms cases according to the sentencing commission, other districts had numerous
sentencings as a result of Project Safe Neighborhoods; for comparison, the SD of Texas
had 946; the WD of Texas had 894; the D of Arizona had 897, and the D of N Mexico had 437.

Three of the four had sentencings of 100 or more defendantsin every year of the 4 year
period. You never reached 20 defendants sentenced for firearms case in any year.

Isn't this a legitimate basis to question your record as US Attorney, particularly when it has
been a top priority of the Justice Department for the entirety of your term in office?

3. Child pornography/on-line exploitation of children

In terms of priorities for your office, where did you rank the prosecution of child pornography and the on-lineexploitation of children?

Is it true that you only brought twelve cases over the past two years?

ET wrote on March 20, 2007 12:44 PM:

4-1

54 pages of material about the pros/cons of recording FBI interrogations, most about a proposed pilot program to try recordings in AZ

pg 41-48 summary memorandum to Mercer DAG and some responses, cc to Elston

Could this be debris thrown into the doc dump to add weight?

MediaFreeze wrote on March 20, 2007 12:45 PM:

7-2

Page 34

email fm Kyle Sampson to Meirs and Kelly Nov 15, 2006:

"Harriet/Bill, please see the attached. Please note (1) the plan, by its terms, would commence this week; (2) I have consulted with the DAG, but not yet informed others who would need to be brought into the loop, including Acting Associate AG Bill Mercer, EOUSA Director Mike Battle, and AGAC Chair Johnny Sutton (nor have I informed anyone in Karl's shop, another pre-execution necessity I would recommend); and (3) I am concerned that to execute this plan properly we must all be on the same page and be steeled to withstand any political upheaval that might result (see step 3); if we start caving to complaining U.S. Attorneys or Senators then we shouldn't do it -- it'll be more trouble than it is worth."

"We'll stand by for the green light from you. Upon the green light, we'll (1) circulate the below plan to the list of folks in Step 3 (and as that you circulate it to Karl's shop), (2) confirm that Kelly is making the Senator/Bush political lead calls, and (3) get Battle making the calls to the USAs. Let us know."

To which Miers responds 35 minutes later:

"Not sure whether this will be determined to require the boss's attention. If it does, he just left last night so would not be able to accomplish that for some time. We will see. Thanks."

Sampson writes back 30 minutes later:

"Who will determine whether whether this requires the President's attention."

I haven't found any response from Miers to this interesting question, but On Dec 4, 2006 Kelly writes to Sampson with a cc to Miers:

Page 37

"We're a go for the US Atty plan. WH leg, political, and communications have signed off and acknowledged that we have committed to following through once the pressure comes."

Lindata wrote on March 20, 2007 12:47 PM:

3-3

Sorry, bulleted list of talking points re each attorneys firing is pages 45-50 of 3-3 not 3-19

shrubbit wrote on March 20, 2007 12:48 PM:

11-6 pg 14

From: Michael Elston
To: Kyle Sampson, William Moschella, Monica Goodling
CC: William Mercer, Paul McNulty
Sent: Thu Jan 18 10:57:32 2007
Subject: USAO-NDCA

Kyle:

Kevin Ryan's FAUSA, Eumi Choi, just called to let us know that Kevin is not returning calls from Sen. Feinstein or Carol Lam and doing his best to stay out of this. He wanted us to know that he's still a "company man." I gave her my talkers for McKay and Charlton and asked her to convey them to Kevin.

Mike

From: Kyle Sampson
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:85 AM
To: Michael Elston, William Moschella, Monica Goodling
CC: William Mercer, Paul McNulty
Subject: Re: USAO-NDCA

Thx.

TheOtherWA wrote on March 20, 2007 12:53 PM:

amwa @12:34 - Who's the USA in West Texas? Johnny Sutton, appointed in 2001.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/us_attorney/index.html
"Prior to becoming United States Attorney, Mr. Sutton served as an Associate Deputy Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., and as a Policy Coordinator for the Bush-Cheney Transition Team assigned to the Department of Justice.

Mr. Sutton served as the Criminal Justice Policy Director for then-Governor George W. Bush from 1995-2000, advising the Governor on all criminal justice issues, with specific oversight in the areas of criminal law, prison capacity and management, parole operations and legislative initiatives.

Prior to his service in the Governor’s office, Mr. Sutton worked as a criminal trial prosecutor in the Harris County District Attorney’s Office (Houston, Texas) for eight years. He is fluent in Spanish, having appeared as a television commentator for the Spanish language network Univision during the Selena homicide trial.

As an undergraduate, he played baseball for the Longhorns and was the starting left-fielder on the 1983 National Championship team."

**this isn't part of the document dump, but it explains why he still has a job despite the fact his office is doing worse than others.**

KA wrote on March 20, 2007 12:54 PM:

7-2
Page 57

Email from Michael Elston (ODAG) to Sampson, Moschella, and Goodling on 1/18/07:

"Kevin Ryan's FAUSA, Eumi Choi, just called to let us know that Kevin is not returning calls from Sen. Feinstein or Carol Lam and doing his best to stay out of this. He wanted us to know that he's still a "company man." I gave her my talkers for McKay and Charlton and asked her to convey them to Kevin.

Mike"

Nicho wrote on March 20, 2007 12:54 PM:

This may be a silly question but I'd like to know anyway...

On Document 1-3, starting on page 22 there appears to be a number of named that have been whited out. Is this a common practice? I don't see how it would effect national security.

More interesting, and it seems to be the only reference, is on page 23 -- email from Harriet Miers:
"Kyle, any current thinking on holdover U. S. Attorneys? Any recent word on [redacted]'s intentions?"

Please forgive me if this is common practice and I should just ignore it.

Gary Schepp wrote on March 20, 2007 12:55 PM:

These PDF documents SUCK. Why the hell can't one select text for copying and pasting?

Also, WHY are these PDF's of printed documents instead of PDF's of electronic documents?

They can't argue that they are using typewriters and that is the only available copy.

David Brooks wrote on March 20, 2007 12:57 PM:

Has anyone found evidence of parties using external or private email (yahoo or gwb43.com) that may not be subject to retention rules? I found a usage of yahoo pretty quickly (11-5, page 8) by Daniel Fridman. I'm guessing he did some analysis while not connected to the DOJ system, and mailed it to himself as an attachment from his yahoo account (there is no actual text). I do the same sort of thing when working at home. But even so that does seem irregular for a government thing.

Mooser wrote on March 20, 2007 1:01 PM:

I am confident that you are willing to provide affirmative assistance.
Chiara, Margaret M.

"Affirmative" assistance in finding a job? Now there's your MDR irony!

jethro wrote on March 20, 2007 1:02 PM:

3-10

Letter to DOJ from Leahy, Feinstein requesting info on use of new appointment authority.

Letter from DOJ to Leahy, Feinstein and "Fact Sheet" on DOJ's use of new appointment authority, which is also in 3-9.
(see also http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/16/tuesday/index.html)

Print-outs from Feinstein's senate website.

Many newspaper editorials and LTE running the gamut of opinions about the purge (but mostly critical).

Letter of 6/15/2006 to DOJ from Feinstein complaining of an apparent drop in immigration prosecutions in Lam's district, requesting more info.

Response letter of 8/23/2006 from DOJ to Feinstein *defending* the work of Lam's office.
see also http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/doj-lam/?resultpage=1&

1992 article from a legal journal advocating u.s. attorney appointment/removal power be given solely to A.G.

DaveHD wrote on March 20, 2007 1:03 PM:

Part 11-5 page 5 in an e-mail between Bill Mercer and Kyle Sampson. Responding to Sampson's suggestion that somebody "woodshed" Carol Lamb, or that the AG order 20 attorneys dedicated to only immigration cases, Mercer says, "There are good reasons not to provide extensive resources to SD Ca."

Does the whole performance hand-waving tie into them trying to strangle C.Lam's corruption investigation?

benjoya wrote on March 20, 2007 1:03 PM:

gary, here are searchable text files

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/20/1129/05437

sholom wrote on March 20, 2007 1:04 PM:

re: Dugas

The who is probably David R. Dugas, the USA for Middle Louisiana

melior wrote on March 20, 2007 1:06 PM:

The idea of ferretting out non-official email accounts used by some of the players is intriguing. I suggest that certain software used by spammers to "harvest" email addresses might be put to good use quickly scanning all the docs in the dump for non-dot-gov addresses. Anyone able to do this?

Lee wrote on March 20, 2007 1:08 PM:

DOJDocsPt7-2070319.pdf Page 26,27,28

These pages talk about how the firings will take place
and who will be in the loop

joel wrote on March 20, 2007 1:12 PM:

I'm not making this up:

7-1/9ff. Process for filling a USA vacancy.

6. Consultation with Senators

Initiating a BI [Background Investigation] without first consulting with home-state Senators constitutes "failure to consult." So, after getting POTUS approval, but prior to initiating the BI, home-state Senators must be contacted. This "consultation" consists of a call to the Senator's CoS [Chief of Staff] wherein the Associate Counsel informes the CoS (1) that there is a vacancy "we're working to fill"; (2) that "we've interviewed candidates recommended" by the Bush lead; (3) that "we're at the point where we want to have the FBI do a background investigation on the candidate"; and "that you should let us know if the Senator has any objection to us doing this."

Also before initiating the BI, the candidates not selected (the "disappointees") should be told that "things appear to be headed in a different direction." Once the FBI starts doing a BI, it becomes known in the home-state who likely will be nominated and it can be embarassing or awkward for disappointees.

---

Again, I'm not making this up. Scare quotes on "consultation" in the original, as is the label of "disappointees" in the official process manual used to describe candidates who will not be nominated.

Not really muckworthy, but interesting for the proof here that "advise and consent of the Senate" is really not something this administration even pretends to adhere to. Also note that "Bush lead" is the head political operative in the state. Looks like Sen. Kyl was the Bush lead for Arizona and had some input into nominations, but California was out in the dust. Some political player outside of government did the nominating there, and Sens. Boxer and Feinstein only got "consulted" once the decision was all but done.

elrapierwit wrote on March 20, 2007 1:12 PM:

HeythereisEric,

I suspect the term "Interim" is always in quotations because they were NOT interim. But permanent until the next administration, at least.

In another email, Sampson talks about their strategy of stalling senate confirmations by making 'good faith' efforts, to find a list of candidates, then to interview the candidates, to confer with the Senators and work with the committee, all in a time delaying manner to ensure the "Interim" appointments would remain until the end of Bushes term.

RR wrote on March 20, 2007 1:17 PM:

Part 7-8, page 17. The Tim Griffin issue.

"We have a senator prob, so while wh is intent on nominating, scott thinks we may have a confirmation issue." Plus more on other efforts to fork over a job to Tim Griffin, etc.

Sounds like a political appointment to me.

ray reynolds wrote on March 20, 2007 1:17 PM:

Which ones need reading through?

Mike wrote on March 20, 2007 1:17 PM:

7-1
pages 6-7-8

PLAN FOR REPLACING CERTAIN UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS

Talking point memo on the firing December 7:

STEP 1 - Senator calls:

AG calls Jon Kyl (re Charlton)
WHCO calls John Ensign (re Bogden)
WHCO calls Pete Domenici (re Iglesias)
WH OPA calls California Bush political lead (re Lam & Ryan)
WH OPA calls Michigan Bush political lead (re Chiara)
WH OPA calls Washington Bush political lead (re McKay)

STEP 2 - US Attorney calls

On December 7, (Very important that Senator calls and US Attorney calls hapen simultaneously) Mike Battle contacts the following US Attorneys:

- Paul Charlton (D. ARIZ)
- Carol Lam (S.D CAL)
- Kevin Ryan (N.D. CAL)
- Magaret Chiara ( W.D MICH)
- Dan Bogden (D.NEV)
- David Iglesias (D.N.M)
- John McKay (W.D. WASH)

and a lot more,

Shelley wrote on March 20, 2007 1:17 PM:

Phillip Green, former US Atty in Michigan-sucked up to Sara Lee corp.-many died-he performed disgracefully. Amasing Bush would recommend such a failure/snark

http://commondreams.org/views01/0726-04.htm

muchomaas wrote on March 20, 2007 1:23 PM:

11.4
page 231

After San Diego Republicans including Rep. Issa criticized Carol Lam in the media, Lam called DOJ employee Ronald Tempas on May 23, 2006:

"2. She is willing to change course [on immigration enforcement priorities] if folks think that would be beneficial.

***

"4. She will do anything else that the DAG would wish, including continuing to stand silent despite the personal criticism which she thinks she is being subject through these comments."

[ASG 231]

five toed sloth wrote on March 20, 2007 1:23 PM:

7-6 summary: mostly Congressional testimony, already public. Also includes a couple of letters from assistant AG Hertling to Senators. One to Leahy objecting to S. 214 which would allow the District Court to appoint interim USA's (pp. 38-40). The other to Pryor defending the choice of Tim Griffin for the Arkansas post (pp. 58-60). It's pretty snippy - "At no time has the Administration sought to avoid the Senate confirmation process by appointing an interim United States Attorney and then refusing to move forward.... Not once."

cv wrote on March 20, 2007 1:23 PM:

Is anyone doing an analysis of what they have left OUT of the dump? What the missing pieces are (missing responses to included emails or vice-versa).

If they are including resumes and printouts from Senators' websites you would think they must be sending everything they have, but I think that is the picture they want to portray. The filler is meant to indicate completeness while at the same time masking the meat of the issue.

But as we piece the puzzle together, what pieces have fallen off the table?

David Brooks wrote on March 20, 2007 1:24 PM:

"I suggest that certain software used by spammers to "harvest" email addresses might be put to good use quickly scanning all the docs in the dump for non-dot-gov addresses. Anyone able to do this?"

If you use the searchable text that's beginning to appear, just look for "@" signs. Most of these emails are from Outlook, running against an Exchange server. That's why the majority of the email addresses are name-only; it's how Outlook does things when the users are all on the same system.

Re the non-searchable files: My bet is the DOJ released literally sheets of paper, some scanned and some printed, and the senate committee has been scanning them to PDF. Just be glad they aren't TIFF files. If the DOJ had released electronic versions, then among other things they would reveal internal email addresses (complete with @) as well as a ton of potential metadata they'd rather not have out there. Committee should require the Exchange raw data.

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 1:25 PM:

7-7

Start with "Fact Sheet: United States Attorney Appointments"

Appears straightforward UNTIL you start checking the list (lists really) It starts with "Nominations since March 9, 2006" and lists the "15 nominations" the President has made in that time.

Next comes the list of vacancies since March 9. They list 13 vacancies that "have arisen". But SEVEN of these vacancies are not on the previous list of Presidential nominations. THIS NOW MAKES A TOTAL OF 22 nominations/vacancies.

Next list appointments that the AG made. There is a total of 12 names on this list. Some are duplicates of the names on the list of "presidential" nominations (nominated twice?) and others are on the vacancies list. TWO OF THE NAMES ARE NEW, FOR A TOTAL OF 24 nominations/vacancies.

What may be more interesting, though, is that the most controversial districts ARE NOT ON THE LIST!
No New Mexico, Nevada, Northern California, Southern California or Western Michigan nominations/vacancies are listed AT ALL!

This would make for a total of 29 districts with nominations/vacancies since 3/9/2006.

As my Dad used to say, "Baffle 'em with BS", and list seems to be designed to do just that.

Bcre8ve wrote on March 20, 2007 1:25 PM:

7-7

Start with "Fact Sheet: United States Attorney Appointments"

Appears straightforward UNTIL you start checking the list (lists really) It starts with "Nominations since March 9, 2006" and lists the "15 nominations" the President has made in that time.

Next comes the list of vacancies since March 9. They list 13 vacancies that "have arisen". But SEVEN of these vacancies are not on the previous list of Presidential nominations. THIS NOW MAKES A TOTAL OF 22 nominations/vacancies.

Next list appointments that the AG made. There is a total of 12 names on this list. Some are duplicates of the names on the list of "presidential" nominations (nominated twice?) and others are on the vacancies list. TWO OF THE NAMES ARE NEW, FOR A TOTAL OF 24 nominations/vacancies.

What may be more interesting, though, is that the most controversial districts ARE NOT ON THE LIST!
No New Mexico, Nevada, Northern California, Southern California or Western Michigan nominations/vacancies are listed AT ALL!

This would make for a total of 29 districts with nominations/vacancies since 3/9/2006.

As my Dad used to say, "Baffle 'em with BS", and list seems to be designed to do just that.

Midwest Product wrote on March 20, 2007 1:25 PM:

7-3

Page 15: Elston writes asking whether Cummins should testify. Sampson replies (February 1, '07):
"I don't think he should. How would he answer:
Did you resign voluntarily?
Were you told why you were being asked to resign?
Who told you?
When did they tell you?
What did they ask you?
What did they say?
Did you ever talk to Tim Griffin about becoming U.S. Attorney?
What did Griffin say?
DID GRFFIN EVER TALK ABOUT BEING AG APPOINTED AND AVOIDING SENATE CONFIRMATION?" (emphasis added)

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 1:27 PM:

Brett,

Nice catch with Rove's saved web page. The USA for that is Steve Biskupic. Like Iglesias, he also set up a task force to investigate claims of voter fraud. Like Iglesias, he investigated but could not find any evidence of actual voter fraud. Because of this, and along with Iglesias, he was chosen as the other trainer on this issue. He just wasn't fired. The difference? The local GOP natives weren't getting restless? You tell me.

Jean2K wrote on March 20, 2007 1:28 PM:

7-7, pages 5-6 (DOJDocsPt7-7070319.pdf)

This is a letter from Sen. Mark Pryor (Arkansas) to AG Gonzales on Jan. 11, 2007. Pryor complains to Gonzales about the forced resignation of USA Cummins and the appointment of interim USA Griffin.

While there may not be new information here, the letter is interesting in several respects. The letter was originally faxed, and probably photocopied a few times, so it is extremely grainy and difficult to read.

Some highlights are excerpted below. The full text, as best as I could make it out, is presented following these highlights.

"First, it is clear ... that there was an attempt to force then U.S. Attorney Cummins to resign.... I am left with the conclusion that the purpose for the dismissal of Mr. Cummins was to appoint Mr. Griffin."

"Second, I am astonished that the reason given by your office for the interim appointment is that the First Assistant U.S. Attorney is on maternity leave... This concerns me on several levels, but most importantly it uses pregnancy and motherhood as conditions that deny an appointment... The U.S. Department of Justice would never discriminate against women in this manner."

"Finally, and most importantly, the appointment undermines the Senate confirmation process... I believe that in using this provision (of the Patriot Act), the Attorney General should articulate a national security or law enforcement need that necessitates such an appointment. You have failed to do so in this case..."

"When the Patriot Act was up for reauthorization, you called me and discussed the importance of its passage. I told you that while there were items in the Act that concerned me, I trusted that the spirit of the law would be upheld... Therefore, I believe that the spirit of the law regarding this interim appointment (and perhaps others) has been violated."

=== Full Text ===

January 11, 2007

The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Gonzales:

I am writing this letter to express my displeasure regarding your appointment of Tim Griffin as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. As you will recall, we discussed this matter in two telephone calls (Wednesday December 13, 2006, and December 16, 2006) in which I informed you of my reservations.

First, it is clear (from events that occurred in July and August 2006) that there was an attempt to force then U.S. Attorney Cummins to resign. At that time, my office expressed my concern to the White House Counsel regarding this matter, and Mr. Cummins was able to remain in his position until the end of December. While I am pleased that his service was extended, I am left with the conclusion that the purpose for the dismissal of Mr. Cummins was to appoint Mr. Griffin.

Second, I am astonished that the reason given by your office for the interim appointment is that the First Assistant U.S. Attorney is on maternity leave and therefore would not be able to perform the responsibilities of the appointment. This reason was given to my Chief of Staff, to the news media, and to me by your liaison in a meeting this week. This concerns me on several levels, but most importantly it uses pregnancy and motherhood as conditions that deny an appointment. While this may not be actionable in a public employment setting, it clearly would be in a private employment setting. The U.S. Department of Justice would never discriminate against women in this manner.

Finally, and most importantly, the appointment undermines the Senate confirmation process. The authority granted to the Attorney General to make an interim appointment for an indefinite time was given pursuant to the Patriot Act. I believe that in using this provision, the Attorney General should articulate a national security or law enforcement need that necessitates such an appointment. You have failed to do so in this case. In fact, as cited above, the reason articulated is at worst grossly deficient and at best a poor pretense.

For me personally, this last point is most troublesome. When the Patriot Act was up for reauthorization, you called me and discussed the importance of its passage. I told you that while there were items in the Act that concerned me, I trusted that the spirit of the law would be upheld. It has also come to my attention that there may have been other similar appointments made under this provision of the Patriot Act. Therefore, I believe that the spirit of the law regarding this interim appointment (and perhaps others) has been violated. As such, I am pushing for a legislative change. I have signed on to a Bill that would strike the previous amended language and restore appointment authority to the original 120 days.

I am quite sure that you may not agree with some or all of my conclusions, therefore I await your response and I appreciate your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely, Mark Pryor

TN wrote on March 20, 2007 1:29 PM:

11-5

Pg. 4-6, May 31. Sampson, Mercer, Fridman mail each other to gather facts about Lam & immigration cases.

Pg. 7, Jun 1. Sampson has his plan ready on afternoon, mails to Mercer and Elston:

"Bill, this relates (certainely in AG's mind) to the email i just sent to Elston (cc to you) re our pressing need to, in the very short term, generate some deliverables on immigration enforcement [...] AG has given additional thought to SD situation and now believes that we should adopt a plan - something like the following:

[to summarize: have a heart-to-heart with Lam re: immigration, put her on short leash, and, if doesn't act quickly, fire her.]

[...]"

Splash wrote on March 20, 2007 1:32 PM:

10-50 to 52
Draft DAG Testimony before Congress
10-53 to 55 explanatory emails
Date: January 29, 2007
Re: Talking Points for testimony by DAG to Congress Re: Why AG and not Fed judges should make interim appointments of USAs.

Contains this gem:

(at 52)
"The Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General are responsible for evaluating the performance of US Attorneys and ensuring that they are leading their offices effectively. However, US Attorneys are never removed, or asjed or encourasged to resign, in an effort to retaliate against them or interfere with or inappropriately influence a particular investigation, criminal prosecution or civil case."

Then, at 52, there is a very interesting section called "Amending the Statute Was Necessary". I didnt know this, but apparently there was recent legislation passed augmenting the power of the AG to fill vacancies; so that now, the AG's appointment is effective (I think) for the entire remainder of the term rather than just 120 days and after that, a district court makes the appointment. In other words, the new law enables the AG to replace USAs without involvement from any federal court. How convenient. That seems to be the quick summary of the AGs augmented appointment power but should be confirmed.

The last talking point of this section caught my eye:

"Because the administration is committed to having a Senate-confirmed United States Attorney in all districts, changing the law to restore the limitations on the Attorney General's appointment authority is unnecessary."

Some serious smoke behind these talking points. They're saying, basically, "Dont worry, we'll work with you in good faith to have every new appointment confirmed."

Donna Dailey wrote on March 20, 2007 1:34 PM:

2-1, Page 23

From: McNulty, Paul J
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:44 AM
To: Sampson, Kyle
Subject: RE: US Atty Plan

I’ll talk to Johnny. I’m still a little skittish about Bogden. He has been with DOJ since 1990 and, at age 50, has never had a job outside o government. My guess is that he was hoping to ride this out well into ’09 or beyond. I’ll admit have not looked at his district’s performance [emphasis added]. Sorry to be raising this again/now; it was just on my mind last night and this morning.

marlene wrote on March 20, 2007 1:36 PM:

Doing a quick search I found these....

Tim Griffin [griffinjag@comcast.net]
tasia_scolinos@yahoo.com

FatKat wrote on March 20, 2007 1:37 PM:

11-6

14 - read the email, from sampson to elston
in quotations "company man"

couldnt copy the email as a whole.

Shelley wrote on March 20, 2007 1:37 PM:

I may not have been clear enough. In western Michigan, (Margaret Chiara's district), there was very bad feeling about US Attorney's office because of pitiful prosecution history of former US attorney, Phillip Green and therefore, interference (particularly political) with US attorney's office would likely cause an uproar.

Phillip Green, former US Atty in Michigan-
sucked up to Sara Lee Corp.-many people died and sickened because of tainted meat. He performed disgracefully in prosecuting the case. (http://commondreams.org/views01/0726-04.htm)

Bush then nominated Phillip Green to fill position in Southern District of Illinois on June 9, 2006 but the nomination was returned when the 109th Congress adjourned in December 2006. The president has not resubmitted Mr. Green's nomination as of this date.
(http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/2/22/205548/359)

It would seem Bush appreciated his collaboration with Sara Lee in ignoring many deaths and injuries.

CT wrote on March 20, 2007 1:39 PM:

In response to several questions, Senator Kyl did confirm that he was called about the termination of Paul Charlton, but disagrees that he was "fine" with it. He has said that he asked the DOJ to reconsider. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0318sunlets182.html

Jay wrote on March 20, 2007 1:39 PM:

7-8

Pages 12-15

This email chain describes an 8/2/06 meeting between Carol Lam (S.D. Cal.) and Congressmen James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis., Chairman, House Judiciary Committee) and Darryl Issa (R-Cal.). Lam explained the border statistics that were the subject of prior letters from Issa and others. Here is the key excerpt:

"He noted that among the southwest Border USAOs, our felony immigration filings are low. I explained that we set out a couple of years ago to deliberately seek higher sentences for the worst offenders; this meant more cases would go to trial, but we would hold the line and not sell
the cases for less time. The statistics show that we have, in fact, achieved significantly higher aveage sentences in our immigration cases; the cost was that our immigration trial rate more than DOUBLED (from 42 trials in 2004 to 89 trials in 2005) and we had to reduce the
number of low-end coyote cases we filed. Cong Issa seemed to grasp this concept quickly; he commented that it is to0 bad we don't have statistics that reflect the matrix of felony immigration filings against lengths of sentences."

Lam thought the meeting went well. Although some might argue Lam was incorrect, note this comment by Rebecca Seidel (Deputy Assistant AG, Office of Legislative Affairs) on Lam's summary:

"Sounds like she handled well and it was actually donstructive."

kahner wrote on March 20, 2007 1:40 PM:

OK, i'm trying to start doing OCR conversion of the docs from PDF to real text so we can easily search and cut'n'paste etc. If it works (its runnning now, but lokos like it'll take a few minutes) who/where can i send the text (MS word format) copies? Also, has this already been done by someone else and I just missed it?

FatKat wrote on March 20, 2007 1:40 PM:

marlene
Date: March 20, 2007 01:36 PM

which doc area did you find these? could you post the location?
tx

PaminBB wrote on March 20, 2007 1:42 PM:

8-1

In addition to resignation letters and voter irregularity stuff mentioned above there are 2 other pages, 8 and 9. First, from someone's day planner of Oct.16,2006, with two whited out chunks framing 2 fairly illegible lines, the top beginning with what looks like a name, last name campbell? Second, maybe a scanned envvelope, addressed to Kyle Sampson, The White House in upper left corner.Below, post-it afixed with To Matt, 10/17/06.

Mike wrote on March 20, 2007 1:43 PM:

7-1
page 23 - David Iglesias solid performence

April 29, 2004 email from Kyle Sampson to Susan Richmond.

Here is my list of current USA who might be enticed to leave their districts and come to Washington to run EOUSA:

David Iglesias (D.N.M) diverse up-and-comer, solid

RR wrote on March 20, 2007 1:45 PM:

Part 7-10, page 4. DOJ digging up immigration letter from Feinstein to Lam after the fact - Jan 18, 2007.

Subject of the emails: "I hear there is a letter..."

So I guess they couldn't have known about it when Lam got fired, eh?

Barbara B wrote on March 20, 2007 1:45 PM:

Document 12 is the cover letter from Richard Hertling for the dump, addressed to Cong. Conyers and Cong. Sanchez, and details what sorts of info has been redacted.

"Consistent with our prior production, we will make unredacted copies of these documents available for review at the Department by Committee staff."

..."Also redacted is information from multi-subject documents about other subjects, completely unrelated to the removal of any U.S. Attorneys; a few of these redactions concern non-public information about open criminal investigations, which will not be made available for review."

There is more. It's a 4 page letter.

Seems like a good idea to contact the Conyers and Sanchez and give them a heads up about the various mysterious redactions so they can go take a look at unredacted originals...assuming even they don't have staff equal to the TPM irregulars.

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 1:47 PM:

kahner,

Yes, at least some of the docs have been OCR'd already, originally by jukeboxgrad, here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/20/1129/05437

Binx wrote on March 20, 2007 1:49 PM:

The LA Times characterization is typical of one aspect of the news coverage on this:

"Chiara's complaints and McNulty's e-mail were found in more than 3,000 pages of NEW documents delivered late Monday night by the Justice Department..."

But having sped through the first 1,000 pages or so I don't really see all that much that is actually new. The vast majority appears to be already released stuff (like in 7-1 Sampson's "Bushie" e-mail) or letters, docs or committee transcripts already out there.

Has anybody a guess as to how much of all of this is actually "new?"

I'm guessing only 15-20%.

shrubbit wrote on March 20, 2007 1:49 PM:

>>>Has anyone found evidence of parties using external or private email (yahoo or gwb43.com) that may not be subject to retention rules?

Yes, I saw gwb43.com

doc 7-2 pg 2

an email chain with Monica Goodling and J. Scott Jennings (Special Asst to the President and Deputy Political Director). Jennings uses SJennings@gwb43.com.

Foose wrote on March 20, 2007 1:50 PM:

3-19-07 Released Document 12 (four pages)

Letter:
To: John Conyers (Judiciary Committee) and Linda Sanchez (subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law)
From: Richard A. Hertling, Acting Asst. Atty. General

This appears to be a cover letter for what is described as 3,000 pages of documents from the offices of the AG, Deputy AG, Associate AG, and the Executive Office for United States Attorneys.

The point of the letter seems to be to justify the redactions in the documents provided and to explain why some documents were not provided.

Not provided:
Documents generated within the Executive Branch (reason cited: executive priviledge)
Documents generated by the DOJ after December 7th, 2006 related to consideration of replacement candidates (reason cited: privacy of candidates)

Notes on redacted stuff:
Possibly of interest
Info related to USAs considered for replacement but not asked to resign
Info related to “management issues” at the Northern District of California USA and a “special EARS investigation” [I think EARS means EOUSA's Evaluation and Review Staff, a performance evaluation group. The letter says that the final EARS report has already been released to the subcommittee.]
Info related to a leak investigation for the Western District of Michigan USA

Probably not of interest to the hearings:
Documents related to ongoing criminal investigations, death penalty recommendations, sections of multi-subject documents unrelated to the hearings.

Copied to Lamar Smith (Judiciary Committee) and Christopher Cannon (subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law)

Possibly useful quote: “It would be improper to remove a United States Attorney for partisan reasons in retaliation for bringing or failing to bring, or in an effort to prevent the U.S. Attorney from bringing, a particular prosecution or enforcement action –such as for failing to pursue a public corruption case.”

EvilPoet wrote on March 20, 2007 1:52 PM:

This isn't part of the document dump, but I thought this link might be of interest.

http://2004.georgewbush.org/deadletteroffice/index.asp

Jason wrote on March 20, 2007 1:54 PM:

10-2

First half is emails about interviewing candidates for new positions, as well as many resignation letters. David Iglesia's is the most interesting--he more than any other US Attorney speaks about his close relationship and feelings for Alberto Gonzales. The fact that he recommends a replacement would suggest that he presumed "innocent" reasons for stepping down.

p41: in an email conversation about Daniel Bogden's resignation, there is an exchange based on the fact that Bogden wrote more than could fit in the appropriate form. The administrators talk about what to do:

"I checked with Jean [Dunn] about changing the reason to 'Term Expired effective 10-28-05. Employee was in a holdover status.'

Jean reminded me, we can't change an employee's reason for resignation. We can only condense it. Jean suggested a more condensed version, 'Requested to step down.'

Let me know if this is OK."

Agh, have to run out. DAG Paul McNulty's testimony preparation is detailed p43 onward, someone else get it!

Thad wrote on March 20, 2007 1:57 PM:

In document 11-1, there's an interesting (and repeated) redaction of any comparison to Carol Lam's office's performance. They show her numbers, but whited-out everyone else's that were alleged "problems." Who else is on that "problem" list and why weren't they fired? I'm guessing they are strong "Bushies," and showing their numbers would further undercut the administration's argument.

Brett wrote on March 20, 2007 1:58 PM:

7-10, page 45, Somehow DOJ press officer Monica Goodling got a hold of a 2/20/2007 e-mail that Bud Cummins sent (at least) to Bogden, Charlton, Iglesias, Lam, and Mckay discussing a phone call that Cummins received on that day from Mike Elston. Cummins interpreted the call as a "threat" that the AG's office will continue to push back with allegations of poor performance, but one that is not "a big deal" given the "weak" character of the case.

Aside from the fact of the pressure tactics in the call, it's interesting that this e-mail made its way back to DOJ and ended in a press officer's file. Cummins writes: "Of course, I would appreciate maximum opsec regarding this email and ask that you not forward it or let others read it." That didn't work out so well.

scribe wrote on March 20, 2007 1:58 PM:

6-1

dump 6-1 is all about Gonzo authorizing capital punishment against someone named Jose Rios Rico, in a case currently pending in Charlton's District of Arizona. It's 50 pages of briefs and motion papers, and an order or two.

Ott wrote on March 20, 2007 1:59 PM:

There's a lot of stuff about Margaret Chiara in this thread. Apparently DoJ thought so too, because in document 11-6, page 11 there's this gem:

From: Regina.Schofield@usdoj.gov
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 1:48PM
To: Mercer, William W
Subject: Two things

1) Margaret Chiara keeps calling. Need some advice on how to stopp the inquiries.

2) [Redacted]

Bcre8ve wrote on March 20, 2007 2:00 PM:

Apologies for the duplicate above.

7-7

A January 11, 2007 letter from Arkansas' Senator Mark Pryor to Gonzales (bad copy, fuzzy/murky scan) expressing his "displeasure" with Tim Griffin's appointment, and reminding him of the phone calls that Pryor made to him on 12/13 and 12/15 2006.

Pryor felt that Bud Cummins was being "forced to leave" so that Gonzales could appoint Tim Griffin.

What is REALLY interesting, though, is the reason they gave Pryor for NOT appointing the First Assistant USA, as was the custom; that she was on maternity leave and "therefore would not be able to perform the responsibilities of the appointment. Pryor writes that this is what the DOJ told his Chief of Staff, the media, and himself during a meeting they had that week (I would have loved to have been a fly on THAT wall!)

Pryor states that this "....concerned him on many levels, but most importantly it uses pregnancy and motherhood as conditions that deny appointment. While this may not be actionable in a public employment setting, it clearly would be in a private employment setting. The U.S. Department of Justice should never discriminate against women in this manner."

Pryor goes on to say that if they are using the Patriot act to circumvent the Senate confirmation process, that they should provide a national security or law enforcement need to justify it. He also says that Gonzales called him personally when the Act was up for reauthorization and, despite his concerns he trusted that "the spirit of the law" would be upheld, and voted for it anyway. (When will they ever realize who they're dealing with?!?)

Pryor concludes that he believes the reasons given for Griffin's appointment were, at worst, grossly deficient, or , at best, a poor pretense, and that he was signing on to a bill to restore the original nomination/confirmation process.

FatKat wrote on March 20, 2007 2:01 PM:

4-1

4- fr the office of general counsel...read side remarks in handwriting, this remark reflects the whole section after, regarding wire tapping with the FBI.

PaminBB wrote on March 20, 2007 2:02 PM:

8.2

page 1 is torn from spiral bound, all hand written, what I can make out

"Philly/milwaukee/Albequerque

Philly is a problem
Milw/Alb not too bad

{can't read} NM is bad
{can't read}PI hears a lot of probs but rare they do much. could be difficult if {can't read} NM {can't read} cases well

Appalachia/South - biggest prob areas

bad - Nevada, NM
MD GA, CD? NY

Good - MW, Phila (both then crossed out)
MW - good @ local
Fed level 50-50
Philly - indifferent on Fed side"

pages 2 and 3 are memos/reminders? with Matthew Freidrich of OAG name on top, dated 1/15/07 and 1/17/07 regarding meetings for prep for Judiciary hearings.

Lists of attendees, includes Brent McIntosh, Associate Counsel to the President.

Thad wrote on March 20, 2007 2:05 PM:

Document 11-2. Memo sent to Sampson saying that while Lam's office was underperforming with PSN prosecutions, concludes that office is badly lacking in prosecutorial resources and that DAG will be visiting there to follow up.

She wasn't doing a good job? Well, she didn't have the people for it, by the DAG's own admission.

Foggylady wrote on March 20, 2007 2:05 PM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 2-6,
p. 15 thru 19
Tim Griffin was the Republican's National Research Director and Communications chief responsible for the voter list purge in Fla. in 2004.
These pages are copies of Greg Palast's expose.

solai wrote on March 20, 2007 2:09 PM:

10-1 page 43
from:sampson
to:m.battle;j.nowacki
subject:RE independence of US Atty testimony
Jan 29, 2007
Some email coorespondence and then on page 46 is a draft for McNulty's testimony dated 2/7

EmanG wrote on March 20, 2007 2:10 PM:

10-1, 55 pages

Pgs 1-20
Tim Griffin setting up interview for AG position with USAEO candidates. Includes bio and resume.

Pgs 21 - 34
Letters of resignation to Pres and AG from J. McKay, P. Charlton, B. Cummins, C. Lam, D. Bogden, D. Iglesias, M. Chiara.

Pg. 37
M. Battle informed by C. Lam that she has been supoenaed by Judiciary Committee on March 6.

Pg. 42-42
Ashley McGowan/Debbie Hardos/Katherine Mann discuss condensing D. Bogden’s reason for resignation:

From: Katherine Mann
To: Debbie Hardos

Debbie,

I checked with Jean about changing the reason to “Term expired effective 10-28-05. Employee was in a holdover status.”

Jean reminded me, we can’t change the employee’s reason for resignation. We can only condense it. Jean suggested a more condensed version, “Requested to step down.”

Let me know if this is OK

Thanks
Kit

Pg. 43 - 55
Outlines of DAG testimony Feb. 4th (?), includes talking points

sotublog wrote on March 20, 2007 2:11 PM:

11-6 pp. 7 - Details motive for US Atty Lam firing re immigration enforcement:

From: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 5:25 PM
To: Mercer, Bill (ODAG)
Cc: Elston, Michael (ODAG)
Subject: San Diego Immigration Enforcement

Importance: High

Bill, this relates (certainly in the AG's mind) to the email I just sent to Elston (cc to you) re our pressing need to, in the very short-term, generate some deliverables on immigration enforcement, and in the long-term, insulate the Department from criticism by improving our numbers. AG has given additional thoughts to the SD situation and now believes that we should adopt a plan -- something like the following:

- Have a heart-to-heart with Lam about the urgent need to improve immigration enforcement in SD;
- Work with her to develop a plan for addressing the problem -- to include alteration of prosecution thresholds; additional DOJ prosecutors; additional DHS SAUSA resources; etc.
- Put her on a very short leash;
- If she balks on any of the foregoing or otherwise does not perform in a measurable way by July 15 [my date], remove her.
- AG then appoints new USA from outside the office.

This seems to me like the sort of thing for ODAG and EOUSA to execute. Can you think about how to do this right, tune up my plan/list of bullets, and be prepared to (1) present such plan to the AG tomorrow or early next week for his approval and (2) execute the plan next week?

TruthSeeker wrote on March 20, 2007 2:13 PM:

Hey Jean2K,

The beginning of 7-3 has the response to Senator Pryor's letter. The e-mail that Sampson sent to Monica Goodling, Richard Hertling, and Michael Elston is below. The entire letter is on the second page of the 7-3 pdf.

Mike/Richard, the attached letter incorporates DOJ edits and WH edits (and has been “cleared” by WH). I think that we need to get it up today, well in advance of Paul’s hearing next week – if (God forbid) Pryor shows up at the hearing as a witness and alleges that he wasn’t consulted, we discriminated against FAUSA, we have a conspiracy to keep Tim (Griffin) in office, etc., etc., then we’ll want to have this letter to wave around.

Mike, given Paul’s equities, I think you should review and clear. Once, cleared, we should get it up ASAP.

Richard/Monica, the letter refers to the fact, so Monica will need to provide the most up-to-date fact sheet to go with the letter as an enclosure.

Kyle Sampson,
Chief of Staff
U.S. Department of Justice

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 2:14 PM:

ok, i'm slowly strating to upload some text versions starting with part 3-1. you can download zips here. http://kahner.4shared.com/
If anyone has a specifica request for conversion of some section post it here with my username in cluded in the comment.

PaminBB wrote on March 20, 2007 2:16 PM:

8-2

Remainder is more of Matthew Freidrich email, mostly completely redacted URGENT reports from Carol Lam and Margaret Chiara. However, can see top of p. 12, header from Lam reads "Indictment sought for Foggo and Wilkes". Top of page 17, header from Chiara reads "Unsealing of Indictment and Administrative Dententions in Illegal Alien E..." Both docs dated from last month.

shrubbit wrote on March 20, 2007 2:16 PM:

Gonzo ditches appropriations committee appearance sched for this Thu morning. Buh bye gonzo.

The Swamp @ Chicago Trib:

"""""Don't want to read too much into it, but the House Appropriations Committee just announced that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is fighting to keep his job amidst reports that his shop played politics with federal prosecutors and allowed the FBI to abuse its surveillance powers, will not appear at a budget hearing Thursday as previously scheduled."""""

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/03/hmmm.html

Bluetoe wrote on March 20, 2007 2:17 PM:

7-10 page 60

This is a letter written on 4/105 on Metropolitan King County Council letterhead to AG Alberto Gonzales encouraging the DOJ to take a proactive role in the investigation of alleged voting fraud in King County, Washington in the Washington state general election in 2004.

7-11 page 1

This contains the signatures of those on the King County Council who sent AG Gonzeles complaining of voter fraud. Six signatures are indicated. The curious thing is that at that time it appears as if there were actually 13 members serving on the Council. A little more digging revealed that those who did sign the letter were all Republicans.

iris wrote on March 20, 2007 2:18 PM:

Brett - The emails that were exchanged among the 7 dismissed USAs are scattered throughout the files in this dump - obviously, there was a mole among them.

rita wrote on March 20, 2007 2:19 PM:

11-1, page 13

in the statistics compiled on successful prosecutions of child exploitation cases the district in Guam had only prosecuted 1 case successfully (out of 4 investigations) in 2005. Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff must be proud.

canucksailor wrote on March 20, 2007 2:20 PM:

8-1 Document filed in the "Rove K" directory??

Look at the bottom of the last page of:

http://www.judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt8-1070319.pdf

There is a partially masked file reference that looks like:

file://C;\Documents ... something ...\ROVE K\ ...something

(This is on page 851. There's a similar reference on page 850)

Why is this significant? Three-quarters of the documents in this file relate to voter fraud in Wisconsin, and it looks like they come from a file folder with Kyle Sampson's name on it. (see page 820)

Circumstantial evidence so far, but this is also juxtaposed against the resignation letter of the USA from Michigan.

Ott wrote on March 20, 2007 2:20 PM:

In 11-5 pp20-21, there is a letter from Sen. Feinstein inquiring about low prosecution rate of immigration cases in SDCA. On page 19 there is mail mentioning that a Feinstein staffer had directly called the SDCAUSA office.

Also, on page 48 there is a mail from Mercer to Sampson about the replacement of USA's, mentioning a plan pushed by "WHCO" in 2004.

The rest of 11-5 is basically statistics from SDCA and a letter from Carol Lam regarding the performance of her district.

Bluetoe wrote on March 20, 2007 2:22 PM:

The date of the Metropolitan King County Council to AGAG should read 4/1/2005

RR wrote on March 20, 2007 2:22 PM:

OK, it's not from the dump, but I have GOT to post this juicy little tidbit from the Washington Post:

"But the Issa exchange, as well as a letter from Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein expressing concern over Lam's immigration record both came after-- not before -- Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson warned the White House of a "real problem" with Lam. That warning came one day after Lam notified the Justice Department of search warrants in a Republican bribery scandal."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/03/20/BL2007032000694_2.html

I'm ROFL at these guys getting caught red handed.

jukeboxgrad wrote on March 20, 2007 2:26 PM:

OCR, text-searchable: I've already done a bunch. See link above. I intend to do them all, hopefully within the next few hours.

shrubya wrote on March 20, 2007 2:30 PM:

But Sampson told Roehrkasse and Scolinos that McNulty felt good after testifying, and believed the matter was about over.

"He's hearing good reports from the committee. In particular, Sen. [Charles E.] Schumer's counsel told him that the issue has basically run its course, that they need to get a little more information from us … but that will be it."

Not until TPM stepped in! Schumer ready to just sweep the whole thing under the rug. Remember his balky mention of how they "learned" of the firings and the inexcusable rationale behind the firings. (from TPM)

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 2:34 PM:

Relating to 1-6, p. 49, there's a fair bit of muck being raked over on Daily Kos regarding Parsky, the Parsky commission, its role in picking / vetting USAs and judges, the fact that Parsky is a heavyweight Republican operative and donor, and that his 37 year old daughter just happened to have worked at the justice dept. (she was brought in there by Chertoff), and has somehow been promoted to Superior Court judge, etc., etc., no doubt more where that came from...

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 2:35 PM:

...and I forgot the link!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/20/13155/4678

TN wrote on March 20, 2007 2:37 PM:

8-1

Canucksailor: The "ROVE K" on bottom of last two pages seems to refer to "Temporary Internet Files" folder of user ROVE_K, ie. they've probably been printed by Mr. Rove (or someone logged in as him), and then mailed to Kyle.

TheOtherWA wrote on March 20, 2007 2:37 PM:

More docs- release 9 is 3 pages about the NM office and staffing.

NCProsecutor wrote on March 20, 2007 2:37 PM:

11-6, p. 8

E-mail from Paul Charlton to Bill Mercer:

"Bill - media now asking if I was asked to resign over leak in Congressman Renzi investigation. -Paul"

kahner wrote on March 20, 2007 2:37 PM:

jukeboxgrad, how far along are you? no point in us both doing the same docs. I'm working from 6-1 on right now cause i saw you had started on the earlier stuff. http://kahner.4shared.com

foggylady wrote on March 20, 2007 2:38 PM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 2-6

p1: list of Western District USArkansas qualifications, with talking points ( justifications) for replacement

p.3 Outlines Tim Griffin bona fides. Interesting in that Griffin went to Iraq for 4 months at a desk job, then is refered to as a war veteran in his bona fides.
P. 4 notes that Griffin replaced Cummins within a week of Cummins being fired.
P4. letter from DOJ to Sen. Mark Conyers, states emphatically that Bush Admin is NOT attempting to avoid confirmation
p. 11 is letter from SenatorMark Pryor to Gonzales pointing out the Gonzales discriminated against the female,
FAUSA who was on maternity leave when Griffin was shoved into the office. and critical of DOJ pushing out Cummons.

p. 15 thru 19 ( major news here)
Tim Griffin was the Republican's National Research Director and Communications chief responsible for the voter list purge in Fla. in 2004. these pages are copies of Greg Palast's expose.

p. 20 thru 35 is McNulty's hearing testimony of 2-7-07.

p. 36 thru 40 is Hertling's testimony

P. 40 thru 42 is copy of S. Bill 214 ( Feinstein's proposed bill).

p. 43 thru 50 is copy of Feinstein's testimony.

Splash wrote on March 20, 2007 2:39 PM:

11-2 at p. 45 to 54

p. 49
Letter from Darrell Issa to AG, signed by entire Cal Repub delegation (including the Dukester), criticizing Carol Lam's policies regarding prosecutions of illegal aliens.

p. 51
Letter responding to Issa, signed by William E. Moschella, Assistant AG

This responding letter sets forth a fairly vigorous defense of Carol Lam's prosecutions of illegal aliens. Worth reading through if only to show there were people at DOJ defending Lam on this. Apparently this response was never sent to Issa or anyone, if I am reading the emails starting at p. 46 correctly. The draft response was written by David Smith, Legislative Counsel at DOJ. Smith was circulating this response around DOJ people but according to his April 4, 2006 email, the response was never sent.

To sum up: some people at DOJ were defending Lam against Issa, Cunningham and the other Cal Repubs on the issue of prosecuting illegal aliens, but their defense of Lam apparently never saw the light of day.

Addendum:

Doc 11-1 at pp. 9-11 there is a North County Times (SD paper) article about the Issa letter. (Dated 10-28-05 - but this could be the date of the fax that sent it, not sure)

This article quotes Duke Cunningham as saying that the USAs are getting the resources they need to prosecute immigration cases. The author of the article is Willian Finn Bennet at 760-740-5426 or wbennett@nctimes.com - he is probably a good source of info on the Lam stuff in general.

Foose wrote on March 20, 2007 2:41 PM:

Document 11-6

This is a 35 page document; I'll post a description of the whole thing next, but these seem to be the most interesting.

Page 1
Internal emails dated 12/13/2006.
Kyle Sampson writes to Michael Battle to report complaints from Bill Kelley.
“In making the calls, Battle (1) wasn’t clear whether the USAs in question would be permitted to resign, or instead were being fired, and (2) was too abrupt. Bill seemed nonplussed by the complaints, but nevertheless passed them on to me.

Perhaps a second round of calls from you, Mike, to the relevant USAs is in order? Talkers would be something like:
I wanted to be sure you understood that DOJ intends not to say anything about your leaving, but instead allow you to announce your resignation and the reasons for it;
We want to work with you over the next six weeks to ensure a smooth transition; and
It’s in our interest for you to land on your feet and maintain our good relations with the Department -- how can I help?”
Note forwarded to McNulty, Elston, Moschella, Mercer, Monica Goodling and Johnny Sutton.

Paul McNulty’s response: “The more communication, the better. They are probably slow adjusting and some hand-holding may calm things down.”

Page 14
Internal email from Michael Elston to Kyle Sampson 1/18/2007.
Kevin Ryan’s FUSA Eumi Choi called to say that Kevin is not returning calls from Sen. Feinstein or Carol Lam and “wanted us to that he’s still a ‘company man.’ I gave her my talkers for KcKay and Charlton.”

Splash wrote on March 20, 2007 2:43 PM:

Woops, (sorry) Correction to above post of 2:39 PM:

This article quotes Duke Cunningham as saying that the USAs are NOT, repeat, NOT getting the funding resources they need.

Foose wrote on March 20, 2007 2:46 PM:

Document 11-6 (35 pages)
Page 1
Internal emails dated 12/13/2006.
Kyle Sampson writes to Michael Battle to report complaints from Bill Kelley.
“In making the calls, Battle (1) wasn’t clear whether the USAs in question would be permitted to resign, or instead were being fired, and (2) was too abrupt. Bill seemed nonplussed by the complaints, but nevertheless passed them on to me.

Perhaps a second round of calls from you, Mike, to the relevant USAs is in order? Talkers would be something like:
I wanted to be sure you understood that DOJ intends not to say anything about your leaving, but instead allow you to announce your resignation and the reasons for it;
We want to work with you over the next six weeks to ensure a smooth transition; and
It’s in our interest for you to land on your feet and maintain our good relations with the Department -- how can I help?”
Note forwarded to McNulty, Elston, Moschella, Mercer, Monica Goodling and Johnny Sutton.

Paul McNulty’s response: “The more communication, the better. They are probably slow adjusting and some hand-holding may calm things down.”

Pages 2-8
Internal emails from Paul Charlton to Bill Mercer (from 12/13-20/2007 about what to say to media and the “way forward.” (No discussion, just references to talking by phone.) Dan Bogden instructed to call Bill Mercer at Las Vegas office on 12/19/2006. (Lots of duplicate messages.)

Pages 9-10
Two internal emails asking Bill Mercer to call Dan Bogden (January 3 & 5 2007)

Page 11
Internal email from Regina Schofield to Bill Mercer asking for advice on how to keep Margaret Chiara from calling. Item 2 is redatcted. (January 9, 2007)

Pages 12-13
Bud Cummins called for Bill Mercer (1/17/2007) no need to call him back. (Internal emails)

Page 14
Internal email from Michael Elston to Kyle Sampson 1/18/2007.
Kevin Ryan’s FUSA Eumi Choi called to say that Kevin is not returning calls from Sen. Feinstein or Carol Lam and “wanted us to that he’s still a ‘company man.’ I gave her my talkers for KcKay and Charlton.”

Page 15
1/23/2007 Deborah J Davis asks Bill Mercer to call Mike McKay re interim USA appointment for Western District of Washington.
Pages 16-18
Contact info for Paul Charlton and Sandra Sanchez (internal email)

Page 18
Bill Mercer asks Linda E. Long to print out David Iglesias’s extremely gracious good-bye letter. Iglesias’s letter gives his new email address DCIGLESIAS@earthlink.com (internal email)

Page 19
Bill Mercer’s appt. book for June 5, 2006, showing only a meeting between Mercer, Kyle Sampson, and Jeff Taylor with the title (Immigration Enforcement/San Diego USAO

Page 20
Totally unidentified printed notes
Goals for Mercer’s firing calls to Bogden and Charlton (basically, be nice to them but let them know it’s now someone else’s turn), critique of the effect of the calls (basically, we were too nice).

Pages 21-35
USA Caseload statistics from 1994-2005
(file this under junk in the dump.)

Michael wrote on March 20, 2007 2:47 PM:

7-11

DOJDocsPt7-11070319.pdf

? Other voter fraud fishing expeditions?

Subject: Letters by Evergreen Freedom Foundation (Feb. & April, 2006) in WA to AG Gonzales to get Washington Prosecutor John McKay recused for failure to convene grand jury over alleged voter fraud. In the process of making their case Bob Wilson of EFF on Page 770 contrast McKay's inaction to other prosecutors....:

Item #2: Cites 2004 GAO report finding that "PIN" and US Attorney launched 61 investigations into voter fraud in 32 states in 2002-2003

Item #4:
Evergreen Freedom Fndn argues that Four other US Federal prosecutors convened grand juries with less evidence than McKay regarding voter fraud.

What are these other 61 & 4 cases? Were/are they legitimate or put up jobs by dutiful Bush/Rove loyalists?

Jillian wrote on March 20, 2007 2:48 PM:

What a shitty little cabal. Sampson comes across as a standard classless but smart political operative in a standard dirty bureaucratic political operation to get people out. But it's the miserable idiots and non-priorities around him that make it really awful. Nobody- absolutely nobody- in the upper ranks of DoJ cares about the merits of what they're doing. Nobody asks whether there's any issue of justice generated. There's zero real concern for the effects on actual prosecutions, for due process violations, for personnel quality. Oh, statistics get bandied around for utility in generating excuses for what they want to do, but it's incidental. Good Lord do they look stupid trying to gin up justification for a quota in immigration cases they'll retroactively impose on Carole Lam.

But that's what happens when the Republican doctrine of denial and inconsistency of due process and equal protection rights becomes institutional doctrine. 'Justice' evolves from favoritisms (the hallmark of the Ashcroft DoJ) to a directed quota system and containment management of the paradoxes, failures, manipulations, and selfcontradictions the doctrine generates under Gonzalez.

For anti-Communists, it's amazing to what extent they're reenacting the Soviet model. Well, maybe not too surprising, given their dogmas of inequality and protection of their Party's political power from restraint by determinations of justice.

TruthSeeker wrote on March 20, 2007 2:49 PM:

There's a must read e-mail in 7-3 on page 13. It's from Sampson saying he doesn't think Cummins should testify because how would he answer the following questions?:

Did you resign voluntarily? Were you told why you were being asked to resign? Who told you? When did they tell you? What did they say? Did you ever talk to Tim Griffin about his becoming U.S. Attorney? What did Griffin say? Did Griffin ever talk about being AG appointed and avoiding Senate confirmation? Were you asked to resign because you were underperforming? If not, then why?

Matt D wrote on March 20, 2007 2:59 PM:

Is anybody curious who this guy Albert Steiglitz is? He wrote a memo to Elston criticizing Lam's defense of her immigration prosection record.... (1-2, pg. 14) I've done a Factiva/Google search and haven't found anything about him.... except that there's an Albert Steiglitz who's a famous photographer. Probably not the same guy.

Thad wrote on March 20, 2007 3:01 PM:

Also in Document 11-2 near the end, the DOJ responds to the letter Cunningham signed onto by defending Lam and the job her office was doing. "I want to assure you that USA Lam and her staff are committed to protecting the residents of the district, and the district's record of prosecuting illegal aliens clearly demonstrates that fact...The SDCA has a strong record in prosecuting criminal aliens generally and in particular alien smugglers."

That's funny...I thought she was doing a BAD job on immigration issues. Oh, those darned facts, always getting in the way of a good story.

sotublog wrote on March 20, 2007 3:02 PM:

11-1, p. 1

I find this kind of... funny.

In an email to just about everyone on 11/4/2004, Susan Richmond writes:

"As we move into this transition period, the President has decided that he will not ask for letters of resignation. That said, as always, each of us serves at the pleasure of the President."

Mash wrote on March 20, 2007 3:03 PM:

Has anyone thought about capturing the comments in a wiki to organize the research?

I've started a wiki here: http://www.docstrangelove.com/gonzopedia

Please feel free to use it.

Ott wrote on March 20, 2007 3:04 PM:

7-10 page 45 is a must read; Bud Cummins' email regarding the call from Elston and clearly characterizing it as a threat (unlike what he said in hearing). The email ends asking everyone not to forward or discuss the email with anyone which is kinda amusing to read.

piper wrote on March 20, 2007 3:07 PM:

10-1, page 41

DOJ people say "we are not allowed to change reasons for a resignation, only condense."

This was Feb 16.

The implication: they got called on a bogus reason, wanted to change it, but couldn't.

Lee wrote on March 20, 2007 3:09 PM:

11-4

Page 28:
"Synopsis: Yesteday, Congressman Darryl Issa criticized on CNN's 'Lou Dobbs Tonight' SDCA's 'refusal' to prosecute 100% of all alien smugglers. The USAO-SDCA has learned that the 'Border Patrol Report' on which Rep. Issa relies in an unauthorized, altered version of an old report."

Emphasis mine.

Fixing facts to fit the policy and misleading assertions to the national media? Nah. That would never happen.

Jean2K wrote on March 20, 2007 3:10 PM:

Thanks, TruthSeeker. Enlightening.

"...if (God forbid) Pryor shows up at the hearing as a witness and alleges that he wasn’t consulted, we discriminated against FAUSA, we have a conspiracy to keep Tim (Griffin) in office, etc., etc., then we’ll want to have this letter to wave around."

And, doesn't this just say it all? Pryor is concerned with such things as political cronyism, proper authorization for appointments, improper maternity discrimination, and the spirit of the Patriot Act.

Hertling is concerned with having paper documentation such that, if they are pushed on their their shenanigans, they can "wave it around."

My head is spinning.

Bill B wrote on March 20, 2007 3:11 PM:

3-19-07 DOJ Released Documents 11-6 (note that there are TWO 11-6's, I am refering to the first one which has the filename DOJDocsPt11-6070319.pdf)

All page numbers referenced are the page numbers indicated in my PDF file reader:

p11 Missing text

p14 Message from Kevin Ryan via Eumi Choi that Ryan "not returning calls" from Feinstein or Lam and was "still a company man."

p18 Iglesias' farewell message. After reading, ask yourself why they'd fire such an obvious "party man/believer." Case load tables indicate that his case load increased 33% 2004-5, so he was no slacker.

p21-22 US Attorney case load tables by state with some check marks made for what reason?

Foggylady wrote on March 20, 2007 3:14 PM:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 11-6

pages 1-17 copies of "pls. call" message slips among DOJ staffers

p. 17-18: Inglesias graceful farewell letter to all USAAp 19-20..looks like notes of Mercer after talking with Bogden and Charlton, fired attorneys. ???
( Somebody please review this....)

p. 19 to 35...stats on Attorney districts performance
( Many questions arise from these)

Only 35 pages in this dump.

dk wrote on March 20, 2007 3:15 PM:

11-1

There's a review of the worst performing USAs in firearm related prosecutions in 2004-5 period and Carol Lam's the only name not redacted, ranking 86 out of 96. But they botched the redaction it a bit, as on page 36 it identifies the Western Tennessee District as ranking 85th.

Michael wrote on March 20, 2007 3:18 PM:

7-11

DOJDocsPt7-11070319.pdf

Page 808
Content of message by unidentified writer regarding setting a firm January 31 termination date for two US Attorneys. Writer unknown. Purpose Unknown. Discusses message and content control in discussing axing USAs

[ This is an odd, unidentified page inserted after and/or interrupting Loyola Ethics Prof. Laurie Levenson's Feb 6, 2007 testimony to congress [pp. 804-808]]

Page 809 Reads like a DOJ in-house legal memo or after the fact explanatory review of "Mercer" 's phone discussions of termination of US attorneys Bogden & Charlton which suggests Mercer strayed into discussing unauthorized reasons and being "empathetic" and not more discrete in some fashion. And that Mercer wasn't in a position to know the real reasons for the terminations.

States: Purpose of firm Jan 31 termination date to allow replacements two full years of service.

States: that some of what was given out "cannot be interpreted that others had been identified to take over as US attorneys"

This suggests to me that whoever wrote this is providing defense arguments should certain actions or statements made to the fired USA's be questioned as ethically or legally suspect.

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 3:18 PM:

Congressman Darrell Issa clearly had it in for Carol Lam, and he was willing to use falsified documents to do it. On May 22, 2006 he went on Lou Dobs and attacked her, saying she refused to prosecute 100 percent of the smugglers and that moral was low at the border patrol. The only problem is that Issa was he giving out information from an unauthorized and altered internal report dated one year prior to the one Issa was siting. Issa wanted cover for the Republican's inability to enact real border security and he was going to make LAM the SCAPEGOAT. See page 32 of 3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 11-4

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 11-4
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt11-4070319.pdf

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 3:20 PM:

well, we now know who Jose Rios Rico was/is (Charlton's capital prosecution in the D. Ariz.).
He's a guy who was charged with a murder where:
the weapon was never found,
the body was never found,
there was no indication of a homicide, and
all the inculpatory information came from dopers and dealers, looking to make deals.
Charlton, apparently, was a little reluctant to kill someone over something this insubstantial, but Gonzo wasn't.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003613762_attorneys12.html

canucksailor wrote on March 20, 2007 3:21 PM:

Roll them up ...

Hertling wrote Reid saying "The Department of Justice is not aware of anyone lobbying, either inside or outside of the Administration, for Griffin's appointment." and "The department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Griffin."

Cummins said "that he would answer that question ("Did Griffin ever talk about being AG appointed and avoiding Senate confirmation?") if subpoenaed and put under oath before Congress.

A subpoena to Cummings gets Griffin who will lead to Rove. As a byproduct, Hertling, who lied to Congress, will tell all.

Robin wrote on March 20, 2007 3:22 PM:

A fascinating exercise but I think one thing is missing. We need a database that can track back the names of those mentioned to the PDF pages on which they are quoted so it is searchable later.

If I can get the information I could organize it.

OwenR wrote on March 20, 2007 3:22 PM:

9 - District of New Mexico at a Glance

3 pages, unintersting. Staffing, funding, and ongoing discrimination lawsuit details.

Ott wrote on March 20, 2007 3:25 PM:

7-8 page 12 is a mail from lam describing a meeting she had with Issa and Sensenbrenner after the media fuss regarding immigration prosecutions. It is described as a constructive meeting that she handled well by the DoJ staffer.

Bill B wrote on March 20, 2007 3:26 PM:

Just noticed that the second 11-6 on the site (with a "-1" at the end of the filename) appears to be the same as the first 11-6.

Something I missed in 11-6 that I found upon review of the second (-1) 11-6 (both appearing to be the same set of documents):

p8 From Paul Charlton to William Mercer on Dec 21, 2006: "media now asking if I was asked to resign over leak in Congressman Renzi investigation"

dk wrote on March 20, 2007 3:27 PM:

11-2

Record of conference call made by Spence Pryor to Carol Lam which she says, and he agrees, that Southern District CA's low numbers are due to lack of resources. He writes to Sampson in a followup "Badly need more prosecutorial resources to focus on PSN initiative."

kahner wrote on March 20, 2007 3:29 PM:

Robin, you won't need a database to search once i've finished converting it all to text files. I've done qutie a few so far and you can download them here:
http://kahner.4shared.com

Also, Mash created a wiki here:
http://www.docstrangelove.com/gonzopedia
but it seems to be locked so i don't know how to edit it so we can actually make use of it.

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 3:31 PM:

There's also a wiki here: http://editthis.info/tpmmuckraker1/

dk wrote on March 20, 2007 3:32 PM:

11-2

That last one was page 15.

BTW I just found a list of the worst performing districts in this area on 20-21, and I'm a bit befuddled as to why they redacted them all before if they were just going to cough up the list later on. Stupid DOJ.

Jean2K wrote on March 20, 2007 3:36 PM:

Correction to post by Jean2K Mar 20 3:10 pm:

"Hertling is concerned..." should be "Sampson is concerned..."

almcq wrote on March 20, 2007 3:38 PM:

Probably not of interest to the hearings:
Documents related to ongoing criminal investigations doc 12

From: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 5:25 PM
To: Mercer, Bill (ODAG)
Cc: Elston, Michael (ODAG)
Subject: San Diego Immigration Enforcement

Importance: High

Bill, this relates (certainly in the AG's mind) to the email I just sent to Elston (cc to you) re our pressing need to, in the very short-term, generate some deliverables on immigration enforcement, and in the long-term, insulate the Department from criticism by improving our numbers. AG has given additional thoughts to the SD situation and now believes that we should adopt a plan -- something like the following:

- Have a heart-to-heart with Lam about the urgent need to improve immigration enforcement in SD;
- Work with her to develop a plan for addressing the problem -- to include alteration of prosecution thresholds; additional DOJ prosecutors; additional DHS SAUSA resources; etc.
- Put her on a very short leash;
- If she balks on any of the foregoing or otherwise does not perform in a measurable way by July 15 [my date], remove her.
- AG then appoints new USA from outside the office.

This seems to me like the sort of thing for ODAG and EOUSA to execute. Can you think about how to do this right, tune up my plan/list of bullets, and be prepared to (1) present such plan to the AG tomorrow or early next week for his approval and (2) execute the plan next week?
Posted by: sotublog doc 11.6 p.7

The plan ends with someone "from outside the office" becoming the new USA. I believe that is criminal pretext, that is obstruction of justice.
Does the plan seek to rehab Lam re immigration (in six weeks) making the replacement element moot or does it seek to obstruct the USA's office in San Diego?

sms wrote on March 20, 2007 3:42 PM:

11-5
p.7
a particularly damning email from Kyle Sampson to Mercer and Elston in the Deputy AG’s office from June 1, 2006 discussing:
"our pressing need to, in the very short-term," come up with some justification on immigration numbers to can Carol Lam.

Sampson’s plan for Lam:
--raise the immigration enforcement issue with her,
"put her on a very short leash," and then
"if she balks on any of the foregoing or otherwise does not perform in a measurable way by July 15…remove her."

It is worth noting what a hurry Sampson seems to be in --calling it pressing and having a plan that would have Lam out within six weeks.This comes just weeks after the reports that Lam’s Cunningham investigation had expanded and warrants were issued on Dusty Foggo’s home and office.
from 11-5
p. 9

MRx wrote on March 20, 2007 3:47 PM:

DOJDocsPt8-1070319-1
pp3-4
resignation letter of David Iglesias to AG Gonzales
Most obvious notable item is recommendation of FAUSA Larry Gomez as IUSA.

Jan 17, 2007

Dear Mr. AG

I am hereby submitting my resignation as USA for the D of New mexico, effective midnight February 28,2007. It has been a great honor and privilege to have served these past five and a half years as a USA. I will never forget the simple kindness you afforded me when you were White House Counsel and you took time to meet with me in December 2001. This simple act spoke volumes of your character. As the son of an immigrant father from Panama, the job has been the culmination of the American dream.

It was a tremendous honor to serve for a trailblazer like yourself. Thank you for making the two trips out to New Mexico to visit me and my office. I have loved this job and am honored to preside over the biggest corruption cases in New Mexico history. I have done my part to make New Mexico a better place and now I leave it to someone else to continue the struggle for justice.

I respectfully recommend FAUSA Larry Gomez to serve as interim US Attorney. He has loyally served this administration and has previously been Interim US Attorney between the first Bush administration and Clinton administration.

I wish you the best in your future endeavors. thank you for your service to our great country. When you leave office, I will be sending you a token of my appreciation - a hand-made mola my cousin in Panama made for you. I think you will like it. Vaya con Dios.

Sincerely

David C. Iglesias
USA
D of NM

Ott wrote on March 20, 2007 3:49 PM:

There may be 3000 pages in this dump, but it looks like only about 30-40% of it is actually unique. I see a lot of stuff over and over in different pdf's. I guess they're trying to make a haystack.

jukeboxgrad wrote on March 20, 2007 3:54 PM:

Kahner,

If you can keep working on scanning/OCR the more recent files, that's probably a worthwhile effort. I intend to do the whole thing as one big batch, but it might be a few hours before I can get it all done. If you can get pieces done sooner, folks might find that useful. In the end there might be some duplication of effort, but if you're available it's probably worth it, just for the sake of speed.

MRx wrote on March 20, 2007 3:56 PM:

re Phillip Green

he's apparently nominated to fill a vacancy

DOJDocsPt2-8070319-2

lists cvs of several candidates, with the list of nominees

Alexander Acosta
Thomas Anderson
Troy Eid
Phillip Green
Rodger Heaton
George EB Holding
Marty J Jackley
Rachel K paulose
Erik C Peterson
Sharon L Potter
Deborah J Rhodes
Rosa Emilia Rodriguez-Velez
Chuck Rosenberg
Brett L Tolman
John Frederick Wood

Note that Larry Gomez, David Iglezias' preferred nominee, is not on this list.

muchomaas wrote on March 20, 2007 3:57 PM:

Some interesting e-mails in 7-2

An August 8, 2006 e-mail suggests that McKay was thought of favorably by Sampson. An e-mail from Kyle Sampson to Robert Hoyt in the White House (OAG 199) states:

"I heard that our U.S. Attorney, John McKay, got screwed by Washington's judicial selection commission. What do you know. Can we let them know that we want to consider him along with the recommended candidates."

An e-mail sent later that day from Sampson to Hoyt (OAG 201) indicates that McKay has bipartisan support, as well as strong republican credentials.

An August 17, 2006 e-mail from Debra Yang to Sampson indicates that three republicans on [the appointments?] committee declined to support him for pretextual reasons, a lack of trial experience. (OAG 207)

McKay goes from being pushed by DOJ for a district court position, to being on the S-list, after partisan complaints regarding the 2004 Washington governor's election.

muchomaas wrote on March 20, 2007 4:06 PM:

7-2

A December 7, 2006 e-mail from William Kelly to Kyle Sampson indicates that Jerry Parksy "has put in an outraged call protesting the fact of Ryan's departure and the manner in which the msg was delivered. And he's having lunch with the President next week." (OAG 229) (Parsky apparently was Chair of Bush's 2004 California campaign)

A later e-mail from William Kelly to Sampson says: "Kyle -- Do you mind talking to Scott Jennings about the particulars of Ryan's situation? Ryan is the only one so far calling in political chits (which is reason enough to justify the decision, in my view), but Karl would like to know some of the particulars as he fields these calls." (AOG 231)

Another indication Rove was more involved than the Administration's public statements.

Ott wrote on March 20, 2007 4:06 PM:

7-2
page 44

From Kelley to Sampson,
"FYI Jerry Parsky has put in an outraged call protesting the fact of Ryan's departure and the manner in which the msg was delivered.

And he's having lunch with the President next week."

Re: from Sampson,
"Didn't WH OPA get to him before he got to them?"

page 48,

Lam, Bogden and Chiara asked for extensions, only Bogden and Chiara received one.

butcher wrote on March 20, 2007 4:07 PM:

10-1, page 34:

David Iglasias says to Michael Battle: "I don't envy some of your duties since I know you are a good and honorable man."

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 4:10 PM:

DOJDocsPt11-6070319.pdf page 1 of 35 (email between Sampson and Mike Battle)

Mike, Bill Kelley called to report that they are weathering two main complaints: in making the calls, Battle (1) wasn’t clear whether the USAs in question would be permitted to resign, or instead were being fired; and (2) was too abrupt. Bill seemed nonplussed by the complaints, but nevertheless passed them on to me.

Perhaps a second round of calls from you, Mike to the relevant USAs is in order? Talkers would be something like:

• I wanted to be sure you understood that DOJ intends nto to say anything about your leaving, but instead allow you to announce your resignation and the reasons for it;
• We want to work with you over the next six weeks to snsure a smooth transition; and

• It’s in our interest for you to land on your feet and maintain our good relations with the Department –how can I help?

Perhaps this is a bad idea? Thoughts?

parrot wrote on March 20, 2007 4:10 PM:

12-1

Page 3 Paragraph 2:

Apparently the DOJ is not turning over other Executive Branch documents by asserting executive branch privilege having to do with the media storm over the scandal!

"Such robust internal deliberations would be effectively chilled, if not halted..." and "That result would be detrimental to the operation of both the Branches and serve no useful purpose."

Does that mean that perhaps DHS, POTUS and VPOTUS may have been involved in these decisions? Very interesting and we need to figure out how outside of DOJ really was involved in how this was handled...and why it was handled the way it was handled.

Rand Eller wrote on March 20, 2007 4:13 PM:

11-3

No smoking gun. Mostly chart of Criminal Case Loads of US Attorneys. Boring!

ET wrote on March 20, 2007 4:18 PM:

8-1
pg 1
Lam resignation letter to Shrub
pg 2
Lam resignation letter to Gonzo
pg 3 & 4
Iglesias resignation letter to Gonzo, + control sheet + promise of hand made Panamanian mola from his bro as token of appreciation
pg 5 & 6
Bogden NV resignation letter to Gonzo + control sheet
pg 7
Chiara resignation letter to Shrub
pg 8
indecipherable hand script entry of 3 lines/5 words on an October 16, 2006 calendar page
pg 9
only the words Kyle Sampson hand printed on probably 8.5 x 11 pg
pg 10-36
article, Fraud in Wisconsin 2004, a Timeline/Summary, prepared by Chris Lato, RPW Communications Director, clato@wisgop.org (Republican Party Wisconsin)
pg 37-38
flyer printed originally by Peeps for American Way Foundation, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the NAACP describing rights for displaced voters living outside of Orleans Parish, Louisiana
pg 39-40
list of wards with most discrepancies in Milwaukie Sentinel article about 17 wards where at least 100 more ballots cast than city estimated voters

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 20, 2007 4:21 PM:

6/1/06 - Sampson refers to AG's input in Lam case.

11-9 #6

6/1/06 - Kyle Sampson to Bill Mercer

Re: Draft Analysis of Immigration Procedures in SDCA

"This is helpful, but a comparison of S.D. Cal. to S.D. Tex would be most helpful as San Diego and Houston most likely are better comparables. In any event, I got some guidance from the AG this morning and we need to talk. When is good?'

Brett wrote on March 20, 2007 4:24 PM:

Iris: That's interesting. Where are the rest of them? Is it possible to deduce who sent it back to DOJ?

Jeannie wrote on March 20, 2007 4:33 PM:

PT11-2070319

p.52-56.

A response from DOJ to Issa's letter regarding Carole Lam's supposed neglect regarding the prosecution of illegal aliens.
VERY supportive of Lam, and point by point disputing of Issa's charges.

parrot wrote on March 20, 2007 4:38 PM:

8-1, pages 9-36

Document(s) submitted to or by Kyle Sampson generated by clato@wisgop.org (Chris Lato) about alleged voter fraud in Wisconsin...

Interesting since someone should determine why and how this document was thought to be significant to determining who was or was not fired by DOJ.

Also begs the question again about non .gov accounts being used to discuss the issue of who should and should not be fired from DOJ...

My question to Kyle: Was this the only communication about this document that you were aware of or participated in? If someone else at justice or elsewhere in the executive branch gave you this document, who was it and why did they give it to you? Had you looked at or recieved similar documents like this from them or others? Was this done because you had asked for these sort of documents? Or was it done "out-of-the-blue"?

also pages 36-40 At the end of the pdf there is also a weird document with some handwriting on it that is apparently a voter registration or drive document from New Orleans followed by a picture of the Wards in what looks likes wards in Wisconsin that appears to be from ROVE K if you look closely at the footer...from Feb 2005. Why was that in the pertinent documents turned over?

Douglas Watts wrote on March 20, 2007 4:40 PM:

Documents 11-6, page 20.

One very interesting piece of a longer document, with the rest of it not there, unsigned, dated etc. Not an e-mail.

It begins: "3 goals for conversations with Bogden and Charlton."

Then it goes into a backing and filling talking point for why what was actually said in these conversations w/B & C does not conflict with AG saying all firings were due to performance problems ... to wit:

"In general, as noted earlier with our overall effort, perhaps these discussions should have been a time for a full airing of the reasons for the dismissal. However, at the time, this seemed to be imprudent as it would inspire rounds of back and forth on performance even though a final decision had been made.

"In retrospect, perhaps this approach was focussed too much on being empathetic and supportive and should have been more specific. However, it was our intention to say nothing about their performance publicly or otherwise.

"Saying that a U.S. Attorney is being asked to leave to allow another person to serve in the role is not inconsistent with the fact that the Dept. had concerns regarding performance and/or policy compliance.

"It also cannot be interpreted as an admission that others had been pre-selected to take over as U.S. Attorney."

It seems this was written after the AG's testimony to Congress and was written as a way to explain away and defend against the lying under oath talk that ensued. What is said here speaks for itself.

Bluetoe wrote on March 20, 2007 4:40 PM:

It looks like John McKay the USA of Western Washington was the victim of a political hit!!!!

I posted early on 7-10 a letter dated 4/1/05 signed by 6 of 13 County Council memebers of Lake County Washington alleging voter fraud in 04 Wash. gen. elect. Only ones to sign were Republicans.

7-11 pages 3-9
Letter dated 4/7/05 to AG Gonzo in support of above letter which included specific allegations of voter fraud. Letter by Bob Williams (former Republican candidate for Wash. Cong. & Gov. ) of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. Evergreen is a right wing "think tank" that receives a large portion of it's funding from right wing foundations i.e. Sarah Scaife Found, Carthage Found. (Scaife controlled), The Lynde and Harry Bradley Found., Walton Family Foundation, etc.. Much of their work is done by Republican operatives.

7-11 page 11-13
Letter dated 2/3/06 by Bob Williams of Evergreen FF to AG Gonzo with charges of malfeasance against John McKay for not conducting investigation on voter fraud. Asks that McKay recuse himself and DOJ appoint attorney from Public Integrity Sec. of DOJ to investigate. Asks if McKay unwilling to recuse himself his asks that POTUS remove him from office.

7-11 page 14-16
Letter dated 6/20/05 to Assistant Inspect. Gen. requesting investigation of John McKay for malfeasance by refusing to act on "evidence" of voter fraud.

7-11 page 17-18
Letter dated 12/2/05 to Seattle office of the FBI
by Robert M.Edelman with "evidence" of voter fraud uncovered by Stefan Sharkansky. Sharkansky is a right wing blogger with his own site called Shark Blog.

7-11 page 20
Letter dated 12/14/06 by John McKay tendering his resignation to AG Gonzo.

The voter fraud goes back to the very close Governors race in 2004. The word on the street is that because the Republican Party had a Repub. Sec. of State, Repub. Co. Prosecutor, and a Repub. USA the Republican activists were livid that the governorship slipped from their fingers. Somebody had to pay. McKay was a targeted political hit.

Foose wrote on March 20, 2007 4:40 PM:

Document 10-2 (54 pages)
I really don’t think there’s any meat here and I suggest that only a serious wonk take another look at it. The whole file seems to be staff-level work on testimony. But, to be thorough, I’ll summarize.

Pages 1-2
Internal email work-routing notes, suggesting that RAH (Hertling?) thinks the EOUSA should do the bulk of the work, not the OLP (Attorney General’s Office of Legal Policy), although they start with Kyle Sampson’s outline.
Pages 3-8
Sean Murphy (USAEO) routes draft DAG testimony [He describes how the document is color-coded to show Sampson’s outline, comments, and proposed testimony, but of course, the PDF is only in black and white.]
Perhaps of interest in the following reference note: See Wiener, Inter-Branch Appointments After the Independent Counsel…86 Minn. L. Rev. 363, 428 (2001) (concluding that court appointments of interim US Attorneys is unconstitutional). (foose: their parenthetical, not mine)

Pages 9-14
Internal emails to-ing and fro-ing about Kyle Sampson’s outline, involvement of OLP, essentially more work-routing notes.

Page 15
Internal email from Nowacki to Goodling attaching another copy of draft testimony.

Pages 16-26
Kristine Blackwood routes (by internal email) a copy of Paul McNulty’s February 6, 2007 statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee re “Preserving Prosecutorial Independence”.

Page 27
John Nowacki routes (by internal email) attachment copies of bios and testimony from Levenson and White for the witness hearing (February 6, 2007) Attachments not included in PDF

Pages 28-30
Nowacki routes (by internal email) Paul McNulty’s two-page prepared statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee for the hearing on appointments and resignations of US Attorneys to the DOJ office of Public Affairs for public release. (February 6, 2007)

Pages 30-34
Nowacki routes (by internal email) Paul McNulty’s four-page written statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee for the hearing on appointments and resignations of US Attorneys to the DOJ office of Public Affairs for public release. (February 6, 2007)

Pages 34-35
More email routing of draft testimony.

Pages 36-54
Copy of PADAG (Principal Assoc. Deputy Attny. General) William Moschella’s Testimony to House Judiciary Committee of March 6, 2007. (Restoring Checks and Balances)

Page 45
Internal email from Nancy Scott-Finan to Moschella, Elston, Sampson, Goodling, Hertling with ccs to Adrien Silas and John Nowacki circulating draft testimony.

Pages 46-54
Another copy of William Moschella’s Testimony to House Judiciary Committee of March 6, 2007. (Restoring Checks and Balances)

Bluetoe wrote on March 20, 2007 4:48 PM:

7-10
It's not the Lake County Council but the King Couny Council. Sorry

Douglas Watts wrote on March 20, 2007 4:49 PM:

11-6, page 11

Email dated January 9, 2007 from Regina Schofield, DOJ, to William W. Mercer titled: "Two Things."

"1) Margaret Chiara keeps calling. Need some advice on how to stop the inquiries."

2) I (rest whited out).

Impossible to tell what #2 was.

Bluetoe wrote on March 20, 2007 4:55 PM:

Information on the right wing Evergreen Freedom Foundation mentioned at 7-11 at

http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=106

Grace Liem, Ph.D. wrote on March 20, 2007 4:57 PM:

DOJ 10-2. Page 20-54 Clearly states inappropriate reasons for dismissal include "to influence investigation or prosecution." Also says that the Bush Administration would NEVER discharge someone for political reasons. Gets better - read on. These guys are such liars.

Page 21-54 of McNulty statement - says that the Bush Administration has never sought to circumvent Senate confirmation. Well, Diane Feinstein's bill took care of that little detail. She gave them the ability to do this.

Page 8-54 of actual document. Circular logic - "court appointment of US Attorneys violates separation of powers because it puts courts in position of appointing subordinates charged with carrying out the President's duty to execute the laws - thus defeating the accountability of core executive
privilege intended under the Constitution."
These guys are insane!! According to them it is OK for the President to tell the US Attorneys how and what to prosecute, but it is not OK for the Courts (thus the Judicial system) to police their own people? HUH???????

Page 12-54 and other places reference to Feinstein bill that gave the authority to the White House to replace USA without Senate approval. For goodness sakes - where is her brain?

Page 25-54. They argue the impropriety of have the judicial system appoint interim prosecutors as "a judge may be inclined to select a US Attorney who shares the judges ideological or prosecutorial philosophy." Let me guess. The Bush Administration certain has never appointed anyone who shares their thoughts or ideology........

Pahe 26-54 "the chief prosecutor should ultimately be responsible to ...the people". This is the nail in the coffin. They wanted their prosecutors to be responsible only to the President, who in turn is the final "decider". Scary.

Vacancy Reform Act. Keep your eyes on this. They are twisting and turning this one with such a spin. I'm still not clear how they will end. Watch this though please.

In general, I love the title "Restoring checks and balances" when we know this is as appropriate as the "Clear Skies" act.

They protest too much - so much repetition and rhetoric about how this administration would NEVER do a run around the Senate when they do this with every recess appointment, and just about everything they do.

Also lots of repetition about how USA are career officers. Yeah, what lawyer isn't? What does that have to do with anything? More wool over the eyes.

Page 47-54 (bottom ofpage). "US Attorneys represent the Attorney General and DOJ before Americans" -- so Americans are last on the list? USA is to do the AG and DOJ bidding and not take care of American citizens?

Goes on to say that USA are"responsible for implementing policies and priorities of Executive Branch". So they are saying that the USA are lackeys of the Executive Branch?

almcq wrote on March 20, 2007 4:58 PM:

Keeping in mind Josh Marshall's advice to focus on Lam:

March 9, 2006

Bush signs the USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005.

April 14

Sampson to Friedrich: remove and replace Chiara, Cummins and Lam. Two others on original list have left. (1.7 Yang?)

May 11

Sampson to Kelley: call me to discuss real
problem with Lam

June 1

From: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 5:25 PM
To: Mercer, Bill (ODAG)
Cc: Elston, Michael (ODAG)
Subject: San Diego Immigration Enforcement

Importance: High

Bill, this relates (certainly in the AG's mind) to the email I just sent to Elston (cc to you) re our pressing need to, in the very short-term, generate some deliverables on immigration enforcement, and in the long-term, insulate the Department from criticism by improving our numbers. AG has given additional thoughts to the SD situation and now believes that we should adopt a plan -- something like the following:

- Have a heart-to-heart with Lam about the urgent need to improve immigration enforcement in SD;
- Work with her to develop a plan for addressing the problem -- to include alteration of prosecution thresholds; additional DOJ prosecutors; additional DHS SAUSA resources; etc.
- Put her on a very short leash;
- If she balks on any of the foregoing or otherwise does not perform in a measurable way by July 15 [my date], remove her.
- AG then appoints new USA from outside the office.

This seems to me like the sort of thing for ODAG and EOUSA to execute. Can you think about how to do this right, tune up my plan/list of bullets, and be prepared to (1) present such plan to the AG tomorrow or early next week for his approval and (2) execute the plan next week?

Robbie wrote on March 20, 2007 5:08 PM:

11-1
I would agree with Thad who also read this part.
However, I would also argue that those who are
investigating the firing of the US Attorneys can't
possibly find the truth with all of the districts
(and US Attorneys) redacted. It is impossible to
determine who has/has not been doing a good job
without the ability to compare job performance in
the given charts.
It is also interesting to note that Carol Lam (the
only US Attorney listed)was heavily involved in
immigration cases (being in San Diego) yet the
powers that be seem to be castigating her for not
increasing her prosecution of gun cases. The fact
that her district is right on the Mexican border
certainly seems to be a mitigating circumstance.
It does not seem logical to expect all districts
to "jump over the same bar".

ET wrote on March 20, 2007 5:13 PM:

8-2

pg 1
hand writing on lined paper about Philly,/Milwak/A???? and some other analyses, but mostly illegible even for key words
pg 2
memo for Friedrich, Matthew, OAG update Senate Judiciary Hearing prep on immigration matters, civil matters, state & local, & other??? 1/15/2007 in AG's conference room
pg 3
another Friedrich memo listing required attendees for prep meeting for Section J Oversight & AG SJC QFRs
attending:
Brent McIntosh, Ass Counsel to Shrub
Core Patsies: Sampson, Hertling, Moschella, Elwood, Seidel, Tracci, Friedrich, Scolinos, Mercer, Brand
Additionals: Colborn, Burton, Bradbury, Bucholtz, Elston, Eisenberg
pg 4
Kyle Sampson memo to Michael Beck, OAG & cc Roehrkasse & Friedrich with transcript of McNult's hearing on 2-6-07
"Michael...attached is transcript of SJC hearing yesterday......You should print a copy for the AG; I know he'll want to review."
pg 5 with pg 6 7 8 redacted
title blocked out, possibly redacted?
email from USAEO-Urgent
Tuesday, Feb 13, 2007
to a variety of the key players
Subject: Urgent Report (6(e) Material: Indictment Sought for REDACTED
Attachments: UR-07-02-0008SDCA.wpd
contains URGENT REPORT for AG & DAG
from Carol Lam
2/13/07
synopsis & discussion REDACTED
pg 9 and 10-11-12 REDACTED
similar email as on pg 4 above dated 2/21/07
but subject is not redacted: Urgent Report(Unsealing of Indictment and
Administrative Detentions in Illegal Alien Employment Case
contains similar urgent report 7-02-0018
from Margaret Chiara
pg 13-14-15-16 repeat of pg 5 email
pg 17-18-19-20 repeat of pg 9 email
pg 21 looks like repeat of pg 2 memo
pg 22 looks like repeat of pg 3 memo
pg 23 looks like repeat of pg 4 memo
however the numbers marking them are not the same, ie 0AG000000855 on page 4 instead of 0AG000000874 on page 23

Kent wrote on March 20, 2007 5:14 PM:

11-6 page 18
Farewell letter from Iglesias?
Wow... "We need US Attorneys who 'maintain Justice and do what is right' (Isiaih 56:1) and are willing to pay the price for doing so"

Then at the very end...
"I wish you all success in the next 22 months in keeping America safe against all ememies, foreign and domestic."

Sounds like he had plenty to say to his staff, in so many words.

Patty wrote on March 20, 2007 5:16 PM:

6-3 looks very interesting! It goes right to the heart of this mess. Hey, sorry if you already had a head's up!

Foose wrote on March 20, 2007 5:23 PM:

Document 9

Three-page document entitled “District of New Mexico at a Glance.” Other than the identifiers OAG875-877, there’s not clue who wrote it, when, or for whom it was written.

It appears to be a sort of performance appraisal for Iglesias’s office, opening with the sentence “the last overall district evaluation was conducted during the week of November 15, 2005”. Most of the comments are positive, with words like appropriate, competent, productive, highly respected, etc. The memo notes the “increase in immigration cases was straining the USAO’s resources.”

The only negative comment is “there appeared to be a lack of coordination within the Civil Division and between the Civil and Criminal Divisions on ACE (affirmative civil enforcement) and HCF (Health care fraud) matters.”

Staffing and funding levels were discussed generally. Staff levels listed were: 66 attorneys, 10 paralegals and 55 support staff.

The last section “Special Issues” mentions “employment/litigation matters/cases” as of July 21, 2006

An unnamed (redacted) female AUSA received a 14-day suspension and now has a pending EEOC complaint claiming discrimination and reprisal.

An unnamed (redacted) AUSA was charged twice for conduct unbecoming a federal employee and has an employee relations matter pending. Details redacted.

(My question, are 2 ‘special issues’ out of a staff of 131 significant?)

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 5:29 PM:

7-7

pg. 16

Attached to a letter that Richard Hertling (Acting Assistant Attorney General) sent to Senators Leahy and Feinstein is another version of the "Fact sheet: United States Attorney Appointments" that was found on the first 4 pages of this section (7-7). These appear to be the same documents, but there are several revisions to this second copy (or maybe the first, since there is no way to know where or when or from whom the first copy came from, but it appears that the one sent to the Senators was the one that was changed.)

This copy of the document was sent to the Senators and "establishes conclusively that the Administration is committed to having a Senate-confirmed United States Attorney in all 94 federal districts. Indeed, every single time that a United States Attorney vacancy has arisen, the President either has made a nomination or the Administration is working, in consulation with home-state Senators, to select candidates for nomination." If you were to ask Senator Pryor, from Ark. (whose letter to Gonzales starts on page 5 and I detailed earlier) I'm sure he would stongly disagree with that statement.

The first section, Presidential nominations, is the same, but in the second section, "Vacancies", they list 11, rather than the 13 on the first list. Gone are Western Washington (J. Sullivan) and Arizona (D. Knauss).

The third section "Attorney General Appointments", in the first copy lists 12 attorneys, but the second only lists 9. Also, in the final portion of this section "the Dept. selelected another Dept. employee to serve as interim USA until a nomination could be submitted", this second copy says "In the five remaining cases", but actually lists SIX! (Hasty revisions are a b@tch!) Also, gone are Western Washington and Arizona (again!).

Another difference is that in the second copy, after each of the nominee's names in the second and third sections, the status of their nomination is given. What makes this interesting is that EVEN THOUGH THE LIST IS DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO SHOW THE SENATORS THAT NOMINATIONS WERE BEING MADE, RATHER THAN APPOINTMENTS FOR THE DURATION, ONLY 4 OF THE 21 DISTRICTS LISTED IN THESE SECTIONS HAD SEEN A USA NOMINATED OR CONFIRMED!!

The designations used for the attorneys that had not been nominated or confirmed are:

1)___ has expressed interest in presidential nomination; nomination is not yet ready. (9 attorneys)

2)___ is not a candidate for presidential nomination; a nomination is not yet ready. (2 attorneys)

3)___ has expressed interest in presidential nomination; someone else was nominated. (2 attorneys)

4)___ is not a candidate for nomination and is retiring this month, necessiitating an Attorney General appointment; nomination is not yet ready. (1 attorney listed twice)

5)___ is not a candidate for presidential nomination; a nomination was made last Congress, but confirmation did not occur. (1 attorney)

6)___ was not a candidate for presidential nomination; another individual was nominated and confirmed. (1 attorney)

So, once again, when the Bush administration says that they have "conclusively proved" that something is true, they have actually proved the opposite.

Foose wrote on March 20, 2007 5:29 PM:

To Grace Liem,

Good of you to comment on the testimony. When I wrote that I didn't think there was any meat there, I assumed that, since it was public testimony, it was already chewed food. I'm glad you took the time to chew on it some more!

Splash wrote on March 20, 2007 5:36 PM:

11-4

On May 22, 2006, Darrell Issa went on Lou Dobbs and made a number of accusations against Lam's lax prosecution of "alien smuggling" cases. In response, Lam wrote a letter to Issa (which Lou Dobbs read on the air apparently) asserting that Issa had been citing to a bogus document (this needs to be checked - see below). Issa replies to Lam with nothing but hardball. Must-see docs. See below for page references; this appears about half way down this pdf (11-4).

By now it's clear to me there was a war going on at Justice, between supporters of Lam and her detractors. You go through these emails and you can see who's saying what.

In May of 06, the gloves come off! (see p. 49: "FYI - the assault continues," said Monica Goodling, email, May 24).) The coordinated attack on Carol Lam proceeds full steam ahead:

(p. 8, et. seq.) First there's the testimony by Gonzales before House Judiciary sometime around May 2, 2006. At that hearing, Rep. Ric Keller (R, FL) attacked Lam, making numerous factual assertions about her that should be checked. Notably, Lam's name in this doc is repeatedly spelled "Lamb." AG's response to Keller's Q. at p. 9 : promises to talk to Issa, and to get going on alien smuggling cases in SD, very important issue.

On p. 10 is an email coming from a Whitehouse.gov email address (Dated May 18) referencing a report about smuggling cases in SD going unprosecuted.

On p. 16, is a May 19 note from Moschella saying "This now has Frist's attention."

*On p. 28 : Carol Lam's personal pushback against Issa. On p. 29 she asserts, "Congressman Issa has been misled ... Many of the comments in the document which Congressman Issa refers are editorial comments inserted by an unidentified individual, and they were not approved by or even seen by Border patrol management." Must-read.

P. 44-48 has Issa's response which is dramatically pugnacious. (Looks to me at this point that they were trying to and succeeded in setting a trap for Lam.) In any event, it's all about creating the public perception that Carol Lam was lame on immigration smuggling cases.

"Exhibits as willful disregard ... " - type language throughout. Issa was clearly going after Lam with everything he could.

p. 44, Issa writes Lam on May 24, requests meeting.

Foose wrote on March 20, 2007 5:48 PM:

To MBA
See Document 10-2. It's Paul McNulty testifing to the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 6, 2007.

Foose wrote on March 20, 2007 5:52 PM:

Document 6-4
(31 pages of uselessness)

Pages 1-8
Text I recognize from Document 10-2 as coming from Paul McNulty’s testimony on February 6, 2007 to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Page 9
Internal email (repeated from other pdf files) with David Iglesias’s good bye note.

Pages 10-31
An internal email meeting invitation from Charles Henderson with the subject ‘House Judiciary Committee Hearing Prep for a meeting to be held on 3/2/2007. The required attendess: Goodling, Hertling, Scott-Finan, Roehrkasse, Nowacki, Elston and then, I kid you not, automatic notes confirming attendance.

RonnieJim wrote on March 20, 2007 5:56 PM:

re: 1-9 DAG 830, Chiara to McNulty mentions the "unresolved Phil Green situation." poster Serpent's Choice identified Green as former assistant USA in Western MI. More: he was interim USA in 2001-2002, before Chiara came in as his boss. USA for Southern Illinois, Tenpas, resigned last summer to got to DOJ in washington - Philip J.Green, a native of Belleville IL (who had been AUSA in W MI) was nominated to succeed Tenpas in SD IL. I can't find out if he was confirmed, or is on hold. here's the July '06 illinois story: http://www.isba.org/association/july06bn/Circuit.htm

TN wrote on March 20, 2007 5:57 PM:

8-1

Did I get this straight? Rove sent stack of documents (pages 10-40) re: Wisconsin 2004 voting irregularities to Kyle Sampson on 17. Oct 2006, three weeks before 2006 elections?

I suspect Rove sent these documents due to fact that Rove's Windows user account seems to be visible on bottom of printouts on last two pages (39-40), suggesting the documents were at least originally printed by Rove. Envelope on page 9 (containing pages 10-40?) has "Kyle Sampson" and "10/17/06" on it.

Rove suggesting Sampson to pursue two-year old alleged vote fraud case on eve of elections? No wonder he seemed so upbeat despite lousy polls.

mwa wrote on March 20, 2007 5:59 PM:

8-1, 03-19-2007 DOJ
Page 8 PDF
Calendar page for Oct 16, 2006
Illegible, looks like "Ben Campbell: - Iglesias"

Pages 39 & 40 PDF
Partially obscured is the document's file location, including /ROVE K/, in case you wondered who studies voter fraud, overvoting, felons voting, and voter photo ID legislation in Wisconsin. The report mysteriously includes info for New Orleans displaced voters.

Page 30 PDF
Handwritten note saying, "Discuss w/Harriet." Are those Karl Rove's initials near the top?

Perhaps important because McKay & Harriet Miers disagreed over the importance of 2004 voter fraud investigations in Washington state. In Wisconsin the Republican Party got some mileage out of voter fraud accusations, although the Wisconsin US Attorney isn't mentioned as being involved.

Foose wrote on March 20, 2007 6:10 PM:

Document 5 (Two pages)
(Nothing to see here.)

Page 1
DOJ Executive Secretariat control sheet handling the routing of Kevin Ryan’s letter of resignation received 1/5/2007.
Page 2
Kevin Ryan’s (brief) letter of resignation to Gonzales dated January 3, 2007

Cujo359 wrote on March 20, 2007 6:11 PM:

Regarding Mash's Gonzopedia, you should be able to enter information once you set up an account. It's not that hard - I was able to do it without revealing any personal data besides the same e-mail address I entered in the form here. I also created a help page that covers the basics.

Do you mind if we put the information entered in this column into the Gonzopedia? I'm not sure when I can do this, but it would save a bit of time.

And thanks, kahner, for typing in the text of those messages.

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 6:14 PM:

Why does Bush keep referencing the "93 US Attorneys" when there are really 94 of them?

Is he trying to pretend Guam is not one of them anymore?

Man Eegee wrote on March 20, 2007 6:17 PM:

The folks over at ePluribus Media have made all of the documents searchable in .pdf format. Here is the link to the thread

dk wrote on March 20, 2007 6:17 PM:

11-5

On page 48 we get confirmation that Miers wanted to sack the entire USAs after 2004 and more evidence that the administration had a hand in the firings in an email from Sampson warning Mercer about "chatter" resulting from this. He says "Adminstration has determined to ask some underperforming USAs to move on (you'll remember that I[Sampson] beat back a much broader -- like across the board -- plan that WHCO was pushing after 2004)"

Man Eegee wrote on March 20, 2007 6:17 PM:

Oops, here is the link: http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/3/20/1665/33040

Ginny in CO wrote on March 20, 2007 6:35 PM:

Observations I think have been noted elsewhere that I can confirm.
There are plenty of pages from already public hearings. Mostly Senate. There are BLANK pages - the fronts of files and some calender pages that have one entry on them. I have seen at least two items repeated in entirety. I scanned 7-4 but did not fully read or identify it as I was simply trying to find out if the first pages of 7-5 were carry over from the end of 7-4- which does happen from 7-5 to 7-6.

7-5 Starts with itemized issues for Carol Lam's performance issues. pp 1, 2 p2 goes goes to McKay and Charlton's performance strikes. Iglesias & Bogden are on p3 Chiara on p 4
P 5 is a handwritten Briefing prep for Shin__? including names of the fired attorneys and bullets of why they were fired.

Pp 6-11 is a partial transcript identified in writing as the AGs hearing 1.18.2007 with Leahy, Feinstein, Kyl, It is repeated in full in 7-6 p 45 -56

Pp 12-2 Is identified in handwriting as the DAGs hearing 2.6.2007 It is a partial also, with Senators Shummer, Specter, Whitehouse (D-RI), Hatch, Feinstein, Sessions, with McNulty. One page is clearly missing in the middle as well as the beginning and end of the hearing.

P 23 is a Cummins email to the other fired attorneys regarding the 'amiable enough' call from Elston, which - from other posts - is repeated elsewhere.

P24 has the DOJ seal

P25- 27 is a Document Titled "Questions" that covers the various issues and has many handwritten notes on it with no id of the writers. There is one written reference to 'Feinstein Letter'

P 29- 30 DOJ letter to Sen Pryor 1/31/07 from Richard Hertling. Repeated in 7-6 pp58 - 60 cc to Blanche Lincoln.

P31-34 Is the Fact Sheet: USA Appts Nominations after amendment to AGs appt authority. It is repeated pp 48 to 50 AND pp 58 to 60.

p 35 to 36 6/15/06 Letter from Feinstein to Gonzalez requesting specifics of Lams performance issues and the DOJ guidelines and statistics.

p 37 -41 8/23/06 DOJ response to Feinstein from Moschella

p42- 43 7/31/06 DOJ press release on the number of Federal Prosecuters to be added to the border states for enforcement of border and immigration laws.

p 44 1/17/07 Letter to Gonzalez from Conyers and Berman on Lam's resignation.

p 45-47 1/16/07 letter to Leahy and Feinstein from Hertling responding to a 1/9/07 letter requesting info on the Administrations appt of USAs.

48 to 50 repeat of pp 31 to 34 and 58 to 60

p 51 to 52 12/15/06 DOJ Press release on appt of Griffen

p 53 to 54 1/11/07 Letter from Sen Pryor objecting to Griffin's appt.

P 55 - 57 repeat of letter on pp 45-47
Pp 58 to 60 repeat of fact sheat on pp 31- 34 and 48 to 50.

Pp 61 - 68 2/6/07 Statement of Paul McNulty to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

Pp 69-70 2/6/07 First 2 pages of written statement from Mary Jo White to Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

Ginny in CO wrote on March 20, 2007 7:10 PM:

7-6

Pp 1- 6 Continuation from 7-5 of Mary Jo White's 2/6/07 written testimony to the Senate Committee. pp 7-8 is her CV

Pp 9- 13 2/6/07 Testimony to Senate Committe by Laurie Levinson, her CV on p 14

Pp 15 - 27 2/6/07 Testimony of Stuart M Gerson to Sen Committee

Pp 28, 37, 41, 44, and 57 are blank or file fronts that Id the next pages.

Pp 29 - 36 2/6/07 Testimony of Paul Mc Nulty to Sen Committee

Pp 38 - 40 2/2/07 DOJ letter to Leahy, cc to Specter and Cornyn, from Hertling on the departments strong opposition to S.214.

P 42-43 is S.214

Pp 45 - 56 Q and A from DOJ 1/8/07 Oversight hearing with Feinstein, Leahy, Cornyn, Sessions and Whitehouse questioning Gonzalez.

Pp 58 - 60 1/31/07 DOJ letter to Pryor in response to his 1/11 letter questioning Griffin's appt. cc to Blanche Lincoln. Same letter is in section 7-5 pp 29 - 30.

Midwest Product wrote on March 20, 2007 7:20 PM:

Has anyone found any emails or other documents from December 6, 2007? I haven't looked through all of the documents, but I have yet to see anything filling the gap between December 5 and the afternoon of December 7, after the phone calls had begun to the Senators and USAs. It seems highly improbable that there was no communication going on the day prior to a significant multiphase operation involving the AG himself (calling Kyl) as well as a number of other high-level DOJ officials.

Midwest Product wrote on March 20, 2007 7:23 PM:

Sorry, that's 2006, not '07. Unless AG has been holding out on us with a time machine.

Ginny in CO wrote on March 20, 2007 7:25 PM:

Just to summarize sections 7-5 and 7-6

It contained 8 pages of non public documents. The 1 page email is probably repeated elsewhere.

Of the 62 pages of documents (including press release) that the Senate would have had, 6 pages were repeats.

7-6 is 60 pages of public testimony or letters to senators, and the senate bill 214. Roughly 5 are repeats from 7-5.

Out of 130 pages, 7 were appropriate to be included.

The documents almost seemed to be in a "throw them down the stairs" order. Not categorized by date, subject, people or any other identifiable system. Even the numbers don't make sense.

This is another reason Gonzalez needs to go. He is not an administrator and whoever does the job needs to fired too.

Can the DOJ be charged with obstruction????

blueheron wrote on March 20, 2007 7:54 PM:

document 7 -9
page 31
Kyle Sampson finalizes plans for making announcement of firings in emails to Harriet Miers, Wm Kelley and others. Dated 12/04/06
most telling comment: "(all the US Attorneys are in town for our Safe Childhood conference until Wednesday, we want to wait until they are back home and dispersed, to reduce chatter.)"
these emails are followed by a 3 page "Plan for Replacing Certain United States Attorneys"

kazz67 wrote on March 20, 2007 8:20 PM:

6-2
p1 unimportant.
pp2 - 19
Mostly whited out list of US Attorney Appointments Pending, Commissions Pending, Interviews Pending, Resignations Forthcoming, etc. One interesting note, under the (repeated) heading ' Resignations Forthcoming (DAG0001712)are the names of ED Cummings, Kevin Ryan, Carol Lam, Margaret Chiara and Daniel Bogden all followed by the initials 'TBD'. Thought I'd mention it in case it's important. (There ar other names still readable in the list, but not followed by these initials.)

pp20-27 (DAG000001714 - 1721)
Statement of Paul J. McNulty before the comittee on the judiciary, US Senate. Concerning 'Preserving Prosecutorial Independence; Is the DoJ politisising the hiring/firing of US attorneys?'
McNulty simply argues against S.214 regarding interim appointments of attorneys. This statement is repeated on pages 33 - 51 in a 24 font ( I think mainly to piss me off!)

The following may be of some interest:
p28(DAG000001722)
A memo from Nancy Scott-Finan reads
'Attached are the written QFRs with regard to the hiring/firing of US Attorneys following the Depatment1/18/07 oversight hearing at which Attoney General testified. These were recieved late last week.
'EOUSA has the pen on the QFRs in the email; OAG has the pen on the QFRs in the attachment.'

Hey, TruthSeeker, is that who I think it is? Karen here (TWM & GC) Hiya!

Ultor wrote on March 20, 2007 8:47 PM:

DOJ Documents 10-1
(55) PDF pages

pg 1 thru 33: USA's letters of resignation to AG and to President; most very cordial, thanking Gonzo and Bush for opportunity to serve; dated from Dec 2006 thru Feb 2007.

pg 34: Friendly farewell from Iglesias to M. Battle. Good luck wishes, keep in touch, etc., plus this gem: "...and I don't envy some of your duties, since I know you are a good and honorable man."

pg 35-36 Assorted farewells between attorneys; exchanges of new personal contact info.

pg 37 Carol Lam notifies Mike Battle that she has been subpoenaed to testify before Congress. Mar 04, 2007

pg 38-40 Misc. inter-office processing of the USA resignation letters at EOUSA.

pg 41-42 EOUSA inter-office discussions on how to record Daniel Bogden's reason for resigning. How can they re-phrase the reason he stepped down, while meeting requirements of the form filing. It's a bit vague, but staff are parsing words carefully for some reason. paraphrased "can we simply enter 'was asked to step down' as the reason?"

pg 43-52 Drafting of testimony & views letter for Congressional hearings; various persons prepping for upcoming appearance before Congress.

pg 53 Letter by Deputy Assistant AG John C. O'Quinn on how to argue AG Gonzale's power to appoint interim USA's before Congress, followed by a rather shocking statement that "alternately, by repealling Section 546 entirely, the President could simply name USA's as with other nominated/confirmed executive branch positions." (paraphrased)

comment: are concerted efforts underway here to consolidate the judiciary under the excutive branch?

pg 54-55 further prepping for testimony to Congress, including views of Constitutionality of AG appointing USA's.

LL wrote on March 20, 2007 9:03 PM:

7-5 p. 3
Second bullet under Iglesias:

"...Regardless of what was done by the office in this ares, he failed to tackle this responsibility as aggressively and as vigorously as we expected and needed HER to do."

Obviously they just cut and pasted from Carol Lam's list.

Ultor wrote on March 20, 2007 9:15 PM:

correction to my entry at Mar 20, 2007, 08:47 PM

re: DOJ Documents 10-1
(55) PDF pages

should read:

pg 1 thru 20: Flurry of emails at EOUSA, dated Nov. 14 2007, setting up interview with Tim Griffin regarding his filling the position of USA for eastern District of Arkansas. Also Griffin's resume, bio, etc..

comment: is this K. Rove's man, is this days after the Nov. election, and was current USA for Arkansas East still in office?

pg 20 thru 33: USA's letters of resignation to AG and to President; most very cordial, thanking Gonzo and Bush for opportunity to serve; dated from Dec 2006 thru Feb 2007.

end of corrections

pdf wrote on March 20, 2007 9:30 PM:

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt5070319.pdf
DOJ Document 5
2 pages
Page 1 DOJ control sheet DAG000001643
hand annotation "Margolis"?
Departmental Control Sheet for doc on p2
Letter received 1/5/2007
Page 2 Letter DAG000001644
From Kevin Ryun, ND of California
To Alberto Gonzales
dated 1/3/2007
Letter of resignation, effective 4/27/2007
hand annotation "111 1121 PS" (probably should have been 1117121) "PS" probably Paula Stephens

kazz67 wrote on March 20, 2007 10:13 PM:

I've just scanned through the thread and I think that doc's 7-4 and 7-9 still need to be read.
I can't be sure (it seems like there should be more to read) but besides those 2 we may have actually read everything.
If I'm wrong please don't shoot me!
Sorry but it's after 2am here and I really have to go to bed. Some one else will have to read them. :o
Night all.

Jim wrote on March 20, 2007 10:13 PM:

Has anyone thought to ask the folks at groklaw for help?

MWS wrote on March 20, 2007 10:49 PM:

8-1

As noted by others, pg 10-36 seems to be a dump of a file on "voter fraud" in Wisconsin. Why include Wisconsin voter fraud when none of the fired attorney's was from Wisconsin?

From http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002795.php

"Iglesias, a Republican, said in an interview that he and the U.S. attorney from Milwaukee, Steven M. Biskupic, were chosen as trainers because they were the only ones identified as having created task forces to examine allegations of voter fraud in the 2004 elections."

Biskupic is still US Attorney.

The file appears to have ben created by Chris Lato RPW Communications Director. A search for him finds this gem at: http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Lato_Chris_258324019.aspx

Chris Lato, communications director for the state Republican Party, said the party mailed tens of thousands of preprinted cards two weeks ago for voters to request absentee ballots by mail.

"It's a get-out-the-vote drive. I think anything that drives up voter participation is a good thing," Lato said. "We can't make it any easier than this."

Midwest Product wrote on March 20, 2007 11:01 PM:

7-4:
pages 1-14 -- repeated elsewhere; documentation of previous USA transitions, the DOJs case for amending the rules to allow AG appointments, and Griffin's resume.
pages 14-18 -- Sampson et al emails from March 5 organizing a meeting to get their talking points straight re: the resignations.
pages 19-21 -- Rebecca Seidel emails Sampson et al on March 5 the list of 4 USAs who will give testimony on March 6 (Lam, Cummins, Iglesias, McKay).
pages 22-33 -- Seidel emails same group the jointly prepared statement by those 4 USAs, plus their resumes (ASIDE -- Iglesias took part in the A Few Good Men case? Heh).
pages 34-37 -- Sampson forwards Christopher G. Oprison a letter from the House Judiciary Committee concerning that same hearing. In the letter, HJC requests from Moschella: Battle's resignation info, any info regarding contact between Members of Congress and DOJ regarding the fired USAs, info regarding the contacting of Members of Congress by DOJ regarding the imminent firings, a list of officials who drafted the list of USAs to be fired, and any communications between DOJ and the fired USAs regarding the specifics of their 'failures to comply' with Bush policy.
pages 38-42 -- email discussion between Sampson, Hertling, and others regarding the testimony Moschella is to give at that HJC hearing. Includes many revisions made to the first draft of the testimony that Moschella will give.
pages 43-57 -- Moschella's testimony (opening statement) is repeatedly revised by committee. References to the AG, or President, or other individuals are stripped out to be replaced by 'the Administration'.
page 58 -- an agenda from March 6 with everything redacted except "updated: US attorneys discussion".
page 59 -- Sampson informs the group that Moschella will NOT answer the questions posed in the letter (see above). If called on it, Moschella is to claim that the request came too late the previous night and say that the Department will try to answer them soon.
pages 60-63 -- again the Cummins email gets forwarded around on March 6 (the "amiable enough" do-not-forward email). Jill Wade says the email will be discussed at the WEM meeting after the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
page 64 -- a meeting agenda for March 7, redacted entirely except for 9:15 am: USA meeting in AG's conference room.
page 65 -- first page of document OAG000000375, presumably continuing in 7-5, an assessment of Kevin Ryan's office and tenure.

Waiting in Texas wrote on March 20, 2007 11:11 PM:

Apparently there is a gap from mid-November to early December regarding emails according to McClatchy. Here is link: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/20/the-us-attorney-document-gap/

Harriet announced resignation on Jan 4. Dianne Feinstein said she was contacted on 6th, possibly 5th (her quote) and told she needed to investigate. Suppose something happened in late Nov-early Dec and thats why documents and emails are missing? Harriet doesn't just come back from Christmas vacation and say, "hey, I think I'll resign." (Not working for a President anyway). That is something you have probably decided by the time this time gap starts occuring (IMHO).

MWS wrote on March 20, 2007 11:24 PM:

8-2

pg 5, 13, and 15. All are copies of an email on Feb 13 reporting (URGENT REPORT 07-02-0008) to various people in DOJ that Lam is seeking an indictment for Wilkes and Foggo. Feb 13 is the day the indictment was filled, see http://www.citizensforethics.org/filelibrary/021307wilkesmichaelsindict.pdf

Puma wrote on