Comments (106)

Midwest Product wrote on March 21, 2007 4:17 PM:

Again, there is another gap in the documents released spanning the final 48 hours before the firings began on the morning of December 7.

Scott Lynch wrote on March 21, 2007 4:26 PM:

The White House and Justice have read the story of the Nixon tapes. Here we go again.am

tbhull wrote on March 21, 2007 4:29 PM:

Subpoena the DOJ servers.

Bobby Bacala wrote on March 21, 2007 4:29 PM:

"This a not good"
Good grief, they had Jar Jar Binks working at DoJ!

Ed Drone wrote on March 21, 2007 4:30 PM:

If I had a friend like Miss Rosemary Woods,
How simple my life would be!
I'd just give all my problems to Rosemary Woods
And she would erase them for me.
Each time I was wrong, or each time that I lied,
Or somebody made me scared,
I would simply report them to Rose Mary Woods
And she would make them disappear....

(I can't recall the writer of that, alas)

Ed

Mark Jones wrote on March 21, 2007 4:36 PM:

I found this in Google:

1967: Listener-supported Pacifica Radio in New York, WBAI, conducts one of their earliest radiothon fundraisers. They spend an afternoon switching back and forth between Sgt. Barry Sadler's and Kate Smith's versions of "Ballad of the Green Berets," threatening to continue playing them until the next dollar pledge goal is met.
I remember this distinctly.
That is merciless.

I remember their 1974 fundraiser featuring the song Rosemary Woods (Richard Nixon's secretary):

If I had a friend like Miss Rosemary Woods
How simple my life would be
I'd just give all my problems to Rosemary Woods
And she would erase them for me......

hungrycoyote wrote on March 21, 2007 4:38 PM:

I think it is about an article that was written about the review at Ryan's office. the Author's name started with "Sigo" hence, the file name "SigoBS" ... I saw the actual article in the dump last night.

I'm trying to find it again ... but can't remember all the groups of docs I looked at last night.

I didn't think much about it when I skimmed past it last night because it was similar to this online article:

http://www.sfweekly.com/2006-10-04/news/untouchable/full

jdw wrote on March 21, 2007 4:39 PM:

Has anyone in a main article talked about whether or not the *attachements* to each of the e-mails was produced?

I thought I saw several where they weren't. It's pretty standard document production work to print the e-mail and then print the attachments to follow it in bates stamp order, before going to the next e-mail.

John

aMike wrote on March 21, 2007 4:42 PM:

There seems to be something mystical about the number 18 for Republicans, or is my memory incorrect and there wasn't an 18 minute gap in the Nixon tapes?

Brooklyn Girl wrote on March 21, 2007 4:42 PM:

What is there about the magic number 18? It seems to crop up when there are crooks in the White House.

foo wrote on March 21, 2007 4:43 PM:

Now there are two gaps!

Capital J wrote on March 21, 2007 4:45 PM:

Someone on NPR this afternoon, a Republican IIRC, said that it wasn't unreasonable that there was only one e-mail during that period -- because it included the Thanksgiving holiday. Uh-huh. And I guess the rest of the time everyone at DoJ was out doing early Christmas shopping.

Soaring Eagle wrote on March 21, 2007 4:48 PM:

Use of executive privilege at issue;
Ashcroft and DeLay want Congress alerted
JOHN C. HENRY, Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - Two congressional Republicans, one of them with presidential ambitions, filed legislation Wednesday to force President Clinton to notify Congress when he invokes executive privilege.

Sen. John Ashcroft and Rep. Tom DeLay accused Clinton of abusing the privilege by trying to withhold information sought by investigators examining whether he tried to get people to lie about his alleged sexual misbehavior.

The two lawmakers also criticized the administration for not being more forthcoming about why the president wants to keep confidential discussions with aides about how to respond to requests from investigators and the news media about the investigation.

"President Clinton's anxiety about his personal legal troubles has led him to abuse this doctrine by asserting privilege where it clearly would not apply," said Ashcroft, a Missouri conservative who is considering a bid for the 2000 GOP presidential nomination.

DeLay, the House majority whip from Sugar Land, said the bills are not intended to hinder a president's ability to protect documents or conversations with aides on national security issues.

"We simply want to make clear that the public has a right to know when the president is invoking such a privilege," DeLay said.

The president has never directly acknowledged invoking executive privilege, but a judge last week ruled that his effort was inappropriate and refused to shield two Clinton aides from having to answer questions before a federal grand jury.

Although the White House is expected to appeal the decision - the effort could make its way to the Supreme Court - presidential spokesman Jim Kennedy declined Wednesday to say when a decision would be made or whether it would be discussed publicly. Kennedy also declined to comment on the specifics of the Ashcroft and DeLay bills.

Their legislation would require Congress to be notified by the president and the courts when executive privilege is asserted. It also would prohibit the administration from trying to keep Secret Service agents from testifying in criminal cases in which a president might be involved.

"We would not need this legislation if the current president had not so thoroughly abused the executive privilege claim," DeLay said.

"The public has the right to know about the actions in the White House, and it has a right to know when and why the president is invoking executive privilege," the congressman said.

midwest wrote on March 21, 2007 4:49 PM:

They were probably just on vacation so no email correspondence!

FatKat wrote on March 21, 2007 4:51 PM:

Went through some of the first purged files and found something interesting:

1.3 - 28: There is a memo dated November 7, 2006 about the plan that is in place regarding the US Attorneys, but what is odd is the date that the simultaneously are to happen is on or about November 8-10. Mike Battle.

1.3 - 30: Again, the plan on US Attorneys replacements from P. McNutty with the reference on the purge date of Nov. 8-10.

What is odd, the memo is dated Nov. 7, 2006 and the reference date in the memo is Nov. 8-10 and the gaps in dates that are missing.

Between the referenced dates Nov. 8-10 and Nov. 15 to Dec. 4, were any of these people on holiday in Texas with others? or is it something else.

News footage needs to be gone over between the dates that are missing on the files. And if any of the people referenced are in the photos, theres your missing time line!

Just a throught

Soaring Eagle wrote on March 21, 2007 4:51 PM:

The Washington Post
May 08, 1998, Friday, Final Edition
DeLay Turns Up Heat On Clinton Claims; House Leader Scoffs at Executive Privilege
Juliet Eilperin; Peter Baker, Washington Post Staff Writers

[snip]

"The president does not have the divine right of a king," DeLay said, echoing a line used recently by House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). "He must follow the law, even if it may sometimes be uncomfortable for him."

LawyerSmith wrote on March 21, 2007 4:51 PM:

I'm guessing the 18 day gap is when the e-mails started relating information relayed to and from the President or maybe the VP as he was a person whom thought this was important, (per Sampson's e-mail).

georgia wrote on March 21, 2007 4:54 PM:

I'll have to look at the docs again to see the details, but I noticed it too. It seemed to be right after the question was asked whether or not the plan required Presidential approval. I believe Miers noted that if it did, it would need to wait. Then they waited.

Randy Nason wrote on March 21, 2007 4:57 PM:

Impeach Bush and Cheney and try them and thier cabinet members and secretaries for war crimes and crimes against humanity. They have consistently lied, obstructed justice, committed graft, extortion and high treason on repeated occasions. Let's take back America, NOW!

Troutski wrote on March 21, 2007 4:57 PM:

The general election was 11/07/06

1Watt wrote on March 21, 2007 4:58 PM:

Somebody's using my favorite acronym:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2007/032007a.html

RICO

FatKat wrote on March 21, 2007 5:00 PM:

The time on the email is at 1:05pm, and may also be off server ( not at the WH). Another thing to note is the ability to use outside email address. This is just a thought. And if outside email address were used because the purge was about to happen and they wanted to avoid inter department detection this is quite possible.

So, outside email address should be another clue to pursue.

hungrycoyote wrote on March 21, 2007 5:00 PM:

Never mind ... I was wrong. I found the document it was 7-7, and the author was Scheck in April 2006.

EasyRider wrote on March 21, 2007 5:02 PM:

There is another gap in the email (pages 1 and 2 of 11-1 DOJ Dump) about the non request of all USA resignations in the 11/4/2004 email from Susan Richmond. See the email transcription here: http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/easyrider/2007/mar/21/who_was_talking_about_93_usa_resignations_before_nov_4_2004

There are no email before or around that date about the subject and statements made in the email.

It is impossible for the request for resignations strawman to floated without some one talking about it before that email. Who? When? Why?

sherman wrote on March 21, 2007 5:03 PM:

Wasn't there an election on Nov. 7?

EasyRider wrote on March 21, 2007 5:05 PM:

OH! And Yes Fitz is included in the email addressees as is most of the DOJ upper management.

A few days later Bush's cabinet proivde their resignation letters. Gee! Who Knew?

ccinnc wrote on March 21, 2007 5:10 PM:

There's an exchange of e-mails between Goodling and Griffin about Nov 16, I think. Also an e-mail on December 1. I posted the specifics (including the file #'s) in a previous thread. Will try to find. There still seems to be a gap in Kyle Sampson's e-mails of Nov 15 and Dec 4. Maybe he was on T'giving vacation. :)

FatKat wrote on March 21, 2007 5:11 PM:

Went back to the posting section when tpmmuckraker put the call out to go through the documents to us and found this .

-----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.
Posted by: JPV
Date: March 20, 2007 01:25 AM

ccinnc wrote on March 21, 2007 5:13 PM:

Here is my previous post:

There isn't an 18-day gap! I found an e-mail on Nov 29 from Elston to Long (#1-7), an e-mail exchange between Griffin and Goodling on 11/16 (#7-9) and another on December 1 (#7-9). Granted this isn't a lot of e-mails considering how many you'd expect to see, but there isn't a total gap.

yep wrote on March 21, 2007 5:14 PM:

Well that doesnt exactly count as an email during the gap since the email that was forwarded and asked to print was from Oct 30th.

This wouldnt have shown up if Michael Elston knew how to hint the print button.

Anonymous wrote on March 21, 2007 5:18 PM:

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?

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:

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

Posted by: algebrateacher
Date: March 21, 2007 10:14 AM

FatKat wrote on March 21, 2007 5:19 PM:

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?

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:

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

Posted by: algebrateacher
Date: March 21, 2007 10:14 AM

CN wrote on March 21, 2007 5:20 PM:

That single e-mail within the 18-day gap actually makes things look MORE suspicious. Not the e-mail itself, but its inclusion within the released documents. If the DOJ had blocked out 18 full days worth of e-mails, okay, they obviously have something to hide. But now it looks like they knew how suspicious the gap would look and tried to find something from those 18 days that wasn't incriminating -- and one e-mail is all they could find?

Midwest Product wrote on March 21, 2007 5:30 PM:

"That single e-mail within the 18-day gap actually makes things look MORE suspicious.... ...now it looks like they knew how suspicious the gap would look and tried to find something from those 18 days that wasn't incriminating -- and one e-mail is all they could find?"

I think that's especially true given that the cover letter attached to the released documents states specifically that they WILL NOT release ANY documents relating to the special investigation into the Northern District of California. This one email is about that exact investigation.

(the PDF for that cover letter is at http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt12070319.pdf -- h/t Sholom)

T. Scheisskopf wrote on March 21, 2007 5:31 PM:

Look, as sure as merde stinks, there is another email infrastructure out there, independent of even the one found at the RNC. Such an infrastructure would be trivial to create, even with loads of redundant servers salted around the country. The main server I use is a home computer running Linux and Postfix on a DSL connection and it never goes down.

One place to look is at that ISP in Knoxville TN, the one that took down its website when the DKos people started looking into the company.

Once again: Such an email infrastructure is trivial. On the other hand, outbound connection logs on firewalls and proxy servers are not.

vox clamantis in red state wrote on March 21, 2007 5:34 PM:

I just can't take the time to study all these emails and attachments that are missing, but the number 666 has some satanic reference, and 6+6+6 = 18. Viola!
Are we on to somethugs or somthin?

gjdodger wrote on March 21, 2007 5:37 PM:

I don't think anyone else has posted this. Bill Horwitz did the "Rosemary Woods" song. And, you can buy it.
http://espdisk.com/esp3020.html

PaminBB wrote on March 21, 2007 5:41 PM:

10-1

I'm struck by the odd coincidence of the Tim Griffin emails of 11/14 in doc. 10-1, which initially offer him a teleconference interview on 12/8, which he accepts, then realizes that he will be in DC from 12/4-12/6 anyways, and asks for an in-person meeting. He then send in his CV on 11/15, but we never see an email reply confirming this, only one in which the assistant handlling the matter says that she will look into it. Where is the email finalizing a meeting time and date? The next docs in this pdf file are the resignation letters beginning 12/14.

Was there a meeting of Tim Griffith with Goodling, Margolis and Battle on 12/4?

daCascadian wrote on March 21, 2007 5:46 PM:

I don`t have the time to wade through all this at the moment but I do want to add a "heads up" that maybe has been mentioned before or not.

Irrespective of the addresses/servers used for email it is possible that any "missing" messages would have been captured & stored by the NSA dragnet that has been ongoing for sometime. If they are not there then that is further evidence of political skullduggery.

Just a thought.

Do NOT forget about the NSA storage of all/most Internet traffic during these time periods & yes I realize that getting into that depository would be difficult. Just not impossible given the seriousness of the matters at hand.

"We the people..." have a long way to go yet.

(code = snake)

"Small men follow the letter of the law, great men seek justice" - Buck Rodgers in The 25th Century

Jeff Lichtman wrote on March 21, 2007 5:49 PM:

This e-mail has a 96 Kb Word Perfect document attached to it. The main text of the mail ("This s not good") doesn't say much, but there could be important evidence in the WPD file. Did the White House turn over e-mails without their attachments? Are there other instances of this?

P J Evans wrote on March 21, 2007 5:50 PM:

Even if they were using outside e-mail addresses, if they were physically in the White House, the stuff should have gone through the WH servers.

eric wrote on March 21, 2007 5:57 PM:

This is off- topic, but reading through these emails, I still can't figure how as a former US Attorney, Margaret Chiara would have such a hard time finding a job and having such a hard financial time. Seriously, what was her bio before?

I am a lawyer and I know how hard it can be to find a job out of law school and even for years after that. But as a US Attorney, she seemed really panicked over the thought of moving on. Wouldn't you be sought after coming from a position like that?

todd b. wrote on March 21, 2007 6:02 PM:

I think Tony Snow gave us the reason at today's briefing why the materials are missing:

Q Actually, I have two quick ones. First of all, Tony, on the White House emails, are you saying that those will not be released until an agreement is reached?

MR. SNOW: Let's -- I like the tone of the question for this reason -- we're still hoping that we get a resolution so that the House and Senate accept this offer, and then everybody can go about the business of finding out what the truth is.

Q But you're not in the process right now?

MR. SNOW: I am not in the process of playing "what if."

Q You're not in the process of releasing the emails, either, right?

MR. SNOW: Not at this juncture.

EasyRider wrote on March 21, 2007 6:02 PM:

http://judiciary.house.gov/

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt11-1070319.pdf

Mercer, Bill (USAAMT)
From: Richmond, Susan
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 8:15 PM

To: Alex Acosta; Ben Reyna; Carl Truscott; Chris Wray; Cranston Mitchell; Dan Bryant; Deborah Daniels; Deborah Spagnoli; Diane Stuart; Domingo Herralz; Edward Reilly; Eileen O’Connor; Glenn Fine; Hew Pate; James Comey; John Gills; Karen Tandy; Larry Greenfeld; Mauricio Tamargo; Michele Leonhart; Peter Keisler; Robert Flores; Robert McCallum; Sarah Hart; Sharee Freeman; Tom Sansonetti; William Moschella;

Allyson Ho; Andrew Emrich; Brad Schlozman; Brain Boyle; Bruce McDonald; Carl Peed; Cheri Nolan; Chuck Rosenberg; Crystal Roberts; Dan Levin; Dan Meron; David Ayres; David Higbee; David Israslite; David Nahmias; David Sibley; Deborah Rhodes; Donald Gambatesa; Gregory Katsas; Howard Nielson; Jeffrey Bucholtz; Jeffrey Clark; Jeffrey Taylor; John Richter; John Wood; Jonathan Cohn; Joseph Bianco; Kelly Johnson; Kristi Remington; Kyle Sampson; Luara Parsky; Lawrence Friedman; Lizette Benedi; Makan Delrahim; Margaret Davis; Mark Corallo; Mark Epley; Matthew Zabel; Michael Carrington; Mike Wiggins; Noel Francisco; Pat O’Brien; Patrick Hofer; Patrick Philbin; Patrick Purtill; Paul Clement; Rachel Brand; Rebecca Seidel; Renee Lerner; Richard Hertling; Richard Morrison; Rod Rosenstein; Sean McLaughlin; Sheldon Bradshaw; Steve Bradbury; Susan Richmond; Thomas Barnett; Thomas Lee; Tracy Henke; Wan Kim;

Ajit Pai; Amy Grinsrud; Andrew Beach; Andrew Schauder; Angela Williamson; Blain Rethmeier; Blair Birkeland; Bruce Taylor; C. Kevin Marshall; Chad Boudreaux; Cynthia McDowell; Cynthia McKnight; Deborah Underhill; Denise Gitsham; Dimple Gupta; Ebony Lee; Ed McFadden; Elizabeth Apisson; Elizabeth Nodal; Eric Grannon; Eric Holland; Gordon Todd; Greg Harris; Jaclyn Lesch; Janet Potter; Jeffery Wadsworth; Jessica Gavora; Kimberly Smith; Lara Reynol;ds; Luis Reyes; Mary Neumayr; Matt Dummermuth; Matt Robinson; Matthew Miranda; Michael Costigan; Michael Tierney; Monia Goodling; Natalie Voris; Omar Vargas; Price Roe; Robert Hur; Stephanie McNees; Sujean Lee; Theodore Cooperstein; Trent Luckinbill; Wanda Martinson; Will Adams; William Otis; William Woodruff; Wroe Jackson;

Alice Martin; Anna Wagoner; Bill Mercer; Bud Cummins; Carol Lam; Charles Larson; Christopher Chistie; Colm Connolly; Daniel Bogden; David Dugas; David Huber; David Iglesias; David O’Meilia; David York; Debra Yang; Donald Washington; Drew Wrigley; Dunn Lampton; Ed Kibo; Eric Melgren; Frank Whitney; Glenn Suddaby; Greg White; Gregory Lockhart; Gregory Miller; Gregory Van Tatenhove; H Garcia; J. Thurmond Jr.; J.B. Van Hollen; James McMahon; Jan Paul Miller; Jim Greenlee; Jim McDevitt; Jim Vines; John Brownlee; John McKay; John Suthers; Johnny Sutton; Joseph Van Bokkelen; Karin Immergut; Kasey Warner; Kevin O’Connor; Kevin Ryan; Leonardo Rapadas; Leura Canary; Marcos; Jimenez; MaryBeth Buchanan; Matt Orwig; Matt Whitaker; Matthew Mead; Maxwell Wood; McGregor Scott; Michael Battle; Michael Heavican; Michael Shelby; Michael Sullivan; MM Chiara; Patrick Fitzgerald; Patrick Meehan; Paul Charlton; Paul McNulty; Paul Preez; Paul Warner; Robert Corrente; Robert McCampbell; Ronald Tenpas; Roslynn Mauskopf; Sandy Mattice; Sheldon Sperling; Steven Biskupic; Susan Brooks; Terry Harris; Thomas Colantuono; Thomas DiBagio; Thomas Johnston; Thomas Marino; Thomas Moss; Tim Burgess; Todd Graves; Tom Heffeilfinger

Many of you have sought guidance regarding the Administration transition to the President’s second term. This message serves to convey the entirely of the information we have at this point, and as more information becomes available it will be shared with you.

First, the President is tremendously grateful to you, and every member of his team, for your hard work over the past four years. He recognizes the sacrifices that you and your family have made to enable you to serve, and he is deeply appreciative. America has looked at the President’s record – continuing success in the war on terror, violent crime at a 30-year low, and declining drug use among America’s youth, among other successes – and asked him to stay on the job. He is honored and humbled by the privilege to serve, as I know each of you are.

Second, 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.

Third, some of you have expressed interest in serving in other capacities in the Administration, both within the Department and elsewhere. If you would like to considered for other opportunities, please let me know what position(s) and agency or agencies you are interested in and I will work together with White House Presidential Personnel on these matters.

Additionally, if you are intending to leave the Administration within the next three months, please let me know that as well.

As we move forward, the Attorney General thanks you for your continued service and asks that you stay focused on the job at hand. While it is appropriate and good to celebrate successes, we cannot let it detract from the ongoing critical mission of the Deparment. Thanks you again, and please feel free to contract me with any questions.

Susan
WwWw WwWw WwWw WwWwW
Susan M. Richmond
Advisor to the Attorney General
& White House Liason
Office if the Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
Tel: (202)514-2927
Fax: (202)615-5117

“We are fighting a continuing war on terror, and every American has a stake in the outcome of the war…we will persevere until the enemy is defeated. We will stay strong and resolute. We have a duty, a solemn duty to protect the American people, and we will.” –President George W. Bush, 11/4/04

bartkid wrote on March 21, 2007 6:39 PM:

>Wasn't there an election on Nov. 7?

Yes, and which political party lost its Congressial and Senate rubber stamps in that election?

blueheron wrote on March 21, 2007 6:51 PM:

Someone else may have seen these, but there ARE emails from Nov. 16, 2006

at 7-9 pp.26 and 27, mainly about details of Bud's last day and Tim's first.
Then the next page, at p. 28 has an email from DEC 1, 2006 reply of Goodling to Tim's email, stating Bud's last day will be Wed. Dec 20.

has this been posted? should it be also posted in the big dump comments??

mbbsdphil wrote on March 21, 2007 6:55 PM:

Kevin Ryan is the only USA among these eight who deserved to be fired. The review of his performance in SFO was terrible. He was also personally very unpopular, having virtually abandoned his office to promote his prospects for higher office, leaving the proverbial Asst. Principal from Hell in charge of a complex office and caseload in Northern California.

Oddly, however, Ryan was only added to the list late in the game. Presumably, because he did play political ball for the Administration's team. Which suggests that he was tossed overboard to give the appearance that all eight had been in the same performance boat.

hungrycoyote wrote on March 21, 2007 7:00 PM:

From McClatchy: "In the 19 days between Sampson's Nov. 15 e-mail to the White House seeking approval to fire six prosecutors and White House approval of the plan, a new name was added to the target list - Kevin Ryan, the U.S. attorney in San Francisco."

So what was Kevin Ryan doing in late November to get him added to the list. The email with the attachment says, "This is not good." Sure would like to see the attachment.

David Brooks wrote on March 21, 2007 7:01 PM:

How about a graph to tell the story? That would be really compelling: do a histogram of the number of emails per day. Ideally it would only count the "latest" email of a thread, or you'd be including the referenced messages multiple times. The graph would provide a compelling visual of the gap.

Unfortunately, that sounds like considerable drudgery (it'd be easy to write code to do it, except for that multiple inclusion problem).

And, even then, they could explain away the gap with the combination of "Thanksgiving" and "have to wait for the boss" excuses, although I find it hard to believe there would have been *total* silence.

hungrycoyote wrote on March 21, 2007 7:07 PM:

So far, the only headline grabber I can find is that he was working on backdating scandal:

"Kevin Ryan, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California who in July created a task force to pursue potential criminal charges against companies embroiled in the stock option backdating scandal, told a securities litigation conference on Thursday that the way a company responds to such allegations could be crucial to whether it will be indicted." -- November 30, 2006

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/month?blogid=19&year=2006&month=11

Was he going after any Republican-friendly companies?

georgia wrote on March 21, 2007 7:16 PM:

Cheney seems to have made himself pretty scarce in November. Has anybody stopped to consider that maybe Bush wasn't "the boss"?

DaveHD wrote on March 21, 2007 7:26 PM:

I'm not sure of the significance, but:

The Documents released by the DOJ on 3/19/20 are all numbered with document control numbers. They use a letter identifer followed by 9 digits (XXX 123 456 789). There are four different groups of numbered documents "DAG" "OAG" "EOUSA" "ASG".

Parts 1,2,3,4,5,6 contain the DAG designation with documents numbered from 1-1824. There are gaps in that sequence as follows:

Part 1.3 ends with document "DAG000000569" Section 1.4 begins with Document "DAG000000574". The documents preceding the missing documents are dated Nov. 16, 2006.

Part 2.8 is missing documents "DAG000000356" and "DAG000000357". The surrounding documents appear to be various clippings perhaps from May of 2006.

Parts 7,8,9 use the "OAG" designation. The sequence of documents begins with number "OAG000000133" and goes through "OAG000000877".

Part 10 uses the "EOUSA" designation. No numbering gaps.

Part 11 uses the "ASG" designation. The sequence of documents begins with number "ASG000000012" and goes through "ASG000000345"

Part 12 is unnumbered.

There are six unnumbered blank pages, four in Part 4.1, and 2 in part 6.3.

EasyRider wrote on March 21, 2007 7:47 PM:

DaveHD,Part 11 uses the "ASG" designation. The sequence of documents begins with number "ASG000000012" and goes through "ASG000000345"

You may be on to something. I posted the page 1 and 2 of 11-1 in an above comment. I also dairied on the missing email that should exist do to text in and subject in that email. That email is "ASG000000012".

Your observations supports that there are missing emails.

There is another gap in the email (pages 1 and 2 of 11-1 DOJ Dump) about the non request of all USA resignations in the 11/4/2004 email from Susan Richmond. See the email transcription here: http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/easyrider/2007/mar/21/who_was_talking_about_93_usa_resignations_before_nov_4_2004

There are no email before or around that date about the subject and statements made in the email.

It is impossible for the request for the resignations strawman to be floated without some one talking about it before that email. Who? When? Why?

Posted by: EasyRider
Date: March 21, 2007 05:02 PM

jawbone wrote on March 21, 2007 8:06 PM:

Did the DIJ fire damage the email servers? Where are the archived backups kept? Anyone know?

chophouse wrote on March 21, 2007 8:14 PM:

from daCascadian ...

"Do NOT forget about the NSA storage of all/most Internet traffic during these time periods & yes I realize that getting into that depository would be difficult. Just not impossible given the seriousness of the matters at hand."

Now THAT would be true poetic justice !!!

blueheron wrote on March 21, 2007 8:26 PM:

Re: numbering
for what it is worth, the Nov 16th emails I referenced above are OAG000000661 and OAG000000662
and then the next one OAG000000663 is the brief Dec 1, 2006 email on Bud's last day.
What does it all mean?

Mash wrote on March 21, 2007 8:47 PM:

More on tiff between Michael Elston and Kevin Ryan:

11-2 pp. 39-41
Press Release from Kevin Ryan entitled "SENTENCING COMMISSION ANNOUNCES STRICTER PENALTIES FOR STEROID OFFENSES" is released on March 24, 2006.

11-2 p. 35
Michael Elston emails Kevin Ryan on March 29, 2006 upset about Kevin Ryan's press release from March 24, 2006. Elston cc's Bill Mercer and Brian Roehrkasse. Elston also forwards the email to David Margolis. Elston writes:
----
Kevin:
Not sure that this was particularly helpful. I have already quashed DEA's effort to issue a press release on this subject at this time -- it is my judgment, as the Department's ex officio Commissioner, that this kind of thing actually harms our ability to ensure that the emergency amendment will become the permanent amendment. After our conversations, I am fairly surprised that you would not consult with me or anyone else in Main Justice before issuing a press release on something that has nothing to do with your office.

Please don't do anything further in this area without consultation.

Thanks,
Mike
----
Even though Elston claims in the email that Kevin Ryan's office has "nothing to do" with the stricter guidelines for sterioid offenses, Kevin Ryan had in 2005 secured convictions in the BALCO steroid scandal. Kevin Ryan on, October 18, 2005, announced in a press release that his office had secured the convictions of three men for their role in a conspiracy to distribute illegal steroids to athletes. One of the men convicted was Victor Conte, the president and CEO of BALCO, the others were James Valente, vice president of BALCO, and Greg Anderson, a personal trainer.

11-2 p. 42
On April 1, 2006 David Margolis replies to Michael Elston's March 29, 2006 email regarding Kevin Ryan with the following: "UFB!". It seems likely that "UFB!" stands for "un-fucking believable!"

RealWorld wrote on March 21, 2007 9:30 PM:

So this is slightly tangential but if you look here there is a great report showing that 80% of the DOJ political corruption cases since 2001 have been against Dem's.

Now when you look at the political corruption case handled the USA's from key states they break down like this:

AR D=2, R=0
CA D=32, R=6
NV D=11, R=1
MI D=18, R=0
AZ D=0, R=2
NM D=1, R=0

Nothing too dramatic there but when you look at the total cases for these states on a per-capita basis it turns out that there were 1/3 fewer case than the US average.

It is also interesting that the % of cases involving repub's is 14% for this group vs 21% for the country as a whole. However, when you factor out the East and Central CA areas and Michigan (MI had 18 dem's and 0 repubs) the remaining USA's in this group had a 26% repub case load, notably higher than average.

So, perhaps the performance issue is: They were prosecuting too many repubs and not enough dems.

RealWorld wrote on March 21, 2007 9:31 PM:

I forgot the link to the data sorry.

http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/2007/Table%201%20375%20Candidates%20and%20Elected%20Public%20Officials.pdf

owenz wrote on March 21, 2007 10:56 PM:

In other news, FDL finally gives some bloggy love to that study on partisan investigations/prosecutions by US Attorneys in the Bush DOJ:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/21/the-math-2/

As I've said many times, the study demonstrates what Kyle Sampson meant when he said: “80-85 percent” of US Attorneys are “loyal Bushies.”

owenz wrote on March 21, 2007 10:57 PM:

And when I say "that study," I clearly mean the one RealWorld just linked to in his/her previous post!

Willem van Oranje wrote on March 21, 2007 11:14 PM:

About that e-mail Thinkprogress found. Is it possible to edit these documents before they are sent? There are a couple of odd things in this e-mail.
Context: the e-mail exchange links to the following story concerning obscenity and extremely embarrassing for the USAtt, DoJ and WH: http://avn.com/index_cache.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=285692

Now the odd things in the e-mail. In the e-mail from Ward, Brent dated Nov 22, 2006, 10.22 AM,
the "From: " part in the header is incorrect.
Brent misspells his own name as "Brant".

I and others have posted this on thinkprogress as well but they are swamped by a couple of trolls so it might go unnoticed.

Old guy wrote on March 21, 2007 11:31 PM:

If they continue to follow the Nixon playbook, the next thing the Bush White House will suggest is that the interviews of Rove and Miers be conducted by Sen. Stennis.

j4k wrote on March 21, 2007 11:49 PM:

Willem,

Great link - what an article! Ward must have been aware of the motion to dismiss alleging that the Justice Dept. was selling the very same 'obscene' material given it was made Aug 31st, so why the 'urgency' in proceeding with such an embarrasing case?

I think the oddities in the email such as Brent misspelling his own name as Brant 'could' be that he was responding via Blackberry. It just seems to have that 'thumbtyped' feel to it.

Just a guess.

Anonymous wrote on March 22, 2007 12:00 AM:

j4k

Never touched a Blackberry so don't know about that, The from-part however is not produced by a Blackberry but by the mailprogram, looks like Outlook to me. It's impossible that it will come out of a printer this way. It must have happened between printer and scanner.

Something else: the mail from “Brant” to Kyle ends with:
“I hope you are able to enjoy some extra time with your family on Thanksgiving. We have a great deal to be thankful for. Best wishes.”

And Kyle responds with:
“thx, Brent”

I’m not an American but wouldn’t you respond with something like:
“Thx, same to you” ??? Even when you are in a hurry, which he clearly is.

j4k wrote on March 22, 2007 12:18 AM:

I've responded to emails lots of strange ways, though I have to admit "thx, Brent" isn't one of them. And now that I look at it closer, why are the lines:

.fm told this is now on track
**Charlton has been directed...

both outside the left margin?

Willem van Oranje wrote on March 22, 2007 12:37 AM:

When you start at the top, you also see that "thx, Brent" is outside of the left margin relative to the header.

I think I've seen that behaviour more often with e-mail but won't testify to that under oath.

The Oracle wrote on March 22, 2007 12:38 AM:

I still think the U.S. Attorney firings in early December last year is linked somehow to the Foleygate scandal that burst onto the news scene in late September, about one month before last year's election. Why?

The Mark Foley sex scandal hurt Republican chances at the November polls with their "base," the Christian evangelicals.

Republican political strategists, like Karl Rove, would have been desperate to have news about the Foley scandal pushed out of the news, or at least buried under some negative news, preferably about Democrats.

Ergo, in October on election eve, Rove and Gonzales could have turned to their "loyal Bushie" U.S. Attorneys around the country to help generate some of these negative Democratic news stories. For instance, in New Mexico, this took the form of Republicans pressuring the U.S. Attorney, David Iglesias, to prematurely release grand jury information about Democratic Party indictments in October during the height of the Foley scandal. He refused. He was fired in November.

So, in the White House email document dump, besides the 18 day gap, how many references to Mark Foley are there?

If there aren't any, especially in any of the October e-mails that might have been released, then that means that someone did a search for any emails containing the name "Mark Foley", "Foley," or any reference to House pages, and removed these emails from the document dump.

Because, I'm can assure you that emails containing these words were flying among Republicans before the November elections last year. Support from their fanatical religious "base" was being threatened. Damage control revolving around Foleygate would have been one of their top priorities.

And it is my contention that "loyal Bushie" U.S. Attorneys were enlisted to help pushback the negative impact of the scandal, possibly even going so far as to "swift boat" Democrats, for instance, over "voter fraud" charges to try to get Foleygate coverage off the front pages of newspapers around the country. And any Republican U.S. Attorneys who didn't cooperate, like David Iglesias, were subsequently fired essentially for insubordination.

Just a guess.

The Artist Formerly Known as WORFEUS wrote on March 22, 2007 12:44 AM:

I think the oddities in the email such as Brent misspelling his own name as Brant 'could' be that he was responding via Blackberry. It just seems to have that 'thumbtyped' feel to it.

Just a guess.

Posted by: j4k
Date: March 21, 2007 11:49 PM

Normally when messages are sent from a Blackberry it is indicated in the message body, like this.

————————–
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

Maybe if they run their own Blackberry server, then its possible they eliminated that I guess.

Also if it went through his Blackberry the server records will show it going through their internal Blackberry server.

Also that still doesn’t explain the corrupted From: field.

The Artist Formerly Known as WORFEUS wrote on March 22, 2007 12:46 AM:

Also, look at the rest of the message. It is meticulous. Punctuation. Capitalization.

But he mispells his own first name.

I’m sorry, but I don’t think using his Blackberry explains it.

He managed to get everything else right, but not his name?

Not likely.

The Artist Formerly Known as WORFEUS wrote on March 22, 2007 12:48 AM:

Also I am not sure why that FROM: field would be corrupted like that in the SMTP header, but unless someone can provide a technically sound and reasonable answer, I’d say that along with the mispelling of his own signature, make it clear that someone needs to ask the authors who wrote what.

Certainly if you consider the suspicious circumstances this message string was released under, and add int he name mispelling, and it just smells fishy.

Someone needs to be asking these questions other than us.

The Artist Formerly Known as WORFEUS wrote on March 22, 2007 12:54 AM:

People just don’t mispell their own first names like this.

If someone is typing someone elses name, and if hes in a hurry, and is under pressure or afraid of getting caught, then in his haste, he might mispell someone ELSES name.

But people don’t mispell their own first names.

Particularly when signing them

The Artist Formerly Known as WORFEUS wrote on March 22, 2007 1:02 AM:

If I was asked my opinion on that email message, I'd have to say on first glance, it appears to have been tampered with.

j4k wrote on March 22, 2007 1:08 AM:

It was absolutely 'edited' by someone since the name of the defendant and the name of the prosecuting attorney have been 'whited out' in the first message in the chain. What else has been 'edited' we may never know.

The Artist Formerly Known as WORFEUS wrote on March 22, 2007 1:15 AM:

Well you can white out the screenshot or printout of the email without tampering with the email.

But if the messages were transposed manually via a text editor of some sort, like Word, then they're worthless as far as legal documents.

They need the actual emails, printed out, from the client, and the server backups.

The Artist Formerly Known as WORFEUS wrote on March 22, 2007 1:18 AM:

I wouldn't put it past them to have manually transposed the emails.

If they were manually copied, then not only does that no rule out tampering, it suggests it.

EasyRider wrote on March 22, 2007 1:33 AM:

Since all the documents in all the DOJ dump file are scanned images of the documents they are valueless to most of us.

The DOJ PDF Document files are just PDF files of scanned images and are not a collection of the actual files, only scanned images. Those type of files can be screwed with in number of ways.

They even whited out fax page numbering of the faxes, and changed to order of the pages just for your viewing enjoyment.

AllisonInSeattle wrote on March 22, 2007 2:02 AM:

FWIW. I attended a talk by an attorney who had worked under the NoCal head. I asked her (in public) what she thought of the firings -- before the issue heated up, about 3-4 weeks ago. She replied, "Well I took early retirement, and so did (7 or 8) other prosecutors in that office." After that she said the timing might be a bit much.

To be clear, without saying it, she gave the impression that the person in charge of that office was very hard to work for.

However -- when did such complaints do anything but garner government officials *promotions* in the Bush administration?

Must be a simple coincidence.

Anonymous wrote on March 22, 2007 2:10 AM:

With regard to the "smut" case US vs JM Productions and Five-Star. Read www.avn.com (NSFW I believe they say in the US?)

Mark Kernes has written several articles since the beginning of that case and he appeared to have a good instinct about what was going on in that case (with the latest revelation of course very embarrasing)
To me, the clash seems to have been between "Brant" and Charlton, Brent managed to get Charlton blacklisted merely out of (personal) spite. Not a very professional attitude in my opinion.

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

Well, according to the DOJ spokesman here

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/washington/22gap.html

this was around Thanksgiving so everything is explained. However, if you take a liberal TG into account, there are still eight (8) business days unaccounted for...unless, of course, the DOJ celebrated the Democratic victory in Congress by taking two weeks off for all DOJ senior officials involved in the hiring/firing process...and what, pray tell, is the chances of that?

Bill wrote on March 22, 2007 7:59 AM:

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but isn't fighting porn one of the more effective means of getting otherwise sane people to forgo their civil liberties? Hasn't Gonzales's porn crackdown been one of his top hits in the past couple of years?
Google Gonzales pornography and see what comes up.
Pressuring prosecutors to pursue cases that would bring in the vote for Republicans while eroding civil liberties and justifying federal spying seems like a win win win situation for the Bush team. How can anyone fault them for trying?

BenL wrote on March 22, 2007 8:33 AM:

I don't know if anyone has noticed this, but in document 11-4, on page 54, Teresa McHenry sends an email dated May 24, 2006 where she indicates the following:

1. by the way-the department is continuing to have email issues delayed sending/non sending. Problem seems from OLA and ODAG. Our ITM people continue to say it is a JMD problem.

I know this is a long way off from the big lull in email traffic, but it is worth noting that a document was offered up by DOJ providing a possible paper trail for missing emails.

Jeff Thacker wrote on March 22, 2007 10:47 AM:

Next: Democrats subpoena documents relating to the DOJ/White House decision to hide documents relating to the first subpoena.

Anonymous wrote on March 23, 2007 9:33 AM:

I would like to know whether the political interference with DOJ's tobacco case was a payback for tobacco's strong contribution to the Clinton impeachment.

Linda Tripp got her job at the George H.W. Bush White House at the urging of BAT chief lobbyist Bill Hecht, and was the only staffer to keep her job at the 1993 turnover to Democratic Party control, being assigned to Bernie Nussbaum, from tobacco law firm Wachtell Lipton. The grand jury investigations of the tobacco industry in 1994 raised the threat of a RICO-based seizure of the industry's assets, particularly those of BAT, which runs the world tobacco smuggling operations. In the summer of 1994, one day after the two North Carolina senators (Helms and Faircloth) had "lunch" with Judge David Sentelle (a North Carolina Republican on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, in charge of the panel overseeing White Water special counsel Bob Fiske), Fiske was unceremoniously removed as special counsel and replaced by tobacco lawyer Kenneth Starr of Kirkland & Ellis, national coordinating counsel for BAT. Thereafter, once Tripp had the Lewinsky tapes, she gave them to George Conway, another tobacco lawyer, who passed them, through one other intermediary, to Starr. Jimmy Hecht, Bill Hecht's son, was a senior staff attorney to Trent Lott during the impeachment proceedings.

Such good works do not normally go unrewarded.

Buy Celexa wrote on April 21, 2007 7:46 AM:

Celexa is in a class of drugs called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Celexa affects chemicals in the brain that may become unbalanced and cause depression. Celexa is used to treat depression. More from http://prescriptiondrugs.noprescriptiondrugstore.us/buycelexa.php

rose@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 11:38 PM:

hello

rose@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 11:39 PM:

hello

larra@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 11:07 AM:

hello

larra@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 11:07 AM:

hello

larra@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 11:08 AM:

hello

clomid wrote on May 13, 2007 12:19 PM:

Very nice site!

eqtjwxhru hitbj wrote on May 14, 2007 5:22 PM:

tqufv syxkq oegnxcj zgqswnx xjkrd rfaxtbp rokbugpj

pxwb gueczn wrote on May 14, 2007 5:22 PM:

mniq fqilthp tvbkpe ujxdaonv oiysrgzn ndqw ohtuk http://www.gtuy.yxpwhe.com

zcvo switf wrote on May 14, 2007 5:22 PM:

rtlsa bucip kgwxlien qrgm qaxphk yuxpikrb rwna aohedyf cupbeq

kopift xmkoirc wrote on May 14, 2007 5:23 PM:

crqiesz ngudybzv cdjil vmjeudw upaiov nbcueqts eabpjxuq [URL]http://www.ziefy.camrf.com[/URL] raytldfih ygjernc

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

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

and www.emeraldring.fora.pl rings

Celexa free prescription next day online pharmacy wrote on September 19, 2007 2:52 PM:

Online pharmacy: FedEx next day delivery, free prescription with your order and 24/7 customer service, http://BuyTramadolOnline.ws

free mp3 music downloads wrote on September 26, 2007 5:34 PM:

Hi boys!1f4ef564e89f48a3954a64968e27d4d3

Gleb wrote on September 28, 2007 5:45 PM:

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

ok.. bitte

Ben wrote on September 29, 2007 5:30 PM:

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

ok.. bitte

free music downloads site wrote on September 30, 2007 3:28 AM:

Hi, there!..186748022c74df28942011844d76aa12

Savelea wrote on October 1, 2007 9:53 PM:

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

ok.. bitte

Savelea wrote on October 1, 2007 9:54 PM:

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

ok.. bitte

Xerrop wrote on October 2, 2007 9:34 AM:

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

ok.. bitte

music downloads pc wrote on October 7, 2007 10:59 PM:

Hi, there!..20c13ba845c23dc4dc63398c8af670b5

Albert Che wrote on December 13, 2007 12:55 AM:

You can find a reply to your post here Cheap Pharmacy