« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Document Dump Research Thread
After last Friday's document dump, Paul Kiel set up a post and discussion thread for digging through the 3000 pages for key nuggets and findings. And it was a TPM Reader who first flagged the email gap from mid-November through early December. So now we're doing it again. McClatchy News has just posted PDF copies of tonight's document dump. Pick one of the eleven pdfs and label your comment with the document and page number. So 1:13 would be for document one, page thirteen. Let the sleuthing begin.
Advertisement
Comments (194)
FatKat wrote on March 24, 2007 2:25 AM:follow the link for more pdf files on the emails
http://judiciary.house.gov/Printshop.aspx?Section=345
if you have a hard time go to the main page and then go to printshop you will find them there.
Disputo wrote on March 24, 2007 2:36 AM:11:1
This is the cover page for the doc dump. There are 283 pages in this dump.
This is only one page in set 11.
Disputo wrote on March 24, 2007 2:40 AM:10:1
email from Sampson to Miers and William Kelly:
Please note (1) the plan, by its terms, would
FatKat wrote on March 24, 2007 2:44 AM: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.
part iv
8 - Call to Senator Domenici regarding phone meeting?
8-10
many phone logs clock the time spent on the phone with senator domenici.
part iii
50 - scott jennings conversation regarding US attorneys at the presidents request.
63 - WH states who they want for NM
J Marcus Campbell wrote on March 24, 2007 2:44 AM:66- Some one is upset about a phone call taken because the talking points was not restated
PDF's from Mclatchly are not opening properly in MAC preview, they show up in drawer, but not in window. Is there another source for new PDF's?
? wrote on March 24, 2007 2:48 AM:8:4, Kyle Sampson had a list of "vacant or soon-to-be vacant" USA slots on December 4.
whig-guy wrote on March 24, 2007 2:50 AM:Doc:9 (page 3?) It looks like a page of a Daily Planner. Didn't Monica just take a leave of absence?
Goodling, Monica
Subject: PREP: Phone Call with Senator Domenici
Disputo wrote on March 24, 2007 2:51 AM:Start:
End: Thu 41612006 350 PM Thu 4/6/2006 4:00 PM
Recurrence: (none)
Meeting Status: Accepted
When: Thursday, April 06, 2006 3:50 PM-4:00 PM (GMT-05:OO) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
*_*,*,*,*,*_*,*,*,*
AG's Office
AO: Kyle Sampson DOJ: Will Moschella, Monica Goodling
10:1 thru 10:43
43 pages of meeting print outs from Outlook Calendar. Includes among other things:
- Griffin's resume (attached to his scheduled interview).
- Several phone logs of calls with Sen Domenici
please_get_lives wrote on March 24, 2007 2:51 AM:Well, it's official. The far left hates President Bush and his Administration. Who else would want to read through 3000 pages of useless emails? Oops, I already know the answer. Never mind. Read on.
M:3b69e09b48917bfb26a20f8de351f4d8 wrote on March 24, 2007 2:52 AM:6:24
For the January '07 Senate Judiciary Hearing, a prep meeting is arranged at which Brent McIntosh, Associate Counsel to the President, will attend.
Is that needed/proper, if the firings were really done at DOJ?
The Outlook appointment is:
A_B wrote on March 24, 2007 2:53 AM:Elston, Michael (ODAG)
Subject: Updated: PREP: 1118 Senate Judiciary Hearing: Section J Oversight & AG SJC QFRs
Wed 111 712007 1 :45 PM
Wed 111 712007 2:45 PM
11-1
This PDF is only one page. It's a letter, dated March 23, 2007 from Richard A. Hertling to Chuck Schumer.
In addition to noting that it is 283 pages, he says:
"We have redacted or not made available for review documents for the reasons previously described in our letter of March 19, 2007, and have also redacted information the public disclosure of which would present law enforcement concerns."
Anonymous wrote on March 24, 2007 2:53 AM:3:32
Who decided? The Administration made the determination to seek the resignations (not any specific person at the White House or the Department of Justice)
? wrote on March 24, 2007 2:53 AM:8:5-8, outline of an agenda for a White House Judicial Selection Committee meeting, except it's almost entirely redacted. Dated June 21, 2006. Main bullet points are New Business, Old Business and Confirmation Update. There is Griffin's resume attached at the end.
Who was on the committee in the White House?
A_B wrote on March 24, 2007 2:54 AM:My previous comment should have read,
"In addition to noting that the production is 283 pages, he says:"
Daniel wrote on March 24, 2007 2:56 AM:3:32
"Why me? The administration is grateful for your service, but wants to give someone else the chance to serve in your district."
This contradicts claims from DOJ and WH that it was due to performance. They had people in mind to replace them already. (This isn't really news, but another confirmation.)
? wrote on March 24, 2007 3:00 AM:8:15-16, Heavily redacted "intel" on Feinstein's questions about the Lam firing. More than two thirds of the page is whited out, the entire second page is whited out.
What was the other "intel" they were gathering?
J Marcus Campbell wrote on March 24, 2007 3:00 AM:OK if MAC preveiw does not work, then the Acrobat 7 will display PDF's properly. FYI
triciawrites wrote on March 24, 2007 3:01 AM:Document 8:4
OIP
From: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Sunday, December 03,2006 5:12 PM
To: 'SJennings@gwb43.com1
Subject: Re: USATW
My office. Want me to send to you tomorrow?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
----- Original Message-----
From: Scott Jennings cSJennings@gwb43.com>
To: amps son, .Kyle
Sent: Sun Dec 03 17:02:32 2006
Subject: USATTY
Does a list of all vacant, or about-to-be vacant, US Attorney slots exist anywhere?
sent to gwb43.com on 12 3 06.
Some of the "lull communication"
Document 8:1-3.
OIP
From: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Tuesday, November 21,2006 6:49 PM
To: Beach, Andrew
Subject: Pls sked
Meeting for next Monday,
Re: UIS. Attorney Appointments
AG, me, Monica, DAG, Moschella, Elston, Battle.
1 hour.
AG's conference room.
Thx.
Kyle Sampson
Chief of Staff
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 514-2001 wk.
(202) cell
kyle.sampson@usdoj.gov
Tracking: Recipient
Beach. Andrew
Read
Read: 11/21/2006 654 PM
OIP
From: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Friday, November 24,2006 3: 1 1 PM
To: Otus2005, Ag
Cc: Beach, Andrew
Subject: Re: 11/27 U.S. Attorney Appointments '
Proceed w/o. We need to have the mtg.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
----- Original Message-----
From: Otus2005; Ag
To: Sampson, Kyle
CC: Beach, Andrew
Sent: Fri Nov 2415:08:29 2006
Subject: FW: 11/27 U.S. Attorney Appointments
Okay to proceed w/o Elston or would you like me to reschedule?
----- Original Appointment-----
From : Elston, Michael (ODAG)
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:54 PM
To: Otus2005, Ag
Subject: Declined: U.S. Attorney Appointments
When: Monday, November 27, 2006 9:00 AM-10:OO AM (GMT-05:OO) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where :
My wife has a doctor's appointment, but please go forward w/o me.
OIP -
From: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Monday, November 27,2006 8:43 AM
To: Sours, Raquel
Subject: PIS add AG to 9arn
That is on my sked -- USA appts.
Cowboy wrote on March 24, 2007 3:02 AM:I do not know who Otus2500 is, AG is also listed as reciepient and sender in the chain.
11:5
This one is kind of interesting, DOJ spokesperson Scolinos emails W.H. spokesperson Martin with names of 6 to be fired USAs.
In her comment she states: "The one common link is that three are along the southern border so you could make a connection that DOJ is unhappy with immigration prosecution numbers."
i.e. Here's a public explanation that you could use.
Of course the "one common link" may also be incidental to the privately understood explanation.
Matt wrote on March 24, 2007 3:02 AM:Batch 6, Page 20:
Daily Planner Printout for Michael Elston (CoS for DAG McNulty):
"Chiara Investigation Request"
whig-guy wrote on March 24, 2007 3:02 AM:10:3 Check out the last bullet point ie;" More trouble then it's worth". Yea.
From: Kyle.Sampson@usdoj.gov [mailto:Kyle.Sampson@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 11:02 AM
To: Miers, Harriet; Kelley, William K.
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
A_B wrote on March 24, 2007 3:06 AM: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.
1:1
Email from 12/7/2005 regarding meeting that John McKay requested regarding "LInX". "He will be meeting separately with Mark Connor and John Davis."
1:2
A scan of an Outlook daily planner page stating the same as 1:1.
1:3
Meeting "Subject: Call with USA McKay/Fast Track"
Meeting is for 1/27/2006
Required Attendees: "Tenpas, Ronald J (ODAG): Moye, Pam"
John McKay to speak via cell phone.
1:4
Outlook calendar print-out for this meeting.
1:5
Email: "Subject: Call McKay and Charlton"
For 1/26/2007
1:6
Outlook calendar printout for the 1:5 meeting.
1:7
"Subject: Updated: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Prep"
"Start: Mon 3/5/2007"
"Required Attendees: Mercer William W; Sampson, Kyle; Elston, Michael (ODAG); Goodling, Monica; Hertling, Richard; Scott-Finan, Nancy; Nowacki, John (USAEO); Scolinos, Tasia; Roehrkasse, Brian"
1:8
Outlook calendar printout for the meeting described at 1:7.
1:9
"Subject: Updated: US Attorneys Discussion"
"Start: Tues 3/6/2007" ...
"Required Attendees: Sampson, Kyle; Goodling, Monica; Moschella, William; Elston, Michael (ODAG); Mercer, William W; Hertling, Richard; Scolinos, Tasia; Roehrkasse, Brian"
1:10
Outlook calendar printout for meeting described at 1:9
End of "1" document.
A_B wrote on March 24, 2007 3:09 AM:2:1 - 2:2
Letter from Richard A. Hertling to John Conyers dated March 23, 2007.
Nearly identical letter to document 11:1.
Daniel wrote on March 24, 2007 3:11 AM:3:53-54
In the conclusion/recommendation section of an analysis of San Diego's low illegal immigration prosecutions, it is suggested that the strict guidelines are what is prohibiting the number of prosecutions, not Carol Lam or any other personnel.
Question: Did they ever change the guidelines?
Raph Levien wrote on March 24, 2007 3:17 AM:From set 2-6, consisting of DAG000000251 through 300.
The doc on p. 253 is interesting. It seems to be an argument in favor of Tim Griffin. It's not clear who wrote it. Anyway, relevant quotes:
* The Attorney General appointed Tim Griffin as the interim U.S. Attorney following the resignation fo Bud Cummins, who resigned on Dec. 20, 2006. Since early 2006, Mr. Cummins has been talking about leaving the Department to go into private practice for family reasons.
* The Attorney General has assured Senator Pryor that we are not circumventing the process by making an interim appointment and that the Administration would like to nominate Mr. Griffin. However, because the input of home-state Senators is important to the Administration, the Attorney General has asked Senator Pryor whether he would support Mr. Griffin if he was nominated. While the Administration consults with the home-state Senators on a potential nomination, however, the Department must have someone lead the office -- and we believe Mr. Griffin is well-qualified to serve in this interim role until such time as a new U.S. Attorney is nominated and confirmed.
The next page begins a Jan 31, 2007 letter to Mark Pryor containing this paragraph:
As the Attorney General has 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.
The "committed" language certainly seems familiar, but I wasn't able to find an exact match.
There follows a "fact sheet" arguing that the specific cases of appointments are all on the up-and-up.
Then (p. 261-262) there's a letter from Mark Pryor to AGAG, expressing displeasure and concern about the appointment of Griffin.
p. 266 is an email from Griffin to Monica Goodling giving his version of the story about Palast's "caging" article. In it, he argues that he was doing legitimate work to counteract voter fraud.
pp 271-277 are a draft of the statement of Paul McNulty before the Judiciary Committee, with handwritten annotations including the "knife in my heart" line. pp 278-285 the actual statement.
The remainder of the text is about S.214, and then public testimony by AGAG. I didn't find much of interest there. It's no secret the WH opposes it.
Retarc wrote on March 24, 2007 3:17 AM:10:5
Take a look at this. Seems like a nice way to fire
attorneys :)
From: Scolinos, Tasia
To: Catherine-Martin@who.eop.gov
Paul Charlton (D. Ariz.)
Carol Lam (S.D. Cal.)
Margaret Chiara (W.D. Mich.)
Dan Bogden (D. Nev. 1
John McKay (W.D. Wash.)
David Iglesias (D.N.M.)
The one common link here is that three of them are along the southern
DK wrote on March 24, 2007 3:18 AM:border so you could make the connection that DOJ is unhappy with the
immigration prosecution numbers in those districts.
8:14
"recordkeeping for porn producers"
It's in there, I'm not kidding.
J Marcus Campbell wrote on March 24, 2007 3:19 AM:from pdf 32307_10 pg 5
Found Josh's funny email the punch line is; Which ones are they?
OK this Catherine Martin seems like a pretty dim buld. She is sent the list below with locations of USA's and has to ask which ones are on the southern border. My guess is Cathrine Martin is blonde or bleached blonde. Any chance to get picture of Catherine Martin to go with Blonde moment?
From:Scolinos, Tasia
Sent:Tuesday, November 21,2006 1 :20 PM
To: ''Catherine-Martin@who.eop.govl -
Subject:RE: USA replacement plan
• Paul Charlton (D. Ariz.)
Carol Lam (S .D. Cal.)
Margaret Chiara (W.D. Mich.)
Dan Bogden (D. Nev. 1
John McKay (W.D. Wash.)
• David Iglesias (D.N.M.)
The one common link here is that three of them are along the southern border so you could
A_B wrote on March 24, 2007 3:19 AM:make the connection that DOJ is unhappy with the immigration prosecution numbers in those
districts.
----- Original Message-----
From: Catherine Martin@who.eop.gov [mailto:Catherine~Martin@who.eop.govl
Sent: Friday, ~ovember 17, 2006 6:07 PM
To: Scolinos, Tasia
Subject: Re: USA replacement plan
Which ones are they?
3:1
Email exchange between Paul McNulty, William Moschella, and Margaret Chiara from Oct. 17, 2006 to Oct. 19, 2006.
Most relevant: McNulty tells Chiara regarding her request that David or Scott Schools be present regarding a meeting with her, "I would not have selected Will as my principal associate or Mike as my Chief-of-Staff if they were not exemplary in their integrity, discretion and respect for United States Attorneys."
LOL
3:3: Email included in 3:1.
3:4: Email from Monica Goodling to Michael Elston from February 12, 2007: "In all fairness, you probably should make her aware of the fact that the DAG will brief her resignation on Wednesday and that it is possible that while we will not disclose outside of the Hill -- that the Hill may "out" her this week."
Interesting at 3:6
Email from Dan Collins to William Moschella from July 09, 2003:
"Will-
You had asked at the meeting a few weeks ago for ideas on DOJ Reauth. One that sprang to mind was eliminating the district courts' role in selecting USAs. The relevant section is 28 USC 546. Section 546(c)(2) states that the AG may appoint an interim USA who may server for only 120 days. Upon expiration of the 120 days, section 546(d) states that the district court appoints the interim until a USA is appointed as PAS.
-Dan"
Mark wrote on March 24, 2007 3:21 AM:3:9 (DAG2002)
Appears to be the beginning of the legal changes slipped into the "Patriot" Act. Email dated 16 June 2004, from Dan Collins to William Moschella, describing "several options for fixing the problem", including how to get around 120 day interim appointment limits, and also changing from district court to AG selecting interims.
A_B wrote on March 24, 2007 3:27 AM:3:9
Dan Collins email to William Moschella dated June 16, 2004. Here, he lays out amending 28 USC 546(d).
Starting at mid-paragraph: "There could be a question whether the AG could continue to appoint the same person to a new 120-day term, i.e., is the 120-day limit of (c)(2) meant to be a total cap on interim service by way of AG appointment. I don't think that is the right reading of 546(c)(2), but if you wanted to eliminate this risk, you could amend 546(c) by striking 'A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until" and inserting "The term of an appointment under this section shall expire upon". Alternatively, you could add language repealing the 120-day limit on AG interim appointments altogether."
He adds alternatives to this proposal.
3:10
"From William.Moschella ..."
Sent: ... June 16, 2004 ...
To Dan Collins"
"Dan ... You once indicated to me (a pet peeve of yours I think) that federal judges have the ability to appoint acting USA's. What is the code section? There is a potential vehicle for an amendment to fix that constitutional anomaly."
mbbsdphil wrote on March 24, 2007 3:28 AM:Also posted to Don't Blame Me, Blame Bush:
Data released Friday, seems to appear in random order, as if the DOJ played fifty-two card pickup with it. Lots of dupes.
There is an often duplicated June 6, 2006, memo from Daniel Fridman to William Mercer that purports to analyze immigration cases by comparing caseloads in AZ, SoCA and NM [and TX]. This appears to show SoCA caseload declining precipitously, which the memo explains by SoCA's purportedly restrictive guidelines for prosecuting these cases. A management problem laid at Carol Lam's door. Perhaps that's why there are so many copies of this memo.
I have not analyzed the underlying data Fridman is working with, but his discussion of it seems faulty.
Fridman starts by reminding Mercer that his report responds to questions raised by Cong. Issa, who had been provided a Border Patrol report that suggested Lam was not prosecuting enough immigration cases. Fridman fails to mention that the report was out of date and materially altered. [It now appears the report was leaked to Issa by someone in DHS.]
Fridman compares statistics among AZ, NM and SoCal [and TX]. He briefly mentions differences among immigration crimes, from one-off walk-ins to "coyotes" bringing in small numbers, to large rings, but does not analyze them or compare differences among the three regions. He ignores differences in population, and human and physical geography. He touches briefly on staffing differences, but does not discuss budget differences. He fails to discuss any differences in the volume of competing, non-immigration crimes. San Diego is CA's second largest city, and has considerably more non-immigration crime than West Texas or the New Mexico border.
Fridman notes briefly that "there may be differences" that would affect the validity of his data comparison, but does not identify what they might be or how they might skew the data. He just launches into it, leaving the reader to assume that the differences, if any, are not material. If that's not true, this is a hatchet job.
BD wrote on March 24, 2007 3:28 AM:Gonzales never appears in any list of meeting attendees. So how can you tell if he's there? If the meeting takes place in AG's office, then he's there.
9:24
"AG to call Sen. Domenici." Gonzales is not listed as an attendee, but you can infer he's there.
BD wrote on March 24, 2007 3:28 AM:Gonzales never appears in any list of meeting attendees. So how can you tell if he's there? If the meeting takes place in AG's office, then he's there.
9:24
"AG to call Sen. Domenici." Gonzales is not listed as an attendee, but you can infer he's there.
rwojciak wrote on March 24, 2007 3:28 AM:This seems to be an effort to disguise the reason for the firings even before they happened, and to prevent the disclosure of who might have made such decisions.
Doc 3:31, labeled DAG0002025
http://www.realcities.com/multimedia/nationalchannel/archive/mcw/pdf/usattorneys/032307_3.pdf
PLAN FOR REPLACING CERTAIN
UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
STEP 3
Prepare to Withstand Political Upheaval:
U.S. Attorneys desiring to save their
jobs (aided by their allies in the
politicaI arena as well as the Justice
Department community), likely will make
efforts to preserve themselves in office.
...
[Potential questions for USAs]
Who decided?
The Administration made the
determination to seek the resignations.
(not any specific person at the White
House or the Department of Justice).
Why me?
The Administration is gratful for
your service, but wants to give someone
else the chance to serve in your district.
~~Why did the DOJ officials feel the
Disputo wrote on March 24, 2007 3:28 AM:need to lie to the USAs about
replacements? Why claim to be giving
someone else a chance when you don't
yet know who that someone is?
DK is misreading that I think.
If you compare the characters with others, it more likely reads "recordkeeping for pom producers".
What "pom" is, I cannot guess.
Retarc wrote on March 24, 2007 3:28 AM:@J Marcus Campbell
"Which ones are they?" email was sent before the list of 6 was sent.
A_B wrote on March 24, 2007 3:30 AM:3:16
In an email from "Brett_Tolman@judiciary-rep.senate.gov", sent November 09, 2005 to William Moschella, he replies to Moschella on the issue of 28 USC 546(d) and Moschellas comment that "There are several options for ficing the problem."
Tolman says: "I will get a comprehensive fix done."
Mark wrote on March 24, 2007 3:30 AM:Which ones are they?
Posted by: J Marcus Campbell
You need to read from the bottom up... Looks more like Martin was asking which USA's, then the response is above. Bottom up helps the longer emails make sense.
A_B wrote on March 24, 2007 3:34 AM:PDF 4 is essentially statistics on the U.S. attorneys' caseloads.
Matt wrote on March 24, 2007 3:34 AM:Batch 10, page 1:
From: Kelley, William K.
To: Fiddelke, Debbie S.; Jennings, Jeffery S.; Martin, Catherine
Sent: Fri Nov 17 12:32:06 2006
Subject: FW: USA replacement plan
>
The email below, and the attached document, reflect a plan by DOJ to replace several USA Attorneys. By statute, US Attorneys serve four year terms, which are commonly (but not always) extended by inaction -- in practice, they serve until replaced. They serve at the pleasure of the President, but often have very strong home-state political juice, including with their Senators.
Before executing this plan, we wannted to give your offices a heads up and seek input on changes that might reduce the profile or political fallout. Thanks.
-----Original Message------
From: Kyle.Sampson@usdoj.gov [mailto:Kyle.Sampson@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 11:02 AM
To: Miers, Harriet; Kelley, William K.
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 necesssity 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.
>
Kyle Sampson
shoephone wrote on March 24, 2007 3:34 AM:Chief of Staff
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530 [...]
3:16-20 emails re appointment of AGs.
pp.20: email from Moschella to Tolman:
Mark wrote on March 24, 2007 3:34 AM:"judges should not be appointing USAs period for separation of powers issue". Then references possibility judges have been appointing USAs w/o doing background checks. "I don't know how to confirm. This may go back to the AG Reno's tenure."
1-1 Meeting Reminder of William Mercer stating that McKay wants to meet to discuss LInX. (12/07/05)
1-2 William Mercer's Outlook Calender Showing that meeting (Other meetings appear to be redacted but could be mistaken)
1-3 Meeting Reminder of William Mercer mentioning a call with McKay on 01/27/2006. Of Note is subject line is "Call with USA McKay/Fast Track" EDITORIAL***Unless DOJ is an extremely ironic institution, this gives the impression that McKay was on Fast Track***Editorial
1-4 William Mercer's Outlook Calender showing that meeting. (Other meetings redacted)
1-5 Meeting Reminder of William Mercer mentioning a call with McKay and Chiara on 01/26/07
1-6 William Mercer's Outlook Calender showing that meeting (Other Meetings Redacted)
1-7 Meeting Reminder of William Mercer for meeting with top DOJ brass on 03/05/2007 to prepare for House Judiciary Committee
EDITORIAL***they sure did a great job coordinating their stories, eh?***Editorial
1-8 William Mercer's Outlook Calender showing that meeting (Other Meetings Redacted)
1-9 Meeting Reminder of William Mercer for meeting with Top DOJ brass on 03/06/2007 to have "Updated US Attorney Discussion"
Editorial***Is in AG's Conference room which may indicate Albert Gonzales attended. Don't know for certain but it is only e-mail in here that is in this room.***Editorial
1-10 William Mercer's Outlook Calender showing that meeting (Other Meetings Redacted)
Raph Levien wrote on March 24, 2007 3:35 AM:In set 2-5:
p. 226, handwritten annotation: FAUSA issue: Griffin was _always_ our choice
mbbsdphil wrote on March 24, 2007 3:37 AM:J. Marcus, "Catherine Martin" as in former assistant to Dick Cheney, former witness in the Irving Lewis Libby trial, and wife of FCC Chair Kevin Martin? Isn't she now an assistant to Mr. Bush?
Markinsanfran wrote on March 24, 2007 3:37 AM:Interesting about the blackberry emails routed through gwb43.com. *Very* interesting.
That server needs to be subpoenaed.
shoephone wrote on March 24, 2007 3:40 AM:3:8 Letter from Issa to Lam (Feb 2, 2004) wanting to know why her office arrested and then released Antonio Amparo-Lopez (suspected alien smuggler) from custody after Lam's office decided not to prosecute. He wants info about what happened on 11/20/03 (date of arrest?) and the rationale behind Lopez' release.
rwojciak wrote on March 24, 2007 3:41 AM:Good quote from Sampson:
From: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Monday, December 04,2006 6:12 PIY
To: 'Kelley, William K.'
Cc: Miers, Harriet
Subject: RE: US Atty Plan-
Importance: High
Great ,We would like to execute this[the firings] on 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 call 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"
~~Why is "chatter" a concern?
Matt wrote on March 24, 2007 3:43 AM:~~Did the AG call Sens. Ensign or Domenici? If so what was the reason for the firings?
Talk about the wrong prognostication:
Batch 10, page 3
From: Scolinos, Tasia
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 5:40 PM
To: 'Catherine_Martin@who.eop.gov'
Subject: RE: USA replacement plan
Its only six US attorneys (there are 94) and I think most of them will resign quietly - they don't get anything out of making it public they were asked to leave in terms of future job prospects. I don't see it as being a national story - especially if it phases in over a few months. Any concerns on your end?
shoephone wrote on March 24, 2007 3:43 AM:3:11-12 Letter from Issa, Drier, Bono, Cunningham, Cox, Doolittle, Royce, Lewis and six others bitching to Ashcroft about the Lopez release and saying lack of funds is not acceptable reason fro not prosecuting smugglers. They want a"zero tolreance" policy on smuggling from DOJ. Letter says House Judiciary Committee wants info on Lopez situation.
mbbsdphil wrote on March 24, 2007 3:45 AM:J. Marcus, I believe Martin's address refers to the "White House, Executive Office of the President" (who.eop.gov). She would be coordinating communications for someone in the EOP. If correct, that puts Mr. Bush or someone in his personal office/staff in the know.
"From: Scolinos, Tasia
J Marcus Campbell wrote on March 24, 2007 3:46 AM:To: Catherine-Martin@who.eop.gov"
pdf 32307_8 pg pg 21
This email is significant. Note previous email in thread from
pdf 32307_10 pg 5
The email follows it is dated 11-21-06, in that mysterious 18 day gap, go figure, anyway it proposes that immigration be used as an excuse.
The next email from 1-18-2007, desperately wants the Fienstin to Lam letter about immigration from years ago, that the DOJ, eventually responded to what a great job Carol Lam was doing, It appears that Monica Goodling is desperate for this letter to build immigration story for up coming hearings. Could be some smoke here, hopefully Monica Goolding will be available for testimony, why after the USA Lam was fired she is desperately looking for dirt to justify termination.
From:Scolinos, Tasia
Sent:Tuesday, November 21,2006 1 :20 PM
To: ''Catherine-Martin@who.eop.govl -
Subject:RE: USA replacement plan
• Paul Charlton (D. Ariz.)
Carol Lam (S .D. Cal.)
Margaret Chiara (W.D. Mich.)
Dan Bogden (D. Nev. 1
John McKay (W.D. Wash.)
• David Iglesias (D.N.M.)
The one common link here is that three of them are along the southern border so you could
make the connection that DOJ is unhappy with the immigration prosecution numbers in those
districts.
----- Original Message-----
From: Catherine Martin@who.eop.gov [mailto:Catherine~Martin@who.eop.govl
Sent: Friday, ~ovember 17, 2006 6:07 PM
To: Scolinos, Tasia
Subject: Re: USA replacement plan
Which ones are they?
From:Goodling, Monica
Sent:Thursday, January 18,2007 1239 PM
To:Scott-Finan, Nancy; ,Cabral, Catalina; Tracci, Robert N
Subject:I hear there is a letter from Feinstein on Carol Lam a year or two ago
I need'it ASAP. Can you pull from your system ASAP and email to me?
Anonymous wrote on March 24, 2007 3:51 AM:Thursday, January 18,2007 1239 PM . .
Tracklng : ', Reciplent Read
Scott-Finan, Nancy Read: 111812007 12:4O PM
Cabral, Catalina
Tracci, Robert N
"OK this Catherine Martin seems like a pretty dim bulb. She is sent the list below with locations of USA's and has to ask which ones are on the southern border."
Can this be the same Catherine Martin who testifed at the Libby trial? The current Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Communications Director for Policy and Planning?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20050429.html has a photo of her.
Wow. The Deputy Asst to the President doesn't know what states are on the border. Just, wow.
Robin wrote on March 24, 2007 3:51 AM:It is clear that we need to inquire into ALL communications between DOJ and the home senators for the fired USAs
J Marcus Campbell wrote on March 24, 2007 3:54 AM:more panic about Fienstien letter to Lam This exchange is very damaging, considering when it happened, after 11-21 excuse idea, and prior to hearings, and after firings, looks real bad... Film at 11pm
pdf 32307_8 pg 22
Goodling, Monica . ,
Fmm:Scott-Finan, Nancy
Sent:Thursday, January 18,2007 12:42 PM
To: Goodling, Monica; Cabral, Catalina; Traccl, Robert N; Green, Saralene E; Callier, Saundra M
Subject:RE: I hear there is a letter from Feinstein on Carol Lam a year or two ago
SardSaundra
Can you pull the ~einsteinle tter on Carol Lam from 2006,2005, 20b4 up and email it to us'? Thanks.
From: . Goodling, Monica
mbbsdphil wrote on March 24, 2007 3:56 AM:Sent: Thursday, January 18,2007 12:39 PM
To: Smtt-Finan, Nancy; Cabral, Qtalina; Tracd, Robert N
Subject. I hear there Ls a letter from Feinsteln on Carol Lam a year or two ago
I need it ASAP. Can you pull from your system ASAP and email to me?
Shoephone, Zero Tolerance, eh? I thought I remembered a stat that SoCal alone had 140,000 arrests a year, ignoring the number in AZ, NM or TX. "Zero Tolerance" sounds like an electoral gimmick, and a classic HR-style tool to beat Lam with. I don't see, by the way, any problem with other districts not promoting ZT, only Lam's.
Issa knows that he would never vote to fully fund this, just as Congress has not fully funded the border fence. He also knows that the admin/judicial system could never process them without letting more vital cases slip, which would create an even bigger outcry.
Kali wrote on March 24, 2007 4:00 AM:8 pg 28 -29 letter to AG complaining about USA Lam signed by several Congressmen involved with brent Wilkes, ie, Cunningham and John Doolittle
Disputo wrote on March 24, 2007 4:02 AM:"OK this Catherine Martin seems like a pretty dim bulb. She is sent the list below with locations of USA's and has to ask which ones are on the southern border."
You're reading the email wrong. Bottom to top will give you the proper sequence. She's not asking which ones are on the border, but which ones are being fired.
mbbsdphil wrote on March 24, 2007 4:10 AM:The approved Sampson/Miers firing plan, attached to the Dec. 4th memo, must have been drafted no later than early November 2006, then not updated when approval was delayed until December. It refers to starting the search for replacement USA's no later than early November.
It also makes clear Gonzales had to be in the loop. His chief of staff coordinated a complex firing and defensive PR strategy with the President's lawyer. She would have been talking to Rove and Bush. According to Sampson's plan, all possible contacts whom the fired USA's might call were told to give identical responses. That included Gonzales.
If Sampson had really left Gonzales out of the loop, he could have been blindsided by Bush, Rove, Miers or any of the fired USA's. Sampson was considered a Contender for interim replacement for Rove, should he have been sidelined by an indictment. Sampson's future depended on making this firing plan succeed.
He would not have left Gonzales out of the loop unless ordered to by Gonzales himself (meaning he'd approved the plan, but wanted plausible deniability about its details), or someone higher up than he was. That could only mean the President, or one of his direct reports.
J Marcus Campbell wrote on March 24, 2007 4:13 AM:Thanks Retarc, and Mark, I went back and read tread, from bottom up, but I think it is still much funnier from top down, do you think Daily show could use top down version as a skit, and just say they made a mistake on the next days show?
I have to apolgize to Catherine Martin she is not a dim bulb, unless emails are read backward.
? wrote on March 24, 2007 4:19 AM:Hey, check this out, re: the missing Rove e-mails and the GWB43.org e-mails:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/24/01039/6772
mbbsdphil wrote on March 24, 2007 4:23 AM:J. Marcus, good rethink. Catherine Martin and her Harvard Law professors will be pleased.
obsessed wrote on March 24, 2007 4:28 AM:Dear "please_get_lives",
Let us know when it dawns on you.
shoephone wrote on March 24, 2007 4:31 AM:mbbsdphil - they're going to try and rationalize any way they can, thinking that including Issa's letters provides cover. You're right -- there were over a hundred thousand prosecutions and the only real hindrance to prosecuting was the fact that Bush cut millions of dollars from the USA's offices. McKay, here in Seattle, was lambasted for complaining that he didn't have enough $ to expand LinX. But, anyway, as the Jan 18 emails show, they were flipping out about Feinstein.
I am really enjoying watching Issa flip-flop like crazy on the Lam firing. One minute he hates her, then last week he goes on the News Hour to suggest her firing wasn't kosher, now he's back on his old game, blaming her and defending the AG. And it's 1:30am and I can't look through anymore pdfs before bed.
Martin Bio wrote on March 24, 2007 4:41 AM:Catherine Martin
Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Communications Director for Policy and Planning
Prior to her appointment, Ms. Martin served as Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy. From 2001 to 2004, she worked for Vice President Dick Cheney as Deputy Assistant and then Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs. Prior to joining the White House, Ms. Martin worked for Secretary of Commerce Don Evans as Deputy Chief of Staff and White House Liaison. From 2000 to 2001, Martin served as Policy Director to former Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, who was later elected to the United States Senate. From 1994 to 2000, Ms. Martin practiced law at the Washington, D.C. law firm of Steptoe & Johnson, LLP.
Ms. Martin received her J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1993 and her B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin in 1990. Ms. Martin is married to Kevin Martin, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and they reside in Washington, D.C.
shoephone wrote on March 24, 2007 4:42 AM:One more. 3:27-28 The Feinstein Letter
Amos Anan wrote on March 24, 2007 4:46 AM:Partial description of items in pdf file 9.
Only items that seem to have any significance (as far as I can tell) are listings for a meeting on November 27, 2006 on "U.S. Attorney Appointments" with multiple attendees and a meeting on January 17, 2007 with many attendees in preparation for the Senate hearing the next day.
All content information has been redacted other than a resume for Griffin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
9:2
Sours, Raquel
Subject: U.S. Attorney Appointments
Start: Mon 11/27/2006 9:00AM
End: Mon 11/27/2006 10:00AM
Recurrence: (none)
Meeting Status: Meeting organizer
Required Attendees: Sampson,Kyle; Goodling, Monica; McNulty, Paul J; Moschella, William; Elston, Michael (ODAG); Battle, Michael (USAEO)
AG's Conference Room
AO:Kyle Sampson DOJ; Paul McNulty, Monica Gooding, Will Moschella, Mike Battle
----------------------------------------------------------------------
9:3
Sampson, Kyle calendar page scan for above meeting with listing at 9:00AM (November 27, 2006)
Listing at 9:00AM
U.S. Attorney Appointments (AG's Conference Room)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
9:4
Goodling, Monica
Subject: PREP: Phone Call with Senator Domenici
Start: Thu 4/6/2006 3:50PM
End: Thu 4/6/2006 4:00PM
Recurrence: (none)
Meeting Status: Accepted
When: Thursday, April 06, 2006 3:50PM-4:00PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
AG's Office
AO:Kyle Sampson DOJ; Will Moschella, Monica Gooding
----------------------------------------------------------------------
9:5
Goodling, Monica
Subject: Phone Call with Senator Domenici
Start: Thu 4/6/2006 4:00M
End: Thu 4/6/2006 4:15PM
Recurrence: (none)
Meeting Status: Accepted
Required Attendees: Sampson,Kyle; Moschella, William; Goodling, Monica
AG's Office
AO:Kyle Sampson DOJ; Will Moschella, Monica Gooding
POC: Jennifer 224 7093
----------------------------------------------------------------------
9:6
Goodling, Monica calendar page scan for above meeting day (April 6, 2006)
Listing at 8:30AM seems to be redacted
Listing at 3:30PM
3:50PM-4:00PM PREP: Phone Call with Senator Domenici
Listing at 4:00PM
4:00PM-4:15PM Phone Call with Senator Domenici
Listing info from 4:30PM to 6:30PM seems to be redacted
----------------------------------------------------------------------
9:7
Goodling, Monica
Subject: U.S. Attorney Appointments
Start: Mon 11/27/2006 9:00AM
End: Mon 11/27/2006 10:00AM
Recurrence: (none)
Meeting Status: Accepted
Required Attendees: Sampson,Kyle; Goodling, Monica; McNulty, Paul J; Moschella, William; Elston, Michael
(ODAG); Battle, Michael (USAEO)
When: Monday, November 27, 2006 9:00AM-10:00AM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
AG's Conference Room
AO:Kyle Sampson DOJ; Paul McNulty, Monica Gooding, Will Moschella, Mike Elston, Mike Battle
----------------------------------------------------------------------
9:8
Goodling, Monica calendar page scan for above meeting day (November 27, 2006)
Listing info from 7:00AM to 9:00AM redacted
Listing for 9:00AM
U.S. Attorney Appointments
Info redacted
Listing info from 9:30AM to 12:00PM redacted
Listing info from 2:00PM to 3:00PM redacted
Left side footer: Goodling, Monica
----------------------------------------------------------------------
9:9
Goodling, Monica calendar page scan for above meeting day (December 08, 2006)
Listing for 8:00AM redacted
Listing for 10:00AM
10:00AM-10:45AM VTC Interview - Tim Griffin AR/E (2245 MAIN)
Redacted info in 11:30AM-1:30PM area
Redacted info in 4:30PM-5:30PM area
Left side footer: Goodling, Monica
----------------------------------------------------------------------
9:10
Goodling, Monica
Subject: VTC Interview - Tim Griffin AR/E
Start: Fri 12/08/2006 10:00AM
End: Fri 12/08/2006 10:45AM
Recurrence: (none)
Meeting Status: Accepted
(attachment icons for MSWord docs) "Resume updated.doc (72KB)" "bio2006.doc (27KB)
Resume and Bio are attached:
>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
9:11
Scan of Tim Griffin resume (first page)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
9:12
Scan of Tim Griffin resume (second page)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
9:13
Scan of Tim Griffin biographical document (first and only page)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
9:35
Day book page scan.
January 16, 2007
Can't read the particulars of who's calendar it is though with some lightening I might be able to.
Listing for meeting at 11:30AM
Heading:
PREP: 1/18 Senate Judiciary Hearing
Listing info redacted.
Listing for meeting at 1:15PM
Heading:
PREP: 1/18 Senate Judiciary Hearing:
Listing info redacted.
On this calendar page listings from 7AM to 11:30AM are redacted as well as 1:15PM to 4:45PM.
Footer at bottom left of page: "Otus2007, AG"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
9:36
Beach, Andrew
Subject: PREP: 1/18 Senate Judiciary Hearing:
Start: Wed 1/17/2007 1:45PM
End: Wed 1/17/2007 2:45PM
Recurrence: (none)
Meeting Status: Meeting organizer
Required Attendees: Otus2007, AG; Sampson,Kyle; Moschella, William; Seidel, Rebecca; Tracci, Robert N;
Friedrich, Matthew (OAG); Scolinos, Tasia; Elwood, Courtney; Mercer, William W; Hertling,
Richard; Brand, Rachel; Elston, Michael (ODAG); Burton, Faith; Colborn, Paul P; Bradbury,
Steve; Bucholtz, Jeffrey (CIV); Eisenberg, John; Elwood, John
AG Conference Room
Attending: Brent McIntosh, Associate Counsel to the President
Core Participants
AO:Kyle Sampson DOJ; Richard Hertling, Will Moschella, Courtney Elwood, Rebecca Seidel, Rob Tracci, Matt Friedrich,
Tasia Scolinos, Bill Mercer, Rachel Brand
Additional Attendees
Paul Colborn, Faith Burton, Steve Bradbury, Jeff Bucholtz, Mike Elston, John Eisenberg, John Elwood
----------------------------------------------------------------------
9:37
Day book page scan.
January 17, 2007
Redacted information from 7:15AM to 1:45PM
Listing for meeting at 1:45PM
Heading:
PREP: 1/18 Senate Judiciary Hearing
Listing info redacted.
Listing for meeting at 3:45PM
Heading:
PREP: 1/18 Senate Judiciary Hearing
Listing info redacted.
No info from 4:15PM to bottom of page
Footer at bottom left of page: "Otus2007, AG"
Mark Z wrote on March 24, 2007 4:51 AM:----------------------------------------------------------------------
All of PDF set 6 appears to be meetings of various kinds with no normative statements found. Complete smokescreen as far as I can tell
6-55-61 Has a number of meetings in Early March discussing the US Attorney issue organized by William Moschella.
BD wrote on March 24, 2007 4:57 AM:Hi Josh et al -
Not sure if you've seen this:
http://politics.drumsnwhistles.com/2007/03/us-attorneys-bush-holds-the-smoki
ng-gun/
- BD in SF
P.S. You might want to check your email service. I tried emailing this to you using talk@talkingpointsmemo.com, but this bounced back to me:
:
BD wrote on March 24, 2007 4:57 AM:209.86.93.227 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 550 joshtpm@earthlink.net...Due to extended inactivity new mail is not currently being accepted for this mailbox.
Giving up on 209.86.93.227.
Hi Josh et al -
Not sure if you've seen this:
http://politics.drumsnwhistles.com/2007/03/us-attorneys-bush-holds-the-smoki
ng-gun/
- BD in SF
P.S. You might want to check your email service. I tried emailing this to you using talk@talkingpointsmemo.com, but this bounced back to me:
:
Smartypants wrote on March 24, 2007 5:01 AM:209.86.93.227 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 550 joshtpm@earthlink.net...Due to extended inactivity new mail is not currently being accepted for this mailbox.
Giving up on 209.86.93.227.
All of section 7 documents are Outlook printouts of John Nowacki's schedule. Below is a catalog of the documents with meeting times, topic and attendees (when available).
7-1: 6/20/06 from 2:00-3:00pm
Michael Battle scheduled a face-to-face meeting with Margaret Chiara
7-2: 10/10/06 from 11:30am - 12:00 pm Regina Barret scheduled meeting with Investigator Warren Hamilton re: USA Dan Bogden.
Who is Hamilton? Why is he investigating Bogden? Any emails from Barret following this meeting?
7-3: 12/20/06 All of John Nowacki's meeting for day are redacted.
7-4: 1/9/06 from 12:00pm - 1:00pm
John Nowacki has meeting re: Tim Griffin
7-5: 1/9/060
All of John Nowacki's meeting for day are redacted. Previous page shows meeting re: Tim Griffin. Is this a failed effort to try to hide a meeting?
7-6: 1/26/07
All of John Nowacki's meeting for day are redacted.
7-7: 1/30/07
All of John Nowacki's meeting for day are redacted.
7-8: 2/5/07 2:00pm - 3:30pm
John Nowacki scheduled major pow-wow to prep for 2/6/07 DAG hearing. Attendees are: Will Moschella, Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling, Richard Hertling, Rebecca Seidel, Nancy Scott-Finan, John Nowacki, Tom Kirsch, Michael Battle
7-9: 2/5/07
John Nowacki's schedule redacts all meetings except one noted in 7-8
7-10: 2/6/07
Afternoon meetings following DAG hearing and scheduled tasks are redacted from Nowacki's schedule
7-11: 2/15/07 1:30-3:00 pm
Scheduled meeting on Nowacki's schedule is redacted.
What happened immediately prior or after 2/15/07 that could relate to a meeting Nowacki wouldn't want disclosed?
7-12: 2/15/07 10:00am-10:30am meeting, 2:00-3:00 pm meeting
Scheduled meetings on Nowacki's schedule are redacted.
7-13: 3/2/07 11:30am - 1:00 pm
Nowacki accepted 1.5 hour meeting to prep for House Judiciary Hearing.
Attendees are: William Moschella, Monica Goodling, Richard Hertling, Nancy Scott-Finan, Brian Roehrkasse
7-14: 3/2/07 1:00pm-2:30 pm meeting immediately following prep for House Judiciary hearingn redacted from Nowacki's schedule
7-15: 3/5/06 11:00am-12:30pm
Nowacki accepted meeting to prep for House Judiciary hearing
Attendees are: William Moschella, William Mercer, Kyle Sampson, Michael Elston, Monica Goodling, Richard Hertling, Nancy Scott-Finan, John Nowacki, Tasia Scolinos, Brian Roehrkasse
7-16: 3/5/06 3:00pm-4:30pm
Nowacki accepted meeting to continue prep for House Judiciary hearing
Attendees are: William Moschella, William Mercer, Kyle Sampson, Michael Elston, Monica Goodling, Richard Hertling, Nancy Scott-Finan, John Nowacki, Tasia Scolinos, Brian Roehrkasse
7-17: 3/5/06 Meeting from 1:00pm-3:00pm redacted from Nowacki's schedule.
Who was Nowacki meeting with between morning and afternoon sessions to prep from House Judiciary hearing?
BD wrote on March 24, 2007 5:03 AM:Monica Goodling was the liaison between the WH and the AG's office. And she's curiously on leave.
Seems like she would be a good be a good person to focus upon, as she probably knows where the bodies are buried.
BD wrote on March 24, 2007 5:03 AM:Monica Goodling was the liaison between the WH and the AG's office. And she's curiously on leave.
Seems like she would be a good be a good person to focus upon, as she probably knows where the bodies are buried.
J Marcus Campbell wrote on March 24, 2007 5:04 AM:So on 11-21 ........... The White House gets a list of US Attorney's to be fired, and this email exchange is in 18 day gap..... Is this earliest WH confimation of list? Why no other emails from Cathriene Martin in the dump?
Any ideas on why she is contact from White House, who gets initial names?
And again;
I have to apolgize to Catherine Martin she is not a dim bulb, unless emails are read backward.
Perhaps next time DOJ does a document dump they could produce them on a FIFO method rather than a LIFO method, combined with the shuffled deck method currently in use.
Mark Z wrote on March 24, 2007 5:11 AM:These documents confirm it for me, the republicans were clearly concerned most about Carol Lam.
From what I have seen thus far based on the documents and the comments, they are clearly trying to put into question Carol Lam's credentials.
Things to keep of note:
-The republicans only have statistical information concerning Ms. Lam's enforcement of criminals (which on glance appears to mirror the rest of the department-especially with immigration).they don't appear to mention this as a reason to fire her before the purge.
-There is not a document that I have found (and please correct me if I am wrong) providing any rationale for firing of Carol Lam before the purge. She has been on lists, but there is still no why
It is interesting that there is yet to be a document on Iglesias. Is it simply a matter of them not having anything bad on the guy? Same with Charlton and Bogden. What gives?
ODD wrote on March 24, 2007 5:16 AM:7
Meeting scheduling emails and calendar scans. Progresses from when Margaret started to object to the response to the scandal blowing up.
Meetings run on dates
6/20/2006 (meet w/ margaret Chiara)
10/10/2006
1/9/2007
2/5/2007
3/2/2007
3/5/2007
3/5/2007
Giant Teapot wrote on March 24, 2007 5:17 AM:3:9-10
Detailed email dated June 16, 2004, laying out options to "fix" the "constitutional anomoly" in 28 USC 546 (d), that allows Federal judges to appoint Acting USA's.
What caught my eye was the non-gov email domain, mto.com. He's a former DOJ employee, who . He appears to be a scholarly type (when not repping Big Tobacco), who Moschella tapped when a potential legislative "vehicle" was identified. (FWIW, the Patriot Act Reauthorization was signed into law on March 9, 2006.) Not necessarily anything sinister that he was consulted, but notable since he responded with several word by word options for amending 28 USC 546 (d).
Daniel P. Collins Bio
http://mto.com/lawyers/bio.cfm?attorneyID=250
*********************
Smartypants wrote on March 24, 2007 5:23 AM:From: CollinsDP@MTO.com
Sent: .Wednesday, June 16,2Q04 1239 PM
To: Moschella, William
Subject: RE:
Attachments: tmp.htm
So do other people read the 10:3 email of 11/15/06 from Kyle Sampson to Harriet Miers and William Kelly as anything other than Alberto Gonzales getting the ok from Bush to move forward with these firings?
This is the Chief of Staff to the Attorney General asking the President's Chief Counsel and her Deputy Counsel to review the plan to fire the USAs and to make sure the President's chief political advisor, Karl Rove, is ok with the plan.
"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."
Given Rove's involvement, can this be seen as anything other than a political firing of the USAs?
Anonymous wrote on March 24, 2007 5:27 AM:From BD from Bang the Drum : http://politics.drumsnwhistles.com/2007/03/us-attorneys-bush-holds-the-smoking-gun
Quick Quotes:
"W wants him in"
"WH is intent on nominating"
Full e-mail:
From: Goodling, Monica
Sent: Friday, August 18,2006 12:09 PM
To: Sampson. Kyle
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 nominating, 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 personnel issue and gets him into the office he and the W 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 knowing 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.)
cars wrote on March 24, 2007 5:30 AM:Regarding Daniel (Dan) P. Collins -
He worked for the DOJ and in 2003 instigated this idea of changing the process of this "constitutional anomaly." He is a Federalist Society member. Moschella was asking for a refresher from Collins back in 2004 about the issue. Collins at that time was already working as a Partner in the Los Angeles office of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP (MTO.com). Moschella did finally manage to correct this "constitutional anomaly" by hijacking the Patriot Act, with the help of Brett Tolman, from Specter's staff. The emails between Moschella and Tolman are in file 032307_3.pdf (page 16).
June 2004 wrote on March 24, 2007 5:45 AM:June 2004 was a very interesting month. A few quick highlights from Wiki:
June 1 Stephanie Herseth defeats Larry Diedrich in South Dakota
scribe wrote on March 24, 2007 5:49 AM:June 3 Tenet announces he is resigning
June 4 Pavitt anounces resignation
June 5 Reagan dies
June 6 the torture memo goes public
032307_3 san diego immigration white paper
032307_3.pdf at pages DAG..2015 through DAG...2020
MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
Dated June 6, 2006
From: Daniel Fridrnan, Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General
SUBJECT: Analysis of Immigration Prosecutions in the Southern District of California
Discussion of policy and resources relating to prosecution of illegal alien cases in San Diego.
Border Patrol apparently would like to see more cases prosecuted. In concluding recommendations, the author talks about getting more resources to prosecute some of the less serious cases. Recall that some of the INS successor agencies that once were in the Justice Department are now in Homeland Security.
Quoting at page DAG000002020:
Any additional resources provided to the district to lower the vacancy rate should be done with a clear
none wrote on March 24, 2007 5:57 AM:understanding that they will supplement current resources focused on criminal aliens. To the extent that Border Patrol is dissatisfied with the. level of immigration prosecutions, Customs and Border Protection or the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement should provide SDCA with Special Assistant United States Attorneys to focus on immigration prosecutions and improve the manpower issues.
6-pg.11
Meeting
2/6/2007 9:30am-11:30am
Senate Office Bldg Rm. 226
Shayne Williams, Michael Elson (ODAG),
William Moschella
Topic: Is the DOJ Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of USAs? Chairman Leahy
noone wrote on March 24, 2007 6:06 AM:6-34
Moschella, Williams calendar.
Phone Call with Senator Domenici
9/23/2005 12:45pm - 1pm
Kyle Sampson (AO), Will Mochella (DOJ)
"AG will call Senator Domenici
AG's Office"
--------------
6-36
Mrs. K8 wrote on March 24, 2007 6:14 AM:(Same as above but on 1/31/2006 at 5:15pm)
(No statement of AG will call)
(AG office, Jennifer Heath (POC) also in attend)
---------
6-40
(Same but on 4/6/2006 4:00pm)
(Sampson, Moschella, Goodling, Heath)
-----------
6-38
(Same but on 4/26/2006 3:50pm)
(Sampson, Moschella, Goodling)
"White House OPA calls California, Michigan, and Washington 'leads'"
This is a quote from the email listed above, posted by rwojciak at 03:41am. The email is sent by Kyle Sampson to William Kelley with a copy to Harriet Myers, and lists tasks to be performed on "Pearl Harbor Day" persuant to the Massacre, including one for the AG to do (calling Senator Kyl).
Here's my question: in the quote I cited here, does "OPA" perhaps refer to the "Office of the Political Assistant"? In other words, is this a reference to Karl Rove?
Or does the acronym, "OPA" mean something else entirely?
p.s. Thanks to every one of you for all the great work you're doing -- it's been riveting to read your entries.
gavo wrote on March 24, 2007 6:24 AM:OPA = Office of Public Affairs.
centavo wrote on March 24, 2007 6:30 AM:6
61 pages of meeting scheduling in sets of two; first page is from desk of McNulty or Moschella or Elston, second of each set is a copy of the page from the appointment calendar. Earliest is scheduled phone conference with Domenici (9/23/05), up through scheduled in-house meetings prepping for and after the Senate hearings in February 2007.
Nothing noteworthy that I could see, though the redactions on the appointment calendars seem a little off to me at times, like the appointment notation itself was not part of the original document. Don't know what that would signify, if true, it's just that the lines don't always match up (e.g., p. 6, 14, 22).
lucky wrote on March 24, 2007 6:41 AM:8-18 Kevin Ryan:
"Kevin...wants us to know he's still a company man" Until he got the boot also, I guess. lol.
nobody wrote on March 24, 2007 6:45 AM:BushCo should be fried for all this -- and I mean boiled in oil -- an electric chair would be a waste of energy.
[Yes, pun intended -- and maybe we can burn bushies to heat the oil.]
DR wrote on March 24, 2007 6:51 AM:Quick note: During the last dump, a number of people remarked that there were no messages to or from the AG himself. One explanation was that the AG had stated that he didn't consider messages sent from his blackberry to be emails (idiot...).
But some of the messages posted here are clearly from blackberries (and marked as such). So why are there STILL no communications from Gonzales himself? That makes absolutely no sense to me. Is it another case of gwb43.com (the white house tape eraser??)?
DR wrote on March 24, 2007 7:04 AM:gwb43.com info:
MX Record shows mail exchangers as:
mailscan1.smartechcorp.net and mailscan2.smartechcorp.net
Nameservers for the domain are:
ns1.cha.smartechcorp.net and a.ns.trespassers-w.net
Smartech is your standard hosting company as far as I can tell, based in Chattanooga, TN. They actually make a point of stating in their news page that they host GOP sites:
http://www.smartechcorp.net/index.php?page=news&sub=story&id=68
Could be an interesting lead to follow.
C wrote on March 24, 2007 8:07 AM:I want to echo the comment of "?" above. Why is most of 8:15-16 (Additional Intel re [Senate Judiciary Committee] Members) redacted and what does the rest of the document say? What we do have discusses what the OAG knows about what Feinstein knows - which at that time was "rumors" and an FBI agent's statement saying that Lam's departure would disrupt their case. The rest is redacted - date is Jan. 17. Where's the rest?!
artie wrote on March 24, 2007 8:19 AM:hello, i am looking at PDF number 4
4:1-40 USA criminal caseload statistics for 2001-2006
4:41 email 6/6/06 from Daniel Fridman to Bill Mercer with attachment, "final memo incorporating the EARS report and U.S. sentencing commision data"
4:42 beginning of report
"The USAO for Southern District of California has come under criticism for ostensibly weak enforcement of federal immigration criminal offenses. Most recently, . . . Issa has released to the AP an internal 41-page report written last August by the Border Patrol of San Diego claiming that the lack of federal immigration prosecutions in San Diego is hurting morale within the Border Patrol . . . . The purpose of this white paper is to analyze the situation in SDCA by using staffing and prosecution . . . "
4:43 second page of white paper and end of PDF
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 24, 2007 8:23 AM:8-30 to 37
1/18/07 Email Exchange re: Missing Feinstein letter
Monica Goodling and Nancy Scott Finan are looking for a letter from Senator Feinstein. Presumably, they are looking for Feinstein's 6/06 inquiry instigated by the Border Patrol about Lam's prosecution of immigration cases.
Feinstein's letter was featured in the first two doc dumps as if it were prima facie evidence why Lam was fired. But the bozos at DOJ could not even find the letter one month after Lam was fired.
The DOJ knew that firing Lam was controversial yet it seems no one bothered to put together a file on Lam. If done right, the DOJ would have handed a comprehensive and documented review of Lam's performance signed off by DOJ senior officials to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Maybe the DOJ cannot release them to the public but it darned well better provide memoranda to the Senate Judiciary Committee weighing the importance of how Lam's prosecuted immigration cases against the importance of continuity in a major corruption case.
In one of his recent statements on the purge, Karl Rove pointed out that the Bush administration kept some Clinton appointees on because they were involved in high profile cases or important investigations.
Anonymous wrote on March 24, 2007 8:47 AM:PDF number 5 is full of email from assistants to Carol Lam, it appears, about the great and irrational "venom" coming from Issa. They are dated early July 2006 and begin on page 16.
Issa was "fixated" on the "coyote" problem and wanted to meet with Lam; eventually they speak on the phone.
5:17 Dave L. Smith email to Rebecca Seidel and Nancy Scott-Finan cc:d to Daniel Fridman, Lee Otis, John Crews, and Natalie Otis, regarding Issa's request for a meeting: "Presumably he would ask her what resources she needs to achieve 'zero tolerance' on immigration and she would be limited to urging him to support the President's budget. Still, with appropriate talking points, I see this as an opportunity to ratchet down the venom coming from Issa."
5:18 copy of letter from Brenda Porter, Lam's assistant, which includes, "I believe you are familiar with the history between Congressman Issa and our office."
5:25 email from Lam to William Moschella and Rebecca Seidel, copied from Moschella to Michael Elston and Bill Mercer, to Daniel Fridman, here Lam describes her phone call with Issa, in pretty calm language, but Issa comes across poorly
5:27-29 a long chain of forwarded and copied emails in which the Lam people in the above react with surprise and anger at some ridiculous statements made by a border patrol witness at the congressional hearing on 7/6/06 - they want to know why he is speaking out of turn and who prepped him to say such things (the immigrants are not being so prosecuted now)
5:34 last page of a long email requesting information from Lam's office to write a story about Issa's concerns - reporter is Sharon NcNary
5:54 bunch of email "of the highest possible priority" from june 16
gotta run hope every little bit helps
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 24, 2007 9:17 AM:4:1-40
Pages of statistics of number of cases filed by statutes relating immigration violations.
Where are the statistics on convictions and average length of sentence?
georgia wrote on March 24, 2007 9:21 AM:my notes so far:
1:4 Jan 27,2006 Bill Mercer Meeting with McKay/Fast Track
1:5 Jan 26,2006 Meeting with McKay and Charlton
1:9 3/6/06 USA Meeting - Mercer, Sampson, oschella, Elston, Hertling, Scolins, Roehrkasse
3:1 10/19/2006 meeting - Margolis, McNulty, Chiara, Moschella, Elston. "Scott Schools and David [Margolis]
know the situation and me."
3:2 8/2/2006 - CHarlton, McNulty, Meyer, Elston - AZ death penalty case
3:4 2/12/2006 (8:23 pm) Goodling tells Elston that "Hill may 'out' Chiara"
3:5 2/12/2006 (8:24 pm) Elston e-mails Chiara - "need to discuss a related issue"
3:5 2/12/2006 (3:45) Elston tells Chiara new USA's don't succeed predecessors on AGAC. Normally, interims
are not made members of AGAC
3:6 7/9/2003 Dan Collins to Will Moschella and Dan Bryant - confirmation that Dan Collins came up with idea
for "Section 502", removing district court role
3:8 Darrell Issa contacts Carol Lam about catch and release
3:9-3:10 6/16/2003 Collins lays out the details for "502"
Also notes: "P.S. I notice things are still quiet on the Sentencing Commission frot. Is there any hint
that the earlier anticipated hearing wil go forward?"
6/16 Will Moschella started discussion, asking about Collins' "peeve" regarding judicial appointment
3:11 memo dated 7/30/2004 Shows that it was Ashcroft DOJ policy not to prosecute "certain alien smugglers".
USA's wanted "zero tolerance"
3:13-3:14 USA's ask the President for additional prosecutorial funding
3:16 11/9/2005 - Moschella passes "Section 502" plan to Tolman, and Tolman agrees to "get the comprehensive
fix done."
3:17 11/11/2005 Natalie Voris confirms that Sheldon Sperling got 3 consecutive interim appointments
3:18 11/11/2005 - Moschella being a bit deceptive about PATRIOT amendment
3:19 11/11/2005 - courts have made their own appointments
3:20 Moschella discusses appointments with Collins
3:22 Iraq war impact on staffing for Lam
3:25 explains prosecutorial guidleines
3:26 suggest changing Lams guidelines
3:29 12/4/2006 - sampson, McNulty, Battle in on "plan"
3:35 e-mail regarding NM/CA immigration. Who is it from? Name is redacted or deleted
3:38 5/21/2006 email from USA-EO, report of Darrel Issa on CNN, critical of SDCA
3:40 cases "resolved by charge bargains"
3:50 5/26/2006 Dan Fridman provided Immigration pProsecution White paper to Bill Mercer, suggest changing
guidelines and adding staffing
4:42 6/6/2006 "Final Version" of report provided
5:5 6/19/2006 - memo from John Crews to Daniel Fridman - "How fast do you want the [immigration
prosecution] increase to occur, and by how much?"
5:7 explains increase question
5:8 "water balloon" analogy (just a thought..might it have been allowed to swell in SDCA to prevent
problems in TX and cause them in CA)
5:9 - 5:10 ICE shifts focus away from investigatory support of criminal cases
5:11 Fridman suggests putting conditions on DHS/DOJ grants to bring local law enforcement in line
5:15 6/23/2006 discussion about possible Issa-Lam meeting. Issa might ask what it would take to achieve
"zero tolerance" - Lam would be encouraged only to recommend support of Preisdent's budget.
cminmd wrote on March 24, 2007 9:38 AM:I keep waiting for someone in the press to use enough common sense to look at a map and point out that for Carol Lam, the Immigration Enforcement absurd. I am sure I E is a big concern for the USAGs in San Diego and LA, but you can't really make the argument for San Fran. It is 550 miles from San Fran to the border. That would be like saying the USAG of Omaha, NE's top priority needs to be the Canadian border. Just silly.
convict wrote on March 24, 2007 9:41 AM:RE Rove / GWB43.com email..
Does his use of this email server (and tech support ) mean the 'GOP' oganisation has same 'security clearances' as Rove. Illegal?
Mara wrote on March 24, 2007 10:21 AM:Why would the DOJ have a copy of a letter from Congressman Issa to Carol Lam from back in 2004. Why isn't it on letterhead and unsigned. Did DOJ ask Issa to help then come up with some good dirt to throw her way?
Let's End This National Nightmare wrote on March 24, 2007 10:41 AM:"Interesting about the blackberry emails routed through gwb43.com. *Very* interesting.
That server needs to be subpoenaed."
I agree. This is getting VERY interesting. I hope the Dems are up to the challenge.
bb wrote on March 24, 2007 11:36 AM:In section 6 pages 24, 48 the email address of "Otus2007, AG" shows up.
In section 8 page 2 an email address of "Otus2005, Ag" appears.
In section 9 page 36 the email address of "Otus2007, AG" shows up again.
Who is this "Otus2005, AG" or "Otus2007, Ag?" Is this the same person changing names or 2 different people. Almost all of the other email address are formated with lastname, firstname using the real name of the person sending or receiving the email. Why this alias?
ahem wrote on March 24, 2007 11:38 AM:There are no emails that originate from a gwb43.com address in the dump. Only ones quoted in replies.
Subpoena that server: it looks increasingly likely that "Karl's shop" uses email resources outside the eop.gov domain.
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 24, 2007 11:57 AM:No scheduled meetings about USAs after March 6, 2007. I'm sure they did not stop holding them.
AG Gonzales might not want to disclose he was briefed by his staff about the fired USAs before his March 13 press conference. Not a snowball's chance in hell that the 11/27/06 meeting would not come up in a briefing.
Then again, members of the AG's staff might not want to disclose who else they met with after March 6 about the USA purge.
The Schedule Gap.
Jeff C. wrote on March 24, 2007 11:58 AM:10-1, 10-3, etc.
Looking at the Outlook calendars from Kyle Sampson's computer. The date stamp on the pages is 3/15/2007 and these are pages from the gap/lull. So...these pages were printed in time for the document dump LAST Friday but they were held back. Why? Did OAG really think that bloggers and news organizations would miss this? Wishful thinking on their part?
MarkC wrote on March 24, 2007 11:59 AM:I hope this is not off topic. DR notes that gwb43.com uses a nameserver that is ns1.cha.smartechcorp.net based in Chattanooga, TN.
One of web pages that it hosts is for a Chattanooga company, Chattanooga realtor Hunter Properties, Inc. It is owned by Robert W. Hunter who lives in Signal Mountain, TN. SEC filings show he gave $2000 to Bob Corker for Senate, and $1750 to Friends of Zach Wimp, but show no donations to the RNC.
I don't know if there is a connection between Hunter and Smartech. Smartech's president is Jeff Averbeck (according to a piece in the Chattanooga Times Free Press on Sunday, August 22, 2004, posted on the Smartech website) and it got a business license in March 2002. A Wisconsin native, Averbeck also lives in Signal Mountain and contributed at least $3, 250 to the RNC from 2000-2006. He also operates tAirNet Group Inc. Averbeck has a geographic connection to the Corkers -- according to Fundrace 2004's neighbor tracker, he lives a block down from Bob Corker, Jr. (the son of the mayor of Chatanooga who was just elected to the Senate) on Broad Street.
KevinB wrote on March 24, 2007 12:11 PM:10:3 (McClatchy dump). Apparently, there was a Word document entitled "USA replacement plan.doc." It would be interesting if that document could be examined, part. for any "track changes," comments, etc. Most people, I think, fail to consider that all changes must be accepted in order to get rid of previous drafts/changes.
Mara wrote on March 24, 2007 12:12 PM:After three exchanges in one day between Cathie Martin and Scolinos on 11-17-06, are we to believe that it took Scolinos 4 days before she reponded to Martin??? Wouldn't they be a little more speedy when corresponding with the White House?
HotFlash wrote on March 24, 2007 12:18 PM:Mara, 17 was a Friday, so 20 was soonest work day.
HotFlash wrote on March 24, 2007 12:22 PM:Have anybody's computers or Blackberry's been subpoened?
mbbsdphil wrote on March 24, 2007 12:28 PM:cminmd, smuggling ops, large or small, only cross at the border; they may operate or be managed from anywhere.
The three districts in CA are centered in CA's top three cities, but incorporate agricultural districts. Both are sources of employment for immigrants, and, therefore, for immigration enforcement. Just as the construction and lawn care trades in Dallas, Ft. Worth or Austin may have heavy concentrations of immigrants. Or, for that matter, 15th and P in Washinton, DC, near Whole Foods, which has a morning shape-up that appears to be largely immigrant painting and construction trades labor.
mbbsdphil wrote on March 24, 2007 12:31 PM:Mara, excellent point. Issa would not have used plain bond. So, something was redacted for some reason. Or, is this a draft prepared for him? Hmmm.
mbbsdphil wrote on March 24, 2007 12:41 PM:Monica Goodling may be on leave; this puts her out of the daily loop and makes it harder for the press to find her. But, Congress can request her testimony or issue a subpoena.
mbbsdphil wrote on March 24, 2007 12:49 PM:Rove plays three-dimensional chess. He also works in four dimensions - time and timing are sometimes his greatest tools. Such as releasing bad news, but doing it Friday at Five, when fewer people are looking. His To Do Calendar is Japanese - it doesn't go out days or weeks, but years. How does that impact what we see here?
TheraP wrote on March 24, 2007 1:01 PM:RE Document 8:14
and comments above by DK (reading "porn producers"), corrected by Disputo (at 3:28) as "pom producers"
This may not even fit the facts of the document here - BUT that set me to thinking about the whole business of these emails from other servers. And thus to the way this totalitarian regime has issued directives related to its criminal behavior - so for turture and for surveillance.
Thus:
1. We now know they've been keeping two (or more) sets of books for memos, emails, etc.
2. So, if these folks were intending to set up alternate ways of communicating, which would subvert the law requiring the maintenance of presidential records, wouldn't we expect to find DOJ producing a directive (for the president to sign) which allows for or provides for this double set of books?
I may be off base about:
3. Could the reference to statistics on "pom" record keeping be a reference to 1 and 2? I say that only because they must have had an internal way to refer to the "project" or "program" on memos - to refer to the double set of books - and perhaps statistics related to such?
4. Even if #3 is incorrect, we should still be on the lookout for what I've suggested here - a directive from DOJ authorizing the subversion of the law on maintaining presidential records.
SO WHERE IS THIS SILENCER TO THE SMOKING GUN?
Slippery Slope wrote on March 24, 2007 1:03 PM:"Interesting about the blackberry emails routed through gwb43.com. *Very* interesting.
That server needs to be subpoenaed.
Posted by: Markinsanfran
Date: March 24, 2007 03:37 AM "
*************************************
This is a tangent to the whole issue of AG / USA firings, but is there a security issue here with the sending of blackberry emails through this server. If so, should the WH security officer (you know... the guy who testified last week) start investigating this? AND, as has been noted prior by many, is this intended to bypass record keeping regs? If there is a claim it does not require record keeping then it should enjoy any executive privilege ether.
mbbsdphil wrote on March 24, 2007 1:23 PM:Bears repeating. Within the past few months, Bush has replaced all three of California's USA's: two fired, one sent to a Republican firm that does white collar defense work. These eight represent seven states; that's fourteen Senators. Rove considers these seven key states in 2008. [FDL has a good comment on this.] Add in states like Utah, which also has a new USA - Brett Tolman (a former Specter staffer) who inserted the change into the Patriot [sic] Act II, deleting the Senate's role in confirming interim USA's, who beat out Kyle Sampson for that slot.
Bush takes seriously his role as top predator in the patronage food chain, though others, like Rove, actually think and eat for him.
Discounting California, whose two Senators are Democrats, what President would willfully piss off more than twenty percent of the Senate - by removing their patronage over USA appointments - without being "in" on the political moves that underlie those changes? What top political adviser would advocate these systemic changes without informing his President and coordinating its possibilities with other agencies?
The smoke is as thick as a pea souper. The fire is close by.
Giant Teapot wrote on March 24, 2007 1:26 PM:Re the mysterious "Otus" emails. Can it be an acronym for "of the United States?" At the White House, the President is known as POTUS, the First Lady is FLOTUS. I'm not aware of cabinet officials using the "otus" but Attorney General is a far higher status than any other cabinet position and using AGOTUS wouldn't be surprising.
AGAG seems to be known sometimes as "the Judge" and sometimes "AG."
Since the Otus addresses have a year tacked on, could it be some way to track or file email that puts AGAG in the loop, but doesn't appear go to directly to him?
An attendee at the 1/17/07 meeting is listed as "Otus2007, AG" as if one entity.
Hyper wrote on March 24, 2007 2:05 PM:Giant Teapot,
The email addresses are probably in the form of
Lastname,First
so Otus2007,AG
would be
AG Otus2007
Giant Teapot wrote on March 24, 2007 2:38 PM:Thanks, Hyper -- BINGO! And so the address becomes "AG OTUS(year)".
Recall that W. and AG supposedly "don't use the email." Hah. Maybe not as "Gonzales, Alberto" he doesn't.
Recall Cheney checking his Blackberry during the SOTU? So far I haven't heard a claim that Cheney doesn't use email. Cheney may not figure into USAttorneygate, but it's probably the ONLY scandal he's not fully involved in.
Giant Teapot wrote on March 24, 2007 2:47 PM:FWIW, every email on the eop.gov servers used to be cc'd to the WH "Office of the Archivist" or some such title. Before you hit "send" you were warned each and every time that *everything* is archived as a WH record.
Any possibility these people "inadvertantly" bypassed eop.gov by "accidentally" using gwb43.com, rnchq.com, etc.? None whatsoever.
cars wrote on March 24, 2007 3:10 PM:So "OTUS2007, AG" is an email alias for the Attorney General. What actual address(es) does it translate to? It will be nice to find out.
bb wrote on March 24, 2007 3:25 PM:In section 6 pages 24, 48 the email address of "Otus2007, AG" shows up.
In section 8 page 2 an email address of "Otus2005, Ag" appears.
In section 9 page 36 the email address of "Otus2007, AG" shows up again.
Who is this "Otus2005, AG" or "Otus2007, Ag?" Is this the same person changing names or 2 different people. Almost all of the other email address are formated with lastname, firstname using the real name of the person sending or receiving the email. Why this alias?
Posted by: bb
Date: March 24, 2007 11:36 AM
The above is my original post...thanks for catching up...Now explain the 2005 vs. 2007 versions and why no 2006, etc...then I'll be impressed with your sleuthing abilities...
bb wrote on March 24, 2007 3:33 PM:Here's a clue...AGAG became AG in 2005, the end of Ashcroft's tenure there...
NOTE: If you change the email alias of the AG on a regular basis, and he says he doesn't use email, (which a lie) then you've got some pretty good "plausible deniability" going for you. And it's harder to search the paper trail...Doh!!
Anonymous wrote on March 24, 2007 3:35 PM:Mara, 17 was a Friday, so 20 was soonest work day.
Posted by: HotFlash
The reponse was on Tuesday, Nov 21st at 1:20pm. So there was more than one day of work, which is why I am suspicious that there was more correspondence in between.
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 24, 2007 4:26 PM:The California GOP House delegation sent two letters complaining about the prosecution of alien smugglers.
The first one (3-11) is dated 6/30/04 and is addressed to AG John Ashcroft. The delegation complained that Antonio Amparo-Lopez was not prosecuted and strongly urged Ashcroft to adopt a zero tolerance policy towards alien smugglers.
The letter goes on to say that "In our view, a lack of available resources for prosecution is not a valid reason for a decision not to prosecute and, in fact, would signify a mismanagement of your department's priorities."
The letter was signed by Lewis, Doolittle, Cunningham, Royce, Cox, Drier, Bono, Hunter, Calvert, Rohrbacher and some other names I can't make out.
The second letter is dated 10/20/05 and is address ed to AG Alberto Gonzales. The delegation complained that Alfredo Gonzales Garcia was not prosecuted and they again bring up Antonio Amparo-Lopez. They do not, however, insist on zero tolerance but instead demand a meeting to discuss current prosecution policies and a copy of prosecution guidelines.
The letter is signed by Lewis, Cunningham, Doolittle, Pombo, Rohrbacher, Calvert, Thomas, Bono et al.
How serious were these characters about this issue? I don't think John Ashcroft implemented their zero tolerance policy recommendation. I did not find any indication that any of the members of California GOP House delegation followed up on the letter between June 2004 and October 2005.
Did the California GOP House delegation sit down the DOJ after they sent their October 2005 letter?
Sending a letter signed by fourteen members of Congress appears impressive but if no one followed up, you would conclude that someone stuck the letter under their noses and asked them to sign it for show.
Bunch of hooey if you ask me.
bb wrote on March 24, 2007 4:31 PM:Another ?? please...
Why does the email in section 8 page 1 have a print out heading of "OIP" and a "To:" field to "Beach, Andrew?" These emails are MS Outlook emails which usually print out the name of the receiver in the header...Who is "OIP?" Why do I not see Andrew Beach in the header?? WTF??
Thank you...
FatKat wrote on March 24, 2007 4:31 PM:the very last batch there are some email communication that I tried to paste and copy but was unable to do, so the communication is in Jan 07 regarding the oversite hearing and what caught my eye was the (to) part that the email was sent to..
The list of those to get a copy of the sent email is very long, but next to each person getting the email there is a name in () next to it and their are some names as senators, and other depts. and the whitehouse.
henry wrote on March 24, 2007 4:34 PM:The strings that Karl Rove pulls -- manifest by the words that emanate from the president -- are designed to protect Rove by prolonging Gonzales' stay . I believe Nixon's henchmen called it "twisting, twisting slowly in the wind." Judge thinks he has the president's unstinting support, but really what is going on is that Karl has told Bush that it's beneficial to the White House for Al to remain as long as possible as a symbol of ineptitude and a fall guy for the conspiracy to pervert DOJ. After Sampson testifies, the White House will reluctantly pull the trigger (on a Friday night to minimize media coverage). Al will finally realize he has been used as a human sacrifice and the president's fervent "support" was a mirage. What seems to Gonzales at this moment like the president's stirring loyalty is really nothing more than Rove's convenience.
K. Starr Acolyte wrote on March 24, 2007 4:38 PM:K. Starr's comments at WSJ are right on target. This is about 2008, without a doubt.
Giant Teapot wrote on March 24, 2007 4:43 PM:@ Mrs. Panstreppon:
The 3/19 dump included details of budget cuts during Bush43 first term that left Assistant U.S. Attorneys (the staff level Federal prosecutors) with inadequate staffing. I think it was Lam that repurposed funds to contract out staff support, but then HQ DOJ cracked down on THAT, leaving AUSA's to essentially do their own clerical work. DOJ HQ was starving the field offices, leaving them open to criticisms such as Issa's.
They starve the programs they want to die, and they appoint pols who want to abolish the offices/statutes, to run them. Bolten said this plain as day to Jon Stewart on the Daily Show just this week.
In the case of the USA's they wanted to have it both ways: keep a stranglehold on the field budgets while demanding that whatever funds they did receive were used for bogus "voter fraud investigations."
FatKat wrote on March 24, 2007 4:44 PM:Set 7 - 95
DAG0000005694 - Email communication between Senator A Spector's office to discuss hearing. However, the second part to the email is very troubling...They discuss how to smash the Dem's bill and the Republican strategy.
Giant Teapot wrote on March 24, 2007 4:50 PM:@ bb:
OIP=Office of Information and Privacy!
As in, FOIA, Privacy Act, electronic records, etc. Possibly included in email distributions for archiving purposes?
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/oip.html
Anonymous wrote on March 24, 2007 4:55 PM:Giant Teapot@March 24, 2007 04:43 PM
Thanks, GP. I missed that in 3/19 doc dump. Along the same vein, I read recently that the DOJ has centralized the hiring of AUSAs. I assume that it is part of the overall GOP strategy to fill the ranks with the "right" people.
I wanted to post about the issue but don't remember where I read about it. Any ideas?
bb wrote on March 24, 2007 5:00 PM:Thank you Giant Teapot! Info rules!!!
FatKat wrote on March 24, 2007 5:07 PM:set 7-192
email regarding bud cummings, but at the bottom is the advertisment from yahoo.com, so since there is no email address at the to and fr section this is an out side email address...
200 - read the comment the Elston says about linking others to the problem!
Anonymous wrote on March 24, 2007 5:10 PM:Re Josh's observation of: "The one common link here is that three of them are along the southern border so you could make the connection that DOJ is unhappy with the immigration prosecution numbers in those districts,"
AND
The MN USA that everyone is pushing
All of the people, except Lam, where members of the Native American Issues Subcommittee (NAIS). Chiara was the Chiar. A year earlier Heffelfinger was the Chair...but he left his USA MN position in Feb. 2006.
Wanted to post this indepth analysis at talkingpoints but having trouble. (NAIS 1/3 down in the dairy).
www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/22/5326/71374
mswsm wrote on March 24, 2007 5:12 PM:Re Josh's observation of: "The one common link here is that three of them are along the southern border so you could make the connection that DOJ is unhappy with the immigration prosecution numbers in those districts,"
AND
The MN USA that people cite as forced out.
All of the people listed in the Martin memo, except Lam, where members of the Native American Issues Subcommittee (NAIS). Chiara was the Chiar. A year earlier Heffelfinger was the Chair...but he left his USA MN position in Feb. 2006.
Wanted to post this indepth analysis at talkingpoints but having trouble. (NAIS 1/3 down in the dairy).
www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/22/5326/71374
bb wrote on March 24, 2007 5:45 PM:In section 7 page 1 the image has a coin or other seal (or somthing) partially covering the To: and Subject: fields that must have some significance...who would put a coin or symbol on the copier or scanner?? And then pass this along??
Please comment...
bb wrote on March 24, 2007 6:09 PM:At the bottom of page 7 in section 3 there is a link to:
https://vault/enterprisevault/properties.asp
I think Congress needs to issue even more subpoenas. Where does this link go and where are the documents from this link? This is not a complete dump!!!
Giant Teapot wrote on March 24, 2007 6:19 PM:@ mswsm:
I think you (and that Kos diary) have something significant here.
Indian law is useful for all kinds of shenanigans. In the early 80's, James Watt (Interior, for you youngin's) used Alaska Native Corporations (Alaska has NC's, not tribes, long story) to give away Federal wildlife refuges to the NC's, who then in turn sold them dirt cheap to oil companies, allowing airstrips, roads, drilling, etc., on lands that were otherwise prohibited by statute from being transferred out of U.S. possession. That's just one example of the riches to be manipulated through Indian law, long before gambling money came into the picture.
Indian law is a loophole/sneaky tool useful for manipulating many lucrative situations, and playing all sides of the tribes/corps/congress was a major moneymaker for Abramoff, right?
In addition to Charlton's Indian Country connection and most of the USA-8's connection to the NAIS, what "Indian" issues did other USA's who resigned in recent years have?
Was the Johnson Act ever passed by Congress?
Who is Tracy Toulou, Director of DOJ's Office of Tribal Justice?
bb wrote on March 24, 2007 6:37 PM:Great post Giant Teapot!!
GRIENlord wrote on March 24, 2007 8:07 PM:Hello everybody! I am new to the site www.talkingpointsmemo.com
convict wrote on March 24, 2007 9:20 PM:Could anyone, please, advise if there is a lot of
spam and unscrupulous advertising. Can I trust
all this information, which is present at this forum?
Sorry for stupid questions, I just really want know which
information I should trust or even pay attention.
Re: email
November 11, 2005 9:06 PM
"Are you done for the night? If so, please call me at 353 5136."
convict wrote on March 24, 2007 9:26 PM:(This is the sort of email I get from my wife when she want a lift home from work. ..Am I mad.)
Re: "November 11, 2005 9:06 PM"
email was from Moschella, William to Brett Tolman
EasyRider wrote on March 24, 2007 10:11 PM:11-1
DOJ Document Dump file 11-1
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
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 24, 2007 10:18 PM:I pasted a link to the first doc dump posted on NPR website below.
From 1st doc dump: 2-8
9/13/06
From: Harriet Miers
To: Kyle Sampson
Subject: USA Attorneys
Kyle, any current thinking on holdover U.S. Attorneys? Any recent word on intentions?
Miers was asking Sampson about someone's intentions about USAs but the name of the person is whited out. Is Miers asking about Gonzales's intentions? Would Miers ask Sampson about Rove's intentions?
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 24, 2007 10:25 PM:Mrs Panstreppon@March 24, 2007 10:18 PM
I should add that Miers sent the email to Sampson at 2:39 p.m. on 9/13/06.
Sampson sent an email to Miers at 4:25 p.m. on the same day. Sampson provides a summary of the status of USAs and offers his opinion about how the dismissals should be handled. But Sampson never responded to Miers' question about someone else's intentions.
In the same email, Sampson advises Miers that he has a followup item to do by phone.
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 24, 2007 10:46 PM:Mrs Panstreppon@March 24, 2007 10:25 PM
First doc dump: 2-12
10/17/06
From: Sampson
To: Elston
Subject: FW: United States Attorneys
See my list below of U.S. Attorneys we should consider replacing. Does it match up with yours?
11/01/06
From: Elston
To: Sampson
Subject: Other Possibilities
These have been suggested to me by others.
(Blank Page)
Are there emails missing here? If not, Elston took two weeks to respond to Sampson which seems odd.
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 24, 2007 11:03 PM:First doc dump (link pasted below)
12/4/06
To: Jane Cherry
From: Sampson
Subject: RE: US Attorney Vacancies
Sampson advises Cherry that he needs names generated "pronto".
He then lists USA open slots by category.
Current Vacancy
Upcoming Vacancy (Current USA nominated for other position)
Vacancies Expected Shortly (Purged USAs)
Other
Whatever slots fall under "Other" are whited out. Are these "Other" slots ones expected to open up after more USAs were fired?
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 24, 2007 11:08 PM:First doc dump: 2-37
12/7/06 10:36 a.m. - Sampson advises William Kelly that Senator Kyl is "fine".
The game plan called for Gonzales to call Kyl about Bogden. Did Gonzales call Kyl on 12/7/06?
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 24, 2007 11:21 PM:First doc dump: 3-68
1/8/07 - An exchange of emails between Sampson, Goodling and others about Senator Domenici's four nominations to replace David Iglesias.
But one email is from Steve Bell who is in Domenici's office. Bell adds a fifth nomination which is whited out and describes the nominee as Domenici's overwhelming choice.
Why is the name of Domenici's fifth nominee whited out when the other four names are provided?
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 24, 2007 11:38 PM:Mrs Panstreppon@March 24, 2007 10:18 PM
Miers' question to Sampson did not post correctly.
A name is whited out between "Any recent word on" and "intentions?" on the original email.
Dirkangel wrote on March 25, 2007 2:03 AM:Document 32307_5 pages 25-
This is an email sent by Carol Lam to William Moschella and Rebecca Seidel on June 30th 2006.
She apparently had a disagreement with Rep. Darrell Issa who was going to meet with her before the House hearings in San Diego on an immigration bill July 5. It sounds like the conversation did not go well. Issa's staffers had been trying to set up this meeting since June 23rd.
William Moschella forwards the email to Daniel Fridman, who replies that he'll "circle back with Rebecca and make sure we keep an eye on this."
FYI -- I sent this message earlier from blackberry but it did not go through.
Original message
From: Lam, Carol (USACAS)
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 10:28 PM
To: Moschella, William; Seidel, Rebecca
Subject: Congressman Issa
Will, Rebecca,
At my request, Congressman Issa called me this afternoon. I told him that I am still awaiting DOJ authority to meet with him, but that I wanted to be able to reassure DOJ that any discussion we had would be constructive and in good faith, in light of the past statements he has made about our office and me personally. He emphasized that any such discussion would be "off the record" and "not for attribution," but he also said that he would not change his public statements in any way because of our meeting -- that is, he would not use anything I told him in a public statement, but he continues to believe I am not allocating my resources appropriately and that I should be prosecuting as many coyotes as I can. He also said that Congress has allocated money specifically for this purpose (he referenced money that Congress had approved for human trafficking) and he said that I should be using those resources to prosecute more alien smugglers. I said that if his impression is that our office has received additional resources, that impression is incorrect, and that my understanding is that because U.S. Attorneys Offices did not receive all the funding from Congress that the President requested last year, the shortfall has had to be shared by all the U.S. Attorneys offices. I said what we could really use is his support of the President's budget request. He would like to know more about our budget numbers; I made no assurance to him that I could provide any of that to him.
I tried to explain some of the other ways we deal with the alien smuggling problem (ie, through 1326 cases, prosecuting corrupt border patrol agents, etc), but he remained fairly fixated on the coyote issue. Despite my explanation that prosecuting hundreds of coyotes only to have them receive 30- or 60- day sentences is an inefficient use of attorney resources, I don't think he is inclined to give up the coyote stand yet. In light of our phone conversation, he did not think we have to meet next week, and we could use a couple of weeks to gather additional information. My impression is that he may no longer be interested in meeting with me.
Please let me know if you want me to take any additional action with respect to Congressman Issa.
Carol
Leading up to this are numerous emails showing the DOJ effort to support Carol and her performance on immigration. Did the administration turn on her after she (apparently) pissed off Issa?
Has anyone besides EasyRider found the wiki some people are working on (including me)?
look here
http://www.docstrangelove.com/gonzopedia/index.php/Documents_released_3-23-07_%285%29
braga132 wrote on March 25, 2007 10:21 AM:Hi,
Windows Vista Ultimate Upgrade free download
More cheaply will not find
Prices:
Ebay.us - $145 Item 120100537431
Ebay.co.uk - GBR 75 Item 120100548459
Ebay.de - 110 Euro Item 120100527069
www.all.isearch4all.net too!
bb wrote on March 25, 2007 5:34 PM:Dan Collins of MTO.com clerked for Scalia...Dan provided outside advice to DoJ as to how to fix the problem of Judges appointing interim AG's. I think this was in the lead up to the Patriot Act change that DoJ used for this power grab.
Did the taxpayers have to pay for this legal advise, or did Dan do this pro bono for his employers, politicans, Republican ideaology, or who? Was there a quid pro quo??
Giant Teapot wrote on March 25, 2007 9:40 PM:I would like to see the billing records for this from MTO.com...
@bb:
I initially gave Dan Collins and his mto.com address the benefit of the doubt. It's not unheard of for a government lawyer to consult former colleagues with expertise when drafting regs or statutes. Hell, lobbyists and corporations write most of that stuff anyway. However, he seems to be the same Dan Collins of http://www.proteinwisdom.com/
B.Nice wrote on March 25, 2007 11:53 PM:who blogs and comments all around, a real wingnut idealogue, and there's much more to be learned about him than the Scalia connection.
10-5
I didn't see this listed yet.....
Quoting an email from Tasia Scolinos, dated November 21, 2006, to Cathrine Martin, regarding USA replacement plan
(Lists 6 scheduled for replacement)
"The one common link here is that three of them are along the southern border so you could make the connection that DOJ is unhappy with the immigration prosecution numbers in those districts."
Jack wrote on March 26, 2007 12:42 AM:This is backtracking to the March 19 releases, but I assume by "Judge" Sampson is referring to AG Gonzales? So a plan was being initiated, and discussed with him, before he ever took office?
As reference, Gonzales was nominated November 10, 2004, confirmed February 3, 2005 and was sworn in February 14, 2005.
---
7-1, pg. 48
OAG000000180
Rom: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 7:34 PM
'To: 'David_G._Leiteh@who.eop.gov.'
Subject: RE: Question from Karl Rove
Judge and I discussed briefly a couple of weeks ago. My thoughts are:
1. As a legal matter, U.S. Attorneys serve a 4-year term and may holdover indefinitely thereafter (all at the pleasure of the President, of course). None of the President's U.S. Attorney appointees have served a full term yet -- the first were confirmed in September 2001, and many were confirmed during the 12 months thereafter. Although they serve at the pleasure of the President, it would be weird to ask them to leave before completing at least a 4-year term.
2. As an historical matter, U.S. Attorneys served at least until the expiration of their 4-year term, even where an election changed the party in power -- until President Clinton
fired the Bush41-appointed U.S. attorneys in 1993, nearly all of whom were in the midst of their 4-year terms. In 2001, President Bush43 fired the Clinton-appointed U.S. Attorneys, some of whom were in the midst of a 4-year term, but many of whom had completed their 4-year terms and were serving in holdover status.
3. As an operational matter, we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current U.S.
Attorneys -- the underperforming ones. (This is a rough guess; we might want to consider
doing performance evaluations after Judge comes on board.) The vast majority of U.S.
Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc.,
etc. Due to the history, it would certainly send ripples through the U.S. Attorney
Community if we told folks they got one term only. (as a general matter, the Reagan U.S. Attorneys appointed in 1981 stayed on through the entire Reagan Administration; Bush41 even had to establish that Reagan-appointed U.S. Attorneys would not be permitted to continue on through the Buth41 Administration) -- indeed, even performance evaluations likely would create ripples, though this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
4. As a political matter, each of our U.S. Attorneys has been recommended by one or more political leaders in their home State. I suspect that when push comes to shove, home-State Senators likely would resist wholesale (or even piecemeal) replacement of U.S. Attorneys they recommended (see Senator Hatch and the Utah U.S. Attorney). That said, if Karl thinks there would be political will to do it, then so do I.
- - - - - - - - - - Original Message - - -
From: David_G._Leitch@who.eop.gov (mailto:David_G._Leitch@who.eop.gov]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 12:34 PM
To: Sampson, Kyle
Subject: Fw: Question from Karl Rove
Let's discuss
- - - Original Message - - -
From: Newman, Colin
To: Leitch, David G. ‹David_G._Leitch@who.eop.gov>
Sent: Thu Jan 06 12:30:17 2005
Subject: Question from Karl Rove
David -- Karl Rove stopped by to ask you (roughly quoting) "how we planned to proceed" regarding US Attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc." I told him that you would be on the hill all day for the Judge's hearing, and he said the matter was not urgent. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, -Colin
Colin M. Newman
Anonymous wrote on March 26, 2007 12:54 AM:Office of Counsel to the President
(202) 456-5887
Dirkangel--I need to track back through many of the emails to give many specifics, but look closely at the interchanges going on between Daniel Fridman and Michael Elston. It is almost like Elston decided to use the immigration issue as a reason to get rid of Carol Lam. The exhange appears to have begun on May 21, 2005. This closely followed the SDCA search warrants on Foggo/Wilkes (5/12), as well as communications from Sen. Frist's office (5/19).
It is almost like Issa was used as a one-man hit brigade, giving info to AP to write a scathing report (5/18), etc. One team at DOJ seems busy defending her record while Elston and Fridman continue discussions building a report that says Lam's performance is substantially inferior to other USAs.
Dirkangel wrote on March 26, 2007 4:18 AM:That makes sense. So, if that is the case, they strung her along then nailed her. No wonder she's pissed.
Dirkangel wrote on March 26, 2007 4:46 AM:I wonder how closely involved Issa was in the process, and if he was a willing accomplice or just a convenient 'heavy'. His name seems to come up a lot.
Jack wrote on March 26, 2007 4:56 AM:Dirkangel--sorry, I meant to sign my last post on Fridman/Elston/Issa.
I believe Issa was a useful (and willing) tool.
Jack wrote on March 26, 2007 6:34 AM:Just my guess.
Correction...
I meant to refer to email exchanges between Daniel Fridman and Bill Mercer
(not Elston, although he was cc'd on some emails).
PhilipD wrote on March 26, 2007 7:49 AM:I understand that in 2002 Frederick Black, who had served for a decade as USA in Guam, opened a grand jury investigation of Abramoff and was promptly replaced by the WH. But the WH continued to have problems from that office since they couldn't immediately appoint a successor. The WH learned a lesson here.
Then Lam nails Duke Cunningham and gets him to wear a wire in the House cloakroom to gather evidence against his colleagues. She starts going after other perps.
Soon thereafter, the WH comes up with clever fix for the renegade USA problem via the secret amendment tacked on to the Patriot Act renewal. Then they wait til after election day and fire USAs who all (or most all) have something in common: Indians.
I say follow the Indians. Much of Abramoff's money came from tribes in CA, AZ, NM and Michigan (yes, Michigan). A lot of Abramoff's money went to Doolittle, Pombo and Hayworth (CA and AZ) -- along with Ney and others.
The immigration stuff is BS. This is about Abramoff and the Indians, and it goes through GOP congressional offices and finally to Rove. Rove has hatched this scheme as a way to buy time while these trails grow cold in order to save more GOP seats in 2008.
Just a theory.
leolabeth wrote on March 26, 2007 12:17 PM:"...follow the Indians...Just a theory."
It has a certain poetry, though, and therefore feels pretty compelling.
Alberto Gonnasolvethis wrote on March 26, 2007 1:27 PM:I say "follow the cowboys!" ;)
My first post - its actually more a test.
sctynvdvtvxs wrote on March 27, 2007 3:47 AM:
georgia wrote on March 27, 2007 5:43 AM:long term care insurance
3:19
Has anyone raised the issue of Sheldon Sperling and Alex Acosta? As noted in an email from Natalie Voris to Will Moschella and Mike Battle (cc: Dave Blake, Monica Goodling), Sheldon Sperling and Alex Acosta were both given multiple appointments by the AG.
It seems to be that this was done in violation of the Vacancy Reform Act. As far as I can tell, it says the courts MAY appoint. If Gonzales made multiple 120 day interim appointments, he was violating the law.
The intent of the law is clearly to compel the President to do his duty and provide the Senate with a new nominee. It would seem that both the AG and the President were at fault, and these may not be the only two cases.
georgia wrote on March 27, 2007 6:47 AM:There's also Paula Silsby of Maine, whom the DOJ knows has served 5 YEARS without confirmation.
georgia wrote on March 27, 2007 8:30 AM:3:9-3:10
There have already been a couple of notes about these pages, which were an e-mail exchange between Will Moschella and Dan Collins, but I think there's more to the story.
This exchange highlights the point that the DOJ knew as early as June of 2004, and possibly earlier, that "there could be a question whether the AG could continue to appoint the same person to a new 120-day term," but that never stopped them. It could be argued that they knowingly broke the law before they changed it.
georgia wrote on March 27, 2007 8:51 AM:3:6 - 3:7
These pages actually show that the DOJ was actually aware in July 2003.
What is https://vault/enterprosevault ???
MWS wrote on March 28, 2007 3:33 AM:The History of the "USA Replacement Plan"
The seven US Attorneys were not fired on a whim on 12/7/06. There was a carefully drafted and reviewed plan for the firing written by Kyle Sampson.
This long post describes what I have been able to find in the DOJ Document Dump about the History of the USA Replacement Plan. The story covers the 2 years from the initial idea to the eventual firings.
It is worth remembering the central question here. Why were the US Attorneys fired? Who decided to fire them? Were Lam and Charlton fired for prosecuting Republicans? Were Iglesias and McKay fired for not prosecuting Democrats? Why were the others fired? Was the Attorney General (Alberto Gonzales) involved? Was the White House involved? Was Karl Rove behind it all? The history of the plan provides some answers.
What follows builds on the Timeline Josh and Paul have put together at http://talkingpointsmemo.com/usa-timeline.php. Some of the events in this post could be added to that timeline.
I also recommend a post on the plan by LawyerSmith Date: March 21, 2007 05:39 PM from http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002809.php
The plan goes through 5 distinct phases. They are...
I. Replace them all?
From 1/6/05 to 3/2/05
In which White House floats the idea of firing all 93 US Attorneys.
II. The list evolves
From 1/9/06 to 9/13/06
In which Kyle Sampson adds and removes Attorneys from the list of who to fire.
III. The plan solidifies
From 9/13/06 till 11/6/06
In which Sampson begins putting the plan to paper and building the final list.
IV. The final plan
From 11/7/06 to 12/4/06
In which Sampson distributes the final plan for White House approval.
V. The plan is executed
From 12/4/06 to 12/7/07
In which people get notified, action items are assigned, and seven US Attorneys are fired.
This post is the first of 6 posts. This introduction is the first. There's a post for each phase of the plan's history. The final post offers some observations and questions.
Observation Summary
So you aren't in suspense...
Four of the five phases in the plan's development are initiated by the White House, not by Kyle Sampson, the author of the plan. The White House drove the plan until phase IV when Sampson wrote the final plan.
Gonzales is involved at the beginning and is there at the end when the plan is executed. In between, his Chief of Staff is the author of the Plan. The idea that he was not aware of the plan and why the USA were fired is laughable.
Why was Kevin Ryan fired? He was added to the list at the last minute, apparently because the White House feared a Congressional investigation would uncover some scandal in Ryan's District.
Why was Paul Charlton fired? Max Blumenthal has reported that Charlton opened an investigation of Republican Representative Rick Renzi. And Charlton first appears on the list just after that.
A note on document names and pages. Doc 031907_7-1 p48 means page 48 from the document numbered 7-1 dumped on 3/19/07.
More posts to follow.
MWS wrote on March 28, 2007 3:34 AM:The History of the "USA Replacement Plan" (post 2)
I. Replace them all?
From 1/6/05 to 3/2/05
White House (Rove & Miers) want to replace all USA.
Sampson advises, just replace some.
Doc 031907_7-1 p48
1/6/05 12:30 PM
Newman (WH) emails Leith (WH) with question from Karl Rove.
"Karl Rove stopped by to ask you (roughly quoting) "how we planned to proceed regarding US Attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc."
1/6/05 12:34 PM Leith forwards mail to Sampson (DOJ)
"Let's Discuss"
1/6/05 7:34 PM Sampson replies
Judge (Gonzales) and I discussed briefly a couple weeks ago
"We would like to replace 45-20 percent."
So Gonzales was involved with the USA Replacement Plan from the start.
This is a good point to discuss the relationship between Kyle Sampson and Alberto Gonzales. Sampson was the AG's Chief of Staff. Josh discussed this recently in this post. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013270.php
He points us to this article http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070326/26sampson.htm by Chitra Ragavan of US News and Reports Posted 3/26/07. Quoting from that article
"Gonzales probably spoke to Sampson 20 times a day and had a daily
morning management meeting on a range of issues with Sampson and other
key officials also involved in the U.S. attorney deliberations. Gonzales
had delegated the replacement plan for U.S. attorneys largely to Sampson
and was monitoring it at "the 30,000-feet level," Sampson's associate
says. But Sampson will testify that the attorney general not only
discussed the idea while he was still White House counsel and signed off
at the end but also was "aware of the arc of the whole process" in
between, says this source. "The idea that there were no discussions on
this overall issue," says the source, "the attorney general could not
have meant to say that."
Simple logic tells us that Sampson would not have hidden his activities from Gonzales. Gonzales must have known throughout the development of the plan what was going on.
Doc 031307_1 p3
3/2/05 9:49AM Sampson emails Miers (WH) with table of recommendations on all USA: Retain, Replace, or No Recommendation.
3/2/05 6:03PM Miers replies Thanks
3/2/05 9:49PM Sampson replies with updated table.
The updated table shows these ratings for the USA ultimately fired.
1. Charlton, No Recommendation
2. Cummins, Replace
3. Ryan, Retain
4. Lam, Replace
5. Chiara, Replace
6. Bogden, No Recommendation
7. Iglesias, Retain
8. McKay is not shown.
Sampson lists the changes, the changed names are redacted so I conclude the changes do not affect the ratings of the 7 fired USA.
Not much seems to happen till Jan 6, 06.
MWS wrote on March 28, 2007 3:38 AM:The History of the "USA Replacement Plan" (post 4)
III. The plan solidifies
From 9/13/06 till 11/6/06
Miers asks for current thinking on the plan.
Sampson finalizes the list and starts real work on the plan.
Doc 031307_2 p5-6
9/13/06 2:39 PM Miers to Sampson
What's the current word on holdover US Attorney's?
9/13/06 4:06 Sampson to Goodling
This is what I intend to reply to Harriet, any comments?
The list has these names
Being pushed out:
Cummins
Should consider pushing out:
1. Charlton
2. Lam
3. redacted
4. redacted
5. Chiara
6. Bogden
7. redacted
8. redacted
9. McKay
Sampson goes on to recommend two things. Only do this if we have the will to find replacements quickly. Use the new power in the USA PATRIOT act to have the AG appoint them. Don't have the Senators approval.
Doc 031307_2 p7-8
9/13/06 4:25 PM Sampson replies to Miers
Same as mail to Goodling with one change. One of the redacted names between Bogden and McKay seems to have been removed based on the space.
Sampson concludes with "Let me know when you have read this."
Once again, Miers kicks off the next phase of planning. The list is now nearly complete.
Doc 031307_2 p9-10
9/17/06 3:21 PM Miers replies to Sampson
"I have not forgotten..."
Doc 031907_7-2 p26
9/17/06 3:42 PM Sampson replies "No worries. At your convenience."
Doc 031307_2 p11
9/13/06 3:52 PM Brett Ward (DOJ) to Sampson
RE: Obscenity cases
Ward complains Charlton and Bogden are unwilling to take cases they are presenting to them.
9/13/06 4:26 PM Sampson replies
Thanks, but go through channels.
Note that Bogden and Charlton were on the list already. This smells like a red herring.
Doc 031307_2 p12-13
10/17/06 3:21 PM Sampson to Elston
Forwards email thread from Miers on 9/17 to Elston and asks, does this list match up with yours?
11/1/06 7:22 PM Elston to Sampson Subj: Other possibilities
MWS wrote on March 28, 2007 3:39 AM:"These have been suggested to me by others" The names are all redacted.
The History of the "USA Replacement Plan" (post 5)
IV. The final plan
From 11/7/06 to 12/7/06
Sampson distributes the final plan for approval
White House approves and people get warned
In early November, Sampson drafts the final USA Replacement Plan.
Doc 031907_7-2 p28-29
11/7/06 6:21 PM Sampson to Elston
First draft of plan. "Please review and provide comments ASAP. I'd like to get this to Harriet tonight, if possible."
The list has
1. Charlton
2. Lam
3. redacted
4. Chiara
5. Bogden
6. redacted
7. McKay
8. Iglesias
Doc 031907_7-2 p30
11/7/06 6:29 Elston replies
"This looks fine to me---- trying to get Paul's input as well."
Explains that Paul (McNulty) may want one of the redacted names removed.
11/7/06 6:46 PM Sampson replies
"Yes, and I'll wait for the DAG's input (but no longer than tomorrow)."
Doc 031307_2 p15-18
11/15/06 10:55 AM Sampson to Miers (WH), Kelley (WH)
USA Replacement Plan
Sampson send the plan to the White House for approval. "We'll stand by for a green light from you."
Sampson lists others who must be brought into the loop, including Mercer and Battle. Significantly, the AG, Gonzales, is NOT listed as having to be brought into the loop.
The list of USA to fire has
1. Charlton
2. Lam
3. Chiara
4. Bogden
5. McKay
6. Iglesias
Doc 032307_10 p1-10
11/17/06 12:32 PM Kelley fwds USA Replacement Plan to Fiddelke, Jennings, Martin in WH
"Before executing this plan, we wanted to give your offices a heads up and seek input on changes that might reduce the profile or political fallout."
11/17/06 1:29 PM Martin forwards plan to Scolinos
"Are you looped in on this? What is your comms plan?"
11/17/06 2:00 PM Scolinos replies
"Thanks for flagging - we are not looped in - first I have heard of it."
11/17/06 5:40 PM Scolinos replies
"Its only six US attorneys (there are 94) and I think most of them will resign quietly - they don't get anything out of making it public they were asked to leave in terms of future job prospects. I don't see it as being a national story - especially if it phases in over a few months. Any concerns on your end?"
11/17/06 6:07 PM Martin asks
"Which ones are they?"
11/21/07 1:20 PM Scolinos answers with the 6 and continues...
"The one common link here is that three of them are along the southern border so you could make the connection that DOJ is unhappy with the immigration prosecution numbers in those districts."
And so "immigration" becomes a reason why the USA were fired, by people who clearly have not been involved in the plan to this point in time.
Doc 032307_8 p1
11/21/06 6:49 PM Sampson to Beach PIS sked
Meeting for next Monday,
Re: UIS. Attorney Appointments
AG, me, Monica, DAG, Moschella, Elston, Battle.
1 hour.
AG's conference room.
Thx.
Doc 032307_8 p3
11/27/06 8:43 AM Sampson to Sours, Raquel
Subject: PIS add AG to 9ar
Doc 032307_6 p7
11/27/06 9:00 AM Mtg: U.S. Attorney Appointments
Attendees: Sampson, Goodling, McNulty, Moschella, Elston, Battle, Michael
Held in AG's Conference Room
This meeting has gotten a lot of discussion lately. It shows the AG was present at a meeting to discuss the USA Replacement Plan.
Did they discuss the plan?
How to get it approved?
Who was to be fired?
Why those USA were chosen?
Doc 031307_2 p15-18
12/1/06 7:32 PM Margolis to Moschella, Kelly, Battle, and Elston
SubJ: N.D.Cal
A judge wants Conyers, Pelosi, or Waxman to get the EARS evaluation (of Ryan I presume).
12/1/06 7:41 PM Elston fwds message to Sampson
12/2/06 11:47 AM Sampson replies an EARS is pretty deliberative
12/2/06 1:50 PM Elston replies
"I agree. It is surely something we should consider fighting about." "This may also become unlikely if the list is expanded by one as we discussed earlier."
12/2/06 2:20 PM Sampson replies
"The list is expanded. Still waiting for green light from White House."
And so Ryan gets added to the list at the last minute because of fear of what a Congressional inquiry might find.
Doc 032307_8 p4
12/3/07 5:02 PM Scott Jennings (WH) to Sampson
"Does a list of all vacant, or about-to-be vacant, US Attorney slots exist anywhere?"
12/3/07 5:12 PM Sampson replies
"My office. Want me to send to you tomorrow?"
Doc 031307_2 p21-24
12/4/06 4:48 PM Kelley to Sampson & Miers
"We're a go for US Atty Plan. WH leg, political, and communications have signed off and acknowledged that we have committed to following through once the pressure comes."
This is the final approval. Now nothing will stop the plan.
12/4/06 6:12 PM Sampson replies "Great. We would like to execute this Thursday, December 7"
12/4/06 6:26 PM Sampson replies with revised (and final) plan.
The final list is:
1. Charlton
2. Lam
3. Ryan
4. Chiara
5. Bogden
6. McKay
7. Iglesias
The plan itself has 5 steps
1. Calls from AG or White House to Senators or "Republican political leads" if no Republican Senator in the state.
2. Mike Battle calls the USAs and fires them.
3. Prepare to Withstand Political Upheaval.
4. Evaluation and Selection of "Interim" Candidates
5. Selection, Nomination, and Appointment of New U.S. Attorneys
In Step 3 they seem to have only thought about local Republican allies in and DOJ allies raising a stink. They did prepare 4 talking points, two of which are the central questions this note asks. The questions and the Plan's answers are:
Who Decided? The Administration. Not anyone in the WH or DOJ.
Why me? We want to give someone else the chance to serve in your district.
Both answers are disingenuous. Here's what the documents and news reports suggest.
Who decided? It seems clear the White House was involved at every phase of developing this plan, and in the end, signed off on the plan in all its detail.
Why Me? The idea that the job of US Attorney's are a chance to polish your resume, and thus is a plum to be handed out to political cronies is repugnant.
But real reasons they were chosen to be fired appear to be much worse.
1) Iglesias and McKay refused to indict political enemies.
2) Lam and Charlton investigated, and Lam convicted, Republican congressman.
3) Ryan was fired to prevent some scandal from being disclosed.
4) The reasons Bogden and Chiara were fired remain unclear to me.
Doc 031307_2 p21-24
This document is another copy of the Final Plan with hand written notes reading:
MWS wrote on March 28, 2007 3:40 AM:"Created 11-7-2006"
"Modified 12-4-2006"
Which aligns with the start and end of Phase IV.
The History of the "USA Replacement Plan" (post 6)
V. The plan is executed
From 12/4/06 to 12/7/06
The White House handles the politics (Senators and Republican Leads).
DOJ does the firing.
Doc 031307_2 p28-29
12/04/06 6:30 PM Sampson to McNulty, Battle, Goodling, Moschella, Elston.
FW: US Atty Plan
Paul, Mike, we are a go for Thursday
The USA Replacement Plan is attached.
Doc 031307_2 p30-31
12/4/06 9:28 AM Jane Cherry (gbw43.com) to Sampson CC: Jennings
Subj: US Attorney Vacancies
Asks for the list of vacancies.
12/4/06 7:27 PM Sampson replies
Under Vacancies Expected Shortly lists the 7 districts of the USA to be fired.
Doc 031307_2 p32-35
12/5/06 10:51 PM Sampson to Mercer Subj: Heads Up
Warns Mercer in case he gets calls from the field and includes the plan.
And the firings happen as planned on 12/7/06, but little goes as plan after that.
Conclusions & Questions
Lots of messages went to the White House, and as the exchange on 11/17/06 between Martin and Scolinos shows, those messages were passed around. Who reviewed the Plan inside the White House, and who approved?
The central questions remain important.
Who decided to fire the seven USA?
Why were they fired?
Lets hope the House and Senate Judiciary Staffers ask these questions and get answers.
neil wrote on April 13, 2007 11:55 AM:3rd PDF, pg. 60. list of US Attorneys to evaluate which will be on the AG Advisory Committee. Handwritten notes attached to Carol Lam's name appear to read: "issues w/ 4th floor" (???) and "very independent"
Jonglly wrote on May 2, 2007 6:11 AM:Before buying generic viagra read this.
Jonglly wrote on May 2, 2007 7:25 PM:I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.
Before buying generic viagra read this.
Jonglly wrote on May 2, 2007 8:38 PM:I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.
Before buying generic viagra read this.
Jonglly wrote on May 4, 2007 12:16 PM:I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.
Before buying generic viagra read this.
Jonglly wrote on May 5, 2007 7:14 AM:I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.
Before buying generic viagra read this.
Jonglly wrote on May 7, 2007 11:32 AM:I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.
Before buying generic viagra read this.
Jonglly wrote on May 11, 2007 6:33 AM:I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.
Before buying generic viagra read this.
Jonglly wrote on May 11, 2007 11:54 PM:I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.
Before buying generic viagra read this.
mbpknes wrote on May 12, 2007 10:30 PM:I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.
I think said Flemming that it is very much like Jean Pauls
Jonglly wrote on May 14, 2007 4:18 AM:bianca butler christian gerard*
As the day was closing they sat down on the terrace of
Before buying generic viagra read this.
Jonglly wrote on May 14, 2007 1:06 PM:I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.
Before buying generic viagra read this.
Jonglly wrote on May 16, 2007 12:24 PM:I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.
Before buying generic viagra read this.
Jonglly wrote on May 16, 2007 3:30 PM:I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.
Before buying generic viagra read this.
Jonglly wrote on May 20, 2007 9:32 AM:I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.
Before buying generic viagra read this.
b wrote on September 7, 2007 1:14 AM:I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.
enterprisevault is email archiving software from Symantec.
sesso polacche wrote on October 15, 2007 9:44 PM:Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.