Comments (95)

Ellen wrote on May 10, 2007 1:33 PM:

wow. just wow.

The Limey wrote on May 10, 2007 1:33 PM:

I'm sorry, but you really need to improve your analysis of language.

You are reading the second letter and thinking that it says something that it does not.
The second letter says that "Karl Rove hadn't had any role in appointing Griffin". A role would, in standard politise, mean being part of a formal process.

Not having a role is not the same as not having a hand or not contributing to the process.

Anonymous wrote on May 10, 2007 1:34 PM:

TPM,

Thanks for your law work, and blog. I'm confused about something. I'm looking at the US Attorney firings in the conext of the larger patterns of conduct of the American legal community: What worked; what didn't work; and why things seemed to have spun out of control in the US 2001-2007 in the legal areas of prissoner traetement, FISA, and Geneva.

My question: How did all this stuff happen in the DoJ and US government -- US Attorney firings, rendition,pprisoner abuse, war crimes, FISA violatoins, NSL abuse, warrantless surveillance -- but the American legal community apparently had a problem with legal counsel peer reviews? I would have thought with this much illegal actdivity, someone inside the American legal community would have found something durin a peer review 2001-2007 and said, "Hay, maybe we need to have some better oversight."

With these many abuses, it doesn't look as though the legal commutniy was a passive lgal advisor, but were actively involved with the planning, propaganda, and legal justifications for illegal orders. This does not appear to be consistent witht he attorney standards of conduct.

I look forward to any comments you have on what may have broken down in the peer review process; or what explanation their might be for the attorney standards of conduct were ignored.

gcs wrote on May 10, 2007 1:35 PM:

"Murray Waas has a new story on the U.S. attorney firings, this one leading to the inescapable conclusion that the administration was complicit in attempts to cover up White House involvement in the firings."

Yeah, ya think?

KanyeEast wrote on May 10, 2007 1:36 PM:

D-AR
not
D-AK

MsInformed wrote on May 10, 2007 1:43 PM:

One could "truthfully" answer "not once" did they do something when they had done it more than one time, as in "not once, but thrice!" Most people would think that dishonest, but these guys? Rovian, I tell you.

Code word: letter, as in not in the spirit or the letter of the law.

zoyd wrote on May 10, 2007 1:48 PM:

Bush-Cheney-Rove have been flipping us off for over six years. I yearn for comeuppance.

Rusty wrote on May 10, 2007 1:50 PM:

Wow! That is some article. I really really hope an aide can run this in to the committee hearing before it ends. I'd LOVE to hear Albertross address this article (and a lot less of this sex offender tripe).

Bearpaw wrote on May 10, 2007 1:52 PM:

Oh c'mon, who cares? It's only about the takeover of the Justice Department by the Republican Party.

It's not like there's a blowjob involved.

Anonymous wrote on May 10, 2007 1:55 PM:

Anon 1:34 PM, I wouldn't look at the issues so much from the perspective of the American legal community as that of the American political community.

The legal community directly challenged some of those initiatives, and was actually fairly vocal against the others as well (as was much of the military brass in reference to Geneva and torture).

The legal viewpoints that are represented in this administration are not reflective of the judgements of mainstream professionals within the legal community, nor are they consistent with the legal viewpoints of administrations going back to 1789. However, those not-so-deeply-considered opinions do resonate with a substantial minority of Americans (e.g. ones who profess to love America, but clearly have spent little time understanding the "Whys" of a Constitution republic, or a minimally politicized legal system).

Anonymous wrote on May 10, 2007 1:56 PM:

I like this one: "Brad Berenson, an attorney for Sampson, said in an interview that his client did not intend to mislead Congress."

Catch that: "did not intend to mislead Congress."

Questions for Berenson:

A. Are you saying that you are admitting that your client misled Congress, but your client didn't INTENT to mislead Congress?

B. Are you refusing to "neither confirm nor deny" that your client misled Congress; but are publicly commenting on an issue and admitting that you are a public figure making public comments warrantint public commentary?

C. Is it the view of Sidley Austin that nobody at Sidley AUstin ever made any public comment about any White House e-mail system; and that SIdley Austin has never publicly commented about the White House Administrative Technology Areas?

D. It apears the RNC and Sidley Austin have two positions on whether they will or will not provide candid remararks on public issues. Does Berenson or anyone at Sidley AUstin have an explanation why Sidely AUstin has pubicly commented on data retention requirements -- for purposes of complying with the Hatch Act and offical retention requirements -- but apparently the WHite House hasn't disclosed all the infromation your cilent said has been disclosed as required under the subpoenas?

E. Sidley Austin, Berenson's firm, has been involved with litigation. Formly assigned counsel -- who were older in age -- were fired after clients complained their work products were not adequate. It appears that Sidley Austin's work products are not stellar. Could Berenson comment on the SUpreme Courts' recent decision not to hear the Sidley Appeal related to allegations that formely assigned counsel were retalatiated against?

F. Berenson is repretaed to be in a leaership position in the FEderalist Society and the ABA. If this istrue, could BErenson comment publicly on what steps he as a leaders in teh legal community plans to provide to ensure the ABA adequately oversees counsel; and that the DC Bar Discipliary Board and DC Bar Pracie areas have teh leadership to ensure that legal counsel are adeauately overseen during peer reviews?

G. Bereenson is also reported widely to have been inside the White House counsel's office in the wake of 9-11. COuld Berenson comment on efforts the President and other White House counsel took to take more "risky" action. Specifically, was it the policy of Berenson and other legal counsel to advocate for illgeal actiivty, prisoner abuse, and other FISA violations to gather information so that random people could be targeted?

H. Tghere are reported gag orders related to the NSA domestic survillance, FISA vioaltions, and illegal transfer of data between AT&T and the government. What was the method by which White House counsel chose to pretend that public commmentary on alleged illegal activity was a "prviate action"; yet the public statements of formerly assigned counsel would be deemed "off limitis" and Not something that the public was allowed to challenged?

I. Is Berenson aware of any data transfers between AT&T, any contrators, or any intermediary to support illegal activity?

J. White House counsel was in a position to know whether information NSA was gathering was forwarded to the RNC for purposes of political targeting. One qauestion has been: How did the WHite House find out about supposedly classified US Attorney investigations. SOme have wondered whether the NSA wads transferring intercepted data of the US Attorney ivnestigations to the RNC. How was the transfer of data which White House ocunsel was aware related to the movement of prisoners under the rendition program?

k. Berenson after SEpt 2001 is reportd to have suggested that risks needed to be taken. The President is reported to have said he was going to ignore lawyers. Is it Berenons's position that he can neither confirm nor deny whether there has or has not been rendition; if so, why does Berenson have two standards onwheher he will comment on US attorney firings; but a "can neither confirm nor deny"-position on issues Berenson has publicly commented in the wake of Sept 200; why the difference?

L. It appears n the wake of SEpt 2001, Berenson and others openly discussed rendition. Yet, since 2006, there has been a changhe in commenting policy. This suggests since 2001 there has been some sort of guidance issued to gag, contrain, or prevent Bertenson and others from commenting on these legal issues. DoD has recently issued ugidance to junior miitary officers. Could Berenson please describe the meetings he had since 2001 which apparently imposed gag orders on whteher he and other formely assigned legal counsel could or could nto discuss publily issues they had previouly, pubilcly discussed: Rendition, illegal warrants, NSL abuse, FISA vioations, prisoner abuse, illegal warfare, unlawful torture and other crimes?

Rusty wrote on May 10, 2007 1:59 PM:

Not clear about one thing... the NJ article says that "Several of the e-mails that the Bush administration is withholding from Congress, as well as papers from the White House counsel’s office describing other withheld documents, were made available to National Journal by a senior executive branch official."

SO, does Waas have the emails? or docs describing the emails and other withheld material?

This could be the deepthroat moment.

Pinson wrote on May 10, 2007 1:59 PM:

A "senior administration official" adds that "Gonzales is doing this to save his own neck."

"The White House is neither guiding nor directing the Justice Department's decisions on privileged documents," Fratto said. "They make those decisions on their own."

We've known about the Oprison sign-off since about two document dumps ago. I think the bigger story here is that you've got one anonymous "senior" official firing directly on Gonzalez now, and Tony Fratto going on the record that Gonzalez is on his own. The message is clear: time to go fishing, Fredo.

Thomas Charles wrote on May 10, 2007 2:01 PM:

Can someone clarify something for me? Are they saying that they never used or considered using the Patriot Act for anyone, or are they specifically denying it with regard to Griffin?

Any insight would be appreciated.

mark wrote on May 10, 2007 2:02 PM:

What is it going to take to get turd blossom under oath?

This is beyond ridiculous

eric wrote on May 10, 2007 2:04 PM:

"but the American legal community apparently had a problem with legal counsel peer reviews?"

"I look forward to any comments you have on what may have broken down in the peer review process; or what explanation their might be for the attorney standards of conduct were ignored."

There may well be attorney misconduct. However, there is no such thing as as a "peer review process".

Anonymous wrote on May 10, 2007 2:05 PM:

Anon 01:55 PM ,

"The legal community directly challenged some of those initiatives, and was actually fairly vocal against the others as well (as was much of the military brass in reference to Geneva and torture)."

Perhaps you have some better information: All I have is that the JAGs were shut down; and the White House counsel's office was intersted n taking risks.

I accept the idealized conclusion that the legal community opposed these efforts; but upon reading that White House legal counsel -- Gonzalez, Addington et al -- wanted to take risks, I'm not convinced the issue is a political one; but one where the legal community was complicit.

The issue in my view: What will be done, even if we accept your premise is true, to ensure that this abuse of power does not repeat; and that there are some timely checks on the legal counsel linked with the White House: To make sure the apparent enbalign forces of Bybee, Addington, Yoo, and Gonzalez are checked; and that the legal community timely intervene and not, as some ight do, through their hands up, "Oh, this is a political issue."

In my view, this is a legal issue: What is to be done when the politilcal process breaks down; and the legal community no longer trumps the violations of the law; but appears to have silently been complicit. It would be preferable if there were a noisy withdrawal requirement so the public will get fair warning there is a problem, not letting this non-sense continue. I'm also not sastisifed that White House counsel and DOJ Staff timely reported this misconduct -- NSL vioaltions, FISA violations, warrantless surveilance, prisoner abuse -- to the DOJ OPR as required, so I view this as an attorney standars of conduct issue, not a political issue.

If the American legal community wants to escape scrutinty, they need to stop pretending this is a political issue and face what they have: This is a legal issue of international law, war crimes, Constutional violations. It appears their profession -- the socalled "vanguards" of the Cnstuion -- were not there; but collectively rolled over. REgardless how we describe this, we find ourselves where we are: A breakdown of checks and balances that was only partially remedied with an election. I am not satisifed with the status quo: Leaving the enforcement of the lawe up to the voting decision. The laws are to be eteranally enforced, regardless which legal professional or party controls the US Government. If we have a Constution that is only up to the legal profession to enforce or not enforce, then we do not have a Consatution but a tyranny of authority by a profession that, in my view, has not risen above party loyality to protect the Constitution.

Anonymous wrote on May 10, 2007 2:06 PM:

Notice how Gonzo answers Republicans in this hearing and how he answers Democrats- with Republicans the answers are often short, sometimes one word. With Democrats he tries to drag out his answers as much as possible, often with a smile.

eric wrote on May 10, 2007 2:07 PM:

"SO, does Waas have the emails? or docs describing the emails and other withheld material?

This could be the deepthroat moment.

Posted by: Rusty"

From the article:

***Several of the e-mails that the Bush administration is withholding from Congress, as well as papers from the White House counsel's office describing other withheld documents, were made available to National Journal by a senior executive branch official,***

Sounds like they do have them.

Anonymous wrote on May 10, 2007 2:09 PM:

Eric,

However, there is no such thing as as a "peer review process".

I believe you are mistaken: There are, as a course of insurance purposes, peer reviews within the legal profession. Perhaps the DC Bar has chosen not to conduct peer reviews; or does not do peer reviews during investigations?

If ther are "no peer reviews," please share who at teh state level does the disciplinary hearings for purposes of disbarment. It can hardly be delegated to non-attorneys; hence, only "legal peers" are qualified to conduct investigations into atttorneys. Or are you sayign that the ABA is a "self regulating organziation" but they are not "peers" of self-regulators?

Short answer: I'm not buying your assertion that there are not peer reviews.

bushyinsanity wrote on May 10, 2007 2:10 PM:

This is the coffin nail, the smoking gun, the coverup is worse than the crime, except in this case, the crime is so egregious that the Watergate cliche no longer holds water.

Now will this be the end of the Republican Party? We shall see.

Rusty wrote on May 10, 2007 2:12 PM:

That kinds sounds like we will not have to wait for the WH to deliver the documents. I hope Waas will deliver them in the NJ - and sooner rather than later.

Anonymous wrote on May 10, 2007 2:16 PM:

Eric,

Google: [peer review process]

Sample: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/2003iq/186.pdf

Sample: "After today, 35 of the 36 District Court nominees with ABA peer reviews"

Translation: I find your assertion that there is no "peer reviwe process" non credible. There appears to be a peer review system; whether the process is or isn ot formalized, effecitive, illusory, or needs to be developed is a second issue.

You may be right that there is no formlized process for attorney peer reviews -- as there sholud be; yet this would contradict the basic assumption of a self-reguatibng organization under the Roberts Rules of Order: That there are clearly promulgated procedures; and that the procedures are in place, trainable, and worthy of comment and evaluation.

Finally, if there is no "peer review process", how does the ABA justify its peer review ratings? Again, there may be ratings unliked with a credible peer review process indicating the ratings are not credible. That is a secondary issue, but worthy of public discussion. If there is no process in place -- formal, informal -- to justify the ABA peer review ratings, then this raises questions about the merits of that ratings ysstem; and the basis for the evaluations; or their utility in doing anything to communicate information.

eric wrote on May 10, 2007 2:16 PM:

"If the American legal community wants to escape scrutinty, they need to stop pretending this is a political issue and face what they have: This is a legal issue of international law, war crimes, Constutional violations. It appears their profession -- the socalled "vanguards" of the Cnstuion -- were not there; but collectively rolled over."

I'm part of the legal community and I didn't roll over. I certainly don't agree with this administration and I do believe that they have violated laws, but I am powerless to stop it. The legal community is powerless to stop it. There are those in the profession that have spoken up. The ABA has issued statements condemning this administrations actions. Professors, Judges, the ACLU.

I think it is really pretty reckless to try to indict the entire "legal profession" the way you do.

I am wondering, did you just get a rejection letter from Gonzaga Law School or something?

Terry wrote on May 10, 2007 2:19 PM:

Oprison? O, prison!

RW wrote on May 10, 2007 2:19 PM:

I think whomever keyed in the anonymous comment of this being of a larger story of manipulation is beginning to show how much larger the cabal is. Remember Col Wilkenson, Powell's Chief of Staff who used that term in '05 about the WH-
Admin. (Cabal: 'the artifices and intrigues of a group of persons secretly united in a plot (as to overturn a government)'

In Germany, Russia, Italy all modern societies those who are plotting an overthrow do so using legal mechanisms, it legitimizes the process.

I am certain based on the circumstancial evidence already revealed that the cabal's plan when fully learned will be gigantic.

The Confidence Man wrote on May 10, 2007 2:23 PM:

Anyone have any good educated guesses about who (more or less precisely) this "senior executive branch official" could be?

And the "two senior administration officials" who are complaining about Abu G and the WH withholding of emails -- I think they're *in addition to* Waas's emails source.

SueB wrote on May 10, 2007 2:25 PM:

Paul -- In the 5th paragraph after the boxed quote, when you mean the past tense of "lay" you typed "layed." The correct word is "laid." (It does sound the same.) If "layed" is in your spellchecker, get rid of it. :) From a librarian and former English major.

Anonymous wrote on May 10, 2007 2:26 PM:

Eric,

As you well know, the issue on the table is the Constution. The question is: Can the legal community be trusted to put all energies into ensuring the constution is protected.

Also, it's permissible to raise a public question about a profession that claims to conduct peer reviews; yet the results are what we have: Alleged rendition, prisoner abuse, FISA violations, illegal warfare.

If the public cannot trust the American legal community to do its job -- collectively -- to ensure the ruleo f law prevails -- and that the enforcement of the Constution is not left up to the Whim of the voters -- then, in my view, it is questionable whether the ABA can remain a selfregulating organization.

Eric you said: " but I am powerless to stop it." OK, then what is a solution?

Eric you said, "The legal community is powerless to stop it." I disagree: The German War Crims prosecutor refused to prosecute because they said the American legal community could do something. Are you saying that the German war crimes prosecutor is incorrect; or that there really is nothing that can be done?

"The ABA has issued statements condemning this administrations actions. Professors, Judges, the ACLU." Sure, this came last year in 2006. Took them how many years to wake up from their coma? Untimely.

We can only measure the results by what we have: NLS violations, warrantelss surveillance, FISA vioaltions, rendition, prisoner abuse. The fine lgal community "did all it could," but "nothing could be done." Fine, then we need a solution to ensure this does not happen again.

["I think it is really pretty reckless to try to indict the entire "legal profession" the way you do.] "Reckless" as you well know indicates a staement without regard to truth. Is the ABA comment in 2006 evidence of a timely response? I don't think so. Also, as you well know a "profession" (as opposed to a "person") cannot be defamed. It can be pubilcly challenged. Or is an issue of Constitutional and Criminal law one cannot discuss without defending what has -- in my view -- failed: The American legal community to ensure the rule of law stands before all, even the President?

Again, the way forward is to discuss what the solutions are. It is 2007. This has been going on since 2001. Accept that. This need not happen again. Solutions, please, not defensive justifications and excuses for what did not work. It is self-evident what's failed. We need a solution. Please pass to your peers.

oleeb wrote on May 10, 2007 2:28 PM:

From Day one this has been a White House operation and now it is a coverup to hide the fact that this was a White House operation. I have said from the beginning that Abu Gonzales is not simply going through all the lies and humiliation to protect Rove and to be a good and loyal Bushie. He is going through all of this because it was and is Rove and Bush together who were in charge of this entire process from the beginning. In the end, that is what will be apparent. Bush himself is up to his eyeballs in this. He is a vindictive, small -minded dunce and I've no doubt at all in my mind that he was an active participant in this entire process... and STILL IS! If this were just White House staff---even Rove it wouldn't warrant this level of absurdity in terms of the lengths they have gone to cover up what happened. Only the personal involvement of Bush himself could cause this weirdness and the many illegalities that have occured.

dixiekc wrote on May 10, 2007 2:31 PM:

I've heard enough. My patience is running thin. How much more does Congress need to know? Shouldn't they have enough to impeach or indict already?

logger wrote on May 10, 2007 2:35 PM:

How can Gonzales be withholding memos from Congress when he has just testified he has recused himself from decisions relating to production of documents. Mr Waas may need to check his sources.

Ad Absurdum wrote on May 10, 2007 2:37 PM:

"In Germany, Russia, Italy all modern societies those who are plotting an overthrow do so using legal mechanisms, it legitimizes the process. "

And in Venezuela?

Rusty wrote on May 10, 2007 2:38 PM:

Somehow, I trust Mr. Waas A LOT more than I trust AG Gonzales.

Remus SHepherd wrote on May 10, 2007 2:38 PM:

I'm sorry, but I read that right? One of the principals in this criminal tryst is named Chris O'Prison?

...our government has passed beyond scary, straight through self-parody, and deep into the childish, National Lampoon-esque realm of 'not funny anymore'.

lysias wrote on May 10, 2007 2:39 PM:

An awful lot that this White House has done has been for the purpose of preserving Bush's butt. The torture memos were meant to preserve Bush from criminal liability for having signed the still-slassified Memorandum of Notification to the CIA of Sept. 17, 2001 that authorized torture and all sorts of other stuff.

Anonymous wrote on May 10, 2007 2:41 PM:

Eric,

You stated two things, relevant to the current Congressional inquiry. perhaps you may wish to provide evidence:

1. That you are in the legal community;

2. That there is no peer review process.

Questions:

A. Are you saying that you have never had a peer review, despite the ABA public statements on peer reviews?

B. Is it your view that the ABA is a self-regulating orgaanization; if so, how does it accomplish this goal without peer reviews?

C. Is it your view that the DC Bar conducts reviews of attorneys without peer involvement; if so, who, other than attorney-peers, are qualified to lead the DOJ OPR or the DC Bar during their attorney reviews-investigations?

KICKER

D. If it is your view that there is no peer review process, could you explain your apparent lack of undestanding of this ABA peer consulting project; or are you not really in the legal profession?

Here
www.abanet.org/legalservices/probono/consulting.html

ALL

If someone says there are no peer reviews, then this raises questions about how the ABA practice areas are working; and whethr aa random member of the legal community understands auditing, sampling, and performance compliance under SAS70. These are known audit risks warranting Congressional review per the AICPA auditing standards as applied to the ABA Pracie Area Groups; and raises questions about the Practice Management Group leadership

A. Do they have a well known system in place to promote peer reviews;

B. Does the DOJ OPR, DC Bar, and legal profession really do peer reviews as they've advertised, suggested, or left the impression;

C. What isthe method, if any -- in the absesnse of peer reviews -- for the legal professional to justify confidence they are a self-regulatory entity?

D. When does the ABA leadership and other RNC leadership paln to discuss these issues with Congressman Waxman and the House Oversight Committee Hearing in re the current subpoeans?

E. If there is no peer review process, what method is the RNC counsel using to validate -- and justify confidence -- that their legal assertions are valid; yet there appraently is not method to independently test whether these asertions are or are not valid through sampling, oversight, CPE?

F. If there is no peer review, as Eric asserts, what is the method by which the ABA Continuign Legal Education [CLE] is validated as meeting ABA and legal requirements; or is there no method, and the basis for calling the ABA and AMerican legal profession "self regulatory entity" is dubious?

G. Under Statement of Accountign Standard 99, the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency uses SAS 99 to conduct audit risks on IGs. If what Eric says is true == that there are not peer reviews -- why should anyone believe the PCIE reprts?

Problems disclosed during financial audits can lead to mangement performance issues.

REf: QUOTE:

http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/sp/cross.html

"GAO and the PCIE are committed to keeping the FAM current. With this goal in mind, a GAO/PCIE task force prepared the attached update of the FAM, primarily to incorporate the provisions of Statement on Auditing Standards 99, Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit"

Is it your view, Eric that the GAO comments in re SAS 99 [fraud indicators] cannot be linked with any peer reviews in the legal profession; and there is no basis for the PCIE evaluations of attorneys, IG, and auditors under this PCIE system?

eric wrote on May 10, 2007 2:47 PM:

Ok first, the ABA. The ABA is merely a professional organization and really has no power to do anything. They do speak for their members, but that is about it.

Lawyers are held to standards of conduct. Those standards are usually articulated published rules from a board in each state. They do investigate lawyer ethics violations. Bill Clinton, for example, had his license suspended in Arkansas for his little fib at that deposition.

The problem is that these people in the administration are not practicing law. They are making policy and acting with the authority of the exective branch. This isn't something that an ethics board can deal with.

TheraP wrote on May 10, 2007 2:48 PM:

RW, I'm with you!

Yes, this is going to be huge. A mafia type take over of every iota of the government - linking it in a fascist way with the machinery of war and corporate greed. This has so many tentacles, we're going to be spending a very long time just finding them, not to speak of knitting back together our social/political fabric.

I must admit, I wonder if we have also seen a very deep flaw in our system, since there seems to be no way to really get rid of a cabal once they are in power - by that I mean it is difficult to simultaneously impeach both top officials, without one resigning and being reappointed - thus ensuring the continuance of said cabal till the next (fixed) "election."

Makes me wonder if we need some form of parliamentary system where a vote of no-confidence allows for replacement. Or where simply its threat keeps the people at the top in line. (or something to fix this problem - so it can't happen in future)

Word is "snake." These folks have snaked themselves around the fabric of government and are squeezing the life out of it.

On a positive note - the presence of trolls today (though a poor representation for sure!) suggests that we are beginning to make inroads. And the ground is shaking underneath the cabal.

TheraP wrote on May 10, 2007 2:54 PM:

eric - you have amazing patience.

But remember the blogger's prayer:

You can change some of the people some of the time.
Trolls will never change.
And the wisdom to tell the difference.

goldberry wrote on May 10, 2007 2:56 PM:

Hmm, does this mean tha Kyle found his missing binder?
And what is meant by "We have no record of that letter ever leaving the White House counsel's office."? Are they acknowledging that the letter exists? That the letter contains what has been previously reported? That, at one point in time, it was in the White House counsel's office? That the White House counsel doesn't keep good records? That they do keep god records but they made an exception in this case?
???

Buck wrote on May 10, 2007 2:58 PM:

Those emails are just the tip of a huge iceberg. The Titanic has a big hole in it's bottom. They just haven't figured it out yet. Glad to see some of those Republicans not jumping into the lifeboats. They'll find the cold water quite a refreshing wake up when the time comes.

eric wrote on May 10, 2007 3:00 PM:

Posted by: TheraP

It's good advice. Also, I should be billing hours instead of posting comments. Oh well.

Anonymous wrote on May 10, 2007 3:01 PM:

Eric,

"This isn't something that an ethics board can deal with." I disagree. Gonzalez, Addington, Rove, and Libby are attorneys, and in a position to influence policy. They could have been timely reviwed, but have not. It is 2007, not 2001. Utimately.

"The ABA is merely a professional organization and really has no power to do anything." Then the American legal profsesion -- with "leadership" from the ABA -- isn't self-regulating; only if the States agree to act. That is not Federal oversight.

"The problem is that these people in the administration are not practicing law. They are making policy and acting with the authority of the exective branch. This isn't something that an ethics board can deal with." Wrong. The ABA has a duty to protect the Constutition from domestic enemies. Bush, when he took his oath, promised to do that.

Where is the leadership by the ABA to impeach the President? We need leadersihp, not an ABA excuses of "Nobody supports impeachment." ABA needs to leaad, not make excuses for its failure to act; then circularly argue "nothing can be done." SUre, the ABA could lead the charge: WE are going to prtoect the Constution from this domsetic enemy; and the policy is to ensure that all DOJ OPR invstigations are fully supported with speedy staff counsel reports of evidence that thee President and others are domestice enmies.

Also, ABA could state: "We direct all counsel to forward evidence of illegal activity for public discussion, examination, and revieww to protect the Consrtution." They haven't done that. ABA can't claim they are leading but provide no leadership. Lawyers, in my view, canot claim they have an oath to protect the Constution from domestic enemies; but throw their hands up and say, "Nothign can be done."

OK

A. How long has it been known there are "no tools" to permit attorneys from fully implementing their oath of office?

B. How many attorneys have promted to defend the Constution from domestic enmies, but believe that this obligation cannot be fulfilled; how does this satisfy the "mental resrevation" requirement of the oath of office?

C. Putting aside all the above, what is a solution to ensure that the legal profession -- from the view of the GEerman war crimes prosecutor, who says the American legal community needs to prosecute these war crimes, not Germany -- does have the fully suypport to have timely done soemthing?

ABA could act through the Committees and practice areas as a sounding board to gather evidence; forward invdicatements; and cooperate with the US Attorneys to enforce the laws of war. It's 2007, not timely and not impressive.

One cannot credibly assert they are part of the "vanguards" to protect the constution -- going back to 1789, but in 2007 say they are powerless to do anything. OK, so we find out the lawyers are paper tigers. Why are we paying you this much money to not do what you took an oath to do; or is there something about these fee arrangements that isn't getting disclosed? In my view, this is high payment of fees for the bad news: "Oh, we really can't do what we promise." I guess I can't do what I promise: To respect the socalled vangaurds of the Constution who say this late in the game, "We can't do anything." OK, then lets find-create-develop a system that can do something; and stop pretending that the legal profession is fully asserting its oath. If nothing can be done, then let's accept that and focus on a solution. I'm hearing excuses to do nothing, and more green lights for illegal activity. Hardly checks and balances. Do we need a new COnstution; and better tools to ensure the COnstution is really protected regardless which profession and party controls the US government?

Who's going to protect the Constution?

wrb wrote on May 10, 2007 3:02 PM:

Limey

>>I'm sorry, but you really need to improve your analysis of language.

You are reading the second letter and thinking that it says something that it does not.
The second letter says that "Karl Rove hadn't had any role in appointing Griffin". A role would, in standard politise, mean being part of a formal process.

Not having a role is not the same as not having a hand or not contributing to the process.<<

Sorry, not in American English." Not haveing a role" means not having even the smallest cameo part. No influence at all.

Hank Essay wrote on May 10, 2007 3:02 PM:

Sounds like Paris Hilton may have some friends in the klink.....

-

AngryAmerican wrote on May 10, 2007 3:08 PM:

To those that have finally had enough and are asking what will it take to impeach etc., the answer is simple and a bit unsatisfying. You, me, all of us need to be calling our representatives and pressuring them to impeach. Not just once, or once in a while, but every day if that's what it takes. When enough American people put enough pressure on Congress, there will be accountability. My 2 pennies.

Freddy wrote on May 10, 2007 3:14 PM:

This is simply the wh hanging Gonzo out to dry. The wh has never been under oath on this, like Gonzo. The wh has flown above this bad weather. The wh view is: if these e-mails show wh involvement, so what? We never claimed otherwise under oath like Gonzo. This is the endgame.

me wrote on May 10, 2007 3:17 PM:

Uh please camel's back, meet this straw.

Security Code: Fornicated, as in by their own emails.

mike wrote on May 10, 2007 3:20 PM:

I spend my days working and reading blogs like this and kos.

Then I open the Oregonian this morning and I find that the firing of a 9th prosecutor is buried in a fifth or 6th page article, half way down the article. It might as well never have occurred from the MSM perspective.

I realize that there is a complete disconnect between my understanding of reality and the mechanics of the fascist takeover of our government and what most people see.

And yet of course somehow people know. Only 28% approve of the President. But the FACTS that would harden their disapproval ... they don't know these. Could they even understand them? If the headline of the Oregonian said this morning "9th Prosecutor Revealed to Have Been Fired for Political Motives", would that help?

I don't know. I just know that I don't live on the same planet as most folks.

Sharon A wrote on May 10, 2007 3:25 PM:

The Bush mis-administration has set us all up for an overthrow by trashing the legitimate processes and agencies and replacing it with corporate stooges as follows:

1. Trashed our military. Replacing with corporate security companies answering to NO laws.
2. Trashed our Dept of Justice. Replacing with Executive Orders and prison camps outside our country, complete with kangaroo courts.
3. Trashed legitimate intelligence communities. Replacing with phony think tank (AEI)intelligence and Office of Special Plans who crank out the requisite supporting propaganda.
4. Trashed our legislature. Replacing with Homeland Security "Continuity" shadow government.
5. Trashed our Fourth Estate. Replacing with Fox Spews and Rush Limbaugh(also posing as an expert on earth and environmental sciences when he's not eating himself into oblivion or doping out).

Now all they need is the nooocleeyer attack BushCo are so fond of predicting. Since their record is not-so-good in preventing terrorist attacks (see: 9.11 disaster) .... well, you get the picture.

eric wrote on May 10, 2007 3:29 PM:

"If the headline of the Oregonian said this morning "9th Prosecutor Revealed to Have Been Fired for Political Motives", would that help?

I don't know. I just know that I don't live on the same planet as most folks.

Posted by: mike"

Yep, it would help. I think that when it comes to scandals that are difficult to understand or boring, it takes a core of people to keep the heat on. Eventually, the general public catches on with the help of a few headlines or repeated phrases during some insipid morning show that eventually permeate through enought that even your most ardent American Idol fan catches on. That's where we are now, I think.

Gandhi wrote on May 10, 2007 3:33 PM:

They deny any wrongdoing but the e-mails they withheld from Congress point exactly in that direction.

Canuck Stuck in Muck wrote on May 10, 2007 3:36 PM:

Gawd! I hope this isn't another Dan Rather and the Guard story.

torcher aint sport wrote on May 10, 2007 3:39 PM:

Spelled out: This administration is NOT hanging Gonzales out to dry; it is merely continuing its "unitary executive" evasion of oversight. The only three people who can remove Gonzales are Bush, Gonzales, a federal judge. Since there is no pending federal legal action against Fredo, it's up to the first two. This is pure Machiavelli: With-hold the maximum amount of information possible from congress; acknowledge only that which is unavoidably unevadable; let the American public think whatever it wants, since the entire administration is never again answerable to it; keep doing whatever it damn well pleases and just say it isn't. Fredo's simply the front man for this whole operation, which is precisely why Bush won't remove him. He's doing his job to the letter as Bush/Rove define it, thus the "more confidence" statement following Fredo's senate testimony. These guys ARE truly the "Untouchables."

Joe

The Oracle wrote on May 10, 2007 3:50 PM:

The rubber-stamp obstruction-of-justice Republicans on the House committee, NOT asking Gonzales about the U.S. Attorney firings and White House involvement but mentioning everything else, are providing fodder for Fox News.

Which means Karl Rove's hand is in this, too. And the "base" Republicans who watch Fox News will be fooled once again into believing pure crap.

freddy wrote on May 10, 2007 3:53 PM:

I respectfully disagree. Someone in the wh has leaked these e-mails. There is no other purpose for this than hanging Gonzales out to dry. It places Gonzales in an untenable position. He has withheld information. He has lied about it. You assume that only 3 people can remove Gonzo, but neglect what is actually happening... a wildcard in the wh has had enough. It may be a small group of people, it may be just one. But something has happened outside of your narrow scenario...

Allsburg wrote on May 10, 2007 3:59 PM:

Who is this crazy, anonymous guy who keeps writing posts to Eric? And why does Eric keep answering him? Maybe if Eric just shuts up, he'll leave us alone and go away. Any way to find his IP address and block it?

ARG in Chicago wrote on May 10, 2007 4:13 PM:

Anonymous long-winded poster and poor typist:

I have consulted my copy of the Constitution. It says nothing about the ABA or a peer review process.

I share your concern about preserving the Constituion. But this is not the responsibility of lawyers, or the ABA. It is your responsibility, and mine.

All of us -- doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, school teachers, groundskeepers -- We the People established this Constitution, and therefore together we must defend it. Our voice is heard in government through our elected officials. Our influence is felt through the political process.

If a man we elected hires an incompetent administrator for some department -- I don't know, say, FEMA -- then we are obliged to hold him to account. We must do that directly, if we can, or through our other elected officials.

If an elected official hires incompetent -- or worse, malfeasant -- attorneys, then we have the same responsibility and the same recourse.

It is not the fault of the ABA that there are people out there holding JD degrees who are willing to sell out the true principles of our Republic for their own personal gain, or to advance some collective "movement". And I think it would be silly to rely on the ABA to somehow police the actions of such persons.

So I feel that your whole line of inquiry is off the mark.

The best course of action for us, collectively, to preserve and defend the Constitution, is to impeach. Impeach, impeach, impeach. Article 2, Section 4. Use it or lose it. The time is now.

Let's warm up by impeaching Gonzales. Then quickly impeach Cheney and Bush, semi-simultaneously. If ever it were appropriate to use this power, surely the time is now.

-- ARG

TheraP wrote on May 10, 2007 4:22 PM:

Results of a little research study:

The "troll" seems to have posted mostly here (with exception of previous thread 1x).

This is very interesting and bears analysis. I don't think we need any statistical analysis. Eyeballing the data suggests significance.

Ok. On to the interpretation. One thing about this article is that a picture of rove appears at the top. Another thing is the article itself: basically more evidence of the smoking gun, held by rove.

I think we can conclude that this thread, the thinking going on here, the threat to rove is leading to rovian desires to disrupt the thread and annoy us enough to "move along."

Which means.... keep digging.... and dig more!

Sharon A wrote on May 10, 2007 4:25 PM:

" a wildcard in the wh has had enough. It may be a small group of people, it may be just one. But something has happened outside of your narrow scenario..."

Or as in the Twilight Zone, the picture you're seeing is exactly what this cabal wants you to see.

Uncertainty and confusion liberally applied across all issues wearies the viewers. They can slip in just enough "red meat" to keep audiences on the hook consuming the rest of the slop. It requires dogged determination to pick the meat -- the truth/reality -- out of the watery soup.

Fox News provides the water. What few independent investigative reporters we have are dropping in the substance, the meat. Karl Rove is not adverse to slipping in a tidbit here and there to keep issues boiling as diversion either.

Republicans in Congress and recently out of Congress are aiding and abetting the drowning out of substance for their own reasons.

Fox Spews much water into the mix to dilute the value of the reality, the unconstitutional Bush flotsam bobs about in an ocean of lies.

So Americans cannot properly assess the threat these people pose to our country and call for their impeachment and prosecution for their crimes. There's too much soup (volume) in purportion to the meat (truth).

TheraP wrote on May 10, 2007 4:28 PM:

Defense of eric:

The above research study shows no evidence that eric's patience and willingness to try and explain things from a lawyerly point of view bears any connection to the troll.

Eric has demonstrated, in my view, that he is lawyer worth talking to. He is knowledgeable (well IANAL, but he seems to be) and he cares.

I honestly think we should go with the theory that the troll is here because the fire is heating up and the rats are getting upset. (and want to upset us)

Patience. And watch for the trolls - because they indicate the trail is warm. Follow the trolls...

freddy wrote on May 10, 2007 4:34 PM:

Sharon A...
What is uncertain and confusing about these e-mails? You think Rove wanted to supply the missing link? For Gonzo, these e-mails are the June 23rd tape. He's done. The White House is free to create a new reality.

nitpicker wrote on May 10, 2007 4:51 PM:

In paragraph 8.... "layed out the plan".

I don't think LAYED is a word. The past tense of lay is LAID.....I know, this is a very confusing form....

David wrote on May 10, 2007 4:53 PM:

Bottom line, end result, after the fat lady sings, at the end of the day, to conclude, in the end, finally, when all is said and done.......

Nothing, nada, zip, zilch.

Bush wars on. Gonzo corrupts on. Rove smears on.

And we can only watch with tears in our eyes as the America we knew vanishes before our eyes.

lgr wrote on May 10, 2007 4:54 PM:

TheraP: "Yes, this is going to be huge...This has so many tentacles, we're going to be spending a very long time just finding them, not to speak of knitting back together our social/political fabric."

As much as I want all of this to come crashing down in some kind of karmic payback, I fear just that fact is why everyone in Congress and elsewhere will just feel too overwhelmed by the vastness of it all, give up and roll over. I'm already seeing it with the Iraq funding bill and the habeas corpus issue.

Ya have to wonder--has THAT been the plan all along by these guys? Have the "cabal" be so complicated, spread out across agencies and levels of government that the Congress and the people can't possibly keep up?

Crazy like foxes, this Administration.

NitPicker2 wrote on May 10, 2007 4:54 PM:

thank you nitpicker!

I noticed it too.

mayan wrote on May 10, 2007 4:56 PM:

Now! Who's the Senior Administration Official who would have access to these e-mails? To me, this splintering off from the Bush Crime Family is almost as explosive as the substance of the article.

TheraP wrote on May 10, 2007 4:57 PM:

lgr:

I've feared the same myself. "Sow confusion" seems to be a strategy.

That's why so many people literally can't follow so many of the scandals.

And it wears everyone down who cares about being in a sane, fair, just, caring society.

wilderwood wrote on May 10, 2007 5:08 PM:

It's difficult to understand why all the fuss about who did it (Rove, Sampson, Goodling, etc.) for this reason: Is the constitution not clear that the US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president? Does that not mean that only the president can fire them? Isn't Bush automatically responsible for their firing?

ohnonotanotherscandal wrote on May 10, 2007 5:09 PM:

I'm as excited as the next guy here that the jig is up folks, but the WH can stall Congress until the cows come home. And it's essentially going to be a standoff in the end. What can Congress REALLY do--or what would they be willing to do-- here? I don't see them sending the Sargent at Arms up to the White House with his portable hard drive in hand.

Why can't the Congress pull Frailberto in, offer him some kind of coward's immunity in exchange for him appointing Pat Fitzgerald as Special Prosecutor to investigate this whole mess. Then someone will have some teeth in all this.

Sure, we'd miss out on the POTENTIAL fun of what could happen to him, but there's not much Gonzo really could have done that would be worth NOT getting this ball rolling, given his obvious mental deficiencies. What did he do everyday for the past 6 years? Tell his wife he was going to work in the White House and then hide behind a dumpster all day? GEEZUS!!!!!!

Steve5117 wrote on May 10, 2007 5:12 PM:

Bushie Cards (TM me right now)

5 cards in a pack with a piece of gum.

One card for each player, pretty picture on front and bio, positions played (held) etc on back.

Easy to add new players, 2nd series issued after the fall with new picture.

Any backers?

Mad Dog Rackham wrote on May 10, 2007 5:15 PM:

Nitpicker: I disagree.

"layed out the plan" should clearly be "lied out the plan".

lgr wrote on May 10, 2007 5:16 PM:

TheraP:

You're very right.

Worse yet, there is the very human reaction to this kind of collapse of world view that makes people just not want to believe it is happening in the first place, so they block it out.

You know, like the stages of grief: Shock, denial, bargaining, anger, depression.........go to the mall......

slb wrote on May 10, 2007 5:18 PM:

ARG in Chicago: "I share your concern about preserving the Constituion. But this is not the responsibility of lawyers, or the ABA. It is your responsibility, and mine.

All of us -- doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, school teachers, groundskeepers -- We the People established this Constitution, and therefore together we must defend it."

Hear, hear!

The Disillusionist wrote on May 10, 2007 5:25 PM:

Something about the Waas article that no one else addressed was the fact that Tim Griffin inflated his
resume about his legal experience, as explained in this article.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/040307b.html

consortiumnews.com

Did Rove's Protégé Puff Up Résumé?

By Richard L. Fricker
April 3, 2007

Little Rock’s interim U.S. Attorney J. Timothy Griffin – already at the center of a firestorm over whether the White House has put politics ahead of prosecutorial integrity – made claims about his experience as an Army lawyer that have been put in doubt by military records.

The 38-year-old Griffin claims on his official Web site that he prosecuted 40 criminal cases while at Ft. Campbell, where he was stationed from September 2005 to May 2006. But Army authorities say Ft. Campbell’s records show Griffin only serving as assistant trial counsel on three cases, none of which went to trial.

Griffin didn’t agree to be interviewed about his claim of 40 criminal prosecutions versus the Army’s confirmation of three cases, all of which were settled as plea bargains. But Cherith Beck, a Griffin spokeswoman, suggested that Griffin’s higher number might refer to all cases he worked on in any capacity.

“Just wanted to clarify, make sure you had an understanding that prosecuted means it’s a case he handled while he was there; it doesn’t mean that it went to trial necessarily,” Beck said. “Prosecuted means he handled those cases in one form or another.”

Griffin’s prosecutorial experience at Ft. Campbell is important in evaluating Griffin’s fitness to serve as the top federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Arkansas since the bulk of Griffin’s legal career has been in political operations, such as opposition research on Democrats or work as a Republican staffer on Capitol Hill.

Seeking to burnish Griffin’s prosecutorial credentials, his backers also have cited a letter of recommendation dated Aug. 13, 2002, from then-Little Rock U.S. Attorney H.E. “Bud” Cummins III praising Griffin’s nine months of work as one of his assistants.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” last Sunday, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, a senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, hailed Griffin as “a person with prosecutorial experience who the attorney – who the U.S. Attorney who was going to be removed said was his right-hand man and one of the best prosecutors he had.”

In an e-mail to me, however, Cummins disputed Hatch’s characterization of the letter.

“I don’t see here where I referred to him as my ‘right arm,’” Cummins said. “I don’t know where they are getting that. Tim [Griffin] worked hard and did a good job organizing the launch of what became a very successful PSN [Project Safe Neighborhoods] program. But the great success was at least equally due, if not a great deal more, to the efforts of virtually every prosecutor in the office after his departure.”

False Talking Points

Cummins noted that Hatch also made disparaging remarks about Carol Lam, the U.S. Attorney in San Diego who was another of the eight federal prosecutors fired last year because the White House and Justice Department didn’t rate them highly on lists that included an assessment of whether they were “loyal Bushies.”

“I imagine Senator Hatch will be very upset with the person or persons that fed him all the wrong information,” Cummins said in the e-mail. “I know he doesn’t want to put HIS credibility at risk, too. Sounds like he was provided talking points by someone as reckless with the facts as other previous occurrences in this saga.

“I have lost count of the public statements they have made that are simply wrong, or at least obviously deceptive. It smacks of desperation. You wonder if the bosses know the underlings are composing talking points for them with such little regard for the facts.”

In an earlier phone interview, Cummins told me he had no clear recollection of Griffin actually trying any case during his nine-month stint in Little Rock. “I honestly don’t remember,” Cummins said. “He may have tried one or two but nothing jumps out at me.”

Cummins added that Griffin “got a lot of indictments but other people had to try his cases because he left.” Griffin quit his job with U.S. Attorney Cummins to go to work as an opposition researcher for the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign.

It was in such political assignments that Griffin became a favorite of White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove whose office pressed for Griffin’s appointment as U.S. Attorney in Little Rock starting in 2005.

In December 2006, Griffin was named to replace Cummins, a Republican who was well-regarded for his fairness by both Republican and Democratic lawyers in Arkansas. Cummins was put on the Justice Department hit list as early as March 2005 with Griffin tapped as his replacement by January 2006, according to internal administration documents and e-mails.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other administration officials have denied acting improperly in the prosecutor purge, but Gonzales is under increasing fire from Congress over a series of inaccurate explanations about how and why the firings occurred.

Griffin’s other principal experience in a prosecutor’s office came early in his career, in the mid-1990s, when he was hired as an associate to special prosecutor David Barrett, a Republican lawyer who was appointed by a conservative-dominated three-judge panel, to investigate alleged misstatements by President Bill Clinton’s Housing and Urban Affairs Secretary Henry Cisneros about payments to a mistress.

Cisneros, then one of the most promising Hispanic politicians in the United States, eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of lying to the FBI about the payments, effectively destroying his career.

In the final report on the case, Barrett thanked Griffin “for helping in the early stages of the investigation.” Griffin’s résumé, however, paints a more substantial picture of his role, saying he “interviewed numerous witnesses with the FBI and supervised the execution of a search warrant, drafted subpoenas and pleadings and questioned witnesses before a federal grand jury.”

Griffin next went to work for the House Committee on Government Reform, which was looking into other alleged offenses by Democrats, including improper campaign contributions.

‘Oppo’ Researcher

In September 1999, Griffin joined the Bush-Cheney campaign as deputy research director handling what’s known in the Washington political world as “oppo” or opposition research, digging up dirt on political opponents. He also worked as a legal adviser in the Florida recount battle that gained Bush the White House.

In 2001, Bush appointed Griffin as a special assistant to Michael Chertoff, assistant attorney general at the Justice Department’s criminal division. During five months on the job, Griffin “tracked” issues for Chertoff, such as extradition and provisional arrest, according to Griffin’s résumé.

Griffin then spent nine months in Little Rock as a special assistant to U.S. Attorney Cummins before returning to the political world where he was named research director and deputy communication director for the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign.

Griffin’s campaign initiatives included the use of a technique known as “caging” to identify suspect voters. Griffin’s team sent letters to newly registered voters in envelopes barring any forwarding, so they would be returned if a voter wasn’t at that address.

BBC investigative reporter Greg Palast uncovered Griffin’s role in this practice that proved especially effective in “caging” African-Americans who lived in low-income areas or who were in the U.S. military. “Caged” voters would then be challenged by Republican lawyers when they arrived at the polls or cast absentee ballots.

After Bush secured a second term, Griffin joined the White House staff as deputy director for political affairs under Karl Rove.

Griffin’s résumé again portrayed him playing an important role. Starting in April 2005, Griffin said he “advised President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney on political matters, organized and coordinated political support for the President’s agenda, including the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.”

Military Lawyer

Griffin’s brief White House service was interrupted in September 2005 when he reported for active duty as an attorney at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky. It was there where Griffin claimed to put significant prosecutorial experience under his belt.

Griffin’s Web site states that “At Fort Campbell, he prosecuted 40 criminal cases. One of those, U.S. v. Mikel drew national interest after Private Mikel attempted to murder his platoon sergeant and fired upon his unit’s early morning formation. Private Mikel pleaded guilty to attempted murder and was sentenced to 25 years in prison.”

When I asked the Army to identify the cases prosecuted by Griffin at Ft. Campbell, the Army’s public relations office replied, “According to our SJA [Staff Judge Advocate] office, Major Griffin was involved in these three cases (guilty pleas before a military judge alone) as an assistant trial counsel at Ft. Campbell, US vs. Hurst, vs. Mikel, and vs. Edwards.”

Then, after a tour of about three months as an Army lawyer in Iraq, Griffin returned to the United States where the White House offered him the job as U.S. Attorney in Little Rock. Over the preceding two years, White House and Justice Department officials had collaborated to create the vacancy by ousting Griffin’s old boss, U.S. Attorney Cummins.

Although the Justice Department initially denied knowing “of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Griffin,” an e-mail by Gonzales’s chief of staff Kyle Sampson revealed that Griffin’s appointment was “important to Harriet, Karl, etc.,” in a reference to then-White House counsel Harriet Miers and Karl Rove.

As a furor arose over the firing of the eight U.S. Attorneys, Sampson resigned. However, in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 29, he insisted there was no contradiction between the initial denial about Rove’s role and the e-mail because he only “assumed” Rove’s interest from the pressure coming from Rove’s staff to grant Griffin the appointment.

Griffin’s appointment also has proved controversial because Gonzales exercised a new emergency power that was put into the USA Patriot Act to give the Attorney General discretion to name U.S. Attorneys without the normal Senate approval.

Both houses of Congress have now voted to rescind that power.

Griffin also has indicated he will not submit himself to the Senate confirmation process.

Griffin told the Arkansas Democrat Gazette that “I have made the decision not to let my name go forward to the Senate. … I don’t want to be part of that partisan circus.”

One of the questions Griffin may want to avoid is a detailed recounting of his courtroom experience.

Richard L. Fricker is a Tulsa, Oklahoma-based freelance reporter/writer and two-time winner of the American Business Press Editors Award for Investigative Journalism. He writes regularly for the Swiss newsweekly Sonntags Blick and Consortiumnews.com. Fricker can be reached at rlfricker@hotmail.com .

lgr wrote on May 10, 2007 5:35 PM:

Wilderwood:

If George told Alberto to get him a Big Gulp, so Alberto told David Iglesia's in New Mexico to go hold up a 7-11, and he refused so they fired him, is that ok with you? Cause, you know, he serves at the pleasure of the President and all.

TheraP wrote on May 10, 2007 5:44 PM:

@5:16

lgr - how right you are!

CrunchyFrog wrote on May 10, 2007 6:41 PM:

I don't know "politese", but according to Webster's, the definition of "role" includes:

2 : a function or part performed especially in a particular operation or process

No reference to a "formal" process, or even that a "process" of any kind is necessary. This accords with the common understanding that to "play a role" in something means to have influence in how it turns out. If "Karl's interest" incluenced the outcome of this undertaking, then it "played a role" in it.

FS wrote on May 10, 2007 7:07 PM:

When can we appoint a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of this?

Sharon A wrote on May 10, 2007 7:15 PM:

Freddy -- if Karl Rove can keep dumping into the stack, it will paralyze the process. The confusion is provided by the ocean of meaningless information being dumped alongside those damning emails you mentioned. So do I believe Rove capable and arrogant enough to allow something incriminating to himself to be released for public consumption? Absolutely, if he can control the final product at the end of the day.

Anonymous wrote on May 10, 2007 10:04 PM:

This is a BOMBSHELL! Props to that senior executive branch official who has put his job/life on the line to do what is right and expose the lies and deceit. I can guarantee you Rove and his minions are trying to track him down. Let's hope they don't get to him. I hope he contacts Conyers/Leahy and provides the documents. It seems like the gameplan is to throw Sampson under the bus. Poor, brainwashed "loyal bushie". He had to have known he was going to be sacrificed in an attempt to protect Karl. The obsession with protecting Karl- it's just completely fucking bizarre the lengths they have gone to.

torcher aint sport wrote on May 10, 2007 10:39 PM:

Freddie: I'm really not sure what you mean in saying Gonzales is done. How? You really think he'll resign? Bush will fire him? Just because a few more details have been leaked? He's the perfect frontman. The administration positions him as the only guy who could know how the process works, so congress keeps calling him to testify, and he keeps not remembering. Meanwhile, facts drip out, but since nobody takes responsibility for compiling the list, and Gonzales has no knowledge, it's just one giant circle-jerk. Why would he resign? Why would Bush fire him? The administration may be foisting responsibility for this on him, but Bush has made it clear he doesn't believe the firing of the USAs is worthy of further discucssion. Not to mention that the winger media will pound away at this point until the MSM starts asking: "When will Congress give up and move on?" As soon as that's the CNN headline, they've won. Bush/Rove has absolutely ZERO interest in dealing with filling a vacancy at AG. It won't happen unless a criminal investigation gets too hot. By then, it'll be next summer at the earliest. It could crush the GOP's chances in '08, but Bush has already shown that's simply not his concern anymore.

Joe

Anonymous wrote on May 10, 2007 11:13 PM:

From the Waas article:
The February 23 letter, signed by acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling, stated, "The department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin," and added that the department "is not aware of anyone lobbying, either inside or outside of the administration, for Mr. Griffin's appointment."

And that is what's called a LIE!!!!!!!!!!!

freddy wrote on May 11, 2007 12:47 AM:

Sharon and Joe...Perhaps I am too old. Maybe my memory is faulty. But I seem to remember a time, over 30 years ago, when only one newspaper cared to follow a certain story in depth, and the end result was rather grim for the executive branch. Things are different today, you are right in many ways about the MSM. Waas is basically a freelancer. His story is huge. I think you both recognize that, even though you characterize it as a tidbit, a morsel. Waas has his foot in the door. Read what his source said. It is impossible that his source is Rove. Mean Ben Bradlee will not be pressing Waas for a daily front page headline, but I think this story will finally explode. Gonzales may not resign. Bush may not fire him. But the House, which will never have the balls to impeach Bush and/or Cheney, might just have enough cojones for Gonzales. Impeach Lite. The senate itself voted 92-2 to strip Gonzales of Patriot Act authority. It's not like he has a wellspring of support in Congress. Don't cower before the MSM. Waas has an extraordinary story here. Let it build. Call me a dreamer, but I'm optimisitc on this one.

JNagarya wrote on May 11, 2007 4:05 AM:

"But Fratto also says that "We have no record of that letter ever leaving the White House counsel's office." In other words, they never bothered to ask Karl Rove or any one in his office to check whether the statement was true. And they just forgot that Sampson earlier had boasted about Rove's interest. Huh."

And yet the fuller story details that both letters were circulated to all knowledgable for their comments/corrections.

As the person at the top of the effort, it had to have passed through Rove's hands and scrutiny.

JNagarya wrote on May 11, 2007 5:06 AM:

"A "senior administration official" adds that "Gonzales is doing this to save his own neck.""

I wouldn't be surprised if that "senior . . . official" were Rove. The man behind the curtain always points his finger away from himself at the most conspicuous of "likely" targets. Gonzales is both frontman and participant in the gov't-wide effort to subvert the rule of law. And many, if not all, the lawyers involved in that effort are "Federalist Society" -- a name opposite what they're really about.

Who woulda thought Asscrafty could be missed aqs having a modicum of ethics and respect for the rule of law? Even if that was phony.

freddy wrote on May 11, 2007 9:30 AM:

So what if the letter passed through Rove! Did you expect him to amend it, and reveal that he was the force behind Griffin? Get real here. Murray Waas is not being set up by Rove. This is not a case of the criminal mailing the murder weapon to the police and daring them to find his fingerprints. The source for Waas is someone who can no longer stand the stench. Good investigative journalism takes time and effort. Pouting in the corner sucking on your thumb, whining that Rove is an evil wizard gets you nowhere. Grow up.

torcher aint sport wrote on May 11, 2007 10:24 AM:

Freddy,

I agree there's a story here. I even believe it's going to get considerably worse, and the similarities with Nixon are interesting. I am fascinated to see how the administration continues to respond. My basic feeling here is this: Bush isn't throwing Gonzales under the bus here, he's really throwing his entire party under the bus--just as Nixon did. Watch for wingers to start throwing Bill Clinton's name out twice as often as they do now, in arguing that his administration was even MORE corrupt. Watch, also, for new details in the William Jefferson investigation. That's all they can do. There's no defense for this administration's actions, so misdirection and false allegations will ensue. Pull up yer boots...

Joe

eric wrote on May 11, 2007 10:30 AM:

This thread is maybe dead, but I did want to just say that I was really trying to explain some things to the anonymous guy and didn't really get a troll vibe at first because what he was posting seemed sincere. And it probably was to some extent. But it did get really OT and bizarre so I quit responding. Thanks for the nice words, Thera P.

Anonymous wrote on May 11, 2007 4:42 PM:

Eric,

Thank you for the clarification. I'm glad you were able to respond on the posts that you did. I enjoyed reading your inputs.

xszitdyj hwref wrote on August 21, 2007 6:32 PM:

sqkxfehm uifw kadgf zhyrvduw hoabe pyhruo xlwtuckm

xszitdyj hwref wrote on August 21, 2007 6:32 PM:

sqkxfehm uifw kadgf zhyrvduw hoabe pyhruo xlwtuckm

xszitdyj hwref wrote on August 21, 2007 6:33 PM:

sqkxfehm uifw kadgf zhyrvduw hoabe pyhruo xlwtuckm

blogforlove wrote on January 29, 2008 12:06 PM:

Why you should buy buy viagr?
First of all, if you buy us viara for woman you get quality service and great discounts!
Why would you need buy viagr on line?
Viagra in the first place make a uverenost, most of the problems are solved in the privacy of using our products. We will help you learn infinite possibilities in the intimate lives.
Why do you have to use our shop?
You pay only real value of the goods, without deductions resellers percent! Ordering drug viagr us, you get free delivery and discounts on other products.
On our site you can order viara online. The lowest price. Large discounts. Full anonymity. Free shipping.
More info about vagra online you can be found on our website http://buy-viagra-online-pharmacy-in-canada.info/buy-cheap-viagra-online-now/cheap-generic-lowest-price-viagra.php