Comments (158)

HeyThereItsEric wrote on May 21, 2007 7:15 PM:

DAG2604-2719 Document set 11

p93, 96 Glaring retractions on e-mails from Brian Roehrkasse, regarding 3/03/07 NYT story by John Solomon and Dan Eggen. The placement of the redactions seems to imply that someone has undue influence over the story. E-mail on p. 96 follows the redaction with "The DAG and both spoke with him yesterday and I gave him a verbal quote..." Who "him" is is not identified.

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 7:16 PM:

funny thing after reading many emails, i have conclued that they are not working for the people
(they being who the emails are addressed to/from) they work for the president!

From: Oprison, Christopher G. [mailto:Christopher~G.~Oprison@who.eop.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14,2007 6:02 PM
To: Sampson, Kyle;' Goodling, Monica'
Subject: FW: question
Kyle, Monica
See below from Pete Wehner in Stategic Initiatives. Has DOJ drafted talking points? If not, and if you think it advisable to
respond, I would suggest sending along the DAG's Senate Judiciary testimony from last week. Or, alternatively, we
could provide no response. Your.thoughts?

greenmeddler wrote on May 21, 2007 7:17 PM:

here's a start (from ccmask at FDL):

From: .Goodling, Monica
Sent: Monday, March 05,2007 1 1 :I7 AM
To: Moschella, William; Hertling, Richard; Scott-Finan, Nancy
Cc: Sampson, Kyle
Subject: McKay judicial interview

Here’s the WHCO answer:
It’s true that McKay was not recommended by the Republican-led commission in Washington state as a candidate for a
district court position; however, he could claim he was interviewed by the White House for the position anyway. This is not -
really information that WHCO would want used publicly, but the interview came about because McKay knew Harriet Miers somehow and called her to say that he was in town and wanted to come by to say hello. She agreed. Once he was in the White House, McKay then said he was interested in the judgeship and basically asked to be interviewed. My understanding is that Harriet did conduct an abbreviated interview — but only as a courtesy. That’s also why he got a dissappointee call, despite the fact that he was never in the process to begin with (but he thought he was).
&
WHCO would generally prefer this line of question be avoided since the Members shouldn’t have knowledge of the
commission’s recommendations or the fact that the interview was only a courtesy (which, of course, McKay also does not know).

Tracking: Recipient Read -
Moschella, William Read: 3/5/2007 1.08 PM
Hertling, Richard
Scott-Finan. Nancy Read: 3/5/2007 1216 PM
Sarnpson. Kyle Deleted: 3/5/2007 8:46 PM

set 6–page 46 DOJ doc dump

OhSnap! wrote on May 21, 2007 7:17 PM:

Well, well... And it is not even a Friday. I'm thinking Goodling-related...

Now, off to read some docs while Hardball is still annoying me.

~snappers~

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 7:18 PM:

Set 10, p. 1 of 1.

Memo contents redacted.

Oh, the WH has nothing to hide?

HeyThereItsEric wrote on May 21, 2007 7:19 PM:

DAG2604-2719 p93 = DAG000002696
DAG3604-2719 p96 = DAG000002699

Sorry 'bout that

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 7:20 PM:

Goodling, Monica
From:
Sent:
To: ' .
' S.u bject:
. . .
Goodling, Monica
Thursday, February 15,2007 2:25 PM
'Oprison, Christopher G.'
RE: question
. . - .
It.is info we have given to friendlies on the Hili. It can all go.
From: Oprison, Christopher G. [mailto:Christopher~G.~Oprison@who.eop~gov]
Sent: Thursday, Februaty 15,2007 2:04 PM
To: Goodling, Monica
Subject: RE: question
. .
Monica, other than the McNulty testimony, is any of this material public and can it be disseminated.to Mark McKinnon?
From: Goodling, Monica [mailto:Monica.Goodling@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14,2007 7:09 PM
To: Oprison, Christopher G.; Sampson, Kyle
Subject: RE: question
Chris - he relevant talkers and statistics are contained in the attached documents. Please let me know if you need
anything else. (We do not have a canned editorial response).
From: Oprison, Christopher G. [mailto:Christopher~G.~Oprison@who.eop.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, Februaty 14,2007 6:02 PM
To: Sampson, Kyle; Goodling, Monica
Subject: MI: question
Kyle, Monica
See below from Pete Wehner in Stategic Initiatives. Has DOJ drafted talking points? If not, and if you think it advisable to *
respond, I would suggest sending along the DAG's Senate Judiciary testimony from last week. Or, alternatively, we
could provide no response. Your thoughts?
From: Wehner, Peter H.
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 5:42 PM
To: Oprison; Christopher G.
Subject: question
Chris:
Would you/somebody at DO4 be able to send along to me a response to the charges by Joe Conason, which I could pass
along to Mark McKinnon?
1 ' OAG000001613

obsessed wrote on May 21, 2007 7:21 PM:

What's the point of releasing it if the whole .doc is redacted? What are the rules for what they can and can't redact? This is so infuriating.

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 7:22 PM:

this email is intresting

Goodling, Monica
From: Oprison, Christopher G. [Christopher~G.~Oprison@who.eop.gov]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 9:35 AM
To: Goodling, Monica
Subject: Can you give me a call?
I need to chat about the "performance evaluations" for the departing US Attorneys. Time sensitive issue for Tony. Thanks
Christopher G. Oprison
Associate Cou~isetlo the President
phone: (202) 456-5871
fax: (202) 456-5 1 04

HeyThereItsEric wrote on May 21, 2007 7:22 PM:

ASG429 Document 10

Contains only 1 page (ASG000000429): 1/23/07 e-mail apparently from William W. Mercer to William W. Mercer, subject: "McKay and Margolis" Entire content of e-mail either empty or redacted.

As anonymous noted above, something seems pretty hidden

Node of Evil wrote on May 21, 2007 7:22 PM:

5-21-2007 (set 6)

see page 46 for this interesting bit, from Monica Goodling:

"It's true that McKay was not recommended by the Republican-led commission in Washington state as a candidate for a district court position; however, he could claim he was interviewed by the White House for the position anyway. This is not really information that WHCO would want used publicly, but the interview came about because McKay knew Harriet Miers somehow and called her to say that he was in town and wanted to come by to say hello. She agreed. Once he was in the White House, McKay then said he was interested in the judgeship and basically asked to be interviewed. My understanding is that Harriet did conduct an abbreviated interview -- but only as a courtesy. That's also why he got a dissappointee call, despite the fact that he was never in the process to begin with (but he thought he was).

WHCO would generally prefer this line of question be avoided since the Members shouldn't have knowledge of the commission's recommendations or the fact that the interview was only a courtesy (which, of course, McKay also does not know)."

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 7:23 PM:

Set 5, p. 28 of 60 Handwritten comments: "Holdover"

Comment: This seems intersting in that it identifies the "holdover" provision which the President selectively ignores. The problem is that the holdover remains in place until there is a replacement [Check the US Attorney Appointment statute on appointments]

Later: Scroll to later pages, and see "appointment" hand-circled by various names

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 7:24 PM:

She is so fasinated with repubs in this email about many things

Goodling, Monica
From: .Goodling, Monica
Sent: Monday, March 05,2007 1 1 :I7 AM
To: Moschella, William; Hertling, Richard; Scott-Finan, Nancy
Cc: Sampson, Kyle
Subject: &.-, .. McKay judicial interview
:.~J g'..
Here's the WHCO answer:
It's true that McKay was not recommended by the Republican-led commission in Washington state as a candidate for a
district court position; however, he could claim he was interviewed by the White House for the position anyway. This is not -
really information that WHCO would want used publicly, but the interview came about because McKay knew Harriet Miers
somehow and called her to say that he was in town and wanted to come by to say hello. She agreed. Once he was in the
White House, McKay then said he was interested in the judgeship and basically asked to be interviewed. My
understanding is that Harriet did conduct an abbreviated interview -- but only as a courtesy. That's also why he got a
dissappointee call, despite the fact that he was never in the process to begin with (but he thought he was).
&
WHCO would generally prefer this line of question be avoided since the Members shouldn't have knowledge of the
commission's recommendations or the fact that the interview was only a courtesy (which, of course, McKay also does not
know).
Tracking: Recipient Read -
Moschella, William Read: 3/5/2007 1.08 PM
Hertling, Richard
Scott-Finan. Nancy Read: 3/5/2007 1216 PM
Sarnpson. Kyle Deleted: 3/5/2007 8:46 PM

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 7:24 PM:

Set 9 contains favorable evaluations of the fired USA's districts. For instance John McKay: "Your district received an overall rating of 4.71, considerably higher than the national
average of 3.91."

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 7:26 PM:

talking points about Ingless....who's lieing?

Goodlina. Monica
From: Roehrkasse, Brian
'Sent: Wednesday, February 28,2007 2:22 PM
To: Scolinos, Tasia; Sampson, Kyle; Goodling, Monica; Elston, Michael (ODAG); Moschella,
William; McNulty, Paul J; Elwood, Courtney; Nowacki, John (USAEO); Hertling, Richard
Subject: Final Talking Points
Aftached are the final talking points on the allegations by U.S. Attorney David Iglesias.
Talking Poinls
The suggestion that David Iglesias was asked to resign because he failed to bring an indictment over a
courthouse construction contract is flatly false.
This Administration has never removed a United States Attorney in an effort to retaliate against them or
inappropriately interfere with a public integrity investigation. Furthermore, in the last six years, the
Department has demonstrated its extremely strong record rooting out public corruption including
prosecuting a number of very high profile cases. -
David Iglesias was confirmed in 2001 to a four-year term as U.S. Attorney in New Mexico and was
allowed to extend his service for an additional year and a half. During his 5 !4 years of service, we had a .
lengthy record from which to evaluate his performance as a manger and we made our decision not to
further extend his service based on performance-related concerns.
U.S. Attorneys €as directed by the U.S. Attorney Manual] are aware that all Congressional calls are to be
directed to the Department of Justice's Office of Legislative Affairs and we are unaware that anyone in
Main Justice was notified of any conversations between U.S. Attorney Iglesias and members of the New
Mexico Congressional delegation.
If asked ONLY whether the main Justice Department or the White House was contacted about the
performance of former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias:
The Department is occasionally contacted about the performance of U.S. Attorneys by home-state
Senators and gives those comments the appropriate consideration. [IF PUSHED] We will not discuss
specific conversations between members and the Department on these occasions.
Brian Roehrkasse
. Deputy Director of Public Affairs
U.S. Department of Justice
(202) 514-2007 ,

Dave wrote on May 21, 2007 7:26 PM:

Set 11, pp 100-105:
Brutal evaluations of seven fired prosecutors... "significant management problems" with Ryan; Lam "continually failed to perform"; Charlton "repeatedly took actions contrary to DOJ policy" etc. etc.
Is this new?
I don't remember seeing these evaluations -- apparently written after the seven went public. They're stamped "sensitive/personnel."
It appears the DOJ was ready to make an issue of the performance of each attorney replaced....

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 7:27 PM:

Set 9: Various letters/kudos to US Attorneys on the Immigration issues. Hardly seems like "bad" news warranting firing.

Suggestion: Contrast the comments in these letters with Gonzalez-Sampson assertions about the reasons related to Immigration; then contrast those with the apparent retrocative observation, [paraphrasing DOJ memo], "Wow, there are some US Attorneys on the border, maybe we can use that as the excuse for their firing."

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 7:28 PM:

look at the email address! and who it addresses!

From: Jennings, Jeffee S.
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 10:17 AM
To: ~KR@georgewbush,com'; Fielding, Fred F.; Sullivan, Kevin F.; Perino, Dana M.;
tkyle.sampson@usdoj.gov'
Cc: 'Sara Taylor'
Subject: NM USATTY - urgent issue
Importance: High -
I just received a telephone call from Steve Bell, Sen. Domenici's CoS, who urgently
reported the following:
1. Outgoing USATTY David 1glesias.i~h olding a press conference at 11:30 Eastern this
morning. I
2 . He is allegedly going to say that he was contacted by' two Members of Congress last
Fa11 regarding the investigation into the courthouse construction corruption case.
Information on this is in the following article:
http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2006/dec/19/federal-attorney-plans-step-do~-iglesiasinvest
ig/
3. He is allegedly going to say that the Members urged him to deliver indictments
before November's election. He will further say that one of the Members, frustrated with
his answer, hung up on him in anger.
4. He is allegedly going to link these phone calls with the current news - saying that
he believes this ultimately led to his being asked to resign by DOJ. I
Bell said Domenici's idea is not to respond, and hopefully make this a

JNagarya wrote on May 21, 2007 7:30 PM:

"From: Oprison, Christopher G. [mailto:Christopher~G.~Oprison@who.eop.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14,2007 6:02 PM
To: Sampson, Kyle;' Goodling, Monica'
Subject: FW: question
Kyle, Monica
See below from Pete Wehner in Stategic Initiatives. Has DOJ drafted talking points? If not, and if you think it advisable to
respond, I would suggest sending along the DAG's Senate Judiciary testimony from last week. Or, alternatively, we
could provide no response. Your.thoughts?

"Posted by:
Date: May 21, 2007 07:16 PM"

That is totally political: the DOJ is to be neutral; it is not politically a "seaparate branch" intended to be hostile to Congress, and Congressional inquiry.

Are those people too stupid to see how obviously political that is? Are they so impersed in politics 24/7 that it doesn't dawn on them that not everyone operates solely in accordance with political agenda?

The fact that that is blatantly political is in itself damning.

HeyThereItsEric wrote on May 21, 2007 7:31 PM:

"KR@georgewbush.com" e-mail is in document set 6, OAG1596-1645, OAG000001622

OhSnap! wrote on May 21, 2007 7:33 PM:

DocDump11

Docs primarily start with ELSTON emails, most I believe we have seen before. Coordination with contacting these USAs, their responses and expected resignation dates.

DAG000002626 - DAG000002629 is an internal DOJ chart with the USAs we know of (Bogden, Charlton, Chiara, Iglesias, Lam, McKay, Ryan and Cummins), their leadership assessment and the EARS.

Includes one redacted area AND of interest to me is the fact that Cummins is the last one (note the rest are alphabetized) and under the EARS category is [Requested]

Subsquent docs are emails and some talking points that we have heard before.

Then comparisons between experience btwn GDub and Clinton USAs.

Next (I am working on reading through) are detailed talking points assessements about USAs under GDub that have departed and who/how replaced.

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 7:33 PM:

need to see notes on AG000000159...

Whos hand writting is that

ccmask wrote on May 21, 2007 7:33 PM:

To: Ms. Lam
August 22, 2003

Your district received an overall rating of 4.14, slightly higher than the national average of 3.91. Your scores for each of the sections were:

Anti-Terrorism (5),
Project Safe Neighborhoods (4),
Drugs (4),
Civil Rights (4),
Corporate Fraud (4)
Management (4)
Intangibles (4).

This score demonstrates the quality and thoroughness of your District Performance Report and should not be interpreted to reflect the actual effectiveness of your district’s programs.

Once again, thank you for all of your district’s hard work. I hope that this process
provides you with another tool for successfidly managing your district. If you have any questions, please call me or Bill Goldman (Attomey Advisor) at (202) 5 14-2 121.
Guy Lewis
Director

Set 9-page 16

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 7:34 PM:

Set 8: Look at the bottom of page 1: You'll see the URL of the page: "enterprise properties". Is this the website -- not an e-mail -- of where the information was printed; and is this information getting reviewed not through e-mail but a spearte URL/website which the Congress has not asked for? Perhaps the issue: Congress is focusing only on e-mails, but has not asked about common websites GOP-EOP-DOJ personnel have been meeting to exchange information outside e-mail systems. The way to track this will be to see which IP numbers of EOP, DOJ, White House COunsel, and outside counsel have been commonly meeting, perhaps to exchange information without using e-mail.

Eightball says: The website might be located in Indiana. [Using third party data capture sytems, LOL. Yes, this can be verified.]

=====

Note also on page 1, a concern with getting a specific piece of information: "When" he is informed. Why needing such precise information; who was asking; and why was this important?

Thinking out loud: Was there someone in WH/EOP/Rove's office who was interest ing notifiaction times so they could say, "Yes, we've done stop A before B; and this guy's been notified; so we're ready to inform Senator X that the sequences has been completed"? Seems like there would be a checklist or something connected with this question; and suggests that they're referring to an outside question, some sort of oversight, or a planning document to make sure that certain things are happening before or after others.

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 7:34 PM:

need to see notes on Ag00000001563

ahem wrote on May 21, 2007 7:36 PM:

"Well, well... And it is not even a Friday. I'm thinking Goodling-related..."

That's my sense too. Get your retaliation in first before Mistress Goodling appears -- and I'm guessing the HJC will have a prepared statement to publish tomorrow, yes, unless there's an agreement to keep it close?

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 7:38 PM:

DAG2699 has brackets around something that has been whited out!

JNagarya wrote on May 21, 2007 7:38 PM:

"From: .Goodling, Monica
Sent: Monday, March 05,2007 1 1 :I7 AM
To: Moschella, William; Hertling, Richard; Scott-Finan, Nancy
Cc: Sampson, Kyle
Subject: McKay judicial interview

"Here’s the WHCO answer:
It’s true that McKay was not recommended by the Republican-led commission in Washington state as a candidate for a district court position; however, he could claim he was interviewed by the White House for the position anyway. This is not -
really information that WHCO would want used publicly, but the interview came about because McKay knew Harriet Miers somehow and called her to say that he was in town and wanted to come by to say hello. She agreed. Once he was in the White House, McKay then said he was interested in the judgeship and basically asked to be interviewed. My understanding is that Harriet did conduct an abbreviated interview — but only as a courtesy. That’s also why he got a dissappointee call, despite the fact that he was never in the process to begin with (but he thought he was).
&
WHCO would generally prefer this line of question be avoided since the Members shouldn’t have knowledge of the
commission’s recommendations or the fact that the interview was only a courtesy (which, of course, McKay also does not know).

"Tracking: Recipient Read -
Moschella, William Read: 3/5/2007 1.08 PM
Hertling, Richard
Scott-Finan. Nancy Read: 3/5/2007 1216 PM
Sarnpson. Kyle Deleted: 3/5/2007 8:46 PM

"set 6–page 46 DOJ doc dump

"Posted by: greenmeddler
Date: May 21, 2007 07:17 PM"

What is "WHCO"? White House Counsel? Something else?

Every bit of that, again, is political -- and it looks like there was something in the offing, perhaps as a "persuasion" or "gift" to get McKay to do as required. At the same time, it appears McKay was viewed as an outsider, perhaps with contempt.

Nonetheless, these people are clearly playing some sort of game -- and it imparts a sense of nastiness.

None of it is the conduct of professionals acting as and in the capacity of professionals. Or is that the norm for DC and DOJ?

Last but not least: the two I've so far read smack of dishonesty, deliberate deceit. They do not evidence a DOJ engaged in legitimate DOJ business. I wonder what it will look like when all the emails so far released are collated chronologically by date and time.

Dem-agog wrote on May 21, 2007 7:39 PM:

General observation: in reading through the last section of dumps (I always go to the end first) I get the feeling many of these emails (from Feb/March 2007) are major attempts to CYA and put non-mea culpas "on the record". If nothing else there's lots of fodder here for their Republican bretheren to point to and say "See! We told ya so".

Have I taken the "Rovian Conspiracy Theories" too far?

Dem-agog wrote on May 21, 2007 7:39 PM:

General observation: in reading through the last section of dumps (I always go to the end first) I get the feeling many of these emails (from Feb/March 2007) are major attempts to CYA and put non-mea culpas "on the record". If nothing else there's lots of fodder here for their Republican bretheren to point to and say "See! We told ya so".

Have I taken the "Rovian Conspiracy Theories" too far?

HeyThereItsEric wrote on May 21, 2007 7:39 PM:

ERROR in my previous post re: Roehrkasse redactions: (OAG 1493, OAG 1496):

The Solomon/Eggen story was in the Washington Post, not the NYT. The Roehrkasse redaction appears to be regarding the NYT story, not the WP Solomon/Eggen story.

My Apologies

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 7:40 PM:

Set 7: Question about the "hold" on Iglesius letter to POTUS.

Huh? What would be the reason that someone part of DOJ -- that wanted Iglesius out -- would want there to be a "hold"?

- What were they hoping to block;
- What was their reason for delaying something that supposedly "everyone wanted" and was for a "clear reason"
- If Iglesius [as Sampson-Gonzalez] would have us believe were problematic, why the "delay" and "hold" on something that apparently was a done deal, and decision to move Iglesius out?
- What new information did they have to say, "OOps, we need to wait"--what new info did they have; what were they waiting on

Notice they end with [paraphrasing], "Well, if it's gone, Oh, well..." huh? Why a "high" prority e-mail on this; and if it was "no big deal" why bother sending an e-mail on something that [apparently] everyone wanted to have happen?

- Was ther some sort of review DOJ Staffers were going to make of the letter and "recommend" changes to Iglesius? [Wow, they fire the guy, but want to make sure his letter to POTUS is -- can you feel it -- professional?!?] LOL

What is the reason for their concern about the submittal; but why the change to "oh, well, never mind" -- there must have been a reason, concern, or objective ot the original question. . .or is the DOJ Staff asking about stuff that they really don't need the answer to?

Wow, sure would have been nice if they'd done the same thing with war crimes, NSL, and FISA violations: "Hay, do you think we could comply with the law. . . I really mean it; oh, but you don't want to. . .oh, well, never mind..." Kind of suggests they have an inner yearning to to the right thing, but are bow beaten to comply with the momentum of non-sense, illegal activity, and unconstitutional conduct. Oh, did I say that?

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 7:43 PM:

Set 11, page 116: Some intersting hand written comments on a voice mail record.

Mentions "Judge": Seems cryptic.

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 7:43 PM:

DAG2690 talks about the backing of the WH, yet they state this is not accurate but the best they have seen

HeyThereItsEric wrote on May 21, 2007 7:46 PM:

Where are the copies of Moschella's testimony? Did the photocopier finally jam?

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 7:46 PM:

Set 11, page 113 of 116

There's some commentary about a "website" -- not sure what website they're referring to.

Who's get a read on which website this is; and how are DOJ Staff personnel using "the website" to communiate without using e-mail?

[Third party data capture systems reviewing websites, which IPs accessed, and look around the times in this e-mail from these IP's connected to this website; to see who else was connected; and whether outside counsel and EOP were also connected to the same website.]

Eightball says: IP numbers seem to be matching EOP, Outside counsel, and DOJ. Wow. Who would have thought?]

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 7:47 PM:

if these emails as they seem to decuis about the firings of the Attorney's are about coving their butts because the Attorney General did the firings before decusing them with the president, and after the media caught wind of the news, seem to be looping in the WH after the fact!

Thats what i am getting regarding the dialog!

OhSnap! wrote on May 21, 2007 7:48 PM:

Have we seen this before?

DocDump 11

PDF pg. 58-69 / DAG000002661 - DAG000002671

A lot of blathering over the first hearing and who will be a witness.

Sampson thinks it should be DAG McNulty.

Moschella says "no way, you ask him" (I believe in response to Sampson's DAG suggestion)

Sampson says "hah. let me know what he says"

DAG (per Elston email) thinks it should be Moschella.

Moschella bummed, planned on being in El Paso that day.

These are all dated Jan 25th in response to Schumer's announcement of a Committee hearing.

Talk of McNulty, joking about it, Moschella being chosen, Moschella unhappy (Going to be in El Paso that Day)

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 7:50 PM:

Set 6, 1 of 50: They mention a name of a contractor with Strategic Initiatives.

If you look at the bottom half, you'll see the e-mail for one of them; but the top e-mail appears to have been removed/ not included without a redaction notice.

Why is the SI e-mail appearing below, but not with Pet's name; and does DOJ have a reason for there not being consistent display of outside e-mail?

I would like a review of the IP's associated with these e-mails; and a copy of the IP's this e-mail sender accessed three days before and three days after sending this e-mail.

Then cross check those website-IP numbers with the EOP, Outside counsel, and DOJ to see if there are common patterns of IP/URL/websites DOJ. EOP, and WH counsel are linking with outside cousnel.

mo2 wrote on May 21, 2007 7:51 PM:

DAG000002719 -- Set 11. page 116 of 116.

Handwriting beside Bud Cummings voice mail says "not going same direction as F'st re judges"

What is F'st? Is it Federalist Society?

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 7:51 PM:

DAG2656 very strange dialog here! cant copy and past for some reason!

HeyThereItsEric wrote on May 21, 2007 7:55 PM:

More on Pete Wehner, mentioned in Set 6, p1 (OAG 1596). From the Washington Post 13 Dec 2004. He's not a contractor - he's a Karl Rove hiree.

"Pete Wehner has the rarest of White House jobs. He is paid to read, to think, to prod, to brainstorm -- all without accountability. He recalls the words of White House senior adviser Karl Rove when he interviewed for the job: "He said my job is to bug him."

Wehner runs the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives (or the Office of Strategery, as it is known inside the building after a "Saturday Night Live" skit spoofing the president's mangling of the English language). The OSI was Rove's idea, created shortly after President Bush was elected in 2000. It is the smallest unit in the Rove empire, with six employees, and represents the closest thing the White House has to an in-house think tank."

Node of Evil wrote on May 21, 2007 7:58 PM:

5-21-2007 (set 11)

I haven't seen the email from Kyle Sampson on Feb. 8th before. Some interesting bits:

"The decision to appoint Tim Griffin to be interim U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Arkansas was made on or about December 15, 2006, after the second of the Attorney General's telephone conversations with Sen. Pryor."

That strongly suggests the name was put on the list by Gonzales. Again, this may have shown up in other dumps and I missed it. I'd really like to know what the redacted text says on page 93 in Brian Roehrkasse's email at the top of the page, as well as that on page 96 (this is other doc collections).

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 7:58 PM:

gosh...the talking points and garbage that these moron's talk about is so disgusting! They seem to focus on anything but their job WE pay them to do!

Cover everyone else's butt, and hire "company" people, get everyone in the loop! Fire the whole department and just to recruit at Harvard, Yale, Standford, and put the best of the best in there!

Crap, I am so ashamed and embarrassed of how this government has taken the American Tax payer for a RIDE!

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 8:00 PM:

Carol Lam had higher than average evaluation.

Document 9 page 16.

Dear Ms. Lam:

I want to thank you for your district's efforts in completing the Deputy Attorney
General's template for the 2002 District Performance Report. Over the past several months,
members of my staff have diligently reviewed, analyzed, summarized, and scored all 93 District
Performance Reports. Since a great deal of time was spent preparing these reports, I wanted to
spend a commensurate amount of time in their review.

During the review process, reports were scored quantitatively according to criteria in
seven categories: Anti-Terrorism, Project Safe Neighborhoods, Drugs, Civil Rights, Corporate
Fraud, Management, and an Intangibles category. Intangibles included district priorities, goals,
and the thoroughness of the report. The seven categories were scored fiom one (lowest) to five
(highest), and then averaged for an overall district rating.

Your district received an overall rating of 4.14, slightly higher than the national average
of 3.91. Your scores for each of the sections were: Anti-Terrorism (S), Project Safe
Neighborhoods (4), Drugs (4), Civil Rights (4), Corporate Fraud (4), Management (4), and
Intangibles (4). This score demonstrates the quality and thoroughness of your District
Performance Report and should not be interpreted to reflect the actual effectiveness of your
district's programs.

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 8:00 PM:

Set 1: 19-21

Stat data on convictions by percentage.

Recommendation: Take a look at the ppt slides issued previously; and track the work flows assigned to AG when he reviewed the pre-departure checklist for his road show.

What you'll want to do is compare the data in this slide; cross check it with the ppt information; and identify what's changed and why.

- Has the data been reformatted/numbers changed?
- How do the percentages compare with the milestones which AG Gonzalez should have been using for the performance feedback sessions
- How do the goals/metrics compare to the subsequent versions of these slides
- Which benchmarks did DOJ establish on the PPT slides
- How does this data square with [a] the kudo letters given out by DOJ; but [b] Sampson's (apparent) assertions that US Attorneys were or were not performing

A. When did Sampson and Goodling review this data;

B. How were the workflows in DOJ assigned to review and incorpate this data into the summary packages to Miers, if at all;

C. Was this data created after the decision to fire/termination for TBD-reasons?

D. What evidence does WH-EOP have that this data was [a] available; [b] used; and [c] part of a management decision on a performance feedback; or was there no information available, and this data was created after the decision to fire?

Recommend looking at the create-file-dates for this information; and then do a timeline of the known decision points Rove and Miers were involved with. Most likely it will show that the meetings about the decisions to fire occurred along a different/unrelated timeline to when this data was [a] created; [b] used; or [c] referenced in a specific workflow, e-mail, or DOJ-GOP-WH staff comment/e-mail in support of the pre-decision/meetings with Gonzalez in November.

IT seems strange that this data would be on a table this many months after Gonzalez gave his direction in November 2006. This data appears to have been retroactively created to make it look like there was a metric used to fire, but it apears these metrics weren't "good enough" to bother mentioning in the Kudo-letters to the US Attys.

Eightball says, "Outside counsel's assertions do not appear to be very compelling."

OhSnap! wrote on May 21, 2007 8:00 PM:

Doc 10

is a single email to/from Mercer, William W.
Subject: McKay and Margolis

single sheet appears to be redacted.

neoprag wrote on May 21, 2007 8:00 PM:

OAG000001449 (Doc Dump Set 1)

Griffin's email address has been redacted. Is it a personal acct or a RNC acct?

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 8:02 PM:

ook at the email address! and who it addresses!

From: Jennings, Jeffee S.
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 10:17 AM
To: ~KR@georgewbush,com'; Fielding, Fred F.; Sullivan, Kevin F.; Perino, Dana M.;
tkyle.sampson@usdoj.gov'
Cc: 'Sara Taylor'

Well fuck me! That looks like some news, especially given what the message was about.

Tom wrote on May 21, 2007 8:03 PM:

McKay's rating were very high at 4.71. I guess Rove's voter fraud rating is not included.

Your district received an overall rating of 4.71, considerably higher than the national
average of 3.91. Your scores for each of the sections were: Anti-Terrorism (9, Project Safe
Neighborhoods (3,Dr ugs (4), Civil Rights (4), Corporate Fraud (9,M anagement (5), and
Intangibles (5). This score demonstrates the quality and thoroughness of your District
Performance Report and should not be interpreted to reflect the actual effectiveness of your
district's programs.

Node of Evil wrote on May 21, 2007 8:05 PM:

Upthread someone said:

'There's some commentary about a "website" -- not sure what website they're referring to.'

They're talking about getting the obscenity case proscecution numbers for Nevada. Apparently they have this info available on an internal website and that website was down for one reason or another so they asked someone to get the data manually (hence the emphasis that they only had 45 minutes to do it). It may have been a scanned-in document instead of data in a database, looking at the email chain that's what it appears to me to be.

OhSnap! wrote on May 21, 2007 8:12 PM:

Doc set 4 is from OAG000001532-35

Redundant current and upcoming vacancies.

Doc set 5 is pretty much a list of USAs under Clinton and Bush. Lists districts, when the USAs were appointed/resigned. Given four letter designations C, P, A and V.

Most interesting in Doc Set 5 is the last page (OAG000001595) listing the Senators on the Judiciary Committe and (who I presume?) who their USAs are?

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 8:12 PM:

We've been focusing on TPM on a discussion about the objective of the Firings--it's been focusing on the "reasons" the US Attorneys were fired, as if they had to have a reason. However, what if the ruse DOJ excuses about the firings has something to do with protecting Members of Congress in vulnerable districts against ethics investigations, and the "reasons" for the firing has less to do with DOJ, but more to do with helping GOP Members of Congress explain away their communications with the US?

Bluntly, the question becomes: How did the Members of Congress -- outside the ethics issues -- learn of the US Attorney investigations which are classified; or is the objective of this DOJ excuse to distract attention from the NSA transmission of monitoring of US Attorney investigations that has been inappropriately sent to Members of Congress?

Let's consider: Set 1, 48 of 48 "Any communication by a senator or House member with a federal prosecutor regarding an ongoing criminal investigation is a violation of ethics rules." -- Note this language appears to contradict the public response to the NYT, as mentioned in the e-mail of 46 of 48
Comment: Someone attached a talking paper to something, that specifically says there is an ethics issue.

A. Why was this guidance not followed?

B. Despite this guidance being provided, what were the member of Congress reasons for ignoring what was being floated around in DoJ?

C. What prompted this guidance to be sent, issued, provided?

Comment: It appears the guidance was issued a while ago, and this information was attached; it appears someone would have had to have asked the question internally, but despite getting this guidance from DOJ, they ignored it, or did not pay attention to something that they apparently asked for, or had a reason to prompt someone else to send.

Recommend: Get some information on what specifically prompted the attached commentary about the Ethics rules; and was it expected that DoJ guidance would be ignored? Why is DOJ bothering to issue guidance related to ethics rules, but GOP Senators are not following their own party's deliberations?
Or are we seeing evidence that the DOJ Staff knows something, but isn't keeping their Members of Congress in the same party informed?

Seems strange this guidance would be in writing, but several Senators and Members of Congress apparently ignored this guidance related to specific allegations of ethics problems if they raise issues with the US Attorneys.
Did the Members of Congress not think that there would be an ethics review? The public commentary statements of the Members of Congress "explaining" their "concerns' not only seem hollow, but in light of this DOJ-related guidance appears to be something that contradicts their later statements.

For purpose of evidence and timing, the key will be to look at when this guidance was issued; when Members of Congress in the GOP would have known about it; and to what extent Members of Congress -- only upon detection of their communicating to US Attorneys -- then retroactively crated the "concern" with the "immigration" issues as a means to defend the Members of Congress against an ethics investigation.

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 8:13 PM:

"Enterprise vault" is a Symantec product used to archive emails, files, etc. The URL at the bottom of page 1 (set 8) is most likely internal to the DOJ.

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 8:14 PM:

if AG office is now releasing these emails to the House, what others are they still holding back on?

Others have related this dump to Monica's appearance this week, and I agree with them, but this raises more questions in not releasing further emails/documents when both the House and Senate has requested them? Who are they protecting, Stupid question...I know!

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 8:16 PM:

Clarification

Above [May 21, 2007 08:12 PM ] , "more to do with helping GOP Members of Congress explain away their communications with the US?" should read, "more to do with helping GOP Members of Congress explain away their communications with the US +_Attorneys_+?"

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 8:27 PM:

if AG office is now releasing these emails to the House, what others are they still holding back on?

Others have related this dump to Monica's appearance this week, and I agree with them, but this raises more questions in not releasing further emails/documents when both the House and Senate has requested them? Who are they protecting, Stupid question...I know!

Hum...(node of evil), good observation about the emails about the obscenity stuff...but why now and why do they have now only 45 minutes to talk about this issue? Most have stated in the past about this subject being high on there list! Who is not telling the whole facts?

Again they are WAY above their heads in covering up lie after lie after lie! They just can't get it straight nor cover Attorney General's butt, because he was G. Bush's personal counsel and has his trust in every area and he took this dialog with him from Texas to the White House.

I get the understanding in the current email's that Attorney General ordered all the crap with zero approval from the President because of his loyalty that spans 20+ years. AG new what he did was wrong, yet AG's staff went to the White House for approval after the Media caught wind of the firings. That's when the cover up began! Hurry up and get the WH to say and approve the firings, so it looks like and sounds like the president ordered the move.

Tom wrote on May 21, 2007 8:30 PM:

Not much real news. The evaluations in Document 9 contradict the Talking Points in 11 on why the highest and above average rated prosecutors were fired. That is hardly news.

I am shocked that Kevin Ryan rated a 4 when by all accounts his office was a real mess. I guess being a loyal Bushie helps.

kt wrote on May 21, 2007 8:46 PM:

#0AG000001563 is a scanned handwritten note, in the midst of a bunch of tables of USA changes and when they were made. These tables have a date of january 26th. The handwritten note has a title of "original USA completed 4 year holding over" and lists in two columns a bunch of names. The first column starts at the left of the page, but does not go down in a straight line, veering towards the right. At the bottom of the column, the last five names on the list have an asterisk next to them, and are aligned left again "Charton, Ryan, Lam, Bogdn, Iglesias" The list continues in the next column in a nice straight column. underneath the second column is a tally "38/43." (note that 38 + those 5 asterisks = 43.)

Looks to me as another justification after the fact, by people acting more like MBAs than lawyers or governors. That is, if you are trying to govern, "serving a 4 year term and holding on" shouldn't matter, it's whether they're doing a good job at the job of the piece of governing. If you are trying to curry political favors however, and that's your SOLE end, then one could perfectly well suggest that judging vacancies on this basis is perfectly justified. Who cares, really, about number of prosecutions, or continuity in prosecutions, when the goal is continued Republicans for sake of continued Republicans?

Tom wrote on May 21, 2007 8:53 PM:

I would not hire any of these sycophants to walk my dog. If they lost her, they would write 100 talking points about why it was not their fault.

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 9:09 PM:

AG1641

Harret meyers is talked about regarding her input about McKay

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 9:09 PM:

Set 5 page 22
Someone upthread mentioned it as well, but I really like the 'I need to chat about "performance evaluations" for the departing US Attorneys' message from Chris Oprison to Monica on 2/27/07.

I am sure those 'performance evaluations' were all done in 'good faith.'

laura wrote on May 21, 2007 9:10 PM:

what is "enterprise properties" and what does it mean? Is this related to a management company that manages properties in the Virginia area? Starting to feel very Grishamesque. I did a quick dig and see some properties listed. Had another little dig at who operates in these buildings. Take a look around at Enterprise Bldg in Charlotte. Look at the tenants and dig some more.

laura wrote on May 21, 2007 9:11 PM:

what is "enterprise properties" and what does it mean? Is this related to a management company that manages properties in the Virginia area? Starting to feel very Grishamesque. I did a quick dig and see some properties listed. Had another little dig at who operates in these buildings. Take a look around at Enterprise Bldg in Charlotte. Look at the tenants and dig some more.

Jane wrote on May 21, 2007 9:15 PM:

It is possible but unlikely that Al the AG is trying to shelter behind G.W. It is more likely that the AG fired the USAGs on the White House/Rove say so and the DOJ as it is making up post hoc rationales is trying to match stories with the White House. Must have been a shock to them to see how highly the people they had just fired rated.

On Ryan -- people have been somewhat less inquisitive as to why he was fired since he appears to have had a rep as being a poor manager. But since ability is not a factor in these firings , he was probably not fired because he had problems but more likely fired for some of the more disreputable reasons that we have surmised for the others. Any ideas?

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 9:19 PM:

I get the feeling they would pick up the phone when they needed to get down to the real nitty gritty. They knew email might not be safe and figured phone conversations were a much safer way to discuss their crimes.

The Oracle wrote on May 21, 2007 9:23 PM:

Thank you TPM. What you are doing here is great.

Reading some of these emails is like looking in on the inner workings of some Mafia family.

Oh, right, the Mob actually did takeover the DOJ, and the White House, and for a time Congress.

SC: FLAG...as in these Republican mobsters have burned our American flag in pursuit of power and greed.

left wing conspirator wrote on May 21, 2007 9:26 PM:

Found an email that was sent to KR@georgebush.com. That must be Karl Rove. We'll see if Karl can find that one for us.

Notably, the subject has the word "urgent" and is sent with High importance. It talks about how Jennings was contacted by Domenici's chief of staff.

See Document Set 6

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 9:29 PM:

Set 11, page 11 (DAG 2614)

from Kyle, re extensions of time for USAs to leave:

"And we granted 1-month extensions for Dan and Margaret but not Carol - right?"

They really wanted Lam out of there, didn't they? There's probably something behind this.

and then just the nasty note Elston wrote about Chiara, when she asked for a little more time to deal with other obligations (set 11, page 21) . . . "Give 'em an inch."

Mark Schmitt wrote on May 21, 2007 9:33 PM:

I'm just skimming the comments here, not reading the e-mails, but what's this reference to Mark McKinnon:

To: Oprison; Christopher G.
Subject: question
Chris:
Would you/somebody at DO4 be able to send along to me a response to the charges by Joe Conason, which I could pass
along to Mark McKinnon?

From: Wehner, Peter H.
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 5:42 PM
To: Oprison; Christopher G.
Subject: question
Chris:
Would you/somebody at DO4 be able to send along to me a response to the charges by Joe Conason, which I could pass
along to Mark McKinnon?

Mark McKinnon is part of the McCain campaign now, if I recall correctly. Why does he need this info??

Dave wrote on May 21, 2007 9:33 PM:

Heh. From set 6:

From: Koehrkasse, Brian -
To: Elwood, Courtney; Goodling, Monica; Scolinos, Tasia; Hertling, Richard
CC: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Wed Feb 28 10:47:31 2007
Subject: RE: NM USATTY - urgent issue
My question is why would members of Congress and a U.S. Attorney be discussing the timing on a criminal indictment? Doesn't it seem odd that he would even acknowledge that?

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 9:40 PM:

Set 11, page 52

from Rebecca Seidel, 12/18/06
noting Kyl disturbed over Charlton . . "do we need a paper on it or is the AG prepared? Didn't want to task one through the regular channels."

WHY NOT???? pretty clear the AG didn't know what was going on, no?

---------------
Set 11, page 54:

Kyle again, discussing who should be witness at Senate Judiciary (1/25/07) - "I think the DAG should be the witness. We need to be serious and hit back hard." he asks Moschella to ask DAG (that's mcnulty, right?) to testify.

and then see page 56, reply from Moschella, 11 minutes later . . . "are you crazy? no way, you ask him!"

then what looks like a very large redaction. then ending with - "of course we will raise it with him."

What's that redaction about? or are they just trying to be funny?

p.61 - Elston tells them that DAG chose Moschella to testify.

-----------------

left wing conspirator wrote on May 21, 2007 9:45 PM:

There has been something redacted in an email in set 11 (DAG000002699) from Brian Roekrkasse. It would be interesting to know what is missing here as they are trying to organize their response to a New York Times story.

JNagarya wrote on May 21, 2007 9:45 PM:

"I get the understanding in the current email's that Attorney General ordered all the crap with zero approval from the President because of his loyalty that spans 20+ years. AG new what he did was wrong, yet AG's staff went to the White House for approval after the Media caught wind of the firings. That's when the cover up began! Hurry up and get the WH to say and approve the firings, so it looks like and sounds like the president ordered the move.

"Posted by:
Date: May 21, 2007 08:27 PM"

I disagree. I think what happened is that the DOJ was making the effort to pretend the responsibility was on DOJ in effort to protect Rove, etc., while everyone at DOJ also pretends no one knows who did what.

In other words: the good performance reviews were the truth. But those were irrelevant to Rove, because the issue was committing vote fraud through the AGs; so then the hurried claim -- lie -- that the firings were because of poor performance. (Which in a sense are true: the AGs who wouldn't act politically were, in that regard, performing poorly.)

That doesn't entirely vindicate DOJ, of course, as it was otherwise following Rove's directives.

SC = warm. As in, Are things getting warm?

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 10:02 PM:

To JNagarya -

Yes, Rove is being protected here, but Al Gonzales was the presidents personal counsel before he was AG, and he and Rove I am sure were talking about the future of crap to come!

In my view, what A. Gonzales has done is for fill the future that Rove and he planned! That way, once he was put in his current position, and hopefully his last, Gonzales sent his soldiers out to spread the lotion on!!!

And when the media caught wind of the lie, the soldiers needed to cover two areas,
1. The president
2. Rove
3. Gonzales

And since soldiers are dispensable, the rest is history, yet this history is still evolving!

Now, this is only my view! :)

foggylady wrote on May 21, 2007 10:04 PM:

DAG00002611, of the Document Set 11,
Memo from Elston to Goodling, dated Dec. 21 2006, after firings, asking permission from her for him to call 2 attorneys:
Paul wants me to call Bogdon and Chiara.
May I ?
***********************
weird....how much power did she have???

Britisher wrote on May 21, 2007 10:11 PM:

Monica Still Selling Performance Story on Iglesias without Giving Details (Feb 28 2007)

Set 6 page 36 (OAG000001631)

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject: '.
Roehrkasse, Brian
Wednesday. February 28,2007 1:26 PM ,
Goodling, Monica; Moschella, William; Hertling, Richard
Elwood, Courtney; Sampson, Kyle; Scolinos, Tasia
Updated Draft Talking Points and McClatchy story
.importance: Hgh
Attachments: spacer.gif

I just spoke to Kyle on the plane and have incorporated his input as well as edits from Courtney and Tasia. The McClatchy -: .
story is below - I think it comes from an inte~iewra ther than a press conference. ,
Please send me you final comments now so I can begin to use these talking points. Thanks.
DRAFT Talking Points
The suggestion that David Iglesias was asked to resign because he failed to bring an indictment over a courthouse construction contract is flatly false.

I added the bold.

The McClatchy article referneced starts page 33 (OAG....1628). The conmtract allegations are on page 34 (OAG....1629)

"...but the local media has reported on aspects of the ongoing investigation, including allegations that a former Democratic state senator took money to ensure an $82 million courthouse contract would go to
specific company."

so the concern is the media's allegations, not Iglesias saying he recieved inappropriate phone calls and inquiries. Iglesias said nothing to the press about the contract investigation ( according to the reporter).

The reporter asks for a response to her story before publishing and Monica makes a suggestion:

From: Goodling, Monica
Sent: Wednesday, February 28,2007 1:42 PM
To: Roehrkasse, Brian
Subject: RE: Updated Draft Talking Points and McClatchy story
Tracking: Recipient Read
Roehrkasse, Brian Read: 2/28/2007 1:53 PM
How about:
David Iglesias was confirmed in 2001 to a four-year term as U.S. Attorney in New Mexico and was
allowed to extend his service for an additional year and a half. During his 5 '/z years of service, we had a
lengthy record from which to evaluate his perfonnance as a manger and we made our decision not to
further extend his service based on performance-related concerns.
bold added by me.

In essence;...Igelsias did such a good job 2001 -2004 he was given and extra 18 months, but then he began to totally suck. Ei--iiigght!

Britisher wrote on May 21, 2007 10:11 PM:

Monica Still Selling Performance Story on Iglesias without Giving Details (Feb 28 2007)

Set 6 page 36 (OAG000001631)

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject: '.
Roehrkasse, Brian
Wednesday. February 28,2007 1:26 PM ,
Goodling, Monica; Moschella, William; Hertling, Richard
Elwood, Courtney; Sampson, Kyle; Scolinos, Tasia
Updated Draft Talking Points and McClatchy story
.importance: Hgh
Attachments: spacer.gif

I just spoke to Kyle on the plane and have incorporated his input as well as edits from Courtney and Tasia. The McClatchy -: .
story is below - I think it comes from an inte~iewra ther than a press conference. ,
Please send me you final comments now so I can begin to use these talking points. Thanks.
DRAFT Talking Points
The suggestion that David Iglesias was asked to resign because he failed to bring an indictment over a courthouse construction contract is flatly false.

I added the bold.

The McClatchy article referneced starts page 33 (OAG....1628). The conmtract allegations are on page 34 (OAG....1629)

"...but the local media has reported on aspects of the ongoing investigation, including allegations that a former Democratic state senator took money to ensure an $82 million courthouse contract would go to
specific company."

so the concern is the media's allegations, not Iglesias saying he recieved inappropriate phone calls and inquiries. Iglesias said nothing to the press about the contract investigation ( according to the reporter).

The reporter asks for a response to her story before publishing and Monica makes a suggestion:

From: Goodling, Monica
Sent: Wednesday, February 28,2007 1:42 PM
To: Roehrkasse, Brian
Subject: RE: Updated Draft Talking Points and McClatchy story
Tracking: Recipient Read
Roehrkasse, Brian Read: 2/28/2007 1:53 PM
How about:
David Iglesias was confirmed in 2001 to a four-year term as U.S. Attorney in New Mexico and was
allowed to extend his service for an additional year and a half. During his 5 '/z years of service, we had a
lengthy record from which to evaluate his perfonnance as a manger and we made our decision not to
further extend his service based on performance-related concerns.
bold added by me.

In essence;...Igelsias did such a good job 2001 -2004 he was given and extra 18 months, but then he began to totally suck. Ei--iiigght!

greggp wrote on May 21, 2007 10:22 PM:

And when the media caught wind of the lie, the soldiers needed to cover two areas,
1. The president
2. Rove
3. Gonzales

TWO areas?

nolo wrote on May 21, 2007 10:24 PM:

okay, folks -- great work, one and all!

but the dick hertling cover letter
tells almost the whole story here -- take
a look at the easy-view, pooh-brown(!),
piece of work he laid, right here!

some of these documents are being released
now because "his majesty" now deems it
"appropriate" to so so -- wtf?! -- it's
a SUBPOENA, dude! no deeming -- just comply
with the order. . . damn. just damn.

do take a look -- the analysis on mine
provides confirmation of much of the
speculation here. . . click on my name, below.

rockyroad wrote on May 21, 2007 10:25 PM:

Doc. Set 11, p. 21, DAG00002624

From: Elston, Michael
To: Monica Goodling
Date: Feb. 3, 2007

Original Message:

From: Chiaria, Margaret
To: McNulty, Paul
CC: Elston, Michael
Date: Feb. 3, 2007
Subject: WDMI

[After confirming her resignation plans]". . . I am the NAIS chair. Our first field-based meeting in over a year is scheduled for March 13 and 14 in North Carolina. Gretchen Shappart and the Eastern Bands of Cherokee Indians are hosting the meeting and a tribal summit that will include 26 federally recognized tribes in the region. Secretary of the Interior Kempthorn is expected to attend. The NAIS staff detailee, who is from WDMI, was terminated despite an outstanding evaluation review because the EOUSA would not renew her detail. The replacement has not been announced nor will he be available to assist It makes good sense for me to prepare (which I have been doing), and let me chair. This is particularly true because 4 of the NAIS members are part of "the group" (Charlton, Bogden, McKay and Iglaseas. It is better for me to handle this situation than an interim chair.

. . ."

Was something going on with the Cherokee Indians? NAIS? Is it just a coincidence that fired USAs (aka "the group")were members?

Again, firing outstanding performers for no apparent reason.

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 10:26 PM:

greggp... oops! three! made a blond mistake

;)

Britisher wrote on May 21, 2007 10:26 PM:

Followed by (page 45 OAg....1640

From: Roehrkasse, Brian
'Sent: Wednesday, February 28,2007 2:22 PM
To: Scolinos, Tasia; Sampson, Kyle; Goodling, Monica; Elston, Michael (ODAG); Moschella,
William; McNulty, Paul J; Elwood, Courtney; Nowacki, John (USAEO); Hertling, Richard
Subject: Final Talking Points

Attached are the final talking points on the allegations by U.S. Attorney David Iglesias.
Talking Poinls
The suggestion that David Iglesias was asked to resign because he failed to bring an indictment over a
courthouse construction contract is flatly false.

blah blah....

If asked ONLY whether the main Justice Department or the White House was contacted about the performance of former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias:

The Department is occasionally contacted about the performance of U.S. Attorneys by home-state
Senators and gives those comments the appropriate consideration. [IF PUSHED] We will not discuss specific conversations between members and the Department on these occasions.

NOTE: It wasn;t Iglesias who made the allegation..he apparently never discussed it. The shady contract allegation was from "the media"..NOT Iglesias! Classic mMisrepresentation--Igleasias wrong or lying ( about soemthing he never said!)
Aslo final comment that IF PUSHEzD...i.e. if press not satisfied with our answer, we will just shut up!

steambomb wrote on May 21, 2007 11:00 PM:

If some of these email appear to be cooking up their own facts after the date of the scandal breaking, isnt that manufacturing evidence?

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 11:05 PM:

steambomb...good point! but it is "obstruction of justice" or/and "tampering with evidence"

Britisher wrote on May 21, 2007 11:06 PM:

Unofficial Communications? And Blatant Politics.

Set 11 Page 52 DAG...2655

Can;'t copy the text--its an image but...

Rebecca Seidell to Moshcella , Elston
Dec 18 2006 1.50pm
SubjectL USAs -Sen Kyl/ AG hearing in Jan
"..do we need a apaper on it [USA firings] or is the AG prepared? Didn;t want to task one through regular channels.."

REGUlAR CHANNELS...?

From Elston to Samspon, Moshcella, Goodling, CC McNulty

Keyin Ryan's FAUSA...not returnining calls from Sen. Feinstein or Carol Lam....He wanted us to know that he's still a "company man"

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 11:33 PM:

So does anyone think this could have been released now instead of the usual Friday to give Monica a sort of heads up on what she can safely admit to without implicating her buddies at the White House? Does that make sense.

JNagarya wrote on May 21, 2007 11:45 PM:

"okay, folks -- great work, one and all!

"but the dick hertling cover letter
tells almost the whole story here -- take
a look at the easy-view, pooh-brown(!),
piece of work he laid, right here!

"some of these documents are being released
now because "his majesty" now deems it
"appropriate" to so so -- wtf?! -- it's
a SUBPOENA, dude! no deeming -- just comply
with the order. . . damn. just damn.

"do take a look -- the analysis on mine
provides confirmation of much of the
speculation here. . . click on my name, below.

"Posted by: nolo
Date: May 21, 2007 10:24 PM"

Interesting: though responding to a subpoena from one committee, he actually sends copies to both Senate and House Committees. Brown-nosing? Or a strategy to make it appear he is cooperative by responding to a subpoena not yet issued?

SC = sharp. As in, not very. Do these individuals sweat a lot, or are they wet behind the ears?

nicteis wrote on May 21, 2007 11:53 PM:

A minor goodie in p. 1 of 29, set 9, April 15 '05 appointment letter for Iglesias's replacement chairing the Border and Immigration Enforcement Subcommittee. Gonzales writes:

"Under the leadership of United States Attorney David Iglesias (NM), the Subcommittee was very proactive in providing advice and counsel to Department officials on border and immigration matters. This area is a crucial enforcement priority..."

Iglesias's leadership on the issue was already a matter of public record, but this memo helps show that Gonzales knew of his outstanding performance, and fired him anyway. Also to show that the trial balloon in an earlier dump about claiming performance problems on immigration for several USAs including Iglesias, because they were in border states, was based on a frantic search for excuses rather than on anyone's record.

JNagarya wrote on May 21, 2007 11:55 PM:

"steambomb...good point! but it is "obstruction of justice" or/and "tampering with evidence"

"Posted by:
Date: May 21, 2007 11:05 PM"

It doubtless earns several charges, one being fraud, and that in service to obstruction of justice.

Oh -- and conspiracy, in view of the fact it's two or more individuals in on it.

Betha the effort is to distract from the no-confidence vote, tied to the hope that perhaps the Congress will bite down hard on those doing the emailing and thus forget to remember that the entire effort is a smoke screen, a cover-up, and obstruction of justice effort to delay and distract from the actual principles: Bush, Chey, Rove, et al.

SC = fire. As in, where there's smoke, there's fire.

It's interesting that, caught at obstructing justice, they plow ahead with more of the same, with no hope, really, of disguising it. That seems to be their one-note _modus operandi_: never admit one is lying, regardless how obvious it is; just keep on lying, in effort to outrun the truth.

And that one-note effort is the entire Republican strategy for everything they do.

JNagarya wrote on May 22, 2007 12:02 AM:

"So does anyone think this could have been released now instead of the usual Friday to give Monica a sort of heads up on what she can safely admit to without implicating her buddies at the White House? Does that make sense.

"Posted by:
Date: May 21, 2007 11:33 PM"

More likely they are hoping to appear cooperative -- and therefore innocent -- by getting out those facts before she testifies. She has been given _limited_ immunity: she won't be charge for any admissions as to crimes she committed. BUT, she can be charged with perjury, and obstruction of justice, if she _lies_.

Her lawyer has one task: saving her ass. As she is not exactly real-world experienced, he likely has to put the fear in her to fulfill his task: tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, child, and don't try to be clever or they'll figuratively hang you by your thumbs.

SC = expert. As in, Minoca had better not believe herself an expert in convincing lying.

Does anyone know if her testimoy will be broadcast -- radio, or non-cable?

Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 12:06 AM:

This is off topic but has anyone seen this poll on MSNBC about whether Bush should be impeached? The only place I found a link to it was from Free Republic as someone said they should "Freep" it in support of Bush. No link to it from DU or Kos. Anyway, with almost 450,000 votes 88% of folks are saying Bush should be impeached: "Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial." The funny thing is many of the freepers are saying they are hitting the impeach button because he has sold them out on the immigration bill- LOL! Bush has got to be at an all time low in terms of public support. Between gas prices and his fucked up war you just aren't gonna find many Bush supporters out there. Here's a link to the poll (if you wanna laugh):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904

Steve5117 wrote on May 22, 2007 12:15 AM:

JNagarya

C-SPAN will carry it. If not on TV you can watch a webcast. There will be links at House web sit and C-Span site. 10:15 AM.

I'd call in sick if I wasn't retired/self employed.

Off Colfax wrote on May 22, 2007 12:16 AM:

Two entries for the panel from Set 1.

From OAG000001472:

"The DOJtWHCO panel interviews four individuals for the Western District of
Arkansas vacancy: , and Tim Griffin. Griffin is panel's first choice, and Griffin likely would have been approved by the JSC at that time; however, before he could be selected, Griffin withdrew his name fiom consideration because he had determined to accept an offer to join the staff of the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign."

The Arkansas Transition timeline memo as revised by Kyle Sampson contains a very long redacted streak. What names were redacted from the document before release? Why were those names redacted?

From OAG000001490:

In response to Sampson's kudos, Brian Roehrkasse enters a one-word response of "Thanks." Yet the next two textlines are blank and bracketed. What further response did Roehrkasse have to the Solomon/Eggins WaPo article and why was it removed?

SC: mark. As in, these documents have been marked up far too much.

Steve5117 wrote on May 22, 2007 12:19 AM:

JNagarya

I will fall asleep tonight thinking about Monica not sleeping.

Have you any thoughts about whose rod and staff will comfort her?

chas wrote on May 22, 2007 12:32 AM:

New poster with quick question,

Has anyone been putting these emails together in chronological order, so that we could potentially read throught the "Inbox" of say, Goodling, or whatever other source is out there so far? Any web resource like this right now...?

Thanks...

Dan D wrote on May 22, 2007 12:36 AM:

I wonder if some of the totally redacted pages are stuff that incriminates Goodling, and releasing it redacted is a kind of warning to her, if she pisses them off, they'll release it unredacted.

She might have immunity, but she can still ruin any future serious career plans in law if she hasn't already.

wmholt wrote on May 22, 2007 12:40 AM:

If you type georgewbush.com into your browser's address bar, it redirects to www.GOP.com. The RNC.com address also redirectes to www.GOP.com.

I don't think that this is any earth-shaking data, but here is the WHOIS registration info on the GOP.com servers.

It reveals that there is also an RNCHQ.ORG domain as well. Geez- aren't these guys really good with the stealthy, cloak-and-dagger stuff. Multiple domain names - who'd have thunk? We'll never catch up to them now!

Registrant:
Republican National Committee
310 First Street SE
Washington, DC 20003
US

Domain Name: GOP.COM

Administrative Contact:
Ellis, Steve dns@RNCHQ.ORG
310 First Street SE
Washington, DC 20003
US
202-863-8670 fax: 123 123 1234

Technical Contact:
Nolan, Kim knolan@RNCHQ.ORG
RNC
310 1ST ST SE
WASHINGTON, DC 20003-1885
US
202-863-8651 fax: 202-863-8851

Record expires on 03-Mar-2015.
Record created on 03-Mar-1999.
Database last updated on 22-May-2007 00:18:04 EDT.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS1.CHA.SMARTECHCORP.NET
A.NS.TRESPASSERS-W.NET

If you check out SmarTechCorp.NET, you will find that they are located in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

I assume that the GOP web site being hosted in Chattanooga is from the Bill Frist days, or is there some other connection here?

Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 12:40 AM:

Posted by: chas
Date: May 22, 2007 12:32 AM

Chas, interesting idea. Thanks.

By chance, do you have some thoughts on what new things you might be looking for/notice that would not be visible with the current publication-order?

Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 1:16 AM:

Posted by: Dan D
Date: May 22, 2007 12:36 AM

Intersting idea of the option DOJ has to reveal more of what may harm Goodling, if not others. I suspect you are correct, and I would encourage you to continue along this line of inquiry/assumption as you review the additional information that surfaces; or reconsider the old information.

Thanks for sharing your insight. Here is what I would be interested in learning from you:

A. Are you willing to explore the opposite conclusion, and find evidence that contradicts your view;

B. Putting on the table both the "for" and "against" lines of evidence -- from any and all sources -- which tend to strongly support your assertion; and which tend to fatally contradict your conclusion?

C. Is the evidence "for" or "against" your conclusion ebbing and flowing with time with some patterns

D. Are there some rounds of e-mails, lines of evidence, or things that tend to more favorably support yoru view; and how do the lines of evidence contradicting your view relate to other patterns of evidence, communications, sources, and topics within DOJ?

Whether you are or are not correct is not as important as sending a simple message: You have a unique perspective, and this should be encouraged; namely, what's going to "solve" this mystery is someone like you who looks at the "obvious" in a new way. Keep up your novel thinking, it helps others look at things differently, as is needed.

Thanks again.

regular lurker wrote on May 22, 2007 1:29 AM:

chas,

A group of volunteers over at Daily Kos have made a searchable database of all of the emails:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/21/12120/5682

"This database includes all of the 2086 unique emails included in the HJC-released documents from the DOJ."

JNagarya wrote on May 22, 2007 1:36 AM:

"C-SPAN will carry it. If not on TV you can watch a webcast. There will be links at House web sit and C-Span site. 10:15 AM.

"I'd call in sick if I wasn't retired/self employed.

"Posted by: Steve5117
Date: May 22, 2007 12:15 AM"

Thanks! I'd do the same if not the same.

SC = please. As in, Monica, please be an actual, legitmate Christian for a day.

JNagarya wrote on May 22, 2007 1:40 AM:

"JNagarya

"I will fall asleep tonight thinking about Monica not sleeping.

"Have you any thoughts about whose rod and staff will comfort her?

"Posted by: Steve5117
Date: May 22, 2007 12:19 AM"

I only hope she believes the immunity is a gift from "God," and she takes that to heart sufficiently and simply tells the truth without any hesitation or BS.

SC = memory. As in, I hope Monica doesn't lack for memory.

busboy33 wrote on May 22, 2007 1:42 AM:

no smoking gun, but curious . . .
Set 11, pg. 52/116 (DAG000002655)
Moschella and Seidel e-mailing back and forth about a potential flap with Sen. Kyl over the termination of Charlton. Discussion focuses on the need to make sure AG knows what to say if pressed on the point.
If the team (a) was on the lookout for hostile questions and (b) concerned enough to make sure AG "is prepared to deal with a question over the firings of the" USAs, then how in the hell did Gonzales walk out in the hearings and press conferences so woefully unprepared as to the facts?

Unless, of course, the "making sure the AG is prepared" means that hes got the cover story to hide the true facts . . . and ladies and gentlemen, thats what we call conspiracy to obstruct/perjure.

Sub-note:"Didn't want to task one through regular channels." ???? What the heck does that mean?

Cowboy wrote on May 22, 2007 1:47 AM:

Chas, a blogger has put together a complete index of all of the documents that have been dumped, searchable by name . . .

http://www.trainingdb.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Research

As far as this current dump goes, I'm a little confused by the legal justification for the redactions. These documents clearly don't involve national security, or diplomatic negotiations. And as far as Executive privilege is concerned, it would seem that the claims apply most strongly to intra-department communication within the White House. The Department of Justice is a creation of the Congress and is fully subject to congressional oversight.

Has a "privileged-log" of communications even been produced by the White House stating which documents they are withholding and on what basis?

I understand that the DOJ never even bothered to secure documents at the onset of the congressional investigation (something that would be blatantly illegal if private parties were involved).

This White House is holding itself to a standard that doesn't even begin to pass the smell test. I'm a saddened that any American president, or his subordinates would stoop to this level of blatant illegality.

busboy33 wrote on May 22, 2007 1:52 AM:

completely off topic . . .
during the hearings, there have been alot of "well, can you get back to us with written answers to all the questions you can't answer?" Do those written answers make it to the public realm? At this point, it seems like the TPM crew is digging harder than the govt. -- we could sure use the answers to fill in the blanks. These dumps would shed more light if we had the full (written) responses.

JNagarya wrote on May 22, 2007 1:56 AM:

"As far as this current dump goes, I'm a little confused by the legal justification for the redactions. These documents clearly don't involve national security, or diplomatic negotiations."

There claim is "privacy concerns". That must be true, in view of their disregard for that as concerns We the people.

And the anti-abortion claim that the Constitution doesn't include a "right of privacy".

Oh, right: What's the Constitution got to do with it?

"And as far as Executive privilege is concerned, it would seem that the claims apply most strongly to intra-department communication within the White House. The Department of Justice is a creation of the Congress and is fully subject to congressional oversight."

In addition to which, in one of their first "meetings," Gonzo agreed with Leahy that the DOJ isn't protected by Executive Privilege.

"Has a "privileged-log" of communications even been produced by the White House stating which documents they are withholding and on what basis?"

Probably not, as that would also be an admission of what documents exist.

"This White House is holding itself to a standard that doesn't even begin to pass the smell test."

At highest -- or lowest? :[

"Posted by: Cowboy
Date: May 22, 2007 01:47 AM"

busboy33 wrote on May 22, 2007 2:04 AM:

Set 11 of 11, pg. 74/116 (DAG000002677)
Talking Points memo noting that it is the goal of the administration to make sure every USA is confirmed by the Senate.
If I'm recalling correctly, wasn't there an e-mail from an earlier dump (Sampson?) that noted the plan was to simply string Congress along and keep the USAs in position as long as possible? If the plan was to dodge confirmation, and the DoJ crew prepared Talking Points stating the exact opposite, thats another conspiracy charge.

RicK wrote on May 22, 2007 2:09 AM:

Again, the only e-mails are from the recipients' in boxes. There are no e-mails that I've found that are from the senders' out box. (Without the sent e-mails, no way to see who was sent a blind copy.)

busboy33 wrote on May 22, 2007 2:20 AM:

a nice bitchslap from Iglesias . . .
Set 11 of 11, p. 79/116 (DAG000002682)
end of his resignation letter: "I am grateful to have been allowed the honor of making a difference in my community. We need US Attorneys who 'maintain justice and do what is right' (Isaiah 56:1) and are willing to pay the price for doing so."

As the rest of the letter makes no mention of a high price being paid for being a USA, thats gotta be a dig about getting pushed out for not filing bogus charges. Ballsy to slip it in the resignation letter, and send it (as a warning) to all the othe USAs.

sponson wrote on May 22, 2007 2:29 AM:

The WH and DOJ have never explained these redactions. They are both unconstitutional, in contempt of the Congress, and, other than Nixon's failed attempt to "transcribe" his White House tapes, unprecedented. It is a mistake to believe that there has ever been given any justification, no matter how weak, for these redactions. There is none. It is as brazen as it can get.

macdust wrote on May 22, 2007 2:32 AM:

"I will be briefing HJC Republicans on my Bud Cummins conversations at 11."

Michael Elston (ODAG) march 8

DAG2604-2719 Page 27

busboy33 wrote on May 22, 2007 2:40 AM:

Set 11 of 11, pg. 101/116 (DAG000002704)

Talking points re: Carol Lam and her "failure" to make enough immigration cases:
"Regardless of what was done by the office in this area, she failed to tackle this responsibility as aggressively and as vigorously as we expected and needed her to do. At the end of the day, we expected more."

Regardless of what was done? So the actual facts of her office are irrevelant -- at the end of the day, we wanted more, regardless of how much we got.

busboy33 wrote on May 22, 2007 2:53 AM:

set 11 of 11, pg. 116 of 116 (DAG000002719)

phone message from Bud Cummings about a Bob Russell conversation

Almost all of the note is redacted, but the handwritten note talks about "not going same direction as F'st re: Judges"

I have no idea what the heck that means, or what F'st is.

JNagarya wrote on May 22, 2007 3:05 AM:

"The WH and DOJ have never explained these redactions. They are both unconstitutional, in contempt of the Congress, and, other than Nixon's failed attempt to "transcribe" his White House tapes, unprecedented."

I would like to think they are unconstitutional. However, presuming they would be, were there legitimate justification, they probably wouldn't be.

"It is a mistake to believe that there has ever been given any justification, no matter how weak, for these redactions. There is none. It is as brazen as it can get."

There has been given justification: "privacy concerns," the clear implication being that they didn't want to release the names of (as example) the fired prosecutors so as not to hurt their reputations.

Horseshit, of course; but that was an early justification given.

"Posted by: sponson
Date: May 22, 2007 02:29 AM"

SC = right. As in, It ain't right.

macdust wrote on May 22, 2007 3:06 AM:

Feb 14, 3:05 PM, 55 minutes before Senate Judiciary Committee briefing, Michael Elston sends out emergency call for statistics:

"Subject: ASAP - D. Nev. Child porn Stats
Importance: High

Could one of you please pull these for 01 to 06? We have about 45 min."

DAG2604-2719 pages 108 ff

JNagarya wrote on May 22, 2007 3:09 AM:

"Almost all of the note is redacted, but the handwritten note talks about "not going same direction as F'st re: Judges"

"I have no idea what the heck that means, or what F'st is.

"Posted by: busboy33
Date: May 22, 2007 02:53 AM"

Probably "Federalist".

SC = hand. As in, regardless the hand which did the redactions, I have a hunch the redactions will ultimately fail; that eventually the unredacted will be got by Congress.

Watergate was an inpiration in some respects -- the witnessing of Congressional process: the Constitution works; and Congress ain't stupid.

JNagarya wrote on May 22, 2007 3:18 AM:

Have faith: Congress ain't stupid. And it is dealing, here, with a bunch of arrogant, wet behind the ears over their heads amateurs.

Even Gonzo: though a Harvard grad., is not the most sophisticated of lawyers. Sure, he is capable of BSing to the degree of being slick. But before now he's never been challenged, so he's real obvious. All he has done is that he's always done.

Did you all see his assertion that the "habeas corpus" clause in the Constitution only suspends that right; that the Constitution doesn't have in it that right?

Circular nonsense, and -- except obviously absurd -- briefly successful. That sort of BS "works" when hidden behind secrecy, and unchallenged. But it cannot stand reasoned challenge, even if he asserts the same to his dying day. The claims are really amatuer -- philosophy 101 by persons with no awareness of parameters, rules, reason (as different than logic), ethics. Pure transparently specious sophistry.

SC = right. As in, though hard right, it's dead wrong.

macdust wrote on May 22, 2007 3:42 AM:

OLA1627-1630

pg 1-2 Cummins' phone number was not released to Senate staff until Battle spoke with him first. Feb. 5th. e-mail appears to have been recovered from a back-up (enterprisevault)

pgs3-4 Iglesias' resignation was news to Rebecca Seidel. Document printed 4/2/07; original e-mail thread dated dec. 19th 2006

Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 4:15 AM:

If Sens. Spector and Sessions accept that some of these documents may have been "inadvertently not produced," as required by previous requests, or that those under investigation are to be the arbiters of what is "appropriate for disclosure" then they advance the idea that they are not Congressional advocates for oversight of the Justice Dept., as they have portended to be, but corrupted formerly judicious and honorable men who have chosen party over country as a sad coda to their reputations.

drational wrote on May 22, 2007 8:10 AM:

http://www.trainingdb.com
This contains all of the emails up to the current dump. we are working to include the current docs, but the website allows you to:
1. search all prior emails by sender and/or recipient
2. search OCR-extracted text (lots of errors still)

Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 8:43 AM:

off the topic here, but here's some more muck to rake.
http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/05/crooked_lawyer_.html

snake wrote on May 22, 2007 9:18 AM:

RE:

Doc. Set 11, p. 21, DAG00002624

From: Elston, Michael
To: Monica Goodling
Date: Feb. 3, 2007

Original Message:

From: Chiaria, Margaret
To: McNulty, Paul
CC: Elston, Michael
Date: Feb. 3, 2007
Subject: WDMI

[After confirming her resignation plans]". . . I am the NAIS chair. Our first field-based meeting in over a year is scheduled for March 13 and 14 in North Carolina. Gretchen Shappart and the Eastern Bands of Cherokee Indians are hosting the meeting and a tribal summit that will include 26 federally recognized tribes in the region. Secretary of the Interior Kempthorn is expected to attend. The NAIS staff detailee, who is from WDMI, was terminated despite an outstanding evaluation review because the EOUSA would not renew her detail. The replacement has not been announced nor will he be available to assist It makes good sense for me to prepare (which I have been doing), and let me chair. This is particularly true because 4 of the NAIS members are part of "the group" (Charlton, Bogden, McKay and Iglaseas. It is better for me to handle this situation than an interim chair.

. . ."

Was something going on with the Cherokee Indians? NAIS? Is it just a coincidence that fired USAs (aka "the group")were members?

Again, firing outstanding performers for no apparent reason.

Posted by: rockyroad
Date: May 21, 2007 10:25 PM

_________________________

I haven't seen this issue raised yet on TPM.

Found a couple of links on the subject.

A pretty good narrative on the Native American Issues Subcommittee (NAIS) connection:

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/04/native_american.html

"...five out of the ousted USAs were on the NAIS.

Heffelfinger said he's been trying to understand why he might have been targeted. "The only thing I can think of is my advocacy on behalf of Native American issues," Heffelfinger said.

He noted that five of the eight U.S. attorneys who were fired had served on a subcommittee that works on American Indian issues; Heffelfinger had chaired the group."

and here:

http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/3/19/121030/214

I can't stop thinking about all that Indian Casino Money....as the money trail. Don't forget about the Abramoff - Indian connection.

degree wrote on May 22, 2007 9:33 AM:

Leslie A. Hagen was Margaret Chiara's Assistant U.S.A. in Michigan before becoming the liason between the IC and the NAIS. She might be worth having a conversation with...

Rebel wrote on May 22, 2007 9:36 AM:

On page 2 of Doc 1, the email Monica Goodling wrote has her list of recipients edited.

Who is the DOJ hiding?

Clearly there in nothing confidential about whom she sent the email.

TSop wrote on May 22, 2007 10:17 AM:

These documents really serve to "gum up" finding the truth.

Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 10:25 AM:

I get the feeling most of these emails were created with an eye towards covering their asses, ie, they knew they might see the light of day and wanted to make themselves look good if that came to pass. Most of the real crookedness was probably done face to face or over the phone.

Antonia wrote on May 22, 2007 10:46 AM:

Tim Grieve writes for Salon (not Slate).

JEP wrote on May 22, 2007 10:50 AM:

"The decision to appoint Tim Griffin to be interim U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Arkansas was made on or about December 15, 2006, after the second of the Attorney General's telephone conversations with Sen. Pryor."

That strongly suggests the name was put on the list by Gonzales."

That's a smoking gun observation, that shatters Gonzales' web of lies that he had little or nothing to do with the actual listing.

If it proves true that his only evident input in this process was to assure Rove's political minion got appointed, via any means available, that might explain why Gonzo is so adamant in his denials. Because if his primary involvement pertained ONLY to Griffin, then his politicization of the DOJ becomes more and more transparent. Of all the hirings and firings he should have NOT been involved in, Griffin's must surely be the most obvious. And yet it appears it may have ben the ONLY one Gonzo had a personal hand in promoting.

This does suggest Gonzales was hooked at the hip to Rove in the entire process, and Griffin may just be the hinge-pin that finally proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It would also constitute a high-crime, (lying to Congress about his actual role in the DOJ Firings), not just a misdemeanor. And it would also prove just how politically manipulated our DOJ actually was.

Anonymous wrote on May 22, 2007 11:34 AM:

That should be SALON'S Tim Grieve

HeyThereItsEric wrote on May 22, 2007 11:38 AM:

RE: NAIS

Definitely sounds like Abramoff might be the hot button for those five. In retrospect, we must seriously entertain the idea that Fredrick Black, the Guam US Att'y, was the very first purged.

El Borba wrote on May 22, 2007 12:19 PM:

Once again, Dubya’s DoJ has succeeded. We can only hope that the House and Senate committee staffers are not as easily distracted as Muckraker readers are.

I don’t mean to sound harsh. I love Muckraker readers. And everyone loves a smoking gun. But where is the smoke here? On many levels, it’s in the form of a smokescreen.

First, timing the document dump to directly precede Monica’s testimony is probably an effort to help with the overall run-the-clock strategy. Any time wasted on questions related to details of these documents, either at hearings or in the press, is a win for Dubya’s DoJ. As many have noted since this process began, the story still is of a where’s-the-beef variety.

Look at the document dump as a whole. Look at the dates of these emails and evaluate the overall tone of the content. Look at how much email was generated to determine how the DoJ could withstand the scrutiny!

It is not as if any discretion was employed, any care in case they were eventually subpoenaed. A lot of the communications are trying to get the story straight. What are we going to tell the investigating committees? Who is going to tell what? How is it going with the latest list of talking points?

Look at the volume of emails generated in scurry-to-CYA mode! Compare it to the volume of email in October and November leading up to the firings! If they are willing to discuss cover-up strategies so openly in emails, what makes you think they did not employ emails in the discussions of the firings themselves before the list was finalized?

Another point to note is the origin of all those nice summary charts. Just as Athena sprang from the head of Zeus, those wonderful PDFs Monica was able to locate and pass around seem to have no history. We have seen some of them, in the same (meaning they are just filler here) and in slightly different forms (meaning there was some evolution to them) in several of the document dumps. But where are the emails discussion details of their creation? These were all produced in face-to-face meetings with no record of the meeting schedules and no minutes or notes recorded and filed somewhere?

But probably the most damning observation is about the flutter of late-December and early 2007 emails in this most recent dump. There is so much chatter strategizing about handling the inquiries. But I don’t recall seeing a single email in there where someone questions the effort and asks something like “Since we know that we did nothing that was wrong, why don’t we just tell the truth?” If anyone spots one, PLEASE let me know.

We know they don’t exist. And the reason they don’t exist is the same reason we all suspect that there are many emails leading up to the December massacre that we will never see. That is the real story in yesterday’s document dump. It is something the committees have suspected all along and is why they want to talk to Monica. I hope that this document dump will not distract them.

So, what about tomorrow? The real bombshells will come if Monica is asked about those so obviously missing emails and she actually tells the truth! But beyond that, I would love to see someone ask the question I posed above.

drational wrote on May 22, 2007 12:20 PM:

On page 2 of Doc 1, the email Monica Goodling wrote has her list of recipients edited.

Who is the DOJ hiding?

This is Griffin's email address redaction.
Throughout the dump, many of his addresses are redacted. if you go to www.trainingdb.com, you can search all of his to/from emails. you will see that although they released personal accounts like comcast.com, they redact a large number.

Personally, I suspect it is to hide a gwb43.com address. he previously worked in the rove factory, and it would be bad press to see him using this address when he was AUSA in arkansas.

drational wrote on May 22, 2007 12:27 PM:

RE: NAIS

someone should consider these points:
1. Based on the content of their emails, Rove/Jennings are clearly most concerned with new mexico.
2. The person in the white house who had "final say" over the Iglesias replacement was Counsel Leslie Fahrenkopf, daughter of Frank Fahrenkopf, president of the American Gaming association.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/7/7133/25414

I know we suspect "election fraud" was the chief reason iglesias was decked, but this is a strange situation....
picking up where Abramoff left off?

idea wrote on May 22, 2007 1:04 PM:

Comey never came forth on his own, he responded that he was never asked. Has any of the ex-NAIS members been asked specifically about their experiences while a member of the NAIS group? Could there be another unexplored twist that conviently ties the following USA's:

Charlton
Bogden
Mckay
Chiara
Iglesias
Heffelfinger

I seem to remember Josh pondering the Charlton, Bogden and Chiara firings as not fitting nicely with the "voter fraud" and 'corruption investigation' themes. Maybe they really weren't fired for that after all.

I found this dailyKos diary to be of interest on the subject of what was going on with the NAIS. Take notice that DoI Gale Norton is a player in the affair as well.

USAs: Disrupting Money Laundering Investigations at Indian Casinos? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/28/165814/698

JNagarya wrote on May 22, 2007 1:24 PM:

"If Sens. Spector and Sessions accept that some of these documents may have been "inadvertently not produced," as required by previous requests, or that those under investigation are to be the arbiters of what is "appropriate for disclosure" then they advance the idea that they are not Congressional advocates for oversight of the Justice Dept., as they have portended to be, but corrupted formerly judicious and honorable men who have chosen party over country as a sad coda to their reputations.

"Posted by:
Date: May 22, 2007 04:15 AM"

It's worth watching for that effort, and evaluating it, as at this late point it may be only "pro forma," as the cat is clearly out of the bag and beyond efforts to keep it suppressed and covered up. (Such effort would also require they backpedal.)

I suspect it's too far along for them to attempt that. More likely some are at the point of indecision, shit or get off the pot, so will be passive-aggressive.

JNagarya wrote on May 22, 2007 1:46 PM:

"http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/3/19/121030/214

"I can't stop thinking about all that Indian Casino Money....as the money trail. Don't forget about the Abramoff - Indian connection.

"Posted by: snake
Date: May 22, 2007 09:18 AM"

Gee, ya think!?

Great link!

JNagarya wrote on May 22, 2007 1:52 PM:

"These documents really serve to "gum up" finding the truth.

"Posted by: TSop
Date: May 22, 2007 10:17 AM"

That isn't going to continue much longer, with the several emails in this dumpt that are blatantly political. And the clear after-the-fact efforts to find another way to lie about -- er "spin" -- the underlying facts.

As well, just heard brief interview with Thalia Litwik of "late". The word she has is that Goodling is extremely upset, emotionally, apparently about the firings (this latter bit sounded garbled/poorly expressed). That tells me Goodling is perhaps angry; more likely that she "needs" any opportunity to "vent"/spill the beans.

All in all, if there's any effort to stonewall, she'll be shredded in short order, and so disoriented by that she'll not be able to exercise sufficient control to lie.

mbbsdphil wrote on May 22, 2007 1:56 PM:

I agree, the e-mails convey the impression of office assistants trying to backfit their bosses' decisions into a "valid management process" that didn't exist before those decisions were made. But it doesn't look like any of them know what a valid process is, much less how it would be used day-to-day. No surprise, since working at Bush's DOJ, they've probably never seen one.

JNagarya wrote on May 22, 2007 1:59 PM:

"I get the feeling most of these emails were created with an eye towards covering their asses, ie, they knew they might see the light of day and wanted to make themselves look good if that came to pass."

Exactly opposite: they are amateurs, and their efforts to create a cover story and cover their asses couldn't be more obvious. Look at all the references to "talking points" -- "What should we say instead of the truth?" -- and such as the [IF PUSHED] intent to stonewall.

The DOJ isn't properly to see Congress as "the enemy".

"Most of the real crookedness was probably done face to face or over the phone."

Some, if not most. But clearly not all.

"Posted by:
Date: May 22, 2007 10:25 AM"

SC = spring. As in, Congress may already have sufficient hard evidence they've not revealed as to be ready to spring some big-time traps.

JNagarya wrote on May 22, 2007 2:40 PM:

"Once again, Dubya’s DoJ has succeeded."

No it hasn't. It has provided clear detail of conspiring to obstruct justice.

"We can only hope that the House and Senate committee staffers are not as easily distracted as Muckraker readers are."

"[O]nly hope"!? Congress is not stupid!

"I don’t mean to sound harsh. I love Muckraker readers. And everyone loves a smoking gun. But where is the smoke here? On many levels, it’s in the form of a smokescreen."

Yes: the blatantly politica, and obvious, effort to concoct a cover stoy is a smoking gun: conspiracy to obstruct justice. These emails provide an enormous amount of leverage -- and thus ups the pressure on Gonzo, et al.

"First, timing the document dump to directly precede Monica’s testimony is probably an effort to help with the overall run-the-clock strategy."

It is more likely caving in: what else do they have to provide that would be exculpatory? Nothing.

"Any time wasted on questions related to details of these documents, either at hearings or in the press, is a win for Dubya’s DoJ."

No, it is not. It, rather, tightens the noose: it shows the concocting of cover story, and thus provides both the proof that the lies are lies, and refutes them. Is it, absent admissions, circumstantial? Yes. Is it sufficient to indict? Yes.

"As many have noted since this process began, the story still is of a where’s-the-beef variety."

No, it is not: the "beef," at this point, is the proof of conspiring to obstruct justice. Next will be the spillings of beans.

"Look at the document dump as a whole. Look at the dates of these emails and evaluate the overall tone of the content. Look at how much email was generated to determine how the DoJ could withstand the scrutiny!"

Conspiracy to obstruct justice. This is further than Fitzpatrick managed to get: there he had sand in the eyes. Here we have the names of the people throwing the sand, and the evidence of the crime being committed while the sand is being thrown.

"It is not as if any discretion was employed, any care in case they were eventually subpoenaed. A lot of the communications are trying to get the story straight."

Exactly. Amatuers. Panic. They are at the point now where they can only attempt to delay, attempt to cover for Rove. That such effort is so obvious, so transparent, shows that they have nothing left with which to blow smoke.

"Look at the volume of emails generated in scurry-to-CYA mode! Compare it to the volume of email in October and November leading up to the firings! If they are willing to discuss cover-up strategies so openly in emails, what makes you think they did not employ emails in the discussions of the firings themselves before the list was finalized?"

And? Those with names are on the record as conpiring to obstruct justice. That is sufficient charge to get any number of them to tell the truth to save their own asses.

". . . . those wonderful PDFs Monica was able to locate and pass around seem to have no history."

Except that they do have history. There are names attached to the editings of them. These maximum-comfort Republicans are not all going to jail for Gonzo/Rove/Bushit.

". . . . But where are the emails discussion details of their creation?"

I wonder how many emails were on the computer took with her when she resigned . . .

"These were all produced in face-to-face meetings with no record of the meeting schedules and no minutes or notes recorded and filed somewhere?"

Perhaps. So?

"But probably the most damning observation is about the flutter of late-December and early 2007 emails in this most recent dump. There is so much chatter strategizing about handling the inquiries."

Conspiracy to obstruct justice. They are amatuers.

"We know they don’t exist."

No, we do not. Thoses redactions of names lead to other persons who kept the emails they received, either as CYA insurance, or not-to-be-disclosed reminders of what lies to tell in order to be consistent. Those emails exist.

"I hope that this document dump will not distract them."

Congress isn't stupid!

"Posted by: El Borba
Date: May 22, 2007 12:19 PM"

Congress now has (if it didn't already) hard evidence of conspiracy to obstruct justice. The participants in it are amatuers. One or more will ultimately "unredact" all the names.

JNagarya wrote on May 22, 2007 2:45 PM:

"Once again, Dubya’s DoJ has succeeded."

No it hasn't. It has provided clear detail of conspiring to obstruct justice.

"We can only hope that the House and Senate committee staffers are not as easily distracted as Muckraker readers are."

"[O]nly hope"!? Congress is not stupid!

"I don’t mean to sound harsh. I love Muckraker readers. And everyone loves a smoking gun. But where is the smoke here? On many levels, it’s in the form of a smokescreen."

Yes: the blatantly politica, and obvious, effort to concoct a cover stoy is a smoking gun: conspiracy to obstruct justice. These emails provide an enormous amount of leverage -- and thus ups the pressure on Gonzo, et al.

"First, timing the document dump to directly precede Monica’s testimony is probably an effort to help with the overall run-the-clock strategy."

It is more likely caving in: what else do they have to provide that would be exculpatory? Nothing.

"Any time wasted on questions related to details of these documents, either at hearings or in the press, is a win for Dubya’s DoJ."

No, it is not. It, rather, tightens the noose: it shows the concocting of cover story, and thus provides both the proof that the lies are lies, and refutes them. Is it, absent admissions, circumstantial? Yes. Is it sufficient to indict? Yes.

"As many have noted since this process began, the story still is of a where’s-the-beef variety."

No, it is not: the "beef," at this point, is the proof of conspiring to obstruct justice. Next will be the spillings of beans.

"Look at the document dump as a whole. Look at the dates of these emails and evaluate the overall tone of the content. Look at how much email was generated to determine how the DoJ could withstand the scrutiny!"

Conspiracy to obstruct justice. This is further than Fitzpatrick managed to get: there he had sand in the eyes. Here we have the names of the people throwing the sand, and the evidence of the crime being committed while the sand is being thrown.

"It is not as if any discretion was employed, any care in case they were eventually subpoenaed. A lot of the communications are trying to get the story straight."

Exactly. Amatuers. Panic. They are at the point now where they can only attempt to delay, attempt to cover for Rove. That such effort is so obvious, so transparent, shows that they have nothing left with which to blow smoke.

"Look at the volume of emails generated in scurry-to-CYA mode! Compare it to the volume of email in October and November leading up to the firings! If they are willing to discuss cover-up strategies so openly in emails, what makes you think they did not employ emails in the discussions of the firings themselves before the list was finalized?"

And? Those with names are on the record as conpiring to obstruct justice. That is sufficient charge to get any number of them to tell the truth to save their own asses.

". . . . those wonderful PDFs Monica was able to locate and pass around seem to have no history."

Except that they do have history. There are names attached to the editings of them. These maximum-comfort Republicans are not all going to jail for Gonzo/Rove/Bushit.

". . . . But where are the emails discussion details of their creation?"

I wonder how many emails were on the computer took with her when she resigned . . .

"These were all produced in face-to-face meetings with no record of the meeting schedules and no minutes or notes recorded and filed somewhere?"

Perhaps. So?

"But probably the most damning observation is about the flutter of late-December and early 2007 emails in this most recent dump. There is so much chatter strategizing about handling the inquiries."

Conspiracy to obstruct justice. They are amatuers.

"We know they don’t exist."

No, we do not. Thoses redactions of names lead to other persons who kept the emails they received, either as CYA insurance, or not-to-be-disclosed reminders of what lies to tell in order to be consistent. Those emails exist.

"I hope that this document dump will not distract them."

Congress isn't stupid!

"Posted by: El Borba
Date: May 22, 2007 12:19 PM"

Congress now has (if it didn't already) hard evidence of conspiracy to obstruct justice. The participants in it are amatuers. One or more will ultimately "unredact" all the names.

JNagarya wrote on May 22, 2007 3:06 PM:

"RE: NAIS

"someone should consider these points:

"1. Based on the content of their emails, Rove/Jennings are clearly most concerned with new mexico.

"2. The person in the white house who had "final say" over the Iglesias replacement was Counsel Leslie Fahrenkopf, daughter of Frank Fahrenkopf, president of the American Gaming association.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/7/7133/25414

"I know we suspect "election fraud" was the chief reason iglesias was decked, but this is a strange situation....

"picking up where Abramoff left off?

"Posted by: drational
Date: May 22, 2007 12:27 PM"

Why not simply assume the obvious: Rove has been behind any number of issues, only one being election fraud. Was Abramaoff about election fraud? Or was he a thief providing a cut to Rove for various political uses, including election fraud?

Was Black, in Guam, removed because the issue was election fraud? Not in that instance. What are the apparent tie-ins with Native Americans/Gaming? Election fraud? Or "simple" money crimes?

Englischlehrer wrote on May 22, 2007 4:43 PM:

This new (to me) NAIS connection seems ominous, already with the largest Native American lobbyist (right?) Abramoff behind bars. There is more to this and it's not the kind of thing that will come out on its own. Questions have to be asked.

sponson wrote on May 22, 2007 5:43 PM:

JNagarya, you're correct that for some individual redactions, there was a claim of "privacy" concerns for USAs not fired. I forgot to mention this; however I was referring also to the withholding of entire documents that are not privileged; in each case that I'm aware of there's been no actual claim of executive privilege. There's no precedent for a "privacy" claim of redaction when responding to a Congressional subpoena, and of course the redaction of entire pages at a time, while also withholding at least 171 documents that are internal DOJ and therefore by definition non-privileged, is not only not justified and unprecedented, but most importantly there's been no explanation of any kind made. The White House simply demands that Congress agree to the "deal" that Fielding offered, or they can't have the documents. The WH has no standing to do so, and no legal excuse for withholding ANY internal DOJ documents from Congress. There's no claim of privilege going on here. This is what I find grossly under-reported.

drational wrote on May 22, 2007 6:10 PM:

Dump traffic summary:
350 pages of documents
130 emails
68 previously released
62 new emails
all from post-firing period
Of the new emails:
13 from goodling, 20 to goodling
7 from roehrkasse, 6 to roehrkasse
4 from sampson, 13 to sampson
10 from elston, 8 to elston
3 from oprison, 4 to oprison

El Borba wrote on May 22, 2007 6:41 PM:

Hi JNagarya,

I was gone for a few hours and just saw your reply now. I felt it was a bit animated for someone I tend to agree with.

I agree with the gist of your comments on my 12:19 PM posting. I personally believe that we are looking at the “evidence” for a conspiracy to obstruct charge. But the “proof” will require a “spilling of beans” as you put it. However, that’s precisely the “beef” I was talking about in my “where’s-the-beef” assertion. Perhaps I was not clear enough.

What I don’t see yet is anyone breaking ranks enough to even come close to blowing the whistle. And without proof that the story they are telling is not the truth, conspiracy to obstruct is still but a theory. Maybe Ms. Goodling will change things tomorrow.

The one place I disagreed with you was on my comment that “We know they don’t exist.”

“No, we do not. [Those] redactions of names lead to other persons who kept the emails they received, either as CYA insurance, or not-to-be-disclosed reminders of what lies to tell in order to be consistent. Those emails exist.”

By “they” I was referring to the “…why don’t we just tell the truth?” emails which, as far as I can tell, are clearly missing. None of the redaction I saw seemed to indicate any such inclination (unless that completely empty email was redacted just to cover up this sentiment, which, while indirect, would be closer to proof than anything else in this latest dump).

My point was that it is a smokescreen because none of this is new. We had equivalent evidence already from earlier dumps. It is evident now that I did not make that point clearly enough.

I agree that Congress is not stupid. When I expressed the hope that “…committee staffers are not as easily distracted as Muckraker readers are” I was being facetious. I believe that they will agree with me that there is really nothing new here.

The point I was trying to make is that we should not manufacture smoking guns where there are none. And I do not consider more-of-the-same-type-of evidence as a new smoking gun. It is only an echo, and therefore a potential distraction.

P.S. Thanx to drational for the document snslysis. That kind of stuff is important (even if the content is rehashed).

El Borba wrote on May 22, 2007 6:48 PM:

Sorry, drational, I meant to type "analysis".

rockyroad wrote on May 22, 2007 8:38 PM:

Re: NAIS
AP reports tonight - Another Bushie Takes the 5th.

WASHINGTON — The former executive assistant to White House political adviser Karl Rove is seeking immunity from prosecution before testifying about administration ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a House investigative committee revealed Tuesday.

Susan Ralston, the aide who resigned last fall, told lawyers for the committee this month she would provide information if protected from prosecution.

. . . .

Maybe she'll shed some light on a link between USA firings and Abramhoff.

rockyroad wrote on May 22, 2007 8:39 PM:

Re: NAIS
AP reports tonight - Another Bushie Takes the 5th.

WASHINGTON — The former executive assistant to White House political adviser Karl Rove is seeking immunity from prosecution before testifying about administration ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a House investigative committee revealed Tuesday.

Susan Ralston, the aide who resigned last fall, told lawyers for the committee this month she would provide information if protected from prosecution.

. . . .

Maybe she'll shed some light on a link between USA firings and Abramhoff.

JNagarya wrote on May 22, 2007 9:45 PM:

"Hi JNagarya,

I was gone for a few hours and just saw your reply now. I felt it was a bit animated for someone I tend to agree with.

"I agree with the gist of your comments on my 12:19 PM posting. I personally believe that we are looking at the “evidence” for a conspiracy to obstruct charge. But the “proof” will require a “spilling of beans” as you put it."

No, it will not. Perjury is at least two crimes. One is the perjury. The other is the obstruction it is. Both can be charged and prosecuted.

Conspiracy to obstruct justice is a crime in itself. The presumed crime behind that conspiracy is the underlying crime, and a separate charge. Look at the Libby case: found guilty of the obstruction, even without the underlying crime being (so far) identified.

"However, that’s precisely the “beef” I was talking about in my “where’s-the-beef” assertion. Perhaps I was not clear enough."

The "beef" you refer to would be the underlying crime. I'm interested in that also. But that we have makes clear there was and is something being covered up. The cover-up -- the conspiracy to obstruct is itself a crime.

"What I don’t see yet is anyone breaking ranks enough to even come close to blowing the whistle."

It'll come.

"And without proof that the story they are telling is not the truth, conspiracy to obstruct is still but a theory."

We know it isn't the truth: they themelves make clear that they are trying to find a concoction -- lie -- which will be believed. That there don't seem to be any "Why don't we just tell the truth?" makes that clear. No one responds to all the others with a, "We all know this is what happened"; tey're all absorbed in excuse-seeking.

"Maybe Ms. Goodling will change things tomorrow."

Hope so.

The one place I disagreed with you was on my comment that “We know they don’t exist.”

“No, we do not. [Those] redactions of names lead to other persons who kept the emails they received, either as CYA insurance, or not-to-be-disclosed reminders of what lies to tell in order to be consistent. Those emails exist.”

"By “they” I was referring to the “…why don’t we just tell the truth?” emails which, as far as I can tell, are clearly missing."

It is still obvious they are seeking a lie which will succeed. That there aren't such comments in the emails makes that all the more clear.

"None of the redaction I saw seemed to indicate any such inclination (unless that completely empty email was redacted just to cover up this sentiment, which, while indirect, would be closer to proof than anything else in this latest dump)."

The effort to find a workable lie is obious. That's all that's needed to show they aren't telling the truth.

It also makes abundantly clear that the DOJ was/is acting in a blatantly political manner _vis-a-vis_ Congress. In a real sense, they are caught in the middle (and left holding the bag): they aren't act as if Congress is the "enemy," and yet they do. There's all the stuff about "talking points" and, in the alternative, "Perhaps we should say nothing?"

"Say nothing" about what?

"My point was that it is a smokescreen because none of this is new. We had equivalent evidence already from earlier dumps. It is evident now that I did not make that point clearly enough."

So they reveal again that they have nothing to offer that isn't political and criminal. They've only so far withheld the information which identifies the underlying crime/s, and the names of all involved outside those not redacted.

"The point I was trying to make is that we should not manufacture smoking guns where there are none. And I do not consider more-of-the-same-type-of evidence as a new smoking gun. It is only an echo, and therefore a potential distraction."

I haven't looked at prior dumps. I clearly see conspiracy to obstruct justice, and the details of how. That conspiracy is in itself a crime.

At best it's only, but blatant, politics -- which is itself improper.

"Posted by: El Borba
Date: May 22, 2007 06:41 PM"

JNagarya wrote on May 22, 2007 10:00 PM:

"JNagarya, you're correct that for some individual redactions, there was a claim of "privacy" concerns for USAs not fired. I forgot to mention this; however I was referring also to the withholding of entire documents that are not privileged; in each case that I'm aware of there's been no actual claim of executive privilege."

I suspect they are attempting to apply FOIA standards. It doesn't apply between Congress and DOJ, but it's a "theory," however desperate.

"There's no precedent"

I don't know the law on that point, so don't know that there's no precedent.

"for a "privacy" claim of redaction when responding to a Congressional subpoena, and of course the redaction of entire pages at a time, while also withholding at least 171 documents that are internal DOJ and therefore by definition non-privileged,"

Under FOIA "theory" they could be privileged; in the realm of "deliberative memoranda".

"is not only not justified and unprecedented,"

I don't know the law on those points.

"but most importantly there's been no explanation of any kind made."

Apparently so.

This is a different entity/issue than above. Gonzo early agreed with Leahy that DOJ doesn't have Ecxecutive Privilege. The White House does, "depending".

"The White House simply demands that Congress agree to the "deal" that Fielding offered, or they can't have the documents."

They aren't talking about DOJ documents, except perhaps by implication. Clarification -- distinguishing between DOJ, on one hand, and White House, on the other, should end that effort.

"The WH has no standing to do so, and no legal excuse for withholding ANY internal DOJ documents from Congress."

If the DOJ documents are ALSO White House documents, there may be a legitimate claim of Privilege. I don't believe there is; then again, I've not seen any detail of such potential claim.

"There's no claim of privilege going on here. This is what I find grossly under-reported."

There is hint of, implication of, Privelege re. White House documents and personnel -- notably Rove and his assistant. As those implicate the DOJ.

"Posted by: sponson
Date: May 22, 2007 05:43 PM"

oldturk wrote on May 23, 2007 1:57 AM:

Yes the USA Frederick Black was a must do - to magically disappear and go away because it hampered Abramoff from serving his clients and wining and dining the Rethug pols in Washington DC. over in Guam.

Between the slave labor, circumventing minimum wage/labor/osha laws, circumventing immigration laws, boat casino and Internet gambling - there was a lot of lobbying to keep Abramoff busy and big buck lobby fees to collect. With Tom Delay and other Rethug power players in Abramoff's pocket he could change the laws to make the illegal suddenly legal.

The Oriental big wigs and captains of industry (sweatshops) are loaded with excess dollars. They have no reservation about giving humongous political bribes (er-ah campaign contributions) to Rethugs in Washington that could get done what they wanted/needed done.

US Attorney Fred Black played by the law - Abramoff wanted him out of there fast so he could have some elbow room to do his lobbying - without some pain in the ass lawman constantly looking over his shoulder. So Abramoff, Delay, and KKKarl Rove marginalized and neutered US Atty. Fred Black so he could no longer do any harm.

oldturk wrote on May 23, 2007 2:29 AM:

Bu$$hCo's first US Attorney illegally dumped/fired to end a probe against a loyal bu$$hie/buddy/pal of KKKarl Rove. Abramoff and Rove were Young Republicans together in college - just helping out an old school bud. Doesn't make what this White House did any less of a crime - but maybe 10X the crime.

This worked out so swimmingly for KKKarl Rove and he never got caught. Why not use the DoJ and the US Attorneys as a Fascist political tool/weapon to help achieve the Rovian 100 year Republican Party rule.

DoJ - Department of "Just Us" - Republicans given a free pass if they commit any crimes. The Democratic Party on the other hand will be nailed at each and every bend and turn on the road of justice. Before election time the newspapers headlines will be smeared with crimes perpetrated by only Democrats - even if they are eventually acquitted, as long as we cause them to lose elections.

Details/info - dumping of US Attorney - District of the Northern Mariana Islands/Guam - Frederick Black.

...

Bush removal ended Guam investigation
US attorney's demotion halted probe of lobbyist
By Walter F. Roche Jr., Los Angeles Times | August 8, 2005

WASHINGTON -- A US grand jury in Guam opened an investigation of controversial lobbyist Jack Abramoff more than two years ago, but President Bush removed the supervising federal prosecutor, and the probe ended soon after.

Source/link,..

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-36,GGLG:en&q=us+attorney+frederick+black

rockyroad wrote on May 23, 2007 2:30 AM:

Re: USA Purge, NAIS & Susan Ralston taking the 5th

Who is Susan Ralston? a bushie with a history:

Josh Marshall, Dec. 7, 2005:

"Susan Ralston is the woman who has managed to be at the center of both the Abramoff and the CIA leak investigations. She was Abramoff's executive assistant back in the day; then she took the same job with Karl Rove."

From sourcewatch.org:

"Susan Bonzon Ralston, Special Assistant to the President & Assistant to the Senior Advisor Karl Rove, resigned October 6, 2006, 'after disclosures that she accepted gifts from and passed information to now-convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, becoming the first official in the West Wing to lose a job in the influence-peddling scandal.'"

From Emptywheel, 5/22/07:

"Ralston gave a deposition on May 10--over a month after Waxman first invited her to visit. . . she 'testified on a number of subjects unrelated to the Abramoff matter.' [Note to Novak and Rove--that bit's just there to make you sweat.] . . . "

"So let me read the road map for you all: Ralston would incriminate herself if she talked about Jack Abramoff's contacts with the White House. Ralston would incriminate herself if she talked about the political emails at the RNC.
Ralston got frequent emails from people on Abramoff's staff discussing activities relating to 'other officials in the White House.'"

If she's at the center of Abramoff, the CIA leak case, the RNC e-mail controversy, served as "Special Assistant to the President & Assistant to the Senior Advisor Karl Rove," she's probably in significant proximity to the attorney purge. (guessing: all of these controversaries are spokes in the Rove-Cheney-Bush Wheel).

Waxman says Ralston isn't being offered immunity.

rockyroad wrote on May 23, 2007 4:43 AM:

Without having read the original document request, I can't say which parts of these dumps are most questionable, but some should have obviously been turned over.

For example, with regard to the NAIS related e-mails discussed above, the transmittal info follows:

Doc. Set 11, p. 21, DAG00002624

From: Elston, Michael
To: Monica Goodling
Date: Feb. 3, 2007

Original Message:

From: Chiaria, Margaret
To: McNulty, Paul
CC: Elston, Michael
Date: Feb. 3, 2007
Subject: WDMI

We have the em from Elston to Goodling, but not any information regarding whether the e-mail was forwarded, received, responded to, etc... What about the original e-mail from Chaiara to McNulty? Has that ever been turned over? Did McNulty or Elston forward that e-mail to anyone? This is all too sketchy for solid analysis.

Waxman needs to put a freeze on all accounts (shredders, magnetic erasure, etc), hire an independent forensic tech, locate the info and then fight about privilege after it's discovered and put in permanent archives that cannot be destroyed.

rockyroad wrote on May 23, 2007 5:05 AM:

Sorry to keep posting, but this em just bothers me. A part that I did not re-write in posting the message is Elston's only comment to Goodling in forwarding the Original Message:

"Give 'em an inch . . . "

Chiaria had expressed concern that she, while confirming the date of her forced departure, be permitted to continue her work for the upcoming NAIS meeting because:

"The NAIS staff detailee, who is from WDMI, was terminated despite an outstanding evaluation review because the EOUSA would not renew her detail. The replacement has not been announced nor will he be available to assist It makes good sense for me to prepare (which I have been doing), and let me chair. This is particularly true because 4 of the NAIS members are part of "the group" (Charlton, Bogden, McKay and Iglaseas. It is better for me to handle this situation than an interim chair."

What a bitch. These f***ng fired USA's can't just scurry off quietly. They must ask to tie up all of the loose ends . . . what a pain.

Docs reader wrote on May 26, 2007 12:38 PM:

http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/EOUSA151-159.pdf

This bunch of documents describes the real difficulties that the USA Patriot interim appointment law solved. Persuasive. But it does appear that there are interesting work arounds, and also interesting congressional end runs, which probably have been silently undertaken during the Bush administration.

http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/EOUSA151-159.pdf

Document Numbers EOUSA # 151 through # 159

- re-appointing someone for 120 days again and again
- using the Vacancy act to permit 210 days + the A.G appointment of 120 days for nearly a year of unscrutinized USA appointment.