« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Email Raises More Questions about Rove's Role in U.S. Attorney Appointment
It's been apparent from very early in the U.S. attorney scandal that Tim Griffin, the former aide to Karl Rove who was appointed the U.S. attorney for Little Rock, was different from the others.
Emails show that White House and Justice Department officials worked together for months to install Griffin, dating back to last summer. Rove's aides in the White House Office of Political Affairs were intimately involved. Up until now, however, there had been no evidence of direct communication between Rove and Griffin about the appointment. But an email contained in documents released earlier this week shows Griffin directly emailing Rove and his deputies in the White House Office of Political Affairs (click to enlarge):
David Iglesias, the U.S. attorney for New Mexico who was among those fired last year, told me that he thought the direct contact was "really inappropriate and over the line." The only time he ever contacted anyone there, he said, was to return phone calls about job opportunities. He'd twice been considered for positions, he said: once as director for Executive Office of United States Attorneys and another time as the assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The White House had called to see if he was interested in the appointments; he told them he was not. He said that he'd never heard of a U.S. attorney speaking to someone in the Office of Political Affairs for any other reason.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to our request for comment.
The email, dated February 16, 2007, shows Griffin forwarding a copy of a local news article about his announcement that he would not seek Senate confirmation. Griffin wrote Rove, three of his deputies, and Christopher Oprison of the White House counsel's office that he was "glad" that he "did this" ("this" presumably being his announcement not to seek the nomination), and explaining why he'd taken a "swipe" at Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR).
Griffin had been a controversial figure ever since his December 15th appointment, due not least to his ties to Rove. But Sen. Pryor had been most alarmed by the administration's apparent scheme -- which Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff Kyle Sampson laid out in a December 19, 2006 email that was later turned over to Congress in March -- to appoint Griffin indefinitely without Senate confirmation, via a little noticed provision in the USA PATRIOT ACT Reauthorization bill. Griffin's appointment drew even more scrutiny after it was revealed in January that at least six other U.S. attorneys besides Griffin's predecessor Bud Cummins had been fired by the administration.
“It’s unfortunate," Griffin is quoted as saying in the article, "that Sen. Pryor is blaming the administration for using a law that he voted for to appoint me, apparently with the excuse that he didn’t know what he was voting for when he voted." After explaining in the email to Rove why he'd said that, Griffin added, "I am going to go back to focusing on my job until I am told otherwise."
Responding to the email, Michael Teague, spokesman for Sen. Pryor, wondered how many other contacts Griffin had with Rove. "This is just an email. Was he calling him every day?"
In fact, the email was only produced by the Justice Department because Oprison of the White House counsel's office had forwarded it on to Monica Goodling at the Justice Department, who forwarded it to Kyle Sampson the same morning. Despite requests from Congress, the White House has not produced any emails related to the firings.
Sampson's and Oprison's appearance in the email raises an additional question.
On February 24th, just eight days after the email, the Justice Department wrote in a letter to Congress that the department wasn't aware of Karl Rove playing "any role" in the decision to appoint Griffin. The letter was drafted by Sampson and signed off on by Oprison of the White House.
Sampson, who wrote in that earlier December 19th email that Griffin's appointment was "important to Karl," explained the letter's disavowal of Rove's role in testimony before the Senate by saying that "the e-mail was based on an assumption":
I knew that [Rove's deputies] Sara Taylor and Scott Jennings had expressed interest in promoting Mr. Griffin for appointment to be U.S. attorney, and I assumed, because they reported to Karl Rove, that he was interested in that. But later in February, when I participated in the drafting of that letter, I did not remember then ever having talked to Mr. Rove about it.... I don't remember anyone telling me that Mr. Rove was interested in Mr. Griffin being appointed, and that was my understanding at the time I participated in the drafting of that letter.
Sampson's answer -- and by extension the letter to Congresss -- nakedly relied on (barely) plausible deniability of Rove's interest in Griffin's appointment.
Rove's presence on the February 16th email does not shatter that delicate stance -- but it's just another sign of Sampson's willful blindness and the basic dishonesty of the denial. The Justice Department has apologized for "the inaccuracy."
The White House, however, still has not taken responsibility for the misstatement. A White House spokesman has said that Oprison "did not recall Karl's interest when he reviewed the letter."
Comments (85)
drational wrote on May 25, 2007 5:31 PM:And why is Tim Griffin's email address redacted in this email and 50% of his emails in the document dump?
drational wrote on May 25, 2007 5:34 PM:Could it be a GWB43.com account?
If so, he was using it back in June and July during his tenure as AUSA in Arkansas.
Unlike other emailers, I don't think the redaction is a privacy issue. Other griffin docs contain his JAG account, DOJ account and comcast.com address, so whatever this one is, it is in special need of redaction.
If you click my name, you can ling to a website to see all of griffins emails in the doc dump to corroborate this.
bcg wrote on May 25, 2007 6:04 PM:Does claiming to have forgot at the moment of lying in testimony to Congress mitigate any perjury charges?
bcg wrote on May 25, 2007 6:04 PM:Does claiming to have forgot at the moment of lying in testimony to Congress mitigate any perjury charges?
RBS wrote on May 25, 2007 6:07 PM:George Lucas warned us.
http://scorpionbowl.blogspot.com/2007/05/george-lucas-american-orwell.html
drational wrote on May 25, 2007 6:07 PM:Further emails that may shed light on what Sampson and Oprison knew about Rove involvement are in Kyle Sampson's withheld emails. We know they exist, but they haven't been turned over to HJC, so we can't see the content.
From the index of withheld emails:
2/2/07 Withheld p6 Sampson Goodling Oprison Discussion concerning DOJ response to Sen. Pryor's letter re: Griffin, attaching Sen. Pryor's letter and draft response
12/15/06 Withheld p1 Sampson Oprison Goodling Notifying Oprison of Cummins resignation announcement
12/15/06 Withheld p1 Sampson Oprison Goodling Scheduling call with Oprison re: Cummins resignation
12/18/06 Withheld p1 Sampson Oprison Goodling Forwarding message to Sen. Pryor staff re: ways a person can become a USA
2/16/07 Withheld p7 Sampson T. Griffin Discussion re: Arkansas article entitled Prosecutor Griffin now rejects post
2/25/07 Withheld p8 Sampson T. Griffin Discussion re: news article entitled "New U.S. Attorney visits Greene County"
2/27/07 Withheld p8 Sampson T. Griffin Discussion re: 2/28 Briefing and NY Times article re: Cummins
12/15/06 Withheld p1 Sampson Washington Meadows Scheduling call with Oprison re: Cummins resignation
2/21/07 Withheld p7 Sampson Washington Requesting citation for 2004 news article on Cummins
HJC should compel DOJ to release these.
Anonymous wrote on May 25, 2007 6:12 PM:Well..thats great, but when is he going to jail with the rest of them?
All I hear is rhetoric from both ends, yet no one has been held to account for all the crap here!
All the words in the dictionary mean zero until some one is taken away to jail!
If accountability is what is sought, then act!
Stop flapping your lips, and hold someone account and send them to jail! Enough of this crap, crimes have been done, so act and act now!!!!!!
This democrat party is starting to lose its base because of lack of acting...do something and do it now!
Every body who follows these stories knows there has been corruption and lies between each DOJ employee, the DOJ must have evidence beyond a doubt on most of these Republicans...so though them in jail! Show the American people you have a back bone.
Everyday you waste trying to battle with the president about war funding, since that went againt what the people put you in office for, this may be your last card, so connect the dots and act, then convict, then and maybe then you may get the people to see things differently.
But if you fail soon, people just my change their political party because trust is lost!
You make the call!
JGabriel wrote on May 25, 2007 6:21 PM:Paul Kiel @ Top: "Griffin wrote Rove, three of his deputies, and Christopher Oprison of the White House counsel's office that he was 'glad' that he 'did this' ('this' presumably being his announcement not to seek the nomination), and explaining why he'd taken a 'swipe' at Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR)."
Paul, I think that's a misreading. By 'this', I Griffin probably meant 'granting an interview and talking to the press' about it.
Griffin could have easily made the announcement not to seek the US Attorney nomination through a press release or a spokesperson. He needed to actually speak to the press though, to get out his talking points and take the swipe at Pryor.
C 92 wrote on May 25, 2007 6:25 PM:@Drational
Sampson's withheld e-mails number about 117 or so and the list released by DOJ describes the substance but fails to deliver the documents.
You'll note that Sampson is also noted as the "custodian" for all of them which would mean to me that Sampson has control of those documents and the DOJ does not.
Odd for an ex-employee to have the only copy of critical government documents. It might just be by design.
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/wdc/documents/prosecutors/april26/sampson_withheld.pdf
Jane wrote on May 25, 2007 6:27 PM:The insertion of new language not passed by either House during the process of reconciliation to produce a bill sent back to both houses should be banned. It has clearly been the subject of great abuse. If an emergency requires the use of language not previously passed by either house, the minority and majority leader of each house should be required to so certify and the language included in the reconciled bill with the provision that it shall sunset in 3 months unless affirmed by a majority vote of each house.
In the interim computer technology is now such that disks should be supplied to every legislator's office, if they are not already, highlighting the changed language. If the individual offices's level of staffing is too low to allow these changes to be scrutinized the parties or the caucuses could parcel out the task.
Criticizing a Senator for not anticipating the misuse of a provision inserted at the last minute and not subject to the normal scrutiny is intellectually dishonest and provides yet another reason that Griffin should step down immediately as USAG.
So this email went to Monica, did it? Bet they are trying to get it out before she does.
BVD wrote on May 25, 2007 6:27 PM:I fo9und several e-mails from Tim Griifin in the mid-April document dump. AFTER he was in his position as USA he was still e-mailing the DOJ from his outside account - griffinjag@comcast.net. Don't know if this one was from there as well.
At the time I pointed it out here at TPM and also forwarded it to a number of journalists in Arkansas.
Send Tim an e-mail and ask how he's doing - griffinjag@comcast.net
HermanNewticks wrote on May 25, 2007 6:41 PM:Has anyone addressed yet the question of why Rove wanted his boy in Little Rock? Is there a possibility of using his presence in the jurisdiction where Ms. Clinton used to live and work to try to shake some trees and reopen Whitewater? Or might it be to apply the potent investigatory powers of the USA's office to create the whiff of corruption to her campaign (whether it is there or not) as she gears up for the primaries and general election in '08?
tbhull wrote on May 25, 2007 6:45 PM:This issue is a going nowhere as Rove will never testify no matter how much everyone wants him to and/or how legally he must. The point is the Executive branch will go to the carpet on this and Congress will fold if these limp noodles can even muster the huevos subpoena Karl Rove and attempt to enforce the same when he refuses. Disappointingly, this Congress is an abject failure on this issue and many others.
Greatblue wrote on May 25, 2007 6:45 PM:It's quite clear that some, perhaps a number of these folks are liars and lawbreakers. I can only hope that they will go to jail for holding a man above our constitution and laws and for breaking the law. But building the case takes time. Don't be like the Domenici, impatient for a case to be brought and wanting the political system to move too quickly in an exceedingly serious matter.
The window this whole episode has provided, not only on the Justice Department, but on what appears to be all management of government by this administration, is already worth the price of admission. We now know his and their MO. If we didn't have a Dem congress, how much exposure do you think this would be getting? Ah, let's look for a perfect process, party, politician. Ah, there's no difference between parties and politicians.
With Goodlings revelations about the politicalization of the Immigration judges hiring, we have now seen clearly what we intuitively knew before--the corruption of all three branches of government. Anyone who believes that the Dems would have made such a concerted effort to use virtually every arm of government for selfish reasons, and to promote a destructive ideology, as at Supreme Court....And the harm to the common good and the human suffering caused or not ameliorated by this administration and this party, the Republican Party. And while we're at it: If I were POTUS, if any child or woman dies for want of a third-trimester abortion, I would like to see someone file a conspiracy suit aginst Ralph N.
Mark F. wrote on May 25, 2007 6:46 PM:Does anyone remember that old cartoon character--a giant duck in diapers named "Baby Huey"? Because I just realized who Karl Rove has always reminded me of...
Spencer's Mom wrote on May 25, 2007 6:48 PM:HermanNewticks, that is an excellent point! I confess that I never asked myself the question of "why" Rove would want his boytoy in Little Rock, but once I read your post, it was like a lightbulb turning on.
I hope the Clinton campaign is wise enough to ask the same questions.
PEACE
guyermo wrote on May 25, 2007 6:51 PM:I am going to "focus on my job until I hear otherwise."
Refreshing to hear from a Bush Administration official considering they mostly ignore their jobs until it becomes conspicuous to an Appalachian hermit
Powkat wrote on May 25, 2007 6:54 PM:Yes, Herman, as soon as I heard Rove's boy was sent to Arkansas, I assumed it was to slime Hillary. But, I think they didn't count on Obama - racists that they are it never occured to them that Americans would embrace a non-white candidate. Just like it never occured to them that Americans would care about the people in New Orleans.
Never forget that these people are the scum of the earth who will do or say anything to hold on to money and/or power.
mayan wrote on May 25, 2007 6:58 PM:drational -> Hey! How ya doing? Can you get someone in your posse to diary this over at Kos? I shot my daily wad on the Goodling story. I posted an update on my diary trying to solicit a diarist but I'm afraid the diary has already been sunsetted.
I'm also not sure that we've seen any substantive discussion of the May 22 batch (unless they are all dupes.) Was this from that dump?
BluestateRedhead wrote on May 25, 2007 7:01 PM:The SC word is flag. It inspires a thought:
Thank you Paul,here, and Drational and all the volunteers at Daily Kos for unflaggingly flaging these emails. there are more double entendres to be found there, as in wrapping yourself in the flag as a way of covering up crimes. Flag is surely the apt SC for Memorial Day.
feckless wrote on May 25, 2007 7:01 PM:But I stop flogging (sorry) this word to death to ask what I believe is a pertinent question for your readers in AK.
Will Sen. Pryor and (for the moment) USA Griffin will be attending the same Memorial Day events?
Will there be video recording of it? Something to amuse us as we contemplate what Lawrence Tribe calls the "slow motion coup against the constitution?"
Why has everyone forgotten the "missing" emails?
If clinton had "lost" millions of government records required by law, republicans would be out in the streets with torches.
Seize those hard drives now, use the capital police, whoever.
cobwebhead wrote on May 25, 2007 7:26 PM:drational -- That DOJ document search tool is unbelievable (http://www.trainingdb.com). Thanks so much for sharing it. There goes the weekend!
Frederick wrote on May 25, 2007 7:28 PM:One of these jokers is going to come clean to save his ass. Let the circular firing squad begin.
Nathan wrote on May 25, 2007 7:29 PM:What was Karl Rove's e-mail address? The e-mail as printed only shows the abbreviation 'Karl Rove'. Which one was it sent to? Are they getting the raw e-mail messages or just these Outlook printouts? The full headers could be useful.
Chabuka wrote on May 25, 2007 7:35 PM:CALL GREG PALAST (BBC) ...HE HAS FIVE HUNDRED EMAILS BETWEEN THE WHITE HOUS AND THE DOJ....CALL HIM..!!!!DON'T YOU GUYS EVER READ ANY OTHER NEWS JOURNALS...??
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 25, 2007 7:53 PM:drational@May 25, 2007 06:07 PM - I used your database yesterday. Nice work! Thanks!
Tim Griffin probably knows Jane Wilson Cherry very well. I posted some comments in another TPM MR post about her background (linl below). Her mother, Sandra Wilson Cherry, was an AUSA in Little Rock until she died last year. Her father, Jack Cherry is also an attorney in Little Rock.
Jane's parents have been hardcore Republicans for years. I found an article about them attending a private party in Little Rock for lee Atwater in 1989.
Anyone know anything about Oprison and Jennings?
Mary wrote on May 25, 2007 7:56 PM:An acting, appointed USA emailing Karl Rove to brag about how he took a "swipe" in the press at the sitting senior Senator from the State.
Lovely.
Mary wrote on May 25, 2007 7:56 PM:An acting, appointed USA emailing Karl Rove to brag about how he took a "swipe" in the press at the sitting senior Senator from the State.
Lovely.
elhanan wrote on May 25, 2007 7:59 PM:Chabuka, instead of shouting, you could just link to:
Leta wrote on May 25, 2007 8:03 PM:http://www.gregpalast.com/the-goods-on-goodling-and-the-keys-to-the-kingdom/
Griffin is in Arkansas because the Republican lost the Gov and Lt. Gov seat - the House is 72/28 Dem and the Senate is 28/7 Dem - the Dems took back AR in '06 - and the black vote in 3 of the 4 congressional districts sealed the R's fate.
Griffin is going do some "caging" and he's there to "investigate" and try and bring down the D Secretary of State - who has had his problems complying with HAVA. He'll also find a dem politician or two to hassle...and lastly he's there to insure that Hillary does not take Bill's state in the primary or the general.
When are we going to have this guy on the stand answering to his illegal caging activities. If anyone of us did 1/10th of the shit these people have...we'd be hunted down by some USA and put a way forever.
The Oracle wrote on May 25, 2007 8:23 PM:Security Codeword: KNOT.
As in, the knot in the noose that should be placed around all the necks of these Republican varmints who have sabotaged our democracy, all these "culture of corruption" Republicans who have betrayed our nation.
Unfortunately (or fortunately from my Christian standpoint), I don't believe in the death penalty, so hanging all these corrupt and evil Republicans from the gallows won't ever happen, unless some of the few honorable Republicans that remain in the tattered remnants of their once grand old party, who are patriotic, and do believe in the death penalty, decide that enough is enough and start, figuratively at least, hanging all the corrupt and greedy Republicans responsible for dragging their party down into the sulfurous slime pits of hell.
Naw, never happen.
The Republicans of today have sold their souls to the religious fanatics, the racists, the sexists, the corporate robber barons...and literally screwed the future of their own children and grand-children, totally unaware (or into denial) about what they've done.
Don Lowell wrote on May 25, 2007 8:31 PM:Griffin accussed Pryor of voting for a bill he didn't understand. I thought that Arlen the Specter went in the dead of night and inserted this little gem that let Georgie circumvent the long established rules?? Impeach Specter too!!
Lindy
sojourner wrote on May 25, 2007 8:42 PM:The Oracle: The Republicans of today have sold their souls to the religious fanatics, the racists, the sexists, the corporate robber barons...and literally screwed the future of their own children and grand-children, totally unaware (or into denial) about what they've done.
Oracle, you are partially correct. I am a Republican, and I am appalled at what is happening. My undergraduate degree is in Journalism, and I am even more heartsick that the MSM has done such a poor job covering all this. In short, it just makes me wonder if there is anything left of the country we have known.
There are a number of other Republicans I know who are fed up, particularly here in Texas. I suspect that John Cornyn is in for a nasty surprise next year -- and he deserves it!
I also suspect that we are going to begin seeing a movement away from the existing political structures -- Democrat and Republican. Neither one is particularly interested in what we, the public, care about or think. Instead, it is more about what is expedient for them.
It is just sad to see the perversion of our judicial system, and the destruction of the life we had so that the likes of Bush and Rove and Cheney can continue with what they are doing.
Someone wrote in one of the other blogs last night that maybe it is time for a revolution in the streets. I am almost inclined to agree!
1Watt wrote on May 25, 2007 8:55 PM:The only way to get to bottom of this, is to appoint a Special Council to investigate the RNC for RICO.
e.g. phone jamming, caging letters etc.
Steve5117 wrote on May 25, 2007 9:08 PM:The Oracle
It is really all part of the evil plot to control the world. The big boys saw that their war toys were getting rusty and a lot of young men didn't see any fun in being soldiers. So they started a war and got you and me to buy them new toys and they take our sons and daughters and tell us they died heros defending our freedoms.
But things have really been going good on the homefront. Thanks to derelugation, downsizing, offshoring and corporate mergers thousands upon thousands of Americans have been forced to find new jobs, usually at lower wages and reduced benifits, if any at all. I really don't see why we need to bring in workers from other countries, unless the reason is to keep wages down due to the surplus of labor.
The DoJ is the most incidious example of the evil of this administration. Put in their operatives to completely ignore the law and in the name of some minor god set off to rule the world.
Guess what boys? Gotcha!
TomR wrote on May 25, 2007 9:14 PM:----
I am going to "focus on my job until I hear otherwise."
- Tim Griffin
----
Committing felonious crimes against minority voters (caging) takes quite a lot of focus. Griffin will wait to hear otherwise from Rove.
- Tom
Mary wrote on May 25, 2007 9:32 PM:Mrs. P @ 7:53 - Oprison is from Skadden's white collar crime group and was added on when the admin "lawyered up" after the 2006 elections.
Oprison ran against May in VA (state del seat)in the last elections (lost).
Spent some money on that campaign
http://www.vpap.org/cands/cand_loans.cfm?ToKey=COM01045&CycleID=2005&CycleType=Regular
and got $25,000 from Harrisonburg based Walter M. Curt and over $20,000 from Virginia Conservative Action PAC. May accused Oprison of campaign violations.
Oprison was a panelist discussing Judicial Nominees at this conservative forum
JNagarya wrote on May 25, 2007 9:41 PM:http://www.vaconservativeconvention.com/Panel_Discussions.html
"This issue is a going nowhere as Rove will never testify no matter how much everyone wants him to and/or how legally he must. The point is the Executive branch will go to the carpet on this and Congress will fold if these limp noodles can even muster the huevos subpoena Karl Rove and attempt to enforce the same when he refuses. Disappointingly, this Congress is an abject failure on this issue and many others.
"Posted by: tbhull
Date: May 25, 2007 06:45 PM"
Your fashionable cynicism is tiresome. Beyond that is your demand that the Democrats do that for which they don't yet have the votes.
It's either they provide you the impossible, or the perfect, or be bashed for not doing so.
There's a slew of individuals who also mindlessly bash Democrats over at Free Republic.
JNagarya wrote on May 25, 2007 9:48 PM:"Will Sen. Pryor and (for the moment) USA Griffin will be attending the same Memorial Day events?"
I wonder if Pryor has emails from DOJ and Griffin relevant to the investigation.
Buck wrote on May 25, 2007 9:49 PM:http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/25/pf/mobility_study/index.htm?postversion=2007052518
This is the Republican legacy. The 30 somethings of today make less than their fathers did. I don't think this has happened since the great depression. Not only that, the study is coming from Republican think tanks. Who knows what the real truth is.
It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Steve5117 wrote on May 25, 2007 9:50 PM:
JNagarya wrote on May 25, 2007 9:52 PM:November 29, 2006
The President has named Christopher G. Oprison to be Associate Counsel to the President. Mr. Oprison previously served as a Senior Litigation Associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP and as a Marine Corps prosecutor. He received his bachelor's degree from the University of California, Los Angeles and his JD from George Washington University.
"Anyone know anything about Oprison and Jennings?
"Posted by: Mrs Panstreppon
Date: May 25, 2007 07:53 PM"
"Oprison" is a predictor of where these people belong.
"Jennings" should have been found in violation of the Hatch Act along with Doan at GSA.
Sully18 wrote on May 25, 2007 10:16 PM:Congress needs to hire a good hacker.Then the emails in question could mysteriously appear in one of their mail boxes.Why do these guys insist on playing by the rules when the Bush gang never has?
tbhull wrote on May 25, 2007 10:28 PM:We are super stupid in this country,as we watch the Iraq war brought to you by the oil guys who raise the price at their whim,usually on Wednesday and drop them on Sun.night for a day or two and we accept their "reason"--equipment problems at one or two refineries--for jacking the price 50 cents a gallon.
It`s the same guys who are related to the people who sell you space in a luxurious condo for half a million, then they charge you rent and call it a maintenance fee which goes up every 6 months.These are ancestors of the King and the Prince that Twain wrote about"Huckleberry Finn."
And we act like believe stuff like ,"they`re coming to kill your kids,David,"when we know damn well they`re saying "we`re coming to kill your kids,David,if you ask any more pointed questions that could be construed as critical of my outrageously ruthless behavior."
This shit is really pissing me off.I think I`ll go to a web site and channel my Mom and Dad.
Posted by: JNagarya
Date: May 25, 2007 09:41 PM
I did not intend for my cynicism to be fashionable, however, I am not going to candy up Congress' failure on this issue and the Iraq war. The dems have failed. No other conclusion can follow. They treated Goodling, who enjoyed immunity, with kid gloves. Only a few good questions. What more did the House elicit from her? Hardly anything. Failure! Why not consider impeaching Gonzales? What about cutting off funding for DOJ? Cut off funding for the war?
When one wins elections with guns a blazin' and immediately starts much needed investigations with bravado, one better deliver results. To date we have seen nothing but failure. This is not some MTV/VH1 reality show, some dandy fashion show on Bravo (although Biden might disagree), this is bare knuckle power politics and the dems have nothing but bruises for their efforts. Fashionable or nor, cynical or not, to date the dems efforts have fallen flat on their face and the public does not know whether to laugh or cry.
Do you have any confidence this current cast of Congressional characters could effectively produce results if they tackled a much more important domestic issue such as BushCo's warrantles surveillance of its own citizens? This current fiasco not only diminished their inability to commence an investigation that would have much greater impact on everyone, ut it also diminishes their ability to deliver results in the event they can even get the ball rolling on such an investigation.
This is simply a failure of government. We already knew the repubs were failures in this regard. Right now, DC, dem and repub, is owned by the war machine.
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 25, 2007 10:46 PM:Thanks for the Oprison info, Mary and Steve. I found his old campaign site in the internet archives and linked to his bio below.
NRA, Club For Growth, RNLA, lower taxes, pro-life, supports home schooling, yada, yada, yada.
This is the second time this week I've come across the Virginia Conservative Action PAC (VCAP). I've been looking into American Center for Voting Rights (ACVR) and the affiliated American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund (ACVRFL)at the TPM Cafe and learned that Robin DeJarnette is the executor director of both VCAP and the ACVRFL.
ACVR and ACVRFL are two GOP fronts set up to suppress poor and minority voting. Richard Hasen had a great article about the groups in Slate a week ago that Josh and Paul mentioned.
DeJarnette probably got the ACVRFL spot through GOP lawyer, Jill Holtzman Vogel, formerly known as Jill K. Holtzman. Holtzman Vogel herself is again running for office (legislator?) in Virginia. She lost the first time in, I think, 2003.
Anonymous wrote on May 26, 2007 2:24 AM:Griffin's e-mails to his ole pals in Karl's Shoppe speak volumes about two things. How intimately he was involved, and perceived by them to be involved, in their earlier work. And how that hasn't changed since his appointment as USA.
The deception has become more blatant. Griffin took political and macho credit for "withdrawing" his name from nomination as a permanent USA, as if that had ever been contemplated. But he's still there. A local federal district judge has held that to be by virtue of the offending Patriot Act provision, even though neither the DOJ nor WH acknowledge that fact. They're not even gumming this one to death; they're ignoring it.
So, what's Timmy working on? Karl certainly hasn't given up on his plans for '08. And what's the opportunity cost to the office and other investigations because of it?
Mary (of TLC) wrote on May 26, 2007 2:46 AM:duh. I had been working on a post with that tpm link from last week (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002750.php) and didn't realize it was the same one from the post above. Obviously, I'm not the only one that remembers those emails between Sampson and SJennings (of gwb43.com).
sailmaker wrote on May 26, 2007 2:46 AM:We need to get Griffin out of Arkansas. IMO (IANAL) it will have to be 'for cause', because impeachment was not an option when he was hired/appointed/interimed/immaculately presented/whatever.
This email seems to be generating alot of comment. I guess I am missing something here - it seems like Griffin (a Rove minion) snags a USA job that he feels he is qualified for and rightfully his, and he is reporting to his ex boss the goings on.
Given Senator Whitehouse's chart, and the knowledge we have of unusual plethora of avenues of communications between the White House and the Department of Justice, is this such an unusual email?
I just don't see the email as a smoking gun even with Rove's name on it. What am I missing?
Sara wrote on May 26, 2007 11:17 AM:Could it be that Rove's target in Arkansas using Griffin is Senator Pryor himself, who stands for re-election in 2008? It could be either side of a deal -- perhaps Rove thinks Griffin a good match for Arkansas, and running from the position of USA would help his chances .... or it could be that Rove wants Griffin to surf around the Pryor organization, and see if he can find something indictable. I think that more likely than Hillary who afterall has lived in New York for the past six and a half years, and in DC for the eight years prior to that. Anything on her is probably -- at nearly 15 years, long past the Statute of Limitations.
Anyone hear any mummermings as to who the Arkansas Republicans plan to run against Pryor in 2008? Rove's play book when he decides to place a senator in a ballot slot, is usually to crush any local opposition before it gets off the ground. He doesn't like primaries.
Sara wrote on May 26, 2007 11:18 AM:Could it be that Rove's target in Arkansas using Griffin is Senator Pryor himself, who stands for re-election in 2008? It could be either side of a deal -- perhaps Rove thinks Griffin a good match for Arkansas, and running from the position of USA would help his chances .... or it could be that Rove wants Griffin to surf around the Pryor organization, and see if he can find something indictable. I think that more likely than Hillary who afterall has lived in New York for the past six and a half years, and in DC for the eight years prior to that. Anything on her is probably -- at nearly 15 years, long past the Statute of Limitations.
Anyone hear any mummermings as to who the Arkansas Republicans plan to run against Pryor in 2008? Rove's play book when he decides to place a senator in a ballot slot, is usually to crush any local opposition before it gets off the ground. He doesn't like primaries.
Sara wrote on May 26, 2007 11:19 AM:Could it be that Rove's target in Arkansas using Griffin is Senator Pryor himself, who stands for re-election in 2008? It could be either side of a deal -- perhaps Rove thinks Griffin a good match for Arkansas, and running from the position of USA would help his chances .... or it could be that Rove wants Griffin to surf around the Pryor organization, and see if he can find something indictable. I think that more likely than Hillary who afterall has lived in New York for the past six and a half years, and in DC for the eight years prior to that. Anything on her is probably -- at nearly 15 years, long past the Statute of Limitations.
Anyone hear any mummermings as to who the Arkansas Republicans plan to run against Pryor in 2008? Rove's play book when he decides to place a senator in a ballot slot, is usually to crush any local opposition before it gets off the ground. He doesn't like primaries.
Sara wrote on May 26, 2007 11:19 AM:Could it be that Rove's target in Arkansas using Griffin is Senator Pryor himself, who stands for re-election in 2008? It could be either side of a deal -- perhaps Rove thinks Griffin a good match for Arkansas, and running from the position of USA would help his chances .... or it could be that Rove wants Griffin to surf around the Pryor organization, and see if he can find something indictable. I think that more likely than Hillary who afterall has lived in New York for the past six and a half years, and in DC for the eight years prior to that. Anything on her is probably -- at nearly 15 years, long past the Statute of Limitations.
Anyone hear any mummermings as to who the Arkansas Republicans plan to run against Pryor in 2008? Rove's play book when he decides to place a senator in a ballot slot, is usually to crush any local opposition before it gets off the ground. He doesn't like primaries.
Sara wrote on May 26, 2007 11:19 AM:Could it be that Rove's target in Arkansas using Griffin is Senator Pryor himself, who stands for re-election in 2008? It could be either side of a deal -- perhaps Rove thinks Griffin a good match for Arkansas, and running from the position of USA would help his chances .... or it could be that Rove wants Griffin to surf around the Pryor organization, and see if he can find something indictable. I think that more likely than Hillary who afterall has lived in New York for the past six and a half years, and in DC for the eight years prior to that. Anything on her is probably -- at nearly 15 years, long past the Statute of Limitations.
Anyone hear any mummermings as to who the Arkansas Republicans plan to run against Pryor in 2008? Rove's play book when he decides to place a senator in a ballot slot, is usually to crush any local opposition before it gets off the ground. He doesn't like primaries.
Dan D wrote on May 26, 2007 1:04 PM:That "I'll go back to my job until told otherwise" is very disturbing.
It's like he's some kind of manchurian candidate who is waiting for his trigger word to start persecuting the Democratic nominee.
Until then, he'll lay low and try and avoid notice for anything.
Or perhaps I read too much into it, but given the unexplained basic fact: Why was it necessary to fire the AK prosecutor? To give this guy a job? They had 7 or 8 other jobs open from people they were already firing, and they admit Griffin's predecessor was fine by their standards, so why?
Until I hear a better theory, that Griffin is a plant designed to bring an election timed indictment of Hillary down on cue, that's my suspicion.
So his comment is particularly ominous given that possibility.
Nell wrote on May 26, 2007 1:11 PM:@sailmaker: The smoking-gun-ness of the email is made clear in the post.
1 - Direct contact between USAtty and WH is very unusual. It is Not Done. (per Iglesias, and I imagine per any other non-Bush-appointed USAtty a reporter were to ask.)
2 - The content makes clear that Rove is involved in his having the job. Griffin is crowing to him about the end run around Pryor via the snuck-in-during-conference-committee Patriot Act provision, and reporting in about why he was speaking directly to the press about it.
Hope that helps.
JNagarya wrote on May 26, 2007 3:13 PM:"Could it be that Rove's target in Arkansas using Griffin is Senator Pryor himself, who stands for re-election in 2008? It could be either side of a deal -- perhaps Rove thinks Griffin a good match for Arkansas, and running from the position of USA would help his chances .... or it could be that Rove wants Griffin to surf around the Pryor organization, and see if he can find something indictable."
It needn't be something indictable. It only need be allegedly indictable. And if not then, they have been shown to invent BS out of thin air. Even when a case is wholly without merit -- frivolous -- one must defend against it. That takes time and money. It distracts the defendant, and generates bad PR therefor.
"I think that more likely than Hillary who afterall has lived in New York for the past six and a half years, and in DC for the eight years prior to that. Anything on her is probably -- at nearly 15 years, long past the Statute of Limitations."
Why presume there would be anything indictable out of AR now? -- there wasn't during the '90s, and every effort was made to find anything whatsoever, including the blatantly false, to sling.
And ote the two "new" biographies of Hillary: nothing new in them; only the same old refuted crap from the first fifteen times around.
"Posted by: Sara
Date: May 26, 2007 11:19 AM"
"Oppo research" can work in both directions. And at this point, with all that's come out, and will come out, about Griffin, he may well be neutralized by 11/2008, if not already.
JNagarya wrote on May 26, 2007 3:20 PM:"Congress needs to hire a good hacker.Then the emails in question could mysteriously appear in one of their mail boxes.Why do these guys insist on playing by the rules when the Bush gang never has?"
You're a "loyal Bushie" anti-Constitutionalist -- right? One doesn't restore the rule of law by throwing the rule of law out the window, hypocrite.
"We are super stupid in this country, . . . ."
Yeah: not violating the law, not shredding the Constitution, not being a lawless lynch-mob, is "stupid".
When will you be applying for a job with the Bushit gang? With your view you'd not only be immediately eligible and accepted, but they wouldn't have to train you in ignoring the rule of law.
"Posted by: Sully18
JNagarya wrote on May 26, 2007 3:38 PM:Date: May 25, 2007 10:16 PM"
"Posted by: JNagarya
Date: May 25, 2007 09:41 PM
"I did not intend for my cynicism to be fashionable, . . . ."
And yet that's exactly what it is. Worse, it's a substitute for paying attention and knowing what's actually going on.
". . . . however, I am not going to candy up Congress' failure on this issue and the Iraq war."
Substantiate any of that.
"The dems have failed. No other conclusion can follow."
Actually a range of more likely "conclusions" can follow. One of those is that they *a) have more information than you, and (b) know more about what they are doing than do you.
It would be realistic, and intellectually honest, to admit that. Instead, you seek excuses to bash.
"They treated Goodling, who enjoyed immunity, with kid gloves."
The context is politcs; the process is law. You want the Democrats bashed for "picking on" a helpless female?
"Only a few good questions."
There were many good questions. Ever hear of "timing"?
"What more did the House elicit from her? Hardly anything."
How would you know? What they got from her will be compared and contrasted with evidence they've already gathered, and which they haven't yet revealed because protecting the integritoy of the investigation is paramount.
"Why not consider impeaching Gonzales?"
You should have read what I wrote. I'll try to make it real simple for you:
The Democrats don't yet have the votes to raise the issue of impeachment even as an issue to vote on as a topic of discussion/debate. Why is that? Because the Republicans have yet to join them on that issue. So who do you bash? The Democrats. Go back to Free Republic where the mindless norm is to bash Democrats, regardless known facts and reality.
"What about cutting off funding for DOJ?"
Have the Democrts the votes to do that? No. Why? Because the Republicans are holding out. So you bash the Democrats. Is that reasonable or lobigical? No; it is stupid; or it is Republican.
"Cut off funding for the war?"
See above.
"When one wins elections with guns a blazin' and immediately starts much needed investigations with bravado, one better deliver results."
In the Senate there are 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, 1 Independent. Where are the votes you demand?
Impeachment begins in the House. If all the Democrats voted for, there still wouldn't be enough votes.
But let's not talk reality; you know-it-all, so have nothing else to learn. Why bother accepting reality when it's so much easier to mindlessly bash based upon refusing to accept reality?
"To date we have seen nothing but failure."
Okay, tell us everything you know about the proper conduct of aboveboard investigation.
We have a half-second.
"This is not some MTV/VH1 reality show, some dandy fashion show on Bravo (although Biden might disagree), this is bare knuckle power politics and the dems have nothing but bruises for their efforts."
Biden is in the Senate. Impeachment begins in the House. Perhaps you've been watching too much MTV, etc., so haven't yet got the basics straight. Read the Constitution, then get back to me.
"Fashionable or nor, cynical or not, to date the dems efforts have fallen flat on their face and the public does not know whether to laugh or cry."
The public of which you speak is _you_; and you don't know and refuse to learn even the basics. Read the Constitution.
"Do you have any confidence this current cast of Congressional characters could effectively produce results if they tackled a much more important domestic issue such as BushCo's warrantles surveillance of its own citizens?"
What they can do depends on how many votes can be mustered. The Democrats by themselves cannot do as you demand. BASH THE REPUBLICANS, ass!
"This current fiasco not only diminished their inability to commence an investigation . . . ."
Where have you been? That investigation began some time ago, and is ongoing.
"that would have much greater impact on everyone, ut it also diminishes their ability to deliver results in the event they can even get the ball rolling on such an investigation."
Gonzo is neutralized because of the investigation that has been going on for months. Get your head out of "American Idol".
"This is simply a failure of government. We already knew the repubs were failures in this regard. Right now, DC, dem and repub, is owned by the war machine."
Investigations, due process, and democray, separately and together, take time.
"Posted by: tbhull
Date: May 25, 2007 10:28 PM"
Get your head out of your ass: there are not enough votes for any of your demands becaues the REPUBLICANS are holding out. So you bash Democrats? Take it to Free Republic.
JNagarya wrote on May 26, 2007 3:42 PM:"The only way to get to bottom of this, is to appoint a Special Council to investigate the RNC for RICO.
"e.g. phone jamming, caging letters etc.
"Posted by: 1Watt
Date: May 25, 2007 08:55 PM"
Why limit it to RICO -- if it even applies?
Anonymous wrote on May 26, 2007 4:08 PM:LEGAL COUNSEL DUTY TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION FROM DOMESTIC ENEMIES
TPM readers who happen to be lawyers,
Your oath is to protect the Constitution: I don't know about you, but I'm sitting here wondering what's going on with the legal community. The people making this mess with the US Attorney firings, working DOJ-EOP-WH legal counsel's office aren't high school dropouts, they're legal professionals. I wonder if there is a plan by the legal community to defend this Constitution aginst the enemies who continue to defy it. I'm not seeing the [a] oath of office translating into [b] obvious action to defend the Constitution.
Futher, this inaction since 2001 didn't happen in a vacuum. I would like to know what's the plan to ensure this abuse of power doesn't happen again; and by "this" I mean an apparent breakdown of discipline within _your_ profession. I would also like to know -- given the apparent unfavorable weather making Congress less inclined to enforce the law through impeachment -- if there is any plan within the legal community to do what Congress does not presently see an interest to do: Enforce the law and protection the Constitution.
It is sad that the legal community has collectively allowed this non-sense to continue on the grounds that this is a "political" matter. Yet, a plain reading of the statutes does not prohibit l3legal counsel from working outside Congress to gather evidence, forward information to the members of Congress, and work with the US Attorney's to issue indictments against US government officials. However, this does not mean that the President is immune to these indictments: State officials, legal counsel, and grand juries are allowed to prosecute a sitting President.
From the side, it appears as though there is a wink-wink, nod-nod going on: In exchange for the legal community doing nothing outside Congress to prosecute the President, the Federal and state officials have agreed not to change the regulations governing legal counsel. I would encourage the legal community to ask themselves: Which side are they on -- the President's; or the Constitution. There is no middle ground; those are your only choices; and you have to choose one.
Some of you are understandably baffled by this posting. Your real clients are the American people, the public, and the Constitution. It would please me if the legal community might offer some sort of reasonable explanation how this can happen: Despite clear options to prosecute the President and US government officials outside impeachment, the public has been asked to (incorrectly) believe that "nothing can be done" unless Congress takes action. This is false.
Time for the legal community to collectively accept that your professional reputations remain in the balance. Indeed, you may have graduated with honors from prestigious law firms, have possibly amassed considerable wealth, perhaps are a senior partner, and have little time for long notes. Small problem: Our Constitution is not yours to pick and choose from. If you are going to ask the public to believe that your oath to "defend" the document is real -- then let's see your defense of that document with a zealous legal offensive against this President, gather evidence, and let's see some indictments outside Congress.
The legal community has resources to hire private attorneys, work with third parties, and gather other evidence. This week, Congress "though of the idea" to ask Rove's counsel for the e-mails related to Plame firing, almost as an after thought. Backup: We're five months into this, Congress is getting nothing, and we're supposed to be "impressed" that the Congress "thought" of asking for Rove's e-mails from his counsel, and dive into the e-mail Fitzgerald reviewed? Get real.
I'm not sure what your idea of a zealous defense of the Constitution is; or what lessor political loyalties you have to their clients to compel you to be silent about this non-sense. Frankly I don't care. My concern is that as this Administration continues its bungling planning, defiance of Geneva, and gross/reckless disregard for legal standards, the legal community needs to internally, and publicly come to grips with its enablement of this President, and its refusal to take legal action which it has supposedly the unique skills to take.
I could ramble for a moment about the Magna Charta, so I will: This document was the challenge of the Barrons, and the settlement, at Runnymead. Today's challenge is not between one class against a King; but against We the People and the Legal Community. As King John was forced to accept: The Barrons forced him to choose. Today in 2007, the American legal community is similarly forced to choose: Between this President; or this Constitution.
What's surprising about the events since 2001 is the apparent buffoonery this President, legal counsel, and planners are. The planning is based whether it is combat, relief, contingency planning, or legal reviews. The Romans were notorious for defining their battlefield disasters as "peace." America's "rule of law" is in the view of some around the globe in similar straights: It's broken down, not working to constrain power as designed, and the experts aren't solving problems, but making bigger ones.
I would ask that you reconsider your pro bono services. Indeed, you should be commended for providing assistance to those in need. Today, I would ask that you take the broader view: What is in need isn't a single person, or a single client, but America's Constitution. Perhaps you and your legal peers in your Law firm and practise areas might discuss pro bono services to investigate, gather evidence, and support your state attorney general is in issuing indictments against a sitting President. If you would like to read more about the legal arguments for and against this consider contacting Jonathan Turley at Georgetown who has written on prosecuting a sitting President. Indeed, it is unprecedented to prosecute a sitting President, just as it is unprecedented for war crimes to go unpunished by the United States.
New times at Runnymead were resolved with the Magna Charta. People decided there was a solution. The list of problems was finite. Just as there is a list of problems in the Declaration of Independence, so too is there a list of solutions in the Constitution and Great Charter. I would hope that the list of solutions to today's problems includes the active support of you, your peers, and your professional practice group. However, if you decide that you have other things to do, that is fine; you will have made your choice: Not the Constitution.
America must decide if it is going to assert the rule of law at home in the legal forums of the courts, legislatures, and executive departments. Where neither of the three branches prove responsive, the world community is left with few choices than to increase pressure, find out what is happening, and seek lawful alternatives. Just as legal counsel can be held accountable for refusing to enforce the laws of war, the question on the table is: How could this much abuse of power occur without the legal community regulating their peers and reporting peer misconduct. There are legal memorandum, peers documents, and memos which are known to have not blocked but enabled this illegal activity, prisoner abuse, warrantless surveillance, rendition.
Yes, civil litigation takes a while to litigate. However, the other side of the coin is the issue of the State and the interest the legal community has to lead the active protection of the Constitution not through a civil matter, but through a public prosecution of those US government officials who have engaged in war crimes, not prevented violations of Geneva, and who have defied their oath in failing to ensure the laws of war were fully honored.
I ask that you consider the indictments at Nuremberg; you review the language related to impeachment in the Geneva Conventions; and review the precedents at Nuremberg related to finding that nations who refuse to impeach cannot be considered civilized. Indeed, a government may choose not to be civilized, but this does not condemn the civil, lawful counsel in the legal profession from rising abuse the standards Congress refuses to assert, and imposing discipline to maintain civility.
If our Constitution is going to prevail, not just survive, then the legal community has a job: To work with their peers, assert their oath, identify the real client -- the Constitution -- and use all lawful methods to ensure your profession is regulated to do the best it can do to protect the Constitution, not the best it might get away with to avoid rocking the boat. Yes, your are being asked to provide leadership; indeed, in this environment it is clear what you are really being asked to do: Voluntarily risk becoming a political target of the GOP in their effort to silence, dissuade, and block efforts to hold the President to account for his illegal activity under FISA, the Supreme Law, Geneva, and his oath of office.
American citizens can ask for your assistance. Whether you do or do not heed the call is out of our control. But if you choose to not heed the call, the public is well positioned to remember who did or did not do what needed to be done. If you choose to do nothing, that is your choice; but know that We the People are more powerful than your profession; and when Our Will -- as it has been by this President -- is ignored, then we have the power to enact a New Constitution. Your job is to decide whether you are going to attempt to block efforts to enforce the existing law; but do nothing to protect the Constitution; then reverse yourselves and attempt to block a New Constitution that will reward or punish you for your choice in either associating with the President or the Constitution.
We the People did not take an oath to remain silent about the legal profession; nor keep it immune from oversight and regulation. Rather, We the People have the power to redefine the laws so the Constitution remains a requirement above all things, even your loyalty to a President in your apparent joint effort to put the Rule of Law beyond a loyalty to man.
It is 2007. This non-sense has gone on too long. Your leadership well knows that there is a problem. The way going forward is to understand the problem: State proclamations calling for impeachment are being blocked; yet, the GOP "does have time" to engage in "other issues" besides the "important" legislation they supposedly say would be overshadowed by impeachment. However your profession chooses to explain it away, there is a problem: The Constitution is not being fully protected using all lawful means. Congress refuses to act. The issue is whether the legal community similarly refuses. If you do, We the People may choose something else. Thank you for your assistance and dilgence.
Janie wrote on May 26, 2007 4:26 PM:The Senate Judiciary Committee needs to ask Kyle Sampson via a subpoena duces tecum for the notebook in which he had placed the Rove e-mails.
We learned about the Rove e-mails being in a notebook from a Daily Kos diary on May 4th.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/4/13632/81277
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 26, 2007 10:36 PM:Janie@Date: May 26, 2007 04:26 PM - Thanks for the link which I posted below. Jbearlaw did an especially good job explaining why David Margolis's testimony is important.
JNagarya@May 26, 2007 03:13 PM - I've heard there is some oppo research being conducted at a high level which involves Tim Griffin.
Shouldn't be too hard to get the goods on Griffin. His resume is full of overblown claims about his accomplishments. I'm interested in who was paid him as a consultant between 1/05 and 4/05 at the rate of $180k per year.
Dave Keehn wrote on May 26, 2007 10:54 PM:Just posted this on TPM Cafe:
During the Thursday afternoon session (5/23/07) of the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) hearing on the US Attorneys' firing, Monica Goodling made a particularly interesting comment.
Of course there are so many points of interest in Goodling's testimony, but what I perceive to be one small "slip" may have gone unnoticed.
My curiosity was tweaked during Representative Robert Wexler’s (D - FL) portion. There was an exchange of questions and answers regarding the March 5th meeting called by the WH Counsel’s office. I think the attention was on the fact that Karl Rove was in attendance.
Using CSPAN's recorded version of the afternoon session you can see that at about the 9 minute, 30 second mark Wexler asked;
Wexler: "Was there any discussion about the termination of the prosecutors?"
Goodling: "Um, I remember at one point there was a reference to when, um, to when Tim Griffen's, ah, name was submitted to the President for approval and I, and I checked my book and said it was June. I think that was the only comment I made in the meeting... and I think that the only reference to a specific individual I remember in the meeting. ..."
What is of interest to me is Monica's admission of keeping a "book" which tracked the date/s when a name was submitted to the President. What is also interesting is the ease in which she recalled / stated this fact of checking her "book" with no ambiguity.
This single comment raises many questions:
Did she mean to speak about a book that tracked the dates "names were submitted to the President for approval?"
Exactly how did she know when a name was submitted TO THE PRESIDENT? By what method did she come by these facts: email, verbally, during a meeting. And by whom did she get notified? Seems ironic that she's in a meeting with WH Counsel and she is the one correcting the dates!!!???? Curious, no?
In what document dump can we find this "book"?
Did she previously disclose the existence of such a "book" to the HJC?
Where is this book today?
Does the HJC have possession?
If the book is under DOJ "control" did the DOJ disclose the fact that they have it and it's relevance to Congress' request for ALL relevant documents.
What other information related to this investigation is in the book?
Is there anything significant here or is this already known? It’s hard to keep track.
Go take a look and listen your self at C-SPAN's web site. Under RECENT PROGRAMS you'll see:
The Sheriff wrote on May 27, 2007 12:14 AM:House Judiciary Full Cmte. Hearing on the U.S. Attorneys Investigation - PM Session
The DOJ doc search tool looks terrific but is clearly missing a big player from the Civil Rights Division: Schlozman. With regard to politicizing the career hires, Monica Goodling is a little wave pool compared to Schloz the Tsunami. Also, Schlozman was given a big prize of being an USA if he would go after the likes of ACORN - and there is no email on the subject?? Before or after?
befraid,veryafraid wrote on May 27, 2007 11:29 AM:How can that be??
Where is it hiding?
Why Arkansas indeed?
Sheriff, can you tell us more about Schlozman?
befraid,veryafraid wrote on May 27, 2007 11:29 AM:Why Arkansas indeed?
Sheriff, can you tell us more about Schlozman?
Anonymous wrote on May 27, 2007 5:48 PM:Posted by: Dave Keehn
Date: May 26, 2007 10:54 PM
Nice catch. Perhaps the book is a "binder" -- you're right, "Where is it?"
Well done. You get an appropriate award.
Al in Austex wrote on May 27, 2007 9:26 PM:Sojourner said up thread that he/she is a disgusted Republican from Texas. My belief is that there is a critical mass of unaligned voters out here that desire new & better leadership from both parties. Isn't it interesting that Cong Bob Barr introduced VP Gore some two years ago -when the veep gave a great speech deriding the Busheviks assault on our civil liberties.
drational wrote on May 28, 2007 8:37 AM:My hope is that WE ALL can come togather as Americans to protect Our Republic. BushCo is so anti democratic that this may actually be a watershed political moment for our General Comity.
Nygara is right to defend the Democrats against thdbull whom might actually be a troll from Free Republicville. I still maintain that the Committees have already got the goods on TurdBlossom & all of his minions. Waxman et all have already interviewed such players as the former Chief of Station FBI San Diego - the same C-of-Station that said Lams firing was political.
Mark Twain wrote "the Pessimist may be right in the End -but an Optimist has a better time getting there "
The Bushevkis are in for some heavy political weather here - You can smell the storm clouds coming, and the barometer is dropping & the wind is definately changing directions .
"The DOJ doc search tool looks terrific but is clearly missing a big player from the Civil Rights Division: Schlozman."
The doc search includes only the docs released by DOJ to HJC.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/21/12120/5682
Since Schlozman was not identified until recently, there were no emails pertaining to him in the DOJ response to HJC subpoena.
bajsa wrote on May 28, 2007 11:52 AM:Griffin added, "I am going to go back to focusing on my job until I am told otherwise."
I think that statement says it all. He's going to do his job until he hears differently from Rove.
rasher wrote on May 28, 2007 3:30 PM:"I am going to go back to focusing on my job until I am told otherwise. Thanks, TG"
1. Just what was he doing before he went "back to" focusing on his job?
2. Just what is his "job"? I have a feeling is has little to do with his job description.
3. Who is it that would tell him to do "otherwise"? The email is addressed to WH political people, not his bosses at DoJ. It sounds like he's admitting to working for the WH.
4. What exactly does "otherwise" entail? If he's not going to be focusing on his job, then what would he be focusing on "otherwise"?
5. And finally, what's with the "Thanks" sign-off? What is he thanking them for?
Bill wrote on May 31, 2007 11:45 AM:MSN I NIIPET
Bill wrote on May 31, 2007 11:45 AM:MSN
MSN I NIIPET
Bill wrote on May 31, 2007 11:45 AM:MSN
MSN I NIIPET
Bill wrote on June 12, 2007 5:10 PM:MSN
MSN I NIIPET
Bill wrote on June 12, 2007 5:10 PM:MSN
MSN I NIIPET
Bill wrote on December 5, 2007 1:11 PM:MSN
.commercial property agent watford
Kir wrote on December 6, 2007 7:01 AM:jello shots recipe
tippman a 5
mc lars download this song
boobster
pillsbury doughboy
poptart
u2 hold me thrill me kiss me kill me
easton synergy 2
fattest cat in the world
airbourne
sexcapades
lettuce entertain you restaurants
concord ehealth
princess margaret hospital lottery
yamaha xs650
uncle vanya
yukina
kinga big brother
ganoderma lucidum
.pma replacement instruments
Aron wrote on December 6, 2007 11:45 AM:racing hart rims
filet mignon recipe
teen titans cyborg
glimepiride
synagis
goodcharlotte
stomach stapling
kim medcalf
durban home automation
enth e nd
mission santa ines
iud copper
dbol
volvo driving soccer mom
scotts lawn tractor
beijing china air eva airways japan airlines flights tickets
velociraptors
leonora carrington
tayla
.cmkx
Aron wrote on December 6, 2007 11:46 AM:columbia missourian
lisa borghese
gucci mane
esthetician schools
yoyos
tractor wheel weights
riccar
pyoderma
brampton transit
funny commericals
subaru brat
sharecropping
carmen villani
deshaun foster
rombauer
albino porn
slipknot duality mp3
wes borland
bronfenbrenner
.cmkx
Bill wrote on December 8, 2007 5:45 PM:columbia missourian
lisa borghese
gucci mane
esthetician schools
yoyos
tractor wheel weights
riccar
pyoderma
brampton transit
funny commericals
subaru brat
sharecropping
carmen villani
deshaun foster
rombauer
albino porn
slipknot duality mp3
wes borland
bronfenbrenner
.vida guera
Bill wrote on December 8, 2007 5:45 PM:spankee
chevelle send the pain below
incredimail stationary
soroity
doink the clown
rita kvist
ronald reagen
fire houston nutt
brandsmart
cacapon state park
sferra bros
sapranos
rapper trina nude
groupx
kung bushmen
angelina grimke
angie everhart sexual predator
invader zim theme song
shannon whirry nude
dj sanj
kahin to hoga
tsuki no curse
fishweb
westshore pizza
.vida guera
Neo wrote on December 11, 2007 2:54 AM:spankee
chevelle send the pain below
incredimail stationary
soroity
doink the clown
rita kvist
ronald reagen
fire houston nutt
brandsmart
cacapon state park
sferra bros
sapranos
rapper trina nude
groupx
kung bushmen
angelina grimke
angie everhart sexual predator
invader zim theme song
shannon whirry nude
dj sanj
kahin to hoga
tsuki no curse
fishweb
westshore pizza
.petechiae
Neo wrote on December 11, 2007 2:55 AM:naruto hand seals
kirstie alley gallery
stroop effect
poetry onomatopoeia
metadate
los bukis
jackie deshannon
craftmade ceiling fans
fmca
metacam
sea vegg
retractable badge holders
quaking aspen
rory calhoun
gwinnett county courts
mackinac island vacations
naruto doujinshi scans
rosa parkes
virginia rappe
.petechiae
Halo wrote on December 11, 2007 9:34 AM:naruto hand seals
kirstie alley gallery
stroop effect
poetry onomatopoeia
metadate
los bukis
jackie deshannon
craftmade ceiling fans
fmca
metacam
sea vegg
retractable badge holders
quaking aspen
rory calhoun
gwinnett county courts
mackinac island vacations
naruto doujinshi scans
rosa parkes
virginia rappe
.debbie boyland
ikea store locator
scph1001
ikia
homey the clown
dan inosanto
huskerpedia
famousbabes
asajj ventress
fishhawk ranch real estate
mammatus clouds
mint julep recipe
citalopram hydrobromide
greased up deaf guy
fagina
nicegirls
encueradas
chip foose wheels
jiggling jugs
window shutters westchester ny
progestrone
barbara striesand
gia lashay
upholstery tacks
free runescape autominer