« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Committees Subpoena Former Rove Aide, Miers
The House and Senate judiciary committees will issue subpoenas to former Karl Rove aide Sara Taylor and former White House counsel Harriet Miers this morning, the AP is reporting.
The subpoenas follow fast on Justice Department emails turned over to Congress last night that fattened the already substantial case that the White House was intimately involved in installing Timothy Griffin, a former aide to Karl Rove as the U.S. attorney in Little Rock.
The Justice Department, in a letter vetted by the White House, wrote Congress back in February that Karl Rove didn't play "any role" in Griffin's nomination -- a statement the Department has since admitted was false. And how: emails have shown that Rove's aides worked closely with Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson at the Justice Department to get Griffin in the spot, and that Sampson, working with Rove's aides, plotted to keep Griffin in place despite objections from Arkansas' senators, stringing them along with the promise that another nomination would be made if Sens. Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) objected. A little-noticed provision in the USA PATRIOT Act enabled the attorney general to appoint U.S. attorneys for indefinite terms without Senate confirmation.
Sampson testified to congressional investigators that Taylor, formerly Rove's top aide (she resigned last month), was "upset" when Alberto Gonzales finally decided not to follow Sampson's plan in January. From a January 25th email, it appears that Taylor was still committed to Sampson's plan of stringing the senator's along at that late date. Reacting to a draft of a Justice Department letter to Sen. Pryor, Taylor wrote "I'm concerned we imply that we'll pull down Griffin's nomination should Pryor object."
The emails released last night show how worked up Taylor was about Griffin's nomination.
"Tim was put in a horrible position; hung to dry w/ no heads up," Taylor wrote to Sampson the day that Griffin announced that he would not stand for confirmation before the Senate -- Griffin had forwarded the news article about his announcment to Rove, Taylor and other Rove aides that morning. "You forced him to do what he did; this is not good for his long-term career." Taylor then went on to castigate Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty for testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Griffin's predecessor, Bud Cummins, had been forced to resign for no other reason than to install Griffin. "Bud runs a campaign and McNulty refuses to say Bud is lazy -- which is why we got rid of him in the first place." It's a telling use of the first person.
Here's ThinkProgress, The Washington Post, and McClatchy on the emails.
Comments (66)
Crust wrote on June 13, 2007 10:24 AM:Why are they subpoenaing Miers but not Rove (or at least not yet)?
Daniel CAZ Greenberg wrote on June 13, 2007 10:35 AM:Crust,
Because you better have a legally-strong, water-tight, concrete, vitamin C fortified, open-and-shut case before you even /think/ of issuing a subpoena to a Sith Lord.
spot wrote on June 13, 2007 10:36 AM:what's this about Lam refusing to resign?
Michael wrote on June 13, 2007 10:57 AM:This is an exercise in futility. Even if they do testify, which they won't, all they will say is "I don't recall" 100 times. I am hoping that since Gonzo threw McNulty under the bus, when McNulty testifies he will throw all these criminals under the bus as well. One other scenario is that some justice official with integrity volunteers to testify about the criminal actions of this administration. This is the only way that we will get the truth. It is frightening that these people are putting people in jail for politics. We need congress to completely revamp the non-justice department immediately. I don't care what political party is in power. This is outrageous.
bobh wrote on June 13, 2007 11:01 AM:I really hate the fact that it takes this long to drag a sob out of his office and kick him until dead in the street.
I could clear all this up for congress if they offer me immunity from prosecution.
Anyway, isn't it sweet that the doj keeps finding e-mails tailored to the occassion....gumming it all the way to the end of el presidentes term.
Robert wrote on June 13, 2007 11:04 AM:Everytime I read "A little-noticed provision in the USA PATRIOT Act enabled the attorney general to appoint U.S. attorney..." I just get so pissed off. Senator make around $170K a year and they should be required to at least SKIM a bill before they approve it. (And at least two staffers should be required to read it cover to cover first)
not me wrote on June 13, 2007 11:06 AM:Here's a special little nugget from last night's doc dump.
Kyle Sampson in email to Bill Kelley at the White House, 1/16/07:
"FYI -our USA in SD is refusing to resign (though we've given her until 5pm eastern); recommendation that she be removed immediately should be over to you by the end of the day." [page OAG...1796]
Note: "SD" = Southern District of California
Kyle Sampson in email 2 days later (1/18/07) to Senate Judiciary Committee staff counsel, who had asked why Carol Lam was asked to leave:
" *** If Lam was asked to resign, *** it would have been b/c she lost the confidence of the AG
Buck wrote on June 13, 2007 11:07 AM:and DAG." (Emphasis added.)
[page OAG...1805]
The Dems *might* already have the goods on these clowns. If so, the testimony is just to get them to lie about what they did.
When the time comes to lower the boom, the relevant material and witnesses will be *discovered*. These "discoveries" will have to happen within a time frame such that there isn't time to prosecute during the Bush administration-that will need to be done after the chess board is cleared. Another future Dick or Don can't be left to cause havoc thirty years later.
Two long summers to go, but it will be worth the wait.
Ghost of Tom Joad wrote on June 13, 2007 11:07 AM:Robert,
Midwest Product wrote on June 13, 2007 11:10 AM:Why? That's what the Repubs do. They let special inerests write the bills for them.
OAG000001795 -- at the very bottom there is an email from Harriet Miers to William Kelley that reads:
"I am quite surprised that we would engage on whether a personnel action on a Presidential appointment is justified for the reasons I have stated earlier. We can see what the Chief thinks."
Is "the Chief" she's referring to the President?
Crust wrote on June 13, 2007 11:19 AM:Good catch, "not me".
ShorelineCT wrote on June 13, 2007 11:19 AM:Robert
If I recall, that provision was tucked into the committe conference final version of the Pariot Act - after it full content had been approved! It wasn't noticed because it was slipped in under cover of darkness.
mayan wrote on June 13, 2007 11:20 AM:My faith has been known to waver occasionally but I tend to concur in what Buck said. Even in my deepest agnosticism, I find myself believing/wishfully thinking that the Dems are actually sitting on a great deal more information than we are privvy to. Either that or it's the abyss of Dem haplessness and cluelessness and I just can't bring myself to believe that Waxman, Conyers and Leahy (and several in their posse) are anything other than hardened, savvy and tactically intelligent fighters.
Michael wrote on June 13, 2007 11:30 AM:I actually hope to a certain extent that Buck and Mayan are wrong. If the Dems have info and are sitting on it, this would also be a travesty of justice. The damage to innocent people's lives and this country by the actions of the non-justice department over the next year and a half would be substantial. Why do you think Griffin was appointed in Arkansas? To issue bogus subpoenas and start bogus investigations of Clinton before the next election if she wins the nomination. Now they will just find another hack to fill the post and do the same thing. It's the Rove playbook. He has been doing it since Texas when he had a crooked FBI agent on retainer. The agent would launch a highly publicized investigation before an election against Rove's client's opponent and then drop the case after the election. If the Dems have something, they need to act NOW.
Xman wrote on June 13, 2007 11:34 AM:"If I recall, that provision was tucked into the committe conference final version of the Pariot Act - after it full content had been approved! It wasn't noticed because it was slipped in under cover of darkness."
Sounds like a crime to me....
If I tried that in real life, I'd be fired immediately and depending on the laws/rules broken, probably be charged with a crime.
You can't get everyones sign off, then without telling anyone insert something no one agreed to.
Long Memory wrote on June 13, 2007 11:39 AM:How can that be valid? Why didn't the Dems scream bloody murder?
I'm with Michael about not wanting to mess up the lives of innocent people who are just doing their jobs. Call me soft-hearted, but I always felt pity for those people the GOP dragged through the mud and left with enormous legal bills during the Clinton years.
That said, there's something in me that believes Karl Rove also knows that many Democrats are uneasy about screwing over regular folks. Trouble is, the GOP has no problem screwing over regular folks. It's what they do.
melior wrote on June 13, 2007 11:42 AM:"Tim was put in a horrible position; hung to dry w/ no heads up," Taylor wrote...
I don't think he's dry yet, better hang him some more.
Hiding behind the USA SCOUNDREL ACT was a direct slap in the face to Congressional authority, and GOoPer Congressmen don't seem to like having their faces slapped any more than reality-based Congressmen, do they Karl?
EH wrote on June 13, 2007 11:54 AM:"Robert,
Why? That's what the Repubs do. They let special inerests write the bills for them.
Posted by: Ghost of Tom Joad"
You've got your head pretty far in the sand if you think it's only Republicans who do that.
JR wrote on June 13, 2007 12:00 PM:Crust, why subpoena Miers and not Rove?
The main reason is because Miers and Taylor no longer work at the White House. If the White House was to block the subpoena on the basis of Executive privilege their claim would have substantially less merit for if those two (Miers and Taylor) than if they were still at the White House--as Rove and Jennings currently are.
clb72 wrote on June 13, 2007 12:06 PM:What's the point of this? Let's remember the wise words of Sunny Davis, played by Goldie Hawn, in Protocol (1984):
"You want to know something? Before I worked for the government, I'd never read the Constitution. I didn't even begin to know how things worked. I didn't read the newspaper, except to look up my horoscope. And I never read the Declaration of Independence. But I knew they had, the ones were talking about, the experts, they read it. They just forgot what it was about. That its about We, the People. And that's ME. I'm We, the People. And you're We, the People. And we're all We, the People, all of us.
"So when they sell me that ten cent diamond ring or down the river or to some guy who wears a lot of medals, then that means they're selling ALL of us, all of we the people. And when YOU guys spend another pile of money and when you give away or sell all those guns and tanks, and every time you invite another foreign big shot to the White House and hug and kiss him and give him presents, it has a direct effect on We the People's lives.
"So if we don't, I mean if I don't know what you're up to, and if I don't holler and scream when I think you're doing it wrong, and if I just mind my own business and don't vote or care, then I just get what I deserve. So now that I'm a private citizen again, you're going to have to watch out for me. 'Cause I'm going to be watching all of you. Like a hawk."
chisholm wrote on June 13, 2007 12:06 PM:OT, but I just need to say that I am chomping at the bit to see Rice testify under oath. It's not clear it's going to happen but man, she is on the top of my Fantasy Testimony list. Followed by Hadley and the ur-snake, Elliot Abrams.
Books Alive wrote on June 13, 2007 12:14 PM:spot @ 10:36
My recollection is that Carol Lam asked Kyle Sampson to let her stay on the job for a few weeks beyond that December 2006 "deadline."
He refused, with words to the effect that the goal was for her to leave "sooner than later."
Carol Lam reported this herself, as I recall. It could have been during her testimony, and it may have been in the written responses that were released. (I thought I had bookmarked that release but don't find it and the TPM Document site is not operational at this time.)
Anyway, this would account for saying that Lam "refused to resign." Not completely true.
Anonymous wrote on June 13, 2007 12:15 PM:Hey TPM muckrackers! Sounds like we finally found someone who _KNOWS_ why the US Attorneys were fired. One US Attorney at least.
Sara Taylor: "Bud runs a campaign and McNulty refuses to say Bud is lazy -- which is why we got rid of him in the first place."
Books Alive wrote on June 13, 2007 12:25 PM:Long Memory @ 11:39
>>Call me soft-hearted, but I always felt pity for those people the GOP dragged through the mud and left with enormous legal bills during the Clinton years.<<
Agree heartily. Just read Tim Griffin's full resume in one of today's threads. Among the cases he has been involved in was the L-O-N-G one against Henry Cisneros.
bobh wrote on June 13, 2007 12:27 PM:""We want to build up and get documents to have basis to ask questions of Rove," one of the sources said. "It's the way you do it in any investigation."
Having said that, the source said the reality is that this will end up in a constitutional showdown and they will never get a chance to talk to any of the White House witnesses. "
this is telling - they know they ahve a case but have nowhere to go with it - great.
mo2 wrote on June 13, 2007 12:30 PM:11:04 am - Everytime I read "A little-noticed provision in the USA PATRIOT Act enabled the attorney general to appoint U.S. attorney..." I just get so pissed off.
Me, too! The change to the Patriot Act was orchestrated by the perpe-traitors of the illegal firings.
Anonymous wrote on June 13, 2007 12:30 PM:"...Tim was put in a horrible position..."
The fact that Taylor uses Griffin's first name so regularly just reinforces that his appointment as USA was PERSONAL to Rove's office.
Don't forget, Griffin was a spoke in Rove's wheel from 2002-2004 when he was head of oppo research at the RNC. Griffin was in Rove's orbit when he was an $180/k a year RNC consultant in early 2005. And Griffin worked in Rove's office from 2005-2006 (taking some time off for an alleged "military obligation [how a guy in the Reserves for 10 years only has to serve a 4 month tour in Iraq when a war is on an entirely sep matter]).
Griffin was ROVE'S BOY.
JR wrote on June 13, 2007 12:34 PM:Are any of these new documents from before Dec. 7th? (The date of the firing)
Buck wrote on June 13, 2007 12:39 PM:If the Dems have something, they need to act NOW.
Posted by: Michael
Date: June 13, 2007 11:30 AM
That is ignoring reality. Politics enters into the equation, but when I say *might*, I mean *might*;^)
The White House is certainly aware of some of the *might have* material - the nine attorneys bear this out. However, we will just have to wait and let the scenario play out. These folks know what they know, but they don't know what they don't know.
When the boom is lowered, it will come down hard and fast. Be patient...and pay no attention to the trolls.
Redshift wrote on June 13, 2007 1:01 PM:Long Memory -- which of these people do you think are innocent and just doing their jobs? These are high-level government officials, not admins or office managers. If your boss orders you to do something illegal and you do it, you're not innocent. We've seen copious evidence that all of the people who've been summoned to testify are actively involved in this plot to turn the US Justice Department into an arm of the Republican Party.
The only similarity between this investigation and the GOP hounding of Clinton Administration officials is that they were both long.
EvilPoet wrote on June 13, 2007 1:03 PM:Security code: screw. How apropos.
JNagarya wrote on June 13, 2007 1:24 PM:"This is an exercise in futility. Even if they do testify, which they won't,"
Except that they will. They are no longer within the scope of executive privilege, so have no excuse for not testifying.
In addition to which, a month or so ago, Taylor agreed to testify, though as I recall she was hoping for immunity. She won't be getting immunity; whe will be testifying.
". . . all they will say is "I don't recall" 100 times."
Thank you for predicting the unknowable future.
"I am hoping that since Gonzo threw McNulty under the bus, when McNulty testifies he will throw all these criminals under the bus as well."
He may. And if he does, Talyor and Miers will be so nonplussed and seeing the writing on the wall they are likely to tell the truth in self-defense.
"One other scenario is that some justice official with integrity volunteers to testify about the criminal actions of this administration. This is the only way that we will get the truth."
It's only one of many ways to get at the truth. But one must think to realize that.
"Posted by: Michael
JNagarya wrote on June 13, 2007 1:33 PM:Date: June 13, 2007 10:57 AM"
"I really hate the fact that it takes this long to drag a sob out of his office and kick him until dead in the street.
". . . . Anyway, isn't it sweet that the doj keeps finding e-mails tailored to the occassion....gumming it all the way to the end of el presidentes term.
"Posted by: bobh"
Pay attention:
Combine these latest emails, and the affidavit from the Republican lawyer in AL, and you'll see the beginnings of Rove becoming the increasingly exposed center of attention. See him being closed in on.
Add in that his dream of a permanent Republican majority is beginning to crumble at the edges with the various indictments and other discoveries being made at this and that Federal agency bent to partisan ends.
In short: this "dump" is excellent news, especially as followed up immediately with subpoenas to Sara Taylor and Miers. That is one lawyer below/from Rove himself. Get them on the record (especially with a few threatenings evidentiary revelations in closed session to them) with some degree of truth and it will be incresingly unnecessary to get Rove's testimony under oath and on the record.
Unless he finds he must do that he attempted with the grand jury. Only this time he won't get away with perjury.
Thingws are looking up -- and moving at a faster pace than the pro-Bushit whining trolls have realized.
"Date: June 13, 2007 11:01 AM
SC = fear. As in, Rove's politics of fear are now a reality-based personal problem for him.
Rove is the sort of bully who, when cornered and challenged, whine's and pisses his pants.
JNagarya wrote on June 13, 2007 1:41 PM:I actually hope to a certain extent that Buck and Mayan are wrong. If the Dems have info and are sitting on it, this would also be a travesty of justice. The damage to innocent people's lives and this country by the actions of the non-justice department over the next year and a half would be substantial. Why do you think Griffin was appointed in Arkansas? To issue bogus subpoenas and start bogus investigations of Clinton before the next election if she wins the nomination. Now they will just find another hack to fill the post and do the same thing. It's the Rove playbook. He has been doing it since Texas when he had a crooked FBI agent on retainer. The agent would launch a highly publicized investigation before an election against Rove's client's opponent and then drop the case after the election. If the Dems have something, they need to act NOW.
Posted by: Michael
Date: June 13, 2007 11:30 AM
Stop being an ass. The Democrats aren't stupid. There are various interests, all important, which must be weighed and juggled. What do you want? Blow the case by moving prematurely?
They need to "act" in accordance with due process, being careful to dot all "i"s and crossing all "t"s.
It is wise to assume they at minimum know more of what they are doing than do you. INVESTIGATIONS CONTINUE, EVEN WHEN YOUI DON'T SEE ANYTHING GOIN ON.
Christopher Davis wrote on June 13, 2007 1:45 PM:When the next DoJ staffer starts "not recalling" everything that could possibly be relevant, Congress should immediately announce an investigation into workplace health issues at DoJ HQ.
"We believe that there may be some sort of contamination in the building that, with prolonged exposure, causes memory loss. We want to be sure that people working for the government have a safe and healthy workplace. We are therefore going to have all paper documents checked for possible chemical traces."
Anonymous wrote on June 13, 2007 1:46 PM:Can somebody explain why democrats ask nicely up to 9 separate times before issuing subpoenas?
What are they so affraid of??
rlogan wrote on June 13, 2007 1:48 PM:I have a great deal of confidence that the democrats will, with steely resolve, do something symbolic. They might even go so far as to act all huffy on camera.
Wouldn't that be something? Historic, even.
JNagarya wrote on June 13, 2007 1:48 PM:this is telling - they know they ahve a case but have nowhere to go with it - great.
Posted by: bobh
Date: June 13, 2007 12:27 PM
Cases can be prosecuted based upon circumstantial evidence. It isn't black-and-white.
Steve wrote on June 13, 2007 1:49 PM:Tony Snow just did the usual dance for Helen Thomas when she asked about this, something like "the President has the right to decide who serves at his pleasure". A followup needed to be asked but wasn't, "Was it the the President's decision to fire the USAs, or was he merely signing off on decisions made by others?"
In other words, did the Decider decide?
JNagarya wrote on June 13, 2007 1:58 PM:Can somebody explain why democrats ask nicely up to 9 separate times before issuing subpoenas?
What are they so affraid of??
Posted by:
Date: June 13, 2007 01:46 PM
It isn't fear. And it isn't only the defendant that can play delay, delay, delay, and prolong matters.
They ask nicely because they aren't asshole Republican'ts. Though the pro-Bushit tolls use that as an excuse to bash Democrats, it plays well with the vast majority of non-28 per cent dead-enders.
Steve5117 wrote on June 13, 2007 2:04 PM:JNagarya, is there any possibility of an international body bringing charges against Bush, the administration and/or the U.S. Government. If so, who and on what basis?
JNagarya wrote on June 13, 2007 2:04 PM:I have a great deal of confidence that the democrats will, with steely resolve, do something symbolic. They might even go so far as to act all huffy on camera.
Wouldn't that be something? Historic, even.
Posted by: rlogan
Date: June 13, 2007 01:48 PM
Pro-Bushit troll.
You bitch against Republican'ts because you hate how they act. And you bitch because the Democrats don't act like Republican'ts. Make up you mind, or continue to be a pro-Bushit troll who hasn't a clue as to the meaning of "logic".
It is of importance to the attentive that the subpoenas to Taylor and Miers followed within hours this particular document dump. I suspect this dump provides more to Congressional investigators -- who know more than you, Mr. Presumptuous Twit -- than we yet know; sufficient to compel that swift action.
Anonymous wrote on June 13, 2007 2:08 PM:JNagarya, is there any possibility of an international body bringing charges against Bush, the administration and/or the U.S. Government. If so, who and on what basis?
Posted by: Steve5117
Date: June 13, 2007 02:04 PM
War crimes, I suppose. But which international body I wouldn't hazard a guess. It is significant that Italy is prosecuting 26 CIA agents (in absentia) among others. And Spain has shown a willingness to prosecute persons outside Spain for acts which are crimes under Spanish law.
Anonymous wrote on June 13, 2007 2:10 PM:11:04 am - Everytime I read "A little-noticed provision in the USA PATRIOT Act enabled the attorney general to appoint U.S. attorney..." I just get so pissed off.
Yes, everyone does. And everyone does for the wrong reason.
You see, the "little noticed" or "slipped in" part is the distracting propaganda meme. The reality is that the provision was FOR AN EMERGENCY.
The meme has eveyone running around the trees of who did what when and where. While the Election Theft Reality Forest grows taller and stronger.
With a single question to be asked: "Why did you use an emergency provision in a non-emergency?" one would garner national attention, and even louder calls for impeachment (if that's possible).
SC: regret (no joke)
Michael wrote on June 13, 2007 2:19 PM:Wow, jnagarya, you are just so smart. Of course I don't want them to "blow the case" by moving prematurely. They know what they will get from these crooks, it's I don't recall. If they have someone on the inside that can testify truthfully and put it to the administration, do it now. I don't want theatrics or "building a case," I want results now.
When someone contradicts their I don't recall, all they'll say is that they didn't remember. They have amnesia, get it.
What are you talking about "due process"? This isn't a criminal trial, it's a congressional investigation. The criminal case can come later, which I am sure it never will.
Concerning the war crimes issue, I am willing to bet that once these bozos are out of government they won't be traveling overseas to any country other than merry old England any time soon. If they go any where else they could wind up in the Hague.
casam wrote on June 13, 2007 2:23 PM:but...The dictator says;
Sully18 wrote on June 13, 2007 2:35 PM:UPDATE III: CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin reports, “The White House has made clear it will cite executive privilege for conversations that took place within the White House on the U.S. attorney matter, and if the people with those conversations happen to have subsequently left the White House, that doesn’t matter. They’re still going to cite executive privilege, and these people are not going to be allowed to testify anytime soon, it appears, if the White House remains as it has been. … Even if they want to testify.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/13/breaking-top-white-house-officials-subpoenaed/
Why the hell is impeachment "off the table,"and nuking Iran "on the table?"Can these criminals( ie.,Bush et.,al.) be prosecuted even after they get out of office? What`s the statute of limitations for treason?
BaVa wrote on June 13, 2007 2:37 PM:This is good. Go get'em. And keep pressing for the missing documents. We've got a cover up,folks.
714Day wrote on June 13, 2007 2:40 PM:Crust, I thought the subpoenas were being issued for Miers, Taylor, AND Rove.
714Day wrote on June 13, 2007 2:42 PM:No?
Crust, I thought the subpoenas were being issued for Miers, Taylor, AND Rove.
714Day wrote on June 13, 2007 2:50 PM:No?
Sorry. Read a post at ITT incorrectly.
JR wrote on June 13, 2007 2:52 PM:No Rove.
Anon 1:46 PM -- Why ask politely 9 separate times?
So that when the judge asks--did you make a good faith effort to resolve this matter before coming here, whoever is prosecuting the matter can say:
"Yeah, we asked 9 different times, and 9 different ways will you cooperate in good faith with this investigation? 9 different times they told us no."
Not much ambiguity left as to whether the White House has engaged in criminal activity.
mo2 wrote on June 13, 2007 3:02 PM:The White House can take their executive privilege and stick it where few cigars dare go.
BaVa wrote on June 13, 2007 3:02 PM:They are wagging the dog with Iran. They are worried and they should be. Look at all the new hires in the WH legal department. They will do almost anything to distract attention from the DOJ. Their activities have fundamentally eroded American democracy and they know it. The stakes are high, very high.
Big Mitch wrote on June 13, 2007 3:03 PM:Help! Can someone who is knowledgable please explain the reference to a campaign in this message: "Bud runs a campaign and McNulty refuses to say Bud is lazy -- which is why we got rid of him in the first place."
I'm feeling in my gut that this is a smoking gun. Does anyone know what campaign Bud was supposedly running?
Ironically, the security code below is "crime." How fitting!
Please visit the Schapira blog, "What we know so far ..." at http://schapira.blogspot.com
"... and tell 'em Big Mitch sent ya!"
PaminBB wrote on June 13, 2007 3:06 PM:Email on p. 37 of dump mentions that Roslynn Mauskopf may resign as USA of EDNY soon if she is approved by SJC for another federal position.
So, clearly Ms. JFK terror-terror-terror plot is well-connected and and must be a loyal Bushie. Surprise, surprise.
Michael wrote on June 13, 2007 3:08 PM:Campaign internally at the non-justice department to keep his job or so that they wouldn't say anything negative about him, allegedly. I wouldn't be surprised if this e-mail was manufactured after the story broke.
mo2 wrote on June 13, 2007 5:27 PM:Bud Cummins in PBS interview:
http://www.pbs.org/now/news/311-transcript.html
I am trying to figure out why she called him "lazy." She wanted him to do something and he did not do it, apparently, and I assume that "it" is pursue voter fraud charges that would hurt a Democratic candidate.
mo2 wrote on June 13, 2007 5:32 PM:I still don't get where she got "lazy" from. Cummins thinks he was fired because he WAS pursuing a case - but it was against a rePukian.
http://www.bradblog.com/?cat=254
Hearne, in his capacity at L&G, was also Missouri Governor Matt Blunt's long-time right-hand legal man and vote suppression guy. Both Blunt and L&G were being investigated by the Arkansas U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins in association with the privatization of the lucrative state licensing fee offices when Cummins was axed by DoJ in what may have been the first of the notorious U.S. Attorney purges.
Recently, Cummins was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying "Now I keep asking myself: 'What about the Blunt deal?'"
Big Mitch wrote on June 13, 2007 5:33 PM:I think I have figured it out. At the risk of stating the obvious, this whole U.S. Attorney thing is about voter suppression. Why was Bud Cummings fired? Because his investigation of Matt Blunt, Governor of Missouri, was getting uncomfortably close to Thor Hearne, the force behind the phony voter fraud suppression meme. Missouri was a crucial state in 2006, with Claire McClaskill just barely beating out Jim Talent to give the Dems a majority in the Senate. You can read more about it at http://schapira.blogspot.com/2007/06/puke-state.html
"... and tell 'em Big Mitch sent ya!"
mo2 wrote on June 13, 2007 6:23 PM:"At the risk of stating the obvious, this whole U.S. Attorney thing is about voter suppression."
I think you are right - that single goal was behind all of this. And imagine that now GW is going to push his executive privilege argument to the Supreme Court where he tried to get Harriet Miers appointed! Bush/Rove was planning ahead in anticipation of getting caught.
Where are minority voices on this? Is Al Sharpton being informed? He is a wise man.
I don't know which is worse - changing the US Constitution (giving the AG's firing authority to underlings and changing the Patriot Act to avoid Senate confirmation of appointees) so they can appoint unqualified party-loyal bodies to public offices or the fact the reason for the changes was to defraud voters. Both are ghastly!
From Sept 2004 - Florida another example:
parrot wrote on June 14, 2007 2:00 AM:http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200409%5CSPE20040930a.html
OAG1797, in an email from William K Kelly, WHO EOP to Kyle Sampson, sent Jan 16, 2007:
"...[Feinstein] is attacking us unfairly, but the US Attorneys themselves haven't fired any shots. Until they do, Harriet feels that we shouldn't respond on the merits, even though we are convinced that they have disloyally stirred up the Senators."
Hmm. So, the White House was worried about the "disloyality" of the attorneys that were fired? Right after that it would seem that some folks, whether on their own or at the direction of the White House or the Republican National Committee alumni all over the DOJ, possibly at the behest of Senators like Domenici (R-NM) went on the offensive and attacked USAs. My guess is that Lam was holding out and the idea of "disloyality" included accepting that refusing to step down, so that the rule of law could be further subverted, was more important than...adhering to the rules of legality.
Impeachment is only a heart-beat away...for tyranny and the one party state were the ultimate goal of these thugs...or the thugs-in-charge, anyways.
Plus, Harriet was right...and the busy little ants that were stirring from the DOJ and Karl Rove's office and the RNC (and Republican Senator(s) staff(s)), the operatives of the GOP Machine, if you will, were already gearing up for a fight similar to so many before. A fight that wasn't about legality or right and wrong, no, it was really a gearing up for character assassination that was oiled and greased and slid out in the dead of night. It was threats to "drag people through the mud", to silence their opposition to the thugs running the government.
Oh, sure, on many occassions before, these same folks had done this stuff...but this time it was different...because there were actually some sense that the GOP operatives were about to embark on publically eating their own. They were attacking their own party members *for being too adherent to the rule of law*. And they were doing this attack from a platform of being in the government, from being in power, not as opposition, no, but as a group that had lost an election and were trying to control the next one...through the strong-arming of American voters by suppressing anyone who might threaten their power and bring their house of ill-gotten, open mealiness, a contemptableness for rules and regulations, a disrespect for good governance, good precedent, and a disrespect, generally and specifically for anyone that might check their thirst to remain above and beyond the rule of law.
parrot wrote on June 14, 2007 2:29 AM:(Sorry about that last one...)
Here's some more good stuff from the bottom of this document...
In the list for OAG1809, note that while listing why USAs resigned over the past year that Goodling neglects to put a note next to 1) Cummings and 2) Graves yet has an explanation next to everyone else. It is very curious about this negligence with regard to Graves, who resigned from Western District of MO in the March prior to the last election...so that Schlozmann could be put into MO. Very interesting...and puzzling. Her recent testimony under oath seems to indicate that she left off the reason on this list because she thought it was a personnel matter. However, if that is the case, what was the personnel matter with regard to Cummings? That he was "lazy"? And what exactly does that mean? Or, does it mean that she also considered Graves to be lazy?
And no wonder Graves was angry in his testimony about her attempts to slime his tenure as a USA. Yes, the slime is on the move alright. From whence does it come, Goodling, Graves? See, cuz, according to Monica, T. Graves was under investigation by the ethics office at DOJ. And, um, she forgot to mention, acknowledge...or, um actually know that Graves had initiated the ethics inquiry hisself during a personnel dispute (or to head one off...hard to tell from the story he gave).
parrot wrote on June 14, 2007 2:48 AM:OAG1812:
Soper at EOP recieves an email from a news list from 'News.Update@WhiteHouse.gov' at 6:38AM Feb 7, 2007 regarding Pryor's being incensed by the Tim Griffins matter. Somehow it gets to Sarah Taylor, who, at 10:09AM forwards it to Kyle Sampson...using her 'st@gwb43.com' account, interestingly enough. In any case, how did the mail from Soper get to Sarah Kelly in the intervening 3+ hours? There is no record in the actual email chain for how it got from one to the other! Weird stuff and certainly something a good investigator should look at...just in case there is something down that alley.
Al in Austex wrote on June 14, 2007 5:32 AM:Either we believe in our Checks & Balances Governace , our co equal standing for Congress or we don't. If you believe like me that our best hopes for protecting our Republic rests on the competence & integrity of Leahy,Conyers and others( the Sanchez sisters for example ) who are conducting oversight -then you can rest easy in the knowledge that BushCo is being run to ground-and sooner rather then later.
Kimmen wrote on September 30, 2007 5:09 AM:741 Day and the rest of the Republicant Troll Posse can squeal & Rant ,but TurdBlossom is now cornered -even if Meir & Taylor never testify .
Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
conservation dedicated organization profit
ok.. bitte