« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Oh, You Want "Non-Partisan" Prosecutors?
It's just like old times. The Justice Department turned over an additional 40 pages of documents related to the U.S. attorney purge to Congress today. You can see them here. Please let us know in the comments what you find.
Here's our favorite of the lot.
In late December of last year, Sen. Pete Domenici's (R-NM) chief of staff Steve Bell called to speak with William Moschella, a senior Justice Department official, and made a follow-up call to the White House. Domenici, remember, had been frustrated that U.S. Attorney David Iglesias failed to indict a prominent state Democrat before the 2006 election on corruption charges. And after Iglesias was fired, Domenici apparently wanted to make sure that he wasn't canned in vain.
Here's what a White House aide wrote to Moschella about her conversation with Bell two weeks after Iglesias was fired:
[Bell] mentioned he had chatted with you today about his request for a non-partisan team that specializes in corruption to be sent down to NM.I just wanted to circle up with you and see if you had any thoughts about it.
You might think that it goes without saying that a team of Justice Department prosecutors would be "non-partisan," but apparently in this administration, it needs saying.
There hasn't been much ambiguity that Domenici wanted Iglesias fired because he failed to speedily indict and convict key Democrats. Both Gonzales and Domenici have tried to cast the issue as a broader preoccupation with public corruption cases or white-collar cases -- but of course no other cases besides two prosecutions of state Democrats seem to have been at issue. So it shouldn't be surprising that Domenici moved shortly after Iglesias' firing to request that the White House ensure the U.S. attorney's office in New Mexico be beefed up with a "non-partisan team" (ahem) that "specializes in corruption."
Comments (25)
Slim Pickins wrote on August 1, 2007 4:44 PM:Yes, they are still searching for a keyboard symbol for the sarcastic air-quote, which will clear-up a lot of things for this administration when said symbol is invented.
I've tried to suggest something like looks like horns on each end of the word.
C92 wrote on August 1, 2007 5:12 PM:One can really appreciate that one of the senior advisors to Gonzales at DOJ uses a "Nixon did it" rationale (p 26). At least he's being honest.
Anna S. wrote on August 1, 2007 5:19 PM:I'm intrigued by the reference on p.9, in response to a question about what to do about Lam's open position in the short term. From Kyle Sampson:
"Monica was checking out [redacted]. Anyone have any good ideas? For obvious reasons, someone [redacted] would be best."
That last sentence, "someone [redacted] would be best" is odd. The redacted part doesn't cover a name, it covers a *qualification*. Someone who was what? From the Republican party? A loyal Bushie? Not going to dig too deeply into Lam's open cases?
I'm curious.
Sparkatus wrote on August 1, 2007 5:24 PM:The second redaction in Kyle Sampson's email on p.9 looks suspicious:
"Monica was checking out [redacted]. Anyone have any good ideas? For obvious reasons, someone [redacted] would be best."
The first is clearly a name. But the second looks like an adjectival phrase, ie describing the type of person they want. Why would that be redacted? It would seem that is exactly the type of thing that would be illuminating as to how the decisions were made. Perhaps it says politically reliable or something similar?
The next email is also interesting in that Elston says he is going to ask Roehrkasse to ask the reporter who is leaking to him.
Sparkatus wrote on August 1, 2007 5:26 PM:The second redaction in Kyle Sampson's email on p.9 looks suspicious:
"Monica was checking out [redacted]. Anyone have any good ideas? For obvious reasons, someone [redacted] would be best."
The first is clearly a name. But the second looks like an adjectival phrase, ie describing the type of person they want. Why would that be redacted? It would seem that is exactly the type of thing that would be illuminating as to how the decisions were made. Perhaps it says politically reliable or something similar?
The next email is also interesting in that Elston says he is going to ask Roehrkasse to ask the reporter who is leaking to him.
Cityoen quatre-vingt-douze wrote on August 1, 2007 5:28 PM:What the heck.
No one has said a peep about Rove staffer Jane Cherry's involvement in this scandal. Jane was just awarded the plum NASA White House Liaision slot -- a $100,000 raise from her White House salary. Not shabby for a 24 year old.
My favorite fact? Tim Griffin thought he was going to breeze through the Senate confirmation process to be US Attorney in Arkansas because he once dated Senator Blanche Lincoln's Chief of Staff in High School. Priceless.
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt7-8070319.pdf (page 10)
Cityoen q-v-d wrote on August 1, 2007 5:29 PM:Click on the name for this link on Cherry:
Sparkatus wrote on August 1, 2007 5:30 PM:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/31/8364/55557
Anna S., sorry for the double posting. I wholeheartedly agree, that what has been redacted is a qualification. On what grounds would that be redacted?
Nelly Bly wrote on August 1, 2007 5:35 PM:C 92, what's up? I read your very excellent Kos diary on Jane Cherry yesterday. Nice find on Cherry's NASA plum.
C92 aka C-q-v-d wrote on August 1, 2007 5:43 PM:Thanks NB! Always nice to make the rec list now and again. Next stop might be the Beth Sturgeon story.
mo2 wrote on August 1, 2007 5:46 PM:My favorite: page 15 of 41.
David Margolis email: and I bet that [evaluation] made Carol [Lam] look like Tom Dewey (i remember the bad ones).
I had to google Tom Dewey, but he was apparently a go-getter who went after the mafia and people like Dutch Shultz and Lucky Luciano. Because Margolis was a crime division/mafia aficienado, "i remember the bad ones." probably means "i remember the bad-ass ones" (i.e. the good ones).
At any rate, David Margolis expected that Lam's evaluation would be very positive.
cevrero wrote on August 1, 2007 6:01 PM:Nice find!
"Monica was checking out [redacted]. Anyone have any good ideas? For obvious reasons, someone [redacted] would be best."
RicK wrote on August 1, 2007 6:09 PM:The 2nd redacted was probably more straight forward like "someone who won't prosecute any republicans"....aka loyal bushie.
Page 4: It appears that an e-mail address asigned to Monica Goodling has been REDACTED.
Page 9: E-mail from Kyle Sampson to Elston, Moschella and Goodling:
Monica was checking out ___________________. Anyone have any good ideas? For obvious reasons, someone ________________________ would be best.
Page 10: The name of the original author of the 'heads up' e-mail re: the articles on Lam is REDACTED.
Page 28: Entire reply from McNulty to Kelley is REDACTED.
Page 41: Message take 12-19-06 re: telephone call to "Paul" from "Winnie" and noted as returned on 12-21 at noon: Contact information of person calling 'Paul' is REDACTED. BUT: This is most likely the phone call from Sen. Domenici's chief of staff Steve Bell as noted in the e-mails between Paul McNulty and Winnie Brinkley discussing Mr. Bell found at Page 2 of the docu-dump.
mo2 wrote on August 1, 2007 6:11 PM:page 18 of 41: William Moschella desired to strike "public corruption" from the Domenici call talking points. When he wrote "I don't think he [Domenici] mentioned public corruption or any other type of case" 4 minutes later Brian Roehrkasse replied "I'll call you in a moment."
So why did Moschella's sentence spark a need to take the conversation offline, not through regular channels?
The first email to Roehrkasse was at 6:59. Moschella replied in less than 5 minutes, and then Roehrkasse responded back in less than four minutes. If an email would be received in a timely fashion, then why the need to talk on the phone?
mo2 wrote on August 1, 2007 6:20 PM:My guesses are:
Cinderella Ferret wrote on August 1, 2007 6:27 PM:Monica was checking out [replacements for one of the USAs]. Anyone have any good ideas? For obvious reasons, someone [loyal] would be best.
GOP'ers here in NM are quick to point out in Pete's defense that ONE of the defendants (Former Albuquerque Mayor Ken Schultz) is a registered Republican. I guess that makes it all better now.
harriett wrote on August 1, 2007 6:50 PM:Can anyone explain to me why the DOJ is releasing these documents piecemeal??? It seems to me that they are, along with the White House, controlling this investigation totally. My cynicism has reached an all-time high.
RicK wrote on August 1, 2007 7:09 PM:"Can anyone explain to me why the DOJ is releasing these documents piecemeal???"
And while you're at it, can you expain:
Why these e-mails are produced only from McNulty's and Moschella's computers? Where are the copies of these e-mails from the computers of EACH recipient and EACH sender of each of these e-mails? And where are the copies of both the reply and forwarded e-mails from each recipient/sender?
Why there are never any copies of e-mails that contain recipients of blind copies? Can it be that noone in this administration knows how to send blind copies of their e-mails to anyone? Has anyone ever seen a dumped doc with a blind copy recipient?
TEL wrote on August 1, 2007 8:19 PM:mo2:
"loyal" was my guess as well, though it would have to be something like "loyal to Bush" to fit into the redacted space. What jumped out at me is how angry they were at Lam - after they fired her. At this point, I probably shouldn't be this surprised at how Bush administration folks react when they think someone is being disloyal - even though they have no ability to be loyal themselves (except to the Bush administration).
MikeG wrote on August 1, 2007 9:40 PM:As my dad used to say to me when, as a kid, I'd only do half my chores: "What do you wipe half yer ass?" How is it legal (or just plain acceptable) that they're able to 1)release this stuff piecemeal and 2) redact e-mail content. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of releasing the emails? (i.e., redaction?) Any lawyerly readers out there tonight?
TheraP wrote on August 1, 2007 10:09 PM:And do they release when they are trying to distract attention from other things? Trying to control where attention goes? Keep it from going elsewhere?
Like a troll does.
Nancy Irving wrote on August 1, 2007 10:30 PM:Also note the "For obvious reasons..."
parrot wrote on August 1, 2007 10:36 PM:Be bullish! Cynicism can go higher!
parrot wrote on August 1, 2007 10:42 PM:Interesting. I wonder what Moschella's private deposition looks like. Someone is trying to shape testimony before Congress here in these emails. These guys just keep throwing kindling on the fire rather than get it raging all at once. The Congress needs to get to the bottom of this before the Republic dies of old age and senility.
urbino wrote on August 1, 2007 11:51 PM:"Domenici Searches for Non-Partisan USAs"
And OJ's still searching for the real killers.