« Simon Dodge | Main | Do You Believe In Evolution? »

May 05, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b97969e200d834ffb3d053ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference About that Binder of Emails:

Comments

What kind offerings does one make to the god(s) of WiFi? burnt modems?

Yeah, I'm sitting here puzzling over that Bloomberg article, too, especially this bit:

Margolis testified in private that he tried to console Goodling and listened to her discuss her personal life, a congressional aide said. He recalled telling a colleague that he was concerned about Goodling's emotional state, the aide said.

Did Margolis, knowingly or not, just offer up an out for Goodling by insinuating she may not be in her right mind?

Binder...but they asked about a file, not a binder like the one his secretary may have assembled and maintained, right? Sheesh. Shameless. Cannot believe how brazen these criminals are, lying right to the camera and Congress so easily.

And how interesting that we've got another binder in play, like the ones Scooter kept on Plame. Should have bought stock in binder manufacturers a couple years ago.

Did Margolis, knowingly or not, just offer up an out for Goodling by insinuating she may not be in her right mind?

no. Monica reacted like most people would in her situation --- really really really upset with the realization that she had screwed up royally, and was going to have to deal with the consequences.

She obviously recovered her senses quickly enough to get a good, expensive lawyer.

She obviously recovered her senses quickly enough to get a good, expensive lawyer.

yeah, right, as soon as she confided in the WH that she had sobbed on Margolis' shoulder.
I don't think Monica has the werewithal to hire a white-shoe attorney of that caliber.
Sounds like Margolis is a standup guy who has weathered many administrations. drational over at Kos has a link and lengthy quote from his bio at Legal Times (link not working now).

Paul: hence the caveat, "knowingly or not". Will her attorney John Dowd use this information about Monica's reaction as a potential wedge to keep her from testifying? It would not be an option if Margolis had not conveyed his concern about her emotional state, whether he meant to do so for purely innocent reasons or not.

I give 2-to-1 odds she goes into rehab now for treatment of something befitting a RegentU grad.

Will some "secretary" provide Congressional investigators a copy of the "binder"? I am not sure what these guys are thinking - brazen lying and obstruction when others around them are squealing?

How long before there are incessant calls for a special prosecutor?

"Hmm. Am I the only one who remembers Sampson saying he didn't have a "file" on these firings? Is a binder the same as a file?"

Bullseye as per usual emptywheel.

Senators forgot to ask Kyle about all the other projects the taxpayers were paying him to complete as a DOJ employee that he didn't keep a file on and for which he was solely an "aggregator" of information. I think as the truth comes out, Kyle will emerge as an intensely anal retentive type who keeps electronic and hard copy of all communication. He kind of reminds me of Scooter.

Wonder if it was Margolis that pointed her to Dowd after the sobbing display

There is an alternative explanation. Perhaps what Sampson showed Margolis was the first document dump. I'm not saying that I think this is true or even that it is the most logical explanation, but it is a possibility. I'm pretty sure that Margolis was unaware of this whole caper until October or November 2006. I think he would have been shocked by the stuff in the first document dump.

Well I think this is all good news, squeeze Sampson for perjury/obstruction unless he comes back and tells the truth or produces the copies he made of all those emails. Oh and I think the "binder" in question was a Trapper Keeper adorned with Sponge Bob Squarepants.

45 minutes is a long time for a senior career employee to spend consoling a junior member of staff, however well connected he or she is. Margolis has got to have given her that time because of the significance of her concerns, concerns that are perhaps about more than we know. He may have the key to Inglesas's "key to the kingdom"--there may be more to come... But is what he has about her hearsay?

Marcy

If you need anything while you are here in DC (A place to stay, a car, a valet, whatever, just let me know. I have a spare room (college boy is sowing his wild oats in FLA for a few weeks) and plenty of use or lose (that's Fedspeak for vacation time). I can think of no better way to contribute than helping you.

TF

Same here, Marcy. I live on the Hill in a big row house with plenty of room/WiFi and would be happy to assist if you ever need a place to stay.

The indented quote from the Bloomberg article didn't include the part that mentioned the binder.

BlueStateRedhead:45 minutes is a long time for a senior career employee to spend consoling a junior member of staff, however well connected he or she is.

You know, I was thinking that the minimum is usually 90 minutes. That little whore owes him another 45.

I think we need Sampson's binders. Save the TPM crew a whole bunch of time. Because every page is likely filled with smoking guns. My guess is that Karl asked for everything he had, incinerated it, and then let him go.

it's a binder, not a file ???

using the webster's dictionary for legal advice can really fuck you in the ass some days

does sampson even have a law degree ???

does he realize the danger of explaining the difference between a file and a binder, when the person receiving the explanation can just send him to prison for two years, based on his attempts to bullshit a Court Of Law ???

ignorance and stupidity are NOT an advantage in the legal world

and I hope you get a good job in the laundry or the kitchem, mr sampson

In most law firms these days, document sets created for lawyers' use are not kept in a FILE, they are kept in a BINDER. The word "FILE" in the legal world is not limited to the contents of redwelds, hanging Pendaflex files or file drawers.

So if Sampson did indeed testify that he had no "files," it sounds like perjury to me. With a little obstruction thrown in for good measure. Especially since he was involved in prepping McNulty and Moschella to give false testimony.

Margolies, who is a career DoJ man, is known as a straightshooter. So why did Margolies wait until the Senate/House committees interviewed him? Why didn't he go straight to them? Inquiring minds want to know.

l-mom


For the same reason Comey and the USAs insisted on being interviewed. DOJ has the ability to spike their appearances, and I suspect they were none too rushed to get Margolis out there to testify.

EmptyWheel:

If the bidding war to provide you DC accomodations continues at this rate, you may wind up in the Lincoln bedroom of the WH! I hear they've got great WiFi (but it only picks up foxnews.com).

Or you could bunk with the Senators and avail yourself of DiFi's WiFi. Actually, forget the pun - they could seriously avail themselves of your services. DiFi would borrow that contraption Bush used in the debates and you could feed her the questions in real time.

"Margolis testified that Sampson didn't explain why he hadn't disclosed the consultations with White House Counsel Harriet Miers and other White House aides nor did Margolis ask him, the aide said."

There sure has been a lot of not-asking going on.

As to his binder being the first doc dump, re-read the article. Notice where it says "Sampson read his e-mail exchanges with White House aides that showed the decisions on firing the prosecutors were closely coordinated with members of the president's staff".

Do you think that sounds like the first doc dump? "Close coordination' with the WH?

Methinks the binder and the doc dumps are 2 completely different things...To me, close coordination means there's some emails out there from Taylor or Jennings maybe even Rove himself coordinating who, the time, the method, etc...

What I recollect Sampson saying is: that as he "aggregated" information about the attys, he kept "notes" in his [lower? bottom?] desk drawer; that he doesn't have access to those notes now; that he doesn't know where the notes are. I think he referred to that desk drawer more than once.

The psychological pattern of Rove's influence couldn't be clearer at this point. Surround himself with inexperienced people who have a stong need for approval from authority figures. Rove then feeds these people lies to convey to other people on Rove's behalf. These are at first innocuous and maybe illicit the benefit of the doubt.

But at the point that someone like Goodling realizes she is being used, she also realizes that she has moved into the realm of culpable behaviour as the demands for dishonest, unethical perhaps illegal representations become central to the duties that are required. No wonder she is deeply conflicted emotionally.

And all the while Rove maintains deniability with the standard portfolio of disinformation techniques: hypertechnicality, the lie within the truth, feigned loss of memory, and misdirection. The heinous moral manipulations of Rove are truly rotten. He corrupts the ambitiously naive but maintains his deniability. It is a most pernicious abuse of power corrupt to the core where no iota of substantive good may be found and crucial to the theater of violence the administration maintains.

FWIW, when I told my husband the latest, who gets his blogosphere news from me, poor soul, he had a different take on the binder. He felt like Sampson put the binder together after the walls started crashing down. So his interpretation is it is a post-purge CYA binder.

But I always felt it wasn't credible that you'd work on firing several US Attorneys for months/years (?), and all the while be working in the world's greatest bureacracy, and have had no file...

"elicit" even

Binder? File? Must Sampson decide?

Whether he resigned, or whether he was fired, failing to hand that binder over to Waxman seems to be in character. And underscores that these people never thought they'd be investigated.

All the more reason for Waxman to insist on a thorough forensics eval of the RNC web servers, just to confirm that Sampson didn't forget to file any of those Rove-related WH emails in his binder. Ahem.

Kyle Sampson has a binder of emails with all his WH correspondence on the firings in one place. Hmm. Am I the only one who remembers Sampson saying he didn't have a "file" on these firings? Is a binder the same as a file?

More importantly, why was that file not turned over in the document dumps--or even mentioned in the list of documents not turned over? It sure seems like they were responsive to the requests for documents?

And one more question. Did Sampson resign because he knew he had set McNulty up to lie? Or did he get fired because he wanted to turn over all those documents implicating Rove and Miers?

When I first read this post, I thought [like others] that the "binder" was the first dump. So I spent the day at a bar-b-que. On coming home, I thought, "What if Marcy's right?" Rereading the post and the comments, I now think it's between possible and probable that you're right as rain.

Moving on the fact that our worst case scenerios often turn out to be underestimates with this gang of thugs, I'm hoping Waxman's/Leahy's staff is reading your posts...

Why would Kyle need a file or a binder? He has a laptop. Sure, he might print out his emails now and then, but he doesn't need to. I can never figure out why nobody is asking about his hard drive. The same information he's carrying around would be on there.

I knew he was lying the minute he mentioned a file he kept in his desk. Who does that nowadays? I'm sure he carried his laptop to meetings and took notes. Everybody does that now.

I can only hope that he, like many people who are about to be canned or whatever, backed up his files and kept the backup at home. You don't have to be clever to do that.

I sorta agree/disagree with J. Thomason at 20:31. But, although I believe Karl Rove is a cynical and dangerous bastard, I don't think goodling or sampson are naive kids.

They're not 22 year olds. They've been around for awhile and they've been working in oppo research and other really nasty shops. They may be naive as in stupid, incurious, not questioning of authority. But they're not naive as far as their experience and what they've been up to for the last 6-10 years.

In case someone wanted to read the Congressional Research Service report February 22, 2007 surveying in a fourteen page pdf the history of twenty years of the reasons for leaving for all 56 US attorneys who left before their terms were complete, prior to the current scandal. report; though what I think is clarifying in the current discussions are a lot more volatile reasons than CRS might print, yet, CRS does thorough work. The material is available through FAS and openCRS; the link I put, above, is one of two; there is a visitor uploaded version there, as well, though it must be identical.

Professionals ALWAYS keep files when there ass may be on the line. I suspect there are a number of paper files sitting around as insurance policies in this nasty business. Sampson seems to me the type who would definately have one, Monica does not. Hell, I'd keep paper where I in Sampson's shoes. He's no techie - he'd worry about someone being able to snoop his laptop and delete his saved files. Paper stuck in a shoebox is a better bet.

Put yourself in Sampson's shoes. He's smart enough to know he's playing with fire. He's just seen Scooter sent up the river. You don't think he's going to save some leverage? I see Sampson cooking Rove's goose before he goes down. I think Monica was a true Rover Youth.

Can practically feel the ground shaking - this dam is going to break, and soon. Good work on the hooker tie in - whomever that was - seems like all these sewer pipes are connected. I still think dirt is the only thing holding congressional republican support together for Cheney, Rove and Co. Seems these guys would still rather voter see a few dead troops than the dead hookers under their beds.

Of course the genesis of moral numbness may more properly be ascribed to the subtle activities of the bardo realms. I attribute the development of any moral spine I may have to my indoctrination into the works of Rocky and Bullwinkle at a time when I was spritually maleable and curious.

J. Thomason 8:33 -- alas, I can't find R&B cartoons in syndication anywhere any longer, to mold the maleable ones that live in my house. I miss them, along with Sherman and Peabody, and Dudley Do-Right chasing Snidely Whiplash.

I suspect that there's enough now-obsolete cultural references that I'd lose my littlest peeps, though. How sad; Spongebob Squarepants is hardly civics-minded and almost devoid of contemporary cultural references. Fairly Oddparents does a nice send-up of Schwarzenegger, though.

I re-read Murray Waas' latest story this morning, and wondered if Margolis (or someone close to Margolis) was his source. Especially in the light of the Bloomberg story...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad