New Emails: Taylor, Griffin Gone, and McNulty Testifying Again

by emptywheel

Just a super quick comment about the new emails released today. These are all, AFAIK from a quick scan, emails listed on the list of documents not turned over. This trend has actually been true for a while--that DOJ has dribbled out documents that they said, no way, no how, they weren't going to release. And then they release them.

What does that say about their standards for releasing documents?

And, as in the past, the release of these are tied to recent or impending events. We got a big dump of documents just before Monica Goodling testified, presumably, because she might discuss or release them herself.

So we might call this batch the Taylor, Griffin, McNulty batch. Many are emails where Taylor exhibits herself to be a big jerk among a clique of jerks. There is more detail on the Griffin nomination (it appears it came from DOJ, not Miers, as I thought, but I'll return to this tomorrow). And there are a few comments where members of the clique attack McNulty for saying something that put DOJ in a tough spot. The release of these, then, seem to be tied to Taylor and Griffin's recent departures and McNulty's upcoming testimony.

And the surprise of all surprise of this dump? Harriet Miers, not the nasty clique at DOJ, was the one insisting that DOJ/WH not go negative on the fired USAs. She always was pretty cute, with her pink blog and whatnot. Which makes me wonder how much the increasing negativity against the USAs had to do with her departure at the end of January?

As with Ashcroft, I can't believe I'm thinking that things got worse with Harriet's departure.

Update: Just an FYI, the email on page 17--regarding whether or not Sampson would hire Iglesias--was sent to a D Higbee. Don't know who that is, but since they're trying to hide it, I thought I'd make sure it was public.

Comments

[Jeff]

Who's "the Chief"? Bolten? or Bush?

[bmaz]

Is there any reason to believe that these emails are part of the incredibly ballyhooed Greg Palast stuff? Think Progress says they are "Justice Department" documents but does not say that is who released them; although that is clearly inferred. I have always figured Palast was full of it, but these are RNC emails which is what he claims to have. Not saying for a second that I believe this; just want to rule out the thought.

[nolo]

being the cynical sort, i strongly
suspect they've been released to
once again erode the credibility
of anyone who might say unflattering
things about alberto gonzales in
front of a congressional committee. . .

query: is there anyone left who wouldn't?

[seriously, recall how the worst of the e-mails
w.r.t. ms. monica goodling miraculously
surfaced about two days prior to her
subpoenaed, and immunized, testimony. . .]

now, i would certainly put paul
mcnulty, in that same category, as of
tonight. . . it seems someone wants
the world to see a darker side of him. . .

just a hunch. . .

[emptywheel]

nolo

Yes, I think you're right--they're willing to protect the reputation of someone up to the day when that person tells the truth about them.

bmaz

No. These aren't Palast emails. His are from a different era entirely.

[John Forde]

EW
Seven posts by you today? Is this a new record?

[Mickey]

On page 42, Sara Taylor is mad about DAG McNulty testifying that Bud Cummins was let go to make a place for Tim Griffin. She says, "which is why we got rid of him in the first place." Sara Taylor was Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Political Affairs at the White House, not someone at the DoJ.

Notice she says "we" [as in "we at the White House?" or "we" = DoJ + WH?]. Whoever "we" is sounds like it connects the White House to the firings.

Also note Sara is using st@gwb43.com instead of the government email.

[masaccio]

So who is Kenneth K. Lee at the White House? I google him and find a journal article on denying the vote to convicted felons. Looks like he works for Miers. page 8

[zhiv]

Over at FDL there's something about an email saying that the South Dakota USA refused to resign. Also credit to ew about the Native Americam voter suppression angle playing itself out, Sara Taylor post looking very good.

I'm still trying to see if anybody cares about Waxman and Condi. And let's not forget that the morning started with Musharraf--is he still in power at this point?

[bmaz]

zhiv - SD not South Dakota; it is San Diego - Carol Lam.

[zhiv]

bmaz--really? Wow. That's cool. Gee, wonder why she didn't want to resign.

I thought there was another USA that no one had been talking about, but the more Lam the better. Still hard to tell whether getting rid of her was the big fish of the whole thing, some kind of linchpin, or if it was part of a more important, wider voter suppression fishnet. I rely on the work and wisdom of others, but I try to have a good time.

Thanks.

[bmaz]

I am reading through these things. First two thoughts are NOBODY among these idiots knows exactly what is going on with the big picture on who is being fired and who is being hired in all the jurisdictions. We know Gonzales didn't. This is fucking remarkable. Unbelievable. There is only one answer left and it is Rove.

Second thought is how brainlessly and blithely they meandered through this process. Neither in these documents, nor in any testimony to date, nor in any previous documents, has there been any substantive discussion of the mechanics of the affected offices in relation to their case load in general, high profile cases underway, nor interrelation with law enforcement on ongoing investigations. That fact is simply mind boggling. I really cannot put into words how much this floors me. This is incredibly complex stuff, with people's lives, and the justice systems of entire states and regions in the balance, and they treat it like they are changing out the lunch line monitor in a grade school. Not one tinker's damn about the law.

[Joe Buck]

One hint that a mail might have something to do with Greg Palast is if it has a whitehouse.com (rather than whitehouse.gov) in the header anywhere. Anyone seen any of those?

A possible way that these could turn up is if Palast gave any to Conyers, who could then contact the White House and say "What about the message Sara Taylor sent on [exact date and time] to [exact set of recipients]? We know you have it, hand it over".

[nolo]

thanks, EW -- can't wait to see sara
boo-hoo about how unfairly she's being
portrayed -- that too will be rich!

now, mickey -- i think you nailed this one. . .

so, i was off writing my little bit on
it, and baking a soupy, saucy pink image,
of the email -- only to come here and find
you'd already been there! thus, i re-wrote
mine, to point out that you made the very
same observations -- in far fewer words. . .

do take a look at the image, though -- like
the victoria toensing libby letter -- it
screams for a pink-rinse. . . so i oblige. . .

p e a c e

and g'night. . .

[Joe Buck]

Regarding my previous comment: I looked at the PDF, and it seems that while some From: email addresses appear, the To: email addresses are generally hidden. So it's not possible to tell if any of these were misdirected to whitehouse.com.

[whenwego]

These MUST be from Greg Palast

[Phoenix Woman]

Ah, Harriet! AKA "My Little Crony".

[bmaz]

EW says NOT Palast emails that his alleged emails are from different time period.

[tekel]

clique of jerks? not a circle of jerks?

*cough*

I'm here all week folks, remember to tip your waitresses.

[bmaz]

EW - These pages are sequentially Bates stamped by AG Office. How do the numbers fit in with other docs previously dumped? Are they sequencing only ones they released, or have they done giant batches and are picking and choosing which groupings to release?

[ace]

Rove's Blackberry leaves a digital trail of evidence. Leahy should just subpoena the digital file of evidence connected to Rove's Blackberry account. Those on-the-fly correspondence are the most likely to contain evidence of the conspiracy - if not multiple conspiracies.

[Blowing Boogs * cough *]

clique of jerks? not a circle of jerks?

*cough*

I'm here all week folks, remember to tip your waitresses.

Posted by: tekel | June 13, 2007 at 02:39

BAWAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

thanks for the boog blower !!!!!!!!!!

[Jodi]

I just realized with all the smoke and mirrors and hard blowing about the US Attorneys, that no one has been charged with any kind of crime.

When will Congress get back to, as DemFromCT likes to say, good governing and cutting out the pork?

[cici414]

There is an odd email exchange at the end of the document dump (pg 45-46) between Kyle Sampson and Andrew Beach, who is apparently some assistant in Gonzo's office. The exhange occurred on March 4th, 2007...and it appears that the two needed to see each other quickly to talk about something.

What strikes me, in the exchange, is the fact that both Beach and Sampson seem to have trouble accessing Attorney General related documents online...documents, it seems, they had access to in the past.

Andrew Beach states "AG OTus2005 comes up a blank on my screen". then Sampson replies "Thx -- I can't search anything before 1/1/2007. Not sure why."

Certainly this could be some sort of hiccup in whatever system they use there....but on the flip side....could it be an indication that some scrubbing of incriminating AG documents had occurred???

[Rayne]

Whining about getting back to "good governing"? This is it, a seldom seen activity during the last 6 years; it's called OVERSIGHT and it's a key function of Congress. Get used to it, get over it.

And "nobody" has yet been "charged with a crime" because there is rampant, widespread obstruction; certain subjects have also been permitted the opportunity to "change their testimony" although they have clearly misrepresented information under oath to Congress. It's a matter of time before all the charges are out in the open -- and demands for charges right now before the investigation is complete are little more than obstructive redirection.

[Mickey]

follow-up on p. 42

* First - the ‘Description’ in the table of withheld emails hardly fits the email itself.
* Second - notice the email address, st@gwb43.com.
* Third - Sampson is less than subtle in hinting that they should talk about this off the radar - "I’m out of the office but will call you" "I look forward to visiting with you about this."
* Fourth - Sara Taylor is incredulous: "Why would McNulty say this?" "… poorly handled on the part of the DoJ." She’s upset that the truth is being told - that it’s not being "handled" better.
* Fifth - She uses the Royal "We," implicating the White House in the firings.
* Sixth - What does "Bud is lazy" mean? We haven’t heard that before…
* Seventh - Can anyone think of any reason these emails were withheld other than the DoJ didn’t want us to read them?