Is Tim Griffin Going to Leave?

by emptywheel

Honest question here. Is Tim Griffin going to leave his post of USA for Eastern AR? Or is he just planning on staying, effectively accepting a permanent PATRIOT Act USA appoint, and hoping no one will notice?

Tim Griffin officially took over the USA position around December 20 (just one day after Sampson suggesting "gumming to death" his ongoing nomination). If his appointment were treated like a normal interim appointment lasting 120 days, then his term would have expired sometime around April 20. Yet there he is, still gracing the USA AR website as "United States Attorney," and we've heard nothing about a replacement nominee. To add insult to injury, Gonzales and Senator Pryor met last Wednesday. US News reported that Pryor told Gonzales to resign--but it did not say whether there was any discussion of giving Arkansas a real USA.

You see, I'm not sure it was ever made clear whether Griffin's appointment in December was an indefinite PATRIOT Act appointment, meaning he can stay as long as Bush is "pleasured" with his presence. Or whether (as the gumming comment suggested), BushCo was just going to fudge the process, all the while proclaiming they were committed to having a Senate-approved USA in the office.

Griffin's announcement that he would not seek Senate approval on February 16 was equally vague on this point.

Tim Griffin, whose December appointment as U. S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas sparked a national outcry about surreptitious changes made to a law affecting federal prosecutors, says he no longer wants the job permanently.  

“I have made the decision not to let my name go forward to the Senate,” Griffin said Thursday evening. 

He was referring to the U. S. Department of Justice’s stated intention, amid heavy criticism, to subject Griffin and others recently appointed to interim federal-prosecutor posts to the standard process of being nominated by the president, scrutinized by the U. S. Senate Judiciary Committee and then voted on by the Senate.

Griffin, 38, a former military prosecutor, was appointed Dec. 20 by U. S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales under a little-noticed provision tacked onto the 2006 reauthorization of the USAPATRIOT Act that allows the attorney general to fill prosecutorial vacancies on an interim basis without Senate approval.

[snip]

Griffin said Thursday that if he were to go through the confirmation process, “I don’t think there is any way I could get fair treatment by Sen. Pryor or others on the judiciary committee.”

He said he will continue to serve in the top law enforcement position in the state’s eastern district as long as the White House keeps him there under the interim title or “gets someone else that I can help transition into this job.

“ But to submit my name to the Senate would be like volunteering to stand in front of a firing squad in the middle of a three-ring circus.”

So it appears that, in spite of all Administration claims to want a Senate-approved USA, BushCo is in fact gumming Griffin's appointment to death.

There's one more reason to demand answers to this question. The list of the documents not turned over to the Judiciary Committees includes several emails that likely relate to this question, including:

• A Harriet-Sampson exchange on January 7, discussing the replacement of USAs--the exchange took place just two days before Griffin came to DC and met with Senators and DOJ staff
• A Sara Taylor email from January 25 discussing DOJ's response to Pryor on Griffin (Sampson subsequently wrapped Goodling into that discussion)
• A February 2 Sampson/Chris O'Prison/Goodling discussion regarding Pryor's response
• A February 7 Sara Taylor email on a USA Today article on Griffin
• A February 16 discussion with Griffin on the "reject Senate approval" article in Arkansas
• Three Sara Taylor emails, also on February 16, ostensibly talking about the WH involvement in Griffin's appointment  

In other words, the Taylor emails show that the WH continued to be actively involved in the Griffin appointment (and the Harriet emails may indicate the same), during precisely the time period leading up to his announcement that he would not seek Senate approval.

It'd be just like these guys to lie about their intent to get Senate approval, all the while still pursuing their "gumming" strategy. And that sure looks like what they're doing.

Update: There's also a February 21 Goodling-Sampson discussion of a revsion of "Transitions in Arkansas" timeline noted in the "not turned over" list. I'm just working from memory at this point, but I don't recall that document appearing at all in the document dumps. Did Monica update that document to reflect the official implementation of the "gumming to death" strategy? And are there similar documents we don't know about, like the "Transitions in Minnesota" document, the "Transitions in Missouri" document, and the "Transitions in Michigan" document?

Update: I forgot to mention why I first started thinking of this! The not-turned-over list also mentions a discussion of K-Lo's article on how mean those Democrats are to Tim Griffin. I consider the NRO a designated party mouthpiece, so when I re-read this, I couldn't help but wonder whether this article was supposed to try to give the "gumming it to death" strategy cover.

Currently serving as U.S. attorney in Arkansas, Griffin, a fifth-generation Arkansan, recently took his name out of the running to serve permanently in that position — so he wouldn’t have to face Senate Democrats who’ve already made up their minds about him.

But now, even after he took his name out of the running, Democrats are still targeting Griffin, and disparaging him. Griffin, you see, has what might as well be a criminal record if you’re a demagogue in a Democratic Senate: He worked for Karl Rove, and he worked for the Republican National Committee

You see, it was by no means clear on March 1, when K-Lo published this article, that Griffin was forgoing a permanent appointment. Seeing as how Griffin does, in fact, appear to be "gumming," this reads like an attempt to attack Democrats for not simply backing down off the Griffin appoint.

Comments

[marksb]

Poor thing. To have to submit to those mean, non-rubberstamping Senate bullies. He might have to answer questions about character and qualifications and procedure. I do love the "gumming" comment; how perfect for a toothless administration who cry like babies and whine like old men...

[marksb]

BTW Marcy, has anyone sacrificed their week to produce a time line and/or general outline on this DoJ mess? I'd love to get an overview of the situation, kind of like a map we can use to get everyone and their chronology straight, then fill in the details with the half-dozen revelations that are popping up each day. A handy-dandy DoJ scandal Wiki would end up being printed out and carried around by nearly everyone in the capital--and a lot of us out here in the hinterland. Might sell more daily copies than the Post.

[Rayne]

Interesting...means Rove sicced the attack dog on us for daring to question the nebulous stature of Griffin's appointment.

Certainly would be nice to see Arkansans kick up a stink about getting someone crammed down their throats that does not have a requisite level of law enforcement experience.

(I take it this is a Raising The Blinds-type post?)

[earlofhuntingdon]

Griffin's statement that "he" would not put his name forward for confirmation is simply consistent with the "gumming to death" strategy, and within the as yet not revoked authority to keep an interim USA in office without seeking confirmation. Not a lie, not the truth. Pretty much the Bush communications strategy on everything.

Griffin isn't the only one. Where are the other nominations to open/unconfirmed USA slots?

[emptywheel]

earl

Those other non-nominations actually work in our favor. The people in place, with the exception of NoCal, are merit employees, not political appoints. So they're likely to be more fair than anyone BushCO would approve. THough we know there's some active lobbying going on in Washington already.

[tekel]

marksb: here's a timeline of the USA firing extravaganza. No new updates since March 29...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/usa-timeline.php

[orionATL]

this brings to mind a question bothering me for some time.

why haven't most of these "interim" u.s. a's been replaced?

at least some of them - griffin and palouse - have come under criticism.

the entire process was clearly questionable, at best.

wouldn't it be a sensible political gesture for the doj/attny gen/white house to recall all those new u.s. a's and put in career prosecutors temporarily, say the deputy in each office?

these guys seem to be tone deaf when it comes to the give-and-take of real american politics.

they behave more like robert mugabe than lyndon johnson.

[bmaz]

Hey EW - This a bit off the current topic, sorry, but did you see the comment posted by "Laser Haas" at the end of the Dzwilewski thread regarding evisceration of US Trustee recoveries? I don't know diddly squat about BK law (although I somehow argued a Chapter 13 case all the way through the 9th Circuit as the result of a personal injury trial verdict) but the comment seemed interesting. What Haas was describing had never crossed my mind, but is inherently consistent with other, more familiar, actions we have seen out of the Bush/Gonzales DOJ such as the insane reduction of penalty sought on the tobacco litigation and other penalties and assessments either not sought, or sought in inexplicably reduced amounts, against big corporate and business friends. I will personally admit that the BK stuff does not have the glossy outrage factor of the USA aspect, but it would be every bit as much a breach of the public trust and fiduciary duty. If the pattern that Haas describes is in fact true, and at this point of the miasma I assume it probably is, billions of dollars are being left on the table to the benefit of their corporate cronies and to the detriment of everything the people need to fund such as education, healthcare, infrastructure etc.

[Clive A.]

I would love to be an attorney representing a defendant in the Eastern District of Arkansas in any case that has overlapped the end of Griffin's 120 day term.

The question of the legitimacy of the US attorney, and by extension the whole office, would likely be a helpful development.

[marksb]

Thanks tekel, the timeline on TPM is brilliant. Reminds me of buying a program on the way into Dodger Stadium when I was a kid, so I could review all the players and their stats.

[whitewidow]

the "Transitions in Arkansas" is in last nights dump. It's in section 8 near the beginning. I think it was around bates stamp 1420? going from memory - but definitely towards the front end of that section

also right around there is an interesting "marked up" version of the letter to Harry Reid from DOJ- it shows changes/deletions

plukusiak posted some of it and some analysis in the research thread over at TPM

also, if you are over there, check out pluk's other comment about the difference between "acting" and "interim" USA's

it appears that if the assistant attorney got promoted when someone left, they were "acting"

the ones they hand-picked for replacements were named "interim"

definitely worth a look

[bill in turkey]

OT - except insofar as everything seems to be connected somehow to everything else...

Someone over at dKos mentioned that Dzwileski from the Lam case might also have had some knowledge about the Abramoff case related removal of Black in Guam, since he was based in Honolulu at the time and the Honolulu office oversaw Guam.

No link I'm afraid. But presumably easy to check up on. Any thoughts? Worth the Dems asking him to testify as to any striking parallels between Lam's departure and Black's?

[emptywheel]

Thanks whitewidow--will check it out.

[masaccio]

bmaz, @ 13:39

I am a bankruptcy lawyer, and I will take a look at the materials on Monday. There are a lot of disgruntled shareholders in bankruptcy cases, and I have dealt with a significant number of them as counsel to a Chapter 7 Trustee over the last 23 years, but some of them are right to be disgruntled.

[bmaz]

Masaccio - Thank you. Feel free to email (click name) me if necessary. Something tells me there is at least some truth here. The whole idea of politicizing the DOJ is to selectively benefit your agenda and your chosen people and causes. Manipulation of the US Trustees in this regard would be an incredibly easy and under the radar way to do just that. If they will try this crap with the US Attys, it is hard to believe they wouldn't do it with the Trustees; it would almost be a no brainer for this group. If this is indeed going on, it needs to be made far more publically known. Thanks again.

[litigatormom]

The provision that enabled Abu G to appoint Griffin to a limitless term as "interim" USA was repealed, and I don't believe that the repealing statuted grandfathered interim USAs appointed before the repeal. Without reading the repealing statute, however, I don't know when the 120 day "clock" starts ticking on the position. Depending on what the statute says, it's possible that Dubya has up to 120 days from the repeal of the statute to nominate a permanent USA for the ED Arkansas.

[emptywheel]

Thanks l-mom, as always.

[p.lukasiak]

I'd really love to see the "Transition in Arkansas" email discussions, because the versions of that document are pretty interesting. Most interesting is that they all cite Griffin as the number one choice for USA in the Western district of Arkasas when that position became vacant in 2004 -- but that Griffin chose to accept a job with Bush-Cheney 04 instead.

One problem.... Griffin started his BC04 job in 2002.

***************
one point that I hadn't seen mentioned anywhere (although it may well have been) is a pattern that is evident in appointing replacements.

Once the new "interim" provision was in place, if the First Assistant USA within the district was bumped up to USA, it was always an "Acting" appointment with a 210 day time limit. However, if someone from outside the district was brought in, they got an "Interim" position. (Three FAUSAs got Acting appointments whose terms expired -- two [loyal Bushies?] were then given "Interim" appointments, while in Alaska an outsider [Nelson Cohen] was brought in as an "Interim" appointment.)

Perhaps the best example of this is the Northern District of Iowa, where the USA took federal retirement as on December 31, 2006, and FAUSA Judi Whetstine was given an "Acting" appointment. Twenty-seven days later, she's retired, and Matt Dummermuth was appointed "Interim".

Dummermuth is 33 year old a religious right conservative who worked for two years in the DoJ Civil Rights division Oct 2002-Dec 2004, disappeard for four months, then spent a year in the Eatern District of Virginia May 2005-May 2006 and then went back to the civil rights Division. Interestingly, Monica Goodling worked in EDVA from September 2004 until "spring 2005 -- it looks like as Monica was rotated out, Dummermuth was rotated in.)

Whetstine is interesting because in early versions of the summaries she is just listed as "Acting"...but one version (page 33)

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/PDFS/OAG1159-1234.pdf

says "She is not a candidate for nomination and is retiring this month which will create a need for an interim selection."

The whole thing sounds like Whetstine was forced out --- it does not appear as if she'd announced her "retirement" until after she took over the "Acting" USA job. Perhaps she was told that she wouldn't be considered for the nomination, and that Dummermuth was coming?

[p.lukasiak]

Holy crap....

did anyone realize that Judi Whetstine is the wife of Bob Rush, the guy who beat Republican Jim Leach in Iowa's first district in November?

[p.lukasiak]

oops... Bob Rush was not the candidate this year.... he ran (and lost) to Leach in 1996.

[emptywheel]

p luk

I agree, the Whetstone thing looks really dicey. Moreso because Chuck Larson looked like a great candidate to be on the firing list, had he not retired. So I actually wonder whether Dummermuth was the last of the hack replacements they got in--as you suggest, the intended candidate from the start.

Nice catch on the Bob Rush stuff.

[earlofhuntingdon]

I see that the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act passed in both Houses at the end of March. But I can find no cites indicating that joint legislation was sent to the President for signature, and whether he signed it or let it become law without his signature. Any cites?

[pontificator]

earlofhuntington

My understanding is that there are some minor differences between the House and Senate versions that haver to be ironed out in conference committee, at which point they need to pass both houses again, at which point it's presented to Bush to become law.

[earlofhuntingdon]

Thanks. LitigatorMom had commented that the Act was already passed, but I could find no cite to confirm it. According to Sen. Leahy, there are eighteen USA's that are either "acting" or "interim", with no schedule to consider permanent appointments. That's twenty percent. EW seems to think that most are career professionals, so we're not so bad off as the numbers suggest.

According to a 2003 memo in the Friday document dump, even under the old law, the same person could stay as an unconfirmed USA for up to 330 days by using a combination of "acting" and "interim" appointments. Even with a repeal of the offending provision then, USA's and their legal staffs, like other federal career appointees, remain hostage to Bush's failure of leadership.

[emptywheel]

earl

Sorry, I was referring specifically to the acting USAs who replaced the Gonzales 8, not the wider universe of replacement USAs. We know Griffin is a hack, so he bears watching. And in NoCal they shipped someone out from main DOJ. It is the remaining 6--Chiara, Lam, Bogden, Charlton, Iglesias, and McKay--for whom the replacements are career people (and, having done a little bit of googling, neither do any look like theyw ere sent out from main DOJ). So for now, we ought to watch the Griffins, Taylors, and Paulose most closely.

[bmaz]

I talked to a couple of people, and, so far, can find no evidence of a solid name to replace Knauss here in AZ. Some rumors he will stay, some he will go. My hunch is he will be out if they ever get their feet under them again at DOJ Main.