Don't Let the Door Hit You...

by emptywheel

As several of you have pointed out in the comments, Tim Griffin will resign effective Friday.

The U.S. Justice Department has notified Arkansas's congressional delegation that Interim Eastern District U.S. Attorney Tim Griffin is resigning effective Friday, June 1. Jane Duke will become acting U.S. attorney. (This is the assistant in the office who the Justice Department once had said had to be passed over as an interim appointee because of her pregnancy. Since it's illegal to discriminate on account of pregnancy, Justice had to back off this statement.)

That's great news--by all accounts, Griffin was determined to stay unless pushed. Which raises a good question--was he pushed?

To answer that, we might want to consider why Griffin stepped down. There are rumors floating he's going to work for Fred Thompson (which is perfect, because once those Libby letters are revealed, I suspect we'll have documentary proof that Thompson doesn't believe in quaint things like jury verdicts). or get rich in the private sector. But I'd like to suggest two factors First, Griffin's departure might have something to do with the fact that one of his guardian angels, Sara Taylor, left last week.

As the Bush administration inches closer to its concluding months, more top aides are headed out to the private sector. Sara M. Taylor, the White House political director and microtargeting guru who has been with George W. Bush from the outset of his first presidential campaign, is the latest staff member to leave the president's employ.

[snip]

Taylor cleared out her office early last week.

Taylor was the person who, in emails in January and February, was most insistent that Griffin's "interim" appointment be permanent.

But I suspect just as important (and very important) behind Griffin's departure is that John Conyers plans to chat with Paul McNulty again.

Pursuant to previous conversations and requests from my staff, I am writing to formally request that you make available for testimony both Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General William Moschella. Although we had requested informally that these officials testify even before yesterday’s hearing, the testimony of Monica Goodling has made it even more imperative that we hear from Mr. McNulty and Mr. Moschella about concerns that they testified falsely about the 2006 dismissal of U.S. Attorneys. We have appreciated their participation in staff interviews on these subjects, but particularly in light of yesterday’s testimony by Ms. Goodling, their testimony before the Committee is clearly necessary.

Conyers wants to chat with McNulty among other reasons, because Monica Goodling accused him of lying when he said he didn't know how Tim Griffin was appointed:

The Deputy testified that he did not have any knowledge of how Tim Griffin came to be recommended for an interim appointment in the Eastern District of Arkansas. In fact, however, I had kept the Deputy informed of the effort to remove Bud Cummins in order to arrange an opportunity for Mr. Griffin since the spring or early summer. The status of the Arkansas office came up frequently in my briefings over the course of the next six months. I am confident that I informed the Deputy of Mr. Griffin's background, that the White House had approved him to go into background investigation in advance of a nomination as early as June or July, and of some of the subsequent discussions about installing him as an interim U.S. Attorney while the possibility of nominating him was considered. [my emphasis]

McNulty disagreed immediately with Monica's testimony:

testified truthfully at the Feb. 6, 2007, hearing based on what I knew at that time. Ms. Goodling's characterization of my testimony is wrong and not supported by the extensive record of documents and testimony already provided to Congress.

My wildarsed prediction? There's some serious parsing going on here. I suspect when McNulty said that Monica hadn't told him about Griffin's appointment, he was thinking of something specific, perhaps something he hasn't fully explained to Congress yet. Like perhaps about how the final decision was made on December 18 15. I suspect when that all becomes clear it will have been impossible for Griffin to stick around anymore. So they just got him out of the way before McNulty testifies, which will presumably be shortly after the end end of the recess. As in--just after Friday, Griffin's last day.

One more point, though. Note how Monica refers to Griffin's background investigation? I suspect there's a reason she addressed that specifically. I need to go back through the emails to find the reference. But Monica actually used the answers to questions that Griffin used to submit a background investigation at the White House to process Griffin's background investigation to be USA. Which of course raises some questions--such as, why did Griffin do a background investigation for the White House and then not take a position there? You see, there's always been a sense that the White House had to get rid of Griffin, but had to take care of him at the same time. The emails talk repeatedly about Griffin as a "personnel problem" at the White House. Given the way Monica's fancy lawyers wrote her statement here, I'm wondering if there is something to the story of why Griffin was such a personnel problem for the White House.

Comments

[oldtree]

I am sure that I am very late on this one, but isn't it now likely that rover the dog god has become fred "the bassett" thompson's roadie? griffin, goodling, and all the other dog worshippers will jump on board.

[Sandy]

May 24, 2007
The Goods on Goodling and the Keys to the Kingdom

Special to BRADBLOG
by Greg Palast

This Monica revealed something hotter — much hotter — than a stained blue dress. In her opening testimony yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee, Monica Goodling, the blonde-ling underling to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Department of Justice Liaison to the White House, dropped The Big One….And the Committee members didn’t even know it.

Goodling testified that Gonzales’ Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson, perjured himself, lying to the committee in earlier testimony. The lie: Sampson denied Monica had told him about TIM GRIFFIN'S “involvement in ‘caging’ voters” in 2004.

Huh?? TIM GRIFFIN?? “Caging”???

The perplexed committee members hadn’t a clue — and asked no substantive questions about it thereafter. Karl Rove is still smiling. If the members had gotten the clue, and asked the right questions, they would have found “the keys to the kingdom,” they thought they were looking for. They dangled right in front of their perplexed faces.

The keys: the missing emails — and missing link — that could send Griffin and his boss, Rove, to the slammer for a long, long time.

Kingdom enough for ya?

But what’s ‘caging’ and why is it such a dreadful secret that lawyer Sampson put his license to practice and his freedom on the line to cover Tim Griffin’s involvement in it? Because it’s a felony. And a big one.

Our BBC team broke the story at the top of the nightly news everywhere on the planet - except the USA - only because America’s news networks simply refused to cover this evidence of the electoral coup d’etat that chose our President in 2004.

Here’s how caging worked, and along with Griffin’s thoughtful emails themselves you’ll understand it all in no time.

The Bush-Cheney operatives sent hundreds of thousands of letters marked “Do not forward” to voters’ homes. Letters returned (”caged”) were used as evidence to block these voters’ right to cast a ballot on grounds they were registered at phony addresses. Who were the evil fakers? Homeless men, students on vacation and — you got to love this — American soldiers. Oh yeah: most of them are Black voters.

Why weren’t these African-American voters home when the Republican letters arrived? The homeless men were on park benches, the students were on vacation — and the soldiers were overseas. Go to Baghdad, lose your vote. Mission Accomplished.

How do I know? I have the caging lists…

I have them because they are attached to the emails Rove insists can’t be found. I have the emails. 500 of them — sent to our team at BBC after the Rove-bots accidentally sent them to a web domain owned by our friend John Wooden.

Here’s what you need to know — and the Committee would have discovered, if only they’d asked:

1. ‘Caging’ voters is a crime, a go-to-jail felony.

2. Griffin wasn’t “involved” in the caging, Ms. Goodling. Griffin, Rove’s right-hand man (right-hand claw), was directing the illegal purge and challenge campaign. How do I know? It’s in the email I got. Thanks. And it’s posted below.

3. On December 7, 2006, the ragin’, cagin’ Griffin was named, on Rove’s personal demand, US Attorney for Arkansas. Perpetrator became prosecutor.

The committee was perplexed about Monica’s panicked admission and accusations about the caging list because the US press never covered it. That’s because, as Griffin wrote to Goodling in yet another email (dated February 6 of this year, and also posted below), their caging operation only made the news on BBC London: busted open, Griffin bitched, by that “British reporter,” Greg Palast.

There’s no pride in this. Our BBC team broke the story at the top of the nightly news everywhere on the planet — except the USA — only because America’s news networks simply refused to cover this evidence of the electoral coup d’etat that chose our President in 2004.

And now, not bothering to understand the astonishing revelation in Goodling’s confessional, they are missing the real story behind the firing of the US attorneys. It’s not about removing prosecutors disloyal to Bush, it’s about replacing those who refused to aid the theft of the vote in 2004 with those prepared to burgle it again in 2008.

Now that they have the keys, let’s see if they can put them in the right door. The clock is ticking ladies and gents…

***************
Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, Armed Madhouse: From Baghdad to New Orleans - Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone WILD

[DoubleTake]

In my crystal ball, I see a future with a lot of YouTube "Law&Order" parodies... *g*

[BlueStateRedhead]

EW,
There is something else a foot, given the speediness of the exit

Some other possibilities, and perhaps AK readers can help us here if you cannot:

---Caging indictment (although some feel the Palast evidence is not the key/smoking gun it is said to be)

---all the issues you raised about the [in] validity of his status when you asked "does AK had a USA" a few weeks ago and noted its potential use as a challenge for defense attornies in federal cases

and while on the subject, was the matter of false claims/testimony about Jane Duke's pregnancy looked into as a violation?
I quote the AK Times on Griffin resignation, which can be linked to through Talking points

Jane Duke will become acting U.S. attorney. (This is the assistant in the office who the Justice Department once had said had to be passed over as an interim appointee because of her pregnancy. Since it's illegal to discriminate on account of pregnancy, Justice had to back off this statement.)

[randiego]

Sandy - thanks for posting that. Has there been any noise at all about anyone picking up on the Caging issue? I'm wondering if this one is something that Big Hank might want to tackle...

[Dismayed]

Er... Sandy, we all knew about that, You're over a week late. Just the link next time, please.

Also you should go to dailykos and read on the topic a bit more. Very exciting on it's face, but there is much credible skepticism.

[JEP]

Griffin's a campign junky... and he may want out of the ATTY job before Palast's revelations about past caging activities finally come around to bite him in the arse, Not to mention that he's a well-proven snake in the caging pits... it is no surprise that a bad actor like Thompson would want to hire a "bad actor" like Griffin to help run his presidential campaign (in this case, its not really a Presidential campaign, it is nothing more than one big ego-trip, a lot like Arnold's aspirations).

Bad actors of a feather flock together...

[JEP]

"some feel the Palast evidence is not the key/smoking gun it is said to be" Only the guilty parties, Rove in particular, are promulgating this question mark. Griffin's caginf activities whould have been scrutinized when they were first exposed, only a Republican stranglehold an all three branches kept that from occurring. Now, with their plate full of Libbys and Cunninghams and Abramoffs (oh my!), this "old" crime has been back-burnered, unfortunately. It is really one of the keys to the pernicious influence of "Karlulu" Rove's illegal and treasonous campaign tactics.

[greenhouse]

Really Dismayed? I still think it an appropriate question since no one here has really addressed the issue and since I don't get access to dKos here at work I was wondering if anybody would like to comment/speculate on the veracity of Palast's evidence? Thanks Sandy.

[Sebastian Dangerfield]

I think it pretty clear on the face of Palast's rather breathless (but largely evidence-free) prose that he is overselling his goods. In other words, it's not just the guilty parties raising questions. Why is it that we don't see only a couple of tiny snippets of the supposed "500 e-mails"? If you have the goods, you spend less time telling us you have the goods and more time showing us. Well, Conyers has asked him for all his evidence, so we'll get a chance to see if there's much of a there there.

[bill in turkey]

'Only the guilty parties, Rove in particular, are promulgating this question mark.'

Not really true, that, you know. Not many people have actually seem Palast's evidence, so to some extent we've only got his word for it that it is SG material. One or two people other than KR feel he has a bit of a history of overselling his case. (eg diarist drational at dKos, who has inter alia put a lot of work into making a database of released DoJ emails)

I'm not sure I'm a Palast skeptic myself. But I don't think that all those who are are Republican plants. Palast was supposed to meeting Conyers some time recently, I think - so more data may emerge.

Apologies for being o/t. I guess I'd be interested in hearing
ews brief take on Palast too. (though I can see why it might seem like a bit of a sideshow. right now)

[emptywheel]

I think Palast has definitely oversold his goods (not least because he has claimed to have all of Rove's missing emails as a way to get people reinterestd in his story, which is definitely not the case). That said, I think the caging allegations are real, though perhaps not proveable.

[Nell]

Just a note to commenters above to clear up a potential confusion -- AR is the postal abbreviation for Arkansas; AK is Alaska.

This would normally be too picky a point for me to raise, but there are so many US Atty's in question in so many states (ones who were on the firing list at one time, ones who never were and have suspect investigations/prosecutions, etc. etc.) that it becomes hard to keep them straight even with the correct state affiliation.

[greenhouse]

Thanks Sebastian, Bill and EW for your takes on Palast. What a shame. Another case of Leopold?

[freepatriot]

IANAL, but I do know a lot about election law, so I'll tackle the palast question (or at least part of it)

as I see it, palast claims that the r n c targeted certain groups of people, to challenge their votes, in 2004 and (I think) 2006. The r n c sent registered letters to the choosen people knowing that the letters were likely to be returned. The reasons for the letters being returned isn't clear, but the r n c used the returned letters to mount a challenge to the voters in question

so far as I can tell, none of this is illegal. The r n c isn't a government agency, so the rnc doesn't have to follow the "Equal Protections" clauses of the Constitution. Challenging voters is a legitimate action, so the only questionable action is the method used to select the names on the list

unless somebody can find a way to fit the rnc under the "Equal Protections" clauses, there isn't an violation of law here. the r n c can challenge any voter, in any way they choose

the real question is the validity of the challenges. if there were several thousand challenges overturned, then palast might have evidence of a crime

as it stands, palast just has evidence of a very slimy operation, not evidence of a crime

so how'd I do ???

[pseudonymous in nc]

But the RNC was supposedly bound by a consent decree, and had to outsource its caging operations to local campaigns, no?

[freepatriot]

sorry pseudonymous in nc, I don't know nuthin bout no consent decree

I just evaluated what palast said, and decided that palast was a bit confused

the government has to comply with the "equal protections" clauses, but most private entities don't have to. There are some areas where the "equal protections" are applicable (housing, employment, ect) but this ain't one of those areas

political parties are shielded by the first amendment, so unless the consent decree specifically addresses the caging issue, I doubt that there is a violation of law here

palast didn't mention the consent decree (or if he did, he didn't highlight it as the primary lever for legal charges)

[William Ockham]

I did a quick bit of research on the RNC/DNC consent decree. The consent decree came about because the DNC sued the RNC for exactly the behavior Palast alleges (caging in minority districts). The RNC agreed not to implement any ballot security measures (specifically including the use of returned mail to challenge voters) targeting minority areas without notifying the court and the DNC 20 days in advance.

Having looked at the emails and spreadsheet that are freely available on the web, I say that they are strong evidence that Tim Griffin knowingly participated in activities prohibited by the consent decree. Go take a look at:

http://2004.georgewbush.org/deadletteroffice/index.asp

Search the page for "griffin" and take a look at caging-1.xls. It lists the results of a caging direct mail attempt. The addresses are all within areas that are 80% African-American. Palast oversells his case, but there is plenty here to justify an investigation.

[randiego]

Rove just doesn't seem the type to put something in writing that could ever be turned into evidence.

But, if it's true that Palast has got 500 emails from Rove, that's a heck of a lot more than anybody else has, no? Who knows where they might lead once they are published...

Let's see 'em!

PS - I hope they are giving Palast a little love just for being sneaky and outwitting the bad guys.

[freepatriot]

Hey, William Ockham, now THAT would be a crime

IANAL, but I assume the "Consent Decree" is administered by the Judge who issued it, right ???

so we're looking at a straight case of Contempt of Court

who's the Judge ???

Who's the USA in charge of this consent decree (and couldn't THAT be an interesting topic)

and how the fuck did greg palast miss that ??? (cuz I sure don't remember seeing THAT in his article)

[Taechan]

FWIW, Palast references the Voting Rights Act as being the laws broken by the RNC's targeting of voters of color for the caging:
http://www.gregpalast.com/voting-rights-act-nailed-to-burning-cross-2/

Assuming that to be the case, I do recognize that the two excel spreadsheets from the deadletters site would not be enough to charge anyone with, but would certainly suggest the violation and may provide probable cause to seek records of the rest of the effort.

Palast claims to have dug up many more caging lists(see one of the response diaries to drational's at dKos)--though perhaps overhyped(he is trying to sell his book after all) I'm inclined to grant him some benefit of the doubt based upon his past reputation.

[greenhouse]

Thanks all for responding to the Palast inquiry. Much helpful.

[greenhouse]

Thanks all for responding to the Palast inquiry. Much helpful.