1 Boring Old Man

Low-key office launches high-profile inquiry
^{The Office of Special Counsel will investigate U.S. attorney firings and other political activities led by Karl Rove}

Most of the time, an obscure federal investigative unit known as the Office of Special Counsel confines itself to monitoring the activities of relatively low-level government employees, stepping in with reprimands and other routine administrative actions for such offenses as discriminating against military personnel or engaging in prohibited political activities.

But the Office of Special Counsel is preparing to jump into one of the most sensitive and potentially explosive issues in Washington, launching a broad investigation into key elements of the White House political operations that for more than six years have been headed by chief strategist Karl Rove.

The new investigation, which will examine the firing of at least one U.S. attorney, missing White House e-mails, and White House efforts to keep presidential appointees attuned to Republican political priorities, could create a substantial new problem for the Bush White House.

…

The decision by Bloch’s office is the latest evidence that Rove’s once-vaunted operations inside the government, which helped the GOP hold the White House and Congress for six years, now threaten to mire the administration in investigations.

The question of improper political influence over government decision-making is at the heart of the controversy over the firing of U.S. attorneys and the ongoing congressional investigation of the special e-mail system installed in the White House and other government offices by the Republican National Committee.

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency. Our basic authorities come from three federal statutes, the Civil Service Reform Act, the Whistleblower Protection Act, and the Hatch Act.

OSC’s primary mission is to safeguard the merit system by protecting federal employees and applicants from prohibited personnel practices, especially reprisal for whistleblowing. For a description of prohibited personnel practices (PPPs), click on the prohibited personnel practices link.

PPPs & Whistleblower Protection: OSC receives, investigates, and prosecutes allegations of PPPs, with an emphasis on protecting federal government whistleblowers.  OSC seeks corrective action remedies (such as back pay and reinstatement), by negotiation or from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), for injuries suffered by whistleblowers and other complainants.  OSC is also authorized to file complaints at the MSPB to seek disciplinary action against individuals who commit PPPs.

• independent!
• investigative!
• prosecutorial!

But, then there’s this:

Rove’s Newest Investigator Is Under Investigation

Karl Rove is under investigation by the executive branch. So, too, is his investigator.

On Tuesday, The Los Angeles Times reported that the Office of Special Counsel, an obscure federal investigative and prosecutorial agency that is supposed to protect federal employees from prohibited personnel practices, is preparing to jump into one of the most sensitive and potentially explosive issues in Washington, launching a broad investigation into key elements of the White House political operations that for more than six years have been headed by chief strategist Karl Rove.

…

But who is Scott Bloch, and should his vow be taken at face value? The Times story did not provide background on the fellow who will be examining whether Rove and other administration officials may have violated the law by using political email accounts for White House business, by explicitly encouraging government actions for direct partisan gains, and by dismissing David Iglesias, a US attorney in New Mexico. Bloch is a George W. Bush appointee, and his recent record is not one of a relentless pursuer of government corruption and wrongdoing.

In February, The Washington Post reported Bloch himself was under investigation:

The Office of Personnel Management’s inspector general has been investigating allegations by current and former OSC employees that Special Counsel Scott J. Bloch retaliated against underlings who disagreed with his policies–by, among other means, transferring them out of state–and tossed out legitimate whistle-blower cases to reduce the office backlog. Bloch denies the accusations, saying that under his leadership the agency has grown more efficient and receptive to whistle-blowers.

…

That same year, public interest groups and employees at the OSC accused Bloch of running an overly partisan shop. As Govexec.com reported:

Amendments to a complaint filed against Special Counsel Scott J. Bloch in early March allege that OSC took no action on a complaint regarding then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice’s use of government funds to travel in the weeks before the 2004 presidential election, but vigorously pursued allegations against Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry’s visit to the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

Three nonprofit whistleblower protection groups–the Government Accountability Project, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and the Project on Government Oversight–and anonymous career OSC employees filed the initial complaint March 3, listing a series of prohibited personnel practices and violations of civil service laws by Bloch.

The politicization allegations stem from Bloch’s decision to have a group of lawyers report to a political deputy rather than a career senior executive. The complaint states that OSC has pursued trivial matters without regard to political affiliation…but has not evenly handled higher profile cases.

At the OSC, Bloch is supposed to protect whistleblowers. But he’s been charged with reprising against those who challenge his agency and others. Before Bloch was appointed by Bush to take over the OSC, he was a deputy director and counsel at the Justice Department’s Task Force for Faith-based and Community Initiatives.

"By most measures, his tenure has been an absolute failure," says Adam Miles, legislative representative at the Government Accountability Project. "He’s been under pressure to start doing something." Miles notes that GAP did not initially expect the complaint it filed against Bloch in 2005 to go anywhere. "It was referred to a federal entity called the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency," Miles recalls, "and we thought it would just rot there." But the case was handed to Pat McFarland, the inspector general for the Office of Personnel Management. McFarland is a former St. Louis detective who spent 22 years as a Secret Service agent before becoming IG at OPM in 1990.

McFarland’s investigation of Bloch, Miles says, "hasn’t been a totally transparent process but we’re hearing it’s reaching a conclusion–which could be motivation for Bloch to start this investigation into the White House. If OPM does turn up any adverse information on Bloch, it would be more difficult for the White House to get rid of him while he was actively investigating them." But this could cut the other way. If Bloch is the subject of an investigation, he might be inclined to treat the White House favorably to protect his own position. In either case, there seems to be a conflict of interest. Bloch, Miles says, "may not be the appropriate person to be conducting the investigation" of Rove and the White House.

It is a dizzying situation. The investigator investigating officials who oversee the agency that is investigating the investigator. Forget firewalls. This looks more like a basement flooded with backed-up sewage–with the water rising.

A Preemptive Internal Inquiry To Control The Story

Don’t be fooled here. The fact that the administration launched an investigation here is a sure sign that Democratic oversight and attention on the issue of the federal attorney sackings opened up some real vulnerabilities for the White House. The modus operandi for this administration when a real problem surfaces is to push the issue into the lap of an in-house “investigation” that will drag on forever, allowing the White House to deflect all media and opposition inquiries and demands for open accountability by saying “we can’t comment because the matter is under investigation.” That is what happened here.

The Democrats and the center-left blogosphere got a hold of a story which was only the tip of the iceberg about the overt politicization of the entire government, which threatened to reveal everything Rove has put into place over six years. The Democrats and the mainstream media haven’t yet fleshed out the full picture, but Rove knew they were headed in that direction. So presto-chango, suddenly an “inquiry” is launched by an Ashcroft alum at Justice who himself has purged the OSC of experienced staff, and the party line will be that “we can’t comment due to the ongoing investigation by the OSC.” And it is all BS. Even the Bush-friendly Washington Post editorial page says today that there is a need to get to the bottom of how involved the White House was in the sacking of these attorneys and presumably the reasons why they were sacked. Democrats need to press ahead with an independent inquiry, and subpoena the administration to construct the full story. They should also formally demand the appointment of a Special Prosecutor and force Alberto to reject such a request.

and from C.R.E.W... 

The EAC’s Buried Report on ‘Voter Fraud’ — or Actually Lack Thereof — and ‘Thor’ Hearne’s Continuing Loathesome Attempts to Destroy American Democracy

Following up on our Wednesday coverage of the four- month-old report on "Voter Fraud," which the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission (EAC) refused to release when they discovered the report points to just how little such fraud actually occurs. The facts don’t lie, despite the loathesome high-level GOP/Team Bush operatives who call themselves the "non-partisan" American Center for Voting Rights’ (ACVR), and their ongoing disingenuous and well-funded efforts to establish that voter fraud is rampant, perpetrated almost exclusively by Democrats, and must be cured by disenfranchising and unconstitutional Photo ID requirement laws at the polls (although not for absentee or military balloting, of course).

We’ve now had a chance to review the unreleased report [PDF] in full. It’s just twelve pages. But it slams the notion that there is any massive problem in America with "Voter Fraud", despite ACVR’s continuing campaign to suggest the problem is an epidemic — versus all of the many other forms of disenfranchisement that really do occur and really do threaten our democracy.

"There is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud," the report explains, "or at least much less than is claimed, including voter impersonation, ‘dead’ voters, noncitizens voting and felon voters."

 

Campaign against alleged voter fraud fuels political tempest

For six years, the Bush administration, aided by Justice Department political appointees, has pursued an aggressive legal effort to restrict voter turnout in key battleground states in ways that favor Republican political candidates.

The administration intensified its efforts last year as President Bush’s popularity and Republican support eroded heading into a midterm battle for control of Congress, which the Democrats won.

Facing nationwide voter registration drives by Democratic-leaning groups, the administration alleged widespread election fraud and endorsed proposals for tougher state and federal voter identification laws. Presidential political adviser Karl Rove alluded to the strategy in April 2006 when he railed about voter fraud in a speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association.

"As more information becomes available about the administration’s priority on combating alleged, but not well substantiated, voter fraud, the more apparent it is that its actions concerning voter ID laws are part of a partisan strategy to suppress the votes of poor and minority citizens," he said….

In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud

Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.

Ms. Prude’s daughter Nicole with her children, Anthony Bibins, 4; Nashawna; and Narvelle Handley, 1, at home last week in Milwaukee.

Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.

Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.

…

Previous guidelines had barred federal prosecutions of “isolated acts of individual wrongdoing” that were not part of schemes to corrupt elections. In most cases, prosecutors also had to prove an intent to commit fraud, not just an improper action.

That standard made some federal prosecutors uneasy about proceeding with charges, including David C. Iglesias, who was the United States attorney in New Mexico, and John McKay, the United States attorney in Seattle.

Although both found instances of improper registration or voting, they declined to bring charges, drawing criticism from prominent Republicans in their states. In Mr. Iglesias’s case, the complaints went to Mr. Bush. Both prosecutors were among those removed in December.

In the last year, the Justice Department has installed top prosecutors who may not be so reticent. In four states, the department has named interim or permanent prosecutors who have worked on election cases at Justice Department headquarters or for the Republican Party.

It’s an old, old story. Some of us spent our youth working for those Civil Rights – registering voters who came from families of people who had never had a voter. Some people like James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner died one night in Philadelphia, Mississippi trying to help people who were being deprived of the right to vote.

And now we have a White House occupied by a President and a Political Adviser who want to take us back to those days by using the Civil Rights Division and U.S. Attorneys from the very Justice Department that finally provided the judicial/enforcement arm that marched us out of those terrible days over half my life ago.

Congress Leading the Way for a New Direction in Iraq

^{… It is unquestioned that we have long term security interests in seeing Iraq become stabilized, peaceful, and yes, one day, a functioning democracy. The President’s current path does not take us there —}

^{— But let me offer you that different course – one that is supported by majorities of the House and the Senate, and I believe reflects the will of our military leaders and the American people.}

^{Our first step immediately transitions the U.S. mission away from policing a civil war– to training and equipping Iraqi security forces, protecting U.S. forces and conducting targeted counter-terror operations.}

^{This transitions our mission to one that is aligned with U.S. strategic interests, while at the same time, reducing our combat footprint. U.S. troops should not be interjecting themselves between warring factions, kicking down doors, trying to sort Shia from Sunni or friend from foe.}

^{Our second step calls for beginning the phased redeployment of our troops no later than October 1, 2007 with a goal of removing all combat forces by April 1, 2008, except for those carrying out the limited missions I just mentioned.}

^{This puts pressure on the Iraqis to make the desperately needed political compromises;}

^{It reduces the specter of the U.S. occupation which gives fuel to the insurgency;}

^{It allows some of our forces to be moved to other areas of the world where they are needed, such as Afghanistan;}

^{And it allows our badly strained military force a chance to rebuild. With not a single non-deployed Army unit battle- ready, this is critically important.}

<sup>Our third step imposes tangible, measurable and achievable benchmarks on the Iraqi government so that they will be held accountable for making progress on security, political reconciliation, and improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis who have suffered so much.

Our fourth step launches the kind of diplomatic, economic and political offensive that the president’s strategy lacks, starting with a regional conference working toward a long-term framework for stability in the region.</sup>

^{And our fifth step rebuilds our overburdened military to give them the manpower and support they need to face the daunting challenges that lie ahead. We call for an end to the deployment of non-battle ready forces and we include billions to improve the military health system.}

^{Our five-point plan is part of the $120 billion emergency supplemental funding bill the Senate passed with bipartisan support.}

^{Today, our House and Senate Conference Committee is meeting to hammer out the details of the bill that we will send to President Bush.}

^{It will contain the elements I have JUST outlined.}

^{This plan is a strategy for success. President Bush’s response has not been to rebut our plan on the merits, but rather to attack us for developing a new plan. And in an all too familiar tactic, he has deployed the Vice President as chief attack dog.}

^{This is the same Vice President who said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction — that we would be greeted as liberators — and that we know Saddam Hussein had links to al Qaeda. To suggest he lacks credibility would be an understatement.}

^{The Vice President demeans himself and diminishes his office by offering wildly irresponsible and inaccurate attacks on us and our strategy. He seems more interested in sound bites than sound policy – and his record shows it…}

Miers Steps Down As White House Gears Up for Battle

When news reports at the time suggested that she might leave as part of Bolten’s initial shakeup, Miers talked to Bush and kept her job, the sources said. After Democrats captured Congress in November, the issue was revisited and some Republicans were told before Thanksgiving that someone else would be brought in.

Miers had told colleagues that she planned to stay until the end of the administration, but after several conversations with Bolten in the past week, she agreed it was time to move on. "We’re entering a new era here in the White House, and they both came to that conclusion," a senior administration official said.

There in a fine timeline of this DOJ scandal at TPM Muckracker…

While I spent yesterday hiding from the pollen reviewing the doj scandal instead of frolicking in the beautiful Spring weather, there was something of a media event percolating on Firedoglake. They had eRiposte of the left coaster hosting Carlo Bonini discussing the book he wrote with Giuseppe D’Avanzo – Collusion. This is the most under-reported story of my lifetime. It’s the story of the Niger forgeries and the cataclysmic horror that can arise when two right-wing governments collide – George W. Bush’s America and Silvio Berlusconi’s Italy.

A petty Italian sociopath, Rocco Martino, had put together a dossier of forged documents that purportedly showed Iraq buying Yellowcake uranium ore from Niger. When 9/11 happened, the Italian CIA, SISMI, revived the burned-out hoax and passed it on to the U.S. in a form that made it’s untruth slightly less likely to be discovered – but only slightly. SISMI‘s motive? Silvio Berlusconi’s motive? To be a "big guy" with the U.S. Bush’s motive? To fight the war in Iraq that he and his neoconservative thugs came to power to fight. The result? The Iraqi holocaust that we find ourselves participating in with no apparent way out.

Bonini and D’Avanzo [of the Italian newspaper, La Republica] were the people who exposed this story in Italy. eRiposte is the blogger who has done the most to  clarify it in the U.S. I think there are lots of reasons this story never has reached the widespread Press attention it deserves. But one reason is that the story is so ludicrous and childish, that it’s hard to buy that real governments and their agencies behave this badly and irresponsibly. So take a look [and read the illuminating comments]. Even better, buy the book and pass it around.

While you’re at it, At the Center of the Storm by George Tenet is just around the corner… 

I’ll start with two assumptions: It wasn’t for any of the reasons they’ve given. The "they" is Karl Rove [WH OPA] working through Harriet Miers [WHCO]. These are in the range of "we hold these truths to be self evident."

On April 7, 2006, Karl Rove made a speech to the National Republican Lawyers Association in which raled against the judiciary as usual. Then he said, "We are, in some parts of the country, I’m afraid to say, beginning to look like we have elections like those run in countries where they guys in charge are, you know, colonels in mirrored sunglasses" implying widespread voter fraud. He also talked about there being eleven States that were on the edge between Blue and Red, something he’d talked about before. He and the President have both alledged voter fraud as a big problem. We think that part of the reason these Attorneys were replaced was to put U.S. Attorneys in place who would push voter fraud cases in these "swing States." Beside the fact that they talk endlessly about this voter fraud [even though there are recent reports that says it is negligable], in the last year, U.S. Attorneys have been replaced in 9 out of 11 of the States he targeted. So one motive for firing the U.S. Attorneys was a plan to get people who will prosecute more voter fraud, intimidate poor and Minority voters [Democratic voters], and maybe have U.S. Attorneys in place if there are close elections [like 2000].

• In December 2005, Sharon Y. Eubanks resigned in protest from the Justice Department. After winning against Phillip Morris, she was ordered to lower damages from $130 billion to $10 billion by Associate Attorney General Robert D. McCallum who had previously been with the firm that defended Phillip Morris. He was later appointed Ambassador to Australia.
• Paul Charlton was the U.S. Attorney in Arizona [in the group recently fired.] He had begun the investigation in the dealings of Representative Rick Renzi in a shady land deal. The F.B.I. raided Renzi’s home last week.
• Bud Cummins, U.S. Attorney from Arkansas was told he was fired to make room for Tim Griffin, a friend of Karl Rove’s and a up-and-coming Republican Operative.
• In November 2006, Debra Wong Yang, U.S. Attorney investigating Representative Jerry Lewis for corruption resigned, being paid $1.5 million dollars to go to work for the firm defending Representative Lewis.
• Carol Lam had successfully prosecuted Duke Cunningham and was in the process of indicting several more such cases when she was fired. Hers is the most outrageous of the firings.
• Rachel Paulose is a story unto herself. See my previous post about her. She’s the one with the "coronation" whose staff resigned.
• David Iglesias of New Mexico was apparently fired because he wouldn’t pursue corruption charges of a Democrat at the request of Senator Pete Domenici and Representative Heather Wilson – both of whom pressured him and ultimately appealed to Karl Rove and probably President Bush.
• Steven Biskupic was apparently on the firing list, but was removed when he prosecuted a State Emplyee, Georgia Thompson, for giving a contract to one of the Democratic Governer’s contributers. The case was reversed and Biskupic may be in some really hot water.
• John McKay was perhaps fired for failing to pursue voter fraud cases in the Governer’s race.

So beside the wish to get control of the U.S. Attorneys in the "swing States," wanting to press their voter fraud agenda, it appears that the firings may have also had a specific strong political agenda that was well over on the dark side.

I, personally, am not sure we’ve reached the bottom of Karl Rove’s motives. They went to a lot of trouble and took a surprising risk to bring this off. I suspect that there’s even more to this story, as yet unrevealed.

What about the change in the Patriot Act?

Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, and his Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson, deny that that they tried to circumvent the Senate in appointing new U.S. Attorneys using the provisions added to the Pastriot Act in March 2006. It’s a bit hard to imagine that is even possibly true, but I suppose it’s worth documenting why. In his initial email of January 9, 2006, Kyle Sampson writes [to Harriet Miers]:

It’s a pretty good plan – one they probably used, given the number of convenient resignations that came along in the ensuing months. But then, in March, a provision was added to the Patriot Act at the 11th hour in a Committee meeting [no one owns up to authoring it, or even knowing about it]. For reminders, here it is:

SEC. 502. INTERIM APPOINTMENT OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS.

• Section 546 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking subsections (c) and (d) and inserting the following new subsection:
• (c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a United States Attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title.

The language that was replaced by PL 109-177 specified that if a US Attorney resigned before the end of his term, that the Court nominated an interim US attorney until the Senate acted on a Presidential nomination.The term for the interim US Attorney was limited by law to 120 days. Now, the President makes the appointment, there is no limit to the interim appointment, and there is required no Senate oversight

… I strongly recommend that, as a matter of policy, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments. We can continue to do selection in JSC, but then should have DOJ take over entirely the vet and appointment. By not going the PAS route, we can give far less deference to home-State Senators and thereby get (1) our preferred person appointed and (2) do it far faster and more efficiently, at less cost to the White House. What say you?

Sampson hems and haws, but it felt like checkmate to me.

And if that were not enough, there’s the piece I mentioned several days ago. After the Midterm Election defeat, Sampson added another Step to his Plan:

Any rational reading of these lines would make it clear that he was saying the Interim U.S. Attorney would serve out the rest of the Administration’s term of office. The later Step about nominations was a smoke screen. I conclude they changed the Patriot Act in order to facilitate the Attorney firings and evade Judicial Appointments or home-State Senator problems or even Senate Confirmation.

What was "the process?"

Last week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales kept saying two things – "I don’t recall" and "I was involved in the process." He had no recall of anything specific, but he harped on being part of the "process" – his sole defense against the charge of incompetence. What was this "process" exactly? If it’s what it seems to have been, and right prevails, Albert Gonzales might find himself in a courtroom saying that he had nothing to do with this precious "process."

While we think of Karl Rove as part of the Bush Administration, that’s not altogether correct. Karl Rove is the mastermind of the Republican Party. If anything, Bush is the public persona, created by Rove. I’m not even sure Rove is a neoconservative. That’s Cheney’s ballpark. Rove is the National Republican Party’s soul. So I think the "process" begins with Karl Rove. He got Bush elected twice, and both times involved influencing the vote – allying with the Religious Right and probably tweaking the voting system in not so savory ways. I doubt that he plans to just fade away with George W. Bush.

Over and above his plans for 2008, he’s loyal to elected Republicans, and they’ve been taking a beating from the U.S. Attorneys. He almost took one himself [barely saved by the loud mouth of Viveca Novak]. So my guess is that he was motivated to unseat the troublesome U.S. Attorneys [including Patrick Fitzgerald] and get people in place that might help him swing the vote in 2008. His vehicle was Harriet Miers and the Karl Rove clone – Kyle Sampson [and maybe Monica Goodling]. I think Alberto Gonzales is mostly a figurehead, wearing the crown of the Attorney General, but not carrying the Scepter. After the 2004 election, the Plame case, and the corruption scandals, he set his sights on the U.S. Attorneys. We know he felt like it was the scandals that were killing him at the polls. So he inquired through Miers how to make some changes.

Sampson jumped on the question, and outlined both a strategy and the problems – Rove’s kind of thinking. So, using Sampson’s lead, they got the way things were done changed by sneaking a piece into the Patriot Act. Sampson was good at such plans, and by the time of the Midterm Elections, everything was in place to make a move literally on the day after the elections. I think Karl Rove actually thought he was going to pull it off in 2006, but for once, it didn’t work out like he planned. So the U.S. Attorney Plan went on hold for a bit. Sampson was biting at the bit to surge ahead, revising his plans, revising his lists, girding up for the new challenge.

To go or to not to go? That is the Question

There were certainly forces, surely obvious to Karl Rove, that argued that it was dangerous to proceed, mainly a new Democratic Congress full of frustrated legislators biting at the bit to go after the Administration full tilt. On the other hand, there were lots of Republicans under threat of prosecution. And the 2006 loss made the coming 2008 Elections loom even more ominously in the future. But Karl Rove didn’t get were he was by holding back. His M.O. is to drive headlong into the opposition – "brandish steel" as he once said. His allies at the Department of Justice were strong, loyal, and willing. They adjusted the Plan to adapt to the election loss. But I expect it was a close call, even for the ambitious and arrogant Karl.

I’m still obsessing on the process that lead to the firing of the U.S. Attorneys in light of Sampson’s and Gonzales’ testimony. Since there are no emails or documents from Gonzales, everything has to be by inference.

In his testimony, Kyle Sampson said that the idea of firing Attorneys dated from 2005, though we pick up the story on January 9, 2006 from his email to Harriet Miers [written as if it’s a response to something from her]. In that email, he argues against a wholesale firing of everyone, and talks about firing just certain U.S. Attorneys. He points out the difficulties of directly firing U.S. Attorneys [e.g. getting Senate Confirmation] and suggests some quiet ways to let them know they are targets so they can resign and "save face." While no one will admit that this kind of pressure was exerted, there’s good presumptive evidence that it did happen.

In the January 9, 2006 email, he suggests several Attorneys, but everyone except those ultimately fired was redacted, so we don’t know who they were [somewhere along the line Patrick Fitzgerald was on the list, but we don’t know when]. Interestingly, the reason for the firings is never mentioned – never.

SEC. 502. INTERIM APPOINTMENT OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS.

• Section 546 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking subsections (c) and (d) and inserting the following new subsection:
• (c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a United States Attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title.

The language that was replaced by PL 109-177 specified that if a US Attorney resigned before the end of his term, that the Court nominated an interim US attorney until the Senate acted on a Presidential nomination.The term for the interim US Attorney was limited by law to 120 days. Now, the President makes the appointment, there is no limit to the interim appointment, and there is required no Senate oversight

Kyle Sampson, Gonzales’ Chief of Staff, certainly knew about the change [it seems tailor made to solve the problems he mentioned in his January email].  On September 13, 2006, he wrote an email to Monica Goodling about the plan to fire U.S. Attorneys. It was later sent to Harriet Miers . In that email, he talks about "pushing out" certain U.S. Attorneys, again with names of people who weren’t fired redacted.

… I strongly recommend that, as a matter of policy, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments. We can continue to do selection in JSC, but then should have DOJ take over entirely the vet and appointment. By not going the PAS route, we can give far less deference to home-State Senators and thereby get (1) our preferred person appointed and (2) do it far faster and more efficiently, at less cost to the White House. What say you?

SPECTER: … isn’t it true, as these e-mails suggest, that there was a calculation on your part and the part of others in the Department of Justice to utilize this new provision to avoid confirmation by the Senate and to avoid scrutiny by the Senate and to avoid having senators participate in the selection of replacement U.S. attorneys?
SAMPSON: Senator, that was a bad idea by staff that was not adopted by the principals.
I did advocate that at different times. But it was never adopted by Judge Gonzales or by Ms. Miers or any of the…
SPECTER: But it was adopted. It was your idea — at least your idea, according to the e-mails.
SAMPSON: I recommended that at one point.
SPECTER: But you’re saying that others didn’t adopt it?
SAMPSON: I was the chief of staff, and I made recommendations of different options that the decision-makers might pursue. And I did recommend that at one point. But it was never adopted by the attorney general.
SPECTER: Was it ever rejected by the attorney general or Ms. Miers?
SAMPSON: It was rejected by the attorney general. He thought it was a bad idea and he was right.
SPECTER: Do you have an e-mail or any confirmation of that rejection?
SAMPSON: I didn’t communicate with the attorney general by e- mail, so I don’t.

1. What are your plans with regards to continued service as U.S. Attorney?
2. The Administration is grateful to you for your service as U.S. Attorney, but has determined to give someone else the opportunity to serve as U.S. Attorney in your district for the final two years of the Administration.
3. We will work with you to make sure that there is a smooth transition, but intend to have a new Acting or Interim Attorney in place by January 1st [31st].

1. The Administration has determined to give someone else the opportunity to serve as U.S. Attorney in [relevant District] for the final two years of the Administration. [If pushed, this determination is based on a thorough review of the U.S. Attorney’s performance.]
2. [Relevant U.S. Attorney] has been informed of this determination and knows that we intend to have a new Acting or Interim U.S. Attorney in place by the end of the year.
3. We would like you, Senator, to recommend candidates that we should consider for appointment as the new U.S. Attorney. As always, we ask that you recommend at least three candidates for the President’s consideration.

Prepare to Withstand Political Upheaval: U.S. Attorneys desiring to save their jobs (aided by their allies in the political arena as well as the Justice Department community), likely will make efforts to preserve themselves in office. We should expect these efforts to be strenuous. Direct and indirect appeals of the Administration’s determination to seek these resignations likely will be directed at: various White House offices, including the Office of the Counsel to the President and the Office of Political Affairs; Attorney General Gonzales and DOJ Chief of Staff Sampson; Deputy Attorney General McNulty and ODAG staffers Moschella and Elston; Acting Associate AG Bill Mercer; EOUSA Director Mike Battle; and AGAC Chair Johnny Suitton. Recipients of such "appeals" must respond identically:

• What? U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President (there is no right, nor should there be any expectation, that U.S. Attorneys would be entitled to serve beyond their four-year term).
• Who decided? The Administration made the determination to seek the resignations (not any specific person at the White House or the Department of Justice).
• Why me? The Administration is grateful for your service, but wants to give someone else the chance to serve in your district.
• I need more time! The decision is to have a new Acting or Interim U.S. Attorney in place by the end of the year (granting "extensions" will hinder the process of getting a new U.S. Attorney in place and giving that person the opportunity to serve for a full two years).

… and the pollen here is ferocious, so I’m spending the weekend hiding inside. I was passing the time re-reading the email dumps from the DOJ, and I keep running across things I missed the first time around. I’ve only recently caught up with who Michael Elston is [Paul McNulty’s Chief of Staff]. He’s the one that threatened the Attorneys that bad performance claims would be released if they went public. He’s the one that the DOJ Employees accused of purging the honor program of possible liberals. I think he’s "on leave" now. Here’s an email from Margaret Chiara to Paul McNulty:

Why were they waiting until after the elections? It doesn’t make sense to me, unless it was a macro version of the "Friday" thing. They release contraversial things on Fridays so they’ll wear out by Monday. Maybe they picked December because it was leading into to holidays, or there were lots of new people. Maybe they thought it wouldn’t show. Did they think it might adversely impact the elections?

But it still seems odd to me to wait until after, rather than before, the elections. The White House okay didn’t come until after the elections either [December 4th]. Did I miss something? It’s curious to me. I’ve come to accept that everything they do has a reason…