Rachel Paulose Has A Bad Day

This is from the Minnesota Monitor's Eric Black.

Rachel Paulose, the embattled U.S. attorney for Minnesota, suffered through an awkward moment Tuesday when a retirement party for a long-serving prosecutor in her office turned into a thunderous ovation for several of Paulose's severest critics. Word of the incident has buzzed through the Twin Cities federal legal community and become the latest symbol of a very rough 18 months since Paulose took over the top federal law enforcement job in Minnesota.

Reports suggest that 90% of the "room erupted with loud, sustained applause that could not be taken as anything other than solidarity with Paulose's internal critics and appreciation for the sacrifice they had made to protest against her -- clearly a spontaneous release of the tensions within the office." Among those in attendance were 5 of the Federal Judges serving Minneapolis. "One of the eyewitnesses said she had a glazed look during the ovation."

I'd bet you she took her frustrations out on her kickboxing partner Tuesday night.

There's more: "Rachel Paulose Has A Bad Day" >>

High Noon At The House Judiciary Committee

Paul J. McNulty, the former number 2 at the DoJ will be the only witness appearing before the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law later today. The hearing is scheduled to start at 12:00 PM. You can find the live webcast here.

You might recall that Monica Goodling essentially called McNulty a liar during her testimony last month. If he sticks to his prepared remarks, McNulty has apparently decided not to hit back.

I hope they ask him probing questions like why did they really fire the Gonzales 8? You know questions that the DoJ has never truthfully answered. In his remarks McNulty says

It is important for this Committee and the public to know that when it comes to enforcing the law, Justice Department employees are blind to partisan politics. It plays no role in the Department’s actions.

I believe he has stated how the DoJ is supposed to operate, but after Bradley Schlozman's testimony about the Acorn 4 and all the rest can anyone really believe that is the way the DoJ has been run by Karl Rove, er Alberto Gonzales.

Pardon the Acorn 4.

There's more: "High Noon At The House Judiciary Committee" >>

Bud Cummins Wants An Apology

The Fort Smith Times Record is reporting that ousted US Attorney Bud Cummins wants an apology. Sara Taylor said in a Feb. 16 e-mail that “Bud is lazy — which is why we got rid of him in the first place.” Nobody else has ever suggested Cummins is lazy. "I feel very strongly that she misspoke. As to why she misspoke, I don’t know,” said Rep. John Boozman (R-AR), "It’s unfair to imply that Bud was in any way not doing an outstanding job in his capacity as U.S. attorney.”

Since Sara is the only one who ever said Bud was lazy in public, I don't think Bud's reputation is in jeopardy.

I, on the other hand, would like to know what lead Sara to say "Bud is lazy--which is why we got rid of him in the first place?" Lazy doing what? Using his office to attack Democrats? Failing to suppress Democratic votes?

There's more: "Bud Cummins Wants An Apology" >>

Gonzales Thumbs Nose At Congress

Rawstory is reporting that

In a Senate Judiciary Committee business meeting Thursday morning, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) revealed that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales once again used an interim appointment authority at the heart of the US Attorneys controversy that Congress banned in a bill sent to the President for signature on June 4.

"Senator Feinstein’s U.S. Attorney bill....repeals that portion of the Patriot Act Reauthorization that had allowed the Attorney General to circumvent advice and consent with respect to U.S. Attorneys. That bill, the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, has been on the President’s desk since June 4. It seems he just cannot bring himself to sign it. Instead, we were informed yesterday through the Justice Department that the Attorney General has used the power that we have voted to repeal, again," said Senator Leahy, the committee's chairman.

According to Senator Leahy's spokesperson

It just so happens the committee got notice yesterday, that on June 16, George Cardona's 210 days as Acting U.S. Attorney in the Central District of California will have run out and the Attorney General will appoint him as an interim U.S. Attorney at that time. (i.e. still using the end-run authority because Bush has slow-walked signing the bill)."

Given the utter contempt in which Bush, Gonzales, Karl Rove's band of voter suppression bandits, and Gonzales' "senior aides" have held the House and Senate Judiciary Committees are we surprised?

There's more: "Gonzales Thumbs Nose At Congress" >>

You Know How I Said Your Situation Could Be Worse?

Today I am busy fighting for truth, justice and the American way, but last night I noticed something in last night's document dump that bears further investigation.

On Saturday December 16, 2007, there was a brief email exchange between Monica Goodling and Rachel Paulose discussing the trials of Tim Griffin.

Monica--Subject Re: My Friday Afternoon --

"You know how I said your situation could be worse? Welcome to Tim's world. (BTW this was an interim AG appointment, just like yours [redaction]Tim, mind you, is an Oxford grad with prosecution exp. Will send you his release."

Rachel--Subject Re: My Friday Afternoon --

"good governor. Thank you for the reminder to count my blessings. I on my way to kickboxing class. Are you in the office late afternoon?"

I know what you are thinking. This is just Monica letting off steam. It is office talk among gal pals, and nothing more. Think about it a little. Monica was sharing her thoughts with Rachel about the trials of Tim Griffin. Rachel might have something to tell congressional investigators. At the very least, the exchange would suggest a telephone call, or an examination of their emails.

At the very least I would like to know what was redacted. It is taken right out of the middle of the relevant part of the Goodling email. I don't think it was a brownie recipe. The redaction is without doubt obstruction.

There's more: "You Know How I Said Your Situation Could Be Worse?" >>

Von Spakovsky and Schlozman, The Tweedledee and Tweedledum of Republican Voter Suppression

Next week, unless he decides to quit, (my bet) there will be a confirmation hearing for Hans Von Spakovsky to the Federal Election Commission.

This afternoon the Brennen Center for Justice and the Lawyers Committee sponsored a press conference providing background information about Von Spakovsky's role in the Republican voter suppression campaign. The presser was held at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. The questions were answered by Joseph Rich, former chief of the Voting Rights Division, of the Civil Rights Division of the USDoJ's Professional Staff.

Unfortunately, I live a thousand miles away. As much as I would like I just couldn't attend. Because Von Spakovsky is the next big name on the voter suppression hit parade, I am looking for a complete transcript. We will hear a lot about Hans during the coming week.

Because they office in DC and they have a real budget, ThinkProgress was able to send a reporter. (Blue girl, you need to do something about that.)

The press conference took a 1/2 step away from Von Spakovsky when one of the reporters ask Rich questions about Bradley Schlozman and the ACORN indictments. You will recall that Schlozman is adamant that Craig Donsanto, the director of the Election Crimes branch in the Public Integrity section, ordered him to go forward with the indictments in the face of express directions published the manual Donsanto wrote. ThinkProgress is reporting this evening that Rich believes

“Schlozman’s the person who recommended those lawsuits, he pushed to get them, and I suspect [Schlozman] pressured Donsanto.”

According to ThinkProgress, Rich said, “I’ve heard that Schlozman talked to [Michael] Elston, which indicated he may have gone over Donsanto’s head to get approval.”

That kind of pressure might explain why Schlozman was so sure Donsanto would back him up even though everyone agrees the indictments flew in the face of Donsanto's own manual, DoJ rules and long standing tradition.

Whatever rock you turn over in this voter suppression mess you find Von Spakovsky and Schlozman. They are virtually Tweedledee and Tweedledum. I wonder how high up the food chain we have to go to find their master?

This has been an interesting exercise. I have learned how to spell some funny sounding German names.

There's more: "Von Spakovsky and Schlozman, The Tweedledee and Tweedledum of Republican Voter Suppression" >>

Schlozman and Graves, Compare and Contrast

It isn't any secret. I live in the Western District of Missouri. Today I tried to pay close attention to the hearings of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They took the testimony of the last two former United States Attorneys serving the Western District of Missouri--Todd Graves and Bradley Schlozman. It has recently been revealed that Graves was forced out to make room for Schlozman.

During the hearing both men faced challenges. Bradley Schlozman has been accused of violating DoJ policy by bringing election fraud indictments just days before the 2006 general election. During her testimony Monica Goodling said that she had heard Todd Graves had been under investigation by the Department's Office of Inspector General. The following are two clips demonstrating how both men handled their respective challenges. Which one would you rather have making important prosecution decisions in your town?

I won't do much to set them up except to say that the Graves clip is far and away his worst showing during the entire hearing. The Scholzman clip is pretty typical. In fact, it is better than most of the rest of his testimony.

We start with Scholzman.



Now we move to Graves.



I sure hope the new guy is more like Graves than Schlozman.

Interestingly, Graves was recommended by Kit Bond and hired by John Ashcroft. Schlozman was allegedly selected by somebody reporting to Alberto Gonzales. A lot of folks suspect he was actually selected by the same team that picked Tim Griffin for Arkansas. Graves is definitely in the same class as the fired US Attorneys who testified earlier. Schlozman is clearly a Gonzales' man.

The videos are from TPMTV and are clips from C-Span's broadcast of the hearings. Here is a wonderful clip of Senator Leahy laying in to Schlozman. It's fun.

There's more: "Schlozman and Graves, Compare and Contrast" >>

I Am Afraid Monica's Freudian Slip Is Showing or How Rachel Paulose Can't Catch A Break.

God I love this job. I have been following the really brain dead public relations campaign to rehabilitate the fading career of Rachel Poulose. Rachel is a young Republican with a wonderful resume. She seems to have some problem with the "little people." Shortly after she took the job of US Attorney in Minneapolis, four of her top aides got so fed up with her imperious ways they took demotions rather than spend time working with her directly. Instead of learning the obvious life lessons from that early debacle, she apparently has decided to fight back. As near as I can tell she has surrounded herself with a truly clueless PR posse that has done an absolutely crappy job. For example, last monday she tried to reintroduce herself just days before Monica Goodling was going to testify. That reintroduction didn't go very well. Neither did Katherine Kersten's followup whine.

Luckily for Rachel, Monica didn't have a lot to say about her, and it was mostly good. Monica did make some unfortunate comments about Rachel's predecessor, Tom Heffelfinger. Heffelfinger was the very model of a loyal Republican US Attorney right up to last week. All through the US Attorney scandal, even after he was found to be on the list of attorneys to be fired, he insisted that his resignation was entirely voluntary.

As has been typical of the Gonzales Justice Department, Monica found a way to really anger the former US Attorney. She criticized his professional work. As will be revealed below, the Clucking Stool thinks she might have suffered what we used to call a Freudian slip.

In response to a question from Representative Keith Ellison, Monica said, "There were some concerns that he (Heffelfinger) spent an extraordinary amount of time as the leader of the Native American subcommittee of the AGAC (Attorney General's Advisory Committee)."

Heffelfinger replied by telling KARE11 News he was "extraordinarily outraged" to hear his work criticized. Heffelfinger was proud of his work with Native Americans. He told the AP, again quoting KARE11,

"I did spent a lot of time on it," Heffelfinger said of the American Indian issue. "That's what I was instructed to do" by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft. Given the higher rates of violence suffered by American Indians, Heffelfinger said, the time was warranted, but it didn't take away from other priorities.

"I had to work hard, but I was comfortable with the mix of my local responsibilities and my Native American responsibilities," said Heffelfinger, who oversaw his office's investigation into the 2005 shooting that claimed 10 lives on the Red Lake Indian Reservation in far northern Minnesota.

Throughout the US Attorney scandal there is a common theme, a theme most of the loyal Bushies like Sampson, Goodling and their boss have yet to figure out--you just don't tell a proud professional that the work he is proudest of is crap, not unless you really want to have your hat handed to you.

This morning the LA Times carried a story by Tom Hamburger, Times Staff Writer, and former Minnesota native, tying Heffelfinger's good work on behalf of Native Americans to another overarching theme of the Gonzales justice department--the ongoing Republican campaign to suppress the minority vote. Yep, Heffelfinger refused to take part in a campaign to suppress the Native American vote, a campaign that involves two of our old favorites, Brad Schlozman and Hans von Spakovsky.

As you will recall Von Spakovsky and Schlozman are voting suppression specialists linked to Republican voter suppression campaigns in Missouri and Georgia. Since most poor people of color are Democrats, from the point of view of Brad and Hans suppressing the vote of poor people of color is a good thing.

The basic Republican voter suppression plan, as advanced in Missouri and Georgia, is for local Republicans to plant the frightening image in the minds of the local media and the general public of thousands of poor black people showing up at the polls to vote Democratic dozens of times.

For a lot of technical reasons the kind of "voter fraud" that concerns Republicans is virtually non-existent. That doesn't stop the patented Republican voter suppression campaign. The Republican solution to the terrible, but non-existant, problem of "voter fraud" is to require each voter to present a special and expensive voter ID card at the polling place on election day. Republican legislatures eagerly enact such laws. Members of the local media write puff pieces singing the praises of Republicans who have solved a truly frightening problem.

Since poor people can't afford to pay a lot for their voter or state ID, or they might not realize they need one until the last minute, voter suppression of the poor Democratic minority is almost a sure thing.

Ordinarily, the United States Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division is all over such state statutes. After all poll taxes and the like are illegal under Federal law, and have been since Jim Crow days. Enter Schlozman and Von Spakovsky. Their job was to overrule or otherwise defang the career professionals in the civil rights division. Theirs was the most successful part of the Republican voter suppression campaign in the last couple of elections. In both, the Civil Rights Division, now largely manned by loyal Bushies, was essentially neutered. Fortunately, opponents didn't need DoJ help to convince the courts that the Missouri and Georgia laws were illegal.

There are 32,000 Native Americans living in the Saint Paul area alone. The ID they use in their daily lives is the ID card issued by their tribe. It is widely thought that a lot of those Native Americans vote for Democrats.

According to LA Times:

Citing requirements in a new state election law, Republican Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer directed that tribal ID cards could not be used for voter identification by Native Americans living off reservations. Heffelfinger and his staff feared that the ruling could result in discrimination against Indian voters. Many do not have driver's licenses or forms of identification other than the tribes' photo IDs.

Heffelfinger had one of his staff e-mail the Civil Rights Division. It was made clear that Heffelfinger was very concerned about Kiffmeyer's directive and believed something needed to be done. The Times article continues

About three months after Heffelfinger's office raised the issue of tribal ID cards and nonreservation Indians in an October 2004 memo, his name appeared on a list of U.S. attorneys singled out for possible firing.

"I have come to the conclusion that his expressed concern for Indian voting rights is at least part of the reason that Tom Heffelfinger was placed on the list to be fired," said Joseph D. Rich, former head of the voting section of the Justice Department's civil rights division. Rich, who retired in 2005 after 37 years as a career department lawyer — 24 of them in Republican administrations — was closely involved in the Minnesota ID issue

Rich is the lawyer who received the e-mails from a member of Heffelfinger's staff. Rich started working the case. According to Rich Schlozman and Von Spakovsky promptly placed impossible conditions on the conduct of the investigation effectively squelching it.

According to the Star Tribune, one of Rachel Paulose's first acts after appointment was "to remove Lewis, who had written the 2004 e-mails to Washington expressing concern about American Indian voting rights." I wonder if that's when her management problems began?

UPDATE: I just remembered Hans Von Spakosky has a confirmation hearing scheduled for June 13. With this story breaking right now, maybe he is the guy who can't catch a break?

There's more: "I Am Afraid Monica's Freudian Slip Is Showing or How Rachel Paulose Can't Catch A Break." >>

Katherine Kersten Whines Some More About Rachel Paulose

If you want an object lesson in how not to improve your public image, look no further than Katherine Kersten's whine on behalf of Rachel Paulose. Listening to the segment on the David Storm Show is painful. Maybe if Rachel would tell Kersten to just shut the f**k up, and spent the next 524 days working her ass off doing a bang up job as US Attorney in Minneapolis, she might be able to salvage her career. If she allows her PR team to continue with their pathetic campaign, Rachel won't be able to find work as a municipal clerk in a small Minnesota town.

Let us review. In the last week her Public Relations Team scheduled a press conference right in the middle of the runup to Monica Goodling's testimony. Of course, questions were asked Monica about Rachel's appointment. The morons at Powerline jumped in to attack the press for using the poorly timed presser to ask obvious questions related to her appointment. Now Paulose's chief apologist gives a whiny interview on a friendly talk show. She comes off looking whiny.

Earth to Rachel, earth to Rachel. The more your people talk, the worse you look. The best advice anybody could give you is shut up, become friends with the people who work in your office, and do your job to the best of your ability for as long as you are US Attorney. Take it.

There's more: "Katherine Kersten Whines Some More About Rachel Paulose" >>

The Odd Rehabilitiation of Rachel Paulose

One of the pleasures of this job is reading offbeat stories about "important" people far, far away. Following their ups and downs. It's just sort of fun checking in to see how old friends are doing.

Rachel Paulose is someone I have been following. You remember Rachel. She is the very talented, but very young and very political U.S Attorney in Minneapolis. Upon ascendancy to her position she promptly pissed off her professional staff and had to deal with the voluntary demotions of her four top assistants. Most people would have thought that after that mess her best course would be to keep her head down, do her job, and above all show some appropriate humility.

I guess when you are born to the purple, humility is considered inappropriate. Apparently she has elected to strike back with a public relations campaign. As a result she continues to find herself in the middle of a twin cities media storm.

Proud of her rapid rise through the political ranks, when appointed she staged an elaborate ceremony to crown herself the new US Attorney in Minneapolis. She didn't even occur to her to invite the person she replaced. She might have asked about protocol but that would have meant talking to the little people.

In short order both the coronation and her imperious approach to her job angered key career professionals. Her four top people demoted themselves rather than work with her. Her office is easily the Department of Justice's poster child for management problems.

At about the same time some pinhead at main justice decided to claim that management and or performance problems led to the firing of the famous Gonzales 8. Only one of those US Attorneys had any management problems to speak of. Certainly none of them found him or herself at the heart of anything like Paulose's self-inflicted problems.

Apparently because they felt they needed to do something to help with the larger US Attorney firing scandal, main justice didn't fire Paulose out of hand. Instead they sent one of their people to smooth things over. As part of that smoothing the 4 self-demoted promised not to say anything in public about Paulose and her management problems.

Within weeks a couple of articles appeared bad mouthing the 4 self-demoted officials. Although they referred to unnamed sources, Rachel's fingerprints were visible. The four career professionals were jealous. They were picking on a poor, poor, but brilliant "woman of color," a woman with a future they could not imagine. The four demoted employees complained that Rachel had betrayed them. Not a smart move for somebody wanting achieve success as US Attorney. Rachel's march to the US Supreme Court has been damaged, probably irreparably.

It's all about Rachel, after all, so last week self-confessed conservative columnist Katherine Kersten filed a puff piece called The Real Rachel Paulose which essentially reviewed her admittedly fine resume. "So why are the critics piling on Paulose today?" Kersten opines "Two reasons.

She's young, female, a "person of color" and an immigrant. (Her grandfather came here from India with $7 in his pocket in the 1960s, she has said, and the rest of the family followed.) If she were a political liberal -- as such people are expected to be -- she would be the toast of the town. But she's not. In some folks' view, such renegades must be run out of the public arena quickly before other minority folks get similar uppity, independent ideas.

Second, she's an evangelical Christian. "This image of her as a kind of Jesus freak is just bizarre," says Kendall. "I've read things [about this] I find hard to believe. The descriptions of her aggressive religiosity just couldn't be farther from the person I knew."

Somehow Kersten overlooked Paulose's imperious management style and the rather ugly problems they have fostered in the day to day operation of her office. Perhaps as important Kersten overlooked the highly political process that led to Paulose's appointment. That oversight was not missed by the blog Norwegiantly.

The other day Paulose's office brought charges against a bunch of folks involved in a prostitution ring. I guess Paulose, or her public relations people, thought it would be the perfect story to reintroduce her. Nothing heavy. Nothing self-important. Just Rachel doing her job.

Apparently Paulose is surrounded by idiots. On Monday, at the height of the swirl about Rachel's friend Monica Goodling's coming testimony, Paulose decided to have a presser. Not smart. After all Goodling is at the heart of the red hot US Attorney scandal and both she and Paulose admit they are friends, but they claim they became friends only after Monica decided Paulose was fab for the job of US Attorney. Somebody in Paulose's camp must have realized a presser might drift from the prostitution story. Never fear, as Brian Lambert reports

In what may have been a first for a Minnesota public official soliciting media attendance at a press conference in a public building, US Attorney Rachel Paulose's staff announced prior to the start of her Monday press conference that Ms. Paulose would NOT be taking questions off the topic of her indictment of 25 people in a prostitution ring.

Any bets as to the success of that announcement? Apparently it was like waiving a red flag in front of a bull. Lambert continues.

Obviously Paulose, stepping out of her double secret probationary sanctum for the first time since it was confirmed that yes indeed her predecessor, Tom Heffelfinger, was on a list of US Attorneys considered for firing, and only two days before her friend, the equally fresh-faced and unworldly Monica Goodling, was scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee didn't want her photo op ruined. She collared some pimps and she was orchestrating credit for herself. Control was being exerted to prevent some no doubt Democrat-voting media twit from jostling her tiara with a biased question about, you know, how in the hell did she get her job?

And if it weren't for KARE-11's Scott Goldberg, followed by MPR's Elizabeth Stawicki and KSTP's Dana Benson, she might have pulled it off.

A controversy has developed involving Rachel's supporter Scott Johnson of Powerline and Kare11's Scott Goldman. Apparently Johnson is offended that Goldman, Stawicki and Benson went off the "ground rules" to ask Paulose questions about the impending Monica Goodling testimony. Goldman responded to Johnson's complaint by pointing out

In our industry, ground rules are conditions agreed upon by both parties before an interview takes place. The Paulose press conference didn’t begin with an agreement. It began with a decree.

And this is something I wanted to write about even before it appeared in the blog, because the press conference began so unusually:

Immediately before Paulose walked up to the podium, an aide announced that Paulose only would answer questions about the prostitution investigation.

That’s not a ground rule. That’s a joke.

A public official, in a public building, at a public meeting, can not tell reporters they are not allowed to ask questions about unpopular topics. That would be like Tony Snow announcing President Bush won’t be taking any questions on Iraq. Come on.

Let’s remember the backdrop:

1. This was the very first press conference Paulose held after three of the top lawyers in her office resigned their management positions and called her management style into question.

2. This was the very first press conference Paulose held after the news broke that the name of her predecessor, Tom Heffelfinger, had surfaced on a Justice Department “hit list.”

3. This was the very first opportunity we had to ask Minnesota’s new U.S. attorney about the scandal surrounding her boss, Alberto Gonzales.

4. This press conference happened to be taking place two days before Monica Goodling, the White House aide who played a role in hiring Paulose, was scheduled to testify in front of the House Judiciary Committee.

Knowing all of that, why on earth wouldn’t we ask Rachel Paulose about the elephant in the room?

In fairness the reporters did wade through the prostitution ring story for 27 minutes before they asked about the elephant. It is nice to know that the 4th estate is alive and well in Minneapolis.

It's pretty obvious that Paulose needs a new public relations team.

There's more: "The Odd Rehabilitiation of Rachel Paulose" >>

Integrity Counts

I spent the last several minutes thinking about what to write this morning. There are a lot of topics out there. The Simpsons 400th episode trashes Fox News. (I might save that one for later). Jimmy Carter had a lot to say about George Bush and Tony Blair, none of it good. Voter suppression mastermind Mark "Thor" Hearne, a name known here in Missouri, has been featured in Slate and not in a good way.

All those stories are pretty obvious. I mean that Fox News doesn't do news, isn't news. Anybody who cares to look realizes it is Republican infotainment intended to keep the white masses content in their self-loathing and justified in their racial bigotry. Jimmy Carter has been assailed for his comments about Blair and Bush, but darned if I can see why. He simply told the truth. Mark Hearne, Brad Schlozman, Hans von Spakovsky are simply bit players carrying out Karl Rove's version of Nixon's old Southern strategy. Stop the blacks from voting and white Republicans win.

Then I saw a story of hope. David Iglesias is building a new life. I thought about it for a minute. Do you know who the winners are in the US Attorney scandal? The winners are the fired attorneys. Their lives have all been carefully examined by the media, and they have all been certified to be professional lawyers striving to achieve the highest ethical standards. Long after the many US Attorneys who knuckled under to Karl Rove are forgotten in their suburban practices the Gonzales 8 will be held up as models of how US Attorneys should act. Long after Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling are utterly forgotten, their careers in tatters, people like Carol Lam, Bud Cummins and John McKay will be building their futures and fully living their lives. Hell, who knows, one of those fired US Attorneys might run for senator, maybe in New Mexico.

James Comey has emerged as a hero in the Department of Justice scandal because he stood for what was right. So have all the people who stood with him. Even John Ashcroft, who doesn't even mention the episode in his book, looks better, so much better that Blue Girl had to remind us of just who we are talking about. I know who John Ashcroft is and what he has done, but darn if the image of him saying "NO" Alberto Gonzales and Andy Card hasn't forced me to give him a higher mark.

Today I choose to remember that integrity counts. People who display courage in the face of adversity are often rewarded. Good guys can finish first.

There's more: "Integrity Counts" >>

Don't You Love It When A Plan Comes Together

On December 19, 2006, Kyle Sampson sent an email to Monica Goodling entitled "Another Griffin Article" concerning the status of Tim Griffin as US Attorney in the Eastern District of Arkansas. Apparently the press was raising questions concerning Griffin's status as United States Attorney. Was he an interim appointment or was he an appointment under the then existing Patriot Act? Sampson really didn't want to answer the question directly. He thought it best to "gum this to death" by first asking the Arkansas senators to give Tim a chance. If after delaying as long as possible the senators said, "no never", Sampson's plan was to run out the clock, taking their good sweet time to advertise for, find and nominate a replacement. He also indicated that he didn't mind Griffin being referred to as "interim US Attorney" in talking points with the understanding that he was appointed by the AG and hasn't gone through the normal confirmation process. Of course, the normal time limits for dealing with interim appointments would not apply since Griffin really was permanent.

So Sampson hatched a plan. Griffin was appointed under the Patriot Act. He could stay as long as Bush remained in office. To keep the natives happy the DoJ would pretend he was just another temporary Attorney General appointment. It would work with the local yokel senators, but it wouldn't work too hard. It would run out the clock finding a replacement. All in "good faith," of course.

The plan was apparently repudiated on January 18, 2007, when Alberto Gonzales testified "Let me publicly sort of pre-empt perhaps a question you're going to ask me, and that is, I am fully committed, as the administration's fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States attorney position in this country, we will have a providentially appointed, Senate confirmed United States attorney.... I think a United States attorney,... as the law enforcement leader, my representative in the community;... has greater imprimatur of authority, if in fact that person's been confirmed by the Senate." On May 10, 2007, Murray Waas of the National Journal reported

A senior Justice Department official said that the (above) statement was truthful because by then Gonzales had abandoned the idea of using the PATRIOT Act to permanently install Griffin, and he was speaking about future appointments.

The dogged emptywheel has been working the Tim Griffin angle hard. So far she has uncovered nothing to indicate that Tim Griffin won't be the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas through the end of President Bush's term. According to emptywheel, Griffin's normal term as an interim would have expired on April 20, 2007. He's still working as US Attorney, and nobody has any idea when that will end.

Both Goodling and Sampson may have left the Department of Justice, but apparently Sampson's plan lives on. The DoJ is gumming the Griffin problem. Don't you just love it when a plan comes together.

Hats way off to emptywheel.

There's more: "Don't You Love It When A Plan Comes Together" >>

McClatchy Drops Bomb At Bottom Of Story

For months it has been suspected that Thomas Heffelfinger was pushed out of the Minnesota US Attorney job to make way for Rachel Paulose. Heffelfinger has insisted he left for personal reasons. Tonight Marisa Taylor and Margaret Talev, of McClatchy's Washington Bureau, offhandedly report at the bottom of a somewhat related story that

a U.S. attorney in Minnesota, who disagreed with the Justice Department on a case involving voting rolls, was asked to resign early last year.

Minnesota only has one US Attorney.

My guess is they confused Minnesota with Missouri. Todd Graves was pushed out in part because he disagreed with Brad Schlozman about a voting rolls case. If not, it is the biggest dropped lede in years. I can't wait to see the later additions.

Hey, the reporters live in Washington. Missouri, Minnesota, all those flyover states look alike.

There's more: "McClatchy Drops Bomb At Bottom Of Story" >>

Remember Paul McNulty--According To Alberto Gonzales It's All His Fault

ThinkProgress has just put up the C-Span Video of Alberto Gonzales throwing Paul McNulty under the bus this morning at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.. Simply amazing video. Here is a partial transcript

GONZALES: The Deputy Attorney General has a unique position at the DOJ. Most of the operational authority and decisions are made by the Deputy Attorney General. He is the chief operating officer — that’s the way I’ve structured the Department. And so he occupies a very central place in the work of the Department.

[…]

GONZALES: Mr. Sampson provided the recommendations. The one person I would care about would be the views of the Deputy Attorney General because the Deputy Attorney General as a direct supervisor of the United States Attorneys and in this particular case Mr. McNulty was a former colleague of all of these United States Attorneys and so he would probably know better than anyone else about the performance and qualifications of our United States Attorney community. So at the end of the day my understanding was that Mr. Sampson’s recommendations reflected the consensus view of the senior leadership of the Department — in particular the Deputy Attorney General. And the day of Mr. Sampson’s testimony, I had a conversation with the deputy as I testified where I went back to the Deputy Attorney General and I asked Paul did he still stand by the recommendations and he said yes. And so — for me that is the most important — his views would be the most important.

[…]

QUESTION: It seems clear that two relatively inexperienced Justice Department appointees Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling were intimately involved in these personnel issues. Why were such that young and unexperienced people put in charge of such matters?

GONZALES: Well again you have to remember at the end of the day, the recommendations reflected the views of the Deputy Attorney General. He signed off on the names and he would know better than anyone else, anyone else in this room. Again, the Deputy Attorney General would know best about the qualifications and experiences of the minds it’s a community and he signed off on the names.

What does Gonzales do all day?

There's more: "Remember Paul McNulty--According To Alberto Gonzales It's All His Fault" >>

Deputy AG McNulty quits Department of Justice

Dan Egan of the Washinton Post is reporting that Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty has announced resignation "saying he is leaving the Justice Department later this summer to enter the private sector, officials said. . . . McNulty is the latest senior Justice official to announce his departure amid the swirl of controversy over the firings last year of nine U.S. attorneys. Three other top aides to Gonzales have quit in recent months." In addition to Monica Goodling and all the other familiar names in the US Attorney firing scandal, McNulty is professionally linked to Rachel Paulose, the embattled US Attorney in Minneapolis.

There's more: "Deputy AG McNulty quits Department of Justice" >>

Keith Ellison Has Questions About The Appointment Of Rachel Paulose

Joe Bodell of the Minnesota Monitor has posted tidbits from a Saturday interview with Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minn) concerning Rachel Paulose's appointment to the USA position in Minneapolis and the Department of Justice's handling of her performance issues. Bodell reports that

Ellison recently issued a request to the Department of Justice along with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., requesting copies of communication regarding former U.S. Attorney Tom Heffelfinger and his replacement in the Minnesota office, Rachel Paulose. Ellison said Saturday he does not blame Paulose for her situation but rather the Bush Administration for putting ideological requirements above experience, competence and capacity to pursue justice.

More ominous, according to Ellison, is who was not fired: "the eight were fired, but clearly those that were retained were loyal Bushies. These demotions in the Minnesota office are a serious matter, and Ms. Paulose received help from Washington on management issues. If the eight who were fired were let go for 'performance issues', did they get any help before being fired? ...If they were let go for 'performance reasons', how does Ms. Paulose stay for 'performance reasons'?"

Congressman that is a question we are all pondering.

There's more: "Keith Ellison Has Questions About The Appointment Of Rachel Paulose" >>

Kansas City Star Denies It Should Have Disclosed Ties To Powerful GOP Law Firm

As you might recall a couple of weeks ago the Kansas City Star, a McCLatchy Newspaper, found itself at ground zero of the Brad Schlozman story, but for two days refused to run Greg Gordon's excellent piece on Schlozman's role in the 2006 election. Critics complained that when the Star finally did run the story, it was edited to soften criticism of the local GOP and several of it's players including Governor Matt Blunt and St. Louis lawyer Mark "Thor" Hearne, national counsel to Bush's 2004 re-election campaign, who set up a nonprofit group to publicize allegations of voter fraud. It turns out that Hearne is a member of the very powerful Missouri Law Firm, Lathrop & Gage. Both the Kansas City Star and Governor Blunt are Lathrop & Gage clients.

Chris Tackett guest blogging at Brad's Blog recently interviewed The Star's Deputy National Editor, Keith Chrostowski hunting for answers. Long story and a lot of mealy mouthing short, Chrostowki says the Star couldn't find space for the story on the day it was released by McClatchy, denies it consulted with Lathrop and Gage about the story, denies the edits changed the story in any material way, and denies the Star had any ethical obligation to report that both the Star and Matt Blunt are clients of Lathrop & Gage, who is the employer of one of the people at the heart of the story, the heart hidden from the public by the Star's edits.

Interesting story within a story. Without Brad's Blog and the Internet, how many folks would ever be aware that the Star had a dog in the fight it was covering.

There's more: "Kansas City Star Denies It Should Have Disclosed Ties To Powerful GOP Law Firm" >>

Murray Waas--Administration Withheld Emails About Rove

Murry Waas of the National Journal is reporting that

The Bush administration has withheld a series of e-mails from Congress showing that senior White House and Justice Department officials worked together to conceal the role of Karl Rove in installing Timothy Griffin, a protégé of Rove's, as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

The withheld records show that D. Kyle Sampson, who was then-chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, consulted with White House officials in drafting two letters to Congress that appear to have misrepresented the circumstances of Griffin's appointment as U.S. attorney and of Rove's role in supporting Griffin.

In one of the letters that Sampson drafted, dated February 23, 2007, the Justice Department told four Senate Democrats it was not aware of any role played by senior White House adviser Rove in attempting to name Griffin to the U.S. attorney post. A month later, the Justice Department apologized in writing to the Senate Democrats for the earlier letter, saying it had been inaccurate in denying that Rove had played a role.

Sampson's lawyer denies Sampson intentionally mislead congress when he testified about Rove's involvement. "Sampson, he said, signed off on the February 23 letter based on representations made by the White House that it was accurate."

Waas reports:

Several of the e-mails that the Bush administration is withholding from Congress, as well as papers from the White House counsel's office describing other withheld documents, were made available to National Journal by a senior executive branch official, who said that the administration has inappropriately kept many of them from Congress.

It might be that the senior executive branch official has decided to come clean now out of love of country, maybe he has decided he would rather face the problem now than down the road, or (my favorite) the administration is setting Sampson up to take a very nasty fall. I know what you are thinking, the article makes Gonzales look bad, but considering Gonzales is the White House firewall, Kyle Sampson is the person most exposed by the disclosure. Given Gonzales' published testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, Sampson might want to consider quietly approaching the Senate Judiciary Committee staff and making a proffer.

There's more: "Murray Waas--Administration Withheld Emails About Rove" >>

Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Go Back To Minnesota

A few weeks ago Rachel Paulose and John Kelly (from main justice) secured a promise from the three senior attorneys and the senior administrator who revolted against her infant terrible routine that they wouldn't talk to the press. That promise wasn't seen by Paulose and Kelly as stopping them from unleashing "unnamed sources" against the Minneapolis four. I guess in loyal Bushie land loyalty only goes one way. Of course, the career guys have now formally complained. You can read their letter here.

Damn, the damage that can be done when newspapers print stories from unnamed sources. Both the New York Times and the Star Tribune should be ashamed.

There's more: "Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Go Back To Minnesota" >>

House Judiciary Committee To Hear Gonzales

At 9:30 AM Eastern, Alberto Gonzales will begin his testimony to the full House Judiciary Committee. You can pick up the live webcast here. We have an office pool (we are calling it the pinhead defense pool) on how many times the Attorney General's memory fails him.

My question to him would be some thing like this. "Mr. Attorney General, could we arrange for you to see a specialist about your very serious memory problems?"

There's more: "House Judiciary Committee To Hear Gonzales" >>