Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Trying to Read the Handwritten Notes On 8-gate

A key document in the TPMuckraker document collection has scribbled notes on justifications for firing the 8 US attorneys. In an extreme act of projection, I note bad hand writing. My efforts at deciphering and comments below. I have no sense of who scribbled these notes.

update: This was more of a waste of time than average for my blogging related program activities (which is saying a lot). The TPMuckraking team has clearly been all over these notes. Many of my discoveries are things I already read there (also refutations of false claims in notes are basically all things which I read over there).

Reasons ?

Who recommended Griffin ?
What was told to ?A USA ?
Was any DOJ dissent ?
May want to see EARS reports
Was Pres. told about this ?
Any outside calls about Lam ?

Comment: EARS stands for Evaluation and Review Staff. The EARS reports are the formal performance evaluations which appear not to have been among performance related reasons or else why might someone want to take a glance at them after the firings. I really really can't read the letter in *A USA maybe FA USA.

over course of past 5 gB all over - some great, some not commenting, some problematic

DOJ put together list of problematic people; sent to WH; WH cleared;

Comment: seems to be some fired USAs already complaining and some being good soldiers. The lie that WH not involved in choosing who to fire is already in writing.

Who/Why ?

Chait district 4 year March departure dates trying to be patient interim acting perm status

comment: Who is this. The name Chait is clearly spelled. The only plausible Chait I find at the DOJ is BATF special agent in charge Mark Chait. What is this ?

??? Griffin ???

EARS Chait

This seems to be Arkansas. Chait may have been Griffin's rival to replace Cummins. I really don't understand.

2) terrrible manager
3) bad morale

comment: This is Kevin Ryan USA in San Francisco. The one who was fired, because a judge was after the EARS report and he really had terrible performance.

1) immigration
2) guns
3 failure to (illegible scribbles) management

Comment: Carol Lam fired for policy of few immigration prosecutions at the end of a year in which the offices immigration prosecutions increased 32 % Yeah sure. point 3 makes it clear that they want to claim some failure related to management but added the specific failure later, then crossed it out then added another illegible (but clearly crucial) issue.


comment: 11 points most of them already discussed by TPMuckraker scribble readers and typed sources.

1) Underachieves in a very important district
2) absentee landlord
3) Border district
4) in over head
5) Domenici says he doesn't move cases.

comment: in points 1, 3 & 4 they have discovered that New Mexico borders Mexico. I think it is clear that they looked at prosecution and conviction statistics and found that Iglesias's office had outstanding numbers. This is due in large part to being on the border and handling immigration cases. The data are lemons, make lemon aid.

In point 2 they declare their illegal intention to discriminate against Iglesias because of his active duty service in the Naval reserve.

Point 5 is a smoking gun. It is not proof beyond reasonable doubt that Domenici and main justice fired Iglesias because he didn't indict Aragon before election day, but it is very very close.

1) Poor ????? in way he relates to law enf. community.
2) didit
3) put department in bad light in relation to LE issues
4) Circulated a letter demanding DAG to order LE agencies to turn over info (conf???) to locals. not appropriate.

comment: more in margin related to 4 which shows how bogus it is

4a) shame other USAs trusted him and signed a ??? ??? (comment must be the letter to McNulty)
4b) McKay tried to lock ? in DAG
4c) several times he tried to jam or corner main
4d) insub on info sharing
4e) illegible with arrow to 4d
4f) temperament issues
4g) travelled outside of district promoting policy. not his job to run policy.

Comment: I have no idea what point 2 is. LE must be "law enforcement" and, since it contrasts with locals probably means the FBI mostly. The letter was essentially the informal minutes of a conference call with DAG McNulty. It was signed by 17 US attorneys only one of whom was fired. Basically on McKay they have only the fact that he directed an information sharing pilot program, which was highly thought of and which DOJ wanted implemented nation wide. As formally requested, McKay travelled to promote and coordinate adoption of the program in other districts. The last bit of 4g is a false claim which is known to be false. They told him to do something. He did it. So they fired him.

No mention of letting a Democrat be elected governor by 129 votes.

1) Very important - terror violent crime drugs
2) important district
3) resistent to AG priorities (obscenity [case] task force) [] means crossed out.
4) Margolis
5) In over his head

I think Margolis might be the person for whom Bogden didn't want to request the death penalty. We have again the discovery of which district Bogden serves. Also what with all of the distractions due to terrorism, violent crime and drugs he has not focused on porn. They are not trying to be funny.

1) Disarray in office under her leadership
2) incredibly fractured office
3) morale low
4) lost confidence of her subordinates and superiors
5) not public

I don't know what "Not public" means or even if I read the word correctly. The rest is one point 4 times, but potentially legitimate. It is possible that "not public" means there is no evidence to support the accusation.


Anonymous said...

Astonishing, these folks.


Anonymous said...

That reminds me, well, the comment on care sugar reminds me that there is a natural sweetener that is different and evidently more healthy than any of the other sugars, but I cannot recall what the sweetener is. I was shown it by accident at Whole Foods. Darn, I do not remember but will.


Anonymous said...

As for general sugars, I must find out where there really is a difference between cane or beet or honey or maple and the like. I wonder.

Anonymous said...

I simply do not use sugar of any kind other than that already in foods, but that means I eat lots of sugar anyway. Also, I never have sweetened drinks which I think is where much dietary sugar comes from. Since I never have had to worry about weight, I never pay attention. I suppose I should, though.


Anonymous said...

April 19, 2007

Denying the Right to Choose

Among the major flaws in yesterday's Supreme Court decision giving the federal government power to limit a woman's right to make decisions about her health was its fundamental dishonesty.

Under the modest-sounding guise of following existing precedent, the majority opinion — written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito — gutted a host of thoughtful lower federal court rulings, not to mention past Supreme Court rulings.

It severely eroded the constitutional respect and protection accorded to women and the personal decisions they make about pregnancy and childbirth. The justices went so far as to eviscerate the crucial requirement, which dates to the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, that all abortion regulations must have an exception to protect a woman's health.

As far as we know, Mr. Kennedy and his four colleagues responsible for this atrocious result are not doctors. Yet these five male justices felt free to override the weight of medical evidence presented during the several trials that preceded the Supreme Court showdown. Instead, they ratified the politically based and dangerously dubious Congressional claim that criminalizing the intact dilation and extraction method of abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy — the so-called partial-birth method — would never pose a significant health risk to a woman. In fact, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has found the procedure to be medically necessary in certain cases....