Skip to main content

Murray Waas has another good article in the National Journal today.  Although it is, like much of Waas writing, somewhat dense reading, the upshot is that D. Kyle Sampson is going to get even more pressure put on him, and it helps put together the pieces for a prosecution of him based on his misrepresentations to Congress.  That, at least, is the main thrust of the body of the article.  There are, however, a couple of other big pieces of news in the article.

First, the article demonstrates the deception being perpetrated by Attorney General Gonzalez and the White House in regards to their lack of disclosure to Congress.  We all know that both houses of Congress have been trying to get documents and e-mails from the DOJ and the White House, and we've all suspected that the White House and the DOJ are not turning over everything they've got.  Waas confirms it.  

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.

Waas, and the Journal, were actually granted access to some of these e-mails, and were able to quote from them verbatim at points in the article.  

Another interesting note:  

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.

 

Now, I don't speak journo-speak, so I don't know exactly which officials might be covered by the phrase "a senior executive branch official."  But, given the fact that this person has copies of these e-mails, that person has to be fairly highly placed.  

The following is sheer speculation on my part, but I only know of two people who might have copies of that e-mail (and keep in mind that it is certain that there are others who have these e-mails):  Kyle Sampson and possibly Paul McNulty, Gonzalez Chief of Staff.  We know, from an article in Bloomberg last week, that Sampson revealed a number of White House e-mails to McNulty after McNulty had already testified to Congress that the White House was not involved in the decision-making process to fire the USA's.  See my prior diary regarding that article.  To clarify the point:  Somebody is now showing e-mails to Murray Waas that directly implicate Sampson as having deceived Congress, i.e., throwing Sampson under the bus.  It would seem that McNulty, or his supporters, might have motivation to do this.  

Why?  Because Sampson allegedly deceieved McNulty into making false statements to Congress, while under oath, in McNulty's February 6th appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee (wherein he testified that the WH had no involvement in the firing of the USA's).  This has placed McNulty in the position of potentially facing charges of perjury, obstruction, or lying to Congress by way of his false testimony to Congress on February 6th.  In my previous diary, I speculated that this is the way Congress intends to ratchet up the pressure on this investigation -- pitting the insiders against one another, a classic tactic.  

But let's move on.  

At issue are two letters that Sampson wrote (or ghost-wrote), and which were provided to Congress:  1) a January 31st letter to Senator Mark Pryor, and 2) a February 23 letter sent to "four Senate Democrats," according to Waas.  

Let's take each in turn, beginning with the January 31st letter:  

Sampson also played a central role in the drafting of a January 31, 2007, letter from acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling to Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., implying that the White House hadnever contemplated  using an obscure provision in the USA PATRIOT Act that would allow it to install [Timothy]Griffin as a U.S. attorney without having Griffin undergo Senate confirmation. Gonzales and Sampson have since testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee that they did indeed consider using the PATRIOT Act to install Griffin as a federal prosecutor.

The withheld records show that [Chris] Oprison assisted Sampson in drafting the January 31 letter.

Chris Oprison is an associate White House Counsel, whose name comes up again later in the article.  

To clarify:  Sampson and Oprison drafted a letter to Senator Pryor which "implied" that Gonzo and DOJ "never considered" using an obscure portion of the Patriot Act to install Timothy Griffin in Bud Cummings spot in Arkansas.  But in fact, they had done just that.  

On January 31, 2007, Hertling [with Sampson as ghostwriter -ed] wrote Pryor to say that "not once" had the Bush "administration sought to avoid the Senate confirmation process" by exploiting the PATRIOT Act. "As the Attorney General has stated to you," Hertling wrote, "the Administration is committed to having a Senate confirmed United States Attorney for all 94 districts. At no time has the Administration sought to avoid the Senate confirmation process by appointing an interim United States Attorney and then refusing to move forward... on the selection, nomination and confirmation of a new United States Attorney. Not once."

In drafting the letter, Sampson consulted with Sara Taylor, the White House political director and an aide to Rove. Taylor had been aware of considerations that the PATRIOT Act might be invoked to permanently install Griffin, according to withheld administration papers. In an e-mail -- among those that the Justice Department has withheld from Congress -- Taylor wrote: "I'm concerned we imply that we'll pull down Griffin's nomination should Pryor object."

The senior executive branch official who read the e-mail said it was significant because Taylor signed off on the letter despite the fact that Taylor, Oprison, and other White House officials knew that the administration had indeed considered using the PATRIOT Act to make Griffin a U.S. attorney.

In point of fact, they did make Griffin a USA, briefly, but when the scandal broke, Griffin decided to step down rather than seek confirmation.  Griffin, it should be noted, is a "protege" of Karl Rove, a former Rove aide, and Rove wanted him in as a USA in Arkansas presumably/allegedly because it would be helpful to have a compliant USA to investigate Hillary Clinton in the upcoming election.  The article has a couple of absolute screamers on this point, showing how badly they wanted to get Cummings out, so they could get Griffin in.  

On December 15, 2006, Pryor spoke to then-White House Counsel Miers and Gonzales about the issue, Russell said. The discussion left Pryor with the impression that if Griffin was named U.S. attorney, his name would be formally sent to the Senate for confirmation.

But White House and Justice Department officials, afraid that Griffin would not be confirmed, asked Cummins to resign more quickly so that they could name Griffin as an interim U.S. attorney, which under the PATRIOT Act would allow him to forego a confirmation vote in the Senate.

On December 19, 2006, four days after Pryor and Gonzales spoke, Sampson e-mailed Oprison with a strategy to have Griffin stay permanently as U.S. attorney . . .
[snip]
The next day, on December 20, Cummins formally resigned as U.S. attorney and Griffin was named as his interim replacement. Cummins said in an interview that officials at Justice sped up the timetable on his departure, going so far as to call him on a cellphone when he was on a hunting trip with his son to say he must leave on December 20.  

All in all, doesn't look to good for Kyle Sampson, though Taylor, Oprison, and thereby Rove, are also looking pretty questionable.  

And then there's the February 23rd letter.  

The February 23 letter, signed by acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling, stated, "The department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin," and added that the department "is not aware of anyone lobbying, either inside or outside of the administration, for Mr. Griffin's appointment."

Sampson testified before Congress that he drafted the February 23 letter even though he had conferred with the White House about appointing Griffin. Sampson testified that he included the language about Rove not being involved because he didn't know for a fact that Rove was pushing for his former aide's appointment.
"I knew that [Rove deputies] Sara Taylor and Scott Jennings had expressed interest in promoting Mr. Griffin for appointment to be U.S. attorney, and I assumed, because they reported to Karl Rove, that he was interested in that," Sampson said in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 29.  

(snip -- this is where the White House comes in - ed.)

The withheld e-mails obtained by National Journal show that on February 23, as he was working on a final draft of the letter, Sampson consulted with [Associate White House Counsel Chris] Oprison. "Chris, please review this version," Sampson asked in one e-mail regarding the draft.

So, follow this now:  on February 23rd, Sampson, who wrote the e-mail on December 19th to Oprison about the need to get Cummings out, so that Griffin could be appointed, which e-mail was so effective that they called Bud Cummings on his hunting trip that day to tell him he had to resign by the 20th, is now, on February 23rd, asking Oprison to clear a letter going to 4 Senate Democrats that denies that Karl Rove "played any role" in Cummings ouster and/or Griffin's appointment.  And Oprison signs off on it.  

That, of course, was before that pesky December 19th e-mail became public.  Hmmm, now, what did that e-mail say?  

On December 19, 2006, four days after Pryor and Gonzales spoke, Sampson e-mailed Oprison with a strategy to have Griffin stay permanently as U.S. attorney: "I think we should gum this to death," Sampson wrote in an e-mail turned over to Congress, "ask the Senators to give Tim a chance. meet with him. give him some time in office to see how he performs, etc. they ultimately say, 'no never' (and the longer they forestall the better). Then we can tell them we'll look for other candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All of this should be done in 'good faith' of course."

(snip -- some good stuff here, but can't lift too much - ed)

Sampson concluded in the e-mail: "I'm not 100 percent sure that Tim was the guy on which to test drive this authority, but know that getting him appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc.," referring to Miers and Rove.

So, it would now appear that we've got at least one Associate White House Counsel, along with Kyle Sampson, who are seriously looking at possible perjury, obstruction of justice, and/or lying to Congress charges.  What's Oprison's, and the White House's, position?

Fratto, the White House spokesman, said in an interview that Oprison "had no reason to believe" that the reference to Rove was inaccurate and cleared the [February 23rd] letter. Asked about the December 19 e-mail in which Sampson told Oprison that Griffin's appointment was important to Rove and Miers, Fratto said: "Chris did not recall Karl's interest when he reviewed the letter."

 

"I don't recall," e.g., the Alberto Gonzalez defense.  But there is one other point that's not quite clear:  Did the White House approve the letter?  Waas implies that the WH did, but the WH seems to be denying it, with another non-denial denial:  

Oprison, in turn, consulted with White House Counsel Fred Fielding and Deputy White House Counsel Bill Kelley in approving the draft of the letter, according to White House records.

(snip)  

A congressional investigator questioned whether the White House counsel's office would sign off on the letter without asking Rove himself whether it was accurate. The investigator also noted that publicly released Justice Department records show that Taylor and Jennings, both top aides to Rove, worked closely with Griffin to have him installed as U.S. attorney. In response Fratto said: "We have no record of that letter ever leaving the White House counsel's office."

So, they have no record of the letter "leaving" the W.H. Counsel's office.  Maybe it's still there?  Maybe it's one of the documents Waas was granted access to?  As an attorney, I'll tell, I don't usually keep "records" of when a letter leaves my office, other than a copy in the file.  Do you keep "records" of everything you send out the door?  Hmmmmm, you'd think they could be a little more definitive in their denial, wouldn't you?  

Anyway, I found Waas' article hard to breakdown, and not very logically presented, though very informative and important reading if you are following this story.  

Tip jar below, and, as always, hit the rec button if you think others might want to have a gander.  This will be a bit of a drive-by, because it's taken so long to put together that now I have to go get the kids.  Thanks, Kossacks!  

Originally posted to Jbearlaw on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:34 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  mojo jar (51+ / 0-)

    Hate doing drive-byes, but have to go get the kids.  

    Hit the rec button if you think others might want to read.  Thanks, Kossacks!

    "Win some, Lose some . . . and then there's that little known 3rd category." Al Gore, January 9th, 2007.

    by Jbearlaw on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:26:47 PM PDT

  •  When you get back from getting your kids (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jbearlaw

    This would be a fine diary - if mcjoan hadn't front-paged it five hours ago.

    "Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them" Albert Einstein

    by Brecht on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:33:32 PM PDT

    •  The speculation on who Waas's source is (7+ / 0-)

      is quite valuable, and quite enough to make this diary worth reading.

      Katrina was America's Chernobyl.

      by lysias on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:35:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, Jbearlaw clearly agrees (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jbearlaw

        as he's tipped your comment. I was just about to agree myself, but am now far less inclined to.

        In fairness, this is basically a good diary with thoughtful analysis, and I was underwhelmed because it's the fourth time I've seen Waas's article today.

        Considering the level of hardball this administration play, I doubt if McNulty himself would be releasing these emails - though the only way he'll be staying at DOJ is if he can make his case and see the Gonzalez loyalists swept out. But I think a McNulty supporter or a career employee who wants things properly fixed is more likely.

        "Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them" Albert Einstein

        by Brecht on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:52:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, but (11+ / 0-)

      I tried to actually analyze the piece, and tie into some previous work I've done.  Not anything against mcjoan (far from it), but she simply noted the piece.  Waas' article, as far as I'm concerned, is not that easy to read, and some of the more salient points seem to get lost in the details, particularly for those who may not be following this all that closely.  So there. Nyah. ;)

      "Win some, Lose some . . . and then there's that little known 3rd category." Al Gore, January 9th, 2007.

      by Jbearlaw on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:54:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I will not be taken in by your lawyerly logic (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Night Owl, Jbearlaw

        and, let it be known, I have tipped your comment ONLY for a clever sig line, and not because I agree with a single thing you say. On that, I take the fifth, as Monica's lawyer advised me to.

        "Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them" Albert Einstein

        by Brecht on Thu May 10, 2007 at 04:10:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  So was or was not McNulty kept out of the loop (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, Jbearlaw, MichiganGirl

    before being shown those e-mails?

    I looked with interest at Gonzo's secret memo of early 2006 for the instruction to bypass McNulty that was allegedly there.  I didn't find such an instruction, at least not an explicit one.  Perhaps it's implicit in what the memo does say.

    Katrina was America's Chernobyl.

    by lysias on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:34:58 PM PDT

    •  That's a key question . . . (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichiganGirl, elwior

      All appearances are, at this point, that he was.  But it's hard to believe that Gonzo's Chief of Staff wasn't privy to at least some of this stuff.  I don't think anybody here is "clean" -- the question is, is there anybody you can hang a specific charge on, and if so, can you get that person to roll over and provide evidence that you can charge someone else with?  

      Man I have got to get out of here . . . argh!  

      "Win some, Lose some . . . and then there's that little known 3rd category." Al Gore, January 9th, 2007.

      by Jbearlaw on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:46:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What about Margolis... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jbearlaw

      would he have access to the e-mails?  I'm not sure he would be considered a senior admistrative official.  Of course, would McNulty?

      "We're all working for the Pharoah" - Richard Thompson

      by mayan on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:03:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jbearlaw

        interesting...I just read your post a little closer and see that it is "senior executive branch"...which does lead to the conclusion that Waas is being cute and including all the departments.  Curiouser and Curiouser.

        "We're all working for the Pharoah" - Richard Thompson

        by mayan on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:05:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for the update... (5+ / 0-)

    I think this is an important story in two ways.  Not only is the story itself explosive but the reference to "senior administrative officials" coming forward and giving evidence to investigative reporters...sniff...reminds me of...sob...the good old days.

    I'm trying to figure out who that SAO may be.  I, of course, have no clue.  And, given the profound cynicism of this crew, I don't know whether this official is being altogether altruistic or whether he/she has an axe to grind, a back to shiv and/or an ass to protect.

    (I fantasize that maybe it is KKKarl wrestling with his better 1/2...ya know..."We hatessss Bushessss, don't we preciousssss...they callssss ussss Turd blossom." "No, no...we lovesss Bussshessss...they give us powersssss...we can dance and rap like a black man." etc. etc.)

    At any rate, my question is:  at what point have the Dems made enough of a case to seek a special prosecutor and/or independent counsel?  Are we there yet?  Is this something that is in their game plan or do they plan on dragging this out over the summer...drip drip drip...If it's Wednesday, it must be abu G again, kinda thing.  I hope not...I can't keep taking time off for work.  And one can only have so many migraines (although one could argue that the Bush regime has given us PTSD collectively).

    "We're all working for the Pharoah" - Richard Thompson

    by mayan on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:40:05 PM PDT

    •  I'm beginning to think Dems don't want a SC (6+ / 0-)

      Congress seems to be doing just fine in teasing out the strands in these interlocking scandals.  The HJC and SJC, along with Waxman's committee, have a lot of staff to throw at this.  And giving the investigation to a special counsel would slow the timeline down considerably, as Patrick Fitzgerald already showed us.

      I don't think we'll see a call for a special counsel until the investigations are nearly complete.  Congress can hand ready-made cases to a counsel for prosecution.  By that time, Bush would be so weakened that he'd have little choice but to name someone acceptable to Congress.

      -4.50, -5.85 Conventional opinion is the ruin of our souls. -- Rumi

      by Dallasdoc on Thu May 10, 2007 at 04:25:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Interesting... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gravitylove, Jbearlaw

        I'm coming to that conclusion myself.  Besides, with  Sentelle on the bench they could get the president of Regent Law School as the special counsel.  I was once involved in a case where the prosecutor absolutely took a dive.  It was not pretty and I would not want to see it happen here.  So, yeah, maybe they want to maintain their own destiny for a bit.

        Still, it would be nice to see things ratcheting up.  Today was painful.  I think stuff was learned...or at least they continue to build the case regarding obstruction.  But still...keep up the pressure, congressionals!  Turn it up a notch!

        "We're all working for the Pharoah" - Richard Thompson

        by mayan on Thu May 10, 2007 at 05:44:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Cross reference this (5+ / 0-)

    You linked to this in the other diary analyzing the emails.  Try linking the "senior" official with the pattern of emails in the other, especially from Sampson.  Might be able to identify who "deep throat" is.

  •  Are we there yet? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jbearlaw

    To: Mayan

    You'd think so, wouldn't you?  Obstruction of justice, lying to Congress, et al., ad nauseum.  I hope I'm correct in inferring from various hints dropped about in various media sources that our side is painstakingly putting a case together.  But -- much as I love 'em -- never underestimate the wimpitude of Democratic politicians.  Our side seems to think too much; and their seems never to think at all.

    Discouraging, sometimes.

  •  So what's Fred Fielding's exposure? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gravitylove, Jbearlaw, MichiganGirl

    One of Fielding's deputies is in this up to his neck, clearly participating in lying to Congress.  Fielding is noted to have been consulted on the lie.  One wonders whether Fielding's bargaining position with Congress has been significantly eroded by this leak.

    I can't see Fielding being the source of the leak for this reason.

    Interesting that Karl Rove is still only hovering by implication.  Congress is going to have to bring some very heavy pressure on Sampson, Sara Taylor, Scott Jennings, Tim Griffin, or one of Karl's other flying monkeys before one of them gives him up.  But the more of them there are in the spotlight, the more likely that becomes.

    -4.50, -5.85 Conventional opinion is the ruin of our souls. -- Rumi

    by Dallasdoc on Thu May 10, 2007 at 04:22:13 PM PDT

    •  Fielding is their counsel though... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jbearlaw

      that would be like major legal malpractice.  I don't think he'd have got this far in power in DC if he was the ilk to sell out his clients.  

      "We're all working for the Pharoah" - Richard Thompson

      by mayan on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:07:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  White House Witholds Emails (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jbearlaw

    In other breaking news,

    Sky is Blue!!

    Pope is Catholic!!

    Sorry, couldn't resist. They've withheld,lost, deleted, and done everything but spindle,fold,and mutilate emails to try and keep the dogs at bay. This just is no surprise.

    A village in Texas is missing it's idiot. Will they please come get him?

    by dotsright on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:17:28 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site