More DOJ and White House documents regarding the US Attorney firings have been made available, rather belatedly, as Monica Goodling's lawyer explains after the jump. (I'm putting this up to encourage discussion by those more informed than I am. I'll delete it if no one is interested, as my contribution is miniscule.)
You can read the docs, in pdf form, courtesy of Josh Marshall at TPM and the House Judiciary Committee.
Goodling's attorney, John Dowd, explains the delay in producing these docs in a letter to DAG Steven Bradbury:
On April 7,2007, you sent me an email asking whether Ms. Goodling "had in her
possession any other documents relating to official Department of Justice business." (Emphasis added). At that time, I was not aware of any other documents in Ms. Goodling's possession other than those returned to the Department on April 6. Thereafter, Ms. Goodling located a few Department files on her personal computer which I promptly copied and returned to the Department.
I did not undertand your April 7 email to refer to copies of documents that I, as Ms.
Goodling's counsel, had retained in my possession for the purpose of representing my client. I
accordingly replied that "[t]o the best of our knowledge, Monica has no other documents in her possession related to official DOJ business as described in your email." If I was mistaken in my interpretation of your request, I apologize, but please understand that this material has been very helpful in preparing Ms. Goodling to give full and accurate testimony to the Congress.
I now understand that you wish for me to return any copies of non-public Department
documents in my possession in order to respond to Congress's various requests for documents. I
am happy to do so. Please find enclosed various CDs, DVDs, and hard copy documents that I
am returning at your request. This includes the two CDs of electronic documents that were
included in the box of Ms. Goodling's personal effects that you gave to us.
Heh, heh.
Did McNulty testify about the meeting referred to in the following emails?
Goodling, Monica
Subject:
Sampson, Kyle
Monday, March 05,2007 2:49 PM
Goodling, Monica; Elston, Michael (ODAG); Roehrkasse, Brian
FW: Importance: High
BTW, to be clear, I think that each of you should come -- the more the merrier!
From: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 2:49 PM
To: McNulty, Paul 1; Moschella, William; Hertling, Richard; Scolinos, Tasia; Battle, Michael (USAEO)
Cc: Elston, Michael (ODAG); Roehrkasse, Brian; Goodling, Monka; Washington, Tracy T
Subject: RE: Importance: High
Okay -- two things:
- We are set for 5pm at the White House. I need WAVES info from each of you: DOBs and SSNs.
- Kelley says that among other things they'll want to cover (1) Administration's position on the legislation (Will's written
testimony says that we oppose the bill, raising White House concerns); and (2) how we are goirlg to respond substantively
to each of the U.S. Attorney's allegations that they were dismissed for improper reasons.
From: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 2:30 PM
To: McNulty, Paul 3; Moschella, William; Hertling, Richard; Scolinos, Tasia; Battle, Michael (USAEO)
Cc: Elston, Michael (ODAG); Roehrkasse, Brian; Goodling, Monica; Washington, Tracy T
Subject: RN: Importance: High
All, please see the below. I propose to you all that I propose 5pm to Bill -- I assume they'll want us to go over there.
Thoughts?
From: Kelley, William K. [rnaitto:William-K,KeIley@who.eop.gov]
Sent: Monday, March 05,2007 157 PM
To: Sampson, Kyle
Subject.
Kyle--We've been tasked with get&g a meeting together with you, Paul, Will, DOJ leg and pa, and maybe Battle - today
'
-- to go over the Administration's position on all aspects of the US Atty issue, including what we are going to say about
the proposed legislation and why the US Attys were asked to resign. There's a hearing tomorrow at which Will is scheduled to testify, so we have to get this group together with some folks here asap. Can you look into possible times?
Thanks, and sorry to impose.