The FREE CONTENT provided on this site may be used provided you do not modify or alter these materials in any way that will violate Crivella West's intellectual property rights, or delete or change any copyright or trademark notice. The material on this site is provided for lawful purposes only. In return for the use of our FREE CONTENT the user must give accreditation to "Crivella West Incorporated".

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

AUGUST 2009 PUBLICLY RELEASED DOCUMENT PRODUCTION BUSH ADMINISTRATION

AND REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS

Introduction

Crivella West Incorporated (“Crivella West”) prepared this abbreviated Dossier based upon a document production made public by the United States House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, pertaining to the removal of several United States Attorneys (US Attorneys) during President George H.W. Bush’s second term in office. Contained in the Committee’s document production, which was released in August 2009, were the following:

• On the record interview transcripts of Karl Rove
• On the record interview transcripts of Harriet Miers
• Over 5,400 pages of emails from the Bush White House and the Republican National Committee regarding removal of US Attorneys.

This document production was released:

…pursuant to an agreement reached in March 2009 between the committee and the former Bush administration, with the assistance of the Obama administration, to resolve the committee’s lawsuit and the contempt citations issued by the Judiciary Committee and the full House of Representatives with respect to the refusal of the Bush administration to produce subpoenaed White House documents or permit the testimony of former White House officials Karl Rove and Harriet Miers on the U.S. attorney firings.

http://judiciary.house.gov/news/090811.html

The emails discussed in this Dossier shed light on the interplay within the White House regarding removal and replacement decisions, as well as the input of various individuals from the home states impacted by these decisions. Crivella West’s review of the official records found that the events surrounding the removal of the various US Attorneys were influenced by a number of private individuals who were not members of the Bush Administration or civil servants. These individuals had surprising levels of access to Bush Administration officials and were often involved in discussion about official Bush Administration positions. While the events surrounding the removal of the US Attorneys have been the subject of many news articles, this Dossier focuses on the written record and what it reveals about the actual individuals involved in this public controversy and what influence the various individuals wielded. We believe that this analysis provides insight into the events surrounding the US Attorneys removal and allows readers a real opportunity to read source documents and make their own determinations about the actions of the various individuals involved in the events.

Crivella West utilized patented linguistic technology to analyze and identify the email documents that could be logically related to issues specific to the removal of US Attorneys H.E. “Bud” Cummins III and David C. Iglesias. Crivella West has digitized this collection and is hosting it at ../index.html

The preliminary analysis which appears below is representative of a Dossier which Crivella West prepares for its clients in legal, academic and other fields. In short, a Dossier distills the linguistic and contextual analysis of issue specific matters. Quotations from source records in this Dossier are directly from the records, and thus, may be presented with the original grammatical, spelling and typographical errors in uncorrected format.

This Dossier contains three sections. The first highlights communications, chronologically discussing replacement of US Attorneys in general; the second highlights communications specifically in regard to replacement of H.E. “Bud” Cummins III, US Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas; and the third highlights communications specifically in regard to replacement of David Iglesias, US Attorney for the District of New Mexico.

US Attorney Removal/Replacement

Some of the early discussion regarding US Attorneys and their terms of office was prompted when Karl Rove posed a question to staff members of the Office of Counsel to the President, Colin M. Newman and David G. Leitch, on January 6, 2005. Leitch immediately sent an email to Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to the Attorney General, at the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Sampson responded back to Leitch on January 9, stating that, “Judge [presumably Alberto Gonzalez, soon to-be confirmed Attorney General] and I discussed briefly a couple of weeks ago…it would be weird to ask them to leave before completing at least a 4-year term.” Sampson went on to state: “As an operational matter, we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys—the underperforming ones. (This is a rough guess, we might want to consider doing performance evaluations after Judge comes on board.)” Note: Gonzalez’ nomination to Attorney General was approved in February 2005. He further stated, “The vast majority of U.S. Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc., etc.” Sampson concluded: “That said, if Karl thinks there would be political will to do it, then so do I.”
HJC-00001.

An early indication of a plan for specific US Attorneys to be removed is evidenced in a document entitled “United States Attorneys-Appointment Summary”, dated February 24, 2005. It was forwarded to Harriet Miers, White House Counsel, on March 2, 2005, by Sampson in an email explaining, “the analysis on the chart that I gave you is as follows: bold = Recommend retaining; strong U.S. Attorneys who have produced, managed well, and exhibited loyalty to the President and Attorney General. Strikeout = Recommend removing; weak U.S. Attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc. Nothing = No recommendation.” The chart, while heavily redacted, recommended retaining David C. Iglesias and Kevin V. Ryan, while removing H.E. “Bud” Cummins, III, Carol C. Lam, and Margaret M. Chiara.
HJC-00005-HJC-00011.

Sampson updated the chart later that same evening, adding the US Attorneys from Minnesota (Heffelfinger) and the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Biskupic) to the removal list, as well as recommending retention of the US Attorney from the Northern District of Texas (Orwig).
HJC-00013.

On March 10, 2005, there was an email exchange between Sara Taylor, Director of White House Political Affairs, and Miers, where Taylor suggested that her office would start looking for candidates for US Attorney. Miers replied, “At this point, we should only be identifying sources not candidates. We have to notify the individuals that we are looking for replacements so they are not caught off guard or hear they are being replaced off the street.”
HJC-00107.

On January 9, 2006, Sampson wrote an email to Miers regarding “whether President Bush should remove and replace U.S. Attorneys whose four-year terms have expired.”
HJC-00021.

In an email to Scott Jennings, Deputy Director of Political Affairs, dated December 4, 2006, William K. Kelley, Deputy Counsel to United States President, indicated that the DOJ was ready to go forward with the plan to replace certain US Attorneys. Kelley also indicated that DOJ was looking for confirmation, “DOJ asked us to reconfirm that we’re ready to stand strong in the face of political pressure on this issue… can I take your sign-off as Karl’s, or should I raise this separately with him…” HJC-00449.

In an email exchange with Tony Snow, White House Press Secretary, on January 16, 2007, Miers expressed concern over damaging US Attorneys’ reputations. She stated, “I am very worried about commenting on performance or management issues in a negative way.”
HJC-10052.

By March 7, 2007, Sampson’s emails indicated that individuals with knowledge of US Attorney dismissals would be subpoenaed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC). HJC11024.

Attorney Harry E. “Bud” Cummins, III (Eastern District Arkansas)

H.E. “Bud” Cummins III was among the first US Attorneys to be singled out for replacement. His name appears on the chart “United States Attorneys-Appointment Summary” that was created in February of 2005. Part of the controversy that surrounded the plan for his removal was that the candidate for his replacement (Tim Griffin) appeared to be hand-picked from early on, raising suspicion that he was being pushed out to make way for Griffin.

On January 9, 2005, a month before the chart was created, Bud Cummins’ name appeared in an email with the subject line “U.S. Attorney Appointments PLEASE TREAT THIS AS CONFIDENTIAL.” In this correspondence, Sampson wrote to Miers providing information about replacing US Attorneys. Cummins was listed among the seven people named for replacement. Tim Griffin, former Aide to Rove, was mentioned as a potential replacement candidate. Sampson explained that the list of US Attorneys to be removed was based on his review of evaluations from the Executive Office of US Attorneys (EOUSA) and interviews with officals at the Attorney General's (AG) office and Deputy AG's office.
HJC-00021.

Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor raised objections to Griffin’s appointment from the outset. There is indication that he suspected Griffin’s involvement in making arrangements for his own placement as Eastern District Arkansas’ US Attorney. Griffin wrote to Andrea Looney, Special Assistant to the President, on July 8, 2006, to voice his concern that Senator Pryor may have the impression that he used his time in the White House to influence removal of Cummins to gain his position:

Also, Senator Pryor is still under the impression that the decision to ask Bud to leave was done specifically for me by me. During our phone call last week, he was sort of rude in suggesting a coup of sorts. That is completely false. That decision was made without my knowledge or involvement in 2005, possibly before I even started at the White House. And my understanding is Bud was on a list of several US Attys. To the extent that can be addressed with him, I think it will be helpful. Even if he opposes me, I don't want him talking trash to the press about how I had Bud deposed.

HJC-00282.

Jennings weighed in stating that “we need Tim to stand down.” He went on to say, “We did what we said we would do, which is arrange a phone call. I don’t think we need to do any more contact until we get ready to nominate.” HJC-00284.

Later in the month, Looney consulted Sampson on the advisability of arranging a meeting between Senator Pryor and Griffin. On July 25, 2006, she wrote:

I will see Sen. Pryor later today and wanted to offer him a chance to speak with Tim Griffin. Is that a problem since he has not yet been nominated for US Attorney?

HJC-00029.

Sampson's response was affirmative.

If the President has already approved Griffin, then part of our "consultation" (to meet the "advice and consent" requirements of Constitution) would be to tell them we were going to start a BI on Griffin. I assume this has already happened. If so, then it shouldn't be a surprise that we're looking at Griffin, and I would have no objection to a meeting (is Tim back from Iraq?).
HJC-00030.

In an email chain discussing Judicial and US Attorney vacancies, dated September 11, 2006, it was reported that Griffin was objected to by both Arkansas Senators. It stated further that the “DOJ’s plan” was to “move Tim into an interim U.S. Attorney position after a period assisting the incumbent.”

E.D. Arkansas... The Arkansas Senators have objected to Tim Griffin, who was approved to move into background for the position. DOJ's plan, endorsed by Scott Jennings, is to move Tim into an interim U.S. Attorney position after a period assisting the incumbent. The point has been briefed to Andrea Looney, who indicated she would seek Candi Wolff's views on this course. The proposed course has not been raised at JSC.
HJC-00300.

Contained in the same email thread was an explanation of the “PATRIOT Reauthorization Act” provided to Miers and Kelley. The explanation assured that “AG appointees under this authority are not ‘Interim’ or ‘Acting’; they are full US Attys with the same title and authority as PAS appointees”.
HJC-00307.

In an outline sent to Miers from Sampson on September 13, 2006, Cummins’ name was listed as a US Attorney “in the process of being pushed out.” In the summary of the outline, Sampson advocated for the advantages of using the statutory provisions that authorize the AG appointments.

In addition I strongly recommend that, as a matter of Administration 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 political cost to the White House.
HJC-00036.

Christopher Oprison, Associate Counsel to the President, wrote to Miers on December 13, 2006, regarding the objection of both Arkansas Senators to Griffin’s appointment. The reason he gave for their disapproval was due to “his prior work to unseat them.”
HJC-10012.

Sampson wrote to Oprison on December 15, 2006, to encourage communication with the Arkansas Senators who thought the appointment of Griffin was being done in a way to thwart the Senate’s role. He suggested Oprison assuage their fears by assuring that they intended to have the President nominate, and the Senate confirm Griffin.
HJC-10016.

On January 13, 2007, just after the controversy was brought to the public’s attention, Griffin and Jennings had an exchange about Cummins. Griffin forwarded Jennings an article from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette . In the article Cummins stated that “the U.S. Justice Department asked him in June to leave his post to make room for a successor.” Up until that point Cummins had avoided saying that he had been “forced out” as rumor had it. He went on to say that he wanted to “clarify the situation because the proposed legislation had focused a new wave of attention on his and other US Attorney’s recent departures”. Later that night Griffin wrote to Jennings saying, “Bud Cummins did a stupid thing today”.
HJC-11414.

On January 15, 2007, Brian Roehrkasse, Deputy Director of Public Affairs for the DOJ, sent a “heads up” to people in the DOJ camp that another article was coming out about the firings in the Wall Street Journal. Roehrkasse spoke to the reporter who initially raised questions about political motivations and correlation to the legislative changes in the AG’s appointment authority. He went on to say:

However, with all of the background information we provided on the appointment authority and pointing him towards our recent nominations. I don't think it will be as politically focused. More likely, he will write that the Department is pushing out USAs because they are underperforming or not embracing the Department's priorities.

He also spoke to the reporter about the removal of Cummins specifically: The story will be very critical of how the Bud Cummins situation was handled. He thinks despite the political pedigree, that Griffin is very qualified, but just the way in which it was handled with Cummins and Pryor will make it nearly impossible for him to be nominated or confirmed. The good news on this front is he finds Feinstein and Pryor's criticism that we don't intend to nominate USAs suspect and unwarranted.
HJC-10588-C.

On January 17, 2006, Taylor and Griffin exchanged emails discussing items she would need for her meeting with Senator Sessions, Junior US Senator of Alabama and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. She requested a document that contained the bullets of the DOJ on the policy of appointing US Attorneys under the Patriot Act. Apparently not receiving the document she was expecting, she wrote, “Not right- they are generic nothing to do w / patriot act as I can see. Sessions doesn't understand what we are doing or why...” Griffin responded:

DOJs line has been that Bud left and the First Assistant US Attorney was on maternity leave so I was made the interim. That provision was in the patriot act for just these types of situations. DOJ has emphasized that they always intended to have me go through the process and that is where the DOJ bullets pick up. Numerous interim US Attorneys have been appointed around the US under this provision.
HJC-11499.

On January 18, 2006, Griffin reacted to an article written about the firings. He forwarded the article to Oprison saying, “I wish this guy had the facts.” The article stated that Griffin’s appointment was announced December 15, 2006, before Cummins was given the chance to resign. Cummins gave his resignation five days later, the same day Griffin was being sworn in. Griffin saw this as being incorrect, stressing instead that Cummins had been given six months notice.
HJC-11158.

Another article in the Washington Post on February 4, 2007, quoted Cummins as saying, “I don’t think many of us were aware that the administration might want to ask someone to step aside just to give someone else an opportunity. The precedent was that once you were appointed, assuming you were successful in office, you were there until there was a change in the White House.”

In reaction to the article Taylor wrote to Griffin:

Nice of Bud to run his mouth ....... i wish one of our folks would go out there and say they removed him because he was thought to be ineffective!
HJC-11621.

In reaction to the same article Jennings wrote to Taylor, “In every case accept Cummins, there were performance issues with these US Attorney people. And my understanding is that Cummins was no rock star.”
HJC-11631.

On February 19, 2007, following a SJC hearing where Senator Schumer questioned Paul McNulty, Deputy AG, there was an email exchange between Oprison and Kelley. The emails discussed the closed door meeting that McNulty allegedly participated in after the hearing. In that meeting it was purported that McNulty named Miers as “the individual within the White House who directed the firing of Bud Cummins to make way for Tim Griffin.”
HJC-10265.

An email, dated February 22, 2007, contained a draft letter for Attorney General Gonzales’ response to a letter from Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, and Patty Murray. The Senators’ letter addressed Gonzales’ testimony, which contradicted the testimony of Paul McNulty regarding the replacement of Cummins.

When you testified before the Committee on January 18, 2007, you stated unequivocally that you "would never, ever make a change in a U.S. Attorney position for, political reasons ." In a stunning admission, however, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, in his own testimony on February 6, acknowledged that Mr. Cummins was pushed out for no reason other than to install - without Senate confirmation – Tim Griffin, a former aide to Karl Rove. At the time, Mr. Griffin had minimal federal prosecution experience, but was highly skilled in opposition research and partisan attacks for the Republican National Committee. This strikes us as a quintessentially "political" reason to make a change.
HJC-10778.

In the draft response provided on February 23, 2007, a correction was made declaring that the quote, “would never, ever make a change in a U.S. Attorney position for political reasons” was more fairly represented when the entire quote was considered.

I think I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it (emphasis added).

The letter went on to say that the Department’s request for his resignation was not motivated by an inappropriately “political reason” because Griffin had a “strong enough resume” (Gonzales’ words) and Cummins “may have already been thinking about leaving at some point anyway.”

HJC-10780.
In an email chain dated March 7, 2007, Kelley responded to a rumor that he was involved in a meeting where the idea to fire the US Attorney originated.

Solomon has a wh source that told him about nsls and that the idea to fire us atty originated in a meeting with kyle and bill kelly about getting judicial nominees.

Through in the last two years. He is not writing for tomorrow, but is working on

both stories for Friday. Lets talk tomorrow to make sure we're synched up. HJC-10544.

Kelley responded:

To the extent there is a suggestion that any aspect of the US Atty stuff originated

with me or anyone else in Counsel ' s office , that is simply not true . We didn't

think of any aspect of the plan , and we had absolutely nothing to do with

identifying any of the USAttys on the list . (Treating Cummins separately.) HJC-10543.

U.S. Attorney David Iglesias (New Mexico)

An email dated March 2, 2005, referenced previously, provided a list of the US Attorneys by federal district along with a legend explaining scoring. Iglesias’ name appeared on this list with a bolded font, indicating a positive appraisal. HJC-00003 – HJC-00006.

Three months after the “United States Attorneys-Appointment Summary” chart was created, Griffin forwarded an email to Leslie Fahrenkopf, of the Executive Office of the President, regarding Iglesias and the issue of voter fraud. As the forwarded May 2, 2005 email indicates, Griffin requested Jennings compile information on Iglesias. The discussion referenced voter registration forms for two individuals aged 13 and 15 and other registration forgeries. The narrative also pointed out that ACORN admitted submitting registration forms bearing “some of the more egregious forgeries…” Iglesias formed a task force to investigate. GOP lawyers objected to his inclusion of Rebecca Vigil Giron, a known partisan democrat, who was the Secretary of State in New Mexico. The task force announced it would take no action prior to the election. The narrative notes that the County Sherriff and GOP lawyers felt these cases could be prosecuted. HJC-00173.

In June 28, 2005, Griffin again raised Iglesias in an email to Fahrenkopf. The thread began with Jennings writing to Griffin about his desire to “move forward with getting rid of NM USATTY…” With respect to the voter fraud issue, Jennings wrote, “Iglesias has done nothing. We are getting killed out there.” Griffin responded that President Bush would have to want Iglesias to be removed. In that regard, Griffin advised Jennings that he would make inquiries of the White House counsel’s office as to whether the removal of Iglesias was “even in contemplation.” Griffin then forwarded the email thread onto Fahrenkopf asking whether Iglesias was “even on your radar screen?” Griffin reminded Fahrenkopf that they had previously discussed Iglesias’ performance. Fahrenkopf responded by confirming that Iglesias was in fact “on my radar screen.” Fahrenkopf indicated she had raised the issue with Miers who preferred to allow Iglesias to finish out his term to expiration in October 2005. HJC-00178 – HJC-00180.

On August 9, 2005, Allen Weh, chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party, sent an email to Jennings concerning the issue of voter fraud. He stated specifically that Iglesias “failed miserably in his duty to prosecute voter fraud.” Weh noted that Iglesias’ term was set to expire in October of 2005, and requested that consideration be given to replacing Iglesias. HJC-00184.

Mickey Barnett, an attorney and former Republican state senator in New Mexico, sent an email to Rove on October 2, 2006, with a subject line “Possible corruption in building of jail, courts is new focus”. In his email, Barnett referenced a conversation he and Rove had two days prior:

This article confirms what I mentioned Saturday. An FBI agent told me more than six months ago that their investigation was done and been turned over to the U S Attorney a long time ago. He said agents were totally frutstrated with some even try to get out of New Mexico. I can put you or anyone you designate with lawyers knowledgeable about the US Atty office – including lawyers in the office – that will show how poorly it is being run.
HJC-00085.

Interestingly, Barnett suggested the possibility of removing Iglesias by promoting him to a Justice Department position. The article attached to Barnett’s email questioned when Iglesias’ office would take action with respect to a case involving allegations of political favoritism and “procurement issues” related to the construction of the Metropolitan Court and Detention Center in Albequerque, New Mexico. HJC-00085-A – HJC-00085-B.

The article critically mentioned that Iglesias’ office had just come off of:

… months of work on the latest of two Robert Virgil trials, the second of which ended Saturday with the jury acquitting him on 23 counts and finding him guilty on one, attempted extortion. The first trial ended with a hung jury in May. HJC-00087.

On the same day, Jennings wrote an email to Rove with a subject line “Call from Sen. Domenici”:

Karl -a heads up that you may get a call from Senator Domenici complaining about USATTY Iglesias. This in the wake of the Vigil trial verdict he just finished, in which vigil was acquitted on 23 of 24 counts. Domenici will say this shows extreme incompetence and again ask us to remove. He broached this subject with the Attorney General before, who told him we were not inclined to do so. As you might recall, this is

the USATTY who refused to act on the election fraud that took place in NM in 2004. HJC-00323.

On October 10, 2006, Jennings sent an email directly to Rove with copy to Taylor, providing an update on “the USATTY situation in New Mexico…” In it, Jennings explained:

Last week, Senator Domenici reached the Chief of Staff and asked that we remove the USATTY. Steve [Bell] wanted to make sure we all understood that they couldn’t be more serious about this request, which was first made to the Attorney General last year by Domenici. HJC-00335.

Following Iglesias’ resignation in December 2006, Jennings sent an email directly to Rove on January 6, 2007, concerning potential replacements for Iglesias. In the email, Jennings indicated that Senator Domenici “wants [Chuck] Peifer.” However, Jennings indicated that “Our political team wants Bibb…” and that Senator Domenici was opposed to Jim Bibb. HJC-11080.

Two days later, Steve Bell, Chief of Staff for Senator Pete Domenici, wrote to Jennings and others reiterating that “Peifer is our overwhelming choice and will take the job…” HJC-11075.

On January 10, 2007, Bell corresponded directly with Jennings and Weh explaining that Senator Domenici’s camp was “bothered by the depth and breadth of actual prosecutorial experience” of Jim Bibb. Bell indicated that this concern was conveyed to Bibb. Weh responded that while he did not disagree with the assessment, he believed Bibb would approach the position of US Attorney as a “leadership post” and “call in the tough dogs from Justice in DC to help out with prosecuting” pending voter fraud cases. HJC-1129.

By February 17, 2007, the focus of Iglesias’ replacement shifted to Larry Gomez. In an email from Sherriff Darren White to Mickey Barnett, White stated, “From what I’ve heard from inside the USA’s office, Gomez was David’s downfall. One very respected AUSA told me it was no secret that Gomez ran the shop.” Barnett forwarded White’s email to Jennings and noted that “Rumor around the U.S. Attorney’s office is that Gomez will be made acting USA at the end of the month. I am informed that he is much more capable than Iglesias on the failures of the office the past few years.” Barnett concluded with his opinion that bringing in someone new “from outside” was preferable to allowing Gomez to continue. HJC-11259.

By February 22, 2007, the rumors about Gomez had apparently made their way to Bibb. In an email Weh sent to Jennings with a copy to Bell, Weh noted that Bibb had conveyed that he understood his potential nomination was derailed by Senator Jeff Bingaman, of New Mexico.

Weh indicated that he told Bibb that he would speak to Senator Domenici to make further inquiries. Weh was of the mind that Bibb was a “straight shooter” and was “convinced if he meets with Bingaman he’ll win his support.” HJC-11311.

Weh then wrote directly to Jennings noting that his earlier email (HJC-11311), which copied Bell, “puts Domenici’s office in an awkward position” concerning Bibb. Interestingly, Weh concluded the email by referencing another candidate for the position, Jason Bowles, as well as his own candid opinion of the search for Iglesias’ replacement:

For what it’s worth, a lawyer (who Domenici listens to) in the meeting with the senator

last night said “he (Bowles) wouldn’t be my first choice.” Then later he confided to me

that Bowles “acted like a pussy.” I’ve never met this guy, but between that candor and

his record of being a soft R, I can’t imagine him doing the job we need done. How do

things get so f__ked up? HJC-11315.

On February 28, 2007, the last day of Iglesias’ service in his capacity and US Attorney Lisa Breeden, from Senator Domenici’s staff, forwarded to Steve Bell, among others, a presentation Iglesias apparently made to the Senator. HJC-11327. The presentation provided the following information:

Breakdown of case load by subject matter

Statistics indicating increase of defendants charged

Statistics indicating increase of cases per Assistant U.S. Attorneys

Statistics indicating increase of number of full time employees

Impact by way of specific criminal prosecutions

A letter from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys praising Iglesias’ performance

A certificate evidencing that Iglesias had been awarded the New Mexico Medal of Merit
HJC-11328 – HJC-11344.

The same day, the Albuquerque Tribune ran a piece which was forwarded to individuals in the White House press corps. The piece quoted Iglesias, claiming that it was politics, not performance which led to his ouster. HJC-10340.

Later that same day Roehrkasse circulated an email of talking points which included the following:

Iglesias wasn’t asked to resign for failing to bring an indictment in the courthouse construction matter The Bush Administration never removed a USA as a retaliatory measure or to interfere with investigations Iglesias was allowed to serve one and half years in addition to his initial four year term Iglesias’ performance was based on a lengthy record The Department of Justice was unaware of any conversations between Iglesias and members of the New Mexico Congressional delegation Home state Senators occasionally contact the Department of Justice concerning performance issues relating to USAs HJC-10827.

On March 2, 2007, Nancy Scott-Finan, Special Assistant to the DOJ, emailed Dana Perino, who at the time worked for the White House Press Secretary. Scott-Finan specifically asked whether the White House had approved the DOJ’s release of “something about Senator Domenici’s contacting DOJ about the U.S. Attorney in New Mexico.” Scott-Finan explained that she received a call from Senator Domenici’s press secretary who had taken a call from a reporter to that effect. Perino denied that she made any such statement and forwarded the email to other individuals in the White House who in turn denied involvement. HJC-10840 – HJC-10856.

Five days later, on March 7, 2007, Catherine Martin, a White House public affairs specialist, circulated a list of talking points specific to the removed U.S. Attorneys. HJC-11015 – HJC11019. The following points were listed with respect to Iglesias:

New Mexico is a critical border district With respect to border enforcement, a top priority for the President and the Attorney General, Iglesias “failed to tackle… as aggressively and vigorously” as expected. Perception that Iglesias travelled too much and as a result, was not the “hands on” manager the Administration expected him to be Iglesias served in the position over four years and the Administration sought a replacement who could “bring more dynamic leadership…” HJC-11018 – HJC-11019.

Upon being forwarded this list of talking points, Robert Saliterman, a White House spokesman remarked:

for what it’s worth, the question that stuck out in my mind from reading these was whether these issues were raised with the attorneys and when they were raised. if DOJ was mad the USAs were travelling too much but there isn’t any record of us warning

them before firing them, it seems a lot less credible… HJC-11014.

Conclusion

Crivella West prepared this abbreviated Dossier based upon a document production of over 5,400 pages of emails from the Bush White House and the Republican National Committee regarding removal of US Attorneys. This dossier attempts to put forward an unbiased narrative based upon primary sources that are unique and of the sort not often available to the public.

The digitized collection of the emails and documents referenced in this dossier can be accessed at ../index.html.