Democrats See a ‘Document Gap’ in Dismissals

[maddezmom]

Source: New York Times

By ERIC LIPTON and DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: March 22, 2007

WASHINGTON, March 21 — The dismissal of eight United States attorneys has elicited a long and ever-growing list of theories by Democrats on Capitol Hill about ulterior motives and suspicious coincidences.[]b Now there is a new one: the document gap.

Democrats on Capitol Hill were privately urging reporters on Wednesday to press the Bush administration to explain why in the thousands of pages of e-mail messages and documents turned over to investigators, there is almost nothing from Nov. 16 to Dec. 7, the day seven of the firings occurred. In contrast, there are hundreds of pages from the weeks after the dismissals. One of the last e-mail messages before this period was sent by D. Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, to Harriet E. Miers, then the White House counsel, and includes a request that the White House approve the plan. “We’ll stand by for a green light from you,” said the Nov. 15 e-mail message.

A little more than a half-hour later, Ms. Miers replied: “Not sure whether this will be determined to require the boss’s attention. If it does, he just left last night so would not be able to accomplish that for some time.”

~snip~

Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said, “The department has provided or made available to Congress all the documents responsive to Congress’s requests over the time period in question.” He added, “To the extent there was a lull in communications concerning the U.S. attorney issues, it reflects the fact that we have found no responsive documents from that time period, which included the Thanksgiving holiday.”



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/washington/22gap.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Duer 157099]

1. I have a theory about this

Or at least about the excuse they will use about this, when they finally get around to trying to explain it.

Since they have declined to release any intra-WH emails, it would seem that perhaps one email that was intra-WH but was cc'd to DOJ entered the stream, and then, they way nobody ever trims the prior email before responding, each new email carries the prior email content, and since some of those were intra-WH... well, obviously that's why they didn't release them.

But don't worry, once Conyers and/or Leahy get those intra-WH emails subpoenaed, they'll turn up.

[w4rma]

2. I don't understand what you said but,

don't post your ideas about how they should lie. They might actually think its a good idea and use it. Just ... keep it to yourself.

[lligrd]

3. Trust Me, There Is No Idea That Anyone On DU Could

come up with that the master manipulator of all, Karl Rove hasn't already considered.

[w4rma]

6. I don't think Rove is as smart as anyone makes him out to be. (nt)

[lligrd]

7. You Don't Have To Be Smart To Be Good At Manipulation

Plenty of absolute idiots are experts at it.

[ProudDad]

4. This is Sooooooo Deja Vu!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/21/attorneys.email.gap/index.html

"December 7, 1973: The White House can't explain an 18 1/2 -minute gap in one of the subpoenaed tapes. Chief of staff Alexander Haig says one theory is that "some sinister force" erased the segment."

http://www.watergate.info/chronology/brief.shtml

[maddezmom]

5. "some sinister force"

:rofl: looks like the ghost is back at the WH

[lligrd]

8. LOL 18.5 Minute Gap??

As opposed to a 21 day gap?

[salin]

10. that's why I think this episode ought to be dubbed: Gonzales's Rosemary's Baby.

works for me on multiple levels.

[salin]

9. Yesterday I wondered how long it would take corp media to cover the gap

from the time it was found and discovered in the blogsphere that was examining the documents. Just over one day. Much better than in the earlier jradmin era.

[maddezmom]

12. you're correct TPM had it early yesterday

here's a link from yesterday:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/maddezmom/257

Guess they needed to presser questions before they'd write about it? :shrug:

Q Okay. You keep saying the Justice Department, the response -- that these emails, the 3,000 pages is unprecedented, is very responsive. Why, then, is there this gap from mid-November to about December 4th, right before the actual firings? Why is there a gap in the emails?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. Why don't you ask them?

Q Well, you're the White House, the Justice Department serves under --

MR. SNOW: I know, but I'm not going to be the fact witness on Justice.

Q But you're the one representing that this has been very responsive. Now when there's a gap you say go to them.

MR. SNOW: Yes, and I've been led to believe that there's a good response for it, but I'm going to let you ask them because they're going to have the answer.

Q There is one email from November 15th from Mr. Sampson to Harriet Miers, I believe, "Who will determine whether this requires the President's attention?"

MR. SNOW: Right.

Q And then there's a gap in emails. Was there any -- perhaps any emails about the President in there? And did the President have to sign off on this? Because the question was raised --

MR. SNOW: The President has no recollection of this ever being raised with him.

Q Tony, have you read the emails or been briefed on them?

MR. SNOW: I have been briefed; I have not read all 3,000 pages.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070321-4.html

[salin]

11. Why does the title say "Democrats find..." rather than "A document gap"

frames the article as if it is questionable as to whether there is a gap or not (there is no question) - but that democrats "perceive" or "allege" one. Irking title for this article.

[w4rma]

13. Obviously big media isn't allowed to study and verify these things for themselves. (nt)

[mhatrw]

16. Because the gap is partisan.

Didn't you get the MSM memo? All of reality is partisan. Nothing can be confirmed independently outside of the partisan paradigm.

[sendero]

14. Email server backups..

... somebody has them, and they will have the gap. It would be too bad for the Republicans if they were to "leak", because that would prove conclusively that obstruction of justice was involved and it truly would be the end of the Bush administration.

Sure, the tricksters might have covered their tracks that well but I'd be surprised. If they were anywhere near as smart as they think they are, they wouldn't be in this mess already.

[niceypoo]

15. Right after the Nov election? Its obvious to me why...

They wanted to put in people that wouldn't prosecute Bush given the democratic victory.