President Had Multiple Meetings On US Attorney Firings

Meetings where Bush was involved are known to have occurred well before August 2006, several months before Gonzalez had his known involvement.

Note: Temporary files show Presidential meeting correspondence. Look for kw = [ tmp.htm ] These are routed within EOP.

[E-mail below Reformatted: Do not use this for official correspondence or evidence. Please refer to the originals not this blog.]

* * *



Here's one sample e-mail showing the e-mails are linked with discussions with the President. This disclosure means the details are no privileged; Goodling's assertion that she is in a perjury trap means that she, as liasion to the White House, views the President's direction and involvement as having tainted things.

From: Douglas B. Baker@who.eop.gov Douglas B. Baker@who.eop.gov
To: Brand, Rachel - -
CC: Robert Jacobs@who.eop.gov Robert Jacobs@who.eop.gov
Sent: Tue Jul 25 17:53:58 2006 -
Subject: Prosecution Issues
«tmp.htm» Rachel:

I understand that Barry Jackson has asked a question about the variable prosection policies by AUSA Sector for illegal immigration. We have another question posed by Speaker Hastert. He understands that the AU SA for Nogales will not prosecute marijuana possession for amounts less than 500 lbs. Seems unlikely to me, but need to get to the truth as this was raised in meeting with POTUS.

Thanks,

Doug

Out of the blue, Miers in 13 Sept 2006 asks about the intention of one of the US Attorneys.

Kyle, ~y [your] current thinking on US Attorney holdovers?

Any recent word on [redacted]'s intentions?

Harriett.

Holdover requires a replacement to be ready before the US Attorney, who has passed their four year mark, to be relieved of their job. Until there is an appointment ready, the US Attorney continues to serve. It has nothing to do with the "Pleasure" of the President. The appointment must be ready; until there is an apportionment ready, the holdover provisions mean that the US Attorney, who has exceeded their for year term, remains in office.

The question becomes: If they knew hey were dealing with the holdover provision, why would Miers ask about someone's intentions? Do these concerns with "intentions" relate to concerns the US Attorney:

___ Bowing to pressure from the DOJ

___ Buckling under because of Member of Congress calls

___ Reacting to White House counsel discussion of "home state being angry" about information which had not been released?

___ Going away quietly or putting up a fight?

If they're really firing them/pushing them out, why are they concerned about the "holdover" provisions?

___ What prompted Miers after discussions with the President, to talk directly with Gonzalez people?