President Retaliated Against US Attorneys Who Nailed IC

Ref The intelligence community [IC] has an interest in seeing the US Attorney's fired.

TPM time line highlights the timing of US Attorney Actions, prosecutions, and White House E-mails. The President and others were specifically retaliating against US Attorneys who were affecting Republican legal and political interests.

* * *

The intelligence community, contractors, and others involved with the illegal war crimes and prisoner abuse have an interested in shutting down the uS Attorneys.

Here's the link with the intelligence community:

May 2005 Events (h/t)

May 5, 2006: Porter Goss, director of the CIA, resigns unexpectedly, amidst controversy concerning surrounding handpicked appointee to the #3 position, Kyle "Dusty" Foggo. (sub. req.)

The Wall Street Journal reports that is under investigation Foggo in relation to the ongoing San Diego/Cunningham scandal. The office overseeing the investigation is that of US Attorney Carol Lam. (sub. req.)

May 8, 2006: Foggo resigns from the CIA.

May 11, 2006: The LA Times reports that the investigation of Cunningham has expanded to include Representative Jerry Lewis (R-CA), House Appropriations Committee Chairman.

Sampson emails Mier's deputy William Kelly, writing that they need to discuss: "The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires." Sampson also mentions a need to discuss "Tim Griffin for E.D. Ark."

May 12, 2006: Federal agents working on the San Diego/Cunningham investigation execute search warrants on the home and office of Kyle "Dusty" Foggo.

Comment

This is something I believe warrants further review. It is a grammatical error, but suggests they're talking about something else not in the e-mail.

Re-read this, and you'll see the grammar error:

The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18

"That" doesn't flow. . . .Ref Here's the original from TPM.

___ What was Sampson referring to, other than the US Prosecutor targeting Foggo, when Sampson said to Bill Kelley: "Please call me . . . to discuss. . . the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam"

Rove-Miers-Gonzalez Word Games

"Real problem" doesn't imply that the problem is real; but that there is an important problem that is very serious. One way of reading is that "real" means certain; the other way, and most likely, was "serious": Lam was doing something the White House did not support: Prosecuting a GOP ally.

Here's the warning: Given this issue relates to an apparent Presidential retaliation for legal action, beware of the explanation the White House gives; but see if the explanation fits within the words above. The White House is likely to attempt to explain away the Sampson statement with an explanation that -- when placed in the context of the words above -- does not fit and defies reason.

Keep the above quote in mind when we review the White House explanation. It will not likely fit into the above e-mail, nor be constituent with the discussions related to this subject. Something is going to not fit; and make the story more convoluted.

____ [/snark] How real of a definition for "real" do you want?

* * *

Questions

___ How is the timing of the White House e-mails related to the DOJ OPR getting shut down from reviewing the NSA issues?

___ How do the events related to rendition, NSA surveillance, and Guantanamo abuse compare with actions taken against US Attorneys?

___ What specific things did the President and Attorney General learn the DOJ OPR wanted to look at; and what did the President and AG Gonzalez know would be problems if DOJ OPR looked at this information and evidence?

___ Who were the DOJ Staff counsel who knew of the legal problems, but did not report their evidence and information as required under the Attorney Standards of conduct to DOJ OPR?

___ Which Abraxas placed personnel are concerned US Attorneys, with the right war crimes prosecutors support, will specifically target IC contractors and allies in the NSA-JTTF support areas?

___ Which IC contractors connected with rendition, prisoner abuse, and Geneva violations hope to dissuade US Attorneys who might bring war crimes charges against IC contractors who have violated the Geneva Conventions; or used information illegally obtained through abuse or unlawful surveillance to expand an illegal war of aggression?

___ Which contractors, in exchange for supporting illegal warfare, were rewarded with valuable defense, justice, and intelligence contracts?

___ Which Members of Congress did the GOP target hoping they would be dissuaded from cutting funding for illegal warfare?

___ Why is Congress reluctant to lawfully tie the hands of an alleged war criminal in the White House; and preventing him from expanding his illegal war of aggression as Japan and Germany did in WWII?