Disdain in the 3/19 Document Dump

This pile of text isn't as immediately rewarding as the last one. There are no evident new scandals, no official business to be seen over outside email servers (although there are a couple of redacted email addresses). And a lot of this is a typical document dump -- duplicated text, copies of material already available elsewhere (Congressional testimony, press releases, and even law journals), and of course redactions upon redactions. But that doesn't mean there isn't anything worth taking note of.

I refer to a lot of the pages by the document page ID number, located in the bottom-right hand corner of each page.

First, the urgency with which the USAs were forced out is striking. Margaret Chiara, in an email conversation summarized at DAG000000689-690, requests the ability to step down 7 days later so that she can fulfill her obligations as NAIS chair. Mike Elston's initial response is not to allow the change, but rather to suggest cancelling the meeting, despite that risking "a setback to government-to-government relations" with the Eastern Band of Cherokees. Why was getting these people out of office this urgent?

Despite the speed, there was obviously an expectation that the USAs would take this quietly. Paul Charlton's request to speak with Gonzales was described by Elston on DAG000000504 as "in the 'you won't believe this category'". Needless to say, the request was, in the entirety of Kyle Sampson's reply, "Denied."

In fact, although there is a lot of talk about making the departures smooth transitions, nothing was prepared for the outgoing USAs. See DAG000000675, where Chiara writes to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and Mike Elston about her inability to secure new employment. "In addition to applying to numerous public agencies and organizations, I am now working with a 'headhunter'. Who knew this could be so difficult?" Both her letter and the unrelated conversation between Elston and Sampson on DAG000000676-678 make it clear that the USAs were not and have not been told the "why [they] were being asked to resign". When she finally locates a position, it is one that she is "not currently eligible" for. Her request for "interven[tion]" is entertained by Elston on DAG000000696, not out of compassion for a public servant forced from her office, but because "This idea may help us avoid linking this to the others." The extraordinarily heavily redacted DAG000000710 implies that McNulty supported this approach. There are references to almost every one of the USAs expressing concern for their financial and employment future. Contrast this with the host of special arrangement made for Tim Griffin, and detailed in the last packet of DoJ email releases.

The passive disdain for the people run over by this process shouldn't surprise anyone anymore. Still, seeing it in writing, from the hands of key officials themselves -- even as they maintain a congenial, sometimes joking, tone amongst themselves, is nevertheless chilling.