Whoever did the redacting of the document dump didn't do a very good job

[ck4829]

It may strain your eyesight, but you CAN read what the redacted documents say.

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/PDFS/OAG12-22-NEW-.pdf

[nebenaube]

1. BWAHHHH this one is a keeper... n/t

[MessiahRp]

2. Can someone translate?

I'm straining the hell out of my eyes to read that.

Rp

[ck4829]

4. I can make out the names of the Attorneys and the reasons for firing them

[myrna minx]

5. I'd like to know if the name Fitzgerald appears in there. n/t

[pacalo]

6. Which page is that on?

[ck4829]

7. Starts on page 2

[pacalo]

9. Interesting -- on page 7 is information about Carol Lam

& "Boxer (D)" is mentioned. Also, "Feinstein" is mentioned right before Boxer's.

I believe Boxer & Feinstein have a right to know why their names & party affiliations are mentioned in these e-mails regarding USA replacements.

On edit, I see on page 10 that the redacted part about Feinstein & Boxer on page 7 is duplicated: "Home-state Senators/political leaders: Feinstein (D) and Boxer (D);Parsky Commission". Still, why are the words "political leaders" used in describing these two senators? Why not refer to them simply as "home-state senators"? Because replacing the USA's is a "political" matter?

[myrna minx]

10. I'd be interested if there is any discussion about Sen Pryor of Arkansas.

He has stated that Gonzales lied to him directly about the replacement of his USA.

[Hamlette]

22. home state senators usually are given a chance to give input to USA jobs. n/t

[pacalo]

32. True, but I question why they are referred to as *political* leaders.

This administration has been nothing but political. Using the term home-state senators/political leaders is just another window into their line of thinking, imo.

[Hamlette]

34. for years I tried to figure out how this administration thought

now I'm sort of relieved I never figured it out. They are way too sick and it must be a sign of sanity that I can't even imagine how they think.

(Although I think "political" leaders is more innocent than much of the other crap we are seeing. I'm very disappointed in Hatch who continues to defend this whole mess even though they tried to dump his friend Warner as USA and he told 'em to back off.)

[Recursion]

27. The same column is being used for two things

"Political Leader" is a GOP operative whose opinion is important in a state with no GOP senator

[pacalo]

33. The way that it is written implies that the reference is to Boxer & Feinstein.

I think your interpretation is right, although it seems that if they were referring to a thug operative in a state without senator rubberstampers, it would have been clearer if they hadn't used the slash next to home-state senators.

[Old and In the Way]

36. This may be why the change to the Patriot Act was needed.

The clause that the President could by-pass the Senate oversight/approval....too many (D) Senators in the targeted States.

[myrna minx]

3. K&R.

I hope someone with better eyesight than I do can transcribe.

[AllegroRondo]

11. save as a graphic file and crank up the contrast

its almost like they wanted people to read it.

[snappyturtle]

12. Thanks AR I'll try it! N/T

[myrna minx]

14. Thanks.

I think you could be right. While we're all squinting at these pages, what else are they doing.

[blogslut]

8. Awesome

Incompetence saves the day again!

[Blackhatjack]

13. Some Underling is going to get a termination notice over this exercise....

Can we get the same people to 'redact' future copies provided by the WHite House?? LOL

[The Stranger]

15. But can our Democratic leaders be bothered to "strain their eyes" to see these things?

That is the question.

[blogslut]

16. We can

And when we get it deciphered, we will let them know what it says. All hail the powah of teh Internets!

[snappyturtle]

17. I just right clicked the document page and zoomed it (+) and

voila! Lots easier to read for those of us who need help! (I zoomed it several times!)

[seemslikeadream]

18. YES ZOOM IT!

[pacalo]

19. You're right!

[Junkdrawer]

23. 300% is a good compromise between readability and the need to scroll...

at 300% it reads clear as day...

[samdogmom]

20. Why did they redact this information?

Don't they need to justify why something is redacted? What is the national security risk here? I can't believe they can withhold information just because it makes them look bad. Does anyone ask for a reason why information is withheld and get to overrule reasons that are really just to cover up the release of damaging information?

[ck4829]

21. No, actually because of Executive Order 13233 (I think it's that one)

A President can classify information basically just because he can.

[samdogmom]

24. Somehow this just doesn't seem right!

He has complete power to cover up all of his crimes by simply declaring them "classified".

[Robbien]

26. Which is why he needs to make sure the Judges and USAs are all GOPers

and are team players.

And yes it doesn't seem right at all, but they are gaming the system.

That is what this is all about.

[file83]

25. My guess is that this isn't "redacted" - just highlighted with a blue or green marker.

There is no way that a photocopier/scanner would create a readable image if those paragraphs were blacked out with a black marker. No way.

Did the webpage you got this from say whether these are "redacted" or not?

Another reason is that they would have to reason to redact the parts where they are quoting "The U.S. Code". That's open information.

[Junkdrawer]

28. Complete text via "anon" at TpmMuckraker....

You have asked whether President Bush should remove and replace US Attorneys whose four year terms have expired. I recommend that the Department of Justice and the Office of Counsel to the President work together to seek the replacement of a limited number of US Attorneys.

United States Attorneys are appointed to a four year term of office and thereafter may hold over until a successor is appointed as the US Code provides.

(a) The President shall appoint by and with the advice and consent of the Senate a US attorney for each judicial district.
(b) Each US Attorney shall be appointed for a term of four year. On the expiration of this term, a US attorney shall continue to perform the duties of this office until his successor is appointed and qualifies.
(c) Each US Atty is subject to removal by the President.

28 USC 54 (?) During the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace US Attys they had appointed whose four-year terms had expired, but instead permitted such US Attys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision.

There likely are several explanations for this. In some instances, Presidents Reagan and Clinton may gave been pleased with the work of the US Attys who after all they had appointed. In other instances, Presidents Reagan and Clinton may simply have been unwilling to commit the resources necessary to remove the US Attorneys, find suitable replacements (seek the advice of the home state senators) complete background investigations and secure Senate confirmations.

There are practical obstacles to removing and replacing US Attys. First, wholesale removal of US Attys would cause significant disruption of the work of the Department of Justice. Second, individual US Atty’s who were originally recommended for appointment by home state Senators who may be opposed to the President’s determination to remove the US Atty. A suitable replacement must be found in consultation with the home state Senator, the difficulty of which would vary from state to state. Fourth, a background investigation must be completed on the replacement, a task often complicated if the outgoing US Atty remains in office. Fifth, after nomination the Senate must confirm the replacement.

None of the above obstacles are insuperable. First, a limited number of US Attys could be targeted for removal and replacement, mitigating the shock to the system that would result from an across the board firing at the Department of Justice. Executive Office of the US Attorneys (EOUSA) could work with the targeted US attorneys to encourage them to leave governement. This would allow targeted US Attys to make arrangements for work in the private sector and to save face both in the DoJ community and in the local legal communities. Third, after targeted US Attorneys have left office or indicated publicly their intention to leave office the the Office of the Counsel to the President can work with home state Senators and/or other political leaders in the state to secure recommendadtions for a replacement US Atty. Finally, after background investigations are completed and the replacement candidate is nominated, the AG can appoint the nominee to serve as Interim US Atty, reducing the time during which the leadership of the office is uncertain.

If a decision is made to remove and replace alimited number of US Attorneys, then the following mught be considered for removal and replacement:

Margaret M. Chiara – US Atty for the Westerns District of Michigan.
Term expired 1/2/2005
Replacement Candidate: Rachel Brand
Home State Senators/political leaders: Levin and Stabenow, numerous

Harry E. “Bud” Cummins III US Atty for the Eastern District of Arkansas
Term expires 9/2/2006
Replacement candidates: Tim Griffin
Home State senators/political leaders: Pryor (D) and Lincoln (D) Gov Huckabee )

Kevin V. Ryan US Atty for the Northern District of California
Term expires 8/2/2006
Replacement candidates Dan Levin
Home state senators/political leaders Feinstein(D) and Boxer (D), Parsky commission.

Carol Lam US Atty for the Southern District of California
Term expires 1/18/2006
Replacement candidates Jeff Taylor, Deb Rhodes
Home State Senators/political leaders Feinstein (D) and Boxer (D), Parsky commission.

I like these folks based on my review of the evaluations of their offices conduced by the EOUSA and my interviews with officials in the Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, and their Criminal Division. If a determination is made to seek the removal of these folks then we should similarly seek to remove and replace.

Please let me know how you would like to proceed.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003007.php

[IChing]

29. No, you don't highlight everything in a letter.

from beginning to end.

[file83]

31. Good point - but the entire letter isn't highlighted.

A vast majority of it is - but again, this might be to "highlight" the parts of the letter that are important to investigators. And the point still remains - if it was redacted with a black marker - we wouldn't be able to read any copy or scan of it. The bit depth wouldn't allow it.

[On the Road]

35. If the Scanning Light Were Strong Enough,

I suspect some black marker would be translucent even if the printer's ink was opaque. Maybe that's what happened.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

30. I worked for a criminal defense attorney...

as a legal assistant who did much of the document handling. Man, did I get in trouble for doing a shit redaction job once! :D The trick was to use white out or a marker on a copy of a requested document and then make a copy of the copy. I was once in a big hurry for a discovery request and send the redacted copies withoug going through the extra step. I got (rightly so) seriously spanked by the attorney.

Sounds like someone messed up.