David Margolis was one of the Deputy Attorney Generals called before Congress to testify. Margolis stated he was not adequately involved. However, a delegation letter and Margolis "hands on" approach re the Vice Foster death in 1994 paints a different picture.

Margolis well knew from 1990-era memos he allegedly read  [See notes 48-52] standards of conduct he would have us believe he should be excused. The inconsistency demands a follow-up. We believe DOJ's Vince Foster-related memos shed light on standards of conduct reasonably expected of DOJ Staff counsel 2001-9, and the troubling issues they wanted to suppress with secret DOJ OLC memos.

One TPMM comment about Margolis and Rove refers to Clint Eastwood character's quote from The Outlaw Josey Wales (1996).

Margolis was admitted to the Connecticut bar in 1964, and the CT ethics rules bar misleading statements. The irony is Margolis' statements about the DOJ OPR annual report might prompt a DOJ OPR ethics review.

The information after the jump supports earlier calls for DOJ OPR to review DOJ Staff conduct re the DoD emails. We review Margolis' alleged inconsistent statements and conduct between (1) the delegation letter re the CIA leak investigation, (2) the Vince Foster investigation, (3) the US Attorney firings, and (4) the refusal to publish DOJ OPR annual reports.

CIA Leak- US Attorney FiringTimeline

One key is to notice the timing of the CIA delegation letter in 2005 with the implicit US Attorney firing timeline the same year. Among other responsibilities in 2005-6, Margolis is connected with three (3) specific overlapping responsibilities: The US Attorney firing issues, DOJ OPR annual report, and the CIA leak investigation.  These issues, when contrasted, do not reconcile with Margolis testimony or his conduct in the Vince Foster investigation..

Other Titles For this TPMM Content:

Margolis Attention During Vince Foster Investigation Belies "Passivity"-claims on US Attorney Firings

Margolis Allegedly Made Dubious Excuses For Not Publishing Annual DOJ OPR Report

CIA Leak Investigation Delegation Letter Casts Doubt on Margolis Reasons For Not Publishing DOJ OPR Annual Reports

Possible DOJ OPR Ethics Investigation into Margolis

1. CIA Leak Investigation

In 2005, Deputy AG Comey delegated to Margolis authority related to the CIA investigation. The language in the memo suggests sweeping authority for Margolis to act:

Comey Aug 12, 2005 Delegation Letter to Margolis, Associate Deputy Attorney General

Comey Memo: By virtue of the authority vested in me as Deputy Attorney General under the law, including 28 C.F.R. § 0.15(a), I delegate to you all of my authority as Acting Attorney General with respect to that investigation and Mr. Fitzgerald's service as Special Counsel, as delineated in that correspondence.

For reference, 28 C.F.R. § 0.15(a):

(a) The Deputy Attorney General is authorized to exercise all the power and authority of the Attorney General, unless any such power or authority is required by law to be exercised by the Attorney General personally.

For reference, the subject of the investigation was the CIA leak investigation:

Margolis Linked With CIA Investigation Oversight

Comey Memo re CIA Leak: In the attached correspondence to Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, dated December 30, 2003, and Feburary 6, 2004, I delegated to Mr. Fitzgerald all of the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a Central Intelligence Agency employee's identity.

2. US Attorney Firing

The above delegations of authority are strikingly different than Margolis statements at the hearing. TPMM reminds us of the 2006-related events: "In November 2006, when Sampson advised Margolis about the impending removals"

TPMM shares important information about what Margolis said. Whether this is true or not is the subject of the likely DOJ OPR ethics investigation:

Margolis Leaves Impression He Was Passive

Margolis Comment via TPM: "And I was not aggressive enough or vigilant enough, and I should have done a number of things, I should have inserted myself. I was too passive"

3. Vince Foster Investigation

Let's consider the Senate interchange showing Margolis involvement; then later using the NYT disclosed email from Margolis re the Vince Foster investigation showing attention to detail which contrasts with this supposed "passive" approach in the US Attorney investigation.

Margolis' supposed "passive" approach during the US Attorney firing scandal is out of character. In the wake of Vice Foster's death Margolis was in the White House providing directions: He was personally involved, detail oriented, exacting, and coordinating, unlike the picture he painted before Congress re the US Attorney firing. It appears Margolis is downplaying his role to shift attention from other issues he was equally involved 2001-9.

A. Senate Transcript

1996 Senate Records re Vince Foster Investigation

Here Senator Shelby asks about previous events. Note Margolis' detailed involvement:

- Going to a specific location
- Discussion plans
- Confirming understanding
- Changing specific plans

Senator SHELBY. I understand that you received a call from David Margolis the next morning from the White House about the search; is that correct? You want
to refer to your notes?

Mr. HEYMANN. That's correct,

Senator SHELBY. What was this call about?

Mr. HEYMANN. He and Roger Adams had gone over with the Park Police and the FBI to do the review we planned.

Senator SHELBY. This was pursuant to the understanding you had with Mr. Nussbaum?

Mr. HEYMANN. Pursuant to the understanding of the 21st.

Senator SHELBY. Okay.

Mr. HEYMANN. Mr. Margolis told me that Mr. Nussbaum had said to me that they had changed the plan, that only the White House counsel's office would see the actual documents. Mr. Margolis had asked Mr. Nussbaum whether that had been discussed with me and Mr. Nussbaum had said no.

The problem is the inconsistency when we compare Margolis' (a) statements above about passivity; (b) his detailed involvement re Vice Foster's death; with (c) what he said about the reason for the DOJ OPR not releasing its annual report. His statements and conduct do not reconcile. Margolis wasn't one to leave things to chance or unknown. 

There appear to be other White House-level factors, unrelated to DOJ, driving Margolis apparent inaction. Indeed, it was Margolis in an email who complained about the lack of independence of the Justice Department, and fired off a series of questions. Yet, at the Congressional hearing re the US Attorney firings under Bush, Margolis would have us believe he wasn't involved.

B. NYT-Disclosed Email

This excerpt from the 1995 NYT coverage paints a much different picture about Margolis, and his aggressive emails about the DOJ role in the Vince Foster Investigation. Margolis laments staff were not involved, yet later re the US Attorney firings he would ask that we accept his passive approach. The two are not reconcilable. It defies reason to believe Margolis threw out the followingn about Vince Foster and rolled over re the US Attorney firing issues:

Margolis Different Conduct re Vince Foster

Margolis' sentiments in the NYT-disclosed email cast new light on his claims of passivity re the US Attorney firing. This email from Margolis re Vince Foster includes statements the Committee should challenge Margolis over re the US Attorney firings.

[Source: 1995 NYT Article: "White House Reaches Agreement on Giving More Information on Dead Official's Files" ]

NYT: Carl Stern, a spokesman at the Justice Department, said that one of the documents, an E-mail message from a senior lawyer on the case to Mr. Heymann that listed a series of caustic questions about the independence of the Justice Department, was not a complaint. Rather, Mr. Stern said, it was a list of mock questions in anticipation of news reporters' inquiries.

NYT: The message was sent by the Justice Department lawyer, David Margolis, on Aug. 7, after the White House had found a note from Mr. Foster expressing his unhappiness with Washington, but before the note was made public. The message is headlined, "Vince Foster Moot Court Media Questions."

NYT: "You are still allowing the White House to dictate the terms of your investigations, at least when the White House has interests to protect," Mr. Margolis wrote.

NYT: At one point, the message says: "You claim your people did not supervise the search -- that they were merely present during the search by W.H. counsel. Why didn't Mr. Nussbaum find the notes? What sense does this procedure make? Who was running this investigation -- the DOJ or the White House? Why didn't you put your cigar store Indians to work back at the office during the search and simply let Bernie Nussbaum report the results of his search to you? What purpose did the mere presence of your people serve?"

Margolis was supposedly the one who knew about the concern with White House involvement with the Vince Foster investigation, and "took the time" to prepare the above questions. Yet, we're asked to believe Margolis took a passive role on the US attorney firings.  If Margolis was passive, who, then, in the White House was active?

July 24, 1995 Memo From OPR Shaheen to Margolis

Reference Notes 48-51 [Appendix A] from the Travel Gate investigation re missing emails shows OIC Michael Shaheen was stunned at the lack of "cooperation and candor" from the White House, calling it "unprecedented."

Margolis Knew or Should Have Known of Concerns About Candor

The report at notes 48-51 establishes (1) a memo from OPR to Margolis; and (2) a standard of cooperation and candor Margolis should have known was applicable.

Report: "OPR Counsel Michal Shaheen prepared a memorandum to Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis concerning the White House's lack of cooperation with his investigation. [Sheehan wrote]: . . .'yet another example of the lack of cooperation and candor we received . . .' " [underlining in original]

We believe, because the statements do not appear to reconcile with what Margolis knew what was reasonably expected, that Margolis has allegedly been deceptive.

4. Explanations For Not Releasing DOJ OPR Annual Reports

DOJ OPR until 2004 released timely annual reports. This annual report was the legal obligation, under the CFR, to provide to the AG. After 2005, DOJ OPR did not publish reports. Until 2008, there was no 2005 report published, a three (3) year delay.

The Los Angeles Times asked Margolis about not releasing the DOJ OPR annual reports, but his responses raise more questions than answers. These appear to be excuses for inaction or activity at a much lower level than what Margolis showed re Vince Foster:

Margolis Implicitly Claims He Did A Manning Assessment

Contrast the implicit "manning study" (requirement for detailed analysis) with the claim of passivity re the US Attorney firings:

Publica Report re Los Angeles Times:

LAT: "[Margolis] said the decision reflected a lack of resources, as well as concern about balancing public interests with the privacy rights of individual attorneys facing accusations."

Margolis' statement is not credible. "Privacy rights" are not an issue: The DOJ OPR annual report redacts the names of the attorneys, and previous reports until 2004 provided summary data.

Whether information is "published" or "provided to the AG" is unrelated to a lack of resources. This would, at best, only delay, not prevent the DOJ OPR annual report publication.

Note 51 [Appendix A] discusses the belated production of documents re Vince Foster, and the DOJ Public Integrity section "concern" with that untimely delivery:

Margolis Knew or Should Have Known Implications of Not Producing Documents

The explanations must be credible, otherwise there are more questions and investigations.

Public Integrity Section Memo, 1994: "The White House failure to produce documents prompted Public integrity Section Chief Lee Radek to conclude on September 8, 1994 that "[We] are not confident the White House has produced all the documents in its possession . . ."

The LAT reporting appears to muddy the water. Indeed, it's unclear what "the decision" is:

Irrelevant Confusion Over Margolis Decision

It's not obvious, whether Margolis "decision", but these are not (for now) relevant::

Was Margolis' decision:

A. Not to publish the still-not-written reports;
B. Not to produce the DOJ OPR report for the AG;
C. Not to prepare old, but written DOJ OPR reports for publication; or
D. Not to prepare still-not-produced DOJ OPR reports for the the AG and publication?

These uncertainties are not relevant because the published 2004 DOJ OPR report shows there is no specific identifying information about attorneys and does not raise any reasonable "privacy rights" Margolis alludes.

2004 DOJ OPR Report: Evidence Suggesting Misleading Margolis Statement

This is a sample report which could possibly be used to impeach Margolis re his statements on "privacy" concerns in the withheld DOJ OPR annual reports.

Sample 2004 annual report does not contain identifying information.

Margolis appears to have made excuses not to do what he should have done: Ensure the DOJ OPR annual report 2006-8 was timely published, regardless pressure from the White House or GOP.

Also, a recently disclosed DOJ IG report shows the same level of detail within the previously disclosed DOJ OPR annual reports, enough to identify -- using other sources -- the DOJ Staff.

We argue we don't need to have specific information about what 'the decision" really was; Margolis appears to have provided information he did not expect anyone to double check: The (lack of) identifying information about DOJ Staff in the released DOJ OPR reports is unrelated to a bonafide concern whether or not the still-not-disclosed DOJ OPR reports do or do not have privacy information.

Impeaching Margolis As A Witness: Retroactive, Dubious Recollections

Whether Margolis is impeached or not as a witness is a strategic decision. Margolis appears to have retroactively asked the committee to believe there was a "concern" which is not supported by reasonable evidence.

This is an alleged inconstent statement, made under oath, and would, if proven true, fall outside what is "recollection". As with the CIA tape destruction and DOJ OLC memos, it appears Margolis in this situation has retroactively attempted to leave a different impression about what he was thinking, doing, or concerned about.

Margolis' statements do not reconcile:

A. He was delegated authority re the CIA leak investigation in 2005;

B. In response to questions about 2006-era conduct, he allegedly claimed he made a decision to not publish the DOJ OPR annual report;

C. Margolis allegedly claims the decision (B) was based on a staffing assessment, implying he was involved and did a review;

D. Margolis allegedly claims the decision (B) was based on a privacy interest, but this is not supported by previous DOJ OPR annual reports;

E. Margolis before Congress claims he was passive, contradicting the required detailed analysis to review the staffing levels (C);

F. His conduct, emails, and experience re Vince Foster shows a much higher level of sophistication, involvement, and attention than what he would have us believe about his involvement with the US Attorney firings.

Unclear What Margolis Was Doing

On the CIA leak investigation it seems unusual, on the back of admitted "passive" oversight of the US Attorneys, that Comey would delegate all authority to Margolis.

If we take Margolis' statement re the US Attorney firing scandal as true -- that he was "passive" on the US Attorneys -- then what basis did Comey use to delegate the authority to Margolis; and what was Margolis also not doing with the CIA leak investigation?

The other possibility is Margolis wasn't there to conduct oversight of the CIA leak investigation, but to keep tabs on Fitzgerald, and provide information to Comey, back to the White House and the OVP on the status of the investigation.

Margolis' Alleged Smokescreen

It appears Margolis misled the committee. The delegation letter on the CIA leak investigation shows Comey had confidence in Margolis. What Comey had confidence is appears uncertain.

Margolis' statements about the reasons for not publishing the DOJ OPR annual report do not reconile with Margolis assertion that he was passive. Margolis could not reasonably claim he was passive; but also complete a DOJ manning assessment, concluding there were insufficient resources to produce the annual DOJ OPR report..

Disconnect Between DOJ Requirements, Workflows

The DOJOPR annual reports were not released for a reason, but Margolis must have been working on something else if he "wasn't" working the US Attorey issues.

There are three possibilities:

A. Someone must have done something; or

B. Someone wasn't doing what they said they were doing; or

C. Someone was doing something else that they don't want us to know about.

Margolis' dubious statements appear to be more related to C: A smokescreen to distract attention from what Margolis and others in DOJ were really doing.

Action: We need to find out what Marglis was really doing re the DOJ OPR annual reports, DoD propaganda, CIA leak investigation, and the DOD POW abuses.

Margolis also asserted the DOJ OPR annual report was not published because of privacy interests. Yet, a reading of the previous annual reports does not support this. Indeed, the DOJ  IG recently released detailed description of US Attorney conduct. The names within this disclosed information was redacted. It is irrelevant that the disclosed information could be combined with other information to identify the likely DOJ Staff counsel by name.;

Margolis appears to be lying. Either he's lying about the reasons the DOJ OPR report was not published; or he's lying about him being passive. Either way, his explanations for his workflows, time use, and activity within DOJ need to be reviewed.

If he wasn't working on the US Attorney issues, what was he doing; if he had the time to review the DOJ OPR annual report manning, why didn't he put the sam effort into the US Attorney firings or the CIA leak investigation?

Margolis suggesting he was "passive" on the US Attorney firings raises the question about the CIA leak investigation and Margolis workflows.

If he wasn't working on the US Attorney firings, despite his documented attendance in the DOJ emails at the planning meetings, what was he doing; and what information did he get that was translating into what action, not just on the US Attorneys, but the CIA leak?

Margolis Allleged Connection With White House

Margolis appears to be one of the conduits of information from the Department of Justice to the White House. It appears, as a reward for his support, he might have been promised or granted discretion during investigations.

We need to understand how the Bush Administration carry overs will affect whether the DOJ OPR conclusions are reviewed under the new AG.  We need to get a better handle on what Margolis was really doing, how he was establishing his work priorities, who he was really responding to, and the basis for his "Outstanding" performance award.

5. DoD Military Analysts Emails and DOJ Senior Officials

Here's where the Comey delegation letter comes into play. Comey had trust in Margolis, and delegated him authority to review the CIA leak investigation.

The question is whether Comey delegated to Margolis other authority; and what level of involvement Margolis had with other DOJ activities. We've only read vague references to "DOJ Senior Officials," but if, as it appears, Margolis was deflecting attention from other things, the question is whether he was involved with questionable interchanges between DOJ, the White House, and DoD: Rendition, CIA tactics, Iraq WMD, POW abuse, FISA violations.

The DoD emails do not close the loop for Margolis, nor for the DOJ OPR.

Margolis might deceive the committee about his involvement if he was doing something else, and knew more than he wanted to admit. Margolis possibly knew about the DOD propaganda efforts, and the DOJ-DoD discussions with the White House on the military analysts. Margolis, if he could lead others to believe he was "not involved" with the US Attorneyf irings, might shield his real knowlege about the DOJ-White House connection on the CIA, POW abuse, FISA violations, and other alleged illegal activity 2001-9.

Someone like Margolis, given an appointment letter re CIA leak investigation, would likely know something about the following information flows between DOJ and outside agencies:

DoD Emails Reference Senior DOJ Personnel

This information shows there is a connection between the DOJ Senior Staff and the DOD military analysts and the alleged domestic propaganda:

A. Barstow Release:
"there will be a few senior DOJ and DOD officials"

B. Barstow Release:
"call out to OGC and DoJ to provide some inputs"

C. Feb08 release:
"Conference Call with Senior Department of Justice"

D.  July 20, 2005 Conference Call:
"Department of Justice legal people helping them with their tribunals"

E.  Developing a similar "outside analyst list" for DOJ:
"email to our analysts asking if they would like to be on a list for doj"

Questions

There are a number of issues which warrant outside review, and an evaluation whether the current AG, DOJ OPR, and Congressional Committees are using available evidence to prompt adequate investigations, or adverse inferences.

Still not Disclosed DOJ Delegation Memoranda

1. What is the AG's plan to release copies of the secret delegation authority letters DOJ Senior management issued re FISA, Geneva, CIA and DoD investigations?

2. What is the plan to review and compare the delegation letters to Margolis related to the Vince Foster investigation, US Attorney oversight, CIA black sites, DoD emails, and FISA surveillance investigations?

DOJ OPR Annual Reports

3. Were the still-not-released DOJ OPR annual reports never accomplished, as required of DOJ OPR legal counsel ["Submit an annual report to the Attorney General summarizing the  work of the Office"] ?

4. If not, what other DOJ OPR legal counsel obligations were not fulfilled 2001-2009?

5. What is the DOJ AG plan to review the still-not released DOJ OPR annual reports?

6. What is the plan of DOJ OPR to release under the new AG the copies of the DOJ OPR annual reports still not provided?

7. What were the real reasons the DOJ OPR annual reports were not disclosed?

Reviewing Margolis Alleged Inconsistent Statements

8. Why did Margolis state there were "privacy" issues related to the DOJ OPR annual report, but the attorney names are not provided within the DOJ OPR previous annual report?

9. Why did Margolis state there were "privacy" issues related to the DOJ OPR annual report, yet the DOJ IG recently released a similar list of information about DOJ Staff attorneys?

10. Why did Margolis have a "higher" concern for one set of US Attorneys conduct, as measured by the refusal to release the DOJ OPR report; but apparently had no objection when similar information was disclosed about other US Attorneys in the DOJ IG report?

11. Why should we believe Margolis' assertion that he was "passive" on the US Attorney firings, but the DOJ US Attorney firing and Vince Foster emails suggest he was well involved, attended many meetings?

12. Why should we believe Margolis' assertion that he was "passive" on the US Attorney firings, yet he "took the time" to do a detailed review of the "resources" within DOJ OPR to conclude that there was no time to provide in 2008 a report for 2006 or 2007?

13. Why should we believe Margolis' claim that we was passive on the US Attorney personnel issues; but he was concerned about the US Attorney staffing levels, resources, and privacy on the DOJ OPR annual report?

White House Connection

Look at this summary of the DoD emails connecting the White House to other agencies; and this showing a WH Outreach program.

14. When did Margolis provide indirectly to the White House information about the status of the US Attorney firings, the CIA leak investigation, or other things?

Review JCON:

15. When did Margolis meet with Monica Goodling, Rove, or Rove's legal counsel?

DoD Military Analysts

16. How much does Margolis know about the alleged domestic propaganda efforts?

17. What role did Margolis have in reviewing any information released under the DOD information program, the DoD emails, or the DOD IG report into the DoD role on alleged domestic propaganda?

18. Did Margolis have any inputs to the DOD IG report on the alleged propaganda?

19. Which DOJ legal counsel worked with the President, EOP, OVP on the alleged DoD domestic propaganda; and what connection does Margolis have with that DOJ staff counsel?

DOJ OPR Legal Counsel

DOJ OPR legal counsel has a problem. They have the legal obligation under CFR to work with the DC bar to refer matters on DOJ ethics.

§ 45.12   Reporting to the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility.

Department employees have a duty to, and shall, report to the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (DOJ-OPR), or to their supervisor, or their component's internal affairs office for referral to DOJ-OPR, any allegations of misconduct by a Department attorney that relate to the exercise of the attorney's authority to investigate, litigate or provide legal advice, as well as allegations of misconduct by law enforcement personnel when such allegations are related to allegations of attorney misconduct within the jurisdiction of DOJ-OPR.

The question is how long the DOJ OPR legal counsel has known about the problems within DOJ OPR, but did not, as required under the CFR forward evidence to the DC Bar.

When did DOJ Staff first learn that the DOJ OPR legal counsel did not forward information related to DOJ Staff misconduct?

Conclusions

Margolis email related to Vince Foster seals the deal: Margolis raised the same "concerns" about passivity he would have the Committee believe Margolis should be excused. Indeed, the 1990s-era OPR memos strongly support the conclusion Margolis knew or should have known the implication of not fully cooperating with investigations or withholding documents

The DOJ OPR annual report was suppressed for invalid reasons. Margolis appears to have made statements which are not supported by the DOJ OPR record, nor by the practices of DOJ redactions.

Someone with Margolis experience for attention to detail and involvement has a problem: Either they were so "out of the loop," to raise questions of their competence; or they know more about conduct they, as staff counsel, should have reported to DOJ OPR.

Margolis' conduct during the Vince Foster investigation shows us a level of involvement and concern about the DOJ that belies his claims of passivity on the US Attorney firings. It appears Margolis is claiming passivity not to take responsibility for supposed inaction, but to deflect attention from who was involved and pulling the strings, and Margolis' likely involvement with other DOJ-DoD-White House activities.

The DoD emails related to the alleged US domestic propaganda efforts touch on senior DOJ Staff involvement. We believe that more detailed review of the JCON workflows and emails will likely show Margolis' involvement with much more than he would have us believe by his claims of passivity.

We believe Margolis' claim of "passivity" is not to narrowly downplay his competence or involvement in the US Attorney firings, but to (a) explain away his failure to timely report to DOJ OPR the extent of DOJ Staff involvement with reportable misconduct to DOJ OPR; and (b) distract attention from other activity he was aware and involved.

The Committee needs to call Margolis back, read him the email and DoJ memos he sent and read re Vince Foster, and compel him to explain why anyone who sent that email re Vince Foster should believe his claim of passivity. The two do not reconcile and Margolis appears to knows more about other White House involvement with DoD, DOJ, and the CIA.

To believe anything else asks us to believe a man who once made a call from the White House is suddenly out of the loop, and "not" willing to oversee an ongoing leak investigation or personnel changes despite a supposed "concern" about staff privacy and workloads. This defies reason.

Margolis and Rove must be independently challenged about what information DOJ through Margolis was providing to the White House legal counsel: The CIA leak investigation, US Attorney firings, and DOJ progress in supporting FISA-Geneva violations and propaganda.


Other Notes

There is a link between Comey, Margolis, and the 2004-era still-secret DOJ OLC memos.

Senator Shumer asked Comey 12 of 18 about Margolis:

Comey: "Mr. Margolis is a wise person with significant experience in personnel matters, whose advice is always worthy of serious consideration."

Shumer asked Comey, May 15, 2007:

Senator Shumer 11 of 18: "Did the Office of Legal Counsel or any other office prepare a written opinion providing the basis for concerns about the legality of the classified program you alluded to in your testimony? If so, please identify the approximate date(s) of any such opinion, the author(s), and the recipients of any such opinion, inside and outside the Justice Department."

Comey answered there were memos from 2004:

Comey response to Shumer 11 of 18: "Yes. OLC prepared legal memoranda concerning the matter during early 2004, some of which would have been drafts. I also prepared at least one memorandum that I recall. The Department of Justice would be in the best position to supply dates and information about recipients."

Comey's name is listed here, against that 2004-era secret DOJ OLC document. However, it is unclear whether the document Comey referred to in his response to Senator Shumer is the same one Bradbury disclosed in the declaration.

It is possible Comey's response to Shumer might be this document.


Margolis also connects with Comey and Buchanan, theough the DOJ IG report:

Comey said that he knew EOUSA was concerned about Ryan's office and was working with Margolis to address the problems.

E-mail records between Margolis and EOUSA Director Mary Beth Buchanan in late October 2004 show that Margolis and Buchanan recognized the need to discuss the concerns with Ryan.

The DOJ IG report does not support Margolis' suggestion that he took a hands off approach to the US Attorney issues, but shows a link between Margolis and the White House:

28 of 392: Sampson said the interviewing panel for U.S. Attorneys generally included himself, an Associate White House Counsel with responsibility for the particular geographic area the potential candidate was being considered for, a person from the Presidential Personnel Office, David Margolis, the Director of EOUSA, and the Department's White House Liaison.

35 of 392: Sampson told congressional investigators that in early 2005 he had consulted and relied upon several Department officials, including EOUSA Director Mary Beth Buchanan, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General William Mercer, Deputy Attorney General James Comey, and Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis, for recommendations concerning which U.S. Attorneys to remove.

The DOJ Emails suggest Margolis was more involved with the meetings about Chiara than the DOJ IG report suggests:

37 of 392: Margolis said he was aware of management concerns about Ryan and Chiara, and he said he had serious concerns about Lampton.

Margolis was management and part of the senior leadership.

1 of 68, Paul McNulty said,

Margolis Actively Involved: Where Is The Email?

McNulty at 12:23 on Chiara meetings: "David [Margolis] speaks for me in such matters."

At 1:25, Margolis did not object, saying, "Well said."

= =

34 of 51: Handwrittten, "Section Process: . . . Lead by long-time career DOJ lawyer Dave Margolis"

Then who was Margolis supposedly leading:

40 of 392: DOJ IG: "Other than Comey, Margolis, Mercer, Buchanan, and probably Goodling, we identified no other Department officials who discussed the performance of U.S. Attorneys with Sampson before January 2006."

= =

50 of 57: Margolis gets a transcript of McNulty's testimony. Where is the email showing Margolis' review before the testimony was final?

Question: If Margolis "speaks for" McNulty, are we seeing the adequate email traffic for Margolis to do this; or does it appear that Margolis' email hasn't been disclosed; or there were other methods Margolis was using to stay in the loop and "speak for" McNulty?

Answer: Yes, 14 of 93 shows Richard Hertling converts a file from a word document, and delivers pdf files to Margolis.  76 of 93 shows a sample change log for a word document.

Followup: Where are the records related to these non-email conversations on the documents; and did the Committee adequately ask about these specific non-email conversations contained within the pdf drafts?

Answer: Kyle Sampson has a private cell phone [ 202 305 5289 ] which Margolis knows about; 31 of 51 shows the handwritten notes with Margolis "involved and supportive" written; 57 of 93 shows Beck's Gmail account.

Action: Re-read the handwritten note on 31 of 51: "Performance related" AG "acknowleg[ment]" is not reality nor notes from a meeting; but apparent "talking points" of what they wanted to communicate. There's a difference.

Evidence of A Side Meeting: Look at pages 29- 34 of 51: Notice how the text-spacing in the handwritten notes is (relatively) level, and even between the points, and onto the next pages. Also, notice the columns of the handwritten notes: They're the same. That's unusual: People don't normally write notes from a meeting like this.  This suggest they've transcribed the comments from a white board used in a meeting to discuss these comments.

Margolis wasn't simply "aware" of issues, he was actively monitoring the events and participating in the evening

More Than Aware: Look At the Recipient Read Times

8 of 28 shows Margolis opened the email at 5:21P, within seconds of Scott-Finan sending the email. Goodling, DoJ's White House liaison, a minute later at 5:22, read the same email.

5 of 61, 19 of 61 42 of 61 October 2006: Shows a meeting re Chiara.

22 of 28: Shows the list of who DOJ thought should receive the information about the Congressional hearing. This is management-level information.

18 of 100 Elston corrects Margolis; Margolis doesn't have an expense account.

40 of 100: Shows a plan, Margolis involved with the departure of a US Attorney:

"For further background information about the district, the Acting Deputy
Attorney General should consult with Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis about the exit of former U.S. Attorney [redacted ] "