« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
Yet another tutorial in how not to do damage control.
Yesterday, former U.S. Attorney for Seattle John McKay testified that he'd been contacted by Rep. Doc Hastings' (R-WA) chief of staff a few weeks after the November 2004 gubernatorial election, in which the Democrat had won by a scant couple hundred votes after multiple recounts. Republicans had alleged voter fraud. McKay testified that Cassidy called him on "behalf of the Congressman" to inquire about the status of any investigation into the alleged fraud.
McKay, immediately on guard, responded (sub. req.) with public accounts of the investigation's status, and then before Cassidy pressed further, told Cassidy that he was "certain" that Cassidy was not asking him to "reveal information" about the status of a probe or “lobby me on one.” Cassidy, McKay testified, agreed that no, sir, he was not doing that, and then the call ended.
So what does Cassidy, who now works for Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), have to say about it? Here's his statement:
“My conversation with John McKay was a routine effort to determine whether allegations of voter fraud in the 2004 gubernatorial election were, or were not, being investigated by federal authorities... As the top aide to the chairman of the House Ethics Committee, I understood the permissible limits on any such conversation. Mr. McKay understood and respected those boundaries as well. I am pleased that Mr. McKay recalls both our agreement to respect these boundaries and my subsequent decision to end the conversation promptly.”
"Routine effort?" That makes it sound as if Cassidy makes it a habit to call up federal prosecutors and ask whether their office is investigating Democrats, doesn't it? As CREW has detailed in their requests for investigations of Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM), it's against the rules of both houses for members to inquire about the status of a particular investigation. Why? It's obvious: because that's an indirect way of applying pressure to a prosecutor to get a move on.
Maybe that's why Rep. Hastings took the opposite tack in his statement:
“Ed Cassidy’s call and the conversation that took place were entirely appropriate... It was a simple inquiry and nothing more — and it was the only call to any federal official from my office on this subject either during or after the recount ordeal.”
So either it was "routine" or it was the "only" call anybody from Hastings' office ever made like this. Which is it?
Josh
Zachary
Nice, just how many USA's have succumbed to these "simple inquiries" and just how much of the judiciary is wrapped up in the republican's pockets.
March 7, 2007 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice catch!
March 7, 2007 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
looks like CREW will soon be submitting their 3 and 4th ethics complaint on the USA issue.
SLAM DUNK guilt as both have admitted the contact!
March 7, 2007 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
As delighted as I would be to catch these probable malefactors in a clear contradiction, let's not overstate what we've got here. The esteemed congressman said only that this was the only such call his office ever made "on this subject." Maybe it's "routine" for them to lean on prosecutors, but only once per "subject" (?).
Nail him if he deserves it, but make sure he can't wiggle out.
March 7, 2007 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not as worried about USAs who "succumbed" - I am worried about USAs who outright went along (if any). The Congress needs to subpoena all USAs to determine if any received calls from Senators or Representatives in Congress "inquiring" about investigations or prosecutions - who what when where. If this was "routine," then this group of removed USAs may only be the ones who didn't (or weren't willing) to "play ball" when asked. The larger issue is the state of independence of USAs. The American public needs to feel confident that the above-described behavior did not take place.
March 7, 2007 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I don't necessarily agree there is an inconsistency. Cassidy said that calls to find out whether a particular matter is under investigation are routine. Hastings said that it was the only call on this matter. So, in fact, it would be entirely consistent with both statements for Cassidy to make 5-10 calls like that per year on *different* matters (making it relatively routine), but have that call be the only one on the 2004 election matter.
I want the Republicans exposed for their crimes and deceptions as much as anyone, but I frankly do not see the gotcha here.
March 7, 2007 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Further evidence of how smart Republicans were to have Hastings as chairman of the Ethics Committee.
His sincerity, conviction and truth speak for themselves.
March 7, 2007 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
ND makes an excellent point here. Did any USAs accede to improper requests to influence their prosecutions?
March 7, 2007 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
ND has the right idea! Subpoena all of them - find out how many were lobbied - and by whom.
March 7, 2007 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is one of many reasons why the Republican congressional majority choose not to enforce ethics rules. There are no PRACTICAL reasons for Cassidy, Hastings or any political party official to be calling USAs to ask about the status of potential or on-going criminal investigations....only POLITICAL ones.
March 7, 2007 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
There we go . . . That's what I was waitin' for!
If the Boner is involved, how long is it until Has-turd's name becomes part o' the conversation?
March 7, 2007 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, JD, he said it was routine regarding voter fraud, not just routine to follow up on a particular matter.
"...a routine effort to determine whether allegations of voter fraud in the 2004 gubernatorial election were, or were not, being investigated by federal authorities..."
How routine were these inquiries if they only happend once? Sounds like a conflict to me.
March 7, 2007 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious as to how many USAs have received "inquiries" on investigations about Democrats. Any way to tally that?
March 7, 2007 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I take it that Congress members should simply contact the White House when they want an investigation or case brought. Seems like the same effect but without the risk. Please explain.
March 7, 2007 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Parsing further "it was the only call to any federal official from my office on this subject either during or after the recount ordeal."
Could have been other calls to state or local officials. Could have been calls from outside his office to federal officials. Could have been calls before the recount. How does he define "subject"?
This may sound ridiulous but we are talking about a member of the modern Republican party. The one ran the Ethics Committee like Sgt. Schultz for all those years.
March 7, 2007 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with JD on this one. It might be "routine" for me to go to the Doctor if I get the flu, even though I only go to the Doctor once for each episode of the flu. Similarly, it might be routine to call the USA if there are allegations of voter fraud stemming from a particular election, even though only one call is made.
I also agree with JD's note of caution here. Let's not adopt irrational Neo-con strategies that we despise. If there's inconsistency, let's call it out. But where the inconsistency is a mere technicality that stems from people speaking loosely, then forget it. It may play as a sound bite on an election ad, but quite frankly, it has no part in INTELLIGENT discourse.
March 7, 2007 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
House and Senate members are already required to go through a special department/office of the Justice department to contact USAs about cases or questions. The mechanism already exists.
March 7, 2007 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, sounds like Hastings as usual.
Each member of Congress should make a point of inquiring of the USAs in their area if any contacts have been made and gather the details (a complete list of any & all contacts to begin with)
"All successful revolutions are the kicking in of a rotten door." - John Kenneth Galbraith
March 7, 2007 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well if it's "routine" then did they call about Ohio and Florida after 2006? That's a question I'd like to see put to the relevant USAs, and I agree, we should call every one of them and ask them specifically if they have been contacted by congress and by whom and when and about what.
March 7, 2007 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like the K Street Project had its tendrils into Justice.
March 7, 2007 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"There are no PRACTICAL reasons for Cassidy, Hastings or any political party official to be calling USAs to ask about the status of potential or on-going criminal investigations....only POLITICAL ones."
Osage raises the point that most interested me. How come this aspect isn't getting more attention?? Journalists should be asking: "Taking your assertion at face value that your intent was not to influence, WHY did you make the call to the USA about the status of indictments? After the USA refused to discuss it further, what further actions did you take on this issue? And to help explain to the public your pure intentions, please explain what would you have done with the information if the USA has discussed it further?"
March 7, 2007 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree to some extent with Osage's point. It may be entirely appropriate for a member of Congress to call a US Attorney (assuming, of course, there are no explicit rules against ANY contact) to ask the status of an investigation if it is a matter in which constituents have an interest. For example, I can think of something like Operation Greylord in Chicago back when...having someone call to ask who the people indicted were, if the US attorney's investigation is ongoing, etc.
It could even be innocent in the 2004 Washington context. Angry Republican constituents call up Hastings claiming fraud in King County, and the Congressional Office needs a response for constituents. Staff calls up and asks "are there any investigations into fraud in the election which you can disclose to public?" Seems like constituent service to me.
That said, any contact with a member of Congress's office COULD be construed unfavorably, so if they were smart, they would send a letter.
March 7, 2007 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone needs to do a detailed investigation of the tiniest details. If phone records show these or other congress members making similar calls it could add bits to the puzzle, and if they start denying things under oath they are either going to go to prison or have to hit up the unlawful occupier of the whitehouse for a pardon like what I expect Scooter will be receiving. That Bush ... what a liar. (He should have said ... anyone CONVICTED of having anything to do with the disemination of the identity of covert intelligence agents, wouldnt be working at the Whitehouse ... gee ... the whitehouse sure seems to need a bath anymore ... beigehouse?
March 7, 2007 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
penis curvature illustration
April 26, 2007 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra
April 29, 2007 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
hello
April 30, 2007 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
hello
April 30, 2007 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
hello
April 30, 2007 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
hello
May 1, 2007 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
hello
May 6, 2007 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
hello
May 6, 2007 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
hello
May 6, 2007 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
hello
May 6, 2007 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
hello
May 6, 2007 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Microsoft and Peter Jackson postpone the making of a film based on the Halo video game after backers pull out...
May 21, 2007 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pop trio Atomic Kitten will reform to play a concert in support of jailed Liverpool football fan Michael Shields.
May 22, 2007 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Singer George Michael lends the piano on which John Lennon wrote Imagine to an anti-war exhibition.
May 22, 2007 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
viagra
May 22, 2007 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
poxsa bctgxrl cztxglbq iuneb vzkcro ryeznb dlcbsz
June 5, 2007 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
poxsa bctgxrl cztxglbq iuneb vzkcro ryeznb dlcbsz
June 5, 2007 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
poxsa bctgxrl cztxglbq iuneb vzkcro ryeznb dlcbsz
June 5, 2007 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink