« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Krongard Aide 'Categorically' Denies Threatening Whistleblowers
I just got off the phone with Terry Heide, the congressional liaison for State Department Inspector General Howard "Cookie" Krongard. Earlier today, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) wrote to Krongard alleging that Heide had threatened two IG investigators, Ron Militana and Brian Rubendall, after they agreed to go on the record to Waxman's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee with accounts of Krongard stifling corruption investigations. "I categorically deny any and all of it," Heide said. "I did not intimidate them or threaten retaliation. I don't have the power to fire people."
According to Waxman's letter, Heide allegedly told Militana and Rubendall that they should only cooperate with Republican staffers on the committee -- a charge she says isn't true. "I am a career civil servant," Heide said, not a partisan appointee.
The letter's account comes from Militana's notes of the September 25 conversation with Heide and a lawyer from the department counsel's office. Militana alleges that Heide told him and Rubendall that if they cooperated with the investigation, "You have no protection against reprisal. You have no whistleblower protections. Howard could retaliate and you would have no recourse. ... Howard can fire you. It would affect your ability to get another job."
In response, Heide told me that "First and foremost, I told them to cooperate" with the investigation. When asked to explain how Militana could say that Heide had instructed them only to cooperate with the GOP staff, she replied "I can't." According to Heide, "there was a lot more said [at the September 25 meeting] that they did not include" to Waxman's committee, but she said she would not elaborate, since "these individuals have filed for whistleblower protection."
Before ending our conversation, Heide said that Waxman's office did not contact her for her side of the story before releasing today's letter accusing her of threatening Militana and Rubendall. "Waxman has hurt me personally and professionally," Heide said.
Waxman could not immediately be reached for comment.
Josh
Zachary
Sounds like this could be a parsing problem. Telling someone they will face retaliation is a threat. Telling someone that they are ineligible for whistleblower protection against retaliation, not necessarily a threat. There is an implied threat there, but there's also plausible deniability.
Spencer, maybe you should have asked her specifically if she discussed whistleblower protection status at any time. She might be less able to weasel out of that one.
September 28, 2007 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why did she pull them in for a meeting anyway?
Who suggested it?
Any memos, emails or writings of any kind that exist in connection with the meeting?
Why did she have staff counsel there?
Who was the counsel?
Does staff counsel's recollection agree with hers?
Is she willing to testify under oath about what happened?
etc
*******
BTW - it sounded to me like Waxman wasn't saying Heide threatened SHE would fire them, but rather that she said Cookie could fire them and they'd have no recourse. Also that they should not volunteer information.
Did she say that? Answers of: I'm a career civil servant, I can't fire them, and I told them to cooperate - - - those don't contradict anything in Waxman's "hurtful" letter.
September 28, 2007 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...She might be less able to weasel out of that one."
Don't be silly - she could A) lie or B) "have no memory" of that phrase being discussed. Or not have a memory of having a memory. All are well-used strategies in this administration.
September 28, 2007 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, so the agents are guilty of perjury? A denial was expected, but Waxman already has the goods. Side by side, with many more witnesses weighing in, whose ethics stand up? Who is more believable?
It's laughable.
September 29, 2007 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish that Mary were working on the Hill and crafting questions for the use of Congressional committees. She always cuts to the crux.
Krongard and his apparatchiks clearly seem to have made themselves vulnerable to criminal proceedings for obstruction of justice, especially in regard to the DOJ probes of corruption in contracting in Iraq and arms smuggling by Blackwater.
But how will the charges be brought? The office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C. seems to be under the dominion of loyal Bushies. By now DOJ and many of the U.S. Attorney offices must be in a state of utter turmoil and dysfunction.
In any case, Department of State employees will likely soon be throwing mass celebrations to mark the departures of Krongard and Heide, and perhaps several more of their ilk.
I still haven't seen any public statements by Secretary Rice on this chaos in her shop. Does she do anything at all besides fly, smile, and wave?
Oh, and whatever happened to Waxman's subpoena for Rice to appear to testify? She still seems to be ignoring it. Maybe the Krongard/Heide case demonstrates that Waxman does have some ability to deliver payback.
September 29, 2007 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
All I can say is thank God for Waxman. He appears to be the only fierce dog in the fight. He gives honorable and tenacious new meaning.
September 29, 2007 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
All I can say is thank God for Waxman. He appears to be the only fierce dog in the fight. He gives honorable and tenacious new meaning.
September 29, 2007 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
All I can say is thank God for Waxman. He appears to be the only fierce dog in the fight. He gives honorable and tenacious new meaning.
September 29, 2007 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't mean that repeat. Sorry.
September 29, 2007 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I believe everything she says. After all, has anybody from this administration ever lied to me before? Is the behavior in question ever been seen elsewhere with these people?
Let's just give her the benefit of the doubt and move on. There's nothing to see here.
September 29, 2007 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a parsing problem, it's a parsing feature. Heide is making a claim -- "I don't have the power to fire anyone" -- that has nothing to do with complaint against her. It's like the mafioso who threatens "people have been known to get their teeth knocked out" and defends himself by saying "I'm not a prizefighter".
It would be nice to know if that was the entire content of the conversation.
October 1, 2007 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have worked with Brian Rubendall and I know him personally... he is a man of true character and unquestionable ethics... if he's making these allegations, it's all true.
October 17, 2007 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like the ploy of "I was just counseling them..." Like when Gonzo was "comforting" Monica (of Ill Repute), who sensed he was feeding her a mutual story they should tell... and that made her "uncomfortable."
Interesting how they only seem to give authoritarian advice when the chips are down... but none of these criminals seems to feel the slightest concern before then.
Outrage fatigue. I have it too. It comes and goes.
No matter how frustrating this process is, it is nevertheless hugely important to keep building a record here. Gathering evidence. Putting feet to the fire whenever possible.
Thank you, Henry Waxman! You are a credit to the Congress! You give us hope!
October 25, 2007 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink