« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
DOJ Won't Say Whether Prosecutor Has Submitted US Attorneys Report
Is the Department of Justice going back on its word about a report on its investigation into whether crimes were committed in the U.S. Attorney firings scandal?
When prosecutor Nora Dannehy was appointed to run the probe, in the wake of another investigation by the department's Inspector General, it was reported that Dannehy was expected to provide Attorney General Michael Mukasey with a status report on her findings within around 60 days.
That timeline was confirmed by DOJ Inspector General Glenn Fine in testimony before Congress at the time:
REP. NADLER: Mr. Fine, it's been reported that Ms. Dannehy was appointed to special counsel, will make a preliminary report to the attorney general within the next two months. Do you know when this report will be made public?MR. FINE: I think what it is is the status of the investigation at that point to the deputy attorney general or the attorney general to see where she is in the process.
...
I don't think it's sort of a formal report; I think it's more of a status report.
And it was reiterated a few weeks later in a letter from Mukasey to House Judiciary Chair John Conyers. Mukasey wrote:
As the Inspector General testified, Ms. Dannehy is expected to report on the status of the investigation to the Attorney General approximately 60 days after her appointment.
Now that 60-day deadline has come and gone. And DOJ won't confirm that any such report has been provided, instead referring us to a spokesman for Dannehy who wouldn't comment on the issue.
In other words, at first DOJ had been clear that it wanted a report submitted within 60 days. But now it won't even confirm that such a report has been submitted, or give any further information.
So is the department now going back on its requirement that Dannehy submit a report within 60 days? Is it exerting pressure to reduce the likelihood that details about Dannehy's progress -- like the fact that she's contacted Gonzales -- will slip out? What's going on?
A staffer for the House judiciary committee told TPMmuckraker that they haven't been able to get anythign out of DOJ either on whether Dannehy has submitted a report. A call to the Senate judiciary committee was not immediately returned.
We'll keep you posted as we learn more...
Josh
Zachary
DAMN these stonewalling sons of bitches!
December 4, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fact-check:
It has been exactly 66 days since her appointment.
NYT: "...within 60 days."
General Glenn Fine: "...within around 60 days."
Mukasey's letter: "...approximately 60 days..."
Although there appears to have been a little evolution towards vageness and dropping the term "within", this hardly amounts to much - yet.
First, it depends on the window of time permitted under "within around" and "approximately". Would 70 days be OK? Would 72? What's the cutoff?
Second, Fine testified: "I don't think it's sort of a formal report; I think it's more of a status report." So, from their perspective, this is just an initial check-in, not some huge announcement on their findings. (A little context for their thinking.)
Third, there are a lot of moving parts Prosecutor Dannehy must be dealing with, and a delay shouldn't come as a major surprise. Would it be unreasonable for her to seek an extra week or two to pull-together a few missing pieces to compile a complete report, or put the update on hold if some important information just came in and needs to be added to it? Not at all.
It is a bit early to sound the alarm of the "Department of Justice going back on its word", "Now that 60-day deadline has come and gone." Really? Was it a deadline, or a timeline? Nowhere is it stated (in your story or links) that the report to the AG would be made public, nor that the public would be notfied when the report was filed. Should it? Yes. But, which 'word' is being broken here?
Zachary, find a cause or lack of cause for the delay - then there's a story. More than 75 days... probably a story. Or, if the report has been submitted but there's a lockdown on the content - that's a story. There are many potential stories here, but puffing a 6-day delay of an initial internal report into a muck-worthy event is a bit much without more information to go on.
December 4, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly sounds like a lot of wishful thinking to me. Do you really think there will be a report from this crowd? I don't.
December 4, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
No wishful thinking here. I expect a white-washed report, and plenty of other B.S. - some of which we'll probably never know about. I wouldn't be particularly surprised if Mukasey has already handed the report to Bush, Cheney, and Rove, and they're now forming a strategy for how to deal with it.
I'm just saying this isn't a story yet - this is reporting on an anticipation of a possible story. You actually have to show something is going on, not just speculate breathlessly. That's tabloid news standards; People Magazine at best (who MIGHT be breaking up with whom, and pretending they know why... yadda, yadda, yadda). I don't want to waste my time reading pure speculation about non-events. They're past 60 days. Great, I could be told that in two sentances without all the additional stuff. Why past 60 days? Why won't they comment? Will they ever comment? Will we ever see the report? Answers to those kinds of questions are worth writing about.
This article entices the reader to speculate about sinister motives, and frankly, misleads the reader by making the dealine sound clearer than it ever was. That's cheap, sloppy journalism. The original reporting TPM did to open this thing up in the first place involved real invesigative journalism. Digging up facts, finding new information, seeing the links between seemingly unrelated things... and more. If all TPM originally did was make reports like this, there would never have been a DOJ scandle, and Gonzo would still be the AG.
(Sorry Zachary, I'm being quite harsh. But, TPM readers have gotten used to some pretty deep reporting. If all you've got is a possible story percolating, keep it short. Hit us with the long story when you've got some meat to feed us. Also, Josh has done a pretty good job of publicly playing Devil's advocate with himself - looking objectively at his own reporting to see if it is being slanted by his own opinions or expectations, and being frank about it when he is. Follow his lead. You clearly expect malfeasance here, and then massage the facts a bit (from approximate timelines to firm deadlines) to make your point. No pass.)
December 4, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
DaddyD - I think its more the silence from DOJ that's worrying. If they said "she needs another week" or whatever, that'd be fine. But they're saying nothing. So it's not unreasonable, given the Bush DOJ's track record, to get suspicious.
And I didn't write as fact that they'd gone back on their word, I only asked whether they were. Again, given their silence, that seems appropriate.
December 4, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree on that point. You asked the question before they're ready to respond. Why aren't they ready to respond? The silence is interesting... worth investigating.
But, you're setting up the 60-day mark as a pretty firm date, when it wasn't. And, you've suggested they're going back on their word. But, to whom, and about what? Maybe they did promise to present this report publicly, but you don't mention it.
With this group in the WH, we've all come to expect the worst. But, good reporting assumes nothing.
December 4, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the 60 mark is overplayed in the article, and that the more disturbing part is the fact that the DOJ is refusing to comment.
My speculation is the reason that the DOJ won't comment is because a partial report has been submitted and there are plenty of indictable offenses to be reported, so they want to get all the pardons lined up before anyone sees anything.
December 5, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo!
December 5, 2008 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink