« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Did Mukasey Ignore Evidence Of Misconduct In Stevens Case?
Buried in the news about charges against Ted Stevens being dropped, there's an additional serious indictment (as if more were needed) of the Bush Justice Department -- and specifically, of Attorney General Michael Mukasey.
Reporting from yesterday's hearing, at which Judge Emmet Sullivan formally announced that the charges would be dropped, the Washington Post notes:
When the judge heard that Stevens's attorneys sent three letters about prosecutorial misconduct to former Attorney General Michael Mukasey but received no response, he called it "shocking -- but not surprising."
Now that the judge is seeking contempt charges against the government prosecutors on the case, it's worth looking a bit more closely at what happened here.
In fairness, the misconduct that ultimately convinced Mukasey's successor as Attorney General, Eric Holder, to ask that the charges be dropped only came to light recently, so it wasn't included in the letters to Mukasey (though that itself hardly reflects well on the department.) Nonetheless, it's clear that at least one of the letters contained a slew of serious charges of prosecutorial misconduct.
On October 28, 2008, Stevens' lawyer Brendan Sullivan (no relation to the judge, of course), sent a 16-page letter to Mukasey which called the government misconduct in the case "repeated, severe, intentional, and inexcusable." (The letter was released publicly at the time.)
Brendan Sullivan alleged, among other things, that the prosecution had knowingly presented false evidence to the jury; that it had intentionally concealed exculpatory information; and that it had fabricated testimony from its star witness, Bill Allen.
The letter included courtroom pronouncements from the judge, agreeing with many of these allegations. In one case quoted in the letter, Judge Sullivan declared: "We're talking about the United States using documents that the government knows are false, not true." In another case -- referring to Brady v. Maryland, the Supreme Court decision that prosecutors must turn over key evidence -- Judge Sullivan said: "This is Brady material ... It's difficult for the Court to believe that the government overlooked this exculpatory information."
The letter called on Mukasey to initiate an immediate probe of the allegations, and to take the prosecutors off the case.
None of this is to say that Mukasey erred by not doing everything that Stevens' lawyers were requesting. These were only allegations, after all, despite the judge's apparent agreement with many of them. But one would think that the letter at least merited a response from Mukasey (and that's leaving aside the two other letters that the defense team sent). Judge Sullivan certainly seems to think so.
Of course, Mukasey's apparent lack of interest in these allegations of misconduct by prosecutors runs counter to the Bush DOJ's reputation for putting narrow partisan politics above principle, since Stevens is a Republican. But it suggests a different failure, that's also of a piece with the Bush years: an unwillingness to absorb a temporary PR hit by admitting mistakes, even when the merits of the case require it.
Mukasey didn't respond to a request for comment from the New York Times, which also noted Judge Sullivan's criticisms of the former AG yesterday. If Mukasey or his camp do respond, we'll keep you posted as usual.
Josh
Zachary
It'd be fun if Sullivan invited (subpoenaed)Mukasey to open court and discuss his attitude on misconduct of Mukasey's DoJ.
April 8, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fix was in. It just tells you how badly he broke the law that Stevens was still convicted in spite of the prosecutors incompetence.
April 8, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was no "fix." Jururs ruled on the evidence provided. The problem was that evidence was tainted by prosecutorial misconduct. Falsifying evidence and withholding evidence prevented Stevens from putting on a full defense and getting a fair trial. Holder was rightfully concerned that Stevens was convicted because of, not in spite of prosecutorial misconduct. That's why charges were dropped. Sadly, competent prosecutors should have been able to get Stevens on a wide range of ethics violations without shenanigans.
April 8, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The evidence against Stevens was compelling, regardless.
Christ, the executives of VECO, an Alaska oil company, personally oversaw the rebuilding an remodeling of his home, literally jacked it up and added another floor, as a "favor." Which he failed to declare. You can't get any guiltier without accepting a bag of money.
The only way in hell Stevens would get off was prosecutorial incompetence. Coincidentally, that's exactly what happened.
April 9, 2009 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Prosecutorial misconduct was rampant under the Bush DOJ. Some of the terrorism cases were riddled with it (I'm thinking of the Detroit Six). The trial of Don Siegelman is another egregious example, with a bit of suspicious behavior by the judge thrown in. Stevens was just lucky that Horton happened to be made aware of the crimes in his prosecution. I look forward to seeing at least two or three of these lawyers really pull some jail time.
Of course I think Stevens was guilty as charged, too.
April 10, 2009 4:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Mikey, you did a heckuva job in Justice. How would you like a Medal of Freedom? (That's what George W. Bush would do regularly for his incompetent slackers.)
April 8, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was this unusual misconduct, or SOP for the Bush DOJ? It would seem this should be a major investigation.
April 8, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it was more widespread, hopefully this investigation will point to evidence suggesting so, prompting something more widespread.
April 8, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The same Judge just announce that the DoD/DOJ lawyers prosecuting the detainees at Gitmo had been using the testimony of a witness they knew to be insane and who could not possibly be credible.
His rant from the bench include a comment that this time if he had to have someone arrested that it is was going to be someone at the Top of the Food Chain, maybe someone like Mukasey or Gonzales ?
April 8, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it was standard operating procedure. There were rumblings about misconduct of gov't lawyers in the Seigelman case in Alabama, with ties back to Rove, and the Bush DOJ turned a blind eye there as well. Mikey did a good job of carrying on where Gonzales left off.
April 8, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush nominated Mucus-y (who didn't know waterboarding was torture), but he was Schumer's boy. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/washington/02schumer.html?fta=y
April 8, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose this might all be intentional? After all, are we to believe that the Bush Justice Department was so desperate to get a senior GOP senator from the state of their VP candidate that they resorted to misconduct in case that was a gimme from the get go? Or was the writing on the wall for this old creep and the boys put in a slick fix? Stevens was going down. He was going down on appeal as well. Prosecutorial misconduct was they only way out for the man and lo and behold!
April 8, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that occurred to me too. I wonder if any of the errant prosecutors were Regent University alumni.
April 8, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's possible that the prosecutors knew exactly what they were doing and knew the case would be thrown out, thus saving Stevens from jail. True that's a bonafide tin foil hat conspiracy theory - but after 8 years of the Byzantine machination of bushco it's a reasonable suspicion.
April 8, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
April 8, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am all for beating up on the Prosecutors on this case, but it doesn't take much reading just the letter from Sen Steven's lawyer to realize that Sen Stevens was being too cute by half. Tell me anyone who could have major work done on his home and not expect a bill for the work and would be perfectly satisfied with the notion that "well unless you send me a bill I don't have to pay for it"! Yeah the case was mishandled...but Sen Stevens is not an innocent bystander here and he should not be treated like one.
April 8, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's the right wingnuts who are acting like Stevens is "the innocent bystander--the rest of us know the truth.
April 8, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
But as I understand it, he did receive and pay invoices for about $130,000. It's questionable whether you or I could get that much work done for that price, but he did pay the invoices he received. I've always thought they went after the wrong thing.
April 8, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why should anyone be surprised, Murkasey was no more than political Bush hack, just warming the seat to protect the Bush administration from legal claims. This man was no better than Gonzo.
April 8, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"To be fair", indeed. Mulcasy was told by a federal Judge to look into a record of prosecutorial misconduct which smelled to high heaven, and he ignored the Judge. He can't claim he didn't know when he did is best to make sure he didn't find out. Too bad that you can't impeach former Attorneys General. Anyone ask Sen. Chuck about this outstanding appointment he supported?
April 8, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Judge can ask the Bar assoc. to pull his lic. to practice or hold him in Contempt even if he is no longer with the gov. Slap him with a huge fine or some time in jail and I'll sing the Judges praises while dancing down Main St.
April 8, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
They won't respond. How can they defend the truth. Murksay needs to be investigative along with his henchman. Maybe that is what he is affraid of.
April 8, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of this however, does not mean that Slick Stevens was not guility of some, if not all of the charges. Stevens may have paid for his crimes already---he lost the power he so badly wanted to keep. That could be worst than the 18 months he would have served in jail.
April 8, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The fix was in" theory finds no support, in my book.
Keeping my comments limited, owing to my position in the Department as a trial attorney (but having absolutely zero knowledge of this case beyond what I read in the papers), I would think that the more likely problem was takeover of a case by upper level section personnel, rather than line attorneys, at various levels.
Also, axctions taken by an FBI agent are not actions taken by DOJ attorneys.
Lots of problems in this case, clearly, but putting them all under the umbrella of "fixing" a case goes well beyond Occam's Razor, in my opinion, and is baseless.
April 8, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're kidding yourself. The most compelling explanation is that the fix was in.
Simply put:
1) we know the Bush DoJ selectively prosecuted along political lines.
2) we know the Bush DoJ was stacked with incompetents and political hacks in areas relevant to corporate interests, in the environment, resources, military contracting, etc.
3) it's highly probable, virtually certain, the Bush Administration would be sympathetic to Stevens. We know the Bush Admin was composed of and supported by many similarly corrupt officials. Bush made his career and fortune by trading governmental favors. So did Cheney. So did many prominent Republicans during the Bush years, from De Lay to Ken Lay.
4) It's not difficult to sabotage a case simply by incompetence. It would be the most certain way to sabotage a case and also the most difficult to prove criminally. Competence takes effort. Incompetence takes literally none.
5) We know those who do political favors are rewarded indirectly. Again, Bush himself made a career out of it, and there's no shortage of high profile examples.
To fail to connect those dots requires, or that this happened by chance, requires a sort of willful blindness imo.
April 8, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
He may have been guilty or he may have been not guilty. I followed news accounts of the trial and I am a trial lawyer by profession. I thought that the evidence presented at trial was weak. Many contradictions, little evidence of Steven's knowledge of what work was done plus there was Steven's uncontradicted evidence that he had requested invoices. I also thought it a little strange that they were bringing such rinky-dink charges. No claim of a quid pro quo, just that he had received a gift and not reported it on his Senate statement of assets.
And just to be clear, the judge didn't ask Mukasey to look into this and Mukasey ignored him. It was Steven's attorney who wrote the letter to Mukasey while legal proceedings were still going on. It would have been highly unusual, perhaps unprecedented, for Mukasey to reply. Not to say that he shouldn't have started an internal investigation but there is no way in hell that he, or any other AG, would have responded to a letter from opposing counsel at that stage of the proceedings.
April 8, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This judge is doing attorneys--particularly front line attornesy--in government a tremendous favor, even if the end result is unfortunate for these front line attorneys. I've been a front line attorney with upper management trying to get me to hide stuff. It's no fun. There are always arguments as to why things might be appropriately withheld, but I never saw any reason to withhold much of anything. This created conflict to say the least. Front line attorneys need to be emboldened to do their duty even in the face of pressure from above to do otherwise. If these attorneys get sanctioned the resulting opinion and order will be posted in my office. And may the judge please reserve the harshest sanctions for the people at the top.
April 8, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it correct that also Senator Kennedy knowing, knowingly, deliberately with full intent knew and stated his US Constitutional!!!! disapproval of Mulkasey and yet voted for his US Constitutional!!! Nomination!!!! and subsequent Approval!!!! to be seated and the US Attorney General. (Please note that it appears that Senator used his Cardinal Senatorial status to verbally block all Impeachment endeavors (and among many other similar concerns).
Also as some weeks ago, Therap has mentioned for his (and my) hopes (as mentioned as of seemingly last resort) of the American Bar Association to take appropriate action for the prosecution and/or removal from the American Bar Association of these and many other Executive, Judicial and Legislative Leaders, et all).
Please allow me to mention this reminder that in 10/2007 the American bar Association in their Published Magazine nominated and awarded former (seemingly publically disgraced and resigned)US AG Gonzales Attorney of the year for 2007 and nominated and awarded US AG Mulkasey Attorney of the Year for 2008 with runner ups of a former US President//White House seemingly disgraced and resigned and several other runner ups such as Libby and/or Rove).
Please note that it is not my intent to offend anyone and I hope TPM will allow me to apply any corrections, modifications and/or retractions as may be necessary.
April 8, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Readers, 4/8/2008
Please, is someone available to get through to US President Obama, US AG Holder and others in the Executive, Judicial and Legislative Branches of our 'We the People' US Government to also remind him of his written promise to our (US Constitution, False Claims Act, Illegal Signing statements, prevention of Torture, Illegal rendition, legal//Illegal Secrecy, the complete abolishment of the enactment of the death penalty ecetra) Whistleblowers and his written promise to support the 'FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION RESTORATION ENHANCEMENT ACT (that he has already allowed to be voted out of the current so-called Stimilus Bill and with a seemingly illegal Signing Statement).
(Also, please note and remember California AG Garcettie who prpoerly did his job as referenced in this Article and was retaliated upon and lost his case in our US Supreme Court).
Again, please note that it is not my intent to offend anyone and I hope TPM will allow me to apply any corrections, modifications, clarifications and/or retractions as necessary.
Thank you and all for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Tpmreader
April 8, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The more I read about the Stevens case and the bang-up job (NOT) the Bush/Mukasey DOJ did of the prosecution, the more my little conspiracy genes come to the surface. I'm getting the distinct impression that the prosecutors were not supposed to win this case. Stevens was a liability for the GOP because his guilt was so egregious and so obvious. So, they indicted him to make themselves look good. Stevens, in on the plan from the get go, opted for a speedy trial thinking he'd be cleared after a deliberately botched prosecution and he'd be on his way to another term as Alaska's senior senator. I.e., the Bush/Mukasey DOJ was supposed to f**k up so badly that Stevens would get never be convicted and then he could proclaim "See, I told you so, I'm an innocent victim." But lo 'n behold, Stevens was sooooo guilty even the Bush/Mukasey DOJ couldn't f**k up the prosecution badly enough to deter the jury. Oops, seven guilty verdicts!! Unfortunately, the Busk/Mukasey DOJ did f**k things up enough that the Obama/Holder DOJ couldn't pursue the case on appeal and now the little weasel escapes his just punishment.
April 8, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Considering the Bush inclination for putting narrow partisan politics above principle, it is not believable that the US Justice Department could have accidently made this many mistakes that would surely lead to a mistrial. The case was so open and shut the only chance that Stevens had of winning was through a mistrial.
April 8, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm mad a hell about this. And don't let people tell you that Bristal Palin had nothing to do with it either -- now where did I put my aluminum foil hat.
April 9, 2009 6:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Little late but Edward Kennedy voted "NAY" at makasey confirmation. That's NO!
This prosecutioin was dilibertly fudged by the bush administration. the two justice systems system tilts the scales yet again.
April 9, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
As from my review and re-collection, please allow me to extend my sincere apologies to Senator Kennedy and all if in fact he did vote 'No' to this specific nomination of former US AG Mulkasey. Although other nominations (? US AG Gonzales?)and actions or lack thereof, also seemingly including acts of failure to impeach and the impeachment process and/or failure to process and/or hearings thereof for the enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas are and seemingly continue to be of concern.
Also there is a TPM Talking points memo of 11/1/2007 which has a intended vote count that may also confirm your concern. Again, my apologies and my grateful appreciation and thanks for your taking the time to post.
Also noted in the TPM 11/1/2007 intended vote count has Judiciary Senator Feinstein, Grassley, Graham, Spector, Sessions, Brownback, Coburn, Hatch, Kyl and Schumer voting Yea and also US Senate Committee co-Chairmans of the US Senate Good Government and Ethics Committee (Homeland Security) also voting Yea approving and seating US AG Mulkasey.
April 9, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should read...............US Senate Committee co-Chairpersons Lieberman and Collins of the US Senate Good Government and Ethics Committee (Homeland Security).....
April 9, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM Readers, 4/9/2008
Please accept to allow me to extend an additional apology and modification to Senator Kennedy as from my review, Senator Kennedy with the highest of Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity also voted 'No" to the confirmation and seating of former US AG Gonzales. Also, please note that then Senator Obama also with the highest of Fidelity, Bravery and integrity also voted 'No' to both these US AG Nominations for confirmation and seating.
Also please note that Senators Feinstein and Schumer with the highest of Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity voted 'No' to the confirmation and seating of former US AG Gonzales.
Thank you and all for allowing me to mention these significant, necessary and important interpretations, retractions, corrections, clarifications and/or modifications.
Thank you and all for yoyur time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Tpmreader
April 9, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mukasey was hired to Ignore Evidence Of Misconduct! Gonzo's misconduct, DOJ's misconduct, Halliburton's misconduct, Blackwater's misconduct.
April 10, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink