Pentagon

Defying Subpoena, DoD Orders Sexual Assault Program Chief Not To Testify Before Congress

Andrew Tilghman | August 1, 2008, 2:34PM

The Pentagon defied a Congressional subpoena yesterday by refusing to let the head of its sexual assault program testify at an oversight hearing about sexual assault in the military.

The House panel had issued a subpoena for Dr. Kaye Whitley, the director of the Defense Department's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office.

But Pentagon officials ordered her not to testify and instead sent her supervisor, Michael Dominguez, a principal deputy undersecretary for defense, in her place.

Whitley's absence came on the same day a federal judge rejected the White House's claim to blanket immunity from Congressional oversight in an unrelated case.

Dominguez told the committee the Pentagon was not citing executive privileged but had simply instructed Whitley not to show up.

A Pentagon spokeswoman, Cynthia O. Smith, provided a statement today in response to questions about Whitley's defiance of the subpoena.

It is inappropriate to question Dr. Whitley about the program when Mr. Dominguez, the decision maker responsible for the program and for the program's results, is available to answer those questions.

Mr. Dominguez has full accountability and responsibility for the Sexual Assault Prevention Office and he has the full authority to discuss and answer all questions regarding the SAPRO and the Department's sexual assault policies. Dr. Whitley is responsible for implementing the policy....

Dr. Whitley has been on the Hill numerous times discussing the DoD's sexual assault program and she will continue to do so.

Lawmakers interpreted the move as an affront to Congressional authority and said they had specifically sought Whitley based on her knowledge of how the military's sexual assault programs actually work in practice.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) said to Dominguez at the hearing:

"What is, what it is you're trying to hide? She's the one in charge, let me speak, she's the one in charge of dealing with this problem. We wanted to hear from her. And despite a subpoena from a committee of Congress, you've been instructed by the secretary, undersecretary or deputy secretary in charge of legislative affairs not to allow her to come? ... I don't know who you think elected you to defy the Congress of the United States. We're an independent branch of government. ... this is an unacceptable, absolutely unacceptable position for the department to take and, uh, we are not going to let it stand."

Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) tersely dismissed Dominguez without asking him any questions about sexual assault.

"Well let me tell you something Mr. Dominguez, we decide who we want to have for witnesses at this hearing, we decide who, uh, the people that are going to give us factual testimony, the ones that we want to hear from when we are investigating or having a hearing. So for now Mr. Dominguez, you're dismissed."

Here is a clip of the entire nine-minute exchange between Dominguez and the lawmakers.

In June, the House panel asked Whitley to testify. When the Pentagon resisted, the committee issued a subpoena on Monday compelling her to attend the hearing yesterday, according to a statement today from Tierney, the chair of the oversight committee's National Security and Foreign Affairs subcommittee.

The hearing on sexual assault in the military came the same day as a
GAO report that found sexual assault in the military is probably underreported by half.

Some victims in the military do not report sexual assault because they fear "that nothing will be done; fear of ostracism, harassment, or ridicule; and concern that peers would gossip," according to the report.

Whitley's office is essentially a policy office and the bulk of the military sexual assault support programs are run by individual commanders. The Pentagon has resisted efforts to create an Office of the Victims' Advocate, which would oversee those efforts more independently.

An advocate for military victims of sexual assault tells TPMmuckraker that Whitley's office is under-resourced and reflects the Pentagon's lack of attention to sexual assault.

"We are concerned that it does not have all the tools and personnel it needs to go forward. And we're increasingly concerned that it is becoming politicized," said Anita Sanchez, communications director for the Miles Foundation.

Tierney said the committee is considering "ALL our options here in the face of this blatant disregard of a validly-issued subpoena," including seeking a contempt of Congress charge for Whitley, Dominguez or others.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (36) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (13)
Topics: Henry Waxman, Pentagon

Karl Rove

Senate Reacts To Court Ruling With New Call For Testimony From Rove And Bolton

Andrew Tilghman | July 31, 2008, 6:56PM

Just hours after a federal judge shot down the White House's claim to sweeping immunity from Congressional oversight, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) fired off a round of letters renewing his demand for testimony from Karl Rove and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten.

The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman sent a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding asking whether the two officials will agree to testify in light of today's ruling against the Bush administration's blanket claim of executive privilege.

The investigation at issue is the allegedly political firings of eight U.S. attorneys. The Senate committee issued subpoenas in June and July 2007 for Bolton and Rove to testify on Capitol Hill.

"Today's decision renders the grounds for Mr. Bolten and Mr. Rove's refusal to comply with the Committee's subpoenas moot," Leahy wrote in the letter to Fielding.

Leahy also sent a terse letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey asking whether he planned to rescind the legal memos based on the theory of blanket executive privileged that the judge dismissed today.

Please advise me by no later than next Thursday, August 7, when you will withdraw the erroneous [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion from Stephen Bradbury relied upon by the White House to justify its non-compliance with congressional subpoenas since that opinion has been repudiated by the court.

In addition, please inform me whether the court's decision will cause you to re-evaluate your memos and those from [Office of Legal Counsel] in support of overbroad and unsubstantiated executive privilege claims not only in the U.S. Attorneys investigation, but also in other matters, like the claims used to block Congress from investigating warrantless wiretapping, the leak of the name of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame for political retribution, and White House interference in the Environmental Protection Agency's decision-making. Which of these do you now intend to withdraw?

Leahy sounds like he's asking for a complete surrender in this ongoing battle over White House officials' testimony. But there's a lot of litigation still to go in this case.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (18) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (11)
Topics: EPA, Josh Bolten, Karl Rove, Michael Mukasey, Senate Judiciary Committee, Valerie Plame

Scott Bloch

Office Of Special Counsel Has The Same Political Problems As DOJ, Former Workers Say

Andrew Tilghman | July 31, 2008, 5:36PM

The Department of Justice has been taking a lot of heat lately for the inspector general's report detailing pervasive, illegal partisanship among upper-level officials.

But former employees from the Office of Special Counsel say they've been complaining about the exact same problems for more than three years, and the White House is blocking a public report about misconduct in that office.

We often remind you that Special Counsel Scott Bloch is under investigation by the FBI. He's accused of deleting emails -- and possibly obstructing justice -- in an investigation stemming from his employees complaining about the same kind of partisan activity outlined in Monday's report from the DOJ Inspector General.

Now that group of employees who filed that complaint back in 2005 wants the White House to publish a report about their former employer.

A lawyer for the former employees, Avi Kumin, wrote a letter today to the White House Counsel, urging for a formal, public report.

Kumin rattled off several examples of parallels between DOJ and Bloch's office.

My clients' complaint reported that OSC officials hired several career employees primarily because they attended the Christian, conservative (and at the time only provisionally accredited) Ave Maria Law School. ...

My clients reported years ago that Mr. Bloch fired them because of their perceived sexual orientation or perceived support for enforcing sexual orientation protections for federal employees. ...

My clients' compliant about OSC raised significant evidence that Mr. Bloch and his staff evaluated whistleblower and Hatch Act investigations based on partisan politics.

In theory, federal employees who feel they've faced discrimination for partisan or ideological reasons can file a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel. But it's hard to think that would get investigated impartially by an office itself accused of discriminating against people for political agendas.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (3) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (2)
Topics: DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Office Of Special Counsel, Scott Bloch

Ted Stevens

September Trial Date Set For Sen. Ted Stevens

Andrew Tilghman | July 31, 2008, 4:28PM

A federal judge has granted Sen. Ted Stevens' request for a speedy trial -- calling for jury selection to begin just weeks before the elections this fall.

Stevens (R-AK) is set for trial Sept. 24 on seven counts of making false statements on his Senate financial disclosure forms, court documents show.

Accused of taking more than $250,000 in undisclosed gifts from the CEO of an Alaska-based oil services firm, Stevens said he wants to "clear his name" before voters decide whether to give the 84-year-old lawmaker a seventh term.

The schedule outlined allows less than two months for all pretrial preparations, a remarkably quick turnaround for a federal case.

For now, the case is scheduled for trial before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in Washington, DC. The judge has not yet ruled on Stevens' attorney's request that the case be moved to federal district court in Alaska, where Stevens is a popular political patriarch.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (5) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)
Topics: Alaska, Ted Stevens, Veco

Ted Stevens

Sen. Ted Stevens Enters Not Guilty Plea In Federal Court

Andrew Tilghman | July 31, 2008, 1:29PM

From the AP:

Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens has pleaded not guilty to charges that he lied about accepting more than a quarter of a million dollars worth of gifts from a powerful oilfield contractor.

In the midst of his re-election bid, lawyers for the Senate's longest-serving Republican maintained Stevens' innocence at his afternoon arraignment in federal court in Washington.

Stevens did not speak when U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan asked for his plea. Stevens' attorney, Brendan Sullivan, answered for him.

Prosecutors say the Alaska Republican accepted more than $250,000 in house renovations and gifts from contractors but didn't disclose them on Senate financial records.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (3) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (3)
Topics: Ted Stevens

Harriet Miers

House and Senate Dems Claim Victory, Say Miers, Rove Should Testify

Andrew Tilghman | July 31, 2008, 12:30PM

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) hailed today's court ruling and said he expects former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and political director Karl Rove to testify on Capitol Hill in September.

"Today's landmark ruling is a ringing reaffirmation of the fundamental principle of checks and balances and the basic American idea that no person is above the law.

Judge Bates' decision makes clear that the Congress had the right to subpoena Harriet Miers to learn of her role in the US Attorney firings, that her claim to be immune from subpoena was invalid and that the Committee was entitled to challenge that claim in Court. The Judge also ruled that the White House may not claim Executive Privilege over documents without describing them in reasonable detail so that these claims of privilege can be evaluated by Congress.

We look forward to the White House complying with this ruling and to scheduling future hearings with Ms. Miers and other witnesses who have relied on such claims. We hope that the defendants will accept this decision and expect that we will receive relevant documents and call Ms. Miers, as well as ex-White House official Karl Rove, to testify in September"

Later, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) echoed Conyers' statements:

The claims are part of an arrogant White House cover up, designed to shield from public view the inappropriate and illegal actions of this administration. It is past time for senior administration officials to abide by the law and appear before Congress to offer testimony compelled by subpoena.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (12) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (7)
Topics: DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Harriet Miers, John Conyers, Karl Rove, Senate Judiciary Committee

DOJ Office Of The Inspector General

Mukasey Tells DOJ Workers That Political Scandal Has "Harmed" Department

Andrew Tilghman | July 31, 2008, 10:23AM

Attorney General Michael Mukasey sent a letter to all Department of Justice employees yesterday trying to boost morale and addressing the Inspector General's report from Monday that concluded numerous high-ranking officials violated civil service laws.

In the letter first reported by the Wall Street Journal, Mukasey wrote:

I was disturbed and disappointed by those reports: disturbed by the finding that some Department employees had violated federal law, rules and regulations; and disappointed that these actions have harmed the reputation of this great institution.

He outlined several changes the Department has made in recent months, including a new process for hiring immigration judges and "mandatory training for all political appointees regarding prohibited personnel practices."

Mukasey also referenced the two additional pending reports from the IG, one about the firing of U.S. Attorneys and the other about politicization in the Civil Rights Division.

I do not know when those reports will be issued or what they will find. I am hopeful that they will recognize the many changes and actions taken by current Department employees to address the relevant issues. But I will review carefully those reports and any recommendations in them, as I have past reports, and I will not hesitate to respond as appropriate.

Read more for the full text of Mukasey's letter

Read more »

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (11) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (3)
Topics: DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Michael Mukasey, U.S. Attorneys

DOJ Office Of The Inspector General

DOJ Report Shows Partisan Culture Reigned Beyond The Few Names Named

Andrew Tilghman | July 30, 2008, 6:53PM

There are still two more uncompleted inspector general reports pending -- one about the firing of eight U.S. attorneys and another about political agendas in the department's Civil Rights Division.

Yet from the IG report Monday on hiring practices, it's already clear that a culture of partisanship prevailed inside the department, and many DOJ officials were playing along, some more actively than others.

"It had a significant effect throughout the department. I think one of the most significant things is people not objecting, people not standing up," Inspector General Glenn Fine told lawmakers today on Capitol Hill.

To be sure, Monica Goodling, Kyle Sampson and others appear to have been serious party hacks who violated department policy and federal law by screening out prospective lawyers and judges for partisan reasons. But many others went along, if only more passively.

Take for example what Michael Elston told the IG's investigators. Elston clearly understood how Goodling and others operated and admitted to adopting a go-along, get-along attitude.

For example, Michael Elston, former Chief of Staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, stated that when he sought attorneys for details to the [Office of the Deputy Attorney General], he would generally look for candidates with the type of experience required by the position, but he also looked for candidates with Republican or conservative credentials in order to get them approved by the [Office of Attorney General].

Elston said that Goodling made it clear to him that she did not want Democrats detailed to the ODAG because she had a "farm system" approach to filling vacancies in the Department, and she wanted to "credential" Republicans so that they could move on to higher political positions.

We saw an example of this in an email sent by Bradley Schlozman, the U.S. Attorney for Missouri's western district. He was sending resumes for three prospective hires to DOJ headquarters. Apparently without any prompting, Schlozman began touting their political credentials.

In his e-mail, Schlozman described the three candidates as "rock-solid Americans" who would be a "hugely positive legacy for this Administration." Schlozman described each candidate in terms of their conservative political credentials. He wrote that the first applicant's "involvement with the Bush/Cheney campaign speaks for itself."

Yes, in some cases, Goodling and others actively screened out prospective lawyers and judges for partisan reasons. But in many situations, they didn't have to. Others did it for them.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (5) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)
Topics: Bradley Schlozman, Civil Rights Division, DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Glenn Fine, Kyle Sampson, Michael Elston, Monica Goodling, U.S. Attorneys

Scott Bloch

Special Counsel Says He Has No Plans To Resign From Office

Andrew Tilghman | July 30, 2008, 5:47PM

Yesterday we learned that Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) wrote a letter to Special Counsel Scott Bloch urging the embattled chief of the independent investigative office to step down.

Bloch's had a lot of problems lately. He's under investigation by the FBI and his top deputy quit recently complaining about "political agendas" at the office that's supposed to investigate things like misconduct related to political agendas.

Today we see that Bloch promptly fired back, sending Waxman, chairman of the House oversight committee, a terse letter saying he has no plans to resign his post until his term ends next year.

Read the letter here.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (5) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (3)
Topics: Henry Waxman, Office Of Special Counsel, Scott Bloch

Ted Stevens

The Ted Stevens Story On Today's TPMtv

Andrew Tilghman | July 30, 2008, 5:10PM

One year after the feds searched his Alaska home, and one day after a grand jury handed up a seven-count indictment, Sen. Ted Stevens is the subject of today's TMPtv. Muckraker reporter Kate Klonick recaps Ted's troubles and tells us what that means for the GOP in Alaska and nationwide.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (1) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (2)
Topics: Alaska, Ted Stevens, Veco

Alberto Gonzales

Gonzales Was Oblivious To Politicization At DOJ: IG

Andrew Tilghman | July 30, 2008, 4:36PM

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales knew essentially nothing about the partisan culture and violations of federal law that were routine at the agency under his watch.

That's what we heard today from Glenn Fine, the Department of Justice Inspector General.

Fine told lawmakers on Capitol Hill today that his investigators interviewed Gonzales for their report, which found numerous senior officials were illegally using partisan considerations when hiring some prosecutors and judges.

The IG was emphatic. Take a look:

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (21) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (4)
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Glenn Fine

FISA

Bush Administration Wants To Block ACLU From Wiretapping Law Litigation

Andrew Tilghman | July 30, 2008, 3:50PM

Should federal judges interpreting the new U.S. wiretapping law be able to hear and consider legal arguments from outside parties like the American Civil Liberties Union?

The Bush administration says no.

The Department of Justice filed court papers yesterday seeking to block the ACLU -- and any other third party -- from submitting briefs to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the classified forums that will be primarily responsible for translating the federal law signed last month into practice.

The DOJ argues that any briefs the ACLU might file would be ill-informed because its lawyers cannot access the classified information at the heart of many FISA cases, and the proceedings would just clog the flow of cases

"The collective effect of these restrictions is to make any meaningful participation by the ACLU...impossible. ... Indeed, allowing third-parties to use this Court as a general forum to present facial challenges to the Government's surveillance activities could cause a flood of litigation that would district this Court from its important national security functions."

But the ACLU, which has filed a lawsuit seeking access to the FISA court, says the new law is public and complex and the judges should be able to consider a wide range of views when handing down important rulings. Jameel Jaffer of the ACLU's National Security Project said in a statement today:

"If the government's request is granted, the court won't hear arguments from anyone except the government and those arguments will be presented to the court in secret briefs. ... Especially because the new surveillance law departs so significantly from the standards that have applied to government surveillance for the last 30 years, any proceedings relating to the new law's constitutionality should be adversarial and as informed and transparent as possible."

Peter Swire, a law professor at Ohio State University and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, supports the ACLU's position. He wrote a paper in 2004 calling for greater participation in the FISA court.

"The DOJ is taking an expansive view of executive power and narrow view of judicial power, Swire told TPMmuckraker in an interview today. "Under the government's view, the judges seem required to uphold an unconstitutional system because the judges are forbidden from getting briefing from anyone other than the executive branch."

While there is limited precedent for third-party involvement in the typically classified proceedings under the 1978 FISA law, the new technologies that prompted lawmakers to updat the law law may also warrant new procedures, Swire said.

"The 1978 version of FISA targeted one individual at a time or sometime one terrorist organization. The new approach sweeps far more broadly and it looks more like an administrative system than a traditional judicial wiretap order."

"In light of those changes and the constitutional challenges to those changes, the court would be well served to be briefed with multiple viewpoints," Swire said.

The DOJ argues that the ACLU already has an opportunity to contest the constitutionality of the FISA law a lawsuit currently pending in New York's Southern District.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (6) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (4)
Topics: FISA, Michael Mukasey

DOJ Office Of The Inspector General

Fine Says IG's Office Only Talked To One White House Official In DOJ Probe

Andrew Tilghman | July 30, 2008, 11:32AM

Throughout the investigation of improper political influence on the Department of Justice's hiring process, the DOJ's inspector general interviewed 85 people -- but only one from the White House.

The IG, Glenn Fine, testifying this morning before the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that Karl Rove aide Scott Jennings was the only White House official he sought to interview for his report released Monday.

"Why were no others at the White House questioned?" Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) asked Fine.

"From the evidence that we had, both emails and discussions, we did not see that others were involved in this process, and we questioned the person who was involved," Fine said, referring to Jennings.

The process Fine was referring to was the partisan screening of prospective prosecutors and judges.

Yet Fine did note at least one exception, an example his report cited of a prospective immigration judge who was appointed after Rove expressed support for the candidate.

Fine was said he did not believe any of the misconduct described in his 140-page report called for criminal prosecution for false statements.

"We looked at that and clearly in our judgment and in the judgement of prosecutors who have been working on this case, we do not think there was a sufficient basis for a criminal prosecution for false statements."

Late Update:
Here's the exchange between Specter and Fine.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (13) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)
Topics: Arlen Specter, DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Glenn Fine, Senate Judiciary Committee

DOJ Office Of The Inspector General

DOJ's Inspector General To Tesify On Capitol Hill Today

Andrew Tilghman | July 30, 2008, 9:05AM

The Senate Judiciary Committee will get a chance to grill Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn Fine today about the report he released Monday.

Fine's 140-page report detailed incidents of DOJ officials violating federal law by using political considerations in the hiring of some federal prosecutors and judges.

Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has harshly criticized the DOJ for the misconduct outlined in the report.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (2) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Glenn Fine, Senate Judiciary Committee

Ted Stevens

Sen. Ted Stevens To Face Arraignment In Federal Court Tomorrow

Andrew Tilghman | July 30, 2008, 8:53AM

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) is due in federal court in Washington tomorrow for arraignment on seven counts of failing to disclose gifts from an Alaska oil firm.

The 84-year-old senator is scheduled to appear at 1 p.m. before U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who was appointed by President Clinton in 1994.

Stevens was ordered to contact pretrial services for a preliminary interview before the arraignment.

The federal prosecutors expected to handle the case are Joseph W. Bottini and James A. Goeke, court records show.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (4) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (2)
Topics: Alaska, Ted Stevens

Ted Stevens

Feds Allege Stevens Did Foreign Favors For VECO, But Provide Few Details

Andrew Tilghman | July 29, 2008, 5:31PM

So what did VECO get in return?

Federal prosecutors unveiled a narrowly focused indictment today for Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), limiting the criminal charges to the senator's disclosure forms and what the Alaska-based energy services firm did for the lawmaker.

But there was, briefly, a small set of allegations about the longtime senator did for the company.

Among them, federal prosecutors say, Stevens provided: "funding requests and other assistance with certain international VECO projects and partnerships, including those in Pakistan and Russia."

We've heard allegations of favors related to Pakistan before.

In the late 1990s, VECO built a $70 million pipeline for Pakistan and the military dictatorship running the country was slow to pay its bill. That is until Pakistan needed help from Congress on a trade issue, and Stevens was positioned to block the legislation at issue. Pakistan paid its tab soon after concluding it might help them out on Capitol Hill, according to the Los Angeles Times.

As for Russia, it's unclear exactly what the prosecutors are referring to. VECO did a lot of business in Russia, often subcontracting work for large multinational oil companies. Also in 2005, VECO hired Steven's son, Ben Stevens, to lobby the World Bank to get money the company needed for a spill cleanup job in Russia.

It's hard to know precisely. And that's probably one reason the feds limited the prosecution of Stevens to false statements made on his financial disclosure forms. Proving quid pro quo in court is exceptionally hard.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (0) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (3)
Topics: Alaska, Ted Stevens, Veco

Ted Stevens

Sen. Ted Stevens Took Undisclosed Gifts Worth $250K, Including Viking Gas Grill

Andrew Tilghman | July 29, 2008, 2:44PM

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) was indicted today for accepting more than $250,000 in undisclosed renovations and repairs for his home in Girwood, Alaska, according to Stevens' indictment.

Stevens' friend William Allen, the head of VECO company, was providing most of the labor and some supplies for the projects, but never charged Stevens for the work, according to the indictment today.

In 2000, Stevens and Allen began discussing renovations for his home, putting together a plan that would eventually include a full basement, first-floor addition with multiple bedrooms and a bathroom, the indictment said.

It was a massive undertaking. Workers took the small home and jacked it up on stilts, then built a new first floor underneath with two bedrooms and a bathroom, the indictment said.

Then workers added a garage with a workshop and a second-story wraparound deck. VECO employees and contractors also installed electrical, plumbing, framing, heating, and flooring materials, the indictment said.

In 2001, Allen gave Stevens some furniture, a new Viking gas grill and a new tool shed full of tools, according to the indictment.

In 2002, VECO continued work on the outside of the house, installing a first-floor wraparound deck, a plastic roof between the first- and second-floor decks, and a lighting system worth a total of about $55,000, the indictment said.

In 2004, VECO installed some kitchen appliances in the house, the indictment said.

In 2005, the company did some repairs to the roof and gutters, the indictment said.

In 2006, Stevens called Allen and asked him to repair his boiler system. Allen instructed the contractor to divide the bill into two parts, supplies and labor. Allen told the contractor to send the bill for supplies to Stevens and the labor to Allen, the indictment said.

Stevens knew this, and at least once asked Allen to send him the invoice for the labor, but Allen never did and Stevens never reimbursed him, the indictment said.

The home renovations were not the first time Stevens had accepted favors from Allen.

Back in 1999, Stevens mentioned to Allen that he wanted to get a new car for his daughter. That led to a deal in which Allen gave Stevens a new 1999 Land Rover Discovery, worth $44,000. In exchange, Stevens gave Allen a 1964½ Ford Mustang and $5,000. Prosecutors say the Mustang was worth less than $20,000.

In September 2000, Stephens wrote Allen an email about the work:

"we've never worked with a man so easy to get along with as [a VECO employee], Plus, everyone who's seen the place wants to know who has done the things he's done. . . . You and [PERSON A] have been the spark plugs and we are really pleased with all you have done. hope to see you and the chalet soon. best teds."

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (8) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)
Topics: Alaska, Bill Allen, Ted Stevens, Veco

Scott Bloch

Waxman Joins Chorus Urging Special Counsel To Resign

Andrew Tilghman | July 29, 2008, 10:48AM

Special Counsel Scott Bloch is under investigation by the FBI. His own employees can't stand him. And now pressure is mounting from Capitol Hill for one of Washington's top watchdogs to step down.

House oversight committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) sent Bloch a letter yesterday urging him to step down from the agency charged with investigating allegations of retaliation against whistle blowers.

The mission of the agency should be the paramount consideration. It is for this reason that I have concluded that OSC would be better served with new leadership and urge you to step down as the Special Counsel. Such a move would be in the best interest of the agency and the federal employees its charged to protect.

Waxman's letter comes after Bloch's chief deputy resigned from the office citing "political agendas."

Up until now, Waxman has been uncharacteristically quiet regarding allegations of Bloch's misconduct, which includes retaliating against whistleblowers in his own office.

The committee's ranking member, Tom Davis (R-VA), called for Bloch's resignation weeks ago.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (5) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (9)
Topics: Henry Waxman, Office Of Special Counsel, Oversight Committee, Scott Bloch

Oil

Top NeoCon Richard Perle Seeks Oil Deal With Iraqi Kurds

Andrew Tilghman | July 29, 2008, 9:32AM

Richard Perle has almost always gone along with the Bush administration's policies.

But now the longtime neoconservative policy wonk is trying to get in on an oil-drilling deal with Iraqi Kurds despite the administration's public opposition to such deals there.

Perle, one of the most influential proponents of 2003 invasion of Iraq, is in talks to join a consortium of investors with the Kurdish Regional Government, today's Wall Street Journal reports.

The Bush administration has publicly discouraged energy firms from making unilateral deals with Iraqi Kurds until after Iraq's federal government in Baghdad agrees to a law for sharing future revenues. Disagreements over oil money have inflamed sectarian tensions in Iraq and undermined political unity.

But investigators are looking into whether the Bush administration privately gave the go-ahead to energy firms seeking the lucrative deals with the Kurds.

The Journal reports that Perle is talking with a Turkish firm, AK Group International, and also a representative from the government of Kazakhstan. They are targeting the co-called "K18 concession" which is near the city of Erbil and is estimated to hold 150 million or more barrels of oil.

Houston-based Endeavour International would conduct the exploration and drilling, according to the Journal.

During the run-up to the Iraq war, Perle was chairman of the Defense Policy Board, which advises the Pentagon. He is currently a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank in Washington.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (24) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)
Topics: Iraq, Oil, Richard Perle

EPA

EPA Prohibits Pollution Experts From Talking To IG Investigators

Andrew Tilghman | July 28, 2008, 7:01PM

From the AP:

The Environmental Protection Agency is telling its pollution enforcement officials not to talk with congressional investigators, reporters and even the agency's own inspector general, according to an internal e-mail provided to The Associated Press.

The June 16 message instructs 11 managers in the EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, the branch of the agency charged with making sure environmental laws are followed, to remind their staff members to keep quiet.

"If you are contacted directly by the IG's office or GAO requesting information of any kind ... please do not respond to questions or make any statements," reads the e-mail sent by Robbi Farrell, the division's chief of staff. Instead, staff members should forward inquiries to a designated EPA representative, the memo says.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (9) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (2)
Topics: EPA

Blackwater

Small Business Admin. Couldn't Explain Why It Approved Small Business Status For Blackwater

Andrew Tilghman | July 28, 2008, 6:39PM

Private military contractor Blackwater and its affiliates may have wrongly received more than $100 million in contracts that were supposed to be set aside for small businesses, according to an inspector general's report released today.

At issue was a November 2006 determination by the Small Business Administration that a Blackwater affiliate, Presidential Airways, was a small business with less than 1,500 employees.

Blackwater contended, and the agency agreed, that its more than 1,000 workers providing security for the State Department overseas were not employees, but independent contractors. That made the company appear smaller on paper than it actually is.

The SBA Inspector General said that assessment was incorrect, based on SBA regulations.

How the agency made that determination regarding Blackwater is unclear, the report concluded.

"We're not sure how that happened," Glenn Harris, chief counsel for the SBA inspector general's office, said in an interview with TPMmuckraker. "We're not saying there was misrepresentation. ... It could be contracting-officer error."

Although Blackwater did provide some information indicating the size of the company, the SBA appears to have overlooked evidence that the company was too large to qualify as a small business.

SBA did not follow-up on or attempt to reconcile conflicting information in its files that the total number of Blackwater employees -- even excluding the security personnel hired under Federal contracts -- exceeded the applicable size standard.

The SBA IG forwarded its report to the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, which together awarded Blackwater some 39 contracts that were set aside for small business. SBA only accesses whether a company is eligible for small-business contracts.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chairman of the House oversight committee, questioned Blackwater's conduct.

"The SBA IG report raises serious concerns about whet her Blackwater made false statements about its small business status to the federal agencies that awarded these contracts," wrote in a memo to his committee today.

A spokeswoman for Blackwater denied any wrongdoing by the company.

"Over the past several years, expert accounting and outside legal counsel have determined that Blackwater's classification of security personnel as independent contractors is reasonable, correct and legally protected," said Anne Tyrell, the spokeswoman.

She said the IG's report "draws no conclusions" and was "unnecessarily speculative."

The Small Business Administration did not respond to a request for comment.

Late Update: The SBA issued a statement noting that the the IG report questions its reasoning in the size determination but did not declare it incorrect.

The lack of clarity, the report says, depends on various interpretations of whether nearly 1,000 security personnel hired for a Department of State contract were employees and should have been counted against the 1,500-employee limit, or whether they were contractors and should not have been counted.

"As a legal matter, some factors suggested Blackwater's security personnel were employees; other factors suggested they were independent contractors. The company also represented that those staff were considered independent contractors for IRS purposes," the statement said.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (4) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)
Topics: Blackwater, Defense Department, Henry Waxman, House Oversight

DOJ Office Of The Inspector General

DOJ Misconduct Included Preparing False Statements For A Reporter

Andrew Tilghman | July 28, 2008, 6:19PM

When a reporter last year asked about political litmus tests for Department of Justice officials, a guy in the press office said that's "crap."

But he was lying.

That amounts to "misconduct," according to the DOJ Inspector General's report today.

The press flack was John Nowacki, who is now the deputy director for the Executive Office for United States Attorneys' Staffs. He's one of the only DOJ officials named in today's report who is still working for the department.

Nowacki was a staunch defender for Monica Goodling. She helped hire him at DOJ and both are graduates of Regent University, the evangelical school in Virginia founded by televangelist Pat Robertson.

Nowicki is reportedly on assignment in Iraq and was unable to be reached for comment.

In March of last year, Nowacki received an email inquiry from Legal Times reporter Ted Goldman, who wrote:

Several longtime ausa's are telling me that the detaillee [sic] program at the [Executive Office of the U.S. Attorneys] has become far more politicized than ever before. ... if you'd like to give me a response, i'd very much appreciate it:

Nowacki knew at the time that Goodling was considering party affiliation and other political criteria when selecting people for DOJ positions. That's what he told the IG during its investigation.

Nevertheless, he set gears in motion to spin the reporter with a false denial.

Shortly after receiving this e-mail, Nowacki forwarded it to Acting EOUSA Director Steven Parent. In his e-mail, Nowacki commented, "Steve - Let's talk about this tomorrow. It's crap."

Nowacki began to circulate a draft statement in response to the reporter's inquiry that would go out under Parent's name.

In my tenure with EOUSA, I am not aware of any attempt to screen candidates on the basis of party affiliation by anyone, including Monica Goodling; that issue simply has never come up in any interviews in which I have participated. To suggest that those career employees who have been selected to serve details to EOUSA is based on anything but professional experience unfairly detracts from those career employees and is simply wrong.

The DOJ ultimately never sent the response, partly because "Parent said he did not want the statement to be attributed to him since he was not sure of the facts," according to the report.

The IG suggested DOJ should take disciplinary action against Nowacki.

We concluded that EOUSA Deputy Director John Nowacki committed misconduct by drafting a proposed Department response to a media inquiry which he knew was inaccurate. ... Nowacki is still employed by the Department. Therefore, we recommend that the Department consider appropriate discipline for him based upon the evidence in this report.

A spokesman for the DOJ did not respond to a request for comment.

Here at TPMmuckraker, we recall a lot of dubious statements coming out of the DOJ's Office of Public Affairs. If providing false statements to reporters amounts to misconduct, then the DOJ may have more people to deal with than just Kowacki.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (9) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)
Topics: DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Justice Department, Monica Goodling, U.S. Attorneys

DOJ Office Of The Inspector General

For Sampson, Hiring At DOJ Was All Republicans All The Times

Andrew Tilghman | July 28, 2008, 2:37PM

The highest-ranking official flagged for breaking federal law in today's Department of Justice Inspector General's report was Kyle Sampson, a former chief of staff for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Sampson routinely violated DOJ policy and federal law by using overt political and ideological considerations when filling key DOJ jobs such as immigration judges, according to the report today from the DOJ's Inspector General. Federal law and Justice Department policy require career officials to be hired on merit and prohibit discrimination based on political affiliations.

Federal immigration judgeships were especially targeted for politicization. In October 2003, shortly after Sampson started working at DOJ, then as Counselor to Attorney General John Ashcroft, he began to overhaul the selection process for immigration judges. "[We] were only considering essentially Republican lawyers for appointment," Sampson said, according to the IG's report. (It was not clear from the report whether Sampson said that to IG investigators or in another setting)

Prior to 2004, immigration judges were appointed in an essentially non-political bureaucratic process handled by the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge. Vacancies were posted, resumes sorted, interviews conducted and decisions made by lower-level DOJ officials, according to the report.

Sampson's new process involved "coordination" with White House and an extra effort to get friends of the Bush administration into the judgeships when possible. Sampson circulated a document outlining the new process.

"Many lawyers seeking positions within the Administration, including judgeships, become known to the White House offices of Political Affairs, Presidential Personnel, and Counsel to the President." The document stated that some lawyers might qualify to be IJs, and that "coordination" was needed to ensure that such lawyers were "informed of the opportunity" to become IJs.

Also, Sampson often called over to the White House personnel office seeking "ideas for immigration judge postings." Sampson told a staffer to "contact the White House to get any candidate ideas that they had for immigration judges".

In one case, Sampson pushed a prospective judicial candidate who was supported by White House political director Karl Rove.

Regarding that candidate, whose name was not disclosed, Kevin Ohlson, then deputy director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, told the IG's investigators that he was "fully aware of the fact" that Sampson was pushing Rove's pick and that was affecting the formal evaluation.

"The finger was on the scale," Ohlson said.

That candidate was ultimately appointed to be an immigration judge in October 2005, the report said.

When questioned, Sampson said he thought the Immigration judges were political appointees, not career positions, and therefore not subject to civil service rules. He said Ohlson and the Office of Legal Counsel told him that. But Ohlson said he never said anything to that effect and investigators from the IG's office found no evidence that OLC provided any guidance to Sampson on the matter.

Sampson's lawyer, Brad Berenson, said today the hiring decisions were an honest mistake and that Sampson "immediately agreed with the recommendation to put a stop to this process" when he first learned he may have been wrong.

Here's a clip of Sampson's testimony on Capitol Hill in March 2007.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (22) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (4)
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Glenn Fine, John Ashcroft, Justice Department, Karl Rove, Kyle Sampson

DOJ Office Of The Inspector General

Conyers Considers "Criminal Referral" For Gonzales, Other DOJ Officials

Andrew Tilghman | July 28, 2008, 12:43PM

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are talking about a criminal investigation for DOJ officials -- Alberto Gonzales included.

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said today's report about politicization in at the DOJ suggests that former AG Alberto Gonzales and other Justice officials may have given false statements under oath before Congress.

Conyers said in a statement this morning:

The Report also indicates that Monica Goodling, Kyle Sampson, and Alberto Gonzales may have lied to the Congress about these matters. I have directed my staff to closely review this matter and to consider whether a criminal referral for perjury is needed."

A spokesman for the committee said the committee's lawyers are currently looking over the report and past testimony on the Hill.

That's probably not as dramatic as it sounds. Any criminal referral would be passed on to DOJ, which has so far refused to appoint a special prosecutor for the matter. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has said he's not going to pursue contempt referrals from Congress.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (32) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (2)
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, House Judiciary, John Ashcroft, Kyle Sampson, Michael Mukasey, Monica Goodling

DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility

Leahy Says DOJ Scandal Harmed National Security

Andrew Tilghman | July 28, 2008, 11:26AM

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the politicization in the Bush Administration's Department of Justice posed a threat to national security.

Responding to today's report from the DOJ Inspector General, Leahy said in a statement:

"The report reveals decisions to reject qualified, experienced applicants to work on counterterrorism issues in favor of a less experienced attorney on the basis of political ideology. Rather than strengthening our national security, the Department of Justice appears to have bent to the political will of the administration. Further, the report reveals that the 'principal source' for politically vetted candidates considered for important positions as immigration judges was the White House- a clear indication of the untoward political influence of the Bush administration on traditionally non-political appointments."

Leahy went on to criticize former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for not acknowledging the systemic problems in the DOJ.

"Like some in the administration who would place blame for the actions at Abu Ghraib solely onto the shoulders of a few bad apples, the Attorney General has tried to dismiss the Inspector General's first report on politicization issued last month as documenting the actions of just a few bad apples. But it was obvious from that first report, and becomes more so with this second joint IG/OPR report, that the problems of politicization at the Department are rooted deeper than that.

In this report, we once again see that the Bush administration has allowed politics to affect and infect the nation's chief law enforcement agency's priorities.

Leahy said he looks forward to the Inspector General Glenn Fine's testimony before his committee on Wednesday.

Read Leahy's entire statement here.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (4) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (4)
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, Glenn Fine, Justice Department, Senate Judiciary Committee

Stephen Payne

Former Homeland Security Adviser Talked About Cash Deal For U.N. "Passport"

Andrew Tilghman | July 28, 2008, 10:05AM

In this week's Sunday paper, the Times of London doled out another interesting detail from their secretly recorded conversation with former Homeland Security Adviser Stephen Payne.

This week's story was not as explosive as the one two weeks ago, when the Houston energy consultant offered to arrange meetings with White House officials in exchange for big donations to the future George W. Bush presidential library fund.

The latest story said Payne talked about obtaining travel documents from the United Nations in exchange for money. That's a remarkable offer from a guy who sat on the Secure Borders and Open Doors Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Advisory Committee. (Until he was told to resign a couple weeks ago).

On video, Payne was in a London hotel restaurant talking to a Kazakh politician known as Eric Dos. Dos made a reference to a previous business deal with Payne when Payne allegedly obtained a United Nations "passport" for a Kazakh billionaire who used to head the state oil and gas company, KazMunaiGas, or KMG.

Dos introduced the subject of Payne having helped Kulibayev obtain a UN "passport". Payne appeared to confirm his involvement, saying "Yeah yeah yeah, yeah." Asked if this was possible Payne answered: "It can be done. It's a question of money, always. Everything is." A source close to Payne said: "He didn't do this, but he knows who did. Kulibayev's firm paid for him to sit on a UN advisory commission and a friend of his on it got the document for him."

The "commission" referred to is the Energy Security Forum, a now defunct offshoot of the UN Economic Commission for Europe. Kulibayev was given a seat, courtesy of his position at KMG, from its inception in 2003, but never turned up to any of its meetings, said a spokesman.

The document referred to is not a formal passport but allows holders to travel internationally, according to the Times.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (0) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
Topics: Stephen Payne