« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
The revelations come fast and furious.
Last night, the AP reported that when the local press revealed that Rep. Rick Renzi's (R-AZ) was under investigation just weeks before the election, his top aide called U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton's aide to ask about it. Charlton was one of the U.S. attorneys who was fired little more than a month later. And even though Charlton's aide had reported the contact to the Justice Department (as the rules dictate), that report was not among the thousands of pages the Justice Department turned over to congressional investigators.
And now this. From The Wall Street Journal:
As midterm elections approached last November, federal investigators in Arizona faced unexpected obstacles in getting needed Justice Department approvals to advance a corruption investigation of Republican Rep. Rick Renzi, people close to the case said.The delays, which postponed key approvals in the case until after the election, raise new questions about whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales or other officials may have weighed political issues in some investigations....
Investigators pursuing the Renzi case had been seeking clearance from senior Justice Department officials on search warrants, subpoenas and other legal tools for a year before the election, people close to the case said....
...the investigation clearly moved slowly: Federal agents opened the case no later than June 2005, yet key witnesses didn't get subpoenas until early this year, those close to the case said. The first publicly known search -- a raid of a Renzi family business by the Federal Bureau of Investigation -- was carried out just last week....
...the Renzi case -- like many that involve members of Congress -- is being handled jointly by the local U.S. attorney and the department's public-integrity section. In such cases, a senior department official must approve requests for wiretaps and warrants and other formal legal steps.
There's another revelation in the piece: that investigators had lobbied Washington for clearance to tap Renzi's phone for months. That clearance was only given in October of last year. And unfortunately for the investigators, word broke of the investigation in late October -- disrupting their wiretap.
The allegations against Renzi are complicated, involving a land swap, allegedly channeling a kickback through a family company, etc. The Journal laid it all out in a piece this last weekend.
All this raises a question. The bosses at main Justice seem to have been similarly reluctant to proceed with regard to the Duke Cunningham probe. As TPM reported a couple of weeks ago, U.S. Attorney for San Diego Carol Lam had to wait sometimes for months for clearance on certain moves in her investigation. So is there a pattern here?
Comments (37)
greg wrote on April 25, 2007 8:45 AM:Is somebody making up these codes?
crush: as in them
steve wrote on April 25, 2007 8:57 AM:I've seen this mentioned a coupel of times, and maybe I don't understand the importance- so can somebody explain please-
dick c wrote on April 25, 2007 8:57 AM:why would DOJ have needed to turn over a contact report between Renzi and Charlton's office?
I guess my question is what search parameters that they asked for would that have been responsive to?
Greg, mine is "bell." What you suggest doesn't resonate.
Wretched Refuse wrote on April 25, 2007 9:01 AM:ARREST, TRY, HANG.
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on April 25, 2007 9:13 AM:Yes, there is a pattern of obfuscation and stonewalling in these public corruption cases.
Jack Abramoff has been talking to the DOJ for at least a year. So far, the DOJ has only managed to come up with a case against Mark Zachares. Abramoff was in the public corruption business for twenty years. Hello?
The grand jury in Washington DC has been examining evidence in the Curt Weldon case for
almost a year now. And?
Mitchell Wade was in cahoots with three former top officials in the Defense Intelligence Agency. So?
Again and again, the DOJ has failed to follow through on public corruption cases. The Griles investigation was a disgrace. When he and Italia Federici appeared before McCain's Senate Indian Affairs Committee, every senator on the committte knew that Griles had had an affair with Federici.
McCain's hearing was set up with a fixed outcome so as to avoid dragging former Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton in the investigation.
The Department of Justice is corrupt from the top on down.
Anonymous wrote on April 25, 2007 9:20 AM:Every day, there is evidence in the press that the DOJ is covering up public corruption:
From today's WaPo story by Walter Pincus, "Pentagon to End Talon Data-Gathering Program":
"...Last August, CIFA Director David A. Burtt II and his top deputy, Joseph Hefferon, resigned in the wake of a scandal involving CIFA contracts that went to MZM Inc., a company run by Mitchell J. Wade. Wade pleaded guilty in February 2006 to conspiring to bribe then-Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif)..."
Resigned? Why haven't Burtt and Hefferson been indicted? Who else in the DoD was involved with Mitchell Wade's MZM?
RT wrote on April 25, 2007 9:21 AM:Would be worth knowing who leaked the story about the Renzi investigation last October.
ShorelineCT wrote on April 25, 2007 9:30 AM:steve: Since DOJ was asked to turn over ALL documents related to the firing of USAs, and Mr. Charlton was one of those, the document dump should have included any thing related to his work and main Justice (yes, a misnomer!).
Englischlehrer wrote on April 25, 2007 9:41 AM:The "I don't recall" and "we lost the emails" or sorry that we redacted some things beyond the point of comprehension" defenses can't stick, can they?
convict wrote on April 25, 2007 9:41 AM:"The Department of Justice is corrupt from the top on down"
..sure looks like it !!
C 92 wrote on April 25, 2007 9:59 AM:"...that investigators had lobbied Washington for clearance to tap Renzi's phone for months. That clearance was only given in October of last year..."
Hello, DOJ... Ever heard of the Patriot Act? That allows you to do warrantless wiretaps.
Why are you playing favorites and looking for "clearance" when investigating Republicans?
Dawn wrote on April 25, 2007 10:21 AM:Not to mention the Tom Delay aspect of the Abramoff case. Are we supposed to believe the DOF isn't holding that back too?
Bush LIPS sink ships. wrote on April 25, 2007 10:21 AM:Disgusting.
Dawn wrote on April 25, 2007 10:23 AM:SC: Goat. My pet goat.
Of course I meant DOJ, not DOF...sorry.
larry wrote on April 25, 2007 10:24 AM:I know this isn't about Renzi -- but I thot you all would like the lastest on little Johnny Doolittle -- guess throwing his wife under the bus ain't gonna help:
Doolittle crossed path of Abramoff conspirator
Man who pleaded guilty was a Marianas witness at 1999 House hearing.
By David Whitney - Bee Washington Bureau
Published 12:00 am PDT Wednesday, April 25, 2007
They both were in their ascendancy, blind to the troubles ahead. And both were involved in an issue that helped a mutual friend, superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, and one of his lucrative clients, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
Tuesday, Mark D. Zachares pleaded guilty to conspiracy in federal court in connection with his association with Abramoff, while Rep. John Doolittle, R-Roseville, awaited the next move from the Department of Justice after agents raided his Virginia home on April 13.
Nearly eight years ago, on Sept. 16, 1999, Doolittle and Zachares crossed paths as the House Resources Committee debated the Mariana Islands issue.
The hearing ostensibly was to look into reports of worker abuse in garment factories in the commonwealth. Critics, including the Clinton administration, said lax federal immigration policies had permitted Asian-owned companies to open low-wage plants there using immigrant labor and to sell their goods in the United States under a "Made in the USA" label.
The critics said fundamental immigration and labor reforms were necessary because the plants had become prison-like sweatshops. Reports of worker abuses alarmed human rights organizations.
But Republican leaders believed what was going on in the commonwealth was, as former Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said in its defense, a Petri dish for capitalism.
At the hearing, Doolittle questioned Zachares, then a Northern Mariana immigration official, in an effort to make the point that lax U.S. law enforcement was to blame for the problems in the U.S. territory.
Zachares was a key witness. He cited the Occupational Health and Safety Administration and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as among the U.S. agencies that could have done more to stop the abuses.
"And yet are these not two of the agencies making some of the most serious charges?" asked Doolittle.
"Yes, sir," Zachares replied.
"Doesn't that strike you as odd?" Doolittle asked.
"Yes, sir, I would agree with you," Zachares said under oath.
Richard Robinson, Doolittle's chief of staff, said Tuesday that the congressman had no recollection of Zachares, including any relationship he had with Abramoff.
According to Zachares' plea agreement, however, by the time of that hearing he and Abramoff were "personal and professional acquaintances" -- close enough that the next year, in 2000, Abramoff tried hard , but in vain , to win Zachares a job with the Interior Department in Washington, D.C.
In 2002, Abramoff had more success, landing Zachares a job with the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Twice in 2002 Abramoff sent $5,000 checks to Zachares, using the checkbook of a bogus charity for whom Doolittle's wife, Julie, would later work raising money.
Within weeks of the 1999 hearing, Doolittle took steps that ultimately helped Abramoff renew his contract representing the commonwealth, and then met with Abramoff associate Kevin Ring to plan how to defeat legislation and fund Abramoff initiatives on the islands. During that period, Abramoff made his only direct political contributions to Doolittle, totaling $14,000.
Doolittle insists he has done nothing wrong, and will fight any charges the federal government brings against him in the Abramoff investigation.
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/160605.html
kis wrote on April 25, 2007 10:37 AM:So why the flurry of activity now?
Have things opened up because DOJ is under a microscope? Are the field offices feeling somehow more brazen with central DOJ on the hot seat?
Or was the delay focused on protecting the overall GOP prospects in 2006 more than the specific individuals?
adjacent wrote on April 25, 2007 10:41 AM:That the DOJ is corrupt, it is nothing new. Now, why the WSJ publishes this thing now? Looks like the conservatives (or at least some of them) want to get rid of Gonzales once and for all. W does not care what happens to the Republican party after 2008, but he does care about he and his friends going to jail. On the other hand, conservatives know thet if this corruption thing keeps going on and on, they are politically done for a long time.
Fozzetti wrote on April 25, 2007 11:23 AM:"So is there a pattern here?" Change that to "There IS a pattern here."
NCBlueneck wrote on April 25, 2007 11:37 AM:The fact that this little drama is being played out on the pages of the WSJ means that "the Conservatives" (meaning mostly the moneyed elites) are ready to throw "Torture Boy" and the whole DOJ under the bus to avoiding permanent minority status for the Republicans for years to come. They have a little more than a year to tamp down the notion that Republicans are the "Culture of Corruption". They must show they can sacrifice their own for the "greater good". (Read: Republican party)
Code word: Book, as in, throw it at them.
Anonymous wrote on April 25, 2007 11:48 AM:Isn't this most important question? Who are the individuals who have made the decisions to slow down these investigations? Who will investigate them?
Also, are we to be confident with those now moving on these cases?
Newsie8200 wrote on April 25, 2007 12:00 PM:Isn't it ironic that the Justice Department's delays in cases such as the Renzi one, have only served to extend the GOP culture of corruption narrative to a second election cycle?
Talk about the gang that couldn't shoot straight.
theswan wrote on April 25, 2007 12:01 PM:So, Renzi has the cover of the so called "justice department" while he sits on the "intelligence committee" and avoids the wiretaps that pervade the innocent. And while he sits on "Natural Resources" and makes land deals through his family business, all the while, he sits on "financial services" to dole out the money. He has got to have a doctorate in theft, as well?
Marc in Denver wrote on April 25, 2007 12:02 PM:So is there a pattern here?
Of course. But, the other question that needs to be looked at is whether there was (or, rather, how much of) a difference in how clearances were granted in the 80% of the cases that were dealing with Democrats vs. the ones dealing with Republicans. If there's enough of a difference, you really DON'T need a smoking gun email or another John Dean (or Alexander Butterfield) to testify about what was going on.
What?! wrote on April 25, 2007 12:14 PM:Is this another case of obstruction of justice by our own DOJ? Google "Medical Supply Chain" or "Novation" and you will see USAtty Todd Graves involved (one of 8 fired), and then subsequently replaced by the becoming infamous Bradley Schlozman. In this case, 3 senior attorneys in the Texas USA office were fired and 2 others were found dead in or around their home.
foggylady wrote on April 25, 2007 12:41 PM:Code word "fear"
Re: Novation .. the case came up in 2004, I believe.
2 other interesting facts..
Novation lawyer are from firm that Gonzales used to work for.
The 2 suspiciously dead USAs were leading the investigation and filing indictments, and the 3 fired white collar crime USA's investigating the casei were from the Ft. Worth office.
Blondie wrote on April 25, 2007 12:50 PM:Which has NO USAs today..it is not operational, according to DOJ web site.
I live in Arizona. The thing that kills me about Paul Charlton is the crickets you hear chirping in Arizona about the issue. Not one Senator or House member has even batted an eyebrow about it, and the local press couldn't even be bothered. It's offensive that this news has to come from The Wall Street Journal of all places, and there doesn't appear to be a single local journalist interested in the story. Sigh.
chimpeach wrote on April 25, 2007 1:13 PM:Hmmm...I thought it was interesting that Renzi's chief of staff, Patty Roe, is the wife of Rep. Tom Feeney's former chief of staff, Jason Roe. Jason just quit the Roney campaign and is under federal investigation, as is Feeney. Mrs. Roe has had some ethical problems of her own in Renzi's office:
Harper's - "The Patty Roe Story: the interesting ethics of Congressman Rick Renzi"
chainsaw wrote on April 25, 2007 1:35 PM:http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/09/sb-the-patty-roe-story-1158246131
The WSJ has provided a much needed unifying theory for this scandal. Can anyone imagine the sheer panic among the political types at main Justice when they learned President Bush was going to speak at a fundraiser for a potentially wiretapped Congressman. What must have ensued is likely the reason nobody will claim ownership of the "list". The one remaining question is how long will the DOJ be able to conflate its interference with the investigation in the months before the election, and the ongoing investigation itself--thereby avoiding any disclosure of the interference?
Pompano Pete wrote on April 25, 2007 2:03 PM:Blondie,
Somewhere in Arizona there is a bright, aggressive freelancer who is looking for a story which will launch her/his career. Let's just keep promoting this squalid affair, and proclaiming that we, the TPM Muckrakers, will provide research assistance and pressure on local officials to give her/him relevant information. Then let's see what happens.
We still don't know the potential power of outraged, netroots citizens, or how best to use it. Situations like these will provide our training ground.
Security code - seed. I continuously marvel at the humor in the universe...
hazmaq wrote on April 25, 2007 3:57 PM:The Justice Dept. and the FEC have known Renzi very well since Bush took over. And have taken good care to to see to it that he stays in office. I live in Rick Renzis' District in Arizona. An FEC audit found him "likely to have illegally recieived, during the 2002 election, over $360,000 from businesses which he laundered from his personal account into the campaign".
From the Arizona Daily Sun, Feb. 3, 2006
..."FEC auditors found several violations"...
"The FEC has not asked Renzi to repay the money in question or taken any other final actions-ignoring its own audits recommendations", 'an FEC spokesman confirmed to the Arizona Daily Sun'.
And, http://prescottdailycourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=41635&TM=26137.34
..."The audit says Renzi's campaign committee misstated its receipts, disbursements and cash on hand at for 2002; it didn't itemize 13 political action committee contributions totaling $20,745; it didn't disclose transfers of joint fundraising proceeds of $134,495; and it didn't adequately disclose the occupation and employer information for 200 contributions totaling $132,811."
"...since other parts of that FEC investigation remain open, the FEC refuses to explain why it closed its file. Renzi said the FEC told him he's cleared of any wrongdoing, but produced no documents to back that up".
I would point out that numerous complaints were filed against Renzi immediately after the 2002 election. But the FEC waited until 2004 to finally do the investigation
But the final act of 'Bush justice' was worse:
The FEC waited until after the 2004 election, where Renzi again won using the same schemes, to announce its results.
azhiker wrote on April 25, 2007 4:10 PM:Renzi is a known liar here in Arizona. He only won by 51% in a conservative district and it was his 4th term. They need to throw the book at this kind of criminal behavior. I am sick of seeing rich connected people getting the best real estate the government and tax payers own.
hazmaq wrote on April 25, 2007 4:20 PM:I also agree with my other Arizona colleagues about the deafening silence here.
bcg wrote on April 25, 2007 6:00 PM:But from a state that offered these pro-Renzi election headlines, I didn't expect much:
http://www4.nau.edu/srl/PublishedArticles/Arizona%201.pdf
“The Virginian” vs. “The Little Mexican”: the 2002 Race in Arizona 1
"...W does not care what happens to the Republican party after 2008, but he does care about he and his friends going to jail. On the other hand, conservatives know thet if this corruption thing keeps going on and on, they are politically done for a long time."
These comments about W are doubtful: the changes at DoJ couldn't effect any past elections. The same is true of Karl Rove's speeches about "voter fraud" and presentations to the political appointees in executive branch departments about helping Republican candidates. What was being set up was for 2008 and after. This was/is machine politics on a national scale and Bush, unlike, perhaps, Nixon, is not an independent operator. He's the front man for a team, a team that was trying to take long-term control of the US government. This is an intrigue against this country's constitutional order, an intrigue that never could have got going without the complicity of the Republican "conservatives" in Congress. They're all in the same boat; and, if the 'conservatives' now want to see an end to this scandal (as they doubtless do), it's because it jeapordizes them in more than just an electoral way. That's why I'm betting on impeachment: the Republicans will go along with making Bush the scapegoat, as they would now like to do with Gonzales, if it allows most of them to pull their bacon out of the fire.
Janie wrote on April 25, 2007 6:44 PM:Yes, there is a pattern. The pattern was outlined by Elizabeth de la Vega in a Truthout piece yesterday. In that piece she listed all the clearances required by DOJ in any actions taken in the offices of the U.S. attorneys.
Carol wrote on April 26, 2007 2:16 AM:Moreover, read The Brad Blog for the emerging pattern here. Then recall Feeney's involvement with Abramoff and the SunCruz Casino's deal...and recall the murder of Sun's Gus Boulis in Ft. Lauderdale in 2003, the year Feeney went to St. Andrews with Abramoff...
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4457
code: woman--what I am
Anonymous wrote on April 26, 2007 7:24 AM:bcg (4-25 @ 0600) said:
> changes at DoJ couldn't effect
> any past elections.
Wait several more weeks, and then say that again. Just be sure to say "Domenici" when you do. Not long after that, be sure to think "Wilson". Now that justice is actually happening at Justice, who knows how many elected officials will be retroactively aborted; so to speak?
dboza wrote on April 28, 2007 12:03 PM:Look at today's Mpls Star Trib and our former atty gen. speculates he might have been on an earlier list for his aggresivness in native american issues being recognized by the administration. Five other a.g.s were on the list served on the same sub committee for native american issues. Hmmm... native american issues, casinos , lobbyists connect the dots.
code word female: if you are female, watch out for your reproductive rights.