Comments (24)

bordersmuggler wrote on May 8, 2007 10:54 AM:

The punchline:

"Sure, he's made some mistakes in judgment," Taylor said. "For gosh sakes, everybody deserves a second chance."

Anonymous wrote on May 8, 2007 11:02 AM:

I found it interesting that the article connects Jay Apperson to a number of the players in both the USA purge _and_ the Abramoff investigation.
Worked at the Eastern district of Virgina (Same as Sampson and Goodling).
Wrote Feeney Amendment legislation for Rep Feeney??
Working for Taylor now. Referred by: McNulty, Mercer, Moshella & Battle for post.
Worked for Ken Starr durring Whitewater/Lewinsky affairs.
Worked for Sensenbrenner--got into some trouble there.
Worked for Saxby Chambliss.

Nothing to see here...

Glenn wrote on May 8, 2007 11:14 AM:

The punchline:

"Sure, he's made some mistakes in judgment," Taylor said. "For gosh sakes, everybody deserves a second chance."

I would imagine that the D.C. defense bar will make sure that this quote would be trotted out in every case Apperson tries.

Anonymous wrote on May 8, 2007 11:19 AM:

Remember Taylor?

He's one of the guys appointed under the revised 2005 Patriot Act appointment authority. Under the previous "interim" appointment definition (120 days), his current job status would be contingent upon the district judge's approval (doubtful; his office screwed up on the largest tax fraud case in U.S. history in just the few months that he's been there); or based on Senate confirmation after the president's nominate (doubly doubtful).

Taylor has a pretty good resume for an appointment to an AUSA position. But as the head of one of the largest Federal Prosecutor office's in the nation? This is just another bad joke perpetuated on the American people by this administration.

Ed Meese wrote on May 8, 2007 11:19 AM:

Chill out, lefty moonbats. What's so wrong about a prosecutor who has a sympathetic view toward white hegemony.... er, equal rights for crackers... er... oh... ahhhh, never mind...

Harriett wrote on May 8, 2007 11:25 AM:

Congressional Dems need desperately to clean house, not only at the DOJ, but in every governmental agency. Pronto! Every day, I become more disgusted and enraged that these criminals continue to ruin our country. Maybe this was the Rethug plan...to make us all so completely crazy with rage, that we would commit some heinous act that would 'prove' that we are totally crazed 'libruls'.

Anonymous wrote on May 8, 2007 11:41 AM:

Harriett's on to something. How else would you convince 280 million Americans to lose faith in their system of guvment?

Mary wrote on May 8, 2007 11:41 AM:

I think the fact that the ED VA seems to have said they wouldn't take Apperson back (perhaps ommiting a direct reference to silver platter or "so how's that white history month working for ya?") should have tipped Taylor that:

a) Apperson was already well into his second chance when he abused the office of the Chair of the House Judiciary COmmittee to attempt to directly influence and demand from a sitting Seventh Circuit Judge a change in sentence; and

b) Apperson's service with the ED Va - an office that wouldn't even consider taking him back - isn't the best reason to waive the screening process.

I also observed from the story that the ealiest reports that the Goodling investigation stemmed from TAYLOR's complaint about his blocked hire weren't quite right. Apparently it was Rosenberg who had to do the ethical thing for Taylor.

And those four "referrals" for Apperson other than Goodling: Battle, Mercer, Elston, Moschella.

Always the same names that come up.

Well, maybe in Apperson's second chance slot, Taylor can use that civil rights hire to network with Apperson and pursue that White History Month thing and fire off some letter to the DC Circuit demanding that they rule that the US can not have a Black History month without having a white history month. Maybe fire it off under Rep Norton's name.

I think there are a couple of recent appointees to the DC Circuit who wouldn't look askance at that kind of letter.

Taylor's right. If Apperson deserves a second chance, well dagnabbit, so does White History Month and Congressional pressure on Circuit court judges!

Hey - maybe that whole "let's fire any USAs who didn't deliver on getting Republican's (re-)elected - should have a second chance too.

And Iraq. Let's re-invade and see if it goes better this time. Wow.

Now if we could just get any small portion of the Bush DOJ to crawl out of the cesspool and advocate for giving habeas a second chance.

But I guess somethings stretch the imagination too far.

TheraP wrote on May 8, 2007 11:44 AM:

Word is "past." And that makes me think of all the "past due" accounts the bush criminals have accumulated. And how nice it is that with oversight all these accounts are being "aggregated" and prepared for a careful review and a nice "endgame" and I, for one, am prepared to be patient.

Anonymous wrote on May 8, 2007 11:50 AM:

Oh, the civil rights hire (are we to infere that its a black person?) starts on Monday. Given the press reports of late, would this hiree not have been considered had everything been swept under the rug? And did they go out of their way to find a 'civil rights hire' to say that 'hey were fair and balanced! see who we hire'.

I don't believe in coincidences with this DOJ.

Anonymous wrote on May 8, 2007 11:50 AM:

Oh, the civil rights hire (are we to infere that its a black person?) starts on Monday. Given the press reports of late, would this hiree not have been considered had everything been swept under the rug? And did they go out of their way to find a 'civil rights hire' to say that 'hey we're fair and balanced! see who we hire'.

I don't believe in coincidences with this DOJ.

djcrow22 wrote on May 8, 2007 11:54 AM:

The same Jeffrey A. Taylor who was appointed using the Patriot Act provision(BTW, when is Arlen Spector going to be held accountable for his role in slipping this provision into the Unpatriotic Act?)by Gonzo. Same incompetent ass who cost taxpayers $100,000,000(By way of Mrs. Panstreppon):

From Buzzflash:

U.S. Attorney Botches Biggest Ever Tax Fraud Case, Keeps Job. Treasury out $100+ Million

"The U.S. Attorney Scandal has struck a new victim: the American taxpayer. A judge ruled Wednesday that an epic blunder by federal prosecutors in the largest tax prosecution ever means that the treasury can't recoup at least $100 million in restitution.

Telecommunications entrepreneur Walter Anderson pled guilty to tax evasion, but U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman said the binding plea agreement listed the wrong statute. This problem could have been overcome had prosecutors not failed to include any discussion of probation as is routine in such deals.

Because of the technicality, Judge Friedman said, "I've come to the conclusion, very reluctantly, that I have no authority to order restitution. . . . This is a very poorly drafted agreement."

The case was prosecuted by the office of the interim U.S. Attorney for D.C., Jeffrey A. Taylor. Taylor was appointed directly by Attorney General Gonzales without Senate confirmation in November 2006 under a provision of the Patriot Act that Congress has recently voted to reverse..."

Sure enough, Taylor came straight from the Bush Administration. He served as Counselor to Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Gonzales for four years prior to his selection. Before that he worked as an aide to Sen. Orrin Hatch, where he actually participated in the writing of the Patriot Act..."

What other cases could "Interim" U.S. Attorney for D.C., Jeffrey A. Taylor fuck up intentionally or otherwise? Let's see - Abramoff, Wade, Weldon, Gibbons etc, etc etc

We already know Taylor covered up the Griles investigation. He knew Abramoff wasn't the only one bribing Gale Norton's long time buddy, Italia Federici but he was ordered to keep Norton's name out of it.

Posted by: Mrs Panstreppon
Date: March 30, 2007 06:23 PM

mbbsdphil wrote on May 8, 2007 12:18 PM:

Without the vetting process, how would anyone know whether he deserved a second chance or a stint in jail?

It's like hiring a guy named George to manage the family trust funds because you went to school with him. "But he's got a Harvard MBA for gosh sakes." "Yes, but have you checked his record? Everything he's run went into bankruptcy."

As for Ms. Goodling, her definition of who's on the left has got to be a little off-center. For her, port is everything left of the starboard rail.

Weasel Watch! wrote on May 8, 2007 12:33 PM:

Jay Apperson, Hard-Liner

The National Journal
By: Piper Fogg
April 7, 2001

"People for April 7, 2001"

"...After "quite an experience," Jay Apperson, former deputy independent counsel under Kenneth Starr, will become chief counsel for oversight and investigations at the House Judiciary
Committee. He started at the independent counsel's office in 1998, "just before we did the Lewinsky immunity deal," recalls Apperson, who was the lead counsel in prosecuting former
Associate Attorney General Webster L. Hubbell. In March 1999, he became Starr's deputy. He said he will never forget being "one of the seven people in the office in the Map Room," when President Clinton gave his famous videotaped testimony about his relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Apperson said he helped direct the "line of questioning that led to the President's infamous comment, 'It depends on what the meaning of the word is is.' " He also recalled: "We saw things
that we'll never see again. A lot of it I can't tell you." Apperson's new job will be his second tour of duty in the House. He previously headed the congressional investigation into Clinton-Gore campaign financing for former Rep. David McIntosh, R-Ind. Before that, he spent 10 years in Virginia as an assistant U.S. attorney. He said he left the independent counsel's office a
year after Robert W. Ray took over for Starr. "Rob Ray and I didn't really see eye to eye. I was a hard-liner," he said.

Weasel Watch! wrote on May 8, 2007 12:41 PM:

Again:

"...After "quite an experience," Jay Apperson, former deputy independent counsel under Kenneth Starr, will become chief counsel for oversight and investigations at the House Judiciary Committee. He started at the independent counsel's office in 1998, "just before we did the Lewinsky immunity deal," recalls Apperson, who was the lead counsel in prosecuting former Associate Attorney General Webster L. Hubbell. In March 1999, he became Starr's deputy. He said he will never forget being "one of the seven people in the office in the Map Room," when President Clinton gave his famous videotaped testimony about his relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Apperson said he helped direct the "line of questioning that led to the President's infamous comment, 'It depends on what the meaning of the word is is.' " He also recalled: "We saw things that we'll never see again. A lot of it I can't tell you." Apperson's new job will be his second tour of duty in the House. He previously headed the congressional investigation into Clinton-Gore campaign financing for former Rep. David McIntosh, R-Ind. Before that, he spent 10 years in Virginia as an assistant U.S. attorney. He said he left the independent counsel's office a year after Robert W. Ray took over for Starr. "Rob Ray and I didn't really see eye to eye. I was a hard-liner," he said.”

Weasel Watch! wrote on May 8, 2007 12:54 PM:

Jay Apperson's big day in court!

Richmond Times Dispatch (Virginia)
By: Bill Mckelway and Mark Holmberg
DATELINE: ALEXANDRIA
5/8/99

STEELE CALLS HER MISTRIAL A 'VICTORY';
'IT'S TIME TO START LIFE AGAIN'

Julie Hiatt Steele, a suburban Richmond woman who is the only criminal defendant thus far in independent counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation of sexual misconduct in the White House, joyously proclaimed victory yesterday after her case ended in a mistrial.

Standing outside the federal courthouse before a bank of television cameras minutes after a federal jury said it was hopelessly deadlocked, Steele thanked her lawyers and said, "I feel relieved and happy.

"It's been a long, long road. . . . It's time to start life again," said Steele who hugged her lead attorney, Nancy Luque, and said she hoped her impromptu news conference would be her last. "It's time to celebrate."

U.S. District Judge Claude M. Hilton excused the seven-woman, five-man jury and declared a mistrial when, for the second time yesterday afternoon, the panel interrupted deliberations and told him it was "hopelessly deadlocked" on all four charges against Steele.

Jurors cheerfully left the courthouse together, declining a ride in a freight elevator in order to avoid the press but refusing to comment about their deliberations, which lasted about nine hours over two days.

Steele, 52, still could see three obstruction of justice charges and a charge of making false statements re-tried, and Luque warned Steele against speculating about her case.

Luque was so unimpressed with the prosecution's evidence that she and other defense lawyers rested their case Thursday after presenting no witnesses. Steele, who did not testify, said she believes that a full defense in a re-trial would assure her acquittal.

"Obviously Julie declined to get on the stand because she was unable to deny the allegations," Kathleen Willey, Steele's chief accuser, said last night when reached by telephone at her Powhatan County home. "And it's obvious the jury didn't want to convict her, and make her the only one convicted in this whole investigation."

Charges against Steele generated overwhelming attention when the talk-show circuit and media pundits used them to suggest how Starr's investigation was rumbling out of control. They portrayed Steele as a victim of an overzealous prosecutor determined to squash anyone blocking his path, even a grandmother and single parent like Steele, who is raising an 8-year-old son she adopted in Romania.

Luque took up that theme in her closing argument, describing Steele as the victim of a runaway train.

Starr bristled at such characterizations when he appeared before the House Judiciary Committee last year, but yesterday he was on an open telephone line from Florida waiting for the verdict. Aide Jay Apperson delivered the bad news after rushing outside from the courtroom.

"I told him not to characterize his reaction because I was on a cell phone" and Starr might be overheard, said Apperson. It was an apt comment given that the Steele case bogged down in a maelstrom of overheard conversations, faulty recollections and hundreds of telephone calls placed by Steele and Willey.

Apperson said a decision on a re-trial will be made by Starr's office, and he suggested that Steele's case is important to the future of Starr's ongoing investigations.

Television commentators yesterday were saying that Steele's mistrial and Starr's failure to win a conviction against Whitewater defendant Susan McDougal last month in Arkansas could effectively end Starr's search for criminal conduct in the White House.

In a long appearance on the witness stand over portions of two days, former Steele friend Willey, also 52, described in vague terms how she had as many as 20 conversations with Steele about an Oval Office meeting with President Clinton in which Willey alleged that Clinton crudely groped and fondled her.

The story eventually made its way into Newsweek magazine, precipitating future disclosures about Monica Lewinsky and about a supporting cast of White House staffers. It all led to an impeachment trial of Clinton earlier this year, although the Steele case was not part of that proceeding. Clinton was acquitted.

Steele attracted Starr's attention because she denied any knowledge of the alleged grope prior to March 19, 1997, the day Steele said Willey called her and asked her to back up Willey's story about the incident to a Newsweek reporter.

Luque described Steele as Willey's "patsy" who as a favor to her friend agreed to tell Newsweek how Willey visited Steele's house the night of the 1993 encounter and told her vivid details about it.

Steele retracted her support, though, in July 1997 when she found out the magazine was going to use her name. From that point on Steele swore that March 19, 1997, was the first time she learned of the grope and that Willey had not come to her house the night it occurred.

Prosecutors put on several of Steele friends who testified they remember Steele talking about the grope or admitting to knowledge of it before March 1997.

But Luque recalled for jurors how widespread publicity about the Willey incident, including Willey's appearance on CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," could easily have distorted memories and confused witnesses about what Steele told them. Some of the witnesses also offered vastly different versions about what Steele told them and when.

Luque ridiculed Willey as a woman whose past is checkered by lies and instances of asking Steele to provide alibis for her misconduct.

The government, said Luque, bought "a pig in a poke" when it chose to accept Willey as a credible witness deserving of an immunity agreement. The government, she said, unloaded on Steele who, in trying to set the record straight and tell the truth, ended up being indicted in January this year on the same day Clinton's impeachment trial began.

Steele faced up to 35 years in prison and $ 1 million in fines, a sobering consequence of a long-running feud between two suburban Richmond women who had shared 20 years of friendship.

Steele has said the two-year investigation by Starr has robbed her of her privacy, cost her her job and left her in such a difficult financial condition that she will likely be forced to sell her well-appointed, two-story home off Huguenot Road.

Luque's top-dollar Washington law firm, Reed Smith Shaw & McClay, took on Steele's case at no cost and provided, according to Steele, up to $ 500,000 in legal services. Steele said other legal expenses she is responsible for will run well over $ 100,000.

Luque said Steele's case grew from a simple one of offering occasional advice to one that required several lawyers, a private investigator and a second law firm.

"What happened to Julie was frightening," said Luque. "It was the equivalent of being dropped somewhere in the middle of Russia and told to find your way home."

PJ White wrote on May 8, 2007 1:06 PM:

Jeez, Epperson makes my skin crawl. And Taylor is dangerous. There is no necessity for these bozos to be good litigators; they are not in their positions for that purpose. They are there to punish Democrats and let Repugs off the hook. Period. Think the Anderson agreement was a mistake? Think again! They did precisely what they wanted to do. Taxes are evil to Repugs, so they have no incentive to prosecute tax evasion cases (or at least to win them).

sc: smell. No kidding. It stinks to high heaven. I smell a rat.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 8, 2007 2:29 PM:

I don't get it. Based on court cases I found in Lexis-Nexis, Jay Apperson almost exclusively tried drug cases as an AUSA with the USA-EDVA's office up until 1996. What qualified Apperson to head the congressional investigation into Clinton-Gore campaign financing?

Supposedly, the USA-EDVA's office didn't want Apperson back because he made a single remark about white history month. I bet there is more to this angle of the Apperson story than we are hearing. I wonder what else is in Apperson's file from his ten-year stint in Alexandria?

For the USA-EDVA's office to turn down a Starr investigator who worked for Sensenbrenner, there has to be something more here than an offhand remark about white history month. Taken by itself, the remark just isn't that big of a deal.

I wonder, too, what kind of cases Apperson is handling now. Other than heroin and cocaine related ones, I only found Apperson's name on one other case, the Webster Hubbell appeal.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 8, 2007 3:17 PM:

djcrow22@May 8, 2007 11:54 AM

LOL - I was on a roll that day! In another TPM MR post, I posted an excerpt from a 1/02 Robert Novak column about Sampson et al pushing for Taylor to get the USA-SDCA appointment that ultimately went to Carol Lam.

What I don't know is how these corruption cases are handled, i.e. the DOJ Office of Public Integrity vs the USA's office. The OPI seems to be handling the Abramoff case but, on the other hand, Lam's office handled the Cunningham and Foggo cases.

I noticed that three weeks after Taylor was appointed USA-DC at the end of September, word of the Curt Weldon investigtion was leaked. We all learned that DC cell phones had been tapped for at least four months. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.

The Weldon investigation seems to have been kept under wraps since the October surprise but Weldon himself doesn't appear to be too worried about it. I wonder why.

On 12/12/06, AG Gonzales visited the basement of the Delaware County courthouse in Media PA ostensibly in connection with an internet safety program with a $650k annual budget.

Gonzales met with USA-EDPA Pat Meehan and Delaware District Attorney G. Michael Green. Pat Meehan was Delaware County district attorney from 1995 until 2001 when he was appointed USA.

Was Gonzales in Media PA on December 12 to discuss the Weldon case off the record?

Two weeks earlier, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a couple of stories about Weldon's cohort, John J. Gallagher. One of them was about Gallagher's phony front company, CSG Software and its bogus DOE contract. The Inquirer stories should have significantly expanded the scope of the Weldon investigation.

The relevation (by me) that Cecilia Grimes, Media PA real estate agent-turned-lobbyist, and Cynthia Young, lobbyist and daughter-in-law of Rep. C. W. Bill Young, made political contributions as execs of a defense contractor in 9/04 should also have significantly expanded the scope of the Weldon investigation, too.

Then there is the phony body armor contract in Weldon's district that probably involves not only Weldon but the DoD. Phony body armor contracts are a touchy subject these days, no?

Taylor has a lot of reasons to stall the Weldon case, if Taylor is indeed the one in a position to stall it.

elemgee wrote on May 8, 2007 3:48 PM:

(Sorry-I posted this earlier but would like some comments)

Everytime I read another story about this issue, all I can say is:

WTF?!

Ok, I know I live about 2000 miles outside of the beltway, but my family has two lifelong civil service employees who have worked for the Department of Defense, at times in the DC area. They have never seen or experienced the kind of corruption that is obviously going on at DOJ. Throughout their careers, they have been witness to employee complaints about unfair hiring/evaluation practices that always ended up siding with the employee, and getting a supervisor's ass in hot, hot water. Now upper level supervisors, they are extremely careful in dealing with even an aggregiously incompetent (or in one case, psychotic!) employee to not have anything even smacking of political, religious or racial overtones be a part of their supervisory processes, lest they lose their jobs. Besides that, they themselves don't believe in using those criteria in any way to manage their programs.

Given all this, I simply can not understand how, given the strictness with which the Office of Personnel Management oversees all employee issues, these guys at Justice got away with what is blatenly illegal behavior. What about the Union? These folks must have been given the impression that they were not career employees or something.

We know there is always politics involved, even within the Civil Service System--someone gets a promotion within his agency over an outside candidate, etc--but come on. Does Justice not have to work under the same civil service employee laws as everyone else?

Anonymous wrote on May 8, 2007 3:51 PM:

"Goodling said the candidate, a government civil rights lawyer, appeared to lean Democratic...Taylor ultimately gained permission from the Justice Department to bypass Goodling and hire prosecutors without her review....But Chuck Rosenberg, the U.S. attorney in Alexandria, heard about Taylor's allegations and referred the matter to the agency's inspector general and its Office of Professional Responsibility while serving as Gonzales's interim chief of staff in March and April.."

1) How did Rosenberg hear about it? Who approved Taylor's bypassing Goodling. Wouldn't that imply that the department (i.e. Rosenberg as COS) knew and approved of Goodlings actions all along.

2) Didn't Goodling, Sampson and Apperson all work under Rosenberg at EDVA? As others have pointed out before, What was Goodling _actually_doing in EDVA?

3) It seems like a fabricated story to distance the senior DOJ and especially Taylor from Goodlings political work. It makes sense to distance Taylor from this DOJ mess.

Taylor is there last line of Defense.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on May 8, 2007 3:53 PM:

. . . And moral of the story is CORRUPTION and Republicanism are redundant in any and every branch of government someone infected with Republicanism touches.

The question is what the farg is up with the 30%ers who will die rather than not support Republicanism infesting government?

pre AmeriKKKan wrote on May 8, 2007 4:54 PM:

this is the way business is done in this country. it has always been done this way.

we are told that advancement is based on merit or if we cannot advance or find a job, that we are lazy or not motivated enough.

to deny this basic fact is too avoid the experience of most non-whites in amurkkka.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 9, 2007 8:17 AM:

@May 8, 2007 03:51 PM

Goodling and Sampson worked under Paul McNulty and Elston at the USA-EDVA's office. Apperson left that office in 1996.