« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Krongard's Deputy Didn't Know of Blackwater Connection
Here's what Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) meant yesterday when he said Howard "Cookie" Krongard's deputy was in the dark about the State Department's inspector general's familial ties to Blackwater.
Contained in a just-released House oversight committee report (pdf) put together by the Democratic staff is this exchange between staff members and Deputy Inspector General Bill Todd:
Q: Do you know whether Mr. Krongard has any relationship with Blackwater or any individuals affiliated with Blackwater?A: I asked him about it. He says no. ...
Q: Do you know whether his brother, Buzzy Krongard, is affiliated with Blackwater in any way?
A: I have no knowledge of that. I asked him that.
Q: And what did he say?
A: Absolutely not.
It's unclear when Todd was deposed, though I'm checking that with the committee staff. The timing is significant: Buzzy Krongard says he told Cookie Krongard he was joining Blackwater's advisory board about two to three weeks ago. Did Cookie Krongard misrepresent himself to Todd? Indeed, what occasioned Todd's inquiry into Krongard's ties to Blackwater in the first place? I have a call out to the State Department Inspector General's office to try and figure all this out as well.
Similarly, I'm hearing State will release a prepared statement this evening about Condoleezza Rice's ability to fire Krongard. Apparently I wasn't the only reporter today curious about how firing an inspector general works.
Update: Turns out the interview with Todd took place on October 12. That would be before Buzzy told Cookie he was taking the Blackwater position, according to Buzzy's timeline.
Comments (14)
loki wrote on November 15, 2007 4:23 PM:I feel an "I'm going to be spending a little more time with my family." letter coming on!
VictorLaszlo wrote on November 15, 2007 4:43 PM:"...Condoleezza Rice's ability to fire Krongard"?
Is there any reason to think that she would if she could?
Two of the main guiding principles of the Bush administration are:
A) Put a fox in the hen house
B) Deny everything.
Rice is more likely to give Cookie a medal than to fire him.
tireiron chef wrote on November 15, 2007 4:47 PM:She'd probably fire him and keep him on the payroll and let him keep his access.
moondancer wrote on November 15, 2007 4:50 PM:After the round of atta boys he got this morning, I'd start packing right now were I him.
Anonymous wrote on November 15, 2007 4:53 PM:this is just too plain incestuous.
ab buzzy krongard has had his hooks in too many coincedental things.
cia? yep, when wilkes was peddling fraud and porter goss was up to unknown no good.
wall street? yep, enough to put positions on businesses that suspiciously paid off well after the "surprise" attacks of 9/11.
blackwater? yep.
more on buzzy shortly.
Truthwhip wrote on November 15, 2007 5:25 PM:Of course nobody knows anything.
brian wrote on November 15, 2007 5:26 PM:Heckuva job, Cookie!
It would help to find out who put Krongard in the position of IG. Rice almost certainly did not choose him.
Was it Cheney, or a Republican senator, or someone else with a pecuniary interest ?
nolo wrote on November 15, 2007 5:48 PM:i'll have video of it shortly,
but the text transcript from
today's state department press
briefing is very entertaining in
its deafening silence on condi's
"confidence" in. . . erh, "cookie".
i hate when that happens. click
my name to see it.
p e a c e
Cy Guy wrote on November 15, 2007 6:20 PM:Technically any Presidentially appointed / Senate confirmed federal executive can only be 'fired' by the President. But, unless there is some reason I can't think of, the President will typically defer to the Cabinet Secretary if the Secretary feels the executive needs to go.
As a matter of practice, Secretaries don't get to have as much say in an Inspector General appointment as they would for most other top level executives that report to them, but as the Cabinet Secretary is much more likely to have the ear of the President, they clearly have the upperhand if at some point the President decides one or the other has to go. Anyone think Condi is going anywhere?
Steve Martinez wrote on November 15, 2007 6:33 PM:Betcha it'll be a little awkward around the Krongard Thanksgiving table this year. "Cookie, How many times do I have to tell you? Sit up straight, chew with your mouth closed and stop investigating your brother's company!"...
Noam Sane wrote on November 15, 2007 8:50 PM:No one could have foreseen that lawlessness tends to filter down from the top.
Plotinus wrote on November 15, 2007 10:48 PM:Give credit where it's due: Krongard's an excellent lacrosse player.
As an IG, however, he's inferior. His claimed confusion about whether an IG's office can participate in "parallel proceedings" (by which he apparently means assisting DOJ when DOJ is conducting parallel criminal and civil investigations of a topic) is stunning. The Dept. of Defense IG's office, the Dept. of Health & Human Services' IG's office, the NASA IG's office -- every IG's office -- routinely assist DOJ in parallel criminal and civil investigations. That's what IG's offices do as a large part of their work. That's how contractor fraud against federal agencies is rooted out and stopped.
Yes, you can't share criminal grand jury material with the civil investigative team untill you get an appropriate 6(e) disclosure order. Yes, you can't set up a sham civil/administrative investigation as a "stalking horse" solely to gather information to build a criminal case. But yes, you certainly can conduct parallel criminal and civil investigations, and it is done every day. The individuals and perhaps the corporation are criminally prosecuted for, e.g., criminal Health Care fraud. And the corporation and perhaps the individuals are forced to pay multiples of the government's single damages, under the civil False Claims Act. And perhaps the agency administratively debars the corporation as a contractor, or makes it enter into a corporate integrity agreement as a condition of continued business with the agency.
This takes place every single day. And IG who claims he doesn't know whether this can be properly done is like a fireman claiming he's unsure whether you can use both the hose and the ladder at the burning building.
bruce wrote on November 16, 2007 11:59 AM:the whole blackwater thing was started by trial lawyer pals of nancy the pelosi who are suing blackwater a republican company.they wanted her to have henry,the nostril,waxman to persecute and demonize the company.in order to do this they took the word of al sada thugs over americans.this company has done a great job of protecting u.s.deplomats i think this is why libs are after blackwater.it's all about money for trial lawyers and getting at republicans for that dems will compromise our security.
v. popvli wrote on November 16, 2007 2:33 PM:bruce,
is it wrong for trial lawyers to make money? what if there is an american corporation that, in a certain theatre, operates outside of any legal framework? what if that corporation routinely kills innocent people with complete impunity since it can't be legally prosecuted? wouldn't we need lawyers & their ilk to bring that corporation back within the bounds of some legal framework, to do our duty to protect innocent lives?
i'm assuming "al sada thugs" refers to iraqis who've spoken out against the contractors. there are too many highly publicized accounts of contractor lawlessness to ignore. it's not a conspiracy; they have no legal liabilities, so why is it so surprising that they act that way? people sure seem to notice when they do. why would we grant any more credibility to a person based on his nation of origin? whether a person is american or iraqi doesn't determine their ability to speak the truth.
it's not about trial lawyers, money, or attacking republican companies. we want blackwater to be held accountable. we also want dyncorp and triple canopy to be held accountable. contractors are not above the law.