For a millionaire real estate developer, Bob Penney has claimed to be remarkably ignorant of the true value of the riverfront property he sold to Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) last year.
He sold Murkowski the wooded plot for $179,400, which happened to be the local assessed value in 2006 at the time of the sale. (The property was reassessed three days later for $214,000). Penney claims that when he sold the land to Murkowski he thought the assessed value at the time of the sale remained approximately $120,000, the assessed value in 2005.
"Word of honor, I did not know what the assessed value was," he said. "I thought it was still $120,000."
But maybe Penney wasn't so out of touch. A few months ago, Penney testified at a state hearing on the economic impact of sports fishing where he seemed much more familiar with assessments in the area. Penney spoke because he is an avid fisherman and a longtime advocate for recreational fishing in Alaska. Here's the audio from one of the comments he made during the hearing:
President Bush signed an executive order Friday spelling out new interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects that bar cruel and inhumane treatment, humiliation or denigration of prisoners' religious beliefs.
The White House declined to say whether the CIA currently has a detention and interrogation program, but said if it did, it must adhere to the guidelines outlined in the executive order. The order targets captured al-Qaida terrorists who have information on attack plans or the whereabouts of the group's senior leaders....
The executive order was the result of legislation Bush signed in October that authorized military trials of terrorism suspects, eliminated some of the rights defendants are usually guaranteed under U.S. law, and authorized continued harsh interrogations of terror suspects....
The legislation said the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts.
The devil's in the details of course -- we'll have the text of the order up soon.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has taken a lot of heat from buying a plot of land far below market value from Alaskan businessman Bob Penney. But she's standing by her decision, saying that she relied on a local assessment to set the low sale price.
Murkowski, who has remained silent since the story broke, finally commented herself yesterday:
"By law in the state of Alaska, the municipalities are required to base their assessment on the fair market price," Murkowski said. "That's what our statute says. What we went off of, what we utilized as our transaction price, was the price that had been set by the municipality."
Despite what the law says, local real estate agents in the area disagree that assessed values do a good job representing market value. In the area where Murkowski purchased her property, value of land is "escalating rapidly" and the assessed value is not keeping up. There is also a limited amount of property along the renowned fishing river.
For Murkowski and Penney, the deal was clearly not based on competitive pricing, but on an agreement between old friends. Penney's family has also been a big financial backer for Murkowski, having donated $10,500 to her campaign fund since 2003.
"I bought the property from a friend that I think I have known since I was probably 5," she said. "It was before elementary school, let's put it that way. My husband knew him before he knew me. So we go back a long way."
...
"And I remember saying, 'Oh yeah, but I can't buy a lot from you. I know you,'" she said. "And he said, 'Lisa, you know everybody in the state."
Nonetheless, if she paid less than what the land is worth, she ought to disclose the difference as a gift. Murkowski's office has filed an amendment with the Senate Ethics Committee, but it'll require a trip up to the public records office to take a look at what she changed. (The office of public records will not give out information over the phone or via fax and the pdf's are not online) We'll have an update for you this afternoon.
President Bush's new executive order targeting financial assets of Iraqi insurgents risks having "a chilling effect" on humanitarian donations in Iraq, according to Michael German, the ACLU's chief national security security lawyer. And those who find themselves in contravention of the order -- a determination residing entirely within the executive branch -- would have no due process rights to contest the freezing of their assets.
Citing the order's "very loose definition of who's doing something improper," German, a former FBI agent, says "a lot of these provisions where charities are being demonized, to a certain extent, would cause a chilling effect, and that's what's so counterproductive with this type of policy."
All of this comes with the caveat that there's way more in this week's National Intelligence Estimate than we see in the unclassified key judgments. But the description it gives for the presence that al-Qaeda maintains in Pakistan is rather understated.
Al-Qaeda has, the NIE says, "safehaven in the Pakistan Federal Administrative Tribal Areas." That much is no longer controversial among counterterrorism experts. But what the description neglects -- again, at least in the unclassified, introductory section -- is that al-Qaeda has a broader infrastructure inside the parts of Pakistan that General Pervez Musharraf controls as well. Josh Meyer in the Los Angeles Times takes a look at how deeply the jihadist infrastructure is burrowed:
In recent years, U.S. intelligence and counter-terrorism officials who focus on South Asia say they have watched with growing concern as Al Qaeda has moved men, money and recruiting and training operations into Pakistani cities such as Quetta and Karachi as well as less populated areas.
Militant Islamists are still a minority in Pakistan, commanding allegiance of a little more than 10% of the population, judging by election results. But Al Qaeda has been able to widen its sway throughout the country by strengthening alliances with fundamentalist religious groups, charities, criminal gangs, elements of the government security forces and even some political officials, these officials said.
Bin Laden's network also has strengthened ties to groups fighting for control of Kashmir, most of which is held by India, a broadly popular cause throughout Pakistan that has the backing of the government and military.
"It is a much bigger problem than just saying it is a bunch of tribal Islamists in the fringe areas," said Bruce Riedel, a South Asia expert who served at the CIA, National Security Council and Pentagon and retired last year after 30 years of counterterrorism and policymaking experience.
No one is manning the bridge at the Justice Department. That's the latest word from U.S. Attorneys around the country, who say that their regional offices are operating as normal but that Main Justice in D.C. is "crippled." And with already six resignations, several investigations, a legal struggle over executive powers and 23 U.S. Attorney positions without permanent leadership, things aren't exactly looking up. (Financial Times)
FEMA, you’re doing a heck of a job. Lawmakers were “infuriated” by subpoenaed documents released yesterday showing the agency, already under fire for not paying companies charged with post-Katrina clean-up, discouraged officials to follow up on reports of toxic chemicals in FEMA trailers. Trailers were not inspected even after occupants complained of respiratory problems, which were later found to result from toxic levels of formaldehyde in trailers. (USA Today)
In an effort to avoid criticism for a mysterious earmark, Sen. John Murtha (D-PA) has claimed that this particular earmark fits a crucial and unmet need for the Department of Energy. Its a good alibi, but one that should have been tested on the DOE, who disputes that the earmarked funds are reserved for a mission critical program. (The Hill)
The State Department may have overstated oil data on Iraq by more than $5.5 billion due to corruption, theft and sabotage, according to a Government Accountability Office report released yesterday. (U.S. News and World Report)
Attorney General Alberto Gonzalesmade a trip to Capitol Hill yesterday for a closed meeting, where the focus was on his 2004 trip to visit an ailing John Ashcroft in the hospital. According to Rep. Reyes (D-TX), Gonzales was very clear about why he visited Ashcroft and expressed no regret for his actions. (Associated Press)
A Congressional subpoena: to the Bush administration, it's just a piece of paper.
The administration will not permit a U.S. attorney to enforce a citation of contempt against Congress, as federal law instructs. That may shock you, but it's all old news, "a senior administration official" tells The Washington Post:
"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case.... And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen....
"It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."
Of course, the expert on executive privilege quoted by the Post doesn't think it's such a settled question (the president's is a "breathtakingly broad assertion"). The administration points to an opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel during the Reagan years as support -- of course, that's just an opinion, which remains untested by the courts. The logic is that a U.S. attorney, as a subordinate of the executive branch and thus a representative of the president, would be prosecuting another presidential subordinate for asserting executive privilege. And you just can't have that. Or as an expert puts it to the Post: "Because we control the enforcement process, we are going to thumb our nose at you."
So what now? Certainly with the outright contempt being shown for Congress by the administration, it won't be long before they send the contempt right back. Harriet Miers will likely be first up, for her refusal to testify about the U.S. attorney firings, followed closely by White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, who, on behalf of the White House, has refused to turn over documents. The Chair of the Republican National Committee might also be cited with contempt for refusing to turn over White House emails on RNC accounts. Also under subpoena and the likely subject of an executive privilege battle are the documents related to the president's warrantless wiretapping program
But if the U.S. attorney is unwilling to enforce a criminal citation of contempt, all those matters would end there unless Congress took other steps.
There is the option of inherent contempt, where the House or Senate Sergeant-at-Arms would seize the offending witness. A kind of Congressional trial would follow. If found guilty, the person could be detained until compliance with the subpoena or until the session of Congress ends. As the Post notes, that hasn't happened since the 1930's and (much to the chagrin of many TPM readers) seems unlikely to happen now.
As Marty Lederman points out, another option remains: "Congress could file a civil action in federal court seeking declaratory relief, or an injunction requiring enforcement of its subpoena." No doubt the Bush administration would seek somehow to quash that option, too. That would start a likely long process through the courts of motions, counter-motions, and appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Yep. As we said before, a president with nothing left to lose makes for a formidable stonewaller.
Tuesday's broad executive order on freezing Iraq-related financial assets is solely intended to target supporters of the Iraqi insurgency, Treasury Department spokeswoman Molly Millerwise tells TPMmuckraker. If U.S. residents and citizens have their assets frozen by the department, it will be because they're actively abetting a panoply of insurgent and militia groups.
Previously, Treasury hasn't had the authority to target the finances of insurgent groups in Iraq aside from al-Qaeda affiliates and former Saddam Hussein regime elements. The order now provides what Millerwise calls "seamless coverage." The department is in the process of compiling a list of organizations, entities and individuals covered by the executive order, and it will include "Shia militia groups linked with Iran, Sunni insurgent groups with sanctuary in Syria and some of the indigenous Iraqi insurgent groups." Millerwise would not specify precisely which groups will find their way onto Treasury's list, but stated unequivocally that the organizations will be made public.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Bob Penney don't get what the big deal is. If two people reach a property deal, what's the problem? (Even if the price is possibly $120,000 below market value, the seller is a major campaign contributor tied to the federal probe in the state and the buyer is a U.S. senator.)
In an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, Penney couldn't wrap his head around it.
"I really can't understand why a U.S. senator can't buy something they want just like anybody else can," he said.
A few weeks ago, Murkwoski's spokeswoman shared a similar sentiment when explaining why the transaction was no where to be seen on her Senate disclosure forms. "She bought this for personal use just like millions of other people," Danielle Holland said.
Here's the difference: unlike the rest of us, U.S. Senators cannot accept gifts worth more than $250. Based on the $179,400 Murkowski paid for the wooded lot versus the $300,000 locals and real estate agents say the land is worth, she received a gift of at least $120,000. An editorial in the Anchorage Daily News today said she could have only paid a third of what Penney could have fetched had he listed it.
Penney, a major real estate and land developer denied that this was a campaign contribution or a gift, both when I spoke with him and in his statements to Alaska press. He also claims he had no idea that when he sold the land to Murkowski it was assessed by the local government at $179,400. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I called the Kenai Assessor's Office today to see when owners are notified of their land's new value. Penney would have received a notice March 1, 2006, nine months before the sale went through.
Other members of Congress can attest to the legal headache of accepting illegal gifts, like Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA). One of Cunningham's most famous bribes was a property deal where he sold his house for well above market value to a defense contractor, Mitchell Wade, who dumped it for $700,000 soon after.
Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) has also gotten into hot water over questionable land deals. So has Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV). Mollohan is under federal investigation because of his appetite for land deals with sellers who benefited from his many earmarks.
Four Democratic senators wrote Alberto Gonzales today to inquire whether Stephen Bradbury, the apparent acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, was illegally carrying out his duties.
Bradbury was nominated for the top spot at OLC last year, but the Senate Judiciary Committee returned his nomination to the president, refusing to hear it until Bradbury's role in approving the National Security Agency's surveillance program became clear. The President shut down an internal Justice Department investigation of the matter last year by taking the unprecedented and unexplained step of denying security clearances to investigators from the Office of Professional Responsibility.
In a little-noticed executive order issued on Tuesday, President Bush directed the Treasury Department to block the U.S.-based financial assets of anyone deemed to have threatened "the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq" or who "undermin(e) efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq."
The order empowers Treasury, in consultation with the State and Defense Departments, to target those individuals or organizations that either "have committed, or ... pose a significant risk of committing" acts of violence with the "purpose or effect" of harming the Iraqi government or hindering reconstruction efforts. It applies to "U.S. persons," a category including American citizens. It had not previously been disclosed -- and still hasn't -- that U.S. persons are abetting the Iraqi insurgency, nor that Iraqi insurgents have property in the United States, raising questions about who in fact the order targets.
"The part where they reserve lots of discretion to themselves is the list of conditions that goes beyond determination of acts of violence. 'Threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq,' that could be anything," says Ken Mayer, an expert in executive orders and a University of Wisconsin political scientist. "Think of the possibilities: it could be charities that send a small amount of money (to groups linked to) the insurgency, or it could be the government of Iran that has assets in the U.S. and has money that flows through a U.S. bank or something like that."
Just off the wires is that the judge overseeing Valerie Plame's suit against the White House has dismissed the case:
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments. Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove and former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
More troubles for Sen. David Vitter (R-LA). Washington, D.C. watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has filed an ethics complaint against him, based on his admitted use of the D.C. Madam's escort service. The basis of the complaint?
Engaging the services of a prostitute violates both District of Columbia and Louisiana criminal law.
The Senate Ethics Manual provides that certain conduct may be improper even though it does not violate specific Senate rules or regulations. Such conduct has been characterized as "improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate." This rule is intended to protect the integrity and reputation of the Senate as a whole. The Ethics Manual explains that "improper conduct" is given meaning by considering "generally accepted standards of conduct, the letter and spirit of laws and Rules..."
Whether or not Sen. Vitter is ultimately adjudicated to have broken any criminal laws, the Senate may still discipline him for improper conduct as it has other members in the past.
Unlike in the House, the Senate ethics committee does not require that a member file a complaint in order for it to be heard, so this could potentially become a liability for Vitter.
Update: Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) wants a "full airing" of the prostitute-scandal swirling around Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).
Today, the House Judiciary Committee took another step in its confrontation with the White House, with a ruling that the administration's claim of executive privilege to protect White House documents relevant to the U.S. attorney firings is invalid.
The ruling is a stepping stone towards a possible of vote of contempt against White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, on whom the subpoena was served last month. The committee ruled against Harriet Miers' reliance on executive privilege last week when she refused to comply with a subpoena.
Update: For those legal eagles among you, the content of the ruling, by subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA), is below.
For a taste of what's to come from the September Iraq update provided by General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, take a look at what Crocker told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this morning. In video-conferenced testimony, the ambassador conceded that that Iraqi government is no "model of smoothly functioning efficiency" -- which, last week's benchmark report shows, is something of an understatement. Yet it's Crocker's job to prod the Iraqi government toward sectarian compromise and basic competence. What to do?
Crocker's answer: Look outside of Baghdad and to the provinces for the future of political compromise:
In April of 2005, Hans von Spakovsky, then a senior lawyer in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, almost singlehandedly disenfranchised thousands of voters. Without consulting career voting rights attorneys, Spakovsky wrote a letter that incorrectly advised Arizona's secretary of state that the state should prevent voters from receiving a provisional ballot if they did not have proper ID.
When von Spakovsky -- whose nomination as commissioner on the Federal Elections Commission is still pending -- testified before the Senate Rules Committee last month, he claimed that he'd consulted with lawyers in the voting rights section before drafting the letter. "This was not me acting by myself, "he testified. "You know, I would have been consulting with the other attorneys there [in the voting section] to do it."
But that wasn't true, as Joe Rich, the chief of the voting section at the time, told TPMmuckraker. Rich is one among six veterans of the section who wrote the committee to object to von Spakvosky's nomination, calling him "the point person for undermining the Civil Rights Division's mandate to protect voting rights" when he worked at the Justice Department. Calling von Spakovsky's testimony "a flat out misrepresentation," Rich said that none of the career attorneys in the section had been aware of the letter -- even then-Assistant Attorney General Alex Acosta, who oversaw the Civil Rights Division, had not known about it. The letter went out under the signature of Sheldon Bradshaw, a senior political appointee in the division, on his last day.
In written answers (pdf) submitted to the committee weeks later, von Spakovsky changed his tune: "As I recall, I may not have consulted with the Section prior to drafting [the letter]." Von Spakovsky did not note that this was at variance with his spoken testimony. He continued, however, to say that he thought that he did consult with the section on a follow-up letter, sent in September. That letter, of course, reversed his earlier advice.
Von Spakovsky made the change not only at the urging of career voting section lawyers (who'd only heard of his April letter from Arizona officials), but also at the urging of the Election Assistance Commission, which was created by Congress in 2002, in part, to advise the states on the implementation of the Help America Vote Act.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are hoping to ram through ethics legislation that has become an albatross for the new Congress. Instead of waiting for the traditional conference committee to create a compromise version of the bill, the Democrat leadership is expected to use parliamentary tactics to both block amendments and speed the bill to the Senate, where Reid is hoping that popular sentiment will sway enough lawmakers to ensure a filibuster-proof majority. (Roll Call)
Since the D.C. Madam published her huge client Rolodex, the Washington community has been pawing over the chance to connect a number to the next big embarrassed patron. Four Boston computer programmers are doing their best to speed up that process with their website dcphonelist.com. (The Hill)
Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) iscalling for the Navy to directly inform those who lived at Camp Jejune in North Carolina that they may have been exposed to toxic chemicals. As we noted in the Daily Muck two weeks ago, Camp Jejune drew water from contaminated wells for nearly three decades, and a recent government report suggests that over one million individuals, particularly Marines and their families, were exposed. (USA TODAY)
If you can't find 'em, disappear 'em. Or something like that. The military is now claiming that Abu Omar Baghdadi, a key ally of al-Qaeda and a leader of Iraqi insurgents, is not actually real. The military, which has declared Baghdad has been reported both captured and killed at different times, now believes that he was a hired actor who was used to deliver messages from the organization. (LA Times)
Under pressure from local media, including talk radio, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) caved yesterday, finally revealing the sale price for a piece of riverfront property she bought from Bob Penney -- a developer connected to the Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) investigation.
When we first reported the deal on Monday, both Penney and Murkowski refused to provide the sale price. Conservative estimates from local real estate agents put the fair market value of the property at around $300,000.
In a front-page story today in the Anchorage Daily News, Murkowski and Penney revealed the sale price to be $179,400. That just happens to be the same value as the 2006 local government assessed value for property tax purposes. But Penney claims that he thought the assessed value at the time of last year's sale was still $120,300, the 2005 assessed value. In any event, shortly after the December 2006 sale to Murkowski, the 1.27-acre plot was reassessed at $214,900, which real estate agents and locals told me is still much less than what Penney could have fetched on the open market. Nationwide, the assessed value for property tax purposes is usually less than the fair market value of real estate, oftentimes substantially less.
"Word of honor, I did not know what the assessed value was," he said. "I thought it was still $120,000. . . . Who the hell would ever think it would jump like that?" Penney said.
Anyone who sells Kenai River real estate at the assessed value is either a fool or doing somebody a favor. Anybody who buys it at assessed value knows -- or should know -- she is getting a sweet deal.
Rep. Don Young (R-AK) got pretty heated today on the House floor when he thought schoolchildren in New Jersey threatened to take "his money."
Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) had introduced an amendment that would strike funds from a native Alaska and Hawaii education bill.
"Apparently the students in New Jersey are trying to take money from Alaskan students. Splitting state against state instead of talking about education," Young said. "We are a new state. I have poverty you don't even think of. And yet you say you want my money. My money. For my students that need to be educated."
Whoa! Back off, New Jersey schoolchildren! Or face the razor-sharp incisors of Don Young!
"If we continue this we'll be called biting one another, very much like the mink in my state that kill their own," Young said. "There is always another day when those who bite will be killed, too. And I'm very good at that."
Here's some video of Young's soon-to-be-classic speech:
Today, the Justice Department announced that Craig S. Morford, currently the interim U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee, will eventually replace Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty as the acting deputy. McNulty announced earlier this year that he'll be gone by late summer or until the administration names a successor.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, however, has signaled that it won't confirm any senior Justice Department appointees until it gets the documents and testimony it wants from the White House. So it's unclear when (if ever) Morford will take McNulty's place.
Morford has something of a high-profile background -- he led the prosecution of former Rep. James Trafficant (D-OH) and the Department's 2004 internal review of how prosecutors handled the case of three men accused of being part of a terrorist "sleeper cell" in the Detroit area.
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) gave an artful explanation of how he paid for the remodeling of his home yesterday -- so flagrantly artful that quite a few TPM readers have written in to flag it as a "non-denial denial."
The longest-serving Republican senator was defending himself from accusations that oil-services company Veco Corp. paid for the renovation project that doubled the size of his Girdwood, Alaska house in 2000. A grand jury in Washington has started looking into the job because of Veco's bizarre role as general contractor.
As a practical matter, I will tell you. We paid every bill that was given to us. Every bill that was sent to us has been paid, personally, with our own money, and that's all there is to it. It's our own money.
Notice Stevens didn't say he paid for the whole job: he paid for what he was sent.
And who was sending him the invoices?
According to the sub-contractor, Augie Paone, who was hired by Veco to handle the construction work, he would give his bills to Veco (not Stevens) for review. Then, payment from Stevens would arrive in the mail. The checks all came from a special account set up specifically for the remodeling job, Paone told the press a few months ago. He recently hired a lawyer and is no longer speaking publicly.
We haven't received a response on our request for clarification from Stevens' office.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales isn't scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee until next week. But given Gonzales' abysmal performances before the committee earlier this year, Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), ever the gentleman, wants to throw Gonzales a line. So he's sent a list of questions to Gonzales in advance of the hearing. He writes:
When you last testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 19, 2007, you often responded to questions from Senators on both sides of the aisle that you could “not recall.” By some counts, you failed to answer more than 100 questions, by other counts more than 70, and the most conservative count had you failing to provide answers well over 60 times.....
I would like to avoid a repeat of that performance. In order to assist you in your preparation, I send you the following questions in advance of your July 24 appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Rep. Don Young (R-AK), doing his part to keep Alaska at the vanguard of ethical blight, isn't saying he shouldn't have taken illegal contributions from the seafood industry -- just that it's too late to make him give it all back.
Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) has acknowledged taking more than $5,500 in illegal campaign contributions from a seafood trade association since 2001, but he has informed federal officials he will only pay back a portion of those funds because some of the violations fall outside the statute of limitations for campaign finance violations.
Bill Allison at the Sunlight Foundation has weighed in on our coverage of Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R-AK) murky land deal with campaign contributor and real estate developer Bob Penney, who is tied to the Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) investigation. As we reported, Murkowski has refused to disclose the sale price of the plot.
Allison swings at Murkowski's claim that the sale price is exempt from Senate disclosure rules because she plans to use the 1.27 acres of wooded riverfront property for "personal use." Allison took a look at the relevant federal law and concludes that the exception Murkowski gives is meant for residences, rather than any kind of use.
[The law] would seem to indicate a pretty air tight requirement to report the sale -- even if Murkowski is living in the woods, I don't think that would qualify as a personal residence.
Sometimes comity is possible, even when it comes to oversight on potentially illegal surveillance programs.
Today was the deadline set by the Senate Judiciary Committee for the White House to respond to a subpoena for documents establishing the origins and scope of the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program. But yesterday, White House counsel Fred Fielding -- who's locked in subpoena battles with the committee and its House counterpart over the U.S. attorney scandal -- wrote to chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) and asked for more time to dig through "a wide range of materials" possibly relevant to the subpoena. Leahy agreed, citing his willingness to "accommodate reasonable requests."
There's no new deadline for compliance attached to the subpoena extension. Leahy said that he hopes the White House "uses this additional time constructively to finish gathering the relevant information and then works with us in good faith on ways to provide it." That's the big question: whether Fielding and his counterparts on the National Security Council and vice president's office will pull a Harriet Miers and rebuff the congressional demand.
Even after Duke Cunningham pled guilty to accepting millions in bribes, he'd still tried to cast himself as somehow less than thoroughly greedy and corrupt. He'd accepted gifts from defense contractors, yes, and sure, he'd been instrumental in procuring tens of millions in government contracts for them, but that doesn't mean they were bribes.
Well, a year in prison seems to have clarified things for Cunningham. Investigators sat down with him in February of this year, and as the FBI's summary, obtained by The San Diego Union-Tribune, shows, Cunningham was straightforward about the extent of his corruption: He asked for, got, and worked to conceal bribes.
That's bad news for Brent Wilkes, who's been indicted for bribing Cunningham. Wilkes has gamely argued that he didn't bribe Cunningham, so much as play the game the way it has to be played. "Transactional lobbying," is Wilkes' name for it, and that's apparently what he plans to argue to a jury -- that he was extorted, that he was a victim of Washington's culture.
Unfortunately for Wilkes, Cunningham says the two went to an awful lot of trouble to conceal their activity. As the Union-Trib points out, that means Cunningham will likely make an appearance at Wilkes' trial as an unfriendly witness. Cunningham also confirms that Wilkes procured prostitutes for the both of them during a trip to Hawaii, something that Wilkes has denied (Cunningham says that Wilkes took the “younger and cuter” one for himself).
David Vitter made his way back to Capitol Hill yesterday, and received plenty of support from his Republican colleagues. But it's Sen. John Thune's (R-SD) comments that take the cake; he said, “people were supportive... They realize that he’s worked through this [during] this past week, that he’s ready to move forward.” Agreed. We're glad this whole situation is behind us and will never be referenced again. (The Hill)
It depends on your definition of oversight. The chairman of the House intelligence committee Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) is coming under fire for refusing to release a report on the Duke Cunningham bribery scandal. Republicans wouldn't make the report public while Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) headed the committee either. Reyes' refusal is taking extra heat for not following through on the promise he made as incoming intelligence chairman. When asked what he would do differently than Hoekstra, Reyes replied, “In a word: oversight.” (ABC's The Blotter)
But who will police them? Congress wants to keep a closer eye on the inspectors general, who are meant to act as independent overseers and auditors of federal agencies. (Roll Call)
The revolving door between Congress and K Street is working fine. Now, however, the door spins for Democrats, who have already sent 19 senior aides immediately into lobbyist practices since taking over as the majority party. (The Hill)
At the dawn of the Bush administration, Vice President Dick Cheney's 2001 Energy Task Force was the hot social ticket for leading luminaries of future GOP scandals.
Once a closely-held secret, the Washington Post today publishes the dance card for the task force. Cheney, citing the principle of executive confidentiality, took the public's right not to know all the way to the Supreme Court when Congress tried to learn the attendance list published today. It comes as no surprise that the list was heavy on energy-industry big shots, including Enron's Kenneth Lay, who got a private meeting with Cheney on April 17, 2001:
One of the first visitors, on Feb. 14, was James J. Rouse, then vice president of Exxon Mobil and a major donor to the Bush inauguration; a week later, longtime Bush supporter Kenneth L. Lay, then head of Enron Corp., came by for the first of two meetings. On March 5, some of the country's biggest electric utilities, including Duke Energy and Constellation Energy Group, had an audience with the task force staff.
British Petroleum representatives dropped by on March 22, one of about 20 oil and drilling companies to get meetings. The National Mining Association, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America and the American Petroleum Institute were among three dozen trade associations that met with Cheney's staff, the document shows.
The list of participants' names and when they met with administration officials provides a clearer picture of the task force's priorities and bolsters previous reports that the review leaned heavily on oil and gas companies and on trade groups -- many of them big contributors to the Bush campaign and the Republican Party.
Copley News' Marcus Stern and George Congdon tonight published a new article on the FBI's conversation with disgraced former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) in prison this past February. They also published an 11 page transcript of the interview along with a 75 page affidavit. Dig in and share your finds in this TPMmuckraker research thread.
Be sure to indentify the document and page number of the text you're referencing.
The many investigations poking into Gov. Jim Gibbons' (R-NV) life might be a headache for him, but a dream for lawyers.
The Reno Gazette Journalnoticed that big gun lawyers are jumping on board the Gibbons scandal.
In the course of a civil suit with his former company, Nevada technology firm eTreppid, software developer Dennis Montgomery accused eTreppid head Warren Trepp of bribing then-Congressman Gibbons, offering Gibbons lavish trips and cash in exchange for government contracts.
Now Montgomery has hired high-powered D.C. lawyer Robert Bennett, the Journal reports. Bennett's clients tend toward the elite: he represented President Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones case, New York Times reporter Judith Miller in the CIA leak investigation and ex-World Bank chief Paul Wolfowitz during his departure from the World Bank.
Now on to the third development of this afternoon in the U.S. attorney firings subpoena battle.
On Friday, the House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to the Republican National Committee for the emails of White House staffers who used the RNC addresses -- the Justice Department emails show that Karl Rove and his aides often used the email addresses to communicate about the U.S. attorneys. The RNC has deferred to the White House on this, and the White House has in turn refused to turn over the emails, citing executive privilege.
The deadline to comply with the subpoena was this afternoon. And today, in a letter to the RNC, the White House said it needed more time, saying that attorneys had not yet had enough time to review all of the documents to establish whether to assert executive privilege. Emmet Flood, the special counsel to the President, wrote that the review should be done by July 31st. You can see the letter from the RNC's counsel to the committee and the White House's letter here.
Conyers accordingly agreed to postpone the subpoena deadline, but warned the RNC in a letter (see below) that "it would be improper for the RNC to refuse to produce subpoenaed documents in its possession based on an assertion of privilege by a third party" (i.e. the White House). It's not for the RNC to decide whether to hand the documents over, Conyers wrote -- if the White House wants to stop them, then the White House should do that in court.
But if the RNC still decides not to produce the documents, Conyers says that the committee may conduct contempt proceedings against RNC Chairman Robert Duncan.
If you're keeping track at home, that means the committee is now contemplating citing three separate figures with contempt: Harriet Miers, White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, and RNC Chairman Robert Duncan. And that's not counting the Senate Judiciary Committee's possible citation of Karl Rove's former aide, Sara Taylor. Phew.
The House Judiciary Committee will meet this Thursday to consider the White House's claim of executive privilege as to internal and external communications concerning the U.S. attorney firings, Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) informed White House counsel Fred Fielding today.
The committee issued a subpoena to the White House for those documents in June; the White House refused, citing executive privilege. The White House reiterated that blanket refusal last week.
If the committee were to rule that the White House's assertion of privilege is invalid (as seems likely), that would be a step towards contempt proceedings. In this case, the subpoena was issued to Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff, and so it would be Bolten on the hook. Those proceedings would be distinct from those against Harriet Miers, were the committee to choose that course.
Former White House counsel Harriet Miers again refused to comply with a House Judiciary Committee subpoena today, citing executive privilege. The committee had set today as the final deadline for Miers to comply, or else face contempt proceedings.
Miers' attorney George Manning sent the letter to Conyers today reiterating her refusal to testify, writing that the committee was asking that "Ms. Miers do precisely what the President has prohibiting her from doing." Manning added that it wasn't Miers' decision: "The Committtee's dispute is not with Ms. Miers, but with the Executive Branch."
Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) had this to say:
"The subcommittee has overruled Ms. Miers' claims of immunity and privilege. Her failure to comply with our subpoena is a serious affront to this committee and our constitutional system of checks and balances. We are carefully planning our next steps."
Just in time for the NIE's assessment that the U.S. faces a "heightened threat environment," a House Oversight subcommittee hearing tomorrow will highlight the curious tale of the Wackenhut Corp. Wackenhut is one of the nation's largest private security companies, and over the last few years it's been awarded millions in government contracts to protect nuclear facilities, Army bases, transportation infrastructure, and much more. The trouble is that where Wackenhut goes, complaints of lax security often follow.
Wackenhut has the contract to secure the Army's Holston Ammunition Plant in Tennessee. Last year, guards at the plant told lawmakers that boaters were easily able to float into restricted areas at the riverfront facility, and that Wackenhut only bolstered patrols when it knew that Army inspectors were up for a visit. Wackenhut has contracts to secure 31 nuclear power plants around the country. Last year, the Project on Government Oversight reported that Wackenhut nearly got employees killed by not stopping a mock terrorism-response exercise at the Oak Ridge nuclear facility in time. Perhaps most egregiously, the Department of Homeland security opted last year not to renew Wackenhut's contract to protect DHS's Washington headquarters after guards told the AP about numerous security breaches -- including a botched anthrax scare. (Wackenhut security officials actually took the "suspicious white powder" into the office of Secretary Michael Chertoff and sprinkled it out of his window into the area below.)
Not the most union-friendly company on the planet, Wackenhut often blames its bad press on disgruntled employees. Making the feeling mutual, the Service Employees International Union keeps a website, EyeOnWackenhut.com, compiling the myriad complaints -- some legal, some in the court of public opinion -- made against Wackenhut.
Yet Wackenhut keeps landing lucrative contracts. Tomorrow, Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY) is holding a hearing of his House Oversight subcommittee to find out why that is. Along with a number of Energy and Homeland Security procurement officials and inspector-generals, a former Wackenhut guard at Homeland Security named Robin Smith will testify about the company's shaky standards of performance -- and how they don't appear to influence the government's willingness to give Wackenhut a pass. It doesn't seem that the company is sending anyone to refute the allegations, but expect a vigorous response from the Florida-based company all the same.
Members of the House Judiciary Committee want the Justice Department to hand over documents, among them correspondence with the White House, related to three controversial prosecutions, including that of former Gov. Don Siegelman (D-AL).
In a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, three Democratic House Judiciary members, including chairman Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), voiced their concern that the Bush Administration's Justice Department has pursued and ignored prosecutions based on politics.
The letter names three specific cases they want to investigate. In addition to Siegelman's case, the other two are: former Wisconsin state procurement officer Georgia Thompson whose conviction was overturned by the Seventh Circuit and prominent Democrat and coroner Cyril Wecht who was accused of misusing his official staff (similar allegations against local Republicans were not investigated).
Members of Congress have now filed their second quarter spending reports, and several past and current lawmakers are putting those hard-earned campaign funds towards their mounting legal bills. Here is a look at the past quarter's political spending on criminal and ethics investigations:
Former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL): $277,000
Foley is being investigated for inappropriate actions and communications last year involving his underage House pages.
Rep. Don Young: (R-AK): $262,138
Young is under investigation for his relationship with Jack Abramoff as well as a long history of generous earmarking.
Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ): $102,000
The FBI has been investigating Hayworth's large campaign contributions from Native American tribes as a part of the Jack Abramoff scandal.
For years, the Bush administration has lived in fear of this moment. The formal consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community is that Pakistan's federally administrated tribal areas ("FATA" is the new jargon-y acronym, natch) is al-Qaeda's new "safehaven," where the al-Qaeda Senior Leadership (similarly, AQSL) is reconstituting its "Homeland attack capability." Now comes the hard question: what to do about it?
Frances Fragos Townsend, President Bush's chief homeland security and counterterrorism adviser, gave an answer that was at least honest in its straightforward obfuscation. The administration has a two-fold strategy: first, rely on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf; and second, pray.
Tons of intelligence reports exist about the windfall that the Iraq war has given to global Salafist jihad. The National Intelligence Council in 2005, for instance, called Iraq the new "breeding ground" for "professionalized" terror. An April 2006 NIE, which remains classified, plainly said the war "has made the overall terrorism problem worse," as one intelligence official told the New York Times. It's hard to see how this could be controversial: there would be no al-Qaeda in Iraq -- which the National Intelligence Estimate today says "energize(s) the broader Sunni extremist community" -- had there been no invasion.
Yet the declassified key judgments of the NIE don't address Iraq -- except for a few bizarrely constructed sentences. What gives with the NIE's weaselly wording?
Here's the sum total of what today's NIE gives on Iraq's relationship to al-Qaeda:
(W)e assess that al-Qa'ida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qa'ida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland. In addition, we assess that its association with AQI helps al-Qa'ida to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attack.
It's time for another round of "Which Office or Agency is the White House Politicizing Now?"
House oversight committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), having recently brought to light the politicization of the surgeon general's office, is shining a light on the nation's drug czar. The czar, John Walters, and his deputies traveled on the taxpayers' dime to 20 events with vulnerable Republican members of Congress in the months prior to the 2006 elections, according to a committee press release. Not only that, but several of the trips were "combined with the announcement of federal grants or actions that benefited the districts of the Republican members." If government officials were using government funds to help elect Republicans, that would be a violation of the Hatch Act.
You can guess who was behind all that GOP-boosting travel: Karl Rove. Waxman says that Rove's former top aide Sara Taylor was the point person, and so he wants her to testify before his committee. He's requested that she appear for a deposition July 24th and raises the possibility of a hearing on July 30th. Taylor, you'll remember, just testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week about the U.S. attorney firings.
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) is getting another extension to file his financial disclosure forms:
Spokesman Aaron Saunders said he could not elaborate on what changes needed to be made and issued a brief written statement.
"The Ethics Committee has completed its review and has asked Senator Stevens to make a few technical clarifications to his disclosure," the statement said. "To make these minor adjustments, the Committee has granted the Senator another extension."
The disclosure paperwork was due May 15, but Stevens missed that deadline. He skirted it by asking the Senate Ethics Committee to review his finances from the previous year. Other lawmakers facing legal troubles, like Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), did the same.
This must have been the most controversial sentence in the entire NIE:
We assess Lebanese Hizbullah, which has conducted anti-US attacks outside the United States in the past, may be more likely to consider attacking the Homeland over the next three years if it perceives the United States as posing a direct threat to the group or to Iran.
Hezbollah blew up the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, murdering 241 Americans, but hasn't pulled off an attack on the U.S. since. It's significant that the NIE says it won't attack the U.S. absent a sense of provocation, particularly over Iran. You can imagine the row that must have caused within the intelligence community.
The declassified key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate on al-Qaeda are hot off the presses. We've added them to our Documents Collection here. Some highlights:
* The NIE throws President Bush a bone by saying "increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts... have greatly constrained the ability of al-Qa'ida to attack the US Homeland again." But al-Qaeda has "protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability." For the first time, U.S. intelligence formally assesses that al-Qaeda possesses "safehaven in the Pakistani Federal Administered Tribal Areas."
* In the U.S. there are "only a handful of individuals with ties to al-Qa'ida senior leadership," though al-Qaeda will try to infiltrate more of them.
* The rise of jihadist websites and the "growing number of radical, self-generating cells in Western countries indicate that the radical and violent segment of the West's Muslim population is expanding, including in the United States." Extremism among U.S. Muslims is "not likely to be as severe as it is in Europe," but the NIE points to "a small number of violent Islamic extremists inside the United States" as a serious issue.
* al-Qaeda will try to "leverage the contacts and capabilities" of al-Qaeda in Iraq to "enhance its capabilities" for striking the Homeland. al-Qaeda in Iraq also helps al-Qaeda "energize the broader Sunni extremist community." If that seems like weaselly wording, that's what it takes to suggest that If We Don't Fight Them There, We'll Fight Them Here.
* The broader trend in terrorism is toward "small numbers of alienated people to find and connect with one another, justify and intensify their anger, and mobilize resources to attack -- all without requiring a centralized terrorist organization, training camp or leader."
Last year, the governmentmade 20.5 million decisions to classify government secrets, despite the fact that the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) says that more than 10% of the reviewed classifications lacked any justifiable basis. The ISOO is also supposed to receive data from executive agencies about how much material they classify and declassify, but Cheney’s office stopped sending information in 2002. (Associated Press)
After changing his mind about a presidential run, ex-Governor Tom Vilsack (D-IA) decided to support Hillary Clinton in her bid for presidency. A few weeks later, Vilsack's now-defunct presidential campaign fund received about $90,000 from some of Clinton's major backers, of which most went to pay back the loan he gave his own campaign. Clinton's campaign maintains she merely wanted to help a friend to close out his campaign without debt. (LA Times)
Barack Obama may be talking the talk on the campaign trail as he attacks special interests and lobbyists in Washington, but last year Senator Obama introduced bills-at the request of lobbyists-that would save foreign companies millions in customs fees and duties. (The Blotter)
USA Today conducted a Freedom of Information Act review of Pentagon contracting in the Iraq war. The paper found that, through October, more than two-thirds of contracts flagged by auditors as "inflated, erroneous or otherwise improper" eventually found their way to approval, representing over $1 billion. In total, auditors have raised red flags about 10 percent of contracts for about $38.5 billion in bidded-out Iraq funds.
Sometimes the overruns are legit, say contracting officials:
Linda Theis, a spokeswoman for the Army office overseeing the largest contract in Iraq, said payments of questioned costs often happen when the contractor provides evidence justifying the spending.
"Sometimes the contractor is able to provide additional information or rationale to convince the contracting officer to include the cost in the estimate, and sometimes they do not," Theis wrote in an e-mail to USA TODAY.
Contracting officers often gave more weight to companies' justifications for costs in Iraq because they were operating in a war zone, the head of the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), William Reed, testified at a congressional hearing in February. "I am satisfied they are fairly considering our recommendations," Reed said of Pentagon contract managers.
Michael Chertoff's gut is about to get some competition. The office of the Director of National Intelligence just gave word that it will declassify and release the key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate on al-Qaeda tomorrow morning at 11. While a lot of speculation has appeared over the last week over what the NIE assesses about al-Qaeda's regained strength in its safe haven of Waziristan, the estimate is titled "The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland" -- suggesting that its focus is something short of a complete evaluation of al-Qaeda circa 2007.
To the extent that the NIE -- at least in public -- attempts to evaluate that threat, look to see how it weighs in on a key dispute. Among terrorism analysts, there's debate over whether al-Qaeda is more dangerous as a discrete network with some command elements still emanating from Osama bin Laden or as a global movement where any "franchisee" can take up the al-Qaeda banner and attack. Those on the Network side of the debate contend that al-Qaeda still requires experienced leadership and operatives to pull off catastrophic assaults (9/11, for instance), while those on the Movement side believe that what a more amorphous al-Qaeda is much harder to detect and disrupt, even if it doesn't have the same capabilities (the London and Madrid bombings, for instance). A subsidiary point of contention? Which model is more appropriate for the organization known as al-Qaeda in Iraq. Perhaps tomorrow we'll start to get some answers.
Former Republican Congressman J.D. Hayworth is confirming for 12 News that he is cooperating with a federal investigation involving former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Hayworth's new campaign finance report shows almost $170,000 in payments to a Washington law firm since his defeat last November by Democrat Harry Mitchell. Hayworth says the bills are connected to a Department of Justice request for 12 years worth of documents covering his legislative work with the Congressional Native American Caucus.
Hayworth said today, "I wanted to accommodate the request as soon as possible because I thought it was important to clear up questions. I've done nothing wrong, and I don't expect there to be any further action."
National Journalreported in April that prosecutors were making "new" inquiries into Hayworth's relationship with Jack Abramoff. Ex-Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT), who joined Hayworth in early retirement, has also been spending loads of old campaign dollars on his defense.
The House Judiciary Committee was set to hold a hearing on the Civil Rights Division's voting rights section tomorrow, but no more. That's because the Justice Department has refused to allow the chief of the section, John Tanner, to testify. The committee has postponed the hearing until the Department allows Tanner to appear.
A career employee at the Department, Tanner worked hand in hand with political appointees Bradley Schlozman and Hans von Spakovsky to ensure the passage of voter identification laws in Georgia and elsewhere -- sometimes overruling the recommendations of staff analysts and attorneys, who found that the laws might discriminate against African American voters.
Both Schlozman and von Spakovsky endured hard questioning during testimony last month. Tanner would have gotten the same treatment.
Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) wrote to Alberto Gonzales today to request that he make Tanner available for testimony.
This is going to be messy. According to the Guardian, the Justice Department's corruption investigation into British defense giant BAE -- accused by the U.K's Serious Fraud Office of lining the pockets of Prince Bandar, the former Saudi ambassador to the U.S., with $2 billion over 20 years -- threatens to strain ties between Washington and Gordon Brown's nascent government:
The department of justice in Washington has formally demanded that Britain hand over all evidence of secret payments the company made to members of the Saudi royal family to secure huge arms deals.
The department has taken over the corruption investigation after British prosecutors were forced by the then prime minister, Tony Blair, to halt it late last year on alleged grounds of national security.The Serious Fraud Office in London spent £2m and more than two years amassing documents which showed BAE had transferred £1bn to Washington accounts controlled by Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, and another £1bn to Swiss bank accounts linked to agents acting for Saudi royals. The records include highly classified Ministry of Defence files detailing the government's involvement in the al-Yamamah arms deal payments. ...
If British ministers defy the justice department, this could go on to endanger reciprocal cooperation and intelligence-sharing with the US. Britain depends far more heavily on Washington than it does on Saudi Arabia. One senior source close to the US department of justice told the Guardian: "Britain's definition of national security might have to change under these circumstances."
Be skeptical of that. The U.S.-U.K. intelligence relationship is one of the most prized of the CIA's global partnerships. It would take extraordinary pressure on the part of the Justice Department -- and probably the intervention of President Bush -- for the U.S. to withhold intelligence cooperation from the British, especially as the FBI is trying to run down ties between Muslims in the U.S. to the London and Glasgow bombings. Even so, a diplomatic row between the U.S. and its closest ally over a huge, well-connected defense contractor is probably the last thing either country wants.
Rep. John Doolittle's cachet with big Washington, D.C., campaign financiers seems to have plummeted in the aftermath of the FBI's April 13 raid on his Oakton, Va., house, and the eight-term Roseville Republican heads toward the 2008 election season with his campaign still in debt and receipts on the decline.
Meanwhile, the campaign of Democrat Charlie Brown, who came within 3 points of defeating Doolittle in November, is gaining steam. Brown's campaign raised almost twice as much as Doolittle's in the last three months and ended the six-month mark with a net cash balance of $251,000. Doolittle posted $32,250 in debts.
Doolittle's biggest expense during the three-month period was $50,000 in fundraising payments to Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions, a company owned by his wife and operated out of the couple's house....
Even with the hefty campaign payments to Julie Doolittle's company, Sierra Dominion still was owed more than $76,000 in commissions from the 2006 race.
The Doolittle campaign's second largest expense was $30,000 to defense attorney David Barger's law office, bringing the campaign's attorney's fees for defending the congressman in the last year to more than $130,000.
Late last year, Alaskan real estate developer Bob Penney testified before a grand jury about his cozy relationship with Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK). But it looks like Penney also has financial ties with Alaska’s other senator: Lisa Murkowski (R). At around the same time, she quietly bought a prime piece of property along the bank of the Kenai River from Penney.
Because of Alaska’s weak records requirements, it’s unclear whether Murkowski got a special deal from Penney. The market value of the 1.27 acre plot is worth around $300,000, according to Kenai real estate agents and locals. Both Penney and Murkowski's office refused to reveal what Murkowski paid.
The arrangement alarms some watchdogs who see ethical and even legal issues stemming from the deal. Ryan Alexander, the director of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said that Penney's history makes it look like he deliberately does business with Alaska politicians with an eye for future gain.
"It raises more than question, it raises concern," said Alexander. "It puts [Murkowski] into that web of folks that has raised eyebrows."
The only available information on Penney’s sale price (land transaction prices are not public record in Alaska) is a Deed of Trust, available here, that shows that Murkowski purchased the riverfront plot in late December of last year with a mortgage of $136,000. A borough assessment values the property at $214,000 – but real estate agents said that is well below what Penney could have fetched. Based on a review of Murkowski's disclosure records, it's unclear if she had enough cash on hand to handle such a large down payment.
Thanks to a TPMMuckraker reader in Soldotna who photographed the area where the wooded plot sits, we can catch a glimpse of the view. The photos are up here.
The land is near Penney's lodge where he co-hosts the annual Kenai River Classic with Stevens. The event draws politicians and heavyweight defense executives from companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing for a weekend of fundraising -- and reveling. The invitational is tagged as a charity event meant to raise money for salmon habitat preservation, but it's been criticized as a meet-up for influence peddling.
The longtime friends, Penney and Stevens, are also business partners. Penney brought Stevens in on a Utah land deal that turned a $15,000 investment into $100,000 for the senator. And the two own stakes in the same racehorse with former Veco executive Bill Allen, who recently pleaded guilty to federal bribery and conspiracy charges in a cash-for-votes scheme involving state lawmakers.
Around the same time Penney sold Murkowski the riverfront property, he testified before a grand jury investigating Stevens in the broad federal probe into political corruption in the state.
The movement for a review of Gov. Don Siegelman's (D-AL) case is picking up steam. Forty-four former state attorneys general are now calling on the House and Senate Judiciary Committees for an investigation into whether his corruption prosecution was politically motivated.
In a petition (available here) the former top state lawyers asked for a full review of the proceedings, noting a half dozen reasons the case raises suspicion.
In an unusual sentencing phase, the prosecution pressed for a 30-year prison term and the judge denied bail as the former governor awaits his appeal. (Siegelman was ultimately sentenced to seven years in prison.)
The attorneys also point to an affidavit filed by Republican lawyer Dana Jill Simpson as possible evidence of political interference. In her sworn statement, Simpson recounts a 2002 teleconference with some of her fellow Bob Riley (R-AL) campaign workers, where they discussed using the justice system to get Siegelman to back down from contesting the election results. Republican operative Bill Canary mentioned talking with Karl Rove about getting the Justice Department to investigate Siegelman, according to Simpson.
If Gov. Jim Gibbons (R-NV) does as well accumulating donations as he has investigations, he'll be all right.
According to the Las Vegas SunGibbons has started a new legal fund to help cover the cost of defending himself against quite an array of accusations.
The document Gibbons filed with the Nevada Secretary of State says the money he'll raise will go to paying his lawyers defending him against:
FBI/Grand Jury investigation into alleged dealings with Warren Trepp and eTreppid Technologies all allegations that Jim Gibbons helped secure defense contracts in exchange for gifts and money.
The ongoing litigation captioned eTreppid Technologies, Inc., Plaintiff, vs. Dennis Montgomery, et al., pending in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.
Investigation regarding Jim Gibbons' relationship with Sierra Nevada Corporation and the report that Sierra Nevada Corporation hired the First Lady as a consultant and paide her $35,000 at the same time that Jim Gibbons helped the company get funding fora no-bid federal contract.
Investigation into Jim Gibbons alleged assault of Chrissy Mazzeo.
Investigation into an allegation that Jim Gibbons employed Martha Patricia Sandoval, an alleged illegal immigrant, as a nanny.
I'll bet he hopes the grand jury has a better opinion of him.
A new poll shows that only 44% of Anchorage voters have a positive attitude about Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK).
That's quite a dip for Stevens, according to pollster Ivan Moore, who said that between September 2005 and April 2007 the senator's popularity rating ranged between 58 percent and 63 percent.
Stevens isn't too concerned:
"Moore is an opinion-making pollster, not an opinion-taking pollster," Stevens told the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.
Through his seat on the House intelligence committee from 2001 through 2006, ex-Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) was able to funnel between $70 and $80 million in taxpayer dollars to his favored contractors. And it didn't matter that both Mitch Wade, who's pled guilty to bribing Cunningham, and Brent Wilkes, who's been indicted for bribing him, didn't have much in the way of qualifications. That's because Cunningham's colleagues on the committee stayed mum as Cunningham funneled project after bogus project to them.
Cunningham's doings were no secret. At one point, a committee aide even sent out a staff e-mail about one of Wade's program, saying, "HOOAH! Another $5 million of taxpayer money wasted."
Members of the committee are still trying to keep the sham quiet, reportsThe Los Angeles Times.
In the first 5 ½ years of the war on terror, the CIA filed not a single occurrence of legal violation to an independent oversight board, even while the FBI filed a few hundred potential violations. Still, filing with a group whose responsibility is to inform the President and Attorney General of potentially unlawful intelligence actions might not have mattered; the group’s board was vacant for the first two years of the administration. (Washington Post)
The new mandatory fashion in Baghdad’s Green Zone: flak vests and Kevlar helmets. Following a Saturday mortar attack on the Green Zone, McClatchy News obtained a copy of an internal memo issued by the American embassy in Baghdad that ordered Green Zone inhabitants to wear protective gear at all times. (McClatchy Newspapers)
An American employee of a Halliburton subsidiary pleaded guilty to receiving favors in exchange for awarding a Kuwaiti company millions in contracts. Roger Heaton worked for KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton, and reportedly received nearly $200,000 for awarding two major contracts. Heaton faces ten years in prison and a $250,000 fine. (New York Times)
What used to be a blunder is now a disaster. Pakistani jihadists killed dozens of people in Waziristan and declared war on General Pervez Musharraf's government, abrogating a foolhardy truce they signed with Musharraf last year that gave them time and breathing space to regroup.
In September 2006, Musharraf, president of Pakistan, made an enormous mistake. Seeking to end a bloody and politically troublesome conflict with al-Qaeda-linked jihadists in the tribal province of Waziristan, Musharraf and several militant leaders negotiated a truce. The terms were fairly simple: If Musharraf withdrew his army from the province, the jihadists would expel "foreigners" -- meaning al-Qaeda -- cease provocations against the government, and prevent cross-border exfiltration of militants into neighboring Afghanistan.
Former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) used to cut seedy political deals over well-done steak at the posh Capital Grille. Jim Black had to settle for the bathroom at the local IHOP.
Black, a former Democrat in the North Carolina state legislature, was sentenced to five years in prison this week. (You can read the sentencing memorandum here.) Black admitted last February that he accepted bribes from three local chiropractors sometime between 2000 and 2002 in exchange for bringing chiropractor-friendly legislation to the floor.
But the real intrigue began in 2002, when state Republicans regained control of the House by a razor-thin 61-59 margin. Black, then Speaker at the time, had no plans to hand over the job. Enter the International House of Pancakes and long-time state Republican Michael Decker. Meeting in the restroom of the chain made famous for providing 24-hour access to flapjacks, Black struck a quick deal. In exchange for $50,000 and some party perks, Decker would switch affiliations and support Black in his bid for Speaker. Decker declared his newfound transformation into a Democrat, pocketed his $50,000 in cash and campaign contributions ad Black landed a job as co-speaker. Keep in mind that these charges did not come up in his criminal case, but he has admitted in civil court to paying Decker to switch parties.
Murkowski Sticks To Story On Land Price
ACLU: Exec Order on Iraq Threatens Due Process
Does the NIE Understate the Terror Threat From Pakistan?
The Daily Muck
Today's Must Read
Senators: Justice Department's Chief Counsel Breaking the Law
Broad New Exec. Order Targets Iraq-Related Finances
Watchdog Files Ethics Complaint against Senator John
House Committee Rules against White House Privilege Claim
Former DoJ Official Changes Testimony on Voter ID Law
Today's Must Read
Young Threatens To Bite NJ Rep. Like An Alaskan Mink
Gonzales Appoints New Deputy Attorney General
Stevens' Artful Dodge
Leahy to Gonzales: Start Trying to Remember Now
Young On Illegal Contributions: You Caught Me Too Late!
SJC Gives WH More Time on Wiretapping Subpoenas
Cunningham: I'm a Liar and a Crook
Today's Must Read
Gibbons Whistleblower Hires Heavyweight Lawyer
Miers Again Refuses to Comply with Congressional Subpoena
Hearing to Scrutinize Lax Gov't Security Contractor
House Judiciary Wants Docs On Prosecution of Dems
Hey, Big Spender!
The NIE and Iraq: What's Missing from this Picture?
Waxman Wants Former Rove Aide to Testify about Politicization
Stevens Needs Second Disclosure Extension
Today's Must Read
Former GOP Rep Has Spent $170K on Defense
DoJ Prevents Voting Section Chief from Testifying
DOJ Wants UK's Files on Sketchy Defense Firm
Doolittle: Under Investigation and in The Red
Today's Must Read
All Muck is Local: North Carolina
