Eric Holder

Holder: OPR Torture Report Should Be Out By Month's End

Zachary Roth | November 18, 2009, 1:46PM

That long-awaited report on the Justice Department's role in the Bush administration's torture program could finally be ready to see the light of day.

During his testimony before Congress today, Attorney General Eric Holder said that the report, by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, is "in its last stages," and that he expects it will be released by the end of the month.

Read more »

DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility

NYT: DOJ Report Recommends Reopening Prisoner Abuse Cases -- Holder Now "All But Certain" To Probe Torture

Zachary Roth | August 24, 2009, 9:16AM

President Obama's desire to look forward, not back, is turning out to be easier said than done.

Last week, Newsweek reported that the long awaited CIA report on torture, set to be released today, reveals that agency interrogators staged mock executions of detainees.

Read more »

Barack Obama

Holder May Investigate Torture -- But Several Probes Are Already Underway

Zachary Roth | July 13, 2009, 2:34PM

The pendulum appears to have swung back in the other direction on the issue of criminal investigations into Bush-era torture. It had looked for a while like President Obama's stated desire to look forward not back had carried the day. But now it appears that Attorney General Eric Holder -- independent of his boss's political concerns, which is how things should work -- is leaning back towards initiating a probe. The news was first reported over the weekend by Newsweek, then picked up today by the New York Times and Washington Post.

But whatever Holder ultimately decides, there are already several ongoing government efforts to investigate torture, which figure to substantially fill out our still patchwork understanding of the issue. So as we wait for official word from the Justice Department on a criminal inquiry, it's worth being clear about what those efforts are, and how they relate to each other.

Read more »

Don Siegelman

Seventy-Five Ex-AGs To Holder: Review Siegelman Case

Zachary Roth | April 22, 2009, 5:29PM

Former Alabama governor Don Siegelman is stepping up his campaign to persuade Attorney General Eric Holder to take another look at his case.

Seventy-five former state attorneys general, including ten Republicans, have sent a letter to Holder saying that Siegelman's defense lawyers have raised "gravely troublesome facts" about whether he got a fair trial, reports the New York Times. The letter cites Holder's recent decision to ask that the charges against Ted Stevens be dropped, thanks to prosecutors' failure to turn over evidence to the defense, as required. It argues that there is evidence of similar misconduct in Siegelman's case, and that the charges should similarly be dropped if that's borne out in an investigation.

Read more »

Torture

Senator: OPR Torture Report Likely To Be "Devastating"

Zachary Roth | April 21, 2009, 11:28AM

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) went on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show last night, to talk about the fallout from the release last week of the Bush administration's torture memos. And his appearance added to the growing sense that pressure is mounting to hold the memos' authors accountable.

Whitehouse, who sits on the Senate Judiciary committee, did temporarily pour a little bit of cold water on the spate of calls to impeach Jay Bybee, the author of one of the memos, who is now a federal judge. He said that it's "certainly possible" that Bybee should be impeached, but that first, we should wait for the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to release its long-held report into the authorship of the memos.

Read more »

Eric Holder

Justice Official Who Probed US Attorney Firings Will Now Lead US Attorneys Office

Zachary Roth | April 8, 2009, 4:22PM

The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility -- which has lately been in a number of internal DOJ investigations into high-profile issues -- will soon have a new chief.

The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Eric Holder will name as the head of the office Mary Patrice Brown, a respected career prosecutor who currently leads the criminal division at the US Attorney's office for Washington DC. Brown will replace Marshall Jarrett, who has been there since 1998, and will shift over to lead the executive office of the US Attorneys.

Read more »

John Yoo

More OLC Memos To Come?

Zachary Roth | March 3, 2009, 4:16PM

Some followup by the New York Times on the Bush-era OLC memos released yesterday by the Justice Department...

Department officials have told the paper that they may soon release more secret opinions about counter-terror tactics. Those that contain classified information will need to be cleared with other government agencies before they can be released.

Separately, some Democrats are jumping on the controversial memos to bolster their argument for a commission to look into the Bush administration's counter-terror policies.

Senate Judiciary chair Pat Leahy, who has called for such a commission, put out a statement Monday that praised the Justice Department for releasing "some of these long-secret opinions." But it also argued that a "fuller review of these policies" by the new Obama team was needed.

And Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse said: "These memos appear to have given the Bush administration a legal blank check to trample on Americans' civil rights. We need to get to the bottom of what happened at O.L.C. and ensure it never happens again."

Also, the Times picks up on that footnote in the Steven Bradbury memo that we highlighted earlier. Reports the paper:

In a footnote to Mr. Bradbury's Jan. 15, 2009, memorandum sharply criticizing Mr. Yoo's work, Mr. Bradbury signaled that he did not want his repudiation of the legal reasoning employed by Mr. Yoo to be used against Mr. Yoo as part of the ethics probe.

Mr. Bradbury wrote that his retractions were not "intended to suggest in any way that the attorneys involved in the preparation of the opinions in question" violated any "applicable standards of professional responsibility."

Torture

Dem Senators To DOJ: How's That Report On Torture Opinions Coming?

Zachary Roth | February 16, 2009, 2:36PM

Looks like it's not just journalists who are interested in the progress of that DOJ report into whether Bush administration lawyers shaded their opinions on the legality of harsh interrogation methods in order to please the White House.

In the wake of Newsweek's story from over the weekend that a draft of the report criticizes several top Bush officials, including John Yoo, Democratic senators Dick Durbin and Sheldon Whitehouse, both of whom sit on the Judiciary committee, have sent a letter to Marshall Jarrett, who heads the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility and is overseeing the report.

In the letter, the senators, who wrote to Jarrett last year requesting the investigation, note that, according to Newsweek, a draft of the report was submitted in the final weeks of the Bush administration. They ask for an update on the status of Jarrett's probe by February 23.

They also suggest that they'll take action if the evidence shows that DOJ lawyers shaped their opinions to conform to the White House's views, writing:

Our intelligence professionals should be able to rely in good faith on the Justice Department's legal advice. This good faith is undermined when Justice Department attorneys provide legal advice so misguided that it damages America's image around the world and the Justice Department is forced to repudiate it. If the officials who provide such advice fail to comply with professional standards, they must be held accountable in order to maintain the faith of the intelligence community and the American people in the Justice Department."

As we noted before, it's not clear that the report will ultimately be released to the public. But at least some in Congress appear to be taking it seriously.

Alberto Gonzales

Newsweek: Report Will Blast Bush Lawyers On Torture Opinions

Zachary Roth | February 16, 2009, 12:27PM

Those Bush lawyers who approved torture may not be in the clear just yet.

Newsweek reveals that a report into the integrity of opinions given by Bush DOJ attorneys, approving water-boarding and other harsh interrogation techniques, is sharply critical of several top officials, including John Yoo, the author of the infamous "torture memo".

A draft of the report -- which was authored Marshall Jarrett, the head of the department's Office of Professional Responsbility -- was submitted in the final weeks of the Bush administration. But it looks like Bush's DOJ brass pushed back.

According to Newsweek's sources, former Attorney General Michel Mukasey, and his deputy Mark Filip, "strongly objected to the draft." Apparently, Filip wanted the report to include responses from the three DOJers most heavily criticized -- in addition to Yoo, that was Jay Bybee, another top department lawyer who wrote opinions authorizing harsh tactics, and Steven Bradbury, who ran the department's Office of Legal Counsel.

A spokesman for the Obama DOJ told Newsweek it's reviewing the matter.

It sounds like the report could contain be pretty hard-hitting. Newsweek says it's focusing on "whether the memo's authors deliberately slanted their legal advice to provide the White House with the conclusions it wanted." According to one source, the investigators have obtained, in the magazine's words, "internal e-mails and multiple drafts that allowed OPR to reconstruct how the memos were crafted."

But Yoo et al. may not be in much legal jeopardy. Newsweek adds that, at worst, the report "could be forwarded to state bar associations for possible disciplinary action".

It's also not clear we'll ever get to see the report. Jarrett told the Senate Judiciary committee last year that he'd inform them of his findings, but only that he's "consider" releasing a public version.

If this isn't an issue that deserves a full public airing, it's hard to know what would be.

David Iglesias

U.S. Attorney Scandal: Feds Probe Domenici for Obstruction of Justice In Iglesias Firing

Murray Waas | February 4, 2009, 5:14PM

A federal grand jury probe of the firings of nine U.S. attorneys during the Bush administration is focusing on the role played by recently retired Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and former senior Bush White House aides in the 2006 dismissal of David Iglesias as U.S. attorney for New Mexico, according to legal sources familiar with the inquiry.

The federal grand jury is investigating whether Domenici and other political figures attempted to improperly press Iglesias to bring a criminal prosecution against New Mexico Democrats just prior to the 2006 congressional midterm elections, according to legal sources close to the investigation and private attorneys representing officials who prosecutors want to question.  Investigators appear to be scrutinizing Iglesias' firing in the context of whether he was fired in retaliation because Domenici and others believed that he would not manipulate the timing of prosecutions to help Republicans.

Previously, Domenici was severely criticized by two internal Justice Department watchdog offices, the Department's Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), for refusing to cooperate with their earlier probe of the firings of the U.S. attorneys. In part because of their frustration that Domenici and his chief of staff, Steve Bell, as well as several senior White House officials, would not cooperate with them, the Inspector General and OPR sought that a criminal prosecutor take over their probe. It is unclear whether Domenici will now cooperate with the criminal probe. Domenici's attorney, Lee Blalack, in an interview, declined to say what Domenici will do when he is contacted by investigators.

The focus of the grand jury probe was described by a federal law enforcement official, two witnesses who have been recently been asked to answer questions from investigators, and an attorney representing a former Justice Department official who has been told that investigators want to question his client.  People who had been contacted by investigators spoke on the condition that they not be named because they did not want to upset federal law enforcement officials who would question and investigate them and also because they believe that simply being questioned might unfairly tarnish their reputations.

The grand jury investigation is currently being led by Nora Dannehy, the acting U.S. attorney in Connecticut.  Then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey named Dannehy to "determine whether any prosecutable offense was committed" in the course of the firings following September's report by the Inspector General and OPR on the firings.

The report found that Iglesias was fired largely as a result of complaints made to the White House by Domenici and Bell. But the report also concluded that the probe was severely "hindered" by the refusal by Domenici, Bell, and several senior Bush administration officials to cooperate with the investigation. 

Read more »

Don Siegelman

Results Of DOJ Probe Into Siegelman Prosecution To Be Released In 'Near Future'

Justin Elliott | December 23, 2008, 6:04PM

We may be getting some answers in the saga of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman sooner rather than later.

DOJ's Office Of Professional Responsibility expects "in the near future" to complete its probe into allegations of politicized prosecution in the Siegelman case, according to a letter from the DOJ sent to Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) yesterday. The letter also reveals that the OPR is looking into the allegations of improper communications between jurors and members of the prosecution team during Siegelman's trial.

At issue are charges made by a whistle-blower, who worked in the U.S. Attorney's office in Alabama, that were first publicly reported in November after Conyers sent a letter to the DOJ about the matter.

Emails provided by the whistle-blower suggested that U.S. Attorney Leura Canary -- whose husband was a top GOP operative and Karl Rove associate -- continued to be involved in the case after recusing herself. Other emails suggested inappropriate contact between jurors and the prosecution, including expressions of romantic interest by jurors in an FBI agent on the prosecution team.

In an interview with TPMmuckraker last month, an outraged Siegelman called it "astounding" that the alleged impropriety involving the jury had not been revealed to the judge and the defense. There has long been evidence that Siegelman's prosecution on corruption charges was politically motivated.

It was back in July that the DOJ publicly acknowledged the existence of an OPR investigation into whether the prosecution was "selective and politically motivated."

The letter sent to Conyers yesterday gives us a fuller picture of the OPR probe.

Read more »

ACORN

ICE Probing Leak On Obama's Aunt

Zachary Roth | November 1, 2008, 5:01PM

Via Ben Smith, a statement from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, on the leak to the Associated Press of immigration information about Obama's aunt.

Early this morning, the matter was refered (sic) to Inspector General and ICE's Office of Professional Responsibility for action. They are looking into whether there was a violation of policy in publicly disclosing individual case information.

We also learned earlier today that internal Justice Department investigators are looking into the leaking of information, earlier this month, about a nationwide FBI probe of ACORN.

To be clear, though ICE appears to be the most likely source of the leak about Obama's aunt, we don't know with 100 percent certainty that that's where it came from. The Associated Press attributed its report to two sources, "one of them a federal law enforcment official." According to Dan Kowalski, an immigration law expert and the editor of the the online newsletter, Benders Immigration Bulletin,, the information would have been available to people at several government agencies, both at the Department of Homeland Security (of which ICE is a part) and the Department of Justice, which would have an enforcement role in immigration proceedings.

Alberto Gonzales

The OIG Report: Tying Up Loose Ends

Kate Klonick | October 1, 2008, 3:00PM

In the almost two years that TPMmuckraker has been covering the scandal over the removal of the U.S. attorneys, there have been many questions raised over the reasons behind the firings. On Monday, the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General's report answered some of those, but raised others. While it concluded that only three of the firings were carried out for political reasons or to interfere with active prosecutions, it could not gather sufficient evidence to conclude the rest of the firings were politically based. Regardless, the report strongly condemned the DOJs overall mishandling of the firings, calling the process "fundamentally flawed . . unsystematic and arbitrary."

As we wrote earlier this week, the report reveals that Todd Graves, David Iglesias and Bud Cummins were fired for reasons of politics, not performance.

The report lays out the investigations into each of the remaining U.S. attorney firings, but repeatedly states that its analysis and investigation were "hindered" due to many witnesses' "lack of recall"; the refusal of many witnesses to cooperate with the investigation or give testimony; and the administration's stonewalling in disclosing documents. Citing these obstacles, the report hedges its findings, requesting a prosecutor to continue the investigation with the power to compel testimony.

In the case of Margaret Chiara, the former Western Michigan U.S. attorney, the report could find no evidence that the rumors that Chiara was in a lesbian relationship with one of her subordinates were behind her removal.

Chiara has stated publicly that she believes the rumors -- which she called "false and malicious" in a statement yesterday from her attorney -- were the reason for the loss of her position.

Carol Lam, the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of California, was believed to have been asked to resign over her prosecution of former Executive Director of the CIA, Dusty Foggo and Brent Wilkes, a defense contractor who bribed former Republican Rep. Duke Cunningham and Foggo. But the report "found no evidence" to support those claims, stating that "the investigation and prosecution of Cunningham and Foggo were aggressively pursued by career prosecutors in Lam's office, both during and after her tenure."

Instead, the report supports the Department's previous claims that Lam was removed because of her poor statistics on gun and immigration prosecution statistics -- but blames the DOJ for poor handling of her removal.

In the case of Daniel Bogden of Nevada, little was known about his removal, except that he had not been diligent in prosecution of obscenity cases. The report found the claim to be behind Bogden's removal, but added some color to the removal. Interestingly, the report found that the complaints of Bodgen's dalliance in obscenity prosecutions were made by Brent Ward, the head of the DOJ Obscenity Prosecution Task Force -- who was friends with Attorney General Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson's brother and had direct conversations with Sampson regularly.

When questioned by the DOJ, Sampson stated he "did not recall whether those complaints played a role in the decision to remove Bogden," a response the report found "particularly suspect, given his role in the removal process."

In Arizona, Paul Charlton's termination was believed to be connected to his investigation of Republican Rep. Rick Renzi, but the report states that it could find no evidence to support that claim. Charlton had previously clashed with Main Justice on a decision he made to not seek the death penalty on a case involving a murder that transpired during a drug deal. Charlton believed it was this death penalty case as well as his policy of tape recording interrogations that led to his removal -- theories the IG report confirmed as the primary reasons for his dismissal.

Lastly, there is Seattle's John McKay who was believed to have been fired over his failure to prosecute voter fraud related to the 2004 Washington governor's election.

McKay famously received a call from Ed Cassidy, chief of staff to Washington Rep. Richard Hastings (R) asking about his prosecution, to which McKay responded, "Ed, I'm sure you're not about to start talking to me about the future direction of this case," after which Cassidy quickly ended the call.

Hastings claimed ignorance and told investigators that "he could not remember telling Cassidy to call McKay. . . or whether Cassidy had told him he had done so."

The report also mentions a meeting in Washington between McKay and White House Counsel Harriet Miers in which Miers reportedly asked McKay "why Republicans in the state of Washington were angry with him."

The report concludes that the "evidence suggests" that the primary reason for McKay's removal was an argument with Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty over an information sharing program -- not because of failure to prosecute voter fraud as McKay conjectured.

The OIG report, though nearly 400 pages long, is far from comprehensive. The investigation lacked the power to compel testimony or documents outside of the Justice Department and were consequently limited in their investigation. As a result, the report is forced to reserve judgment on whether many of the firings were inappropriately political, though it recommends that a prosecutor be appointed to look into whether crimes were committed.

Nora Dannehy, appointed on Monday by Attorney General Michael Mukasey will take up that mantle. It remains to be seen if that will be enough to ferret the truth out of unwilling witnesses and departments.