Alaska

Don Young is Like a "Rat Head in a Coke Bottle"

Kate Klonick | July 25, 2008, 4:47PM

We reported earlier that Rep. Don Young (R-AK) falsely claimed that he was named "Hero of the Taxpayer" by the non-partisan reform group, Taxpayers for Commonsense.

But Taxpayers for Commonsense denies even having such an award, yet alone awarding it to Young, a long-time target of the political watchdog.

As it turns out, Young was named "Hero of the Taxpayer", by the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform, founded and run by Republican lobbyist Grover Norquist.

But now even Norquist is throwing Young under the bus, issuing a press release late this afternoon slamming the Congressman and claiming he "betrays taxpayers."

"Republicans that vote for tax increases are like rat heads in Coke bottles,"Norquist said. "They ruin the Republican brand for all members. It should be readily apparent to a former 'Hero of the Taxpayer Award' recipient that you don't vote for tax hikes."

According to the press release, Young voted for H.R. 2642, the Blue Dog Tax Hike-- a move that makes him ineligible to receive ATR's "Hero of the Taxpayer Award" in 2008.

We called Young's campaign press contact for comment, Mike Anderson, who told us that the bill was a lot more complicated than it looked.

"If you vote for the bill you vote for veterans and Alaska has 75,000 veterans, but you're also colored as pro-increasing taxes, but if he voted against the bill, he's anti-raising taxes but anti-veteran," Anderson told TPMmuckraker. "Young said that he had to take care of the veterans. Veterans have always been very important."

Don Young

Don Young's Campaign Apologizes for Ad Mistake, Will Correct

Kate Klonick | July 25, 2008, 3:14PM

As we earlier reported, Rep. Don Young (R-AK) has been running a radio ad laying claim to a fictitious award from Taxpayers for Commonsense.

In a statement released this morning, the Young camp responded with an apology in this brief press release:

In recent radio ads, we mistakenly credited the wrong organization with giving Congressman Young the Hero of the Taxpayer Award. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Please be assured that the ads are being corrected to reflect that Americans for Tax Reform awarded the Congressman with this award for his commitment to the American taxpayer and his support of legislation to decrease taxes.

The troubling text of the radio ad is transcribed below:

Now that Parnell is in the "Club for No Growth" they're running false ads accusing Don Young of pushing higher taxes on Alaskans when the opposite is true. Don Young was even presented the 'Hero of the Taxpayer Award' by Taxpayers for Common Sense. Sean Parnell ought to be ashamed, Don Young ought to be re-elected.

In our humble opinion, Don Young ought to get a fact-checker.

EPA

Leahy Outlines What EPA Inspector General Should Investigate

Kate Klonick | July 25, 2008, 12:55PM

As we mentioned yesterday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman called-off a hearing on the White House interference with EPA decision-making when EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson refused to testify.

Today, Leahy released a letter he sent to William A. Roderick the Deputy Inspector General of the EPA.

In it, Leahy requested Roderick examine the issues that would have been heard before the committee, as well as the applicability of the claim of executive privilege:

I ask you to investigate. Please include in your investigation: Whether EPA has complied with its responsibilities to provide information to Congress and the American people on environmental issues, including public health and other risks from global warming. Whether EPA's decision with respect to California's waiver from the Clean Air Act was made in accordance with the technical and legal conclusions of EPA's own staff or whether the White House improperly interfered with EPA decision-making. Whether Administrator Johnson's testimony to Congress regarding the California waiver decisions and other matters related to global warming was accurate and truthful. Finally, to the extent information has been withheld from Congress on the basis of a claim of executive privilege, please determine the factual basis for all claims of executive privilege.

So will the investigation take place The EPA Inspector General's office told TPMmuckraker, that they would "review the Chairman's request and reach out for discussion" in the near future.

Don Young

Don Young Gives Self Fictitious "Hero of the Taxpayer" Award from Watchdog Group

Kate Klonick | July 25, 2008, 12:40PM

Rep. Don Young (R-AK) has been called many things in his day, but we're pretty sure a "Hero of the Taxpayer" isn't one of them.

But according to a new radio campaign ad being run by Young, he was given just such a title in an award given to him by the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.

This seemed a little odd to us, as we're pretty familiar with Taxpayers for Common Sense, and pretty sure Don Young is probably the last person to receive such a dubious honor.

And sure enough according to the group named in the ad, Young's claim is patently false.

"I wish people would let us know when we give them awards," Steve Ellis, Vice President for Taxpayers for Common Sense told TPMmuckraker. "We don't even have a 'Hero of the Taxpayer' award to start out. But we did scrub through our records and we found out that we had given him an award-- the 'Golden Fleece' award in 2003 for the Bridge to Nowhere."

According to Ellis, "The Golden Fleece Award" is given for "extreme cases of wasteful government spending."

But as it turns out, Young's claim isn't completely without merit. He was in fact named a "Hero of the Taxpayer," a few weeks ago, but not by Taxpayer for Commonsense. Americans for Tax Reform, an interest group founded by Republican lobbyist Grover Norquist, honored Young with that distinction in late June.

We've captured the radio audio for the ad. Note that Don Young "approves this message."

Click To Play

The relevant portion starts at about 33 seconds. The transcript is here:

Now that Parnell is in the "Club for No Growth" they're running false ads accusing Don Young of pushing higher taxes on Alaskans when the opposite is true. Don Young was even presented the 'Hero of the Taxpayer Award' by Taxpayers for Common Sense. Sean Parnell ought to be ashamed, Don Young ought to be re-elected.

We'll call the Young camp as soon as it's morning in Alaska.

Late update: The Young campaign released a statement that apologized for the mix-up in the attribution of the award and said they would duly revise it.

Hans von Spakovsky

Ellison Slams von Spakovsky Over Disenfranchised Nuns and U.S. Attorneys

Kate Klonick | July 24, 2008, 6:41PM

It's been a slow burn at the hearing on the 2004 elections at the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. With two separate panels, Hans von Spakovsky didn't get around to testifying until 5:00 PM ET.

But Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) made it all worth it.

Ellison threw tact to the wind in questioning von Spakovsky, berating him for the disenfranchisement of a group of a dozen elderly nuns and battering him with inquiries on his communications with U.S. attorneys on voter fraud prosecutions. We have video coming, but to tide you over, here's the transcript:

ELLISON: Now here's something that happened on the May 7th Indiana election. A dozen nuns and another unknown number of students were turned away from the polls Tuesday in the first use of Indiana's stringent voter ID law since it was upheld last week by the United State Supreme Court. Mr. von Spakovsky, you wanna stop nuns from voting?

VON SPAKOVSKY: [silence]

ELLISON: Why don't you want nuns to vote, Mr. von Spakovsky?

VON SPAKOVSKY: Congressman Ellison, uh-

ELLISON: I'm just curious to know.

VON SPAKOVSKY: Those individuals, uh, were told, were- knew that they had to get an ID, they could have easily done so. They could have voted, uh, by absentee ballot- uh, nursing homes under the law are able to get-

ELLISON: . . . Mr. von Spakovsky, are you aware that a 98-year old nun was turned away from the polls by a-

VON SPAKOVSKY: They all had passports-

ELLISON: Excuse me.

VON SPAKOVSKY: They had expired passports which meant that they could have gotten-

ELLISON: Mr. von Spakovsky, do you know a 98-year old nun was turned away from the polls by a sister who's in her order and who knew her, but had to turn her away because she didn't have a government-issued ID? That's okay with you?

VON SPAKOVSKY: Yes. . .

And once he was done making von Spakovsky look like a guy who won't help an old lady across the street to get to her polling place, Ellison started in on his communications with the U.S. attorneys. All that and more, after the jump.

Read more »

EPA

"Stonewall" Johnson Refuses to Testify to Senate Committee

Kate Klonick | July 24, 2008, 4:14PM

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, who has notoriously avoided congressional testimony, declined to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee next week.

The hearing on the EPA's refusal to provide Congress with documents relating to the health risks of global warming was scheduled for July 30, but has now been cancelled by Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT).

"Administrator Johnson declined our invitation," said Chairman Leahy in a statement. "The letter we received from the EPA this week gave no reasons for his refusal to appear before the Committee."

This week the Senate Environment and Public Works Commitee, chaired by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) heard from EPA whistleblower Jason Burnett on the White House's interference with EPA decision making.

Leahy stated that he was a referring Johnson's refusal to testify to the EPA Inspector General. "Like Karl Rove's refusal to appear before the Judiciary Committee in response to a congressional subpoena, and Josh Bolten's refusal to appear to provide documents we subpoenaed," Leahy continued in his statement. "This administration follows. . . its own imperial executive style."

Thank goodness Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee John Conyers (D-MI) is holding a hearing on the "Bush Imperial Presidency" tomorrow.

Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky and Ken Blackwell Set to Testify Tomorrow

Kate Klonick | July 23, 2008, 6:07PM

The thorn in the FEC's side, Hans von Spakovsky, will be testifying tomorrow in front of the House Judiciary Committee on the 2004 Elections.

And who will be joining him? None other than Ohio's controversial former Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell (R).

The hearing starts at 1:00 PM ET tomorrow, and we'll be here, doing what we do best. . . which is to say watching an inordinate amount of CSPAN.

House Judiciary

Mukasey: Gitmo Detainees are Coming for Your Children

Kate Klonick | July 23, 2008, 5:24PM

We posted on Monday about Attorney General Michael Mukasey's controversial suggestion that Congress pick up the slack for the federal courts on detainee rights.

But one of the other interesting things that came out of Mukasey's speech, was his scare-mongering on what would happen if was up to the courts alone to deal with the detainees . . . they could be released! . . . in the United States! . . . [cue horror music]

In his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee today, he broached this topic again during questioning by Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA):

LUNGREN: . . .It seems to me those are unsettled questions- whether the court would be able to order the government to bring detainees in the United States and release them here. Uh, clearly that has not been decided, yet I believe the court is inviting the Congress to outline the parameters of that and I would suggest- make it impossible for that to happen.

MUKASEY: The Court has left that matter open, and the fact- it has said that at the end of the day it must be open to a decsion maker to direct release. Now, um, the fact is that all of these people, every single one of them are aliens captured abroad, in essentially battle conditions um, who had absolutely no right to be here, and there's no good reason to have a court bring somebody here for purposes of release and release them to our communitities- people who could pose a significant danger. Um, we want that particular possibility cut off. Um, we don't want to face it, we shouldn't have to face it.

John Cowdery

Indicted AK Senator Steps Down From Leadership Post

Kate Klonick | July 23, 2008, 4:27PM

The cookie continues to crumble for Alaska State Sen. John Cowdery (R), who was indicted on two federal charges of bribery and conspiracy earlier this month.

Cowdery, who is set to be arraigned on August 11, stepped down from his post as chairman of the Legislative Council on Monday.

From the Anchorage Daily News:

Calls for him to resign rang out shortly after the indictment was made public, specifically from Republican Minority Leader Gene Therriault and [Gov. Sarah] Palin.

Therriault, who leads a five-person minority caucus that does not include Cowdery, has long called for Cowdery's resignation since former Veco executives said during the trials of other lawmakers that Cowdery was part of their inner circle.

Cowdery has not resigned, even though frequent health problems have kept him away from Juneau.

Cowdery told [Senate President Lyda] Green in a letter that he was not well enough to continue with his responsibilities as the council chairman.

"The day-to-day operations of the committee and its oversight is a time intensive job that demands the full attention of the chairman to work smoothly and efficiently," Cowdery wrote to Green on Monday. "Due to my continuing health issues I feel I cannot fulfill the duties required of me to fully accomplish the goals of the Legislative Council."

David Iglesias

Iglesias Riffs on Predictions for Upcoming OIG Report

Kate Klonick | July 23, 2008, 4:26PM

Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias has been giving lots of talks as he promotes his new book, In Justice, but this interview with Harper's has been one of the best so far.

Iglesias treads a lot of old ground, but he also gives an interesting look ahead. As we wait for the OIG's report on the U.S. attorney firing scandal to drop, this is a good reminder of what we have to look forward to (Iglesias' response is in italics):

The Justice Department's Inspector General (OIG) and the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) have been investigating the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, including yourself, and their report is now due. The OPR has been heavily criticized lately for its failure to follow through on major investigations, and it has been manipulated--sometimes overtly--by political appointees. OIG has maintained its independence and integrity, however. Have you been interviewed in connection with this probe? Did it strike you as thorough and professional? Do you expect a report to be issued shortly, and if so, what are the major conclusions you would anticipate?

Yes, I was interviewed by attorneys from both OIG and OPR. They initially interviewed me in Albuquerque in June, 2007. They called me a couple more times with follow-up questions. I viewed them as professional and thorough. I expect the report to be filed any day now. I expect them to conclude that there is sufficient evidence to show that former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and former Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty committed perjury in their statements before Congressional committees and investigators. They may find that former McNulty chief of staff Mike Elston intimidated witnesses based on his calls to former U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins of Arkansas. I was aware that Elston had told Cummins that "the gloves would come off" if we kept speaking out about our forced resignations. I found out after In Justice went to print that Elston also told Cummins we would be "thrown under the bus" for our speaking out. It is appalling that a former career federal prosecutor like Elston would so flagrantly violate the law against witness intimidation. There may be enough evidence to warrant a formal investigation of conspiracy and obstruction of justice charges against Gonzales, McNulty and Elston.

Karl Rove

EXCLUSIVE: Karl Rove Issues New Denials in Gov. Siegelman Prosecution in Written Answers to HJC

Kate Klonick | July 23, 2008, 2:08PM

Karl Rove has categorically denied any involvement whatsoever, either directly or indirectly, in the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, in written responses to questions from the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, entered into the Congressional record today and obtained this afternoon by TPMmuckraker.

The questions from Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and the answers submitted by Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, are available here. More soon.

Below is a sample of the Q&A. Rove's answer is in italics, and is emblematic of his response to all 14 questions raised by Smith.

1. Before former Alabama Governor Donald E. Siegelman's initial indictment in May 2005, did you ever communicate with any Department of Justice officials, State of Alabama officials, or any individual other than Dana Jill Simpson, Esq., regarding Governor Siegelman's investigation or potential prosecution? If so, please state separately for each communication the date, time, location, and means of the communication, the official or individual with whom you communicated, and the content of the communication.

I have never communicated, either directly or indirectly, with Justice Department or Alabama officials about the investigation, indictment, potential prosecution, prosecution, conviction, or sentencing of Governor Siegelman, or about any other matter related to his case, nor have I asked any other individual to communicate about these matters on my behalf. I have never attempted, either directly or indirectly, to influence these matters.

Rove has long refused to comply with a committee subpoena about his role in the Siegelman prosecution, claiming executive privilege. Instead, he's offered to respond to written questions from the Democrat-controlled committee.

So Smith sent Rove's attorney, Luskin, a sycophantic letter on July 15, requesting that he make good on his promise and answer some questions from the committee:

The Committee majority, as before, declined your offer when it was renewed on July 9th. This unnecessarily forced up on your client the Hobson's choice of obeying the limitations placed upon him by the President or obeying the demand of the majority that he appear and testify at a July 10, 2008 hearing before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. The forcing of this issue did not obtain information for the Committee. Rather, it simply provoked partisan spectacle and gratuitously exposed your client to potential legal jeopardy.

Luskin, graciously accepted the request, and conveyed his bafflement at the committees' prosecution in his cover letter with his client's answers:

We simply cannot understand the Committee's interest in provoking a confrontation with Mr. Rove while the precise legal issue that is presented by his subpoena is subject to a pending action in District Court. We have struggled instead to find a method by which Mr. Rove could answer the Committee's questions while at the same time respecting the prerogatives of the President. We thank you for providing such an opportunity, and we trust that Mr. Rove's answers will assist the Committee in resolving these utterly unfounded allegations.

Late Update: The majority of the Q&A refutes the affidavit of attorney Jill Simpson, not that that's anything new. As you might remember, Simpson spoke before the HJC in October of last year and testified to Rove's involvement of Siegelman's prosecution. From what I can tell, the documents spend nine pages detailing the ways in which Rove does not know Simpson.

For the record, Karl Rove has never "communicated, directly or directly with Simpson." He does not and has "never known Simpson personally." He has "never worked with her." He is "not the Karl referenced" in the email on the FEMA contract. He never told Simpson to take "compromising pictures" of Siegelman.

House Oversight

Mukasey Quotes Socialist Eugene Debs on Discussion National Security Issues

Kate Klonick | July 23, 2008, 1:37PM

Attorney General Michael Mukasey is having a lovely time in front of the House Judiciary Committee today, bantering about college football with Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) and quoting America's archetypal socialist during questioning with Rep. Ric Keller (R-FL):

KELLER: Back to my original questions. You've got less than six months on the clock here with the end of the Bush administration, uh, will you commit today to sitting down with our congressional leaders to try to fashion a compromise relating to these national security issues that would ultimately result in you being able to reccomend that the president sign the bill or in the alternative is there no bill that you would recommend being signed?

MUKASEY: Um, I'm in the same position as, um, a Socialist candidate for president named Eugene Debs who said, "I'll talk to anybody who'll talk to me." I'll sit down with anybody that wants to sit down and have a serious conversation about what can be done and what can't be done, but first we need to talk about what's there and what's there is not acceptable.

Before that, Keller asked the AG some questions about the Media Shield Bill -- which is a really, really, really bad idea according to Mukasey. Not even ten angels could save it, nevermind presidential candidates Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain:

KELLER: . . . Obama and Senator McCain said they would sign the bill and I think we can agree that one of those two men is going to be the president of the United States. And so, you would agree with all three of those facts?

MUKASEY: I would agree with all of those facts and I would also agree that ten angels swearing on bibles that that bill was harmless would not change the provisions that are in it.

Michael Mukasey

Mukasey Testimony Free and Easy Without Oath

Kate Klonick | July 23, 2008, 12:33PM

In a rather odd bit of procedural maneuvering, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), neglected to swear Attorney General Michael Mukasey before he testified to the committee today.

Mukasey seemed perplexed, and mentioned the omission before questioning began by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY):

CONYERS: The Chair recognizes, to begin the questioning, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Jerry Nadler of New York.

MUKASEY: I'm sorry, um, Mr. Chairman, I don't mean to raise a matter that's none of my business, but I haven't been placed under oath. Did you want me to take an oath?

CONYERS: No, I do not require that.

We're no strangers to hearings here at TPM, but we're not quite sure what's going on with this. Our best guess? Conyers is trying to ensure quality testimony from Mukasey by relaxing the hearing. Readers have any other guesses?

Michael Mukasey

Play It Again, Mike, Once More, For Old Time's Sake

Kate Klonick | July 23, 2008, 9:58AM

In what looks to be his final appearance on the Hill, Attorney General Michael Mukasey is set to testify today before the House Judiciary Committee Hearing on Oversight at the Department of Justice.

It starts at 10:15 AM ET, and we'll be watching diligently and bringing you all the latest from Conyers and his gang.

Michael Mukasey

Attorney General's Call to Legislate Detainee Policy Rankles Senators

Kate Klonick | July 21, 2008, 3:48PM

Attorney General Michael Mukasey angered Democratic senators when he made an unexpected call for Congress to step in and legislate detainees rights, rather than waiting for federal court proceedings.

Speaking at the American Enterprise Institute this morning, Mukasey spoke to the "unanswered questions" raised by the Supreme Court decision of Boumediene v. Bush, which stated that detainees are protected by the right to habeas corpus. Mukasey called the Court's decision a "disappointment," and said the court stopped "well short of detailing how the habeas corpus proceedings must be conducted." Currently, over 200 cases are waiting to be heard in federal court related to the Supreme Court's ruling, a problem Mukasey thinks could be circumvented by Congressional action:

Congress and the executive branch are affirmatively charged by our Constitution with protecting national security, are expert in such matters, and are in the best position to weigh the difficult policy choices that are posed by these issues.

Judges play an important role in deciding whether a chosen policy is consistent with our laws and the Constitution. But it is our elected leaders who have the responsibility for making policy choices in the first instance.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued a statement today, slamming Mukasey for failing to consult or inform the Committee of his thoughts before his speech:

"The Committee has held a wide range of hearings on issues of detainee rights and procedures. Attorney General Mukasey's call today for Congress to create new rules for these habeas proceedings is the first I have heard from the Administration on this issue," Leahy said. "The Administration made this mess by seeking to avoid judicial review at all costs, causing years of delay and profound uncertainty."

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) echoed Leahy's comments. "Our federal courts are capable of handling these cases," he said. "By repeatedly mishandling these cases, the administration has delayed justice from being served."

[Late update]: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) just chimed in with a statement from the Senate floor.

"As a result of its repeated efforts to circumvent the requirements of the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution, the Bush administration has yet to bring to justice the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of September 11," he said. "The courts are well equipped to handle this situation, and there is no danger that any detainee will be released in the meantime."

Michael Mukasey

Mukasey to Testify Again on Hill

Kate Klonick | July 21, 2008, 11:55AM

We just received confirmation that Attorney General Michael Mukasey is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday at 10:15 AM ET.

The hearing, titled "Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice" is thought to be Mukasey's final appearance on the Hill. Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) will be presiding.

We'll be covering this on Wednesday, so make sure to check back for the final details on the head of DOJ's final oversight soliloquy.