Torture

WaPo: Bushies Lobbying To Water Down Torture Report

Zachary Roth | May 5, 2009, 4:47PM

It looks like the Bushies are going all in to limit the damage from those torture memos.

The Washington Post reports that former Bush administration officials have launched a "behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign," designed to pressure DOJ to soften its forthcoming ethics report into the lawyers who approved torture.

Read more »

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (34) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (11)
Topics: Barack Obama, George Bush, Jay Bybee, John Yoo, Justice Department, Michael Mukasey, Torture

Alaska

Did Mukasey Ignore Evidence Of Misconduct In Stevens Case?

Zachary Roth | April 8, 2009, 12:58PM

Buried in the news about charges against Ted Stevens being dropped, there's an additional serious indictment (as if more were needed) of the Bush Justice Department -- and specifically, of Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

Reporting from yesterday's hearing, at which Judge Emmet Sullivan formally announced that the charges would be dropped, the Washington Post notes:

When the judge heard that Stevens's attorneys sent three letters about prosecutorial misconduct to former Attorney General Michael Mukasey but received no response, he called it "shocking -- but not surprising."

Read more »

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (37) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (23)
Topics: Alaska, Eric Holder, Justice Department, Michael Mukasey, Ted Stevens

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.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (6) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (9)
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, George Bush, John Yoo, Justice Department, Michael Mukasey, Torture

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 »

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (27) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (58)
Topics: DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, David Iglesias, Michael Mukasey, Nora Dannehy, Pete Domenici, U.S. Attorneys

Justice Department

DOJ Still Hounding Wiretap Whistleblower

Zachary Roth | January 8, 2009, 1:30PM

The Bush DOJ may not usually be inclined to hold its own members accountable for criminal wrongdoing. But when the alleged wrong-doing consists of embarrassing the administration by revealing the existence of a program that was illegally spying on the American people, the wheels of justice seem to start turning.

Last month, as we noted at the time, Newsweek unmasked the man, Thomas Tamm, who leaked to the New York Times the news that the NSA had been conducting a secret wiretapping program that was being concealed from the FISA court.

And as the magazine reported, Tamm, who spoke on the record to Newsweek for its story, has been in federal law enforcement's sights thanks to his fateful decision.

Now, DOJ has written a letter to his lawyer -- obtained by Salon's Glenn Greenwald -- asking whether, in light of his decision to speak to Newsweek, Tamm "is willing to reconsider his prior refusal to speak with agents of the FBI and/or to testify before the Grand Jury regarding his knowledge of and/or participation in the disclosure of TSP-related information to [James] Risen, Mr. Lichtblau and others."

(Risen and Lichtblau, of course, are the New York Times reporters who first reported on the program, based on Tamm's leak.)

The letter, signed by Steven Tyrrell, the chief of DOJ's fraud section, continues with what appears to be a veiled threat to subpoeana Tamm:

if I do not hear from you by [January 7], I will assume that Mr. Tamm is not interested in submitting to a voluntary interview or testifying before the Grand Jury.

In its report last month, Newsweek wrote that federal agents have "pursued [Tamm] relentlessly for the past two and a half years ... raided his house, hauled away personal possessions and grilled his wife, a teenage daughter and a grown son. More recently, they've been questioning Tamm's friends and associates about nearly every aspect of his life."

That pursuit appears to be continuing -- even as the department declines to bring charges against anyone in connection with the illegal program itself that Tamm revealed.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (6) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (8)
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, Justice Department, Michael Mukasey, Wiretapping

Justice Department

Mukasey Laments "Politically Influenced Functioning" At DOJ

Zachary Roth | January 8, 2009, 11:48AM

Attorney General Michael Mukasey gave his sendoff speech yesterday, and, after the usual boilerplate -- "pleasure to work alongside a group of the most talented legal professionals anyone could ever hope to work with..." -- he made reference to the department's politicization under the Bush administration.

From Mukasey's prepared remarks:

As I suggested a few moments ago, not all of the news over the last 14 months was good news. We heard allegations, and saw revelations, of politically influenced functioning within the Department, principally in hiring, and of other deviations from established procedures and acceptable professional standards. Thankfully, we can draw a measure of satisfaction even from these painful episodes. After all, many of the revelations and solutions came from within the Department itself. And, in those cases where investigations have been warranted, the Department has shown that it is capable of conducting the necessary review of the conduct and practices of its own people and of others.

We have also responded to these troubling allegations by changing policies and procedures. We instituted rules that limit contact between the Department and the White House on ongoing cases; we restored the role of career lawyers in making hiring decisions in the Honors and Summer Law Intern Programs; and we took steps to ensure that hiring and recruitment decisions throughout the Department take place on the merits, and without regard for any improper consideration, be it politics, age, race or sexual orientation.

It's true that Mukasey's tenure hasn't seen the kind of blatant politicization in hiring that we saw under Alberto Gonzales -- and Mukasey's decision to appoint a special prosecutor to determine whether criminal wrongdoing occurred in regard to the US Attorneys firings may help us finally get to the bottom of that issue. But on crucial issues of the day like torture and warrantless wiretapping, he's been far from the model of independence that the Attorney General is supposed to represent.

One sidenote: The press release containing Mukasey's comments was dated: "TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2008" Two mistakes by DOJ in one attempt to render today's date! Really gives you confidence in our federal law enforcement system.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (3) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (3)
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, Justice Department, Michael Mukasey, U.S. Attorneys

Arlen Specter

To Placate GOPers, Leahy Delays Holder Hearings

Zachary Roth | December 15, 2008, 2:10PM

It looks like Republicans on the Senate Judiciary committee have won at least a partial victory in that battle with Judiciary chair Pat Leahy over the timing of confirmation hearings for Eric Holder, Barack Obama's nominee for Attorney General.

In a press release sent moments ago, Leahy wrote the he was delaying the hearings, and made clear he wasn't happy about it:

The Committee has not yet received the names of other designees for high-ranking Department of Justice officials that we had anticipated and more time is now available to the Judiciary Committee. Therefore, to accommodate the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, at their request we are delaying the hearing, again, until January 15.
...

It is disappointing to me that they are insisting that we delay at a time when the nation needs its top law enforcement officer and national security team in place and working.

The delay is only a week, since Leahy had been planning to begin the hearings on January 8. He had argued that, after the politicization of the Bush years, it's particularly important for fresh leadership to be installed quickly.

The committee's GOP minority, led by Arlen Specter, has been arguing that Leahy's schedule doesn't allow enough time to review documents pertaining to Holder's role in the controversial pardon of Marc Rich in the waning days of the Clinton administration.

The dispute had gotten unusually pointed for an intra-committee disagreement. Leahy, in a letter to Specter, implied that the Republican's trip to Europe and the middle east this month was a congressionally sponsored junket. Leahy also dredged up a year-old quote from Republican Jon Kyl, arguing for a speedy confirmation of Michael Mukasey as Attorney General, which appears to contrast with today's GOP position on Holder. In announcing the delay today, Leahy again brought up Kyl's quote on Mukasey.

The full release follows after the jump...

Read more »

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (8) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)
Topics: Arlen Specter, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Justice Department, Michael Mukasey, Pat Leahy

Alberto Gonzales

DOJ Won't Say Whether Prosecutor Has Submitted US Attorneys Report

Zachary Roth | December 4, 2008, 3:32PM

Is the Department of Justice going back on its word about a report on its investigation into whether crimes were committed in the U.S. Attorney firings scandal?

When prosecutor Nora Dannehy was appointed to run the probe, in the wake of another investigation by the department's Inspector General, it was reported that Dannehy was expected to provide Attorney General Michael Mukasey with a status report on her findings within around 60 days.

That timeline was confirmed by DOJ Inspector General Glenn Fine in testimony before Congress at the time:

REP. NADLER: Mr. Fine, it's been reported that Ms. Dannehy was appointed to special counsel, will make a preliminary report to the attorney general within the next two months. Do you know when this report will be made public?

MR. FINE: I think what it is is the status of the investigation at that point to the deputy attorney general or the attorney general to see where she is in the process.

...

I don't think it's sort of a formal report; I think it's more of a status report.

And it was reiterated a few weeks later in a letter from Mukasey to House Judiciary Chair John Conyers. Mukasey wrote:

As the Inspector General testified, Ms. Dannehy is expected to report on the status of the investigation to the Attorney General approximately 60 days after her appointment.

Now that 60-day deadline has come and gone. And DOJ won't confirm that any such report has been provided, instead referring us to a spokesman for Dannehy who wouldn't comment on the issue.

In other words, at first DOJ had been clear that it wanted a report submitted within 60 days. But now it won't even confirm that such a report has been submitted, or give any further information.

So is the department now going back on its requirement that Dannehy submit a report within 60 days? Is it exerting pressure to reduce the likelihood that details about Dannehy's progress -- like the fact that she's contacted Gonzales -- will slip out? What's going on?

A staffer for the House judiciary committee told TPMmuckraker that they haven't been able to get anythign out of DOJ either on whether Dannehy has submitted a report. A call to the Senate judiciary committee was not immediately returned.

We'll keep you posted as we learn more...

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (8) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (10)
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Glenn Fine, Justice Department, Michael Mukasey, Nora Dannehy, U.S. Attorneys

Alberto Gonzales

Prosecutor On US Attorneys Case Seems To Be Going All Out

Zachary Roth | December 3, 2008, 10:05AM

A report in the Washington Post suggests that Nora Dannehy, the prosecutor assigned by Attorney General Michael Mukasey to look into the U.S. attorney firings, is taking an aggressive approach to the job.

The Post says Dannehy "has been meeting with defense lawyers, dispatching subpoenas and seeking information about the events, according to legal sources familiar with the case."

It adds: "A grand jury in the District has issued subpoenas, the sources said."

And there's another interesting nugget:

D. Kyle Sampson, who served as the chief of staff to Gonzales until his March 2007 resignation, recently took a leave from his job as a partner at the law firm Hunton & Williams while the investigation proceeds. A spokeswoman for the law firm said he is on leave "pending admission to the D.C. bar."

DOJ's Inspector General report, released in late September, found that Sampson's testimony was "not credible" and "unpersuasive."

Dannehy was appointed September 29 to determine whether crimes had been committed in the affair. She was given 60 days to submit a preliminary report on her findings. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment from TPMmuckraker about the report's status.

More on this soon...

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (15) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (29)
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Justice Department, Michael Mukasey, Nora Dannehy, U.S. Attorneys

Michael Mukasey

Gonzo Still Stonewalling In Retirement?

Justin Elliott | November 19, 2008, 4:18PM

Why is it taking so long for the Justice Department to answer written questions from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee?

That's the question Judiciary Chair Pat Leahy posed to Attorney General Mukasey in a letter sent today demanding answers to hundreds of written queries from 11 Judiciary hearings going back over a year. Over one hundred of the unanswered questions were directed to then-AG Alberto Gonzales in July 2007.

Leahy writes:

It is my hope that the Department will answer all outstanding questions before the adjournment of the 110th Congress. You can set an example by promptly returning responsive answers to the questions posed to you in connection with the July 9 oversight hearing, which was more than four months ago.

The questions are typically submitted in writing to the DOJ in the days after committee hearings, and witnesses have two weeks to respond, Leahy says in the letter. Attached to the letter is a chart with the list of unanswered questions -- there are over 300 -- date of submission, and the submitters. The questions, on issues like department oversight and voter protection, were submitted by senators of both parties to officials including FBI Director Robert Mueller and Mukasey himself.

A staggering 104 of the unanswered questions were submitted for Gonzales following this storied July 2007 hearing, at which the AG was grilled on his visit to John Ashcroft's hospital room. The Gonzales item indicates that "partial answers" have been received.

So what exactly are the unanswered questions about? The letter doesn't specify, but we'll look into it and let you know what we find.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (4) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (7)
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, Michael Mukasey

ACORN

Von Spakovsky and Co. Urge DOJ To Keep Probing Voter Fraud

Zachary Roth | October 31, 2008, 6:15PM

Five ex-DOJ officials have written to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, urging him to keep investigating whether ACORN committed voter fraud in its registration efforts, Roll Call reports.

The group, led by leading voting-rights foe Hans Von Spakovsky, wrote:

"We hope that you will assure the American people that your Department intends to investigate and prosecute any and all instances of voter registration and other fraud occurring in the days leading up to the election, and that you will enforce all of the federal voting rights laws that are important to preserving the fairness and security of the election process..."

The other members of the group, according to Roll Call, are Former Assistant Attorney General William Bradford Reynolds and former Deputy Assistant Attorneys General Roger Clegg, Michael Carvin and Robert Driscoll.

Earlier this month, sources leaked to the Associated Press that the FBI had launched a naitonwide investigation into ACORN. Since then, few details about the probe have emerged. DOJ has declined to confirm its existence on the record, and ACORN recently said it had not been contacted in connection to the investigation.

Von Spakovsky was nominated for a seat on the Federal Elections Commission last year, but the Democratic Senate refused to confirm him. TPMmuckraker reported in August that he had been given a temporary appointment at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (14) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (10)
Topics: ACORN, Hans von Spakovsky, Justice Department, Michael Mukasey, Voting, voter fraud

Voting

Conyers To Boehner: Enough With The Voter Fraud!

Zachary Roth | October 31, 2008, 5:51PM

House Judiciary Chair John Conyers has released a statement in response to Republican leader John Boehner's various recent efforts to get the Justice Department to pay more attention to voter fraud, despite scant evidence of such fraud.

Writes Conyers:

This endless campaign to press the Department into pursuing phantom claims of 'voter fraud' must end. So-called "voter fraud" is vanishingly rare and every time this subject is given a careful look it is found to have essentially no concrete impact in our elections. Indeed, according to Justice Department data, out of almost 200 million votes cast in federal elections since October 2002, only 102 individuals have been convicted of federal voter fraud offenses. Thus, Republican agitation on this issue is both unnecessary and costly, as Department resources are needed to combat serious matters of voter suppression. Fliers distributed in Virginia this week using state letterhead to mislead Democrats and Independents about the date of the election and recent reports of violence and intimidation against citizens working to register and turnout voters are real-world problems that directly impact citizens' right to vote. It is also disconcerting to see Members of Congress criticizing career personnel of the Department for their private political activity, which intrudes deeply upon their privacy and appears to have no bearing on their job performance.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (12) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (11)
Topics: John Boehner, John Conyers, Justice Department, Michael Mukasey, Voting, voter fraud

Michael Mukasey

DOJ's List Of Counties For Election-Day Monitoring Looks On The Level

Zachary Roth | October 31, 2008, 5:01PM

As we noted earlier, the Department of Justice yesterday released a list of counties across the country to which it will send teams of federal observers to monitor polling places, as it does every election year.

Given DOJ's mixed record in recent years in protecting voting rights, and its efforts to push voter fraud cases despite a lack of evidence, we asked some experts whether the list of sites selected seemed appropriate.

Both Gerry Hebert, a former acting head of DOJ's voting-rights section, and Rick Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a leading authority on voting law, said that it did.

Hebert, however, questioned the decision to send monitors to Noxubee and Wilkinson counties in Mississippi.

Hebert noted in an email to TPMmuckraker that in Noxubee, DOJ brought a controversial, though ultimately successful, suit on behalf of white voters in 2006, representing the first time that the Voting Rights Act had been used on behalf of whites.

"What interest would they have in sending federal observers now,?" Hebert asked.

As for Wilkinson county, Hebert wrote: "It's hard to see why DOJ would send poll watchers to a county where the issues seem to be among two factions of black voters and not alleged discrimination by whites."

Still, these concerns aside, it sounds like there's little reason to believe that DOJ's list skews inappropriately toward making hay out of swing-state voter-fraud claims at the expense of a focus on voter intimidation.

The complete list follows after the jump...

Read more »

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (0) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)
Topics: Justice Department, Michael Mukasey, Voting, voter fraud

Voting

Boehner: DOJ Politicized ... In Favor of Dems!

Zachary Roth | October 31, 2008, 3:41PM

At last, a high-ranking Republican has admitted what many Democrats and independent observers have maintained since the scandal over the US Attorney firings -- that, under President Bush, the Department of Justice has been inappropriately politicized.

But according to John Boehner, the House GOP leader, that politicization was actually carried out ... by Democrats.

Boehner today released a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, in which he complained about the department's decision no longer to include federal prosecutors in its teams of election observers, as it has done in previous years.

He also cited recent reports that some top officials in the department's voting-rights section had contributed to Barack Obama's campaign.

Writes Boehner:

Frankly, the real motive behind the Department's decision is undeniably suspect given that Obama partisans in key positions at the Department of Justice may well have played a pivotal role in making it.

Earlier this week, DOJ announced that it would decline a request by Boehner -- forwarded by the White House -- to intervene in a voting dispute in Ohio, on behalf of state Republicans.

Yesterday, the department released a list of the polling places to which it will send its team of observers. We'll have more on that shortly.

Boehner's full letter follows after the jump...

Read more »

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (32) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (2)
Topics: Barack Obama, John Boehner, Michael Mukasey, Voting, voter fraud

House Judiciary

Conyers Wants DOJ Action On Virginia Flier

Zachary Roth | October 30, 2008, 5:30PM

The phony flier that surfaced recently in Virginia, instructing Democrats to vote on Wednesday November 5th, has drawn the attention of House Judiciary Chair John Conyers.

As we wrote Monday, the flier, which surfaced in largely African-American areas of the Hampton Roads region, is designed to look like an official communication from the state board of elections, even reproducing the board's logo. It informs readers that becasue of expected high turnout on election day, November 4th, Democrats have been asked to vote November 5th.

Election day, of course, is November 4th for everyone.

Conyers wrote to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, asking him to take action. Conyer's letter points out that, because there are legitimate concerns in Virginia about over-crowded polling places, and because the flier is designed to look like it comes from the state election board, it "has enough of a ring of truth to confuse voters and suppress turnout."

The letter goes on to call the effort "an echo of the darkest days of our struggle for civil rights."

Virginia election officials have said that state police are already looking into the flier's provenance.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (4) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (11)
Topics: House Judiciary, John Conyers, Michael Mukasey, Voting

Voting

GOP Voter Suppression: More Miss than Hit

Zachary Roth | October 30, 2008, 1:10PM

Yesterday we posted a quick round-up of the various voter-suppression schemes being pushed by Republicans in swing states around the country. And after looking at the list, one thing quickly becomes clear: most of the efforts have failed.

There's no one grand unifying theory for why that's true.

In some cases, the courts have rejected GOP efforts to make voting harder:

• In Indiana, for instance, a Superior Court judge declined to support a GOP bid to shut down early voting centers in Democratic-leaning cities in Lake County, and the state Supreme Court chose not to immediately intervene.

• In Wisconsin, a suit brought by Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen -- which he later admitted had been requested by the Republican Party -- seeking to force the state election board to re-confirm all newly registered voters was thrown out by a county court.

• In Michigan, a federal appeals court today blocked the Republican secretary of state, Terri Lynn Land, from throwing 5,500 newly registered voters off the rolls because their registration cards were returned as undeliverable, after voting-rights groups sued.

In other states, Democratic state officials or voting-rights advocates have held the line:

• In Nevada, Secretary of State Ross Miller denied a request from the state GOP to require voters to cast provisional ballots if they fixed mistakes in their voting information at the polls.

• In Colorado, a bid by Republican Secretary of State Mike Coffman -- who himself is running for a seat in the U.S. House -- to purge 14,000 voters from the rolls was only partially successful. After voting-rights groups sued, a settlement was reached yesterday allowing the voters to cast provisional ballots. According to the Rocky Mountain News, those ballots would "be presumed to be valid unless state and county officials prove otherwise." A lawyer for the voting-rights groups called the deal "a win-win."

Read more »

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (19) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (21)
Topics: ACORN, Jennifer Brunner, Michael Mukasey, Voting, voter fraud

Voting

DOJ, Bucking White House, Won't Intervene in Ohio Voting Case

Zachary Roth | October 30, 2008, 9:09AM

Looks like the most high-profile of the various Republican voter-suppression schemes is faring no better than many of the others.

The New York Times reports that the Department of Justice will not require Ohio's Democratic secretary of state, Jennifer Brunner, to provide local election officials with lists of new voters who have mismatches in their registration information.

Late last week, in an unusual intervention, the White House had passed on a request by Republican House leader John Boehner that DOJ take action on the issue -- triggering outrage from voting-rights groups. But according to the Times:

The Justice Department has been in contact with Ohio election officials since early October and this week its lawyers determined they would not pursue litigation before the election, according to the sources familiar with the discussions.

The state Republican party had sued to force Brunner to hand over the information. Voting-rights advocates feared that it could allow the Republicans to launch a slew of voter challenges at the polls, and the Supreme Court rejected the GOP bid earlier this month.

Still, the Ohio Republicans are trying to make maximum political hay out of the dispute. They released a radio ad earlier this week accusing Brunner of "concealing evidence."

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (9) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (9)
Topics: Jennifer Brunner, Michael Mukasey, Voting, voter fraud

DOJ Office Of The Inspector General

DOJ Honors Department Veteran Who Failed To Object To U.S. Attorney Firings

Zachary Roth | October 29, 2008, 11:33AM

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that, at an annual awards ceremony, it had given an award for "Outstanding Professionalism and Exemplary Integrity" to David Margolis.

Why is that noteworthy?

Margolis, who has been at DOJ since 1965 and now serves as Associate Deputy Attorney General, makes frequent appearances in the report on the US Attorney firings released earlier this month by DOJ's Office of the Inspector General.

By and large, the report depicts Margolis as a respected career DOJ-er, who was largely out of the loop on many of the details of the scheme to fire US Attorneys for political reasons.

But it also shows that right before the firings, Kyle Sampson, the point man on the plan, showed Margolis -- whose informal biography, says the report, listed one of his duties as being a liaison between main DOJ and the US Attorneys -- a list of six of the US Attorneys to be fired. Margolis had earlier recommended to Sampson that two US Attorneys -- Kevin Ryan and Dunn Lampton -- be fired for legitimate performance-based reasons, but neither one appeared on Sampson's list. And yet, says the report, Margolis neither raised any objections, nor asked Sampson about how the list was drawn up.

From the report's conclusion:

In November 2006, when Sampson advised Margolis about the impending removals, he either showed Margolis a list or read from a list of six U.S. Attorneys that Sampson indicated were to be removed. Margolis told us that he was struck more by the names Sampson did not mention than the ones he did. Margolis asked Sampson why Ryan and Lampton were not on the removal list, and Sampson responded that he would look into it. Based on Margolis's and McNulty's suggestion, Ryan was subsequently added to the list.

However, Margolis told us that he did not think to question Sampson about the six U.S. Attorneys who were on Sampson's list. Margolis said he was more focused on the names that were omitted and assumed Sampson had valid reasons for the six slated for removal.

Margolis is the senior career attorney in the Department and someone who had significant knowledge about U.S. Attorneys and their performance. He was involved in panel interviews for the selection of most U.S. Attorneys, and as part of his duties handles misconduct allegations involving U.S. Attorneys. He is highly respected within the Department, and his opinion was valued because of his experience and stature.

Yet, prior to the removals, he never questioned Sampson concerning why the specific U.S. Attorneys slated for removal were chosen or what process was used to select them. We believe that under these circumstances - an unprecedented dismissal of a group of U.S. Attorneys at one time allegedly for performance reasons - Margolis should have raised questions about the list and the process used to identify the names to ensure there were no improper reasons and that the Department was following a defensible process for the removals. But Margolis never raised those issues, and instead focused solely on seeking to ensure that Ryan was added to the removal list.

...

We recognize that the decision to remove the U.S. Attorneys was not Margolis's to make. But given his position, we believe he should have asked Sampson, McNulty, or other senior Department leaders about the removal process. This is particularly true given that this removal of U.S. Attorneys was unprecedented, and it did not appear from the names on Sampson's list that the U.S. Attorneys Margolis thought were weak had been included.

The report also quotes from Margolis' subsequent testimony to Congress, in which he acknowledged he should have done more:

I should say that I am a bit exasperated by my role here because I'm the only one of all the people involved who knows how to fire a United States Attorney or a Marshal based on experience. And I was not aggressive enough or vigilant enough, and I should have done a number of things, I should have inserted myself. I was too passive, and I'd like to, I think--and I hold myself accountable for this--that if I had stepped in and said something, that maybe this would have been - we would have handled this better...

The report further concludes:

We believe that given Margolis's experience, position, and stature he was too deferential to others on this important and unprecedented removal of U.S. Attorneys. Had he raised questions, as he acknowledged he should have, the damage to the Department by the fundamentally flawed removal process might have been mitigated.

Margolis was clearly a long way from being the main villain in the US Attorneys saga. But he didn't exactly cover himself with glory in the affair.

And he certainly didn't demonstrate "Outstanding Professionalism and Exemplary Integrity" -- the qualities for which he's just been honored.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (8) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (18)
Topics: DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Kyle Sampson, Michael Mukasey

Michael Mukasey

Ohio Dems Push Back On White House Call For DOJ Action On Voting

Zachary Roth | October 27, 2008, 6:17PM

Last week, the White House asked the Department of Justice to take action on an effort that could force tens of thousands of new Ohio voters to cast provisional ballots.

Soon afterwards, a group of Ohio Democrats, led by Sen. Sherrod Brown, announced in a press release that they had written to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, urging him not to intervene in the issue.

Wrote the Democrats: "The eyes of the nation are once again on Ohio in this critical election, and there is no room for partisan politics that seek to erode voter confidence in Ohio's election system."

The U.S. Supreme Court had earlier rejected an effort by the GOP to require the Democratic Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, to provide local election officials with information on newly registered voters whose registration information does not match other government records. Democrats fear that giving that information to local officials could allow Republicans to mount challenges to eligible voters, with the result that many could be forced to cast provisional ballots.

In addition to Brown, the other Democrats signing the letter were Reps. Marcy Kaptur, Tim Ryan, Zack Space, Betty Sutton, and Charles Wilson.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (10) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (31)
Topics: Michael Mukasey, Voting, voter fraud

John Boehner

White House Wants DOJ Action On Ohio Voting Case

Zachary Roth | October 25, 2008, 5:23PM

Looks like the White House is having trouble getting out of the habit of using the Department of Justice for political purposes.

The Washington Post reports that President Bush has asked DOJ to look into a request by House Republican leader John Boehner that would force Ohio's Secretary of State to provide local election officials with information on 200,000 newly registered voters who have mismatched registration data. That could make it possible for Republicans to issue challenges to many of these voters, perhaps forcing them to cast provisional ballots.

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Ohio Republicans, who were seeking to force the Secretary of State, Democrat Jennifer Brunner, to provide the information on mismatches to local officials, did not have standing to bring the case.

Boehner announced yesterday in a press release that he had sent a letter earlier this week to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, asking him to take action, but received no response. He then turned to the White House for help -- warning in a letter to President Bush that if no action were taken, "there is a significant risk if not a certainty, that unlawful votes will be cast and counted."

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino characterized the move as "a routine step that would be taken for any such request from a congressional leader," according to the Post.

But it's worth remembering that much of the politicization of the Department of Justice that was exposed in the U.S. Attorneys scandal centered on voting issues, and specifically on an effort by the White House and DOJ to prioritize voter fraud prosecutions despite scant evidence that such fraud was occurring.

As voting rights groups point out, the mismatches at issue in this case are often nothing more than that the name on a voter's drivers license includes a middle initial, while that on his voter registration form does not.

Jon Greenbaum of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told the Post: "This is taking the politicization of this to a new level."

We'll be watching this closely.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (66) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (93)
Topics: George Bush, Jennifer Brunner, John Boehner, Michael Mukasey, U.S. Attorneys, Voting, voter fraud

Senate Judiciary Committee

SJC Subpoenas Mukasey for Testimony and OLC Docs

Kate Klonick | October 21, 2008, 3:11PM

After the Washington Post beat the Senate Judiciary Committee to memos from the White House to the CIA endorsing interrogation practices, Chairman Patrick Leahy hasn't been pulling punches.

Today, Leahy issued a subpoena to Attorney Gen. Michael Mukasey demanding that he provide testimony and related documents to the committee about "legal analysis and advice from the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) related to the Bush administration's terrorism policies, including detention and interrogation policies and practices." The deadline for the testimony and documents is November 18. The committee voted on issuing the subpoena in a September 25 business meeting.

"This administration's stonewalling leaves this Committee without basic facts that are essential to carrying out its oversight responsibilities," Leahy said in his letter to Mukasey.

"There is no legitimate argument for withholding the requested materials from this Committee. The Executive Branch should not obstruct Congress from conducting its constitutional oversight and lawmaking duties by making sweeping assertions of secrecy and privilege."

Leahy and the Bush administration have been embroiled in an ongoing tussle over access to administration documents. As Leahy explains in today's letter, in August he wrote to White House counsel Fred Fielding requesting the documents, and was rebuffed. Fielding referred Leahy to DOJ, which continued to stonewall. As a result, the committee voted to authorize the subpoena, which was issued to Mukasey today.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (15) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (7)
Topics: Michael Mukasey, Senate Judiciary Committee, Torture

ACORN

NM GOP Lawyer Cited In Iglesias Firing Is Back Pushing Bogus Voter Fraud Claims

Zachary Roth | October 20, 2008, 6:41PM

The evidence is growing that the FBI's investigation into ACORN is just the latest iteration of the unprecedented politicization of the Department of Justice that was exposed in the US attorney firings scandal.

Rep. John Conyers, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, today released a second letter about the FBI probe to Attorney General Michael Mukasey. Conyers
noted that the New Mexico GOP last week held a press conference where it publicly named people it said had voted fraudulently in a Democratic primary in June, as part of an ongoing FBI investigation into voter fraud. (ACORN appears to have subsequently shown that those voters were in fact valid.)

And Conyers goes on to make a great catch. He notes that "New Mexico lawyer Pat Rogers -- described in the local press as 'an attorney who advises the state GOP' -- is apparently playing a key role in pressing these current claims." (Conyers is referring to this Associated Press report.)

Conyers continues:

Mr. Rogers, however, appears repeatedly in the report on the U.S. Attorney firings, prepared by the Department's Office of the Inspector General and Professional Responsibility, which documented his actions making flawed claims of voter fraud and bringing unwarranted pressure to bear on law enforcement officials, including Mr. Iglesias, in 2006.

In other words, one of the very same New Mexico GOP activists who was found in the OIG report to have tried to pressure David Iglesias to bring bogus voter-fraud prosecutions is still on the case, and has now helped to get a new federal investigation launched just weeks before the election.

And remember: the OIG report definitively concluded that Iglesias was fired as New Mexico's US attorney for his reluctance to follow up on politically motivated voter-fraud claims, made by local Republicans including Rogers.

There's a broader point worth making too: It's looking more and more like New Mexico is ground zero for the FBI's new investigation. (Remember that the Wall Streeet Journal had reported back on October 9 -- a good week before the news of a nationwide FBI probe broke -- that the bureau was looking into voter fraud in New Mexico.) And given what we saw happen to Iglesias, the FBI's focus on the state, apparently in response to GOP complaints, is further evidence that what's happening in 2008 has as a lot in common with what happened in 2006.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (16) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (31)
Topics: ACORN, David Iglesias, Michael Mukasey, Voting, voter fraud

David Iglesias

Obama Camp Connects ACORN Probe to US Attorneys Scandal

Zachary Roth | October 17, 2008, 3:01PM

Add the Obama campaign to the growing list of players who think that DOJ's election-eve investigation into ACORN is a repeat of the politicization of the department that we saw in the US attorney firings scandal.

"With this voter fraud [investigation], we're seeing an unholy alliance of law enforcement and the ugliest form of partisan politics," Bob Bauer, an elections lawyer with the Obama camp, said on a conference call with reporters just now. Bauer compared the decision to launch the investigation with the US attorneys scandal, in which several US attorneys were fired for their unwillingess to pursue politically charged cases, including voter fraud, with sufficient aggression to satisfy the Bush administration.

Bauer released a letter sent to Attorney General Michael Mukasey calling on him to have the issue taken on by Nora Dannehy, the prosecutor he appointed to investigate the US attorney firings.

Bauer went on to accuse John McCain of "trying to create a much greater doubt about the electoral process altogether," by alleging that ACORN voter fraud could threaten the fabric of our democracy, as McCain claimed in the debate Wednesday night.

House Judiciary chair John Conyers, as well as David Iglesias -- whose firing as US attorney was a direct result of his reluctance to pursue GOP-pushed claims of voter fraud, according to the recent OIG report -- have also connected the FBI's ACORN investigation to the kind of politicization exposed in the firings saga.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (54) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (71)
Topics: ACORN, David Iglesias, John Conyers, Michael Mukasey, Voting

Voting

Conyers On FBI ACORN Probe

Zachary Roth | October 16, 2008, 5:22PM

Below is a letter sent by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chair of the House judiciary committee, to Attorney General Michael Mukasey and FBI director Robert Mueller, in reaction to the news that the FBI has launched an investigation into ACORN in connection with its voter-registration activities.

In raising questions about DOJ's motives, Conyers makes the obvious link to the U.S. attorneys scandal, in which several U.S. attorneys were fired for not pursuing voter fraud cases with sufficient aggressiveness. And he makes the point that John McCain had raised the ACORN issue in last night's debate.

Here's the letter:

Dear Mr. Attorney General and Director Mueller:

It is with shock and disappointment that I read today's Associated Press report that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has opened and leaked an investigation into whether ACORN, a longstanding and well regarded organization that fights for the poor and working class, is involved in nationwide voter fraud.

(The rest is after the jump)

Read more »

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (26) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (47)
Topics: ACORN, John Conyers, Michael Mukasey, Voting

Henry Waxman

Waxman To Probe Fannie and Freddie

Zachary Roth | October 7, 2008, 1:20PM

In response to concerted requests from Republicans, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), who chairs the House Oversight Committee, announced today that the committee will hold hearings into the failure of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Waxman's low-key announcement -- "the request we've received from the minority will be pursued," he said -- came at a hearing with executives of AIG, as part of a committee investigation into the failed insurer. Yesterday, GOP members of the committee launched a campaign to discredit Waxman's broader investigation into corporate misdeeds, including at AIG.

Republicans had also called on Waxman to look into Fannie and Freddie, who, unlike many other corporations implicated in the current financial crisis, have closer ties to Democrats than to the GOP, by some assessments.

At a hearing yesterday, Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, the ranking Republican on the committee, said of Fannie and Freddie: "They seem to be at the epicenter of the crisis, and yet the chairman continues to focus on issues, such as executive compensation, that generate headlines but neither get to the root of the problem nor move us any closer to a solution. We'd hate to think the millions of dollars Fannie and Freddie executives contributed to Democratic congressional candidates also contributed to the reluctance to investigate this aspect of the crisis."

Republicans also called, at this morning's hearing, for Attorney General Michael Mukasey to appoint a special prosecutor to look into Fannie and Freddie.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (4) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (5)
Topics: Bailout, Henry Waxman, Michael Mukasey

U.S. Attorneys

House Dems Question Prosecutor's Independence in U.S. Attorney Probe

Zachary Roth | October 3, 2008, 3:28PM

Democrats are already expressing concern about the independence of the prosecutor appointed by Attorney General Michael Mukasey to look into whether DOJ or White House officials broke the law in firing a group of U.S. attorneys in 2006.

Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) said that the fact that the prosecutor -- Nora Dannehy, the acting U.S. attorney in Connecticut -- is a DOJ employee, could allow the department to interfere with her probe.

Sanchez was speaking at a hearing where DOJ's Inspector General, Glenn Fine testified. It was Fine's report into the firings, released Monday, that prompted Mukasey to appoint Dannehy.

Fine did not offer a ringing endorsement of Dannehy's independence. When Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) asked Fine whether the attorney general could over-rule her, Fine replied: "I will have to leave that for another day."

Sanchez also expressed the fear that Dannehy's findings could remain secret, since she is not formally required to issue a public report.

In addition, lawyers for the House Judiciary Committee, which has been conducting its own investigation into the matter, yesterday wrote to Mukasey and White House counsel Fred Fielding, asking whether they would cooperate with Dannehy's investigation. The Inspector General's report made clear that it was prevented from drawing firmer conclusions by a lack of cooperation from the White House, and, to a lesser extent, the Justice Department.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (13) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (16)
Topics: Glenn Fine, Michael Mukasey, U.S. Attorneys

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.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (9) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (8)
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, Brent Wilkes, Bud Cummins, Carol Lam, DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, David Iglesias, Duke Cunningham, Dusty Foggo, Harriet Miers, John McKay, Justice Department, Kyle Sampson, Michael Elston, Michael Mukasey, Rick Renzi, Todd Graves, U.S. Attorneys

U.S. Attorneys

Prosecutor Named In U.S. Attorney Firing Probe

Kate Klonick | September 29, 2008, 11:09AM

Attorney General Michael Mukasey has appointed Nora Dannehy, a federal prosecutor from Connecticut as prosecutor in the continued investigation of the removal of nine U.S. attorneys.

The appointment comes at the request of a report released today by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility.

According to her biography on the Justice Department webpage, Dannehy became an acting U.S. attorney in April of this year. Prior to her appointment, she served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Connecticut District for 17 years and served as a Professional Responsibility Officer.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (25) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (14)
Topics: Justice Department, Michael Mukasey, U.S. Attorneys

U.S. Attorneys

OIG Report Released

Kate Klonick | September 29, 2008, 10:09AM

The Justice Department Office of the Inspector General has released its 392 page tome on its findings in the investigation into the removal of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006.

The report can be found here (pdf). We'll be digging through it all day, but since it's a monster of a report, we welcome you to sift through it and let us know in the comments section what you find.

We'll be bringing you updates throughout the day so stay tuned.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (3) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (5)
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, Michael Mukasey, U.S. Attorneys

Alberto Gonzales

Report: IG Not Ready To Refer Gonzales to Grand Jury

Kate Klonick | September 29, 2008, 9:11AM

Alberto Gonzales, the former attorney general who oversaw the Justice Department during the firings of nine U.S. attorneys, won't be presently referred to a grand jury for his role in the affair, but a prosecuter will be appointed to continue investigating the involvement of the Bush administration and other law makers in the firings, according to Washington Post sources familiar with a report expect to be released today.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey is preparing to name a prosecutor from within the DOJ to continue the work of the Offices of Professional Responsibly and the Inspector General, the same sources told the Post.

The report, the product of more than a years worth of investigations into the attorneys' firings is expected out this morning. It is co-written by the DOJ Inspector General Glenn Fine and the OPR Director H. Marshall Jarrett.

We'll be bringing you more from the OIG report as soon as it's released today so check back for updates

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (1) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (4)
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, Glenn Fine, Michael Mukasey, U.S. Attorneys

House Judiciary

HJC To Consider Contempt Citation for Mukasey Tomorrow

Kate Klonick | September 9, 2008, 6:06PM

Finally! Congress is back from va-cay, and they've got lots of work to do before years end and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) is wasting no time.

Tomorrow morning, the Committee is scheduled to consider a citation for contempt for Attorney General Michael Mukasey for his failure to supply documents in accordance with the subpoena issued in late June.

The meeting is set to start at 10:15 EST. We'll be sure to keep you updated on what happens.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (12) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (14)
Topics: House Judiciary, John Conyers, Michael Mukasey

Justice Department

Illegally Hired Immigration Judges More Likely to Rule for Deportation

Kate Klonick | August 25, 2008, 5:29PM

In news that should surprise no one familiar with the Justice Department politicization under Monica Goodling and Jan Williams, a study conducted by the New York Times found that immigration judges installed during this period of illegal hiring were more likely than their peers to reject immigrants' bids for asylum.

According to the Times, of the 31 judges appointed during Goodling's tenure, only 16 had extensive enough records to support statistical analysis. Of those, nine rejected immigrant asylum seekers at a rate higher than other local judges, three were more likely to grant asylum, and four were in keeping with averages.

Collectively, the group was 6.6 percentage points greater in denying asylum than their combined local averages.

From the Times:

In Houston, for example, Judge Chris Brisack denied asylum in 90.7 percent of his cases, while other judges in that city averaged a 79.1 percent denial rate. Judge Brisack, a former Republican county chairman who also works in the oil business, did not return a call.

Garry Malphrus, the judge later elevated to the Board of Immigration Appeals, denied asylum 66.9 percent of the time, compared with an average denial rate of 58.3 percent among other judges at his court in Arlington, Va. Judge Malphrus, a former associate director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, did not return a call.

The highest gap belonged to Judge Earle Wilson. He worked first in Miami, where he denied 88.1 percent of asylum requests -- 9.8 percentage points higher than the local average. He then moved to Orlando, where his denial rate was 80.3 percent -- 29.2 percentage points higher than peers.

It wasn't but two weeks ago that Attorney Gen. Mukasey made the bold statement in a speech to the American Bar Association, that the Justice Department would not systematically remove all those hired during the DOJ's period of politicization.

"Two wrongs do not make a right," said Mukasey of the idea of dismissing those hired through the flawed process. "[T]he people hired in an improper way did not, themselves, do anything wrong. It therefore would be unfair - and quite possibly illegal given their civil service protections - to fire them or to reassign them without individual cause."

But even more interesting in the light of the Times report, is Mukasey's specific defense of IJs hired under Goodling's watch and his highlighting of one of the judges he had recently promoted:

One of the Immigration Judges identified by the joint report as having been hired through the flawed process was recently tapped - by the revised hiring process that gives no consideration to politics - to be a member of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Putting aside fairness to him, it would have ill served the public interest not to appoint him merely because those who first hired him had violated the civil service laws. Firing him and all those like him would be wrong, and it would be harmful to the Department and to the country.

In the same speech, Mukasey promised a "swift and unambiguous response" if anyone is "found to be handling or deciding cases based on politics, and not based on what the law and facts require."

The Times study certainly suggests that judges hired under this illegal process were likely to rule more harshly than their peers. It will be interesting to see if Mukasey considers these findings proof of "handling or deciding cases based on politics."

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (10) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (4)
Topics: DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, Justice Department, Michael Mukasey, Monica Goodling

Michael Mukasey

Conyers Criticizes Attorney General For Ruling Out Charges in Hiring Scandal

Andrew Tilghman | August 13, 2008, 5:55PM

Yesterday Attorney General Michael Mukasey made it clear he has no plans to prosecute any of the DOJ officials who clearly violated the law by using political criteria to select career judicial officials.

Apparently, that's not what Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) wanted to hear. The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said there's good reason to think somebody broke the law -- not just for screening out Democrats from key positions, but also failing to fully cooperate with the DOJ Inspector General's investigation.

In a statement today, Conyers said:

I am distressed that Attorney General Mukasey has been so quick to determine that no criminal offense has been committed in connection with the illegal hiring practices at the Department of Justice.
...
It is not enough for Mr. Mukasey to assert that things are different under his watch. The Department of Justice cannot reestablish its credibility so long as it persists in a strategy designed to avoid revealing all the facts that have so compromised the integrity of the Department of Justice and to prevent real accountability for misconduct by former DOJ officials.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (18) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)
Topics: DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Michael Mukasey

Justice Department

Mukasey to Bar Association: "The System Failed"

Kate Klonick | August 12, 2008, 11:28AM

Attorney General Michael Mukasey dove right into the sensitive topic of the politicization of the Justice Department in his speech to the American Bar Association this morning in New York.

"I would like to talk to you today about a topic that I'm sure is of mutual interest," Mukasey began. "[N]amely, professionalism at the United States Department of Justice."

Calling the findings of the two recent reports by the DOJ Inspector General on politicization in the Justice Department "disturbing," Mukasey bemoaned the system for failing to stop the "active wrong-doing."

I want to stress that last point because there is no denying it: the system failed. The active wrong-doing detailed in the two joint reports was not systemic in that only a few people were directly implicated in it. But the failure was systemic in that the system - the institution - failed to check the behavior of those who did wrong. There was a failure of supervision by senior officials in the Department. And there was a failure on the part of some employees to cry foul when they were aware, or should have been aware, of problems.

Mukasey went on to describe the changes to the Justice Department and responded to critics complaints that those named in the OIG reports have suffered no consequences.

"Far from it," Mukasey said. "The officials most directly implicated in the misconduct left the Department to the accompaniment of substantial negative publicity. Their misconduct has now been laid bare by the Justice Department for all to see. . .To put it in concrete terms, I doubt that anyone in this room would want to trade places with any of those people."

Previously, there have been legislative requests to dismiss those hired at the DOJ during this politicized period -- an idea Mukasey called "unfair" today:

Other critics have suggested that we should summarily fire or reassign all those people who were hired through the flawed processes described in the joint reports. But there is a principle of equity that we all learned in the schoolyard, and that remains as true today as when we first heard it: two wrongs do not make a right. As the Inspector General himself recently told the Senate Judiciary Committee, the people hired in an improper way did not, themselves, do anything wrong. It therefore would be unfair - and quite possibly illegal given their civil service protections - to fire them or to reassign them without individual cause.

The full text of the attorney general's speech after the jump.

Read more »

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (31) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (7)
Topics: DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, Justice Department, Michael Mukasey

Michael Mukasey

Mukasey Names New Chief of Staff

Kate Klonick | August 6, 2008, 1:26PM

Attorney General Michael Mukasey has appointed Brian Benczkowski to serve as his chief of staff, replacing Brett Gerry the Justice Department announced today:

Benczkowski, 38, currently serves as chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip.

[He] will succeed Brett Gerry, who will be leaving the Department after more than four years in the Executive Branch, and who has served as the Attorney General's chief of staff since his confirmation.

. . . "I am happy that Brian Benczkowski has agreed to serve as my chief of staff," Attorney General Mukasey said. "Brian has been one of my closest advisers in the Department since my confirmation process, and his exceptional judgment and extensive experience in the Department will be of great value to me and to the Department in the upcoming months."

Regular TPMmuckraker readers might remember Benczkowski as a mouthpiece for the DOJ on the ambiguity of torture and the word "exclusive" as it pertains to FISA.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (5) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (3)
Topics: FISA, Justice Department, Michael Mukasey, Torture

Senate Judiciary Committee

Senate Dems Ask AG Mukasey to "Assess Damage" to DOJ

Kate Klonick | August 1, 2008, 12:35PM

On the heels of the Senate Judiciary Committee's questioning on Wednesday of Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine, and the two recently released OIG reports, seven Democratic members of the committee have requested that Attorney General Michael Mukasey review the damage done to the DOJ by the illegal hiring practices.

Signed by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), and Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD), the letter requests an assessment on the "long-term damage" done to the Department:

We are concerned that the people hired into important career positions throughout the Department using the unlawful, politicized process described in the reports remain in place. This raises the troubling possibility that those positions are held by unqualified, partisan individuals. With this possibility extant, we believe it is inadequate for the Department simply to commit to discontinue the bad practices. There may be continuing consequences of the widespread illegal hiring process. We urge you to ensure that the people put in place via this illegal process meet the Department's high standard of qualifications, and do not undermine the Department's independence and ability to enforce the law without fear or favor.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (6) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)
Topics: DOJ Office Of The Inspector General, Glenn Fine, Michael Mukasey, Senate Judiciary Committee

Karl Rove

Senate Reacts To Court Ruling With New Call For Testimony From Rove And Bolton

Andrew Tilghman | July 31, 2008, 6:56PM

Just hours after a federal judge shot down the White House's claim to sweeping immunity from Congressional oversight, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) fired off a round of letters renewing his demand for testimony from Karl Rove and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten.

The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman sent a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding asking whether the two officials will agree to testify in light of today's ruling against the Bush administration's blanket claim of executive privilege.

The investigation at issue is the allegedly political firings of eight U.S. attorneys. The Senate committee issued subpoenas in June and July 2007 for Bolton and Rove to testify on Capitol Hill.

"Today's decision renders the grounds for Mr. Bolten and Mr. Rove's refusal to comply with the Committee's subpoenas moot," Leahy wrote in the letter to Fielding.

Leahy also sent a terse letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey asking whether he planned to rescind the legal memos based on the theory of blanket executive privileged that the judge dismissed today.

Please advise me by no later than next Thursday, August 7, when you will withdraw the erroneous [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion from Stephen Bradbury relied upon by the White House to justify its non-compliance with congressional subpoenas since that opinion has been repudiated by the court.

In addition, please inform me whether the court's decision will cause you to re-evaluate your memos and those from [Office of Legal Counsel] in support of overbroad and unsubstantiated executive privilege claims not only in the U.S. Attorneys investigation, but also in other matters, like the claims used to block Congress from investigating warrantless wiretapping, the leak of the name of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame for political retribution, and White House interference in the Environmental Protection Agency's decision-making. Which of these do you now intend to withdraw?

Leahy sounds like he's asking for a complete surrender in this ongoing battle over White House officials' testimony. But there's a lot of litigation still to go in this case.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (18) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (11)
Topics: EPA, Josh Bolten, Karl Rove, Michael Mukasey, Senate Judiciary Committee, Valerie Plame