Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 30, 2007, 8:52AM

The Justice Department is far from the only government agency troubled by politicization under the Bush administration. All you have to do is spin the wheel.

So today, it's the Fish and Wildlife Service! And at the center of it is one Julie A. MacDonald, appointed by Bush to be the deputy assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks at the Interior Department. The very ugly details of her malfeasance have been exposed by an inspector general report. (Update: MacDonald, by the way, has a degree is in civil engineering and has no formal educational background in natural sciences.)

Ms. MacDonald, whose job is to oversee policy decisions on endangered species and other wildlife, sent internal agency documents to industry lobbyists (e.g. she twice sent "internal Environmental Protection Agency documents — one involving water quality management — to individuals whose e-mail addresses ended in 'chevrontexaco.com,") and generally ran roughshod over agency scientists.

Here's how she works: MacDonald just made stuff up. If scientists recommended a certain action, MacDonald would alter the recommendation or simply ignore it if it threatened industry or landowners in any way.

Some examples of her scientific method:

MacDonald tangled with field personnel over designating habitat for the endangered Southwestern willow flycatcher, a bird whose range is from Arizona to New Mexico and Southern California. When scientists wrote that the bird had a "nesting range" of 2.1 miles, MacDonald told field personnel to change the number to 1.8 miles. Hall, a wildlife biologist who told the IG he had had a "running battle" with MacDonald, said she did not want the range to extend to California because her husband had a family ranch there.

And:

MacDonald argued with Hall over the Kootenai River sturgeon, a fish in Montana and Idaho that needs a certain level of river flow in order to spawn. Field biologists determined that the sturgeon's needed flow level ranged between 2.3 and 5.9 cubic feet per second, but MacDonald instructed them to cite only the 5.9 figure, which would have aided dam operators. After Hall demanded she put the request in writing, the report noted, "she ultimately relented and they kept the 2.3 to 5.9 range."

And:

...Ms. MacDonald lobbied for a decision to combine three different populations of the California tiger salamander into one, thus excluding it from the endangered-species list, and making the decision legally vulnerable. A federal district judge overturned it in 2005., saying the decision was made “without even a semblance of agency reasoning.”

The Interior Department's Inspector General has referred the case to Interior's top officials for "potential administrative action." We'll see if she gets a scolding or a pat on the head.

U.S. Attorneys

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 28, 2007, 8:30AM

Yesterday, FBI Director Robert Mueller appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee to grovel for forgiveness. Over the past several years, the FBI has used thousands of National Security Letters to improperly obtain private information on citizens. The reasons, according to Mueller: "mistakes, carelessness, confusion, lack of training, lack of guidance and lack of adequate oversight."

The senators spent some time scolding him, but relented after it was clear he wouldn't fight back. Mueller's penitence, Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) soothingly observed, "seems to be a break from many in this administration now."

But the hearing was also a golden opportunity to grill Mueller on the firings of the U.S. attorneys.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wanted to know whether Mueller had ever gotten wind of election fraud cases that should have been indicted, but were not (remember, U.S. attorneys work hand-in-hand with the FBI). Mueller responded that he'd never heard, nor asked about such a thing. Schumer followed up, asking whether the administration had consulted him about the prosecutors' performance on election fraud investigations. Again, no. Was he consulted at all about any of the prosecutors' performance before the firings? No.

The bottom line: though powerful Republicans were upset with the decisions not to indict Democrats for voter fraud, the investigators on the ground were not. Mueller said that regional offices do customarily pass complaints about U.S. attorneys up the chain for "serious cases."

There was another fruitful line of questioning.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) wanted to know why the bureau chief for San Diego Dan Dzwilewski had complained to the press about Carol Lam's firing, said that he "guaranteed" politics was involved, and that without her, a number of ongoing investigations might be jeopardized. Specter didn't want to hear that from the press -- he wanted to hear that sort of thing from Mueller.

Mueller responded that Dzwilewski hadn't passed such complaints up the chain, and that "my understanding is that our chief out there believes he was misquoted, but that our investigations were continuing, without any diminishment."

Misquoted? Sen. Dianne Feinstein followed up:

FEINSTEIN: Well, we followed up and I had my chief counsel call them to verify what they said. And they said, yes, they said it. But they also said they'd been warned to say no more. Are you aware that they had been warned to say no more?

MUELLER: Yes, I am.

FEINSTEIN: And why would that be?

MUELLER: Because I do not think it's appropriate for us to comment on personnel decisions that are made by the Department of Justice....

FEINSTEIN: Well, I profoundly disagree that he was commenting on a personnel matter per se. He was simply saying that it would affect cases that were ongoing. And I think he's entitled to his opinion.

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 27, 2007, 9:23AM

Finally, some clarity.

The New York Times provides the history of U.S. concern over Iran's role in Iraq, reporting that in July, 2005, the U.S. sent a diplomatic protest to Iran over the use of allegedly Iranian-made explosives (EFPs) being used against coalition troops in Iraq by Shiite groups.

Somehow these concerns culminated in the U.S. military's infamous, anonymous EFP press briefing in mid-February.

It was a long road. But let's focus in on one thing. It's always been a credible allegation that Iran would in some fashion be supplying its Shiite proxies in the civil war, but let's set that aside. That's not the allegation that the U.S. made in that briefing and immediately thereafter. Rather, the administration clearly made a choice to focus on the evidence that Iranian manufactured weapons were being used in Iraq and stay silent on the crucial detail of who they were being used by. The briefing referred to Iranian support of generic "extremists," without specifying Sunni or Shiite.

The reason for this choice was clear: the vast majority of U.S. casualties come at the hands of Sunni insurgents, not Shiite. But suddenly Iran was elevated to being the major enemy there. Soon senior State Department officials were claiming that Iran is "the most disruptive, negative force in the Middle East." Move over, Al Qaeda.

But it's clear from the Times' piece that there was never any ambiguity -- on the part of the U.S. military, at least -- as to whom Iran might be supplying with weapons.

And that briefing? It wasn't for the purpose of galvanizing public support for a war against Iran, no. It was merely a tactical decision:

...in Baghdad, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., then the top American commander, approved plans to brief the news media on the E.F.P. issue — a reversal for military officials, who had been reluctant to highlight the effectiveness of the weapons for fear of encouraging their use.

“Our intelligence analysts advised our leaders that the historical Quds Force pattern is to pull back when their operations are exposed, so MNF-I leadership decided to expose their operations to save American lives,” said Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the chief spokesman for Multinational Forces-Iraq, as the American-led command is known.

I guess we all just overreacted then?

Update: And while we're at it, it's worth mentioning again that the claim that Iran is the only possible supplier for EFPs in Iraq has been debunked.

U.S. Attorneys

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 26, 2007, 8:46AM

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce you to the Blackberry Defense.

The setup: on February 6th, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the administration intended to nominate (and have the Senate confirm) replacements for all the ousted prosecutors. But as the emails make clear, Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff Kyle Sampson was advising the use of the AG's newfound power to appoint replacements indefinitely -- without the trouble of Senate confirmation.

The Justice Department, remember, has said that Sampson was a conspiracy unto himself, and that he failed to inform McNulty of his machinations before McNulty misled Congress. Sampson, on the other hand, says many other Department officials knew, including those involved in preparing McNulty to testify.

The emails show that Sampson wasn't shy about the scheme. He discussed it freely with members of the White House counsel office, including Harriet Miers. In October of 2006, he forwarded one of these discussions to Michael Elston, McNulty's chief of staff.

But wait... if McNulty's right hand knew, how could McNulty himself not know? Your answer:

“Either Elston did not scroll down on his BlackBerry to read the last section [of the e-mail] or it made no impression on him, because he knew that it did not reflect the department’s plan for replacing the U.S. attorneys who would be asked to resign,” says spokesman Brian Roehrkasse.

There you go: the contemporary version of "I do not recall."

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 23, 2007, 8:00AM

Soon after he was confirmed as Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates began to advocate closing down Guantanamo Bay, The New York Times, reports. He argued that the base "had become so tainted abroad that legal proceedings at Guantanamo would be viewed as illegitimate."

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice backed him up. But they had a powerful contingent opposing them:

Mr. Gates’s arguments were rejected after Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and some other government lawyers expressed strong objections to moving detainees to the United States, a stance that was backed by the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, administration officials said.

...[T]he high-level discussions about closing Guantánamo came to a halt after Mr. Bush rejected the approach, although officials at the National Security Council, the Pentagon and the State Department continue to analyze options for the detention of terrorism suspects.

The main logic for Cheney's and Gonzales' opposition was two-fold. First and foremost was the reason that Gitmo was created, because bringing the prisoners to American soil would make things much more complicated -- because of American law. Second was that, even though Bush has said that he wants to eventually close Gitmo, "closing it would be seen as a public admission of an incorrect policy" (i.e. much better for Bush to go back on his word than reverse a disastrous policy).

For now, Gates and Rice are on the losing side of the debate. But that might not last too much longer:

Even so, one senior administration official who favors the closing of the facility said the battle might be renewed.

“Let’s see what happens to Gonzales,” that official said, referring to speculation that Mr. Gonzales will be forced to step down, or at least is significantly weakened, because of the political uproar over the dismissal of United States attorneys. “I suspect this one isn’t over yet.”

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 22, 2007, 9:16AM

It's almost too perfect. The only U.S. attorney fired by the administration in December who undeniably had performance issues was begrudingly added to the list at the last minute -- and only then because of a federal judge's threat that he would go to Congress with complaints about the prosecutor's performance.

The Los Angeles Times tells the story of San Francisco's Kevin Ryan today, who, as the scandal over the firings began to simmer early this year, telephoned the Justice Department to assure them that he's still a "company man."

Unlike seven other fired federal prosecutors who may have run afoul of the administration for political reasons, San Francisco U.S. Atty. Kevin Ryan was a team player for Bush and had influential Republican support. A friend of the president even went to bat for Ryan after his firing.

"You would have to know Kevin," said UC Hastings College of the Law professor Rory Little. "You can't find a stronger supporter of the Bush administration agenda."

His tenure, however, was plagued by morale problems and accusations that he was a bad manager. A number of the office's most experienced lawyers left....

Even with the unrest, Ryan's support in Washington held during the first few months that planning for the ousters was underway. In an e-mail from D. Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff to Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales, to Harriet Miers in March 2005, Ryan was in a category described as "strong U.S. Attorneys who have produced, managed well, and exhibited loyalty to the President and Attorney General." Other U.S. attorneys who were later fired were listed in a column recommending termination.

The following January, Sampson added Ryan to a list of federal prosecutors who might be removed based on performance evaluations. But he was left off later firing lists in September and November, e-mails show.

Ryan only was added to the list in early December, after a federal judge warned the Justice Department that she was "going to ask members of Congress to get her a copy of the blistering evaluations the department had done of Ryan earlier that year." The emails strongly suggest that Ryan was fired in order to prevent that from happening.

Just let that sink in. In the only case where there was a strong case for firing, the DoJ had to be extorted to do it.

It was not always that way at the DoJ. Remember that, before he left in August of 2005, then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey* generated his own list of U.S. attorneys to be fired. Only his list was completely different from the list finally generated by Alberto Gonzales' deputy, Kyle Sampson -- save one name: Kevin Ryan.

U.S. News explained the discrepancy:

In principle, [a former Justice Department official] says, Comey was not opposed to removing incompetent people.

However, Comey's definition of incompetence turned out to be quite different from Sampson's and had nothing to do with politics, says the former official.

*Update: This erroneously read "Paul McNulty" earlier, who's the current Deputy Attorney General.

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 21, 2007, 9:03AM

The best bunch of prosecutors you'd ever want to fire.

I've said it before here, and I'll say it again. One of the remarkable aspects of the U.S. attorney firings is that the Justice Department didn't select a group of mediocre prosecutors and then try to smear them as underperforming -- oh, no. They chose from among the most distinguished U.S. attorneys in the country (by the DoJ's own admission), and then announced to the world that they'd canned them for "performance related" issues.

Let's go down the list, shall we?

New Mexico's David Iglesias, we pointed out yesterday, was considered for a promotion in 2004 to head up the office that oversees all U.S. attorneys. And that wasn't the only promotion for which he was considered. As The Washington Post points out this morning, he was also considered for the position of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia (the crown jewel of the U.S. attorney offices) and U.S. Attorney for Manhattan (another very high profile office -- just ask Rudy Giuliani). And just to clinch it, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey (he left in August of 2005), has called Iglesias "one of our finest and someone I had a lot of confidence in as deputy attorney general."

And then there's Arizona's Paul Charlton. Here's what Comey to say about him (from The Los Angeles Times):

"I considered you a star among U.S. attorneys," Comey told Charlton in [a Feb. 9 e-mail]. "You ran an office with a staggering caseload, in both numbers and variety, and did it beautifully."

Comey added that he knew of "no performance issues" with Charlton. "In fact, quite the contrary, because you were at the top of your class."

And Seattle's John McKay. Here's Kyle Sampson, Alberto Gonzales' right hand and the point man for the purge, writing about McKay in August, 2006: "re John, it's highly unlikely we could do better in Seattle." (Update: as a reader points out below, this was written in the context of considering McKay for a position as a federal judge in Seattle, but I think it's fair to say the point still applies.)

And then there's the case of Daniel Bogden of Nevada, the one Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty got cold feet about just two days before he was fired ("I'm a little skittish about Bogden"). Even though he was supposedly derelict in his prosecution of obscenity cases, the Justice Department is currently helping him get another position at the DoJ.

Of course, everyone knows how Carol Lam distinguished herself, but despite bringing the highest profile case in the Justice Department's recent history (with the exception of the Abramoff investigation), she doesn't seem to have had any champions inside the Gonzales Justice Department. Funny.

Ed. Note: Thanks to TPM Reader RK for catching the McKay email.

Update: The AP adds more: "Six of the eight U.S. attorneys fired by the Justice Department ranked in the top third among their peers for the number of prosecutions filed last year, according to an analysis of federal records."

U.S. Attorneys

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 20, 2007, 9:00AM

OK, reporters from the major papers, like TPM readers, spent a bleary-eyed night scanning the emails released last night. Let's look at the highlights.

The Washington Post reports that Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. Attorney for Chicago, got a middling rating from Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff and purge meister Kyle Sampson in early 2005 (the Plame investigation was in full swing). Since that information is actually redacted in the released emails, the Post got that helpful bit of information from certain "administration officials."

Sampson had a three-tiered rating system, remember -- loyal Bushies, "not distinguished" and weak. Certainly Fitzgerald is no loyal Bushie, and apparently even Sampson couldn't bring himself to rate him as weak, given that he'd won the Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service in 2002.

The Post also notes the email cited last night by U.S. News as the "most worrisome" to Justice Department officials -- one that has Gonzales "extremely upset" at his deputy Paul McNulty because McNulty had the gall to admit that U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins was pushed out for no other reason than to install Karl Rove's former aide. But why was he really so upset? As Gonzales' spokesman put it in the email, "I think from a straight news perspective we just want the stories to die."

The AP cites an email written on February 1st, as the scandal was brewing. At the time, Kyle Sampson was understandably unhappy at the prospect of Bud Cummins testifying:

"I don't think he should," Gonzales' chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, wrote... "How would he answer: Did you resign voluntarily? Who told you? What did they say?"

One subscandal of this overarching scandal, remember, is that a Justice Official, on at least two separate occasions, threatened the fired U.S. attorneys with the release of bad information if they continued to speak out.

The AP also flags one of the more embarrassing emails, which shows DoJ #2 McNulty having second thoughts about canning Nevada's Daniel Bogden:

'I'm a little skittish about Bogden," McNulty wrote in a Dec. 7 e-mail to Sampson. "He has been with DOJ since 1990 and, at age 50, has never had a job outside government."

Still, McNulty concluded: "I'll admit have not looked at his district's performance. Sorry to be raising this again/now; it was just on my mind last night and this morning." [my emphasis]

And yes, Bogden was one of those "performance related" firings.

The Los Angeles Times flags an exchange that has Kyle Sampson assuring everyone after McNulty's testimony before the Senate in early February that this whole flap is blowing over:

[DoJ spokeswoman Tasia] Scolinos also told Sampson that she "didn't think the hearing had gone all that well" for the Justice Department.

But Sampson told Roehrkasse and Scolinos that McNulty felt good after testifying, and believed the matter was about over.

"He's hearing good reports from the committee. In particular, Sen. [Charles E.] Schumer's counsel told him that the issue has basically run its course, that they need to get a little more information from us … but that will be it."

The LA Times also focuses on the many emails from one of the fired prosecutors we haven't heard very much about, Margaret Chiara. Chiara, apparently, got wind that she would be fired in early November, and immediately contacted McNulty with the hope of keeping steady work. And after it was said publicly that she was being asked to step aside for "performance reasons, she wrote McNulty asking him to "reconsider" that rationale, adding "It is in our mutual interest to retract this erroneous explanation."

Apparently Chiara thought she was being forced out for other reasons. As The New York Times reports, Chiara also wrote in the emails that "she was being removed to make way for a member of Congress who was expected to lose his seat in the November election."

The Times also flags an exchange that displays the wooden comedy of assistant AG Bill Mercer:

After a colleague said in a July 8 e-mail message that he was “sad” about something, Bill Mercer, a top Justice Department official, jokingly suggested some reasons.

“That Carol Lam can’t meet a deadline,” he wrote, “or that you’ll need to interact with her in the coming weeks or that she won’t just say, ‘O.K. You got me. You’re right, I’ve ignored national priorities and obvious local needs. Shoot, my production is more hideous than I realized.’ ”

Apparently, Lam was something of a punching bag for Mercer and his buddies. Yet somehow that disdain didn't work it's way into the department's official evaluations of Lam's performance.

Stay tuned as we dive in to last night's comment thread to see what TPM readers have dug up. And did I mention that there are some 2000 more pages to be put online today?

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 19, 2007, 8:47AM

It's becoming one of the central rules of the U.S. attorney purge scandal: whatever "performance related" complaint the administration claims as the justification for a U.S. attorney's firing, it's actually an area of performance for which that U.S. attorney was lauded.

In this instance, the White House has said that U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico was removed in part due to his handling of voter fraud complaints. That's backed up by the numerous instances of powerful New Mexico Republicans (including Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM)) complaining to Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales, and President Bush about Iglesias' decision not to prosecute certain cases of voter fraud.

What does this mean? It means that Iglesias must have been lauded by the Justice Department for his handling of voter fraud cases. And not just lauded -- but cited as an example for U.S. attorneys across the country. From The Washington Post:

One of the U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration after Republican complaints that he neglected to prosecute voter fraud had been heralded for his expertise in that area by the Justice Department, which twice selected him to train other federal prosecutors to pursue election crimes.

David C. Iglesias, who was dismissed as U.S. attorney for New Mexico in December, was one of two chief federal prosecutors invited to teach at a "voting integrity symposium" in October 2005. The symposium was sponsored by Justice's public integrity and civil rights sections and was attended by more than 100 prosecutors from around the country, according to an account by Iglesias that a department spokesman confirmed.

Iglesias, a Republican, said in an interview that he and the U.S. attorney from Milwaukee, Steven M. Biskupic, were chosen as trainers because they were the only ones identified as having created task forces to examine allegations of voter fraud in the 2004 elections. An agenda lists them as the panelists for a session on such task forces at the two-day seminar, which featured a luncheon speech by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

According to Iglesias, the agency invited him back as a trainer last summer, just months before a Justice official telephoned to fire him. He said he could not attend the second time because of his obligations as an officer in the Navy Reserve.

There are, of course, other instances of this rule.

Justice Department official William Moschella told Congress that U.S. Attorney John McKay of Seattle was fired because of he'd been too aggressively pushing his office's regional law enforcement information-sharing program. But McKay pointed out during the hearing that the DoJ had actually made his system the DoJ's pilot project and chosen McKay to lead the U.S. attorneys' work on the issue.

Similarly, San Diego's Carol Lam was supposedly fired because of her office's failure to prosecute immigration cases. But it turns out that the Justice Department vouched for Lam's handling of such cases just three months before she was fired, citing, for instance, the fact that half of her staff was devoted to prosecuting such crimes.

One of the more remarkable aspects of this story, indeed, is the fact that the Justice Department chose a small group of the most distinguished U.S. attorneys in the country and then tried to portray them as incompetent. As you can see, it's been a losing effort. And in every case where the cover story has been blown, it's revealed political motivations for the firing.

Note: The whole voter fraud thing is actually the second line floated as the reason for Iglesias' firing. The first (what might be called the cover story's cover story) was that there had been a failure of leadership in his office. Iglesias, Moschella announced to the Congress, had often "delegated to his first assistant the running of the office." What Moschella did not mention is that Iglesias is a Navy Reserve officer, which means that he's required to serve 40 days during the year -- something, of course, that the Justice Department knew full well when they gave him the job.

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 16, 2007, 9:24AM

Now that the morning papers have taken a shot interpreting the email released late yesterday, let's take another look.

Shortly after the email's release, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters that the email does not show that the idea of firing certain or all U.S. attorneys began with Karl Rove. And, admittedly, the email backs her up. Of course, it certainly doesn't show that Rove didn't come up with the scheme, either.

The January 9th, 2005 email (subject line: "Re: Question from Karl Rove"), in which Justice Department official Kyle Sampson brainstorms on what to do about the U.S. attorneys, begins with "Judge and I discussed briefly a couple of weeks ago." He then goes on to say, “As an operational matter we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current U.S. attorneys — underperforming ones," the "we" there being Sampson and Alberto Gonzales (who is called "Judge" because he was once a a Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas).

That puts Sampson and Gonzales discussing the idea way back in December, 2004. (A DoJ spokesperson said in a statement yesterday that Gonzales "has no recollection" of that discussion.)

Perino stuck to the line yesterday that the whole idea of firings all 93 U.S. attorneys started with White House counsel Harriet Miers. Perino says that "Karl Rove has a recollection of hearing it from Harriet, and thinking it was a bad idea. There is nothing in this e-mail that changes that.... [It] does not contradict nor is it inconsistent with what we have said."

Now, Miers didn't even take over as White House counsel until early February, 2005. But Perino said that in the months between her being named to the spot (November, 2004) and actually starting work, "she would have been thinking about transition issues." But Perino admits that it's "not clear when the idea first originates, but the bottom line is, the idea is never pursued."

But let's step back here for a moment.

Whether the idea of firing all the sitting U.S. attorneys was originally Miers' or Rove's brainchild or not is mostly a red herring at this point. Whatever the original seed of the purge, it clearly became an opportunity for the administration to push out federal prosecutors who were not "loyal Bushies." That's the idea that really matters. And Rove was involved in that effort from its first steps.

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 15, 2007, 8:58AM

So what's next? Culled from the papers this morning, here's a roundup of where the attorney purge scandal is headed these next couple of days.

Alberto Gonzales, in an increasingly desperate attempt to keep his job, has said that he'll meet with members of Congress sometime this week to explain himself. It's unclear when or where that will be.

Meanwhile, both the House and Senate judiciary committees are pressing forward with their investigations.

A small group of lawmakers from both the House and Senate met with White House counsel Fred Fielding yesterday concerning their request for documents and to interview White House officials, including Karl Rove. Fielding, apparently, told them he'll get back to them Friday after speaking with the president. At issue, of course, is whether the White House will assert executive privilege. That would mean war.

According to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who was at the meeting, Fielding "said that he wanted to make this work because he had a reputation, his own reputation, to uphold.”

But though the committees have gone out of their way to be amicable, that doesn't mean they'll be sitting on their hands waiting for an answer from the White House.

As Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) put it: “Frankly, I don’t care whether Fielding says he’s going to allow people or not. We’ll subpoena the people we want.... If they want to defy the subpoena, then you get into a stonewall situation I suspect they don’t want to have.”

And so this morning, the Senate committee will vote on whether to issue subpoenas to Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers, and William Kelley, a former top aide to Miers.

We'll know tomorrow, it seems, whether they'll have to use them.

U.S. Attorneys

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 14, 2007, 8:53AM

Yesterday, White House counselor Dan Bartlett got out in front of the cameras to say that President Bush had "all the confidence in the world" in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

But, as The New York Times reports, there are murmur in high places:

[Gonzales'] appearance underscored what two Republicans close to the Bush administration described as a growing rift between the White House and the attorney general....

The two Republicans, who spoke anonymously so they could share private conversations with senior White House officials, said top aides to Mr. Bush, including Fred F. Fielding, the new White House counsel, were concerned that the controversy had so damaged Mr. Gonzales’s credibility that he would be unable to advance the White House agenda on national security matters, including terrorism prosecutions.

“I really think there’s a serious estrangement between the White House and Alberto now,” one of the Republicans said....

....inside the White House, aides to the president, including Mr. Rove and Joshua B. Bolten, the chief of staff, were said to be increasingly concerned that the controversy could damage Mr. Bush.

“They’re taking it seriously,” said the other of the two Republicans who spoke about the White House’s relationship with Mr. Gonzales. “I think Rove and Bolten believe there is the potential for erosion of the president’s credibility on this issue.”

As the Times and other papers note, no Republicans have yet called for Gonzales' resignation, although a number of high-profile figures, like Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), who heads up the National Republican Senatorial Committee, have said that they're on their last nerve.

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 13, 2007, 8:14AM

OK, there's a lot to sift through in the two stories out from The Washington Post and New York Times today, but let's just focus on the tick-tock of events outlined in the two stories.

So here's the storyline (and please save your expressions of disbelief until the end):

The idea to replace U.S. attorneys was first floated by White House counsel Harriet Miers in February 2005. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales "rejected that idea as impractical and disruptive." And Karl Rove "vaguely recalls telling Miers that he also thought firing all 93 was ill-advised."

So in March 2005, a counselor to Gonzales, Kyle Sampson (who went on to become Gonzales' chief of staff in September 2005) sent an e-mail to Miers that ranked all 93 U.S. attorneys. Here's how the Post describes the breakdown:

Strong performers "exhibited loyalty" to the administration; low performers were "weak U.S. attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc." A third group merited no opinion.

The Post doesn't mention it, but in December 2005, the administration, via Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter's (R-PA) chief counsel, slipped a provision into the Patriot Act reauthorization bill that made it possible to replace U.S. Attorneys permanently without Senate confirmation.

In January 2006, "Sampson sent to the White House the first list of seven candidates for dismissal, including four who were fired at year's end: [Michigan's Margaret] Chiara, [Arkansas' Bud] Cummins, [San Diego's Carol] Lam and [San Francisco's Kevin] Ryan. The list also recommended Griffin and other replacements, most of whom were edited from documents viewed by The Post."

In March, the Patriot reauthorization bill finally passed Congress and was signed into law.

In June, U.S. Attorney for Arkansas' Eastern District Bud Cummins gets a call asking him to resign.

Read more »

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 12, 2007, 8:40AM

Salon's headline, "The Army is ordering injured troops to go to Iraq," pretty much sums it up.

On February 15th at Fort Benning, GA, Salon reports,

Master Sgt. Jenkins and 74 other soldiers with medical conditions from the 3rd Division's 3rd Brigade were summoned to a meeting with the division surgeon and brigade surgeon. These are the men responsible for handling each soldier's "physical profile," an Army document that lists for commanders an injured soldier's physical limitations because of medical problems -- from being unable to fire a weapon to the inability to move and dive in three-to-five-second increments to avoid enemy fire. Jenkins and other soldiers claim that the division and brigade surgeons summarily downgraded soldiers' profiles, without even a medical exam, in order to deploy them to Iraq. It is a claim division officials deny.

Salon interviewed a number of the soldiers who were declared fit enough for deployment, including a soldier whose spine is "separating," one who "corkscrewed" his spine, one who "suffers from degenerative disk disease," and another with chronic sleep apnea.

As a captain at Ft. Benning tells him (the one with the corkscrewed spine): "It is a numbers issue with this whole troop surge... They are just trying to get those numbers."

Of course, this is just one Army base and just one unit. Maybe the perfunctory examination was the inspiration of one commander there. Or maybe not:

Other soldiers slated to leave for Iraq with injuries said they wonder whether the same thing is happening in other units in the Army. "You have to ask where else this might be happening and who is dictating it," one female soldier told me. "How high does it go?"

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 9, 2007, 8:08AM

Every day it's something new. Today it's the Justice Department's Inspector General who throws more gasoline on the bonfire. From The Washington Post:

A Justice Department investigation has found pervasive errors in the FBI's use of its power to secretly demand telephone, e-mail and financial records in national security cases, officials with access to the report said yesterday.

The inspector general's audit found 22 possible breaches of internal FBI and Justice Department regulations -- some of which were potential violations of law -- in a sampling of 293 "national security letters."...

Fine found that FBI agents used national security letters without citing an authorized investigation, claimed "exigent" circumstances that did not exist in demanding information and did not have adequate documentation to justify the issuance of letters.

The PATRIOT Act, of course, gave the FBI an extraordinary amount of flexibility in seeking information without the nuisance of probable cause. The bureau only need certify that the records are "sought for" or "relevant to" an investigation "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."

"In 2005 alone," the Post reports, citing the audit, "the FBI issued more than 19,000 such letters, amounting to 47,000 separate requests for information."

But the FBI apparently ignored even those flimsy requirements. The most glaring abuse appears to concern the so-called "exigent letters":

The report identified several instances in which the FBI used a tool known as "exigent letters" to obtain information urgently, promising that the requests would be covered later by grand jury subpoenas or national security letters. In several of those cases, the subpoenas were never sent, the review found.

The review also found several instances in which agents claimed there were exigent circumstances when none existed. The FBI recently ended the practice of using exigent letters in national security cases, officials said last night.

Just a coincidence that they ended the practice right before the IG's report was released, I guess.

As a result of the laxity with NSLs, the FBI seems to be swimming in personal information: "In an unknown number of other cases, third parties such as telephone companies, banks and Internet providers responded to national security letters with detailed personal information about customers that the letters do not permit to be released."

Now, although officials tell the Post that the "known problems may be the tip of the iceberg in an internal oversight system that one of them described as 'shoddy,'" the inspector general's report apparently states that these were not "manifest deliberate attempts to circumvent statutory limitations or departmental policies." In other words, the FBI agents didn't know they were breaking the law or the rules. What's worse, they apparently didn't care enough to check.

Update: The Post reports:

Members of Congress vowed today to conduct investigative hearings -- and consider reining in parts of the Patriot Act -- following revelations of pervasive problems in the FBI's use of national security letters to secretly obtain telephone, e-mail and financial records in terrorism cases.

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 8, 2007, 8:33AM

Finally, we have a definition for "surge." From The New York Times:

The day-to-day commander of American forces in Iraq has recommended that the heightened American troop levels there be maintained through February 2008, military officials said Wednesday.

And the number of troops? The administration has admitted the need for 21,500 extra combat troops, plus as many as 7,000 additional support troops (though they'll likely need many more), plus "some 2,200 additional military police," according to the Times. That's a total of 30,700, bringing the total number of troops in Iraq to approximately 160,000.

So there's your "surge."

Now, the Times cautions that this timetable is just "a confidential assessment" by the commander, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno and has yet to be vetted by Gen. David H. Petraeus, Defense Secretary Bob Gates and others.

And there are clear consequences:

...if Mr. Bush decides to extend the buildup, the first of the Army brigades to return to Iraq with less than a year at home are likely to do so later this year.

“As you move to less than a year, you’re beginning to erode the ability of the service chiefs to produce a ready force,” said a senior Pentagon official...

But, then, maybe that's looking at the situation from the wrong perspective. As a "senior Defense official in Iraq" tells the Times, “There is Washington time and Baghdad time." He continues to make a statement that can be read in about five different ways:

“Some in Washington want it now, and there is reality on the ground in Baghdad. They don’t always match.”

Not the first time that reality in Baghdad hasn't conformed with reality in Washington, for sure.

In any case, the administration needs to make a decision "soon," the Times reports, to make sure the force is kept at that higher level by identifying which units are staying longer or going back earlier.

Note: The Dems seem poised to play out their "Bad Cop" role with regard to Pakistan, making good on Good Cop Cheney's threat.

U.S. Attorneys

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 7, 2007, 9:36AM

Yet another tutorial in how not to do damage control.

Yesterday, former U.S. Attorney for Seattle John McKay testified that he'd been contacted by Rep. Doc Hastings' (R-WA) chief of staff a few weeks after the November 2004 gubernatorial election, in which the Democrat had won by a scant couple hundred votes after multiple recounts. Republicans had alleged voter fraud. McKay testified that Cassidy called him on "behalf of the Congressman" to inquire about the status of any investigation into the alleged fraud.

McKay, immediately on guard, responded (sub. req.) with public accounts of the investigation's status, and then before Cassidy pressed further, told Cassidy that he was "certain" that Cassidy was not asking him to "reveal information" about the status of a probe or “lobby me on one.” Cassidy, McKay testified, agreed that no, sir, he was not doing that, and then the call ended.

So what does Cassidy, who now works for Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), have to say about it? Here's his statement:

“My conversation with John McKay was a routine effort to determine whether allegations of voter fraud in the 2004 gubernatorial election were, or were not, being investigated by federal authorities... As the top aide to the chairman of the House Ethics Committee, I understood the permissible limits on any such conversation. Mr. McKay understood and respected those boundaries as well. I am pleased that Mr. McKay recalls both our agreement to respect these boundaries and my subsequent decision to end the conversation promptly.”

"Routine effort?" That makes it sound as if Cassidy makes it a habit to call up federal prosecutors and ask whether their office is investigating Democrats, doesn't it? As CREW has detailed in their requests for investigations of Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM), it's against the rules of both houses for members to inquire about the status of a particular investigation. Why? It's obvious: because that's an indirect way of applying pressure to a prosecutor to get a move on.

Maybe that's why Rep. Hastings took the opposite tack in his statement:

“Ed Cassidy’s call and the conversation that took place were entirely appropriate... It was a simple inquiry and nothing more — and it was the only call to any federal official from my office on this subject either during or after the recount ordeal.”

So either it was "routine" or it was the "only" call anybody from Hastings' office ever made like this. Which is it?

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 6, 2007, 9:54AM

Ah, the lessons learned.

So. As we ready ourselves for the congressional hearings today, during which an already raging scandal will get a full airing, we hear from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who tells The Wall Street Journal what all this has taught him: "We could have rolled out the decisions more smoothly."

Put this together with the "acknowledgment" by White House officials that "the administration mishandled the firings by not explaining more clearly to lawmakers that a large group was being terminated at once -- which is unusual -- and that the reason was the policy performance review," and it's clear that this scandal is nothing more than a PR failure, at least in the administration's view.

But let's gauge the PR failure moving into today's hearings. Today, in just one morning of reporting, we find out from McClatchy that a Justice Department official threatened the U.S. attorneys that if they continued to talk about the circumstances of their firing, "previously undisclosed details about the reasons they were fired might be released"; The Washington Post reports that Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) has finally admitted that she called U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to question him about his office's investigation of a state Democrat -- though she risibly argues that she was trying to help Iglesias, not pressure him; The New York Times reports that another U.S. attorney says that he was run out of office for pursuing a corruption investigation of Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich (R); and the senior Justice official who, apparently reluctantly, made the actual calls to fire seven of the prosecutors, has resigned in the midst of the scandal, though he says his resignation is unrelated.

Yes, I'd say the decisions could have been rolled out more smoothly.

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 5, 2007, 8:56AM

Two weeks after breaking the Walter Reed scandal, The Washington Post's Anne Hull and Dana Priest report on the avalanche of correspondence they've received from vets detailing similar conditions at VA outpatient facilities across the country:

Hundreds of soldiers contacted The Washington Post through telephone calls and e-mails, many of them describing their bleak existence in Medhold.

From Fort Campbell in Kentucky: "There were yellow signs on the door stating our barracks had asbestos."

From Fort Bragg in North Carolina: "They are on my [expletive] like a diaper. . . . there are people getting chewed up everyday."

From Fort Dix in New Jersey: "Scare tactics are used against soldiers who will write sworn statement to assist fellow soldiers for their medical needs."

From Fort Irwin in California: "Most of us have had to sign waivers where we understand that the housing we were in failed to meet minimal government standards."

It's clear that this was a scandal waiting to break. And now that it's broken, lawmakers can't get enough of it -- even though the deplorable condition of the VA (a backlog of 400,000 benefit claims) was no great secret. The difference, of course, is that what was acceptable has become unacceptable:

For years, politicians have received letters from veterans complaining of bad care across the country. Last week, Walter Reed was besieged by members of Congress who toured the hospital and Building 18 to gain first-hand knowledge of the conditions. Many of them have been visiting patients in the hospital for years, but now they are issuing news releases decrying the mistreatment of the wounded.

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 2, 2007, 9:12AM

McClatchy Newspapers filled in the blanks last night, citing "two people with knowledge of the incident" that Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) were the two lawmakers who called in mid-October to pressure New Mexico's U.S. Attorney David Iglesias about his office's investigation of a state Democrat.

Iglesias himself has all but named Wilson and Domenici (he said in a TV interview that he was "not surprised" that Wilson and Domenici had refused to comment) and given his detailed description of the calls to NPR yesterday, we already have a pretty good idea of what he'll be telling the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

There were two calls. Here's how McClatchy describes the first, from Rep. Wilson:

Wilson was curt after Iglesias was "non-responsive" to her questions about whether an indictment would be unsealed, said the two individuals, who asked not to be identified because they feared possible political repercussions. Rumors had spread throughout the New Mexico legal community that an indictment of at least one Democrat was sealed.

And here's Iglesias' own description of that call:

The first call was in mid-October. The caller was asking –- this was not a staff member, an actual member of Congress -- the person was asking about “I want to know if there are any sealed indictments.” And I said, “Sealed indictments? We only do that for juvenile cases or national security cases. It’s fairly unusual.” Instantly red flags went up. I didn’t want to talk about it. Federal prosecutors can’t talk about indictments in general until they’re made public. So I was evasive, I shucked and jived like Walter Payton used to for the Chicago Bears, and the call was ended rather abruptly....

A little bit later, Sen. Domenici followed up, according to McClatchy:

Domenici, who wasn't up for re-election, called about a week and a half later and was more persistent than Wilson, the people said. When Iglesias said an indictment wouldn't be handed down until at least December, the line went dead.

Iglesias' description:

Approximately a week and a half later I got a second call from another member of Congress wanting to know about when the corruption matters were going to filed. Again, red lights went on. It was a very unpleasant phone call, because I know that members of Congress should not be making phone calls about pending matters, pending investigations, indictment dates, things of that nature.

And Iglesias is not the only one who seems like he might drop a bomb on Tuesday. As Josh pointed out, the former U.S. Attorney from Arkansas' Eastern District Bud Cummins gave a rather pointed "no comment" to the AP when the reporter asked if officials from the Justice Department or White House had urged him not to testify before Congress.

Or as Cummins told The Washington Post, "If [the committee] would like to hear one of the few facts I have, I'm happy to tell them."

So what do the other U.S. attorneys who will testify, Seattle's U.S. Attorney John McKay and San Diego's Carol Lam, have in store for the committee? That's not clear.

McKay is sure to get questions about persistent rumors in the Seattle legal community that he was pushed out "to appease Washington state Republicans angry over the 2004 governor's race." As The Seattle Times reported, "Some believe McKay's dismissal was retribution for his failure to convene a federal grand jury to investigate allegations of voter fraud in the race." McKay, who reportedly got one of the most glowing performance reviews from the Justice Department, has already said that he was given no reason for his dismissal.

But the one prosecutor people are most eager to hear from -- Lam, who headed up the Duke Cunningham investigation -- has been utterly silent (except for those indictments two days before she stepped down, you know). The top FBI official in San Diego has already said, "I guarantee politics is involved." Will Lam say the same?

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | March 1, 2007, 8:23AM

Ex-Rep Bob Ney (R-OH) heads to prison today, where he'll spend the next thirty months. But before he disappears behind the gates of rustic FCI Morgantown, Ney sent an email out to friends and family, waxing philosophical on his fate. It was a touching send off from the man who accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes.

The email:

hello,

i will not have access to e mail so this will be my last for awhile. i wanted to drop you a short e mail to give you my address:

robert ney
inmate number 28882-016
fci morgantown
446 greenbag road
route 857
morgantown, west virginia 26501

i also wanted to thank you for all you have done for me and my family. your kind words, thoughts, and prayers throughout the last six months have helped all of us quite a lot.

someone asked me the other day, if i wish i had never ran for office. i answered that i am glad that i did. nothing can erase the wonderful memories, thoughts, constituents, and changes that we, working together with the republicans and democrats, have been able to do. working to bring jobs to the district, helping constituents with issues, and trying to change law to help people has been the greatest memory ever.

would i change things if i could, sure. am i sorry for things that happened, absolutely, and i will pay the price. but, i am grateful for many good people in our office that helped the district and grateful for a free nation, the men and women that protect it, and a wonderful constituency in the district that i used to serve.

my family and i have lost everything on an economical basis, house, health care, possesions, but so have other people, people in the district, many, have lost all. and yes , that is painful for anyone that has gone through it, but, i am so fortunate to have my wife and children, we are so rich with family, friends like you, loved ones that are there for us, and full of hope for a good future.

the darkest days are not ahead, i have gained a higher power, the god of my understanding, is with all of us and that allows me to view tomorrow, although as a day of loss of freedom, as a day of enlightenment and of life to come.

as garth brooks said in his song the dance:

and now i'm glad i didn't know
the way it all would end, the way it all would go
our lives are better left to chance,
i could have missed the pain,
but i'd have had to miss, the dance

my family and my life is starting new, thanks for being part of it.

god bless,

bob ney

Note: Just for fun, compare and contrast the letter-writing styles of ex-Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) and Bob Ney.

Update: On a more serious note, don't miss the latest from The Washington Post today on the Walter Reed scandal: "Top officials at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, including the Army's surgeon general, have heard complaints about outpatient neglect from family members, veterans groups and members of Congress for more than three years."