Torture

Internal Justice Dept. Investigation Includes Yoo Torture Memo

Paul Kiel | April 18, 2008, 5:00PM

Just how bad were John Yoo's now-infamous torture memos?

After numerous calls from Congress for the DoJ to get digging, the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility told Congress in February that it is busy investigating Yoo's infamous August, 2002 torture memo. That one, signed by then Office of Legal Counsel chief Jay Bybee, limited the definition of torture to physical pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." It was the administration's so-called "golden shield" which permitted the CIA to use its most aggressive interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding.

And then in March of 2003 came Yoo's memo broadly authorizing the use of torture by military interrogators on unlawful combatants. Now OPR has told Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) that it will be investigating that memo, too.

It is far short of a criminal investigation. OPR's job is to police whether the Department's lawyers behave professionally, and so in this case, OPR's chief Marshall Jarrett has informed Congress that the investigation will be covering "whether the legal advice contained in those memoranda was consistent with the professional standards that apply to Department of Justice attorneys."

So the question for OPR will be whether Yoo came to his roundly-denounced conclusions in a professional, ethical manner. OPR's investigations are usually not publicly released, but Jarrett wrote that "OPR will consider releasing to Congress and the public a non-classified summary of our final report." There's no telling when that would be.

There are plenty of grumbles that the limited scope and independence of OPR's investigation (OPR reports to the attorney general) mean that it won't tell us enough and won't result in any changes. And Attorney General Michael Mukasey has already made it clear that no matter how deeply flawed an Office of Legal Counsel memo might have been (or be), anyone who relied on it "could not be the subject of a prosecution."

Michael Mukasey

Better Than Fredo

Paul Kiel | April 18, 2008, 1:59PM

High praise from Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) for Attorney General Michael Mukasey:

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) today accused the Bush administration of being overly obstinate on a range of controversial issues, expressing particular frustration at Attorney General Michael Mukasey's unwillingness to compromise.

"Mukasey is non-negotiable," Specter said at a meeting with the Washington Post editorial board. "Mukasey is still wearing his robe."...

Specter did give Mukasey faint praise by acknowledging that he was better than his predecessor as attorney general, Alberto Gonzales.

"He's a big improvement," Specter said. "It would be impossible not to be."

"Judge Mukasey is a very learned guy," Specter continued, "but he's a very, very rigid guy. And he was rigid during the confirmation process. He was not easy to deal with when I had the job of shepherding [him] through the confirmation process. But I was for him and I'm still for him compared to either Gonzales or a vacancy."

Karl Rove

Rove's Lawyer: SIKE!!!

Paul Kiel | April 18, 2008, 12:35PM

Oh, man, the House Judiciary Committee must be feeling pretty stupid right now.

Yesterday, the committee followed up on a comment that Karl Rove's lawyer had made to MSNBC, that Rove would welcome the chance to testify to Congress about his role (or lack of one, he says) in siccing Justice Department prosecutors on Don Siegelman.

But it turns out, not so much (sub. req.):

[I]n an interview with Roll Call, [Rove's lawyer Robert Luskin] said that his MSNBC comments were taken out of context.

"Whether, when and about what a former White House official will testify ... is not for me or my client to decide," but is part of an ongoing negotiation between the White House and Congress over executive privilege issues, Luskin said.

That ongoing negotiation, you might remember, is not going so well, since the House has gone to court in an attempt to enforce subpoenas issued last year as part of the U.S. attorney firings probe.

Note: For readers objecting to our spelling of sike, I refer you to the discussion in the comments section to an earlier post.

Global Warming

Again, EPA Asserts Executive Privilege against Embarrassment

Paul Kiel | April 18, 2008, 11:59AM

EPA chief Stephen Johnson has deployed a variety of methods to thwart Congressional scrutiny. There's been old fashioned stonewalling. Testimonial gobbledygook. And of course fleeing the hemisphere.

But there's another recurring method: refusing to turn over internal EPA documents because they would "confuse" the public. Back in January, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) wanted documents that show Johnson ignored his staff when he blocked California's attempt to institute tough greenhouse gas limits on cars and trucks. The EPA said no, in part because "further disclosure could result in needless public confusion about the Administrator's decision." In other words, EPA experts said one thing and Johnson had said another. You can't have that getting out (even though it did).

Staffers from the Senate environmental committee, which Boxer chairs, were finally able to see the documents, but only in EPA offices, and only then after peeling off layers of white tape which the EPA had used to redact the offending portions of the documents.

Now the House global warming committee is after Johnson for his agency's failure to comply with a Supreme Court decision that declared that the EPA had to regulate greenhouse gases. Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA) issued a subpoena for documents that show that the EPA had complied with the Court last December. EPA staff completed work on the matter (as they've told Congressional investigators), but the political leadership has been sitting on it since then.

But Johnson, who's deployed a succession of transparent delaying tactics to avoid regulating greenhouse gases, doesn't want to fork them over. His associate administrator writes:

Read more »

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | April 18, 2008, 9:34AM

I suppose it was always the case that when top military professionals speak frankly about a war, it makes headlines. Still, given Gen. David Petraeus' famously obtuse presentation to Congress last week, this recent report (pdf) from the National Defense University by Joseph Collins, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Stability Operations in the Pentagon until 2004, couldn't provide a starker contrast. It is titled "Choosing War: The Decision to Invade Iraq and Its Aftermath," and it begins:

Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle. As of fall 2007, this conflict has cost the United States over 3,800 dead and over 28,000 wounded. Allied casualties accounted for another 300 dead. Iraqi civilian deaths--mostly at the hands of other Iraqis--may number as high as 82,000. Over 7,500 Iraqi soldiers and police officers have also been killed. Fifteen percent of the Iraqi population has become refugees or displaced persons. The Congressional Research Service estimates that the United States now spends over $10 billion per month on the war, and that the total, direct U.S. costs from March 2003 to July 2007 have exceeded $450 billion, all of which has been covered by deficit spending. No one as yet has calculated the costs of long-term veterans' benefits or the total impact on Service personnel and materiel.

The war's political impact also has been great. Globally, U.S. standing among friends and allies has fallen.2 Our status as a moral leader has been damaged by the war, the subsequent occupation of a Muslim nation, and various issues concerning the treatment of detainees. At the same time, operations in Iraq have had a negative impact on all other efforts in the war on terror, which must bow to the priority of Iraq when it comes to manpower, materiel, and the attention of decisionmakers. Our Armed Forces-- especially the Army and Marine Corps--have been severely strained by the war in Iraq. Compounding all of these problems, our efforts there were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East.

As this case study is being written, despite impressive progress in security during the surge, the outcome of the war is in doubt. Strong majorities of both Iraqis and Americans favor some sort of U.S. withdrawal. Intelligence analysts, however, remind us that the only thing worse than an Iraq with an American army may be an Iraq after the rapid withdrawal of that army.... No one has calculated the psychopolitical impact of a perceived defeat on the U.S. reputation for power or the future of the overall war on terror. For many analysts (including this one), Iraq remains a "must win," but for many others, despite the obvious progress under General David Petraeus and the surge, it now looks like a "can't win."

Don Young

CREW: That Coconut Road Investigation Is Going Nowhere

Paul Kiel | April 17, 2008, 5:56PM

All that bother today will amount to a whole lot of nothing, says Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington's Executive Director Melanie Sloan:

"Clearly, something went seriously awry before the 2005 highway funding bill was sent to the president. The question now is the best way to find out how and why this occurred. It certainly appears as if Don Young (R-AK) snuck in the earmark in exchange for campaign contributions from Florida developer Daniel Aronoff. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) is to be commended for insisting that the Senate address this matter. Nevertheless, in sending the matter over to the Department of Justice, the Senate has ignored the Speech or Debate clause, which prevents law enforcement from introducing legislative material (such as an earmark in a bill) as evidence against a lawmaker.

Read more »

Don Young

Senate Historian: Coconut Road Amendment Unprecedented

Paul Kiel | April 17, 2008, 5:42PM

So the Senate has voted to require the Justice Department to investigate how Rep. Don Young's (R-AK) earmark came to be changed after the bill passed both houses of Congress. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who was pushing a competing solution (an eight-member bicameral committee), says that sets "the troubling and bizarre precedent of turning the Attorney General into the de facto Senate and House Parliamentarian."

And indeed, it does seem to be a first. Associate Senate Historian Donald A. Ritchie said that he couldn't think of a prior occasion when the Senate had asked the Department to investigate a member of the House.

And Coburn's solution didn't have a clear precedent either, he said: while the Senate and the House have formed bicameral committees numerous times in the past to investigate scandals involving lawmakers from both houses, he couldn't think of an instance where one house formed a committee to investigate a member solely of another house. "For the most part, most of the time, each house takes care of its own."

This tutorial on Congressional history has been brought to you by Don Young.

Don Young

Pelosi: Let's Get The House Ethics Committee on The Case!

Paul Kiel | April 17, 2008, 4:50PM

So now the Senate has agreed on an amendment that will require the Justice Department to investigate Rep. Don Young's (R-AK) Coconut Road earmark.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) speaking earlier today said that she thinks the House ethics committee ought to get on the case. She also objected to Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) solution of a bicameral panel, saying "We have an ethics committee. I don't see why that would be necessary."

Yeah, why would that be necessary?

If only a nonpartisan watchdog had filed an ethics committee complaint back in September, then maybe all this noise and Constitutional debate wouldn't be necessary in the Senate. Oh, wait. Taxpayers for Common Sense did file a complaint. And nothing has happened. Because that's what the House ethics committee is best at.

"A lot of air in the Senate has been wasted today because the ethics committee isn't doing its job," Taxpayers for Common Sense's Keith Ashdown told me. "We'll hear the announcement of the ethics committee investiagation as soon as the Justice Department announces that they're indicting Don Young."

The House ethics committee does indeed have a knack for opening investigations of members who are already under investigation by the Justice Department. It's a neat trick, because after opening the investigation they declare that they can't investigate because it would interfere with the Department's investigation.

Don Young

Senate Votes Down Joint Investigation of Coconut Road Earmark

Paul Kiel | April 17, 2008, 4:15PM

As expected, Democrats, with few exceptions, just united to defeat Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) solution of creating a bicameral panel to investigate Rep. Don Young's (R-AK) Coconut Road earmark.

The final vote was 49 for and 43 against. That's far short of the 60 votes needed to pass.

Update: Here's the roll call for that vote.

Don Young

Senate Votes to Call for Justice Department to Investigate Coconut Road Earmark

Paul Kiel | April 17, 2008, 3:54PM

Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) amendment just passed by a margin of 63 to 29. Virtually all Senate Democrats supported the measure, helped by a good number of Republicans.

The amendment requires a review by the Department of Justice into the allegations of impropriety regarding Rep. Don Young's (R-AK) Coconut Road earmark and an investigation into whether the change broke the law.

Immediately after the vote, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who voted against the amendment, called the vote an "amazing precedent" set to invite the "Justice Department to investigate a House rules violation."

The Senate is now moving on to Coburn's solution -- a joint House-Senate investigation. Sen. Boxer declared that such an investigation would "bring the whole bill down" because of Constitutional objections by Democrats in both the House and the Senate.

Update: Here's the roll call for that.

Don Young

Dems, GOP Clash on Coconut Road Investigation

Paul Kiel | April 17, 2008, 3:34PM

In just a couple minutes, the Senate will hold votes on how Rep. Don Young's (R-AK) extra-Constitutional earmark ought to be investigated.

The two options, both offered as amendments to a highway technical corrections bill, are the ones I laid out yesterday.

Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) preferred solution is an investigation by a joint committee of both House and Senate lawmakers with subpoena power.

Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) amendment would direct the Justice Department to review the earmark and investigate whether Young's extra-Constitutional earmark broke the law.

Both will need 60 votes in order to pass according to the deal struck between the parties. Why the high vote threshold?

The Democrats have come hard down on Boxer's side of the discussion, saying that Coburn's solution would result in the unconstitutional situation of members of the Senate investigating the House. Speaking on the floor just now, Sen. Boxer said that the House leadership has made it known that they have strong objections to the measure that might prevent the bill from passing.

Meanwhile, the House Republicans have let it be known that they really don't like the idea of asking the Justice Department to investigate.

So we'll see what happens with the voting. The high threshold could very well mean that neither amendment passes.

If neither of these measures pass, Boxer says that she favors sending a strongly worded letter to the Justice Department as a consolation measure.

Don Siegelman

House Panel Calls Rove's Bluff

Paul Kiel | April 17, 2008, 3:00PM

Sure, Karl Rove would looooove to testify to Congress about his role in the Don Siegelman prosecution, his lawyer told MSNBC. So the House Judiciary Committee is following up. From the AP:

The House Judiciary Committee is taking Karl Rove up on an offer to testify about claims that he influenced a federal corruption case against former Democratic Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama.

The committee on Thursday asked former White House adviser Rove to appear under oath soon. The panel also wants the Justice Department's inspector general to investigate allegations that political motivations drove the Siegelman case and several other federal prosecutions during the Bush administration.

Rove has denied any involvement in the Siegelman prosecution. His attorney told MSNBC earlier this month that Rove would testify on the matter.

Don Young

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | April 17, 2008, 9:18AM

Relax, defenders of the Constitution! They were only fixing a mistake.

Since last August, we've been trying to figure out how Rep. Don Young (R-AK) managed to change the language in a bill after it cleared both houses of Congress. Now we've finally got a little bit of clarity -- Young's staff has finally fessed up to making the change. What remains unclear, however, is whether Young told them to do it.

It was no mystery that Young himself was responsible for the earmark, which provided $10 million to build an I-75 interchange at Coconut Road in Lee County, Florida. Local officials had sought money for a more general project to widen the highway, but real estate developer Daniel Aronoff knew the way to get things done. He held a $40,000 fundraiser for Young in Florida.

Why Young? He was the chairman of the House transportation committee back in 2005 and so the man to go to for an earmark that hadn't managed the support of local officials or lawmakers. It didn't really matter that Florida was about as far from Alaska in the United States that you can get.

So while it's been no mystery that Young was responsible for the earmark, just how he managed to buck the constitutional process for lawmaking hasn't been clear. Back in August, we plowed into the 800-page 2005 bill to see whether there had been any other substantial changes. We found that out of approximately 6,370 earmarks, Young's had been the only to undergo such a change.

But Young refused to discuss it. Taxpayers for Common Sense filed a complaint with the House ethics committee, and still he remained mum.

Finally, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) was successful in pushing for an investigation of the earmark. The Senate is likely to vote today and pass a measure by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) that will refer the matter to the Justice Department for investigation.

And today, after debate raged for hours in the Senate on the best way to investigate Don Young, he's finally fessing up - sort of.

Young himself didn't make the change, his staff tells The Washington Post:

Young's staff acknowledged yesterday that aides "corrected" the earmark just before it went to the White House for President Bush's signature, specifying that the money would go to a proposed highway interchange project on Interstate 75 near Naples, Fla. Young says the project was entirely worthy of an earmark and he welcomes any inquiry, a spokeswoman said....

Young's office accepted responsibility yesterday for the change, insisting that campaign contributions were not the motive. Rather, presentations made by Florida Gulf Coast University officials and the developers proved the case for the project, aides said.

[Meredith] Kenny, Young's spokeswoman, said the lawmaker always intended for the earmark to designate money to the interchange project, not generic highway improvements. So committee aides altered the bill to reflect that after the House and Senate had approved it.

"There was an error in the bill and so it was corrected," she said.

Now, in our pass through the earmark-laden transportation bill, we did find that plenty of "errors" in the bill had indeed been corrected -- by which I mean misplaced commas, typos, etc. But none of those "corrections" changed the projects themselves.

And of course this statement doesn't answer the big question: whether one of Young's staffers might have made such a change to the bill without asking the boss. Because (hopefully) it's not every day at the office that a staffer changes the language of legislation after it passes Congress.

Don Young

Senate to Vote to Investigate Young's Coconut Road Earmark

Paul Kiel | April 16, 2008, 5:39PM

It's a cause that has united lawmakers from right and left alike. How did Rep. Don Young (R-AK) manage to insert an earmark that benefited a campaign contributor after the bill had cleared both houses of Congress?

Where the two sides differ is in how that investigation should take place.

To review the circumstances of Young's extra-Constitutional wizardry: Young, then the chairman of the House transportation committee, inserted a $10 million earmark to widen I-75 in Florida's Collier and Lee Counties in the 2005 bill. The project was supported by local officials. That was the version passed by Congress. But because of Young's unique position, he was able to make a crucial change: the bill later signed by the President had different language, directing the $10 million to an I-75 interchange at Coconut Road. That project had been opposed by local officials, but aggressively backed by real estate mogul Daniel Aronoff, who'd thrown a $40,000 fundraiser for Young that year.

Back in December, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) began pushing for an investigation of Young's extra-Constitutional wizardry. And his preferred solution is an investigation by a joint committee of both House and Senate lawmakers with subpoena power.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), meanwhile, has offered an amendment that would direct the Justice Department to review the earmark and investigate whether Young's extra-Constitutional earmark broke the law.

Both approaches are likely to come up for a vote on the Senate floor either tonight or tomorrow morning. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) favors Boxer's approach. Why? Well, Jim Manley, his spokesman, called Coburn's approach "blatantly unconstitutional" because it would involve one house investigating another house of Congress. You might call that ironic.

Coburn spokesman John Hart, meanwhile, said that Boxer's amendment might lead to nothing, since Coburn didn't believe that Congress had the power to "tell the Justice Department what to do." But he stressed that Coburn was pleased that everyone agrees that Young's earmark should be investigated.

It's also worth mentioning that the FBI is already reportedly investigating the earmark as a possible bribe.

What is clear is that whatever solution emerges, it's more likely to get results than the House ethics committee.

Back in September, the non-partisan watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense filed a complaint with the House ethics committtee about the change. But as expected, the infamously inert committee has done nothing.

And what does Don Young think about all this?

Read more »

U.S. Attorneys

Confirmed: DoJ Investigators Probing Whether Goodling Fired Lawyer Due to Gay Rumors

Paul Kiel | April 16, 2008, 3:39PM

Earlier this month, NPR reported that the Justice Department inspector general's sprawling investigation into politicization at the Department included a probe of whether Monica Goodling had fired an attorney because she'd heard a rumor that the lawyer might be gay.

In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and ranking member Arlen Specter (R-PA) earlier this week, the inspector general Glenn Fine confirmed that his office was digging into such accusations.

It's still anybody's guess when that investigation, which Fine is conducting along with the Office of Professional Responsibility, will conclude. It launched more than a year ago, during the heat of the U.S. attorney scandal.

U.S. Attorneys

Pennsylvania Dems, GOPers Send Open Letter to Mukasey about Wecht Case

Paul Kiel | April 16, 2008, 12:17PM

In an open letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey and U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan today, more than two dozen Pennsylvania public figures urged that the Justice Department "reconsider the publicly announced decision to re-try De. Cryil Wecht." You can see the letter here.

Among the signers are Melissa Hart, a former Republican congresswoman who lost reelection in 2006, Jerry Johnson, the U.S. Attorney for Pittsburgh during the Reagan administration, and both the former and current chair of the Republican Party in Allegheny County. The signers also include a number of members of the Allegheny county council and the Democratic former mayor of Pittsburgh, Tom Murphy. The Wecht case is based on allegations that Wecht misused county resources while serving as coroner there.

Given that the jury hung in the first trial and jurors have told the media that most of them had agreed on acquittal, the signers agree that a second trial "would certainly not be in the interest of justice."

It's just the latest bit of pressure put on prosecutors. Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Mike Doyle (D-PA) have already expressed their concern that prosecutors used FBI agents to contact jurors who served on the case. Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, a Republican, also criticized that decision. And that's on top of the scrutiny the case has had for months.

Today, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette reports that prosecutors are pondering shopping for an out-of-town jury for the retrial because of negative media coverage of the case.

Seas of David

Again, Govt's Kooky Cult Terrorism Case Goes Bust

Paul Kiel | April 16, 2008, 11:44AM

Back in December, jurors deadlocked on the Seas of David terrorism case. As I wrote back then:

The Miami "Seas of David" terror bust was such an important blow in the War on Terror that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales himself gave a press conference in July of 2006. Federal agents had stopped a plot to blow up the Sears Tower, he said. The group had planned to "accomplish attacks against America," the FBI's deputy director said at Gonzales side. "We pre-empted their plot."

Well, a second trial has reaped the same result.

It's no mystery why. I recommend to take a trip through our archives to get a feel for why the jurors might have balked.

Freedom's Watch

Dems Accuse Freedom's Watch of Working with GOP

Paul Kiel | April 16, 2008, 11:13AM

Everybody knows what Freedom's Watch is looking to do this election: get Republicans elected. But there's a line that can't be crossed and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee says that they crossed it. From The Washington Post:

Democratic Party officials said they will file a complaint today with the Federal Election Commission alleging that a conservative political group has illegally coordinated its advertising with a Republican Party campaign committee in advance of a May 3 special election in Louisiana.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the fundraising and campaign arm for House Democrats, alleges that the script for a television ad purchased by Freedom's Watch, an independent conservative political committee, can be traced to the National Republican Congressional Committee.

You can see details of the DCCC's complaint here, including a side by side comparison of an ad run by the National Republican Congressional Committee and Freedom's Watch's ad, which according to the DCCC started running immediately after the NRCC's ad ceased. There are indeed some remarkable similarities.

But Patrick McCarthy, the media consultant who put together Freedom's Watch's ad, tells the Post that there's an innocent explanation.

Read more »

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | April 16, 2008, 10:14AM

Rep. Don Young (R-AK) has spent more than one million dollars on criminal defense lawyers. And for some reason, reporters won't stop asking him questions about it.

Are the feds investigating whether Young took bribes from the corrupt executives at Veco (as The Wall Street Journal has reported)? What about his ties to Jack Abramoff? Anything else?

This February, he practically leaped out of his seat at a journo who had the temerity to press for details. "It's not my prerogative to answer to people who have nothing to do with it. That's you," he said and claimed that his constituents weren't bothered with his support of the legal community -- only nosy muckrakers. When the reporter protested that he was a constituent, Young asked if the reporter had voted for him. "No, sir," the reporter replied, and that was that.

Now that Young has officially crossed the million dollar mark, reporters are badgering him again. And yesterday Young struck a different tone:

Young... said he wished he could speak his mind. He can't, he said in a statement released Tuesday, because "both the Department of Justice and my lawyers have asked that I not comment further on the investigation. I MUST honor this request," using capital letters for emphasis.

"Many people have been concerned about my legal fees and I do not take their concerns lightly... I have learned that the legal process is an expensive process, but I have nothing to hide. When it comes to my family and my character, the truth is priceless. That is exactly why I hired good legal counsel, and I have worked fully with the Department of Justice by answering their questions and providing them with anything they have requested."

Despite all the unjust scrutiny, Young has tried to make things right. Last year, his campaign committee tried to reimburse Bill Allen, formerly the CEO of Veco and now a full-time cooperator, for approximately $38,000 that Allen spent putting on Young's big annual pig roast fundraiser every year (see to the right).

Young's chief of staff explained to The Anchorage Daily News that the campaign was simply doing its due diligence and discovered the problem. Their caution might have also had something to do with the fact that a number of state lawmakers had had their offices raided by the FBI as part of the Veco investigation.

In any case, Allen was already cooperating with the feds by the time that Young tried to make amends. And Allen, not surprisingly, did not accept the cash. In its filing with the FEC this week, the campaign does not offer an explanation, only writing "Two checks paid to Bill Allen in the total amount of $37,626.00 in January 2007 for fundraiser costs were not cashed by Mr. Allen. These funds were later disgorged to the US Treasury in January 2008."

You know it's got to hurt Young, such an accomplished earmarker, to be giving perfectly good money up to the government.

Jack Abramoff

In 2000 Hearing, Schaffer Executed Abramoff Lobbying Strategy -- Again

Paul Kiel | April 15, 2008, 6:46PM

Add this to the growing catalog of former U.S. Rep. Bob Schaffer's actions on behalf of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Jack Abramoff's longtime client. In a July 2000 House resources committee hearing, Schaffer -- now a GOP candidate for U.S. senator from Colorado -- took the lead in interrogating two officials from the Interior Department's Office of Insular Affairs about alleged political activities on the job.

One of those officials was Allen Stayman, formerly the director of the Office of Insular Affairs in the Interior Department, and, as a persistent proponent of increased federal regulation of immigration and labor conditions on the islands, Abramoff's nemesis.

"We intend to use the hearings to impeach Stayman and his campaign against the CNMI," Abramoff wrote in a 1998 memo to Willie Tan, a garment manufacturing mogul who operated a number of plants on the islands. The Office of Insular Affairs, "led by Stayman, has been the main source of difficulty for the CNMI," the memo said.

Schaffer had enthusiastically enacted Abramoff's strategy in a 1999 hearing. Schaffer charged that Office of Internal Affairs officials had secretly paid laborers to participate in a protest against conditions on the islands when the Abramoff-organized Congressional delegation (including Schaffer) arrived.

The Abramoff strategy was still in effect in 2000. In a May 2000 billing statement to the Marianas, Abramoff wrote: "Continued close monitoring of OIA scandal developments and used opportunities thus provided to advance CNMI arguments against [legislation that would strengthen labor laws on the islands]."

Read more »

Global Warming

Bush to Lay out New Way Forward on Global Warming

Paul Kiel | April 15, 2008, 3:51PM

After seven years of foot dragging and stonewalling by the Environmental Protection Agency, has the administration finally seen the light? From the AP:

President Bush is giving a Rose Garden speech on Wednesday on climate change to lay out the way he thinks the U.S. can reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

White House press secretary Dana Perino says that Bush will not outline a specific proposal, but instead will spell out a strategy for long-term goals for curbing emissions....

In his remarks, he also will talk about legislative proposals on Capitol Hill that the administration has expressed opposition to, as well as regulatory issues.

So, in brief, no. The Washington Times reported on Monday that Bush would begin pushing on global warming because Bush administration officials "fear a coming regulatory nightmare."

In other words, the stonewalling and foot dragging, though masterfully executed by EPA chief Stephen Johnson, won't be able to buy much more time. The Supreme Court ruled one year ago that the EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and that it had to act. Johnson may soon run out of string on that one. And several states are suing the EPA over his decision to block California's institution of tough emissions limits on cars and trucks.

So "regulatory nightmare" or "regulatory train wreck," as White House spokeswoman Dana Perino prefers, is a way of saying that the resulting limits would be too low for their taste.

So what will the White House support? Something that threads the needle with a solution that is not so weak that Democrats will not support it, while somehow placating conservatives who would prefer that there be no mandatory limits. Perino describes the administration's aim as a "reasonable and responsible action." Should be fun.

Hookergate

Breaking: Jury Finds D.C. Madam Guilty on All Counts

Paul Kiel | April 15, 2008, 1:33PM

Not so fantastic news for the purveyor of a legitimate "fantasy sex" operation.

It looks like the prosecution's "long, sad parade of former prostitutes" did its work. Deborah Jeane Palfrey was convicted on a slate of racketeering and money laundering charges related to running the service.

Election 2008

IRS to Big-Spending Attack Groups: Ahem

Paul Kiel | April 15, 2008, 12:17PM

As we reported last week, millionaire-funded and operative-helmed attack groups looking to make a splash in the elections this year are choosing nonprofits as their preferred vehicle. Acting as 501(c)(4) organizations, the groups are allowed to attack all they want and keep their donors secret.

There's a catch, of course. The groups are nominally "social welfare" organizations, groups that are allowed to engage in political activity as long as that is not its primary purpose. That's why you see all the groups claim that they are focused on issues, not candidates, even when it's apparent that's not the case.

It's a hazy line, and one that the groups hope that the IRS doesn't explore. But as Roll Call reported yesterday, the IRS says it's taking a "close look" at whether the groups go too far.

But don't expect the IRS to step in any time soon. The IRS official tells the paper that the IRS likely wouldn't act until after the groups filed their taxes next year (by which time, of course, a president might be in the White House due in large part to a campaign by a lawbreaking group). And what happens then? Well, it's unclear:

The IRS director also agreed that -- perhaps unlike the FEC -- a broad IRS sweep of wayward nonprofits may yield better results than the recent high-profile fining of 527s by election regulators. And although the IRS is likely to just revoke a group's tax status and slap it with a fine, another source within the IRS said that serious violators could "go through our criminal investigations area ... and it could end up at the Justice Department."

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | April 15, 2008, 10:10AM

Prepare to have your credulity tested.

Back in February, the AP broke the story that the White House had secretly modified a proposed rule to crack down on contract fraud. The rule, originally drafted by the Justice Department, was intended to force contractors to police themselves and report evidence of fraud or abuse. But the White House's version of the rule specifically exempted contractors working overseas on contracts that exceeded $5 million.

The Justice Department, which needs all the help it can get in busting corrupt contractors, was dismayed. But it made the major overseas contractors (like, say, Blackwater, KBR, CACI International, etc.), who had been opposing the rule, very happy.

When the AP asked why the White House had inserted the loophole, no answers were forthcoming. A spokeswoman from the Office of Management and Budget would only say that it was a "proposed rule," and that they were reviewing public comments.

And that was it. Over the ensuing months, members of Congress from both parties denounced the rule and vowed investigations. Even the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction publicly criticized the rule. But the White House otherwise stayed mum.

The first Congressional hearing was set for today. And the White House has let it be known that the loophole is gone -- and that it was all a big misunderstanding:

Reversing itself after months of criticism, the administration closed the loophole that was quietly slipped last year into a proposed Justice Department crackdown on government contract fraud....

Government policywriters said the original rule was drawn up quickly, and chided the Justice Department for not explicitly making sure that overseas contracts should be included in the crackdown. "It was only after publication of the proposed rule ... that DoJ and other respondents expressed concern about the overseas exemption," the draft states....

A Bush administration official on Monday called the loophole "a drafting error" that happened when policywriters merely cut and pasted a 20-year-old Defense Department regulation into the contracting crackdown.

Oh well. Mistakes do happen.

Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT), who had called for the hearing, seems not to take the White House's story at face value: "This investigation proves why oversight works.... The question is why it required a congressional investigation to prevent the Bush administration from giving overseas contractors a free pass to defraud taxpayers."

Jack Abramoff

Schaffer Played Attack Dog against Exploited Marianas Worker

Paul Kiel | April 14, 2008, 7:21PM

Republican Senate candidate Bob Schaffer swears he's never met Jack Abramoff. But his track record of serving as a key ally for one of Abramoff's star clients, the Northern Mariana Islands, makes it clear that the two had a surprising overlap of interests over a number of years.

This weekend, The Denver Post detailed how Schaffer had beautifully orchestrated Abramoff's lobbying strategy for the islands in a September, 1999 Congressional hearing.

Schaffer told the Post that his "were questions that occurred to me at the time listening to the testimony." But it's apparent from the course of the hearing that's not true.

In a 1998 memo, Abramoff had laid out that strategy, which concentrated on attacking Interior Department officials who had been advocating stricter immigration and labor laws on the islands. Flying lawmakers on junkets to the islands, Abramoff wrote, was "one of the most effective ways to build permanent friends on the Hill." The September hearing occurred just weeks after Schaffer's Abramoff-organized trip to the islands.

Perhaps even more remarkable, though, was the form that Schaffer's attack took against Interior officials. Human rights activists had arranged for Nousher Jahedi, a Bangladeshi laborer who'd been robbed by human traffickers on his way to the Northern Marianas, to appear at the hearing.

Schaffer's aggressive questioning of Jahedi brings to mind comments that Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) entered into the Congressional record in 1997 -- comments that were shown to have been prepared by Jack Abramoff. Hall said that one of the key test cases of abuse on the islands, the testimony of a fifteen year-old girl who'd been forced to work for a local nightclub, was being distorted. She "wanted to do nude dancing." Hall has also said he never met Abramoff.

In his prepared statement, Jahedi told the committee that he'd paid a $7,000 "recruitment fee" to get a job on the islands, a U.S. territory, but that his recruiter had robbed him of $1,700 at gunpoint in the Philippines, and then demanded an additional $29,000 when the group of Bangladeshis finally reached the islands. When they could not pay, they were turned loose and found themselves "homeless and destitute."

Schaffer led the questioning of Jahedi. In a clearly choreographed allotting of time by the Republican members of the committee, Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA), a key Abramoff ally who chaired most of the hearing, ceded all of his questioning time for Schaffer to grill Jahedi.

Read more »

U.S. Attorneys

Fired U.S. Attorney: Use of FBI to Contact Jurors "Smells of Intimidation"

Paul Kiel | April 14, 2008, 3:57PM

Count former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias among those who are critical of prosecutors' use of FBI agents to contact jurors from the Pittsburgh trial of Dr. Cyril Wecht.

The contacts came after the judge declared a mistrial because the jury was hung. Jurors have since told reporters that most of them had wanted to acquit Wecht. Nevertheless, prosecutors immediately declared their intent to retry the case.

Iglesias, one of the nine U.S. attorneys fired in 2006 as part of the political purge, told me that he'd "never heard" of such a thing. "Using the FBI smells of intimidation. The [prosecutors] should have picked up the phone and called the jurors themselves. I would have not authorized the FBI to contact jurors in this manner."

The spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan has said that using the FBI agents was "commonplace."

"If that's true," Iglesias said, "I would change the practice because it sends the wrong message to people."

Iglesias also said that the case -- which involves charges that Wecht, then Allegheny County's coroner, wrongly billed taxpayers for mileage and gas costs that were really related to his personal business, costs that his lawyers say amount to less than $2,000 -- sounds "penny-ante" to him. "The loss to the government is so small," he said, that he thought many local prosecutors, let alone federal prosecutors, would "turn it down for being de minimis."

Civil Rights Division

Dem FEC Nominee Withdraws, Leading to Further Delay

Paul Kiel | April 14, 2008, 3:04PM

Things were already looking pretty hopeless for the FEC, but they just got bleaker. In a letter to White House chief of staff Josh Bolten today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) says that Robert Lenhard, one of the Democratic nominees for the commission, has withdrawn his name because of the ongoing stalemate.

It will most likely take "several months" to replace Lenhard, Reid writes, meaning that it's sure to be awhile before Democrats and Republicans can agree on a batch of nominees. Not that there have been any signs of hope anyway: Democrats continue to insist that the Senate vote on vote-suppression guru Hans von Spakovsky separately from the other three nominees, and Republicans refuse to allow that.

Meanwhile, the fracas over John McCain's withdrawal from public financing goes unresolved and outside groups are mounting up without worry of any imminent harassment from the FEC.

Update: By way of explanation, Lenhard has landed a gig (sub. req.) at the mega firm Covington & Burling.

Iraq Contractors

Hearing on Twenty-Something Contractors Postponed

Paul Kiel | April 14, 2008, 1:38PM

For those of you waiting to hear from the senior executives behind AEY, Inc., you'll have to wait a little longer. The House oversight committee, which had set a hearing for 22 year-old AEY President Efraim Diveroli, his 25 year-old VP (and masseur) David Packouz, and the company's general manager, also 25, to testify, has indefinitely postponed the hearing.

Packouz's lawyer had informed the committee that his client would be pleading the Fifth unless he received immunity to testify -- something which seems unlikely. So that likely has something to do with the postponement. Diveroli and his boyz are under federal investigation for allegedly lying about the source of the ammunition he provided to the Afghan army.

Alberto Gonzales

Wanted: Disgraced Former Administration Official with Zero Credibility

Paul Kiel | April 14, 2008, 1:15PM

Somehow things just aren't working out for Alberto Gonzales:

Alberto R. Gonzales, like many others recently unemployed, has discovered how difficult it can be to find a new job. Mr. Gonzales, the former attorney general, who was forced to resign last year, has been unable to interest law firms in adding his name to their roster, Washington lawyers and his associates said in recent interviews....

The greatest impediment to Mr. Gonzales's being offered the kind of high-salary job being snagged these days by lesser Justice Department officials, many lawyers agree, is his performance during his last few months in office. In that period, he was openly criticized by lawmakers for being untruthful in his sworn testimony. His conduct is being investigated by the Office of the Inspector General of the Justice Department, which could recommend actions from exonerating him to recommending criminal charges.

John McCain

Dems File Suit against FEC to Force Investigation into McCain

Paul Kiel | April 14, 2008, 11:10AM

It's a pretty little mess. Despite being warned by the chairman of the FEC that he could not withdraw from the primary public funding system without the FEC's say-so, McCain, claiming to have withdrawn, has continued to spend away, by now far exceeding the spending cap. And the FEC remains powerless to act. (Here's our rundown on the whole thing.)

Today, the Democratic National Committee filed suit in federal court, seeking to force the FEC to action. The DNC filed a complaint with the FEC back in February, but since the FEC does not have enough commissioners to officially open an investigation, nothing has happened. The suit asks that the judge order the FEC to act, and if it doesn't, clear the way for the matter to be resolved in court. The soonest that could happen, DNC lawyers say, is June.

Here's a copy of the suit filed today.

Must Read

Today's Must Read

Paul Kiel | April 14, 2008, 9:35AM

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), your prayers have been answered! The D.C. Madam's attorney tells the AP that he will not be calling her most famous former client as a witness.

Of course, Vitter's attorney made it as clear as he could that Vitter would not be a helpful witness for the former madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Palfrey's defense is that she was running a legitimate "fantasy sex" operation from her laundry room in California. Vitter's attorney said his client would plead the Fifth if called; not a helpful spectacle for the madam's case.

If Vitter and his escort didn't restrain themselves to fantasy, they weren't alone. The prosecution has called more than a dozen of Palfrey's former escorts to testify, and it hasn't been pretty. From The Washington Post:

The jurors have watched a procession of scared, mortified ex-prostitutes (13 so far) reluctantly take the witness stand, forced to reveal their secret former lives in intermittently graphic detail -- a past each clearly hoped was buried forever. Most testified that they grew weary of the business in less than a year and quit.

At $250 for 60 minutes or so, these weren't high-priced call girls, it turns out. They didn't measure up in appearance to the elites in the business. As the women tell it, Palfrey's niche was a middle-of-the-road, largely suburban clientele -- a long way up from the streetwalker trade, but well south of Emperors Club VIP, the four-figure-per-hour call girl outfit that last month proved the undoing of former New York governor Eliot Spitzer....

[T]he trial has been just a long, sad parade of former prostitutes, some in wigs provided by the government, a feeble disguise, a few dabbing tears on the witness stand.

The Post offers some snippets of testimony to convey the tone of things:

Prosecutor: "Of those 80 appointments, approximately how many times did you have sex?"

Ex-call girl: "Seventy-nine. . . . All except the gentleman who was a quadriplegic."

and:

Defense attorney: "Ma'am, you ultimately decided that this wasn't for you, right? . . . I believe you were tired of lying to your boyfriend, correct?"

Ex-call girl: "Yes."

Defense attorney: "And you're not particularly happy to be here, are you, ma'am?"

Ex-call girl: "Who would be?"

Amen to that, eh, Sen. Vitter?