Torture

Torture Hearing: What Did We Learn?

Zachary Roth | May 13, 2009, 2:10PM

So, what came out of today's hearings on torture?

• Perhaps the main piece of news came when Philip Zelikow, the former top State Department lawyer, revealed that the memo he wrote offering an alternative view on the legality of torture -- which he says the Bush White House tried to destroy -- has been located, and is being reviewed for declassification. The memo figures to be a hot item when released.

Read more »

Torture

Lindsey Graham Browbeats Torture Witness

Zachary Roth | May 13, 2009, 1:38PM

Here's some fun/horrifying video form the torture hearings this morning of Lindsey Graham browbeating a witness, David Luban of Georgetown Law, who disagrees with him. Graham repeatedly asks questions, then prevents Luban from finishing his answer when the witness starts to say something that Graham objects to.

Senate Judiciary Committee

Graham Cites Debunked Report To Argue For Torture

Zachary Roth | May 13, 2009, 12:24PM

It looks like Lindsey Graham just cited John Kiriakou's interview with ABC News, in which the former CIA interrogator claimed that the use of enhanced interrogation techniques broke Abu Zubaydah within minutes.

Did Graham miss the fact that ABC News's report has been authoritatively debunked -- and that ABC News has acknowledged as much?

Looks like he did -- or doesn't care.

Torture

Bush Admin Lawyer: Gitmo Became "Toxic Problem" For US

Zachary Roth | May 13, 2009, 11:59AM

Philip Zelikow is now being asked about the decision by President Obama to close Guantanamo.

He told the committee:

Guantanamo has become in world public opinion a toxic problem for the United States America. And so we needed to address that in our foreign policy.

Zelikow also said -- contra the fear-mongering by GOPers lately -- we routinely hold in US mainland prisons terror suspects like Ramzi Yousef who are believed to be far more dangerous than many of the detainees in Gitmo.

Torture

Soufan Challenges Torture Advocates' Case

Zachary Roth | May 13, 2009, 11:50AM

Ali Soufan is now making the point that torture advocates cite the interrogations of KSM and Jose Padilla as two cases in which torture produced results. But waterboarding wasn't approved until August 1, 2002 -- after the interrogations of those two suspects occurred.

In other words, he seems to be arguing that such techniques weren't used, at least with legal sign-off, to produce that information.

This will undoubtedly need follow up.

Senate Judiciary Committee

Soufan: Lawful Techniques, Unlike Torture, Got Key Intel From Zubaydah

Zachary Roth | May 13, 2009, 11:38AM

This is fascinating...

Sheldon Whitehouse is leading Ali Soufan through questioning. What Soufan is saying is that when he used lawful interrogation techniques agaist Zubaydah, he got actionable intelligence within an hour, including the identification of Khalid Sheik Mohamed as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

However, when a contractor came in and began using harsher techniques, Zubaydah clammed up. It became clear that Zubaydah had received training on how to resist torture.

Torture

Soufan: Torture Is "Amateurish Technique"

Zachary Roth | May 13, 2009, 11:32AM

Ali Soufan, who has participated in interrogations of high-level terror suspects including Abu Zubaydah, is giving a detailed explanation of superior intelligence methods, within the Army field manual, that don't involve torture.

Soufan said that when he used such methods on Zubaydah, they produced actionable intelligence in less than an hour.

As for torture, said Soufan: "This amateurish technique is harmful to our long-term interests. It plays into the enemies playbook."

Soufan made clear: "My interest is not to advocate the prosecution of anyone." Rather, he wants to see us learn from our mistakes.

Torture

Whitehouse Quotes Talleyrand

Zachary Roth | May 13, 2009, 11:24AM

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, chairing the torture hearings, quotes French revolutionary era diplomat Talleyrand:

The greatest danger in times of crisis comes from the zeal of those who are inexperienced.

Now the next witness, former FBI agent Ali Soufan, is speaking. Soufan has asked that his face not be shown, so most cameras have been removed from the room. The CSPAN camera is showing the other witnesses.

Philip Zelikow

Zelikow: My Alternative Torture Memo Has Been Found And Is Being Reviewed For Declassification

Zachary Roth | May 13, 2009, 11:10AM

Philip Zelikow just offered a bit of news about the memo he wrote offering an alternative view on the legality of torture, which he said the White House tried to have destroyed.

Zelikow told the Senate committee that the memo, which had not previously been found, "has been located in State Department files and is being reviewed for declassification."

He said that at the time, he thought the effort to have the memo destroyed -- which he described as "informal" -- was "improper" and ignored it.

And it sounds like we may get a look at it soon.

Philip Zelikow

Zelikow, Testifying This Morning, Calls For Independent Torture Probe

Zachary Roth | May 13, 2009, 10:06AM

As we prepare for a Senate hearing on the Bush torture program, it's worth taking a look at an interview that one of the key witnesses, Philip Zelikow, gave to Foreign Policy's Laura Rozen yesterday, which provided an advanced look at what he's likely to say.

Zelikow, a top State Department lawyer under Condoleezza Rice, recently revealed that the White House tried to destroy all copies of a memo he wrote that offered an alternative view on the legality of torture. He later said he suspected at the time that Dick Cheney had led that effort.

Read more »

Pat Leahy

Leahy to Bybee: Why Not Give Us Your Side Of Torture Story?

Zachary Roth | April 29, 2009, 1:49PM

As the calls for his impeachment grow louder, Jay Bybee -- the Bush OLC lawyer who wrote one of the torture memos, and who is now a federal judge -- has been given the chance to share his side of the story.

The unlikely invitation comes from Pat Leahy, the chair of the Senate Judiciary committee. In a letter sent to Bybee today, Leahy invites him to testify before the committee about his role in writing the memos.

Read more »

Torture

Senator: OPR Torture Report Likely To Be "Devastating"

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

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

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

Read more »

Arlen Specter

Too True! Specter and Cornyn Oppose Truth Commission

Zachary Roth | March 4, 2009, 3:57PM

GOP senators Arlen Specter and John Cornyn are leaving no doubt where they stand on Senate Judiciary chair Pat Leahy's proposal to create a Truth Commission to look into the Bush administration's war on terror policies.

They oppose it.

In a press release the pair sent out, Specter said:

When this idea of the so-called 'truth commission' first surfaced I said it was unnecessary because you had a change of administration, you could walk in the front door, ask for directions to the relevant filing cabinet, go in and open the drawer and find out anything you wanted to know. Well that's been done. And it's being done to a greater extent. You had some rather startling disclosures with the publicity in recent days about the unusual, to put it mildly, legal opinions which were issued to justify executive action.

Cornyn added:

I oppose the creation of a so-called 'truth commission' because it is a redundant and politically divisive exercise that would distract the Executive, Congress, and the American people at a time when we should be focused on reinvigorating our economy and winning the war on terror. This roving, unaccountable inquisition into each and every grievance with a Bush Administration policy is a backward-looking proposition that is directly at odds with President Obama's stated goals of unity and moving forward. Now is not the time for government to waste more of taxpayers' money by outsourcing a core Congressional responsibility.

It appears these senators can't handle the truth.

Pat Leahy

GOP Witness: By Historical Standards, Bushies' War On Terror Conduct Was "Exemplary"

Zachary Roth | March 4, 2009, 12:13PM

The Senate Judiciary committee is currently holding hearings on that proposal from committee chair Pat Leahy to set up a Truth Commission to look into the Bush administration's war on terror.

We'll have more to say on this whole subject soon, but for now it's worth noting that, as you'd expect, Bush allies are fighting hard to stymie Leahy's idea.

Just now, the committee heard from David Rivkin, a lawyer who served in the Justice Department and the White House under Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush.

Explaining why he opposed Leahy's proposal, Rivkin declared:

Yes, mistakes were made. Yes, some bad things happened. But compared with the historical baseline of past wars, the conduct of the United States in the past eight years ... has been exemplary.

We're sure that victims of torture under the Bush administration would appreciate Rivkin's willingness to supply that historical context.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) certainly didn't. He told Rivkin:

I would suggest, Mr. Rivkin, that until you know, and we all know, what was done under the Bush administration, you not be so quick to throw other generations of Americans under the bus, and assume that they did worse.

Late Update: Here's the video:

Eric Holder

Holder Confirmed...

Zachary Roth | February 2, 2009, 6:52PM

...as Attorney General by a vote of 75-21.

Said Pat Leahy, the chair of the Senate Judicary committe:

[O]f the last four Attorneys General, Eric Holder has the largest 'aye' vote of any of them. I think it is a good sign for the country. It is a good sign for the Department of Justice.

Arlen Specter

Senate Committee Approves Holder

Zachary Roth | January 28, 2009, 11:42AM

Finally...

After weeks of delays, the Senate Judiciary committee has voted by 17-2 to send Eric Holder's nomination to the full Senate.

In a statement, committee chair Pat Leahy said:

Mr. Holder has demonstrated that he is committed to restoring the rule of law, and, as President Obama said in his inaugural address 'to reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals,'" said Leahy. "I am more convinced than ever that Eric Holder is a person who will reinvigorate the Department of Justice and serve ably as a key member of the President's national security team. He will pursue the Justice Department's vital missions with skill, integrity, independence and a commitment to the rule of law.

The two "no" votes were from conservative Republicans John Cornyn and Tom Coburn.

Leahy's full statement follows after the jump...

Read more »

Arlen Specter

Specter Drops Opposition To Holder -- Leahy Pleased

Zachary Roth | January 27, 2009, 3:56PM

It looks like Arlen Specter, the ranking GOPer on the Senate Judiciary committee, has decided to support Eric Holder's nomination to be Attorney General after all, as Elana reports over at TPMDC.

Specter has put up roadblocks to Holder's confirmation from the start, first getting the hearings delayed a week, then getting the committee vote itself delayed another week, until tomorrow.

Here's a statement just put out by committee chairman Pat Leahy, who has led the fight to get Holder confirmed:

I am glad that Senator Specter has resolved his concerns and will support Eric Holder's nomination to be the next Attorney General. He joins the dozens of organizations and individuals across the political spectrum that for more than two months have praised the qualifications, integrity, and independence of this nominee. Tomorrow the Committee will move forward to report this historic nomination to the Senate, and I hope the Senate will debate and vote on Mr. Holder's nomination without further delay.

Alberto Gonzales

Holder: "I Will Review That Determination" Not To Prosecute Schlozman

Zachary Roth | January 15, 2009, 12:19PM

Not that it's likely, but Brad Schlozman may want to hope that Eric Holder's confirmation somehow gets derailed.

That's because Holder just told the Senate Judiciary committee that he wants to reconsider the Bush Justice Department's curious decision not to bring criminal charges against Schlozman, a former top department official who was found by a DOJ investigation to have politicized hiring decisions, then lied about it to Congress in an effort to cover it up.

Asked about the issue moments ago by Sen. Dianne Feinstein -- one of the lawmakers to whom Schlozman was found to have given an untruthful answer during testimony -- Holder declared: "I want to know why the determination was made not to pursue charges."

Here's his answer in full:

I understand that prosecutors in the US attorney's office in DC -- again, just based on the press reports, actually reviewed the report and then made a prosecutive determination.

If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will indicate to you that I will review that determination. I don't know all the facts of the case, but given the findings in the Inspector General's report that are consistent with what you have said, I want to know why the determination was made not to pursue charges, criminal charges.

Asked by Feinstein about the report's findings more broadly, Holder responded:

I have not had a chance to read the report, Senator, and yet I have read the news accounts of it. What's contained in the report is very disturbing. The notion that the Justice Department would ever take into account a person's political affiliation or political beliefs in making hiring decisions is antithetical to everything the department stands for and everything I'm familiar with.

I served very proudly in the Justice Department, under Republican Attorneys General, Democratic Attorneys General, and it was never a thought given to what your party affiliation was, what your political beliefs were in hiring, in promotion decisions. What we have seen in that report I think is aberrant, but is also I think one of the major tasks the next Attorney General is going to have to do. You have to reverse that.

So we may not have seen the last word on this.

Late Update:
Here's video of the exchange between Feinstein and Holder about Schlozman:

Alberto Gonzales

Ghost Of Gonzo Stalks Holder Hearing

Zachary Roth | January 15, 2009, 11:52AM

"I want to assure you and the American people that I will be an independent Attorney General. I will be the people's lawyer," Eric Holder told the Senate judiciary committee moments ago, in response to a question form Sen. Herb Kohl.

Holder's answer suggests the extent to which the shadow of Alberto Gonzales hangs over the curent nominee's confirmation, which began this morning. Much of Senate Judiciary chair Pat Leahy's opening statement was an argument that Holder is the man to fix the problems of politicization at DOJ under Gonzales that we've chronicled at TPMmuckraker over the last two years.

Said Leahy, after noting the department's report, released Tuesday, into politicized hiring under Gonzales:

Americans must be able to trust their Justice Department. That trust must not be squandered or taken for granted. We need leaders who are prepared to take the laboring oars of a Justice Department whose dedicated law enforcement professionals have been misused and demoralized. Eric Holder is such a leader.

Just as revealingly, Republicans have centered their opposition to Holder on the claim, without much evidence, that, in fact, he's likely to be a second Gonzo. Earlier this month in a speech on the Senate floor, ranking GOPer Arlen Specter laid out the argument:

Mr. Gonzales left office accused of politicizing the Justice Department, failing to restrain Executive overreaching, and being less than forthcoming with Congress ... I am convinced that many of Attorney General Gonzales' missteps were caused by his eagerness to please the White House. Similarly, when Mr. Holder was serving as DAG to President Clinton, some of his actions raised concerns about his ability to maintain his independence from the president.

As their main exhibits in this case, Specter and other GOPers have cited Holder's 2001 pardon, as a top DOJ official in the Clinton administration, of the fugitive financier Marc Rich, which it appeared was supported by the president. GOPers have also condemned Holder's support for clemency for members of the FALN, a Puerto Rican nationalist group, at a time when Hillary Clinton was seeking a Senate seat in New York, which has a large Puerto Rican population.

Already this morning, Specter has grilled Holder on these issues, declaring, in reference to Rich: "The indicators are that you were very heavily involved and yet you testified that you were only casually involved. So there's a question of candor there."

Holder responded:

I made mistakes ... in the Rich matter. I've accepted the responsibility of making those mistakes...I should have made sure that all the prosecutors in that case were informed of what was going on. I made assumptions that turned out not to be true ... I've learned from that experience. I think that, as perverse as this might sound, I will be a better Attorney General should I be confirmed, having had the Marc Rich experience.

It's great that Holder has learned from his mistakes. But, Specter's grandstanding notwithstanding, the entire attack is pretty bogus to begin with.

There's just not much of a comparison between the level of politicization that DOJ saw under Gonzales -- when US Attorneys were removed for not bringing cases that reflected the White House's political priorities, and officials actively sought to avoid hiring liberals -- and Holder's sins during the last administration. And that excludes the numerous examples, cited by Leahy and other Holder supporters in recent weeks, of Holder acting in ways counter to the president's interest while at DOJ.

But leaving aside the minor political theater over Holder, the prominence of Gonzales' record in these hearings, as a negative marker against which to measure Holder, is perhaps the strongest testament to the unprecedented damage that the former Attorney General, and the president, did to the department.

Alberto Gonzales

Leahy: Schloz Committed "Heinous Crime"

Zachary Roth | January 13, 2009, 2:03PM

It sounds like Sen. Pat Leahy isn't too happy about the US Attorney's office's decision not to prosecute Bradley Schlozman for making false statements to Leahy's Judiciary committee.

In a speech on the Senate floor this morning, Leahy left no doubt that he disagrees with the US Attorney's office's decision, and declared: "When somebody deliberately, purposely sets out to subvert the constitution of the United States, and then lies about it, lies about it, Mr. President, I find that a heinous crime."

You can watch the speech here, but here's the entire relevant excerpt:

I really wish that the current U.S. attorney's office appointed by this administration had prosecuted. I think that the only way you stop such blatant criminal violations by people who know better, people who are sworn to uphold the law, (unint.) that they know they'll go to jail for breaking the law. That's what should have been done. And just because they broke the law in the Bush administration and the Bush administration did not, or deemed not to prosecute, I think that raises real questions. Prosecution should be done no matter who breaks the law. I think about one of the people who testified that same investigation and said that, uh, "we swear an oath to President George Bush." I said, "no, you swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. That constitution is the constitution you're sworn to uphold and I'm sworn to uphold and it's the constitution that reflects all Americans."

...

And when somebody deliberately, purposely sets out to subvert the constitution of the United States, and then lies about it, lies about it, Mr. President, I find that a heinous crime. We will see some kid who steals a car, they'll be prosecuted as they probably should. But when you have a key member of the DoJ lie about it under oath, who subverts the consitution of the United States, all the more reason to prosecute that person. Mr. President what Mr. Schlozman did was reprehensible, it was disgusting, it was wrong, goes at the very core of America's principles. The distinguished presiding officer, like me, had the great opportunity to serve as a prosecutor, and I have every reason to believe that he did not show fear of favor when he brought prosecution, as I did, as I did not, I did not show fear of favor, most prosecutors do not. And when you have somebody who is part of the Justice Department lie under oath, and do it in a way to cover up subverting the laws that protect all of us, the civil rights laws protect all of us, white, black, brown, no matter what our race, our creed, it protects all of us. And what has marked this country since the time I was a young lawyer in the sixties, is our adherence to the civil rights laws. You can't go back to a time where they're enforced for some but not for others.

Arlen Specter

Leahy On Specter: "It May Be Coincidence That His Positions Have Been Those Of Karl Rove"

Zachary Roth | January 13, 2009, 1:24PM

On a conference call this morning, Sen. Pat Leahy was asked about his ongoing spat with ranking GOPer Arlen Specter over the nomination of Eric Holder to be Attorney General -- which Leahy supports and Specter has expressed extreme skepticism about.

In response, Leahy upped the rhetoric, saying of Specter:

It may be coincidence that his positions have been those of Karl Rove. I suspect it is coincidence.

Leahy added:

He was a lead supporter in the US Senate of Alberto Gonzales. I disagreed with him on Alberto Gonzales. If he could support Gonzales, who turned out to be a disaster as Attorney General and was eventually forced out by President Bush, I would think that he would be very happy to support Eric Holder.

Alberto Gonzales

Leahy On Report: Schlozman Lied To Me

Zachary Roth | January 13, 2009, 10:44AM

Pat Leahy, the chair of the Senate Judiciary committee, just put out the following statement on the DOJ report into politicized hiring:

Today's report confirms some of our worst fears about the Bush administration's political corruption of the Justice Department. Not only did senior Republican appointees violate the law in hiring based on politics in the Civil Rights Division, they also lied about it when called to explain themselves to Congress.

I am particularly disturbed about the findings that a senior Justice Department appointee, Bradley Schlozmann, made false statements under oath when appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Lying to Congress undermines the very core of our constitutional principles and blunts the American people's right to open and transparent government. Not only did he lie to me and the Committee, but he then refused to cooperate with Justice Department's internal oversight offices' investigation into illegal hiring practices in the Department's Civil Rights Division. The clear determination that he broke the law corrodes our trust in our system of justice and in the nation's top law enforcement agency. His actions in fact undermine the very mission of the Department's Civil Rights Division, which is charged with enforcing federal law prohibiting discrimination.

A strong and independent Civil Rights Division has long been crucial to the enforcement of our precious civil rights laws, and experienced and committed career attorneys have always been the heart and soul of that Division. Contrary to those traditions, however, this report details troubling revelations of political appointees who marginalize and force out career lawyers because of ideology, and, corrupt the hiring process for career positions. It should come as no surprise that the result, and of course the intent, of this political makeover of the Civil Rights Division has been a dismal civil rights enforcement record.

This report is just one of the final chapters in the regrettable legacy of the Bush administration at Main Justice, and it reinforces the need for new leadership. Now more than ever, it is necessary to confirm a new team to lead the Justice Department, starting with Attorney General designee Eric Holder.

Arlen Specter

Senate Releases Witness List For Holder Hearings

Zachary Roth | January 9, 2009, 6:13PM

The Senate Judiciary committee has released its witness list for the confirmation hearings of Attorney General nominee Eric Holder, to begin Thursday:

The list:

The Honorable John W. Warner, Former United States Senator from Virginia
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, Congresswoman from the District of Columbia

Panel I:
Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Panel II:
The Honorable Louis J. Freeh, Former Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Chuck Canterbury, National President, Fraternal Order of Police
John Payton, President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

Witness to be designated by the Minority
Witness to be designated by the Minority

It'll be interesting to see who Arlen Specter and friends decide to call, since they've signaled a desire to scrutinize Holder's record -- in particular his role in the Marc Rich pardon -- very closely.

Senate Judiciary Committee

Senate GOPers On US Attorney Firings: Voter Fraud, Voter Fraud!

Zachary Roth | November 18, 2008, 2:21PM

Election-law expert Rick Hasen picks out an interesting passage from the minority section of the Senate Judiciary Committee's just-released report into the US Attorneys firings.

Some members of the committee's Republican minority -- including senior senators like McCain pal Lindsey Graham, new NRSC chair John Cornyn, and ex-presidential candidate Sam Brownback -- strenuously disagreed with the findings of the Majority (and with an internal report produced by DOJ's Office of the Inspector General) that the White House helped engineer the firings, and that several of the dismissals were made for inappropriate political reasons.

Instead, they used the report as a chance to bang the drum on "voter fraud" one more time. But they continue to willfully confuse voter registration fraud with voter fraud -- even though numerous experts have now pointed out that there's no evidence that fraudulent voter registration forms lead to fraudulent votes being cast.

The dissenting Republicans wrote:

Perhaps the most Orwellian aspect of the Majority report is its repeated insistence that there is no vote fraud in this country that is ever worth investigating. At one point, the Majority even places scare quotes around the term, lest anyone receive the impression that the Majority believes that voter fraud could ever be a real problem. Yet during the federal elections just concluded, the American public saw numerous examples of serious attempts to commit voter fraud in this country.

Most of these incidents involved the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a group that actively promotes voter registration in many cities across the nation. ACORN tends to target areas where it believes that it can register Democratic voters, such as parks, public-assistance agencies, and liquor stores, ACORN's history is littered with claims and convictions of fraud. and generally hires part-time workers who are paid for each registered name to canvas these areas. In this election cycle, many different groups, from journalists to the GOP, strongly criticized the integrity of the organization's registration methods. As early as September, state officials reported fraudulent voter registrations submitted by ACORN, and as of October 6th, the New York Times reported that about 400,000 ACORN filings had been rejected by authorities as duplicates, incomplete, or fraudulent. After comparing their voter registration rolls, Georgia, Florida, and Ohio found 112,000 duplicate voters registered in two states, and authorities have rejected ACORN applications attempting to register such "voters" as Mickey Mouse and the Dallas Cowboys' offensive line.

Notice that the Republicans stop short of saying voter fraud was actually committed. They do say flatly, however, that faulty registration forms submitted by ACORN amount to "serious attempts" to commit voter fraud.

But they don't offer a single piece of evidence to support even this reduced charge.
Not one citation given -- most of which are to columns by conservative opinion columnist John Fund, or to posts on the conservative blog Powerline -- leads to an example that contains any evidence whatsoever of an effort to actually commit voter fraud.

It's one thing for Fund or Sean Hannity to try to muddy up these distinctions in an effort to confuse people into believing that voter fraud actually exists in significant numbers. But it's pretty shocking when Senate Republicans do so.

Senate Judiciary Committee

New Senate Report On US Attorney Firings Finds Rove Helped Compile List

Zachary Roth | November 18, 2008, 12:25PM

The Justice Department already found, in its report on the U.S. Attorney firings, that the White House engineered the firings, and that inappropriate political concerns had played in to several of the dismissals.

Still, the Senate Judiciary Committee released a report on the episode today that goes a little further. Its "Majority" (that is, Democratic) section concludes:

The evidence...shows that the list for firings was compiled with participation from the highest political ranks in the White House, including former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove.

The evidence shows that senior officials were focused on the political impact of Federal prosecutions and whether Federal prosecutors were doing enough to bring partisan voter fraud and corruption cases. It is now apparent that the reasons given for these firings, including those reasons provided in sworn testimony by the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, were contrived as part of a cover-up.

In a separate section, several committee Republicans strongly disagreed with that view, and, perhaps unsurprisingly, took the opportunity to highlight allegations of voter fraud against ACORN.

The report was released to accompany contempt resolutions against Rove and White House chief of staff Josh Bolten passed by the committee last year. The two have refused to testify or provide documents to the committee as part of its investigation.

In a statement accompanying the report committee chair Pat Leahy, of Vermont, said:

The findings of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the course of its investigation into the hiring and firing of U.S. Attorneys have been echoed by the Justice Department's own internal oversight offices. Further, the White House's unsupported claims of executive privilege and immunity designed to shield the President's advisors from complying with congressional subpoenas have been rejected by the federal court.

Senate Judiciary Committee

Senate Dems To White House: Preserve Records (Especially You, Cheney)

Zachary Roth | November 13, 2008, 2:33PM

Democrats from the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees last week sent a letter to the White House demanding that it preserve all records produced by the Bush administration. The letter expressed particular concern that the office of Vice President Cheney would not comply with the law.

The letter, sent by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Sen. John D. Rockefeller of West Virginia and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, asks White House counsel Fred Fielding to detail steps being taken to preserve White House documents and hand them over to the National Archives and Records Administration.

And it asks whether Fielding has investigated a Washington Post report that the White House has kept some presidential orders off it records, in a safe in the office of the vice president's lawyer.

Cheney's office is separately involved in a lawsuit brought by the watchdog group CREW, which is seeking to ensure that all vice presidential records are made available to the public.

The Democrats' letter cites that litigation, noting, "the declarations filed in that case by the Office of the Vice President raise serious concerns about its interpretations of the (Presidential Records Act)."

The law requires all presidential and vice presidential records to be transferred to the National Archives as soon as the president leaves office.

Senate Judiciary Committee

SJC Subpoenas Mukasey for Testimony and OLC Docs

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

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

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

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

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

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

CIA

Leahy: We've Been "Kept in the Dark"

Kate Klonick | October 16, 2008, 12:15PM

Sen. Patrick Leahy wrote to White House Counsel today, demanding to know why he and his colleague Sen. Jay Rockefeller were "kept in the dark" on the existence of memos from the White House endorsing CIA interrogation practices.

"You and I have communicated several times about the Judiciary Committee's oversight and legislative interest in the Government's use of torture, such as waterboarding, and other harsh interrogation practices," the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee wrote in a letter to Fred Fielding.

"I now read in The Washington Post that the White House issued two previously undisclosed memoranda to the CIA in 2003 and 2004. It is disturbing to be reminded, at this late date, of the stonewalling, misdirection and lack of accountability that has characterized this administration from its first days in office."

If Leahy seems mad, it might be because waking up and finding out that documents you've been trying to get full disclosure on for five years are on the front page of a national newspaper, isn't the best way to start your day.

Full text of letter after the jump.

Read more »

U.S. Attorneys

Leahy on OIG Report Findings: "Another Disturbing Report Card" on the Gonzales' DOJ

Kate Klonick | September 29, 2008, 11:38AM

In a scathing statement released this morning, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) heralded the assignment of a prosecutor to the investigation into the removal of the U.S. attorneys stating "[p]erhaps a prosecutor can break down walls others cannot."

Leahy, who also chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, is holding a press conference at noon to discuss the findings of the IG report released this morning.

"This report verifies what our oversight efforts this Congress showed, that partisan, political interests in the prosecution of voter fraud and public corruption by the White House and some at the Department played a role in many of these firings," Leahy said in a statement.

"These abuses are corrosive to the very foundations of our system of justice."

Read all of Leahy's statement after the jump.

Read more »

Harriet Miers

White House Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel on Legal Options?

Kate Klonick | August 28, 2008, 9:41AM

Could the White House be getting desperate in its dramatic legal battle with the House Judiciary Committee? It certainly looks that way, as they scramble to delay Harriet Miers' congressional testimony after the court's recent denial of their request for a stay.

Yesterday, HJC Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) set Miers testimony for September 11, but the administration isn't going down without a fight.

From the AP:

The Bush administration had already indicated it would appeal but Justice Department lawyers said Wednesday that they will ask the court to step in quickly and temporarily put Miers' appearance on hold while the appeal plays out. It's a risky move for an administration that has spent years trying to strengthen the power of the presidency.

Yesterday, TPM's David Kurtz caught up with Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) at the Democratic National Convention and got his take on the new developments in the Miers case unfolding at the HJC.

Leahy made it clear that this battle wasn't just going to end in the event of an Obama presidency. "I remind them," he said, "I'll still be chairman next year."

Senate Judiciary Committee

Senate Judiciary Pressures WH for Torture Documents

Kate Klonick | August 19, 2008, 6:02PM

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-PA) crossed the aisle once again to issue a renewed demand for documents on detainee interrogation policies from the White House today.

The letter (pdf) to White House Counsel Fred Fielding gives an August 29 deadline to turn over requested documentation, though it does not go so far as to say what the action the Committee will take if its requests are not met.

"I have been stonewalled even in my repeated request for something as simple as an index of OLC opinions," writes Chairman Leahy in the letter co-signed by Specter. "Examining the role of this Justice Department office in authorizing controversial activities is squarely within the oversight responsibilities of this Committee; in carrying out that responsibility we are entitled, at the very least, to know the subjects on which OLC has provided final legal advice. That after more than five years this Committee has been refused even this simple request is unacceptable."

Harriet Miers

Conyers Tries to Talk Rove Down from Ledge of Contempt Proceedings

Kate Klonick | August 1, 2008, 2:31PM

Following the letter sent by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) sent his own demand for the testimony and documents following the ruling yesterday in House Judiciary Committee v. Harriet Miers et al.

In a letter to White House counsel Fred Fielding, Conyers called for "quick compliance" with the ruling and an answer to the subpoena issued to White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten for documents relating to the politicization of the Department of Justice.

Conyers also wrote to Miers attorneys, reminding him that the ruling meant his client was "legally required to testify" in answer to Congress' subpoena.

Lastly, Conyers penned a missive to Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's attorney, informing him that his client had been held in contempt of congress by the House Judiciary Committee, but that in light of the recent decision, he hoped that it would not be necessary to carry out the contempt proceedings:

. . .[T]he "precise legal issue" raised by Mr. Rove's claim of immunity from our subpoena as a former White House official was before Judge Bates in Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers. Yesterday's decision in that case provides an unequivocal answer. . . In his letter to me of July 29, 2008, Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith also noted the pendency of the District Court case and stated that "mr. Rove assuredly will abide by the court's decision when it issues." I trust that this is correct and that there will be no further need to enforce the subpoena through contempt proceedings in the full House, and have directed my staff to contact you immediately so that we can make arrangements for Mr. Rove to testify in September.

Senate Judiciary Committee

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

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

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

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

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

Karl Rove

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harriet Miers

House and Senate Dems Claim Victory, Say Miers, Rove Should Testify

Andrew Tilghman | July 31, 2008, 12:30PM

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) hailed today's court ruling and said he expects former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and political director Karl Rove to testify on Capitol Hill in September.

"Today's landmark ruling is a ringing reaffirmation of the fundamental principle of checks and balances and the basic American idea that no person is above the law.

Judge Bates' decision makes clear that the Congress had the right to subpoena Harriet Miers to learn of her role in the US Attorney firings, that her claim to be immune from subpoena was invalid and that the Committee was entitled to challenge that claim in Court. The Judge also ruled that the White House may not claim Executive Privilege over documents without describing them in reasonable detail so that these claims of privilege can be evaluated by Congress.

We look forward to the White House complying with this ruling and to scheduling future hearings with Ms. Miers and other witnesses who have relied on such claims. We hope that the defendants will accept this decision and expect that we will receive relevant documents and call Ms. Miers, as well as ex-White House official Karl Rove, to testify in September"

Later, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) echoed Conyers' statements:

The claims are part of an arrogant White House cover up, designed to shield from public view the inappropriate and illegal actions of this administration. It is past time for senior administration officials to abide by the law and appear before Congress to offer testimony compelled by subpoena.

DOJ Office Of The Inspector General

Fine Says IG's Office Only Talked To One White House Official In DOJ Probe

Andrew Tilghman | July 30, 2008, 11:32AM

Throughout the investigation of improper political influence on the Department of Justice's hiring process, the DOJ's inspector general interviewed 85 people -- but only one from the White House.

The IG, Glenn Fine, testifying this morning before the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that Karl Rove aide Scott Jennings was the only White House official he sought to interview for his report released Monday.

"Why were no others at the White House questioned?" Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) asked Fine.

"From the evidence that we had, both emails and discussions, we did not see that others were involved in this process, and we questioned the person who was involved," Fine said, referring to Jennings.

The process Fine was referring to was the partisan screening of prospective prosecutors and judges.

Yet Fine did note at least one exception, an example his report cited of a prospective immigration judge who was appointed after Rove expressed support for the candidate.

Fine was said he did not believe any of the misconduct described in his 140-page report called for criminal prosecution for false statements.

"We looked at that and clearly in our judgment and in the judgement of prosecutors who have been working on this case, we do not think there was a sufficient basis for a criminal prosecution for false statements."

Late Update:
Here's the exchange between Specter and Fine.

DOJ Office Of The Inspector General

DOJ's Inspector General To Tesify On Capitol Hill Today

Andrew Tilghman | July 30, 2008, 9:05AM

The Senate Judiciary Committee will get a chance to grill Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn Fine today about the report he released Monday.

Fine's 140-page report detailed incidents of DOJ officials violating federal law by using political considerations in the hiring of some federal prosecutors and judges.

Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has harshly criticized the DOJ for the misconduct outlined in the report.

DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility

Leahy Says DOJ Scandal Harmed National Security

Andrew Tilghman | July 28, 2008, 11:26AM

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the politicization in the Bush Administration's Department of Justice posed a threat to national security.

Responding to today's report from the DOJ Inspector General, Leahy said in a statement:

"The report reveals decisions to reject qualified, experienced applicants to work on counterterrorism issues in favor of a less experienced attorney on the basis of political ideology. Rather than strengthening our national security, the Department of Justice appears to have bent to the political will of the administration. Further, the report reveals that the 'principal source' for politically vetted candidates considered for important positions as immigration judges was the White House- a clear indication of the untoward political influence of the Bush administration on traditionally non-political appointments."

Leahy went on to criticize former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for not acknowledging the systemic problems in the DOJ.

"Like some in the administration who would place blame for the actions at Abu Ghraib solely onto the shoulders of a few bad apples, the Attorney General has tried to dismiss the Inspector General's first report on politicization issued last month as documenting the actions of just a few bad apples. But it was obvious from that first report, and becomes more so with this second joint IG/OPR report, that the problems of politicization at the Department are rooted deeper than that.

In this report, we once again see that the Bush administration has allowed politics to affect and infect the nation's chief law enforcement agency's priorities.

Leahy said he looks forward to the Inspector General Glenn Fine's testimony before his committee on Wednesday.

Read Leahy's entire statement here.

EPA

Leahy Outlines What EPA Inspector General Should Investigate

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPA

"Stonewall" Johnson Refuses to Testify to Senate Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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