Congressional Subpoenas

Conyers Finally Subpoenas DOJ For Documents

Andrew Tilghman | June 27, 2008, 5:30PM

From Politico:

House Judiciary Committee John Conyers has issed a subpoena to the Justice Dept. for the unredacted interviews with President Bush and Vice President Cheney on former CIA operative Valerie Plame, as well as numerous other documents sought unsuccessfully by Democrats for years.

Conyers is also seeking FBI notes of interviews with some top former White House officials, including Karl Rove, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Scott McClellan, Dan Bartlett and Andrew Card.

The committee also wants unreleased memos from DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel, including an Oct. 23, 2001, memo related to use of American military forces to combat terrorism within the United States.

Conyers has been asking for those documents for a long time.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (37) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (18)
Topics: Congressional Subpoenas

Michael Mukasey

House Judiciary Committee Gets Ready To Subpoena Mukasey

Andrew Tilghman | June 26, 2008, 5:16PM

It looks like the House Judiciary Committee will finally play hardball with Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

Committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI) has been requesting a range of documents from DOJ for a long time. Some of the issues date back as far as Election Day 2002, when Republicans in New Hampshire jammed the phone lines for a Democratic get-out-the-vote call bank, an effort one GOP operative said was modeled on the U.S. Marines tactic of jamming the enemies communications.

Now Conyers has the authority to subpoena that stack of records after the subcommittee on commercial and administrative law took a vote today and gave him the formal go-ahead.

They're looking for records of interviews from the DOJ investigation into who leaked the identify of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, documents that may shed light on allegations of selective prosecution, and the details behind the replacement of Minnesota's U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose. The committee is also requesting Office of Legal Counsel memos and enforcement reports from the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.

Speaking of the Civil Rights Division, Conyers and several other lawmakers today sent a letter to Mukasey urging stop stonewalling a GAO investigation of the Civil Rights Division. Amid allegations that political pressures were shifting the division's priorities, Congress in March 2007 requested the Government Accountability Office conduct an investigation. Lawmakers say DOJ has not provided the documents and data needed to fully analyze the division's enforcement work.

The lawmakers also said they had "received reports that DOJ officials have removed key documents from files, claiming that GAO does not have a right to access predecisional or deliberative information that sets forth the Division's rationale on whether or not to pursue a case."

"We are troubled by the lack of transparency and refusal of the Department to cooperate fully with GAO's investigation," the lawmakers wrote in today's letter.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (17) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (10)
Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, Michael Mukasey

Surveillance

Today's Must Read

Andrew Tilghman | June 20, 2008, 10:10AM

After everyone had a chance to sift through yesterday's breakthrough "compromise" on a new federal surveillance law, the biggest winer of the day was not Republicans or Democrats but the telecom companies.

Today's Washington Post summarizes the legal impact succicntly in it's front-page story :

The agreement extends the government's ability to eavesdrop on espionage and terrorism suspects while effectively providing a legal escape hatch for AT&T, Verizon Communications and other telecom firms. They face more than 40 lawsuits that allege they violated customers' privacy rights by helping the government conduct a warrantless spying program after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The final compromise on the immunity issue was this: Many Democrats had wanted the federal courts to review whether the surveillance program was legal before granting immunity. The White House wanted the courts to have no involvement whatsoever. The "compromise" calls on the courts to consider the surveillance legal if the companies can prove that the Administration told them it was legal. (Which we know they did).

The Chicago Tribune reports:

The new bill would require federal courts to cast those lawsuits aside if the companies can show that they received written requests from the government stating that their cooperation was deemed lawful and had been authorized by the president.

The House is expected to vote on the measure today. Though billed as a compromise, the final version was viewed as a victory for the White House, according to the Post.

But overall, the deal appears to give Bush and his aides, including Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, much of what they sought in a new surveillance law.

As for the future of the spying program, this new law allows it to grow.

The Wall Street Journal this morning wrote:

The lasting impact of the agreement would be a broader scope for the government's domestic surveillance.

Before 9/11, the NSA had to acquire a specific warrant if it wanted to listen to any conversation involving a U.S. citizen. Now, the secret court would be able to approve broad patterns of surveillance, focused on groups of people believed to be overseas, even if they are communicating with people in the U.S. So without a warrant, the NSA could listen to the conversation of a U.S. citizen if he or she was talking to a suspicious person overseas.

Several Democrats spoke out against the bill, but enough of them agreed to assure this version will pass into law.

Again, from the Journal:

The outcome was driven largely by the realities of election-year politics. Democrats, particularly more conservative ones, in vulnerable re-election races couldn't afford to appear to be dodging a big national-security issue. And many believed the law needed to be updated before surveillance orders expired in August. House Democratic leaders struggled for months to find a proposal their entire party could support but couldn't overcome splits between conservative and liberal Democrats -- some of whom are reacting angrily to the deal.

Behind the political positioning, however, was the pressure from the telecom firms -- particuarly AT&T and Verizon, which both stepped up their lobbying efforts this spring.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (33) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)
Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, Surveillance