U.S. Attorneys

USA Scandal: Where Are They Now?

Paul Kiel | October 31, 2007, 1:25PM

So what's next for Alberto Gonzales' former chief of staff Kyle Sampson? Where does a senior Justice Department official with an expertise in politicization, who has experience orchestrating a purge of prosecutors, engaging in a clumsy cover-up, and getting drubbed when testifying before Congress, go next?

The answer: working for drug companies. The Salt Lake Tribune reports that Sampson has landed a gig with the mega-firm Hunton & Williams, in their food and drug practice. There, Sampson will help companies navigate the wilds of Food and Drug Administration regulation, among other duties. The Tribune also reports that the firm has landed a much bigger fish in Sheldon Bradshaw, who, in true revolving door fashion, recently resigned as general counsel of the FDA. Bradshaw also has DoJ experience -- he was one of the political appointees overseeing the notoriously politicized Civil Rights Division. So he and Sampson will likely get along fine.

But wait! Let's not forget Bradley Schlozman who had his own version of what a "loyal Bushie" is -- his phrase for it was "good Americans." Earlier this month, The Kansas City Star reported that Schlozman has opted for a quiet retirement from his rigorous politicization duties at the Department. He'll be practicing tax law at a Kansas City law firm.

The troubles of both, however, are not over, as they are both currently under investigation by the Department's inspector general, whose report on the mess at the DoJ is still forthcoming.

U.S. Attorneys

GOP Launches Free Harriet! Effort

Paul Kiel | October 31, 2007, 10:28AM

Nobody said the Republicans were going to take it lying down. From The Politico:

With House Democrats considering a floor vote on a contempt resolution against current and former White House aides, Republicans have begun privately plotting a public relations offensive designed to persuade the majority party to drop the issue and move on.

Top GOP leadership and Judiciary Committee staff held a strategy session Tuesday to discuss targeting conservative Democrats — especially those who represent Republican-friendly districts — with floor speeches, private lobbying and other efforts, if Democrats proceed with plans to hold top White House officials in contempt, according to participants in the meeting. Republicans called the emergency session after learning top Democrats were privately asking their members if they should force votes to hold White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers in contempt for failing to provide testimony as part of congressional investigations.

The House Judiciary Committee passed the contempt resolutions in July, remember, after Miers failed to even show up (see image of empty seat above) after receiving a subpoena related to the U.S. attorney firings.

U.S. Attorneys

The Story Behind The Whistleblower Email Screw-Up

Paul Kiel | October 29, 2007, 5:56PM

Friday night, we reported that the House Judiciary Committee had mistakenly sent the email addresses of would-be whistleblowers to everyone who had written in to the committee's Justice Department politicization tip line. A committee spokesperson responded to that story with a statement apologizing for the "technological error."

In a statement released this afternoon (which can be read in full below) a committee spokesperson clarified that the error was, in fact, human. For those of you interested in the nitty gritty, the "nonpartisan, clerical employee" of the committee who was tasked with sending the email out to the list screwed up by assuming that checking "private" in Microsoft Outlook's Distribution List function meant that recipient names would be hidden. Alas, not so.

The full statement is below.

Read more »

U.S. Attorneys

D'Oh: House Panel Screw-Up Reveals Whistleblower Email Addresses

Paul Kiel | October 26, 2007, 10:07PM

Here's a whoops with a capital W.

This summer the House Judiciary Committee launched an effort to collect tips from would-be whistleblowers in the Justice Department. The U.S. attorney firings scandal had shown that much was amiss in the Department, and with the danger of retaliation very real, the committee had set up a form on the committee's website for people to blow the whistle privately about abuses there. Although the panel said it would not accept anonymous tips, it assured those who came forward that their identity would be held in the "strictest confidence."

But in an email sent out today, the committee inadvertently sent the email addresses of all the would-be whistleblowers to everyone who had written in to the tipline. The committee email was sent to tipsters who had used the website form, including presumably whistleblowers themselves, and all of the recipients of the email were accidentally included in the "to:" field -- instead of concealing those addresses with a so-called blind carbon copy or "bcc:".

Only the email addresses were exposed; none of the names or other identifying information of the whistleblowers was revealed. The blunder, however, was noticed by a number of people who had used the website form and received today's email. One disgruntled recipient replied to the entire list of whistleblowers angrily complaining about the snafu; two others forwarded the committee email to TPMmuckraker with similar complaints.

Compounding the mistake, the committee later sent out a second email attempting to recall the original email; it, too, included all recipients in the "to:" field, according to a recipient of the emails.

A committee spokesperson emailed the following statement in response to TPMmuckraker's questions:

The tip line was created to be a confidential method for Justice Department employees to provide the Judiciary Committee with information that might aid the Committee in its ongoing investigation of politicization at the Justice Department. Because of the confidentiality agreement, the Committee will not discuss any emails sent on this tip line. A technological error in a recent communication inadvertently disclosed certain email addresses. The Committee has not begun its review of the emails, and does not know if any of them are in fact from Justice Department employees as opposed to private citizens expressing more general views. The Committee apologizes for any concern this error may have caused, and is making every effort to protect the confidentiality of those who chose to provide information on the tip line.

It's not immediately clear whether the mistake will lead to the exposure of those who had contacted the committee. There are more than 150 recipient addresses revealed in the email. Some of the email addresses appear to be transparently fake, but there's also, much more troubling, a vice_president@whitehouse.gov carbon copied on the email, which is the public email address for Vice President Dick Cheney. In other words, an email containing the email addresses of all the whistleblowers who had written in to the committee tipline was sent to public email address of Vice President Cheney.

The purpose of today's mis-sent email was, ironically enough, to announce careful new procedures about to be put in place by the committee for reviewing the tips received through the committee's website. No one on the committee or any staff has reviewed any of the tips, pursuant to an agreement reached between committee Democrats and Republicans. Only "Members of the Judiciary Committee, and Committee staff specifically designated by the Democratic Chairman or Ranking Republican Member, will have access to the e-mails, and they are prohibited from removing any e-mail from Committee offices," today's email read. "This message is also to advise you that you have three business days...­ to notify us if you wish to withdraw your e-mail rather than have it reviewed by the Committee under these procedures."

The email can be read below the fold:

Read more »

U.S. Attorneys

House Dems Moving Towards Contempt Vote

Paul Kiel | October 26, 2007, 12:32PM

Better late than never. Three weeks ago, we reported that the House leadership seemed to be wavering in its pursuit of contempt citations for White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former counsel Harriet Miers. Both of them, remember, refused to even show up in response to a House Judiciary Committee subpoena relating to the U.S. attorney firings.

But now things seem to be moving along again. The Politico reports that vote counting has begun and quotes a House aide as saying that a vote is likely in the next couple of weeks.

The committee passed the resolutions in July, and once the House votes on them, they would be referred to the U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C. What happens then will be, to say the least, interesting. Michael Mukasey was a noncommittal on that question during his confirmation hearing last week. And the Miers and Bolten contempt citations aren't likely to be the only ones.

The Dems are apparently confident that they could easily pass the resolutions despite no likely Republican crossovers. For his part, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has put the emphasis on institutional integrity, rather than subjecting Harriet Miers to a frog march:

Conyers said the contempt battle was not aimed at seeking criminal sanctions against Bolten and Miers personally, but would nonetheless surely spark a long legal fight over the reach of executive privilege.

“Remember – no handcuffs,” Conyers said in an interview Thursday, noting that contempt of Congress is a misdemeanor.

U.S. Attorneys

Video: Former AG Tesifies about Politicization of DoJ

Paul Kiel | October 23, 2007, 5:30PM

Here's video of former attorney general Dick Thornburgh telling a house judiciary subcommittee this morning why he thinks U.S. Attorney for Pittsburgh Mary Beth Buchanan has singled out his client Dr. Cyril Wecht because he's a Democrat:

U.S. Attorneys

Former AG Unsparing in Criticism of Bush DoJ

Paul Kiel | October 23, 2007, 1:59PM

Dick Thornburgh, the Republican former attorney general under George H.W. Bush, didn't mince words in his testimony before a House subcommittee today.

The case against his client Dr. Cyril Wecht, he said, is a raft of "nickel and dime transgressions" that include using the county coroner's office fax machine for personal business. It's far from the type of case normally constituting a federal corruption case, he argued, since there's "no evidence of a bribe or kickback" and no evidence that Wecht traded on a conflict of interest.

(Update: You can see video of Thornburgh's testimony here.)

So why was the case brought? Wecht is a high-profile Democrat, "an ideal target for a Republican U .S. Attorney trying to curry favor with a Department which demonstrated that if you play by its rules, you will advance," Thornburgh said, referring to the U.S. attorney firings scandal. Put that together with the fact that U.S. Attorney for Pittsburgh Mary Beth Buchanan has prosecuted "not one" Republican, while prosecuting Democrats in a "highly visible manner," and you have your conclusion.

Beyond the politicization of the Justice Department, Thornburgh said the root of the problem lay in vague criminal statutes that allowed prosecutors to pursue charges for things that should not rise to the level of a felony. There's an "opportunity for abuse" with those laws, he said, that Congress might consider amending through legislation. He pointed to the appellate court's decision in the controversial case of Wisconsin bureaucrat Georgia Thompson, where the judges made a similar suggestion.

The only Republican to make a concerted attempt to discredit Thornburgh was Rep. Ric Keller (R-FL), who called his testimony "the most pathetic example of... innuendo and hearsay" that he'd ever seen. He then shifted gears to say that it was "totally ridiculous" to think that the President would have called up Buchanan and ordered that Wecht be prosecuted because he's a Democrat. Thornburgh countered that he'd never said that and that Keller "should be embarrassed for misciting the record." He didn't have personal knowledge that the case against Wecht was pursued for political reasons, he said, but there was a "set of facts" that led him to that conclusion.

Why did Buchanan "go to such lengths?" he asked. "Measured against the backdrop of nationwide actions of a similar ilk,... I can only come to the conclusion that the prosecution was politically motivated."

U.S. Attorneys

Profs Update Study on Political Prosecutions

Paul Kiel | October 23, 2007, 11:00AM

Testifying alongside former attorney general Dick Thornburgh and a lawyer for Don Siegelman at the House Judiciary Committee's hearing this morning on selective prosecutions is Prof. Donald Shields, the co-author of a study on federal investigations of Republicans and Democrats.
Shields' study, first reported back in February, looked at reports of investigations throughout the country. The study found that Democrats were investigated far more than Republican officeholders.

You can see Shields' opening statement for the hearing here, which draws on an update of the study. The key to his findings, he says, is a much higher rate of “below the radar” prosecutions of state and local officials.

A new control group study of investigations by state and local law enforcement, he says, found no such disparity: "Their investigation rates mirrored the national percentages: of 50 % Democrats, 41 % Republicans and 9% Independents/Others."

But "when it comes to investigation and indictment of local officials by the [Department of Justice], the numbers are staggeringly disproportionate: 80% Democrats; 14% Republicans; and 6% Independent – that's 5.6 Democrats investigated for each Republican: 5.6:1 when the ratio should be 1.2:1."

U.S. Attorneys

Persecution of The Body Snatcher

Paul Kiel | October 22, 2007, 4:50PM

Tomorrow, Dick Thornburgh, the attorney general for the final year of George H. W. Bush's presidency, will testify to Congress about his experience of the politicization of the Justice Department.

Thornburgh's run-in with Alberto Gonzales' DoJ came via the case of Dr. Cyril Wecht, a celebrity forensic pathologist, prominent Pennsylvania Democrat, and up until his indictment on a raft of fraud charges, coroner of Allegheny County. Thornburgh is one of Wecht's defense lawyers, and his complaints stem from what he's called the "sheer intensity" of the investigation, which involves relatively minor accusations that Thornburgh says should have been handled by the state ethics commission.

As a means of showing the relative triviality of the charges (the 84-count indictment doesn't put a price tag on Wecht's fraud), Wecht's lawyers have calculated that the cumulative cost for the 37 charges in the indictment that involve improperly charging the county for gasoline and mileage costs add up to $1,778.55. The most colorful of the charges, of course, involve the elaborate body snatching scheme: prosecutors allege that Wecht gave a local Catholic university unclaimed bodies in exchange for laboratory space.

The source of the investigation's "intensity" is U.S. Attorney for Pittsburgh Mary Beth Buchanan, a member of the DoJ's inner circle who played a role in the U.S. attorney firings. It's not the first time that Buchanan has drawn fire. During the heat of the scandal, a former assistant U.S. attorney in the district (from 1995-2000, before Buchanan took over) publicly called on Buchanan to resign because of "the extent to which she has looked to Washington for direction and political advancement." Or to put it in plainer terms: Buchanan has prosecuted a number of Democrats but no Republicans.

According to Wecht's lawyers, Thornburgh among them, Buchanan's office was single-minded in their pursuit of their high-profile quarry. Although Wecht holds the modest position of county coroner, he's a prominent Democrat in the state, even once running for the Senate in 1982. And it's only a minor exaggeration to say that he's made an appearance in just about every well-known murder case in the past 30 years, including O.J. Simpson, JonBenet Ramsey, Vincent W. Foster Jr., Martha von Bülow, not to mention Elvis Presley and both Kennedy brothers.

Here's Thornburgh's story, which he laid out in an affidavit this summer and will tell to the House Judiciary Committee tomorrow. Not long after Thornburgh began representing Wecht in the summer of 2005, Buchanan began pressing to indict him on a number of fraud charges. Finally, in December, she sent him a target letter, usually a sign of imminent indictment.

Read more »

Torture

Who Is Steve Bradbury?

Spencer Ackerman | October 19, 2007, 12:24PM

It took two days of hearings for the Senate Judiciary Committee to reinforce its consensus that Michael Mukasey should be attorney general. The panel asked Mukasey tough questions about torture, detentions, surveillance and the president's inherent wartime powers. But those questions might have been misdirected. That's because an obscure Justice Department lawyer, Steven G. Bradbury, the acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), might actually be more important to the war on terrorism than the attorney general.

It's also a position that's arguably more important to the administration too, since the OLC chief has the power to issue what former chief Jack Goldsmith called "an advance pardon" for dubious activities.

Yet while Bradbury has been serving as the acting head of the office since early 2005, he's never been confirmed for the spot. Senate Democrats continue to express opposition to Bradbury's nomination and say he remains in the position illegally.

Bradbury, a respected conservative lawyer, was nominated by President Bush in June 2005 to fill the void left by Goldsmith. The Office of Legal Counsel's job is to give guidance about whether certain government policies or presidential prerogatives are legal. But it's not meant to be an advocate for the president himself -- that's the White House counsel's responsibility. Goldsmith, in an agonizing reappraisal during 2003 and 2004, ended up rescinding earlier OLC directives about interrogation, expressed discomfort over administration plans to try terrorism suspects in military tribunals, and was part of a near-revolt in DOJ over warrantless surveillance, all of which is documented in Goldsmith's meditation on presidential authority, The Terror Presidency.

Read more »

Michael Mukasey

Fired USA: Mukasey "Gets It"

Paul Kiel | October 18, 2007, 2:42PM

Michael Mukasey sought to assure senators (and seems to have been successful) that there'd be no repeat of the U.S. attorney firings scandal on his watch.

So, now that Mukasey's hearings are done, what do the fired U.S. attorneys think about Alberto Gonzales' replacement?

Former U.S.A. for New Mexico David Iglesias, for one, is pleased. "It appears to me that he gets it," he told me. "He understands the necessity for having an independent attorney general and an independent Department of Justice." Iglesias added that he liked "the fact that he's a former federal prosecutor. He understands that you have to build an absolute firewall from politics."

I'd "really be surprised if my colleagues hold different views from this," he added.

Michael Mukasey

Schumer Questions Mukasey on Siegelman Case

Paul Kiel | October 18, 2007, 12:54PM

Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) been paying attention to the Don Siegelman case, and today he asked Michael Mukasey to take a look at whether Karl Rove had been instrumental in kick-starting the prosecution.

Mukasey replied that those sorts of issues should be heard first on Siegelman's appeal, which is ongoing. So Schumer took the consolation prize of asking Mukasey to look into it after the appeal. Mukasey agreed.

Mukasey also agreed to look at a study by two university professors (first reported here, by the way) that found an overwhelming tendency for Bush's Justice Department to pursue Democrats over Republicans. (More on that here.) In early May, Democrats asked the Department's inspector general to investigate the study's findings; but there's been no indication such an analysis ever took place.

Michael Mukasey

Mukasey on White House's Privilege Claim: "Huh?"

Paul Kiel | October 17, 2007, 4:29PM

Here's something else you never would have heard from Alberto Gonzales.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) quizzed Mukasey about one specific assertion of executive privilege by the White House in the U.S. attorney firings probe -- namely their claim that correspondence with people outside the White House were covered by privilege and should not be turned over to Congress. The case Schumer mentioned referred to an email from the chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party to the White House about New Mexico's U.S. attorney, David Iglesias.

After a preamble about how he could see certain circumstances where outside communication might be covered by privilege, Mukasey told Schumer that he'd read the letter from the White House counsel's office claiming privilege for such communications. "I will admit to you that my first reaction to that section of the letter was, 'Huh?'" But he added that he'd like "to take a closer look at the facts" before that was his final reaction.

U.S. Attorneys

Mukasey Says He'll Look at Issue of Contempt

Paul Kiel | October 17, 2007, 11:08AM

Does Michael Mukasey think that a U.S. attorney cannot enforce a citation of contempt from Congress against a White House official who's hiding behind executive privilege?

It's a key question for Harriet Miers, Karl Rove and current White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, who have all refused to testify to Congress or turn over documents relating to the U.S. attorney firings. Votes of contempt are probably on the horizon for at least those three. Such citations would be referred to the U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., who would then either kick start a criminal case or refuse to enforce them.

Here's what Mukasey had to say:

Unlike the Justice Department under Alberto Gonzales, Mukasey told Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) that it's not a foregone conclusion. But he didn't seem to give Democrats much cause for optimism. The key issue, he said, is whether the U.S. attorney can find that the reliance on executive privilege was "unreasonable." He added: "I hope and pray for a lot of things, and one of them is that I won't have to make that decision."

U.S. Attorneys

Two Witnesses Told Investigators of Paulose's Alleged Racial Slurs

lkmcgann | October 16, 2007, 2:51PM

Reporter-blogger Eric Black dug up some more news on the Office of Special Counsel investigation into US attorney for Minnesota Rachel Paulose, whose management style triggered four of her office's top attorneys to resign their top spots and take rank-and-file positions.

One accusation investigators are looking into is whether Paulose used racial slurs in describing one of her employees. Black reports that two witnesses have given statements to investigators about Paulose's possible racist talk:

The first told the investigators that she heard the remark. The second — Paulose’s personal secretary — either corroborated the remark itself or told the investigators that she has heard Paulose make similar remarks. Paulose has not publicly confirmed or denied that she made the comment.

The alleged slur or slurs involve the words “fat,” “black,” “lazy” and “ass.” The staff member involved told Black she has filed an official complaint.

U.S. Attorneys

Alberto Lawyers Up

Paul Kiel | October 10, 2007, 4:36PM

You never can be too careful, particularly when you're being investigated for lying to Congress. From Newsweek:

No sooner did Alberto Gonzales resign as attorney general last month than he retained a high-powered Washington criminal-defense lawyer to represent him in continuing inquiries by Congress and the Justice Department.

Gonzales’s choice of counsel, George Terwilliger—a partner at White & Case—is ironic if not surprising. A former deputy attorney general under the first President Bush, who later helped oversee GOP lawyers in the epic Florida recount battle of 2000, Terwilliger had been a White House finalist to replace Gonzales—only to be aced out at the last minute by retired federal judge Michael Mukasey.

The top concern for Gonzales, and now Terwilliger, is the expanding investigation by Glenn Fine, the Justice Department’s fiercely independent inspector general, according to three legal sources familiar with the matter who declined to speak publicly about ongoing investigations.

Fine is not only investigating whether Gonzales made false statements to Congress (see the top six here), but also whether Gonzales might have improperly coached his aide Monica Goodling on her recollection of the U.S. attorney firings. That's in addition, of course, to Fine's sprawling investigation of the politicization of the Department under Gonzales' leadership. But apparently Gonzales is most worried that his statements to Congress are the most likely to lead to a criminal investigation.

U.S. Attorneys

Rove Aide Heads for The Exits

Paul Kiel | October 4, 2007, 4:38PM

Another day, another resignation.

This time, it's Scott Jennings, who worked under Karl Rove in the White House.

Jennings, among other things, was a frequent contact concerning the U.S. attorney firings for Justice Department aides Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling in the White House. The other Rove aide involved in the firings, Sara Taylor, left the White House earlier this year. When he was subpoenaed to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he refused to discuss the firings (or even discuss his role in appointing U.S. attorneys in general), citing executive privilege.

But we'll remember Jennings most of all for his remarkably effective parroting of the White House talking points about the political briefings Jennings gave at various department and agencies. Jennings, remember, gave the most infamous of those briefings, at the General Services Administration. After Jennings had finished his rundown of which GOP candidates were in trouble of losing reelection, GSA chief Lurita Doan asked aloud how GSA projects could be used to help "our candidates." Jennings reportedly replied that the top would be better discussed "off-line."

So in appreciation for Jennings' service, here's last months' TPMtv episode on the subject, complete with Jennings' and Taylor's mind-wracking message discipline:

U.S. Attorneys

U.S. Attorneys Investigation Waits on House Leadership

Paul Kiel | October 3, 2007, 2:15PM

"The scandal at the Department of Justice has gone on long enough," said Rep. Rahm Emmanuel (D-IL) back in March. "Careers have been destroyed and legitimate public corruption cases have been derailed. It is time for accountability -- it is time for the truth."

Six months and several Department senior resignations later, it's a different time. The urgency is gone.

More than two months after the House Judiciary Committee passed contempt resolutions against White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former counsel Harriet Miers for ignoring committee subpoenas, it's still unclear when, or if, Democrats will hold a vote on the full floor.

The leadership has indefinitely delayed taking up the issue. House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) told The Politico last month, “I don’t think anything is going to happen on that for a while,” and couldn't offer a range. Three weeks later, that hasn't changed.

And apparently scheduling concerns are not all that's at issue. A source familiar with the ongoing discussions told TPMmuckraker that getting the leadership to bring the contempt resolutions to the floor at all is an "uphill struggle."

Read more »