Thursday, June 21, 2007
‘Everything Schlozman did was political. And he said so’
When it comes to the politicization of the Justice Department, Bradley Schlozman is at the heart of two unrelated scandals. The first was Schlozman’s decision as the former U.S. Attorney for Kansas City, to bring highly dubious indictments against a left-leaning voter-registration group shortly before the midterm elections. Schlozman already appears to be busted on this one.
The other deals with Schlozman’s responsibilities as the deputy head of the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department. He assured the Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath, a couple of weeks ago that his employment decisions were entirely above-board, and not at all based on political considerations.
Mr. Schlozman, once again, it appears your pants are on fire.
Karen Stevens, Tovah Calderon and Teresa Kwong had a lot in common. They had good performance ratings as career lawyers in the Justice Department’s civil rights division. And they were minority women transferred out of their jobs two years ago — over the objections of their immediate supervisors — by Bradley Schlozman, then the acting assistant attorney general for civil rights.
Schlozman ordered supervisors to tell the women that they had performance problems or that the office was overstaffed. But one lawyer, Conor Dugan, told colleagues that the recent Bush appointee had confided that his real motive was to “make room for some good Americans” in that high-impact office, according to four lawyers who said they heard the account from Dugan.
In another politically tinged conversation recounted by former colleagues, Schlozman asked a supervisor if a career lawyer who had voted for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a onetime political rival of President Bush, could still be trusted.
That last one is a particular favorite. In the fall of 2004, Schlozman asked DoJ supervisors about the “loyalty” of division lawyer Angela Miller. She was a Republican who clerked for a conservative federal appeals judge, but Schlozman learned (it’s not clear how) that Miller backed McCain in a 2000 primary. Schlozman asked Miller’s bosses, “Can we still trust her?”
When the Bush gang insisted on “good Americans,” they applied a fairly narrow set of standards.
Indeed, not all of the standards were ideological. Schlozman targeted minority women, whose on-the-job performance was unquestioned, apparently because Schlozman wasn’t convinced that they would be team players. In other words, to qualify as a “good American,” you not only had to be conservative, but you also had to be a white guy.
And these were the standards used by the man Bush asked to help lead the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.
Now, keep in mind, Schlozman acknowledged that he bragged about hiring Republicans and conservatives for the Civil Rights Division, but insisted it was all talk. To apply partisan/ideological standards to career employees at a government agency would be illegal, so Schlozman insisted that nothing improper took place.
But literally everyone around him believes he was lying. Blatantly.
“When he said he didn’t engage in political hiring, most of us thought that was just laughable,” said one lawyer in the section, referring to Schlozman’s June 5 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Everything Schlozman did was political. And he said so.” […]
Schlozman and several deputies also took an unusual interest in the assignment of office responsibility for appellate cases and, according to the lawyers and one of the supervisors, repeatedly ordered Flynn to take cases away from career lawyers with expertise and hand them to recent hires whose resumes listed membership in conservative groups, including the Federalist Society.
Read the whole thing. It’s breathtaking.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Friday, May 4, 2007
Goodling Ex-Aide to Gonzales Accused Of Bias - washingtonpost.com
The Justice Department has launched an internal investigation into whether Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's former White House liaison illegally took party affiliation into account in hiring career federal prosecutors, officials said yesterday.
The allegations against Monica M. Goodling represent a potential violation of federal law and signal that a joint probe begun in March by the department's inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility has expanded beyond the controversial dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys last year.
The revelations about Goodling were among several developments yesterday in connection with the firings, including a new subpoena seeking presidential adviser Karl Rove's e-mails and new accusations from two of the dismissed U.S. attorneys.In newly released statements, the two alleged that they were threatened by Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty's chief of staff immediately before Gonzales testified in the Senate in January.
Paul K. Charlton of Phoenix and John McKay of Seattle said that Michael J. Elston called them on Jan. 17 and offered an implicit agreement of Gonzales's silence in exchange for their continuing not to publicly discuss their removals. Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee the next day and refused to provide details about the firings.
"My handwritten and dated notes of this call reflect that I believed Mr. Elston's tone was sinister and that he was prepared to threaten me further if he concluded I did not intend to continue to remain silent about my dismissal," McKay wrote in response to questions from the House Judiciary Committee.
James B. Comey Extols Fired Prosecutors - washingtonpost.com
James B. Comey, the Justice Department's second in command from 2003 until August 2005, also told a House Judiciary subcommittee that although he was the "direct supervisor" of all U.S attorneys, he was never informed about an effort by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and his aides to remove a large group of prosecutors that began in early 2005.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Timothy Griffin, Karl Rove’s assistant, the President’s pick as US Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas Caught in Scheme to Disenfranchise Black Soldiers
BBC Television had exposed 2004 voter attack scheme by appointee Griffin, a Rove aide.
Black soldiers and the homeless targeted.
by Greg Palast
There’s only one thing worse than sacking an honest prosecutor. That’s replacing an honest prosecutor with a criminal.
There was one big hoohah in Washington yesterday as House Judiciary
Chairman John Conyers pulled down the pants on George Bush’s firing of
US Attorneys to expose a scheme to punish prosecutors who wouldn’t bend
to political pressure.
But
the Committee missed a big one: Timothy Griffin, Karl Rove’s assistant,
the President’s pick as US Attorney for the Eastern District of
Arkansas. Griffin, according to BBC Television, was the hidden hand
behind a scheme to wipe out the voting rights of 70,000 citizens prior
to the 2004 election.
Key voters on Griffin’s hit list: Black soldiers and homeless men
and women. Nice guy, eh? Naughty or nice, however, is not the issue.
Targeting voters where race is a factor is a felony crime under the
Voting Rights Act of 1965.
In October 2004, our investigations team at BBC Newsnight
received a series of astonishing emails from Mr. Griffin, then Research
Director for the Republican National Committee. He didn’t mean to send
them to us. They were highly confidential memos meant only for RNC
honchos.
However, Griffin made a wee mistake. Instead of sending the emails —
potential evidence of a crime — to email addresses ending with the
domain name “@GeorgeWBush.com” he sent them to “@GeorgeWBush.ORG.” A
website run by prankster John Wooden who owns “GeorgeWBush.org.” When
Wooden got the treasure trove of Rove-ian ravings, he sent them to us.
And we dug in, decoding, and mapping the
voters on what Griffin called, “Caging” lists, spreadsheets with 70,000
names of voters marked for challenge. Overwhelmingly, these were Black
and Hispanic voters from Democratic precincts.
The
Griffin scheme was sickly brilliant. We learned that the RNC sent
first-class letters to new voters in minority precincts marked, “Do not
forward.” Several sheets contained nothing but soldiers, other sheets,
homeless shelters. Targets included the Jacksonville Naval Air Station
in Florida and that city’s State Street Rescue Mission. Another target,
Edward Waters College, a school for African-Americans.
If these voters were not currently at their home voting address,
they were tagged as “suspect” and their registration wiped out or their
ballot challenged and not counted. Of course, these ‘cages’ captured
thousands of students, the homeless and those in the military though
they are legitimate voters.
We telephoned those on the hit list, including one Randall Prausa. His
wife admitted he wasn’t living at his voting address: Randall was a
soldier shipped overseas.
Randall and other soldiers like him who sent in absentee ballots,
when challenged, would lose their vote. And they wouldn’t even know it.
And by the way, it’s not illegal for soldiers to vote from overseas — even if they’re Black.
But it is illegal to challenge voters en masse where race is an
element in the targeting. So several lawyers told us, including Ralph
Neas, famed civil rights attorney with People for the American Way.
Griffin himself ducked our cameras, but his RNC team tried to sell
us the notion that the caging sheets were, in fact, not illegal voter
hit lists, but a roster of donors to the Bush-Cheney reelection
campaign. Republican donors at homeless shelters?
Over the past weeks, Griffin has said he would step down if he had
to face Congressional confirmation. However, the President appointed
Griffin to the law enforcement post using an odd little provision of
the USA Patriot Act that could allow Griffin to skip Congressional
questioning altogether.
Therefore, I have a suggestion for Judiciary members. Voting law
expert Neas will be testifying today before Conyers’ Committee on the
topic of illegal voter “disenfranchisement” — the fancy word for
stealing elections by denying voters’ civil rights.
Maybe Conyers should hold a line-up of suspected vote thieves and
let Neas identify the perpetrators. That should be easy in the case of
the Caging List Criminal. He’d only have to look for the guy wearing a
new shiny lawman’s badge.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Purged U.S. Attorneys Slam Gonzales Testimony
Purged U.S. Attorneys Slam Gonzales Testimony
Attorney
General Alberto Gonzales testified yesterday that the firings of eight
U.S. Attorneys was “justified and should stand.” Now those attorneys
are reacting.
Former New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias:Gonzales cited McKay’s authorship of a letter
“Generally I recollect there being serious concerns about his judgment,” Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee. […]
criticizing delays in implementing a law enforcement
information-sharing program, as well as comments he made to the Seattle
P-I last fall about the staffing levels in his office.“I think it’s a sad day for the Department of Justice,”
Asked to elaborate, McKay declined, saying, “The senators savaged him enough. I
said McKay, who previously represented the Western District of
Washington. “The attorney general missed an opportunity to testify with
honor.”certainly don’t want to talk about his absurd allegations. He’s
obviously so disconnected he has no idea what my performance was like
and what my judgment was like, and I’ll just leave it at that.”
Iglesias watched the hearings from a naval base at Newport, R.I. He’s finishing a naval reserve deployment and called the hearings “painful to watch.”
“I can only liken Mr. Gonzales’ testimony to a bloodied swimmer in a shark tank. He’s really getting beat up,” Iglesias said. […]“Now we’re hearing from the A.G. that he apologized on how this was
handled. That doesn’t quite get us to where we need to go which was
that they shouldn’t have done it. Kyle Sampson stated that under oath a
couple of weeks ago, that the Department of Justice should have never
gone down this path and if he had it to do over he would have never put
me on that list,” Iglesias said.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Plan to fire all 93 U.S. attorneys originated with political adviser Karl Rove
NPR : Documents Show Justice Ranking U.S. Attorneys
According to someone who's had conversations with White House officials, the plan to fire all 93 U.S. attorneys originated with political adviser Karl Rove. It was seen as a way to get political cover for firing the small number of U.S. attorneys the White House actually wanted to get rid of. Documents show the plan was eventually dismissed as impractical.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Friday, April 13, 2007
More Republican memory failures... Soon to be followed by IT failures and document retention failures...
A Justice Department e-mail released on Friday shows that the former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales proposed replacement candidates for seven United States attorneys nearly a year before those prosecutors were fired, in contrast to testimony last month in which the aide said that no successors were considered before the firings.
The e-mail written by D. Kyle Sampson, who resigned last month as the top aide to Mr. Gonzales, provides the first evidence that the Justice Department wanted to appointed its own candidates, despite the insistence of Justice Department officials in recent weeks that the eight prosecutors, with one exception, were removed in December 2006 for performance reasons, without regard to who might succeed them.
Two of the replacement candidates named in the e-mail were later named to fill vacancies created by United States Attorneys who stepped down, suggesting that Mr. Sampson had a roster of preferred candidates to place in United States Attorneys’ jobs. The e-mail seemed to provide new evidence that the Justice Department removed the prosecutors, at least in part, to make room for other candidates.
The January 9, 2006 e-mail was sent by Mr. Sampson to Harriet Miers, the former White House Counsel, and William Kelley, another White House lawyer. In the e-mail, Mr. Sampson proposed the dismissal of a total of seven United States Attorneys and named at least one replacement candidate for each prospective vacancy.
Because of deletions in the copy of the e-mail turned over to Congress, the names of only four of the United States Attorneys slated for removal and their possible successors are disclosed. The names of the replacement candidates, in most cases, are followed by a question mark, suggesting that Mr. Sampson might have been uncertain about them.
The United States Attorneys identified for removal are four who were ultimately dismissed: Margaret Chiara in Michigan, Kevin Ryan in San Francisco, Carol C. Lam in San Diego and H.E. Cummins II in Arkansas. Justice Department officials have acknowledged that Mr. Cummins was an able prosecutor who was removed solely to make room for J. Timothy Griffin, a former aide to Karl Rove, the White House senior political adviser. Mr. Griffin was appointed to the job on a temporary basis.
“Please treat this as confidential,” Mr. Sampson wrote...
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Bush's inner circle gets smaller and smaller
Six U.S. Attorneys Given 2nd Posting in Washington - washingtonpost.com
A half-dozen sitting U.S. attorneys also serve as aides to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales or are assigned other Washington postings, performing tasks that take them away from regular duties in their districts for months or even years at a time, according to officials and department records.
Acting Associate Attorney General William W. Mercer, for example, has been effectively absent from his job as U.S. attorney in Montana for nearly two years -- prompting the chief federal judge in Billings to demand his removal and call Mercer's office "a mess."
Powered by ScribeFire.