The Next Hurrah

Ding Dong the Wicked Witch Is ... Publishing at NRO?

by emptywheel

Reading Rove on his last day in the WH:

President Bush will be viewed as a far-sighted leader who confronted the key test of the 21st century by manipulating the scientific proof of that key test--global warming--so his donors could continue to profit off the dying petroleum age while they still had a chance.

He will be judged as a man of moral clarity who put America on wartime footing in the dangerous struggle against radical Islamic terrorism--and he only did it ten months too late, after ignoring all the accurate warnings that Richard Clarke gave him.

Following the horrors of 9/11, this president changed American foreign policy by declaring terror sponsors responsible for the deeds of those they shelter, train, and fund unless those terror sponsors were from either of the two countries with closest ties to those who attacked us: Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

And this president saw the wisdom of removing terrorism’s cause by advocating the spread of democracy, especially in the Muslim world, where authoritarianism and repression have provided a potent growth medium for despair and anger aimed at the West and then, to save his failing war, he advocated bringing in Saddam light to fix his fuck-up.

While the world dithered, America confronted HIV/AIDS in Africa with the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which has supported treatment for more than 1.1 million people worldwide, over one million of them in Africa. By doing so, Bush ensured that 1.1 million people would lose their access to the condoms that had been slowing the spread of HIV/AIDS.

While most of the globe ignored Sudan and Darfur or refused to act, this president labeled the violence there genocide — and pressed world leaders to take action while taking no action himself.

President Bush promotes economic growth and understands free markets provide the best path to a more hopeful tomorrow yet he ensures his cronies defy all market realities by giving them no-bid contracts that suck dry the government's coffers.

In education, “No Child Left Behind” introduced accountability into our public-education system by ensuring every child’s progress is measured--the kind of accountability Bush refused for his own failing policies in Iraq--or anywhere else, for that matter.

He advanced a culture of life where every child is protected and welcomed yet our infant mortality rates continued to grow and ranked us near the bottom among all developed nations. Welcome to death, kiddo!

It's not until we get down here near the end that Rove addresses the real issue that will sink Bush's legacy.

Tommy K's Cooperation

by emptywheel

I'm trying to pull together as many of the details in the new transcripts about how Tommy Kontogiannis has cooperated (I was going to spell it "kooperate") with the government. The information is actually conflicting--Tommy K wants to portray himself as a good American who was just seeking out powerful Congressman to give intelligence to. But the descriptions of the AUSAs and FBI agents of his cooperation in this matter make it sound like it's a limited thing.

Here's K's description of his reasons for bribing Cunningham.

The Court: The only thing I have a question about is it says that you believe Mr. Cunningham was in a position to do you some good. Is that why you were involved in this? You hoped through his official position as a U.S. Congressman that he could advance some personal interest of yours?

The Defendant: It was never personal interest, your Honor. My interest is United States, basically, and he was in a position that I could reach and tell them information that I was gathering from all over the world.

The Court: What were you going to get out of this, Mr. Kontogiannis?

Mr. O'Connell: Can I have a moment, your Honor?

The Court: Yes. My question is, what did you hope to get out of all this?

The Defendant: From the first case to bring as much information as I could to assist us, especially after the 2001 situation. Second, it is good to have a powerful Congressman that if you ever need anything, you can ask him to help you or assist you in something you might need.

The Court: That's really what I am getting at. Did you believe that you were buying influence with someone who was in a position to help you by involving yourself in these things that have been recited today?

The Defendant: Definitely.

I'm going to come back to this passage--it really makes me wonder how many of the rest of the Congressmen on the House Intelligence Committee are getting bribes from people who want to "tell them information that I was gathering from all over the world." Porter Goss, of course, had to step down as DCI because of his ties to Cunningham's corrupt buddies. And Rick Renzi has some legal problems of his own.

Now, Judge Burns describes K as either an informer or someone tied into an intelligence network (or likely, both). Exposure of his cooperation would endanger him and others.

Kontogiannis' Plea Transcripts

by emptywheel

The redacted transcripts from the Kontogiannis plea hearings are available. The chronology surrounding the debates over sealing these proceedings suggests that Judge Burns decided there was no longer a sufficiently compelling reason to seal Kontogiannis' hearings. It was after that point when the government declared a need to continue sealing--or at least redact--the hearing transcripts.

• February 21, 2007: The government presents its case to Judge Burns for sealing the plea deal. The government says it would take about 10 weeks to get to sentencing for Kontogiannis.
• February 22, 2007: After reviewing relevant cases, Judge Burns decides he needs to give notice of a sealed proceeding, so the plea deal must wait for one day. See Spencer Ackerman for a description of the case Burns cites--which involves an espionage case.
• February 23, 2007: After giving 20 hours of notice and an opportunity for the public to object, Burns takes Kontogiannis' plea deal.
• Around March 26, 2007: Prosecutors submit a report to Burns advocating continued sealing of the proceedings.
• April 24, 2007: The agents and AUSAs working with Kontogiannis on another investigation present the general outlines of their rationale to continue sealing the proceedings.
• May 25, 2007: After receiving the third interim declaration on the reasons to seal Kontogiannis' hearings, Judge Burns rules that the latest declaration does not present compelling interest to continue sealing the proceedings.
• June 22, 2007: In response to a hearing and an ex parte filing, Judge Burns orders the February 21, 22, and 23 transcripts to be unsealed in their entirety. He agrees to the redaction of the April 24 transcript, from page 13, line 25, to page 17, line 25.
• June 25, 2007: Kontogiannis scheduled to return from overseas trip (presumably related to his cooperation).
• June 29, 2007: Government and Kontogiannis appeal Burns' decision to unseal the transcripts.

Now, it's clear from the unsealed transcripts that Kontogiannis was cooperating in a terrorism investigation of some sort. What I find interesting is that Burns only accepted the first two declarations supporting a compelling interest to keep the transcripts sealed. Before Kontogiannis' planned June trip, Burns became convinced that there was no longer a compelling interest to keep the files sealed. Though in the first hearing on this, Burns states that after the grand jury expires, he would have much less incentive to keep the proceedings sealed.

How to Spike an Investigation

by emptywheel

This WSJ article--which relies on Debra Wong Yang and George Cardona as sources--suggests that the Jerry Lewis investigation has been stalled because of staffing shortages in the USA Office.

Overall, funding for the offices has grown well below the rate of inflation. As a result, "fewer cases were getting charged and bigger investigations were taking longer because there weren't enough prosecutors to do them," says Debra Yang, who stepped down in October 2006 as the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles.

[snip]

In Los Angeles, a federal criminal investigation of Rep. Jerry Lewis, a California Republican, stalled for nearly six months due to a lack of funds, according to former prosecutors. The lead prosecutor on the inquiry and other lawyers departed the office, and vacancies couldn't be filled. George Cardona, the interim U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, declined to comment on specific cases but confirmed that lack of funds and unfilled vacancies caused delays in some investigations.

But the story the article actually tells is that the investigation got "stalled" because of the departure of existing prosecutors, not the slow hiring of new ones.

Not Just Gonzales' Perjury, But Sampson's

by emptywheel

One interesting thing about DOJ's IG's expansion of the investigation into political hirings at DOJ is that Fine appears to suspect that Kyle Sampson may have been asking political questions of career employees, as well as Monica Goodling (and two other OAG employees). That's interesting because Sampson testified, under oath, that he was not aware of any such questioning.

Here's the Schumer questioning that first alerted me, back in March, to the possibility that Goodling had politicized the hiring process.

SCHUMER: Are you aware of whether anyone at DOJ who has -- whether anyone at DOJ has asked applicants for career positions, not political positions, line positions -- questions about any of the following: their support for the president?

SAMPSON: I'm not aware of that.

SCHUMER: How they voted in any election?

SAMPSON: I don't remember. I did not participate in career hires. And I'm not aware of people doing that.

SCHUMER: You're not aware -- that's my question: Were you aware of anyone doing that?

SAMPSON: Let me be precise. I don't remember ever being aware of anything like that.

SCHUMER: OK -- whether they were registered Democrats or Republicans?

SAMPSON: I don't remember being aware of anything like that.

SCHUMER: OK -- and what their political leanings were?

SAMPSON: I don't remember anything -- I don't remember anything like that.

SCHUMER: OK. So you have no knowledge if such questions were ever asked of line-level assistant U.S. attorney applicants?

SAMPSON: Senator, I don't have any recollection of anything like that. I was not -- did not participate in the hiring of assistant U.S. attorneys.

SCHUMER: Would it be appropriate to ask such questions?

SAMPSON: I understand that assistant U.S. attorneys are career employees, and so it would not be appropriate.

SCHUMER: Thank you.

Let me just ask you a couple more on this. Did you know whether Ms. Goodling or anyone else asked such questions?

Well, let's ask -- Ms. Goodling -- so you have no knowledge that Ms. Goodling asked such questions of such people?

SAMPSON: Of career...

SCHUMER: Career, correct.

SAMPSON: ... applicants -- I don't remember any questions like that, that she would ask.

Of course, Sampson very quickly substituted, "I don't remember ever being aware of anything like that," for his, "I'm not aware of that," so maybe that'll save his ass. But he sure seemed pretty insistent that he wasn't involved in precisely the kind of activities that Fine seems to suspect he was involved in.

August 24

by emptywheel

The WaPo provides more details on an investigation I'm rather interested in:

Fine's office has also separately expanded a probe into whether senior Gonzales aides improperly considered partisan affiliations when reviewing applicants for nonpolitical career positions. As part of that inquiry, Fine sent hundreds of questionnaires in the past week to former Justice Department job applicants. [my emphasis]

Here's the questionnaire and the cover letter (and kudos to the WaPo for posting both).

Paul Kane actually does good bloggy work on extracting the content of the questionnaire. As Kane points out, the questionnaire asks about Monica Goodling's questions, but also Kyle Sampson, Jan Williams, and Angela Williamson. Williamson seems to have been in charge of logistics in OAG in 2005 and was cc'ed on a lot of the emails pertaining to Tim Griffin's hiring in DOJ. Jan Williams was OAG's White House Liaison just before Monica took the position; in a response to a Waxman request, DOJ revealed that it does not have paper copies of her files from her tenure at the position.

As Kane points out, the questionnaire asks applicants if anyone from the White House sat in on interviews. The questionnaire also tracks attendance of people from the Deputy Attorney General's office (remember--Sampson had tried to take hiring power away from Comey, and they institutionalized such a practice with the AG delegation in March 2006). In addition to questions on political affiliation (of which one asks about "your position on the war on terror"), the questionnaire asks about questions pertaining to religious beliefs, sexual orientation, adultery, abortion, same-sex marriage, and any other unusual questions.

Now, frankly, I'm a little disappointed that it has taken three months since Monica admitted "crossing the line" in her testimony, four months since OIG first started investigating this, and five months since I first noted Schumer's hints about Monica's politicization of the hiring process. Though the reference to an expansion of the investigation perhaps means that Fine has now established that Monica was not the only one asking these questions--if all four people about whom he asks were asking political questions of job candidates, then it suggests that someone was directing them to do so.

Which gets into the interesting point about timing. The date on Fine's letter is August 24--the same day that Alberto Gonzales resigned. I've suggested before that the Administration is immunizing itself from big scandal by having those who committed Civil Hatch violations resign. Even if they are found guilty, they cannot be punished. And Gonzales went on the very day this investigation expanded.

But here's the other question about timing. The letter asks for details about interviews going back to January 1, 2004. Meaning, Fine suspects this politicization precedes the Alberto Gonzales at DOJ.

The Inspector General

by emptywheel

I noted the other day that Pat Leahy had sent a letter to Brad Schlozman asking for his overdue homework. What I didn't note in the post--but did in comments elsewhere--was the carbon copy line:

cc: The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
      The Honorable Glen Fine

In comments where I mentioned this, I suggested this reflected a belief on Leahy's part that the Inspector General was a co-participant in his effort to hold real investigations into the Bush Administration (as to the cc for Gonzales? Dunno--but that was the day before Gonzales resigned).

That suggestion is born out by the letter Fine sent to Leahy today, reassuring Leahy (or, more importantly, signaling to others) that the direction of his investigation includes an assessment of whether Alberto Gonzales perjured himself on multiple occasions.

Good Enough for Our Children, But Not Bush's Vanity War

by emptywheel

I made the point this morning that the whole premise of No Child Left Behind is that, by determining whether every school--and every child--was passing or failing, you could require improvements on the schools.

Well, not surprisingly, Bush is unwilling to undergo the same kind of tough scrutiny that the six year olds in our nation's schools undergo:

Stung by the bleak findings of a congressional audit of progress in Iraq, the Pentagon has asked that some of the negative assessments be revised, a military spokesman said Thursday.

[snip]

At the White House, officials argued that the GAO report, which was required by legislation President Bush signed last spring, was unrealistic because it assigned ``pass or fail'' grades to each benchmark, rather than assessing whether the Iraqis have made progress toward reaching the benchmark goals.

"A bar was set so high, that it was almost not to be able to be met,'' White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said.

I don't know which is more tempting--to point out the failure of the NCLB logic, so we can get funding for the borderline schools that are improving but not "passing." Or to force the NCLB logic onto Bush's failure of a war so we can bring our men and women home?

Seal-Fight in San Diego

by emptywheel

There are two, related developments in San Diego (hat tip to ChrisC for her updates) in the Wilkes/Michael/Kontogiannis side of the Wilkes trial. First, the government has responded to John Michael's attempt to throw out his indictment because of a weird connection between Tommy Kontogiannis and one of the prosecutors, Phillip Halpern. As I suggested in my post on this motion, I think Michael is more interested in exposing a bunch of details about Tommy Kontogiannis than he is optimistic about getting the case out thrown out.

I doubt the motion to have the charges dismissed (or even SD's US Attorney office recused) will succeed. But I'm guessing the actual purpose of this motion is to make public a great deal of information on Kontogiannis to--at the least--completely discredit him as a witness. If not to bring public pressure to indict Kontogiannis for the other crimes the government admits he has committed.

I'm guessing the government's lawyers at least partially agree with my assessment, which I'll discuss in more detail below.

The whole question is relevant to the other news in the trial--that the Appeals Court has ordered Judge Burns to unseal the redacted transcripts for the hearings on Kontogiannis' plea deal. This actually seems like a victory for the government, because the Appeals Court,

... requires the district court to maintain under seal only the disputed portions of the sealed transcripts. The district court shall unseal the redacted transcripts submitted to the district court by the government on June 22, 2007.

In other words, the portions of the transcripts that the government wanted to retain under seal in June when this whole squabble started will remain under seal. Which means, if we're going to get the really juicy details about Kontogiannis, we're going to get them from Michael.

Speaking of Propaganda Reports

by emptywheel

They're doing it with voting rights reports, too (hat tip bmaz).

Because my approach to election issues tends to be more closely aligned with Democrats, I was paired with a Republican co-author. To further remove any taint of partisanship, my co-author and I convened a bipartisan working group to help us. We spent a year doing research and consulting with leaders in the field to produce a draft report. What happened next seems inexplicable. After submitting the draft in July 2006, we were barred by the commission's staff from having anything more to do with it.

What was the problem? In all the time we were doing our research and drafting the report, neither the staff nor the commissioners, who were continually advised of our activities and the substance of our work, raised any concerns about the direction we were going or the research findings.

Yet, after sitting on the draft for six months, the EAC publicly released a report -- citing it as based on work by me and my co-author -- that completely stood our own work on its head.

The author, Tova Andrea Wang, ties the manipulation of the report to the corruption at DOJ.

We also raised questions about the way the Justice Department was handling complaints of fraud and intimidation. The commission excised all references to the department that might be construed as critical -- or that Justice officials later took issue with.

[snip]

What was behind the strange handling of our report? It's still unclear, but it is worth noting that during the time the commission was holding our draft, claims about voter fraud and efforts to advance the cause of strict voter identification laws were at a fever pitch in Congress and the states. And it has been reported that some U.S. attorneys were being fired because they failed to pursue weakly supported voter fraud cases with sufficient zeal.

Not a surprise, really. BushCo took the HAVA and used it as an opportunity to roll back voting rights. And the manipulation of this report is just one step in that process.