The Neverending Saga of Lurita Doan

by emptywheel

Lurita Doan's lawyer, Michael Nardotti, has responded to the OSC report condemning Doan's politicization of the GSA. It's one of those reports that read like a lawyer threw a bunch of stuff at the wall in the hopes that some of it will stick: he blames Henry Waxman for tainting OSC's witnesses, he shifts the focus away from Doan's description of employees as inferior toward one claiming bias, and he claims that, when Doan asked "how can GSA help our candidates?" she addressed it exclusively to Scott Jennings, not any of her subordinates.

Of course, Doan claims she can't remember saying such a thing (so I do wonder how Nardotti can be so sure, since there are so many witnesses who believe otherwise). But in a misguided attempt to prove that Doan's characterization of her statement--that she was making a very specific comment about getting Bush to attend the opening of the SF Federal Building--was correct, Nardotti provides the following email.

Lurita, thanks for expressing my (and I'm sure other RA's) exasperation (during today's call) in not getting the WH to recognize all the good GSA does around the country for the Nation's taxpayer and federal agencies and that we are successful as we are because we are following the President's agenda. He and his Administration are NOT getting proper recognition for this IMHO.

See, the overwhelming bulk of the testimony suggests that the only discussion of the SFFB came after Doan's question--after she asked how to help candidates. And not only does this email not support Doan's claims, but it shows the thinking of the first GSA employee who responded to Doan's question about helping candidates. He responded by thanking Doan for presenting GSA activities as an outcome of Bush's agenda. And he goes on to complain that Bush doesn't get credit for the accomplishments of GSA.

How does this help Doan combat the claim that her question was perceived to be a request for ideas on how to use GSA to political advantage?

The Ongoing Saga of the Liberated OSC Report

The other interesting tidbit from this exchange was more details on the liberated OSC report. As I reported last weekend (when you were all taking a long weekend with family--and therefore not blogging, and I was taking a long weekend with Jane--and therefore blogging up a storm), it appears that an early, harsher version of the report against Doan was liberated so the press could know that, at one time, OSC strongly recommended that Bush fire Doan.

Well a letter exchange between Bloch and Doan's lawyer--particularly this response from Doan's lawyer--suggests how that liberation may have happened. In an earlier letter, Scott Bloch had explained that, "someone from GSA had received OSC's report to your client from your client and then faxed it and then faxed it to the press." Nardotti disputes this claim entirely:

it is absurd to claim that Administrator Doan released this extremely damaging report herself or through someone else at GSA for any reason, and she strongly denies your charge of a "ruse". The damage done to Administrator Doan by the public release of the report in any form--without mitigating effect of a meaningful response--cannot be undone. To compound the possible injury to the Administrator, the report was leaked to at least three major media outlets, none of which has shown any bias in Administrator Doan's favor.

But as Nardotti points out later (and this is perhaps his strongest point in the entire response and attachments), Bloch's response is completely disingenuous. The important leak was not that of the May 18 report provided to Doan, which did not include the recommendation she be fired. The important leak was that of the May 17 report, which had a much harsher conclusion.

Moreover, my letter to you concerned two separate and distinct media leaks. With respect to the leak of the May 17th draft, it is perhaps noteworthy that the carefully worded opening sentence of your letter does not address that issue. You state that our accusation that your office leaked "the report sent to you is false." The May 17th draft was never sent to Administrator Doan, and you do not explain how the Administrator could have leaked a document which she did not have.

Nardotti is absolutely right--Bloch has parsed his first sentence so as not to address the key question at all. Having noted Bloch's parsing, Nardotti goes on to ask very pointed questions:

Has your officer provided a copy of the report in any form--draft or final--and specifically the May 17th draft, to any person or any entity outside your office including the GSA Inspector General or any member of his office or staff?

You'll remember that Lurita Doan accused GSA's IG of terrorizing her. Nardotti is trying to force Bloch into naming the leaker in his own office or blaming the IG.

In response, Bloch sends a letter just shutting down the discussion.

I'd like to remind you that this matter concerns your client's violation of the Hatch Act. I would suggest you cease your efforts to divert the investigation, respond to our completed report and include any objections to the process that you see fit to include, and allow us to finish our statutory process.

You get the feeling Bloch doesn't want to answer Nardotti's questions?

That said, Nardotti is completely mistaken about another issue about the leak itself.

It cannot be credibly argued that any public interest or the public's perception of the administration of justice has been served by the calculated, premature, and malicious release of the draft report and the final report in this instance. These actions will more likely have just the opposite effect when the public becomes aware of the more complete facts and circumstances of this aspect of the case.

See, as I've suggested, the difference between the two reports suggests that someone--either Bloch or perhaps his superiors--attempted to spike the Doan investigation, to back off the recommendation to fire Doan. Given that OSC is currently investigating Karl Rove's extensive system of politicization, it really is important for the public to know if someone is backing off of deservedly harsh conclusions. Nothing Nardotti has said changes the fundamental strength of the charges laid out in the OSC report. So I, for one, would prefer to know whether someone is intervening in OSC investigations.

Comments

[pdaly]

OT, Valerie Wilson is on CSPAN-2 live.

[ab initio]

How long does Ms. Lurita hang on with help of the obstructionists before she bites the dust? Reminds me whatever happened to the Gonzo no-confidnce vote that Schumer and DiFi publicly announced?

[EH]

ab: I don't know chess, but I imagine there's a strategy where you try to keep your pawns for as long as possible. Gonzales figures into that allegory as well.

[oldtree]

this is one of the most interesting swordplay I have ever seen. The complaint of "done's" attorney is really humorous. He seems to be asking the special counsel, "why you picking on my girl here?" he appears to be trying to get a favor from a fellow conspirator. there seems to be a bit of wink wink here in his shock that someone would release a couple reports about wrong doing directly to the public as the law demands. but, "without contacting my client to let her respond?" Funny how he thinks there is some reason for her to have a chance to explain prior to the grand jury testimony that is on her near horizon. Is he working his ticket, or trying to obstruct?
another fine example of how members of the ruling class do not believe that they have to play by the rules. they do not seem able to distinguish the difference between rules and laws. without a conscience, or with such ignorance, with approval from above...... I don't know how to describe such a specious argument. I do think a prosecutor and judge are going to have an easy trial. the defendant appears willing to publicize her crimes, and her attorney has informed the special counsel he has no defense.
perhaps she will get a new trial due to ineffective legal representation? is delay and postponement the goal?
really, the only other thing suggested here is collusion, or the expressed expectation of such by the doan mouthpiece. and after the SC has told him he has this evidence, and that it is public record?

[Ghost of Tom Joad]

ab initio,
That vote is supposed to happen this week. At least according to Harry Reid.

[me]

The Hatch Act, like the Democratic Party, is essentially worthless. The penalty for violation is removal from office. But who will do the actual removal? Not Bush. Not the Spineless Democrats in Congress. So what good is such a law?

The penalty OUGHT to be five years in prison.

The Attorney General of the United States is guilty of several felonies. The SPINELESS DEMOCRATS won't impeach him. Instead, the SPINELESS DEMOCRATS will harrumph a couple times, then go back to sleep.

[Arnie]

.

[Arnie]

.

[Bill]

.