Showing posts with label U.S. Attorney Firings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. Attorney Firings. Show all posts

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Karl Rove Thinks Someone Is Lying


Other than himself, ofcourse.

 

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
by Christine Bowman

As President George W. Bush's primary political mentor as well as a key policy advisor, Karl Rove was smack dab in the middle of explosive issues like the Valerie Plame outing and the scandal concerning the firings of nine US attorneys, known as "Prosecutorgate." Patrick Fitzgerald, who prosecuted the Plame case and won conviction of Vice President Cheney's right-hand man Scooter Libby, interviewed Rove five times but ultimately opted not to file charges against him.

Karl Rove May 15, 2009

Now another independent prosecutor, Nora R. Dannehy, is firing her questions at Rove. After a Department of Justice (DOJ) internal investigation came up short due to lack of subpoena power, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey gave Dannehy the job and the subpoena power to investigate the Alberto Gonzales DOJ's firing of US attorneys.

(AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke)

In Prosecutorgate, the suspicion is that supposedly impartial US attorneys may have been pressured by their political higher ups to go after Democrats but go easy on Republicans in investigating possible corruption on the eve of the 2006 elections. After all, what better way to sway voters than to fill the news hour with a rash of unproven allegations against Democrats nationwide? Were US attorneys who did not go along, precipitously let go?

U.S. attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president, but they cannot be fired for "improper reasons" such as resisting White House or congressional pressure to pursue specific cases. Since Rove was Bush's top political strategist and a White House honcho, he would logically be a focus of the inquiry. Bush himself called Rove "the architect" when publically thanking him for his 2004 electoral win.

Rove's sworn testimony today given at his lawyer's offices, which appeared to last about four hours, will not be made public, but Washington Post reporter Carrie Johnson answered many questions about the case in an excellent online discussion posted earlier in the day. Her overview of the case, also carried in the Post, says Dannehy's job is to "examine whether former Justice Department and White House officials lied or obstructed justice in connection with the dismissal of federal prosecutors in 2006."

Some points the online discussion brought out include:

  • The biggest risk of criminal jeopardy may not be the prosecutor firings themselves, but rather making false statements about one's role in the process.
  • Only about half of the 93 Bush era US attorneys voluntarily left their positions around the time Obama was elected.
  • Attorney General Eric Holder anticipates nominating a first batch of replacement US attorneys in June or July.
  • A separate investigation of the firing scandal is under way in the US House of Representatives, where House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, too, has subpoena power. The House committee could conceivably make public the transcripts of Rove's future testimony.
  • The DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility is conducting an investigation into Alabama Governor Don Siegelman's accusations that his corruption conviction by a Bush-appointed US attorney was tainted. Those findings have not yet been publicly released.

Rove is the quintessential political operative, spinmeister, and smooth operator. By now, he also is a very experienced testifier. But he did appear shaken and certainly "freaked out" back in April over the possibility of investigations or prosecution of Bush staffers when Obama passed off to AG Holder a decision as to whether to pursue prosecutions after release of the DOJ torture memos.

These days, Rove just keeps up a good offense as his best defense. He remains a highly paid GOP commentator and talking point crafter, writing a column for The Wall Street Journal and appearing regularly on Fox News. It was on Sean Hannity's show that he let rip his view that holding Bush officials to account was "like colonels in mirrored sunglasses" in a banana republic "junta" threatening their overthrown predecessors.

Just the final nail in the Rove is NUTZ (criminally insane) theory.

He said that -- not BuzzFlash. In the same back-and-forth, Rove characterized alleged war crimes as "a policy disagreement" not meriting attention after the fact.

(Oops, there's another nail.)

Rove's column Friday doesn't mention his command performance before a criminal prosecutor. Instead, it deflects Bush Administration responsibility for torture onto Democrat and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "Someone important appears not to be telling the truth ...", Rove begins.

(Yeah, we wonder who? Whosever it is should be put in stockades on the National Mall, don't you think, Mr. Rove? Being independents we don't give a damn with which party the liars affiliate, we just want justice, or as close as we, mere humans, can get to it. Something tells me, given your record, Mr. Rove, you are one of the biggest liars!)  


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Dems Ask Judge To Order Disclosure Of Missing Emails

Sounds like they have a pretty good case and, because the Bushites went around official Email laws, by using RNC Email accounts, they may well have out-smarted themselves.

Wait 'till these babies hit the public eye.

AP) The Democratic Party asked a judge Thursday to order the disclosure of 68 pages of White House e-mails that the Bush administration is trying to keep secret.

The Democratic National Committee is suing the Justice Department over the firing of U.S. attorneys, seeking electronic messages by White House staffers who performed political duties on e-mail accounts of the Republican National Committee.

Dozens of White House staffers had RNC e-mail accounts and the Democratic Party is trying to determine the extent to which those accounts were used in the U.S. attorneys controversy.

Under former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Justice Department officials consulted with the White House on the firings of at least nine federal prosecutors, triggering a furor over a hiring process that favored Republican loyalists.

The administration is withholding the e-mails from the DNC, claiming they are exempt from public disclosure. The Freedom of Information Act allows claims of confidentiality for presidential communications and material on internal deliberations before a final decision is made.

In a 12-page court filing, the DNC said the Bush administration cannot withhold the e-mails because the White House staffers who wrote them were not acting in their official capacities as presidential advisers, nor were they involved in decision-making on behalf of any government agency, a requirement for invoking the FOIA exemption.

Messages sent over these RNC e-mail accounts were not treated as being subject to the federal laws governing official records, the Democratic Party argued in the court papers filed with U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Friday, November 30, 2007

Incontriverable Evidence Bush Not Involved In U.S. Attorney Mess

Therefore, the claim of executive privilege is out the window. If these criminal tricksters don't show up, hit 'em with contempt and send the capitol police to put them in jail until they honor the congressional subpoenas.

As far as Bush goes, he is does seem guilty of participating in the cover-up that followed.

Leahy: White House aides must comply with subpoenas

From Ted Barrett
CNN Washington Bureau
Decrease font

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected White House claims of executive privilege and demanded Thursday that key White House aides testify in the case of the controversial firings of U.S. attorneys.

art.leahy.afp.gi.jpg

Sen. Patrick Leahy ruled that president has no claim of executive privilege protecting Karl Rove and others.

The committee's investigation has found "significant and uncontroverted evidence that the president had no involvement in these firings," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, said. Thus, the White House can't claim executive privilege or immunity, which are meant to protect private communications between a president and White House aides, he ruled.

The committee has issued subpoenas for White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former political adviser Karl Rove, among others.

The Bush administration has insisted that last year's firing of the attorneys was handled properly, but critics have charged that they were forced out for political motives and, in one case, to allow a protégé of Rove's to take one of the posts.

The ruling, which was expected, is a formal step necessary before the committee can vote to find the White House in contempt. Such a move would require a vote of the full Senate before being turned over to the U.S. attorney in Washington.

The attorney would have to decide whether to prosecute the administration that appointed him.

Besides Bolten and Rove, the committee issued subpoenas for former White House political director Sara Taylor and her deputy, Scott Jennings, both of whom Leahy and others on the committee think were involved in making political judgments on which U.S. attorneys to fire.

"In light of the evidence gathered by the committee showing the significant involvement of White House political officials in improper politicization of law enforcement, the White House is not entitled to withhold key evidence," Leahy wrote in his ruling.

He accused the White House and Justice Department of "lying, misleading, stonewalling, and ignoring the Congress" in its investigation.

"It is obvious that the reasons given for these firings were contrived as part of a cover-up and that the stonewalling by the White House is part and parcel of that same effort," Leahy wrote.

The White House has offered to allow Rove and others to be interviewed privately about their actions. The Democratic-led Congress has rejected that offer, in part, because of White House insistence no transcript be made.

The Judiciary Committee is likely to move on the matter in December, an aide to Leahy said.

Though U.S. attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president, the Justice Department's initial characterization of the dismissals as "performance-related" triggered angry protests from the former prosecutors

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Monday, October 22, 2007

Gonzo May Be Prosecuted....

Can Rover and Junior be far behind?

Gonzales could be prosecuted, McKay says

The U.S. Inspector General may recommend criminal prosecution of departed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at the conclusion of an investigation, possibly as early as next month, the fired former U.S. attorney for Western Washington told a Spokane audience Friday.

His refusal to open a federal criminal investigation into voter fraud allegations in Gov. Chris Gregoire’s razor-thin victory over Republican challenger Dino Rossi in 2004 may be the reason he was fired, John McKay told the Federal Bar Association.

Appointed by President Bush in October 2001 to the top law enforcement job in western Washington, McKay said he believes he and seven other U.S. attorneys were fired last December by Gonzales for political reasons, perhaps with former White House chief of staff Karl Rove pulling strings.

Career prosecutors in his office and FBI agents agreed there was no reason to go forward with a federal investigation of the Gregoire-Rossi election, and issues associated with it were more properly addressed by state officials, McKay said.

Some also have suggested his dismissal may have been tied to his relentless push to solve the 2001 murder of Tom Wales, an assistant U.S. attorney in Seattle. “I consider that a disgusting (explanation),’’ McKay said, explaining he didn’t need to justify aggressively pursuing the investigation of a prosecutor “killed in the line of duty.”

McKay said he was summoned to Washington, D.C., in June and questioned for eight hours about possible reasons for his firing by investigators with the Office of Inspector General, who will forward their final report to Congress.

“My best guess is it will be released sometime next month,’’ and likely will include recommendations for criminal prosecutions of Gonzales and maybe others, McKay said.

Gonzales “lied about” reasons for the firings when questioned under oath in July by the Senate Judiciary Committee and now has hired a lawyer and is refusing to answer questions from the Inspector General, McKay said.

The White House said McKay was fired for poor performance ratings of his office, but the ex-U.S. attorney said he and his office got exemplary reviews just three months before he was fired.

“The chief law enforcement officer for the United States should not lie under oath,’’ McKay told the bar association.

It was reported last week that Gonzales has now retained a high-profile defense lawyer, and apparently is refusing to answer questions from the Inspector General, which could signify the investigation is nearly complete, McKay said.

“When it lands … it is going to be an extremely negative report on President Bush’s Justice Department,’’ McKay told the packed conference room, which included federal prosecutors and judges.

“There was a conspiracy to politicize the Justice Department,’’ the former U.S. attorney said, “and they did not get away with it.”

Under increasing pressure, Gonzales resigned Aug. 27.

Now a law professor at Seattle University, McKay said he thinks his counterparts, David Iglesias, fired as U.S. attorney for New Mexico, and Carol Lam, forced out as U.S. attorney in San Diego, also were targeted for political reasons.

Iglesias has said he was pressured to bring an indictment against a popular Democratic official before last November’s mid-term election. Iglesias has filed a Hatch Act complaint, alleging Rove and other White House officials may have violated that federal law in his firing.

Lam has said she believes her firing was tied her office’s aggressive investigation of Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, a Republican congressman who later pleaded guilty to conspiracy and tax evasion. It spawned a wider investigation into congressional corruption, and Cunningham is now serving an 8-year prison term.

Immediately after his firing, McKay said he thought about “going quietly,’’ but then he began comparing notes with the seven other U.S. attorneys dumped at the same time in a historically unprecedented move by the White House.

“They led each one of us to believe we were the only one told to resign,’’ he said. “None of us particularly sought the spotlight.’’

McKay said he is now speaking out, giving his “unvarnished thoughts,’’ because he believes the 90 U.S. attorneys – who serve at the pleasure of the president – still should remain independent in choosing criminal cases, while exercising fairness and compassion.

His counterpart, Jim McDevitt, the U.S. attorney for Eastern Washington, was in Washington, D.C., for Justice Department meetings Friday and wasn’t in the large crowd of attorneys and federal judges who heard McKay speak to the Federal Bar Association at the Davenport Hotel.

McKay spoke fondly of his friendship with McDevitt and said the two would have coffee early today at the downtown hotel.

Bill Morlin can be reached at (509) 459-5444 or e-mail: billm@spokesman.com



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

9 Fired U.S. Attorneys And One Dead Assistant USA

Is there a connection between the U.S. Attorney Firings and the the murder of one Assistant USA?

An Unsolved Killing
By Jeffrey Toobin
The New Yorker

06 August 2007 Issue

What does the firing of a US Attorney have to do with a murder case?

Tom Wales was not supposed to be home on the night of October 11, 2001. Wales, an Assistant United States Attorney in Seattle, had planned to have dinner and spend the evening with his girlfriend, Marlis DeJongh, a court reporter who lived downtown. But that afternoon Wales called DeJongh and said that he had projects he needed to work on at home. In the evening, after leaving his office, near the federal courthouse, he returned to his Craftsman-style, wood-frame house in a quiet neighborhood known as Queen Anne.

Wales was forty-nine years old and had been a federal prosecutor for eighteen years. When he worked late, which was often, he would tell his family and friends, "I'm here at my post, serving my sovereign." The phrase was partly a joke, a bit of feigned grandiosity to justify a tendency toward excessive meticulousness: Wales did things slowly. He also had idealistic notions about his work. He took satisfaction in mustering the resources of the federal government to take on criminals, especially those with white collars who abused their privileged status.

On the night of October 11th, Wales arrived home after 7 P.M., gave his twenty-year-old cat, Sam, her nightly arthritis medication, and prepared to install some drywall in a stairwell on the second floor. At about ten o'clock, carrying a glass of wine, he went to the basement office that he had been sharing with his ex-wife, Elizabeth. Tom and Elizabeth had met as high-school students at Milton Academy, outside Boston, and married when Tom was an undergraduate at Harvard. They had a son and a daughter, who at the time were both in Britain, attending graduate school, and they had divorced, amicably, in 2000. (Elizabeth had come out as a lesbian, and the marriage was an inevitable casualty.) Under the terms of the divorce, Tom kept the house, though Elizabeth, a literary agent, ran her business from the basement during the day. Tom used a computer there at night, usually to send e-mails to his children and to DeJongh. That night, he had also planned to work on a fund-raising letter for Washington CeaseFire, the leading gun-control advocacy group in the state, of which he was president.

The Waleses had renovated the house during the years that they lived there, and in the basement they had installed a picture window, which provided a view of the small back yard. At 10:24 P.M., Wales sent an e-mail to DeJongh from the computer, which was on a desk in front of the window. About fifteen minutes later, someone shot him three or four times through the window from the back yard. (Investigators won't divulge the exact number of shots.) Mary Aylward, an elderly woman who lived next door, heard the shots and called 911. An off-duty police officer, who happened to be nearby, arrived within minutes. Wales appeared to be conscious, but he couldn't speak, and was taken by ambulance to the trauma center at the Harborview Medical Center, in Seattle.

Friends and colleagues gathered at the hospital, among them Jerry Diskin, the acting U.S. Attorney, who also lived in Queen Anne and had heard the shots; Gil Kerlikowske, Seattle's chief of police; Bob Westinghouse, another Assistant U.S. Attorney, and his wife, Kay; and Eric Redman, one of Wales's closest friends, who had once been married to Elizabeth's sister. They were told that Wales was in surgery. Just before dawn, a surgeon emerged from the operating room to say that Wales had died. "The doctor obviously had put clean scrubs on to come out and talk to us," Redman recalled. "She didn't come out with blood all over her. When I was standing there talking to her, it was hard to look her in the eye. I looked down and saw that the bottom seams of her trousers were covered with blood."

United States Attorneys are political appointees, who serve at the pleasure of the President. They establish the priorities for each of the nation's ninety-four judicial districts and announce significant indictments and arrests; many are well known in their communities. Assistant U.S. Attorneys are more like civil servants; they perform the day-to-day work on important investigations and their public speaking is typically limited to the courtroom. They often leave after a few years for better-paying jobs at law firms. Tom Wales was an exception to this pattern.

After graduating from law school, at Hofstra University, Wales took a job with the New York law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell. "But Tom always wanted to do something for society, and that kind of life was never for him," Elizabeth Wales told me. In 1983, he was hired as a federal prosecutor in Seattle. Tom and Elizabeth, a tall, lean, and athletic couple, took to life in the Northwest, going on long hikes in the Olympic Mountains and the Cascades. Tom became a neighborhood activist, fighting overdevelopment and the placement of cell-phone towers, and serving for a couple of years on the Seattle Planning Commission.

Tom was fond of local wines and liked to cook - he was especially proud of his fruitcake. But he could also be ornery and competitive. At weekly lunches of the two dozen or so federal prosecutors in Seattle, Wales was a combative presence. "Tom would always eat the same thing, a peanut-butter-and-ketchup sandwich," Lis Wiehl, who was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Seattle in the nineteen-nineties, recalled. "And everyone would sit around and discuss their cases. Tom and Bob Westinghouse had all the big white-collar cases, and they'd just sit there and scream at each other the whole time. They were good friends, but that was how they related."

In 1995, a student at the high school that the Waleses' son attended brought a gun to school and shot and injured two classmates. Tom was horrified. "The idea so outraged him - the idea that a kid could be shot at school - that he decided to get involved," Elizabeth Wales told me. "It was a good issue for him, because people were passionate about it. People don't like to handle those kinds of things, but Tom wasn't afraid." Wales soon became president of Washington CeaseFire, and in 1997 he led a campaign in favor of a statewide ballot referendum on a proposal to require gun owners to use trigger locks. As an Assistant U.S. Attorney, Wales was prohibited from running for office and from taking sides in partisan elections, but the law permitted him to campaign on issues to be decided by referendum. Among his colleagues in the U.S. Attorney's Office, Wales's political activism was considered unusual, but it was also generally accepted.

The proposal brought out the full might of the pro-gun lobby, which spent four million dollars - primarily on television advertisements and direct-mail appeals - and voters rejected the measure, seventy-one to twenty-nine per cent. Nevertheless, the gun initiative established Wales as a public figure in Washington State, and, a few months before he died, he was invited to give the commencement address at a Seattle community college. Wales delivered a manifesto in defense of his liberal politics. "John Lennon said, before he was shot and killed outside the Dakota Apartments in New York, 'Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans,'" Wales told the students. "Be engaged; be involved in what goes on around you. Be present in your own life. Find something you believe in passionately and get into it. Get outraged. Take a stand.

"For me, among other things, it's gun control," Wales went on. He cited an incident that had occurred two years earlier, in which a gunman shot and killed three people in a Seattle shipyard. "The next day, the papers reported that, within minutes of the shooting, the Seattle School District had been able to lock down every school within a two-mile radius of the shootings," Wales said. "My first thought was Well, good for the school district for doing a fine job protecting our kids. But wait a minute. Is this Kosovo, Bosnia, Beirut, Rwanda - that we have to lock down our schools to protect our children?" He added, "I've spent the past ten years building Washington CeaseFire into an organization that takes on the N.R.A. at every turn." He went on to denounce the death penalty (which had recently been imposed on Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber), and to express alarm about global warming, which was not yet a mainstream concern.

"He had so much fun with that speech," Steve Kidder, Wales's college roommate, said. "He told us how, when he left the podium, two mothers of graduates came up to him during the procession out of the hall. One told him it was the worst speech she had ever heard, and the other told him it was the best speech she had ever heard. I'm not sure which reaction he enjoyed more." Trevor Neilson, the vice-president of Washington CeaseFire at the time, said, "Being a federal prosecutor, he came across as anything but the weak liberal that the N.R.A. likes to characterize as the typical supporter of gun control. We were talking very actively about his running for Seattle City Council. There is no question that Tom would have gone on to be mayor, governor, or senator, and that was likely to happen soon."

Paradoxically, Wales's murder was in some ways a boon for Washington CeaseFire. A month after he was killed, the group held a benefit in his honor, which was attended by more than five hundred people, including many prominent Democratic politicians in the state, and raised five hundred thousand dollars. The featured speaker was the documentary filmmaker Rory Kennedy, who is the daughter of Robert F. Kennedy and the sister of Joseph P. Kennedy II, the former Massachusetts congressman, who had been Wales's roommate at Milton. Wales, who was the president of the student body and the captain of the football team at Milton, roomed with Kennedy the fall after his father was assassinated.

At the Justice Department, the reaction to Wales's murder was more muted. Neither John Ashcroft, then the Attorney General, nor any of his top deputies attended Wales's funeral. The highest-ranking official present was the director of the executive office of United States Attorneys, a mid-level official who coördinates administrative support for federal prosecutors. "The Justice Department was so disappointing," Gil Kerlikowske, the Seattle police chief, who shared Wales's commitment to gun control, said. "Here you have a cold-blooded murder of an A.U.S.A., and I could not imagine that the only person they sent out was this executive director."

The F.B.I. gave the investigation the code name SEPROM - short for "Seattle prosecutor murder" - but the bureau set the reward for tips leading to a prosecution in the case at twenty-five thousand dollars, which was widely regarded in Seattle as an insultingly small amount, and did not offer local investigators assistance from Washington, D.C. "We put a lot of agents on the Wales case from the beginning," Charles Mandigo, the special agent in charge of the bureau's Seattle office at the time, told me. "But we got no backfill from headquarters - that is, additional agents. In other major cases that headquarters really cared about, they'd say, 'You're not going to bleed resources, and you'll get all the backfill you need.' The feeling was that H.Q. was so preoccupied with 9/11 that they were neglecting the issue of whether it was fair to the office to have to put all its resources on the case without getting backfill."

Two weeks after the murder, the Senate confirmed a new U.S. Attorney for western Washington, John McKay. "When I got there, on October 30th, there was still yellow tape around Tom's office," McKay recalled. "It was still considered a crime scene. People still wept. From the prosecutors to the secretaries to the administrative staff, it was a traumatized place. It was not just that they lost somebody, but somebody they all knew and liked very much." McKay had met Wales several times in the company of other A.U.S.A.s, but knew him mainly by reputation. "Most A.U.S.A.s keep a much lower public profile than Tom did," he said. "However, he was fully entitled to do what he was doing, and he violated no Department of Justice policies." He added, "I personally would not be in full agreement with his organization" - Washington CeaseFire - "but I fully supported his right to participate and admired him for his community involvement."

McKay's family is sometimes described as a Pacific Northwest (and Republican) version of the Kennedy family. McKay's brother Mike, the oldest of twelve children, is a prominent Seattle lawyer who served as the U.S. Attorney for western Washington in the first Bush Administration. Several other siblings are active in law and politics. The McKays share bluff Irish good looks, fierce devotion to one another, and - by reputation, anyway - formidable tempers. John McKay, the fifth child, has a somewhat unconventional résumé for a U.S. Attorney. After graduating from college, at the University of Washington, and from law school, at Creighton University, in Omaha, he practiced law in Seattle until 1997, when he was named president of the Legal Services Corporation, a nonpartisan office within the federal government that funds programs that provide lawyers for poor people. He left that post to become the U.S. Attorney in Seattle.

"The Wales case was awkward for me from the start, because our office was recused from doing the actual investigation," McKay said. "I agreed with the decision to recuse. This is a potential death-penalty case. You couldn't have Tom's friends in the office making those kinds of decisions. And I thought at first it meant that I should have nothing at all to do with the investigation. Then, several months after I became U.S. Attorney, I had a brown-bag lunch with my staff, and I got my head handed to me by several senior A.U.S.A.s in very strong terms. They said the department was neglecting the investigation of Tom's death. They thought the prosecutor assigned from headquarters, who came out of the organized-crime unit, was not up to the job. I heard it all - not enough agents, the wrong prosecutor from Washington, the small reward. They were right to raise it with me.

"My mistake was that I assumed 'recusal' was 'recusal,'" McKay went on. "I had erred in assuming that I was completely recused from even asking questions about the allocation of resources. I assumed it would have the highest priority within the Department of Justice. I once worked at the F.B.I. for a year, and during that time an agent was killed in Las Vegas. They deploy like crazy when an agent is killed. Agents got off the airplane that night from D.C. to investigate. The director of the F.B.I. flew out. That was not the reaction we were getting from the Department of Justice after Tom Wales was killed. Over 2002, I decided that really it should be my job to advocate for appropriate resources to be devoted to the Wales case."

In 2002, at a meeting of U.S. Attorneys at the New York Hilton, McKay approached Larry Thompson, then the Deputy Attorney General, in a corridor and spoke to him about the case. As they were talking, Robert Mueller, the director of the F.B.I., appeared. "It was a little awkward," McKay recalled. "Bob jumped in to kind of defend the F.B.I. I said, 'Bob, we've got to have appropriate agent support for the Wales investigation, and we're not getting it.' He was fairly sharp with me, saying, 'I've done everything I possibly can.' I said, 'I know that's your intention, but it hasn't worked out that way.' Larry was kind of an observer to the whole thing. Bob said he would look into it." (Mueller declined to comment.)

Not long after the meeting, John Ashcroft visited Seattle to give a speech at a Coast Guard base, but he didn't meet with McKay's staff or mention the Wales case. "In Seattle, you always have a sense that you're an outpost, that people care more about things that happen on the East Coast," McKay told me. Some of his colleagues in the U.S. Attorney's Office had a different view of the Justice Department's actions. "These are savvy people," McKay said. "They looked at all these things - who attended the funeral, the low reward, the energy and resources in the investigation - and they concluded that Tom was not in favor because he was the president of Washington CeaseFire." (On the first anniversary of Wales's death, Larry Thompson came to Seattle to dedicate a conference room in the U.S. Attorney's Office to him.)

Meanwhile, Wales's friends began to talk about creating a memorial. "We were really concerned that he would be remembered only for his work on gun safety, and that was just one strand of his life," Eric Redman, his former brother-in-law, said. "So his family started a foundation dedicated to the idea he talked about in the commencement speech: civic engagement. And the idea was to start a program at the University of Washington to sponsor students who wanted to do public service." Norm Dicks, a longtime Democratic congressman from Bremerton, a town west of Seattle, agreed to try to procure federal funds for the program, and his staff suggested that Wales's friends invite the Justice Department to make a contribution. In 2004, the Thomas C. Wales Foundation asked John McKay's brother Mike, the former U.S. Attorney, who was still active in Republican politics, to make the request.

Mike McKay went to see Deborah Daniels, who was the Assistant Attorney General in charge of research and grants. "I told her that in my opinion Tom was probably killed in the line of duty," McKay recalled. "I said that they should help fund the project at the University of Washington. I don't remember exactly what she said, but I do remember it was off-putting." Redman recalls hearing McKay describe the meeting soon after he returned from Washington. "He said that Daniels said she was concerned that Tom had been so involved with gun control," Redman told me. (Daniels confirmed that she met with McKay but said that she does not remember their discussion and didn't know at the time that Wales worked on gun control.) Norm Dicks is still trying to get federal funds for a University of Washington program.

There were few clues at the scene of the crime. "This may be as close as you come to a perfect murder," an investigator on the case told me. "The only physical evidence left behind is the bullets and shell casings, nothing else. If you are an investigator in that circumstance, you have to look at motive." The question, then, was who wanted Tom Wales dead.

"This doesn't appear to be a random act," Robert Geeslin, the F.B.I. agent who has been in charge of the Wales investigation for the past year, says. "What motivation was behind it? You are going to look at professional life, social life, personal life." It was easy to determine that Wales remained friendly with his ex-wife, Elizabeth, who, in any event, was in Germany when he was shot. Since his separation, he had dated several women and, at the time of his death, was seeing Marlis DeJongh. "If we weren't together at night, Tom would e-mail me before he went to bed," DeJongh told me. "I printed out his e-mail first thing in the morning, and I thought my world was still bliss. Then I went to my office, where one of Tom's colleagues called and told me what happened. And I just screamed, by myself, for half an hour."

In July, three months before his death, Wales had been involved in an altercation at a parking garage near his office. According to Eric Redman, Wales drove his car into a limousine and got into a heated dispute with the limousine's driver, who had asked him for his insurance card and driver's license. Wales refused to provide these documents and drove from the garage in anger, hitting a truck on his way out. The limo driver called the police, and Wales was charged with a hit-and-run offense, though the charges were dropped a few weeks later. Neither Wales's romantic life nor the fender bender yielded promising leads in the murder investigation.

Wales's work on gun control apparently also failed to produce suspects. The fight over the statewide gun-control initiative had taken place four years before his death, and after that he had not been as involved in controversial issues. "It was kind of like proving a negative, ruling out all these possibilities," Charles Mandigo, the former F.B.I. special agent, said. "We pursued every possible lead. There were some girlfriends; those were all pursued. We reviewed all the cases that he was involved in, and no stone was left unturned. At the same time, we were pursuing what appeared to be a potentially very logical suspect."

Many A.U.S.A.s juggle dozens of cases, but Wales chose to take on just a few at a time. "Tom was extremely detail-oriented, and he would rewrite and rewrite, and his ultimate product was a work of perfection," Mandigo said. "From an agent's point of view, it would prove to be very frustrating. He didn't move forward as fast as people wanted. People would say, 'Hey, let's get this thing moving.' There was some frustration on agents' part if a case got assigned to Tom. 'I got a good prosecutor,' they'd say, 'but when is it going to move?'" For almost five years, Wales had been focused on what he called "the helicopter case."

The Seattle area, the home of Boeing and many of its suppliers, has long attracted aviation buffs who try to turn their hobby into a business. The Vietnam War created one such opportunity. During the war, the workhorse helicopter for the United States military was the Bell UH-1 series, better known as the Huey, which came in various configurations, most of them capable of carrying about a dozen troops. After the war, many of the five thousand or so UH-1s that had been used in the war began to circulate on the secondhand market in the United States. Several local entrepreneurs decided to retrofit the surplus military models for civilian use. Such conversions were legal, as long as they were conducted in accordance with safety rules established by the Federal Aviation Administration.

"There wasn't much you could do commercially with a military model," Robert Chadwell, a Seattle defense attorney, told me. "You couldn't carry passengers, but you could with the civilian model. People started renovating the military models, in hopes of getting certification for civilian use. The issues could get very complicated. Could you rebuild a civilian model with military parts? How much of the original helicopter remained, and how much is rebuilt? How do you trace what happened to the original?" In the mid-nineties, Wales, working with his colleague Bob Westinghouse and a special agent from the F.A.A., began conducting an investigation of several helicopter conversions in the Seattle area. Chadwell represented one such operator, and had several contentious dealings with Wales. "Tom's idea was that the prosecution was all about safety, that these rebuilt helicopters were unsafe," Chadwell said. "But the investigation didn't go well for the government. My client had renovated his helicopter under the supervision of F.A.A. people, and really hadn't done anything wrong, safety-wise." After a four-year investigation, Chadwell's client's company pleaded guilty to an infraction in its record-keeping, a minor federal offense, and paid a small fine.

"I had known Tom for years, and we went at it pretty good in that case," Chadwell recalled. "I thought we had too good a relationship to let one case ruin it, so we had lunch to make sure there wasn't going to be any residual damage. We both shared an interest in red wine, so we started this little club - the Snooty Red-Wine Drinkers. The bottles had to cost less than twenty dollars and had to have a story. We would get together four to six people, and we met once a month at my firm."

By 2000, the investigation of the helicopter-conversion industry was winding down, with disappointing results for Wales and the U.S. Attorney's Office. Only one case remained. In 1997, investigators had searched the premises of a helicopter company owned by two local men, James Anderson and Kim Powell. The firm, called Intrex Helicopter, which was based at Powell's home, was renovating a single helicopter for civilian use. Still, the stakes were substantial. "A UH-1 that has been reconstituted and for which a certificate to carry passengers has been issued would be a much more valuable helicopter than one that is flying on a certificate that has limited use, by hundreds of thousands of dollars," Westinghouse told me. (According to a court filing in a related civil case, Anderson and Powell believed that reconfiguring the helicopter would cost six hundred thousand dollars, and that Intrex could sell it for $1.2 million.)

In 2000, Wales obtained an eight-count indictment against Anderson and Powell on charges that included conspiracy to defraud the United States, mail fraud, and making false statements. The government accused the men of falsifying the helicopter's maintenance records, and submitting them to the F.A.A., as part of an effort to certify the helicopter for civilian use. But the case fell apart the following year, when the prosecution's expert witness from the F.A.A. decided that he no longer supported the government's theory. On June 29, 2001, in an act that would be humiliating for any prosecutor, Wales was forced to dismiss the indictment against Anderson and Powell. He said that the expert now believed there was "no inherent safety consideration" in the conversion of the helicopter. (The company pleaded guilty to a "petty offense" and paid a thousand-dollar fine.) "The F.A.A. chief witness went south on him," Elizabeth Wales says. "Tom felt awful about it." Marlis DeJongh recalled, "Tom said that in all his years of being a prosecutor it was the most frustrating case that he had ever worked on."

James Anderson, at the time that the case was dismissed, was a forty-year-old pilot for U.S. Airways, who lived alone in Beaux Arts, a Seattle suburb. On the night of Wales's murder, Westinghouse told investigators that he thought Anderson should be considered as a suspect. "We were concerned about a number of possibilities, one of which was that the murder might be related to our work, and one subject was the helicopter case," Westinghouse recalled. For the next several months, he received around-the-clock protection from U.S. marshals.

The F.B.I. has been investigating Anderson during the past six years, but no charges have been brought against him. (Anderson has never agreed to speak to investigators, and he declined to speak to me.) His attorney, Larry Setchell, said, "He is an innocent man and an honest man. Tom Wales was liked by everyone, including us. He did the right thing in our case by dismissing it. We were not mad at him."

On July 27, 2001, a month after the indictment was dismissed, Anderson filed a motion against the U.S. Attorney's Office, under an obscure law called the Hyde Amendment. The law, which was enacted in 1997, allows defendants who have been acquitted in federal court to sue the prosecutors in order to recoup their attorneys' fees and legal expenses, provided they can show that the case was "vexatious, frivolous or in bad faith." Anderson demanded a hundred and twenty-eight thousand dollars. On August 3, 2001, Wales's office filed a response to Anderson's lawsuit in federal district court. "We are convinced that he brings this motion in large part to discover the identity of additional witnesses that he imagines may have contributed to his indictment," the brief stated. "During the course of the investigation, the Government received information from at least two persons indicative of defendant Anderson's violent and retributive nature." Other government documents pertaining to the case remain under seal, and the identities of the persons referred to in the brief have not been made public. In any event, Anderson's motion was dismissed, and that ruling was upheld on appeal.

A month later, the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington took place, and, soon afterward, Wales again took a public stand for gun control. "Right after 9/11, the idea started to circulate that airline pilots should be allowed to carry weapons," Trevor Neilson, the former vice-president of Washington CeaseFire, said. "Tom and I both thought it was a bad idea as a matter of public policy, but I thought it was wrong politically to come out against it at this time. The atmosphere was so strong in favor of doing anything to stop terrorism. But Tom disagreed. He thought arming pilots was a terrible idea, and he was going to say so publicly." On September 25th, Wales participated in a half-hour debate - which was broadcast several times in the Seattle area, on NorthWest Cable News - about whether airline pilots should be allowed to carry guns in the cockpit. Pilots, he said, "are not trained as Green Berets, they are not trained as law enforcement." He added, paraphrasing Duane Worth, the president of the Air Line Pilots Association, "It simply is not possible for an airline pilot to be Sky King and Wyatt Earp at the same time." Sixteen days later, Wales was dead.

John McKay's complaints about the investigation of Wales's death did produce some changes. The reward was raised to a million dollars; more F.B.I. agents were assigned to the case; and the original government lawyer on the case was eventually replaced by Steven D. Clymer, who had been a senior prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles. Best known for leading the successful federal prosecution of the Los Angeles police officers who beat Rodney King, Clymer had become a professor at Cornell Law School, and he coördinated the investigation from there.

Progress came slowly. Anderson remained the only suspect; in 2004, the Seattle Times reported that the F.B.I. had searched Anderson's home in Beaux Arts and removed twenty-seven boxes of possible evidence. Agents also searched two houses in the nearby city of Bellingham, one where Anderson used to live and one where he used to visit friends. In his former home, a bullet was removed from a wall, for analysis, and a bullet and a shell casing were taken from the friends' home. The Times quoted two neighbors of Anderson's in Bellingham who said that they had sometimes seen him fire a handgun into the ground from his back deck. (The Times, citing a policy of not naming criminal suspects, identified Anderson as a pilot who had been unsuccessfully prosecuted by Wales.)

Anderson's movements on the night of the murder were traced in detail. In the early evening, he and a friend had attended a showing of "2001: A Space Odyssey" at a movie theatre about ten minutes from Wales's home, in Queen Anne. After the murder, someone had made telephone calls from Anderson's home in Beaux Arts, about twenty minutes from Queen Anne. Would Anderson have been able to commit the murder between the time the movie ended and the time the phone calls began? "It would have been very tight, but not impossible," Charles Mandigo says.

Wales was killed by .380-calibre bullets that investigators quickly determined came from a Makarov semiautomatic handgun. These guns are widely available in the United States. Ballistics experts in the Washington State Crime Lab and at the F.B.I. noticed some unusual markings on the bullets indicating that they had been fired through a replacement gun barrel. "The Makarov uses corrosive gunpowder, and the barrels tend to wear out," an investigator in the case told me. The F.B.I. located the manufacturer of the replacement barrel and learned that approximately twenty-six hundred of the barrels had been sold. The agency then undertook a search, which is ongoing, to find each barrel. "We feel real confident that this particular barrel was the barrel that created the ballistics that we had," Robert Geeslin, the agent in charge of the investigation, said. (Investigators have been unable to establish that Anderson ever owned a Makarov, and found no connection between the bullets and the shell casing in Bellingham and the ballistic evidence in the Wales case.)

In Seattle, the case began to fade from public view. Only two local reporters, Steve Miletich and Mike Carter, of the Seattle Times, continued to write about it. Then, in late January of 2006, a typed letter, postmarked in Las Vegas, arrived at the F.B.I. field office in Seattle. "Re: Thomas C Wales," it began, and went on:

OK, so I was broke and between jobs I got an anonymous call offering [the amount was redacted by the F.B.I.] to shoot the guy, so I drove to Seattle to do the job. I did not even know his name. Just got laid off from a job. Nice talking lady, I didn't know her name, she called me, talked to me by name, and asked if I needed some money. I agreed to pursue the matter, hell, I was going bankrupt....

I drove to the address, and then parked some distance away, north of downtown. I kind of camped out in the backyard of this house, and waited for the guy to settle in at his computer. Once he was there, I took careful aim. I shot two or possibly more times, and watched him collapse. I absurdly waited a few minutes and then left. I was sure he was dead.

Retracing my steps, I dropped off the gun, found my money, and returned to Vegas. I feel bad about it, but I needed the money, and there were no witnesses.

The envelope identified the sender as "Gidget" and gave as a return address the address of a business in Las Vegas with no apparent connection to the crime. Investigators believe that the letter may have been typed at a Kinko's, or somewhere similar. No traces of DNA were found on the letter or on the envelope.

"I think it's clear if you read the letter that the account described by the letter is fabricated," an investigator told me. "That said, whoever wrote that letter has a fairly sophisticated knowledge of the murder, probably better than ninety-nine point nine per cent of the people in Seattle. Wales lived north of downtown, he was in his basement, and the shooter shot him from the back yard. If you were just a casual follower of the story, you wouldn't know that. What's the motive in sending it? Why do it? He wants to throw the investigators off." An analysis of the letter by the Behavioral Sciences unit of the F.B.I. suggested that the author could be connected to the crime. The authorities also determined that Anderson was in Las Vegas at the time the letter was sent. ("He did not write the Las Vegas letter," Larry Setchell, Anderson's lawyer, told me.)

The case has taken a financial and emotional toll on Anderson, Setchell said. He no longer works for U.S. Airways, and Setchell declined to identify his current employer. "He is in retraining right now," Setchell said in June. "He is senior enough that he will be flying left chair" - that is, captain - "in a jumbo jet by the end of the summer."

By all accounts, John McKay was a successful U.S. Attorney in Seattle. He reorganized the office, increased the number of prosecutions, and improved morale. At the annual meetings of all U.S. Attorneys, McKay made a point of mentioning Wales. "Once a year, I stood up in front of my colleagues and talked about Tom Wales," McKay said. "He was murdered, and he was murdered in the line of duty. Most of my colleagues really welcomed that. I felt it was my job to do it." James Comey, who succeeded Thompson as Deputy Attorney General under Ashcroft, testified before Congress earlier this year that McKay "was excellent, in my experience. I had worked with him, as with the others, as a peer when I was U.S. Attorney in Manhattan and then as the Deputy Attorney General. So I had a very positive sense of John McKay." On September 22, 2006, McKay's office received a glowing evaluation from the Department of Justice. On December 7th, McKay, along with six other U.S. Attorneys, was fired.

The dismissals of the U.S. Attorneys soon became a national story, and Alberto Gonzales, the Attorney General, and other Administration officials have struggled to explain the reasons for the firings. Gonzales, in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in April, had little to say about McKay. To the best of his recollection, Gonzales said, McKay was fired because of his aggressive advocacy, in August, 2006, of an information-sharing system for federal prosecutors and for his complaints in a September 22, 2006, story in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer about budgetary constraints in the Seattle office. (McKay ran a pilot program for the Law Enforcement Information Exchange, a Justice Department initiative that allows state and federal investigators to share information. The program has since been expanded.)

Gonzales's justifications for McKay's dismissal now seem unlikely to be true, because it has become clear that Justice Department officials were seeking to fire McKay before 2006. On March 2, 2005, Kyle Sampson, Gonzales's chief of staff, included McKay's name on a list of thirteen U.S. Attorneys to be fired, in an e-mail to Harriet Miers, the White House counsel. Sampson sent the e-mail four months after the 2004 elections, and after McKay decided not to bring charges against the Democratic Party, or people affiliated with it, in Washington State, in the wake of a narrow victory by Christine Gregoire, the Democratic candidate, in the governor's race. The contest, which was resolved after two recounts, prompted a lawsuit by the state Republican Party alleging widespread voting irregularities.

Several of the fired U.S. Attorneys had declined to prosecute Democrats in electoral disputes. Many Democrats have suggested that the prosecutors were dismissed by Gonzales and the Bush White House in retaliation for failing to advance Republican political objectives. But, in a deposition before the House Judiciary Committee in April, Sampson offered another explanation for McKay's dismissal. He said that McKay might have been fired because he had been too aggressive in his advocacy of the investigation of Tom Wales's murder. Sampson testified that McKay had approached Larry Thompson, then the Deputy Attorney General, and demanded that he "take some action" on the investigation, and that subsequently there had been tension between the two men. ("I don't remember being mad at John McKay," Thompson told me. "We always had to do balancing acts about how to allocate resources, but I never thought John acted inappropriately in the Wales case." McKay said, "Larry Thompson was extremely supportive of the Wales investigation, and of me personally. I'm unaware of there having been any criticism.")

Sampson's testimony caused a sensation in Seattle. "The idea that I was pushing too hard to investigate the assassination of a federal prosecutor - it's mind-numbing," McKay told reporters at the time. "If it's true, it's just immoral, and if it's false, then the idea that they would use the death of Tom Wales to cover up what they did is just unconscionable." After news of Sampson's statements broke, six Democratic congressmen from Washington State wrote to Glenn A. Fine, the inspector general of the Justice Department, who had begun an inquiry into the firings, asking that he investigate whether "Mr. McKay's removal may have been related to his zealous advocacy for increased Justice Department attention to the murder of Tom Wales."

The question of why McKay and the other U.S. Attorneys were fired remains unanswered. (Harriet Miers has been subpoenaed to answer questions on the subject before the House Judiciary Committee, but she has refused to appear, citing executive privilege. A court fight about the matter seems likely.) The notion that McKay was fired for failing to prosecute Democrats is plausible. But the passion that McKay brought to the Wales case may have played a part, too.

After the disclosure of a possible connection between Wales's murder and McKay's firing, Alberto Gonzales assured Wales's family that the Justice Department was committed to solving the killing. On June 27th, Gonzales, who was visiting Seattle, met with Elizabeth Wales; the Wales's daughter, Amy; and Eric Redman, and told them that the case remained a priority. According to Geeslin, more than ten investigators, from the F.B.I. and the Seattle police, are working on the case full time. "The level of commitment is very, very high," Geeslin said.

With the passage of time, though, a prosecution becomes more difficult. Mary Aylward, Wales's next-door neighbor and a witness to some of the events of October 11, 2001, died in a car accident last year. Jerry Diskin, the acting U.S. Attorney, who came to the hospital after Wales was shot, has also died. Solving a murder case more than six years after the crime occurred is rare.

The F.B.I. will not confirm that Anderson remains under scrutiny. However, last August the agency again searched houses in the Seattle area in which he had lived. In December, he was compelled by subpoena to spend eight hours giving handwriting samples to investigators. Around then, Anderson, who had married, for the second time, in 2005, separated from his wife, Andrea, and on January 12, 2007, he filed for divorce. In a court filing on March 7th, Andrea Anderson sought a restraining order against her husband. "The Court should be informed and take into account that [Anderson] has been and continues to be the chief murder suspect in the Thomas Wales investigation," she wrote in a sworn declaration. "I recently received a phone message March 2, 2007, from my husband stating he would create a website in my name, with my address, my phone number and pictures of me stating I am a whore because I stated to some acquaintances that he was the suspect. [Anderson] has a history of stalking his former wives, and myself when we were briefly separated. He is capable of anything, and I am fearful that if I do not do as he wishes . . . he may retaliate." Two days later, Anderson filed a reply, in which he denied his wife's charges. "I have not stalked my current wife and have not threatened her or tried to manipulate her," he stated. He added, "I am not going to comment on the 'FBI' material as it is not relevant to this case." (The judge overseeing the divorce ordered Anderson and his wife to stay away from each other.)

In June of this year, Andrea Anderson testified before the grand jury investigating the Wales murder, but investigators caution that her ex-husband may never be charged. Referring to Anderson, one law-enforcement official said, "If you investigate somebody for five years and you haven't closed the deal, you have to draw inferences from that, too."



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

David Iglesias Set To Testify Wedensday

Damage the GOP?

Before Bush leaves office, the GOP will be a minor political party and they have only themselves to blame.

Iglesias Testimony Could Damage GOP
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Monday 30 July 2007

David Iglesias, the former US attorney for New Mexico who was fired last year along with eight other federal prosecutors, will testify Wednesday before the House Ethics Committee about a phone call he received from Representative Heather Wilson (R-New Mexico), who queried Iglesias about the status of public corruption cases he was pursuing in the state.

In a brief interview Monday, Iglesias said he will testify in a closed-door session of the Ethics Committee about the call he received from Wilson last October. The committee has opened a preliminary investigation into allegations that Wilson violated House ethics rules by calling Iglesias to find out about corruption cases involving Democrats weeks before last year's midterm elections. Wilson faced a tough reelection campaign last fall.

Iglesias said he received similar inquiries last year from New Mexico's Republican senator, Pete Domenici, who is facing a separate probe by the Senate Ethics Committee. Congressional ethics rules prohibit lawmakers from contacting federal agency officials during ongoing probes. The investigation into Wilson's contacts with Iglesias marks the first time in more than a decade that the House Ethics Committee has launched an investigation of a member of Congress. The committee has been virtually inactive over the years, even as numerous Republicans and some Democratic members of Congress were found to be involved in a wide range of scandals.

"The House Ethics Committee has been inactive for years; they sat silent through the Abramoff investigation, through Congressmen Bob Ney and Duke Cunningham going to jail," said Mary Boyle, communications director for the nonprofit government watchdog group Common Cause. "There has been an unspoken commitment between members of Congress: 'I won't file an ethics complaint against you if you don't file one against me.' Common Cause has been advocating for an independent Ethics Commission because Congress has proved that it cannot police itself."

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, another nonprofit government watchdog group that filed ethics complaints against WIlson sand Domenici, agreed with Boyle.

"In the past, the Congressional ethics committees have been loathe to police the conduct of members of Congress," Sloan said. "Members of Congress are still leaving it to the Justice Department to force members to behave ethically."

Iglesias testified before Congress in March that his refusal to provide Wilson and Domenici with details of his investigations played a role in his firing last December.

"I felt leaned on," Iglesias told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in March. "I felt pressure to get these matters moving."

About six weeks after the telephone calls Iglesias received from Wilson and Domenici, he was fired. Justice Department officials told Iglesias his dismissal was being carried out to give someone else an opportunity to serve as US attorney. However, evidence has surfaced implying that Iglesias and other US attorneys were fired for partisan political reasons.

Wilson has publicly acknowledged that she phoned Iglesias last year to inquire about ongoing probes involving Democrats, but she disputed Iglesias's characterization that the phone calls were meant to pressure the former US attorney to secure indictments prior to the election. Wilson also denied that her inquires played a part in Igesias's dismissal.

Iglesias testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March that he received a phone call from Wilson while he was in Washington, DC dealing with Justice Department matters. Wilson's phone call, Iglesias said, came two weeks before Domenici telephoned him at home. He said the call was brief. Wilson had started the conversation with some small-talk and then queried him about the status of sealed indictments.

"She asked me, 'what can you tell me about sealed indictments?'" Iglesias said. "The second she said any question about sealed indictments, red flags went up in my head, We specifically cannot talk about indictments until they are made public in general. It's like calling up a [nuclear] scientist ... to talk about those secret codes. The launch codes."

Iglesias said he was "evasive" and "nonresponsive" to Wilson's questions.

In an interview with Truthout in May, Iglesias said he believe a "smoking gun" exists that will lead directly to White House political adviser Karl Rove and blow the US attorney scandal wide open. News reports said Domenici had complained to Rove about Igleisas and sought Rove's assistance in having Iglesias fired.

"I believe somewhere on an RNC computer - on some server somewhere - there's an email from Karl Rove stating why we need to be axed," Iglesias said.

Iglesias said Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and perhaps other officials are likely responsible for placing his name and the names of his colleagues on a list of US attorneys to be fired purely for partisan reasons.

Iglesias added that, in addition to pressure from Domenici and Wilson, he was also pressured by Republican Party operatives to pursue individual cases of voter fraud.

He said that beginning in 2005, his office had come under pressure when a close confidant of Karl Rove had alleged there was widespread voter fraud in New Mexico. Iglesias said he had investigated those allegations tirelessly and found zero evidence to back them up. He added that, based on evidence that had surfaced thus far and "Karl Rove's obsession with voter fraud issues throughout the country," he now believes GOP operatives had wanted him to go after Democratic-funded organizations in an attempt to swing the 2006 midterm elections to Republicans.


Truthout reporter Matt Renner contributed to this story.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Friday, June 29, 2007

W.H.Must Be Feeling The Heat: They are screwing up, big time.

This just gets more whacko by the day.

By asserting executive privilege, in the way that they did, the White House admits improper involvement in the firings of the U.S. attorneys; the very thing of which they are being accused.

God, these people give me a headache!

Oh, and it gets even worse....read on

Legal Memo Confirms White House Led Effort To Target And Remove U.S. Attorneys

Today, White House counsel Fred Fielding released a letter informing Congress that President Bush will assert executive privilege over White House documents relating to the firing of U.S. attorneys.

Fielding attached a legal memorandum written by Solicitor General Paul Clement, laying out the legal basis for the executive privilege claim.

Clement reviewed the documents that the Congress subpoenaed. In his letter, Clement reveals what investigators have suspected from the very beginning — that the White House was intimately involved in the attorney scandal. Upon examination of the White House documents,
Clement writes:

Among other things, these communications discuss the wisdom of such a proposal, specific U.S. Attorneys who could be removed, potential replacement candidates, and possible responses to congressional and media inquiries about the dismissals.

The White House had “said that Mr. Bush’s aides approved the list of prosecutors only after it was compiled.” President Bush himself said that “the Justice Department made recommendations, which the White House accepted” regarding the removal of the attorneys.

On a related point, Marcy Wheeler writes that it is a serious conflict of interest for Clement to be advising Bush to assert executive privilege in the very same scandal that Clement is supposed to be investigating.

Paul Clement, as you’ll recall, is the guy currently in charge of any investigation into the US Attorney firings, since Alberto Gonzales recused himself some months ago. He’s the one who technically oversees the Office of Special Counsel investigation into whether politics played an improper part in Iglesias’ firing or the hiring of career employees in DOJ, he’s the one who oversees the joint Office of Professional Responsibility and Inspector General investigations into whether anything improper–including obstruction of justice–occurred in the hiring and firing of USAs. And now, he’s the guy who gets to tell the President that he doesn’t have to turn over what might amount to evidence of obstruction of justice in the Foggo and Wilkes case, among others.

Clement’s letter reveals the White House was deeply involved in selectively targeting attorneys for removal. These documents presumably reveal the motives of the White House in purging the U.S. attorneys. Now Clement is working to ensure those documents never become public.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Obstruction of Justice?

So, what else is new?

These peopele do nothing but lie and obstruct. That's the only way they can function, since just about everything they have done, while in office has either been unethical or a violation of law.

When, pray tell, is something actually going to be done about it?



Breaking: Fifth Top Justice Official Linked To Attorney Scandal Resigns

Mike Elston, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, has become the fifth Justice Department official to resign after being linked to the firings of several U.S. attorneys:
Elston’s resignation is effective at the end of next week. Reached Friday afternoon, he confirmed his plans to leave but would not say why.

Elston is a key figure in several recent Justice Department scandals:

– Last month, Elston admitted that at the direction of McNulty, he placed calls to four fired U.S. attorneys calls that three of the prosecutors say involved threats not to testify before Congress about their dismissals. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said that Elston’s calls were one of many examples in this scandal that have the “whiff of obstruction of justice.”

– Former Missouri U.S. Attorney Bradley Schlozman recently testified that he had consulted with Elson about filing controversial voter fraud indictments a week before the 2006 election. Former Justice Department officials have said that Schlozman’s call to Elston was “inappropriate” and may have been part of an effort to “pressure” Election Crimes chief Craig Donsanto into approving the indictments. [Link]

– Elston came under fire for allegedly politicizing the DoJ Honors Program, a highly selective program for entry-level DOJ lawyers. A group of anonymous Justice Department employees complained that “Elston rejected hundreds of potential applicants to the program last year seemingly based on their political backgrounds.” [Link]

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Friday, June 15, 2007

Subpoenas Have Been issued, to Taylor and Miers



Why Were They Fired?
By Dan Froomkin

Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, June 14, 2007; 1:20 PM

President Bush last month complained that the congressional probes into the firings of nine U.S. attorneys were being "drug out . . . for political reasons." White House spokesman Tony Snow yesterday dismissed the issuance of congressional subpoenas to two former White House aides as an attempt to "create some media drama."

But if anyone is to blame for the dragging out of the probes and the drama, it's Bush himself. He and his aides have consistently refused to tell the American people why those federal prosecutors were fired.

Democrats have reason to suspect that at least some of the firings were set in motion by Karl Rove's White House political staff and were intended to affect politically charged cases in ways that would benefit the Republican Party.

Those are serious allegations. But the official White House response has been a non-denial. That U.S. attorneys "serve at the pleasure of the president" is immaterial. And the absence thus far of definitive evidence of wrongdoing at the White House level may be due more to effective stonewalling than to any lack of actual wrongdoing.

There's certainly a growing body of evidence to suggest that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has essentially turned over control of the traditionally independent Justice Department to political operatives.

If Bush wants this media drama to go away -- and if there is, in fact, an innocent explanation for the firings -- then it's in his best interest to come clean, in public, and sooner rather than later.

Why wait for a congressional hearing?

But that's not what's happening. Instead, the White House's carefully parsed and entirely unforthcoming statements on this matter are reminiscent of the response four years ago to allegations that White House aides had leaked CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity to reporters.
Back then, Bush could well have demanded an answer from his staffers and then shared it with the American people. He chose not to. Whether he chose not to because he knew that two of his top aides were involved in the leaking is still, to this day, not entirely clear. By stonewalling, Bush was able to postpone that revelation until after getting reelected.

Had the Democrats been in a position to issue subpoenas, things might have turned out differently.

And today, with the White House simply refusing to respond forthrightly to some very troubling charges, it is entirely reasonable for Congress -- and the press -- to ask, over and over again:

Why were they fired?

Today's Coverage
The House and Senate Judiciary chairmen yesterday issued subpoenas for former White House counsel Harriet Miers and former White House political director Sara M. Taylor.
Dan Eggen and Paul Kane write in The Washington Post: "The decision by two congressional panels to issue subpoenas to the White House yesterday escalates a constitutional showdown over the Justice Department's firing of nine U.S. attorneys that could end up being decided by the federal courts. . . .

"The White House gave no indication that it intends to comply with the demands. 'It's clear that they're trying to create some media drama,' said spokesman Tony Snow, referring to Democratic lawmakers.

"By targeting two former administration officials, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) are hoping that Miers and Taylor might decide to reach accords with the House and Senate committees, regardless of the administration's interests, according to congressional aides. . . .

"Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Democrats are keenly interested in obtaining testimony from presidential adviser Karl Rove but must first question other White House officials. A succession of Justice Department officials have denied responsibility for placing prosecutors' names on the firing lists. . . .

"'We still haven't found out who actually concocted this scheme,' Schumer said. . . .

"One constitutional-law expert said yesterday that the White House is in a difficult legal position, with little ability to refuse the subpoenas. 'They're in the unsustainable position of refusing to explain the increasing evidence of a coverup,' said Charles Tiefer of the University of Baltimore Law School.

"Tiefer, a former deputy House counsel, said the White House does not have standing to try to quash the subpoenas preemptively. That leaves White House counsel Fred F. Fielding with the choice of a negotiated settlement or a showdown in federal court.

"If the White House refuses the subpoenas, Leahy and Conyers could move to hold the White House in contempt, then forward those citations to the full House and Senate for approval. The contempt citations would then be sent to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeffrey A. Taylor, who is required to empanel a grand jury to consider indictments. Taylor may have to recuse himself because of his involvement in events as a U.S. attorney."

Richard B. Schmitt writes in the Los Angeles Times: "Except in cases involving national security or military secrets, the executive branch enjoys no absolute privilege to withhold documents from Congress. In most disputes, courts balance the interests of the administration to keep the documents private, against the public or congressional interests in learning about the material.
"Some legal experts said they believe that Congress would prevail in any court fight over the U.S. attorney documents.

"'I think if you were to stand back from this and say, "Who has the better argument?", the answer is going to be Congress,' said Peter M. Shane, an expert at the Ohio State University law school on the separation of powers.

"Shane said that conditions the White House has insisted on before making officials available for questioning appear unreasonable. The current White House counsel, Fred F. Fielding, has agreed to permit officials to answer questions from members of Congress but only if the testimony is private, unsworn and there is no transcript.

"'Saying that the investigation can proceed but not with an oath or transcript, I think, is a ridiculous offer,' Shane said. 'If there cannot be a firm record of what is actually said, then it is quite literally a pointless investigative technique. If I were advising the majority counsel on either side, I cannot imagine accepting that offer. It is worse than nothing.'"

David Johnston writes in the New York Times: "Congressional investigators have largely completed their interviews of Justice Department officials and assembled thousands of pages of departmental documents. Yet they still cannot definitively answer such basic questions as who initiated the effort to oust the nine prosecutors, how the nine were selected and whether their dismissals were motivated by a desire to push a political agenda, like accelerating investigations of Democrats or protecting Republican elected officials from scrutiny, as some members of Congress have asserted.

"The inquiry has at least made clear that Ms. Miers and Ms. Taylor, among others at the White House, helped orchestrate the effort, despite an early statement by the Bush administration denying such a role.

"Ms. Miers, starting as early as March 2005, was exchanging e-mail with D. Kyle Sampson, the attorney general's former chief of staff, discussing prosecutors who could be removed. . . .

"Ms. Taylor, the e-mail has shown, played an important role in the appointment of J. Timothy Griffin, a former aide to Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, as the interim United States attorney in Arkansas. He replaced H. E. Cummins III, one of the prosecutors removed."

In a joint press release from the two chairmen, Leahy said: "The White House cannot have it both ways -- it cannot stonewall congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents and witnesses, while claiming nothing improper occurred. The involvement of the White House's political operation in this project, including former Political Director Sara Taylor and her boss Karl Rove, has been confirmed by information gathered by congressional committees. Some at the White House may hope to thwart our constitutional oversight efforts by locking the doors and closing the curtains, but we will keep asking until we get to the truth."

Conyers said: "Let me be clear: this subpoena is not a request, it is a demand on behalf of the American people for the White House to make available the documents and individuals we are requesting to help us answer the questions that remain,' said Chairman Conyers. 'The breadcrumbs in this investigation have always led to 1600 Pennsylvania. This investigation will not end until the White House complies with the demands of this subpoena in a timely and reasonable manner so that we may get to the bottom of this."

In a letter to Fielding, Leahy wrote: "The White House's continued stonewalling leads to the obvious conclusion that the White House is hiding the truth because there is something to hide. "

And in a summary of findings thus far, the Democrats reported:

"Mr. Sampson, who has testified that he 'aggregated' the list of U.S. Attorneys to be fired, was in frequent contact with White House officials about multiple versions of proposed lists of possible U.S. Attorneys for dismissal and potential replacements over the course of nearly two years, sending draft lists for review in March 2005, January 2006, April 2006, and several drafts in September 2006 through the firings on December 7, 2006. . . .

"The evidence gathered so far also shows significant White House involvement -- including by Mr. Rove -- in the decision to dismiss David Iglesias as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico. We have learned from the testimony of the Attorney General and Mr. Sampson that Mr. Rove directly complained to the Attorney General about concerns that prosecutors were not aggressively pursuing voter fraud cases in districts in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and New Mexico. . . .

"Since the firings of these U.S. Attorneys for political reasons became public, there has been an effort to minimize, and in some instances, cover up, the role of White House officials. According to documents and the testimony of Mr. Sampson, the Attorney General was upset after the February 6, 2007, testimony of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty because Mr. McNulty's testimony put the White House involvement in the firings into the public domain. Former Justice Department White House Liaison Monica Goodling recently told the House Judiciary Committee that she was told not to attend a briefing by Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty on the firings to the Senate Judiciary Committee in February, 2007, because of the concern that her presence might prompt Senators to ask questions about White House involvement."


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.