The story first broke in London's Telegraph newspaper, under the headline "Barack Obama would consider charging Bush administration over Guantanamo." The article described a campaign event in Deerfield, Fla., in which, according to the Telegraph, vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said:
"If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation, they will be pursued, not out of vengeance, not out of retribution, out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no attorney general, no president -- no one is above the law."
Asked about the comment this morning on Fox News, Biden said it is Congress -- not a potential Obama administration -- that is investigating the White House.
And he denied today that an Obama administration would launch criminal investigations against the 43rd president of the United States.
"The Obama-Biden administration is not going to start off saying, "God, let's go take a lot at what [happened]." The American people want to know what we're going to do, not what happened."
Biden also had some things to say about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's speech to the Republican National Convention Wednesday night, calling it "impressive" but lacking in specifics. And he called the media's treatment of Palin's family life "sexist."
So now it turns out that Alberto R. Gonzales, while attorney general, took home some top secret documents, in violation of Justice Department regs.
Two violations. First, Gonzales kept the documents in a safe in the fifth-floor attorney general's suite, where employees without proper clearances got a chance to look at them. Second, he took some documents -- including handwritten notes about the administration's sensitive surveillance and detainee programs -- to his home in Virginia. There he kept them in his briefcase because he could not remember the combination to his safe, which was not secure enough for the docs anyway.
In fact, in a report issued today, the Justice Department's inspector general said the former attorney general, President Bush's pal, could remember very little:
Gonzales also said he did not recall whether Department or FBI security personnel were unable to open the safe, nor did he recall being asked by anyone for the combination to it. Gonzales also said he did not recall being asked for the combination by his assistant, but stated that he had no reason to dispute that the assistant had indicated that Gonzales did not know the combination. He said it was possible he had forgotten the combination to the safe.
His attorney, George Terwilliger, responded to the inspector general by saying, "Judge Gonzales regrets this lapse." The department decided to scold the former attorney general, not to punish him. And, to be fair, who among us hasn't forgotten the combination to our top secret home safe?
But our question is: What is it with these former officials who think they can just stick things in their briefcase -- or in the case of former Clinton administration national security advisor Sandy Berger, in his socks -- and take them home?
The proposed rule change was first set out for public comment on July 31, and drew little attention:
As law enforcement agencies, including local and state units, watch for signs of terrorist activity, they could target groups as well as individuals, and begin criminal intelligence investigations "based on the suspicion that a target is engaged in terrorism or providing material support to terrorists." And they could spread around the law enforcement world the fruits of the investigation.
In short, it would move local police forces into the realm of intelligence-gathering that had been the work of the FBI and other federal agencies.
The proposed shift was noticed by the Washington Post, which reported Saturday that the Justice Department's proposal "would make it easier for state and local police to collect intelligence about Americans, share the sensitive data with federal agencies and retain it for at least 10 years."
The newspaper noted that the administration was in the process of revising domestic intelligence-gathering in its waning months in office, and would lock in policies for President Bush's successor, completing the greatest expansion of executive branch authority since the Watergate era.
Jim McMahon, deputy executive director of the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, was quoted by the Post as saying the changes would "catch up with reality," updating rules from the early 1990s to the post-9/11 world.
He said police agencies would still have to demonstrate a "reasonable suspicion" that a target was involved in a crime before collecting intelligence, the paper said.
But, it noted, Michael German, policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union and a 16-year veteran of the FBI, said police agencies could misunderstand it as allowing them to collect intelligence "even when no underlying crime is suspected."
He cited as an example an investigation into a charitable donation to a group later designated as a terrorist organization.
It risks turning police officers into "spies on behalf of the federal government," he said.
The Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary -- seen here on the right with Republican colleagues Arlen Specter (center) and Orrin Hatch -- wrote at least a dozen letters to the White House in the last year, asking for folks like political guru Karl Rove and chief of staff Josh Bolten to testify. No dice.
Then he reluctantly issued subpoenas. Again, no top White House witnesses.
Not content with letter-writing, the House Judiciary Committee and its firey chairman, John Conyers, took the White House to court, winning a ruling that Rove and former counsel Harriet Miers had no claim to executive privilege.
Still no response.
So today the normally mild-mannered Vermont Democrat wrote a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding. He accused the White House of stonewalling and of trying to "run out the clock" on its term in office. He said:
You rejected our efforts and insisted on your initial take-it-or-leaving-it proposal for off-the-record, backroom interviews with no transcript, no oath and no ability to follow up, which would have denied Congress the ability to fulfill its legislative and oversight responsibilities.
Having obstructed our proceedings for more than a year, and having unsuccessly resisted the House's action in court, it certainly seems that your intention is simply to run out the clock. It is clear to me that this administration has no interest in complying with its lawful duty or showing respect to the rulings of Congress or the courts.
Mocking Fielding's offer to "remain available" to explore "ways to reach accommodation," Leahy says those "hollow words are no substitute for action, especially given this administration's unwillingness to engage in good faith accommodations in the past, the interposed months of delay and your legal position having been repudiated by the court."
Appeals. Rulings. Negotiations. Delays. Will this movie ever end?
Remember the case of the nine U.S. attorneys who were fired from their jobs amid accusations from Democrats that they were canned for not toeing the Republican line? Remember how the White House claimed executive privilege and refused to let top aides like chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers testify before Congress? Remember when a U.S. district judge, John Bates, said they had to?
Well today Bolten and Miers asked the judge for a delay. Seems they want to appeal his ruling. And they need more time. In a court filing they said:
Whatever the proper resolution of the extraordinarily important questions presented, the public interest clearly favors further consideration of issues before defendants are required to take actions that may forever alter the constitutional balance of separation of powers.
The tussle over this particular controversy could end by January. That's when congressional subpoenas expire, about three weeks before President Bush leaves office. As C2C reported earlier, Miers has been effectively muzzled.
But other investigations live on. As Murray Waas reports today in the Huffington Post, a federal grand jury has subpoenaed several former senior Justice Department attorneys in an investigation into the politicalization of the Justice Department's civil rights division. Over its hiring policies.
One question: whether senior administration figure Bradley Schlozman lied to Congress about screening attorneys for political affiliation before hiring them.
And, even more explosive, Waas is now reporting that the Justice Department investigation into the firing of the nine prosecutors has been extended to examine the question of whether senior White House officials misrepresented their roles in the scandal.
-- Johanna Neuman
Photo: Harriet Miers with President Bush. Credit: Matthew Cavanaugh / Getty Images
Republican Ted Stevens is the king of pork-barrel earmark spending. The senior senator from Alaska is also the architect of the infamous Bridge to Nowhere, a project to connect the town of Ketchikan (population 8,900) with its airport on the Island of Gravina (population 50) at a cost to federal taxpayers of $320 million.
Last month he was indicted on seven counts of falsifying his Senate disclosure forms. The federal charges allege that he hid $250,000 in gifts from an oil producing company to renovate his Anchorage area home. The inference is that the company got many favors in return from the senator's legislative juice as chairman or ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee.
But none of that stopped President Bush from embracing Stevens, at least verbally, when he stopped at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska last night to refuel on his trip to Asia. Stevens is popular in Alaska, known as "Uncle Ted" for his faithful record of steering federal funds to the 49th state over the years. When Bush acknowledged him, the audience applauded. Talking to airmen and their families, Bush said:
The United States military has had no better support and stronger friend than Sen. Ted Stevens. Thank you for coming, Senator.
As the Swamp reported, White House press secretary Dana Perino called Bush's remarks "absolutely appropriate."
The White House's hopes of using a broad claim of executive privilege to shield top officials from testifying before Congress ran into a brick wall today.
U.S. District Judge John Bates, a Bush appointee, ruled in a 93-page opinion that former White House counsel Harriet Miers is not immune from congressional subpoena and is required to testify on the U.S. attorney scandal and the politicization of the Justice Department.
And attention, Karl Rove: The judge rejected procedural arguments by Miers and White House Chief of staff Josh Bolten, ruling that they have to cough up documents.
Democrats were thrilled.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called it "very good news for anyone who believes in the Constitution of the United States and the separation of powers, and checks and balances."
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. pledged to call Miers before the committee as soon as September to testify about whether the White House played any role in the firings of nine U.S. attorneys last year. In a statement, he said:
We look forward to the White House complying with this ruling and to scheduling future hearings with Ms. Miers and other witnesses who have relied on such claims. We hope that the defendants will accept this decision and expect that we will receive relevant documents and call Ms. Miers to testify in September.
No word yet on whether the White House will appeal.
The House Judiciary Committee voted along straight party lines this morning -- 20 to 14 -- to issue a contempt citation against former White House political maestro Karl Rove. The offense: failing to honor a subpoena to testify about his role in the federal and possibly political prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, a popular Democrat sent who was to prison on corruption charges that are now under appeal.
A coalition of groups pushing for the contempt citation hailed the move. "We couldn't be more pleased with the Judiciary Committee for standing up for American democracy and the rule of law by recommending to the House that it find Rove in contempt," said Robert Greenwald, president of Brave New Films, the organization that launched the Rove campaign. (The group also wants Connecticut's Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman banished from the Democratic Party for supporting GOP presidential nominee John McCain).
Yesterday the coalition delivered three boxes of petitions containing 127,000 signatures urging a contempt citation to California's Linda Sanchez, a subcommittee chairwoman, who opined, "I think it's ridiculous that Karl Rove thinks that he doesn't have to follow the law. Nobody in this country should be above the law."
But with the contempt resolution now on its way to the House floor, the committee's ranking Republican, Lamar Smith of Texas, castigated the action as "a Salem witch trial of Karl Rove."
Accusing Democrats and reporters of a rush to judgment, Smith said there is no credible evidence to support a contempt resolution against Karl Rove.
Rove failed to appear before the committee, citing executive privilege, and the session came to be known as "the empty chair hearing." But he did answer questions in writing. As C2C (Countdown to Crawford) reported last Wednesday, Rove sent an unsigned letter to Smith, denying any involvement in Siegelman's case. In the letter, forwarded to the committee by his attorney, Rove said:
I have never communicated, either directly or indirectly, with Justice Department or Alabama officials about the investigation, indictment, potential prosecution, prosecution, conviction or sentencing of Gov. Siegelman, or about any other matter related to his case, nor have I asked any other individual to communicate about these matters on my behalf. I have never attempted, either directly or indirectly, to influence these matters.
But Siegelman, in a subsequent e-mail to Times staffer Tom Hamburger on Thursday, called on the former White House strategist to testify under oath. He particularly questioned whether Rove talked about the case with Bill Canary, a Republican whose wife is the U.S. attorney in Montgomery, Ala. That office indicted Siegelman -- though Canary recused herself from the case. In the e-mail, Siegelman wrote:
Rove refused to deny that he had plotted with the US Attorney's husband, Bill Canary, to get his wife to further the joint state/federal investigation which was started by Rove's client, the Alabama attorney general. Karl Rove built his career in Alabama working with Bill Canary. Rove's client started investigating me in 1999 right after I endorsed Al Gore. Then the wife of Rove's associate, Laura Canary, accelerated the case federally in 2001, she indicted me during the 2006 campaign, and she brought me to trial less than four weeks before the election. There is sworn testimony that Bill Canary said that he had it worked out with Karl to destroy me, and that two Alabama US Attorneys would do the job. Both those US Attorneys did in fact indict me. And now, Rove refuses to deny that he talked to Bill Canary about prosecuting me. They sent me to prison on less evidence than this.”
Back at the Judiciary Committee, Smith warned his colleagues that "the American people have a low opinion of Congress" and "the relentless efforts to malign an outgoing administration only lower the public's opinion of Congress."
Meanwhile Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, wrote a letter to the committee pointing out that Rove "has not asserted any personal privileges." In the letter to Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), Luskin writes:
He has declined to appear because he was directed not to do so by the president of the United States. While we understand that the committee disagrees with the legal position that the president has taken, punishing Mr. Rove will not vindicate the committee's authority. Neither will a contempt vote resolve the dispute.
The question of executive privilege -- does Bush or any POTUS have the right to withhold testify of top aides -- is now before the U.S. District Court in DC.
It’s never too late to admit a mistake—particularly someone’s else mistake.
Bush administration lawyers took the unusual step today of telling the Supreme Court that one of its recent decisions was “erroneous” and “tainted” and therefore deserved to be reconsidered.
Now you tell us, since the error arose at the Justice Department.
On June 25, the justices struck down a Louisiana law on the death penalty for child rapists, saying in a 5-4 ruling that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment for crimes that did not involve murder.
The court’s opinion failed to note that the Uniform Code of Military Justice was revised in 2006 to authorize the death penalty for soldiers who are guilty of raping a child. The court didn't mention the military code because the U.S. solicitor general's office, which advises the court on all cases and is supposed to inform the justices of all pertinent federal statutes, never pointed it out.
In a 12-page brief, Gregory Garre, acting solicitor general, acknowledged the slip-up. "The United States regrets that it did not" notify the court of the recent change in the military code, he said.
But the rest of his 12-page brief was devoted to arguing why the court should reconsider its "incorrect" ruling. Noting that the error "undermines the foundation" for the court's ruling, Garre argues that a new hearing will “ensure that a decision of exceptional constitutional, moral and practical consequences is not tainted by a significant omission.”
It is still a long shot for Garre and Louisiana’s lawyers. Requests for a re-hearing at the high court are rarely granted. The justices may not act on the unusual request until October.
When Monica Goodling appeared before the House Judiciary Committee in May 2007, she testified that in her five years as the White House liaison to the Justice Department, she might have "crossed the line" occasionally by asking overt political questions of job applicants, but added, "I didn't mean to."
Today the Justice Department's inspector general released a new report concluding that political considerations -- namely how Republican their credentials were -- influenced the hiring of career prosecutors and immigration judges. And the report says that Goodling, who testified before Congress with immunity, was among the chief partisan cheerleaders. The report says:
"Goodling improperly subjected candidates for certain career positions to the same politically based evaluation she used on candidates for political positions."
The inspector general concluded that it was "improper, and violated the law and department policy, for Goodling to use political or ideological affiliations in selecting or rejecting detailees to these positions."
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee sounded a note of vindication. After taking flak from Republican colleagues for what the GOP called an unrelenting fishing expedition, Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) said he's eyeing perjury charges. In a statement, he said:
"Today's report describes ‘systematic’ violations of federal law by several former leaders of the Department of Justice. Apparently, the political screening was so pervasive that even qualified Republican applicants were rejected from Department positions because they were ‘not Republican enough’ for Monica Goodling and others. The report also makes clear that the cost to our nation of these apparent crimes was severe, as qualified individuals were rejected for key positions in the fight against terrorism and other critical department jobs for no reason other than political whim."
As a result, Conyers said, he has asked the committee staff to look into perjury charges against Goodling, former Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales and Kyle Sampson, his chief of staff. Even though Goodling had immunity to testify, committee staffers say, she still had an obligation to tell the truth.
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) chimed in too, saying, “Those of us who have watched the Bush Administration politicize the federal government aren't surprised by today's report. In the Bush White House, politics comes first, even if that means justice takes a back seat.”
But Lamar Smith, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, weighed in by arguing that partisan hiring, while regrettable, was not widespread.
“While the findings in the report are troubling, suggestions that these isolated instances of improper hiring decisions were endemic of a widespread problem are false and undermine the good work of the many civil servants and political appointees at the Justice Department. Although the report does show wrongdoing by a few, it also shows that several political appointees expressed concerns over Monica Goodling’s hiring decisions. Additionally, at this point there has been no evidence that improper partisan political influence affected the substance of the Department’s work.
James Gerstenzang and Johanna Neuman are reporters in The Times' Washington bureau. Between the two of them, they have covered the White House, diplomacy, military affairs, the environment, international economics, trade and Congress. They have both spent time in Crawford, Texas.
