oh happy day???

Posted on Tuesday 24 April 2007


Low-key office launches high-profile inquiry
The Office of Special Counsel will investigate U.S. attorney firings and other political activities led by Karl Rove

Most of the time, an obscure federal investigative unit known as the Office of Special Counsel confines itself to monitoring the activities of relatively low-level government employees, stepping in with reprimands and other routine administrative actions for such offenses as discriminating against military personnel or engaging in prohibited political activities.

But the Office of Special Counsel is preparing to jump into one of the most sensitive and potentially explosive issues in Washington, launching a broad investigation into key elements of the White House political operations that for more than six years have been headed by chief strategist Karl Rove.

The new investigation, which will examine the firing of at least one U.S. attorney, missing White House e-mails, and White House efforts to keep presidential appointees attuned to Republican political priorities, could create a substantial new problem for the Bush White House.
The decision by Bloch’s office is the latest evidence that Rove’s once-vaunted operations inside the government, which helped the GOP hold the White House and Congress for six years, now threaten to mire the administration in investigations.

The question of improper political influence over government decision-making is at the heart of the controversy over the firing of U.S. attorneys and the ongoing congressional investigation of the special e-mail system installed in the White House and other government offices by the Republican National Committee.
This is almost too good to be true. Is it a Rovian trick? Nothing makes me think that, but our government has been so infiltrated that I guess it pays to be paranoid. On the other hand, this may be an agency that’s untouched by the creeping partisanship that’s overtaken the DOJ and most of the Executive Branch. That presentation of political strategy and Republican electioneering at the GAO was actually hard to believe. I was stunned with the "Hubrris" – a word increasingly used to describe the George W. Bush era.

We’re not looking for a partisan investigation, just a fair one. I think our veneration of Patrick Fitzgerald and his investigation of the Plame leak was more a veneration of his integrity than the actual results. We got much less than we wanted, but we accepted his conclusions because we respected him. Let’s hope that we get the same kind of result from the Office of Special Counsel. At least, it’s not part of the Department of Justice

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency. Our basic authorities come from three federal statutes, the Civil Service Reform Act, the Whistleblower Protection Act, and the Hatch Act.

OSC’s primary mission is to safeguard the merit system by protecting federal employees and applicants from prohibited personnel practices, especially reprisal for whistleblowing. For a description of prohibited personnel practices (PPPs), click on the prohibited personnel practices link.

PPPs & Whistleblower Protection: OSC receives, investigates, and prosecutes allegations of PPPs, with an emphasis on protecting federal government whistleblowers.  OSC seeks corrective action remedies (such as back pay and reinstatement), by negotiation or from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), for injuries suffered by whistleblowers and other complainants.  OSC is also authorized to file complaints at the MSPB to seek disciplinary action against individuals who commit PPPs.
  • independent!
  • investigative!
  • prosecutorial!

But, then there’s this:

Karl Rove is under investigation by the executive branch. So, too, is his investigator.

On Tuesday, The Los Angeles Times reported that the Office of Special Counsel, an obscure federal investigative and prosecutorial agency that is supposed to protect federal employees from prohibited personnel practices, is preparing to jump into one of the most sensitive and potentially explosive issues in Washington, launching a broad investigation into key elements of the White House political operations that for more than six years have been headed by chief strategist Karl Rove.
But who is Scott Bloch, and should his vow be taken at face value? The Times story did not provide background on the fellow who will be examining whether Rove and other administration officials may have violated the law by using political email accounts for White House business, by explicitly encouraging government actions for direct partisan gains, and by dismissing David Iglesias, a US attorney in New Mexico. Bloch is a George W. Bush appointee, and his recent record is not one of a relentless pursuer of government corruption and wrongdoing.

In February, The Washington Post reported Bloch himself was under investigation:

The Office of Personnel Management’s inspector general has been investigating allegations by current and former OSC employees that Special Counsel Scott J. Bloch retaliated against underlings who disagreed with his policies–by, among other means, transferring them out of state–and tossed out legitimate whistle-blower cases to reduce the office backlog. Bloch denies the accusations, saying that under his leadership the agency has grown more efficient and receptive to whistle-blowers.
That same year, public interest groups and employees at the OSC accused Bloch of running an overly partisan shop. As Govexec.com reported:

Amendments to a complaint filed against Special Counsel Scott J. Bloch in early March allege that OSC took no action on a complaint regarding then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice’s use of government funds to travel in the weeks before the 2004 presidential election, but vigorously pursued allegations against Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry’s visit to the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

Three nonprofit whistleblower protection groups–the Government Accountability Project, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and the Project on Government Oversight–and anonymous career OSC employees filed the initial complaint March 3, listing a series of prohibited personnel practices and violations of civil service laws by Bloch.

The politicization allegations stem from Bloch’s decision to have a group of lawyers report to a political deputy rather than a career senior executive. The complaint states that OSC has pursued trivial matters without regard to political affiliation…but has not evenly handled higher profile cases.

At the OSC, Bloch is supposed to protect whistleblowers. But he’s been charged with reprising against those who challenge his agency and others. Before Bloch was appointed by Bush to take over the OSC, he was a deputy director and counsel at the Justice Department’s Task Force for Faith-based and Community Initiatives.

"By most measures, his tenure has been an absolute failure," says Adam Miles, legislative representative at the Government Accountability Project. "He’s been under pressure to start doing something." Miles notes that GAP did not initially expect the complaint it filed against Bloch in 2005 to go anywhere. "It was referred to a federal entity called the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency," Miles recalls, "and we thought it would just rot there." But the case was handed to Pat McFarland, the inspector general for the Office of Personnel Management. McFarland is a former St. Louis detective who spent 22 years as a Secret Service agent before becoming IG at OPM in 1990.

McFarland’s investigation of Bloch, Miles says, "hasn’t been a totally transparent process but we’re hearing it’s reaching a conclusion–which could be motivation for Bloch to start this investigation into the White House. If OPM does turn up any adverse information on Bloch, it would be more difficult for the White House to get rid of him while he was actively investigating them." But this could cut the other way. If Bloch is the subject of an investigation, he might be inclined to treat the White House favorably to protect his own position. In either case, there seems to be a conflict of interest. Bloch, Miles says, "may not be the appropriate person to be conducting the investigation" of Rove and the White House.

It is a dizzying situation. The investigator investigating officials who oversee the agency that is investigating the investigator. Forget firewalls. This looks more like a basement flooded with backed-up sewage–with the water rising.
Is there nothing left untouched by this darkness on the land?

Don’t be fooled here. The fact that the administration launched an investigation here is a sure sign that Democratic oversight and attention on the issue of the federal attorney sackings opened up some real vulnerabilities for the White House. The modus operandi for this administration when a real problem surfaces is to push the issue into the lap of an in-house “investigation” that will drag on forever, allowing the White House to deflect all media and opposition inquiries and demands for open accountability by saying “we can’t comment because the matter is under investigation.” That is what happened here.

The Democrats and the center-left blogosphere got a hold of a story which was only the tip of the iceberg about the overt politicization of the entire government, which threatened to reveal everything Rove has put into place over six years. The Democrats and the mainstream media haven’t yet fleshed out the full picture, but Rove knew they were headed in that direction. So presto-chango, suddenly an “inquiry” is launched by an Ashcroft alum at Justice who himself has purged the OSC of experienced staff, and the party line will be that “we can’t comment due to the ongoing investigation by the OSC.” And it is all BS. Even the Bush-friendly Washington Post editorial page says today that there is a need to get to the bottom of how involved the White House was in the sacking of these attorneys and presumably the reasons why they were sacked. Democrats need to press ahead with an independent inquiry, and subpoena the administration to construct the full story. They should also formally demand the appointment of a Special Prosecutor and force Alberto to reject such a request.

and from C.R.E.W... 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.