1 Boring Old Man

GSA chief violated Hatch Act, OSC report finds

An Office of Special Counsel report has found that General Services Administration chief Lurita Doan violated the Hatch Act, which bars federal officials from partisan political activity while on the job, sources say.

The report addresses a Jan. 26 lunch meeting at GSA headquarters attended by Doan and about 40 political appointees, some of whom participated by videoconference. During the meeting, Scott Jennings, the White House deputy director of political affairs, gave a PowerPoint presentation that included slides listing Democratic and Republican seats the White House viewed as vulnerable in 2008, a map of contested Senate seats and other information on 2008 election strategy.

According to meeting participants, Doan asked after the call how GSA could help “our candidates.”

Doan has until June 1 to respond to the OSC report, which was delivered to her May 18, according to officials. The officials asked to remain anonymous because the report has not been made public.After Doan responds, the report will be sent to President Bush with recommendations that could include suspension or termination. The president is not required to comply with the suggestions.

Office of Special Counsel spokesman James Mitchell said the independent office will release the report after it is sent to the White House, but will not comment on the investigation until then. The White House did not return a call seeking comment. Elaine Kaplan, who headed the Office of Special Counsel under President Clinton and early in the current administration, said “it is extremely unusual” for an agency head to be accused of violating the Hatch Act. But for most employees the penalty for violating the act “is removal,” Kaplan said.

Doan has repeatedly said that she does not remember details of the Jan. 26 meeting.

DOJ official: Goodling broke down over firings

Monica Goodling, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ former White House liaison, broke down in tears in a colleague’s office as a furor rose about her department’s firings of eight federal prosecutors, according to interview excerpts released Tuesday.

"’All I ever wanted to do was serve this president and this administration and this department,’" Goodling said during a March 8 conversation, according to Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis.

Margolis told House and Senate investigators of the conversation during a private meeting earlier this month.

During the 30- to 45-minute encounter, Goodling proceeded "to bawl her eyes out" and repeat the phrase, Margolis said.

 

A month ago, I mentioned a local project about some unusual trees in the Georgia woods around here – thought to be Indian Trail markers. Well, I spent the weekend in a University Dendrochronology lab where they date trees by studying "cores." The objection to the notion that these are, indeed, remants of our Native American past is that the trees aren’t that big. How could the be that old? The Cherokee were removed from North Georgia in 1838 and marched on the "Trail of Tears" to an Oklahoma Reservation by Andrew Jackson’s Army.

These are the preliminary result from duplicate cores from two of the trees. You don’t have to understand the graph to see the timeline along the bottom. These two trees date from 1771 and 1782 respectively! Very exciting. What does it mean? Keep digging and core a lot more trees. I guess it’s a scientific rule of sorts. Do a preliminary "look see." If you find something, keep looking. It takes a lot of evidence to prove a hunch.

When I got back last night and looked over the news and the blogs, I thought that we’re further down the road with the U.S. Attorney Firing Scandal than our group is with the trees. TPM got to looking in January at the firing of Carol Lam, and things have mushroomed since then. It looks like that "hunch" is rapidly becoming a huge truth. There was a concerted effort by the Republican Party to essentially make the Department of Justice into its political arm. Last week, we heard Comey’s damning testimony. On Wednesday, we get to hear Monica Goodling’s version of the story. Take a look at emptywheel‘s posts on The Next Hurrah and Joshua Marshall‘s posts on TPM for the latest developments. The mainstream media has joined in [Washington Post and McClatchy].

This is a hunch that turned into a scandal on steroids! For several years, there’s been an escalating roar that this Administration is internally corrupt at a level beyond anything previously experienced, but that contention has been discounted as "partisan," or "democrats," or "liberals" trying to undermine the President. I’ll admit to being a liberal sort, but certainly not what they would define as Liberal. And I’ve never been so politically vocal. I think of myself as one of a growing throng of people who have had a hunch that this Administration is not "conservative," not "republican," not even just "partisan." This Administration is two other things: unscrupulous and inept – one dangerous combination. And this U.S. Attorney firing affair highlights both characteristics.

To be honest, I don’t know much about the World Bank – what it does, why it is. All I know is that Paul Wolfowitz, in spite of a long history of prestigeous jobs in policy making positions, is a very flawed guy. If he’s done anything in his career that’s been notable as a positive, I don’t know it. He hacked out a Defense Guidance for George Bush I that sounds like something a Roman Caesar might go for. He continued to push it in the Clinton years, being the author of the infamous letter from the Project for a New American Century to President Clinton in 1998. He set up Douglas Feith’s shop in the Defense Department to develope fictitious Intelligence to justify invading Iraq. He’s obviously got the ethical fortitude of a used car salesman.

Wolfowitz is the worst kind of government official. He speaks with expertise, but has none. He thought it was imperative to unseat Saddam Hussein. He was wrong about that. He thought it was okay to support his crazy protige`, Feith. That was a mistake. He testified that we didn’t need any more troops to occupy Iraq than it would take to defeat Hussein – a collassally wrong decision. He cut a sleazy deal for his girlfriend at the World Bank. That hasn’t gone as well as he planned.

He makes bad decisions, gives bad opinions, is ethically challenged, is not easy to get along with, and has very big ears. He’s taken up way too much space in our papers. It is absolutely fine for him to fade into private life somewhere, with or without his girlfriend. Like so many BushCo appointees, the only real thing to say is that he shouldn’t have been appointed in the first place.

The Department of Justice seems to be placed squarely in the center of most of the scandals during the Bush Administration: The outing of a C.I.A. Agent [prewar intelligence], the N.S.A. Unwaranted Domestic Spying issue, and the partisan firing of the U.S. Attorneys. I’ve tried to summarize the timeline to get it straight for myself.

After 911, Attorney General John Ashcroft, a strong law and order advocate, became involved in the Homeland Security initiative. There were several parts of that program he initiated that were questionable [TIPS and DSEA], and we don’t know about his involvement in the secret N.S.A. Unwarranted Domestic Surveillance Program. After Joseph Wilson published his op-ed piece criticizing the Administration’s handling of the pre-War Intelligence and the Administration had ‘outed’ his wife, Valerie Plame, in retaliation, Ashcroft misbehaved – being briefed on Karl Rove’s testimony. At the suggestion of his Deputy Attorney General James Comey, he recused himself from the case. Comey appointed Special Prosecuter Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the matter – ultimately exposing the Administration’s outing of Valerie Plame, and indicting and convicting I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff, for his false testimony to the Grand Jury.

At that time, the N.S.A. Unwarranted Domestic Surveillance Program was a secret, but it required periodic review by the Justice Department. In March 2004, Deputy Attorney General James Comey was supervising that review and concluded that the program was illegal, communicating the findings to Attorney General John Ashcroft. Shortly thereafter, Ashcroft became extremely ill and had to be hospitalized leaving Comey in charge as acting Attorney General. As we learned this week in detail, Comey refused to sign off on the program, and kept White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card from extracting a signature from the delerious Attorney General. The program was approved anyway, and the high level Justice Department officials prepared to resign in protest. In response, the Administration apparently recanted and some alterations were made in the program – though we have yet to learn the details about those changes.

At the end of Bush’s first term, Attorney John Ashcroft resigned, citing health reasons, though he immediately became involved in a lucritive K-Street lobbying enterprise, bringing that reason into question. He was replaced by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales. Comey stayed on until the Fall of the following year, replaced by Paul McNulty. We know from the DoJ emails that with Gonzales’ arrival, they began to make plans to replace a number of the U.S. Attorneys. These plans were not communicated to Deputy Attorney General James Comey.

Meanwhile, in December 2005, the New York Times finally revealed the N.S.A. Unwarranted Domestic Surveillance Program, having known about it for a long time. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defended the program, but it was ultimately declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the Republican Congress passed a modified version of the program [to our horror]. Finally, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced that there would be no more unwarranted surveillance in January of this year, presumably in response to the Democratic takeover of both Houses of Congress. After Comey left the Department of Justice, the plans for replacing U.S. Attorneys intensified – some left voluntarily to avoid being fired. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales turned over all hiring and firing matters to his junior associates, Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson and White House Liason Monica Goodling, presumably to insulate himself from repurcussions. And a clause was ‘slipped into’ the Patiot Act giving the Attorney General the power to appoint Interim U.S. Attorneys indefinitely without Senate Confirmation. In December 2006, eight U.S. Attorneys were fired.

With the coming of a Democratic Congress, we all hoped that they would begin investigation the sheenanigans of the Bush Administration – the ‘cooking of the pre-War Intelligence, the O.S.P., the Iraq Invasion, the N.S.A. Spying, etc. But as things turned out, it was the firing of the U.S. Attorneys that was on the front burner from the start. In the three months of investigation, most of the principles in the DoJ have resigned [except for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales]. The implication thus far is that these firings were directed by the White House and that the motives were to protect Republicans under investigation, to initiate voter harassment prosecutions, and to encourage investigation of Democrats. Each day, there’s new information that make this whole affair smell increasingly like rotten eggs.

How is Impeachment No Longer Inevitable?

It’s a perfectly fair question, even though most Democrats and the DNC insist those who ask it are embarrassing obtuse dirty fucking hippies who should best be ignored.

The latest outrages are the precisely described "thuggish "behavior of our President and Attorney General as they burned the constitution, along with gross abuse of Congress and the rule of law by ignoring perfectly legal and valid Congressional subpoenas.

As Atrios asks, when are our Senators going to wake up to the fact that they actually have to do something about this? That incredibly lame statements that “the committee intends to get to the truth” are laughably inadequate?

There isn’t any way to get ourselves out the many urgent crises we have except as a start to get rid of the criminals who dare to represent our country as soon as possible. 2008 without Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Gonzales should be the first priority of our Congress, and no other.

Senator Schumer: But you are telling us that none of these people expressed any reservations about the ultimate program. Is that right?

Attorney General Gonzales: Senator, I want to be very careful here. Because of course I am here only testifying about what the President has confirmed. And with respect to what the President has confirmed, I believe – I do not believe that these DOJ officials that you are identifying had concerns about this program.

In addition, on April 6, 2006, in answer to a question from then House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner about the hospital visit, which had been reported in the press, you responded: "Mr. Chairman, what I can say – and I’m sure this will not be acceptable, but let me say it anyway – is that I have testified before that the disagreement that existed does not relate to the program the President confirmed in December to the American people."

We ask for your prompt response to the following question: In light of Mr. Comey’s testimony yesterday, do you stand by your 2006 Senate and House testimony, or do you wish to revise it?

But after Comey’s testimony yesterday, it’s hard to imagine why the whole lot of them aren’t on somebody’s short list. As bad as their policy-making, as inept as their decisions, as suspect as their motives, it’s their general behavior and sleazy way of doing things that are the real grounds for a mass burial: Outing a C.I.A. Agent, nullifying Congress with Signing Statements, doctoring Intelligence, late night visits to get a signature from a desparately ill man, lying to Congress, withholding or destroying email communication, voter harassment, interfering with Federal Prosecutors, Interim Appointments to avoid Congress… The list is staggering. There should be a standard for "Conduct Unbecoming of a Public Official." I hate to fall back on Clinton’s impeachment, but he was impeached for telling a lie that had nothing to do with his functioning as a President. I’m not defending him. I frankly wanted him to resign at the time. But these people chronically operate like white collar criminals, and yet impeachment proceedings aren’t introduced because they aren’t under indictment for specific crimes. The bar is set way too low.

But since that’s where the bar is set, I suppose the only recourse is to keep the investigations going until such indictments can be levied. It’s only a matter of time. There are lots of James Comeys and Valerie Plames out there. Sooner or later, someone will reveal a straw that breaks the camel’s back. And as an aside I’m not proud of, I’d really rather see them on the wrong end of criminal proceedings than given an honorable discharge…

      ^{When I’m dead and buried,
      Don’t you weep after me.
      When I’m dead and buried,
      Don’t you weep after me.
      When I’m dead and buried,
      Don’t you weep after me.
      I don’t want you to weep after me.}

      [traditional]

“Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions.”

“AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals”

“If you’re not a born-again Christian, you’re a failure as a human being”

“It appears that America’s anti-Biblical feminist movement is at last dying, thank God, and is possibly being replaced by a Christ-centered men’s movement which may become the foundation for a desperately needed national spiritual awakening”

“The whole (global warming) thing is created to destroy America’s free enterprise system and our economic stability”

I once joked to a friend [a Minister] that Falwell preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in the Old Testament, the book of Ezekiel. He said, "You’re too kind." I understood what he meant. He thought that the hateful message of Jerry Falwell had nothing to do with Jesus, at least as he understood Christianity. But I think I’ll hold my point. As I understand Christianity, it was a reaction to the law based practices of Judaism in his time. It became a religion that reacted against the cruelty and elitism of the Roman Empire, an influence that brought an end to that Empire. Christianity, as I understand it, is about kindness. It’s the legacy of my own experience of Christianity that I do exalt "kindness" as an ideal, even though it’s often difficult, and sometimes impossible.

What does it mean – kindness? It means treating others as if they are your same kind. That’s what Jesus did. And I suppose I believe that’s what Christians do. I don’t hear Jerry Falwell knowing anything about that. And what of the rules of churches such as Falwell’s? Jesus was a rebel. He rebelled against the rules of the synagogue. He turned over the money changers’ tables. He even rewrote the Commandments. The teachings of Jerry Falwell are inconceivable in any clear understanding of Christianity – at least the Christianity of the Bible I read as a young person. And what of this business of God smiting people as a punishment for their sins. One finds that sort of thing throughout the Old Testament, but it’s not the teaching of Jesus, the founder of Christianity. If anything, the teaching is the opposite. "An eye for an eye" became "turn the other cheek." "Judge not, that you be not judged." "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." And where in Christianity is there any precedent for anything like, "[homosexuals are] brute beasts…part of a vile and satanic system [that] will be utterly annihilated, and there will be a celebration in heaven?"

So, as to why we should not be responding to the death of Jerry Falwell in the same way he might respond to the death of one of us? It’s probably because of the Christian influence in our backgrounds, something about kindness. Jerry Falwell was not a follower of the teachings of Christ. He may have believed the supernatural tenets of Christianity – virgin birth, son of God, resurrection, ascension. But he missed the whole point of the teachings by a mile.

I find it ironic that, in my opinion, his pronouncement that America is a Christian Nation is the most odious of all of his ideas. I say that he’s missed the point. We are a nation with religious freedom. But, privately, the reason I am so opposed to his saying we are a Christian Nation is something else.  It’s his distortion of what the word Christian means that I find revolting. I think I actually agree that our nation was founded on Christian principles – notably kindness. That’s what "All men are created equal" means to me. We are all the same kind.

[from Firedoglake’s live blog]:

Senator Schumer: What about the hospital visit to Ashcroft, because you refused to sign the NSA spying program.

James Comey: Wednesday March 10 2004.

James Comey: This was a very memorable period in my life, probably the most difficult time in my professional life.

Senator Schumer : Were you present when AGAG visited Ashcroft’s bedside.

Senator Schumer : Did the conduct trouble you greatly.

James Comey: I’ve thought about it a lot. I assumed I would have to testify about this some day. I will not reveal the content of advise I gave as a lawyer. I’ve gotta back up a week. In early part of 2004, reevaluation of particular classified program. It required signature by AG to its legality. I remember precise date when program needed to be renewed. A week before I had a private meeting with the AG and I laid out with him what our analysis was. Within hours he was stricken, taken ill.

Senator Schumer : Something was wrong with the way it was being overseen.

James Comey: We had concerns as to our ability to certify its legality.

James Comey: We communicated that to WH that we could not recertify program. I was driving home, got a call from David Ayers, gotten a call from Mrs. Ascroft, from the hospital, Mr Card and Mr Gonzales were on the way to the hospital. I have some recollection that the call was from the President, I’m not sure. I called my COS to get as many of my people to the hospital immediately.

James Comey: I was concerned that they might ask Ashcroft to overrule me when he was in no condition to do that. It wasn’t clear he could orient to time and place. It was you, Mrs. Ashcroft, and the AG. I tried to help him get oriented. Meuller instructed the FBI agents not to remove me under any circumstances. The three of us DOJ people were in the room, Jack Goldsmith and Patrick Phildmon (sp). We waited. It was only a matter of minutes, in walked Gonzales and Card. They stood by the bed and then AGAG began to discuss why they were there, to seek his approval. AG Ashcroft stunned me and in very strong terms expressed his view of the matter, drawing from the hour long view we had a week ago. Then he said, "that doesn’t matter bc I’m not the AG."

Senator Schumer : But he expressed his reluctance to sign it.

James Comey: Yes. The two men did not acknowledge me, they walked from the room. We had a brief exchange with AG. Then we went outside in the hallway.

Senator Schumer : Am I correct that it was AG that did most of the talking.

James Comey: Yessir.

Senator Schumer : They made it clear that there was in this envelope that they hoped Ashcroft would sign. AG–what was his condition. What happened after Gonzales and Card left? Any contact with them in the next little while.

James Comey: I was getting a call next door. It was Card. Card demanded that I come to the WH immediately, I told him I would not meet without a witness present. Card said, "what conduct, we just wished him well." I said, "I would not come without Solicitor General." I said I needed to go back to DOJ first. Mr. Olson immediately went to Department where we sat in conference room. About 11 that night, Mr. Olson and I went to WH together.

Senator Schumer : Just before you get there–you told Card you were troubled by conduct of WH. What did you tell Olson that so upset you.

James Comey: I was angry I thought I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man. We discussed what to do. (lists who was there) I don’t want to reveal the substance.

Senator Schumer : They all thought what you did was the right thing?
James Comey: I didn’t ask. It was a very hard night.

Senator Schumer : Did you meet with Card?

James Comey: Mr. Card would not allow Olson to enter his office. Asked Olson to sit outside. I went in alone. We had a discussion which was much calmer than discussion on telephone. Mr. Gonzales arrived, brought Olson into room, the four of us had a discussion. It was much more civil. I had calmed down a little bit. Ted Olson I respected enormously.

Senator Schumer : Was there any discussion of resignations with Mr. Card?

James Comey: Card had heard reports that there were to be large number of resignations at DOJ.

James Comey: Program was reauthorized without us. I prepared a letter of resignation on March 10.

Senator Schumer : Even in light of that you still felt so strongly that you drafted a letter of resignation. Why did you offer your letter of resignation.

James Comey: I couldnt’ stay if the Admin was going to engage in conduct that DOJ said had no legal basis.

Gonzales’ yearlong effort to block Comey’s testimony

Back in February, 2006 — a couple months after the New York Times first revealed that the Bush administration was spying on Americans in violation of FISA — the Senate Judiciary Committee informed the Justice Department that it wanted to question John Ashcroft and his former Deputy, James Comey, regarding the NSA program. In particular, the Committee wanted to question the two DOJ officials about a Newsweek article reporting that both of them, in 2004, refused to certify that the NSA eavesdropping program was legal.

In response, Alberto Gonzales refused to allow Ashcroft or Comey to testify about any such matters, and in doing so, this is what he said:

In addition, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales signaled in an interview with The Washington Post yesterday that the administration will sharply limit the testimony of former attorney general John D. Ashcroft and former deputy attorney general James B. Comey, both of whom have been asked to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the program.

"Clearly, there are privilege issues that have to be considered," Gonzales said. "As a general matter, we would not be disclosing internal deliberations, internal recommendations. That’s not something we’d do as a general matter, whether or not you’re a current member of the administration or a former member of the administration."

"You have to wonder what could Messrs. Comey and Ashcroft add to the discussion," Gonzales added.

Similarly, Assistant Attorney General William Moschella claimed: "we do not believe that Messrs. Ashcroft and Comey would be in a position to provide any new information to the committee."