Two Days, Two Resignations

/26 Comments/in /by

And today’s (well, yesterday’s, but I was otherwise occupied) resignation is … DOJ Criminal Division Chief Alice Fisher:

Alice S. Fisher, chief of the Justice Department’s criminal division, said yesterday that she will leave government service at the end of the month after nearly three years overseeing major public corruption and corporate fraud cases.

[snip]

Her deputy, Barry M. Sabin, a former federal prosecutor in Miami, is serving in an acting capacity, and her chief of staff left for private practice earlier this year.

Justice Department officials said they are not ready to announce who will replace Fisher, who previously worked for several years at the law firm Latham & Watkins.

Fisher’s signature initiatives include a crackdown on corporate bribes and a new strategy to attack international organized crime.

No word yet on why Fisher is out, but JohnLopresti notes:

Reportedly, Robert Coughlin, who is former DoJ criminal division deputy chief of staff for Alice Fisher, last week filed and Judge Ellen Huvelle accepted, a guilty plea to conflict of interest charges for his work gifting and fundraising with Abramoff. As both DOJ’s public integrity section and the WA-DC US atty have recused, Baltimore Deputy US atty Stuart Goldberg is managing the case against Coughlin. The linked article says DoJ is mum about the process it used to select the Baltimore USAtty’s office to sub for the recused DC USAtty and the PublicIntegrity section, but sugggests associates involved in the matter may be at DoJ yet.

I don’t know whether I buy Lopresti’s suggestion (though it is a good suggestion). After all, if Fisher were about to be implicated in the Abramoff scandal, she probably would quit effectively immediately, not in three weeks.

But note how prominently Carrie Johnson highlights Fisher’s ties to corporate bribery–I wonder if that’s intentional? Corporate bribery … corporate bribery. Who is coming under threat because of DOJ’s investigation of corporate bribery???

I know! Bush’s "brother," Bandar bin Sultan. The BAE bribe investigation has been in the news of late, as the Brits try to figure out why Blair spiked their own investigation into Bandar and BAE.

The Justice Department is investigating allegations that U.K.-based British Aerospace Systems (BAE) paid millions of dollars in bribes to Bandar and other Saudi officials—in possible violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Bandar, whose close ties to the Bush family earned him the nickname "Bandar Bush," has retained former FBI Director Louis Freeh to represent him in connection with the Justice Department probe. A spokesman said Freeh was traveling overseas and could not be reached for comment.

Last week the British High Court ruled that then-Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government may have interfered with the rule of law in December 2006, when it ordered the British government’s Serious Fraud Office to shut down its own bribery investigation, allegedly after Bandar threatened to cut off Saudi cooperation with U.K. terrorism investigations if the inquiry continued. The ruling could pressure the fraud office to reopen its own shuttered investigation into the alleged scandal.

Obviously, I have no idea whether the renewed focus on Bandar and BAE relates to Fisher’s resignation. But I can sure imagine why BushCo might not want buddy Bandar indicted.

Share this entry
26 replies
  1. al75 says:

    I don’t understand: what is the basis for the Justice Dept to investigate or prosecute Bandar’s conduct in Britain?

    The case is explosive – there is no doubt — even without throwing in the equally “explosive” claim that Bandar threatened more terror bombings in London if his corruption was investigated.

    Remember that the entire section on Saudi Arabian involvement in 9/11 was redacted in the 9/11 Commission report. And — am I correct? — part of the suppressed information related to how Bandar’s wife used a cut-out to provide living expenses for two of the 9/11 conspirators.

    Bandar represents a nearly bottomless pool of corruption that involves the Bush family, and a great deal of the American elite. It’s inconceivable that the Iraq adventure got started without his support — and presumably Bandar was one of Chalabi’s backers.

    It’s hard for me to imagine that he could actually be under investigation, let alone that the Bush Justice Dept would stick its nose into stg that happened on UK soil.

    But I’d love to be wrong – so please explain if you can.

  2. al75 says:

    Oops. Sorry to double-post, but I thought the digging I did may be of interest. Here’s part of the story:

    http://blythe-systems.com/pipe…..64787.html

    WASHINGTON, Jun 27 (IPS) – The U.S. Justice Department is investigating
    allegations of bribery by the British defence contractor BAE Systems to
    Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, a high-ranking member of the Saudi royal
    family with wide contacts and relations here.

    The news brings a high-profile investigation initially launched in
    Britain to the United States, where the political influence of the
    Saudi royal family is well-known.

    Although the British government dropped its own probe last December,
    citing national security considerations, U.S. prosecutors determined
    that BAE could be investigated under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
    because it used U.S. banks to allegedly transfer payments to accounts
    controlled by Prince Bandar.

    Further down, the story notes

    It is not clear yet what prompted Washington to get involved the case,
    given its close relationship with both Britain and the Saudis, but the
    decision comes after weeks of lobbying by some European officials, and
    development and anti-corruption groups around the world who denounced
    the decision by the Tony Blair government to close its own
    investigation.

    In a letter campaign, they urged Blair to reopen the Serious Fraud
    Office (SFO) inquiry into allegations of slush funds surrounding the
    80-billion-dollar Al Yamamah arms deal between BAE Systems and Saudi
    Arabia, a transaction that dates back to 1985.

    The NYT noted in June
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11…..038;st=nyt

    BAE generates nearly half its revenue in the United States, and it recently acquired a major supplier of armored Humvees used by American forces in Iraq. American officials who were granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the matter said the Justice Department is examining whether BAE violated domestic laws banning international bribery and money laundering. Accounts in Switzerland, the Caribbean and elsewhere are involved, and, like Britain, the United States has a strategic relationship with the Saudis that the investigation threatens….

    Prince Bandar, a confidant of the Bush family, recently retained the former Federal Bureau of Investigation director Louis J. Freeh, as well as one of the fathers of the F.C.P.A., the retired federal judge Stanley Sporkin, to represent him…

    The revelation that British investigators had discovered that BAE deposited $2 billion in payments into Prince Bandar’s Washington bank accounts led the Justice Department to enter what analysts describe as the highest-profile F.C.P.A. case to date. Passed by Congress three decades ago in the wake of Watergate, it is only in the last five years that the F.C.P.A. has become a powerful tool for prosecuting domestic and overseas companies suspected of bribing foreign officials to secure business.

    Justice Department officials estimate that there are about 60 such cases under investigation or prosecution in the United States, with a new, five-member F.B.I. team dedicated to examining possible violations of the act. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group based in Paris that represents 30 industrialized countries, there are more than 150 prosecutions or investigations worldwide involving possible bribery of government officials for commercial gain.

    But I fin

  3. al75 says:

    Okay – 3rd post – sorry. The NYT article I quote above from 11/07 goes on to state

    “The F.C.P.A. has now surpassed Sarbanes-Oxley for being at the nerve endings of corporate general counsels and executives,” says Daniel E. Karson, executive managing director at Kroll Associates, a private investigative firm that conducts due diligence and background investigations for corporations and other clients.

    Last week, Alice Fisher, assistant attorney general and head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, traveled to Rome for an anticorruption conference marking the 10th anniversary of the O.E.C.D.’s adoption of anti-bribery regulations, which parallel the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

    Ms. Fisher, who declined to comment on the BAE case, said her F.C.P.A. caseload this year was running at twice last year’s pace, and she predicted that the upward trend would continue in 2008. She said she planned to press her overseas law enforcement counterparts in Rome for continued collaboration to combat corporate bribery.

    “I don’t take many foreign trips, but this is important to the overall program,” she said. “There are a lot of countries that can do more.”

    ONE of those countries, ironically, is Britain, usually among the closest of allies of the United States. Historically, according to documents in British government archives, Britain, long dependent on foreign trade, has resisted anticorruption efforts because it believes that they undermine the country’s business interests abroad.

    After a series of articles in 2003 and 2004 in The Guardian, the British newspaper, about possible bribes and other improprieties involving BAE, the Serious Fraud Office of Britain started an official investigation. But after the Saudi government strongly objected to the investigation, Mr. Blair, then the prime minister, ordered it halted late last year on security grounds.

    To me, this looks like Fisher’s departure signals a silencing of the investigation, not a deepening of it.

    • emptywheel says:

      Thanks for digging–don’t worry about three substantive comments in a row.

      I was just throwing out the BAE investigation. It could be the FCPA investigations in general–there are a number of them, and no one in the business community likes them. (Remember, too, there’s an outstanding investigation into Halliburton.)

      I just thought I’d throw it out there bc it’s one thing Fisher is doing that would really piss off BUsh. And yes, the implication is it might be an effort to end hte investigation.

  4. PetePierce says:

    If Alice Fischer is implicated in Abramoff, i.e. any connection to the gift that keeps on giving, U.S. v. I break out some champaign (a) as Christopher Walken often has said on SNL.

    She is surely guilty of helping to oversee the illegal wiretapping of attorneys and clients, and while Bmaz has correctly observed that their is code section (indeed in the so-called Patriot Act piece of shit that no one in the House or Senate ever read before passing any of them, including the now added exemption of DOJsters from Bar Standards (the existence of which has repeatedly has confused the attorneys who headline over at FDL who claim it doesn’t exist but it sure as hell does and was added in the latest update.

    The lawyers I’m talking about being tapped are not legitimately suspected of aiding their terrorist clients–the charges used to convict civil rights attorney Lynne Stewart–DOJ is tapping any attorney client communication where the client is indicted for alleged terrorism without a premise that the lawyer is aiding and abetting terror:

    Lawyers Fear Monitoring in Cases of Terrorism

    Sean M. Maher, a New York lawyer who is a co-chairman of the national security committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said he knew talented private lawyers who were refusing to take on terrorism cases because of potential violations of their privacy, including monitoring of their communications with clients. That fear has grown as a result of the disclosures in Oregon, Mr. Maher said.

    Still, lawyers in Portland and Washington who represented the now-shuttered Oregon offices of the prominent Saudi charity, al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, said they believed the government foul-up that allowed them to see the classified logbook in 2004 offered proof of improper monitoring of their communications with clients. The government has accused al-Haramain of raising money for terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda.

    Although the lawyers are now barred from discussing many of the details of the logbook, they had said previously that it recorded the date of calls between two of the Washington-based lawyers for al-Haramain, Wendell Belew and Asim Ghafoor, and the charity’s officials in Saudi Arabia. The two lawyers have sued the government, saying it illegally spied on them.

  5. PetePierce says:

    I want to clarify, because this confused LHP the last time I brought it up, I’m not talking about the requirement an attorney be a member of the Bar (dues) and has passed the bar (exam) in a local jurisdiction and has been admitted to xyz court (pretty automatic except in very rare cases whichever court) to practice.

    I’m talking about the major rules that different state bars deem actionable if they determine they have been violated (often ultimately overseen by the local state Supreme Court and given names like Bar Standards), not the requirements simply to practice law.

  6. skdadl says:

    The British BAE investigation has been stalled; a week after the high court ruling, the Serious Fraud Office was given permission to appeal the ruling to the Lords, and that apparently will take months. (That information may be in the source for your last two paras, EW, but I couldn’t see a link for those.)

    There were flurries at the top after the court’s first ruling; it became clear that the new head of the SFO and the PM and others were opposed to reopening the investigation.

  7. bmaz says:

    Hey, get this, our genius government has got freaking Nelson Mandela on the terrorist watch list! Brilliant….

  8. al75 says:

    Alice Fisher was part of a 2006 effort to shut down Justice Dept leaks.

    In similar election season warnings, senior Justice Department officials sent messages on Wednesday to prosecutors reminding them of departmental rules against leaks. One was sent by Alice S. Fisher, assistant attorney general in charge of the department’s criminal division, to prosecutors in her unit.

  10. al75 says:

    Fisher came up in Chertoff’s confirmation hearings in March 2005, after Chertoff denied any knowledge of “harsh interrogation techniques”.

    It turned out that he and four aides had reviewed complaints from the FBI about torture at Guantanemo. One of the aides was Fisher.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03…..038;st=nyt

  11. PetePierce says:

    From Christy Hardin Smith @ FDL recently:

    Wondering About Alice Fisher’s Wonderland

    I should add that Ms. Fischer has been a force in the Bush administrations substitutions of egregious DFAs or Deferred Prosecution Agreements that have allowed many individuals to escape criminal prosecution, and the awarding of multimillion dollar contracts to people in favor with DOJ like the criminal formerly in charge, one John Ashcroft.

    In Justice Shift, Corporate Deals Replace Trials

    As has always been the case with DOJ, prosecutions are brought with considerable frequency against little guys than they are against people with considerable resources or large corporate entities. This has been true regardless of the administration, but more particularly true in the administrations of Daddy Bush, Bill Clinton, and particularly in the administration of Little Georgie Bush–the one topping his fuckups daily and on a countdown to get his ass out of the White House.

    LOL I noticed even the conservative goofball named Emily who appeared with EW (who did a great job on the Michigan TV show) didn’t want to talk about George W. Bush the other day. No one around that table was close to being able to keep up with Marcy and the two conservative bloggers were not acquitting themselvesx well.

    It was amusing though when the other Emily wanted to get in a jab, she was reduced to references like “Obama Rezko” i.e. Obama knows prominent people like Tony Rezko, (the old guilt by association campaign while people are out on the street with Republicans McCain included saying it’s all in their minds, and Iraq worsens with every day) and as has been said before, if that’s the best they have, bring it on.

  12. Quzi says:

    Fisher is a protégé of Chertoff.

    Fisher has never tried a criminal case during her career. And according to Wikipediia, she has never appeared in court on a criminal case prior to her appointment as AAG.

    Sadly, Alice is one prosecutor who would have difficulty persuading a GJ to indict a ham sandwich. If anyone could bring a criminal investigation to a halt, Fisher could.

  15. DefendOurConstitution says:

    EW, we all like you, but if resignations keep coming one a day, you will have to leave the Country more frequently!

  16. radiofreewill says:

    Alice went to Gitmo in ‘02? Did she see this while she was there?

    ‘This’ is an Amnesty International Ad showing a Real Waterboarding – not for the feint of heart!

    http://www.cnn.com/video/#/vid…..oversy.cnn

    If Alice did see Waterboarding Five and a Half Years Ago, and she’s just now leaving, then We can be fairly certain She’s Just Another Bushco ‘Law’ Enforcement Snake in a Suit, who can’t personally distinguish right from wrong – looking on at “Slow Motion Murder.”

    Enjoy your Remaining Lifetime of Civil Suits and Dodging Jail, Alice!

    • sailmaker says:

      Goldsmith in ‘The Terror Presidency’ was on that Sept. 26, 2002 torture tour. He mentioned that Alice Fisher, Addington and some others, about a dozen people went on the tour. He did not write about any particular type or method of torture. By the time they got to Hamdi in Norfolk, Goldsmith wrote that ‘this is why we have habeas corpus’.

      Goldsmith had been working in the Pentagon with Haynes on torture. He had been dealing with it for quite some time, and apparently thought it was o.k. in some cases. Whatever he saw on the tour convinced him otherwise.

      I haven’t thought much beyond the fact that I’m glad Alice Fisher is gone, but maybe she put some paper (trail) out about torture that is about to implode?

      • Hmmm says:

        I’d forgotten that. Aside from Addington, who else who went on that Gitmo/NC trip still has a job in the Administration?

        • sailmaker says:

          Let’s see: Addington, Patrick Philbin, John Rizzo, Fisher, and ’several Pentagon lawyers.’ pages 99-100

          Addington: Still OVP, from personal lawyer to chief of staff.
          Patrick Philbin: was the person referenced in James Comey’s resignation speech as having a career that suffered from Addingtion- suffered for not being sufficiently pro Unitary executive, especially on that night in Ashcroft’s hospital room. Here is Marcy on him. According to the WSJ he went back to Kirkland in 2005.
          John Rizzo: Acting Council with the CIA.

          So Rizzo and Addington are the leftovers.

        • sailmaker says:

          I forgot to mention the obvious: Goldsmith, and Haynes.

          Haynes, the trip organizer, this last March disappeared to Chevron.

          Goldsmith is back at Harvard.

  17. radiofreewill says:

    sailmaker – thanks for the info!

    It really is starting to look like everyone on that Gitmo Trip are witnesses in a Criminal Investigation.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Rizzo steps down today…

    That should isolate the ‘core’ Cabal of Bootlicking, Ex Post Facto Law Writing Lawyers “Servicing Their Masters with Deniability” down to Addington, Gonzo, Miers, Bybee, Yoo, and Haynes.

    More than likely we’re getting down to The Crew that thought Destroying the Torture Tapes was a Good Idea…

    • sailmaker says:

      Given that Addington ‘may’ show up to testify next Tuesday, and that ‘the White House is contemplating closing Gitmo’ (again, but this time it might really work because they don’t want a Democrat to get credit for the closing), maybe Addington will fall on his sword for Cheney???

      Nah. Addington is going to beat back any Congressional criticism of the Unitary Executive, and he’ll pound on his high chair until he gets whatever it is that he wants: Congress will pay him to get the loud, obnoxious, rude, but brilliant Addington, to go away. That’s the way Goldsmith describes him – only Goldsmith doesn’t use adjectives, he uses examples. I just hope that Addington (if he shows) does not want retroactive immunity for the telcoms.

      The group on the 2002 torture tour seem to be part of the leaked Red Cross report, and are being picked off one by one.

      • radiofreewill says:

        We’ll see if Addington pulls a Rove – “Sure, I’ll testify” – and then throws-up his hands on Monday in a “What could I do?” gesture, as he mumbles that the White House has Muzzled him, despite his best intentions.

        If he does ’show up’ on Tuesday, I wouldn’t mind if the first question to him was: “Did you watch and listen to the Torture Tapes?”

        Followed up with:

        “What then was your position and rationale on the Destruction of the Torture Tapes?”

        And:

        “It’s clear from news accounts that you and others in the Inner Circle discussed the Enhanced Interrogation Program in Depth, but Who Legally Green-Lighted, and Who Legally Ordered, the Destruction of the Torture Tapes?”

Comments are closed.