Shorter Schloz' Criminal Referral

/in /by

Is here. Or rather, the Inspector General’s report describing his criminal referral for lying to Congress.

We have referred this matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia for a decision on whether the evidence warrants a criminal prosecution. We provided to the prosecutor the evidence we gathered in the course of our investigation, including transcripts of interviews and relevant documents and e-mails.

[snip]

Schlozman is no longer employed by the Department and, therefore, is not subject to disciplinary action by the Department. We recommend, however, that, if criminal prosecution is declined these findings be considered if Schlozman seeks federal employment in the future. We believe that his violations of the merit system principles set forth in the Civil Service Reform Act, federal regulations, and Department policy, and his subsequent false statements to Congress render him unsuitable for federal service.

Of course, the report is dated July 2, 2008. So what has happened?

Here’s the answer to that question:

We referred the findings from our investigation to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia in March 2008. We completed this written report of investigation in July 2008.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office informed us on January 9, 2009, of its decision to decline prosecution of Schlozman. The Interim U.S. Attorney, Jeffrey Taylor, was recused from the matter and the decision.

So, after taking ten months to decide whether or not to prosecute (ten months which happened to include an election in which one of those named in the report–Hans Von Spakovsky–served on FEC), they now release the report. Nice.

Consider this a working thread. I need to run out for a few hours, and I assume that WO and others will get a good start on this before then.

image_print
  1. Attaturk says:

    Now the Schloz did say to Congress, under oath I believe, that he didn’t use “political affiliation” in appointments.

    Which, he clearly did.

    So he lied to Congress and committed perjury.

    I know I’m just a simple lawyer, but those strike me as criminal offenses.

  3. dakine01 says:

    Who could have anticipated that the Bush DoJ would decline to prosecute AL-VINNN for lying to Congress?

  4. WilliamOckham says:

    Noted without comment (at least for now):

    The e-mails recovered do not represent the entire universe of e-mails sent or received by the relevant persons during the period. Because of the Department’s procedure for backing up and preserving e-mails, some e-mails were not recoverable.

    footnote 2 on p. 2 (5 of 70)

  5. emptywheel says:

    Remember, we knew that?

    Marc Grossman told us that during the Libby trial. They couldn’t recover the emails between him and those he ordered to write the INR memo, since State’s email system is worse than the White House’s.

    Though, given this, I’d say it’s time for some renewed attention to the fact.

    • WilliamOckham says:

      Yeah, but DOJ had the best system of any of the government agencies I’ve seen. Email is weird. It’s almost impossible to get rid of, but it’s just as hard to keep it all.

      • DBaker says:

        and of course it doesn’t include private e-mail accounts such as gmail and yahoo. Schlozman’s biggest fault is his stupidity – he used the regular e-mail system to state these things and also bragged about it with people who were not his friends. There are other people named in the report who were obviously smart enough just to keep their thoughts to themselves.

        As an aside, the statistical graph showing hires by Schlozman is striking. 83-2 Rep. v. “Democrats” and who knows whether those “Democrats” were of the Zell Miller/Joe Lieberman variety.

      • Rayne says:

        WO — Remain open to the concept that these guys were using parallel, non-government systems for much of this communication.

        WashIndy team looking at the report, too. Obviously enough in the emails they do have, IMO:

        In one exchange, Schlozman wants to get rid of a “liberal” voting rights attorney, by, presumably, banishing him on a tedious assignment:

        In an e-mail dated November 28, 2003, to front office Counsel von Spakovsky and Principal [Deputy Assistant Attorney General] Bradshaw, Schlozman wrote about a particular Voting Section attorney, “If I recall correctly, [Voting Section attorney] is a crazy lib hans, am I right?” and “a detail would be a great way to get him out of our hair for 6 months.”

        Yikes. Talk about idiots…

  6. BoxTurtle says:

    Hrrumph. Can this be re-examined by the new DOJ? Or, failing that, could he be questioned by the committee again under oath and given another chance to lie?

    A faint cry from the wilderness is heard in the White House: Where are our pardons?

    Boxturtle (A faint cry from the White House is heard in the wilderness: Legacy!)

  7. bmaz says:

    Attaturk for Attorney General!!!

    Certainly he has more useful experience for the job than Elena Kagan does for Solicitor General.

    And we could trust him to actually prosecute the criminals who have proved to be the biggest threat to our Constitution (which is, after all, the duty in the oath to office).

    And there is not yet a Turk in the cabinet, so good for diversity too!

  8. WilliamOckham says:

    This is the heart of the matter:

    For example, Cutlar said she objected to hiring a candidate who was the girlfriend of an attorney hired in the Division’s Educational Opportunities Section because the applicant was unqualified. The applicant, who was working as a contract paralegal at a law firm, was a member of both the Federalist Society and the Republican National Lawyers Association. Cutlar said she also noted a discrepancy in dates on the applicant’s résumé – specifically that during the period the applicant claimed to have been self-employed practicing law, she was not admitted to any state bar. When Cutlar sought an explanation from the applicant during the interview, Schlozman told her to “let it go.” Cutlar argued with Schlozman after the interview that the candidate had not been truthful and should not be hired. By the time she returned to her office, however, Cutlar had received an e-mail from Schlozman informing her that he was hiring the applicant.9

    Footnote 9:

    The applicant resigned her position at the Department before the end of her first year when faced with possible termination for poor performance.

  10. WilliamOckham says:

    Another interesting bit:

    Kim told us that when he became the AAG in November 2005, he had concerns about Schlozman serving as his principal deputy. He said it was not his decision to make Schlozman the principal deputy. He said he was told by the Presidential Personnel Office when he became AAG that Schlozman would be his Principal DAAG.

  11. freepatriot says:

    does the USA have a name ???

    just add his name to the criminal complaint in the spot where you write in the names of the defendants

    when a USA denys to prosecute, he’s OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE

    I have no problem with a USA Declining prosecution

    but then we get to RETRY THE CASE

    and if we get a conviction, the USA goes to jail too

    that way, we KNOW the USAs have incentive to DO THEIR FUCKING JOB

    if any USA objects, well, he must want to retain the right to obstruct justice

  12. JohnLopresti says:

    Until recently FEC actually was soliciting comments on ways to improve; link to submissions received. Eliza Newlin Carney has a helpful article at Natl J currently, which mentions a law prof with the portfolio of studying FEC dynamics on behalf of the incoming administration; McCain and McConnell had quite a degree of sport over FEC’s quaintness. Commissioners Bauerly and Weintraub’s December 18 statement of reasons for their votes in one standoff provides a glimpse of that issue. There were many other such cryogenic moments at FEC during the Bush administration. WaPo’s editor Downey has retired and published a book, evidently among its topics discussed Mayer’s ghostplane expose; but, I wonder about the civil div materials which WaPo was first to publish re 2005 180 pp suppressed unanimous civil div career attorneys memo opposing regerrymandering in the DeLay counties in TX. Boston Globe’s Charlie Savage wrote thoroughly on the civil div in 2007.

    It is wierd to hear the raves from Schlozman about his techniques of policing the civil division, then comparing it to some of the China literature from the purges in that one-party state’s ruling party in the 1960s; Schlozman is decrying as ‘communists’ career attorneys whom he victimizes with bureaucratic discipline, very much in the traditions of the party which was ruling the PRC state.

    I think bmaz wrote several summaries of the sanctions in pertinent federal law, though my expertise was more removed, in the state forum; as I recall, the only discipline executable requires the violations to have occurred thru acts of a current employee, and, as I understand it, Schlozman now is off the DoJ payroll. The NatJ article observes the hearing on the remaking of FEC is to take place tomorrow. Perhaps the IG report will provide the basis for some individual case studies.

    There is quite a pantheon of Bush administration key operatives in the dossier on Schlozman, including von Spakovsky, Griffin, Tanner, and others. In a way, I think the erosion of civil rights was a corollary of the torture programs, that other nexus being the key obliteration of tradition which had become Bush cornerstone policy throughout both terms.

  13. Loo Hoo. says:

    The Justice Department Civil Rights folks are very busy:

    The Bush Administration’s Department of Justice announced Monday that they are suing the city of Gary, Indiana for discriminating against white people.

    On Monday, the Justice Department announced a lawsuit against the Indiana city, alleging that six EMT technicians appear to have been hired on the basis of race alone in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act — which was passed to combat discrimination against African Americans.

    Raw Story

  14. WilliamOckham says:

    Here’s why they mentioned the email issue (from footnote 38):

    Acosta said that when he was made aware of the incident, he required Schlozman to make a written apology to him for his role in forwarding the e-mail and that Schlozman did so. Acosta said that he believed Schlozman wrote him the apology in an e-mail, but we were unable to retrieve Acosta’s e-mails and did not find such an e-mail among Schlozman’s recovered e-mail messages.

    • Rayne says:

      I don’t know that I trust Acosta.

      Wasn’t the southern district of Florida, where Acosta was assigned in 2005 as USA, a sensitive district for a number of reasons in terms of voting rights and politics? the Bushies wouldn’t send anybody but a solid team player to that district…

      • Rayne says:

        Yeah. The name jogged a memory that I finally pieced together (wish I had Marcy’s holographic memory, would have saved me from stewing all evening on this).

        Acosta’s and John Tanner’s paths are tightly entwined; Tanner replaced Joseph Rich, the flaming lib that Schloz wanted out, having been promoted by Acosta to voting rights section.

        Acosta “rotated” to FL when Tanner moved up from the FL farm team to replace Rich, worked on “caging support” during 2004, shall we say. Certainly well-placed for Latino outreach in Miami, where the Latin/Hispanic population may be more conservative in voting habits.

        A key case that Acosta worked on in FL: Abramoff and Sun Cruz.

        The circumstances around Acosta are quite suspect.

  15. rosalind says:

    “What’s the Matter with Kansas? Part 3″

    via TPM, Brad Schlozman re-surfaces in Witchita, Kansas, specializing in Employee Benefits, Taxation, and Tax Litigation.

    hmmm, wonder if he’s moonlighting in Gary, Indiana? (re. Loo Hoo’s #21)

  16. Mary says:

    What’s the betting line that we won’t be having USAs conducting pressers, with members of the FBI, discussing how “shocked” they are at Schlozman.

    Amazing how selective the Shock experienced in the Bush DOJ is – always about a politician, never about “the family.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ijkYkJfg0s

  17. oldtree says:

    Yes, who is the USA involved? Who might have pressure on that division to keep them from bringing sensitive matters to light? It just smells of open and outright intent to obstruct justice. More perhaps than usual in this never ending saga. This seems to be the most flagrant violation yet. Schloz has to have been protecting someone to get this kind of quid back.

  18. WilliamOckham says:

    Here’s the DOJ line about the declination of prosecution:

    Riley told TPMmuckraker that her office was only asked by the Inspector General’s office to look into the possible perjury charges stemming from Schlozman’s congressional testimony, rather than the underlying hiring decisions. She said that six career prosecutors, with between 10 and 21 years experience, conducted the investigation, reporting to Assistant US Attorney Channing Phillips (US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor recused himself from the probe).

    The investigation continued until last Friday, said Riley, and included interviews with witnesses who were not contacted by the IG’s report. Based on that investigation, a decision was made not to bring criminal charges.

    [Emphasis mine]

  19. freepatriot says:

    so what does arlen “magic bullet” specter have to say about THIS ???

    does he plan to object to eric holder because holder could fill the doj with hacks like the schloz ???

    does specter REALLY want to dis the DOJ and abu gonzo this close to the 2010 election ???

    i’m thinking this fucker is gonna want to retreat soon

    let’s turn it in to a rout

  20. GregB says:

    Can the people now officially declare the following.

    That the people are no longer required to respond to any subpoenas.

    The crime of perjury is no longer a crime.

    Sounds like equal protection for the people versus the ruling class to me.

    -G

    • oldtree says:

      The government we have does seem to be inclined to anarchic behavior. There is no evidence of “Equal justice under law”. There is no evidence that persons wealthy enough have to suffer consequences for their actions. Maddow seems to be spending his money now and doesn’t have to attend the jail meetings his intervention might require for a lesser human.

  21. Mary says:

    Umm, why wouldn’t they look at the underlying hiring decisions as well? Whatever the IG asked them to review, they have the power to review it all. And why didn’t they coordinate with the Congressional committee holding the hearings.

    I’lltakemycoffeewhiteandbitter.

  22. jonL says:

    Could one of the lawyers answer this question please: So what if the DOJ has decided not to indict this criminal. Since their has been no adjudication in this matter why can’t the new DOJ under Holder still indict this fool?

  23. freepatriot says:

    why can’t the new DOJ under Holder still indict this fool?

    no reason except statute of limitation, or presidential pardon (and Statutes of limitation can change)

    looks to me like the schloz is a BIG FAT MEATBALL hanging right over the plate

    all we need is for some hungry young AUSA to step up with a bat in his hand …

  24. freepatriot says:

    here’s another one for the legal beagles

    does Congress have to file a complaint or something before an indictment can be issued for perjury before Congress ???

    cuz arlen specter is all for the rule of law, let’s talk to him about this …

  25. BlueStateRedHead says:

    The career prosecutors not to prosecute, did they give a reason.
    Does it impede the new AG from prosecuting?

    Can there be civil suits against Schlotz by those denied positions. What happened to that idea re: Goodling.

    And can we get some member of the bar to file moral turpitude charges against, “righteous sentences” Rachel (name?) and all those mentioned in IG reports who are now bar members.

    If Gonzo is unemployable, surely we can make these people the same.

  26. BlueStateRedHead says:

    We believe that his violations of the merit system principles set forth in the Civil Service Reform Act, federal regulations, and Department policy, and his subsequent false statements to Congress render him unsuitable for federal service.

    is litigating for a firm in a federal jurisdiction count as federal service. IANAL had heard time and again that lawyers are officers of the court. Does it matter which court?