Posts

Conyers Asks for the White House Side of Yoo and Philbin’s Emails

/21 Comments/in /by

The letter the National Archives wrote to DOJ last week inquiring about John Yoo’s missing emails focused on DOJ’s violation–as a Federal Agency–of the Federal Records Act.

Now, John Conyers is taking the reverse approach–asking for email exchanges to which the White House was a party–which would be preserved pursuant to the Presidential Records Act.

Any of the missing emails that included White House personnel should have been preserved as Presidential Records and be maintained in your archives. Therefore, I request that you search the relevant records (including both classified and unclassified materials) and provide the Committee with:

  • Any emails including John Yoo sent or received between March 1, 2002, and May 31, 2003.
  • Any emails including Patrick Philbin sent or received between July 1, 2002, and August 5, 2002.

Please make every effort to expedite this request. At a minimum, please provide at [sic] preliminary report on the results of your records search as soon as possibly, and in any event no later than March 15, 2010.

NARA is bound to find one of two things: that the abundant discussions between David Addington and John Yoo in this period (and more limited conversations with John Bellinger) have, like John Yoo’s DOJ emails, simply disappeared. Alternately, maybe they’ll find the White House’s side of emails with John Yoo, about this, and other things (such as the warrantless wiretapping program).

Any bets it’ll be the former?

At the very least, it’ll be a nice test to see how far along NARA’s project of restoring all the destroyed White House emails is coming along.

Conyers v. Obama: The “Demeaning Team”

/84 Comments/in , , , /by

I wasn’t going to post on this–I was going to let John Conyers and Barack Obama to have their public spat in peace.

According to [John Conyers], the president picked up the phone several weeks ago to  find out why  Conyers was “demeaning” him.
Obama’s decision to challenge Conyers highlights a sensitivity to criticism the president has taken on the left.

Conyers’s critical remarks, many of which have been reported on the liberal-leaning Huffington Post, appear to have irritated the president, known for his calm demeanor.

Conyers, the second-longest-serving member of the House, said, “[Obama] called me and told me that he heard that I was demeaning him and I had to explain to him that it wasn’t anything personal, it was an honest difference on the issues. And he said, ‘Well, let’s talk about it.’”

[snip]

“I’ve been saying I don’t agree with him on Afghanistan, I think he screwed up on healthcare reform, on Guantánamo and kicking Greg off,” Conyers said, referring to the departure of former White House counsel Greg Craig.

[snip]

The liberal Conyers has been an outspoken proponent of a single-payer healthcare system and a critic of U.S. involvement in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

He has also been at odds with White House policy on extending expiring  provisions of the Patriot Act, crafting legislation that is to the left of the Senate’s version.

But I thought it worthwhile to elaborate on what the Hill said about Conyers’ support for Obama–which reminds that Conyers was the first CBC member to endorse Obama.

Conyers played a pretty important role in the way Michigan’s Clusterfuck of a primary worked out. Read more →

More Proposed Oversight from John Conyers

/27 Comments/in , , /by

John Conyers has been busy. In addition to drafting bills to improve FISA and PATRIOT (more on that later), he has introduced three more bills that would improve Congressional Oversight of the Executive.

The Department of Justice Inspector General Authority Improvement Act of 2009

This Act will authorize the Department of Justice Inspector General to investigate attorney misconduct within the Department of Justice. Under current law, all allegations of wrongdoing by the Department of Justice attorneys are required to be investigated by the by the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, rather than the Inspector General. In contrast with the statutorily independent Inspector General, the Office of Professional Responsibility is supervised by the Attorney General.

This limitation on authority does not exist for any other agency Inspector General. The Department of Justice Inspector General Authority Improvement Act of 2009 will make the authority of the Department of Justice Inspector General consistent with that of all other agencies and will prevent future abuses and politicization within the Department.

DOJ’s Inspector General, Glenn Fine, has been pushing for this authority for some time (and not just because it would give him more authority). It fixes two problems that exist right now–one, that lawyers in DOJ are not held legally responsible in the same way as others might be, because they escape IG oversight (and often benefit from quiet settlements on complaints handled by OPR). And, more importantly, the current situation (in which OPR–which reports to the Attorney General–conducts investigations of lawyers) makes it almost impossible to investigate the actions of the Attorney General or his close allies. Alberto Gonzales was able to put off investigations into the US Attorney scandal for some time this way.

The Inspector General Authority Improvement Act of 2009

This Act will provide the Inspectors General of the various agencies the authority to issue subpoenas for the testimony of former employees or contractors as part of certain investigations. Under current law, a critical witness can avoid being interviewed by an Inspector General, and thus seriously impede an investigation, by simply resigning from the agency.

The bill contains important limitations on an Inspector General’s subpoena power in order to prevent abuse or damage to ongoing investigations.  Most prominently, an Inspector General cannot issue a subpoena if the Department of Justice concludes in a particular case that the taking of a deposition would interfere with civil or criminal litigation.

Read more →

Conyers to Holder: Give Us the 215 Info

/21 Comments/in /by

I guess I’m not the only one who noticed that DOJ is trying to reauthorize Section 215 without leveling with the American people how they’re using it. John Conyers, Jerrold Nadler, and Bobby Scott have written Eric Holder, requesting that he make more information on the way Section 215 is used public.

In order to meaningfully consider whether and how to extend the "business records" section of the Act, however, we ask that the Department work to provide additional public information on the use of that provision.

Specifically, at the September 22 hearing, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Hinnen testified that orders under Section 215 of the Act, which authorizes compulsory production of "business records," have been used to obtain "transactional information" to support "important and highly sensitive intelligence collection." He explained that some members of the Subcommittee and cleared staff have received some briefings on this topic, and that additional information could be made available to them "in a classified setting."

We have appreciated the information that has been provided, and fully understand the importance of safeguarding our country’s national security secrets. Too often in 2007 and 2008, however, crucial information remained unknown to the public and many members of Congress when Congress voted on important surveillance legislation affecting the interests of all Americans. As has also been requested in the Senate, we ask that the Department work to make publicly available additional basic information on the use of Section 215, so that Congress can more openly and thoroughly consider the future of this authority while fully protecting our national security secrets.

I’m hoping they have more leverage than Russ Feingold, who I believe made this request in the Senate, since nothing is going to pass through HJC without these three gentlemen’s involvement.

Karl Rove: That’s Why They Call It a Limited Hang-Out

/in /by

Corn and Isikoff took to Hardball today to treat the information that Luskin selectively leaked as credible and complete information on Rove’s role in the US Attorney firings (to Isikoff’s credit, he makes it clear that all this–including the emails–did come from Luskin), opining based on that information that Turdblossom’s probably not in any legal trouble.

Meanwhile, a number of people finally noted–after I kept insisting on this all afternoon–that the WaPo and NYT stories yesterday were just big spin from Luskin.  Some even judged that NYT got spun much worse than the WaPo (IMO they both got spun badly, and at least NYT made Luskin’s centrality to the story explicit–my favorite comparison, btw, was from a lawyer or law professor that I’ve since misplaced).

But few people seem all that interested in why. Why–after claiming, implausibly, that Rove couldn’t speak publicly for years–Luskin arranged this nice limited hang-out just in time to pre-empt anything from HJC. Luskin went to some trouble to orchestrate yesterday’s media blitz. Don’t you think that suggests he’s got something to pre-empt or distract from? Don’t you think that ought to be the story, the proper response to such a transparent ploy from a defense attorney?

Now, there are, I think, three factors here. First–note two things Isikoff and Corn don’t mention, taking as they did the scope laid out by Luskin. They don’t mention the Don Siegelman case (which was big news in the negotiations over this testimony). And they don’t mention the two sworn witnesses (plus another witness talking to the press) who said Rove was going to fire Pat Fitzgerald (which didn’t get much coverage, but for which Isikoff has been very accommodating to Luskin on in the past). Both were within the scope of questions permitted to be asked by HJC.

I don’t guarantee that either of these will come to any fruition in the HJC inquiry. I think GregCraig pretty much set up the Siegelman inquiry to go nowhere (thanks GregCraig). And I think the timing of the attempt to fire Fitzgerald may not work out, given the scope of the HJC inquiry (that is, much of the effort took place in 2004, before the scope of HJC’s questions were permitted). But they are two areas of potential questioning that Luskin left out of yesterday’s limited hang-out.

And then there’s this, from Scott Horton (who also compares the NYT and WaPo coverage of Luskin’s blitz and finds the latter appropriately skeptical).

Indeed, the headline tells the whole story: “Rove Says His Role in Prosecutor Firings Was Small.” Read more →

Anyone Having 2006 Flashbacks?

/in , /by

Because I am.

I find myself writing long weedy posts about Cheney’s role in the CIA Leak Case. And Karl Rove spent a long day answering questions about his role in a crime. (h/t fatster)

Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove was deposed Tuesday by attorneys for the House Judiciary Committee, according to Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the panel’s chairman.

Rove’s deposition began at 10 a.m. and ended around 6:30 p.m, with several breaks, Conyers said.

Conyers would not comment on what Rove told congressional investigators, what the next step in the long-running Judiciary Committee investigation would be or whether Rove would face additional questioning.

“He was deposed today,” Conyers said in an interview. “That’s all I can tell you.”

Eight and a half hours? That’s a lot of questions.

Supposedly, there will be transcripts produced, Harriet and Karl will review them, and then we’ll all get our greedy little hands on them. Given that it’s summertime in our nation’s capital, it’ll take at least a few weeks for all that to transpire.

But we might get a Karl transcript before we get a Cheney interview.

Monica Conyers Pleads Guilty

/15 Comments/in /by

My biggest question for months was not whether or when Monica Conyers would accept a plea deal in a pay to play bribery scandal–as she did today. But whether or not her legal problems would make her husband, John Conyers, timid in his role as House Judiciary Chair.

Monica Ann Conyers beginning on a date unknown and continuing until or about December 2007, did knowingly and voluntarily conspire and agree with an aide and others to corruptly solicit and demand for the benefit of herself and others and to accept and agree to accept things of value from persons while an agent of the City of Detroit, an entity that received more than $10,000 in federal funding during the calendar year of 2007, with intent that Conyers would be influenced and rewarded in connection with any business transaction or series of transactions of a value of $5,000 or more with the City of Detroit.

Overt acts: On Nov. 20, 2007, at approximately 3:15 p.m., Conyers met with an individual sent by Rayford Jackson in the parking lot at Butzel Family Center and received an envelope containing cash. On Dec. 4, 2007, at approximately 2:30 p.m., an individual sent by Rayford Jackson met Conyers and her aide in a McDonald’s parking lot in Detroit at which time the individual delivered an envelope containing cash.

The two bribes admittedly accepted by Conyers – on Nov. 20 and Dec. 4 2007 – bookended the Synagro vote, which was on Nov. 28 of that year.

The charging document reads: “The payments were made and received as part of an agreement and understanding between defendant and Rayford Jackson … to influence defendant to support the Synagro contract.”

After all, Monica Conyer’s crimes are more damning than Kwame’s mistress scandal was (though Kwame and his father are implicated in this as well). And it’s rather remarkable to have the Chair of the House committee overseeing justice to have his wife convicted of bribery.

So while I’ve never been a fan of Monica Conyers, I’ve been wondering how this impacts John Conyers. I’ve been wondering, for example, whether he’d step down or back off of his typical aggressiveness on corruption.

But I’m guessing, however, that Monica’s guilty plea gives Conyers the room to continue to target corruption. Which might explain yesterday’s HJC hearing on Deferred Prosecution Agreements–which targeted the Republican’s candidate for governor in NJ, Chris Christie. Yesterday’s hearing–which Read more →

Rove Has a Date with HJC–He Just Doesn’t Want to Tell Fox News That

/35 Comments/in /by

As I noted earlier, Fox reported yesterday that Miers had testified before HJC, but there was not yet an agreement to have Rove testify.

But that’s not right. According to a status report filed in the HJC suit against the White House over ten days ago, Rove has a date to appear.

Pursuant to the Court’s order dated March 5, 2009, the parties respectfully submit this joint status report.

Since the last status report, the parties have made substantial progress towards fulfilling their obligations under the Agreement Concerning Accommodation. The Committee has now been provided access to all of the documents covered by the Agreement, and the parties have agreed to a schedule for interviews with Harriet Miers and Karl Rove, to take place under the agreed terms and conditions.

Miers, Rove, and the documents!?!?! What a novelty. Oversight–just two years in the making.

If Harriet Can Appear Before HJC, Why Not Rove, Yet?

/13 Comments/in /by

Fox is reporting that Harriet Miers snuck into HJC for a deposition yesterday. It’s all very nice that–two years after she was subpoenaed, Harriet is just now getting around to showing up before Congress. (h/t fatster)

But I’m more troubled by Fox’s report that there still isn’t an agreement for Rove to testify.

In March, Miers and former Bush adviser Karl Rove agreed to testify under oath.

Miers testified today behind closed doors. It remains unclear when Bolten could be deposed. But a senior House Democrat familiar with the inquiry described Bolten as “a tasty little morsel.” The senior lawmaker indicated to FOX that Rove ”is really the big catch.” But there is still no agreement for Rove to appear.

It has been, by my count, 114 days since Greg Craig and HJC finalized the plan to have Turdblossom (and Miers) testify. Yet he still–according to Fox, which ought to know–hasn’t shown his face for his deposition.

Now perhaps Rove’s interim engagement with Nora Dennehy, in May, explains the delay. After all, HJC might be willing to postpone their chat with Rove to allow a federal prosecutor to grill him first.

But otherwise, what’s the delay? Is it that he’s just more scared of Congress than Harriet Miers?

House Judiciary State Secrets Hearing Open Thread

/25 Comments/in /by

I’m a little late to the the House Judiciary State Secrets Hearing (committee stream here).

Here are the witnesses:

Hon. Patricia M. Wald
Retired Chief Judge
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Washington, DC
Hon. Asa Hutchinson
Senior Partner
Asa Hutchinson Law Group
Washington, DC
Andrew Grossman
Senior Partner
The Heritage Foundation
Washington, DC
Ben Wizner
National Security Project Staff Attorney
American Civil Liberties Union
Washington, DC

[Also, though it’s related more generally to the two bills on this than this hearing, Secrecy News just made a recent Congressional Research Service paper on State Secrets available.]

Jerrold Nadler has had his opening statement–the big news in that was that Holder refused to make a witness available for this hearing. Jim Sensenbrenner is up noting that Obama has adopted Bush’s approach on State Secrets.

Ouch.

And if I’m not mistaken, Sensenbrenner accidentally called Hillary VP, not Biden. 

Conyers: The President’s running away from a lot of things, that doesn’t make this different. We’ve been here before, Ladies and Gentlemen. I’m for State Secrets. There are some secrets we’ve got to keep away from citizens and congresspeople and bloggers. But which ones. We didn’t say "abolish state secrets." 

[Man, something has made Conyers cranky.]

Conyers: [Now listing the cases in which Obama has invoked State Secrets.] It is unacceptable that the Department declined to come to this non-secret hearing. They could not provide a witness, why? There’s a review pending, and until it is solved, they don’t want to come before this co-equal branch of government. They could have sent someone here to say we can’t talk with you guys.

Patricia Wald: Use of privilege to cut off relief. Unnecessary, produces rank injustice. US v Reynolds, ultimately it is a judge who must decide whether privilege applies. There is a consensus it’s time to regularize the privilege. Nothing that I can find in this bill would make govt turn over information. Not much doubt Congress has power to regulate evidentiary rules. In al-Haramain, judge decided that FISA pre-empted state secret’s privilege. Federal judges handle classified information every day. Incoporates proven techniques, good thing to have these techniques recognized in the law. Jeppesen, to me they did a very good thing in distinguishing using State Read more →