by: David DayenSat Aug 09, 2008 at 12:50:48 PM PDT |
I've been mulling this around in my head for a few days. Three powerful members of the House Judiciary committee have have sent a letter to the Justice Department calling for an investigation into leaks surrounding the inquiry into State Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata. No article since November 2004 has explicitly said that any information came from a federal government source. But in a letter to U.S. Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey obtained by The Times on Monday, U.S. Reps. John Conyers Jr., Linda Sanchez and Zoe Lofgren wrote, "We are disturbed and concerned that news story after news story . . . has cited federal law enforcement sources as the basis of information." (Here's that SF Chron article mentioned in the letter.) The Perata investigation certainly has dragged on for years, leading to him needing more and more funds to raise in his defense. In particular, the dumping of $250,000 from the California Democratic Party into his legal defense fund raised a lot of eyebrows around these parts. After the initial explanation of "We're the CDP and we can do what we want," a secondary explanation was that the investigation had been politicized and that this was part of the DoJ's efforts to prosecute and delegitimize Democrats. A couple weeks later, out comes this letter, signed by two members of the California delegation. But it's Conyers' participation that makes me believe that this is a real concern. I trust Conyers enough to think that he wouldn't simply badger the DoJ to help out a political problem in California. Of course, let's look at what the letter is actually alleging. It's not suggesting that the investigation itself is unnecessarily political, but that someone inside the investigation is using the media to disparage Perata. That may well be true, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the whole investigation is a farce. Let's now look at what this does NOT suggest: • It in no way excuses the CDP for paying off Perata with $250,000 in the middle of an election year, whether that money was simply laundered through them and earmarked for Perata or not. Based on this SacBee report, it appears Perata is perfectly capable of raising money for himself: Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata has solicited at least $200,000 this year from political interest groups for a nonprofit foundation that promotes and rallies support for one of his bills. Which leads me to point 2: • There is no way that Perata should still be Senate President Pro Tem at this point. While he has done a good job of hammering Republicans for their intransigence on the budget, this image hit, as well as the constant distraction of having to find new ways to raise money for his legal bills, are not what we need at this sensitive time, ESPECIALLY when Darrell Steinberg is waiting in the wings and perfectly capable of performing the same duties without the black cloud of indictment hanging over the head of the Democratic leadership. They haven't even taken a caucus vote on this yet, to my knowledge - it's currently scheduled for August 21, but during these budget negotiations that's doubtful to come off. It is perfectly consistent to be skeptical of the Justice Department's case against Perata and to ALSO demand that he step down from his leadership position, and to excoriate the CDP for their conduct in either shoveling Perata money or acting as a conduit for that fund transfer. |
| David Dayen :: House Judiciary Warns DoJ on Perata Leaks |
August 10, 2008
House Judiciary Warns DoJ on Perata Leaks
July 23, 2008
Rove End-Runs House Democrats
Former White House political adviser Karl Rove, who has refused to appear before the House Judiciary Committee, ran an end-around against Democratic leaders by having his denial of sponsoring a political prosecution inserted into the Congressional Record by a senior Republican.
Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the committee’s ranking Republican, submitted a written question-and-answer exchange with Rove in which the political strategist said he played no role in the controversial prosecution of Alabama’s former Democratic Gov. Don Siegelman.
The surprise move angered the panel’s Democratic leaders who have been discussing whether to hold Rove in contempt for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena that demanded that he testify under oath at a hearing two weeks ago.
The Judiciary Committee has been seeking Rove’s public testimony about the Siegelman case since April as part of its investigation into allegations that the Bush administration used the Justice Department to prosecute more Democratic public officials than Republicans.
Rep. John Conyers, the Judiciary Committee’s chairman, had rebuffed a compromise floated by Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, to have Rove testify in private or respond in writing to the committee’s inquiries about the Siegelman case, as well as the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys.
Luskin then turned to Smith, who posed some questions to Rove and inserted the Q-and-A into the Congressional Record.
In his written responses, Rove denied speaking to anyone “either directly or indirectly” at the Justice Department or to Alabama state officials about bringing corruption charges against Siegelman.
”I have never communicated, either directly or indirectly, with Justice Department or Alabama officials about the investigation, indictment, potential prosecution, prosecution, conviction, or sentencing of Governor Siegelman, or about any other matter related to his case, nor have I asked any other individual to communicate about these matters on my behalf,” Rove wrote. “I have never attempted, either directly or indirectly, to influence these matters.”
Instead, Rove said the Judiciary Committee should press Siegelman to justify his allegations about Rove’s interference in the case.
"The committee should require Siegelman to substantiate his allegations about my 'involvement' in his prosecution – something he has failed to do in either media interviews or court filings," Rove wrote.
Siegelman was convicted of corruption in 2006, but was released from prison on bond in March after an appeals court ruled that “substantial questions” about the case could very well result in either a new trial or a dismissal.
Siegelman has long maintained that Rove was intimately involved in the prosecution and other attempts to blunt Democratic inroads that Siegelman’s governorship represented.
In an interview with The Anniston Star on May 18, Siegelman said Rove first targeted him in 1998.
“It started when Karl Rove's bag man, I call him, Jack Abramoff, started putting Indian casino money into Alabama to defeat me in 1998,” Siegelman told the newspaper. “Shortly after I endorsed Al Gore in 1999, Karl Rove's client, the attorney general of Alabama (Bill Pryor) started an investigation.
“In 2001, Karl Rove's business associate and political partner's wife, Leura Canary, became a U.S. Attorney and started a federal investigation. … It started with the attorney general and the state investigation, followed by the federal investigation, followed by indictments in 2004, and then another series of indictments leading up to the 2006 election … but, yeah, it's all part of the same case.”
When Rove failed to appear at a Judiciary subcommittee hearing on July 10, Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-California, the panel’s chairwoman, said the assertion of executive privilege did not justify Rove’s failure to appear.
“The proper course of action is for Mr. Rove to attend the hearing pursuant to subpoena, at which time any specific assertions of privilege can be considered on a question-by-question basis,” Sanchez said, speaking to an empty chair that was reserved for Rove.
Smith criticized Sanchez and defended Rove, saying his refusal to appear before the committee ''is not a sign of an administration refusing to cooperate with Congress.''
Aides to Conyers said Wednesday the committee intends to vote to hold Rove in contempt for refusing to respond to a subpoena seeking his testimony.
That will likely set the stage for another court battle revolving around executive privilege. Already, White House chief of staff Josh Bolton and former White House counsel Harriet Miers have ignored congressional subpoenas to testify about the U.S. Attorney firings.
Last month, during a hearing on the case in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., Judge John Bates said Congress could have had Bolton and Miers arrested for refusing to comply with the subpoenas.
While historically Congress has ordered people detained for refusing to comply with subpoenas, the power has not been used in modern times.
June 17, 2008
IMPEACHMENT TOOLKIT: As Pope Calls For Treating Immigrants With ‘Dignity,’ Bush Administration Carries Out Raids In Five States
From Think Progress
Pope Benedict XVI has been a vocal supporter of U.S. immigrants, regardless of their legal status. On his flight between Rome and Washington yesterday, the pope made clear that discussing the treatment of Latino immigrants would be a priority during his meeting with President Bush. AFP reports:
The United States must do “everything possible to fight…all forms of violence so that immigrants may lead dignified lives,” the pope said when asked if he would address the issue of Latin American immigrants with the US leader.
The White House viewed the pope’s visit as very important. In a rare gesture, the President and his family even traveled to Andrews Air Force Base to greet the pope as his plane arrived.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration also chose today to carry out immigration raids, arresting more than 280 undocumented workers employed at Pilgrim’s Pride plants in five states. According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), several — but not all — of the immigrants were suspected of identity theft or document fraud. According to a Justice Department press release:
For those arrested solely on immigration violations, that information will assist ICE in making decisions about whether to detain the individual or permit a conditional humanitarian release. Similarly, the information will be provided to the relevant U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and state social services agencies so they are fully informed about humanitarian-related issues that may arise in the individual cases being handled through the criminal justice system. Those being prosecuted on criminal charges will be remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service and housed at various facilities near the arrest sites.
It’s no wonder that the pope is concerned about the treatment of immigrants. At a recent House hearing, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) noted that children at immigrant detention facilities have reportedly been “put in cells alone for hours, awakened in the middle of the night with flashlights in their faces and threatened with being permanently separated from their parents.”
Under the Bush administration, deportations have increased sharply. In the last fiscal year ending Sept. 30, ICE deported 280,000 people, a 44 percent jump from the previous year. The Bush administration has also come under intense fire from lawmakers and immigration activists for carrying out politically motivated raids against immigrants who criticize the White House’s policies.
Ali Noorani, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition responds to the raids:
There is a fundamental disconnect between our nation's moral belief that all human beings should be treated with dignity and the implementation of our nation's broken immigration system. For the President to put at risk the sanctity and safety of immigrant families by conducting yet another round of harsh immigration raids flies in the face of the Pope's call for humane treatment of all people.
