Who Let The Dogs Out? The Hounds Of Hatfill and the Federal Rules of Evidence

(Cross-Posted From Emptywheel)

On Marcy Weeler's most recent post on the sordid persecution of Steven Hatfill by the Ceney/Bush DOJ, I made a mostly flippant comment on the dogs in the Hatfill case:

What if Hatfill is just a pig and leaves pizza crusts around everywhere he goes and the dogs are smelling that? What are the customary industry standards for certification of anthrax sniffing dogs anyway; and who sets and regulates them? Or is this just some “wonder mammal” like Lassie or Flipper or something? Was there video of the searches with the wonder dogs? Because there sure should have been. Or are these yet more video items of evidence that have been “misplaced”? What was the nature of the dog’s response? Did it emit a “plaintiff wail” like Nicole Simpson’s Akita? (Great trivia: Nicole’s Akita was named “Kato” too). I don’t see how the dog(s) here meet any evidentiary standards for admissibility or reliance by a court.

Despite it being mostly in jest, that comment had what I consider to be a critical, if not the critical, point in it. From what it appears, the only bit of "evidence" (and I use that descriptor loosely here, and in the generic sense, because I don't think there was any proper evidence at all) against Hatfill that served as the basis for identifying him was that the dogs had alerted.

We all saw, in the tragic case of the late Richard Jewell, the horrendous and deleterious effects of a defective identification on an individual for an infamous crime. It is simply unconscionable to hang such a collar on someone without substantial credible hard evidence. And, quite frankly, the aura and implications of the anthrax case were, and are, far worse that the Atlanta Olympic park bombing. An entire nation was brought to a standstill and was trembling from a terrorist act that was capable of being repeated anywhere, at any time, in the country via the mail. So the United States government better have a pretty strong case before it implicates someone such as Hatfill in such a crime.

What substantial and credible hard evidence was the identification of Hatfill based on? Well, as has been previously discussed, he had worked in the bio-agent/anthrax field, had the technical expertise and, according to profilers, the personality to do the anthrax deed. The government indicates that he may be one of 50 or fewer people who had the skills to do it and had access to the strain. Then you add in allegations of violence in his past and ties to South African apartheid militias, and you can certainly understand why he was being looked at. While such information is not all entirely innocuous background, it is certainly nothing more than circumstantial and does not inculpate Hatfill; the only alleged link of Hatfill to the actual crime with the anthrax letters, at least that we are aware of to date, was the dogs. That's it; there is nothing else. What are the standards for admissibility of dog scent

There's more: "Who Let The Dogs Out? The Hounds Of Hatfill and the Federal Rules of Evidence" >>

Criminally Corrupt Patronage And Incompetence Is Inbred In The Bush Administration

As Captain Renault in the timeless movie Casablanca would say, "I am shocked" SHOCKED to find that there are corruption and accounting irregularities in the Department of Homeland Security. The Associated Press via TPM,

"Ten years after Congress ordered federal agencies to have outside auditors review their books, neither the Defense Department nor the newer Department of Homeland Security has met even basic accounting requirements, leaving them vulnerable to waste, fraud and abuse. An Associated Press review shows that the two departments' financial records are so disorganized and inconsistent that they have repeatedly earned "disclaimer" opinions, meaning that they simply cannot be fully audited.
...
"The inability of Defense and Homeland Security to pass financial audits is costing taxpayers dearly. There is no accountability for billions in wasteful spending," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. "Private contractors are getting rich, military equipment can't be tracked, and fraud is growing. The departments seem incapable of providing even the most basic level of accountability by balancing their financial books."
...
Nor is there a central accounting system: In 2005, after spending $52 million, DHS dropped a $229 million contract with BearingPoint to develop a single software accounting system after it became obvious it wasn't going to work. The department now plans to base its systems on those already in place at the Transportation Security Administration or Customs and Border Protection.

Norquist also likened his agency's situation to a house. "If you left your front door unlocked, it doesn't mean your house got robbed. But you should be concerned if your front door is routinely left unsecured, he said."

Holy smokes; this sounds pretty bad, and this Norquist guy seems pretty flippant about it all. Who is this guy that is so carefree and nonchalant with the taxpayers money during a time of war and massive budget deficits? Norquist...the name seems vaguely familiar. Oh, it is David Norquist, brother of Grover Norquist, Jack Abramoff's best friend and co-conspirator in the defrauding and looting of American Indian Tribes; and author of the infamous quote "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

Oh my; so David, the ideological idolizer and clone of brother Grover Norquist, is the Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Homeland Security. The cabinet department so screwed up, corrupt and out of control that it can't even be audited. As Condi Rice would say, "Who could have predicted this?" So who put this terminally ill suited man in this position? That would be George Bush and Michael "What? There's a storm in New Orleans?" Chertoff. The only two men in the world that make Mike "Heckuva Job Brownie" Brown look like the most intelligent and efficient manager in history.

It is a consistent pattern with Bush to place the most dangerously incompetent and ill suited hack cronies in the most critical positions. Jerry Bremer for pro counsel of Iraq, Harriet Miers for White House Counsel and almost the Supreme Court, Joe Albaugh and Michael Brown at FEMA and, the most destructive of all, Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General. Alberto Gonzales could not find a courtroom with a map and a GPS device. Literally, the only time Gonzales has been confirmed to have actually been in a courtroom was when he went to a local city court in Texas to try and get Bush out of jury duty, out of fear that the public would find out about Bush's history of DWIs and alcoholism. This legal cipher was placed in charge of the entire justice system of the United States.

Clearly, George Bush, like Grover and David Norquist, wants to drown our government "in the bathtub" and then flush it down the toilet. The Bush Administration puts the most corrupt, incompetent people in critical positions and allows them to rape, pillage and plunder their departments to effective death. Ladies and gentlemen, they are very close to "Mission Accomplished".

There's more: "Criminally Corrupt Patronage And Incompetence Is Inbred In The Bush Administration" >>

Fredo's Impeachment (Thank you Jay Inslee)

About time. (from Think Progress):

Inslee (D-WA) is introducing legislation that would require the House Judiciary
Committee and the House of Representatives to begin an impeachment investigation into Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in the wake of his damaging testimony last week.

While these aren't articles of impeachment or anything, they would require the House to pursue an investigation as to whether or not they are necessary. Ol' Fredo seems pretty deserving.

The fact that Gonzales has survived this long is pretty pathetic. It's about time Congress started flexing some serious muscle.

However...

When it comes to impeaching Bush or Cheney, I think I am of like mind with Josh Marshall.

I've always been against the movement to impeach President Bush. I take this
position not because he hasn't done plenty to merit it. My reasons are
practical. Minor reasons are that it's late in the president's term and that I
think impeachment itself is toxic to our political system -- though it can be
less toxic than the high officials thrown from office. My key reason, though, is
that Congress at present can't even get to the relatively low threshold of votes
required to force the president's hand on Iraq. So to use an analogy which for
whatever reason springs readily to my mind at this point in my life, coming out
for impeachment under present circumstances is like being so frustrated that you
can't crawl that you come out for walking. In various ways it seems to elevate
psychic satisfactions above progress on changing a series of policies that are
doing daily and almost vast damage to our country. Find me seventeen Republican
senators who are going to convict President Bush in a senate trial.

I know it's important to stick to one's convictions, but I don't think a Bush/Cheney impeachment is practical, and unless the House moves forward with 67 Senators in support, it will be viewed as a partisan move and will, I think, hurt Democrats in the long run. More importantly, though, as Marshall points out, impeachments are toxic and the reasons for drafting such articles had better be pretty damn explicit, otherwise it's just another partisan move which does nothing to strengthen Congressional institutions (which is, I believe, the point of impeachment proceedings). When it comes to Gonzales, though, I think the case is much stronger, and support in the Senate looks as though it might follow through. Also, it's just damn prudent; Gonzales has lost the confidence of the Senate, and the public more generally, and it looks like he's perjured himself and crippled the efficacy of the Justice Department. It seems to me, then, that impeachment in his case has strong legal and normative backing.

There's more: "Fredo's Impeachment (Thank you Jay Inslee)" >>

A Sneering Alberto Gonzales To John Conyers--I Won't Let My Boy, John Tanner, Talk , See, And You Can't Make Me

Yesterday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Subcommittee Chairman Jerrold Nadler postponed a scheduled oversight hearing on the Justice Department's Voting Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division because the Department refused to make Voting Section Chief John Tanner available to testify. The hearing had been scheduled for July 17 at 10 A.M.

As usual Conyers, this time joined by Nadler, sat right down and wrote Alberto a letter.

The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

The Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties scheduled an oversight hearing on the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division (CRT) for July 17th. We received an e-mail message on July 12th from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legislative Affairs informing the Committee of the Department’s decision to send a Deputy Assistant Attorney General to testify instead of John Tanner, the Voting Section Chief, whom we requested.

We are disappointed by this decision. Brad Schlozman and Hans Von Spakovsky, both former senior Department of Justice officials who served in the CRT, recently testified before the Senate and stated that Mr. Tanner played a key role in the Department’s decision to approve the Georgia Photo Identification law. In addition, there have been numerous articles and letters discussing serious matters that came before the Voting Section under Mr. Tanner’s leadership.

Mr. Tanner’s testimony is important to the Committee’s efforts to understand the manner in which the Department has implemented its legislative mandate. As Chief of the Voting Section, Mr. Tanner is personally familiar with the facts surrounding the Department’s decisions in significant and controversial voting rights cases. We believe that his testimony is therefore necessary for the Committee to fulfill its oversight obligations.

We therefore ask that you make Mr. Tanner available to the Committee for testimony specifically concerning the activities of the Voting Section. We are postponing the July 17th hearing with the expectation that we will receive the full cooperation of the Department in this matter. We look forward to working with you to arrange a mutually agreeable time when Mr. Tanner can testify. Please contact the Judiciary Committee if you have any questions or concerns.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,



John Conyers, Jr. Jerrold Nadler
Chairman Chairman, Subcommittee on the
Committee on the Judiciary Constitution, Civil Rights, and
Civil Liberties


cc: Hon. Trent Franks
Hon. Lamar Smith

I have been searching high and low, but so far I cannot find any legal justification for refusing to produce Tanner, a career civil servant who worked with Bradley Schlozman and Hans von Spakovsky. One commenter suggested the DoJ must be scared spitless because Tanner, who is not a political appointee, might tell the truth. I'll keep looking for the DoJ's excuse, but I suspect the justification is simple: Alberto Gonzales holds John Conyers and the entire United States Congress in utter contempt.

You can read more about this latest outrage and recent Voting Rights Section controversies, many of them involving Tanner, at The Gavel, Nancy Pelosi's website.

There's more: "A Sneering Alberto Gonzales To John Conyers--I Won't Let My Boy, John Tanner, Talk , See, And You Can't Make Me" >>

On Darkness And Death Penalties

Today's Washington Post describes yet another aspect of the sick, septic core that is our Federal government; and yet another instance of the rot infesting the Department of Justice. The article by Amy Goldstein describes how the United States Attorney for Arizona, Paul Charlton, was fired for properly exercising his ethical prosecutorial discretion in relation to death penalty cases in his jurisdiction.

Justice Department officials had branded Charlton, the former U.S. attorney in Phoenix, disloyal because he opposed the death penalty in that case. But Charlton testified yesterday that Gonzales has been so eager to expand the use of capital punishment that the attorney general has been inattentive to the quality of evidence in some cases -- or the views of the prosecutors most familiar with them.
.....
Charlton said he believed the case, which has not yet gone to trial, did not warrant the death penalty because police and prosecutors lacked forensic evidence -- including a gun, DNA or the victim's body. He said that the body was evidently buried in a landfill and that he asked Justice Department officials to pay $500,000 to $1 million for its exhumation.

The department refused, Charlton said. And without such evidence, he testified, the risk of putting the wrong person to death was too high.

Charlton said that in prior cases, Ashcroft's aides had given him the chance to discuss his recommendations against the death penalty, but that Gonzales's staff did not offer that opportunity. He instead received a letter, dated May 31, 2006, from Gonzales, simply directing him to seek the death penalty.

Charlton testified that he asked Justice officials to reconsider and had what he called a "memorable" conversation with Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty. Michael J. Elston, then McNulty's chief of staff, called Charlton to relay that the deputy had spent "a significant amount of time on this issue with the attorney general, perhaps as much as five to 10 minutes," and that Gonzales had not changed his mind. Charlton said he then asked to speak directly with Gonzales and was denied.

Last August, D. Kyle Sampson, then Gonzales's chief of staff, sent Elston a dismissive e-mail about the episode that said: "In the 'you won't believe this category,' Paul Charlton would like a few minutes of the AG's time." The next month, Charlton's name appeared on a list of prosecutors who should be fired, which Sampson sent to the White House.

As an attorney, it is hard to envision a more gross and complete dereliction of ethical and moral duties than described here on the part of Alberto Gonzales and his inexperienced, unfit senior staff. Every one of them should be disbarred for life. Hardly surprising though; after all, Alberto Gonzales earned his stripes finding ways for Bush to execute people in Texas. "Culture of life" my ass, these despicable, pathetic excuses for human beings don't give a damn about human life whether it is in the criminal justice system, the rotting aftermath of Katrina, the young American soldiers in Iraq or the citizens of that country perishing as a result of our invasion and occupation.

There is nothing but darkness in our Federal government, whether it is the Department of Justice scandals, the decimation of our Constitution, Cheney, Bush, our warmongering foreign policy or any other visible facet. It is a giant black hole sucking the essence of our country and the hopes of the world into a void of despair. And thus we come to the discussion engendered by my fellow bloggers here in the last few days regarding the value of the internet, and the ability of bloggers to freely and openly access it. The blogosphere, especially the progressive segment, is the growing ray of light that is the counter-force to the darkness. The main stream media is slowly coming around, and it is because of the forces generated by the blogosphere and determined activists and writers like the incredible contributors to Watching Those We Chose and so many other blogs.

The awakening and change in attitude and direction being brought by the participants in this effort is palpable. An acceleration and re-doubling of the effort is critical. We are individually expendable; the ideals and values we fight for are not. I read with profound sadness the passing of our compatriot, the Mandarin. I did not have the pleasure of knowing the Mandarin, but I can sense the measure of his character, values and passions by his association with this blog. So let the Mandarin, and the values he lived for and passed with, continue on and flourish through our resolute efforts to restore light to the darkness that has encroached upon us.

There's more: "On Darkness And Death Penalties" >>

BREAKING: Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenas White House, Cheney, DOJ & NSA on wiretapping

[updated 3:40 p.m. CDT]

AP is reporting that the Senate Judiciary Committee has just subpoenaed the White House, Vice President Dick Cheney, the Justice Department and the National Security Council on the warrantless eavesdropping program.

The committee wants documents that might shed light on internal squabbles within the administration over the legality of the program, said a congressional official speaking on condition of anonymity because the subpoenas had not been made public.

Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey's testimony about the hospital-room pressure put on then AG John Ashcroft may well have been the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back, AP says.

[1:30 p.m. update]

John at AMERICAblog makes the interesting point that this subpoena will probably force Cheney to claim executive privilege. This will force him to drop his silly argument that the vice president is the 4th branch of government. Of course, Cheney is already shifting his stand on that goofiness.

[3:40 p.m. update]

TPM has more details on the committee's action.

There's more: "BREAKING: Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenas White House, Cheney, DOJ & NSA on wiretapping" >>

The Case of Guadalupe Gonzales or Why Monica Goodling Should Have Read Civil Service Law Before Awarding Immigration Judgeships To Loyal Bushies

On May 31 we reported on recent Immigration Judge hiring practices that seemed to give preference to loyal Bushies. June 11 The Washington Post confirmed that while Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling were in charge only loyal Bushies needed to apply for the job of immigration judge. Monica Goodling has confirmed that she stepped over the line in favoring Republicans.

Today the El Paso Times has published the story of Guadalupe Gonzalez, chief counsel for Immigration and Customs Enforcement in El Paso, "a lawyer with more than 20 years of experience in immigration law and a stellar record." Since 2002 she has been passed over three times for an immigration judgeship in favor of Anglo men -- one with no immigration experience and the other two her subordinates. Gonzalez, 56, has sued the U.S. attorney general for discrimination on the basis of gender and national origin. The suit is pending in a court in Washington, D.C.

In her filings, Gonzalez claimed that since 2001, only two Hispanics were appointed nationwide for 40 immigration judgeships. The four immigration judges in El Paso are all Anglo men.

Bill Day, Gonzalez's lawyer in Washington, said that while his client does not allege that the department's selection of judges in her case was politically motivated, there is a common thread between the cases.

"The attitude of the (Department of Justice) was that the rules did not apply to them," Day said.

In Gonzalez's case, the department bypassed the competitive hiring process by using the attorney general's direct appointment authority.

In 2002, Gonzalez did apply for a posted immigration judge position, which went to Richard Ozmun, a retired U.S. Navy lawyer.

But in 2004, two other vacancies were never posted and Gonzalez was not contacted for an interview, even though she had previously expressed interest in becoming an immigration judge. These positions went to Robert Hough, assistant chief counsel at ICE, under the direct supervision of Gonzalez, and Thomas Roepke, a special assistant U.S. attorney for ICE.

The suit asks for Gonzalez to get an immigration judge position, back pay and compensatory damages. An immigration judge in El Paso makes between $112,633 and $148,031 a year, Gonzalez's lawyer said.

"In light of all the wrongdoing this case has uncovered, the Department of Justice should have settled this case a long time ago. Now it looks as though they'll have to pay the price at trial," Day said. "Being Mexican-American should not disqualify a talented and experienced lawyer from being an immigration judge."

I know what you are thinking, if she didn't apply for the 2004 positions how could she be discriminated against. The trial court has already ruled that issue in favor of Ms. Gonzales. Since the DoJ knew that she was interested in a judgeship, Monica and Kyle should have given her a chance to apply. Last year Judge Emmet G. Sullivan denied the governments motion saying that Ms Gonzales, "had identified a particular policy that has a discriminatory effect on a particular group -- (the attorney general's) direct appointment authority."

I would be surprised if Monica Goodling was concerned about Ms. Gonzales being a Mexican American. I would guess that Monica was concerned that Ms. Gonzales wasn't a loyal Bushie. After all Monica worked for Alberto Gonzales, and was involved in the selection of Rachel Paulose as US Attorney in Minneapolis. Maybe if Ms Gonzales had spent a little time and money proving she was the "right kind of Republican" she would have been selected.

There's more: "The Case of Guadalupe Gonzales or Why Monica Goodling Should Have Read Civil Service Law Before Awarding Immigration Judgeships To Loyal Bushies" >>

Schlozman Didn't Just Want Republicans, He Wanted The Right Kind Of Republicans

This morning The Washington Post's Carol D. Leonnig takes an in depth look at the staffing practices of our old buddy Bradley Schlozman during his time as head of the civil rights division. Her article begins

Karen Stevens, Tovah Calderon and Teresa Kwong had a lot in common. They had good performance ratings as career lawyers in the Justice Department's civil rights division. And they were minority women transferred out of their jobs two years ago -- over the objections of their immediate supervisors -- by Bradley Schlozman, then the acting assistant attorney general for civil rights.

Schlozman ordered supervisors to tell the women that they had performance problems or that the office was overstaffed. But one lawyer, Conor Dugan, told colleagues that the recent Bush appointee had confided that his real motive was to "make room for some good Americans" in that high-impact office, according to four lawyers who said they heard the account from Dugan.

Leonnig further reports that "Schlozman asked a supervisor if a career lawyer who had voted for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a onetime political rival of President Bush, could still be trusted."

"When he said he didn't engage in political hiring, most of us thought that was just laughable," said one lawyer in the section, referring to Schlozman's June 5 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. "Everything Schlozman did was political. And he said so."

It seems Schlozman was and remains a loyal Bushie to the core. Less than a year and an half until the next election. I guess then he will turn into a pumpkin, because even if he stays out of prison he won't have much future as a lawyer.

There's more: "Schlozman Didn't Just Want Republicans, He Wanted The Right Kind Of Republicans" >>

High Noon At The House Judiciary Committee

Paul J. McNulty, the former number 2 at the DoJ will be the only witness appearing before the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law later today. The hearing is scheduled to start at 12:00 PM. You can find the live webcast here.

You might recall that Monica Goodling essentially called McNulty a liar during her testimony last month. If he sticks to his prepared remarks, McNulty has apparently decided not to hit back.

I hope they ask him probing questions like why did they really fire the Gonzales 8? You know questions that the DoJ has never truthfully answered. In his remarks McNulty says

It is important for this Committee and the public to know that when it comes to enforcing the law, Justice Department employees are blind to partisan politics. It plays no role in the Department’s actions.

I believe he has stated how the DoJ is supposed to operate, but after Bradley Schlozman's testimony about the Acorn 4 and all the rest can anyone really believe that is the way the DoJ has been run by Karl Rove, er Alberto Gonzales.

Pardon the Acorn 4.

There's more: "High Noon At The House Judiciary Committee" >>

Is Hans von Spakovsky a Jerk?

I was chatting with a friend last weekend and he mentioned, not at all off-handedly, that he sat beside Hans von Spakovsky during a recent luncheon. My friend is a lawyer who regularly does election law for his big corporate overlords. I will refer to him as Corpulent Juris. For those of you who need a refresher, von Spakovsky is the Civil Rights Division muck up who was up in front of the Senate on Wednesday trying to win approval to serve on the Federal Election Commission.

CJ said that Hans "is even more dislikable in person than his picture, or his name, suggests."

Really? Go on...

"He was a smug, I'm smarter that you, sanctimonious puke."

Is this true? I have no doubt that he is smarter than my friend. Being the 'smartest guy in the room' in a room that includes CJ is (as the old phrase says) like being the world's tallest midget. But is Hans von Spicklehammer a dislikable sanctimonious puke?

Mike Pitts says "Yes!" Rick Hansen posted a letter from Pitts over at Election Law Blog on Thursday. Pitts, who is now an assistant professor of law at Indiana University, is also a former DOJ civil rights attorney who worked under von Spastic. He writes that he hadn't really opposed Hans' nomination until he watched the hearings and read the letter his former colleagues had sent in opposition to von Spittakes' nomination to a full term.

Pitts says that there are three reasons to "question Hans' fitness to serve on the Federal Election Commission": his lack of open-mindedness, his "needlessly antagonistic" managerial style, and his "targeting" of those who disagree with him.

Describing the antagonistic managerial style, Pitts says:

If one were to subpoena the e-mails Hans sent to career lawyers it would be clear...that he was typically an advocate for a particular viewpoint, actively worked to convince his superiors (to the extent they needed to be convinced) of his viewpoint, and did this in a very hostile, adversarial, and slash-and-burn manner. When Senator Feinstein asked Hans why so many career lawyers had signed a letter opposing his nomination...in my opinion, a truthful answer would have been: Because I was a real jerk to a lot of career people."

But, then, Pitts also says that Hans' antagonism "stood in contrast to his affability on a more personal level". Which now just makes me question Corpulent Juris' entire characterization of his discussion with the man.

CJ said that he asked von Spksvmelijy about the controversy surrounding his tenure at the DOJ. Hans' response was that "it's very typical of Democrats to criticize the voting rights policy of a Republican administration."

What a puke.

There's more: "Is Hans von Spakovsky a Jerk?" >>

Von Spakovsky and Schlozman, The Tweedledee and Tweedledum of Republican Voter Suppression

Next week, unless he decides to quit, (my bet) there will be a confirmation hearing for Hans Von Spakovsky to the Federal Election Commission.

This afternoon the Brennen Center for Justice and the Lawyers Committee sponsored a press conference providing background information about Von Spakovsky's role in the Republican voter suppression campaign. The presser was held at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. The questions were answered by Joseph Rich, former chief of the Voting Rights Division, of the Civil Rights Division of the USDoJ's Professional Staff.

Unfortunately, I live a thousand miles away. As much as I would like I just couldn't attend. Because Von Spakovsky is the next big name on the voter suppression hit parade, I am looking for a complete transcript. We will hear a lot about Hans during the coming week.

Because they office in DC and they have a real budget, ThinkProgress was able to send a reporter. (Blue girl, you need to do something about that.)

The press conference took a 1/2 step away from Von Spakovsky when one of the reporters ask Rich questions about Bradley Schlozman and the ACORN indictments. You will recall that Schlozman is adamant that Craig Donsanto, the director of the Election Crimes branch in the Public Integrity section, ordered him to go forward with the indictments in the face of express directions published the manual Donsanto wrote. ThinkProgress is reporting this evening that Rich believes

“Schlozman’s the person who recommended those lawsuits, he pushed to get them, and I suspect [Schlozman] pressured Donsanto.”

According to ThinkProgress, Rich said, “I’ve heard that Schlozman talked to [Michael] Elston, which indicated he may have gone over Donsanto’s head to get approval.”

That kind of pressure might explain why Schlozman was so sure Donsanto would back him up even though everyone agrees the indictments flew in the face of Donsanto's own manual, DoJ rules and long standing tradition.

Whatever rock you turn over in this voter suppression mess you find Von Spakovsky and Schlozman. They are virtually Tweedledee and Tweedledum. I wonder how high up the food chain we have to go to find their master?

This has been an interesting exercise. I have learned how to spell some funny sounding German names.

There's more: "Von Spakovsky and Schlozman, The Tweedledee and Tweedledum of Republican Voter Suppression" >>

Loyal Bushies As Immigration Judges -- What A Concept

We have heard a lot lately about immigration judges. According to the Legal Times America's 226 immigration judges handle about 300,000 immigration cases each year. They rarely issue written opinions while deciding cases ranging from the status of asylum seekers to the rights of immigrants marrying U.S. citizens. My niece and her husband who have been living abroad for the last several years will without doubt encounter one of our immigration judges when they return to the US with the little Chinese girl they recently adopted.

Starting at about $115,000 per year, plus full benefits, the pay is reasonably good. Immigration judges are considered civil service employees. When the Bush administration leaves Bush appointees won't have to find work. As mentioned immigration judges don't have to write much, so for most lawyers the work is relatively easy. All in all, the job of immigration judge is highly coveted.

According to the Legal Times

Historically, those hired for the positions were vetted by the Executive Office of Immigration Review and its recommendations were forwarded to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General — where they were almost uniformly approved. Sometimes this process took place without public advertisements for the posts and without competing candidates.

In recent years somebody realized that the job of "immigration judge" was a wonderful patronage opportunity. The Attorney General has the power to override the EOIR process and directly appoint whoever he wants. Again from the Legal Times.

The shift in the method of hiring immigration judges began late in Ashcroft’s tenure. At some point members of his staff realized that EOIR had long been appointing at least some immigration judges without open competition. Hearing of this, Susan Richmond Johnson, one of Ashcroft’s closest advisers, remembers thinking, “Why are we not using it? It’s an authority of the attorney general.”

This change led directly to the raw politicization of the appointment process revealed last week by Monica Goodling. If you are well connected within the Republican party, have a law license and are a loyal Bushie, you can be an immigration judge.

One of the judges appointed by the attorney general is Garry Malphrus. According to TPMMuckraker his story is pretty typical.

A former Republican aide on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Malphrus also worked on the White House's Domestic Policy Council before becoming a judge. But he really showed his stripes in 2000, when Malphrus joined other Republicans in making a ruckus (chanting, pounding on windows and doors) outside the Miami-Dade Elections Department -- the so-called "Brooks Brothers Riot" -- during the Bush-Gore recount.

Malphrus, of course, had no immigration experience when he got the job, McLure reports. He had that in common with a number of his peers, who had similar backgrounds:

Among the 19 immigration judges hired since 2004: Francis Cramer, the former campaign treasurer for New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg; James Nugent, the former vice chairman of the Louisiana Republican Party; and Chris Brisack, a former Republican Party county chairman from Texas who had served on the state library commission under then-Gov. George W. Bush.

It is pretty clear that treating the job of immigration judge as a patronage plumb didn't start with Goodling. Malphrus was hired before Goodling ever became involved in the process. According to Goodling's written testimony.

Around the time I became White House Liaison in April 2005, Mr. Sampson told me that the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) had provided guidance some years earlier indicating that Immigration Judge appointments were not subject to the civil service rules applicable to other career positions.

The DoJ maintains that "recent appointees have been well-qualified and that the department draws on candidates from 'diverse legal backgrounds' and 'considers applicants based on the totality of their professional records.'"

We can almost hear the Republican defense. Politicians love patronage jobs. After all patronage is how they keep their friends and supporters happy. Patronage is a key to maintaining political power. Bush gets to appoint some of his political staff to good paying jobs between campaigns. So what? If Democrats win, they can appoint their own campaign workers. Go win the next election.

Why is it important that we appoint seasoned and highly qualified people to be immigration judges?

An answer to that question might be found this morning's New York Times. Julia Preston reports on a study of 140,000 asylum cases--cases decided by our immigration judges and concludes that "asylum seekers in the United States face broad disparities in the nation’s 54 immigration courts, with the outcome of cases influenced by things like the location of the court and the sex and professional background of judges."

The variation from court to court is startling. An asylum seeker in Atlanta has a 12% chance of winning his case. An asylum seeker in San Francisco wins 54% of the time.

Even more shocking is the variation from judge to judge. In Miami one judge awards asylum to Colombians 5% of the time. Another judge just down the hall awards Colombians asylum 88% of the time. Read the entire article. It is shocking.

From the lowest municipal court deciding speeding tickets to the United States Supreme Court, every organized court strives for consistency. The rule of law insists upon the fair and uniform application of the law to the facts regardless of who is deciding those facts or applying the law. At the same time organized courts recognize that every judge is different. Every judge brings his or her experiences to the job. For that reason appellate courts review decisions, providing consistent supervision to subordinate courts. For that reason judges spend lots of time going to seminars. They talk among themselves. They look over each other's shoulders. New judges are most often drawn from the ranks of experienced lawyers practicing in the field, often in the same court. Consistency of decision is key to the perception that a litigant is getting a fair shake. It is a key component of the Rule of Law.

I don't know if the inconsistency among our immigration courts and judges started with the Bush administration, or if the problem has only been made worse by the AG's use of the job as a patronage plum. It is pretty clear that this is an issue that needs additional reporting.

There's more: "Loyal Bushies As Immigration Judges -- What A Concept" >>

Bush Defends Gonzales, Charges Political Theater.

In a world where the law is meaningless, power is unchecked and loyalty is everything, President Bush has declared unflinching support for his embattled attorney general. He charges the Democrats with political theater.

In related news a trailer has just been released promoting a new movie about the rapidly developing scandal.



Now that's true political theater.

Sorry bmaz, I couldn't resist.

There's more: "Bush Defends Gonzales, Charges Political Theater." >>

Gonzales Attempted to Bully John Ashcroft Into Authorizing An Illegal Domestic Spying Program As Ashcroft Lay Seriously Ill In Intensive Care

Dan Eggan and Paul Kane of the Washington Post have filed a chilling report detailing a confrontation between Alberto Gonzales and John Ashcroft over the administration's domestic surveillance program, a program the justice department had determined was illegal. During yesterday's testimony before the senate judiciary committee James B. Comey told the panel that on the night of March 10, 2004, Ashcroft lay seriously ill in intensive care. Comey, who was then acting Attorney General, learned that Gonzales and Andy Card were on their way to the hospital to have Ashcroft overrule Comey's decision not to reauthorize the program.

(Comey) alerted FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and raced, sirens blaring, to join Ashcroft in his hospital room, arriving minutes before Gonzales and Card. Ashcroft, summoning the strength to lift his head and speak, refused to sign the papers they had brought. Gonzales and Card, who had never acknowledged Comey's presence in the room, turned and left.

The sickbed visit was the start of a dramatic showdown between the White House and the Justice Department in early 2004 that, according to Comey, was resolved only when Bush overruled Gonzales and Card. But that was not before Ashcroft, Comey, Mueller and their aides prepared a mass resignation, Comey said.

Read the entire story. It is like something out of a political potboiler. Apparently the President signed off on the program without ever receiving approval from the Department of Justice. According to David Johnston of The New York Times after approving the illegal program, the President directed the justice department to take necessary, but undisclosed, steps to bring it into compliance with the law.

"The story is a shocking one. It makes you almost gulp," Schumer said. "The incident shows that Gonzales holds the rule of law `in minimum low regard,'" the senator said, adding, "It's hard to understand after hearing this story how Attorney General Gonzales could remain as attorney general."

Laurie Asseo of Bloomberg reports

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the committee's ranking Republican, said the confrontation ``has some characteristics of the Saturday Night Massacre'' during the Nixon administration when top Justice Department officials resigned rather than fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox.

Specter also said yesterday's announcement that Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty will resign provided ``evidence that the department really cannot function with the continued leadership or lack of leadership of Attorney General Gonzales.'' . . .

Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, said Gonzales is doing an ``abysmal job'' and the Justice Department is ``being run like a political arm of the White House.''

Ashcroft declined to comment on Comey's testimony.

Feel safer because people in the Department of Justice stood tall for our rights? Well, the good guys in this story have all left government. The bad guys are still there. Now do you feel safer?

There's more: "Gonzales Attempted to Bully John Ashcroft Into Authorizing An Illegal Domestic Spying Program As Ashcroft Lay Seriously Ill In Intensive Care" >>

Keith Ellison Has Questions About The Appointment Of Rachel Paulose

Joe Bodell of the Minnesota Monitor has posted tidbits from a Saturday interview with Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minn) concerning Rachel Paulose's appointment to the USA position in Minneapolis and the Department of Justice's handling of her performance issues. Bodell reports that

Ellison recently issued a request to the Department of Justice along with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., requesting copies of communication regarding former U.S. Attorney Tom Heffelfinger and his replacement in the Minnesota office, Rachel Paulose. Ellison said Saturday he does not blame Paulose for her situation but rather the Bush Administration for putting ideological requirements above experience, competence and capacity to pursue justice.

More ominous, according to Ellison, is who was not fired: "the eight were fired, but clearly those that were retained were loyal Bushies. These demotions in the Minnesota office are a serious matter, and Ms. Paulose received help from Washington on management issues. If the eight who were fired were let go for 'performance issues', did they get any help before being fired? ...If they were let go for 'performance reasons', how does Ms. Paulose stay for 'performance reasons'?"

Congressman that is a question we are all pondering.

There's more: "Keith Ellison Has Questions About The Appointment Of Rachel Paulose" >>

Bradley Schlozman's KC Activities Profiled

Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe has written an extensive article about Bradley Schlozman, the loyal Bushie who apparently wrecked the Civil Rights Division before being named interim USA in Kansas City. He recently left KC to return to main Justice.

Of his work at the Civil Rights division David Becker, a former voting rights division trial attorney, said that Schlozman's efforts were a "wolf guarding the henhouse situation." In March of 2006, Schlozman was appointed interim USA in Kansas City. As Savege reports during the summer of 2006

the liberal activist group ACORN paid workers $8 an hour to sign up new voters in poor neighborhoods around the country. Later, ACORN's Kansas City chapter discovered that several workers filled out registration forms fraudulently instead of finding real people to sign up. ACORN fired the workers and alerted law enforcement.

Schlozman moved fast, so fast that his office got one of the names on the indictments wrong. He announced the indictments of four former ACORN workers on Nov. 1, 2006, warning that "this national investigation is very much ongoing." Missouri Republicans seized on the indictments to blast Democrats in the campaign endgame.

Critics later accused Schlozman of violating the Justice Department's own rules. A 1995 Justice election crime manual says "federal prosecutors . . . should be extremely careful not to conduct overt investigations during the preelection period" to avoid "chilling legitimate voting and campaign activities" and causing "the investigation itself to become a campaign issue."

"In investigating election fraud matters, the Justice Department must refrain from any conduct which has the possibility of affecting the election itself," the manual states, adding in underlining that "most, if not all, investigation of alleged election crime must await the end of the election to which the allegation relates."

When interviewed by Savage, main justice's spokesperson said that Scholzman had received permission to file the voting fraud cases just before the election. The DoJ spokesman cited an "unwritten exception" to the general Department of Justice Guidelines as justifying the indictments. Apparently, it was OK to publicly file the politically charged indictments five days before the election because "investigators need not interview voters for such cases." If you believe that you must also believe the Gonzales 8 were fired for "performance related reasons."

Schlozman announced on November 3, 2007, that he had assigned an Assistant US Attorney Matt Whitworth and members of the FBI to guard against election fraud. He urged members of the public to report cases of voter fraud to Whitworth and the FBI.

As it turned out according to a November 8, 2006, story in the local Kansas City legal publication The Daily Record

Don Ledford, public affairs director for U.S. Attorney Bradley Schlozman in Kansas City, didn't have any complaints to report.

Of course, Karl Rove had a complaint. Claire McCaskill won.

I want to thank TMP commenter "Mrs Panstreppon" for her work on the Schlozman story. Citzen journalism rocks.
________________________

Previously we blogged about the outstanding article written by Greg Gordon of McClatchy Newspapers detailing the GOP's Missouri 2006 voter suppression campaign. It seems Howard Beale of FiredUp Missouri has written a piece riping the Kansas City Star's eviscerated version of the Gordon article which focuses on Schlozman and the Department of Justice while downplaying Missouri GOP's involvement. You might want to give it a look. Oddly the Star is a McClatchy Newspaper.

UPDATE: Blue Girl points out that Brad Friedman has his own take on the Star's edit of the Gordon story. You might want to give it a look. The Star was shameless in its efforts to help the Missouri GOP.

There's more: "Bradley Schlozman's KC Activities Profiled" >>

I lubz muh guns; I needs muh guns...

... not really. I don't actually own any firearms (oh no, better watch out; burglars will soon flock to my apartment...), but I don't have a fundamental problem with people owning them with restrictions. Assault rifles, automatic hand-guns (tech-9, Uzi, etc.), and the like are probably better left in the hands of professional... um... gun users, like the military; they don't really offer much in the way of civil purposes. Yeah, yeah, yeah, second amendment and all that - whatever, we put all kinds of restrictions on speech, property seizure, assembly, yadda yadda yadda. There's no (rational) reason why similar restrictions should not be put on the second amendment.

Anyway, Joe Sudbay over at AMERICAblog wrote a little ditty about the NRA's opposition to Sen. Frank Lautenberg's (D- New Jersey) proposed legislation to

increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer
of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or
suspected dangerous terrorists

Sudbay writes:

Think of all the things the Bush administration has done, all the laws
they've broken, all the rights they've taken away, in order to "fight terror."
They've tapped our phones, read our emails, thrown us in jail without the right
to an attorney or even a trial, assumed that we're guilty until proven innocent.
But all of that, we are told, is necessary if we are to stop suspected
terrorists from killing another 3,000 Americans, or worse, killing 1 million
Americans with a nuke.

But God forbid a suspected terrorist isn't permitted to buy an Uzi. Oh no,
we wouldn't want to take away the constitutional rights of a suspected terrorist
to buy the weapons he needs to kill us all. No, that would be un-American.

I think he has missed point, and I think I'm with the NRA (!!!) on this one.

Here's the thing... one of the (many) problems I have with the Bush administration is their (mis)use of the words "suspected terrorist." When you start treating "suspect" people different, you are inherently assuming guilt. Of course, assuming guilt isn't always a bad thing; individuals make assumptions of guilt all the time. It is a problem, however, when the State begins to value the assumption of guilt over that of innocence. Sudbay's correct when he cites the DoJ's crimes against our rights and privacy - data mining phone records, reading e-mail, labeling people "enemy combatants" to circumvent civil liberties - so why would he support further violations of civil liberties based entirely on "suspect" status. Of course, my opposition to S. 1237 is much different from that of the NRA - mine is based on conceptions of justice, while the NRA's is drawn from their apparent desire to see a fully armed and militarized society, but yes, our substantive opposition is the same.

I can understand someone reading this and thinking Egad! I don't want a terrorist buying a gun! Why, they might... terrorize with it! Have you forgotten VIRGINIA TECH!? Of course I haven't. But here's the thing, either 1) remove the word 'suspected' from the language of the bill and simply bar 'terrorists' from purchasing firearms (???) or b) screw this bill entirely and do something about individual 'suspected terrorists' based on the evidence collected.

There's more: "I lubz muh guns; I needs muh guns..." >>

Purple Missouri Target of Republican Voter Suppression Campaign

Greg Gordon of McClatchy Newspapers is reporting that Claire McCaskill was the target of a coordinated voter suppression campaign conducted by Missouri's Republican legislature, Matt Blunt, and the Karl Rove Justice Department, lead by voter suppression specialist Brad Schlozman. Hiding behind claims of massive "voter fraud" the Republican voter suppression efforts were cynically aimed directly at minority and poor voters. The Republican campaign was thwarted by timely rulings of from Federal and Missouri courts. As evidence of the coordinated nature of the Republican voter suppression campaign Gordon points to the following:

-Schlozman, while he was acting civil rights chief, authorized a suit accusing the state of failing to eliminate legions of ineligible people from lists of registered voters. A federal judge tossed out the suit this April 13, saying Democratic Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan couldn't police local registration rolls and noting that the government had produced no evidence of fraud.

-The Missouri General Assembly - with the White House's help - narrowly passed a law requiring voters to show photo identification cards, which Carnahan estimated would disenfranchise 200,000 voters. The state Supreme Court voided the law as unconstitutional before the election.

-Two weeks before the election, the St. Louis Board of Elections sent letters threatening to disqualify 5,000 newly registered minority voters if they failed to verify their identities promptly, a move - instigated by a Republican appointee - that may have violated federal law. After an outcry, the board rescinded the threat.

-Five days before the election, Schlozman, then interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City, announced indictments of four voter-registration workers for a Democratic-leaning group on charges of submitting phony applications, despite a Justice Department policy discouraging such action close to an election.

-In an interview with conservative talk-show host Hugh Hewitt a couple of days before the election, Rove said he'd just visited Missouri and had met with Republican strategists who "are well aware of" the threat of voter fraud. He said the party had "a large number of lawyers that are standing by, trained and ready to intervene" to keep the election clean.

Last August Ajbari Asim wrote in a Washington Post Op-ed of the then soon to be held unconstitutional Missouri voter ID law:

Blunt and others say the law will prevent fraud. Their opponents rightly point out that the measure disproportionately affects those who have been disfranchised in the past, such as the poor and racial minorities. Besides, they argue, Missouri hasn't exactly suffered from an epidemic of imposters showing up to vote.

As one of the lawsuits filed to block the measure puts it, "It is statistically more likely for a Missourian to be struck by a bolt of lightning than to have his or her vote canceled by someone posing as another voter to cast a ballot."

You can read the Missouri Supreme Court opinion in Weinschenk v. Missouri here.

UPDATE: For a sample of how this story is being blogged locally, you might want to check out KC Blue Blog's comment.

Elected officials inside the Missouri Republican Party may have knowingly worked with political operatives in accomplishing this goal. Thomas Hearne, a high dollar Republican from St. Louis, founded the non-profit Center for American Voting Rights, in Feb. 2005. This center was used as the hub for drafting reports that purposely launched hysteria campaigns involving non existent voter fraud, or cases that were investigated and found to be nothing, to give the appearance that it was a massive problem in Missouri and other swing states. For the record, over the last 5 years nationwide there have only been a total of just over 100 cases total.

Republican State Senator Delbert Scott (R-MO), along with other Republican State Representatives and Senators worked with Mr. Hearne to draft legislation to restrict lower income voters through their "Voter ID Bill" which was found to be unconstitutional. In making the argument Republican State Representatives and Senators, including every Lee's Summit State Representative, may have been told to make these hyped up, fake claims of "preventing dogs and cats from voting, etc." in speeches and local newspaper articles to create an illusion that the bill was needed, so that the real reason wasn't focused on.

There's more: "Purple Missouri Target of Republican Voter Suppression Campaign" >>

Monica Is In A World Of Hurt

I have run hot and cold about whether immunity should be offered to Monica Goodling, but have consistently maintained that nothing more than use (testimonial) immunity should even be considered. It is now quite clear that Goodling has enough goods to be considered for immunity, maybe even a broader grant than originally contemplated. However, there must be an awe inspiring proffer (avowal as to what she can testify to) made before anything goes further. The revelations of the last two days have placed a mass of exposure the equivalent of a small planet directly over Ms. Goodling's head; it is time for the Congressional inquisitors to turn up the pressure. With the latest disclosures it seems Goodling can likely roll the whole bunch of malefactors right up to Rove and Harriet Miers, which means up to Bush himself. I don't care if Monica has John Dowd as a lawyer in her corner or not; if she has a lick of common sense, she is completely soiling her drawers right about now. If I were Ms. Goodling, I would also be a might concerned where Dowd's loyalties and priorities actually reside as well, since it is unlikely that Goodling and/or her family are paying Dowd's fees. Dear Monica has become as much the "hub" of this conspiracy as Gonzales. Dear Monica has a problem. Big problem.

There's more: "Monica Is In A World Of Hurt" >>

Monica Goodling Under Investigation

Remember Monica Goodling, the girl from Regent Law School who was given sweeping authority. The AP reports that:

The Justice Department is investigating whether its former White House liaison used political affiliation in deciding who to hire as entry-level prosecutors in U.S. attorneys' offices around the country, The Associated Press has learned.

Doing so is a violation of federal law.

The inquiry involving Monica Goodling, the former counsel and White House liaison for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, raises new concerns that politics might have cast a shadow over the independence of trial prosecutors who enforce U.S. laws.

Over at TPMMuckracker there is a lot of speculation as to the meaning of the probe. One comment struck me as being worth a further look. According to commenter jlc

Title 5 USC Section 2302(c) states:
(c) The head of each agency shall be responsible for the prevention of prohibited personnel pratices, for the compliance with and enforcement of applicable civil service laws, rules, and regulations, and other aspects of personnel management, and for ensuring (in consultation with the Office of Special Counsel) that agency employees are informed of the rights and remedies available to them under this chapter and chapter 12 of this title. Any individual to whom the head of an agency delegates authority for personnel management, or for any aspect thereof, shall be similarly responsible within the limits of the delegation.

He then suggests that "this would seem to make Alberto responsible for actions he delegated to Ms. Goodling." Any thoughts?

There's more: "Monica Goodling Under Investigation" >>