Waxman Investigating the IG for State

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform charged today in a 13-page letter that Howard J. Krongard, the Inspector General for the State Department has exhibited a persistent tendency to censor reports that might embarrass the administration, and has repeatedly thwarted investigations of the State Department. The letter was signed by Chairman Henry Waxman and released today by the committee.

The Oversight Committee based the charges on the testimony of seven current and former members of the IG’s staff, including two former senior officials who spoke on the record with no stipulation of anonymity. The letter clarifies that the charges are not limited to a single unit, but that the pattern is pervasive, affecting all three divisions of the IG’s office – audits, investigations and inspections.

…The letter charged that Krongard "interfered with ongoing investigations to protect the State Department and the White House from political embarrassment." It said that "your strong affinity with State Department leadership and your partisan political ties have led you to halt investigations, censor reports and refuse to cooperate with law enforcement agencies."

…Waxman accused Krongard of refusing to send investigators to Iraq and Afghanistan to investigate $3 billion worth of State Department contracts; preventing his investigators from cooperating with a Justice Department probe into waste and fraud in the construction of the U.S. embassy in Iraq; using "highly irregular" procedures to personally exonerate the embassy's prime contractor of labor abuses; interfering in the probe of a close friend of former White House adviser Karl Rove; censoring reports on embassies to prevent full disclosure to Congress; and refusing to publish critical audits of State's financial statements.

Inspectors General are supposed to be independent and objective investigators of waste, fraud and abuse, rather than ideology-driven agenda whores. Of course, the Bush maladministration has stood this notion on it’s head and applied a test of partisanship to everything. Prior to the appointment of Krongard, the IG for State had traditionally been a Foreign Service officer. Krongard was previously employed by an international law firm and had been general counsel for Deloitte & Touche

Emails of exchanges between staff members discussing Krongard’s decision to stonewall the Justice Department on the embassy investigation.

"Wow, as we all [k]now that is not the normal and proper procedure," an investigator wrote to Assistant IG John A. DeDona. DeDona forwarded the e-mail to the Deputy IG, William E. Todd, saying, "I have always viewed myself as a loyal soldier but hopefully you sense my frustration in my voicemail yesterday."

Todd wrote back: "I know you are very frustrated. John, you need to convey to the troops the truth, the IG told us both Tuesday to stand down on this and not assist, that needs to be the message."

DeDona responded: "Unfortunately, under the current regime, the view within INV [the office of investigations] is to keep working the BS cases within the beltway, and let us not rock the boat with more significant investigations."

The committee subpoenaed the work product for the embassy report which Krongard personally drafted, that exonerated the contractor building the new embassy in Iraq, First Kuwaiti General Trade and Contracting Co. The company was accused of horribly abusive labor practices, including holding employees against their will, but Krongard let First Kuwaiti off the hook with a mere six pages of vague, handwritten notes, showing that he interviewed only six employees – who were selected by First Kuwaiti. "Contrary to established investigative procedures, you allowed the subject of the investigation, First Kuwaiti, to select the employees you interviewed," Waxman charged. He added that the interview notes “did not show how thoroughly each employee was interviewed.”

Waxman charges that Krongard has, by his actions, created a “dysfunctional office environment” and that he routinely berated and belittled personnel, treated career government professionals contemptuously, and fostered an environment where people actually feared coming to work. The letter asserts that the high turnover in the department – which has resulted in only seven of 27 investigator positions currently filled – is due to the feckless leadership of Krongard.

There's more: "Waxman Investigating the IG for State" >>

Meanwhile...

From the Washington Post:

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said documents obtained by his panel suggest that the appearances by the drug control officials were part of a larger White House effort to politicize the work of federal agencies that "may be more widespread than previously known."

Waxman cited a memo written by former White House political director Sara M. Taylor showing that John P. Walters, director of the drug control office, and his deputies traveled at taxpayer expense to about 20 events with vulnerable GOP members of Congress in the three months leading up to the elections.

In a letter to Taylor, Waxman also pointed to an e-mail by an official in the drug policy office describing President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, as being pleased that the office, along with the Commerce, Transportation and Agriculture departments, went "above and beyond" the call of duty in arranging appearances by Cabinet members at campaign events.

"This recognition is not something we hear every day and we should feel confident that our hard work is noticed," said the e-mail, written by Douglas Simon, the drug policy office's White House liaison. "The director and the deputies deserve the most recognition because they actually had to give up time with their families for the god awful places we sent them."

The drug control office has had a history of being nonpartisan, and a 1994 law bars the agency's officials from engaging in political activities even on their own time.

Light, disinfectant, y'all know the rest...

There's more: "Meanwhile..." >>

A Drop in the Bucke...er, Tank

I ran across this article today in the Detroit News and was - frankly - unsurprised. The House Oversight Committee has opened another investigation into the workings of the Executive Branch:

The U.S. Department of Transportation secretly lobbied dozens of members of Congress in recent weeks, urging them to join the Bush administration in opposing California's request to impose its own strict fuel efficiency regulations, according to a House investigative committee.

Using a one-page script and a list of auto facilities obtained from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group that represents automakers, staffers at the Department of Transportation called nearly every congressional member from Michigan and Ohio, urging them to oppose California's request[*], according to records released this week by the House Oversight Committee. They also targeted other auto-heavy districts and governors in at least seven other states.

While federal law bars government officials from lobbying lawmakers on issues before Congress, there are no such restrictions on regulatory questions, such as the California waiver.

Still, the lobbying suggests an "improper hidden agenda" because it comes as the administration is making "an independent assessment of the merits" of California's request, U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the oversight committee, said in a letter to Transportation Secretary Mary Peters...

...Until now, the Bush administration has not taken a public position on the California waiver, but the records released by Waxman show the Department of Transportation mounted a fairly extensive opposition effort that essentially supports automakers.

The Department of Transportation turned over 71 pages of e-mails and other records to Waxman's committee, which began investigating last month after a House staffer gave the committee a voice mail received from Heideh Shahmoradi, a special assistant for governmental affairs at the Department of Transportation...

...The lobbying blitz came ahead of a June 15 deadline for submitting comments to the EPA on California's request. [Joe] Knollenberg, [Candace] Miller and five other Michigan congressional Republicans sent a letter to the agency urging it to reject the waiver.

"The stakes for Michigan and American manufacturing could not be higher," the letter said. "The EPA should not allow California and other states to make a mad rush to saddle the auto industry with technologically infeasible mandates"...

...Joan Claybrook, director of Public Citizen, criticized the campaign. "How is the EPA going to make an independent decision if the Transportation Department is lobbying to oppose it?"

Read the whole article for the full content. I really have no informed comment at this time regarding an increase of fuel standards versus economic impact, and that's not really what this comment is about...The fight over fuel and emission standards is one of those wonky things that the average American cares about only in a vague manner - not that they shouldn't care more, mind you - but it lacks the sexiness of the politicization of the Department of Justice or the outing of a CIA covert operative. As (possible) scandals go, it's a drop in a much bigger bucket**.

What this article (and investigation) does, however, is to further highlight the modi operandi of the Bush Administration: Press or puncture the legal and ethical envelopes that are necessary for a properly functioning democracy and then mislead and deceive to avoid accountability. When being held to account is inevitable, as in the case of Scooter Libby's multiple convictions, use whatever legal loopholes are available to lessen the impact on the Inner Circle and shrug off any criticism...there will always be another professional wrestler or useless socialite to attract the public's attention.

And, even larger than that, is the issue of how the American government has been co-opted by business interests in such a way that government operates as an extension of those businesses...How else can you explain the apparent lobbying by the Department of Transportation on behalf of the automobile industry? You'd think that foreign and domestic auto companies have lobbyists with contacts in Congress that can express the same sentiments...I know that buying elected officials' votes has been around as long as there have been elected officials to buy, but our government institutions like the EPA or DOJ should be above and independent from partisanship, ideology, or the fiscal concerns of business.

Finally, I'm left with the same set of questions, only asked to different members of this administration...from the article:

The Transportation Department withheld 53 e-mails from the oversight committee. [DOT spokesman Brian] Turmail said Peters did not personally lobby any members of Congress on the issue.

Well, who were the persons in the DOT that lobbied members of Congress? Who directed them to do so? What is the DOT's rationale for withholding those messages?

I feel that these hearings won't get much coverage, but it would be interesting to hear the responses to those questions.

*The request by California is to establish limits on greenhouse gas emissions and create a higher standard of fuel economy. The adoption of these standards cannot take effect without a waiver from the EPA, hence the lobbying effort...Also, eleven other states want to adopt California's standards.
**Hence the title. Clever me.

There's more: "A Drop in the Bucke...er, Tank" >>

President and Vice President, "Security Oversight, We Don't Need No Stinking Security Oversight"

Imagine you are a gun carrying member of the CIA, the United States Military, the FBI, the DEA or Homeland Security, and you know that you could end up dead if the wrong people find out the wrong information about your activities. I am sure you would take comfort knowing that the United States Government has well thought out security policies and comprehensive oversight. The Government has your back. All you have to worry about is the enemy in the front.

Imagine your concern when you heard that the Israelis and Saudis have close contacts with the utterly naive and hopelessly self-important neocons running the Vice President's office and with other neocons high up in the White House. Imagine the deepening concern when you read that well known Iranian spy Ahmad Chalabi, long the darling of the neo-conservative movement, had the ear of the Vice President and neocons in the White House. Now imagine the horror you must have felt when the White House and Vice President's office (and the highest levels of the State Department) leaked Valerie Plame's name. You must have been shocked to learn that for years the White House has been using the very insecure RNC as its email service provider.

How do you feel today when it is reported in the LA Times that the "White House says the president's own order on classified data does not apply to his office or the vice president's?"

If I were a spook, a policeman, a soldier or anybody else who could end up dead if the wrong people got the wrong information, I would be thinking about early retirement. What about you?

UPDATE: Blue Girl has posted her thoughts on this topic at BGRS.

There's more: "President and Vice President, "Security Oversight, We Don't Need No Stinking Security Oversight"" >>

The Justice Department Investigations Must Not Be Portrayed As Us Versus Them

There has been much written and discussed of late on the roiling scandals permeating the US Department of Justice. Much of it, and rightfully so, is being driven by the Democratic left. Our own Corpus Juris has been both eloquent and dogged on these issues, and deserves our commendation and thanks. Although I have seen absolutely no evidence of this from CJ, or any other contributor here, there are many of our brothers and sisters out there among the political activists and blogosphere that are, unfortunately, viewing this set of issues as but another political battle to be played for maximum advantage against the Republicans. Such a view cannot, and must not, be our tact.

The cracking of the Justice Department scandals must be a goal of justice and the rule of law, not a political goal. Quite frankly, adherence to steadfast political goals, albeit it on the other side, is what got us to this point in the first place. The actions of the investigating Congressional committees should not be to advance political goals, they should be to advance the principle of justice irrespective of whether the benefit inures to the Democratic or Republican side. To act otherwise puts the result above the process; the foundation of American law, and indeed American democracy itself, is the primacy of a fair and impartial process not the guarantee of any particular result or goal.

There has been a long and slow degradation of the understanding of this fundamental premise by both the American public and their elected leaders. When either side decides that "political goals" are primary, that inherently places results above the process. I have practiced law in the governmental misconduct and criminal areas for twenty years, and the phenomenon I describe is quite evident in the halls of justice. A lot of the circumstances and problems we are focused on today are the festering mature result of the primordial decisions of one party, the Republicans, to serve "political goals" by declaring themselves the "law and order party" and spreading fear of isolated and ultimately inconsequential, yet publically hyped and discussed, results in criminal cases. If a particular criminal defendant went free because the police or prosecution had substantially violated fundamental Constitutional protections, they screamed and bellowed "Hide the women and children, those liberals have freed this heinous criminal on a technicality to roam your streets and rob, rape and murder again".

So it began with characterizing hideous and substantive Fourth Amendment violations of fundamental search and seizure law as "mere technicalities". Soon judges and prosecutors, usually being elected officials themselves, started shading their duties and principles under the law to find creative ways around Constitutional protections in order to avoid results that would be unpopular. Then the officials ran again for election proudly proclaiming how they had protected the "law and order for the citizens" by "clamping down on criminals" and "elimianting the criminal's use of technicalities". The more they talked the talk, the more they walked the walk.

The sad result over time is the situation we now find ourselves in where technicalities (read: the Constitution) be damned, the government and justice system is to be used as just another partisan tool. The Attorney General of the United States dismissively brands the Genevea Conventions as "quaint" and inconsequential. The President of the United States belligerently ignores the Constitution screaming that "it's just a damn piece of paper". The Executive Branch acts, and thinks, like Article II of the Constitution (the one delineating and defining the Executive Branch) is the only portion that exists. This is what happens when political goals (the results) trump adherence to the principles of the system (the process). There is no way to excise politics completely because it is inherent in the process at hand; however, it must not be the guiding intent. If the fundamental process can be restored and borne out, our victory will flow therefrom automatically.

There's more: "The Justice Department Investigations Must Not Be Portrayed As Us Versus Them" >>

Waxman Won't Be Ignored

The days of Condi dismissing the oversight committee are numbered. By my count, there are about 18 left…

Congressman Waxman let it be known today that ignoring him would not make him go away.

On 12 March, 2007, Congressman Waxman reopened an investigation into the specious allegations of lies about yellowcake Uranium and aluminum centrifuge tubes. At that time, the Congressman sent a letter to Secretary of State Rice that should have made it clear he wants answers (even if she was distracted by thoughts of shoeshopping).

Since 2003,I have written 16 letters to you, either in your capacity as National Security Advisor or Secretary of State.

According to Committee records, you have satisfactorily

responded to only five of those l6 letters. Those five were co-signed by Republicans.

Under the Bush Administration, several agencies followed a policy of not responding to minority party requests.

Although I do not agree with this policy, I presume that you were also following it when you decided not to respond to my requests for information.

I am now renewing my requests as the chairman of the chief oversight committee in the U.S. House of Representatives.

(She blew off that March 12 letter as well.)

So the Congressman sent another along today, and attached a copy of the March 12 letter, and told her she is expected to appear before the committee on 18 April. (.pdf warning)

There's more: "Waxman Won't Be Ignored" >>

Reining in a Rogue Elephant

To my (admittedly wonkish) way of thinking, the most exciting RSS feed these days is the one coming from Representative Waxman’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Representative Waxman and the Oversight Committee today (Monday, March 26, 2007) informed both the Republican National Committee and the Chairman of the Bush-Cheney ’04 campaign that they are not to destroy any email records they may be in possession of, in light of the evidence that certain high-ranking public officials (*cough* Karl Rove *cough*) have used non-official email servers to conduct the business of the government and avoid scrutiny and transparency in government affairs, and have most likely acted in ways that violate the Presidential Records Act.

One thing is for certain – the mendacity and hubris of this administration is staggering. If their actions were not so consequential for the rest of us, it would almost be funny – but as that is not the case, they are simply appalling on an epic scale.

[Cross-posted from Blue Girl, Red State]

There's more: "Reining in a Rogue Elephant" >>

Waxman to hold hearings on the Plame matter

From the website of the House Oversight Committee, Henry Waxman, Chair.

Thursday, March 08, 2007
Disclosure of CIA Agent Identity

Committee Will Hold Hearing on Disclosure of CIA Agent Valerie Plame Wilson's Identity

Chairman Henry A. Waxman announced a hearing on whether White House officials followed appropriate procedures for safeguarding the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson. At the hearing, the Committee will receive testimony from Ms. Wilson and other experts regarding the disclosure and internal White House security procedures for protecting her identity from disclosure and responding to the leak after it occurred. The hearing is scheduled for Friday, March 16.

In addition, the Committee today sent a letter to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald commending him for his investigation and requesting a meeting to discuss testimony by Mr. Fitzgerald before the Committee.

The Oversight Committee will webcast the hearing live at www.oversight.house.gov.

Documents and Links

• Letter to Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald
• Topic: Disclosure of CIA Agent Identity
• Rep. Waxman Calls for Public Accounting of Rove’s Actions in CIA Leak Case
• Questions and Answers about White House Security Clearances
• Former Intelligence Officials Testify About Damage Caused by Outing of Covert CIA Agent

It appears that there is a new sheriff in town, and enforcement and accountability appear to be the new order of the day.

I will be very interested to see what Patrick Fitzgerald has to say.

There's more: "Waxman to hold hearings on the Plame matter" >>