I Am Sick Of Anonymous Sources

I have been following the outstanding coverage of the US Attorney scandal provided by The Washington Post's Dan Eggen since the beginning. I have never failed to learn something new reading his articles. Never, until today.

This morning Eggen filed a pretty routine story describing Bradley Schlozman's testimony about the election fraud indictments he brought just prior to the 2006 election. Schlozman claimed, under oath, that he didn't think the indictments against four former low level employees of the left leaning voter registration group ACORN would have any impact on the election. Eggen noted (as all of us who live in Missouri knew) that in the final four days of that election the GOP used the indictments in their campaign against Claire McCaskill.

Eggen reports that Todd Graves, who was familiar with the DoJ manual on the subject, later testified he was surprised that Schlozman brought the indictments so close to an election. The manual states United States Attorneys "must refrain from any conduct which has the possibility of affecting the election itself," and "most, if not all, investigation of an alleged election crime must await the end of the election to which the allegation relates."

So far there nothing in Eggen's piece that hasn't been reported elsewhere.

Then at the end of the story he trots out the following.

A department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the policy "does not mean . . . that the department forbids the filing of any charges, ever, around the time of an election." The Missouri case involved voter-registration efforts, rather than the election itself, the official said.

Who is the department official Dan? Is it Schlozman, or somebody in his camp? Is it Craig Donsanto, the official Schlozman spent all day hiding behind? To whom did you give anonymity? If it is Schlozman or somebody in his camp, that's no big whoop. If it is Donsanto, that is news, especially since TPMmuckraker is reporting that Donsanto, who wrote the manual, told David Iglesias something entirely different in a similar case. Without the official's identity there is not a single bit of news in your article. Why would you give the official anonymity anyway? The guy didn't exactly give you a whistle blowing quote.

A sad day for Dan Eggen. He seems to have gone Washington.

Dan, if you want a real story, try finding out when the GOP wrote and produced its negative ads. There were only four days between the indictments and the election. The ads were up pronto. If the ads were in production before the indictments then you have caught Schlozman in a giant lie. He says he didn't talk to anybody besides Donsanto and his people prior to the indictments. He also says that he didn't think the indictments would affect the election. The GOP obviously did. The timing was so precise, I wouldn't be surprised to learn the date of the indictment was on somebody's election campaign flowchart.

There's more: "I Am Sick Of Anonymous Sources" >>

Schlozman and Graves, Compare and Contrast

It isn't any secret. I live in the Western District of Missouri. Today I tried to pay close attention to the hearings of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They took the testimony of the last two former United States Attorneys serving the Western District of Missouri--Todd Graves and Bradley Schlozman. It has recently been revealed that Graves was forced out to make room for Schlozman.

During the hearing both men faced challenges. Bradley Schlozman has been accused of violating DoJ policy by bringing election fraud indictments just days before the 2006 general election. During her testimony Monica Goodling said that she had heard Todd Graves had been under investigation by the Department's Office of Inspector General. The following are two clips demonstrating how both men handled their respective challenges. Which one would you rather have making important prosecution decisions in your town?

I won't do much to set them up except to say that the Graves clip is far and away his worst showing during the entire hearing. The Scholzman clip is pretty typical. In fact, it is better than most of the rest of his testimony.

We start with Scholzman.



Now we move to Graves.



I sure hope the new guy is more like Graves than Schlozman.

Interestingly, Graves was recommended by Kit Bond and hired by John Ashcroft. Schlozman was allegedly selected by somebody reporting to Alberto Gonzales. A lot of folks suspect he was actually selected by the same team that picked Tim Griffin for Arkansas. Graves is definitely in the same class as the fired US Attorneys who testified earlier. Schlozman is clearly a Gonzales' man.

The videos are from TPMTV and are clips from C-Span's broadcast of the hearings. Here is a wonderful clip of Senator Leahy laying in to Schlozman. It's fun.

There's more: "Schlozman and Graves, Compare and Contrast" >>

McClatchy Drops Bomb At Bottom Of Story

For months it has been suspected that Thomas Heffelfinger was pushed out of the Minnesota US Attorney job to make way for Rachel Paulose. Heffelfinger has insisted he left for personal reasons. Tonight Marisa Taylor and Margaret Talev, of McClatchy's Washington Bureau, offhandedly report at the bottom of a somewhat related story that

a U.S. attorney in Minnesota, who disagreed with the Justice Department on a case involving voting rolls, was asked to resign early last year.

Minnesota only has one US Attorney.

My guess is they confused Minnesota with Missouri. Todd Graves was pushed out in part because he disagreed with Brad Schlozman about a voting rolls case. If not, it is the biggest dropped lede in years. I can't wait to see the later additions.

Hey, the reporters live in Washington. Missouri, Minnesota, all those flyover states look alike.

There's more: "McClatchy Drops Bomb At Bottom Of Story" >>

House Judiciary Committee Chair and Members Ask Gonzales Follow-Up Questions About Todd Graves Firing.

Paul Kiel at TPMMuckraker reports that

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), along with subcommittee chair Linda Sanchez (D-CA) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) wrote Alberto Gonzales today to press for details about the firing of U.S. Attorney for Kansas City Todd Graves and the subsequent hiring of Bradley Schlozman.

Here is part of the letter. The full text can be found at the link.

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

We are writing to formally restate Chairman Conyers' request at the end of your recent appearance before the House Judiciary Committee for the prompt production of all documents, in unredacted form, relating to the termination of Todd Graves, the former United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, who we now know was the ninth U.S. Attorney forced to resign by the Department in 2006.

This request would also cover all documents relevant to the selection of Brad Schlozman as the interim replacement for Mr. Graves, including documents regarding other candidates considered for this position, if any. As we understand it, this will require a new search by the Department of Justice, in addition to providing unredacted copies of already-produced proposed termination lists.

We also have concerns with your suggestion that Mr. Graves' termination was somehow not part of the same process that led to the other terminations, given the fact that Mr. Graves appeared on Kyle Sampson's proposed termination list that was transmitted to Harriet Miers in January 2006, just weeks before Mr. Graves was asked to resign.

As Representative Lofgren pointed out in her questioning, there are disturbing indications that the decision to fire Mr. Graves was related to his disagreement with a voter fraud lawsuit pushed by Mr. Schlozman, the very person eventually named by you to succeed Mr. Graves as an interim U.S. Attorney. Notwithstanding your assertions, our review indicates that the district court decision dismissing that lawsuit focused on much more than the procedural defect of naming the wrong defendant....

Given these troubling circumstances, in addition to receiving the requested documents, we also request that you promptly explain your understanding of the facts regarding this termination and replacement, including but not limited to who placed Mr. Graves on the termination list and why, who was consulted on his termination and on his replacement by Mr. Schlozman, and who made the final decisions. In addition, please identify all current and former Department employees with information on this issue so that they may be interviewed, just as we have interviewed present and former Department personnel on the other eight terminations. Finally, please inform us whether any other United States Attorneys were terminated or asked to resign during President Bush's second term and, if so, who they were and the Department's basis for the termination or requested resignation.

I wonder if he is going to answer? Probably not. Given his performance the other day, it is pretty obvious he holds the committee in contempt. He won't worry about the letter until the committee starts talking about impeachment.

I wonder if the letter will be reported in the Star? Nah. Why would the Star report something involving the Kansas City US Attorney scandal? We Red State people can't handle the truth. Yes, Steve Kraske I am taunting you.

UPDATE: I have added the last substantive paragraph to give a little more flavor.

There's more: "House Judiciary Committee Chair and Members Ask Gonzales Follow-Up Questions About Todd Graves Firing." >>

Graves Pushed Out For Performance Reasons

Why is it reading any story touched by Steve Kraske involving the Missouri GOP like looking for clues on a treasure map? The other day he re-wrote Greg Gordon's excellent story with an eye to hiding Missouri GOP involvement and now he is co-author of a story with the normally outstanding Dave Helling requiring the reader to work hard to find gems sown in the story's lining.

For example a close reading of Dave Helling and Steve Kraske's Kansas City Star article confirms that Graves was fired. In one paragraph they indicate that Senator Kit Bond personally became involved with Graves’ tenure when Graves’ departure was imminent in early 2006.

“Senator Bond … upon (Graves’) request personally called the White House to gain Todd extra time to wrap up case work before his departure,” Marchio’s statement said.

This thread is picked up several paragraphs down when they write

A person in Bond’s office who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the discussions said the White House rejected Bond’s efforts on Graves’ behalf because of “performance” concerns. E-mails from the Justice Department and the White House have used similar language in discussing the other U.S. attorneys who were fired.

If Todd Graves voluntarily resigned why would he ask Bond to contact the White House to gain additional time to finish up his cases? It's pretty obvious that Graves was asked to leave. John Marshall is right. Graves was the 9th US Attorney fired. My question is why can't Helling and Graves report facts using simple declarative sentences?

Please note that there is another very important fact buried in these passages. Bond didn't contact Alberto Gonzales, he contacted the White House. If Bond wanted to help Graves gain a little more time to finish his work why didn't he go to Alberto Gonzales or one of his people?

Two theories have emerged about Todd Graves departure from his US Attorney job in Kansas City. The first is that he was pushed out because he and his wife were involved in a "fee office scandal." Helling does a fine job describing that scandal. I have always thought the fee office scandal was a phony because the "fee office" system, which is without doubt a lingering vestige of corrupt patronage politics, has been a prime tool used by generations of Missouri governors (both Republican and Democrat)to pay off supporters. Democrats bitching about Blunt's fee office appointments is sort of like the pot calling the kettle black. (I know I am going to be pummelled, but that's the way the story looks to the average Missourian.)

The second is that Graves was pushed out because he wasn't a loyal Bushie. He just didn't prosecute Democrats with sufficient vigour and he wasn't in love with voter fraud cases. The appointment and well documented performance of Bradley Schlozman seems to support this theory. Graves public record as US Attorney also supports the second theory. I, for one, have often connected Graves departure to his wife's involvement in the fee office scandal, but on reflection theory number two seems to be closer to the truth.

It looks like Karl Rove's Missouri adventure has come undone. Claire McCaskill was elected and Bradley Schlozman is going to be talking to congress. As for Todd Graves, while he didn't get a signing bonus at some large law firm he has attracted some pretty good young legal talent and has opened his own shiny new law firm.

Now if we could just get Helling and Kraske to write in clear declarative sentences about the hidden activities of Missouri's GOP, all would be right with the world. Of course, reading their stories for hidden clues is sort of fun.

UPDATE: Amy Goldstein of the Washington Post writes in simple declarative sentences.

Graves is the second U.S. attorney whose ouster is known to have been encouraged by the office of a Republican senator. Sen. Pete V. Domenici (N.M.) complained last October about New Mexico's David C. Iglesias, who was later fired.

There's more: "Graves Pushed Out For Performance Reasons" >>

Kansas City ACORN voter fraud indictments violated policy

Interesting timing. I just finished my U.S. attorney post and learned that Talking Point Memo's Muckraker.com had just posted about Bradley Schlozman's indictments of four ACORN workers.

The entire Muckraker post is worth reading, but here are the highlights.

• Schlozman's indictments broke with longstanding Justice Department policy to NOT bring election charges just before a vote because it "can intimidate minority voters, affect voter turnout and potentially even influence the result of the election."
• At the time, the indictments were trumpeted as the first of a national investigation of widespread fraud. No charges were ever filed anywhere else against ACORN workers.
• The fraud was likely perpetrated on ACORN and wasn't an effort BY ACORN to sway the election.
  
• One of the indictments targeted the wrong person, perhaps proof of how fast they were rushed to get them into court before the election.
• Only six fraudulent voters were ever registered. Only two people have pleaded guilty. (I originally reported on one.)

There's more: "Kansas City ACORN voter fraud indictments violated policy" >>

Putting the US attorney scandal into perspective for Kansas & Missouri

[This is a cross-post from my blog In This Moment. If you've been following the US attorney scandal on this blog, you might want to skip down to the new material about the voting fraud issues in Kansas and to the unanswered questions.]

I have to admit there are moments when the screaming fits and scandals of Washington, D.C., seem far removed from life out here on the prairie. This isn't one of those times.

The scandal in the U.S. Department of Justice has now reached into the U.S. attorney's office in Kansas City and possibly into the 2006 election in Missouri. What may be Republican efforts to target core constituencies of the Democratic Party may also have reached into the 2006 election in Kansas and into the 2007 Kansas legislative session.

If those of us out here in the great middle weren't concerned before, it's time to pay attention now.

This post is an attempt to put all of this into perspective and to pose the questions that remain unanswered.

Two issues are paramount.

• The quality of federal law enforcement in the Kansas City region
• The fairness of elections in Kansas and Missouri

When I covered northeastern Kansas and the Kansas Legislature for The Wichita Eagle, I quickly realized that although U.S. attorneys are political appointees, their jobs were and are not political. They are charged with enforcing federal law in their regions.

They take on cases involving drugs, civil rights, corruption and a multitude of other issues. Our safety and the health of our democracy depends on the professionalism and fairness of U.S. attorneys.

The first issue before us is this: Was a U.S. Attorney named Todd Graves forced out in Kansas City for no other reason than the fact that he was, well, fair and professional? Was he forced out because he would not bow to the demands of the Bush Administration that he use his office to unfairly target Democratic constituencies for voting fraud charges?

(The KC Star's Steve Kraske reviews Graves approach to his job.)

Graves resigned in March 2006, a few months after his name was put on a White House target list. Graves told The Kansas City Star that he is thankful that he left because the "current environment at the department can only be described as toxic." Graves also told the reporter that he didn't know his name was on what appears to be a hit list.

So perhaps Graves wasn't forced out. Why would he have quit if he didn't know he was on the hit list?

Look, though, at what happened when he left. Within 13 days of his departure, the White House appointed Brad Schlozman, a justice department official who had already filed a voter fraud case against Missouri.

Thirteen days? If the Department of Justice didn't know Graves was leaving, how did it find a replacement at what amounts to warp speed? But then again, Missouri was a battleground state in November. The victory of Claire McCaskill helped secure the Senate for Democrats. At the time Schlozman was sent to Kansas City, the Missouri Senate race was still neck and neck.

What did Schlozman do when he got to Missouri? A week before the election, he prosecuted ACORN workers for allegedly filing false voter registration forms. This is the only federal case filed against ACORN in the nation. ACORN works in urban areas with key Democratic constituencies.

Meanwhile, Republicans in Kansas pushed hard in the 2007 session for a bill requiring voter identification, a measure Democrats think is aimed at thinning out some of their core voters. Even its supporters say the bill is designed to fix a voting fraud problem that apparently doesn't exist in the Sunflower State.

Also just before the November election, the Wichita Eagle reported that Spanish-speaking voters were facing difficulties in registering to vote. The Kansas election system is run by its secretary of state, an office held by a Republican.

Unanswered Questions

What does it all mean? Do all these events go together, or is this a vast coincidence?

Honestly, I don't know.

The Bushie's choice for the Kansas City U.S. attorney office has a record of putting politics before professionalism. The case Schlozman filed against Missouri before coming to the Kansas City office was dismissed by a federal judge last month. The judge said she found no evidence of major voter fraud in the state.

The voting fraud case Schlozman filed just before the election eventually ended up with one ACORN worker pleading guilty in February to falsely registering one Kansas City woman. According to a Feb. 7, 2007, Kansas City Star story ACORN itself informed authorities in October 2006 of irregularities by three of its workers. (I'm not linking to the story because I found it in a library database open only to registered members of the library.)

Schlozman said at the time that the ACORN charges weren't political. ACORN's own involvement in the case seems to indicate that. However, the fact that the entire case ended in one person pleading guilty to doing something wrong one time indicates that the case may have been overblown. But then again, shouldn't even one crime be prosecuted?

Questions have also been raised regarding Graves.

I don't have good answers to the questions raised by all of this. However, I do know that antics of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and crew have destroyed the credibility of that department.

Never before did I question the integrity of a U.S. attorney. I do now. Never before did I question the integrity of elections out here on the prairie. Unfortunately, I do now.

There's more: "Putting the US attorney scandal into perspective for Kansas & Missouri" >>

Another Take On Todd Graves

Thomas Charles at Firedup Missouri has a different take on the Todd Graves firing. He agrees that Graves was forced out by main Justice, but only because Graves' wife was a potential target in a local fee office scandal also involving Matt Blunt. It is important to remind everybody that Graves had recused himself from working on the fee office mess and Bud Cummins was assigned to handle the inquiry. Anyway you might want to give Charles' blog a look. Beyond the name calling, Charles and Kraske are simply giving alternative takes on the same set of basic facts. Todd Graves was forced out of office by the Rovian DoJ. He was the 9th, 10th or 11th US Attorney fired for political reasons, depending on how you count them. It's pretty clear from his public statements that he is doing all he can to distance himself from Gonzales and Rove. Anyway, Graves was replaced by Brad Schlozman, a loyal Bushie of the first rank and genuine Rovian operative.

There's more: "Another Take On Todd Graves" >>

Todd Graves Didn't Play By Rove Rules

Steve Kraske of the Kansas City Star reports this morning that Todd Graves was probably shown the door as Kansas City's US Attorney because he didn't play by Karl Rove's rules.

We know that eight ousted U.S. attorneys got the boot because they no longer were seen as supremely loyal to President Bush.

Now it appears that — to his credit — former U.S. attorney Todd Graves of the Western District of Missouri can be added to the group of eight.

The precise motivation for Graves’ departure in March 2006 may never be known. Based on his brief statement Friday, Graves may not know either.

But, like the others, Graves had not always gone along with the Karl Rove-written GOP playbook when it came to using the Justice Department to improve Republican odds at the polls.

It seems Graves was an Ashcroft man. He had few Gonzales (Rove) connections. Brad Schlozman is clearly a loyal Bushie (Rovian) operative. Blue Girl, give the story a look.

Question, given Alberto's performance before the Senate Committee can we now cut the pretense and identify Karl Rove as the "real" Attorney General?

There's more: "Todd Graves Didn't Play By Rove Rules" >>