DoJ defends Defense of Marriage Act while also declaring the law should be repealed

This is a legal brief only a lawyer could love. Think Progress presents the story.

The Obama administration has been seeking to dismiss a suit brought by a gay couple in California challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In June, the Obama Justice Department’s brief defending DOMA infuriated LGBT activists because it referenced incest and child rape when talking about marriage equality. Today, however, the Justice Department has filed a new brief making clear it believes DOMA is “discriminatory” and should be repealed. The White House even put out a statement from Obama on the matter:

Today, the Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. This brief makes clear, however, that my Administration believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress. I have long held that DOMA prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my Administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law.

So the Department of Justice is doing its job as directed by law. It is presenting a legal defense of the law when the law is challenged in court. But at the same time, they are telling the court that they feel the law itself is wrong and discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress.

Sometimes the Rule of Law works its way out in strange ways.

TPM interview Dahlia Lithwick about accountability for the Bush admin crimes next year

Dahlia Lithwick is the legal affairs writer for Slate, and she was on a panel at the Netroots Nation in Austin a couple of weeks ago. While there, David Kurz of TPM interviewed Dahlia and asked some interesting questions, to include how the new Congress in 2009 should deal with the increasing evidence of criminality that has characterized the Bush administration and the Department of Justice.

It's a very interesting discussion. She also makes the case very clearly that the Bush administration has been packing the Supreme Court and the judiciary with extremist Federalist members more to create a monarchical Presidency then to change Row vs. Wade -- and it has almost completely worked.



An irrelevant comment - I've read a lot of Dahlia's work over the years, but I had no idea that she "spoke with her hands" as extensively and as fluently as she does in this interview.

Rove refuses to deny involvement in Siegelman prosecution

From Talking Points Memo we get this video of Karl Rove ducking and weaving to avoid confirming or denying his own participation in the selective prosecution of Governor Don Siegleman.

He says he has offered Congress several ways to get at the facts of his involvement in the (selective) prosecution of Don Seigleman. What he doesn't point out is that none of those alternatives ways to get information include him speaking under oath in ways that could be criminal if he is caught lying. He'll do or say anything as long as what he says is NOT under oath.

That sure sounds like an admission of guilt to me.

---

Has Rove abandoned the right to not testify under oath by making the statement above? Mark Kleiman points out that "in general the holder of the privilege can forfeit that privilege by making elements of the otherwise privileged communication public, or allowing them to be made public."

Or is Rove simply depending on being able to tie the issue up in court until after the inauguration of the next President and then moving with Bush to Bush's secure location in Paraguay which includes a Paraguayan-passed law that says individuals on that ranch cannot be extradited for Human Rights Violations.

---

Emptywheel weighs in on Rove's claim that the President is going to assert Executive Privilege with regard to this new subpoena:

It's answering questions about the other politicized prosecution that several witnesses have recently sworn that Rove was involved in: that of Bob Kjellander.

I also can't help but wonder whether Karl wants to limit testimony to Siegelman because of something he noticed on HJC's website. HJC has put PatFitz's QFRs right there alongside all the material on politicized prosecutions. The only thing PatFitz mentioned regarding politicized prosecutions had to do with the revelations that have since come out in the Rezko trial--revelations that put at least 3 people, some of them solidly corrupt Republicans like Turdblossom, on the record with hearsay evidence about Rove working to fire PatFitz. And since Rove has already sent his BFF Michael Isikoff out to figure out what evidence there is against him, it sure seems like Rove doesn't want to testify about the conversations he had with Bob Kjellander about firing Patrick Fitzgerald.

But this is one area that has the evidentiary justification of the Siegelman case (several people, also including Republicans, with hearsay evidence stating Rove was acting improperly). Like the Siegelman case, it pertains to politicized prosecutions.

But it also pertains to the USA purge, which makes Rove's claim to executive privilege pertinent again.

Emptywheel makes a good case that Rove is scared but just blowing smoke about Executive Privilege.

AG Mucasey won't enforce Congress' subpoena, though. Congress is going to have to do that itself.

More details on Spitzer

If either the prurience or the politics of Elliot Spitzer's dalliance with extremely high priced hookers has gotten your attention, then Jeralyn Merrit of Talkleft has collected a great deal of information and since she is a defense attorney, she also explains the relevance and apparent legal strategies.

Laura Rozen (War & Piece) also reports more information, this focusing especially on the details of the prostitution organization, the Emperors Club VIP. I was surprised at the prices the Emperors Club charges. This is from the New York Post (referenced by Rozen)

Two other women, Tanya Hollander, 36, a nutritionist from upstate Rhineback, and Temeka Rachelle Lewis, 32, of Brooklyn, face similar charges for handling the day-to-day business.

For several years, wealthy men could go online and pick through mini-biographies of the women. Their bodies were pictured but their faces obscured.

"Raquel," who worked in New York and LA, was described as "an avid writer, actress and journalist."

Men paid $1,100 to $5,500 an hour or could get discounted day or multiple-day rates of $25,000 to $50,000. American Express and wire transfers were accepted.

Sometimes the women took imprints of the men's credit cards on the spot and faxed them back to the pimping couple.

The operation started to unravel after one of the hookers agreed to become a confidential source for the FBI in late 2006.

If you wondered where those tax cuts that Bush and Cheney rammed through for their wealthy supporters, this is what those tax cuts were buying. Had to be. No one else except the recipients of those tax cuts could afford those prices.

Somehow this seems to me to be a real justification for a sharply progressive income tax on both investment and wage income, along with hefty inheritance taxes. Paying for sex is not either socially or economically valuable, and should be discouraged.

Elliot Spitzer; Prostitutes; Why is the DoJ involved?

OK. We all know that sex sells media advertising, and it changes votes for politicians. So when Elliot Spitzer, Mr. Clean who made his reputation as an Attorney General going after crooked Wall Street financiers and prostitution rings gets caught hiring a high end prostitute, we can expect a great deal of hullabaloo.

But that was yesterday. Now, today, is time for some questions about how his actions were exposed (leaked?) and why the Department of Justice Public Integrity Unit was after him for what is a state crime a lot less serious than the corruption that sent Congressmen Randy "Duke" Cunningham and Bob Ney to prison.

Those two were both taking bribes and gave government favors for those bribes. That's what the Public Integrity Unit investigates. Where is it in the Spitzer case? There is no allegation that the independently wealthy Spitzer used government money for his recreational activities, nor is that any allegation that he provided favors to anyone. What he did was hypocritically hire a prostitute or a series of prostitutes. As far as I know, America does not use the government to enforce morality or penalize hypocrisy. What DOES happen in the U.S. is that the DoJ under Bush investigates Democrats with the intent to destroy them politically, while protecting Republicans like Rep. Jerry Lewis and John Doolittle.

Is this another case of the Republicans using the Department of Justice to destroy a successful Democratic politician like they did Alabama Governor Don Seigelman?

Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake asks some questions that really need to be answered here.

1. Why would the bank tell the IRS and not Spitzer himself if there was a suspicious transfer? Spitzer is a longtime client, a rich guy and the governor. We're talking thousands of dollars here, not millions. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that they spotted a "suspicious transfer" made by the governor, and that this is how things began. It's possible it was just ordinary paperwork the bank had to file with the government whenever some particular flag was raised, but if that's the case, why did the DoJ go to DefCon 3?
2. What is a USA doing prosecuting a prostitution case? This isn't normally what the feds spend their time with.
3. Mike Garcia is a Chertoff crony. Sources familiar with the investigation say that he sent a prosecution memo to DC two months ago asking for authority to indict a public figure (Spitzer). Which means they had their case made long before the wire tap of February 13. Why did they then include this line from that conversation in the complaint?

   LEWIS continued that from what she had been told "he" (believed to be a reference to Client-9) "would ask you to do things that, like, you might not think were safe -- you know -- I mean that...very basic things...."Kristen" responded: "I have a way of dealing with that...I'd be like listen dude, you really want the sex?...You know what I mean."

   This salacious detail does not seem like it's necessary to make their case, and appears to be added for no other purpose than to destroy Spitzer's career.

4. How did Spitzer's name get leaked to the media, and who did it? Didn't happen to Dave Vitter.
5. Why did Mike Bloomberg suddenly start talking about running for governor recently? And why did he give $500,000 to Joe Bruno? He's good buddies with Mike Mukasey. What did he know and how did he know it?
6. The Mann Act? Are you kidding?
7. Spitzer's been in the line of fire of the GOP hit squad for a while. Roger Stone, Roger Stone, Roger Stone.

There are all kinds of things about this that just don't pass the smell test.

This isn't a totally fraudulent federal prosecution for political purposes like the one Wisconsin U.S. ATtorney rammed through in oder to get of the list of U.S. Attorneys to be fired (see:

• Wisconsin US attorney rammed through fake corruption case of Democrat before last Governor's election.,
• US Atty Biscupic (Wisc) saved his job by prosecuting Georgia Thompson and


• US attorney Biscupic (Eastern Wi.) again reversed by Appeals Court - can't convict for no crime.

) but it is awfully close. There is no federal crime here. Not even an allegation of one that could be prosecuted effectively. There is clearly no political corruption, which is what the DoJ Public Integrity Unit is designed to investigate and prosecute - ans which they have failed to do in the cases of Rep. John Doolittle and William Jefferson.

Elliot Spitzer does appear to have pulled off a real political screw-up, but a crime? It's not one the DoJ's Public Integrity Unit was set up to investigate or prosecute. Given the history of the Justice Department as a tool of political assassination for the Bush administration and the Republican Party, this Spitzer situation is highly suspicious.

Once again the Bush administration is using public money and resources to maintain their power. I'd watch for Bloomberg to run for NY Governor as a Republican next election myself. This case stinks to high heaven of Republican corruption. It's what they do.

Here is why Carol Lam was removed as U.S. Attorney, San Diego

Nov 26, 2007 - The most recent analysis of record from the Wilkes trial gives Emptywheel a lot to discuss. This came from the transcripts and subpoenas in the Wilkes case. Emptywheel at the Next Hurrah has been tracking the story. Below are earlier posts in time sequence.

The traditional media will not be discussing this because the CIA, the Department of Justice and the White House all don't want it publicized.

Apr 27, 2007 - About that FBI Special Agent In Charge. FBI Special Agent in Charge Dzwilewski commented on what happened to cause Carol Lam's dismissal and the manner it which it was done. Six weeks later he retired. Asked if there was any pressure to resign, Dzwilewski said: “I can't speak for what's behind all that, what's the driving force behind this or the rationale. I guarantee politics is involved.”

May 08, 2007 - The Foggo-Wilkes Leaks.

May 11, 2007 - Emptywheel looks at the Leaks. About that DOJ Leak.

Aug 09, 2007 - In The Leak Wars: Revisiting the Pre-Indictment Leaks. EmptyWheel looks more deeply into the alleged media leaks and the connection to the trial of Kontogiannis.

Aug o8, 2007 - Carol Lam did not know why she was dismissed, even after she left. But Elston at DoJ accused her of leaking the reasons she was removed to the press. The Leak Wars: Elston Accuses Lam IN actual practice, Lam was fired because she was threatening to indict Foggo, the third ranking man at CIA and Kontogianis, an individual who the CIA was protecting because he had been laundering money they were using for operations.

Florida Republicans working hard to suppress minority voter registrations

As predicted, the new Florida procedures of checking applications for voters registration against the Social Security database and the driver's license database have caused large numbers of registration applications to fail to be acted on. That's not rejected, just not acted on. The Florida News-Press presents the story:

County election officials say the number of voters lost through Florida's central registration system is small — 90 percent of applications get voter cards.

The result is applications from more than 43,000 Floridians hoping to become eligible voters over the past 21 months were rejected by state computer programs and kicked out for special review.

More than 14,000 initially rejected — three-quarters of them minorities — didn't make it through that last set of hoops.

Blacks were 6 1/2 times more likely than whites to be rejected at that step.

Hispanics were more than 7 times more likely to be failed.

Unaccepted but also not denied, they remain in limbo as "incomplete" or, often, sitting in Florida's new statewide voter registration system with no designation at all.

State law requires those "lost" voters to be notified; most contacted said they were unaware of the problem.
[Underlining mine - Editor, WTF-o]

Of course those "lost" voters aren't contacted. The Republicans will suppress 13 1/2 minority voters for every White voter they lose if they simply don't bother to find out what the problems are. That's a big edge for Republicans in a state where elections tend to be quite close. The current "problems" are intentional.

The issues began with the 2005 Florida Legislature, when lawmakers pushed through election law changes meant to bring the state into compliance with new federal laws that were a result — in part — of Florida's notorious electoral past.

Along with federal mandates to create a single statewide voter database and to check those names against drivers license and Social Security numbers, Florida added a requirement: Applicants who didn't pass the database test would not be registered to vote.

The provision was approved by the U.S. Justice Department in 2005, but further tinkering gave "lost" voters just two days after an election to prove the computers were wrong. That has raised new civil rights concerns and the Justice Department has asked Florida to prove its system is not discriminatory against minority voters.
[Underlining mine - Editor, WTF-o]

Because of the way computers match names, the system was expected to reject larger number of Hispanic and Black registration requests. That's exactly what happened. Most of the problem is built into the sytem.

The Florida match requires names, birthdates and drivers license or Social Security numbers all agree on the application and with information in computer databases. Applications that don't match are reviewed by the Department of State, fixed by hand if the problem is obvious, and forwarded to the county for its own determination of whether to fix the application or leave it in limbo.

By law, applicants must be told if their registrations are incomplete. Voting rights advocates complain those notices, when they are sent, often fail to explain the problem.

State records show more than 76,000 of the 830,157 applications received between January 2006 and September 2007 did not result in a new voter card.

And of course, the Republicans who are responsible for voter registration and for the suppression of minority votes (remember Katherine Harris and Choicepoint?) are delighted to fail to act on those registration requests which are in limbo.

[Editor's note: As an election worker myself I frequently hear from people who are not registered but who claim they registered when applying for a Texas driver's license under the Motor Voter Law. It is a frequent occurrence. I can't prove it, but I suspect that there are people who work in the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles in our Republican Party-dominated state who throw away applications that are made under the Motor Voter law.]

Republicans can't get elected if everyone who wants to vote for Democrats is allowed to vote. That's what this Voter Suppression activity is all about. Without voter suppression activities in Florida in 2000 Al Gore would have been elected President. Without voter suppression activities in Ohio in 2004, John Kerry would have been elected President.

The Republicans are working hard to steal Florida again in 2008.

---

The Florida law in question was passed with the advice of Hans Von Spakovsky who was Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Justice. (See also his wikipedia entry, Hans Von Spakofsky.) TPM Muckraker has a further story on Von Spakovsky's history of working for voter suppression while working in Alberto Gonzales' Department of Justice.

Bush has nominated Von Spakovsky to be on the Federal Election Commission. His nomination is being held up in the Senate - for good reason.

Why Paulose has suddenly moved to Washington

The Washington Post weighs in on the Rachel Paulose case this morning. They report that Ms. Paulose is going to a job where she "will be one of several counsels in Justice's office for legal policy." The new Attorney General was involved in the decision:

Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, who was narrowly confirmed by the Senate and sworn in 10 days ago, was aware of the decision, the source said. Paulose "has come to realize, and the new attorney general and others, that management was a challenge for her there," the source said. "She felt it was best for her office for her to . . . get out of this management position and into a place where she could excel."

This is an acknowledgement that her management skills are, to put it charitably, somewhat inadequate.

An obvious question considering the suddenness of Ms. Paulose' move is "Why now?" The answer is that her interview with the National Review Online and the efforts to defend her tenure brought about a major reaction in her office in Minneapolis.

In an interview with a blogger last week, posted on National Review Online, the usually press-shy Paulose denied saying anything racist to the staff member and added that "the department is defending me against this outrageous and defamatory lie."

She also decried "the McCarthyite hysteria" that surrounded her.

The brief interview provoked some of Paulose's staff, according to her predecessor as Minnesota U.S. attorney, Thomas W. Heffelfinger. He said in an interview last night that "at least one and as many as three of her current staff managers either had resigned or were threatening to resign today."

Such defections would have been the second in Paulose's office in less than a year. This spring, her top assistant and two other senior prosecutors stepped down from their management responsibilities, saying they no longer could work with her.

[See yesterday's post The defense of Paulose steps up the rhetoric on this interview and the NRO defense of Paulose.]

It appears that the ham-handed and perhaps desperate defense of Ms. Paulose' position as U.S. Attorney caused a counter-reaction that forced her out as U.S. Attorney. So why does she still have any job in the Department of Justice at all? At a guess, I suspect that her conservative ideology, membership in the Federalist Society, and her political status as an ardent Christian Fundamentalist are what caused Mulkasey to give her an alternative job at DoJ instead of just firing her. In this administration those are strongly desired characteristics, and to simply fire her would anger all those political groups. That tells us a lot about the Bush administration as a whole.

Ms. Paulose is representative of why the Bush administration is so incompetent in running government. People are appointed to office not because they are competent to do that job, but because of strong conservative ideology and strong Christian Fundamentalist beliefs. Ms. Paulose was not appointed as U.S. Attorney because of her skills running an office of federal prosecutors. She was appointed because of her conservative and religious beliefs. She is a poster child for strong conservatives and for devout Fundamentalist Christians, while at the same time being a poster child for technically incompetent Republican political appointees. She represents the ideal Republican Movement Conservative.

Ms. Paulose has proven that she is worse than incompetent as a U.S. Attorney. In fact, she has been destructive to the office she was appointed to manage. So she was removed. But she is the ideal movement conservative, so she is still being protected, being given a safe position out of the limelight back in Washington after her total and very public failure as U.S. Attorney.

That makes Rachel Paulose an excellent metaphor for the disaster inflicted on the Department of Justice when Bush appointed Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General. she is ideologically pure, but highly incompetent and quite unable to work with those who do not fall in line with her ideology.

Paulose has lost her U.S. Attorney position

Associated Press has announced late this afternoon:

Staff
AP News

Nov 19, 2007 16:22 EST

Rachel Paulose, the embattled U.S. attorney for Minnesota, will be leaving the post to take a position at the Justice Department in Washington, according to a Bush administration official and congressional aide.

That's the entire report. No telling what the job in Washington will be.

Looks like Rachel and NRO couldn't sell the victim defense.

US Atty Rachel Paulose being hounded out of office for being too aggressive against sex-trafficking and prostitution

One of the more obvious and severe problems caused by Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General is the U.S. Attorney for Minnesota, Rachel Paulose. New Attorney General Michael Mukasey is being urged to act quickly to deal with the damage Ms. Paulose has caused.

Rachel Paulose - a short history

Rachel Paulose was born in Kerala, India and raised in Ohio. She obtained a B.A. (Summa Cum Laud) from the University of Minnesota and a J.D. from Yale Law School where she also excelled academically. Her great-grandfather, Cheruvallethu Mathunni Abraham (Avarachan Upadeshi), founded the Indian Brethren Christian Evangelical movement in Kerala and she remains an evangelical Christian. She bagan working for the Department of Justice in 1997 until 2002, then entered private practice where she worked until returning to Alberto Gonzales' Department of Justice in January 2006.

A month later she was appointed as interim U.S. Attorney for Minnesota, to replace Thomas Heffelfinger. Her appointment exposed the new provision of the Patriot Act that allowed the Department of Justice to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys for an indefinite period. Heffelfinger had apparently been placed on a list for dismissal because he spent too much time focusing on Native American affairs and because he failed to prosecute anyone to intimidate Native Americans out of voting. She was confirmed by the Senate by voice vote on the last night before the Senate adjourned for Christmas in December 2006. This was most unusual because she had never undergone Senate hearings or being voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Instead her confirmation was moved out of committee through a rarely used procedure called a "discharge resolution."

Ms. Paulose was the youngest woman ever appointed as a U.S. Attorney. For all her academic (and ideological) qualifications, she had limited legal experience and had no management experience when appointed. Her appointment was very probably based on her academic record, her evangelical Christianity, and her membership (beginning in 2001) in the ultra-conservative Federalist Society.

Rachel Paulose' unusual appointment as U.S. Attorney shows that she was on the conservative fast-track. It is very likely that the legal conservatives surrounding Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez intended to provide her the credentials needed so that she could be appointed to a life-time position as a young, very conservative, very religious federal judge as soon as they could get her to a Senate nomination hearing. Not only would she then be able to skew legal decisions to both the political and legal right, she would block the appointment of a liberal judge for many years. This was also the intent when Clarence Thomas was appointed as a very young Supreme Court Justice.

Unfortunately, the entire group at the Department of Justice responsible for her appointment and protection has resigned or been forced out of office, along with Alberto Gonzales, in the wake of the scandal over the firing of the U.S. Attorneys. So her boosters and protectors are now gone. She will have to depend on her own political acumen to survive. That makes her survival problematic. Her tenure suggests that she has little or no political acumen.

Rachel Paulose - The controversial tenure

Dismissal of U.S. Attorney's - Ms. Paulose took over management of the Minneapolis U.S. Attorney office upon the resignation of her predecessor, Thomas Heffelfinger. Monica Goodling later testified to Congress that Heffelfinger had been put on a list for dismissal because of "his preoccupation with Indian Affairs issues." Since Bradley Schlozeman is named as a participant in forcing Heffelfinger out, it is reasonable to assume that he, as head of the Civil Rights Division at DoJ, was unhappy that Heffelfinger was not prosecuting more Native Americans for vote fraud. [The Wikipedia article cites Schlozeman's participation in The Georgia Voter ID Law, the Missouri Lawsuit and the ACORN voter registration prosecutions, all intended to use the power of the Department of Justice to cause the state to restrict voting or to actually manipulate the outcome of a close election that Schlozeman was involved in.] Schlozeman's participation suggests that Ms. Paulose was appointed interim U.S. Attorney with, among other things, a brief to work to suppress Native American voting.

The Coronation - Upon being finally confirmed in as U.S. Attorney, Ms. Paulose conducted an elaborate swearing-in ceremony that included a processional, a professional photographer, a color guard and a choir. Such an elaborate swearing-in ceremony was not only out of the norm for U.S. Attorneys, it very likely grated on the nerves of many Minnesotans. Culturally, Minnesotans tend to be very suspicious of elaborate ceremony. It certainly caught the notice of the news organizations who were less than flattering in how they reported the event.

Such public grandstanding does not indicate that Ms. Paulose has a lot of political awareness. With the departure from the Department of Justice of the individuals who appointed her and who would normally be her political protectors, this does not bode well for her ability to survive politically on her own.

The list of "problem reporters" - Ms Paulose' reaction to the negative press coverage was to blame individual reporters for attacking her. Emulating an earlier conservative politician, Richard Nixon, who is known to have hated the press, she developed a six-page, single-spaced list that "identified Problem Reporters." Someone in the U.S. Attorney's office apparently leaked the list to the reporters. That leak suggests that Ms. Paulose does not have the total support of the workers in the U.S. Attorney's office she is attempting to manage. We have a strong indication of how much less that "total" that support is.

The Staff Resignations - On April 5, 2007 her second in command, John Marti, the civil division head Erika Monzangue and criminal division head James Lackner all resigned their management positions working directly for Ms. Paulose and returned to their civil service positions of Deputy U.S. Attorney. A fourth immediate subordinate would not comment on whether he had also resigned his management position. This was not a surprise. A representative from the Executive Office of the U.S. Attorney in Washington had already traveled to Minneapolis and tried to talk them out of resigning.

Anyone familiar with personnel management recognizes that a high turn-over rate among employees is a key indicator of management failure. Apparently Ms. Paulose is known for dressing down subordinates in public and for quoting Bible verses on the job. Neither practice is good management, especially when attempting to manage civil service professionals. What do these problems demonstrate?

We know that Ms. Paulose had a sterling academic record, outstanding ideological credentials and the connections with the Federalist Society that have been the key for advancement for so many conservative federal judges. She was being fast-tracked to a lifetime federal judgeship. It is a political plus that she is an attractive young woman and an Indian-American. Those two characteristics alone guarantee her a large number of political supporters. Unfortunately, in her first real management position she has proven that she has few political or management skills. She simply does not play well with others and her first reaction to those who disagree with her or question has been to identify who are her enemies. But she has defenders.

Defenders of Rachel Paulose

Eric reports that University of Rhode Island Women’s Studies Professor Donna M. Hughes claims that (unnamed) DoJ officials are attempting to hound Rachel Paulose out of her job as U.S. Attorney because she has been too active is too active in trying to prosecute human trafficking cases. She offers no evidence or details to support these accusations. She is circulating for signatures a letter she sent to Michale Mukasey making this clam. It can be read at Powerline, a well-known ultra-right-wing blog. The letter was posted by Scott Johnson Bio who strongly supports Ms. Paulose and claims he has known her for ten years.

The investigation of these allegations

Eric responds to this rather breathtaking but unsupported allegation:

Paulose’s job is indeed in jeopardy, but until this breathtaking new theory was introduced by Hughes and Powerline, the jeopardy was attributed to several other causes:

• She was promoted by the now-discredited circle of Justice Department officials who were implicated in the forced resignations that caused several openings for new U.S. attorneys who were considered to be “loyal Bushies.” She had little administrative/managerial experience to run a large office and has alienated most of the staff in the Minneapolis office.

• Several of Paulose’s highest-ranking subordinates voluntarily took demotions to non-management positions to protest against her leadership style. Her staff has been in nearly open rebellion against her, on one occasion bursting into applause, in her presence, to honor those who demoted themselves.
• She is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the federal Office of Special Counsel into allegations that she mishandled classified material and mistreated employees. She received a very negative job review by a team of Justice Department specialists, focusing on her shortcomings as a manager and administrator. A pending Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint alleges that Paulose created a hostile working environment by making a racist remark about an administrative employee in the office — a remark that has been corroborated by two witnesses.
• The morale of the office has been in the toilet for many months. One of her predecessors, former U.S. Attorney Todd Jones who hired her for her first federal job, told the New York Times that his former colleagues described the office as “dysfunctional” and said that that there was “an inability to have effective leadership move forward in a nonpartisan way.”
• The same New York Times article portrayed her situation as “representative of much that went wrong at the [Justice] Department under” former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and as representing “what [Mukasey] is up against in restoring stability to the Justice Department.”
• Sen. Norm Coleman, who sponsored Paulose’s appointment, has become a critic, and extracted a promise from Mukasey to look into the problem and take corrective action. Her original sponsors and patrons at Justice and in the White House are gone.

So, yes, as Prof. Hughes letter suggests, Paulose’s tenure is in some jeopardy. But the idea that her problem derives from powerful dark forces in Washington who are soft on human trafficking, child prostitution and related crimes is a breathtakingly new explanation for Paulose’s problems since taking office. It is offered without any names, facts or other form of substantiation. Hughes is careful to describe her theory as a “suspicion” and a “surmise” but she offers not even a theory as to why — in a Justice Department in which the prosecution of human trafficking and child pornography have been officially declared to be priorities — these unnamed department officials have decided to hound from office anyone who implements the stated policy.

Eric, as a good reporter should, then followed up by asking Professor Hughes what evidence she had for her allegation. Professor Hughes has not responded. Eric also contacted Rachel Paulose' predecessor. Here is Eric's report:

I also asked Paulose’s predecessor, Tom Heffelfinger, to assess the Hughes theory about the possible dark reason that Paulose might be in danger of losing her job. He made three points.

• Yes, Paulose has aggressively pursued human trafficking prosecutions, and he salutes her for it.
• No, during his years in the Justice Department, he never heard of any element that was opposed to cracking down on these crimes. On the contrary, this policy unites several important departmental factions: those who favor cracking down on street crime; those who want to emphasize crimes against women; and those who want to emphasize border security (since many human trafficking crimes involve women who have come illegally across the border).
• No, from everything he has heard from his former colleagues and subordinates in the U.S. attorney’s office, “there’s no link” between Paulose’s troubles and the priority that she has placed on trafficking cases. Her problem is not based in Washington. Her problem is based in Minneapolis.

Paulose will speak at noon Tuesday at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute. Her talk is titled: “End Slavery Today: Policy Responses to Human Trafficking.”

So it appears at this time that the the rather extreme allegation that some cabal of supporters for sex trafficking and prostitution is attempting to get Rachel Paulose removed as U.S. Attorney because he is too effective is merely a smokes screen designed to defend her and paint those who want her gone in the worst possible light.

See also:

• The defense of Paulose steps up the rhetoric
  November 19, 2007 4:12 PM CDT
  
• Paulose has lost her U.S. Attorney position
  November 19, 2007 5:26 PM CDT
  
• Why Paulose has suddenly moved to Washington
  November 20, 2007 9:38 AM CDT
  

Bush White House protecting Rep. Jerry Lewis

Scott Paltrow at the Wall Street Journal reports that the investigation of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) has been slowed by failure to fund the instigation. [H/T to Laura Rozen.]

This is another defense, following the bribe given to the U.S. Attorney Debra Yang who had been investigating Rep. Lewis. See

• Debra Yang was investigating Rep. Lewis, left to work for his law firm.
  March 21, 2007
• Did Republicans pay Debra Yang $1.5 million to stop the investigation of Rep. Jerry Lewis?
  April 20, 2007
• More on the very fishy Debra Yang bribe job offer
  April 25, 2007

Question: Does Rep. Jerry Lewis know something that will further damage the Republican Party and/or the White House, or is this just the Republicans acting to defend one more Republican Congressman and his Congressional seat?

How many top DoJ resignations now?

On December 7, 2006 the Bush Department of Justice (DoJ) fired eight U. S. Attorneys in a single day, stating that it was for performance reasons. This Pearl Harbor Day purge was unique in the history of the DoJ. The Washington, D.C. media made a one-day story of it, and moved on to more interesting things, like the latest from Nicole Richie or Lindsay Lohen.

The unique event and the failure of the Bush administration to provide a satisfying explanation for it must have bugged Josh Marshall, because he didn't let the issue go. Josh's refusal to let the issue go has led the Congress to look more closely at the DoJ and also to a series of interesting stories out of the Department of Justice this year. Let's look at some of the stories that have resulted from Josh Marshall's curiosity and refusal to let a good story be ignored.

Of particular interest was (and continues to be) the U.S. Attorney for San Diego, CA who had successfully investigated, prosecuted and imprisoned California Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (for longer than any other Congressman has ever been imprisoned) and continued to investigate Cunningham's briber, Brent Wilkes as well as the Number three ranking CIA executive, "Dusty" Foggo. Carol Lam's firing has all the appearance of being an effort by the Bush administration at Obstruction of Justice.

Next we learn that the U.S. Attorney from Los Angeles, Debra Yang, had been on the list to be fired, but resigned in late November to take a Partnership at the Republican law firm which was defending Rep. Jerry Lewis as he was being investigated by (oops) U.S, Attorney Debra Yang. The partnership came along with a $1.5 million signing bonus. There is a saying in Latin America. "Plata o plomo." Silver or lead. It looks very much as though Debra Yang, a 47 year-old divorced mother of two young children was given the option of taking the signing bonus or being fired on Pearl Harbor Day with the rest.

News reports state that Rep. Jerry Lewis has decided to retire rather than run for a 16th tern, although his office denies that he has made such a decision.

Another U.S. Attorney, Paul Charlton of Arizona, was fired because he was investigating a crooked land deal by Republican Rep. Rick Renzi. While the investigation into Rep. Renzi has been slow-walked since U.S. Attorney Charlton was fired, Rep. Renzi has just recently announced that he is not going to run for reelection in 2008. That is one short step short of a guilty plea.

Two more of the Pearl Harbor Day purge, David Iglesias, fired U.S. Attorney from New Mexico, and John McKay, fired U.S. Attorney for Western Washington, present a good case that they were fired for refusing to bring flimsy indictments against Democrats that would influence an up-coming election.

The cases of Iglesias and McKay show what happened when the DoJ tried to order ethical attorneys to bring politically-motivated cases to influence elections so the Republicans could win. They refused and were fired. Then there is the unethical U.S. Attorney in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Steve Biscupic, who was on the list to be purged on Pearl Harbor Day until he brought corruption charges against Georgia Thompson who worked as a civil servant for the State of Wisconsin. This case was so weak that the Appeals Court threw it out at the end of oral argument and chastised the U.S. Attorney for even bringing it. See also NY Times gets it right! See editorial today.. Ms. Thompson was accused of a crime that had not occurred and was convicted with no evidence. But that didn't matter to U.S. Attorney Biskupic. He created an issue the Republican candidate for governor of Wisconsin could use to attack the Democratic incumbent, and Biskupic kept his job when ethical attorney's were being fired. [Biskupic remains as a U.S. Attorney today.]

There are more situations which deserve close investigation, but the real set of problems all go back to the politisation and mismanagement of the Department of Justice. See my earlier article The deeper problem revealed by the US attorney Purge.

It should be no surprise when Paul Kiel at talking points memo muckraker lists the recent top level resignations from the Department of Justice.

"1) Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, today.
2) Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty announced his resignation May 14th.
3) Acting Associate Attorney General William Mercer (the Department's #3) announced that he was withdrawing his nomination for the position June 22nd.
4) Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff, resigned March 13th.
5) Department White House liaison Monica Goodling resigned April 6th.
6) Michael Elston, McNulty's chief of staff, resigned June 15th.
7) Executive Director of the Executive Office of United States Attorneys Michael Battle, announced his resignation in mid-February.
8) Bradley Schlozman, an attorney in the Counsel to the Director staff at the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, formerly the U.S. attorney for Kansas City and a former acting assistant attorney for the Civil Rights Division, resigned mid August.

And, finally, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Wan Kim was another notable resignation (on August 23rd), although Kim's troubles were unrelated to the firings scandal.

High personnel turnover is a symptom of a poorly run organization. It is an especially bad sign when the guys at the top are all leaving at once. This isn't politics so much as it is bad management and an attempt to politicize the DoJ. And, like Alberto Gonzales himself, the major problems of the DoJ have come out of the White House.

Gonzales took over as Attorney General on February 3, 2005. It has taken him two years and seven months to literally destroy that organization and its reputation.

It is really strange that no one in the Washington D.C. press corps was curious about the Pearl Harbor Day U.S. Attorney Purge like Josh Marshall was.

Speculations on the Gonzales resignation

I wonder if Alberto Gonzales is resigning in order to lower the level of conflict between the Executive Department and the Congress? If so, it isn't going to work. If anything, the conflict is going to increase.

Does the resignation of Gonzales make it less likely that the Department of Justice will attempt to influence the 2008 elections? I'd say that depends on the degree of openness that the DoJ is forced to undergo, especially Voting Rights Division. One commitment the Senators need to extract it the rebuilding of the Voting Rights Division and making it more transparent.

The new Attorney General needs to firmly agree that he will take Contempt of Congress cases against White House employees to Court. Gonzales has publicly stated that he would not act on such Congressional requests.

Gonzales' resignation becomes effective September 17th. I wonder if there is any significance in that date? It appears to shut out any possibility of a recess appointment by bush.

Gonzales' legacy will almost certainly be that he is responsible for the effective destruction of the Department of Justice and a sharp reduction of the DoJ's reputation for the honest enforcement of law. It may also be the complete discrediting of the theory that U.S. Attorneys can be fired for purely political reasons, and that the Attorney General sometimes has to tell the President that something the President wants done cannot be done because it violates the Rule of Law.

Specter demands answers from Gonzales by noon today

Arlen Specter (R-PA), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has demanded that the Bush administration provide a letter clarifying Alberto Gonzales' many contradictions in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee to be delivered by noon.

“Given the difficulty of discussing classified matters in public, I think it is preferable to have a letter addressing that question [of Gonzales’ veracity] from the administration … by noon tomorrow, which will be made available to the news media,” Specter wrote in the statement. “The administration has committed to producing such a letter.”

Specter expects the letter clarifying the attorney general’s testimony to be addressed to himself and Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who declined to comment on the matter.

Sen. Specter is rather clearly upset with AG Gonzales' testimony to the Senate, but since he is a Republican he has not appeared free to directly challenge the administration. His personal conflict has been played out in public. He has made statements challenging Gonzales, but continues to vote with the Republicans on the committee.

This demand for a letter appears to be another effort to resolve his conflict without abandoning the Republican Party. It appears to be a dramatic move, but probably will have no real effect on the situation.

I can't say I feel especially sorry for Sen. Specter. He is just another enabler of the radical right-wing Bush Cheney regime, but unlike (for example) Ex-Rep. Tom DeLay and Sen. Inhofe (R-OK), Sen. Specter doesn't seem to get much pleasure from the antics, idiocy, and misuse of power by members of the Bush Administration. He just doesn't do anything to stop them. As I say, he is a Bush/Cheney enabler.

When more voters vote, fewer Republicans are elected. Solution? Stop people from voting. Ask Republicans.

Republicans can't win elections unless they suppress voter turn-out. Don't take my word for it. Here is Paul Weyrich, father of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other groups saying exactly that. Go on over to Crooks and Liars and listen to him.

That's what the entire business of politicizing the Department of Justice has been about.

[ h/t to Digby.]

More corruption in the politicized Department of Justice

It seems that U.S. Attorneys and their assistants were not the only jobs in the Department of Justice (DoJ) that Gonzales, Rove(?) and company were politicizing. They were also placing unqualified people into the job of Immigration Judge. It got bad enough that so that they shut down appointments as Immigration Judge last December and the DoJ Inspector General opened an investigation of the procedures used for choosing new Immigration Judges.

The reasons and final outcome are not yet known, but we know a lot more than a short time ago. Go read EmptyWheel for more details.

Goodling gave us the crime. Caging. Who will take it from here?

Greg Palast has pointed out that Monica Goodling gave up the real crime at the core of Department of Justice antics. (See Bradblog.) The key is "Caging." The following is from a letter from Greg Palast published in Bradblog:

Goodling testified that Gonzales' Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson, perjured himself, lying to the committee in earlier testimony. The lie: Sampson denied Monica had told him about Tim Griffin's "involvement in 'caging' voters" in 2004.

Huh?? Tim Griffin? "Caging"??? [Snip]

...what's 'caging' and why is it such a dreadful secret that lawyer Sampson put his license to practice and his freedom on the line to cover Tim Griffin's involvement in it? Because it's a felony. And a big one.

Here's how caging worked, and along with Griffin's thoughtful emails themselves you'll understand it all in no time.

The Bush-Cheney operatives sent hundreds of thousands of letters marked "Do not forward" to voters' homes. Letters returned ("caged") were used as evidence to block these voters' right to cast a ballot on grounds they were registered at phony addresses. Who were the evil fakers? Homeless men, students on vacation and --- you got to love this --- American soldiers. Oh yeah: most of them are Black voters.

Why weren't these African-American voters home when the Republican letters arrived? The homeless men were on park benches, the students were on vacation --- and the soldiers were overseas. Go to Baghdad, lose your vote. Mission Accomplished.

How do I know? I have the caging lists...

I have them because they are attached to the emails Rove insists can't be found. I have the emails. 500 of them --- sent to our team at BBC after the Rove-bots accidentally sent them to a web domain owned by our friend John Wooden.

Here's what you need to know --- and the Committee would have discovered, if only they'd asked:

1. 'Caging' voters is a crime, a go-to-jail felony.
2. Griffin wasn't "involved" in the caging, Ms. Goodling. Griffin, Rove's right-hand man (right-hand claw), was directing the illegal purge and challenge campaign. How do I know? It's in the email I got. Thanks. And it's posted below. [Note: go to Bradblog for this. Editor, PPS.]
3. On December 7, 2006, the ragin', cagin' Griffin was named, on Rove's personal demand, US Attorney for Arkansas. Perpetrator became prosecutor.

The committee was perplexed about Monica's panicked admission and accusations about the caging list because the US press never covered it. That's because, as Griffin wrote to Goodling in yet another email (dated February 6 of this year, and also posted below), their caging operation only made the news on BBC London: busted open, Griffin bitched, by that "British reporter," Greg Palast.

This is the next step in opening up the "caging" issue. It's not over by a long shot.

But why have the American media not picked up on it? Too complicated for them?

---

Prior related posts.

• "Caging" in Republican practice
  May 24, 2007


• "Caging" - an explanation of the term
  May 23, 2007

What do career lawyers think of the politicizing of the DoJ and US attorneys?

Loosheadprop (LHP) from FireDogLake attended a panel discussion among a number of highly respected lawyers (both Democratic and Republican) of the way the Department of Justice has been politicized and how the job of U.S. Attorney has been damaged under the current administration. LHP states that he was unable to determine from the positions taken which lawyers were Republican and which were Democrats. They were ALL outraged!

Go read it. It'll give you some hope that the America Bush has been working so hard to destroy is still out here and will be recovered after Bush/Cheney/and family leave.

I found the following quite reassuring:

Alan Vinegrad, who spent 15 months as United States Attorney in the EDNY when he was appointed by the judges of that district after his predecessor resigned, moderated the program and did not pull any punches with his questions. He dove right into the issue of whether it is ever appropriate for a US Senator to have a role in complaining that a US Attorney is not taking care of a crime problem in his state.

On this, the panel was unanimous. There is NEVER EVER a right way for a Senator (or any other politician) to attempt to complain about an individual case. However, let's say the Senator felt that the US Attorney was not paying enough attention to a particular category of case. Well, in that circumstance, there would be a place for that Senator to complain–the Office of Legislative Affairs. OLA's job is to act as a buffer and to insulate United States Attorneys from political pressure. [Snip]

Alan Vinegrad asked another question that brought a unanimous response from the panel when he wanted to know what the criteria for selective removal of USAs [as opposed to the wholesale removal when a new president is sworn in] would be. They all agreed, there have been only two reasons:

-misconduct

-severe management problems.

That's it.

When I say misconduct, we are talking about things like a US Attorney getting indicted himself. When I say major management problems, I'm talking about an office in complete disarray, the financials don't match up, the career people are leaving in droves, the judges are complaining.

Prof. Briffault pointed out that the Congressional Research Service did a little audit and found that in the 25 years from 1982 until the beginning of 2006, only 10, yes 10 TOTAL US Attorneys were selectively removed.

I really am beginning to believe that once the Republicans are moved from any controlling position in the federal government that the nation will not trust them again for at least another generation, perhaps longer.

I strongly agree with LHP's final paragraphs:

I remember what the rule of law looked like. More importantly, I remember what it felt like. It made me proud to be an American. It made me proud to know that although there were scary bad men out there who wanted to hurt us, grownups–talented, smart, hardworking, sincere and honorable grownups–were in charge. It was their respect for the Constitution, for both the spirit and the letter of the law THAT made me feel safe.

As long as our system of Justice and our whole country is in the hands of the [current] Kiddie Kampers, no one will feel safe…because no one will be safe.

What Alberto Gonzales has to deal with in testimony today

Josh Marshall brings together a lot of recent news about how many U.S. Attorneys have actually been fired by the Department of Justice (DoJ) and what the DoJ has told various people (especially the effected Senators) about the firings. The overall pattern shows that the DoJ has been presenting a coordinated set of lies, and continues to be both lying and hiding the truth. The scope of the lies and evasions is only just now coming into focus.

Josh first points out TPM Muckraker’s scoop on the firing of Kansas City U.S. Attorney Todd Graves. Sen. Kit Bond (R – MO) was told he was fired for "performance" reasons but told Graves himself that they merely wanted to give someone else the job. [Note: This is the same thing they told Arkansas U.S. Attorney Cummings when they replaced him, but evidence is coming out that Cummings was more likely fired because his investigation of the Republican Missouri Governor was getting too close to criminal action.] In an excellent editorial published May 10, 2007, the New York Times says "From the facts available, it looks like a main reason for installing Mr. Schlozman was to help Republicans win a pivotal Missouri Senate race.

Josh Marshall then summarizes what we know and what it means:

Now there are reports on the story from WaPo and the Post-Dispatch. Beyond the details of Graves' ouster and replacement by Bradley Schlozman, which we've been discussing for several days, there are two key points to focus on here. The first is that the congressional investigation has been going on for some three months. And the Department of Justice has repeated stated that eight US Attorneys were fired. That was clearly false. And there's a second point. We now know of several cases in which US Attorneys appeared on DOJ firing lists and then by supposed coincidence just happened to resign. The Graves revelation now puts the weight of evidence strongly in the favor of the conclusion that few if any of these resignations were unforced. No proof yet. But that has to be the assumption.

And there's one more point with respect to tomorrow's testimony by Attorney General Gonzales. There's been a lot of back and forth and speculation about all the faulty memories, the fact that virtually every senior official at DOJ has denied any role in actually choosing the names on the firing list and all the various claims of privilege. At the risk of stating the obvious, this is all of a piece. For three months the White House and the clique around Attorney General Gonzales have been involved in a concerted effort to cover up what happened here. And the intensity of the effort points to how bad the real story is. This has been obvious to anyone who has been following this story closely since January. But the fact that the DOJ has been collectively lying about the number of fired US Attorneys for all these months just confirms how true it is. Consider this: with all the document dumps, no emails or documents relating to Graves' firing? How can that be? The truth is that we still know very little about what happened here. Very little.

As of right now, no one in the Department of Justice will take credit for placing the names of U.S. Attorneys to be fired on the list that Kyle Sampson made very clear in his testimony to Congress that he aggregated rather than controlled. The number of people telling this story, the extended period of time and tightly coordinated nature of the lies and evasions clearly demonstrates that this is not the result of a few rogue individuals attempting "CYA" to protect their individual skins because of personal infractions. This is department-wide policy, carefully scripted, directed, coordinated, then practiced and performed like a stage play. It is group action designed by the office of Alberto Gonzales. We will see Alberto performing the role of "jester" today in the hearings held by the House Judiciary Committee. But that is only the carefully scripted and rehearsed role he is playing for the audience. It is not him.

Al is fighting a clear defensive action. He is defending the White House personnel who directed the activities. His sole purpose now is to keep the questions focused on the actions of members of his Department of Justice for as long as he can. That will keep the investigators and the holders of hearings from going after Harriet Miers (resigned Presidential Counsel) as well as Karl Rove and his staff. Winning means stretching out the time so that the hearings do not get to the White House before January 2009 when the new President is installed.

---

See previous post Fired US attys say criminal cases will result from the firings..

Emptywheel reports on data dump from DoJ re: US attorney purge

Emptywheel has been working overtime. Let me provide some annotated referrals to her posts on the Department of Justice data dump.

• Sara Taylor, aid to Karl Rove, threatened fired US Attorneys if they spoke out. Two days before leaving office, Carol Lam (US Attorney, San Diego) indicted Brent Wilkes and CIA executive Kyle "Dusty" Foggo. Two days after Ms. Lam left, Ms. Taylor contacted Kyle Sampson at DoJ re: NY Times article about Harriet Miers' involvement in Bud Cummins' dismissal. The following Monday Mike Elston, chief of Staff to Deputy AG Paul McNulty, at DoJ Washington called Bud Cummins and threatened retaliation if he went public on the firing. Links included.
  
• Testimony of Deputy AG Paul McNulty to the Senate. Emptywheel connects Mr. McNulty's testimony on the phone calls to the fired US Attorney, and he linked his actions to Karl Rove's White House office, the White House Office of Political Affairs. Links included.
  
• Why did Carol Lam think she was being asked to resign. Ms. Lam asked, no one ever answered her. Emptywheel considers what is known. Links included.
  
• "Dusty" Foggo is trying to get his trial moved. Emptywheel points out that removing Carol Lam was supposed to let the DoJ appoint a compliant prosecutor for "Dusty" Foggo, sort of like the way they did with the Tobaccl Lawsuit. But the "flap" that has grown up around the US Attorney Purge has prevented that. So Foggo's attorneys are trying another tack. Links included.
  
• Time line for James Comey. Comey is going to testify to the Senate tomorrow, so EmptyWheel presents a time line of his connections to the US Attorney Purge and to the earlier firing of the US Attorney Frederick Black. Black was removed as USA for Guam and Marianas Islands because he had started an investigation of the activities of Jack Abramoff.