Noel Hillman Gets a Subpoena

Hey, remember how I asked whether, if Noel Hillman were subpoenaed in the woods but no one saw it, whether he really got subpoenaed?

Well, it turns out he did get subpoenaed.

As a reminder, Noel Hillman used to be head of the Public Integrity Section of DOJ. Now he’s a judge in New Jersey and had been an appointee to the Appeals Court, before Bush got cold feet and pulled his nomination. Jill Simpson, the lawyer who has sworn under oath that Karl Rove was involved in the prosecution of Don Siegelman, testified that Rove was arm-twisting Hillman to prosecute Siegelman.

A And so, anyway, he was telling me all of the things that Alice had done as far as having messed up the deal. And then I — and that since she had messed it up, he was definitely running, you know what — I mean — and then he proceeds to tell me that Bill Canary and Bob Riley had had a conversation with Karl Rove again and that they had this time gone over and seen whoever was the head of the department of — he called it PIS, which I don’t think that is the correct acronym, but that’s what he called it. And I had to say what is that and he said that is the Public Integrity Section.

[snip]

Q Okay. And who — when you say they had made a decision, who are you thinking of?

A Whoever that head of that Public Integrity — the PIS was as Rob referred to it. And then whoever — and Karl Rove.

Q And what — well, from talking to Rob, this conversation you’re describing for me was in late January, early February 2005?

A That is correct.

[snip]

Q Okay. And did Rob give you the name of the person at — I’m just going to call it Public Integrity — that he thought he understood Karl Rove had spoken to?

A No, he said it was the head guy there and he said that that guy had agreed to allocate whatever resources, so evidently the guy had the power to allocate resources, you know.

Q To the Siegelman prosecution?

A Yes. And that he’d allocate all resources necessary.

Simpson’s testimony suggests that Hillman was a key player in Rove’s politicization of DOJ.

Now, it’s not Siegelman subpoenaing Hillman; it’s Jack Beam, one of the lawyers associated with Geoffrey Fieger who donated to John Edwards. Beam is suing FEC and DOJ because their investigation into Fieger did not follow the normal procedure of going through FEC and Beam got dragged into–including having his financial records subpoenaed. Beam suggests the irregularity may be no accident and that the investigation of Fieger and his associates remained in the MI USA office and, you guessed it, PIN, given how intently Rove and Gonzales were politicizing everything at DOJ. As I pointed out yesterday, the government’s story about whether the investigation was primarily managed in MI or in DC seems to change every time there’s a hearing on the Fieger case. And they get particularly evasive when asked if Noel Hillman had any role in this prosecution. So there’s at least reason to be curious about what Judge Hillman would have to say about the early days of the investigation into Geoffrey Fieger and his associates.

The government, of course, is fighting this subpoena and they’re trying to get the Beam suit thrown out altogether. But this subpoena is, AFAIK, the first time that someone outside of Congress has subpoenaed the people alleged to have politicized prosecutions at DOJ.

image_print
  1. phred says:

    What a hopeful post on this generally hopeful afternoon. A subpoena for Hillman, a court order for the WH to turn over visitor logs, and Dodd stirring up the Senate. Yep. A good day, all in all. Thanks EW!

  2. emptywheel says:

    No, he didn’t show up. DOJ is trying to get all discovery held pending their attempt to throw out the case. As I understand it, the Judge has held discovery in the case of the defendants (FEC and DOJ) but has not held discovery on Hillman. Now DOJ gets to start invoking grand jury secrecy etc etc etc in an attempt to protect Hillman from testifying.

    The subpoena is the first step; we’ll see whether it gets anywhere.

  3. WilliamOckham says:

    I would like to point out that the ever changing story about who initiated the Fieger investigation is eerily similar to the ever changing story about who initiated the Siegelman investigation. Check out Scott Horton’s coverage of the Siegalman case and you’ll see what I mean.

    • MadDog says:

      I would like to point out that the ever changing story about who initiated the Fieger investigation is eerily similar to the ever changing story about who initiated the Siegelman investigation.

      And also very similar to who initiated those US Attorney firings.

      Was Turdblossom going for a trifecta?

  4. emptywheel says:

    Yeah, I’ve thought that myself, WO.

    In the Fieger case, there’s a background–the USA got all the files from an investigation MI’s AG did on Fieger on an earlier campaign finance issue (for a MI judge). Literally, the same day the State case was dropped, the Feds got all the info the State had been working with. So there is at least hte appearance this started from some MI Republicans.

    • WilliamOckham says:

      Which sounds a lot like this from Horton:

      William Pryor, a ferociously partisan figure and one of the most controversial judicial nominees in recent memory, previously served as Alabama’s attorney general. He used his position to initiate a criminal investigation of Siegelman within weeks of Siegelman’s inauguration as governor. Throughout the history of the Siegelman investigation and prosecution, Pryor figures right at the center of it, concocting new theories, discarding old ones, and ultimately, after concluding that there was an insufficient basis under Alabama law to act, lobbying the Justice Department to bring a case.

  5. bmaz says:

    And, my fine favorite friends, that is exactly why he should be examined up one side and down the other about the Siegelman case too when he is deposed about Fieger. A plaintiff ought to be able to make discovery into the pattern and practice employed by defendants and their agents/employees. I, as apparently you two do as well, see direct similarities that sure give the prima facie appearance of a pattern and practice by Mr. Hillman and his masters. The government will fight this 30 ways from sunday, but I think it is a valid position; at a minimum, worth fighting over for a while. Don’t know what Siegelman is up to, but if they have a civil case, or are still within a statute, they should take the same exact simultaneous tact.

  6. skdadl says:

    Heh. Senator Sessions just opened his latest statement with a reference to “partisan blogs.” “There is such a thing as irrational fear of government.”

    Heh. Well done, you guys. *big grin*

    • MadDog says:

      I loved this well-placed kick tidbit:

      Lamberth wrote: “The most that can be said is the Secret Service acts as if the White House has legal control over these records. Upon closer inspection, however, even this proposition seems suspect.”