March 29, 2024 / by 

 

Tommy K’s Cooperation

I’m trying to pull together as many of the details in the new transcripts about how Tommy Kontogiannis has cooperated (I was going to spell it "kooperate") with the government. The information is actually conflicting–Tommy K wants to portray himself as a good American who was just seeking out powerful Congressman to give intelligence to. But the descriptions of the AUSAs and FBI agents of his cooperation in this matter make it sound like it’s a limited thing.

Here’s K’s description of his reasons for bribing Cunningham.

The Court: The only thing I have a question about is itsays that you believe Mr. Cunningham was in a position to do you somegood. Is that why you were involved in this? You hoped through hisofficial position as a U.S. Congressman that he could advance somepersonal interest of yours?

The Defendant: It was never personal interest, your Honor. Myinterest is United States, basically, and he was in a position that Icould reach and tell them information that I was gathering from allover the world.

The Court: What were you going to get out of this, Mr. Kontogiannis?

Mr. O’Connell: Can I have a moment, your Honor?

The Court: Yes. My question is, what did you hope to get out of all this?

The Defendant: From the first case to bring as much information as Icould to assist us, especially after the 2001 situation. Second, it isgood to have a powerful Congressman that if you ever need anything, youcan ask him to help you or assist you in something you might need.

The Court: That’s really what I am getting at. Did you believe thatyou were buying influence with someone who was in a position to helpyou by involving yourself in these things that have been recited today?

The Defendant: Definitely.

I’m going to come back to this passage–it really makes me wonder how many of the rest of the Congressmen on the House Intelligence Committee are getting bribes from people who want to "tell them information that I was gathering from allover the world." Porter Goss, of course, had to step down as DCI because of his ties to Cunningham’s corrupt buddies. And Rick Renzi has some legal problems of his own.

Now, Judge Burns describes K as either an informer or someone tied into an intelligence network (or likely, both). Exposure of his cooperation would endanger him and others.


How to Spike an Investigation

This WSJ article–which relies on Debra Wong Yang and George Cardona as sources–suggests that the Jerry Lewis investigation has been stalled because of staffing shortages in the USA Office.

Overall, funding for the offices has grown well below the rate ofinflation. As a result, "fewer cases were getting charged and biggerinvestigations were taking longer because there weren’t enoughprosecutors to do them," says Debra Yang, who stepped down in October2006 as the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles.

[snip]

In Los Angeles, a federal criminal investigation of Rep. Jerry Lewis, aCalifornia Republican, stalled for nearly six months due to a lack offunds, according to former prosecutors. The lead prosecutor on theinquiry and other lawyers departed the office, and vacancies couldn’tbe filled. George Cardona, the interim U.S. attorney in Los Angeles,declined to comment on specific cases but confirmed that lack of fundsand unfilled vacancies caused delays in some investigations.

But the story the article actually tells is that the investigation got "stalled" because of the departure of existing prosecutors, not the slow hiring of new ones.


August 24

The WaPo provides more details on an investigation I’m rather interested in:

Fine’s office has also separately expanded a probe into whether seniorGonzales aides improperly considered partisan affiliations whenreviewing applicants for nonpolitical career positions. As part of thatinquiry, Fine sent hundreds of questionnaires in the past week to former Justice Department job applicants. [my emphasis]

Here’s the questionnaire and the cover letter (and kudos to the WaPo for posting both).

Paul Kane actually does good bloggy work on extracting the content of the questionnaire. As Kane points out, the questionnaire asks about Monica Goodling’s questions, but also Kyle Sampson, Jan Williams, and Angela Williamson. Williamson seems to have been in charge of logistics in OAG in 2005 and was cc’ed on a lot of the emails pertaining to Tim Griffin’s hiring in DOJ. Jan Williams was OAG’s White House Liaison just before Monica took the position; in a response to a Waxman request, DOJ revealed that it does not have paper copies of her files from her tenure at the position.

As Kane points out, the questionnaire asks applicants if anyone from the White House sat in on interviews. The questionnaire also tracks attendance of people from the Deputy Attorney General’s office (remember–Sampson had tried to take hiring power away from Comey, and they institutionalized such a practice with the AG delegation in March 2006). In addition to questions on political affiliation (of which one asks about "your position on the war on terror"), the questionnaire asks about questions pertaining to religious beliefs, sexual orientation, adultery, abortion, same-sex marriage, and any other unusual questions.

Now, frankly, I’m a little disappointed that it has taken three months since Monica admitted "crossing the line" in her testimony, four months since OIG first started investigating this, and five months since I first noted Schumer’s hints about Monica’s politicization of the hiring process. Though the reference to an expansion of the investigation perhaps means that Fine has now established that Monica was not the only one asking these questions–if all four people about whom he asks were asking political questions of job candidates, then it suggests that someone was directing them to do so.

Which gets into the interesting point about timing. The date on Fine’s letter is August 24–the same day that Alberto Gonzales resigned. I’ve suggested before that the Administration is immunizing itself from big scandal by having those who committed Civil Hatch violations resign. Even if they are found guilty, they cannot be punished. And Gonzales went on the very day this investigation expanded.

But here’s the other question about timing. The letter asks for details about interviews going back to January 1, 2004. Meaning, Fine suspects this politicization precedes the Alberto Gonzales at DOJ.


The Inspector General

I noted the other day that Pat Leahy had sent a letter to Brad Schlozman asking for his overdue homework. What I didn’t note in the post–but did in comments elsewhere–was the carbon copy line:

cc: The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
      The Honorable Glen Fine

In comments where I mentioned this, I suggested this reflected a belief on Leahy’s part that the Inspector General was a co-participant in his effort to hold real investigations into the Bush Administration (as to the cc for Gonzales? Dunno–but that was the day before Gonzales resigned).

That suggestion is born out by the letter Fine sent to Leahy today, reassuring Leahy (or, more importantly, signaling to others) that the direction of his investigation includes an assessment of whether Alberto Gonzales perjured himself on multiple occasions.


Good Enough for Our Children, But Not Bush’s Vanity War

I made the point this morning that the whole premise of No Child Left Behind is that, by determining whether every school–and every child–was passing or failing, you could require improvements on the schools.

Well, not surprisingly, Bush is unwilling to undergo the same kind of tough scrutiny that the six year olds in our nation’s schools undergo:

Stung by the bleakfindings of a congressional audit of progress in Iraq, the Pentagon hasasked that some of the negative assessments be revised, a militaryspokesman said Thursday.

[snip]

At the White House,officials argued that the GAO report, which was required by legislationPresident Bush signed last spring, was unrealistic because it assigned“pass or fail” grades to each benchmark, rather than assessingwhether the Iraqis have made progress toward reaching the benchmarkgoals.

"A bar was set so high, that it was almost not to be able to be met,” White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said.

I don’t know which is more tempting–to point out the failure of the NCLB logic, so we can get funding for the borderline schools that are improving but not "passing." Or to force the NCLB logic onto Bush’s failure of a war so we can bring our men and women home?


Seal-Fight in San Diego

There are two, related developments in San Diego (hat tip to ChrisC for her updates) in the Wilkes/Michael/Kontogiannis side of the Wilkes trial. First, the government has responded to John Michael’s attempt to throw out his indictment because of a weird connection between Tommy Kontogiannis and one of the prosecutors, Phillip Halpern. As I suggested in my post on this motion, I think Michael is more interested in exposing a bunch of details about Tommy Kontogiannis than he is optimistic about getting the case out thrown out.

I doubt the motion to have the charges dismissed (or even SD’s USAttorney office recused) will succeed. But I’m guessing the actualpurpose of this motion is to make public a great deal of information onKontogiannis to–at the least–completely discredit him as a witness.If not to bring public pressure to indict Kontogiannis for the othercrimes the government admits he has committed.

I’m guessing the government’s lawyers at least partially agree with my assessment, which I’ll discuss in more detail below.

The whole question is relevant to the other news in the trial–that the Appeals Court has ordered Judge Burns to unseal the redacted transcripts for the hearings on Kontogiannis’ plea deal. This actually seems like a victory for the government, because the Appeals Court,

… requires the district court to maintain under seal only the disputed portions of the sealed transcripts. The district court shall unseal the redacted transcripts submitted to the district court by the government on June 22, 2007.

In other words, the portions of the transcripts that the government wanted to retain under seal in June when this whole squabble started will remain under seal. Which means, if we’re going to get the really juicy details about Kontogiannis, we’re going to get them from Michael.


Speaking of Propaganda Reports

They’re doing it with voting rights reports, too (hat tip bmaz).

Because my approach to election issues tends to be more closely alignedwith Democrats, I was paired with a Republican co-author. To furtherremove any taint of partisanship, my co-author and I convened abipartisan working group to help us. We spent a year doing research andconsulting with leaders in the field to produce a draft report. Whathappened next seems inexplicable. After submitting the draft in July2006, we were barred by the commission’s staff from having anythingmore to do with it.

What was the problem? In all the time we were doing our research anddrafting the report, neither the staff nor the commissioners, who werecontinually advised of our activities and the substance of our work,raised any concerns about the direction we were going or the researchfindings.

Yet, after sitting on the draft for six months, the EACpublicly released a report — citing it as based on work by me and myco-author — that completely stood our own work on its head.

The author, Tova Andrea Wang, ties the manipulation of the report to the corruption at DOJ.

We also raised questions about the way the Justice Departmentwas handling complaints of fraud and intimidation. The commissionexcised all references to the department that might be construed ascritical — or that Justice officials later took issue with.

[snip]

What was behind the strange handling of our report? It’s stillunclear, but it is worth noting that during the time the commission washolding our draft, claims about voter fraud and efforts to advance thecause of strict voter identification laws were at a fever pitch inCongress and the states. And it has been reported that some U.S.attorneys were being fired because they failed to pursue weaklysupported voter fraud cases with sufficient zeal.

Not a surprise, really. BushCo took the HAVA and used it as an opportunity to roll back voting rights. And the manipulation of this report is just one step in that process.


Condi’s Jewels

I appreciate the desire to make Condi look like a bitch. Or rather, to expose Condi’s imperious side. But does anyone suspect there’s some crucial context left out of this story?

Coit Blacker, a Stanford professor who is one of thesecretary of state’s closest friends, recalls going into a shop whereRice asked to see earrings. The clerk showed her costume jewelry. Riceasked to see something nicer, prompting the clerk to whisper some sassunder her breath.

Blacker remembers Rice tearing the woman to shreds.

"Let’s get one thing straight," he recalls her saying. "You are behindthe counter because you have to work for minimum wage. I’m on this sideasking to see the good jewelry because I make considerably more."

A manager quickly brought Rice better baubles.

I’m just guessing, but "whispering some sass" seems like code for, "making a racial remark." And while, if the clerk assumed Condi shouldn’t see the real things because she’s black (I’m guessing, though it could also be a range of other issues, including that she’s single), it doesn’t excuse the comment about minimum wage, I have to confess I’ve resorted to some bitchiness when salespeople have assumed I wasn’t worthy of seeing the good stuff because I was a DFH, female, or unmarried (back when I was).

The rash judgments of salespeople is one place where our society’s prejudices remain on ugly display. I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that that’s not what happened here.


The Report Liberation Review Process

Remember back when someone liberated the Office of Special Counsel report finding Lurita Doan had violated the Hatch Act? I speculated that someone had liberated the report to prevent it from getting watered down in the review process.

I’ll bet Doan and her lawyer are pissed this report got leaked–kudosto whatever person in OPC liberated this report, which was provided toat least the WaPo and LAT. As the report notes, only President Bush canimplement the recommendation of the report, which is to fire Doan. Anybets on whether, by leaking the report, the chances are greater thatDoan will actually be canned for her illegal political activities?

Well, the propaganda has gotten so thick that now, when people liberate reports to ensure their harsh conclusions see the light of day, they tell you they are doing so. At least that’s what has happened with the GAO report finding that the Iraq effort has filed to reach most benchmarks.

A GAO spokesman declined to comment on the report before it is released. The 69-page draft, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, is still undergoing review at the Defense Department,which may ask that parts of it be classified or request changes in itsconclusions. The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, normallysubmits its draft reports to relevant agencies for comment but makesits own final judgments. The office has published more than 100assessments of various aspects of the U.S. effort in Iraq since May2003.

The person who provided the draft report to The Post said it was beingconveyed from a government official who feared that its pessimisticconclusions would be watered down in the final version — as someofficials have said happened with security judgments in this month’sNational Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Congress requested the GAOreport, along with an assessment of the Iraqi security forces by anindependent commission headed by retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones, toprovide a basis for comparison with the administration’s scorecard. TheJones report is also scheduled for delivery next week. [my emphasis]

So here’s the gig. There are several reports that have come and will come in in the next month. They are:

  • The Petraeus White House report.The White House tried to prevent Petraeus from briefing Congress directly, presumably because Petreaus might deviate from the script if someone asked him a tough a question. Regardless of who delivers the briefing, though, we know that the White House will actually be the one writing the report.
  • The NIE. Petraeus (or the White House?) "succeeded in havingthe security judgments [of the NIE] softened" after military officers in Baghdad balked.
  • An independent report from James Jones. Who knows how they’ll try to "soften" this report? Already, though, Anthony Cordesman has been predicting the report will deliver bad news, perhaps (as with this GAO report) to pre-empt any "softening" of the conclusions by the military.
  • This GAO report. One of the funniest things about it is Congress mandated strict up-or-down judgments of Iraq’s success at meeting benchmarks. You know–kind of like No Child Left Behind does? Well, I guess when Bush is judged in those terms, those gentleman’s C’s are not so easy to acquire, because the GAO declares Iraq to be a failure on fifteen of eighteen measures. At least that’s what this liberated version of the report says–who knows what will happen once the military buries the conclusions?

I don’t know about you. But I’m pretty convinced that we’re not getting anything but managed fluff in our September reports. And even that fluff declares Iraq a failure!


Moral Relativists

When David Vitter admitted to using a prostitute service, no Republicans asked him to resign.

When it became clear that Pete Domenici had asked Bush and Gonzales to fire David Iglesias because the US Attorney didn’t trump up charges against Democrats, no Republicans asked him to resign.

When it became clear that Bob Ney and Ted Stevens and John Doolittle and Don Young had received some mighty curious gifts, no Republicans asked them to resign.

When Tom DeLay was indicted for money laundering, no Republicans asked him to resign.

But because Larry Craig wiggled his foot under a men’s bathroom stall, Pete Hoekstra and Norm Coleman and John McCain have asked him to resign.

Update: Language on Ney, Stevens, Doolittle, and Young changed to protect the principle of innocent until proven guilty, per Steve’s comment.

Copyright © 2024 emptywheel. All rights reserved.
Originally Posted @ https://www.emptywheel.net/author/emptywheel/page/1160/