FBI ... potentially violated the law or agency rules more than 1,000 times .. [or up to 10,000 if extrapolated!]

FBI Finds It Frequently Overstepped in Collecting Data | By John Solomon | Washington Post Staff Writer | Thursday, June 14, 2007; Page A01

An internal FBI audit has found that the bureau potentially violated the law or agency rules more than 1,000 times while collecting data about domestic phone calls, e-mails and financial transactions in recent years, far more than was documented in a Justice Department report in March that ignited bipartisan congressional criticism.

The new audit covers just 10 percent of the bureau's national security investigations since 2002, and so the mistakes in the FBI's domestic surveillance efforts probably number several thousand, bureau officials said in interviews. The earlier report found 22 violations in a much smaller sampling. ..

Will any candidate touch election reform? ... "voter fraud" abuse, voter ID laws, conflicts of interest, intimidation ....

Will any candidate touch election reform? | by clammyc tc3 | Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 12:01:56 PM EST | I'll be brief.
...
... Hopefully they know about the Pulitzer Prize worthy work being done by McClatchy's Washington Bureau about the tie in between the US Attorneys and the issues of "voter fraud" against Democratic party voters or officials.
...
...I'm talking about voter suppression, especially anything that is done with the sanctioning of or funds from a local or national political party. I'm talking about stricter and more immediate penalties for such violations, and for intimidation on or around Election Day.

I'm talking about blatant conflicts of interest being outlawed. There should never be the same individual holding a campaign position for any candidate (especially the Presidential candidate) and a top position with respect to how elections are run. With Ken Blackwell in Ohio and Katherine Harris in Florida BOTH having such close ties to Bush/Cheney, even without the highly controversial results and pre-Election Day tactics used by those officials this would be an unacceptable conflict of interest.

I'm also talking about (and while there may be logistical issues here, something must be done) no recess appointments of FEC Commissioners, like vote suppressing Hans von Spakovsky. And I'm also talking about some methodology whereby the egregious acts we have seen by Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove, Monica Goodling, Paul McNulty, Robert Popper, Brad Schlozman, Tim Griffin and the rest of those who were responsible for violating laws regarding political affiliation in hirings, pursuit of bogus fraud cases while ignoring destroyed voter registrations, narrow interpretations of the Voting Rights Act and the Help America Vote Act to purge voter rolls as opposed to making it easier for people to cast a ballot all can not happen again.

Would this involve a nonpartisan election oversight committee that operates independently from the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department? Maybe. Would this involve basic changes to election laws to ensure that no party has even the appearance of a conflict of interest (and maybe not a hidden or relatively tenuous one but certainly not one like Blackwell or Harris had)? Absolutely?

Would this make those who engage in such acts think twice? Possibly but maybe not. However, if Blackwell was not in a position to do what he did with respect to voter registration cards, the distribution of voting machines and stonewalling the vote count/recount and if Harris was not in a position to take the actions she took with respect to certifying the vote before it was truly counted in 2000, then some (not all, but some) of this wouldn't have happened.

And if there was some mechanism whereby voter ID laws such as the one engineered and supported by von Spakovsky in Arizona and Georgia, or that was overturned by decree in Minnesota or the one that is now being pushed for in Mississippi would not be enforced until proven constitutional (as opposed to being enforced until proven unconstitutional), then that could help as well.
...
After all, messing with elections cuts the heart right out of a democracy. Somebody has to take the first step. And that someone - even without touching on supposedly "tin foil" ideas can get the ball rolling so that there is somewhat of a fair election process in this country.

This country deserves nothing less. Hell, it should DEMAND nothing less.

So it appears they decided to detain him in order to torture him. That's not constitutional. ...

Al-Marri and the Torture Regime | 11 Jun 2007 03:55 pm

Marty Lederman homes in on the critical detail in the al-Marri case: the Bush administration moved him from criminal to military detention solely in order to torture him, it appears. Money quote from the court:

The Government’s treatment of others [in the criminal justice system] renders its decision to halt al-Marri's criminal prosecution - on the eve of a pre-trial hearing on a suppression motion - puzzling at best. Al-Marri contends that the Government has subjected him to indefinite military detention, rather than see his criminal prosecution to the end, in order to interrogate him without the strictures of criminal process. We trust that this is not so, for such a stratagem would contravene Hamdi’s injunction that "indefinite detention for the purpose of interrogation is not authorized." 542 U.S. at 521.

We note, however, that not only has the Government offered no other explanation for abandoning al-Marri's prosecution, it has even propounded an affidavit in support of al-Marri's continued military detention stating that he "possesses information of high intelligence value." See Rapp Declaration. Moreover, former Attorney General John Ashcroft has explained that the Government decided to declare al-Marri an "enemy combatant" only after he became a "hard case" by "reject[ing] numerous offers to improve his lot by ... providing information." John Ashcroft, Never Again: Securing America and Restoring Justice 168-69 (2006). [My italics].

So it appears they decided to detain him in order to torture him. That's not constitutional.

"to uphold such extraordinary power would effectively undermine all of the freedoms recognized by the Constitution," ...

Court rules US can't detain enemy combatants without charges | RAW STORY | Published: Monday June 11, 2007

The normally conservative 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that the US can't detain enemy combatants without filing charges, in a case involving "an immigrant [the US] believes is an al-Qaida sleeper agent."

"In the 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel found that the federal Military Commissions Act doesn't strip Ali al-Marri of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court," Associated Press reports. "It ruled the government must allow him to be released from military detention."

The court panel said that "to uphold such extraordinary power would effectively undermine all of the freedoms recognized by the Constitution," and sanctioning "such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them 'enemy combatants,' would have disastrous consequences for the constitution - and the country." ...

Experts have concluded the caging lists were designed for a mass challenge of voters' right to cast ballots. .... heavily weighted with minority vote

Conyers Requests Palast's "Vote Caging" Evidence | By Brad Friedman | t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor | Monday 04 June 2007

House Judiciary chair tells Palast in interview: "We're not through with Griffin by any means."

Indicates caging operation could not have been done without knowledge of Rove, according to Palast team.

As reported previously [1], investigative journalist Greg Palast was scheduled to meet with Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) this evening for an on-camera interview for the BBC. His team, just out from the interview, sends this dispatch to The BRAD BLOG [2]:

Rove Pick for US Attorney Resigns After Conyers Seeks Evidence From BBC

Tim Griffin, formerly right-hand man to Karl Rove, resigned Thursday as US attorney for Arkansas hours after BBC Television "Newsnight" reported that Congressman John Conyers [had] requested the network's evidence on Griffin's involvement in "caging voters." Greg Palast, reporting for both BBC "Newsnight" and "Democracy Now," obtained a series of confidential emails dating from the 2004 presidential election, in which the GOP operative transmitted so-called "caging lists" of voters to state party leaders.

Experts have concluded the caging lists were designed for a mass challenge of voters' right to cast ballots. The caging lists were heavily weighted with minority voters, including African-American homeless men, students and soldiers sent overseas.

Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee investigating the firing of US attorneys, met Thursday evening in New York with Palast. After reviewing key documents, Conyers stated that, despite Griffin's resignation, "We're not through with him by any means."

Conyers indicated that he thought it unlikely that Griffin could carry out this massive caging operation without the knowledge of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Rove. ...

cite the inaction by the Justice Department as further evidence that politics drove the Bush administration

Wed, Jun. 06, 2007 | U. S. ATTORNEYS | Complaints abound over enforcement of voter registration law | By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Representatives of three liberal-leaning groups came to the Justice Department in 2004, armed with evidence that hundreds of public-assistance agencies had illegally failed to offer voter registration to their mostly poor and minority clients.

Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act, which imposed the requirement, in 1993. But after these agencies registered 2.6 million people to vote in 1995-1996, the total registered plunged to about 1 million in 2003-2004.

Michael Slater, the Oregon-based deputy director of the national registration group Project Vote, said officials of the Justice Department's civil rights division showed little interest in enforcing that part of the law.

Officials for the three groups, as well as former lawyers in the division, cite the inaction by the Justice Department as further evidence that politics drove the Bush administration's operation of the nation's chief law enforcement agency.

The Bush Justice Department, they said, has largely ignored the voter registration sections of the law while aggressively using a narrower provision to sue or threaten to sue states that have failed to purge the names of allegedly ineligible people from voter rolls. ...

CIA operated secret prisons in Europe where terrorism suspects could be interrogated and were allegedly tortured

Secret CIA prisons confirmed by Polish and Romanian officials | Stephen Grey | Thursday June 7, 2007 | Guardian Unlimited

The CIA operated secret prisons in Europe where terrorism suspects could be interrogated and were allegedly tortured, an official inquiry will conclude tomorrow.

Despite denials by their governments, senior security officials in Poland and Romania have confirmed to investigators for the Council of Europe that their countries were used to hold some of America's most important prisoners captured after 9/11 in secret.

None of the prisoners had access to the Red Cross and many were subject to what George Bush has called the CIA's "enhanced" interrogation methods. These included water-boarding which leads detainees to believe they are drowning, which critics have condemned as severe torture.

Although suspicions about the secret CIA prisons have existed for more than a year, the council's report, which has been seen by the Guardian, appears to offer the first concrete evidence. It also details the prisons' operations and the identities of some of the prisoners.

The council has also established that within weeks of the 9/11 attacks, Nato signed an agreement with the US that allowed civilian jets used by the CIA during its so-called extraordinary rendition programme to move across member states' airspace.

The report states: "We have sufficient grounds to declare that the highest state authorities were aware of the CIA's illegal activities on their territories." ...

Tim Griffin resigned as the U.S. Attorney ... after evidence ... alleged voter suppression in the 2004 elections

Rove’s Mini-Me Tim Griffin Resigns after Evidence Ties Him to Alleged Voter Suppression | Posted by Jon Ponder | Jun. 3, 2007, 8:44 am |

The White House installed Griffin as U.S. Attorney without Senate approval using a provision they’d slipped into the Patriot Act.

Big media is ignoring the story that former White House Deputy Communications
Director — and former RNC Research Director — Tim Griffin resigned as the U.S. Attorney in Arkansas last week after evidence revealed he was directly involved in alleged voter suppression in the 2004 elections.

This may be the first time you’ve heard of the illegal tactic of “caging” voters, but if BBC investigator Greg Palast is correct, it will not be the last.

Caging is a form of voter suppression involving registered mail. Typically, campaigns will select voters from the opposing party who are unlikely to respond to a registered letter — soldiers serving overseas, for example. They send registered mail to the addresses listed in these voters’ registration files and then compile a list of the voters whose mail was returned marked undeliverable, or “caged.” On election day, when the people on the list arrive to vote, campaign workers challenge the legitimacy of their voter registrations, thereby delaying or preventing their votes. Palast says caging is a felony.

Palast recently obtained hundreds of emails sent by White House officials to Bush-Cheney operatives during the 2004 campaign. Among these were emails containing caging lists sent by Griffin, apparently in his as communications deputy. Late last week, Palast agreed to show Griffin’s emails to Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. On Thursday, Griffin abruptly announced his resignation in Little Rock, citing an urgent need to work in the private sector. (Some sources say Griffin is in negotiations to join Fred Thompson’s presidential campaign; while one wag suggests Griffin resigned “to spend more time in jail.“) ...

This ban and a similar one imposed later on unions prevents these wealthy entities from buying elections and elected officials.

A Test for the Roberts Court Published: April 25, 2007

The campaign finance system is like an overburdened dam: it holds back a flood of special-interest money, but there is a constant struggle to keep it from springing leaks. The Supreme Court hears arguments today in a case that could determine whether a major new leak opens up, one that would allow corporations and unions to pour unprecedented amounts of money into political campaigns. It is important that the court continue to keep this money out.

Corporations have been prohibited since the early 1900’s from contributing to political campaigns. This ban and a similar one imposed later on unions prevents these wealthy entities from buying elections and elected officials. The Supreme Court, in upholding these bans, has recognized that Congress has a compelling interest in preventing the “corrosive and distorting effects” of corporate and union contributions.

Corporations and unions have, not surprisingly, tried to get around the ban. One tactic they have used is bankrolling phony “issue ads”: commercials that purport to educate the public about a policy issue, but are actually intended to elect or defeat a particular candidate. Today’s case involves phony issue ads run on radio and television by a group called Wisconsin Right to Life, which accepted major contributions from corporations against Senator Russell Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin.

The ads attacked Mr. Feingold and Wisconsin’s other senator, Herb Kohl, for blocking President Bush’s judicial nominees, and urged the public to contact the two men to complain. Clearly the ads’ purpose was to try to prevent Mr. Feingold’s re-election. Wisconsin Right to Life had made it clear that it was targeting him for defeat. Mr. Feingold’s opponents were using the issue of judicial nominees against him. The ads ran shortly before the election, while the Senate was in recess and no votes on judges were being held. And they did not provide contact information for Mr. Feingold and Mr. Kohl.

The court ruled in 2003 that bogus issue ads like these were the “functional equivalent” of campaign ads, and upheld Congress’s ban on the use of corporate and union money to pay for them. That case should be controlling, but since 2003, two new members — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito — have joined the court. Today’s case will be a test of their respect for Congress’s authority to regulate campaign finance practices, and for the court’s recent precedents.

"Bush administration lawlessness so shocking it would have been unbelievable coming from a less reputable source."

Fri, May 18, 2007 6:00pm EST | "Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser | Lawlessness ... and fecklessness
...
Lawlessness: that's how the Post editorial board described the Bush administration in Wednesday's editorial about Comey's testimony -- "Bush administration lawlessness so shocking it would have been unbelievable coming from a less reputable source."

And that's the way the Post has described the Bush administration several times in the past.

• On March 11, the paper described as a "lawless practice" the FBI's use of "exigent letters" to assure telephone companies that federal investigators needed access of phone records due to "an emergency situation and that subpoenas or national security letters would follow," though the "exigent letters" were in fact often used when there was no urgency and no subpoenas followed.

• On September 7, 2006, the Post ran an editorial headlined "Ending the Lawlessness; President Bush wants congressional action on detainees. That's good -- as long as he doesn't get the bill he wants."
• 
  
• On June 20, 2006, the Post editorialized that, despite passage of "the McCain amendment, which prohibits 'cruel, inhuman, or degrading' treatment of all prisoners in U.S. custody ... the administration has not accepted that ban as the last word. ...
• On June 18, 2006, a Post editorial declared "the Bush administration's lawless practices have so discredited it that it has lost support even for legitimate anti-terrorist measures."

• On March 23, 2006, a Post editorial described the Bush administration's efforts to implement an EPA policy that the District of Columbia Circuit Court had "already rejected" as "simply lawless."
• 
  
• On December 16, 2005, the Post wrote "Thanks to a belated White House retreat, Congress is on the verge of taking an important step toward curtailing the systematic human rights violations committed by the Bush administration in its handling of foreign prisoners.
• ...
  

"This is the latest attack in a systematic war to gut the environmental whistleblowers' statutes,"

Ruling throws cold water on environmental whistleblowersBy David Goldstein | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The sentence was buried deep within a recent Labor Department ruling, but the message was clear:

Whistleblowers, beware.

More specifically: Whistleblowers relying on the protections against official retaliation contained in several major environmental laws, proceed with caution.

The sentence was in a footnote at the end of a ruling against a federal whistleblower. It said the Labor Department recognized only the protections written into the clean air and solid waste-disposal acts, not laws governing clean water, drinking water, toxic substances and hazardous waste.

"This is the latest attack in a systematic war to gut the environmental whistleblowers' statutes," charged Tom Devine, the legal director of the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit watchdog group. "They are a lifeline so government workers can challenge illegality without engaging in professional suicide." ...

Commerce Department's inspector general ... committed "egregious violations" of the federal law ... by retaliating against two whistleblowers

Commerce Inspector General Broke Whistleblower Law, Report Finds | By John Solomon and Joe Stephens | The Washington Post | Thursday 17 May 2007

The Commerce Department's inspector general, who is supposed to look into complaints of wrongdoing by government officials, committed "egregious violations" of the federal law that protects whistleblowers by retaliating against two subordinates, a government investigation has concluded.

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel found that Inspector General Johnnie E. Frazier wrongly demoted the two employees during an investigation of his spending, according to a copy of the report obtained by The Washington Post. It concluded that Frazier's actions violated the Whistleblower Protection Act.

The report recommended that President Bush discipline Frazier and suggested that dismissal may be appropriate. ...

{US Attornies: Obstruction]:

Congress demands e-mails; Justice says ask Rove camp | POSTED: 12:34 a.m. EDT, May 17, 2007

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Justice Department on Wednesday told an angry Senate Judiciary Committee chairman it does not have documents described in a subpoena that demands all materials relating to Karl Rove's possible involvement in the U.S. attorney firings.

Instead, it said, Rove's lawyer must have them. Rove is the chief political adviser for President Bush.

The response from a top Justice Department official came just hours after the chairman, Vermont Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy and the panel's top Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chastised Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in a letter for ignoring the subpoena's Tuesday deadline. (Read full story)

"You ignored the subpoena, did not come forward today, did not produce the documents, and did not even offer an explanation for your noncompliance," the two senators wrote in the letter, sent Tuesday night.

"The committee intends to get to the truth." ...

[US attornies / vote-suppression agenda]: tougher voter ID laws, .. struck down as Jim-Crow era poll tax

U. S. ATTORNEYS | Sun, May. 20, 2007 | Efforts to stop `voter fraud' may have curbed legitimate voting | By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers
...
Writing as "Publius," von Spakovsky contended that every voter should be required to produce a photo-identification card and that there was "no evidence" that such restrictions burden minority voters disproportionately.

Now, amid a scandal over politicization of the Justice Department, Congress is beginning to examine allegations that von Spakovsky was a key player in a Republican campaign to hang onto power in Washington by suppressing the votes of minority voters.

"Mr. von Spakovsky was central to the administration's pursuit of strategies that had the effect of suppressing the minority vote," charged Joseph Rich, a former Justice Department voting rights chief who worked under him.

He and other former career department lawyers say that von Spakovsky steered the agency toward voting rights policies not seen before, pushing to curb minor instances of election fraud by imposing sweeping restrictions that would make it harder, not easier, for Democratic-leaning poor and minority voters to cast ballots.

In interviews, current and former federal officials and civil rights leaders told McClatchy Newspapers that von Spakovsky:

-Sped approval of tougher voter ID laws in Georgia and Arizona in 2005, joining decisions to override career lawyers who believed that Georgia's law would restrict voting by poor blacks and who felt that more analysis was needed on the Arizona law's impact on Native Americans and Latinos.

-Tried to influence the federal Election Assistance Commission's research into the dimensions of voter fraud nationally and the impact of restrictive voter ID laws - research that could undermine a vote-suppression agenda. ...
...
Months after its publication, he participated in the department's review of Georgia's photo ID law, as required under the 1965 Voting Rights Act for election laws passed in 16 Southern states. After the department approved it, a federal judge struck it down as akin to a Jim Crow-era poll tax on minority voters. ...

more apparent that the U.S. attorney scandal is a blatant effort to tamper with elections ... intimidate voters and suppress voting

Special Prosecutor: Assault on Elections Needs Full Airing | The Sacramento Bee | Editorial | Saturday 26 May 2007

As more information comes out in congressional hearings, some things about the firing of U.S. attorneys become murkier and others clearer.

On the murkiness side, it is still not apparent just who came up with the idea of firing a number of U.S. attorneys.

On the side of clarity, it seems more and more apparent that behind the U.S. attorney scandal is a blatant effort of the Justice Department to tamper with the U.S. election process, trumping up voter fraud as an issue to intimidate voters and suppress voting in the United States.

The mention of voter fraud conjures up images of deceitful voters knowingly and willingly voting illegally, or of sleazy political operatives stuffing ballot boxes and paying voters for toeing the party line. But in this instance, the phrase seems to refer to high-level officials in the Bush administration using the machinery of government to corrupt the electoral process.

This is a serious matter calling for investigation by an outside special counsel. But there's the rub. Since the independent counsel act expired in 1999, it's up to the attorney general to order an investigation. And Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is up to his eyeballs in this mess. He has obvious and irreconcilable conflicts of interest in investigating administration officials.

Of course, Gonzales could recuse himself (either on his own initiative or with prodding from the president) and have a deputy delegate to a special counsel all the authority of the attorney general. This was done in the 2003 appointment of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate allegations of unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity. It should be done now to assure an independent investigation.

So far, testimony and documents from congressional hearings reveal that the Justice Department under Gonzales, with prodding from White House political adviser Karl Rove and others, targeted "battleground" states with closely contested 2006 elections - among them Missouri, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Nevada and Washington - as "hot spots" for voter fraud investigations. The Justice Department apparently also fired U.S. attorneys who refused to go forward with baseless investigations and prosecutions in these states. All this merits investigation.

In speeches, Rove has whomped up the idea that voter fraud is an "enormous and growing problem." The evidence shows otherwise.

Despite a major "voting integrity" initiative, the Justice Department netted only 24 convictions or guilty pleas for illegal voting between 2002 and 2005. Most allegations turn out to be false claims by election losers or simple voter error. ...

[Presidential records act]

CREW sues White House over missing e-mails | Nick Juliano | Published: Wednesday May 23, 2007

A Washington-based legal watchdog has sued the White House Office of Administration alleging the administration refuses to comply with a public records request related to more than 5 million e-mails from administration officials that have gone missing, according to a press release.

"The White House has decided to play an unlawful game of high-tech hide and seek with the American public," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, in the release. ...

Officials Describe Interference by Former Gonzales Aide | By Dan Eggen and Carol D. Leonnig | Washington Post Staff Writers | Wednesday, May 23, 2007; A04

When Jeffrey A. Taylor, interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, wanted to hire a new career prosecutor last fall, he had to run the idea past Monica M. Goodling, then a 33-year-old aide to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

The candidate was Seth Adam Meinero, a Howard University law school graduate who had worked on civil rights cases at the Environmental Protection Agency and had served as a special assistant prosecutor in Taylor's office.

Goodling stalled the hiring, saying that Meinero was too "liberal" for the nonpolitical position, said according to two sources familiar with the dispute. ...

Former Rove aide pleads the Fifth on White House contacts with convicted lobbyist Abramoff

Former Rove aide pleads the Fifth on White House contacts with convicted lobbyist Abramoff | Michael Roston | Published: Tuesday May 22, 2007

Susan Ralston, the former executive assistant to top White House adviser Karl Rove, invoked her rights against self-incrimination while she was being asked to answer questions by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Committee's Chairman, Rep. Henry Waxman, announced in a memo Tuesday. The deposition for which she sat concerned contacts between convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Rove, as well as the White House more broadly.

"The subjects this morning that she will be unable to testify to...are the subjects of the relationship between Jack Abramoff and his associates and White House officials, including Ms. Ralston, and the subject of the use by White House officials of political e-mail accounts at the RNC," Ralston's lawyer, Bradford Berenson said, during the May 10 deposition. "She has material, useful information about both of those subjects."

According to Waxman's memo, which was sent to Oversight Committee members, Ralston is seeking immunity from prosecution.

"She is more than willing to provide it to the committee. However, she will, as we have previously discussed, require a grant of immunity before she is comfortable going forward," Berenson also said in the deposition. ...

GSA chief violated Hatch Act, OSC report finds ... illegal political activity with government agencies ... help "our candidates"

GSA chief violated Hatch Act, OSC report findsBy DANIEL FRIEDMAN | May 22, 2007

An Office of Special Counsel report has found that General Services Administration chief Lurita Doan violated the Hatch Act, which bars federal officials from partisan political activity while on the job, sources say.

The report addresses a Jan. 26 lunch meeting at GSA headquarters attended by Doan and about 40 political appointees, some of whom participated by videoconference. During the meeting, Scott Jennings, the White House deputy director of political affairs, gave a PowerPoint presentation that included slides listing Democratic and Republican seats the White House viewed as vulnerable in 2008, a map of contested Senate seats and other information on 2008 election strategy.

According to meeting participants, Doan asked after the call how GSA could help “our candidates.”
Doan has until June 1 to respond to the OSC report, which was delivered to her May 18, according to officials. The officials asked to remain anonymous because the report has not been made public.

After Doan responds, the report will be sent to President Bush with recommendations that could include suspension or termination. The president is not required to comply with the suggestions. ...

Justice Weighed Firing 1 in 4 | 26 Prosecutors Were Listed As Candidates

Justice Weighed Firing 1 in 4 | 26 Prosecutors Were Listed As Candidates | By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein | Washington Post Staff Writers | Thursday, May 17, 2007; Page A01

The Justice Department considered dismissing many more U.S. attorneys than officials have previously acknowledged, with at least 26 prosecutors suggested for termination between February 2005 and December 2006, according to sources familiar with documents withheld from the public.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified last week that the effort was limited to eight U.S. attorneys fired since last June, and other administration officials have said that only a few others were suggested for removal.

In fact, D. Kyle Sampson, then Gonzales's chief of staff, considered more than two dozen U.S. attorneys for termination, according to lists compiled by him and his colleagues, the sources said. ...

Connect the Justice Department dots and you see an insidious effort to corrupt the American electoral system.

Attorneys Scandal: An Illegal White House-coordinated Effort to Swing Elections to Republicans | By Marie Cocco, Truthdig. Posted May 18, 2007.

WASHINGTON -- It is time to stop referring to the "fired U.S attorneys scandal" by that misnomer, and call it what it is: a White House-coordinated effort to use the vast powers of the Justice Department to swing elections to Republicans.

This is no botched personnel switch. It is not even a political spat between the fired U.S. attorneys and Bush administration officials who deemed some of them insufficiently zealous in promoting the department's law enforcement priorities. Connect the dots and you see an insidious effort to corrupt the American electoral system. It's Watergate without the break-in or the bagmen.

The emerging picture is one in which widespread Republican claims of "voter fraud" -- unsubstantiated in virtually every case examined closely by law enforcement officials, local journalists, state elections officials and academics -- were used to stymie Democratic-leaning voter registration groups and create a taint around Democrats. The Justice Department's own statistics show that only a handful of people were convicted of voting illegally since it began a "voter integrity" initiative in 2002. Its top election crimes official, a career prosecutor, has told the U.S. Election Assistance Commission that the proportion of "legitimate to illegitimate claims of fraud" hasn't changed.

The "voter fraud" claims that White House political adviser Karl Rove promoted before last year's congressional elections were in battleground states such as New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin with closely contested races. He also has complained about alleged fraud in hotly competitive states such as Washington, Florida and Missouri. Curiously, states where elections often are decided by wide margins -- New York, for instance -- don't turn up on his lists.

According to McClatchy Newspapers, Rove pressed Justice officials about voter fraud probes in October. Complaints from Republican activists wound up in the hands of Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and a key figure in the imbroglio. Five of the 12 U.S. attorneys who were canned or targeted for removal were singled out for alleged laxity in pursuing voter-fraud prosecutions, The Washington Post has reported.

The Justice Department's power to prosecute was expected to be put to use in carrying out a partisan witch hunt. Yet even this picture is incomplete.

The shenanigans involving U.S. attorneys must be seen alongside the parallel campaign to turn the department's voting-rights section into a rubber stamp for Republican efforts to enhance the voting power of their loyalists while diminishing that of Democrats. ...

The Bush administration ran its warrantless eavesdropping program without the Justice Department's approval for up to three weeks ...

Tue, May. 15, 2007 | U. S. ATTORNEYS | Initial warrantless eavesdropping program deemed illegal by the Justice Department | By Jonathan S. Landay and Marisa Taylor | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration ran its warrantless eavesdropping program without the Justice Department's approval for up to three weeks in 2004, nearly triggering a mass resignation of the nation's top law enforcement officials, the former No. 2 official disclosed Tuesday.

In testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey said that those he believed were prepared to quit included then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Comey said then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card visited Ashcroft as he lay gravely ill in a hospital bed on March 10, 2004, and pressed him to re-certify the program's legality. Ashcroft refused. ...

Senators Question Whether Gonzales Lied Under Oath About NSA Wiretapping Program

Senators Question Whether Gonzales Lied Under Oath About NSA Wiretapping Program

A group of senators led by Russ Feingold (D-WI) sent Alberto Gonzales a letter today highlighting an apparent lie Gonzales told while testifying under oath last year about the NSA warrantless spying program.

As ThinkProgress noted this morning, Gonzales said in 2006 that there was no “serious disagreement about the program,” a claim that flies in the face of the extraordinary testimony delivered by former Justice official James Comey yesterday. In the letter, the senators ask Gonzales if he stands by his claim:

You testified last year before both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Committee about this incident. On February 6, 2006, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, you were asked whether Mr. Comey and others at the Justice Department had raised concerns about the NSA wiretapping program. You stated in response that the disagreement that occurred was not related to the wiretapping program confirmed by the President in December 2005, which was the topic of the hearing. …

We ask for your prompt response to the following question: In light of Mr. Comey’s testimony yesterday, do you stand by your 2006 Senate and House testimony, or do you wish to revise it? ...

Weeks after the White House ruled out the Bush involvement in any discussions on the firing of 8 US Attorneys .. Gonzales recalls Oct 2006 discussion

Gonzales testimony contradicts White House, revealing Bush 'conversation' over US attorney firings Michael RostonPublished: Thursday May 10, 2007

Weeks after the White House ruled out the involvement of President George W. Bush in any discussions on the firing of 8 US Attorneys, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Thursday morning that the President had discussed the matter with advisers in an October 2006 meeting.

"I've now been made aware of the fact that there was a conversation with the President that basically mentioned the same thing in October of 2006," the Attorney General said while answering a question from Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA).

"The same thing" referred to voter fraud cases in three US Attorneys' districts, which Gonzales earlier acknowledged had been raised by Karl Rove in a meeting "sometime in the Fall of 2006."
Gonzales' statement varied from remarks by White House spokespersons that the President had not been involved in any discussions of firing US Attorneys.

"I have said on the record for several weeks now that there is no indication that the President knew about any of the ongoing discussions over the two years, nor did he see a list or a plan before it was carried out," said White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino on March 27, 2007.

Furthermore, in a March 21 press briefing, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow had been asked about a Nov. 15, 2006 e-mail from former Gonzales chief of staff D. Kyle Sampson to former White House Counsel Harriet Miers asking "Who will determine whether this requires the President's attention?"
Snow was then asked "did the President have to sign off on this?" referring to the firing of the Attorneys, to which he responded, "The President has no recollection of this ever being raised with him." ...

The purge of prosecutors looks increasingly like an effort to turn U.S. attorneys into arms of the Republican National Committee ... partisan motive

More stonewalling at Justice Published May 15, 2007

The controversy over the removal of several U.S. attorneys last year has been spreading by the week. But Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales sees no reason to change his approach, which is modeled on Muhammad Ali's famous rope-a-dope.At a hearing last week before the House Judiciary Committee, he evaded precise answers and professed a poor memory, while insisting that the decision to sack the prosecutors was utterly sound. The apparent administration hope is that by denying and stonewalling, Gonzales can not only save his job but eventually exhaust all interest in the matter.

...

The purge of prosecutors looks increasingly like an effort to turn U.S. attorneys into arms of the Republican National Committee. Some of the eight prosecutors known to have been fired last year had antagonized White House political adviser Karl Rove and GOP politicians by failing to pursue cases that could have affected last year's election outcome.

But recently, evidence emerged that there were more than eight. The department canned another U.S. attorney, Todd Graves of Kansas City, after he refused to go along with a voter-registration lawsuit filed against the state of Missouri -- a suit that was ultimately thrown out by a federal judge. And Justice Department officials interviewed by congressional aides report that Milwaukee's Steven Biskupic also made the hit list after Rove complained about his handling of vote fraud claims. But he was spared to avoid alienating then-House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.).

Now, vote fraud is a serious matter, and the administration is entitled to make it a priority on its law enforcement agenda -- just as it is entitled to make drug cases or white-collar crime a priority. But the evidence suggests that the department's concern had a fundamental partisan motive, which is not acceptable. ...