Posted on 02/26/2010 4:36:54 PM PST by onyx
Senate Republicans pressed Attorney General Eric Holder on Friday afternoon over political appointees who'd previously defended suspects in terrorism cases.
All seven members of the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote Holder, asking for more details about political appointees within the Department of Justice, who, Republicans say, may have conflicts of interest in the government's prosecution in terrorism cases.
The GOP senators wrote Holder to complain that a response to an original request for information on those Justice Department personnel was "at best nonresponsive and, at worst, intentionally evasive."
"It appears the Department has chosen to go another direction and refuse to provide complete responses to our legitimate oversight inquiry," the senators wrote. "These unanswered original questions and the new questions generated by the February 18, 2010, response raise serious concerns about who is providing advice on detainee matters."
Republicans have sought to press Holder and the Justice Department for its handling of terror cases, sensing political advantage on the issue.
Find the entirety of the Judiciary committee members' letter below the jump:
February 26, 2010
Via Electronic Transmission
The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Attorney General Holder:
On February 18, 2010, we received a response to our letter following up on conflicts of interest questions Senator Grassley raised at the November 18, 2009, Department of Justice Oversight hearing. Your response took three months and falls far short of providing the answers we sought. Further, it raises more questions than it answers about why the Department refuses to provide to Congress the names of political appointees at the Department who are working on detainee cases and policy and who previously represented detainees or advocated on behalf of detainees in policy matters.
The February 18 response does not provide complete answers and raises a host of new questions. Even the information that has a glimmer of being labeled responsive is full of caveats, exceptions, and qualifications, including the limiting phrases “to the best of our knowledge” and “as far as we are aware.” Further, the response indicates that instead of surveying the entire Department for political appointees with potential conflicts, the Department only surveyed a limited number of offices and excluded important offices at the Department including the Office of Legal Policy, the Office of Legislative Affairs, the Office of Public Affairs, the Civil Rights Division, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorneys, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, and the Bureau of Prisons.
The Department’s response is largely a recitation of public laws and model rules, and states the Department “does not maintain comprehensive records of [recusals] about individual Department employees.” In fact, the first attempt at a response to our questions appears on the third page of the letter. Perhaps the most disappointing part of the letter is that it indicates that at least ten political appointees at the Department have worked on detainee issues prior to their employment—by either directly representing detainees in court, contributing to detainee-related cases, or being involved in detainee advocacy—yet, they remain eligible to work on these issues and specific cases. The letter indicates that these same political appointees are only subject to selective recusals that are not public and not maintained in a centralized database at the Department. Further, the letter fails to provide the names of the political appointees, the cases or issues they worked on prior to joining the Department, and what issues or cases they are working on now in their respective capacities at the Department.
The letter adds that some political appointees have recused themselves from particular matters “regarding specific detainees in which their former firms represent the detainee or another party and from decisions relating specifically to the disposition of particular detainees.” Despite this assurance, the letter fails to identify these attorneys or the specific detainees or cases from which they are recused. The only two individuals who are directly identified in the letter are the two that we cited in our letter request based upon public media accounts of their prior representations.
Simply put, this letter is at best nonresponsive and, at worst, intentionally evasive. Further, we have a hard time reconciling this nonresponsive letter with commitments you made prior to your confirmation. For example, prior to your confirmation as Attorney General, you responded to questions for the record submitted by Senator Grassley stating that you, “fully respect the important role of Congress under the Constitution, and if confirmed…will work to ensure that the Department operates in a manner consistent with the legislative branch’s legitimate oversight functions.” In addition to these written responses, you gave assurances to Committee members in personal meetings that you would work to answer all questions posed in a timely and complete manner and work cooperatively with members of Congress in the oversight process.
Despite these assurances prior to confirmation, it appears the Department has chosen to go another direction and refuse to provide complete responses to our legitimate oversight inquiry. This development is troubling. Accordingly, we reiterate the initial requests from the November 24, 2009, letter and ask that you provide timely and complete responses to the following:
Original Requests:
(1) The names of all political appointees in the Department who represented detainees, worked for organizations advocating on behalf of detainees, or worked for organizations advocating on terrorism or detainee policy;
(2) The cases or projects that these appointees worked on with respect to detainees prior to joining the Justice Department;
(3) The cases or projects relating to detainees that they have worked on since joining the Justice Department;
(4) A list of all political appointees who have been instructed to, or have voluntarily recused themselves from working on specific detainee cases, projects, or matters pending before the courts or at the Justice Department;
Additional Requests Raised by February 18, 2010, Response:
(5) The names and titles of the ten individuals mentioned in the February 18, 2010, response and the detainee-related cases and/or other advocacy for detainees these individuals worked on prior to their employment at the Department;
(6) The names and titles of the ten individuals mentioned in the February 18, 2010, response and the detainee-related cases and/or policy issues they are working on at the Department currently;
(7) The names and titles of the ten individuals mentioned in the February 18, 2010, response and a specific list of all detainee-related cases and/or policy issues they are specifically recused from;
(8) An explanation for the reason the February 18, 2010, response failed to provide the names of the individual political appointees at the Department that are recused from specific cases or policy matters.
(9) An explanation as to how and why only certain offices at the Department were selected for inclusion in the search for individuals with potential conflicts of interest;
(10) An explanation as to why you did not canvass all offices at the Department, including: the Office of Legal Policy, the Office of Legislative Affairs, the Office of Public Affairs, the Civil Rights Division, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the U.S. Attorneys, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, and the Bureau of Prisons prior to providing the February 18, 2010, response;
(11) The names of all political appointees in all offices at the Department, including: the Office of Legal Policy, the Office of Legislative Affairs, the Office of Public Affairs, the Civil Rights Division, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the U.S. Attorneys, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, and the Bureau of Prisons who represented detainees, worked for organizations advocating on behalf of detainees, or worked for organizations advocating on terrorism or detainee policy;
(12) The cases or projects that the appointees in all offices at the Department, including: the Office of Legal Policy, the Office of Legislative Affairs, the Office of Public Affairs, the Civil Rights Division, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the U.S. Attorneys, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, and the Bureau of Prisons worked on with respect to detainees prior to joining the Justice Department;
(13) The cases or projects relating to detainees that the appointees in all offices at the Department, including: the Office of Legal Policy, the Office of Legislative Affairs, the Office of Public Affairs, the Civil Rights Division, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the U.S. Attorneys, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, and the Bureau of Prisons have worked on since joining the Justice Department;
(14) An explanation why the Department “does not maintain comprehensive records of [recusals] about individual Department employees.” This response should also answer the following:
a. How do Department employees know when an individual is recused from a specific case or policy matter?
b. What procedures and safeguards are in place to prevent potential conflicts of interest from becoming actual conflicts of interest?
These unanswered original questions and the new questions generated by the February 18, 2010, response raise serious concerns about who is providing advice on detainee matters. These requests are straightforward and are important components of the Judiciary Committee’s comprehensive oversight of the Department. We look forward to a complete and timely response to these questions no later than March 12, 2010.
Sincerely,
Extemely important.
A good development. Sure looks like there are multiple layers of corruption to reveal in govt.
Holder intends to have lawyers who formerly defended terrorists now ‘prosecute’ terrorists? Never mind Holder’s own past dealings with FALN.
No Kidding!
Some may say, well a shark’s a shark for whoever pays him. But we don’t need ethical entanglements like this.
It'll be surprising if they get another word out of Holder.
Holder and his thugs handling of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case was pathetic and he never did answer the inquiries of Congress.
Holder and his closest appointees are not qualified for the positions they hold and they know it, thus no answers.
/mark for later read
You’re right.
Holder is using (abusing) his office just like Obama is doing with his.
Thanks for the ping. I’m going to pass this along in e-mail.
Good one...
Marc Rich is the biggest tax evader in US history---Rich renounced his US citizenship to avoid prosecution and fled overseas. Then-Asst US Atty Eric Holder never advised the Dept of US Justice (which his office compelled him to do) that Clinton was pardoning the crook.
11-20-2008
Holder's likely nomination revives pardon furor
AP/MSNBC.com http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27822830/from/ET/
FR Posted 11/20/2008 by lilylangtree
WASHINGTON - Eric Holder is in line for nomination by President-elect Barack Obama to the attorney general's job that Holder has long wanted, but the 2001 episode with fugitive financier Marc Rich is stirring partisan acrimony.
The role of the former deputy attorney general in the pardon of Rich opened Holder to strong criticism from Capitol Hill in a political uproar that Republicans refuse to forget nearly eight years later. The RNC is resurrecting the episode, circulating an e-mailthat asks, "Why does Obama want to appoint an attorney general with a long history of controversial pardons?"
The Rich pardon that President Bill Clinton granted on his last day in office became the final controversy in a presidency filled with them. (Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
=================================
RICH PARDON (The Clinton Legacy continues)
NY TIMES | December 31, 2004 | LETTERS
FR Posted on 12/31/2004 by Liz
EXCERPT Bill Clinton pardons Marc Rich in the final minutes of his presidency, after Rich's ex-wife had donated to Hillary Clinton's senatorial campaign. Rich immediately goes into business with Saddam Hussein in the Oil-for-Food scam...........
Clinton pardoning Rich in 2001 made it easier for Rich to participate in the Oil-for-Food scandal. Therefore, it can be fairly said that Bill Clinton himself bears partial responsibility for the deaths of more than 1,000 soldiers in Iraq, since the reason US soldiers were sent in Iraq was to prevent Saddam from using his stolen booty to build WMDs.......
Hopefully, some chickens are coming home to roost for Bill and Hill now that Marc Rich has been fingered as an active participant in the UN Oil-for-Food fiasco. This is the same tax evader and fugitive whose ex-wife Denise funded H illary's senate campaign and Bill's presidential library with big bucks, in exchange for a last minute presidential pardon for her husband just before Clinton left office. (Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
=====================================================
NEW MARC RICH LINK STINK
By NILES LATHEM, NY POST, January 3, 2005
EXCERPT---New details of billionaire trader Marc Rich's shady oil deals under the UN oil-for-food program are emerging......These include deals with front companies that have connections to Saddam Hussein's underground financial network.
.......prosecutors are probing four suspicious deals that took place in Feb-April 2001. Rich was listed as a secondary buyer of oil contracts originally allocated by Saddam to mysterious French and Egyptian companies. The questionable deals began a month after sanctions-buster Rich, a convicted tax dodger, received his midnight pardon from then-President Bill Clinton. They took place during a period in which major Western oil companies were shying away from directly buying from Iraq because Saddam was demanding surcharges and kickbacks.
Rich has been identified as a primary target of oil-for-food probes by the U.S. attorney in New York and Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau.
Rich, who lives in Switzerland and has not returned to the United States despite the pardon, denied in a statement issued by his company last week that he was involved in any illegal activities. Iraqi shipping records, originally published in the Middle East Economic Review, a respected oil-industry database, provide an intriguing glimpse into some of Rich's oil dealings with the U.N. program and appear to bolster prosecutors' suspicions that he was a key figure in many of Saddam's moneymaking and global influence-peddling schemes. Investigators say they believe it is significant that the companies with which Rich was apparently doing business in the oil-for-food deals appear to have directors with secret financial connections to Saddam's brutal regime.
SOURCE http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/37665.htm
===========================================
RICH MAY HAVE LIED ON PARDON FORM
NY DAILY NEWS, 11/14/03, BY GREG B. SMITH
The feds have evidence that Democratic fund-raiser Denise Rich violated an immunity arrangement by not telling prosecutors the whole truth during their investigation of Pardongate, sources say. The sources said federal law enforcement has enough evidence to bring obstruction of justice counts against Rich but that no decision has been made on whether to charge her.
For nearly three years, the feds have been probing how the socialite songwriter's ex-husband, Marc Rich, won a pardon from President Bill Clinton during his last hours in office. Marc Rich, a multimillionaire fugitive, was charged in 1983 with bilking the federal government of $48 million in income taxes and buying illegal oil from Iran during the 1979 hostage crisis. Investigators want to know whether Marc Rich illegally funneled donations to Clinton and Democratic causes through his wife in return for the pardon.
Prosecutors from the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office asked a federal judge to order Denise Rich, who admitted lobbying Clinton for the pardon, to answer their questions. She did so, speaking to prosecutors and the FBI during numerous so-called "proffer" sessions in 2001. Under an arrangement with the feds, Rich was granted immunity from prosecution - as long as she told the truth and spilled everything she knew. Two sources told the Daily News that investigators recently discovered Rich breached that arrangement, either by lying or by not revealing potentially illegal activities she knew about.
During her many sessions with prosecutors, the sources said, Rich talked about her one-on-one discussions with Clinton and about the $1million-plus she raised for Clinton and Democratic causes. The sources would not say whether Rich discussed her $450,000 donation to the Clinton Presidential Library. Sources say Rich admitted reimbursing several of her employers for their donations to Hillary Clinton's successful campaign for Senate in 1999, a practice that is illegal.
Denise Rich's attorney, Thomas Fitzpatrick, said, "I have never heard from the U.S. attorney that she was less than truthful. ... There's no breach of her obligation of truthfulness that I know of." Marvin Smilon, a spokesman for Manhattan U.S. Attorney James Comey, declined to comment.
So much treachery....
Michelle Malkin:
“For more than a year, I’ve been writing about the looming national security and conflict-of-interest problems posed by Holder’s status as a former partner at the prestigious law firm Covington and Burling.
The company currently represents or has provided pro bono representation and sob-story media-relations campaigns in the past to more than a dozen Gitmo detainees from Yemen who are seeking civilian trials on American soil.”
http://vdare.com/malkin/100223_corruptocrat.htm
Is there a list of department staff members any where? Wouldn’t take too long to cross reference it with newspapers/legal directories to see if their names appear with certain law firms.
Excellent, thanks Dr. Scarpetta!
Lanny Breuer formerly of Covington and Burling!
HHHMmm C & B have a company news letter...Wonder if anymore associates went to the DoJ.
Covington & Burling | Company News & Executive Profiles | BNETCovington & Burling LLP represents clients in cutting ... to the Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice. ... in the High Court against an employee of a publicly-traded US ...
http://www.cov.com/news/detail.aspx?news=1391
You’re welcome. You have to give Michelle Malkin a lot of credit. They’ll probably audit her income taxes.
Yes, that's part of the thinking; that Holder is hiring former associates from Covington & Burling: defenders of terrorists.
There appears to be an alphabetical directory at the link...Maggie you got your data base thing up and running?
Mayba a comparison of a current directory with an older archived one might show up something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.