Everybody lawyer up!

October 11th, 2007

Gonzales Hires a Top Gun
Still under investigation by Congress and Justice Department lawyers who once worked for him, the former attorney general has turned to a leading Washington attorney to help him beat the rap.
Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, Newsweek
Oct 10, 2007

No sooner did Alberto Gonzales resign as attorney general last month than he retained a high-powered Washington criminal-defense lawyer to represent him in continuing inquiries by Congress and the Justice Department.

Gonzales’s choice of counsel, George Terwilliger—a partner at White & Case—is ironic if not surprising. A former deputy attorney general under the first President Bush, who later helped oversee GOP lawyers in the epic Florida recount battle of 2000, Terwilliger had been a White House finalist to replace Gonzales—only to be aced out at the last minute by retired federal judge Michael Mukasey.

The top concern for Gonzales, and now Terwilliger, is the expanding investigation by Glenn Fine, the Justice Department’s fiercely independent inspector general, according to three legal sources familiar with the matter who declined to speak publicly about ongoing investigations. Originally, Fine’s internal Justice probe—conducted in conjunction with lawyers from the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility—focused on the mass dismissal of U.S. attorneys late last year. The investigation has since broadened to include, among other matters, charges that Gonzales lied to Congress about the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program and the circumstances surrounding his late-night March 10, 2004, visit to the hospital room of then attorney general John Ashcroft. At the same time, Congress is continuing to pursue more documents on harsh CIA interrogation techniques approved by Gonzales.

Fine’s investigators, who received high-level security clearances, have been interviewing key players involved in the now-famous bedside confrontation in Ashcroft’s hospital room, according to the legal sources. During the visit that evening, Gonzales, then White House counsel, sought to persuade an ailing and heavily medicated Ashcroft to overrule department lawyers who had refused to sign off on classified surveillance activities ordered by President Bush because of concerns about their legality. A rash of senior Justice Department officials—including then deputy attorney general James Comey and FBI Director Robert Mueller—threatened to resign over the incident.

Yet when Gonzales appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2006, he testified that “there has not been any serious disagreement” about the president’s surveillance program. He did acknowledge disputes about “other intelligence activities” that he declined to identify.

One former administration official close to Gonzales’s team (who, like others interviewed for this story, requested anonymity in talking about an ongoing probe) said the former attorney general is concerned that Fine may end up making a criminal referral to the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department—or even seek the appointment of a special counsel to determine if Gonzales made false statements to Congress.

The former official—who did not believe such action was warranted—said that Gonzales’s camp is increasingly worried that Fine might feel compelled to make such a move to avoid any suggestion that he was protecting his former boss and to reassert his independence. That would subject Gonzales to the unusual situation of being subject to a formal criminal investigation by the very department he used to head. “That is certainly one possible outcome of this,” said the former official.

Terwilliger, who recently began discussions with Fine’s investigators, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that he is representing Gonzales. But in an e-mail exchange, he declined to discuss any of the particular allegations against his client.

“We have been engaged to assist Judge Gonzales in his continued effort to provide assistance to the Department of Justice as it examines the Department’s role in various programs and operations to combat the terrorist threat,” Terwilliger wrote. “An unbiased assessment of the facts will show that Judge Gonzales, while holding high public office during a time of great peril, worked to help maintain the safety and security of the American people and acted always with the intent and commitment to honor the rule of law.”

The stakes for Gonzales were ratcheted up last week when Jack Goldsmith, the former assistant attorney general in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the dispute. Goldsmith, a key player who was present when Gonzales and Andy Card, White House chief of staff at the time, showed up at Ashcroft’s bedside. Goldsmith made clear that he, like others in the room, believed that the hospital meeting was indeed about the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP).

Asked by Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer what he made of the statement by Gonzales “that there was no serious internal dissent about the TSP,” Goldsmith replied: “I would just say there were … enormous disagreements about many aspects related to the TSP.”

Goldsmith added, however, that “there is a technical interpretation of what he [Gonzales] said that is true … but it’s very difficult to talk about it” in an unclassified setting.

Goldsmith’s testimony echoed that of former deputy attorney general Comey and FBI Director Mueller. Like Goldsmith, Mueller has testified that he considered the hospital dispute to be about the Terrorist Surveillance Program—and his own contemporaneous notes indicated as much. But Gonzales’s defenders have repeatedly said he was being extremely careful in his testimony because the underlying issues involved in the dispute—the particulars of the program that Goldsmith and others at Justice thought were in violation of the law—remain so highly classified that it was impossible for him to speak candidly. They and others have also suggested that, in part because of the Justice rebellion, aspects of the program were modified before its existence was publicly acknowledged by the White House. Therefore, they say, Gonzales was telling the truth when he said that there were no disagreements about the TSP “that the president has confirmed.”

In recent days, the White House—seeking to gain a speedy confirmation for Mukasey and to win passage of new surveillance legislation from the Democratic-controlled Congress—has hinted that it may finally share key legal documents about the program with Capitol Hill. In a letter to the leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, White House lawyer Emmet Flood said the White House “has agreed to assemble” a stack of materials relating to the program, including “all legal opinions” by the Office of Legal Counsel—a category that would include the memo Goldsmith wrote in 2004 that triggered the hospital room incident. Noting that these documents include “extraordinarily sensitive national security information,” Flood pointedly did not commit to turning over any of this material—only to continue talking to congressional leaders about them.

But the Democrats appear to be running out of patience. Their version of proposed new surveillance legislation, unveiled yesterday by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, contains a striking provision that would require Fine’s office to do a full audit of all surveillance activities undertaken by the Bush administration since September 11, 2001—and then prepare a public, declassified report to be delivered to Congress six months after the law is passed. In a conference call with reporters Tuesday afternoon to discuss the Democratic bill, a Justice official said that this one of the provisions the administration has “concerns” about. ++

Gonzales can resign but he can’t hide
Former attorney general tries to hide behing Hispanic values
JOSE DE LA ISLA, Capital Hill Blue
October 11, 2007

Only hours after announcing in late August he would resign, embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales talked to Ruben Navarrette, a columnist with the San Diego Union Tribune.

Gonzales told Navarrette he wanted to be remembered “as someone who did the best he could … based on what was right and what was just.”

That sounds like a fair yardstick for measuring his public service. But there was more about Alberto Gonzales not yet known.

When Gonzales resigned, Richard Prince, in his online column “Journal-isms,” pointed out that all of the stories about the attorney general’s resignation mentioned he was the first Hispanic to hold that position. The designation supposedly complicated or constrained some commentators from being too critical of him. After all, a Latino as attorney general was a milestone achievement, a source of pride.

Navarrette seems to have been one of those who wasn’t sure Gonzales got a fair shake throughout the legalistic capers the AG was embroiled in. In the interview with Navarrette, Gonzales recognized “at some point, all the facts will come out and people can judge for themselves.”

That time has come. Those who were sanguine might now find the facts not going down very well.

On Oct. 4, The New York Times disclosed that shortly after Gonzales became attorney general in February 2005, his Justice Department issued a secret opinion. In it, Gonzales approved a legal memo authorizing agents “to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics,” according to the Times.

The methods included head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures. Some torture practices had been recanted earlier when they were disclosed after a Gonzales-led task force in the White House had given them legal sanction.

As legal counsel to President Bush, Gonzales had orchestrated the group that devised the draconian torture papers, giving legal sanction to methods violating the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of war prisoners.

That alone did not block him from getting appointed attorney general. Soon, he was implicated in questionable White House interference leading to the firing of nine regional U.S. attorneys. In crucial hearings into the matter, Gonzales testified 71 times he didn’t remember or couldn’t recall important meetings concerning the matter.

Late last year, with his leadership at Justice in question, Gonzales faced scrutiny over whether he testified truthfully, stonewalled or misled congressional inquiry into the firings and National Security Agency’s surveillance programs.

Now with the revelation he endorsed the harshest interrogation techniques used by the CIA, even Gonzales’ stalwart defenders will have a hard time rationalizing on his behalf. His own deputy at the time, James Comey, told colleagues at Justice they would all be ashamed when the public learned of the memo.

Two days before the Times expose, on a seemingly different matter concerning Hispanic Heritage Month, Gonzales provided a guest commentary to CNN. In it, he defined Hispanic values as comprised of sacrifice, hard work, personal initiative, dedication to family, and perseverance in the face of adversity. Those are good, and unsurprisingly similar to the personal values he referred to during the turbulent weeks before his long-sought resignation.

They are not the distinguishing qualities that result from the “Hispanic experience.” In fact, the response sounds remarkably like the platitudes used for high-sounding, little-meaning political patronizing.

A more accurate portrayal of the Hispanic experience, especially coming after the 1970s, would recognize the Latino push for voting rights and representation at all levels of government, a demand for a just government that is responsive to the community, an opportunity to participate in all sectors of society and the economy, fair procedures, and respect for civil rights. These values cut across party lines. They are not anyone’s exclusive property. They rest in the domain of social values — even universal standards — not just personal ones.

These social values too should be used to measure how the former attorney general performed when he occupied that position. Those who seek to justify torture should never be allowed to hide behind Hispanic values. Breaking the public trust will find no safe harbor in Hispanic civic values. ++

Jose de la Isla, author of “The Rise of Hispanic Political Power,” writes a weekly commentary for Hispanic Link News Service.

Rove Linked to Alabama Case
ADAM ZAGORIN/WASHINGTON
Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2007

A Republican lawyer claims she was told that Karl Rove — while serving as President Bush’s top political adviser — had intervened in the Justice Department’s prosecution of Alabama�s most prominent Democrat. Longtime Alabama G.O.P. activist Dana Jill Simpson first made the allegation in June, but has now provided new details in a lengthy sworn statement to the House Judiciary Committee. The Committee is expected to hold public hearings on the Alabama case next week as part of its investigation of possible political interference by the Bush Administration in the activities of the Department of Justice.

Simpson said in June that she heard a close associate of Rove say that the White House political adviser “had spoken with the Department of Justice” about “pursuing” Don Siegelman, a former Democratic governor of Alabama, with help from two of Alabama’s U.S. attorneys. Siegelman was later indicted on 32 counts of corruption, convicted on seven of them, and is currently serving an 88-month sentence in Federal prison.

If Simpson’s version of events is accurate, it would show direct political involvement by the White House in federal prosecutions — a charge leveled by Administration critics in connection with the U.S. attorney scandal that led to the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. But her account is disputed; those who she alleges told her about Rove’s involvement during a G.O.P. campaign conference call claim that no such conversation took place. Rove himself has not responded to Simpson’s allegations, which are clearly based on second-hand information, and the White House has refused to comment while Siegelman’s case remains on appeal.

Still, the Judiciary Committee plans to air Simpson’s testimony as part of its probe into political involvement in federal prosecutions. TIME has obtained a copy of Simpson’s 143-page sworn statement to the Judiciary Committee. She recalls conversations in early 2005 with Rob Riley, Jr., son of Alabama’s current Republican governor, over his father’s coming gubernatorial race, in which Siegelman appeared to be the top Democratic challenger. The younger Riley, she says, told her that his father and Bill Canary, the state’s top Republican political operative and a longtime friend of Rove, contacted Rove in late 2004, after which he intervened with the Justice Department’s Public Integrity section to push for criminal prosecution of Siegelman. Months later, in May 2005, Siegelman was indicted, setting off a chain of events that led to his imprisonment and the end of his political career.

Simpson also claims Riley, Jr., named the judge who would eventually be assigned to the case, and says Riley told her the judge would “hang Don Siegelman” because of a grudge against the former governor. She says he also specified one of the exact charges that Siegelman would later face. She says Riley, Jr., told her that Siegelman had conceded the close 2002 governor’s race to his father only after being told he would no longer be subject to possible federal corruption charges.

Contacted by TIME, Riley said, “Ms. Simpson’s statements have gone from being not only untrue to absurd and ridiculous.” He added, “She has now gone way beyond her original affidavit, to make claims so important that it’s inconceivable they would not have been included in her original statement.”

Simpson also provided evidence aimed at refuting the younger Riley’s claims, when the allegations first surfaced last June, that he barely knew Rove. This evidence includes a letter, over which a message is scrawled in what Simpson says is Riley’s handwriting. The message reads, “To: Jill — I e-mailed this to (name redacted), Karl (signed) Rob”.

Simpson says Riley’s reference is to Karl Rove. Riley counters that “Karl” refers to another lawyer. The president of the company whose case Riley was handling at the time said: “Rob Riley mentioned Karl Rove about four or five times as someone he was getting in touch with to help settle our business in Washington.”

When the Judiciary Committee publicly examines the Siegelman case next week, sources close to the panel say that former Alabama U.S. attorney Doug Jones will likely be a witness. Jones had been Siegelman’s lawyer until 2005, and says that in July 2004, he was told by federal prosecutors that only three areas of potential wrongdoing by the former governor were under investigation. Yet when Siegelman went to trial, he faced a 32-count indictment. “We on the defense believed that the case would soon be over, based on that conference with Federal prosecutors in July 2004,” Jones said.

By late 2004, the same prosecutors had rethought the entire case. Jones claims he was told by one prosecutor that the reason for the change was that the Justice Department in Washington had ordered a “top-to-bottom review,” revisiting all possible charges against Siegelman after more than three years of investigation. After that, Jones says, the case unexpectedly “kicked into high gear” as witnesses were called before a grand jury.

But Steve Feaga, a U.S. attorney who dealt with Jones, has a different recollection. “The offenses charged against Siegelman were the same ones we discussed all along with his lawyers,” Feaga says. “The prosecution never conducted a top-down review at the direction of DOJ in Washington; that review was done at our own initiative.”

The Judiciary Committee will examine the timing of prosecutors’ “top-to-bottom review” of their case with the timing of Rove’s alleged intervention with the Justice Department. That’s one reason Simpson was summoned before the Judiciary Committee last month to explain herself under penalty of perjury. ++

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Entry Filed under: Political Waves