Conyers and Sánchez: Rove Must Appear Before the House Judiciary Committee

The United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary is keeping up the pressure on its commitment to investigate political prosecution by the Bush DoJ.

From last week's press release:

(Washington, DC)- Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sánchez (D-CA, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee) sent a letter to Robert Luskin, attorney for former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, confirming their expectation that he appear and testify before the subcommittee on July 10. Committee staff had been negotiating with Luskin, but the discussions reached an impasse, with Luskin only offering to provide off-the-record interviews with Rove about the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. The subpoena was issued for testimony regarding the broader issue of politicization in the Justice Department, including the Siegelman matter.

Bush's Corruption Exploding

Among the many betrayals of democracy committed by the Bush administration is the transformation of the U.S. Department of Justice into an appalling political hit-man operation using an agency of the government, the DoJ, to attack, libel and imprison political enemies in programs so audacious that Richard Nixon's dirty tricks operations, government corruption and two criminal attorneys general are comparatively trivial in comparison.

The extent of the Bush/Rove political prosecutions operating under the guise of the government entity responsible for upholding the rule of law is becoming apparent as the House Committee on the Judiciary continues its oversight hearings and its demands for DoJ documents [Much of the Committee's document demands of the DoJ have come from Representatives Conyers, Sánchez, Baldwin, and Davis. See members' follow-up letter.]

And the cooperate press, after a considerable lapse, appears to be somewhat back on the job, though the political prosecutions ought to be screaming from newspaper headlines and becoming the object of saturation coverage that would echo that of the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Taking up the slack with arguably the most incisive analysis and investigative journalism on the DoJ corruption is Scott Horton, contributing writer at Harper's.

Today's column is typical.

A Primer in Political Persecution

A United States Attorney, an embittered Republican who has been defeated in a series of election contests, had a meeting with attorneys for a criminal defendant, a prominent Democrat, at the outset of the case. “I know your client thinks he’s innocent. He’s offered to take a lie detector test. I’m not interested in that. In fact, I’m sure he’d pass the lie detector test. And in fact, I don’t have the evidence to make out my case. No matter. I just plan to throw shit at the wall and sit back and watch as some of it drips down on him. We’ll get him.”

This egregious breach of responsibility by a law enforcement officer, who is essentially admitting that he’s using his office for political persecution, is not drawn from a gothic novel. It happened just a few years ago. And the victim was actually convicted and is now sitting in prison–thanks in significant part to the extremely dubious conduct of the federal judge who oversaw the case. A federal judge who, moreover, was openly tantalized with the prospect of a judicial promotion by the Bush Justice Department as the case was running. We’ll hear more details on this story in a later post. But it furnishes a good glimpse into the total depravity of political prosecutions which stains the Bush Justice Department. And it relates to a case which wasn’t discussed in yesterday’s hearings in the House Judiciary Committee… one of many. ...

Look back here for coverage on the Bush administration's political prosecutions (in particular Roberts v. U.S., the story of the swiftboating and criminal conviction of an innocent Wisconsin Navy veteran whose criminal appeal is being argued tomorrow morning), and bookmark as a favorite Horton's No Comment column.

###

House Comm. Slams US Atty Biskupic in DoJ Prosecutions Letter

U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr., D-Mich. has requested from U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales documents and information concerning the prosecution of former democratic Gov. Don Siegelman (pictured at right) in a letter released yesterday.

Siegelman is widely believed to be a victim of a Karl Rove-engineered prosecution.

The letter was signed by four members of the House Committee on the Judiciary, including Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI).

The letter slams and asks for information about three a total of three prosecutions, including the infamous Georgia Thompson prosecution.

The letter reads in part:

In order to assure the public that everyone, no matter their political affiliation, is treated equally under the law, we are initially requesting documents relating to the Department's handling of three cases, and in particular any memoranda, analysis, or other communications discussing whether and to what extent criminal charges should be and were pursued against the individuals listed below.

On April 5, 2007, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, citing "evidence [that] is beyond thin," threw out the federal conviction of Georgia Thompson, a Wisconsin state procurement officer. The office of the U.S. Attorney in Wisconsin, Steven Biskupic, had won a jury conviction of Ms. Thompson, claiming the career civil servant impermissibly awarded a contract to a travel agency whose director was a political contributor to Democratic Governor Jim Doyle. The U.S. Attorney proceeded with the prosecution even though the travel agency that won the contract submitted the lowest bid, and tied for first place on the complicated merit score that ranked all contract bidders. Additionally, there was no evidence that Ms. Thompson was aware of or interested in the political contributions by the head of the travel agency.

Steven Biskupic's name appeared on a March, 2005, list that was compiled by Department of Justice staff which named U.S. Attorneys who could potentially be ousted. In January, 2006, Mr. Biskupic indicted Ms. Thompson; that same month, Mr. Biskupic's name had been removed from the DOJ list of U.S. Attorneys who might be replaced. After Ms. Thompson's conviction in June, 2006, the campaign of Gov. Doyle's Republican opponent, U.S. Representative Mark Green, seized on the conviction as a means to paint Gov. Doyle as corrupt. The Court of Appeals, finding that no crime had been committed, acquitted Ms. Thompson, declaring her "innocent," but of course, the political damage had been done and could not be rectified.

On April 10, 2007, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and several other senators requested documents regarding the Georgia Thompson case, including documents regarding contacts between White House personnel, Main Justice, or outside parties and the United States Attorney's office handling the prosecution. Our Committee joined that request the following day. On May 17, 2007, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling responded by producing some documents relevant to other requests made in that letter, but did not produce any documents regarding the Thompson case. Mr. Hertling explained that "processing [the Thompson] documents would require an extensive commitment of resources and time." Mr. Hertling's letter further noted that the Department was in the process of searching for evidence of communications between Main Justice and the local U.S. Attorney's office, and that he expected 'that there were [such] communications during the investigation and prosecution of the case." Finally, Mr. Hertling's letter explained that the search for relevant communications regarding the Thompson case continued in "the Criminal Division, the Office of the Attorney General, and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General." The two months that have passed since Mr. Hertling's letter have not assuaged our concerns regarding the Thompson prosecution, and we are renewing our request that the documents related to that matter be promptly produced as well as the other documents requested in this letter.

###