Bush Seeks Forced Provisional Voting in Ohio

Incredible! Bush wants the US DOJ to look into the Ohio voting controversy, seeking forced provisional voting that suppresses legal voters.

After being shot down by the US Supreme Court on using the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) for the purpose of declaring eligible voters to be tentatively ineligible because of database mismatches - a purpose that the text of HAVA expressively forbids - Bush and the Republicans will not give up.

As the Milwaukee Branch of NAACP and the Milwaukee Teachers Education Association write in their amicus brief in the Van Hollen v. GAB Wisconsin case, provisional voting is inherently suppressive, and many provisional voters will not be able to come back the next day to further corroborate their legal voting status, and will leave the polling place not knowing if their votes count.

A provisional ballot is a second-class vote. The voter leaves the polling place not knowing whether his or her vote will count. He or she will only find out by calling a toll-free number or checking a website. If the answer is that the vote was not counted, the voter will be given a reason, but by then it will be too late to correct. That voter will have been directly and absolutely deprived of the right to vote without a meaningful remedy. (Link to brief filed by Milwaukee Branch of NAACP and the Milwaukee Teachers Education Association in Van Hollen v. GAB.)

This will not be a problem in Wisconsin, but the GOP is not giving up on stealing Ohio, again.

From RollCall:
President Bush is asking the Justice Department to look into whether 200,000 Buckeye State poll-goers must use provisional ballots on Election Day because their names do not match state databases.

White House spokesman Carlton Carroll confirmed Friday that the president will forward a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey from House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), requesting that the Justice Department look into whether the state’s voter rolls comply with the Help America Vote Act.
In a letter dated on Friday, the House GOP leader wrote that with Election Day 'less than two weeks away, immediate action by the Department is not only warranted, but also crucial.'

Folks, we have a major political party, the Republicans, who will do almost anything to stay in power. It's time for mass civil disobedience, something, to disrupt this outlaw element in the American political body. This is not a Party that is deserving of any respect whatsoever in our democracy.

Justice Department Outsources Voting Rights Hotline

The DOJ is outsourcing its voter hotline to defense contractor Lockheed Martin.

Makes the progressive 866-OUR-VOTE hotline look even more appealing.

From the JusticeWatch-Alliance for Justice blog:

(I)t appears the Department of Justice (DOJ) has contracted its Voting Rights Section’s 2008 U.S. Election Hotline to none other than defense contractor Lockheed Martin. For those of you not familiar with this service, the hotline was created for callers to determine registration status, report voter intimidation and suppression, and to ask general questions about voting procedures and eligibility.

Weakening US Criminal Case, VA Turns Down Jailed Wisc Vet’s PTSD Claim

Update: CREW AND VOTEVETS EXPOSE VA DIRECTIVE BARRING STAFF FROM DIAGNOSING SOLDIERS WITH PTSD, TO CUT COSTS
- See VA E-mail Obtained via FOIA Request

by Michael Leon (via mal contends)

Madison, Wisconsin — Vietnam-era Navy veteran Keith Roberts (1968-71) is an honorably discharged Navy airman who feels betrayed by his government, specifically the U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the U.S. Dept of Justice, for its self-conscious and successful efforts to financially ruin and imprison him.

Last month in April, the Gillette, Wisconsin native received word from the Milwaukee VA Regional Office that his VA disability claim for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) retroactive to his discharge was denied—a development not unexpected from a hostile VA, but under the circumstances farcical as he sits in a federal prison in Minnesota for applying for the same benefits.

Now, the VA says he does not have PTSD, a position contradicted by several medical professionals and Roberts' extensive documentary record.

More significantly for the imprisoned Roberts is that the VA decision corroborates Roberts' case that he never had any intent to defraud the VA, the alleged crime for which he is now imprisoned.

Roberts makes two lack-of-intent arguments in his appeal brief to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit filed last year: “The Evidence Offered at Trial did not Establish, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that the Alleged Misrepresentations were Made with the Intent to Defraud., “ and in “The Evidence Offered at Trial did not Establish, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that the Appellant Intentionally Misrepresented Facts to the VA.”

The alleged wire fraud is composed of the main allegations against Roberts by the US DoJ that he fabricated his role in trying to rescue fellow Airman Gary Holland, crushed to death in a gruesome C-54 aircraft accident in 1969, and lied about his friendship with Holland.

Both charges are demonstrably untrue and are charges on which US Atty Stephen Biskupic (not known for his prosecutorial discretion and hungry to augment his win/loss record and curry favor with the administration during this period) secured criminal indictments against Roberts and won a conviction in 2006.

Diagnosed as suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) by several private and public doctors during the 1990s, Roberts had been granted a 100 percent disability rating in June 1999 by the US Veterans Administration (VA) after a 12-year benefits claim process.

But not before Roberts, angered and frustrated with the VA, upset the wrong people in the government that he served.

"…The prosecution smacks of retaliation and a plan to suppress veterans claims—Roberts was prosecuted for tenaciously pursuing a claim for benefits, which VA resisted and which is still in the benefits review process," wrote former Harper’s magazine columnist and human rights attorney, Scott Horton, last year.

An experienced and objective VA civil servant knowledgeable about the specifics of Roberts claim agreed.

"[T]he only reason Airman Roberts was ever prosecuted was because he was a ‘belligerent ass’ who kept insisting that he get paid back to discharge. He was demanding an appeal in Washington," said a background source at the Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center in Milwaukee who e-mailed the Lee Rayburn radio show in Madison in early June 2007 about the Roberts affair, and asked to remain anonymous out of fear of losing his job. "I'd have to say that you guys are TOTALLY (uppercase in the original) right about Roberts' conviction being bullshit ..."

April 2008 VA Decision

The significance of the April VA decision lies in the fact that Roberts’ previously successful VA claim was severed because of an "unverified stressor," and the VA omits anything about Roberts committing fraud.

This is because “when a stressor is not related to combat, a veteran's testimony alone does not qualify as ‘credible supporting evidence’ of an occurrence of an in-service stressor," (p. 13 Dept of VA, Milwaukee VA Regional Office; 04/14/2008, Statement of the Case) because a veteran’s recollection as conveyed in his/her testimony is not reliable.

Said Roberts’ attorney Robert Walsh at the oral arguments last October before the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, referencing this VA standard:

… I submit to you that they are inconsistencies in every veteran's record, combat or peacetime. And that Congress has recognized that. And that’s why VA benefits is a very paternalistic, claimant-friendly, non-adversarial system. It’s even more paternalistic that the Social Security benefits adjudication system (per the Veterans Judicial Review Act). So, where’s the intent (for fraud)?

In other words, veterans' testimonies are not sufficient to establish a fact base for obtaining a VA disability claim, but are sufficient for a criminal indictment of fraud, according to US Atty Biskupic.

Charges of fraud are precisely what the VA convinced US Atty Biskupic to pursue at a jury trial where misrepresentation of VA practices and standards were made in several instances.

Stated Atty Robert Walsh at oral arguments last October:

... (I)t's a total distortion in this record, and any suggestion that any veteran can just walk into the V.A., file a claim and say, you know, a peace time Veteran, that I was here in the states and I was sexually assaulted, and it's stressful, give me money. And the (VA’s) answer is, did you tell the chaplain, did you go to the hospital, did you confide in a family member, do you have a contemporaneous letter, do you have documentation? ‘No, I was embarrassed’. Then the claim fails. Your own statement, no matter how compelling the argument, how tragic the circumstances, is not going to be the basis of an award of PTSD.

The practice of demanding supporting documentation, and not taking a veteran's testimony as dispositive in VA claims is common knowledge among VA claim adjudication personnel, attorneys in the bar who argue cases at the D.C.-based Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), and veterans’ advocates around the country.

The main allegations against Roberts are that he fabricated, with intent, his role in trying to rescue Holland and lied about his friendship with Holland in his testimony in his VA claims.

The US Atty’s office convinced the jury that the fellow airman Holland was not Roberts’ friend, though the VA April decision acknowledges that Roberts had at least a working relationship with Holland while stationed at the same Navy airbase in Italy.

The Roberts support network and family see this VA acknowledgement as a “giant step in the right direction,” asserting CAVC judicial doctrine recognizes the veteran claimant does not have to prove every detail surrounding his claim, and as Atty Roberts has argued, the VA claim process is supposed to “paternalistic” and not “adversarial”.

“In our opinion VA has now put it in writing (in its April 2008) that can be understood by everyone that Keith did not commit fraud, that this (VA) Statement of the Case is their way of weaseling out of what they have done to Keith by admitting that he did not commit fraud,” e-mailed Deloris Roberts, wife of Keith Roberts.

"In our opinion a Motion for Leave to Amend the Record should be made to the 7th Cir. informing that there is new evidence that tends to exonerate the Appellant-Defendant.”

The cases that remain to be adjudicated are:

- U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) (Roberts v. Secretary of the VA (05-2425)

- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (U.S. v. Roberts, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket 05-CR-118).

VA Gets Mean

Roberts had hounded the VA to distraction and irritation when he accused the VA of outright fraud in 2003 in arguing for an earlier retroactive date for his benefits.

One VA Special Agent Raymond Vasil, of the Regional Inspector General’s office in Illinois, took point in retaliating against this Vietnam-era veteran for seeking an earlier retroactive date for his diagnosed PTSD-related disability benefits—administrative events by Vietnam-era veterans that are politically unpopular with the American Enterprise Institute and the Bush administration.

It is in this context that Roberts was reportedly often argumentative and insulting to the VA.

On August 16, 2004, the VA halted the benefits being paid to Roberts based upon Special Agent Vasil’s investigation; Roberts appealed the decision on September 14, 2004.

Just months later Roberts was indicted on fraud charges, in March (mail fraud) and September 2005 (a superseding indictment of wire fraud) .

Roberts has been serving a four-year sentence since March 2007 for seeking help by applying for VA health care benefits—actions the U.S. government subsequently contended to part to be of a fraudulent scheme for which Roberts was prosecuted and convicted in November 2006 by U.S. Attorney Stephen Biskupic, who had previously been on Karl Rove’s list of endangered U.S. Attys.

After the Roberts case and some other highly suspect cases, Biskupic name disappeared off the list.

Roberts is now fighting in both a criminal appellate court (U.S. Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit) and the administrative veterans’ claims court (U.S. Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims (CAVC) the same factual and legal disputes.

Roberts’ family and elderly parents say they worry about ever seeing him again as the 60-year-old Vietnam-era vet awaits decisions from the two courts.

Political Environment

Roberts was targeted by the US Dept of Veterans Affairs (VA) in 2003-05, and became the central figure in this Alice-in-Wonderland tale, after U.S. Attorney Stephen Biskupic of Wisconsin and top VA officials schemed to convict Roberts’ of fraudulently receiving VA benefits (by wire transfer as the VA requires).

Veterans’ advocates see Roberts as a victim of a vigorous attempt to marginalize, investigate, and prosecute veterans receiving disability benefits in an aborted attempt to fabricate a fraud crisis among veterans who were injured and traumatized during their service to their country.

As the Iraq and Afghanistan wars produce 100,000s more wounded veterans—a phenomenon that is now the subject of an unprecedented class action law suit by veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan against the VA—advocates allege that Roberts’ extraordinary prosecution was part of the Bush administration’s priorities to discourage VA disability benefits claims, especially among Vietnam-era veterans, serving to carry out the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)/Bush policy that demeans veterans for seeking help with PTSD in what the AEI derisively brands a “culture of trauma.”

The Pentagon has gone so far as to blame veterans “personality disorders” and lack of faith in God for veterans suffering after service. [And now, as a VA May 1, 2008 e-mail obtained via FOIA request reveals, that because of “compensation seeking veterans,” VA staff should “refrain from giving a diagnosis of PTSD straight out” and they should “R/O [rule out] PTSD” and consider a diagnosis of “Adjustment Disorder” instead.

One administration initiative to investigate 72,000 cases of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) was halted in 2005 after a storm of outrage from veterans’ groups and democrats.

In the current environment with the Bush administration under a heavy assault for its incompetence and hostility to veterans in an election year, and the DoJ under political fire for political prosecutions, it is doubtful that even US Atty Biskupic would cook up the same prosecution against Roberts.

Media Attention

The Roberts case drawn the attention and denunciations on Wisconsin Public Radio, the Madison Air America-formatted radio station’s Lee Rayburn, Harper’s magazine, and numerous progressive blogs and veterans’ journals, but had been shut out in the traditional print media before a piece by Josh Coffman was published in the daily News-Enterprise (Kentucky) in April on Roberts’ sister’s efforts to free her brother as administrator of the Keith A. Roberts Defense Fund, Inc.

The Roberts family remains shocked to this day by the hostility of the DoJ and VA.

“I am embarrassed by and disappointed in my government. So much talks in lofty circles about support for vets; about acknowledging PTSD (for the first time); we should be doing all we can for these guys without question. This is a Bush railroad if I ever saw one,” e-mailed Karen Ruyle of Colorado Springs Colorado, cousin of Roberts and wife of an Army veteran. “I now live right near Ft Carson and hear lots of talk, etc about veterans, their treatment, etc. I am really disgusted with what comes out of Washington. I really thought Bob Gates would have stepped in and looked at the veteran issue but I guess he's pretty engaged with Iraq/Iran.”

Arguments

Reads Roberts' appellate motion (that was granted last year to supplement the record) before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC):

The plain reading of the statutes as found in Title 38 of the United States Code and their related regulations leave no doubt that the intent of Congress was that veterans not be forced to defend themselves simultaneously in two federal judicial forums. … As a result of the failure of the Secretary to comply with his own rules and regulations Mr. Roberts was prosecuted for wire fraud for receiving electronic fund transfers of his monthly VA payments for service connected disability. As detailed in the brief supporting this motion, the conduct of the Secretary has been contrary to law, in bad faith, highly adversarial and raises the inference of impropriety by a number of senior officials in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. ... The Appellant was subjected to administrative actions artfully tailored to deny him due process in the loss of a property right, his disability benefits. He did not realize that the was also being dragged into a vortex of VA action for which he could, and did, suffer a loss of liberty.

Said a member of Roberts’ defense team: “We do not believe that Congress intended that a veteran defend himself in two forums at the same time. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit will have to sort out the mess the VA and the Department of Justice have created here.”

The criminal case is entitled No. 07-1546 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KEITH A. ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellant, (On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin).

The criminal appellate brief makes due process and insufficient-evidence arguments.

The listed arguments include:

I. The District Court Erred in Denying the Appellant's Motions to Dismiss, as the Court's Exercise of Jurisdiction Constituted a Denial of the Appellant's Right to Due Process, Due to the Pending Appeal Before the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
II. The Evidence Presented at Trial Was Insufficient to Sustain a Conviction for Wire Fraud.
A. The Evidence Offered at Trial did not Establish, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, that More than a Minor Portion of the Appellant’s Account of the Incident was Misrepresented to the VA.
B. The Evidence Offered at Trial did not Establish, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that the Appellant Intentionally Misrepresented Facts to the VA.
C. The Evidence Offered at Trial did not Establish, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that the Alleged Misrepresentations were Material.
D. The Evidence Offered at Trial did not Establish, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that the Alleged Misrepresentations were Made with the Intent to Defraud.
III. The Appellant’s Right to Due Process was Violated When the Government Withheld Material Information.
IV. The District Court Erred in Applying an Enhancement to the Appellant’s Sentence, as Such Was Not Submitted for Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

CONCLUSION

The Appellant submits that his constitutional rights were violated in this case, and that he was unjustly convicted and sentenced. The Appellant asks that this court look at the facts of this matter, and apply the correct standards of review, to reach a reasonable and fair conclusion in which the Appellant’s convictions and sentence are vacated. In the alternative, the Appellant requests that this Court remand the case for re-trial, pending the conclusion of the Appellant’s administrative appellate measures.

[Accessing oral arguments. Enter 07-1546 in the Case Number's fields by entering 07 in the "Year," and entering 1546 in the "Year Fragment's" field. Give the file some 45 seconds at least to load.]

[Note: Much of the latter portion of this text has been previously published, and since published has undergone minor editing.]

Dan Abrams on the freeing of Don Siegelman

Latest from Dan Abrams on the freeing of Don Siegelman, innocent victim of Karl Rove and the DoJ.

Siegelman released from prison pending appeal

Update: From Salon:

The Alabama state GOP issued a statement about the 11th Circuit's ruling. 'The former Governor's release pending appeal does not change the conviction by a jury of his peers. It would be premature to turn this development into anything other than a formality.'

Huge development for the cause of justice: Innocent victim of GOP political prosecution ordered released from prison pending appeal.

The DOJ will ultimately face the music for their sociopathic enterprise of destroying lives for politics, though this is not much solace for DOJ victims.

Human rights attorney and writer Scott Horton has a piece on the Siegelman developments:

Today was a news double-header for former Alabama Governor Don E. Siegelman. In an order issued by the Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Siegelman’s request to be set free pending his appeal was granted. The court noting that it had reviewed the decision of District Court Judge Mark Fuller for “clear error” and had considered legal issues de novo stated that:

'Siegelman has satisfied the criteria set out in the statute and has
specifically met his burden of showing that his appeal raises substantial questions of law or fact.'

What drives US attorneys in the Bush DOJ, like Wisconsin's Stephen Biskupic, to persecute innocents? That's a question we would like answered.

See also Dan Abrams who has taken up the torch on the case:

Jailed Wisconsin Veteran Case Developments

Recent developments in the case of jailed Wisconsin veteran, Keith Roberts, reveal a strong commitment by the U.S. Dept of Justice and U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs (VA) to sustaining Roberts’ criminal conviction, and fighting Roberts’ disability case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC).

Roberts’ benefits claim for his Post traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), was diagnosed as relating to the death of Airman Gary Holland, who was crushed to death by a C-54 airplane while stationed at a Naval air base in Naples, Italy in 1969, and an unrelated assault by the Navy Shore Patrol the same year.

As Roberts’ case was being litigated through the VA claims process in 2004-05, the VA and DoJ plotted to indict and convict Roberts, contending that Roberts and Airman Holland were not friends and that Roberts’ purported actions at the chaotic death scene 30-plus years ago were not truthfully reported by Roberts.

The move is widely seen by veterans' advocates as legal retaliation against Roberts for his tenacity in pursuing his claim, and intended to suppress other veterans’ claims.

U.S. Atty Stephen Biskupic’s office secured an indictment on April 26, 2005 under Title 18 United States Code 1341 (mail fraud), later superceded by wire fraud.

The case has potentially serious repercussions because if Roberts’ criminal conviction stands, every veteran who has a disability case pending in the VA bureaucracy is theoretically in legal jeopardy, though the political ground for attacking veterans seeking disability benefits has changed significantly in the last four years.

The engineering of the prosecution evident from the e-mails and the rushed, extraordinary prosecution itself were challenged in Roberts’ supplemental brief filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) last July.

Roberts currently has two cases being litigated simultaneously before a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (07-1546) and another panel before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC).

Two Developments

In a rare move, Roberts’ case before the CAVC (Roberts v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs (05-2425) ) was moved in January from the assignment to one VA Judge to a three-judge CAVC panel, without oral arguments.

The VA Office of the General Counsel is responsible for arguing against Roberts’ petition to have his disability benefits restored.

It’s apparent that the VA feels that an adverse ruling in either the CAVC or Seventh Circuit’s forum would be at the least highly embarrassing to the DoJ and the VA.

In another development, in Roberts’ criminal case being heard before the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s three-judge panel, Roberts and the U.S. Atty’s office have been ordered to file a supplemental brief.

Roberts’ brief before the Seventh Circuit is due Feb. 11, and the US Atty’s reply brief is due 30 days after Feb. 11.

The Seventh Circuit's move is seen by observers as motivated by the Panel's concern that Roberts' right to counsel and legal representation be fully realized in light of the multiplicity of attorneys who have represented Roberts during his legal plight from trial to appeal.

###

White House Reeling from Torture Tape NYT Story

Update: The Hill reports, "Catherine Mathis, senior vice president of corporate communications for the newspaper, stated that the sub-headline [reading “White House Role Was Wider Than It Said” ] has been changed, adding that a correction would be printed. However, Mathis also pointed out that the White House did not challenge the contents of the article."

The White House is fighting against the latest scandal involving the destruction of the CIA torture tapes and White House lying about its knowledge of the destruction.

The Statement by the Press Secretary says the NYT story is "pernicious and troubling..."

Reads the NYT story:

WASHINGTON — At least four top White House lawyers took part in discussions with the Central Intelligence Agency between 2003 and 2005 about whether to destroy videotapes showing the secret interrogations of two operatives from Al Qaeda, according to current and former administration and intelligence officials.

The accounts indicate that the involvement of White House officials in the discussions before the destruction of the tapes in November 2005 was more extensive than Bush administration officials have acknowledged.

Those who took part, the officials said, included Alberto R. Gonzales, who served as White House counsel until early 2005; David S. Addington, who was the counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney and is now his chief of staff; John B. Bellinger III, who until January 2005 was the senior lawyer at the National Security Council; and Harriet E. Miers, who succeeded Mr. Gonzales as White House counsel.

It was previously reported that some administration officials had advised against destroying the tapes, but the emerging picture of White House involvement is more complex. In interviews, several administration and intelligence officials provided conflicting accounts as to whether anyone at the White House expressed support for the idea that the tapes should be destroyed.

###

US v. Roberts Chief Judge Wrote Opinion Freeing Georgia Thompson

The Chief Judge hearing the U.S. v. Roberts oral arguments in late October is the same judge who wrote the opinion that freed the innocent Wisconsin state worker, Georgia Thompson, court transcripts show.

Frank H. Easterbrook, Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in freeing Thompson, pushed U.S. Atty Stephen Biskupic into the spotlight, and the Thompson case and Biskupic have become the subjects of congressional committee hearings as the U.S. Attorneys' and the U.S. Dept. of Justice scandal continues.

Easterbrook is regarded as an independent and brilliant judge.

Roberts of the US v. Roberts case is a Wisconsin Vietnam-era Navy veteran (who was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder by some five different mental health professionals) and was indicted and convicted of what are widely seen as trumped-up federal charges of wire fraud for receiving VA benefits.

Veterans across the nation are watching the outcome of the case that would if the conviction were left intact theoretically place in jeopardy 100,000s of veterans who cannot prove disability claims related to diagnosed PTSD.

###

Innocent Wisconsin Victim of US Atty Biskupic Likely to Get $228,792

U.S. Attorney Stephen Biskupic struck out when his political prosecution and conviction of an innocent Wisconsin woman was overturned by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

How Biskupic lives with himself is something that we'll never know.

Fortunately, news reports indicate that the Wisconsin Claims Board's recommendation that the state pay Thompson's $228,792 legal bills is supported by key members of the Wisconsin legislature and Gov. Jim Doyle.

So, Biskupic's attempt to ruin the life of an innocent Georgia Thompson for political purposes has failed and a legislative bill paying the $228,792 to lawyers for Georgia Thompson will likely pass.

How about a personal apology from Biskupic to Thompson.

###

More Evidence Clears Innocent Jailed Wisconsin Veteran

by Michael Leon

Madison, Wisconsin - This is no misunderstanding.

The VA and DoJ know what they did.

The VA and DoJ indicted and convicted an innocent Wisconsin Navy veteran who blew the whistle, in arguably obnoxious tones of voice, on the VA engaging in one instance of fraud, and the VA's general bureaucratic stall-and-let-the-veterans-die-before-collecting-on-their-claims-policy.

Now comes the latest exculpatory evidence on U.S. Navy Airman Keith Roberts (1968–71), a Wisconsin citizen who became a political and legal VA target because he would not keep his mouth shut.

While seeking a claim for his diagnosed PTSD condition, the honorably discharged veteran ultimately received a criminal conviction (on wire fraud) courtesy of the efforts of the U.S. Dept of Justice, through the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Stephen Biskupic, that Roberts lied about his relationship with and his actions pertaining to a fellow Navy airman's, Gary Holland, death, crushed by a C-54 transport aircraft in a Feb. 1969 accident at a Naval airbase in Naples, Italy.

That's a thin reed on which to base a prosecution, but is typical of the basis of numerous U.S. Atty Biskupic's prosecutions.

Scott Horton, acclaimed human rights attorney of Harper's magazine, writes:

The prosecution smacks of retaliation and a plan to suppress veterans claims—Roberts was prosecuted for tenaciously pursuing a claim for benefits, which VA resisted and which is still in the benefits review process.

More corroborating evidence received here that Roberts, on line duty in 1969, a military position guiding flights on the ground, at the time that Airman Gary Holland was killed, further disconfirms the prosecution's case, a thin case already already discredited.

This new evidence comes from a veteran, and a distant relative of Roberts' in an e-mail, reading:

By the way, Keith had talked to me about the death of (Airman) Gary (Holland) a number of times in 1970 and 1971 when are Navy careers caused us to cross paths in Naples, Italy and in Norfolk, VA. Keith is my brother-in-law's nephew. I never thought this BS from the VA and the US attorney could have every actually led to a conviction and prison time.

Roberts has never varied from his account from 1969 of his actions during which a friend was killed (not even the Navy, VA and DoJ can deny the existence of a corpse), according to numerous intimates and relatives; though their testimony was never introduced at Roberts' 2006 trial.

Other veterans at the Italy airbase corroborate Roberts' account, but their accounts conflict with the government's, and therefore are narratives in which the VA and DoJ maintain an abiding disinterest.

The case remains under appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at which oral arguments were addressed Oct. 25.; and at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), fully briefed.

Do not look for U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Stephen Biskupic, to admit his travesty of justice in the Roberts' affair, anymore than he admitted his error in the prosecution of the innocent and decent Wisconsin woman, Georgia Thompson, whom he prosecuted for his selfish and appalling political motives.

Radio News: - Listen to the Lee Rayburn radio show for a full hour discussing the veteran Keith Roberts obscene prosecution by the U.S. government. [Give the radio show's file some time to load, long show.]

###

Innocent Jailed Wisconsin Navy Vet's Plight on Radio

- Lee Rayburn for a full hour discussing the Keith Roberts obscenity - [Give the show's file some time to load, long show.]

Madison, Wisconsin — Navy Airman Keith Roberts (1969-71) sits in a federal penitentiary in Minnesota, serving a 48-month sentence since March, awaiting news from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit of his appeal for his conviction on federal wire fraud.

The honorably discharged veteran’s criminal conviction is based upon the U.S. Dept of Justice’s assertions, made through the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Stephen Biskupic, that Roberts lied about his relationship with and his actions pertaining to a fellow Navy airman who was crushed to death by a C-54 transport aircraft in a Feb. 1969 accident at a Naval airbase in Naples, Italy.

The Lee Rayburn show on Madison's The MIC (92.1 F.M., Madison, Wisconsin) has covered the case thoroughly.

Listen to Lee Rayburn for a full hour discussing the Keith Roberts obscenity.

- Listen to Wisconsin Public Radio News (May 10, 2007).

Oral Arguments in U.S. v. Roberts
Access oral arguments held Oct. 25, 2007. [Enter 07-1546 in the Case Number's fields by entering 07 in the "Year," and entering 1546 in the "Year Fragment's" field. Give the file some 45 seconds at least to load.]

###

Biskupic’s Aim at Wisc Navy Vet Ought to Fail

Update: - Lee Rayburn for a full hour discussing the Keith Roberts obscenity - [Give the radio show's file some time to load, long show.]

Madison, Wisconsin — Navy Airman Keith Roberts (1969-71) sits in a federal penitentiary in Minnesota, serving a 48-month sentence since March, awaiting news from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit of his appeal for his conviction on federal wire fraud.

The honorably discharged veteran’s criminal conviction is based upon the U.S. Dept of Justice’s assertions, made through the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Stephen Biskupic, that Roberts lied about his relationship with and his actions pertaining to a fellow Navy airman who was crushed to death by a C-54 transport aircraft in a Feb. 1969 accident at a Naval airbase in Naples, Italy.

These alleged lies, Biskupic contends, were used to fabricate a claim for Dept. of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability benefits (granted in 1999), benefits that are by VA mandate electronically deposited in Roberts’ bank account, constituting wire fraud.

Several problems exist with Biskupic’s account by which he was able to secure an indictment and conviction at trial in 2006 in a case that brings to mind the infamous Georgia Thompson affair, also prosecuted by Biskupic.

- Roberts was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) by some five different mental health professionals.

- Roberts had a parallel military career with the late Navy Airman, Gary Holland, that that would make it unlikely that Holland and Roberts were not at least friendly in their relationship.

- Roberts received a “Special Enlisted Personnel Performance Evaluation” (the military equivalent of a pat on the back for the then-young airman) two days after the death of Airman Holland for his role in the chaotic event.

- Roberts was serving on line duty, a military position guiding flights on the ground, at the time Holland was killed.

- Contrary to ordinary procedures, the only law enforcement agency (investigating the alleged crime) whose testimony was used in the Grand Jury proceedings securing the indictments (for mail fraud, later superseded by wire fraud) was the regional VA Inspector General’s office, not a professional law enforcement agency; and not the Postal Inspector’s office, the FBI or the U.S. Treasury Department that usually investigate mail and wire fraud crimes.

- Biskupic used an administrative denial of Roberts’ claim by an apparently vindictive VA as fact evidence at Roberts’ criminal trial, while the claim was and is still under adjudication at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), per the Veterans Judicial Review Act. As Roberts’ attorney states in a CAVC brief: “If the CAVC rules in favor of Mr. Roberts, he will be in prison convicted of fraud for accepting benefits payments that he is fully and legally entitled to.”

Several other problems exist with Biskupic's prosecution, too numerous to mention here.

Roberts’ appeal will likely hinge upon interpretations of due process, lack of evidence or jurisdictional issues, but knowledgeable observers recognize that the dependence on the ideological make-up of the three-judge panel hearing the case renders the case a crapshoot for Roberts.

The innocent Georgia Thompson was, in a very real sense, lucky in the make-up of her appellate panel.

As for U.S. Atty Biskupic, who has drawn national condemnation for his appalling lack of prosecutorial discretion employed as the top law enforcement official in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, one can only hope that his reckless conduct in the Roberts affair ultimately ends with a judicial result similar to the Thompson case that ought to have provoked Biskupic’s resignation.
###

DoJ Memo Conflicts with Biskupic at Oral Arguments

A U.S. Department of Justice memo (Page one pictured at right) (Nov, 16, 2006) contradicts U.S. Attorney's Stephen's Biskupic's statements made at oral arguments in the case of the United States v. Keith A. Roberts ( 07-1546) before a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit last week.

Keith Roberts, a Wisconsin Navy veteran (1968-71), while in the middle of adjudicating his claim for PTSD-related disability benefits with the VA, was in an extraordinary turn of events investigated, charged and convicted of wire fraud by U.S. Attorney Stephen Biskupic (Eastern District of Wisconsin) after Roberts had phoned the VA Inspector General’s office at Hines, Illinois, in December 2003 and complained to Special Agent Raymond Vasil that Roberts believed that the VA was engaging in “fraud”-- (in altering a transcript at a local hearing in the VA Regional Office in Milwaukee, as the VA was in the process of determining the date from which Roberts' retroactive PTSD-related disability pay was to become effective, among other benefit issues).

Roberts’ benefits claim, related to his PTSD, was diagnosed as occurring because of the in-service stressor event of witnessing and trying to prevent his friend (Airman Gary Holland) from being crushed to death by a C-54 airplane while stationed at a Naval air base in Naples, Italy in 1969, and an unrelated assault by the Navy Shore Patrol, and was granted at the 100 percent disability level in 1999.

That award of benefits was then illegally rescinded and that action by the VA is now under review by U.S. Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims (CAVC).

At oral arguments, Biskupic stated "There was evidence from the people that were (at the Naples, Italy air base) there in 1969 that this defendant lied about what his role was, and there was testimony that those lies were relied on by the government in awarding (his disability benefits) ... ," said Biskupic.

[Accessing oral arguments. [Enter 07-1546 in the Case Number's fields by entering 07 in the "Year," and entering 1546 in the "Year Fragment's" field. Give the file some 45 seconds at least to load.] ]

The 2006 government memo tells a different story. There was no such evidence presented by the mentioned veterans that the "defendant lied," about his role.

In fact, those veterans could not even say either way whether Roberts was even at the scene (a likely occurrence in recall as the Navy air base equivalent of a general quarters alarm was sounding and the scene was chaotic as an air man was being crushed to death by the C-54 aircraft), according to the prosecution's own memo.

Memorandom
Date: November, 16, 2006
Subject: Prosecution Version of the Offense
United States v. Keith A. Roberts
Case No: 05-CR-118
TO: Mitchell Fara, U.S. Probation Officer
Jeffrey Jensen, Attorney for Keith A. Roberts
FROM: Timothy W. Funnell, Assistant U.S. Attorney

The U.S. Attorney's memo reads (p.8) :

"To prove that Roberts misrepresented his role in the Holland rescue attempt, the government produced eight Navy veterans, seven of whom were at the scene of Holland's accident and one of whom was Holland's close friend on the base. The seven veterans on the scene could not say whether Roberts was at the scene or not ... "

At Orals, Biskupic told the Court: You have to be truthful, that’s what this case is about.

At Orals, Biskupic describes the testimony of the seven veterans (who could not say (recall) as the memo points out): "There was evidence from the people (the veterans) that were there (at the Naples air base) in 1969 that this defendant (Roberts) lied about what his role was ... "

Biskupic referenced the veterans' testimony again during orals in response to a Judge's question.

But, as the memo says, the vets said they did not know and could not recall, certainly not the basis for presenting testimony as evidence in this matter, as Biskupic did.

What lies did Roberts tell that the veterans' (who could not recall) testimony pointed to?

Some 35 years after a chaotic event where someone was killed, Biskupic would have the Seventh Circuit believe that there was evidence presented by the veterans that Roberts lied about being present at and what he did at the scene (though Roberts was on line duty and received a “Special Enlisted Personnel Performance Evaluation” (the military equivalent of a pat on the back for the then-young airman) two days after the death of Airman Holland), though his own memo shows the prosecution's witnesses, the veterans, could not recall.

No veteran could place Roberts anywhere else than beyond where he was assigned on line duty.

That's not a truthful address to the Seventh Circuit by Biskupic.

E-mail records obtained by the defense show that top VA officials planned this extraordinary prosecution with Biskupic, though the VA claims process is supposed to be claimant-friendly and non-adversarial, per the federal Veterans Judicial Review Act.

To recap: Biskupic told the Seventh Circuit's panel of the seven Navy veterans who could not recall seeing Roberts at a chaotic scene (contra the prosecution's memo that reads "...seven veterans on the scene could not say whether Roberts was at the scene or not...") that the veterans' testimony placed Roberts somewhere else beyond the death scene, by virtue of Biskupic's contention that Roberts lied about where Roberts said he was.

Said Roberts' attorney Robert Walsh at Orals:

Now, the VA adjudicated this, with all the King's horses and all the King's men for about 10 years. They conclude that this man has . They grant the award. And now they decide, after he's a whistle blower and he complains to VAIG (Department of Veterans Affairs Inspector General) (in November 2003).

Now they decide that they are inconsistencies in the record. I submit to you that they are inconsistencies in every veteran's record, combat or peacetime. And that Congress has recognized that.

And that’s why VA benefits is a very paternalistic, claimant-friendly, non-adversarial system. It’s even more paternalistic that the Social Security benefits adjudication system (per the Veterans Judicial Review Act.

So, where’s the intent (for fraud)?

Good question.
###

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.

###

Human Rights Writer Blasts Bush

There is much to despise in the administration of George W. Bush. Its secret program for inflicting torture certainly leads the counts of the anti-democratic indictment of this reprehensible regime.

Scott Horton, a human rights attorney, writing at Harper's has written among the most incisive commentary on Bush's human rights violations, and has broken much ground uncovering the administration's corruption of the Department of Justice that has often functioned as a political machine using the power of the prosecutor on Republicans' political enemies.

Many agencies of government of been similarly corrupted and used for purposes that can only be labeled as indecent.

For those Americans, and there are tens of millions of them, for whom human rights, liberty and clean and open government remain the foundations of a decent society, acting against this administration is a moral imperative.

What the historian Norman Cohn called the "mood of passive compliance" that enabled the Holocaust and the rise of the NAZIs ought not allow continuation of Bush's atrocities that (though not comparable to the Holocaust) have claimed millions of victims, corrupted the foundations of a society, and functioned with the same levers of citizen disengagement.

Horton latest column can be read at We Do Not Torture.

###

Updated - Details Emerging on DOJ Program Targeting Trial Attorneys

Updated: John Edwards fundraiser acquitted on all counts, DOJ political prosecution goes up in flames

Journalists are breaking new ground in the GOP scheme to use the DOJ as a Republican machine to target a major tier of Democratic campaign money: Trial Attorneys.

If sufficiently flushed out and advanced over the next several months, the story, a pattern of at best questionable prosecutions, can be expected to become a major corruption scandal just in time for 2008 elections.

Follow the prosecutions. As in if you know of prosecutions that smell in your area by U.S. Attys, send tips to: scott@harpers.org.

Scott Horton, a human rights atty and writer at Harper’s, has been breaking new ground for months.

Horton’s latest piece, A Minor Injustice: Why Paul Minor?, nails Mississippi and the nexus of a corrupt Mississippi press and a corrupt GOP legal-political machine.

The actual charges filed were almost incomprehensible. Several public integrity prosecutors with whom I conferred told me they were unfamiliar of any similar case raising charges quite like these. They were called “strange,” and “perhaps unique.” Most public corruption cases revolve on a quid pro quo: a public official is asked to do something for some form of compensation or reward. But in these cases there is no quid pro quo, and none is ever alleged.

Horton references a July 26, 2004 NYT piece, “DEVELOPING THE STRATEGIES: FUND-RAISING; Edwards Returns $44,000 In Donations” by RICHARD A. OPPEL JR. AND GLEN JUSTICE.

Senator John Edwards returned $44,000 in campaign contributions on Saturday after learning that the prominent corporate lawyer in Los Angeles who raised the money is facing misdemeanor campaign-finance charges in California.

Turns out that the prosecution before our very eyes in 2004 stinks to high heaven. Writes Horton:

"The Times notes that Paul Minor was the tenth largest donor to John Edwards, with donations totaling $129,000, and it also notes that almost every major attorney donor to the Edwards campaign mysteriously became the target of an aggressive Justice Department criminal investigation."

The prosecutions as they happened over the last several years went reported but unnoticed and unlinked to any suggestions of a political program. Now, that the DoJ has been heavily implicated as a politcal arm of the Bush administration, people are looking into the DoJ, and so should we.

Time magazine has a major piece on corrupt DoJ practices in Alabama (that Horton has covered as well), and that was recently featured at Daily Kos.

To no one's surprise, Karl Rove is the corrupt mastermind. See Karl Rove is the corrupt villain.

Now Karl Rove, the President's top political strategist, has been implicated in the controversy. A longtime Republican lawyer in Alabama swears she heard a top G.O.P. operative in the state say that Rove "had spoken with the Department of Justice" about "pursuing" Siegelman, with help from two of Alabama's U.S. attorneys.

Let's hope that we see more flushing out of the extent of the DoJ program to target democrats.

Investigations by the Congressional Committees on the Judiciary have been blocked by the DoJ and can be expected to be continued to be obstructed. This story will reach the American people via the press only.

###

Law Firms Rushing to Veterans' Aid

The U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs (VA) is infamous for its culture of claim denial (like a particularly mean health insurance company) and its systemic bureaucratic hostility to veterans.

But increasing numbers of civilian attorneys are stepping up to the plate to assist veterans.

"The need is staggering," said Gordon Erspamer, a Morrison and Foerster attorney in Walnut Creek, Calif., who has worked on veterans' cases since the 1970s. (Lynne Marek, The National Law Journal)

Morrison and Foerster is engaged in an unprecedented, class action, pro bono case on behalf of 100,000s of vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Lynne Marek of The National Law Journal has a great piece on attorneys battling the VA on behalf of veterans.

Reports Marek:

Veterans who had some kind of representation got $6,225 more annually, on average, than those who didn't, according to a 2005 Veterans Affairs Inspector General report. That principle held true in the first case resolved by the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law clinic, begun this month. The clinic helped a Vietnam War veteran increase his monthly disability compensation to $2,600 from $350 by helping him apply for a benefit related to his inability to work, said professor Joon Sung.

Another example is Michigan attorney Robert Walsh, who is an ex-VA staff attorney now working with veterans to keep them from being shortchanged by the VA.

Walsh, a gruff Army Vietnam veteran, maintains an informal network of attorneys who know what is becoming common knowledge on Capital Hill: That the VA is systemically operating to deny returning veterans aid and benefits.

"To understand how the VA operates is to see a culture of denial. There are regulations in place to protect veterans, and they ought to be followed, " said Walsh.

Walsh is representing Wisconsin Navy veteran Keith Roberts who is a victim of VA retaliation against Roberts for Roberts' repeatedly criticizing the VA as fraudulent and incompetent. In the middle of Roberts' claim, the VA ignored VA regulations and went straight to U.S. Atty Stephen Biskupic to indict and convict Roberts on federal wire fraud on the merits of his disputed VA benefits claim.

In one of the many ironies of the Bush administration, those most opposed to assisting veterans are those most dedicated to making and sustaining war.

If a small fraction of the Vietnam war veterans still suffering from PTSD were to file for disability benefits, the federal government would be forced to pay the costs roughly equal to what is spent in two months sustaining the war in Iraq.

But many rightwingers pooh pooh the notion that Vietnam-era veterans, for example, might still suffer today from the effects of their service. [Author's note: If you are going to make this argument, do it from the safe confines of plush D.C. think tanks, and don't tell veterans this crap to their faces.]

Paul Sullivan of Veterans for Common Sense is another veteran (and former VA project manager) who now helps other veterans obtain the respect and the benefits to which they are entitled against the Bush administration taking its cues from the veterans’ benefits-hostile American Enterprise Institute scholar, Dr. Sally Satel.

Writes Sullivan is his blog: "Our 4,077 U.S. military deaths in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are the worst possible consequence of military service. Yet what about our 250,000 wounded, injured, and ill combat survivors and their families who suffer for a lifetime?"

As the veterans criminal and civil cases increasingly land in federal court and the backlogs of veterans cases pile up at the VA, some observers see major revisions coming of the Veterans Judicial Review Act, the legislation intended to streamline the process for veterans of obtaining their needed and deserved treatment and benefits.
###

Scott Horton: DoJ Schemed Against John Edwards and Hilary Clinton

Via Harper's Political Prosecutions.

You may have caught Rory Kennedy's Ghosts of Abu Ghraib on HBO.

Prominently featured is Scott Horton, a human rights attorney, of Harper's magazine. Horton never got the memo that human rights no longer matter in America.

Horton has been all over the DoJ scandals the last year or so.

Today's post, Political Prosecutions, is killer:

In the last two weeks, two sources, one of them inside of the Justice Department, have told me that a scheme was hatched in the upper echelons of the Bush Administration shortly after it took office in 2001 or early in 2002.

The project identified John Edwards and Hilary Clinton as likely Democratic challengers to President Bush, and identified prominent trial lawyers around the United States as the likely financial vehicle for his rise. It directed that their campaign finance records be fly-specked, and that offenses not be treated as administrative matters but rather as serious criminal offenses.

The scheme contemplated among other things that raids be staged on the law offices involved, and that the records seized not be limited to campaign finance—there was an acute interest in all politically oriented documents, in order to seize valuable intelligence on strategic planning from the enemy camp.

This all sounds rather fantastic—even more insidious than the enemies list days of the Nixon era. It is precisely the sort of crude harassment that a primitive dictatorship would use against its enemies—like Alexander Lukashenko in today’s Belarus, for instance. But as the descriptions were passed to me, I instantly recognized the pattern described recently in a case which has made the headlines in Michigan involving a prominent lawyer there, and a second case in Los Angeles. According to one source, the number of these cases is at least five and they are scattered about the country. One case, described to me in some detail, closely matches the pattern in Michigan and Los Angeles and occurred in the south on the Gulf of Mexico.

Why, I wondered, would the attorneys involved not scream bloody murder about this? Then it struck me. The threat of criminal investigation and prosecution is devastating to their law practices. Of course, they would keep it completely secret. And that silence has made the entire scheme possible. I am told that these cases involved the attorneys general personally—both John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales—that their go-ahead was needed to stage the raids. And that in each case, the greatest concern within the political pirates commanding the operation has been that the public would get wind of the bigger picture. It was essential to pull it off that each case be viewed as something standing all on its own, and that the fact that there was a politically motivated project be obscured.

The key factor here is that all the cases involve campaign finance violations which are of a rather mundane nature. And in each case the FEC violations have been hyped into something quite preposterous. The political angle, I am told, is simple: make trial attorney’s money radioactive. Dry up the source. Take out a key element of the Democrats’ campaign finance strategy.

This looks very suspiciously like a Rove strategy.

And this bring us back to the key unanswered questions about Rove’s involvement in the process of directing political prosecutions. His fingerprints are all over the prosecution of Governor Siegelman in Alabama, and further substantial evidence of that will shortly be public, linking him both to federal and state prosecutors and to the principal figures in the Alabama G.O.P. in connection with the scheme to “get Siegelman.” It strikes me as probably that the plot to take out the trial lawyers and to use the Justice Department as the vehicle was also hatched by Rove. All of this helps explain why the documents that the Judiciary Committee is seeking are so vital to get to the bottom of the cloud now hanging over the Justice Department. It is essential to find out what conspiracies were involved driving prosecutions, to correct what was done, discipline those involved, and exonerate the victims. This in fact is the essence of what justice demands. For five years Washington has had a Department of Political Persecutions where the Department of Justice used to stand. That needs to be cleaned up.

More at Harper's Political Prosecutions.
###

The Next Attorney General

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales' resignation is effective Monday, Sept. 17.

One person that the next Attorney General should not be is somebody like the soon-to-be acting Attorney General, Paul Clement.

Clement's problem, not one of intellect, is his partisan zeal. And that is precisely why the right-wingers want to see him as a federal judge, even a Supreme Court nominee. [Too late for that now.]

But the corrupt Justice Department needs someone of unsurpassed integrity and independence. Such people exist only in the imaginations of newspaper editorial writers, so we will have settle for someone like Patrick Fitzgerald, Robert Mueller and James Comey.

But the need for an attorney general approximating political independence cannot be underestimated. As the Times writes:

The Justice Department is a disaster zone. It should be the embodiment of America's commitment to the rule of law, but it has been contaminated by partisan politics. The nation's top lawyers may have broken the law, and even may have sent innocent people to jail, to advance the interests of the Republican Party.

The next attorney general will have an enormous amount of damage to undo. There is considerable evidence that United States attorneys have been coerced into using their offices to help Republicans win elections. The orders may have come directly from the White House. Top officials of the Justice Department have admitted that they evaluated lawyers for nonpolitical jobs based on their politics. And Congress is investigating whether Georgia Thompson, a Wisconsin civil servant, and Don Siegelman, the former governor of Alabama, were sent to jail to help Republicans win governorships in those states.

Making it a federal crime to oppose the Republican Party as the DoJ has selectively done ought to be a crime (it is) screaming from every newspaper and talk radio show in America (it is not).

The fact is that we may be stuck with a right-winger as the next attorney general anyway.

Clement can in theory serve out the remainder of Bush’s term, though I doubt he would wish to do so.

If Bush nominates a partisan like Theodore B. Olson, he will not be confirmed.

Bush could then make a recess appointment of a right-winger who will serve out the bulk of Bush’s term without Senate confirmation.

The Senate will make noise about bringing all appointments to a halt.

But Bush will not care about that, and does not exactly care about good relations with Congress :) .

The one person Bush will not nominate is an intellectually honest, rule-of-law individual who would actually investigate the administration’s many misdeeds, and that is precisely who the country needs.
###

Biskupic Says He’ll Testify Under Oath in Thompson Affair

Wisconsin US Atty Defies DoJ and Says He'll Testify Under Oath

Madison, Wisconsin - Even as the U.S. Justice Department arrogantly stonewalls requests by the House Committee on the Judiciary for documents pertaining to politically-charged prosecutions in Alabama, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (the Georgia Thompson affair), Wisconsin’s U.S. Atty. Stephen Biskupic volunteered to offer transcribed testimony under oath before the Judiciary Committee.

From Dan Bice in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

"If they (the House Judiciary Committee) want to hear from me, I'm happy to do it."
Even if the testimony is transcribed and under oath?
"It really doesn't matter to me," said Biskupic.

Biskupic’s stated inclination puts him in conflict with his bosses' position at the DoJ which refused to provide documents requested by the House Committee, and which only offered the Committee Biskupic’s presence for an "untranscribed briefing," as quoted from the DoJ's Sept. 4 response letter written by Brian A. Benczkowski, the Justice Department’s principal Congressional liaison.

As it relates to the Karl Rove-engineered prosecution in Alabama where evidence directly implicates the partisan nature of the prosecution of former democratic Gov. Don Siegelman, the DoJ has small Alabama newspapers screaming arrogance and corruption.

And rightfully so. In an almost unbelievable haughty tone, the DoJ responded to the Committee's request for DoJ documents on the prosecutions by saying it will not hand over the sought-after documents because of the DoJ’s concern that this "would chill the candid internal deliberations that are essential to the discharge of our law enforcement responsibilities,” involving decisions on whom the DoJ should initiate prosecutions.

Biskupic’ readiness to testify on the Thompson prosecution, though of no assistance to the innocent Georgia Thompson now, is commendable, especially when considered against the attitude of the corrupt DoJ that may be the lowest disgrace yet of the Bush administration.
###