Coming Sunday - Why Biskupic Should Resign

Steven Biskupic, the United States attorney in Milwaukee for the Eastern Distict of Wisconsin, should resign. Read here Sunday.
###

Senate Panel on DoJ Oversight

It’s Over: Yuck

From CNN, one prominent Republican described Senators’ questioning Gonzales as “clubbing a baby seal”—that would be a lying, weasel-like baby seal.
###

- Reconvening at 2:30 central -

Need to log off to attend to pressing needs; recommend TPMuckraker and C-span 3 to keep abreast. But a parting comment on this shameful and lying performance by the AG:

This wasn’t Eddie Haskell lying to Mrs. Cleaver about the real intentions of Wallace and Eddie to sneak off to a party to chase girls.

Today’s testimony is about the fundamental corruption of the federal Department of Justice.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales did nothing to restore confidence in his administration of the DoJ, quite the opposite.

The perhaps 30-so far uses of the phrases “not recall” and “not recollect” do nothing but to call into question the man’s fitness.

As for US Atty Steven Biskupic, whether his decision-making on the Georgia Thompson prosecution and numerous voter fraud prosecutions cases took place via the heat of Milwaukee media — as some perceptive bloggers and Dem Chair Joe Wineke have noticed — is immaterial.

They were bogus prosecutions, and they were consonant with Karl Rove’s plan to corrupt the judiciary and consolidate Republican power.

Biskupic should follow in Gonzales’ footsteps out the door.
###

11:48:43 AM
Katherine M. Skiba at Journal Sentinel on Biskupic

"Can you understand why many citizens of my state question whether the U.S. attorney in Milwaukee could have brought that (Thompson) case for political reasons?" Feingold asked.

Gonzales did not answer directly. He noted Biskupic made the charging decision in consultation with a then-Democratic Wisconsin attorney general and Democratic local prosecutor.

11:39:07 AM
Lunch until 2:00 Eastern

“Liar, liar, liar, liar…,” yells crowd.

Josh Marshall:

“Sen. Feingold (D-WI) had one of the clearest and most damning exchanges with AG Gonzales earlier this morning. He made a clear and devastating point. The AG says not he's really aware of what input, advice and views went into compiling the list of fired US Attorneys. He fired the US Attorneys based on that list. But he's certain that no improper motives went into the compilation of the list, even though he's not aware of how the list was assembled or why different people's names were put on it. That's a logical contradiction.“

Thanks Josh, missed most of Russ' questioning.

11:33:59 AM
Did you have conversation w/ Karl Rove?

Rove said something about “voter fraud”.

11:30:48 AM
Richard J. Durbin (D-ILLINOIS) asks about high-profile US Atty Patrick Fitzgerald. There was an evaluation made about Fitz. — “has not distinguished himself…”

“I don’t recall seeing (evaluations about Fitz),” though AG thinks Fitz is “outstanding.”

More “I don’t recall…”

11:27:18 AM
Sen. Graham: “Most of this is a stretch.” But Graham says it’s a “personality” conflict thing, no mention of political, electoral considerations.

11:22:47 AM
Sen. Graham asks about change in appt. of US Atty per Patriot Act, but response by AG is intellible.

Also, the decision to replace US Attys was based on "trust" of AG staff.

11:17:48 AM
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SOUTH CAROLINA) up.

11:15:47 AM
Schumer reads the “run out the clock” e-mail RE: US Atty in Arkansas replacement; shows e-mail as a placard.

AG says he did not like the firing plan. Who is running the department, asks Schumer. More “do not recall…”

Schumer says AG’s response “defies credulity…”

11:11:09 AM
Schumer reads the words of Sen Pryor (Arkansas).

“The AG lied to me…”

11:09:51 AM
It’s Schumer time. US Atty Carol Lam heard nothing about alleged immigration concerns RE firing, says Schumer.

AG says that, “I believe” that she “had knowledge” and “interest” of administration about immigration concerns.

AG looks foolish and weak in response, “We should have done a better job in communicating with Ms. Lam.”

10:58:19 AM
Sessions “troubled” by lack of recollection by AG.

10:54:39 AM
Sen. Sessions now. Skip it. AG has “no recollection” of meeting RE Sampson and US Atty firing list.

10:52:36 AM
Russ presses on after-the-fact justifications for US Atty firings.

10:51:08 AM
AG: “Wants to get to bottom of this.” The firing list.

10:48:37 AM
Here’s Sen Russ Feingold.

10:37:47 AM
Sen. John Cornyn tosses long, softball question bringing up Clinton’s replacement of US Attys at beginning of his administration.

AG remembers that one, although noting the “performance” aspect, specifically “leadership” and “management” concerns should have been more clearly communicated.

10:34:10 AM
AG says he should have advised Sampson et al better RE US Atty firing process.
10:32:32 AM
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TEXAS) begins.

10:31:28 AM
Back. Leahy: “Committee will be in order.” Warns again against disruptions.

10:18:18 AM
In recess.
What a joke. But at least AG is making a complete fool of himself in public. I feel sorry for the guy.

10:14:55 AM
Sen. Schumer’s request for little use of “not recall” statements laughingly addressed in AG’s repeated use of the phrase in his testimony. No one is this dumb.

10:10:02 AM
Not keeping track of the AG’s use of the word “recall,” but it must rival the use of the word “the” or “I”. "Senator, I don't recall..." over and over.

10:07:34 AM
Feinstein: Whose idea was amendment to Patriot Act replacing US Attys without Senate conformation?

AG does not “recall.” AG has no “recollection of mechanics.” AG accepted decisions of "staff," though he did not make decisions.

10:05:03 AM
Former chief of staff Kyle “Sampson was coordinating.”

Dianne Feinstein (D-CALIFORNIA) up now.

10:03:23 AM
AG says US Attys are “accountable to president” through AG. Then why is AG so ignorant of what he knows?

9:58:27 AM
Hatch is pitiful in his bald disingenuousness. I miss Senator Brownback.

9:56:35 AM
Kohl keeps on AG about resigning should American public lose confidence in AG. Blather from AG. Kohl looks annoyed. Kohl done.
Leahy asks audience to refrain from displaying signs.

Now Orrin G. Hatch (R-UTAH)

9:50:04 AM
AG says “Other people who would have that information.” Try Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' resigned chief of staff, says AG. Kohl sounds good and determined.

9:47:22 AM
Herb Kohl (D-WISCONSIN) begins on voter fraud and public corruption, and US Atty Biskupic. "Why was he taken off the list?" AG babbles and does not "recall."

9:43:48 AM
AG blather and no follow-up from Brownback. Exchange is a joke.

9:38:43 AM
Sam Brownback (R-KANSAS) tosses lightweight questions RE each fired US Atty. AG says “close call” on one fired US Atty though he does not “recall…” Does not know much about what he knew.

9:31:41 Playing on C-span 3 now. Sen Edward M. Kennedy (D-MASS) grilling AG. AG says he had a “good process” RE US Atty evaluation. Unconvincing man.

9:05:47 AM
C-span coverage skips to US House. Cable news networks not covering. Keep you posted as possible

9:02:23 AM
AG recognizes “his limited involvement” in US Atty firings.

8:59:55 AM
AG says eight fired US attys “deserve better.” Attacks on AG’s integrity “painful.” Says he has been "forthcoming" to Jud. Comm.

AG begins his statement.

8:57:46 AM
Jeff Sessions (R-ALABAMA) AG is good person, but ability to lead DoJ is “in question.”

8:54:46 AM
Schumer: Calls for no “I don’t recall” statements from AG. Caustic and mean. Go.
- end Schumer -

8:52:46 AM
Sen. Chuck Schumer begins.

8:51:33 AM
Specter notes contradictions of Gonzales statements and other DoJ staff. Offers “opportunity” of AG to reestablish credibility, and respond to allegations of improper firing of US Atty . David C. Iglesias and others. Specter looking for “hard facts.”
Says AG has “come a good distance” from the AG’s “overblown personnel matter” op-ed.
#

4/19/2007 8:44 AM
Arlen Specter, RANKING MEMBER, R-PENNSYLVANIA, begins.
#

4/19/2007 8:43 AM
Spilt-screen on C-span of Leahy and Gonzales. Must be humiliating to listen this opening statement.

Leahy asks for documents and sworn testimony. “If nothing to hide, the WH should stop hiding it.”

Leahy going on and on for the "facts" and the "truth," and how AG "undermines public confidence."
#
4/19/2007 8:37 AM

Senator Patrick Leahy, Chair (D-Vermont): DoJ should not be a “political arm” of the White House. Confidence in DoJ should be restored.

Gonzales Appearance in One Hour

Senate Panel Convenes

4/19/2007 8:35 AM
Here goes.

Senator Patrick Leahy, Chair (D-Vermont) asks for no obstructions or signs and joins in the mourning the Virginia Tech killings.

Will the daylong hearing force the AG from his script, perhaps reveal some truth.?

###

You can stay here for continuous updates of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on “Department of Justice Oversight” scheduled at 9:00 a.m. (central time) today.

Gonzales leaked his prepared testimony to the Washington Post: He “will concede that the (US Atty) dismissals were badly mishandled but will continue to portray himself as only marginally involved in the details of the effort.”

Biskupic

As for the Wisconsin US Atty Steven Biskupic affair, conventional wisdom appears to be turning to the scenario that it was not Karl Rove or the Devil that made Biskupic launch the Georgia Thompson prosecution and numerous voter fraud prosecutions, but rather the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and all the Milwaukee talk radio murmur.

Count me as not caring. Nice-guy Biskupic screwed up badly, wrecked lives, and should resign now.

###

Gonzales Faces Inquiry on Biskupic and Many Issues

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is scheduled to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on “Department of Justice Oversight” at 9:00 a.m. (central time) today.

You can link here at MAL Contends for continuous updates.

Gonzales is expected to face questions about several issues, some that have morphed into outright scandals, including the matter of Steven Biskupic, US Atty for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

The hearing is much anticipated, and is seen by many observers as a last-ditch opportunity for Gonzales to continue as attorney general, heading what many perceive as a politicized and disingenuous US Department of Justice.

Gonzales’ answers to expected questions on the conduct of Steven Biskupic, US Atty for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, are also eagerly awaited.

Biskupic’s conduct has become of growing national interest, and has garnered harsh criticism in Wisconsin.

The criticism has centered on the Georgia Thompson prosecution and numerous voter fraud prosecutions, cases that have been disparaged as politically motivated, and of such dubious legal merit as to raise the specter of corruption in the office of this Wisconsin US Atty.

Gonzales’ appearance will be broadcast live on C-span on the internet and on television.

Update: The Nation has 10 suggested questions, including:

"Were you aware that the Republican Party of Wisconsin prepared packages of documents, including a lengthy memo outlining proposals for mounting 'voter fraud' cases in Milwaukee that were forwarded to Rove's office in 2OO5 and that Steven Biskupic, the U.S. Attorney for Eastern Wisconsin who remains on the job, announced in 2OO5 the creation of a high-profile 'voter fraud' task force and mounted more than ten percent of all voter fraud cases in the nation -- despite the fact that his jurisdiction represents barely one percent of the population and despite the fact that even Biskupic would eventually acknowledge there was no serious 'voter fraud' problem there? ,

Are you aware that, on a time line paralleling the 2OO6 gubernatorial campaign in Wisconsin, Biskupic prosecuted of a state employee on charges that she directed a state contract to a donor to the campaign of Democratic Governor Jim Doyle, that Republicans and their backers mounted an expensive television ad campaign attempting to link Doyle to the woman, and that after the election was done a federal appeals court described the evidence Biskupic used in the case as 'beyond thin'"?

Update II: The New York Times suggests 12 Questions.
###

NYT Editorial on Biskupic/Thompson

Madison, WI—When observers outside Wisconsin hear of the Georgia Thompson prosecution thrown out of a federal appellate court, the reaction is indignant, often mixed in with a bit of “in Wisconsin?”

Today's editorial in the New York Times by Adam Cohen, “A Woman Wrongly Convicted and a U.S. Attorney Who Kept His Job,” is of that piece. Cohen blasts US Atty Biskupic and appears incensed by the whole affair.

Some highlights from the piece advancing the Biskupic scandal:

- “Members of Congress should ask whether it was by coincidence or design that Steven Biskupic, the United States attorney in Milwaukee, turned a flimsy case into a campaign issue that nearly helped Republicans win a pivotal governor’s race….” (Note: Congress is.)

- “There was good reason for the appeals court to be shocked.”

- “To charge her, Mr. Biskupic had to look past a mountain of evidence of innocence. Ms. Thompson was not a Doyle partisan. She was a civil servant, hired by a Republican governor, with no identifiable interest in politics.”

- “While Ms. Thompson did her job conscientiously, that is less clear of Mr. Biskupic. The decision to award the contract — the supposed crime — occurred in Madison, in the jurisdiction of Wisconsin’s other United States attorney. But for reasons that are hard to understand, the Milwaukee-based Mr. Biskupic swept in and took the case.”

- “While he was investigating, in the fall of 2005, Mr. Biskupic informed the media. Justice Department guidelines say federal prosecutors can publicly discuss investigations before an indictment only under extraordinary circumstances. This case hardly met that test.”

- “…Mr. Biskupic may have known that his bosses in Washington expected him to use his position to help Republicans win elections, and then did what they wanted.”

- “That would be ironic indeed. One of the biggest weaknesses in the case against Ms. Thompson was that to commit the crime she was charged with she had to have tried to gain personally from the contract, and there’s no credible evidence that she did. So Mr. Biskupic made the creative argument that she gained by obtaining ‘political advantage for her superiors’ and that in pleasing them she ‘enhanced job security for herself.’ Those motivations, of course, may well describe why Mr. Biskupic prosecuted Ms. Thompson.”

Cohen’s sense of irony is shared by Thompson’s attorney, Stephen Hurley.

In early April, a couple of days after Thompson was ordered freed, Hurley said: “The great irony of the case is that having been wrongfully prosecuted for doing her job for allegedly political reasons, now the question is being asked whether the government engaged in this same behavior.”

Cohen reminds readers that an innocent woman lies beneath the political, Republican machinations that he describes.

Fortunately, for the innocent Thompson, Cohen’s sense of justice is also shared by a talented attorney and many fellow citizens—a needed check on the enormous powers of the offices of the US Attorney.

Update: The Cap. Times editor, Dave Zweifel, posts his take on the affair.
###

Biskupic the Politician Emerges - Statement Doesn't Wash

Madison, WI—Reacting to the growing pressure on his office after McClatchy Newspapers reported that US Atty Steven Biskupic’s name appeared on a US Justice Department hit list of prosecutors; Biskupic’s office released an extraordinary statement on Saturday.

The statement makes the following points, among others:

- That the career prosecutor’s much-criticized Georgia Thompson prosecution (derided as politically motivated and harshly thrown out of appellate court) included consultations with two Democratic prosecutors (former US Atty and Wis Atty Gen Peg Lautenschlager, and Dane Co DA Brian Blanchard)

- That Biskupic’s public corruption cases included Republican-affiliated defendants

- And that “(u)ntil the recent controversy surrounding the firings of eight United State Attorneys around the country, it was never communicated to me that my job could be in jeopardy or that I was considered to be disloyal to President Bush's agenda.”

The 216-word statement does nothing to quell the controversy and raises more questions about the nature of Biskupic’s office, which is sounding more and more like that of a desperate politician’s out to save his hide.

Peg-and-Brian-said-it-too

The Peg-and-Brian-said-it-too rejoinder regarding the failed Thompson prosecution is a fallacious appeal-to-authority argument that does nothing to bolster Biskupic’s case that an appellate judge said is composed of evidence called “beyond thin.”

And, anyway, the last time I checked Lautenschlager and Blanchard were not infallible prosecutors, but rather were/are both ambitious politicians and prosecutors for whom bipartisan alliances are useful.

Update: Blogger Xoff notes that :”Lautenschlager (and another democratic prosecutor Dan Bach making statements in support of Biskupic) although Democrats, were rabid enemies of Gov. Jim Doyle at the time, because Doyle had encouraged Kathleen Falk to challenge Lautenschlager in the primary. They were after Doyle, even leaking information about the investigation to the media to embarrass him.”

As for the Thompson case being thrown into the hands of Republican political operatives seeking to unseat Gov. Doyle (D-WI) in the 2006 election, we are to believe – apparently on faith – that Biskupic’s “decision to charge Thompson was based solely on the facts,” the “beyond thin” facts.

Republican-money-donating-aligned individuals

The number of Biskupic’s Republican public corruption cases increases substantially when—as opposed to the study by Shields and Cragan noting the US Attys’ investigations of “Republican officials”—Biskupic notes inclusively the “cases against individuals who donated money to Republican candidates or who were aligned with the Republican Party.”

This reminds one of the diminishing “weapons of mass destruction-related program activities” charge made at the 2004 State of the Union Address.

Disloyalty to Bush never communicated to Biskupic

I ask:

- What kind of administration would even consider axing this career prosecutor selected through a bipartisan commission, if he is the apolitical man he claims?

- Why did Biskupic (as the nation's principal litigator for some one-half of Wisconsin) not publicly challenge the administration in the name of the citizens of the Eastern District of Wisconsin?

- How does Biskupic feel about his overseers at the DoJ and White House and the way they mix partisans and prosecutors?

- What about the maligned voter fraud prosecutions that happen to be consonant with Karl Rove’s attack politics?

- Doesn’t it strain credulity to believe the Biskupic’s US Atty’s office is really the equivalent of a political monastery, isolated from arguably the most politicized White House and DoJ in American history? What does “never communicated to me” mean, did he intuit?

The Biskupic statement’s obvious PR message was: Candid, impartial, non-partisan public servant.

I see a careerist either disinclined or afraid to challenge the White House publicly, and stumbling badly for fear of standing up.

Update: In "Biskupic didn't fly under Rove's radar," the Journal-Sentinel’s Daniel Bice notes that Rove certainly kept track of Biskupic.

Update II: From Jason Stein’s piece (Sunday) in the Wisconsin State Journal:

"You'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to be hearing the echo chamber from conservative talk radio about voter fraud and whether (prosecutors) are doing their jobs," said Joe Wineke, chairman of the state Democratic Party.

But if you live in a political monastery, as Biskupic's claims, then right-wing talk radio is another phenomenon from which Biskupic is isolated.

Update III: Talking Points Memo has the latest on US Atty for New Mexico, David Iglesias.
###

Biskupic Targeted by DoJ, Then Given Reprieve

Madison, WI—Now we know. McClatchy Newspapers reports that US Atty Biskupic "who prosecuted a state Democratic official on corruption charges during last year's heated governor's race was once targeted for firing by the Department of Justice, but given a reprieve for reasons that remain unclear ...

"Congressional investigators looking into the firings of eight U.S. attorneys saw Wisconsin prosecutor Steven M. Biskupic's name on a list of lawyers targeted for removal when they were inspecting a Justice Department document not yet made public, according to an attorney for a lawmaker involved in the investigation."

The timeframe is unclear, but something turned the DoJ around favorably on Biskupic. I'm voting for his prosecutions of voting fraud and Georgia Thompson, and an attentiveness to Republican electoral concerns.

Josh Marshall, whose Talking Points Memo has been all over the Biskupic story, says of the development, "This will be big."

Update: Today’s New York Times reports that DoJ e-mails obtained reveal the partisan nature of DoJ deliberations on which US Attys were to keep their jobs.

“Some of the new documents show the department’s acute awareness of individual United States attorneys’ political and ideological views. An undated spreadsheet attached to a Feb. 12, 2007, e-mail message listed the federal prosecutors who had served under President Bush along with their past work experience.

“The chart included a category for Republican Party and campaign work, showing who had been a delegate to a Republican convention or had managed a Republican political campaign. The chart had a separate category indicating who among the prosecutors was a member of the Federalist Society, a Washington-based association that serves as a talent pool for young conservatives seeking appointments in Republican administrations.”

Biskupic’s rating on the right-wing ideological chart is low, the man had something about which to be worried, were he interested in maintaining his US Atty position.

- Regards to Folkbum for deriving the chart from the US House of Rep. Comm on the Judiciary, and for his excellent piece on Biskupic. -

Update II:

Study Reveals Partisan DoJ

This has been out for awhile, but it is worth noting the politicized DoJ context in which US Atty Biskupic functions.

An ongoing study by Donald C. Shields and John F. Cragan notes that “(d)ata indicate that the offices of the U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic stops.”
###

Bice Runs Data on Biskupic Prosecution

Madison, WI—Biskupic did pursue voter fraud, futilely, writes Bice in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. And he has the data on the prosecutions, and the data do not paint a flattering picture of Biskupic.

Update: Bice's work is doubly important because the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's editorial board is bending over backward to give US Atty Biskupic the benefit of the doubt. And, as their editorial notes, Biskupic does have (or had) a lot of liberal friends in the state.

But let's clear about what is being asked of Biskupic in these matters: Full cooperation from his office, the DoJ and the White House with the judiciary committees, and full production of requested documents for congressional oversight.

We have not had anything like cooperation from Biskupic's overseers, and Biskupic's prosecution-voting fraud data, and an innocent human being like Georgia Thompson, hardly argue towards giving Biskupic the benefit of the doubt.
###

Nation’s Eyes on Biskupic and Corruption

By Michael Leon

Madison, WI—Adding up Biskupic so far; he conducts a joint investigation with former Milwaukee Co. DA Michael McCann into voting fraud in 2004, and concludes there is no basis for voting irregularities and organized voting fraud.

Now, we find that despite this finding, Biskupic prosecuted vigorously, in accordance with the priorities of the Republican Party and Karl Rove (SOP for the man) and state Republican activists, and the DOJ, including in one prosecution a single occurrence of one person voting illegally once (while on probation), drawing the ire of the 7th circuit.

“I find this whole prosecution mysterious,” Judge Diane P. Wood of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, said at a hearing in Ms. Prude’s case. “I don’t know whether the Eastern District of Wisconsin goes after every felon who accidentally votes. It is not like she voted five times. She cast one vote.” (From the New York Times' April 12, 2007 piece on non-existent “voter fraud)

“In Wisconsin, where prosecutors have lost almost twice as many cases as they won, charges were brought against voters who filled out more than one registration form and felons seemingly unaware that they were barred from voting,” read the Times piece.

Not Honorable

Days prior to the 7th Circuit's Thompson decision on April 5, I asked around about Biskupic among several liberal Wisconsin attorneys and activists, and they pooh poohed the notion that Biskupic was a Rovian.

No more. Biskupic’s reputation as a public servant is shot for good.

Talking Points Memo, as usual, is hot on the trail noting just now that “House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and subcommittee chairwoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA) wrote to the chairman of the Republican National Committee today to demand White House officials' emails related to the U.S. attorney firings investigation.”

Apparently Conyers has his hands or awareness of a paper trail.

US Atty Press Release

I just did a search of press releases (using keyword “voter fraud) at the US Atty Office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and came up with this one announcing that “Richard G. Frohling, an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, will lead the efforts … in the connection with the Justice Department’s nationwide Election Day Program for the upcoming November 7, 2006 general elections. AUSA Frohling … is responsible for overseeing the District’s handling of complaints of election fraud and voting rights abuses in consultation with Justice Department Headquarters.”

The PR reads at the bottom:

For more information contact:
Assistant United States Attorney Richard G. Frohling
Criminal Chief Paul L. Kanter
414-297-1700

I encourage that we all contact these agents of corruption, and let them know how we feel about the conduct of their office.
###