Last night, in a lawsuit filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) against the Department of Justice seeking former Vice President Cheney’s FBI interview in the Valerie Plame Wilson leak investigation, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed papers, including a declaration from Lanny Breuer, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. Embracing the same arguments made by the Bush administration for withholding the interview, DOJ argues if it is disclosed, future high-level White House officials will be unwilling to cooperate with criminal law enforcement investigations. The documents from the case can be seen here.

According to Mr. Breuer, it is “not uncommon” for prosecutors to inform witnesses the government will try to keep the information they provide confidential. But Mr. Breuer ignores the fact that here Mr. Cheney was never promised confidentiality, as Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald confirmed in a letter to Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), then Chairman of the House Oversight Committee. Mr. Breuer also argues if Mr. Cheney’s interview is made public, future high-level White House officials will be unwilling or at least “reluctant” to cooperate in criminal investigations. He suggests such officials will testify only if subpoenaed, possibly “thwart[ing] investigations.” Yet DOJ has subpoenaed White House officials in the past without such repercussions.

Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, said:

It is astonishing that a top Department of Justice political appointee is suggesting other high-level appointees are unlikely to cooperate with legitimate law enforcement investigations. What is wrong with this picture?

What is wrong, indeed.

Since the Madoff scandal story broke last December, there have been questions about the role of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Today's Washington Post reveals that an investigator at the SEC became aware of issues with Madoff's company, but was pulled from the case.  And, her supervisor, according to the Post, went on to marry Madoffs niece:

An investigator at the Securities and Exchange Commission warned superiors as far back as 2004 about irregularities at Bernard L. Madoff's financial management firm, but she was told to focus on an unrelated matter, according to agency documents and sources familiar with the investigation.

Genevievette Walker-Lightfoot, a lawyer in the SEC's Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, sent e-mails to a supervisor, saying information provided by Madoff during her review didn't add up and suggesting a set of questions to ask his firm, documents show. Several of these questions directly challenged Madoff activities that much later turned out to be elements of his massive fraud.

But with the agency under pressure to look for wrongdoing in the mutual fund industry, she wasn't able to continue pursuing Madoff, according to documents and two people familiar with the investigation, and her team soon concluded its work on the probe.

Walker-Lightfoot's supervisors on the case were Mark Donohue, then a branch chief in her department, and his boss, Eric Swanson, an assistant director of the department, said two people familiar with the investigation. Swanson later married Madoff's niece, and their relationship is now under review by the agency's inspector general, who is examining the SEC's handling of the Madoff case.

CREW was pleased to learn South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster has initiated an investigation into Gov. Mark Sanford's (R-SC) affair. Last Friday, we called on the AG and the South Carolina State Ethics Commission to investigate whether Sanford violated the state constitution and broke state law by misleading his staff regarding his whereabouts, leaving the state leaderless, and misusing state funds to conduct the affair. Our complaint can be found here.

CREW executive director Melanie Sloan stated:

CREW is pleased the attorney general has ordered an inquiry into Gov. Sanford’s conduct. It is one thing for the governor to have an affair, it is quite another for him to abuse his position of public trust to pursue an illicit relationship. The people of South Carolina deserve to know whether Governor Sanford – charged with upholding the law – was himself violating the law.

We look forward learning the outcome of the AG's investigation.

Six of 27 members of the conservative Senate Republican Caucus Tuesday night issued a letter calling on Gov. Mark Sanford to resign.

Two additional senators considered among Sanford’s staunchest allies, also said they want him to resign though they did not sign the letter. Two other senior senators who spoke to the State said Tuesday’s revelations moved them closer to asking Sanford to step down.

The letter was crafted by Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler, R-Cherokee, and was circulated among Senate Republicans on Tuesday.

It marked a major break in the silence of the General Assembly, which has the authority to remove the governor. Senators have been debating what to do about Sanford since late last week, while House members have largely remained silent.

“I signed a letter today asking him to step down,” said Sen. Larry Martin, R-Pickens, chairman of the Senate Rules committee. • 

Martin’s reaction came after Sanford told The Associated Press he had more romantic meetings with his Argentinian lover, Maria Belen Chapur, than he previously admitted, including two trysts in New York.

Sanford told the news agency he also had “crossed the line” with other women.

Attorney General Henry McMaster, who is mulling a run for governor, called on SLED to investigate the governor’s travel after the new confessions.

Melanie Sloan told NBC Nightly News, "The only thing left for Mr. Sanford to do is resign."

The criminal trial of William Jefferson is continuing in Federal District Court in Alexandria,VA.  Nola.com continues to liveblog the proceedings.

Today, an accountant who used to work for the congressman, his campaign and his wife's "consulting" company testified that Mrs. Jefferson's firm took in lots of money, but had no real expenses:

A company created by the wife of former Rep. William Jefferson billed a Kentucky technology firm for thousands of dollars in consulting fees without spending anything on normal operational expenses like office space, clerical workers, telephones or travel, the congressman's former accountant testified today.

Jack Swetland, a New Orleans CPA who served as the Democratic congressman's tax accountant and campaign treasurer, said he was aware that the ANJ company, named for Jefferson's wife and daughters, was supposed to be getting $7,500 a month from iGate Inc., and made a one-time deposit of $300,000 from the telecommunications firm, while incurring no expenses.

Federal prosecutors allege ANJ was nothing but a shell company created to hide the payments iGate was making for Jefferson's help in brokering deals in West Africa. Jefferson is facing a 16-count indictment that includes bribery and fraud charges. Jefferson has pleaded innocent, and his defense team says that his actions were as a private citizen and not subject to the bribery statute.

On Friday, CREW filed a complaint against South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford with the South Carolina Attorney General and the State Ethics Commission, requesting an investigation into activities surrounding a surreptitious trip the governor made to Argentina.

At least one elected official in South Carolina thinks the Governor's actions may have been crimimal.

According to ABC News, a SC State Senator is seeking a criminal investigation of the Governor's actions:

Republican state Sen. Jake Knotts last week asked South Carolina prosecutors to launch a criminal probe. Today, Knotts told ABC News, he plans to pursue an investigation in the state legislature, the state attorney general’s office – and possibly a federal probe.

“When you can’t get results in your own state, there is a Justice Department in Washington,” Knotts told ABC. “I don’t want to go that route. I want us to wash our own laundry and clean up our own act.”
But he said he would if necessary.

“Somebody’s gonna look at this,” Knotts said. “Somebody’s gonna look to the bottom of it and somebody’s gonna give me some answers.”

Knotts and others accuse the governor of leaving the state to visit his mistress without turning over control, and charging taxpayers for an earlier stop in Argentina where he visited her. Sanford says he’ll repay more than $8,000 for that stop, which he says was set up by state Commerce officials.

State prosecutors say so far, there’s nothing to investigate.

“At this point we have not launched an investigation,” Reggie Lloyd, Director of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, told ABC. “We don’t anticipate it unless somebody brought us new facts.”

It does seem like further investigation is warranted.

Today, CREW filed a complaint against South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford with the South Carolina Attorney General and the State Ethics Commission, requesting an investigation into activities surrounding a surreptitious trip the governor made to Argentina. The complaint can be found here.

Earlier this week, Gov. Sanford publicly admitted that he visited a woman with whom he has been engaged in an extramarital affair, now-reported as Maria Belen Chapur. Gov. Sanford said he has known the woman for eight years, and the two began a sexual relationship approximately a year ago.

In our letter, CREW alleges Gov. Sanford may have violated the South Carolina law in conducting his affair.

Gov. Sanford apparently did not apprise any South Carolina officials, including Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, of his whereabouts or provide truthful information to his staff, his security detail, or any responsible state government official regarding his destination, nor was anyone able to reach him by telephone or electronically for at least five days. According to Gov. Sanford, he “creat[ed] a fiction” by telling members of his staff that he planned to go hiking on the Appalachian Trail when he was actually traveling to Argentina.

By leaving the state without informing Lt. Gov. Bauer he had the authority to act as governor, Gov. Sanford may have endangered the state and violated the South Carolina Constitution, which provides “in the event of the temporary absence of the Governor from the State, the Lieutenant Governor shall have full authority to act in an emergency.”

Based on reports the governor used a state vehicle to reach the Columbia airport to catch his flight and that a government aide picked him up from the Atlanta airport upon his return, CREW also asked for an investigation into whether Gov. Sanford illegally used additional state funds, equipment, or personnel to conduct the affair.

When we sent the complaint, Melanie Sloan said:

The only sound decision Gov. Sanford appears to have made recently was to resign his post as chair of the Republican Governors Association. Why is the governor incapable of leading the RGA, but still fit to lead the state of South Carolina? Clearly, Gov. Sanford should resign, but whatever he does, it is incumbent upon South Carolina’s Attorney General and the State Ethics Commission to hold the governor accountable.

The Washington Post editorializes in support of CREW's call for an ethics investigation of Senator John Ensign (R-NV). The challenge lies with the Senate Ethics Committee:

[T]here should be further investigation of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Ensign's acknowledgment that he had an affair with his one-time campaign treasurer. Aside from the appropriateness of having a sexual relationship with a subordinate (a firing offense in much of the private sector), questions exist about whether Mr. Ensign violated the Senate's rules of conduct and federal election law.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a watchdog group, filed complaints Wednesday with the Senate ethics committee and the Federal Elections Commission, seeking the appropriate inquiries. Among the issues are whether the dismissals of the woman and her husband, once a top Ensign aide, were tied to the affair and, if so, could constitute sexual harassment; whether improper severance payments were paid to the woman or her husband; and what the circumstances were behind the hiring of the couple's son by the National Republican Senatorial Committee chaired by Mr. Ensign. CREW also questions Mr. Ensign's conduct if, as some media reported, he told people close to him that he was being extorted for money by the husband. Mr. Ensign never publicly said he was being blackmailed; his spokesman said the husband, through an attorney, made exorbitant demands for "cash and other financial benefits."

Mr. Ensign may have apologized, and another misbehaving politician may be in the headlines, but that doesn't mean these troubling questions should go unanswered.

Today, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) decided Norm Coleman (R-MN) could use campaign funds to pay legal fees:

The Federal Election Commission has ruled that former Sen. Norm Coleman can use campaign money to pay for legal bills to address allegations involving a donor.

The agency's ruling Thursday said the Minnesota Republican can use the money for legal bills linked to two lawsuits. They allege that a former Coleman donor funneled at least $75,000 to an insurance company that employed Coleman's wife.

CREW is disappointed, but not surprised, that the FEC allowed Coleman to use campaign funds to pay legal fees in two corporate shareholder lawsuits in which he is not even a party. We are pleased, however, that the Commission put former Senator Coleman on notice – as CREW had recommended -- that today's advisory opinion does not allow him to use recount funds to pay his legal fees in the shareholder lawsuits or the FBI and Senate Ethics Committee investigations. CREW will be closely monitoring former Senator Coleman's upcoming reports to the FEC and if it appears that he has used recount funds to pay his own personal legal expenses, we will file a complaint with the Commission.

Separately, we find it incredible that three FEC commissioners take the view that the Commission does not have the power to address questions regarding the application of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) raised by those who submit comments on draft advisory opinions. Why bother to have a public comment period if the FEC will not address legitimate issues raised by the public? The advisory opinion approved today specifically states it is based on former Senator Coleman's request "and publicly available information."

CREW executive director Melanie Sloan said:

To assert the Commission must put on blinders to avoid addressing any FECA issue other than the narrowly-tailored one raised by the requestor is irresponsible. It turns the advisory opinion process into a game whereby the requestor can obtain permission to engage in activities - and obtain immunity for doing so - by merely leaving out inconvenient facts.