Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington - Bush Administration

White House lawyer: House "could have arrested Bolten and Miers and jailed them in a cell in the Capitol complex"

crew — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:10:38 -0500

As mentioned in the post below, a Federal District Court Judge heard arguments today in the case, Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers. The first reports from the hearing are coming out:

House counsel Irvin Nathan said Democrats were forced to file suit because the White House was stonewalling and obfuscating.

“Not only doesn’t [the Judiciary Committee] have the facts from the White House, it has false and misleading facts from members of the Department of Justice,” Nathan said during hearing.

But Carl Nichols, the principal deputy associate attorney general, who argued the case for the White House, said Democrats in Congress failed to negotiate in a reasonable way. He also said they had alternatives to filing suit. They could have arrested Bolten and Miers and jailed them in a cell in the Capitol complex built for holding people in contempt of Congress.

He also said Congress could have decided to withhold Justice Department appropriations or refused to pass judicial nominations.

“They could have said, ‘We’re not going to exercise these powers,’ ” Nichols asserted.

For the record, it was Tom DeLay who had similar idea in mind for CREW's Melanie Sloan:

It wasn't long before Tom DeLay got to know Sloan by name, at one point asking the House Rules Committee to hold crew in contempt of Congress for its role in helping draft an ethics complaint against him in 2004. "I thought, 'This will be great—they can lock me in the basement of the Capitol,'" Sloan recalls.

Court will hear arguments today in executive privilege case over Bolten and Miers testimony

crew — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:12:51 -0500

Last month, CREW, with three other organizations, filed a friend of the Court brief in the executive privilege case, Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers. The lawsuit, brought by the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, seeks to "compel Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers to comply with subpoenas issued by the Judiciary Committee as part of its investigation into the firing of U.S. Attorneys."

More McClellan: "This is a very secretive White House"

crew — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:23:08 -0500

Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, the former press secretary to President Bush told the world what CREW has known for a long time: "This is a very secretive White House." For several years, we've been battling the Bush/Cheney administration over their attempt to keep secrets. McClellan's statement is actually an understatement from our perspective:

Former presidential spokesman Scott McClellan on Friday said President Bush has lost the public's trust by failing to open up about his administration's mistakes and backtracking on a promise to tell all about the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

"This White House promised or assured the American people that at some point when this was behind us they would talk publicly about it. And they have refused to," McClellan told the House Judiciary Committee. "And that's why I think more than any other reason we are here today and the suspicion still remains."

The former White House press secretary suggested that Bush could do much to redeem his credibility on the Plame matter and his reasons for going to war in Iraq if he would embrace "openness and candor and then constantly strive to build trust across the aisle."

"This is a very secretive White House," McClellan said. "There's some things that they would prefer not to be talked about."

Scott McClellan is testifying before House Judiciary Committee today

crew — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:19:56 -0500

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan is testifying before the House Judiciary Committee today. The session, which is being covered live by the cable news channels, has recessed for a series of votes. We'll continue to monitor the hearing, but here' the early AP report:

President Bush's former spokesman told a House committee Friday he doesn't know whether any White House officials broke the law when they revealed CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, then tried to cover up the leak....

...He also suggested that Bush could do much to redeem his own credibility and that of politicians in general if he would embrace "openness and candor and then constantly strive to build trust across the aisle."

Abramoff used Bush administration ties to Ken Mehlman and others to remove State Department official

crew — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:00:40 -0500

Despite repeated denials from the Bush administration about its ties to Jack Abramoff, the notorious ex-lobbyist did have close relationships in the White House and was able to achieve his goals using those connections. No surprise, really, considering Abramoff's staff considered Mehlman a "rock star". The Washington Post has more:

If lobbyists find the path to their clients' riches obstructed by an implacably hostile federal official, they might achieve success by an end run or an appeal to more senior authorities. But a more extreme solution -- if the foe has high-level support -- is to pull strings at the White House and orchestrate the official's removal.

That option was chosen by Jack Abramoff and his colleagues at the Washington office of Greenberg Traurig in the Bush administration's early days, to oust Alan Stayman from a State Department negotiating job. Stayman had earned their ire by advocating labor reforms in the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. protectorate where Abramoff's clients wanted to keep paying immigrants less than the federal minimum wage to work in textile factories.

Stayman was supported by James A. Kelly, who was a White House aide to President Ronald Reagan and served as the State Department's assistant secretary of state for East Asia and the Pacific from 2001 to 2005. Kelly, citing ongoing negotiations with Micronesia and the Marshall Islands, told his department's personnel office on May 1, 2001, that he wanted Stayman to remain for two more years.

But Abramoff's path to success in what an aide called "the Stayman project" is spelled out in a set of internal White House, State Department and Greenberg Traurig e-mails provided to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and made public last week.

Providing a rare glimpse of high-level, behind-the-scenes string-pulling, they show how Abramoff, now serving a prison term for fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy, relied on key White House contacts, including Susan Ralston, executive assistant to political adviser Karl Rove; Monica Kladakis, then deputy White House personnel chief; and Ken Mehlman, then the White House political director.

CREW will appeal Judge's decision that White House Office of Administration is not subject to FOIA

crew — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:14:59 -0500

Yesterday, a Federal District Court Judge ruled "that the Office of Administration (OA) is not an agency subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)." CREW will appeal that decision.

Today's Washington Post included the reactions to the decision from the Bush administration and CREW:

The White House has been criticized by congressional Democrats, historians and watchdog groups over alleged sloppy retention of e-mails between 2001 and 2005, a period that included the Iraq war.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the White House "welcomed" the decision. CREW's executive director, Melanie Sloan, said in a statement that "we are disappointed in the ruling and believe the judge reached the wrong legal conclusion."

Anne Weismann, chief counsel for CREW, said the group will appeal the decision. She said she is worried that without prompt judicial action, the records will not become public "for many years" after President Bush leaves office.

In another lawsuit, CREW and another group, the National Security Archive, have asked a federal judge to order the Bush administration to take steps to preserve and retain the e-mails in question.

Bush met with Abramoff six times, four more than previously admitted

crew — Mon, 9 Jun 2008 15:22:14 -0500

CREW has been trying to obtain the records documenting Jack Abramoff's visits to the White House for months.

A new report from a House Committee found that George Bush had more dealings with Jack Abramoff than previously disclosed:

The White House had stronger ties to disgraced superlobbyist Jack Abramoff than it has publicly admitted, according to a draft congressional report released Monday.

President Bush met Abramoff on at least four occasions the White House has yet to acknowledge, according to the draft report by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

And White House officials appeared as comfortable going to Abramoff and his lobbyists seeking tickets to sporting and entertainment events, as they did seeking input on personnel picks for plum jobs, the report found.

President Bush himself met Abramoff on at least six occasions, the report said, citing White House documents; the White House had previously acknowledged only two.

When questions were first raised about Abramoff's connection to Bush officials in January 2006, then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush had personally met Abramoff on just two occasions, both at White House Hanukkah receptions.

We know they've met. Just not how many times, although that's becoming clearer:

House Judiciary Committee members, Reps. Nadler and Wexler, want McClellan testimony

crew — Fri, 30 May 2008 09:50:51 -0500

Scott McClellan's new book has taken Washington by storm. He's had appearances on major news shows for the past several days. Now, two key members of the House Judiciary Committee would like Mr. McClellan to appear before their committee:

Another House Judiciary Committee member has joined Rep. Robert Wexler’s call for former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to testify before Congress.

Through a spokesman, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), the Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, tells Politico: “Mr. McClellan’s allegations raise serious questions about the decisions made by the highest levels of our government — questions that need to be answered. I certainly support having Mr. McClellan provide Congress with sworn testimony on these issues.”

Senator Reid on the Bush administration: "They're going to have to replace [von Spakovsky] or there will be no FEC"

crew — Wed, 14 May 2008 14:57:18 -0500

On Monday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid held a question and answer session with progressive journalists. Reid was asked about the FEC nominations and provided a very blunt answer:

Question: [W]hat do you foresee in general with presidential nominations going forward this session and particularly with the FEC?

REID: I've had private discussions with Bolten, Josh Bolten. I've had many things public in nature, in fact most publicly, we've exchanged a number of letters back and forth. Here's where we are now. We have three Democrats that we are happy to have on the Federal Election Commission. They have three Republicans they're happy to have on the Federal Election Commission. We will not let one of them be approved. His name is Von Splotsky or something like that. (Laughter) So they're going to have to make a decision, they're going to have to replace him or there will be no FEC. And they need it worse than we do. I will also say this, Mason had an uncharacteristic trait, he was fair. And I have tried to be fair in the people I choose to go on the FEC, for example Steve Walther, he's not even a Democrat, he's an independent. He's one of the Democrats on the Federal Election Commission. I think the Federal Election Commission is important, I wish it had more power, more teeth than what it has legislatively. But it still is a lot better than nothing. And the Republicans have always hated the FEC, but now when McCain needs something, they're rushing around trying to get something done. We'll do it our way or it won't get done.

On missing White House emails from start of Iraq war, "documentation of our history that may be lost."

crew — Wed, 7 May 2008 09:31:22 -0500

Yesterday, CREW reported that the Bush administration admitted that it failed to preserve ANY backup tapes for the period March 1, 2003 through May 22, 2003, a period of time during which the U.S. went to war in Iraq.

Today, the Washington Post reported on the stunning admission -- and its implications:

The Bush administration has not found disaster recovery files for White House e-mails from a three-month time period in 2003, according to court documents filed this week, raising the possibility that messages sent before and after the invasion of Iraq may never be recovered.

The White House chief information officer, Theresa Payton, said in a sworn declaration that the White House has identified more than 400 computer backup tapes from March through September of 2003 but that the earliest recorded file was dated May 23 of that year.

That period was one of the most crucial of the Bush presidency. The United States launched the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003, and President Bush declared the end of major combat operations on May 1.

Payton and other officials said that older e-mails could still be contained on the tapes because of the way the files are dated.

The administration also said it is still searching computer archives for e-mails that have been filed in the wrong "digital drawer." In addition, Payton and other officials have said that any e-mails missing from the White House archiving system might still be available on disaster recovery tapes.

But that did not satisfy an advocacy group suing the administration for e-mail records.

"We're talking about the White House, and documentation of our history that may be lost," said Anne Weismann, chief counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Administration officials had acknowledged last year that thousands of e-mails might be missing from White House servers, but the administration has shifted course in recent months to arguing there is still no clear evidence of a problem. A White House spokesman declined to comment yesterday.