MOTHER JONES BY E-MAIL

Jammed by the Justice Department

Washington Dispatch: The House Judiciary Committee's attempts to extract information from the DOJ on the New Hampshire phone-jamming scandal have been met with a dial tone. John Conyers is getting ready to reach out and touch them with a subpoena.

May 16, 2008


TOOLS

EmailE-mail article
PrintPrint article




BACKTALK

E-mail the editor





Google


What happens when Congress holds an oversight hearing and the overseen refuses to show up? Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee found out on Wednesday, when they convened to examine allegations of selective prosecution by the US Department of Justice. The second in a series of hearings into the politicization of the DOJ focused on allegations that the department had either failed to prosecute or delayed prosecution of people involved in GOP voter-suppression efforts during the 2002 and 2004 elections. On hand to testify: a New Hampshire congressman, a felonious former GOP political operative, a New Hampshire lawyer, and an NYU professor. Conspicuously absent was anyone from the Justice Department, which not only declined to send an official to testify, but also ignored repeated requests from the committee to hand over internal documents relevant to the hearing.

The dis was hardly unusual. Over the past year, the Judiciary Committee has held numerous oversight hearings and requested a host of documents from the DOJ on everything from the operation of its civil rights division to deferred prosecution agreements. For the most part, the agency has simply ignored the committee, setting the stage for yet another showdown between the administration and Congress. Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers sent Attorney General Michael Mukasey a letter on May 9 lamenting that while he has sent numerous letters and document requests to the Justice Department over the past year, the agency has failed to provide the requested documents and "in some cases, even to answer" its requests. He went on to warn that if Mukasey and his staff fail to come up with a specific schedule for the document production by Friday, May 16, "we will have little choice but to consider compulsory process."

Conyers repeated his subpoena threat at Wednesday's hearing, after noting that the committee's attempts at oversight had been met with "almost total stonewalling." He warned, "You'd better get some documents answered fast, Mr. Attorney General, or you're going to hear from me."

But without anyone on hand from the DOJ to respond to the saber rattling, Conyers had to content himself with grilling the witnesses in front of him, who had scant new information to offer on the department's performance or lack thereof. The bulk of the panel was devoted to the events that transpired in New Hampshire during the 2002 midterm election. That's when state GOP operatives, working in cahoots with the regional director of the Bush/Cheney campaign, hatched a scheme to tie up the phone lines of Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts. Ultimately, four people were indicted or pleaded guilty for their involvement in the effort. One of them was the hearing's star witness, Allen Raymond, who spent three months in a federal prison for his role in the phone-jamming scheme.

If Conyers was hoping that Raymond would drop some newsworthy bombs, however, he was clearly disappointed. Raymond has already dropped all his bombs in a tell-all book, How to Rig an Election, about his rise and fall in GOP politics, which Billy Ray, the writer-director of Shattered Glass, and Breach, recently optioned for a movie.

The only remaining mystery about the phone-jamming affair—and the primary reason the committee is so interested in it—is whether or not the White House was involved, a question that the DOJ prosecutors didn't answer. The evidence is surely tantalizing: On Election Day 2002, James Tobin, the RNC's regional director and a Bush/Cheney campaign official, made 22 phone calls to an office in the White House, run at the time by political director Ken Mehlman. With White House approval, the RNC also paid Tobin's legal bills, a sign, Democrats suggest, that it wanted him to keep quiet about who knew what and when. Conyers was clearly hoping that Raymond, who'd arranged for the actual jamming of the phones, would implicate the White House. But he burst that bubble right out of the gate, saying, "I cannot link the New Hampshire phone-jamming scheme in any way to President George Bush's White House." Conyers would have been better off getting Tobin himself to testify with promises of immunity.

Republicans, meanwhile, made their feelings about the hearing clear from the outset. In his opening statement, Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) declared the hearing an utter waste of time. "These cases are old news," he fumed. His colleague, the former Texas judge Louie Gohmert, echoed those sentiments. "Why are we here today?" he demanded, noting that the committee had to cut short a markup of seven important crime bills to convene the hearing that he claimed was born out of "desperation." Gohmert ticked off a list of items he found more relevant for the committee's attention, including a random and inexplicable reference to former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who Gohmert thought ought to be investigated for perjury based on his numerous appearances before the committee regarding the outing of his CIA wife, Valerie Plame. Then, the Republican congressman stormed out of the hearing room, never to return.

Early on, the hearing quickly dissolved into a series of spats between Cannon and Linda Sanchez, chairwoman of the subcommittee on commercial and administrative law, who presided over the hearing; between Cannon and Conyers; and between Cannon and all the witnesses. ("I don't mean to heckle the witness," Cannon said before going on to heckle his colleague, Rep. Paul Hodes, a Democrat from New Hampshire, who was the first witness.)

While the final three witnesses were there largely for their knowledge of the New Hampshire phone-jamming case, Cannon grilled them about the Obama/Clinton primary in Nevada, allegations of Democratic voter fraud, and even allegations of fraud during the 1996 election between Sanchez's sister Loretta and Republican Bob Dornan, a move that didn't win him much good will from the chair. Since none of the witnesses had even the slightest bit of insight into these matters, Sanchez finally managed to draw the hearing to a close three hours after it started, and stomped off into the hallway, perhaps agreeing with the gentlemen from across the aisle that the hearing was, indeed, a waste of time.

Photo by flickr user KB35 used under a Creative Commons license.

Stephanie Mencimer is a reporter in Mother Jones' Washington, DC, bureau and the author of Blocking the Courthouse Door: How the Republican Party and Its Corporate Allies Are Taking Away Your Right to Sue (Free Press, 2006).



 

Post a Comment

Your Name: 

Your Comment: 
 
Please press "Submit" only once to avoid double-posting.
All HTML formatting is removed from comments.
Read the Mother Jones community rules here.

Comments:

I wouldn't expect any Republican, including Karl Rove himself, to go down without a lot of kicking and screaming.

Rep. Chris Cannon's comment that, "These cases are old news," implies what? I fail to see any point to that comment. Old news so why prosecute? Is that it?

Let's face it - the Republicans are losing power and they're going down hard. The only question is, will the Democrats agressively prosecute those who did illegal deeds? Or will they ultimately believe Scooter Libby's story?
Posted by:...And justice for all.May 16, 2008 12:50:04 PMRespond ^
The biggest criminal of all - the man who took this country to war on a monumental lie, needs to go down. I won't be happy until I see George W. Bush being led out of the White House in an orange jumpsuit.
Posted by:The Conservative DeflatorMay 17, 2008 10:53:24 AMRespond ^
When will the people speak up and demand a stop to all of this political horse [deleted]? Why aren't subpoenas being served now and arrests being made for non-compliance? Is there a separate set of laws for these so called representatives of the people and another for the people of this country? Did I miss something in civics class?
Posted by:MuffyMay 18, 2008 2:34:24 PMRespond ^
People from Utah are notorious for throwing another issue out when wanting to avoid the issue at hand. It's how they cover the lies continuing to be perpetrated by the LDS church and why they don't want the FLDS identified as a break-off branch of themselves. The first takes the focus off of themselves and the second brings the focus back to them. They don't want any oversight any more than the rest of the Republicans do.
Posted by:WendyMay 19, 2008 2:48:48 PMRespond ^
Question - is this article REALLY from 2007? And we're only seeing it now?? Or is that a typo?
Posted by:Wendy, part deuxMay 19, 2008 2:51:13 PMRespond ^
What can you expect from Repubretards except lying,cheating and stealing our tax money.They are disgrace to humanity and we have seen how corrupt their administration is and just can not wait for these anti-Americans to go to hell that they have created with help of corrupt churches of so called christianities!!!
Posted by:Fred Homaie-radMay 19, 2008 6:13:35 PMRespond ^
Get ready for a big scandal coming with this election. If they do try something, expect the long awaited revolution in America.
Posted by:CarlosMay 27, 2008 3:26:31 PMRespond ^
It is amazing that the guy who is obstructing justice in this case is Attorney General Michael Mukasey. Michael Mukasey is the man who should be working to protect and guard our constitutional rights (the fox guarding the hens).

Let us not lose sight of who was behind the confirmation of Michael Mukasey to the Justice Department: Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. The Democratic-Controlled Judiciary committee in the senate voted along party line during the confirmation hearing of Michael Mukasey. The two Democratic Senators dissented and joined Republicans for the confirmation of Mukasey. Their fellow democrats in congress took it on the chin and shut up.

Why would a so-called liberal democratic senators vote to confirm a judge which was preceded by such conservative reputation and near blind loyalty to Bush’s agenda? The answer is not new on our political seen: Dual loyalty. It is a case where the two senators have voted against their party and constituents’ will to support Mukasey, just because he belonged to the same religious affiliation as they are, and because he is an ardent supporter of Israel. I will be scratching my head for another explanation.
Posted by:RoyJune 4, 2008 1:11:09 PMRespond ^

Jail.org - Inmate Search
Criminal records, instant public records & people search & current court records. www.jail.org

U.S. Public Records Search
Search County & State Court Records, Criminal records, Vital and Adoption Records www.PublicRecordsInfo.com

Records.com - People Search
Public Records and Background Checks. Instantly Search Criminal Records, Addresses and Court Records www.Records.com

Court Records & County Records
Find Instant Public Records, Criminal Records as Well as County Property Records Search. www.PublicRecordsIndex.com
















Obama's Game Plan

Obama's Speech

Obama's Speech

Core Inflation


More MoJo voices...



bookIN PRINT

CLICK HERE
for more great reading

headphones IN TUNE
New music every issue

CLICK TO LISTEN


This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you.

© 2008 The Foundation for National Progress

About Us   Support Us   Advertise   Ad Policy   Privacy Policy   Contact Us   Subscribe   RSS