This Looks Very Interesting: POGO gains access to W H internal document

[Melissa G]

Internal Draft Document Reveals Bloch-Headedness
POGO has gained access to an extraordinary internal document from the Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal agency charged with protecting whistleblowers from reprisal. Clearly marked "DRAFT," it is a memo dated January 18, 2008, to Special Counsel Scott Bloch from the members of a special task force. The task force was created, according to the memo, in May 2007, "to pursue certain complex and high profile investigations, such as the firing of the U.S. Attorneys and the political presentations given by the White House Office of Political Affairs (OPA)." The stated subject of the memo is "Summary of Task Force Activities and Recommendations," but it reads at times like an anguished cry from investigators charged with an important mission but virtually every recommendation they make is countermanded by their boss. If they recommend going forward with an inquiry, Bloch says no. If they say they lack evidence or jurisdiction, he orders them to go forward.

The inescapable conclusion reached from poring through the contents of this 13-page memo is that Bloch was deliberately creating the impression of a huge ongoing multi-faceted investigation of the White House--at the same time that he himself was being investigated by another arm of the White House for various forms of misconduct.

Here is my analysis, along with some juicy quotes.

Office of Political Affairs:
The task force (TF) began to examine allegations that 25 federal agencies had received political briefings from the White House Office of Political Affairs that may have violated Hatch Act bans against the use of government resources to promote or oppose a political party or candidate. The task force received hundreds of documents from the agencies and thousands from the White House about the briefings. But as the investigators proceeded in their classic methodical way, they received new directions from their boss: transfer a Hatch Act complaint against Commerce Secretary Gutierrez from the Hatch Act Unit to the task force); merge two complaints against Karl Rove into the ongoing OPA investigation; draft new requests for information to the White House demanding copies of all email sent or received by 50 OPA employees from January 2001 through November 2007, from both the employees' government accounts and their RNC accounts.

The first cry of anguish followed: "TF expressed concerns that this request is too broad and may exceed OSC's jurisdiction" (emphasis in original).

But there was more. The Special Counsel demanded that the TF seek even more records from the White House: all travel records on Air Force One; all procedures for telephone and fax machines; all grant awards, etc. Again the protest from the task force: "After reviewing all documentation received and finding no information or evidence to suggest that agencies directed grants or agency resources to help candidates or political parties TF believes this request is overly broad."

snip
U.S. Attorney Firings:

More...http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2008/05/internal-draft.html

[Mabus]

1. As an aside, Bloch was one of my profs in law school

He was an adjunct professor for a Trial Advocacy section. He threatened to flunk me because I missed one of his class sessions unless I had a good excuse. My excuse was that I was also in the legal aid clinic and had a court appearance (emergency hearing for a client) that I had to attend or my client wouldn't have had representation. He told me his class was more important than my client possibly going to jail. Needless to say I couldn't get along with him and ended up transferring out of his section.

He was a self-important ass over ten years ago when I had class with him and it doesn't look like he's changed much.

fwiw, my husband had some law school classes with Bloch. When we heard his name on the radio this morning we looked at each other and said, "wouldn't it be funny if it was Scott Bloch from KU."

[Melissa G]

2. Thanks for the update.

There seem to be a lot of folks with this personality in politically appointed jobs these days.

Ah, the company the GOP keeps...:eyes:

[Kurovski]

3. "... this personality."

You mean sociopaths? K&R.

[Melissa G]

4. I'm thinking self absorbed, ego maniacal sociopaths n/t

[Kurovski]

5. Sounds about right.

Yep.:-)

[Mabus]

6. My gosh, it sounds like you've met him

:rofl:

I had his class once a week. We were supposed to bring a VCR tape to record our class sessions because the class involved mock trial situations. We were supposed to view the tapes and try to improve our questioning techniques, etc. For some reason he liked to criticize me on my dress rather than the substance of my "performance" (type and flow of questioning, knowledge of the Rules of Evidence, knowledge of the "case" we were trying, follow-up questioning, etc.). fwiw, I always wore a skirt, a plain "business" shirt, flat shoes and a suit jacket. In otherwords, I wore the same clothes that I would wear to my District and Muni court appearances where there was no problem and, in fact, more than a few times I was complimented by the respective court staffs for my clothes and professionalism in the court room.

I think my "problem" with him started when he gave us a fact situation early on in the semester for the next class period and I came back with some information he didn't like. For one thing I pointed out that the factual situation he came up with was incorrect. He had this big, detailed outline about the facts. He gave us a factual situation that included maps and other information. We were also told to take this seriously and act as if it were a real-world situation. He was very specific in the information and the guidelines. He told us not to rely on just the law but to use as many outside sources as possible. He was also very specific about what the testimony of the expert witness would be and he made a point about the facts that the expert would give would make or break the case. Along with the expert witness there was one other witness that could make or break the case.

Since it was early in the semester the case wasn't too complicated. It was a case involving an accident arising out of alleged speeding incident so I did my research. First I discovered (from the blue book listings) that the make and model of the car involved did not exist until two years after the date of the alleged incident. Then I discovered (from newspaper clippings) that on the date of the alleged incident the road he was using in his example was under construction and therefore the incidents as he described could not have happened. I thought I would get some extra credit for actually having researched the case in detail. Boy was I wrong. He didn't like it when I got his witnesses on the stand, had them swear in and state as a fact all the things that couldn't possibly have happened as actually having occurred. I questioned both main witnesses and, based on the evidence I presented (the blue book, the newspaper clippings and the Standard Traffic Ordinance "STO" for Kansas) and I got entered into evidence, both his main witnesses ended up looking like fools (at least my classmates were giggling). After I finished my questioning of the second "make or break" witness I moved for court (with Bloch as the judge) to dismiss the case. He refused.

Frankly, I don't think Bloch liked it when I embarrassed him in front of his witnesses (who were friends of his from his law firm) for the overly detailed case synopsis that he presented me that was factually incorrect and downright laughable. Bloch refused to dismiss the case. I had figured he wouldn't dismiss so I had another line of questioning prepared. I still made my point and cast enough doubt on the credibility of his witnesses that at the end of it, my jury (my classmates) found in favor of my client. Their judgment didn't help and I was on Bloch's shit list thereafter. It came to a head when I had to go to court for the emergency hearing. I ended up transferring out of his section into another one. fwiw, I got an "A" from the second instructor.

I just think that Bloch was a pompous self-important ass when I was in school and, like I said, it doesn't appear that he's changed any.

[Melissa G]

7. Great Story! Sounds like you kicked his behind in mock court and that

he was a bit on the vindictive side. I'm glad you got out before he had a chance to engage in his bully nature and use your grades as his playground turf.
Smart woman all the way around! Good for you! :toast:

[Mabus]

8. LOL

I think one of the reasons he was so pissed was that he had used the same fact pattern in the previous semesters that he had taught the class and no one else had caught on that the situation was improbable, if not downright impossible. You could tell he had done some research in coming up with the situation but he just didn't pay enough attention to small details with which a reasonable defense could use to counter the facts he presented.

I also remember thinking, as I researched the fact pattern he assigned me, that it was a trick or a test to see how much research I would actually do on my own. He had a reputation for trying to make students look like fools so I was bound and determined not to look like one. Besides, I had just had an actual court case in the legal aid clinic that involved a similar fact pattern so I had a good idea what I needed to do to present a reasonable defense.

On the bright side word got out about what I had done in that class and I ended up getting a few jobs both as a student and after I graduated from law school. When I was in school I worked as a researcher for other profs and as a student supervisor in two different clinical programs. After I graduated I was invited to do some lectures on the importance of research and where to look for materials (Bloch was one of my unnamed examples of poor case research).

In some ways I have Scott to thank for my career path as a legal researcher rather than as a litigator. Once I got pigeon-holed as being a good and determined researcher I decided it was more fun to work for myself than go to work for a firm and stress out trying to make my billable hours.

All in all, and I know this may cause some karmic backlash, I must admit that it is nice to see that Scott got caught being the lying, despicable, vindictive shithead I knew him to be when he was my prof.