Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Chairman Conyers: AG Mukasey Must Answer Congress about New Hampshire Phone Jamming

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-20-07 07:51 PM
Original message
Chairman Conyers: AG Mukasey Must Answer Congress about New Hampshire Phone Jamming
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=1018

Chairman Conyers: AG Mukasey Must Answer Congress about New Hampshire Phone Jamming
December 20th, 2007 by Jesse Lee


Today, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers demanded answers from the Justice Department about allegations that Department officials delayed a key indictment in the New Hampshire Phone Jamming case to minimize the political impact of the scandal on the 2004 election.

snip//

Questions about that issue were raised in a letter that Conyers and other Judiciary Committee Members sent on October 3 to Acting Attorney General Keisler, and press reports yesterday include statements by a knowledgable official confirming the allegations. Today’s letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey demands answers to the questions posed in the first letter and seeks relevant documents and access to Department officials with knowledge of the events.

Full text of the letter:

December 20, 2007

The Honorable Michael Mukasey
Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

On October 3, I (along with several other Members of the House Judiciary Committee) wrote to Acting Attorney General Keisler regarding the Justice Department’s handling of the New Hampshire phone jamming case and other matters (letter enclosed). In that case, Republican political operatives jammed the telephones of the New Hampshire Democratic Party and Manchester Fire Fighters Association on Election Day 2002, in an effort to disrupt get out the vote operations. Although over two months have passed, I have yet to receive any response to the questions posed in that letter.

One concern about the Department’s handling of the New Hampshire matter stated in that letter is that Department officials may have intentionally delayed the indictment of James Tobin, the 2002 Northeast Regional Director for the Republican National Committee, until after the 2004 Presidential election to minimize the political impact of the indictment on Republican electoral interests. That decision allowed Mr. Tobin to serve the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign through virtually the entire 2004 election cycle – indeed, if a journalist had not publicly exposed Mr. Tobin’s role in this serious election day misconduct(a role that was well-known to the Justice Department officials controlling the timing of the indictment), it appears that Mr. Tobin would have served the campaign on Election Day itself.

Now, important new information has come to light that corroborates that exact allegation and raises further suspicion about the other issues that the Judiciary Committee has been investigating. According to the McClatchy newswire, an official “with detailed knowledge of the investigation” confirms that “senior” officials of the Department “slowed the inquiry,” which “protect top GOP officials from the scandal until the voting was over.”1 The McClatchy piece contains a detailed timeline of these events, asserting that the frontline prosecutor handling this case aggressively pressed for action, but that various Justice Department officials ordered delays, moved slowly on requests for action, and resisted his efforts to expand the probe.

These charges are of great concern to me. As you know, the United States Attorney firing scandal has revealed that former Department leadership brought an unreasonable and improper focus on political considerations into Department decisionmaking, and that political officials at the White House had unprecedented and entirely improper access to Department officials (a policy that I appreciate your timely steps to correct). That problem appears to have infected personnel decisions at both the career and political level, and there is grave concern that it may have led to politically selective prosecutions such as the bringing of questionable indictments of Democratic officials or discouraging meritorious prosecutions of Republicans. Our investigation into the firing of David Iglesias has revealed direct political pressure on the U.S. Attorney regarding the timing of an indictment to serve Republican electoral interests, charges that resonate in the McClatchy New Hampshire story described above.

Against this backdrop, it is clear that the Judiciary Committee must press on with its investigation of this serious matter. Accordingly, in furtherance of the Committee’s investigation, and in accord with the March 29th agreement between the Department and the Committee in which the Department previously made top officials available to the Committee under mutually agreeable procedures, I request information and documents and the taking of interviews in this matter.

While some Department officials involved in the matter are known to us, many others are not. Accordingly, as a first step in scheduling productive interviews, I request a list of all Department personnel, current and former, who had input into the decisions whether to investigate the phone jamming matter and the scope of any such investigation, and all Department personnel, current and former, who had input into the decision whether to bring any indictments in the phone jamming matter, including the scope and timing of any such indictments. Please include the title and dates of Department service for each such person.

In addition, I request that the Department produce to the Judiciary Committee all documents in its possession relevant to the approval, timing, and scope of any indictments in this matter, and all documents relevant to the approval, timing, and scope of the Department’s investigation of these issues, including both internal documents and communications with other government officials and private parties

I am hopeful that we can proceed together in a cooperative and voluntary manner on this important issue. Accordingly, please provide the list of personnel requested above no later than Friday December 28, 2007, so that interviews can be timely scheduled in the new year, and please produce the requested documents and a complete response to my October 3, 2007, letter no later than Friday, January 5, 2008. Responses should be directed to the Judiciary Committee office, 2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 (tel: 202-225-3951; fax: 202-225-7680). Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman

cc: Hon. Lamar S. Smith
Hon. Jerrold Nadler
Hon. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott
Hon. Linda T. Sánchez
Hon. Trent Franks
Hon. Louie Gohmert
Hon. Chris Cannon
Hon. Paul Hodes
Hon. Brian Benczkowski
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-20-07 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. all conyers does is talk and issue subpoenas he will not enforce. bla bla bla nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-20-07 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Amen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-20-07 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
2. Some facts, background, chronology: Phone Jamming Cover-up at DoJ? Conyers Wants Answers
Phone Jamming Cover-up at DoJ? Conyers Wants Answers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1982370

Election irregularity investigations are moving forward, and back in time too!

=======================
Phone Jamming Cover-up at DoJ? Conyers Wants Answers
By Paul Kiel - October 5, 2007
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004376.php


It happened nearly five years ago, but House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) still has plenty of questions about the New Hampshire phone jamming case.

In a letter Wednesday, he asked Acting Attorney General Peter Keisler a number of questions about the case, focusing in particular on whether the Justice Department has "adequately investigated and prosecuted" the case. You can read the letter here.

On Election Day, 2002, remember, Republicans schemed to jam Democratic get-out-the-vote phone banks (here's our timeline of the scandal). The executive director of the New Hampshire GOP, Charles McGee, who hatched the scheme, subsequently explained that he'd gotten the idea from his time in the Marines, where he was taught to jam the enemy's communications. Both McGee and Allen Raymond, who ran the consulting firm that arranged the jamming, pled guilty and have served their time.

The case moved slowly -- the pleas not occurring until June of 2004. And it wasn't until after the 2004 election that James Tobin, who'd been the Republian National Committee's New England Regional Political Director, was indicted for his role in the conspiracy. He was ultimately convicted, ...........

==========================
Also: NH Rep. Paul Hodes (D-NH) Pushes for Phone Jamming Investigation
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1750605
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-20-07 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
4. Good luck getting anything out of the Justice Department.
They have been thoroughly purged of any fair minded or justice oriented individuals in leadership positions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Middle finga Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-20-07 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
5. Mr. Conyers save your time, Bush Co. know the Dem. Leadership
is all bark and no bite, why would they bother responding to you guys, it's not like you going to investigate and bring charges against someone. You guys are looking more and more like a joke everyday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC