August 18, 2007

A third-rate burglary

By this point, we know all about the partisan, political briefings the White House conducted in government buildings for government employees, despite clear prohibitions by the Hatch Act. The defense from the Bush gang is that the briefings had nothing to do with political corruption; they were just informal meetings about key congressional races for the Republican Party, intended as “team building” and “morale boosting” exercises.

To hear the White House tell it, administration officials who received the briefings were never encouraged to do anything with the information; Rove & Co. just wanted officials at agencies — ranging from HHS to the State Department to NASA — to be aware of vulnerable Republican and Democratic incumbents. It was an extravagant “FYI,” intended to improve bureaucrats’ self-esteem.

The reality, of course, is that these briefings were part of a legally-dubious scheme that not only violated the Hatch Act, but also led to fairly obvious abuse of federal tax dollars.

Top Commerce and Treasury Departments officials appeared with Republican candidates and doled out millions in federal money in battleground congressional districts and states after receiving White House political briefings detailing GOP election strategy.

Political appointees in the Treasury Department received at least 10 political briefings from July 2001 to August 2006, officials familiar with the meetings said. Their counterparts at the Commerce Department received at least four briefings — all in the election years of 2002, 2004 and 2006. […]

During the briefings at Treasury and Commerce, then-Bush administration political director Ken Mehlman and other White House aides detailed competitive congressional districts, battleground election states and key media markets and outlined GOP strategy for getting out the vote.

Commerce and Treasury political appointees later made numerous public appearances and grant announcements that often correlated with GOP interests, according to a review of the events by McClatchy Newspapers. The pattern raises the possibility that the events were arranged with the White House’s political guidance in mind.

Ya think?

It all ties into the Bush gang’s Kremlin-like abuses — using the power of the state as a tool of the ruling party.

In this case, Rove’s office effectively blurred the lines between the RNC and the executive branch of government. Our tax dollars and public agencies were little more than campaign resources for Republicans.

As part of the probe, committee investigators found that White House drug czar John Walters took 20 trips at taxpayers’ expense in 2006 to appear with Republican congressional candidates.

In a separate investigation, the independent Office of Special Counsel concluded that GSA Administrator Lurita Alexis Doan violated the Hatch Act, which limits the political activities of government employees. Witnesses told investigators that Doan asked at the end of one political briefing in January 2007 what her agency could do to help GOP candidates. Doan has said she doesn’t recall that remark. […]

In the months leading up to the 2002 election, then-Commerce Secretary Don Evans, Bush’s former campaign finance chairman, made eight appearances or announcements with Republican incumbents in districts deemed by White House aides either as competitive districts or battleground presidential states.

During the stops, he doled out millions of dollars in grants, including in two public announcements with Rep. Heather Wilson, a New Mexico Republican in a competitive district.

Any chance these pending revelations had anything to do with Karl Rove’s abrupt and unexpected resignation announcement?

Digby concluded, “These Hatch act investigations may end up being more potent than anybody realizes. Remember, Watergate started out as a third rate burglary.”

 
Discussion

What do you think? Leave a comment. Alternatively, write a post on your own weblog; this blog accepts trackbacks.

18 Comments
1.
On August 18th, 2007 at 9:23 am, just bill said:

“During the stops, he doled out millions of dollars in grants, including in two public announcements with Rep. Heather Wilson, a New Mexico Republican in a competitive district.”

they awarded federal grants based on politics? that’s federal tax dollars? i think this raises the scandal to a whole new level.

2.
On August 18th, 2007 at 9:38 am, Ed Stephan said:

“These Hatch act investigations may end up being more potent than anybody realizes.”

If they’re not more potent than all the congressional investigations so far — i.e., if impeachment remains off Pelosi’s personal table — then they’re a waste of time.

3.
On August 18th, 2007 at 9:43 am, beep52 said:

Any chance these pending revelations had anything to do with Karl Rove’s abrupt and unexpected resignation announcement?

Seems to me that Rove’s resignation does nothing to impede Congressional subpoenas and WH obstruction (see H. Miers) that would surely follow. It does preempt Rove from losing his job under the Hatch Act and in that sense denies Ds that avenue for cornering the Bush WH. Pinning something on Rove, however, seems less important than revealing the widespread politization of the federal government he promoted, Bush allowed, and Rs were all too eager to engage in. As many have said here before, it’s the totality of modern conservatism that needs to be revealed and discredited.

4.
On August 18th, 2007 at 9:44 am, JoeW said:

Any chance these pending revelations had anything to do with Karl Rove’s abrupt and unexpected resignation announcement?
That’s what occurred to me a few paragraphs into the article. This, taken with the partisan advantages sought in the US Attorneys scandal, adds up to a stunning abuse of executive power.

Assuming they don’t run out the clock before investigators get to the bottom of this, I suspect we’ll see a situation where literally every lever of our federal government has been used to advance republican interests.

While Bush apologists will point to each infraction and call it trivial, taken as a whole, ‘Kremlinesque’ may be the most apt and lasting descriptor. The only thing missing is evidence that they targeted political foes with their illegal wiretaps. And given their track record, the only surprise would be if they hadn’t.

I honestly don’t know if republicans put the party over country, or if they even recognize there’s a difference.

5.
On August 18th, 2007 at 10:00 am, citizen92 said:

The Office of Special Counsel already found the GSA was using government resources for partisan activity.

Jane Cherry, former Rove staffer (now NASA White House liaision) had a hand in this. She was interested in the African American burial ground in NYC – a GSA property.

Jane is also intimitely involved in the US Atorneys’ scandal — please check her out here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/31/8364/55557

Also meriting attention is Rove’s GOP fundraiser Beth Sturgeon. She’s got her hooks in government money and advisory councils too.

6.
On August 18th, 2007 at 10:52 am, Zeitgeist said:

The best way to make sure this never happens again is to raise the cost to individuals. Subpoena each involved individual, no matter how low on the food chain, to House and Senate hearings on different days. Serve broad, difficult requests for written responses and production of documents. Make them all lawyer up at great expense. Sue the individuals for the return of the taxpayers’ money on political trips, etc. Make recipient states and entities return the money.

Truth-telling and stigmatizing does not good for people who have no shame. But hit them hard in the pocketbooks and it will be a long time before anyone things this scheme is worth it again. The top leaders may still make enough from a corrupt government, or be rich enough to begin with, that such tactics don’t matter. But the footsoldiers they need to carry it out can’t afford to lose their life savings to a defense lawyer or a refund of the graft.

7.
On August 18th, 2007 at 10:53 am, CalD said:

The pattern raises the possibility that the events were arranged with the White House’s political guidance in mind.

Possibility?… Nah. Sheer coincidence.

8.
On August 18th, 2007 at 10:55 am, Georgette Orwell said:

“If they’re not more potent than all the congressional investigations so far….”
they’ll be even weaker than dishwater.

The structure, philosophy, and raison d’etre of our government have been seriously–perhaps irreparably–damaged. With neocon loyalists deeply embedded in all layers of what-used-to-be-the-people’s-government, this gong probably cannot be unrung.

9.
On August 18th, 2007 at 11:10 am, Dale said:

Third rate bunglery.

10.
On August 18th, 2007 at 11:49 am, kevo said:

The miscreant presidency of one George Bush will be remembered in infamy! -Kevo

11.
On August 18th, 2007 at 12:06 pm, CalD said:

I despair sometimes of ever finding any act so egregious, any crime so heinous that the American people will finally agree in large numbers that it’s worth hauling a few of the Bushies off to jail over. It’s as if we’ve had outrage piled upon outrage to the point now that as a nation, we’ve just become numb. Anyway, the major league baseball playoffs will be starting soon and pre-season football games have already commenced, so good luck getting anyone’s attention. Bread and circuses…

12.
On August 18th, 2007 at 12:08 pm, CalD said:

But I’m not bitter.

13.
On August 18th, 2007 at 12:30 pm, petorado said:

Why has no one in the media put all of these scandals together? Every Republican scandal since Bush has come to office are but different tentacles of the same beast. What the Republican Party has been trying to do in a very coordinated and organized manner is to subvert this nation’s democratic process. The national Republican Party is rigging the system that citizens of this nation use to choose their government through a systematic Republican effort to unconstitutionally undermine our democratic institutions.

1. They are trying to use the functions of government to create a cash machine to fuel the republican political election machine (DeLay, Abramoff, Ney scandals.)

2. They are trying in an organized and concerted manner to disenfranchise voters likely to vote fo the opposition (Ohio Sec. of State, US Attorney, Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division scandals.)

3. They are trying to use government agencies to put their party at a political advantage during elections (US Attorney, Hatch Act violations scandals.)

4. Illegitimate and unlawful investigations in to members of the opposition party to sway the electorate prior to elections (US Attorney scandal.)

5. Cover-ups of Republican executive branch misdeeds and unlawful classification of documents that should be unclassified and open to FOIA requests to prevent unfavorable impressions of their party (Dick Cheney and numerous other scandals)

6. Subverting separation of powers and Constitutionally mandated oversight through denying access by Congress or blowing off subpoenas (virtually every scandal.)

7. Loading the judiciary with purely partisan operatives to act favorably during election and partisan political issues (Bush Adminstration record of nominating obviously partisan and un and underqualified judges to the federal bench.)

.. And their are other illegal activities and scandals that all worked in concert to create the Permanent Republican Majority™. The past six+ years have been nothing but an organized effort by the Republican Party to take over this nation through political fiat. Our complacent media should really open their eyes and connect these dots. It’s all the same scandal.

14.
On August 18th, 2007 at 12:59 pm, Capt Kirk said:

Petorado has the best summary I’ve seen. The scofflaws continue to flout the law, and disregard the puny politically parliamentary attempts at enforcement. They go about their business and the Democrats seem to just stand there aghast. This last congressional session left me looking toward a coming “national emergency” when W will declare martial law and “postphone” the elections. They’ll take the prize while our watchguards in congress sign another FISA extension and rush off next summer vacation.

15.
On August 18th, 2007 at 1:08 pm, Dee Loralei said:

Peterado, also add in the destroying of government services that used to work well, such as FEMA. FDA, NASA,NIOSH,OSHA etc.To prove that “government is the problem”. Take away people’s trust in a functioning government, and they basically quit caring about voting. Also add in the Diebold and other electronic voting irregularities, and people also begin to beleive that their votes don’t count, so why bother voting? This corruption is just pernicious.

And Zeitgeist is absolutely correct, Hit them all in the pocketbooks. Even the foot soldiers. Heck, especially them. If people realize there are costs associated with this sort of behavior, the next time it’s tried, and it will be tried again, there will be fewer willing to assume the risk.

And we should go after the RNC, RCCC and the RSC committees, and have them repay the federal gov for the trips taken as well.

Also, just keep in mind, people can be impeached even after they leave office. And so all these cabinet members must be investigated and impeached, if they’ve resigned or after this term is over, so they will never ever be able to hold any sort of position in any future admin. If this had been done after Nixon, and after Reagan and Bush1, most of these bastards ruining our government would never have been able to get near a seat of power.

16.
On August 18th, 2007 at 4:47 pm, Phonatic said:

Question for Dee Loralei (#15): how does impeachment before or after the administration’s end prevent them from holding future positions? I ask because I am aware of one sitting US representative who was successfully impeached as a federal judge and obviously was not prevented from running for another federal office, US congressman. I want to understand your position, your source(s) of information, and your logic.

I support impeachment because I believe that the situation in this Bush administration and this country is that dire. To that end, I also want myself and others to understand what impeachment really entails and what it will really accomplish.

17.
On August 18th, 2007 at 11:36 pm, rege said:

The Washington Post has more on this story in tomorrow’s paper.

Thirteen months before President Bush was reelected, chief strategist Karl Rove summoned political appointees from around the government to the Old Executive Office Building. The subject of the Oct. 1, 2003, meeting was “asset deployment,” and the message was clear:

The staging of official announcements, high-visibility trips and declarations of federal grants had to be carefully coordinated with the White House political affairs office to ensure the maximum promotion of Bush’s reelection agenda and the Republicans in Congress who supported him, according to documents and some of those involved in the effort.

“The White House determines which members need visits,” said an internal e-mail about the previously undisclosed Rove “deployment” team, “and where we need to be strategically placing our assets.”
[…]
..Rove, who announced last week that he is resigning from the White House at the end of August, pursued the goal far more systematically than his predecessors, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Post, enlisting political appointees at every level of government in a permanent campaign that was an integral part of his strategy to establish Republican electoral dominance.

Under Rove’s direction, this highly coordinated effort to leverage the government for political marketing started as soon as Bush took office in 2001 and continued through last year’s congressional elections

The lead author on the piece is John Solomon so it does have the obligatory digs at Clinton.

Many administrations have sought to maximize their control of the machinery of government for political gain, dispatching Cabinet secretaries bearing government largess to battleground states in the days before elections. The Clinton White House routinely rewarded big donors with stays in the Lincoln Bedroom and private coffees with senior federal officials, and held some political briefings for top Cabinet officials during the 1996 election.
[…]
During the Clinton administration, White House officials made their own attempt to harness the federal bureaucracy’s grant announcements and travel, but they were far less systematic. The White House political office held two or three meetings in the 18 months before the 1996 election with each Cabinet secretary and one or two top aides, deeming some agencies such as Justice and State as off limits to politics, former Clinton officials said.

“It was not a full-scale agency briefing. There were no targets; we were not calling them in and giving them lists of who to take care of and punish,” said Douglas Sosnik, White House political director in 1995 and 1996. “It was an overview of where we were headed with the campaign.”

And of course, it also has a White House official assuring us that everything was above board.

White House officials say Rove had two basic rules: the first was to avoid meddling with grant and contract decisions made by career government employees; the second was to make sure they complied with the Hatch Act. “What was surprising was how adamant Karl and his whole team was that we involve the lawyers in our discussions to make sure we didn’t come up with things that ran afoul of the law,” DeBerry said. In March 2002, then-White House lawyer Brett Kavanaugh gave such a briefing on the “do’s and don’ts regarding your participation in politically related activities,” according to the invitation.

I am going to guess the only rule Karl really had was don’t get caught breaking the law. And don’t you all feel better that Kavanaugh was there to make sure that no one was caught breaking the law broke the law.

From the notorious Starr report, to the Florida recount, to this President’s secrecy and privilege claims, to post-9/11 legislative battles including the Victims’ Compensation Fund, to controversial judicial nominations, if there’s been a partisan political fight that needed a good lawyer in the last decade, Brett Kavanaugh was probably there. And if he was there, there’s no question what side he was on.

In fact, Mr. Kavanaugh would probably win first prize as the hard-Right’s political lawyer. Where there’s a tough job that needs a bright, hard-nosed political lawyer, Brett Kavanaugh has been there.

Despite these short comings the article is still worth a read.