Former U.S. Attorney Condemns Bush White House Interference With Renzi Probe
With the 2006 mid-term congressional elections rapidly approaching, a top aide to Karl Rove warned Harriet Miers that Republican Rep. Rick Renzi's re-election was in serious jeopardy because of rumors that Renzi was the target of a federal criminal investigation.
Later the same day, Miers, then the White House counsel, called the Justice Department's second highest ranking official and pressed him to issue a statement that would vindicate the Arizona Republican.
As chronicled in a series of White House e-mails that were part of a massive trove of documents Web-published by the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Miers was initially rebuffed in her efforts to get then-deputy attorney general Paul McNulty to issue a statement clearing Renzi. Justice Department policy is ordinarily not to comment on ongoing investigations.
But on the very next day, news stories simultaneously appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Associated Press saying that although there was an ongoing probe of Renzi, the investigation was in a preliminary stage and there had been no evidence uncovered to date that Renzi had done anything wrong at all.
In fact, the investigation, which had been ongoing for some time, had already amassed enough evidence of alleged criminal misconduct that the U.S. attorney leading the Renzi probe, Paul Charlton, had just obtained approval from the highest levels of the Justice Department to seek an application from a federal judge to wiretap Renzi's telephone. Over a year later, in Feb. 2008, a federal grand jury indicted Renzi on 38 counts of money laundering, extortion, insurance fraud, and other alleged felonies.
But the disinformation leaked to media outlets had the desired effect: Renzi won reelection by the narrowest of margins. (To read more about that disinformation campaign, see here and here.)
In an interview Tuesday, Charlton, the U.S. attorney who led the Renzi probe told me: "It's a great disappointment that the White House not only would ask that the Justice Department comment about an ongoing investigation but also lie about that investigation. And it is even a greater disappointment that the Gonzales Department of Justice would comment at all about an ongoing investigation let alone make untruthful comments about an investigation."
Career federal law enforcement officials who worked directly on the Renzi criminal probe told me for this story that I wrote for the Hill in June that they wanted Attorney General Eric Holder to initiate a formal investigation of the matter.
At the time of their comments, the direct involvement of White House political aides in the matter was not known. The disclosure that at least three of President Bush's top aides were involved in the damage control effort to protect Renzi is almost certain to renew interest that a formal investigation of the leaks be undertaken.
Charlton, one of nine U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration, told me that he hoped that a federal prosecutor already investigating the firings of nine U.S. attorneys, Nora Dannehy, would attempt to determine whether Bush administration officials had acted improperly or illegally while conducting their damage control effort to bolster Renzi's re-election chances: "It is my understanding that the new information and documents are almost certainly in the possession of the U.S. attorney and I expect that she will take the appropriate next steps."
Miers apparently became involved in the Renzi matter after talking on the phone and receiving an email from Scott Jennings, a senior aide to Karl Rove, indicating that Renzi or someone close to him had called seeking their assistance.
An Arizona blog had erroneously reported that Renzi was the target of a criminal investigation and that a decision had already been made to criminally charge him, with the charges delayed until after election day. After the posting, senior officials at the Republican National Committee contacted Jennings to express concerns that reports of a federal investigation of Renzi might harm his chances for re-electon, according to the newly released emails.
In Miers' deposition by House Judiciary Committee staff, she testified that Rove may have also directly raised the issue with her as well: "I'm not sure how it came to my attention. It may have been Karl but I don't know that... [T]he sense of the inquiry was this is happening, it's unfair. I think it was Karl, but I'm not sure." (A full transcript of Miers' deposition before the House Judiciary Committee can be found here.)
In an email to Jennings, Miers provided the White House political aide with a detailed report of her discussion with McNulty:
Scott, I just finished speaking with [Deputy AG] Paul McNulty. He said what we suspected he would. He has been contacted by a number of frustrated members of the Congress asking why people can't be vindicated in the event nothing is going on. He acknowledged that the situation is frustrating, but reiterated their position that they cannot confirm or deny the existence of an investigation. He said the AG did an interview last week to put things in as good as a perspective as possible by explaining that no one should be talking and that a refusal to deny should be given no meaning beyond that Justice does not admit or deny the existence of an investigation. I observed that at some point, immediately preceding an election, unattributed statements about the existence of an investigation was rankly unfair. He is continuing to think about the situation, but I did not get a lot of encouragement that they will deviate from normal course.
It is unclear what McNulty did next. He did not respond to a request for an interview for this article.
But clearly other political appointees at the Justice Department became fully engaged:
Within the next 24 hours, the erroneous articles appeared saying the investigation of Renzi was only in a preliminary stage and that there was no evidence that Renzi had done anything wrong--all but assuring Renzi's reelection.
The New York Times incorrectly reported that "the inquiry was at an early stage" and that "investigators had yet to determine whether there was a basis to open a formal investigation or empanel a grand jury.
The lead paragraph of the Post story said that the Renzi probe was only in a "preliminary stage." The Post story sympathetically quoted Renzi's attorney, Grant Woods, as saying: "When I was [Arizona state] attorney general, we dealt with this all the time in the last 30 days before an election, when candidates came to us with an accusation."
The AP similarly quoted its source saying that the Renzi probe was "in the very early stages," citing a "law enforcement official in Washington."
For good measure, the day after those three news stories, on Oct. 26, the Arizona Republic also published a story saying that the Renzi probe was much ado about nothing.
"This is not a well-developed investigation, by any means," an anonymous Justice Department official told the newspaper. "A tip comes into the department. The department is obligated to follow up... and we do that. People are assuming there is evidence of some crime, even though that is not necessarily true."
In fairness to Miers, she might not have known that Renzi was in fact that subject of a federal criminal investigation of a serious magnitude at the time she asked for McNulty's assistance. But whoever in the Justice Department spoke to the press must have understood that they were not only misleading the public, and that their falsehoods would improperly affect the outcome of an election, but also that they were compromising a sensitive criminal investigation. For instance, as a result of the disclosures, the wiretap on Renzi's phone was compromised.
Charlton, saying he could not discuss the Renzi case in particular, did tell me: "Any time you have a wiretap up and the subject or the target becomes aware that there is an investigation, obviously the value of the information you glean from that wiretap will almost certainly be greatly diminished."
Within weeks of Renzi's reelection, Charlton himself would be told that he was being fired as U.S. Attorney. A report by two Justice Department watchdog agencies, the department's Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility, of the nine U.S. attorneys, concluded that Charlton's firing was most likely unrelated to his prosecution of Renzi.
Previous internal investigations by the Justice Department's Inspector General and ethics office fell short of recommending further action - although the offices noted in their report that they were severely hampered by the refusal of the Bush White House to turn over crucial documents.
Related Links
"Bush Administration's Leaks Bolstered Rick Renzi's Reelection Bid," the Hill, June 24, 2009.
Stephanie Woodrow, "Rove Aide Asked Miers to Clear Republican's Name," Main Justice, Aug. 12, 2009.
Murray Waas can be reached via his Facebook page.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"JOURNALISTS" (NYT, WaPo, AP):
For more on the proper way to deal with "leaks", see this clip from Actual Journalist Rachel Maddow; you don't even have to watch the whole segment. Start at 2:55:
http://www
This issue accurately sums up the role of the "Justice" Department under Cheney/Bush - it was a tool to promote their loyal minions and a cover to prevent them from being investigated and implicated.
All decisions were political.
Massive crimes were committed.
Microscopic penalties were sprinkled out.
And gee, in 2008 we rejected the party responsible for trashing our Constitution.
That's Republicans for you--sponsoring and promoting the re-election of corrupt politicians solely to keep themselves in power. A desperate move by an increasingly desperate party, and even more evidence to add to all the previous evidence that these are people who are not concerned with the well-being of America or with coming up with good ideas for the good of all, but only with the maintenance of their own power structure.
Not just Republicans. The crime rate in Congress is much higher than in the civilized world. What is wrong with us and our system that puts people like this in power, exposes them to so much temptation, and keeps them there.
I think that the justice department is so busy just investigating all the bushies they are going to have to hire new people to take care of everyone else. what a mess that administration is and created in this country. that is what happens when you elect a guy you want to have a beer with......
Well I don't think the beer has that much to do with it. I personally would love to have a beer with Obama. The problem is WHO the president was having those beers with... apparently it was with every warmongering corrupt corporate sleazeball on the planet.
....AND THAT'S THE ONLY REASON YOU ELECT HIM.....
Don't worry! They don't need more people. How many people do you need to do nothing?
And the house of cards coming tumbling down. What ever is done in the dark, or what ever is done illegal will come to light. These criminals should be idicited and sent to prison.
Of course the Justice Department ignored Harriet Miers. Who takes political advice from someone else's cleaning lady?
harriet miers looks like somebody did the ol' painted binoculars trick on her.
"Here, Harriet, look through these"
They fired their own US Attorneys for being too ethical.
that,s right
All this stuff about that Land deal, but it looks like it may go through anyway.
Unfortunately, Arizona politics lately is rife with carpetbaggers (McCain, Renzi, Arpaio) who come to the state, run with $$ provided by outside interests, and go on to make very comfortable secure nests for themselves at the expense of the populace. Until voters at the local and state level really wake up and pay attention, we're going to have this sloppy spillover into national politics like we have had the past 8 years (and actually, well back into the Ronnie Rogaine era).
Democrats aren't invited to discuss any bills coming up. They are basically locked out of any meetings. But right now, the repubs are eating each other.
Try to do that: Interfering with an AG investigation release false info to impede the investigation, alert the guilty party of beign under possible wiretapping, remove a state AG so the guilty party evades justice.
Try to do that when you are a common citizen.
Obviously We are not equal in front of the law, a basic tenet of democracy, ERGO this is not a democracy.
Patrick Fitzgerald
Erik Holder, call him.
Indict Carl Rove !!!
Exactly. Indict, investigate and prosecute both Rove and Alberto Gonzales.
Ditto!
And indict Karl Rove while you're at it !
Investigate, indict, prosecute, sentence, hang'em high.
Get used to this, folks.
For the next several years, at least, there will be many, many disclosures of the crooked doings of the Bush administration.
Yes, but unfortunately that "good diplomat" we elected to the presidency on the strength of his promise to represent Main Street, not Wall Street, is not bold enough to Kick Some Ass and prosecute some of these bastards. I voted for him, raised money for him, and have great high hopes for him, but I hope he will finally realize that he is COMMANDER IN CHIEF, fire some of the Wall Street hustlers, and the Military/Industrial cronies left over from the Bush years.
Just imagine if Harriet Miers had managed to cobble enough support for the appointment to the Supreme Court which Bush insisted she deserved. It seems that corruption was the rule, not the exception, in the Bush White House.
Lordy, she must have been REALLY bad, because the repubs didn't even want her!
Apparently she made a less-than-stellar impression on senators when she met with them one-on-one-both Republican and Democrats.
Did anyone see the article on Miers in Newsweek back when she was SCOTUS nominee? There was a photo of her and Bush. She was staring at him with "those eyes". Any woman who saw it could tell you that she was in love with the man! He probably knew it and used her to do his dirty work.
Three years late, sir
exactly! democrats have been just as complicit.
Yes and no.
The Dems stood by while the Cheney-Bush junta mugged the US citizenry and shredded the Constitution. That's morally wrong.
But they did not personally wield the truncheon and the knife.
If shivering with fear in your boots is complicity, then yes, the Democrats were complicit.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
