Justice Department Subpoenas Its Former Lawyers In Civil Rights Probe

A federal grand jury has subpoenaed several former senior Justice Department attorneys for an investigation into the politicization of the Department's own Civil Rights Division, according to sources close to the investigation.

The extraordinary step by the Justice Department of subpoenaing attorneys once from within its own ranks was taken because several of them refused to voluntarily give interviews to the Department Inspector General, which has been conducting its own probe of the politicization of the Civil Rights Division, the same sources said.

The grand jury has been investigating allegations that a former senior Bush administration appointee in the Civil Rights Division, Bradley Schlozman, gave false or misleading testimony on a variety of topics to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sources close to the investigation say that the grand jury is also more broadly examining whether Schlozman and other Department officials violated civil service laws by screening Civil Rights attorneys for political affiliation while hiring them.

Investigators for the Inspector General have also asked whether Schlozman, while an interim U.S. attorney in Missouri, brought certain actions and even a voting fraud indictment for political ends, according to witnesses questioned by the investigators. But it is unclear whether the grand jury is going to hear testimony on that issue as well.

One person who has been subpoenaed before the grand jury, sources said, was Hans von Spakovsky, who as a former counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights was a top aide to Schlozman. An attempt to reach Spakovsky for comment for this story was unsuccessful.

Earlier this year, Spakovsky withdrew his name from nomination by President Bush to serve on the Federal Election Commission after repeatedly claiming a faulty memory or citing the attorney-client privilege to fend off questions from senators about allegedly using his position to restrict voting rights for minorities -- and that he hindered an investigation of Republican officeholders in Minnesota accused of discriminating against Native American voters.

Three current and former Justice Department officials were questioned by investigators about allegations that Schlozman--with Spakovsky advising and assisting him-- made decisions whether to hire and fire attorneys in the Civil Rights Divison on the basis of their political affiliation.

Another person subpoenaed by the grand jury, according to several sources, was Jason Torchinsky, who, like Spavosky, was also a Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.

Torchinsky is not under investigation for any wrongdoing himself, but rather subpoenaed as a witness in the probe, sources said. Previously, however, Torchinsky had refused to voluntarily answer questions from investigators working for the Justice Department's Inspector General about the politicization of the Civil Rights Divison. Reached at his home on Tuesday night, Torchinsky declined to comment for this article.

Sources familiar with the federal grand jury subpoenas say that they were approved at the highest levels of the Justice Department.

The sources said that investigators working the case as well as senior Department officials were distressed that some of the Justice Department's most senior political appointees refused to co-operate with an investigation by the very Department they once served.

"What does this say for the average person on the street if we want them to co-operate?" said a senior official, "How can we say to the ordinary citizen that you should report crimes, tell the government what you know, when the people who ran the Department of Justice thumb their noses at the system?"

Another federal law enforcement official familiar with the subpoenas said that they believed that senior Justice Department officials had no choice but to approve the subpoenas because to do otherwise would have meant overruling career prosecutors and their actions would appear political if they did. The official also said that political appointees at the top of the Department had to appear to be aggressive in their investigation of the politicization because to do otherwise might lead to calls for a special prosecutor to take over the investigation from them.

A former Justice Department attorney who was subpoenaed said that he believed they had been called before the grand jury as "retaliation" for refusing to talk voluntarily to investigators working for Justice's Inspector General. Current Justice Department employees are required to talk to investigators, while former employees are not.

But sources with first-hand knowledge of the investigation said that the former Justice Department officials were subpoenaed because they had information necessary to the Department's probe and without subpoenas there was no other way to compel their testimony.

During his tenure in the Civil Rights Division, career employees charged that Schlozman disregarded longstanding voting rights law to electorally favor Republicans over Democrats.

Joseph Rich, who was chief of the voting rights section of the Civil Rights Division under Schlozman, told the Boston Globe: "Schlozman was reshaping the Civil Rights Division. Schlozman didn't know anything about voting law. . . . All he knew is he wanted to be sure that the Republicans were going to win."

Schlozman and other Bush administration appointees in the Justice Department claimed that federal law enforcement authorities had been deficient in prosecuting cases of voter fraud. Schlozman and other Bush administration officials--most prominently Karl Rove- claimed that the failure to prosecute purported voter fraud benefited Democrats at the expense of Republicans. But most independent assessments suggest that the vast majority of reports of voting fraud are unfounded.

A study [PDF] by Lorraine C. Minnite, an assistant professor of political science at Barnard College, found that most reports of voting fraud turned out to be "unsubstantiated or false claims by the loser of a close race, mischief, and administrative or voter error." Joseph Rich, who was chief of the voting-rights section in Justice's Civil Rights Division until 2005, told me in an interview: "There is virtually no evidence that voter fraud ever occurs except by individuals and in rare instances."

Democrats and interest groups ranging from the League of Woman Voters to the NAACP to those who protect the rights of the disabled, assert that the White House and Republican activists exaggerate claims of voter fraud as a means to suppress voter participation. Citing allegations of purported voter fraud, the Bush White House has supported state initiatives which would require voters to produce state photo identification at the polls.

In the courts, however, state and federal judges have said that such requirements might discourage voting by minorities, the disabled, the impoverished, students, and the elderly--all segments of voters who traditionally vote in greater numbers for the Democrats.

Von Spakovsky, Schlozman's deputy, who has been subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury because of his refusal to speak to investigators, was also alleged to have to misused his official position by setting aside the law to take actions to help Republican candidates.

When von Spakovsky was nominated to serve on the Federal Election commission, six career officials of the Justice Department's Voting Rights Section, who had worked under him, wrote the Senate asking that he not be confirmed.

The six alleged that "during the 2004 election cycle" von Spakovsky "broke with established Department policy by getting involved with contentious and partisan litigation on the eve of the election. Mr. von Spakovsky drafted legal briefs between the Republican and Democratic parties in three battleground states, Ohio, Michigan and Florida just before the election, all in favor of the Republican party's position." The six career officials further asserted: "These briefs ran counter to the well-established practice of the Civil Rights Division not to inject itself into litigation or election monitoring on the eve of an election where it would be viewed as expressing a political preference or could have an impact on a political dispute."

These briefs, the former Voting Rights attorneys said in their letter, ran counter to the well-established practice of the Civil Rights Division not to inject itself into litigation or election monitoring on the eve of an election where it could be viewed as expressing a political preference or could have an impact on a political dispute. Moreover, in another case between the Republican and Democratic parties which concerned an Ohio law that permitted political parties to challenge voters, he drafted a letter that was sent to the court which supported the Republican Party position even though the law did not implicate any statute that the Department enforces.

During his tenure with the Civil Rights Division, Schlozman also repeatedly clashed not only with career attorneys in his own office but also with federal prosecutors who he did not believe were taking the issue of voting fraud seriously enough.

One of those he clashed with was Todd Graves, the U.S. Attorney in Kansas City, Missouri, a conservative Republican stalwart who excelled in his job, but who also was fired by the Bush administration in March, 2006-- only to be temporarily replaced by Schlozman.

As interim U.S. attorney, less than a week before a tightly contested U.S. Senate race in Missouri in 2006, Schlozman brought an indictment of voter fraud against four workers with a liberal advocacy group, despite the fact that Justice Department guidelines prohibit such indictments so close to election day. Schlozman said that he was justified in his actions because he was afraid that more fraud might take place.

But Robert Kengle, a former deputy chief in the voting-rights section at Justice during the Clinton and Bush administrations, told me in an interview: "They cooked up that there is a general exception to the policy because they wanted to prevent more fraud. But indicting people before the election was not going to change anything. Registration had already closed.... There just wasn't a justification for bending the law."

The Justice Department guidelines state: "Federal prosecutors and investigators should be extremely careful not to conduct overt investigations during the pre-election period or while the elections are underway."

One reason for such a policy, the guidelines say, is that "a criminal investigation by armed, badged federal agents runs the obvious risk of chilling legitimate voting and campaign activities."

In the end, the indictment had to be reissued after the election. In his haste to bring charges, Schlozman had indicted the wrong person--someone with a name similar to the person he wanted to charge.

Related: The Ninth Man Out: A Fired U.S. Attorney Tells His Story

Comments

[Oldtt]

From the article: "Sources familiar with the federal grand jury subpoenas say that they were approved at the highest levels of the Justice Department."

That would be Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, whose nomination to the position was supported by NY home state Senator Charles Schumer, for which he was recently vilified on this website as a traitor to Progressives. Hopefully this action by DOJ will improve Chuck's standing.

[ThunderclapNewman]

If Muka.sey approved it, it is the first time he's done anything to rock Booosh's boat.

He has done nothing but sully his own reputation by his hands-off approach.

[Oldtt]

Point is: he was the best nominee available under GWB and he isn't Gonzo.

[joebaggadonuts]

I wonder if he did not approve it to slow down the grand jury investigation.

[bygollymissmolly]

Not likely. Mukasey has only approved them because he knows that they are unenforceable. Haven't seen any subpoenas enforced recently, have you.

I will NEVER forgive either Schumer or Feinstein and I know that I am not alone. They are both DINOS and traitors to their party.

[Lion24]

How about going after the law-breaking, Constitution-trashing telecom CEOs with the same vigor??

[IowaKid]

EXACTLY!!!!!!!

[Gordon]

how did the telecoms trash the constitution?

[TrollCryBabies]

Do your own leg work counselor in the future..

http://www.eff.org/files/nsa/statutes.pdf

[anelder]

Sorry but I do believe they are also the little men. Such a hullabaloo - who knows why - when it's at the top of this food chain that the ax should fall upon..

[BradPittsburgh]

Ken nedy would have lost the 1960 election if not for the massive vote fraud by the Da ley machine in Chicago. because of that he won by 1/10th of a per cent.

[ZHarris]

Doofus, Kennedy lost Illinois and won the electoral college 303 to 219.

[ZHarris]

Doo fus, Ke nnedy lost Illinois and won the electoral college 303 to 219.

[Oldtt]

JFK won Illinois by 9000 votes.

[Gordon]

back to elementary school IMMEDIATELY!

[Lion24]

Tell it to Diebold and Choice Point re: '00 and '04, dude.

[trollsbwild]

Anything to report on tthe FDR election?

[ThunderclapNewman]

What a whining liar you are, BradPicksBoogers.

No one believes anything you post.

[anelder]

And this is not childish?

[BobsNotWorking]

There isn't anything complicated here. LBJ told a younger aid, immediately after signing the Civil Rights Bill, that he had just "given the South to the Republicans for the rest of my life and possibly yours." He knew what he was doing, love him or hate him, LBJ was a very astute politician. He knew which party would suck up the disaffected racists.

[Superbus]

Al Gore and every southern Democrat voted against that legislation. Just a heads up.

[kay]

Conservatives voted against it. Liberals voted for it.

You're a conservative.

[ThunderclapNewman]

Votes for the 1964 Act:

The original House version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

[Oldtt]

You are referring to Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Senior, who refused to sign the so-called Southern Manifesto of 1956 opposing integration, voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act (for which he later apologized), and voted for the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

[alfo]

hey!!! murray , maybe you haven't been paying attention but the doj is in the pocket of gwb,with all the rhetoric of a snake oil salesman mike mukasee at the conformation hearing sold this box of bush law to the democrats. who just marched in lock step like the e'loy of time machine fame.

[darthdarcy]

Why do you think they call it The "Criminal" Justice System..?

[SouthPrairie]

The senior Justice Department official "was distressed" and "had no choice" or they would "appear" to be politicized. Pleeeeeeeze. The real reason they went along with this was that "they did not want a special prosecutor" PERIOD. They want to close as many of these cases as possible so that the Corruptlicans are not further revealed for what they are: corrupt political individuals that are horrid at perfoming the duties of their positions.

Their great at politics, terrible at governing. Please, not again America. Not a third time.

[WLA]

Yes. And it's going to take a lot of weed-pulling to clean up this mess.

[kay]

A recent study [PDF] by Lorraine C. Minnite, an assistant professor of political science at Barnard College, found that most reports of voting fraud turned out to be "unsubstantiated or false claims by the loser of a close race, mischief, and administrative or voter error." Joseph Rich, who was chief of the voting-rights section in Justice's Civil Rights Division until 2005, told me in an interview: "There is virtually no evidence that voter fraud ever occurs except by individuals and in rare instances."

And every Sec of State knows it, and every County Bd of Election knows it.

It's the biggest scam ever. They simply made it up.

[Superbus]

Voter fraud is an equal opportunity crime, perpetrated by both parties, but perfected in the democrat wards of Chicago, Philadelphia and Boston, as well as the great city of New Orleans, the incubator of democrat corruption.

[ZHarris]

50 years ago...

[kay]

Baloney. Prove it. There are reams of studies. REAMS.

Just FYI, the hacks on the Supreme Court didn't rely on ACTUAL voter fraud. They relied on their opinion that conservatives might THINK there was voter fraud, and the delusional paranoid fantasies of the Right might contribute to less faith in the process.

So that's justification to disenfranchise.

Because conservative voters are delusional, and need constant coddling, we have to potentially disenfranchise thousands.

[ThunderclapNewman]

Shortbus the Liar strikes again.

There is no proof for your assertions.
NONE.

There are no verifiable cases of widespread voter fraud.
There never have been.

You are, as always, a whining liar.

[Lion24]

Voter fraud 2008 is a direct attempt by Republicans to keep African Americans away from the polls, TeenyBus. And you know it.

[BradPittsburgh]

good to see the system is working.

[kay]

Think conservatives could see their way clear to releasing any political prisoners who may have been caught up in this 8 year-long partisan feeding frenzy?

INDICTING voters is probably not PERSUASIVE, Bradley.

[BradPittsburgh]

just brad not bradley, like you are just kay not kaylee.

[StrangerThanFiction]

If you look back, all of this really started in 1996...when the Republicans took over the House and Senate.

[LeadershipCrisis]

67 for Senate impeachment conviction, yes.

"I think" if the house formally begins impeachment (trial), Bush can't PARDON anyone.

No PARDON ability if on trial, so those crooks who are/were protected by an eventual pardon may start talking.

[Arguman]

This is good news, of course.

But I think there are a few other things on the Justice Department's list to go through first. Like the firing of their own attorneys, the White House's torturing of prisoners, Karl Rove just for the hell of it, a number of former WH cabinet members, Bush, Cheney, etc.

Just like Congress, it appears the Justice Department only concerns itself with issues that have been recently in the news.

[bronceye]

They only have 6 months to get all the faces and names conglomerated to issue a not guilty and they can all ride off into the sunset togeether. They are washing each other's hands, don't you know. It's become glaryingly obvious that the Justice dep't. is a cover for the RNC. They will be pronounced innocent and unreproachable. Done deal.

[Meggie]

W will pardon the whole mess. he's partying right up to the last minute and then ZAP it'll all be over except for how they drag the last few bags of taxpayer money out the door.

[BradPittsburgh]

marc rich

[Bobleblah1]

They need to round these people up and prosecute them all for violation of civil rights laws.

This country is in a state of lawlessness, all because the government chooses to conduct itself in a lawless manner.

No meaningful change or legislation can take place when the mechanism for enforcing the law is totally corrupt. From top to bottom the Purging of the Justice Department must be the first order of business.

THE FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Meggie]

If it's true that W cannot pardon anyone while impeachment proceedings are underway, then Pelosi MUST get off whatever made her take her current position and start impeachment inquiry immediately. pick a topic - enough were already presented on the floor to keep them busy for a long time.

[ZHarris]

"If it's true that W cannot pardon anyone while impeachment proceedings are underway..."

It's not.

[Durango]

The President can not pardon impeachments.

Constitution Article 2 Sec 2 ". . . he (President) shall have Power to graant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

That is: If the Constitution still means anything.

[ZHarris]

The career officials have been standing strong; the republican appointees will be GONE

Unless that white haired dude gets elected...

[kay]

The irony.

Conservative lawyers were suppressing minority votes just as the first AA major Party candidate was emerging.

They have an incredible sense of history, don't they? They're always on the wrong side of it.

[JeanPaulSatire]

That WRINKLY white haired dude...

(Can you say "Mc Prune?")

[Meggie]

"retaliation"
geez - you'd better thank your lucky stars that the very justice system and country that you took advantage of and abused is now in charge of this investigation. other countries have very different ways to "retaliate"

[TipTop]

Is it traditional conservative values or conservative family values that are being followed by a refusal to respond to questions from the Justice Department inspectors, House of Representatives committees and finally by Federal Grand Juries?
It's confusing to hear that the law should be followed in theory except when it becomes uncomfortable, inconvenient or too dangerous to reconcile with political beliefs.
When those who espouse these "values" refuse to comply with the laws, they should be given
the opportunity to to see how comfortable the values they wrap themselves in, really are, in prison.

[mjtaylor22]

THE KICKER IS i SAW THIS ON cSPAN THE OTHER NIGHT, AND NOT ON ANY NEWS STATIONS, TOO BUSY TALKING ABOUT THE CELEBRITY ADD RIGHT..
THANSK CSPAN