Dem staffer suspended, may have leaked NIE

Really? Get out...

 

There are a lot of evil staffers in the news today... take these 60...
_________________

CQ: Facing Fed Probe, House GOP Spending Chief Axes Investigative Staff
By Justin Rood - October 19, 2006, 7:11 PM

My goodness. As TPMm readers know well, House Appropriations chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA) is under federal investigation for possible improprieties in how he oversaw Congress' spending of $900 billion annually. Yesterday, we reported that Lewis had dropped nearly $800,000 in legal fees to defend himself against the probe.

This evening, Congressional Quarterly reports (sub. req.) that in a round of calls Monday evening, Lewis fired 60 investigators who had worked for his committee rooting out fraud, waste and abuse, effective immediately. As in, don't bother coming in on Tuesday.

The investigators were contract workers, brought on to handle the extraordinary level of fraud investigations facing the panel. Sixteen permanent investigative staff are staying on, according to CQ. More:

Lewis’ decision “has in fact stalled all of the investigations on the staff,” said one of the contractors, a former FBI agent, who asked not to be identified. “This eviscerates the investigatory function. There is little if any ability to do any oversight now.”

. . .

“In effect, no investigative function is going to be done,” said the contractor, who called the decision “misguided.”

“This staff has saved billions and billions of dollars, we’ve turned up malfeasance and misfeasance,” the contractor said. “It’s results justify the expense of the staff. I have no idea why the chairman would do this.”

Lewis' spokesman, John Scofield, told CQ that such complaints were "sour grapes," and assured the publication that "there is nothing sinister going on."

http://tpmmuckraker.com/

 

Hey, the American people have a right to know...that staffer is a hero !!

GET THE REPUBS OUT OF OFFICE......Bring our troops home.

DD

 

Basso,

I really appreciate you bringing the venality of the Republicans up in this thread...
____________

LAHOOD: Well, look, we’ve had far too many leaks in the intelligence committee, and I’ve been on the committee eight years and I’m the vice chairman of the committee, and I’m sick and tired of leaks. And when I learned that this information was available to this staffer and a member, and then printed in the New York Times two days later, I really felt compelled, as a member of the committee that’s fed up with the leaks, to send a letter to the chairman and ask him to investigate it. And that’s what’s going on and given that fact that we, you know, we’ve tried to do things in a bipartisan way, this, you know, obviously clearly is a breach of that. So we just felt compelled to send the chairman a letter.

ANCHOR: Congressman, you wrote that letter nearly three weeks ago, and your letter is just surfacing now, at least to us in the media, you know a lot of Democrats are upset today, saying this is all happening just two weeks before the election, the timing is just suspect.

LAHOOD: Yeah, I’ll tell you why I did it, Jane. The reason why I did it is because Jane Harman released the Duke Cunningham — who sat on our Intelligence committee — report, in violation of the trust that she gave to Chairman Hoekstra, in saying that it would be released in a bipartisan way. She released it arbitrarily, and I’m furious about that. She betrayed the trust of the committee because that report was to be released in a bipartisan way. She released it to the media just to embarrass, 21 days before the election, Republicans on the committee. That’s the reason that I released my letter today.

ANCHOR: So it’s payback?

LAHOOD: Look it, this is–we’re in the political season, and if the ranking member on our committee wants to play politics, there’re some of us on the other side that can equally play politics, and I’m not afraid to do it.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/20/lahood-intelligence-suspended/

(This was on Fox)

 

More...
____________

Suspecting Leak, Chairman Suspends Panel Staffer
Democratic Aide to House Intelligence Committee Was Flagged by GOP Member Based on 'Coincidence'

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 21, 2006; A04

The Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence suspended a mid-level Democratic staffer Tuesday based on a suspicion that he may have been connected to the leak of a politically damaging intelligence report almost a month ago, according to Republican and Democratic congressional sources.

The action by Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), which has drawn sharp criticism from Democratic panel members, was described by legislators of both parties as another example of the increased partisan infighting that has damaged the workings of the intelligence panel during this election year.

"The chairman's unilateral action is without basis and an abuse of his power to provide security accesses," Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), ranking Democrat on the panel, said yesterday. "There is no evidence to suggest that the professional staff member in question did anything wrong," she added.

Late yesterday, Washington lawyer Jonathan Turley sent a letter to Hoekstra and Harman saying he represented the staff member involved, Larry Hanauer, whose name had been leaked to the media. Turley wrote that he wanted an expedited review of his client's role "to clear his name at the earliest possible date." He said there was "not a single scintilla of evidence suggesting that Mr. Hanauer had any role in the leaking of the NIE," or National Intelligence Estimate, and that he was drafting a sworn statement to that effect.

Adding to the political overtones, several Republican lawmakers issued news releases yesterday condemning leaks and praising Hoekstra -- including House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio), House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) and Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.).

The initial accusation against Hanauer was made to Hoekstra more than three weeks ago in a letter from Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), a committee member. The charge was based on a "coincidence" that the Democratic staffer obtained the document, at the request of a member, two days before stories about its contents were published. "I have no credible information to say any classified information was leaked from the committee's minority staff. . . . This may in fact be only coincidence and simply 'look bad,' " LaHood said in his letter, but he requested a formal inquiry.

LaHood defended his letter in a telephone interview yesterday. "Why was there this coincidence? . . . That's what the investigation should be about," he said.

LaHood also linked Hoekstra's decision to suspend the staff member on Tuesday to Harman's unilateral release that day of the summary of a special counsel's report about how former representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) manipulated the committee to benefit contractors who had bribed him.

"We are in the political season. . . . If the ranking member wants to play politics," LaHood told Fox News yesterday, referring to Harman, "there are some of us on the other side that can play politics, and I'm not afraid to do it."

Yesterday, Hoekstra sent a letter to Harman saying he thought the suspension was necessary "given the current 'zero tolerance' atmosphere for any indication . . . that suggests the potential for wrongdoing." He also referred to the coincidence of timing as a "red flag" suggesting a leak of classified information. The special counsel's report criticized the committee for failing to act on "red flags" about Cunningham.

Three days earlier, on the day of the suspension, Hoekstra wrote Harman that he had "thought carefully about this and have come to the conclusion that I cannot assume that this was mere coincidence." Hoekstra added that the staffer "could have been involved in, or confirmed the leak of, the classified NIE information."

At issue is the leak of selected contents, harmful to the Bush administration, from a classified April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate titled "Trends of Global Terrorism." The New York Times first published a story about the NIE, with the headline "Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat," on Sept. 23 on its Web site and again in its Sept. 24 print edition.

Intelligence community sources, speaking anonymously because the NIE remains classified, have told The Washington Post that Times reporters were asking questions about the contents of that NIE weeks before publication of the story. In his story, Times reporter Mark Mazzetti wrote that over the weeks he had interviewed "a dozen United States government officials and outside experts . . . for this article." He added that all "had either seen the final version of the document or participated in the creation of earlier drafts."

Three days before publication of the Times story, on Sept. 20, Rep. John F. Tierney (D-Mass.), a member of the intelligence panel, received a media inquiry about the NIE, according to a statement his office released yesterday. Tierney said yesterday that he knew nothing about it but called over to the Democratic staff and asked whether such a report had been received. The staff member talked to the committee security officer, who said such reports had not been put on an internal, secure Web site because of technical problems, according to a committee staff member who asked not to be identified.

Hanauer and the security officer called the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which had produced the NIE, and a copy of the secret document was delivered the next day, Sept. 21. The staff member took a hard copy to Tierney, and the committee security officer scanned it into the panel's classified Web site, making it available to all committee members. Tierney said that after he read it and saw it was classified he refused to discuss it with reporters.

"I don't know why they came down on this fellow," Tierney said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102000174_pf.html

 

Original NYT Story Strongly Suggests Suspended Staffer Could Not Be Source of NIE Leak

A Democratic staffer’s access to classified information was recently suspended by House Intelligence Chairman Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), supposedly because the staffer requested a copy of a National Intelligence Estimate two days before it was reported in the New York Times.

But, as the Washington Post notes, the New York Times was interviewing government officials about the NIE for weeks before the story was printed:

The staffer requested the NIE because Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) received a media inquiry about it. The staffer provided the NIE to Tierney in an appropriate manner. Once Tierney saw the NIE was classified “he refused to discuss it with reporters.”

Hoekstra’s only apparent reason for suspending the staffer was the timeline of his request. The timeline, however, virtually precludes the possibility that the staffer was the source of the leak.

http://thinkprogress.org/

 

Honestly Basso, is that all you've got? You start this thread in the blind hope that some Dem did something bad and when it is not only proven that he didn't but it's also admitted that the Republicans intentionally tried to ruin a guy's career for no reason, all you can come back with is that he worked for Harmon?

OK... In committee work the staffers are usually appointed by the Chair but have to assist all the other members of the committee. Read the second half of post #6 and it'll be a bit more clear.

 

Lawl. Nuff said.

 

So, a technical "snafu" kept a key NIE on Iraq out of the minds of the House Intelligence Committee for 2 months and then for 3 months more the committee staff "lost" this important document.

Unlikely.

I suspect Repubs intentionally "lost" the NIE so Dems on the Committee couldn't see it. The alternative is that this Congress and the people they appoint (or have appointed for them by the WH) are so inept that they can't possibly execute their duties.

And of course, the irony is that this would not have come out except for a petulant Republican Congressman who tried to ruin the career of a Dem staffer out of spite. Hoisted on their own petard.

And thanks again to Basso for highlighting this important story.
______________

Flack: For Months, Tech "Snafu" Kept Key Intel Docs from Lawmakers
By Paul Kiel - October 24, 2006, 3:22 PM

For five months this year, the House intelligence committee had a crucial intelligence report on the increasing threat of terrorism in the wake of the Iraq War -- yet not a single member read it. That's including the panel's chairman, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-IL) and the ranking member Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA).

In fact, an untold number of classified documents were kept from the members of the vital oversight committee from at least April to September of this year, according to the chairman's spokesman. In an interview yesterday, he blamed the months-long delay on technical problems with the "equipment" which handles the reports. (Harman's office did not return our phone calls and emails requesting comment.)

Hoekstra's spokesman told the Washington Post last month that a computer problem had delayed for months the distribution of the now-infamous National Intelligence Estimate on terror and the Iraq war, which was eventually leaked to the New York Times.

"There was a bit of a snafu," the paper quoted the chairman's flack as saying.

I wanted more detail on this "snafu." So yesterday I called Hoekstra's spokesman on the committee, Jamal Ware.

The committee uses an internal, secure Web site to share classified documents, he said. "The equipment that would be used to scan [documents] into the system went down."

"A number of documents were not scanned in," Ware told me. He couldn't explain the precise nature of the problem, although he assured me it was more complicated than simply "running out to get a scanner" at an office supply store. Ware also declined to tell me how long classified documents were kept from committee members.

According to Ware, since the Iraq terror NIE did not make it to the committee's internal system, it was filed quietly away for months. With the exception of the committee's security officer, who receives classified documents from the intelligence community to provide to the panel, no one on the committee knew that the document existed.

Press reports suggest that New York Times reporters began sniffing around about the document in August or early September. According to a statement from intel committee member Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), a Times reporter's inquiry about the document prompted Tierney to find out if it existed. That's when the committee's security officer turned up the document.

A firestorm erupted after the Times revealed the existence of the Iraq terror NIE, which found that the threat of terrorism had worsened in the wake of the war. The administration quickly released a declassifed version of the Key Judgments to the public. The body of the estimate remains classified.

“This was a very anonymous document until the people who illegally disclosed it chose to make it into something,” Ware told me.

Steve Aftergood, who directs the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy, had a different take.

"It’s an interaction with the press that catalyzed the whole process. When the press is locked out, you have to imagine that little or nothing gets done." Calling intelligence oversight in the current Congress a "slapdash, lackadaisical affair," he added: "You know, if the committees aren’t paying attention to the estimates, then either we don’t need the estimates, or we don’t need the committees."

Update: See my update for more.
________________

Update: Scanners, Filing System Share Blame for NIE Blackout
By Paul Kiel - October 24, 2006, 5:55 PM

I just got a call from Jamal Ware, the spokesman for the House Intelligence Committee, about my earlier post on the technical breakdown that prevented lawmakers from reading the infamous National Intelligence Estimate on the global terror threat and the war in Iraq for five months this year.

Ware clarified that the "equipment failure" spanned only two months, March and April, not five, as I reported. For the next three months, the equipment worked fine -- the report was simply lost.

As Ware explained it, the Iraq terror NIE came to the committee in late April, but did not get scanned because of the malfunction. Then, after the equipment was working again in late April, the document -- which contradicted key aspects of Bush administration policy and rhetoric -- sat unnoticed in a "backlog," along with other classified documents awaiting the committee's consideration, until the New York Times revealed its conclusions in late September.

As a result of misplacing this important document for several months, Ware informed me, the committee now has a system in place to make sure that such "snafus" don't prevent committee members from seeing classifed documents. Following the New York Times article, members have been receiving a daily report of classified documents that come in to the committee.

http://tpmmuckraker.com/

 

There's a fight brewing behind the scenes at the House intel committee that deserves your attention. It kicked into high gear last week when ranking member Jane Harman (D-CA) released the summary of the committee's investigation into the corrupt practices of former committee member Rep. Duke Cunningham. As payback, Chairman Hoekstra (R-MI) yanked the clearances of one of the Democratic committee staffers and accused him of having leaked the Iraq NIE to the New York Times.

The accusation is one for which Hoekstra's staff now reportedly concedes the chairman has no evidence. Rep. LaHood (R-IL), who first leveled the accusation, went so far as to tell Fox News that the accusation was payback for Cunningham.

This has been kicking around for a few days. The staffer in question, Larry Hanauer, swore out an affidavit, stating that he played no role in the leak.

Then yesterday Chairman Hoekstra told the Democrats he wants to convene an investigation in which the Republicans alone choose an investigator and that investigator gets to look through the Democratic staff's phone logs, email, and review all other 'relevant' records all with a broad breach to uncover any "improper" conduct.

In other words, it's a witch hunt. You can see the Democrats' response below -- click the images for the full page.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/houseintletter/?resultpage=1&


The back story here is important. The Republicans are looking like they're going to sustain heavy losses on November 7th. One of the reasons is that the public is starting to get a clear view of the disaster they've created in Iraq and the broad sweep over corruption that pervades the entire Capitol. Hoekstra didn't like any of the Duke findings going public. He wanted Harman to agree to keep it secret. But she wouldn't. And there wasn't any legitimate reason why it shouldn't be made public. This is payback.

Most of what is happening to the Republicans right now is happening because too many facts -- about Iraq, about the corruption, and all the rest -- started to leak out. Some people wouldn't roll over anymore.

Keep an eye on this. It's a good prism into what we'll see over the next two weeks.

We will be bringing you more on this soon.

-- Josh Marshall

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

 

That's your response? You post an article trying to smear Dems, and it turns out that the whole mess had no merit, and so you try and throw something else up that you hope is comporable to this non-story?

 

Wow. Props for showing up in this thread, even if it is in a weasly way. Without you calling attention to it, we would have never learned of another aspect of Republican duplicity and inability to govern competently.

And speaking of Fitzmas, that reminds me of a story a while back... Well, I guess it was today... Your boy Libby just had his whole "theory" of the case blown out from under him... Now his lawyers have to come up with an entirely new defense, so you Bush supporters better pony up the money for Scooter's defense fund.
_____________
In the Libby Case, A Grilling to Remember

Friday, October 27, 2006; A21

With withering and methodical dispatch, White House nemesis and prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald yesterday sliced up the first person called to the stand on behalf of the vice president's former chief of staff.

If I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was not afraid of the special counsel before, the former Cheney aide, who will face Fitzgerald in a trial beginning Jan. 11, had ample reason to start quaking after yesterday's Ginsu-like legal performance.

Fitzgerald's target in the witness box was Elizabeth F. Loftus, a professor of criminology and psychology at the University of California at Irvine. For more than an hour of the pretrial hearing, Loftus calmly explained to Judge Reggie B. Walton her three decades of expertise in human memory and witness testimony. Loftus asserted that, after copious scientific research, she has found that many potential jurors do not understand the limits of memory and that Libby should be allowed to call an expert to make that clear to them.

But when Fitzgerald got his chance to cross-examine Loftus about her findings, he had her stuttering to explain her own writings and backpedaling from her earlier assertions. Citing several of her publications, footnotes and the work of her peers, Fitzgerald got Loftus to acknowledge that the methodology she had used at times in her long academic career was not that scientific, that her conclusions about memory were conflicting, and that she had exaggerated a figure and a statement from her survey of D.C. jurors that favored the defense.

Her defense-paid visit to the federal court was crucial because Libby is relying on the "memory defense" against Fitzgerald's charges that he obstructed justice and lied to investigators about his role in the leaking of a CIA operative's identity to the media. Libby's attorneys argue that he did not lie -- that he was just really busy with national security matters and forgot some of his conversations.

When Fitzgerald found a line in one of her books that raised doubts about research she had cited on the stand as proof that Libby needs an expert to educate jurors, Loftus said, "I don't know how I let that line slip by."

"I'd need to see that again," Loftus said when Fitzgerald cited a line in her book that overstated her research by saying that "most jurors" consider memory to be equivalent to playing a videotape. Her research, however, found that to be true for traumatic events, and even then, only 46 percent of potential jurors thought memory could be similar to a videotape.

There were several moments when Loftus was completely caught off guard by Fitzgerald, creating some very awkward silences in the courtroom.

One of those moments came when Loftus insisted that she had never met Fitzgerald. He then reminded her that he had cross-examined her before, when she was an expert defense witness and he was a prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office in New York.

Libby's defense team declined to comment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102601612_pf.html

 

And finally, this despicable story comes to an end...

...thanks again to basso for starting this thread and bringing the mendacity and petty grievances of Republicans to light.

 

....and we all know Democrats are such bastions of honesty and integtrity.