DoJ Official: "I Am Shocked and Baffled"

[babylonsister]

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002698.php

DoJ Official: "I Am Shocked and Baffled"
By Paul Kiel

One of the more damning pieces of testimony yesterday came from Bud Cummins, who received a call from a Justice Department official on February 20th wtih a clear message: if the fired proscutors continued speaking out, then the department would be forced to hit back and dish dirt on them.

Now that official, Michael Elston, the chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, has sent a letter to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to give his side of the story (you can read his letter here). In it, Elston claims that he's "shocked and baffled" at Cummins' interpretation of the call: "I do not understand how anything that I said to him in our last conversation in mid-February could be construed as a threat of any kind."

Let's review what happened. In a February 19th article in The Washington Post, Cummins was quoted on the firings:

"They're entitled to make these changes for any reason or no reason or even for an idiotic reason,... But if they are trying to suggest that people have inferior performance to hide whatever their true agenda is, that is wrong. They should retract those statements."

The next day, Cummins got a call from Elston. And very unfortunately for the Justice Department, Cummins sent out an email no more than an hour after the call to the other fired prosecutors (you can see it here):

The essence of his message was that they feel like they are taking unnecessary flak to avoid trashing each of us specificially or further, but if they feel like any of us intend to continue to offer quotes to the press, or organize behind the scenes congressional pressure, then they would feel forced to somehow pull their gloves off and offer public criticisms to defend their actions more fully.... I was tempted to challenge him and say something movie-like such as "are you threatening ME???", but instead I kind of shrugged it off...

Cummins, a lifelong Republican, continues in the email to refer to Elston's "threat of retaliation" and the "threatening undercurrent in the call." So it was abundantly clear to him that he was being threatened.

The most inflammatory part of the email is Cummins' description of Elston's reaction to the idea of the fired prosecutors testifying before Congress:

"He reacted quite a bit to the idea of anyone voluntarily testifying and it seemed clear that they would see that as a major escalation of the conflict meriting some kind of unspecified form of retaliation."

It was based on this that Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) in his questioning yesterday, drew an analogy between Elston's call and obstruction of justice in a criminal investigation -- an analogy which all four prosecutors agreed to.

But Elston, in his letter, denies that he's ever discouraged anyone from testifying before Congress:

I respect the role of Congress in our constitutional system, and I have never suggested to anyone that it would be appropriate to withhold information or testimony from Congress.

He says he'd told Cumins that "the Department had no position on whether he should testify, and that he should testify if he wanted to testify or decline to testify if he did not want to testify."

That's some kind of misunderstanding.

[waiting for hope]

1. That hole is just getting

deeper and deeper....

[Monkeyman]

4. And the Smell is getting worse

[bemildred]

2. "Shocked and baffled" that his attempt at witness intimidation failed so promptly, perhaps. nt

[havocmom]

3. 'Wire taps for everybody' has nothing to do with fighting terrorists

and EVERYTHING to do with 'getting dirt' with which to black mail anybody and everybody who doesn't kiss junta butt.

Pirvacy is only an illusion and only maintained IF one does what one is told by cheneyco.

[nicknameless]

5. Watching Cummins' testimony, I thought he sounded scared of the DOJ

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[quiet.american]

6. I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked to find there's gambling going on in Rick's Cafe.

This is all so Casablanca. I hope this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship between Henry "Bulldog" Waxman and Patrick "Merry Fitzmas" Fitzgerald.

[Strawman]

7. That's almost Ron Burgundy-esque

"I'm shocked and offended and-- and hurt."


http://www.gotwavs.com/php/sounds/?id=gog&media=MP3S&ty... "e=toohurt.txt&file=toohurt.mp3

[fooj]

33. Ron Burgundy...BWAHAHAHA!

[struggle4progress]

8. Sure looks like black-letter witness tampering:

Criminal Resource Manual

1720 Protection of Government Processes -- Overview

This chapter on obstruction of justice covers those statutes in Title 18, Chapter 73, that protect the integrity of proceedings before the Federal judiciary, Federal executive departments and agencies, and Congress, as well as individuals connected with those proceedings ...

The following statutes are now the chief elements of Chapter 73 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which is entitled "Obstruction of Justice":

18 U.S.C. § 1512 prohibits the use of intimidation, harassment, threats or physical force, including killing or attempts to kill, that is aimed at affecting the presentation of evidence in official proceedings ...

18 U.S.C. § 1512 is not limited by the "pending proceeding" requirement of §§ 1503 and 1505. Accordingly, it is not necessary to show that an official proceeding is pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense ...

18 U.S.C. § 1515 defines the terms used in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512 ...

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/...


TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 73 > § 1512
§ 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

... (b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2) cause or induce any person to—
(A) withhold testimony ...
(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness ... or
(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process ...
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both ...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec...


TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 73 > § 1515
§ 1515. Definitions for certain provisions; general provision

(a) As used in sections 1512 and 1513 of this title and in this section—
(1) the term “official proceeding” means — ...
(B) a proceeding before the Congress; ...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec...

[ptolle]

23. related?

Over at DKos there's a call for people to get on their congress critters about requesting an ethics probe of Rep. Heather Wilson.I though our community might wish to look and see if we could help.

[Irishonly]

27. Done

I wrote yesterday. If all of this crap and corruption keeps up, I am going to be on a first name basis with my senators and representative.

[radfringe]

9. SOP: claim being surprised...

why is this mis-administration always "surprised"?

[Aviation Pro]

10. Because third tier people....

...are always wondering what the hell is going on.

[rainy]

11. This is a revealing statement. I feel like most of the congress and senate

are forth tier while listening to their speeches on the floors. Especially the Republicans.

[Demeter]

14. What They Don't Know, Can't Hurt Them Theory

Bunch of ostriches!

[xxqqqzme]

30. standard rethug policy

it is always the fault of the 'overzealous volunteer' - I seem to recall that from the '04 campaign.

[Botany]

18. They are surprised often aren't they?

Katrina, 9/11, WMDs, Iraq, Global Warning, .......

And in each case it turns out "they" were warned on repeatedly.

[Na Gael]

12. Tapes?

Are any of those threatened, taping these conversations? If not, they should be. When the Congress starts asking questions, just pull out the recording, and let everyone have a listen. No matter how innocuous the conversation, they should be recording everything.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

20. It's illegal without the other person's consent.

However, I'm sure Gonzo has a copy of the call.

[TankLV]

21. I don't care if it is technically illegal - what's worse - NOT recording CRIMINAL threats from the

repukes and letting the REPUKE CRIMES continue, or (illegally) recording their CRIMES so to have proof of their CRIMES when the REPUKES try to deny them later?

I would SECRETLY record everything when dealing with ANY repuke, to save MYSELF and proove THEIR guilt!

If "they" consider MY actions "illegal" in proving THEIR GUILT, so be it...

[Dhalgren]

24. I don't think that it is illegal everywhere. I think that laws governing

the recording of conversations are state laws. In some states if any participant to the conversation is aware of the taping, it's legal, but in other states I think you are right and all parties have to be aware. I am more than willing to be corrected on this if I am wrong.

[badgerpup]

25. Isn't it legal if ONE person consents?

Wondering because a few years ago, a friend was getting some nasty phone calls from her ex and wanted to tape them but was afraid it wasn't legal and the tapes wouldn't be admissable if it came to court.
IIRC, she was assured that as long as it was OK with HER that the conversations were being recorded, she was covered.

[mile18blister]

31. California law requires consent of all parties.

It varies by state, though most states require only one party's consent. Two party states may have an exception for threatening calls. As for interstate calls, again it seems to depend on the state. California requires notification even if the call is from a one party state.

http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.tel.tape.law.html

[Demeter]

13. It Wasn't a Threat, It Was a Promise!

So it wasn't blackmail, or extortion, or any of those actionable items; no, it was just one of our many exit perks!

[MasonJar]

15. And we all know whom we believe too. n/t

[peacetalksforall]

16. "..shocked and offended.." - is that like Shocked and Awed?

[peacetalksforall]

17. Did this offense against justice get addressed in the agreement

with Gonzales - of is this still an issue?

[scarface2004]

19. fasten your seatbelts!!

its going to a rough ride until jan 20, 2009!!!

[MADem]

22. I am shocked, I tell you, SHOCKED...

Your winnings, sir

[janetle]

26. This is getting....

curiouser and curiouser.

[cyberpj]

28. Sounds just like the "shut up" pressure put on our military vets in need. nt

[tavalon]

29. First rule of holes

When you're in one, stop digging.

[Joanne98]

32. "Shocked and Baffled"