|
| Dems to file request for immediate investigation of former US Attorney
General
Larisa Alexandrovna
Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) and Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)
will be issuing a formal request for an immediate investigation with
the US Inspector General's office into John Ashcroft - former US
Attorney General, Raw Story has learned.
The request - released to Raw Story - cites conflict of interest on the
part of Ashcroft in his failure to promptly recuse himself during the
initial investigation into the outing of CIA agent Valerie Wilson.
Ashcroft was US Attorney General at the time.
The CIA filed charges with the FBI and Justice after columnist Robert
Novak made Wilson's identity public in July of 2003. It has since been
learned, as part of a case currently in front of a grand jury, that
Karl Rove - Senior Advisor to President Bush, was the source for
several reporters on the Wilson story.
Advertisement
Ashcroft was appointed to the AG office on the suggestion of Rove, who
was also the political consultant for Ashcroft's 2000 US Senate
campaign bid against the late Governor Mel Carnahan (D-Missouri), for
which Rove was paid an estimated $750,000 in services.
Conyers, ranking member on the House Committee on the Judiciary, and
Hinchey, a member on the House Committee on Appropriations, both
request that US Inspector General, Glen A. Fine, also investigate the
Justice Department's procedural failures, including failure to preserve
documents.
The request is to be filed early this afternoon, but a fully
transcribed version - excluding footnotes - is available below.
---Start of Document ---
Congress of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20515
August 17,2005
The Honorable Glenn A. Fine
Inspector General
U=2ES. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Fine:
As the Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary and a Member of
the Committee on Appropriations, both of which have oversight
jurisdiction over the U.S. Department of Justice, we write to request
that your Office immediately investigate whether then-Attorney General
John D. Ashcroft violated explicit rules on conflicts of interest when
he failed to recuse himself from, and in fact was briefed on, the CIA
name leak investigation despite his personal connection to Karl Rove, a
person of interest to investigators. This investigation would not
conflict with the investigation by Special Prosecutor Patrick J.
Fitzgerald into the actual leak; instead, it would focus on Mr.
Ashcroft=EF=BF=BDs failure to recuse himself at the appropriate time in
the case. Furthermore, the investigation into the recusal delay would
be a logical extension of the request that you also investigate the
Department's failure to comply with proper procedures by not ensuring
the preservation of documents and other evidence connected with the
leak.
Early in the Department's investigation of who had leaked a covert CIA
operative's identity to the media, it became clear that Karl Rove, a
senior advisor to the President, was receiving public attention as
someone who may have been involved in the crime. We have now learned
that, according to law enforcement officials close to the
investigation, Mr. Rove failed to disclose to the FBI that he had ever
spoken with Time's Mathew Cooper, a reporter involved in the case.
These officials also have indicated that then-Attorney General Ashcroft
was personally and privately briefed on the Rove interview.
These new disclosures are troubling because, at the time of these
events, Mr. Ashcroft had known personal and political connections to
Mr. Rove. Mr. Rove was an adviser to Mr. Ashcroft during the latter's
political campaigns, earning almost $750,000 for his services. Mr. Rove
also had urged the President to nominate Mr. Ashcroft to be Attorney
General after Mr. Ashcroft lost his Senate re-election campaign to the
deceased Mel Carnahan.
The fact that Mr. Ashcroft recused himself eventually demonstrates that
there in fact were conflicts of interest with his continued involvement
in the investigation. The fact that he did not recuse himself early on
and was briefed on the mater may well have violated ethical rules and
guidelines.
Existing law and rules of professional conduct govern when Department
attorneys must recuse themselves from particular investigations.
Federal law requires the Attorney General to promulgate rules mandating
the disqualification of any officer or employee of the Justice
Department "from participation in a particular investigation or
prosecution if such participation may result in a personal, financial,
or political conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof." Pursuant
to this requirement, the Department has promulgated regulations stating
that:
no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or
prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with: (1)
any person ... substantially involved in the conduct that is the
subject of the investigation or prosecution; or (2) any person ...
which he knows or has a specific and substantial interest that would be
affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.
In this case, Mr. Ashcroft would have been prohibited from involvement
in the leak investigation under both provisions. His relationships with
the President and Mr. Rove consists of both personal and political
connections with individuals who might have been the
investigation=EF=BF=BDs subjects. At a minimum, his friend, Mr. Rove, had
a "specific and substantial interest that would be affected by the
outcome" in that his entire political legacy would be tarnished if he
were implicated in the leak.
To reiterate the importance of preventing conflicts of interest, the
Justice Department has further explicated the guidelines in its U.S.
Attorneys=EF=BF=BD Manual. The Attorneys' Manual provides that:
When United States Attorneys, or their offices, become aware of an
issue that could require a recusal in a criminal or civil matter or
case as a result of a personal interest or professional relationship
with parties involved in the matter, they must contact General
Counsel=EF=BF=BDs Office (GCO), EOUSA.
The requirement of recusal does not arise in every instance, but
only where a conflict of interest exists or there is an appearance of a
conflict of interest or loss of impartiality.
In the leak investigation, Mr. Ashcroft clearly had a professional
relationship with a party involved in the mater. His failure to have
recused himself earlier may have been an instance of "too little, too
late," as the conflict may have impeded the investigation.
Furthermore, rules of professional conduct bar lawyers such as Mr.
Ashcroft from maters in which they have conflicts of interest. Because
Department attorneys must follow the ethical rules of the bar in which
they practice,8 as an official at Main Justice he would have been
obligated to comply with the District of Columbia Bar's Rules of
Professional Conduct. These Rules state that, without consent, a lawyer
shall not represent a client if "the lawyer's professional judgment on
behalf of the client will be or reasonably may be adversely affected by
the lawyer=EF=BF=BDs responsibilities to or interests in a third party or
the lawyer=EF=BF=BDs own financial, business, property, or personal
interests." In the instant situation, Mr. Ashcroft clearly had a
personal connection to Mr. Rove that would have interfered with proper
oversight of the case.
We look forward to hearing whether you will open such an investigation
and, if not, the reason for your decision.
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
Maurice Hinchley
Member
Committee on Appropriations
---End of Document ---
|
|