« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Bloch: I Don't Get No Respect
It's hard enough to get the facts straight when allegations are made. But everything gets all the more complicated in the Bush Administration's hall of mirrors; it's all pots and kettles.
Consider this dust-up between the Office of Special Counsel and the Justice Department. In one corner, you have Special Counsel Scott Bloch, who heads an obscure little office that is charged with investigating whistleblower complaints, Hatch Act violations, and the like -- but who is himself being investigated for retaliating against whistleblowers and politicizing his office. Oh, and he used a tech service called Geeks on Call to scrub his hard drive at work (he says all the info was personal). In the other corner, you have the Justice Department, and well, you know all about that.
In a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey last week, Bloch charged that the Department was blocking his probe of politicization in the DoJ, his investigation of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias' firing (was it because of his Navy reserve service?), and a whistleblower complaint against former U.S. attorney Rachel Paulose. Eric Black, who reported on the letter last night, has helpfully posted a copy here (pdf).
In the letter, Bloch complains that 1) after the Justice Department launched its own internal investigation of the U.S. attorney firings and politicization in the Department last spring, they asked him to back off, and 2) the DoJ has refused to investigate a whistleblower complaint against Paulose.
Bloch's job, at least under the Bush administration, is to write investigatory reports which the White House will then ignore. Tellingly, Bloch complains in the letter that he's been trying to get White House counsel Fred Fielding on the phone for two months and had no luck.
Bloch does have authority to investigate such matters. But he has very little actual power to pursue those investigations. So when the Department refuses to comply with a document request or stifles a whistleblower probe, all he can do is complain and threaten to complain elsewhere. As he puts it in his letter: "Are you requesting I report to the president that you refuse to investigate disclosures made by a career federal prosecutor, and employee of your agency?" Bloch can also complain to Congress -- and the judiciary and oversight committees were notably copied on this letter to Mukasey. But that's all he can do.
As for the Justice Department, the joint probe by the inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility remains ongoing, and expectations remain high. But Bloch charges that the Department is doing all it can to sweep the Paulose matter under the rug -- it won't be covered by the joint probe and they're refusing to investigate the whistleblower complaints. It seems from Bloch's letter that the DoJ disputes all this, however.
Who to believe?
Comments (11)
Anonymous wrote on January 29, 2008 12:37 PM:Why would an office that can only make recommendations to the White House get any respect?
Bloch investigated and found that GSA Administrator Lurita Doan had grossly violated the Hatch Act, abused her office and should be terminated. He used his power to "recommend" to the White House that she be removed. The White House didn't act.
Why even bother with the charade of allowing an investigation when no eventual action would be taken - by the White House, Congress or anyone?
Gotta hand it to Cheney. He's been laying in wait for 30 years, all the while working to figure out how every little Federal government shortcoming and loophole can be exploited.
brian wrote on January 29, 2008 12:57 PM:Anonymous - I agree - the Cheney/Rove takeover of DOJ has been a masterpiece of destroying an honorable institution.
The scariest, most shocking part of this operation has been the takeover of the Office Of Legal Counsel.
The OLC decides what is legal and what is illegal. So far everything including wireless wiretaps and torture have been deemed legal.
Greaseball Stephen Bradbury is still in charge - no doubt composing daily more memoranda that exculpate the criminals in charge of the government.
Note : Bradbury has yet to be confirmed. The date for his confirmation was long ago...
Amazing.
moondancer wrote on January 29, 2008 1:31 PM:LATimes has a major piece today on this as well, and Scott Horton at Harpers has a great report he just posted on all three investigations. He likes OICs Fine, is OK on Bloch, but thinks Jarrett at OPR is a bush slug.
tbhull wrote on January 29, 2008 2:14 PM:I get the feeling that these investigations are going to wind up about the time all the perps are getting thrown out anyway by the new administration.
Serious obstruction by Mukasey is carrying the fredo banner right to the end.
The Justice Department is a fucking joke and worthy of absolutely no respect.
LawrenceKansan wrote on January 29, 2008 2:27 PM:I agree, Moondancer: Mukasey is just as bad as Fredo. Does anyone know if Chuck Schumer has renounced or apologized for his endorsement of Mukasey? Has Mukasey shown any integrity on ANYTHING so far?
GMFORD wrote on January 29, 2008 2:28 PM:Scrubbing hard drive of personal info? But I thought if he was using US Government computer then everything on it belongs to the US. So if the info was personal isn't that a violation on its face?
TomPaine wrote on January 29, 2008 3:30 PM:The whole Republican Party, since the first election of Richard Nixon in 1968. has been a criminal enterprise and every jurisdiction they govern is immediately turned into a part of that criminal enterprise.
Scott Bloch is no hero; he is simply a political renegade trying to cover his own misdeeds by outing the misdeeds of others.
Goofy wrote on January 29, 2008 3:35 PM:For a sad, but expected, chuckle.. fight your way through this letter. It reads as if written by a 6th grader.
Roberta wrote on January 29, 2008 7:05 PM:While Bloch comes off testily in his letter (I don't think it's as bad as Goofy does; I'm sad to say I've read much worse from this crowd), I don't think he's actually unreasonable.
I'm not sure why Paul Kiel states "Bloch does have authority to investigate such matters. But he has very little actual power to pursue those investigations. So when the Department refuses to comply with a document request or stifles a whistleblower probe, all he can do is complain and threaten to complain elsewhere" if his office has, as Bloch states, "exclusive authority to investigate and prosecute violations of the Hatch Act, prohibited personnel practices, and political intrusion into decision making." This should be a matter of statutory powers, and Bloch cites many codes to support his actions.
It is probably most accurate to concede that Bloch has been ignored by the rest of the Administration IN SPITE of the authority he has to investigate and prosecute these matters. Maybe Bloch is a wienie (I'd appreciate a little more dignity from him in his letter to Mukasey), but if it's his job, then it's his job.
DoJ IG Fine and DoJ OLC Colborn both tried to get Bloch to step aside and stop his investigations into the USA issues, according to Bloch. With what we all have learned about the machinations inside the DoJ, this is hardly unbelievable. It's actually likely to be true.
However, Bloch's whining would sound less petulant if readers didn't have the subtext of knowing about Bloch's hard drive escapade. That doesn't make him look good, but it doesn't make him without credibility in his complaints about USA-related issues.
The DoJ bears the burden of proof in this, I think, because whatever Bloch hid by wiping his hard drive, it can only be Tinkertoys® compared to what has already been confirmed about DoJ and Administration activities. Maybe it's good that Bloch is petulant, because this may be why he hasn't backed down in the face of such daunting opposition.
Helena Montana wrote on January 29, 2008 7:20 PM:About Mukasey, I've been wondering why a respected jurist would want to end his career as just another Bush thug.
Joe Carson wrote on January 30, 2008 7:40 PM:Date: January 30, 2008
To: Whom It May Concern
From: Joe Carson, PE, , netmultiple-time prevailing whistleblower in Dept. of Energy , petitioner in multiple cases against US Office of Special Counsel (OSC) Knoxville, TN 865-300-5831
Subject: Special Counsel Scott Bloch letter to AG Mukasey (attached) and LA Times Story of January 29, 2008
I am a co-founder of OSC Watch , which has 3 objectives: 1) expose how the OSC, since 1989, has failed to comply with its primary statutory duty - to protect federal employees from prohibited personal practices (PPP’s), 2) stop OSC’s lawbreaking, and 3) obtain a measure of justice and restoration for the 10,000 or more loyal, patriotic, federal employees, who sought OSC’s protection from PPP’s since 1989 and failed to obtain the protection OSC is required to provide. The members of the OSC Watch Steering Committee are nearing completion of a petition to Congress to conduct oversight of OSC focused on OSC Watch’s concerns about systemic and persistent OSC lawbreaking.
I am also a party to a number of legal actions against OSC, alleging a number of aspects and instances of OSC’s failure to comply with relevant law to protect federal employees from PPP’s or report the results of investigations it conducts per 1216. In those cases, it is an assistant United States Attorney who represents OSC against my claims of OSC’s failures to protect federal employees, including United States attorneys, against PPP’s. Had OSC complied with its statutory duties to protect federal employees from PPP since 1989, I think that the Department of Justice, as other federal agencies, particularly the Department of Energy, would be much different places and I think national tragedies, such as 9/11, failure of levees in New Orleans, loss of space shuttle Columbia, might have been averted and the Department of Justice would be much more resistant to being used as a political spoil. A trial court decision in one of those cases, finding significant OSC non-compliance with aspects of it statutory duties to protect me, is attached.
My comments are Special Counsel Bloch’s letter to AG Mukasey are focused on its first two pages about OSC’s PPP investigations (conducted per 1214) and the Hatch Act and 1216(a)(4) investigations at DOJ.
1. Special Counsel Bloch’s legal claims about his jurisdiction to investigate violations of law under OSC’s jurisdiction by DOJ are correct, as far as he goes. But he fails to state what his fundamental statutory duty is to the DOJ employee(s) who filed PPP complaints with OSC - to investigate the PPP complaint, to determine the whether “there are reasonable grounds to believe a PPP has occurred, exists, or is to be taken,” and appropriately report that PPP determination. If OSC makes a positive PPP determination, it must report it to AG Mukasey per 1214(e), to enable AG Mukasey to comply with his statutory obligation to “prevent PPP’s” in DOJ, per 5 USC 2302(c). That is where OSC’s statutory duties end, it has complete discretion as a prosecutorial agency about formally seeking corrective action or disciplinary action as a result of his PPP investigations. Mr. Bloch’s five year tenure at Special Counsel will end, coincidentally, in January 2009, his claims about the end of the current administration are disingenuous, it is his statutory 5 year tenure ending that is more relevant.
2) Special Counsel Bloch fails to mention that he has subpoena power over DOJ to execute his legal jurisdiction over it, as described at 5 USC 1212(b). He apparently has not subpoenaed DOJ for information to this point. If he issues subpoenas DOJ for documents, depositions, or responses to interrogatories and DOJ does not comply with OSC’s subpoena, OSC can request the US Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to seek an order from Federal District Court to enforce it. MSPB would use its attorneys, not DOJ ones, in such an action.
I suggest the following questions for OSC:
1) How many PPP complaints, alleging how many specific PPP’s, has it received from DOJ employees since 2001?
2) How many times has OSC determined “there are reasonable grounds to believe a PPP has occurred, exists, or is to be taken,” as a result of its investigations of these PPP complaints?
3) For each positive PPP determination, where is the public record of its determination, its transmittal of that determination to DOJ, and the Attorney General Certified DOJ response, as required by 5 USC 1214(e) and 1219(a)(3)?
4) Why has OSC not subpoenaed DOJ to provide the information OSC needs to conduct its ongoing PPP investigations?