New Reuters story out on John Ensign affair

I have a new story out this morning for Reuters about the John Ensign case.  In the excerpt below, I highlighted some of the new disclosures in the story.  Here is the story lede:

(Reuters) – It was one of the most high-profile investigations of a senator in years: John Ensign of Nevada had conducted an affair with his campaign treasurer, Cynthia Hampton, the wife of his closest friend and chief of staff. His family later paid $96,000 to the couple, and suspicions arose that the payment amounted to hush money in the form of an illegal campaign contribution.

Ensign’s once promising political career was over because of the disclosures, but he was no longer in any legal jeopardy.

The Justice Department had informed him in December 2010 that he would not face criminal charges. An aggressive Senate Ethics Committee investigation was still pursuing Ensign, but that probe would be shelved once he resigned.

As Ensign was preparing to leave the Senate, investigators for the Senate Ethics Committee were attempting at the 11th hour to obtain a trove of email correspondence concerning the payments to the Hamptons. The trouble for the committee was that Ensign’s attorneys insisted the emails were privileged.

The committee had unsuccessfully battled for 18 months to obtain them.

A Reuters examination of the Ensign probe shows the case then took a sudden turn: Ensign reversed course and handed over more than 1,000 sensitive emails between himself and his attorneys and other top advisers. The decision “puzzled” congressional investigators who thought they would never see the emails and baffled even most of his own closest advisers, say people close to the case.

That decision would also reverse Ensign’s legal fate: even after he resigned on May 3, the Senate Ethics Committee continued its probe and concluded he violated federal criminal laws and should have been expelled from the Senate.

The Justice Department, which had cleared Ensign, is now almost certain to reopen its criminal investigation, attorneys close to the case told Reuters.

The unexpected last minute developments in the Ensign case raise serious questions as to why the Justice Department closed its file on the Senator without first obtaining the crucial emails later seen by the Senate.

A senior Justice Department official told Reuters that the decision to publicly say that they were no longer pursuing Ensign displayed bad judgment, harmed the investigation, and will likely leave lingering effects on the Department’s reputation in prosecuting public officials.

The rest of the story can be found here.   The news broken in the story is this:

1) The Department of Justice closed its file on Ensign last year and told him they were no longer pursuing a criminal prosecution of him despite never seeing 1,000 possibly incriminating emails between him and his attorneys and staff.

Reuters obtained some of the emails, which we quote in the story.

2) The Justice Department of Ensign is likely to now be reopened, according to people close to the investigation.

3) Ensign himself could have avoided a recommendation by the Senate Ethics Committee that he face expulsion from the Senate, and a reopening of the criminal probe by the Justice Department, only if he had simply resigned from the Senate earlier than he had and never turned over his emails to the Senate.

John Cook has some more detail  and commentary on that aspect of the story.

Some discursiveness: Three years ago, we wrote about Ensign for the Atlantic, when he played a key behind the scenes role in working to have one of the nine U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration, Dan Bogden, to be reappointed by President Obama to his old job.  The U.S. Attorney’s office in Nevada did not handle the investigation of Ensign– in part perhaps for that reason– instead  leaving it to DOJ’s Public Integrity section to conduct the probe.  I also wrote a long, original blog post/column for this blog  when Bogden was reappointed by Obama.

Other Reuters Stories by Murray Waas:

Murray Waas, “Obama, Politicians Decline to Return Campaign Contributions,” Reuters, Feb. 13, 2012.

Murray Waas, “How Allen Stanford Kept the SEC at Bay,” Reuters, Jan. 26, 2012.

Nick Carey and Murray Waas, “Virginia Veteran Report Shows High Depression Rate,” Reuters, Sept. 27, 2010.

Murray Waas (with editing by Jim Impoco), “Wellpoint Routinely Treats Breast Cancer Patients,” Reuters, April 24, 2010.

Murray Waas (with Lewis Krauskopf), “Insurer Targeted HIV Patients to Drop Coverage,” Reuters, March 17, 2010.

Murray Waas, “Insurer Targeted HIV Patients to Drop Coverage,” Reuters, March 17, 2010.

Posted in Uncategorized |

Valentines’ Day 2014


Posted in Uncategorized |

Prayers and Solace Among the Ruins

haitipic.jpgFrom this morning’s  NYT:

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti — With their churches flattened, their priests killed and their Bibles lost amid the rubble of their homes, desperate Haitians prayed in the streets on Sunday, raising their arms in the air and asking God to ease their grief.

Outside the city’s main cathedral, built in 1750 but now a giant pile of twisted metal, shattered stained glass and cracked concrete, parishioners held a makeshift service at the curb outside, not far from where scores of homeless people were camping out in a public park. The bishop’s sermon of hope was a hard sell, though, as many listening had lost their relatives, their homes and their possessions.

“We have to keep hoping,” said Bishop Marie Eric Toussant, although he acknowledged that he had no resources to help his many suffering parishioners and did not know whether the historic cathedral would ever be rebuilt. He said the quake had toppled the residences where priests stayed, crushing many of them.

Baptized at the cathedral, Jean Viejina, 68, said she had visited the church every Sunday morning for as long as she can remember, using it to help her endure what she described as a challenging life raising six children. Now, even this place of refuge, like so much in Port-au-Prince, was gone.

In a sign of the importance of churches in Haitian society, President Rene Preval called together religious and business leaders Saturday at the police station that has become his headquarters. He asked the churches to focus on keeping people fed, but gave little guidance on what the government would be doing.

“They are still trying to figure out what to do,” said Haiti’s Episcopal bishop, Zache Duracin. “I have not seen anything.”

Read more.

Posted in Uncategorized |

Have you seen this cat?

scott.jpgPlease help us find our cat.  “R” who loves Scott (our cat) as much or more than I do has this to say to whoever now has Scott: “Persians are especially prone to kidney disease.”  Also, their “inbred facial type, called `ultra face’ means their tear ducts get blocked easily and you have to clean their eyes nightly.”  You also have to understand, please, that Scott and cats like him “like serentity and stability and don’t like to climb or jump high.”

If you have Scott, please, we just want to make sure he is all right, and also, that he gets his special dish, with two hand painted goldfish on the side, one of whom is named Gaba. We know he would want it.

Also:  Martha Stewart is largely responsible for Scott having gone missing.  More on that later.  First, the inside trading, now this….  Shame on you Martha Stewart.  For now on, we go to the Pottery Barn.  Maybe even Ikea.

 More information and pictures about Scott to follow.  We love you.  We miss you, wherever you are.

If you have any information about Scott, please leave a comment below, at my Facebook page, or email me at

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , |

There have so far been only 311 views of this on Youtube.  I doubt that number will go somewhat higher (I’ll be sending four or five readers their way…..)

Posted in Uncategorized |

Ted Kennedy’s eulogy of Bobby

From John M. Broder’s obituary in the NYT:

He was a Rabelaisian figure in the Senate and in life, instantly recognizable by his shock of white hair, his florid, oversize face, his booming Boston brogue, his powerful but pained stride. He was a celebrity, sometimes a self-parody, a hearty friend, an implacable foe, a man of large faith and large flaws, a melancholy character who persevered, drank deeply and sang loudly. He was a Kennedy.

Posted in Uncategorized |

Justice Done at Justice: U.S. Attorney fired by Bush administration rehired for old job by Obama

In an appointment that senior Justice Department officials say demonstrates the Obama administration’s commitment that the Department will reverse the Bush administration’s politicization of the Department, a U.S. attorney fired by President Bush was reappointed to his old job on Friday.

Danile Bogden,  who was fired in the fall of 2006 by the Bush administration from his position as U.S. attorney in Nevada,  was offered his old job back by the Obama administration, and  was formally nominated by President Obama for the position on Friday.

Bogden’s confirmation by the Senate is all but assured:  He has spent his entire adult life in government service, and as a former U.S. attorney was confirmed by the Senate before.  He was also thoroughly vetted for his new position by the White House Counsel’s office prior to his most recent nomination even though he was vetted during his first appointment as U.S. attorney by the Bush administration.  Moreover, he has the backing of his two homestate Senators, Harry Reid, a Democrat, and John Ensign, a Republican.  That Reid is a Senate Majority Leader, and Reid personally suggested to the President that Bogden get his old job back probably won’t hurt matters.

Ironically, Bogden’s formal reappointment as U.S. attorney comes exactly one day after former Bush political adviser Karl Rove gave sworn testimony before the House Judiciary Committee regarding the firings of Bogden and eight other U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration.  A federal grand jury is currently investigating whether Bush administration officials and members of Congress obstructed justice in pressing for one or more of the firings, and also, whether they misled Congress as to why the prosecutors were fired.

Bogden’s firing in the fall of 2006 is referred to by many in the Justice Department as the firing that came about as a result of some sort of Immaculate conception:  For two years, the Justice Department’s two watchdog agencies, its Inspector General and Office of Responsibility, sepnt 18 months investigating the firings of the nine U.S. attorneys.  When it came to Bogden, however, the investigators were not only unable to determine why he was fired, but even who ordered his firing.  Every single Justice Department official and Bush administration official, disclaimed responsibility.

As I wrote in this dispatch for the Atlantic last April:

Dan Bogden, who served as the United States attorney from Nevada until he was abruptly dismissed from his job during the infamous wave of firings of U.S. attorneys in late 2006, hoped to someday learn why he was let go. By most accounts, Bogden had served his community and the Department of Justice with distinction: former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who had once directly supervised Bogden, would later testify before Congress that Bogden was one of his best prosecutors, and that he could not understand why anyone would want to fire him.

But more than two years later, Bogden still has no official explanation as to why he was fired, or even who made the decision.

Two Justice Department watchdog units, the Office of Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility, studied the matter. For 17 months, from March 2007 to September 2008, lawyers there investigated the firings of nine U.S. attorneys by the Bush administration. Last September, they released a 358-page report detailing their findings… The final DOJ report contained enough information that most of the fired prosecutors were able to learn key details about why they were dismissed and who was responsible.

Dan Bogden got no such closure. An entire chapter of the report was devoted to his firing, but it concluded only that investigators “could not determine who was responsible for Bogden’s name being placed on the U.S. Attorney removal list.” His firing, if the accounts of senior DOJ officials responsible for terminating him are to be believed, was one of Immaculate Conception.

At the time of the firings, Alberto Gonzalez was attorney general. His chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, was in charge of compiling the list of names of U.S. attorneys to be fired – allegedly for poor performance (though those involved later admitted the firings were in fact made for political reasons). In interviews with investigators, according to the Justice Department report, Sampson “acknowledged that he must have physically placed Bogden’s name on the list.” But Sampson “denied that he made the decision to add Bogden to the list,” and asserted that “he did not remember who made the recommendation.”

Deputy attorney general Paul McNulty, who was the second highest-ranking official in the Department at the time, told investigators that he too “did not know why Bogden’s name was on the list of U.S. Attorneys to be removed.”

And Gonzales himself, who resigned in disgrace in large part over his role in the firings, denied to investigators that he had even wanted Bogden fired. Gonzales told federal investigators that he “did not have an independent basis for understanding why Bogden was to be removed.”

At least a half dozen lesser ranking Justice Department officials involved in the firings also were questioned, but they too said they had not recommended Bogden be fired, nor did they know why he made the list.

Karl Rove had previously refused to cooperate with the investigations by the Justice Department’s Inspector General and the OPR.  Rove’s deposition, taken Thurdsay by the House Judiciary Committee, will most probably shed little new light as to why Bogden was firing.  No evidence has previously surfaced that Rove was personally involved in Bogden’s firing, although he had played a role in the dismissal of other prosecutors.  Rove’s deposition will likely be made public later this month.

In reappointing Bogden, Justice Department officials believed they were not only putting an exceptional prosecutor back on the job, but that they were demonstrating to the public that they were committing to reversing the politicization of the Department by the Bush administration.

At the Huffington PostSam Stein got it about right when he wrote:  “That [Bogden] would be reinstated by a Democratic administration to the position he lost is undoubtedly meant to be a message from the Obama White House that they are elevating law above politics, or at least removing partisanship from the Department of Justice.”

More on Bogden’s reappointment from the New York Times.

Meanwhile, the Las Vegas Sun should have  more than a little egg on its face for writing Thursday– only one day before President Obama formally nominated Bogden to be U.S. attorney, that:

Four months after Sen. Harry Reid recommended bringing back a former Bush appointee as U.S. attorney for Nevada, the Obama administration is still vetting Daniel Bogden.

Jon Summers, a spokesman for Reid, maintains that the Democratic Senate majority leader has not had any second thoughts about Bogden.

But federal prosecutors and politically connected attorneys in Las Vegas who do not support Bogden say the lack of White House action is fueling speculation that Reid’s recommendation has run into trouble.

Since May, the White House has forwarded the names of 13 of the 93 potential U.S. attorney nominees to the U.S. Senate for confirmation. Bogden, one of the earlier recommendations, conspicuously has failed to make the list.

“There’s nothing in his background that would cause any issues,” a lawyer with Beltway ties said. “You would think that someone who already has been cleared for the job and who is from the majority leader’s home state would be easy to nominate, and that just hasn’t happened.”

A federal prosecutor added, “It’s obvious to everybody that something is afoot. Harry Reid is the most powerful person in Congress, and yet the name of his guy isn’t moving forward.”

The White House this week again declined to comment on the status of the recommendation.

If there was ever a news story that was so wrong, this one was.  But even if the reporter simply had sources steering him wrong, the writing and editing of the story contains too much surmise, innuendo, and supposition, for what should be published in a newspaper.  A reading of the article appears to indicate that the reporter’s sources were all people on the periphery of the action and had no real idea whether Bogden was going to renominated or not.  The paper should have made that clear to its readers– or better yet, not have written a story in the first place based on such since (and ultimately wrong) sources.

The same article goes on to say: “Bogden, who did not return phone calls from the Sun, has been criticized for his lack of leadership skills and outreach to the community.”  Quite an allegation, but there is little if any sourcing in the rest of the article to substantiate those charges.

In terms of disclosure, while writing a profile of Bogden, I spoke to a broad range of people– Justice Department officials,  assistant U.S. attorneys who had worked for Bogden, his fellow U.S. attorneys, other law enforcement officials, and defense counsel in Nevada– and a small number of people voice some of the same complaints that the Las Vegas Sun has given voice to.  But the complaints were a small majority, and after reviewing specifics of their complaints, the facts often showed something otherwise.

Extraordinarily, the same story also did not quote a single person who had anything positive to say about Bogden.  Is it because the newspaper could not find anybody to say anything nice about Bogden?

In an earlier story taking aim at Bogden’s appointment, the Sun quoted some supporters of Bogden:

Following his firing, former Las Vegas FBI chief Ellen Knowlton said he was the finest U.S. attorney she had ever worked with in her 24 years with the FBI. And U.S. District Judge Howard McKibben described Bogden as a thorough and well-balanced prosecutor.

This week, Reno attorney Craig Denney, who worked as a prosecutor under Bogden, called him a “great boss” with the “highest integrity.”

One wonders why such people weren’t quoted more recently in the erroneous article suggesting that Bogden was not going to be named U.S. attorney.

Since Bogden’s nomination, the Las Vegas Sun continues to take shots at their former/soon to be U.S. attorney, writing this time:

President Barack Obama’s nomination of Daniel Bogden as U.S. attorney for Nevada was met Friday with initial disappointment from defense attorneys and prosecutors who had questioned his leadership abilities.

There was, however, hope that Bogden — a registered nonpartisan who headed the U.S. attorney’s office for more than five years under the Republican Bush administration — will be able to adapt to the policies of a more progressive Democratic White House.

“Many people within the U.S. attorney’s office do not see Bogden’s appointment as the type of ‘change you can believe in’ that Obama promised,” one prosecutor said. “But we’re hoping that Bogden has changed as a result of his experience under the Bush administration and will demonstrate a greater commitment to diversity in hiring and promoting within the office.”

During his previous tenure at the helm, Bogden also had developed a reputation of not being cordial with defense attorneys and the media.

But he loosened up after he was fired by the Bush administration with eight other U.S. attorneys in what some on Capitol Hill called a political purge.

Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, the majority leader, had recommended Bogden, despite complaints from prominent Democrats who wanted Reid to promote someone within his own party for the plum assignment.

Bogden’s nomination is now about as close to a lock as it can be because it moves to the Senate, which Reid controls, for confirmation.

The nomination also is likely to hasten the departure of current U.S. Attorney Greg Brower, a Republican, who was appointed by the Bush administration last year to succeed Bogden.

The names of Brower and U.S. District Judge Brian Sandoval have been among those mentioned as possible Republican challengers to Reid in 2010.

This criticism, dressed up as straight news coverage,  is just all too strange, too– and for several reasons:

It is unclear exactly why Bogden was fired.  But at least seven of the nine U.S. attorneys purged by the Bush administration were fired because the Bush administration believed them to be out of step with the political and ideological agenda of the administration or the White House.

Although the Justice Department’s report on the firings of the U.S. attorneys said it could not determine exactly why Bogden was fired, it presents evidence that he took a lot of heat from conservative allies of the Bush administration who said he was not aggressively enough prosecuting certain pornography cases.

Goznales testified to the the Senate Judiciary Committee in April of 2007 that Bogden’s failue to press certain pornography cases as zealously as some in the Bush administration wanted was a central reason for Bogden’s firing: “There were concerns about the level of energy, generally, in a fast-growing district, concerns about his commitment to pursuing obscenity,” Gonzales said at the time.  (Bogden said he could do no more than follow the law and Gonzales later admitted to Justice Department investigators he did not really know why Bogden was fired, although he approved the firing.)

As for criticisms that Bogden might be ideologically out of step with an Obama administration, they are ironic in that his perceived ideological or political differences from some in the Bush administration might have lead to his firing.

U.S. attorneys, however, are charged with executing the law and prosecuting criminal, follow the law, and set aside politics.  That is what the Bush administration’s U.S. attorney scandal was all about in the first place.  There is absolutely reason to believe that anyone in the Obama administration wants their U.S. attorneys to toe some ideological or political line, as the story cited above asserts– quoting private attorneys and nobody in the Obama administration itself.  Presidents and Attorney Generals can set priorities for U.S. attorneys, but there is no reason to believe that Bogden, a government attorney his entire life, would not follow those.

In the end, Dan Bogden will likely be the first U.S. attorney to be appointed and fired by the same President, only to be appointed U.S. attorney again by another President.  In that way, he will stand alone.

Related articles by Murray Waas:

Murray Waas and Justin Rood, “White House Involved in U.S. Attorney Firings,” ABC, Sept. 29, 2011.

Murray Waas“A U.S. Attorney’s Story,” the Atlantic,  April 20, 2009.

For updates on this story and others, friend me on Facebook.

Posted in Uncategorized |

Posted in Uncategorized |

A Compromised DOJ probe of a Congressman: new story in the Hill

I have a new story this morning in the Hill:

In the fall of 2006, one day after the Justice Department granted permission to a U.S. attorney to place a wiretap on a Republican congressman suspected of corruption, existence of the investigation was leaked to the press — not only compromising the sensitive criminal probe but tipping the lawmaker off to the wiretap.

Career federal law enforcement officials who worked directly on a probe of former Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) said they believe that word of the investigation was leaked by senior Bush administration political appointees in the Justice Department in an improper and perhaps illegal effort to affect the outcome of an election.

At the time of the leak, Renzi was locked in a razor-thin bid for reelection and unconfirmed reports of a criminal probe could have become politically damaging. The leaked stories — appearing 10 days before the election — falsely suggested that the investigation of Renzi was in its initial stages and unlikely to lead to criminal charges.

In fact, the investigation had been ongoing for some time and had already amassed enough evidence of alleged criminal misconduct to obtain approval from the highest levels of the Justice Department, including then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, to seek an application from a federal judge to wiretap Renzi. In February 2008, a federal grand jury indicted Renzi on 36 felony counts of money laundering, extortion, insurance fraud and various other alleged crimes.

But the disinformation leaked to media outlets in October 2006 had the desired effect: Renzi won reelection by the narrowest of margins.

In defending the firings of the nine U.S. attorneys and countering other allegations of the politicization of the Justice Department, Gonzales and other former senior Bush White House officials have emphatically claimed that no political corruption investigations were ever compromised in any way.

This previously unreported episode, however, directly contradicts that claim and constitutes the first evidence that a political-corruption investigation was stymied for political reasons during the Bush administration.

As part of an apparent damage-control effort to assist Renzi’s reelection bid, information was leaked on the same day to three major news organizations: The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Associated Press. The articles reported that although there was an ongoing probe of Renzi, it was only in an early stage, no evidence of serious wrongdoing had been uncovered, and it might end up being much ado about nothing.

Yet Gonzales had already approved a request by the then-U.S. attorney leading the investigation, Paul Charlton, to seek an application from a federal judge to wiretap Renzi’s telephone.

Charlton said that while he could not discuss the particulars of the Renzi case because the congressman is awaiting trial, he could comment generally: “Any time you have a wiretap up and the subject or the target becomes aware that there is an investigation, the value of the information you glean from that wiretap will almost certainly be greatly diminished.”

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized |

Army Spc. Trevor Hogue should RIP; the rest of us shoud be unsettled…


From the Sacramento Bee

On March 7, 2007, Army Spc. Trevor Hogue was inside his barracks in Baghdad, describing his morning on the battlefield.

“I saw things today that I think will mess me up for life,” Hogue typed to his mother, Donna, as she sat at her computer thousands of miles away from Iraq, in Granite Bay.

That day the young soldier, whose assignment included driving a Humvee through perhaps the most dangerous ZIP code on the globe, saw his sergeant blown to pieces. He saw the bodies of half of the men in his platoon torn apart. Heads were cut off and limbs severed. It happened 30 yards in front of him, and he had never been so afraid, he told his mom.

“My arms are around you,” Donna Hogue wrote. “You’ll be alright.”

But Hogue never really recovered. Last week, he committed suicide by hanging himself in the backyard of his childhood home. He was 24 years old.

According to the Army, soldiers are killing themselves at the highest rate in nearly three decades, surpassing the civilian suicide rate for the first time since the Vietnam War.

At least 128 U.S. soldiers killed themselves last year, a number that has risen four years in a row. The death toll could be even higher this year. Through April, 91 soldiers had committed suicide.

Hogue’s death, because it occurred after he was discharged, is not included in those statistics. But his friends and loved ones believe he was a casualty of war as much as any soldier on active duty.

“You think that they are safe when they get back home,” Donna Hogue said, tearfully reading printed messages that she and her son exchanged while he was at war. “They’re not. The reality of the things that they experienced continues to haunt them.”

After his 15-month tour in Iraq ended and he came home the following February, Hogue suffered bouts of depression. He slept too much and uncharacteristically lashed out at strangers. Loud noises disturbed him. Responsible and law-abiding in the past, he became somewhat reckless and was charged with a DUI.

Read the rest of the article here

Posted in Uncategorized |