We found out earlier this week that Michele Brown wanted Chris Christie to be given the credit for the political busts that resulted from molding Solomon Dwek from "money launderer and Ponzi schemer" to briber-of-Democratic officials. And with the clamoring to take credit comes the responsibility of answering the tough questions that creep up when you are dealing with one real shady criminal like Dwek is.
A Star-Ledger examination of court documents shows that before Dwek became an informer for the FBI, he was running a wild Ponzi operation in which one investment was being used to pay off the debt mounting from the last one and on into the millions in the same kind of geometry that eventually exposed financier Bernard Madoff.
---snip---
Dwek admitted that he schemed with mortgage broker Joseph Kohen, 39, of Deal, to defraud PNC Bank of more than $50 million and launder $22.8 million of the proceeds through other banks.
So far, there are 120 lawsuits with respect to his crimes, and that number may very well grow over time as more comes out.
Back in July, when the story first broke, it was reported that Dwek was not originally involved in anything other than money laundering and bank fraud - certainly nothing to do with any politicians:
The case began with bank fraud charges against a member of an insular Syrian Jewish enclave centered in a seaside town. But when that man became a federal informant and posed as a crooked real estate developer offering cash bribes to obtain government approvals, it mushroomed into a political scandal that could rival any of the most explosive and sleazy episodes in New Jersey's recent past.
For someone who prided himself and made his name on cleaning up crime and busting people who defraud others, there is a very serious question regarding Chris Christie and how Solomon Dwek was treated. Here is someone who (1) as far as we know had NO prior dealings with political officials before he was busted for very serious financial crimes, (2) has a financial connection to Christie through a donation to Bush in 2000, (3) was busted around the same time that he spoke to Rove about his future in politics, and around the same time as the lists were being created to see which US Attorneys were to be fired and (4) suddenly, Dwek went from a money launderer and Ponzi schemer to someone being used as an informant to bust Democratic officials.
Now, if any Democratic official was dumb enough to take a bribe and got busted, that is his/her own fault. But there is a very important question that needs to be answered - and that is why Christie went easy on someone who defrauded so many individuals and institutions for tens of millions of dollars and turned him into a "cooperating witness" for what appears to be largely unrelated political bribery.
Another thing we learned years ago was that the entire scheme was made possible by Senator Arlen Specter, who quietly changed the law allowing US Attorneys to be replaced. Without this change, President Bush could have threatened to fire Christie and the other USA's, but he would not have been able to easily replace them with political hacks. Apparently, Specter inserted the changes to benefit Bush and the Republican party--and after all, it's easy to guess at his motives since Bush and Rove saved in him in his 2004 primary contest, and Republican control of the Senate rested on the upcoming 2006 elections.
But now it's 2009, and suddenly our old neighbor, Arlen Specter, is a Democrat, and he claims has different political loyalties. He needs to tell us about the firing of the U.S. Attorneys and what he was told about it by the Bush Administration. Why did he think the changes he pushed through were desirable? What did the Justice Department tell him? Was the "need" to fire anyone specific mentioned? From my side of the river, I'd like to know if any US Attorneys were specifically mentioned to him. Say, Chris Christie? Or was Bob Menendez's upcoming election in New Jersey mentioned? Democrat Arlen Specter needs to come forward with what he knows.
The Star Ledger has an editorial today looking at some of the recent Christie news and what it means for his image:
A high horse is a difficult thing to ride, as Chris Christie is finding out. After building his image as a white knight rescuing New Jersey from the dragon of corruption, Christie is showing some gaps in his armor.
The editorial says that the current loan controversy may well blow over, but they believe that the larger issue for Chris Christie is the politicization of his office and communications with Karl Rove along with the further questions those communications raise:
Of more concern is the disclosure that, while New Jersey's top federal prosecutor, Christie spoke with Karl Rove, political guru to George W. Bush.
Christie says they never discussed legal cases; Rove says they talked about Christie's interest in running for governor. That raises questions about whether Christie took steps toward a campaign while still U.S. Attorney, in possible violation of the Hatch Act.
There's no legitimate reason for Christie -- or any U.S. Attorney -- to have spoken with Rove. While at the White House, Rove bulldozed the wall between the Justice Department and politics, rating U.S. Attorneys for "loyalty" and pushing to fire some who wouldn't mount politically motivated prosecutions. This has given new life to Democrats' claims that Christie unfairly subpoenaed U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) during his 2006 election campaign in a probe that did not result in charges.
The Christie campaign wants people to believe that these were just casual conversations, but the editorial drives home the point that no explanation by Christie serves as a legitimate reason to talk to Karl Rove.
And so it is no surprise to many of us here - and most in the country by now- that Tom Ridge now reveals the Bush administration tried to force him to raise the country's terror alert level just in time for the 2004 Presidential election vote. Ridge, Bush's first Secretary of Homeland Security, describes mounting tension in the White House as Attorney General John Ashcroft and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld pushed him to do what was clearly politically expedient for a President facing re-election.
Ridge withstood that pressure and did not raise our terrorist threat level. He refused to play politics with our national security. And in fact, the following month he resigned. In Christie, I think we have someone considerably more willing to cooperate.
This is the way George Bush behaved as President. How he led. With Karl Rove firmly in command of our his direction and strategy, too many national decisions were made with political self-preservation at the fore.
These are the names that emerge in a picture of how a smart but inexperienced Freeholder, who could not get re-elected, kept his federal job when less-cooperative US Attorneys did not.
What price did we pay for Christie's loyalty to the Bush White House? What did Christie do for them, to keep his job? Or, is he such an unthinking partisan they didn't even need to pressure him? How did Chris Christie get off the list?
George Bush used the Department of Justice - Christie's workplace - to investigate hundreds of Democratic elected officials, at a rate of 7:1. They changed the electoral map, hauling in few of their own party. It's the way these people operate. It makes a person wonder what Christie knew about the timing of the July political corruption sweep. Were events shaped to help his political future?
If there's nothing to all this, then it's to the US Attorney's Office's benefit to release these documents. It's to Christie's benefit. He talks a lot about ethics. Let's see if that talk extends to action. Let's see if Christie comes out in favor of transparency.
The cascadingstoriesofquestionableconduct inside the United States Attorney's Office - both during Chris Christie's tenure, and now following it - are reason enough for the Corzine campaign, and anyone valuing ethical conduct, to want to get at the truth. Jon Corzine knows that without facts, Christie's story of his own success there goes unchallenged. And the facts, once they come to light, may reveal a more complicated story.
Today, the Corzine '09 campaign filed legal challenges under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to break what they call five months of stonewalling that have kept basic public records of Christie's actions as US Attorney from light.
Eight adminstrative challenges - representing 18 separate requests - were filed with the United States Department of Justice's Office of Information and Privacy. The campaign's sought these records - budgets, travel expenses, schedules - since March, each attempt met with a logjam originating in the USAO here in NJ.
In fact, in a Corzine ad running on another site, a countdown clock registers the "stonewall" time at 155 days: 19 hrs: 21 min: 49 seconds - as I write this.
They also seek details of no-bid contracts Christie awarded, including one worth $52 million to his former boss - and fellow Bush crony - John Ashcroft. His communications with Karl Rove - the "architect" of George Bush's political career (now also the subject of separate investigation by a watchdog group) and between Christie and those who succeeded him in the US Attorney's Office, are also sought.
Corzine '09 campaign strategist Tom Shea:
The United States Attorney's office has many fine, dedicated, professional lawyers. But, in light of recent reports that Acting U.S. Attorney Ralph Marra is under investigation to determine if he has used the office to help further the Christie campaign, Second Assistant U.S. Attorney Michele Brown has an ongoing financial relationship with Christie and Christie was communicating with Karl Rove about his run for governor from that office, we feel it is even more important we receive the information requested.
If Christie has nothing to hide, if the US Attorney's Office doesn't, then let's see those records.
Joe Cryan wants an an immediate investigation by ELEC into Christie's failure to disclose a personal loan of $46,000 to Michele Brown, currently the first assistant to the United States Attorney, promoted since Christie's resignation.
"Christie continues to fail to live up to the ethical standards he sets for others," said Cryan. "He is running for Governor -- failing to report a personal loan to a close colleague is a serious transgression and breaks both federal and state ethics rules. Christie, of all people should know - he has prosecuted public officials for similar offenses, yet, he dismisses his own unscrupulous behavior as a simply an 'oversight.' This situation demands an immediate and thorough investigation."
[snip]
"Christie also must come clean about the questions this blatant conflict of interest raises - does he discuss his campaign with Brown?" said Cryan. "How have their financial ties affected his candidacy? It raises serious concerns about the stark contrast between what Christie says and what he actually does. Despite Christie's dismissal of this serious violation he is not above approach and just like any other New Jerseyan who violates the law Christie must be held accountable for his actions."
"Add this to the growing list of Christie's capers," said Pascrell. "Is it mere coincidence that Mr. Christie's personal life is again in conflict with his public obligations? A prosecutor at his level should know that once he gave that loan, no matter how well-intended it was, it changed the relationship between Mr. Christie and Ms. Brown. We have a right to know to what extent it changed. At the very least, this is a conflict of interest."
The Governor for his part has stayed focused on the Rove ties to Christie, stressing that he thinks the Hatch violations are the most serious. But his campaign did comment on the situation and tied it to their larger request for information that still hasn't been met:
"Serious questions remain about the loan Chris Christie gave to Michele Brown. Chris Christie had at least four opportunities to comply with the law and disclose this loan, yet he failed to do so each and every time. There seems to be no mystery that he was determined to keep it secret. The question is, why?"
"Christie and the U.S. Attorney's Office need to begin providing answers. They can start by immediately providing the specific dates of the promotions and salary increases Christie gave Michele Brown. We have filed a Freedom of Information Act request requesting this information, but our previous requests for such basic public information have been bottled up by Christie's friends for more than five months. The public shouldn't have to wait a day longer."
"Finally, as the number two in command in the U.S. Attorney's Office, Michele Brown must be objective about pursuing criminal cases in New Jersey in a non-partisan manner. But how can she possibly be objective when she remains indebted - literally - to the Republican candidate for governor? U.S. Attorney Ralph Marra is also reportedly facing questions about whether he inappropriately helped Christie's campaign. This whole episode raises grave questions about impartiality in our justice system, and the public deserves answers."
It's clear that the Democrats smell blood after the most recent weeks news and that's a question they will keep asking. The more they broaden the issue to show how connecting all of the dots continues to undermine who Christie wants people to believe he is, the more effective it will be I think.
But might Christie discussed running for Governor with Rove even earlier? From a 2003 NYT profile of Christie:
Unlike some United States attorneys who prefer to cultivate an apolitical image, Mr. Christie remains a die-hard Bush supporter, with photographs of the president prominently placed in his office. One shot from the Texas governor's mansion shows Mr. Christie with Mr. Bush in front of a painting of the last stand at the Alamo. Mr. Christie noted that the photo was taken by Mr. Bush's omnipresent political adviser, Karl Rove.
The whole Christie-Bush-Rove photo session sounds so adorable, but the question of whether or not they discussed a bid for Governor or his duties as U.S. attorney is more important, because, as the the New Jersey Star Ledger writes, "Christie had been attracting buzz as a promising GOP candidate since 2003."
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) asked the Office of the Special Counsel ("OSC") to investigate whether former United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey Chris Christie violated the Hatch Act by discussing a run for Governor of New Jersey with then-White House official Karl Rove while he was still the U.S. Attorney.
And their Executive Director was pretty blunt in her assessment:
CREW executive director Melanie Sloan stated, "The Hatch Act is intended to ensure federal employees do their jobs without regard to partisan politics. Mr. Christie's actions call into question whether the New Jersey U.S. Attorney's Office investigated and prosecuted cases based on application of the law to the facts, or because certain prosecutions might have enhanced his prospects of securing the Republican nomination for governor."
We had plenty of coverage of the Governor at Netroots Nation yesterday. Yesterday while there for the panel, he met with a group of progressive bloggers and sharply criticized Christie's discussions with Rove: (Via Think Progress)
It is hard to understand how a lawbreaker gets the reputation of being the king of law enforcement, and uses that as a platform. It's the Hatch Act.
Senator Menendez isn't taking the news of Karl Rove's communications with Chris Christie lying down. He has more questions and wants the Senate to seek those answers:
"Clearly the Rove information under oath creates very serious concerns about the political process that took place at the Justice Department and U.S. Attorneys offices across the country and the effect upon those U.S. Attorneys offices," the senator said today after appearing with Gov. Jon Corzine, U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-Cliffside Park) and U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood at Metro Park to celebrate the state's receipt of a $298.7 million American Recovery and Reinvestment Transit Capital Grant from the feds.
"To be very honest with you, I think more needs to be done," Menendez told PolitickerNJ.com. "I think the agreement entered into by the House Judiciary Committee with Mr. Rove's attorneys were limiting in nature. I understand that there's an investigation going on by the Justice Department and I believe that investigation needs to be vigorous and I also believe that in light of the information that's come out that maybe the Senate Judiciary Committee should be looking at a continuation of what that information reveals."
This is how you want to arrive at Netroots Nation - the former Yearly Kos - the now-massive annual mojo-booster for progressive political blogger titans and titans-to-be. Clammyc - oh, hell, let's just call him Adam - and I rolled in this afternoon, and promptly started drinking, and connecting up.
And it's a buzzy night here right now. New Jersey is on the front page of DailyKos, in a great diary by Jake McIntyre: NJ-Gov: The Other Shoe Dropping for Christie. So ... Chris Christie's got a little Karl Rove problem. Please go read it, add your own New Jersey-flavored comment, and then shoot that bad boy to 10 of your bestest friends. Especially the ones leaning toward Christie.
It's important to understand what the stakes are here: Karl Rove, Republican strategist, architect of the Bush White House, and pit bull for the man who appointed Christie the US Attorney, said on the record to the House Judiciary Committee July 7, 2009, that he spoke to Christie several times over several years. That is, apparently, while he was United States Attorney. US Attorneys are barred by the United States Justice Dept. from engaging in partisan politics while in office. It's a safeguard to avoid undue influence, impropriety, even the appearance of impropriety. Given that Christie is running on his record as USA, a violation of the Hatch Act further soils his credibility.
Word spreads fast here in Pittsburgh. I just walked through the lobby and got high-fived by five people. Everybody knows Jon Corzine is coming to Netroots Nation Saturday. He'll be here to talk economy, but the buzz has already started that the truth will out when it comes to what Chris Christie doesn't want voters to know about. Christie was George Bush's hand-picked - and now we find out, hand-fed - man in the Garden State.
It's no secret that Blue Jersey has had our eye on Chris Christie for many years. Much of that work was led by the efforts of huntsu, whose work exposing the real Christie was years before it's time. Take a look at what huntsu said in April of 2007 after Christie announced a speaking tour:
Clearly for someone covered by the Hatch Act, which prohibits certain federal employees from engaging in politics, this speaking tour is patently unethical and should be stopped immediately.
Often the "appearance of impropriety" is enough to generate an investigation of a public official by a prosecutor. Given how he got the job, how his investigation and conviction rates have changed, and his public speaking tour there is no way anyone can say that there is no appearance any longer.
Now at the time, Christie would have said that anyone suggesting any violations was just playing pure politics. But given the revelations in the House Judiciary Documents that Karl Rove and Chris Christie spoke about Christie running for Governor while he was US Attorney, those questions raised by huntsu and the Hatch act become that much more relevant:
Guidelines spelled out in the Hatch Act prohibit federal employees organizing political meetings or assembling campaign staff. The prohibitions also apply to preliminary political activities that set a candidacy in motion, said Erica Hamrick, deputy chief of the Hatch Act Unit in the Office of Special Counsel in Washington.
"Any kind of preliminary activity that leads to formally becoming a candidate can be considered candidacy in terms of the Hatch Act and would be in violation," said Hamrick.
Preliminary activity, such as having discussions years before you announce your candidacy and sending people to campaign for you at your party's national convention? Leading to formally becoming a candidate, such as the campaign Christie is running right now? Add those two up and you get a violation of the Hatch Act and that's not huntsu saying it, that's the Office of Special Counsel. Again I'll ask, who was playing politics again? The people who questioned Christie's actions and motives, or the man himself who was carrying them out?
Updated by Jason: It looks like Thurman Hart was ahead of his time as well and he got Christie on the record too back in December of 2008 after Christie quickly announced his resignation:
It was alleged that Mr. Christie engaged in these preliminary activities regarding a candidacy for Governor of New Jersey while still employed as a United States Attorney.
Allegations such as those described above ordinarily would trigger an investigation by OSC and, if the facts warranted, a recommendation to the President of the United States for disciplinary action. However, because Mr. Christie is no longer a federal employee, OSC would be unable to obtain meaningful disciplinary action against him, even if our investigation were to substantiate the allegations described above. Consequently, we have decided not to inquire further into those allegations and have closed our file in this matter.
So, the allegations - which were simply reports from New Jersey media sources - that Chris Christie was, in fact, running a shadow campaign for Governor while still a US Attorney cannot be pursued because Christie no longer is a US Attorney. I am notified of this barely ten working days after Christie's resignation becomes effective. So which came first - the phone call notifying Christie that he would be investigated for Hatch Act violations or his "decision" to abandon his job at an inopportune time (nice to do Christmas without a paycheck, don't ya know) and in a hurried manner?
In their own response, they practically admit that if the information available now was known then, it would constitute an investigation and possible disciplinary action.
The Corzine campaign is jumping on the news that Karl Rove and Chris Christie discussed a run for Governor while he was still US Attorney and Rove was in the White House. Before this news, the Corzine campaign had called on US Attorney's office to honor the Freedom of Information requests filed in March and today they followed up on that calling on Christie to respond to the Corzine campaign's request for public documents from his tenure as U.S. Attorney and fully disclose the timing and nature of his contact with Rove. And the DNC also took umbrage with the Christie campaign explanation of the contacts with Rove:
"We already knew that Chris Christie used his position as a US Attorney as a staging ground for his own political career, and now we find out that Christie spoke with disgraced political advisor Karl Rove to discuss running for Governor. This news of Rove's 'career counseling' for Chris Christie is just another troubling example of Christie's use of his office to benefit his own political self interest.
"The Christie campaign's effort to dismiss the Rove-Christie meetings as having had occurred as the 'Bush Administration was winding down' is simply offensive. They can try to spin the meetings as much as they like, but it cannot hide the truth that Christie used his appointed position as a springboard for higher office at the behest of disgraced political shills like Karl Rove," said DNC Spokesman Michael Czin.
We saw huntsu question some of the "facts" the Christie campaign is making up regarding what Rove said earlier. The Corzine campaign put out this web ad highlighting the Rove connection over at Christiefacts.com:Senator Weinberg said that Christie owes it to NJ to clear up the conflicting accounts between Rove's testimony and Christie's explanation:
"First, Karl Rove revealed that Christie solicited his help to run a gubernatorial campaign out of the U.S. Attorney's office," Weinberg said. "Now, Christie is denying that he reached out to Rove for advice. Given the clear disparity between their stories, Christie owes it to the voters of New Jersey to release public documents from his tenure as U.S. Attorney."
I feel comfortable in that Christie will say this is just politics, but something tells me this won't be the last we hear of this story.
Promoted by Jason Springer: We always love when huntsu stops by to say hello to her good friend Chris Christie.
Well, Chris Christie's campaign -- not the man himself, but a low-level flack -- responded to the news that he had discussed running for Governor with President Bush's chief political adviser Karl Rove as far back as 2007. We'll take it line by line to catch the dissembling, made up "facts", etc.
"Mr. Rove's testimony confirms what we've known all along, that Chris' appointment as U.S. Attorney was based on his qualifications
Really? Rove admits that William Palatucci was the one who forwarded Chrstie's name to Rove and the selection committee. Palatucci was a prime mover in the 1990s to get George Bush the nomination for President, and was the Finance Chair for the state GOP under Joe Kyrillos, a family friend of the Christie's. Rove also says that he had known Palatucci "for years."
But as finance chair Palatucci would have been the person who solicited the quarter of a million dollars Christie and his brother Todd donated to the NJ Republican Party in 2001. The Christies had never given anywhere near that much before, and now his former law partner solicits and receives a major donation (similar money went to the federal GOP) then forwards Christie's resume to Karl Rove.
Needless to say, no facts presented by Rove answer any of the questions as to whether the hundreds of thousands raised by Chris Christie for Bush or the more than a million dollars donated by Christie and his family had any impact on his getting the job. It is ridiculous on its face to suggest it does not.
Even worse, Rove admits that Christie did not have the qualifications for the job.
Q Were you aware that a New Jersey Federal bar group objected to Mr. Christie's appointment because he did not have trial, criminal law, or investigative experience?
A I don't recall that, but I wouldn't be surprised.
On with the Christie statement:
... and his subsequent performance as U.S. Attorney was based on the facts of each case, not on politics," Comella said.
Actually, Rove says nothing of the sort. The closest he came was to say,
Q Again, do you have any idea or information about whether that contention [that Christie investigated more Ds than Rs] had anything to do with Mr. Christie being on or not on any list of U.S. Attorneys to be replaced?
A No.
That question has nothing to do with whether Christie was selective in his investigations -- and note we don't say he was selective in his prosecutions -- but whether that was a factor in his keeping his job. Rove didn't once say Christie didn't use political considerations as US Attorney. And he very clearly said that Christie did solicit advice from Rove about partisan issues related to the Governor's race.
At best the statement that Rove cleared Christie is a stretch, at worst it's just wrong.
On with the statement!
"Furthermore, since even before the 2005 election there has been great speculation about whether Chris would ultimately run for some form of elected office. "As such, it is not surprising that as the Bush Administration was winding down, Mr. Rove inquired about Chris' future plans once his term as U.S. Attorney would come to an end," Comella added.
Well, I'll grant that Christie might be looking for a new job "as the Bush administration was winding down" but not that summer 2007 is the winding down of the administration. There were still at least 17 months -- 35 percent of the Bush administration left.
Christie himself, however, has put the lie to this by saying that he only began thinking seriously about running for Governor in August 2008. Now that's the winding down of the Bush administration, but summer 2007 is certainly not.
At best this one is spin, at worst it is candidate Christie making a direct contradiction of what US Attorney Christie said.
"In this informal conversation, Chris discussed with Mr. Rove the fact he was being urged to run for elected office and Mr. Rove in turn offered to recommend people who could help Chris reach a decision if he eventually seriously considered running for office.?
That contradicts what Rove said in his sworn statement to Congress.
I talked to him twice in the last couple of years, perhaps one time while I was at the White House and once or twice since I left the White House, but -- not regarding his duties as U.S. Attorney, but regarding his interest in running for Governor, and he asked me questions about who -- who were good people that knew about running for Governor that he could talk to.
According to Rove, Christie asked him who to talk to. According to the Christie campaign, Rove offered the advice unsolicited. It can't be both ways.
Rove also implies, though it is not clear, that there were two or three conversations about running for Governor with Rove and not just one. The campaign specifically says "this informal conversation" which ignores at least one if not two other conversations.
This statement from the campaign spins the testimony, misstates the testimony, directly contradicts Chris Christie's previous statements, and states as fact the opposite of what Rove said.
This is not unusual for Christie. Just search our archives for more examples.
Q Did you or anyone at OPA have any communications with Mr. Christie or his office after he started as U.S. Attorney?
A I talked to him twice in the last couple of years, perhaps one time while I was at the White House and once or twice since I left the White House, but -- not regarding his duties as U.S. Attorney, but regarding his interest in running for Governor, and he asked me questions about who -- who were good people that knew about running for Governor that he could talk to.
But the Star Ledger reminds us of Christie's history denying any hint of politics in his tenure as US Attorney:
Democrats have long raised questions about whether any future plans to run for governor affected Christie's actions in office and the Corzine campaign is pushing to see his calendars from that time period. Christie has said those charges are baseless and stands by his record as U.S. Attorney.
Christie has said he was focused on his responsibilities as a prosecutor and only began "seriously thinking" about a run for governor last August. He left the U.S. attorney's office in December to explore a campaign, which he formally launched in February. Rove left the White House in August 2007.
Baseless you say? It seems like Karl Rove established a strong base, to show that Chris Christie was planning his future run for Governor as many suspected and he repeatedly denied. If Rove talked to Christie while he was in the white house, Now of course, U.S. attorneys are prohibited from engaging in partisan political activities. Senator Weinberg said Rove's comments put the matter to rest over when Christie began things:
"This to me puts to bed the claim that he did not think about running for governor until he left the U.S. Attorney's Office and had done a lot of soul searching before he made his decision," Weinberg said. "He obviously was not only thinking of running for governor, he was seeking input from the White House deputy chief of staff, George Bush's chief strategist."
The Christie campaign had no comment today, but I fully expect them to attack Karl Rove tomorrow and say he's just playing partisan politics... testifying to save his own rear end before a judiciary committee. Who is the one playing politics again?
Republican State Senator Tom Kean, Jr. and Democratic U.S. Senator Bob Menendez debate during their 2006 match up.
Former Bush Administration aides Karl Rove and Harriet Miers have reached an agreement with the House Judiciary Committee to comply with a subpoena seeking their testimony regarding the 2006 dismissal of eleven U.S. Attorneys. For nearly two years now the committee has sought their appearance to determine whether the firings were politically motivated. There are several questions that need to be answered about that process. Of import to the voters of New Jersey is how and why Chris Christie's name was removed from the list of those recommended for dismissal.
In September 2006, Democratic Senator Bob Menendez and Republican State Senator Tom Kean, Jr. were engaged in a bitter campaign to determine who would represent New Jersey in the United States Senate. Many will recall the daily news reports detailing acts of official corruption by members of Congress. For several months, Kean's campaign had dovetailed their message to that national narrative, consistently calling Menendez "Boss Bob" and a product of corrupt Hudson County machine politics.
There was one significant challenge to that message: Bob Menendez had never been accused of official misconduct and there was no evidence to support such a claim. No evidence, that is, until then U.S. Attorney Chris Christie subpoenaed the records of the North Hudson Community Action Corporation, a recipient of federal grant dollars and a tenant in a Union City building owned by Menendez. The subpoenas served as a lifeline to Kean's flailing campaign. Finally, he had something to back his charges up. For the rest of the campaign he would note that he had "an opponent under federal investigation."
Menendez defeated Junior in the November election, and in the weeks following, the U.S. Attorney quietly laid the matter of North Hudson Community Action Corporation to rest. It became clear that there was no federal investigation and that the information gathered by the subpoenas proved Menenedez was innocent of any wrongdoing.
That same month, Michael Elston, chief of staff to the deputy attorney general, included Christie's name on a list of U.S. Attorneys slated for firing. Among the names of those ultimately dismissed was New Mexico's U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias, who alleged that he received pressure from Republican U.S. Senator Pete Domenici and Representative Heather Wilson to take action in a corruption probe of a local Democrat shortly before the 2006 election. Within weeks, he was fired, and he has stated he believes it was because he refused to involve his office in politics. Additionally, documents released by the Justice Department indicate that Karl Rove, a political adviser, was involved in the conversations relating to all of the dismissals.
Did Chris Christie prove his worth to the White House by subpoenaing the records of North Hudson Community Action Corporation? Who removed his name from the list? Rove and Miers will no doubt face a torrent of questions when they sit down before the Judiciary Committee. However, questions about Christie politicizing his role as federal prosecutor have immediate bearing on the current campaign in New Jersey. As November approaches, Christie will continue to tell voters he is a corruption busting lawman prepared to clean up government. Yet the testimony of Karl Rove and Harriet Miers may demonstrate to New Jerseyans what some suspected all along: Chris Christie was a loyal Bush appointee who allowed politics to interfere with prosecutions.
After the bruising the Republican Party took in the 2006 election cycle, a tight-knit core of right-wing operatives and donors loyal to George W. Bush and Karl Rove came up with a plan: organize a well-funded, "independent" political organization to sell the American people on the virtues of the Iraq War. This organization, known as Freedom's Watch, has since become the single most reliably pro-Bush organization in the country, demagoguing issues from immigration to Social Security privatization.
Hot on the heels of Bush's multi-million dollar rescue operation for Leonard Lance and Chris Myers, the White House has clearly put the word out that getting Lance elected is one of their top priorities. Who knows what's they're going to come up with next. Lance can try to weasel his way out of it, but the proof is undeniable at this point -- George W. Bush and Karl Rove want nothing more than for folks like Leonard Lance to be elected to Congress to protect their legacy. They know that electing people like Linda Stender means that their dreams of permanent majorities rubber-stamping policies from Social Security privatization to endless war in the Middle East will come to an end.
To help us respond to the coming right-wing onslaught, please consider making a contribution to the campaign at LindaStenderForCongress.com/Contribute. And if you aren't in a position to contribute, sign up to get involved with the campaign at LindaStenderForCongress.com/GetInvolved/Volunteer. You can help us immediately by knocking on doors, making phone calls, and letting your friends, neighbors, and family in the 7th district know that real change isn't going to come from the same tired Bush team in Washington and their handpicked candidates across the country. It's going to come when we elect more people like Linda Stender to Congress.
"Dante's Inferno laid out very specifically the very levels receding into hell. And the hottest place is reserved for those who distort the truth, who manipulate our minds, or who attempt to do it, anyway. So I don't think Bush and Cheney will be at the hottest point in the inferno, but I sure as hell know that Karl Rove will be."
The Seattle Times interviewed former U.S. Attorney General John McKay:
McKay said he began to have concerns about politics entering the Justice Department in early 2005, when [Alberto] Gonzales addressed all of the country's U.S. attorneys in Scottsdale, Ariz., shortly after he took over as attorney general.
"His first speech to us was a 'you work for the White House' speech," McKay recalled. " 'I work for the White House, you work for the White House.' "
McKay said he thought at the time, "He couldn't have meant that speech," given the traditional independence of U.S. Attorneys. "It turns out he did."
He looked around the meeting room and caught the eyes of his colleagues, who gave him looks of surprise at Gonzales' remarks. "We were stunned at what he was saying."
My question to U.S. Attorney General Chris Christie:
What did you understand "you work for the White House" to mean?
Recent posts on Blue Jersey have addressed the quetion of whether subpoenas issued by NJ U.S. Attorney Christie and Christie's continued tenure in office are part of a national pattern of Republican U.S. Attorneys being pressured to indict Democrats. The Albuquerque Journal, which tends to support Republicans, reported information from the McClatchy Newspapers that in 2005, New Mexico Republican party chairman Allen Weh complained about then-U.S.-Attorney David Iglesias to a White House liason who worked for Karl Rove. Weh followed up with Rove personally in late 2006. "He's gone," Rove told Weh. Weh claims that this occurred at a White House briefing for state party chairmen and that the date was after December 7, when Iglesias was fired. However, it is clear that Rove knew about the firing. Then there is the question of why the tenure in office of a U.S. Attorney would be a matter for discussion at a political briefing for Republican state chairmen. The Journal also reported that Paul Kennedy, the lawyer whose client brought the corruption charges to Iglesias, was one of nine persons to attend a $5000 a plate fund raiser with Rove at Weh's home.
