Celebrating An American Band That Never Grows Old

This has been a rough summer in the concert business. Ticket sales are down, and a number of tours have been scaled back or canceled altogether.

Here in Birmingham, the Oak Mountain Amphitheatre--it's official name is Verizon Wireless Music Center (yuck)--normally schedules about 12 shows. It has seven on the docket this summer.

One band, however, continues to play to packed houses and strong reviews. The Eagles, who have been producing splendid music since 1971, are the American band that never grows old. They have so many major singles to their credit--both as a band and as solo artists--that their concerts nowadays are pretty much greatest hits shows.

That's too bad because the Eagles have an extraordinarily deep catalog. One reason they have endured, in our view, is that their albums tend to be stellar works from start to finish. In fact, some of the band's most memorable songs were never played much on the radio and are almost never heard in concert anymore.

We are particularly fond of the Eagles' first three albums, when they were a genuine country-rock band. The Eagles eventually would adopt a fairly heavy sound, with the addition of guitarists Don Felder and Joe Walsh. But their earliest albums--Eagles, Desperado, and On the Border--remain gems to my ears. And while I like all of the band's lineups, the original foursome of Glenn Frey, Don Henley, Bernie Leadon, and Randy Meisner (Felder joined near the end of On the Border) remains my favorite.

Next year the Eagles will mark their 40th anniversary as a top recording and touring band. The only break came with what Glenn Frey calls a "14-year vacation" from 1980 to 1994. The Rolling Stones are the only other band I can think of that has made so much relevant music for such a long period of time.

With that, let's celebrate a band whose songs will resonate long after its members--and most of us--have exited stage left. And let's especially remember some of those early Eagles LP cuts, the ones that laid the groundwork for the monster hits to follow.

One of my favorites from the Eagles' debut album is a tune that Bernie Leadon wrote with the late Gene Clark, a member of the Byrds. It's called "Train Leaves Here This Morning." This has the feel of a classic folk tune, like something Peter, Paul, and Mary might have covered. Here is Bernie Leadon on lead vocals:



Many music aficionados would call Hotel California the Eagles masterpiece, and it's hard to argue with that. But I would say the band has at least two master works, with Desperado being the other. Desperado generated relatively modest sales and produced no hit singles--"Tequila Sunrise" peaked at No. 64--but it is one of the best theme albums ever written. Its tales of the old west revolve around "Doolin-Dalton," a song about the famed bandit Bill Doolin and the Dalton Gang. The song marked the arrival of drummer Don Henley as a major force in the band, showcasing his considerable gifts with lyrics and lead vocals:



The Eagles explore their country roots on "Midnight Flyer," from On the Border. The song is written by Paul Craft, the same Nashville-based songwriter who brought us "Drop Kick Me, Jesus (Through the Goal Posts of Life)." With Bernie Leadon on banjo and Randy Meisner on lead vocals, "Midnight Flyer" is one of my absolute favorites among the Eagles early albums. If you can't tap your toes to this song, your toes must be broken:



Finally, we have another superb Eagles cover--"Ol 55," written by Tom Waits. With Glenn Frey on piano and lead vocals, this is one of the best ballads the Eagles have ever recorded--a sweet, timeless classic. Enjoy:

Obama Administration Seems to be Terrified of White People

Barack Obama deserves credit for turning the country in a more positive direction following the disastrous George W. Bush presidency. Obama has taken steps forward in several key areas--economic recovery, health-care reform, and financial regulation.

But the Obama record, so far, has not been nearly as strong as it could have been. And based on three major news stories from the past two weeks, we are starting to think there is a fundamental reason for that: The Obama administration is terrified of white people.

This fear, in our view, has nothing to do with the fact that Obama is our first black president. Rather, we suspect it has to do with the fact that Obama is a centrist Democrat. And it seems "centrist Democrat" is simply a fancy term for a liberal who is afraid of white people.

It's not that Obama and other centrist Dems are afraid of all white people. Heck, they aren't remotely afraid of white progressives. They happily trample all over white progressives and expect to hear, "Thank you, sir, may I have another?" We suspect centrists aren't afraid of white right wingers, either. Why be fearful of someone you know is against you and is too far off the deep end to worry about?

But white independents, the people who are too clueless to know what they think? Those are the people that give Obama and his centrist pals night sweats. Centrists seem convinced that clueless white people decide elections. So they live in mortal fear that they might somehow offend the sensibilities of, and shake the fragile psyches belonging to, the mindless white masses.

What brings this thought to the forefront? Consider three major news stories from the past couple of weeks:

* The Shirley Sherrod Charade--Reports in the mainstream press generally have stated that the administration rushed to wrongfully fire Sherrod because of concerns about "black racism." But our guess is that the administration was not really concerned about black racism; it was concerned about white reaction to perceived black racism. In fact, the White House was so concerned about white reaction that it performed a career crucifixion on Sherrod before determining all of the facts--and finding that she had not said anything that was remotely racist.

* The Whitewash of the U.S. Attorney Firings--The six-page letter outlining special prosecutor Nora Dannehy's findings makes it clear that this "investigation" had a predetermined outcome. Dannehy finds that criminal charges against Bush administration officials were not warranted, but she provides no facts or legitimate law to back that up. The Obama Justice Department apparently was fine with that. And it was willing to overlook Dannehy's clear conflicts of interests and her connections to prosecutorial misconduct in a previous case. Why? Our guess is that the administration is terrified that white America would revolt at the sight of Bush officials--all white probably, with the exception of Alberto Gonzalez--being paraded before a tribunal. It's one thing to have Bill Clinton investigated for years. But to have Dubya and various Bush-family cronies under the hot lights? The White House probably figures that white independents don't have the stomach for that.

* The Economy Is Still Tanking, Stupid--Obama's stimulus package perhaps has saved us from a depression. But many leading economists say it was not nearly enough, and we could be heading for a double-dip recession--especially with unemployment hanging around 10 percent. A recent cover story in Time magazine indicates the Obama administration knows what needs to be done--but it is too timid to do it. Reports Time in "The Good and Bad Economy":

For the moment, senior Obama advisers . . . foresee a long and slow recovery, one they would like to speed up with the fuel of more government stimulus to get money into the pockets of consumers who will spend it fast. They don't expect another economic crash—but they also know it's possible, and would sleep better if a new wave of cash were headed into the system. And they are quick to note that despite what their critics may say, this is not an excuse to promote a loony-left tax-and-spend agenda, although even a recent Goldman Sachs analysis recommended that D.C. policymakers consider more stimulus spending.

But Obama and his advisers know their hands are tied. Polls show that voters either don't understand--or don't buy--the long-established economic theory of John Maynard Keynes, which calls for more government spending (even if it means running up deficits) to help the economy through hard times.

So what is the administration's response?

White House officials say Obama's economic team is resigned to the granite-hard public resistance to more bold action as laid out by political advisers. "The arithmetic is simple, but it's been very, very hard to convince people," says Jared Bernstein, chief economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden.

To what "people" is Bernstein referring? Our guess is it's white independents. These are people who don't have a clue how the economy operates. But the rest of us are being held hostage to the White House's fears of alienating the white "muddled masses" with the truth.

So let's summarize. White independents tend to be wrong about:

* Civil-rights issues, as exhibited by the Shirley Sherrod story;

* Justice issues, as exhibited by the U.S. attorney firings;

* Economic issues, as exhibited by the need for more stimulus money to help get us out of recession.

The White House could take advantage of numerous "teachable moments" on all of these subjects. And it's possible that quite a few white independents might actually be willing to learn--if someone would give it a shot.

But the Obama administration has shown no signs that it will even try. And that's probably because it fears a fierce white blow back.

Meanwhile, our nation's fabric continues to tear.

The Beautiful Side of an Ugly Bush "Justice" Story

The most beautiful person at our nation's seat of power, according to The Hill, is a young woman from Huntsville, Alabama.

Her name is Alexis Latifi. And if that name sounds familiar, it probably means you kept up with the various questionable prosecutions brought by the George W. Bush Department of Justice.

Alexis Latifi not only looks stunning, but The Hill's "50 Most Beautiful Persons" article indicates she is smart, interesting, and principled. The article, however, does not mention the ugly episode that led Latifi to Washington, D.C., with the goal of helping to repair her country's badly damaged justice system.

Latifi, a 24-year-old Republican, works as a staff assistant for U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL). As an undergraduate at Auburn University, Latifi majored in biomedical sciences and planned to go to medical school. But then her father, Huntsville defense contractor Alex Latifi, was targeted in an investigation led by Alice Martin, former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama.

The case against Alex Latifi and his company, Axion Corp., was bogus from the outset, and a federal judge eventually dismissed all charges. It became one of the most glaring examples of prosecutorial misconduct during the Bush years, drawing attention from publications such as USA Today and the ABA Journal.

Seeing her father's company ruined by a rogue federal prosecutor made a profound impact on Alexis Latifi. She changed her major as a senior to political science and now plans to go to law school. A desire to get experience in the legislative arena led her to Washington, D.C., and a position in Richard Shelby's office.

Irony abounds in the Alexis Latifi story. Evidence strongly suggests that her father was targeted because he is a Democrat of Iranian descent. The Hill lists Alexis Latifi as a Republican, even though it was a GOP administration that tried its best to ruin her family.

Does Alexis Latifi truly believe in GOP principles or is she just listed as a Republican because she works for Richard Shelby? We're not sure about the answer to that question. Our justice system cannot truly be healed as long as one of our political parties is a corrupt, dysfunctional mess. Perhaps Latifi realizes that and figures one way to move forward is to help bring about much needed change to the Republican Party.

On the subject of Richard Shelby, he should serve as a fine example of how not to do things. After all, it was Shelby and fellow GOP senator Jeff Sessions who happily signed off on Alice Martin's appointment as a U.S. attorney/thug.

Alexis Latifi is important not just because she looks really good. She has seen firsthand how a dysfunctional justice system can destroy lives. And she has radically changed her career path in an effort to help bring about reform.

It will be a tough battle. And we need more people like her.

GOP House Members Are Setting the Stage for Investigations of Obama

President Barack Obama has stubbornly taken a "look forward, not backwards" philosophy to possible criminal acts during the Bush administration. But Republicans are sending signals that they will not take such an approach if they are able to win back the U.S. House of Reprsentatives in the November elections.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) is strongly indicating that he will launch numerous investigations of the Obama administration if he becomes chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Issa already has raised questions about possible White House interference in U.S. Senate races in Pennsylvania and Colorado. In a recent interview with The Washington Post, Issa made it clear that aggressive investigations are coming if he replaces Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY) as chair of the Oversight Committee.

Regular Americans could wind up paying a huge economic price for Obama's timidity.

As we have stated on this blog several times, Obama could pay a heavy price for his decision to let Bush officials off the hook. Reports the Post:

From his perch as the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Issa has spent the last 15 months constantly blasting the Obama administration on nearly every controversy and calling for countless investigations that the Democratic-controlled committee refuses to order.

But Issa is finally starting to hit some of his targets. He was one of the leading Republicans in pushing the White House to reveal more details about its discussions to persuade Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) to forgo a Senate primary run against Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) in return for a possible government job. Sestak won the primary, and now another Senate candidate challenging an incumbent Democrat, Andrew Romanoff in Colorado, has acknowledged having similar discussions with White House officials. Issa has suggested the White House violated the law and may have offered Sestak "a bribe" in the process, assertions that have not been proved.

Issa, however, is not a single-issue attack dog. He has shown that he will go after Obama from multiple directions:

He is also demanding the administration release details of Cabinet officials' travel to events that might benefit Democratic candidates, continuing to cast Obama as embracing "politics as usual."

"It is abundantly clear that this kind of conduct is contrary to President Obama's pledge to change 'business as usual' and that his administration has engaged in the kind of political shenanigans he once campaigned to end," he said.

Veteran journalist Robert Parry has written numerous times at Consortium News about Bill Clinton's decision to let apparent crimes of the Reagan and Bush I presidencies go uninvestigated. Republicans rewarded Clinton by promptly launching investigations of the president when they took back Congress in 1994. Clinton was hampered for the final six years he was in office, and his presidency never fully recovered.

Parry writes in a recent piece at Consortium News and Truthout that Obama appears to be heading down the same path:

If Republicans gain control of at least one house of Congress, they would surely launch a wave of investigations against Obama, much as the GOP did against Clinton.

Unlike the Democrats who shy away from investigative controversies--turning their backs even on historic scandals such as Iran-Contra, Iraq-gate and contra-cocaine trafficking in the 1980s as well as George W. Bush’s torture abuses and illegal wars last decade--the Republicans have no such qualms.

This could have a profound impact on an American middle class that already is suffering in the Great Bush Recession. By letting Bush criminals off the hook, and setting the stage for a thug like Issa to possibly come to power, Obama is likely to throw an anchor to a middle class that already is on the verge of drowning. Writes Parry:

So, with Obama embattled and the Democratic congressional majorities likely to shrink or disappear, the chances for the United States to confront its structural problems will only worsen.

With unemployment staying high, many middle-class Americans will sink into a growing under-class. The rich will fight to keep as much of their oversized salaries and bonuses as possible, with the Republicans ensuring that the one political sure-thing will be that legislated tax increases won’t happen.

Indeed, the simplest way to address the nation’s myriad of problems – by restoring the marginal tax rates for the rich back to the historical levels of, say, the Kennedy era (around 60 percent on their top income) – is the one thing that is almost impossible to contemplate.

Parry says America desperately needs a president who will challenge right-wing orthodoxy and educate the public about the road to sustained prosperity. Obama increasingly is showing that he doesn't have the stomach for such a challenging task:

Though the Republican vision of the future appears to guarantee a continued decline in the quality of American life, the Right’s propaganda machinery makes any suggestion about the need to tax the rich more heavily akin to socialism. The Revolutionary War slogan, “no taxation without representation,” has been transformed to something close to “no taxation, period.”

Remember the famous encounter between candidate Obama and “Joe the Plumber,” who decried Obama’s idea about the need to redistribute wealth from the upper-income levels to middle- and working-class Americans so the economy would work better.

That debate remains at the center of America’s economic struggles, as it has been since the Great Depression when income inequality and financial speculation were two key factors in the mass unemployment that followed the Crash of 1929. Two lessons learned were that a strong middle class and reasonable government regulations were necessary for a healthy economy.

What are the keys to American prosperity? A strong middle class and reasonable government regulations. Obama is a smart guy who clearly knows that. And he should be smart enough to know that the best route to prosperity requires investigations of GOP criminals, showing that modern conservatism is a damaged brand that is leading our nation toward ruin.

You simply cannot seek bipartisan solutions with a Republican Party that has become grotesquely dysfunctional. Obama has had roughly 19 months to help educate the public about the dangers of modern conservatism. But he has failed to do it.

That has left an opening for the likes of Darrell Issa to take center stage. If that happens, Obama's opportunity probably will be gone for good.

Richard Shelby's Pork Parade Helps Fund Discrimination on Alabama Campuses

U.S. Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) has steered more than $250 million in earmarks over the past two years to organizations whose lobbyists used to work in Shelby's office, according to a new report at Politico.

A huge chunk of that pork has gone to the University of Alabama System, which we have shown at Legal Schnauzer has rampant problems with discrimination in employment. We also have shown that the UA System is a terrible steward of federal funds, with widespread financial and scientific fraud on its Birmingham campus (UAB) alone.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, codified at 42 U.S.C. 2000d, prohibits the use of federal funds for organizations that discriminate. That means Richard Shelby has sent millions of federal dollars to a university system that does not qualify, under the law, to receive them.

It's not just our opinion, by the way, that the UA System discriminates. A federal jury found that UA discriminated against former medical resident Seema Gupta based on her Hindu religion. Numerous other lawsuits have been settled or are currently in litigation.

Politico's report is based on a study, "Senator Shelby's Pork Parade," by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

Eight staffers have left Shelby's office to create or join lobbying firms, CREW reports, and Shelby has earmarked $266,524,500 for their clients. In a case of classic political back-scratching, those clients clearly return the favor. The lobbying firms have earned $10,075,000 in fees. And the firms and clients have sent $999,471 to Shelby's campaign committee and leadership PAC since 1999. Reports Politico:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a government watchdog group that compiled the data on Shelby’s earmarks and campaign contributions, believes that Shelby’s actions are similar to the favor trading that clouded the tenure of late Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. John Murtha.

“Sen. Shelby, like Rep. Murtha before him, takes trading earmarks for campaign dollars to a level most members of Congress can only dream about,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the organization. “Also like Murtha, Shelby earmarks for the benefit of his former-staffers-turned-lobbyists.”

Even some of Shelby's Republican colleagues have raised questions about such tactics. Reports Politico:

Shelby’s earmarking doesn’t appear to run afoul of Senate rules or federal ethics laws. But critics said his tactics are part of a Washington culture in which lawmakers direct money back home to narrow interests, which, in turn, hire well-connected lobbyists — often former congressional aides — who enjoy special access on Capitol Hill.

“It is a system that is in direct conflict of interest with our oath of office because it’s parochial,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), an earmark critic who declined to comment on Shelby directly.

While lobbyists, their clients, and Shelby himself clearly are winners in this charade, taxpayers appear to be the big losers. Consider the dollars that former Shelby staffer Ray Cole has raked in for the University of Alabama System:

A former Shelby state director and campaign manager, Cole is registered to lobby for The University of Alabama System, which has received $175 million in Shelby earmarks since 2008, the first year lawmakers had to publicly declare their sponsorship of pet projects. The earmarks have included $30 million for a state-of-the-art science center, $10.5 million for Gulf of Mexico weather research and $10.2 million for facilities and equipment at the Tuscaloosa campus.

Alabama universities love to tout their ties to Shelby--and they are happy to return the favors. Reports Politico:

Shelby’s influence is hard to miss at Alabama campuses. There’s Shelby Hall at The University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa. In 2008, the Huntsville campus opened the Shelby Center for Science and Technology at a cost of $60 million — two-thirds of it built with federal dollars. The University of Alabama at Birmingham is home to the Richard C. and Annette N. Shelby Interdisciplinary Biomedical Research Building.

Employees of The University of Alabama System contributed more than $153,000 to Shelby's campaigns since 1999. And since that time, Cole’s firm has received $3.5 million from the University of Alabama System in lobbying fees.

Does this produce good government? Not exactly. Here is how we recently described the situation at the UA campus in Birmingham:

Under the the "leadership" of President Carol Garrison, with an assist from Provost Eli Capilouto, UAB has a longstanding pattern of mistreating faculty and staff--and mishandling federal funds. In fact, UAB has seen so many scandals and lawsuits that we summed them up in a post titled "Has UAB Become a Hotbed for Mismanagement and Corruption."

In short, UAB rakes in millions of dollars from Sen. Shelby while blatantly violating federal laws. Here is a recent summary from a post titled "UAB Dysfunction Doesn't Happen in a Vacuum":

It's difficult to keep up with all the UAB sleaze under Garrison, but here is our best effort at an updated and comprehensive list. . . .

* Nine papers written by scientist H.M. Krishna Murthy are retracted because of concerns about academic fraud;

* Researchers Juan R. Contreras and Judith M. Thomas are barred from receiving federal funds after falsifying results from animal studies;

* School of Medicine Dean Robert Rich steps down under mysterious circumstances, in the wake of multiple reports about fraud and discrimination that took place on his watch;

* A University of Louisville dean, who has ties to UAB 's Carol Garrison from her days as provost at U of L, pleads guilty to fraud-related charges and is sentenced to 63 months in federal prison;

* Longtime engineering professor Rosalia Scripa files a discrimination lawsuit;

* Longtime history professor Horace Huntley files a discrimination lawsuit;

* Longtime business professor Susan Key files a discrimination lawsuit;

* Former trainee Seema Gupta files a lawsuit claiming widespread discrimination against international medical graduates in UAB's Family Medicine Residency Program in Huntsville;

* A company owned by a member of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, is found to have been involved in insurance fraud;

* An office associate uses a university computer to send a hate-filled e-mail to a California gay-rights group. UAB announces no disciplinary action against the female employee;

* A financial associate uses a university computer to send a racist e-mail that mocks President Obama and other major Democrats. UAB announces no disciplinary action against the female employee;

* A federal lawsuit alleges that UAB's Office of Public Relations and Marketing unlawfully used copyrighted illustrations in various print publications and on the university's Web site.

* A prominent donor, with strong ties to Republican Party politics, has a lengthy history of driving-related arrests and questionable business practices;

* Several UAB medical professionals have ties to a company owned by attorney Rob Riley (son of GOP Governor Bob Riley), which has been accused in federal-court documents of practicing health-care fraud;

* UAB settles a federal whistleblower lawsuit that alleges some $600 million in fraud over a 10-year period;

* In her first year on the job, President Garrison embarrasses the university by playing a prominent role in a scandal that led to the ouster of University of Tennessee President John Shumaker.

That list doesn't include the ongoing case of business professor Glenn Feldman who has faced unlawful harassment and discrimination largely because of his ties to organized labor and Democratic Party politics. Feldman's academic specialty is labor economics and history.

It also doesn't include by own case, where I was unlawfully terminated from my job as an editor in the UAB Office of Publications after 19 years at the university. Evidence strongly indicates that I was fired largely because of my reporting on this blog about the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

Is it a coincidence that a university that relies so heavily on pork from a Republican senator is hostile to those who express progressive views? Maybe not.

Are taxpayers being well served by Richard Shelby's back-scratching pork campaign? Definitely not.

Did Bush DOJ Intentionally Appoint Tainted Special Prosecutors?

Two of the biggest scandals during the George W. Bush presidency involved the firings of nine U.S. attorneys and possible torture coverups.

Michael Mukasey, Bush's attorney general at the time, appointed Nora Dannehy and John Durham, respectively, to investigate the matters. Now we have learned, thanks to reporting by Andrew Kreig at the Justice Integrity Project, that both Dannehy and Durham were connected to prosecutorial misconduct in an earlier Connecticut criminal case.

Did the Bush administration intentionally appoint compromised prosecutors to help ensure that they would not get at the truth on the U.S. attorney and torture investigations? Scott Horton, legal affairs contributor for Harper's magazine, addresses that question in a new post at his No Comment blog.

The charges against Dannehy and Durham involve suppression of exculpatory evidence. In a case of curious timing, Dannehy was appointed to lead the U.S. attorney investigation just four days after her connections to evidence suppression were addressed in a court proceeding. Writes Horton:

It’s striking that the court ruling about the unlawful suppression occurred just four days before Dannehy’s appointment as special prosecutor to handle the U.S. attorneys case was announced. This makes it likely that Mukasey was fully aware of the suppression findings before he finalized his decision. Did Mukasey tap Dannehy, and later her colleague John Durham, because he could count on both of them to take the probes nowhere and emerge with the conclusion that none of the political appointees could be prosecuted? In any event, that was Mukasey’s own predisposition, articulated in a number of speeches.

In other words, did Mukasey appoint Dannehy and Durham because he knew they faced serious ethical charges and could be counted on to deliver whitewashed investigations in order to save their own careers?

That Dannehy would run into problems over evidence suppression is supremely ironic, Horton writes:

The issue of nondisclosure of exculpatory materials was right at the heart of the U.S. attorney’s scandal, playing a particularly prominent role in the case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. As I noted previously, the Justice Department’s report makes clear that Dannehy neglected investigation of the entire sprawling scandal, electing instead to focus down on a single case, involving New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias. He was threatened with firing and then was in fact fired because he would not bring a high-profile prosecution of a Democratic officeholder in the heat of an election campaign in a manner calculated to benefit a specific Republican candidate, Heather Wilson. Dannehy reached the farcical conclusion that threats against Iglesias, accompanied by melodramatic gestures like slamming down a receiver, and followed by his actual firing, did not constitute efforts to “influence, obstruct, or impede” a criminal case. A District of Columbia jury might have viewed the evidence quite differently from Dannehy. Her decision to take no action probably protected figures involved in her own appointment as a U.S. attorney.

So evidence strongly suggests that Nora Dannehy, a tainted prosecutor, produced a bogus report in order to protect those who had boosted her career. The question now is this: Will the Obama Justice Department let this kind of skulduggery stand?

Obama's Justice Department Appears to be Participating in a Coverup

Until last week, the best that could be said of the U.S. Department of Justice under Barack Obama was, well . . . nothing. That's because the DOJ, under Attorney General Eric Holder, had pretty much done . . . nothing.

But things changed last week with reports that the DOJ had found no criminal charges were warranted against Bush administration officials for the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

The news came in the form of a letter from DOJ official Ronald Weich to House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI). In those six pages, the Obama DOJ moved into dark territory. No longer was it just ignoring possible criminal acts by Bush officials; it was engaging in active deceit of the American public.

On top of that, we now know that the "investigation" was handled by a special prosecutor with ties to evidence suppression in an earlier criminal case. What, if anything, will the Obama DOJ do about this latest news, which comes courtesy of some splendid reporting by Andrew Kreig, of the Justice Integrity Project?

Scott Horton, of Harper's, called the findings a whitewash--and he was being charitable. I would call it a coverup. Our unsolicited advice for Conyers: Don't just quietly accept this steaming pile of horse feces.

The investigation into the U.S. attorney firings has emitted a foul odor from the outset. It was conducted by Nora Dannehy, who was appointed to a U.S. attorney position by . . . George W. Bush. Dannehy was tapped to lead the investigation by Michael Mukasey, who was attorney general for . . . George W. Bush. Did these apparent conflicts cause any concern for Eric Holder? Apparently not, because he allowed Dannehy to proceed--and accepted her findings seemingly without any questions.

The entire scandal involved the firings of nine U.S. attorneys. But Dannehy investigated only one case, that of New Mexico's David Iglesias. How can a scandal involving nine cases be declared resolved with the investigation of only one case? Eric Holder isn't saying.

Weich's letter about Dannehy's findings reeks because of what it says--and what it does not say.

A reasonable person might expect that such a letter would outline, right up front, the legal standard Dannehy was using to determine whether crimes were or were not committed in the firings. But the Weich letter says nothing about it.

A prosecutor's normal standard is called "probable cause." Here is one definition of probable cause:

Apparent facts discovered through logical inquiry that would lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an accused person has committed a crime, thereby warranting his or her prosecution.

How important is this concept to a prosecutor? The American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct state:

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

Dannehy's findings, as spelled out in Weich's letter, are filled with enough probable cause to choke an elephant. But Dannehy apparently was looking for more than probable cause, the usual prosecutorial standard. She appointed herself judge and jury, too, ensuring that the American people would be forever hoodwinked on at least one chapter in the book of Bush-era sleaze.

A reasonable person might also expect that Dannehy's findings, as relayed by Weich, would include some citations to applicable law. After all, the letter is filled with conclusions of law. But she and Weich never tell us what that law is, never cite case law to support their findings. That's almost certainly because there is no case law to support the findings.

What is a citizen to do? We are to take the word of Nora "Trust Me" Dannehy. And we are to do that even though we now know there is reason to question Dannehy's supposedly impeccable credentials.

How might Dannehy's findings be summarized? Here is our best shot: Were the firings politically motivated? Yes. Did they violate department principles? Yes. Were they possibly criminal? No.

If those findings seem contradictory to you, join the crowd.

Absurdities pile one on top of another as you get into the specifics of Dannehy's findings. Consider just three findings, involving the possible criminal charges in the case--obstruction of justice (18 U.S. Code 1503), theft of honest services (18 U.S. Code 1346), and false statements (18 U.S. Code 1001):

* Causing a U.S. attorney to be fired for political reasons is not an impediment to his official duties--Dannehy/Weich say the statute on obstruction of justice penalizes only forward-looking conduct that endeavors to "influence, obstruct, or impede." But they conclude that causing David Iglesias to be fired did not impede his work. We can only assume that Dannehy/Weich actually wrote this with a straight face.

* Bushies did not engage in undisclosed, biased decision making--Dannehy/Weich found the effort to remove Iglesias from office was not "a scheme to get him to use his Office in return for anything of value, including his continued employment." That, however, is not the standard set out for honest-services fraud. In fact, honest-services case law specifically states that it does not hinge on whether "anything of value" changes hands. The actual standard, the one Dannehy/Weich obviously don't want regular Americans to know about is this: Did public officials, in this case members and allies of the Bush administration, engage in "undisclosed, biased decision making" when they sacked David Iglesias? Given that Dannehy admits their motivations were political, the answer obviously is yes.

* You can make statements to Congress that are "inaccurate" and "misleading" but are not "knowingly false"--This is what Dannehy/Weich found regarding Bush-era Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and his apparent false statements to Congress. How absurd is this conclusion? If a person makes a statement that is both inaccurate and misleading, that means it was made with intent, correct? After all, you can't unintentionally mislead someone. That means the statement was not just innocently inaccurate--it was knowingly false. And such statements are criminal.

For more details on Dannehy's legal conclusions please check out our earlier post:

Report on U.S. Attorney Firings Reads Like a Farce

All of this raises a disturbing question: Do Obama and Holder even want to be taken seriously on justice matters? Will Holder go down as "the most laughable attorney general in U.S. history"?

It could happen. But these are not laughing matters. And John Conyers should not treat them as such.

We don't pretend to be experts on Congressional authority, but it's our understanding that Conyers could decide to conduct his own investigation--looking not only into the U.S. attorney firings, but also political prosecutions under the Bush DOJ. Conyers already has indicated that he has serious problems with Dannehy's handiwork.

Congress has both oversight authority and the "power of the purse." Through much of the Bush presidency, evidence strongly indicates that taxpayer dollars were used not for legitimate justice matters but for political matters. Regardless of what "Trust Me" Dannehy wants us to believe, those actions were almost certainly criminal--there clearly is probable cause to bring criminal charges.

Conyers owes it to taxpayers and to Congress to conduct a broad and thorough investigation. If members of the Obama administration indeed have engaged in a coverup, that means some Democrats could get caught in Conyers' net?

Our response to that possibility? So be it.

The Obama administration has had some 19 months to show that it takes justice matters seriously. It has failed at every turn--and John Conyers should hold them accountable.

Americans simply must know the truth about the ugly deeds of the Bush Justice Department. It's critically important for us now, and it will be even more important for generations to come.

Scott Horton says Holder has helped set up a formula for disaster. And it must not be allowed to stand:

Dannehy’s decision not to proceed is an open invitation to future administrations: the White House is free to manipulate the Department for political purposes, and Justice Department officials are free to lie to Congress.

TV Shrink Provides Insights On Our Insecurities

When you write a blog about legal issues, your "beat" essentially is human dysfunction.

No doubt, a fair number of legal cases are generated by mistakes--someone accidentally does something that harms another person. But I would wager that a very large number are driven by sheer human meanness--cases where someone intentionally harms another.

What causes that kind of dysfunction? The longer I'm on this earth, the more I think life revolves around insecurities. Perhaps as a coping mechanism, I've tried to appreciate both the serious and the comic sides of insecurities.

We all have insecurities, of course. Those who generally treat others in an honorable fashion, I suspect, tend to deal with their insecurities in a healthy fashion. Those who mistreat other people--and other living beings, for that matter--probably do it out of an inability to deal with their insecurities.

I'm not sure if professionals would back me up on this. But I've had quite a bit of experience in being cheated over the past few years, and I've come to believe that some of the most destructive people you are likely to encounter are those who cannot keep their insecurities in check.

For purposes of this blog, we're generally not talking about people who are likely to do you immediate physical harm. We're talking about people who intentionally hurt others in the professional setting, who cause emotional, financial, and psychological destruction--and that, of course, eventually can lead to physical damage.

A book has been written about such people. It's called Snakes in Suits and focuses on people who exhibit psychopathic traits in the professional arena. If you are interested in what makes dangerous people tick, I highly recommend it.

Robert D. Hare co-wrote Snakes in Suits, and I highly recommend any of his books. He is an international authority on psychopathy, and trust me, you never know when you will need his insights.

Obviously, we are dealing with a serious subject here. But what about the comic side of insecurities? For that, we turn to our TV favorite, Scrubs. In addition to being one of the funniest shows ever, Scrubs provides sharp observations on the human condition.

Some of our favorite episodes involve Molly Clock, a spacey psychiatrist played by the exceedingly fetching Heather Graham. Dr. Clock's own life shows signs of being a train wreck. But when it comes to observing others, she can be stunningly insightful.

For example, our gal Molly has an uncanny ability to discern the insecurities of others--especially when it comes to physical imperfections. What impact does this have on others? Well, let's check out this clip, which goes down as a Scrubs classic.

As someone who has a rather noticeable Adam's apple himself, this scene has always hit home for me. Just thinking about it makes me want to get out my turtleneck--even though it's July in Alabama.

Enjoy.

Prosecutor Who Cleared Bush Officials Has Connections to Misconduct

The special prosecutor who last week cleared Bush administration officials of criminal acts in the firings of nine U.S. attorneys was connected to evidence suppression in an earlier case.

Nora Dannehy led a team of lawyers that was found to have suppressed evidence in a major political-corruption case in Connecticut, according to a new report by Andrew Kreig at Nieman Watchdog and OpEd News.

The finding of evidence suppression against Dannehy's team dovetails closely with her appointment as special prosecutor in the U.S. attorney firings case. It also raises questions about a Justice Department investigation into a possible Bush-era coverup on torture.

Kreig, a veteran journalist and lawyer, is executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Justice Integrity Project. He reports:

In September 2008, the Bush Justice Department appointed career federal prosecutor Nora Dannehy to investigate allegations that Bush officials in 2006 illegally fired nine U.S. attorneys who wouldn’t politicize official corruption investigations.

But just four days before her appointment, a federal appeals court had ruled that a team of prosecutors led by Dannehy illegally suppressed evidence in a major political corruption case in Connecticut. The prosecutors’ misconduct was so serious that the court vacated seven of the eight convictions in the case.

The evidence-suppression story was covered in the Connecticut press, but it apparently never received scrutiny when Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey named Dannehy a special prosecutor. Does the public have reason to doubt Dannehy's judgment now that she has found criminal charges were not warranted in the U.S. attorney firings? The Connecticut case indicates the answer is yes. Writes Kreig:

The ruling didn’t cite Dannehy by name, and although it was publicly reported it apparently never came up in the news coverage of her appointment.

But it now calls into question the integrity of her investigation by raising serious concerns about her credibility--and about whether she was particularly vulnerable to political pressure from within the Justice Department.

Kreig puts the profoundly important U.S. attorneys story in perspective:

Now, almost two years later, Dannehy has provided arguably the most important blanket exoneration for high-level U.S. criminal targets since President George H.W. Bush pardoned six Iran-Contra convicts post-election in late 1992.

The DOJ announced on July 21 that it has “closed the case” on the nine unprecedented mid-term firings because Dannehy found no criminal wrongdoing by DOJ or White House officials.

But the official description of her inquiry indicates that she either placed or acceded to constraints on the scope of her probe that restricted it to the firing of just one of the ousted U.S. attorneys, not the others--and not to the conduct of the U.S. attorneys who weren't ousted because they met whatever tests DOJ and the White House created.

Some observers have called Dannehy's findings a "whitewash"--or worse. Reports Kreig:

“This is an outrageous act of cowardice and cover-up!” former Alabama governor and alleged political prosecution victim Don Siegelman emailed me regarding DOJ’s decision and the failure to interview him.

Given what Kreig has revealed about Dannehy's background, perhaps we should have been expecting such a result all along. Reports Kreig:

Dannehy’s probe, my reporting suggests, was compromised from the beginning.

She was appointed by Bush Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey on Sept. 29, 2008. On Sept. 25, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City found misconduct in a 2003 trial she had led.

The court found that the prosecution suppressed evidence that could have benefited the defendant, Connecticut businessman Charles B. Spadoni. Spadoni had been convicted of bribing former state Treasurer Paul Silvester to invest $200 million of state pension money with his firm.

But the appeals court found that prosecutors had failed to turn over to the defense an FBI agent’s notes of a key interview they conducted with Silvester's attorney. In doing so, the court ruled, “the government deprived Spadoni of exculpatory evidence going to the core of its bribery case against him.”

The court reversed Spadoni’s convictions on seven counts of racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, bribery and wire fraud, leaving intact only an obstruction of justice conviction.

Where does the ongoing torture investigation enter the picture? Kreig provides the answer:

As it happens, the Spadoni case also raises concerns relative to the ongoing federal probe of potential Bush administration wrongdoing in covering up torture that is being led by John H. Durham, another prosecutor from Connecticut. Durham supervised Dannehy’s decade-long prosecution of Spadoni.

He also was appointed by Mukasey in 2008. Durham’s initial charge was to investigate suspected destruction of torture tapes by CIA personnel. In 2009, Holder expanded that probe to other decision-making, including by DOJ personnel.

Until now, neither DOJ nor anyone else has linked Dannehy and Durham by name to the prosecutorial misconduct against Spadoni, as far as I can determine. The court decision doesn’t cite specific actions by the two. But it clearly refers to their case, and the information is readily available online in Lexis and in any good law library.

Have Dannehy and Durham faced any repercussions for their actions in the Spadoni case? That remains unclear:

Prosecutors found by a court to have committed misconduct typically face some sort of internal investigation within the Justice Department. Whether there was any such investigation, and why or why not, is not publicly known.

For now, it appears that compromised special prosecutors were in charge of investigations into both the U.S. attorney firings and possible torture-related coverups. In the case of Dannehy, we know that her investigation was cursory, at best. And that, Kreig says, should give all Americans pause:

Dannehy never contacted obvious witnesses who may have been victimized by wrongdoing. Is there a good reason for that, or is it part of a pattern in which prosecutors tend to find scant wrongdoing against their colleagues? A question reporters need to pursue is whether a culture of error and cover-up prevailed in the Department of Justice under Bush and continues under President Obama. It is one thing to want to look forward, as Obama stated as he took office. But it is wrong and immoral for our criminal system not to examine what appear to be obvious abuses that discredit the justice system, local and regional politics, and, indeed, our nation’s standing in the world as a beacon of democracy and civil rights.

Is an Alabama University Trying to Cash in on Disaster in the Gulf of Mexico?

In the wake of the BP oil spill, an Alabama university has announced it is starting a new master's degree program in engineering that is designed to help prevent such disasters.

Are the motives of the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) as pure as they sound in a press release? When UAB's actions are considered in context, the answer appears to be no. In fact, considerable evidence indicates UAB simply is trying to cash in on the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history.

The new program also raises questions about the quality of the engineering programs UAB already was offering.

UAB touts its new Master of Engineering degree track in Advanced Safety Engineering and Management (ASEM) as the first program of its kind in the country. The program, which will be offered totally online, will begin with the fall 2010 semester.

According to an article in The Birmingham News, the degree "has been in the works for about a year and isn't a direct response to the BP spill." Uh, right. And UAB's current administration has a history of dealing "truthfully" with the public, not to mention its own faculty, staff, and students. If this statement is truthful, why does UAB's own press release about the program mention the oil spill in the first paragraph?

The article also says the new program is "part of a national trend toward using engineering to prevent workplace injuries, environmental disasters and other problems." Based on what's currently taking place in the Gulf of Mexico, I'd say this "trend" is a little slow in developing.

UAB announced the program's formation on June 21, almost two months to the day after the Deepwater Horizon explosion that led to the massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Almost sounds like UAB was trying to beat other university's to the punch. And that's probably because the university expects substantial federal dollars to flow into disaster-related programs because of the BP spill.

Before the Deepwater Horizon explosion, had UAB's current administration shown an interest in disaster prevention and recovery? Not exactly. In fact, UAB administrators went to great lengths to get rid of such a program they already had.

That was the Workplace Safety Training (WST) program that had been a part of UAB's Center for Labor Education and Research (CLEAR) for almost 20 years. WST personnel had extensive experience in dealing with all kinds of disasters, from Hurricane Katrina to the handling of hazardous materials.

In other words, it offered exactly the kind of training that now is needed in the Gulf of Mexico. But what did UAB officials do? They closed down WST in fall 2009, kicking away a five-year, $3-million grant from the National Institute of Environmental and Health Services.

Why was this action taken? According to a lawsuit filed by Glenn Feldman, a professor in the UAB School of Business, it's because WST was affiliated with a labor center. And UAB wanted to get rid of CLEAR in an effort to help appeal to white, suburban, conservative students and build support from the "pro business" community.

What happened to WST and CLEAR? Both have been relocated to Jefferson State Community College in Birmingham. Consider this portion of WST's mission statement from its new Jefferson State Web site:

CLEAR's Workplace Safety Training program is committed to training first responders to respond safely and effectively to emergencies involving hazardous materials.

Hmmm . . . this program is designed to train first responders to respond "safely and effectively to emergencies involving hazardous materials."

Would those hazardous materials include oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico? The answer almost certainly is yes. Could UAB have touted its WST program and used it to actually help clean up BP's mess in the Gulf? Again, the answer is yes . . . except for one small detail--UAB got rid of its WST program about six months before the Deepwater Horizon exploded.

How's that for visionary leadership? UAB had a program that enjoyed a national reputation for helping respond to environmental disasters. But it got rid of the program roughly six months before the worst environmental disaster in the nation's history.

So what do UAB's leaders do then? Having missed an opportunity to garner loads of positive publicity through the WST program, they decide to concoct a new program out of thin air, one that supposedly will help prevent such disasters in the future.

What will the new program actually achieve? Other than bringing federal dollars into UAB's coffers, it remains unclear. The new program, however, has accomplished this much--it's raised questions about the quality of engineering education UAB already was offering.

According to UAB's press release, the new program will "educate engineers and safety, health and environmental professionals across industries in the best practices to prevent expansive disasters like the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and Upper Big Branch Mine explosion in West Virginia."

Does that mean UAB was not already educating engineers about safety issues and disaster prevention? Sure sounds like it.

One wonders if BP has been hiring UAB graduates to help design its oil rigs. Maybe that's what started this disaster in the first place.