VIDEO of wan kim at the DoJ v. sen. edward kennedy on civil rights

in a few moments, after youtube
loads it up, i will have a salty-exchange
between sen. edward kennedy and wan kim,
the current chief of the civil rights
division of the department of justice
right here:

mr. kim, and mr. gonzales, and mr. schlozman
and mr. griffin, and ms. goodling, and mr.
sampson — and messrs. rove, and cheney, and
bush — should not be allowed to obscure the
fine, justice-seeking, law-abiding, fairness-
championing career employees of the civil
rights division of the DoJ — many now gone.
so many — many of these people, whose names
we may never know, only sought to do the
right thing every day of their careers. . .

let’s not forget them — they are the counter-
point to the “segregationists” and politizers
of this DoJ under mr. alberto gonzales.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

earlier — let’s read senator patrick leahy’s
remarks at the judiciary committee hearing, from
the beginning of the afternoon:

Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy,
Chairman, Judiciary Committee,
on Department of Justice Civil Rights
Division Oversight June 21, 2007

For almost 50 years, the Civil Rights Division has stood at the forefront of America’s march toward equality. Founded in 1957, the Division vigorously implemented civil rights laws during the turbulent era of the Civil Rights Movement. Its attorneys participated in landmark cases that helped transform the legal landscape of our country and brought us closer to the ideal of a “more perfect union.” These cases included successfully prosecuting the murderers of civil rights workers, eliminating voter disenfranchisement laws, and battling discrimination in education and government services throughout the nation. Several reports from former career attorneys in the Division highlight how the current Administration has abandoned the priorities upon which the Civil Rights Division was founded. New evidence continues to emerge demonstrating that President Bush’s political appointees have reversed longstanding civil rights policies and impeded civil rights progress. There are disturbing reports that career lawyers have been shut out of the Division’s decision-making process, that the Division’s civil rights enforcement on behalf of racial minorities has sharply declined, and that the Department has packed the Division with attorneys who have no background in civil rights litigation.

Of the many stories about corrosive political influences affecting our government, the reports of the politicization of the justice department’s Civil Rights Division are some of the most disappointing. After all, this law enforcement Division is entrusted with defending our most precious rights as Americans, including our fundamental right to vote and our rights against discrimination. I am deeply troubled by what appears to be an effort by the White House to manipulate the Justice Department into its own political arm.

About a year ago, President Bush signed into law the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Although a broad bipartisan coalition of members of Congress supported reauthorizing this cornerstone of civil rights laws, how it is enforced by the Justice Department and its Civil Rights Division will determine whether it will continue to protect Americans against voter disenfranchisement.

Investigative reporting appearing in the Boston Globe, the Washington Post and other papers has chronicled this Administration’s political makeover of the civil rights division. In the Voting Section alone, more than 20 attorneys, representing about two-thirds of the lawyers in the section, have left in the last few years – over a dozen have left the section in the last 15 months. Included in this talent drain were the chief of the section, three deputy chiefs, and many experienced trial lawyers, representing almost 150 years of cumulative experience in civil rights enforcement. In addition, recent reports highlight the departures of a large percentage of analysts who review pre-clearance petitions under tight time pressure. I look forward to learning more about the latest allegations about personnel issues in the Division from the Assistant Attorney General’s testimony today.

The departures are not my only cause for concern. As we have learned from previous Committee testimony, the Bush Administration’s political appointees implemented a major policy change in its hiring process. Until 2002, hiring for career jobs in the Civil Rights Division under all administrations, Democratic and Republican, had been handled by civil servants, not political appointees. After the Bush Administration disbanded the hiring committees – comprised of veteran career lawyers – a noticeable shift in backgrounds of its attorneys emerged. According to internal documents obtained by the Boston Globe, “only 42 percent of the lawyers hired since 2003 . . . have civil rights experience” which is a downward turn as compared to two years before the change where “77 percent of those [] hired had civil rights backgrounds.” The Civil Rights Division apparently hired lawyers with strong conservative credentials but little experience in civil rights. This reminds me of the same hiring philosophy that brought us the disastrous aftermath of Katrina but with further revelations from former employees, it is clear that more than mere cronyism was at work.

It should come as no surprise that the result, and of course the intent, of this political makeover of the Civil Rights Division has resulted in a dismal civil rights enforcement record. I look forward to receiving additional testimony today about how enforcement of the laws that Congress passed to protect Americans are no longer being enforced by the current Justice Department.

As the Committee responsible for overseeing the Justice Department, we must ensure that the Department is upholding its duty to protect the American people — all the people — from discrimination. Our civil rights laws provide our Federal Government with the authority to impose criminal and civil sanctions against individuals and institutions that violate our peoples’ civil rights. They provide meaning to our constitutional guarantees. If civil rights laws are ignored – particularly by the federal agency charged with their enforcement – discrimination will flourish, and the consequences for our nation will be great.

The American people deserve a strong and independent Justice Department with leaders who enforce the law without fear or favor. Every week brings new revelations about the erosion of independence at the Justice Department. This Administration was willing, in the U.S. Attorney firings and in the vetting of career hires for political allegiance, to sacrifice the independence of law enforcement and the rule of law for loyalty to the White House. We know that one of the lead political appointees serving in the Civil Rights Division was the first U.S. Attorney to be appointed by the Attorney General under new powers granted to him in the PATRIOT Act. It certainly appears that Mr. Schlozman was put in that district to infuse the White House’s brand of politics into the law enforcement agency of battle ground state before what was expected to be a close national election. In fact, during his brief tenure he brought two controversial election law cases. I expect we will continue to learn more about what Justice Department rules and policies were broken by Mr. Schlozman as new evidence comes to light.

I look forward to receiving the testimony of Professor Brian Landsberg. Professor Landsberg literally wrote the book on the Civil Rights Division, entitled “Enforcing Civil Rights: Race Discrimination and the Department of Justice,” so I expect his testimony to reveal how the current Division is performing in light of the purpose and historical performance of the division under several different presidents. Also joining us today is Professor Helen Norton. She will explore the important role the Division has played in past employment discrimination cases and how the current administration has departed from this legacy with its advocacy in two disappointing Supreme Court cases. We welcome back Wade Henderson, President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, an expert in the field of civil rights and a keen observer of the changes that have taken place in the Division since President Bush took office six years ago. I look forward to receiving your testimony and I thank Senator Cardin for agreeing to Chair this important hearing this afternoon.

astonishing. and sadly ironic — the civil rights
division was busily trampling on the right to vote, the
right to equal opportunity, and the right to be free
from political litmus tests, when working as a
career (i.e. non-political) assistant
united states department of justice attorney
[as required by the federal hatch act]. . .

senate judiciary committee authorizes subpoena for legal basis of warrantless wiretap program

this morning, the judiciary committee
authorized subpoenas for attorney general
alberto gonzales to get the documents upon
which he relied in running a five-year,
arguably violative of f.i.s.a., warrantless
wiretap program against u.s. citizens — after
the DoJ stonewalled for a full year. . .

CLICK HERE TO VIEW REALVIDEO of
patrick leahy’s opening remarks. . .

Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
On Authorization For Subpoenas
In Connection With The Investigation Of The Legal Basis
For The Warrantless Electronic Surveillance Program

Executive Business Meeting

June 21, 2007

Today I will ask the Committee to provide the authorization to issue subpoenas for documents relating to the National Security Agency’s warrantless domestic electronic surveillance program. This is an authorization I first circulated two weeks ago and that was formally held over by Senator Kyl last week.

For more than five years this Administration intercepted conversations of Americans in the United States without obtaining court orders under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This program became public in December 2005 and, soon after, the President confirmed its existence. Since then, this Committee has sought information about the authorization of and legal justification for this program time and again – in letters, at hearings, and in written questions. Yet, this Administration has rebuffed all requests. Last month, Senator Specter and I wrote again to Attorney General Gonzales requesting these documents. We have still received no documents and no explanation.

This stonewalling is unacceptable and it must end. If the Administration will not carry out its responsibility to provide information to this Committee without a subpoena, we will issue one. If we do not, we are letting this Administration decide whether and how the Congress will do its job. The Judiciary Committee is charged with overseeing and legislating on constitutional protections and the civil liberties of Americans, and the warrantless electronic surveillance program directly impacts these responsibilities.

Instead of responses, our attempts to get straight answers from the Administration have met with stubborn refusals of our legitimate oversight requests. This is information we need, we should have, and whose production is long overdue. We are asking not for intimate operational details but for the legal justifications and analysis underlying these programs that affect the rights of every American.

When we held our first hearing with Attorney General Gonzales about this program, on February 6, 2006, he refused to answer simple questions or discuss anything more than “those facts the President has publicly confirmed.” He defended the program as “necessary” and “very narrowly tailored,” but he refused to back up these self-serving conclusions. He asserted that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed after September 11 authorized this warrantless wiretapping of Americans, yet would not even tell me when the Justice Department had come up with this particular legal justification. This pattern of evasion has continued with every hearing, every letter, and every written response.

Last month, we heard deeply troubling testimony from former Deputy Attorney General James Comey about a dispute over the legality of the warrantless electronic surveillance program. When the senior Department of Justice leadership refused to certify the legality of the program, the White House – including the then-Counsel to the President, Mr. Gonzales – attempted to strong-arm an ailing Attorney General Ashcroft in his hospital bed. When that did not work, they decided simply to ignore the law and authorize the program anyway. Only the prospect of a mass resignation of virtually every senior officer in the Department of Justice, including the FBI Director, caused the President to relent.

Yet, when Attorney General Gonzales was asked at that February 6, 2006, hearing before this Committee whether senior Justice Department officials expressed reservations about the NSA warrantless surveillance program, he responded, “I do not believe that these DOJ officials . . . had concerns about this program.” The Committee and the American people deserve better.

There is no legitimate argument for withholding these materials from this Committee. There is abundant precedent for providing Executive Branch legal analysis to the Congress, particularly to this Committee. Indeed, volumes upon volumes of Attorney General and Office of Legal Counsel legal opinions have even been made public. Sometimes in previous Administrations a particularly sensitive subject has resulted in an accommodation between branches on the manner in which it was shared. But this Administration has no policy of accommodation. Its policy is to deny and to stonewall. Neither is the fact that the matters involve classified information a reason to withhold these legal documents. Congress receives sensitive classified information regularly.

Why has this Administration been so steadfast in its refusal? Deputy Attorney General Comey’s account suggests that some of these documents would reveal an Administration perfectly willing to ignore the law. Is that what they are hiding?

When the Department of Justice’s own Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) began an internal investigation into the conduct of Department of Justice attorneys who approved this program, Attorney General Gonzales and the White House shut them down by denying them the necessary clearances. The head of OPR noted when he was forced to stand down that in its 31-year history OPR had never before been prevented from pursuing an investigation. Senators Durbin, Kennedy, Feingold, and Whitehouse have diligently sought documents on this series of events many times, but, again, have received no response.

Finally, I will note that this Administration is now asking Congress to make sweeping changes to FISA – a crucial national security authority over which this Committee has jurisdiction. The White House wants us to agree to far-reaching changes to that authority, but the Administration stubbornly refuses to let us know how it interprets the current law and the perceived flaws that led it to operate a program outside of the process established by FISA for more than five years. This legal analysis is information the Committee must have in order to make informed legislative decisions. As the Supreme Court said in McGrain v. Daugherty, “[a] legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change.”

Whatever the reason for the stonewalling, this Committee has stumbled in the dark for too long, attempting to do its job without the information it needs. We need this information to carry out our responsibilities under the Constitution. Unfortunately, it has become clear that we will not get it without a subpoena. I urge the adoption of the subpoena authorization.

BREAKING — judge walton’s opinion on libby sentence

or, code-word: “white sangria” fires back!

[updated on 06.23.07 -- CHS at firedoglake
has written quite a lawyerly summary of the walton
opinion, that covers some of the same ground
as mine below (but perhaps more lucidly), and
a lot of ground i never covered, at all. . .]

here is the full memorandum opinion
which judge reggie walton sent on to
the federal court of appeals for the
d.c. circuit (just as i predicted!) to
answer back, after lawrence s. robbins
made his first substantive filing in
the appellate courts on behalf of mr.
libby. . .

i’ll have more on this later today,
but his “footnotes do the walking”, again(!):

perfect!

here is a copy of the order
denying libby’s request for
freedom while his appeals are
processed. . . click it!

BREAKING — judge walton’s opinion on libby sentence

or, code-word: “white sangria” fires back!

[updated on 06.23.07 -- CHS at firedoglake
has written quite a lawyerly summary of the walton
opinion, that covers some of the same ground
as mine below (but perhaps more lucidly), and
a lot of ground i never covered, at all. . .]

here is the full memorandum opinion
which judge reggie walton sent on to
the federal court of appeals for the
d.c. circuit (just as i predicted!) to
answer back, after lawrence s. robbins
made his first substantive filing in
the appellate courts on behalf of mr.
libby. . .

i’ll have more on this later today,
but his “footnotes do the walking”, again(!):

perfect!

here is a copy of the order
denying libby’s request for
freedom while his appeals are
processed. . . click it!

BREAKING — judge walton’s opinion on libby sentence

or, code-word: “white sangria” fires back!

[updated on 06.23.07 -- CHS at firedoglake
has written quite a lawyerly summary of the walton
opinion, that covers some of the same ground
as mine below (but perhaps more lucidly), and
a lot of ground i never covered, at all. . .]

here is the full memorandum opinion
which judge reggie walton sent on to
the federal court of appeals for the
d.c. circuit (just as i predicted!) to
answer back, after lawrence s. robbins
made his first substantive filing in
the appellate courts on behalf of mr.
libby. . .

i’ll have more on this later today,
but his “footnotes do the walking”, again(!):

perfect!

here is a copy of the order
denying libby’s request for
freedom while his appeals are
processed. . . click it!

BREAKING — judge walton’s opinion on libby sentence

or, code-word: “white sangria” fires back!

[updated on 06.23.07 -- CHS at firedoglake
has written quite a lawyerly summary of the walton
opinion, that covers some of the same ground
as mine below (but perhaps more lucidly), and
a lot of ground i never covered, at all. . .]

here is the full memorandum opinion
which judge reggie walton sent on to
the federal court of appeals for the
d.c. circuit (just as i predicted!) to
answer back, after lawrence s. robbins
made his first substantive filing in
the appellate courts on behalf of mr.
libby. . .

i’ll have more on this later today,
but his “footnotes do the walking”, again(!):

perfect!

here is a copy of the order
denying libby’s request for
freedom while his appeals are
processed. . . click it!

BREAKING — judge walton’s opinion on libby sentence

or, code-word: “white sangria” fires back!

[updated on 06.23.07 -- CHS at firedoglake
has written quite a lawyerly summary of the walton
opinion, that covers some of the same ground
as mine below (but perhaps more lucidly), and
a lot of ground i never covered, at all. . .]

here is the full memorandum opinion
which judge reggie walton sent on to
the federal court of appeals for the
d.c. circuit (just as i predicted!) to
answer back, after lawrence s. robbins
made his first substantive filing in
the appellate courts on behalf of mr.
libby. . .

i’ll have more on this later today,
but his “footnotes do the walking”, again(!):

perfect!

here is a copy of the order
denying libby’s request for
freedom while his appeals are
processed. . . click it!

BREAKING — judge walton’s opinion on libby sentence

or, code-word: “white sangria” fires back!

[updated on 06.23.07 -- CHS at firedoglake
has written quite a lawyerly summary of the walton
opinion, that covers some of the same ground
as mine below (but perhaps more lucidly), and
a lot of ground i never covered, at all. . .]

here is the full memorandum opinion
which judge reggie walton sent on to
the federal court of appeals for the
d.c. circuit (just as i predicted!) to
answer back, after lawrence s. robbins
made his first substantive filing in
the appellate courts on behalf of mr.
libby. . .

i’ll have more on this later today,
but his “footnotes do the walking”, again(!):

perfect!

here is a copy of the order
denying libby’s request for
freedom while his appeals are
processed. . . click it!

BREAKING — judge walton’s opinion on libby sentence

or, code-word: “white sangria” fires back!

[updated on 06.23.07 -- CHS at firedoglake
has written quite a lawyerly summary of the walton
opinion, that covers some of the same ground
as mine below (but perhaps more lucidly), and
a lot of ground i never covered, at all. . .]

here is the full memorandum opinion
which judge reggie walton sent on to
the federal court of appeals for the
d.c. circuit (just as i predicted!) to
answer back, after lawrence s. robbins
made his first substantive filing in
the appellate courts on behalf of mr.
libby. . .

i’ll have more on this later today,
but his “footnotes do the walking”, again(!):

perfect!

here is a copy of the order
denying libby’s request for
freedom while his appeals are
processed. . . click it!

BREAKING — judge walton’s opinion on libby sentence

or, code-word: “white sangria” fires back!

[updated on 06.23.07 -- CHS at firedoglake
has written quite a lawyerly summary of the walton
opinion, that covers some of the same ground
as mine below (but perhaps more lucidly), and
a lot of ground i never covered, at all. . .]

here is the full memorandum opinion
which judge reggie walton sent on to
the federal court of appeals for the
d.c. circuit (just as i predicted!) to
answer back, after lawrence s. robbins
made his first substantive filing in
the appellate courts on behalf of mr.
libby. . .

i’ll have more on this later today,
but his “footnotes do the walking”, again(!):

perfect!

here is a copy of the order
denying libby’s request for
freedom while his appeals are
processed. . . click it!