Fresh from the
NYT comes another story on the ongoing Abramoff scandals and, more importantly, its relationship with the current nominee for deputy attorney general, Timothy Flanigan. More inside.
Following last week's arrest of Bush administration official David Safavian, new questions arose among Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Commitee regarding Timothy Flanigan and his involvement with 'Casino Jack' Abramoff during his days at Tyco.
Just yesterday, the WaPo reported, via Flanigan, that Abramoff claimed very deep influence within the Bush administration.
As General Counsel at Tyco after leaving the White House in 2002, Flanigan hired Abramoff (on the suggestion of Greenberg Traurig, LLP) in order to lobby Washington. Of particular interest were Karl Rove and members of Congress, where Abramoff would try to halt the enforcement of newly-passed off-shore taxes and establish "good relationships with Congress."
A spokeswoman for Karl Rove said that he had 'no recollection' of dealings with Abramoff.
Throughout all of this, Timothy Flanigan has been Bush's nominee to become deputy attorney general. In July, Flanigan answered two rounds of questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee in confirmation hearings (more on this below).
Now that you're caught up to speed (mostly), here's the NYT meat:
Dissatisfied, Senators Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont and Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, both Democrats, sent Mr. Flanigan a third batch of questions on Thursday. In particular, they want to know why he and Tyco International did not investigate evidence that Mr. Abramoff diverted for his use some $1.5 million paid by Tyco for what was to have been a grass-roots lobbying campaign.
The NYT article also directly contradicts, once again, Rove's reported answer to questions of ties to Abramoff (as well as DeLay's):
Mr. Abramoff himself "told us that he had contact with Mr. Karl Rove," a senior adviser to President Bush, and he had "good relationships" with members of Congress, including Representative Tom Delay of Texas, the majority leader, Mr. Flanigan wrote.
The White House, however, repeated its stance for a quick confirmation of Timothy Flanigan as the next deputy attorney general:
"Tim Flanigan is highly qualified to be deputy attorney general. He has served at the White House as deputy counsel; he has previously served at the Justice Department; he knows the law and he should be confirmed by the Senate. We'll continue to work with the Senate to ensure that he gets confirmed."
Shortly before Flanigan's July testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the ACLU urged Chairman Specter and Ranking Minority Member Leahy to oppose confirming Flanigan:
The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges you to oppose moving forward on the nomination of Timothy Flanigan to be Deputy Attorney General until the Justice Department takes two necessary steps: (i) publicly releases an August 2002 memorandum from the Justice Department to the Central Intelligence Agency that authorizes specific interrogation techniques, including waterboarding; and (ii) appoints an outside special counsel for the investigation and prosecution of criminal violations of federal laws against the torture or abuse of detainees. These two steps will bring the nation closer to holding top government officials--and not just a small number of privates and sergeants and low-ranking officers--responsible for the government abandoning the Constitution and the rule of law in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.
The White House refuse to release documents, how uncharacteristic...
Earlier in the year, Flanigan told the American Prospect:
The harshest techniques -- such as “water boarding,” in which prisoners are strapped to a board, submerged in water, and made to feel like they’re drowning -- were discussed as a way of handling high-level al-Qaeda suspects, says Timothy Flanigan, who served as deputy to Alberto Gonzales in 2001 and 2002. “The only thought was that if we used these techniques, it would save American lives,” says Flanigan, a father of 14 children and now general counsel for Tyco International. “We did not want to leave permanent damage.”
In his July
testimony to the Senate Judiciary Commitee in response to questions posed by Senator Feingold, Flanigan commented on military commissions:
"Military commissions provide sufficient process for enemy combatants and are fully appropriate to protect classified information and to avoid an unreasonable burden and security risk for civil and military courts. Military commissions have been used throughout our Nation's history as a means of providing justice to combatants. The point of my statement [From the NYT: "Are we going to go with a system that is really guaranteed to prevent us from getting information in every case or are we going to go another route?"] was that rules established for the civil courts are not necessarily appropriate for proceedings involving enemy combatants in wartime.
And also the sunset provisions of the Patriot Act:
"While I certainly respect the views of those who believe that sunsets are necessary for oversight, I continue to believe that the burdens imposed by sunsets outweight the benefits. In particular, I believe that sunsets call into question the durability of our commitment to provide law enforcement with the tools needed to carry on the fight against terrorism. Ultimately, however, I agree with the Attorney General's testimony that 'The Department of Justice has exercised care and restraint in the use of these important authorities, because we are committed to the rule of law....With or without sunsets, our dedication to the rule of law will continue. The Department will strive to continue to carry out its work lawfully and appropriately, and as a citizen I expect Congress will continue its active oversight over our use of the PATRIOT Act, not because it sunsets, but because oversight is a constitutional responsibility of Congress."
Following the first hearing, the
Chicago Tribune reported that Chairman Arlen Specter might not support Flanigan's confirmation, citing concerns about the lack of Congressional oversight of the PATRIOT Act.
What would be the most ironic result if Flanigan is confirmed? He would become chair of the Corporate Fraud Task Force. Imagine a guy with a distinct history with Abramoff heading the Corporate Fraud Task Force and you quickly conclude that Flanigan will have to recuse himself from anything bordering on an Abramoff investigation. Josh Marshall suggests a similar conflict of interest in a recent post.
This coming Thursday (the same day as the Roberts vote on the floor of the Senate), Flanigan is set to be voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee. We need to start writing LtEs and correspondence to Senators, especially those on the Judiciary Commitee, urging that Flanigan not be confirmed as deputy attorney general.