Kyl Shackles Justice Department Watchdog To Bush Administration’s Whims
Kyl Shackles Justice Department Watchdog To Bush Administration’s Whims
On April 23, the Senate unanimously approved the Inspector General Reform Act (S. 2324), a bill meant to enhance the independence of federal agency watchdogs.
Yet it passed only after Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) inserted a little-noticed amendment to water down the bill. His amendment deleted a provision giving the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) jurisdiction to investigate misconduct amongst senior officials. The National Law Journal reports:
Unlike all other OIGs who can investigate misconduct within their entire agency, Justice’s OIG must refer allegations against department attorneys to the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). The latter office, unlike the OIG, is not statutorily independent and reports directly to the attorney general and the deputy attorney general.
In October, the House passed a similar IG bill, except that it eliminated the requirement that the Justice Department’s IG refer misconduct allegations to OPR. The White House had threatened to veto the House bill, and the Kyl amendment “was seen by many as a vehicle for the White House’s objections.”
In the past, the White House has repeatedly used OPR to block investigations. Last year, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales directed OPR to investigate the U.S. attorney scandal, even though it would face a conflict-of-interest by having to look into its two bosses — the attorney general and the deputy attorney general. Justice Department IG Glenn Fine objected, and eventually a joint OPR-OIG investigation was conducted.
More significantly, President Bush personally stepped in and blocked OPR from investigating the administration’s wiretapping program in 2006. CBS News reported:
The memos from OPR chief H. Marshall Jarrett to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, in February, March and April of this year show that while Gonzales publicly told the Senate that OPR was investigating, Jarrett was complaining to higher-ups that he was “unable to move forward” because of the lack of security clearances for himself and six staff members.
At the time, Gonzales attempted to defend the stonewalling, stating, “The president of the United States makes decisions about who is ultimately given access.” This rationale is precisely why IGs, who are statutorily independent, need the power to investigate misconduct.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
30 Responses to “Kyl Shackles Justice Department Watchdog To Bush Administration’s Whims”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Kyl, Kerik and Kyl stories. The KKK trifecta is now in play…
May 5th, 2008 at 4:46 pmKyl is a pig who does not believe in open government.
May 5th, 2008 at 4:47 pmThere are far too many “little-noticed” amendments getting slipped into really crucial bills. How is it that nobody in Congress is catching these things?
May 5th, 2008 at 4:48 pmSo is McSame about to be committed to a rest home, and Kyl is on deck as the GOP candidate or something?
May 5th, 2008 at 4:49 pmIn the past, the White House has repeatedly used OPR to block investigations. Last year, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales directed OPR to investigate the U.S. attorney scandal, even though it would face a conflict-of-interest by having to look into its two bosses —
To the GOP , and most especially the Chimpy Circus , “conflict of interest” means if it involves less $’s for them and their cronies , it’s against their best interest , and therefore , not worth doing…………
May 5th, 2008 at 4:50 pmGuido the Loving OBGYN Says:
Kyl is a pig who does not believe in open government.
Much worse. He doesn’t believe in either democracy or the U.S. Constitution. In my book, that makes him and others like him a traitor.
May 5th, 2008 at 4:53 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
There are far too many “little-noticed” amendments getting slipped into really crucial bills. How is it that nobody in Congress is catching these things?
Because even though there are dems in Congress, they truly do not want what you and I want. If they allow the repubs to circumvent the regular law passing process, they figure the repubs will look the other way when the dems do the very same thing. Make no mistake, people do not go into politics to ‘change the world’, they go into politics to feather their own beds. Repubs just happen to be better at it than dems, right now.
May 5th, 2008 at 4:54 pmNice little setup there, boys.
People - it’s way past time that we kick these foxes’ asses the Hell out of the henhouse.
May 5th, 2008 at 4:55 pm#6: (Kyl) doesn’t believe in either democracy or the U.S. Constitution.
- - Kyl fancies himself as McCain’s Attorney General. So, given the above statement, he’d be perfect.
May 5th, 2008 at 4:56 pmIn the future all bullshit repeated again and again should be referred to as a Pile of Kyl. Useless bullshit to the core!!
May 5th, 2008 at 5:13 pmWe don’t want none of that truthiness stuff coming out, now do we, that would be facts and facts have a Liberal Bias, we need to be all secret like, or how else will Bush and Company avoid prison time.
May 5th, 2008 at 5:15 pmIt seems like another crime? This time, law was created to obstruct justice. How interesting. How treasonous.
May 5th, 2008 at 5:24 pmAZ needs to dump this dinosaur. He looks like a villain from some bad B movie. Another GOP thug afraid of oversights because their all cheaters and crooks.
May 5th, 2008 at 5:24 pmHow does ONE senator have that much power? All of the Democrats together don’t seem to have as much power as one single Republican. How does that happen?
May 5th, 2008 at 5:33 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
There are far too many “little-noticed” amendments getting slipped into really crucial bills. How is it that nobody in Congress is catching these things?
Haven’t these lawmakers ever used the redline capability on their computers? If they’ve never heard of a redline/blackline, they really should invest five minutes and figure it out.
A quick comparison of the statute approved with the one they are signing off on would immediately identify any provisions “slipped in.”
If a lawyer had a client sign off an agreement that opposing counsel has “slipped in” a provision the lawyer didn’t notice . . . dicipline, sanctions and a civil suit would smack him/her up side of his idiotic head. Such lawyers would lose their jobs . . . firms can’t tolerate that level of reckless neglect.
Bloggers have come to expect unapproved terms to be slipped into legislation by anonymous elected scoundrels. Are lawmakers consciously ignorant or just plain lazy? Why aren’t lawmakers alert and taking every step to insure they know what they’re sending up for signature? To claim they just had no way of knowing is crap.
May 5th, 2008 at 5:41 pmjudyinnm Says:
How does ONE senator have that much power? All of the Democrats together don’t seem to have as much power as one single Republican. How does that happen?
Because the fix is in, and we are out. At the very least, if the dems had any spine, they would bring the entire Congress to a halt. For one day, look at all the previous and near term bills to see if they are similar to the ones which were voted. Every bill gets inspected and torn up if it deviates from the passed bill.
Again, nothing will happen. The fact is both parties are not in office to help you and I. just watch Clinton destroying the party. She would rather the entire country have four more years of bush (McSame), than lose to Obama. That is the ‘tell’ that our system of government is doomed to fail. I don’t think America is smart enough to select it’s representatives any longer. We are too bored with our own lives to really give a shit about the future of this country. It’s a shame, really. Democracy seemed like a cool idea, but we get the government we deserve. Look around: We got what we deserved. Is we learning yet? Sadly, no.
May 5th, 2008 at 5:48 pm“[D]ems in Congress . . . truly do not want what you and I want. If they allow the repubs to circumvent the regular law passing process, they figure the repubs will look the other way when the dems do the very same thing.”
Rather than asking Obama and Hillary about Rev. Wright, Stephanopolis should have asked the candidates about this. He could have asked them about presidential privilege, the Patriot Act, provisions getting slipped into bills, congressional responsiblity, the separation of Church and State. These are issues that matter. I could care less who they sat next to on a board, and Hillary dissing Obama for his continued associations when she’s continued to associate with Bill, the Riches and all of her affiliations related to Whitewater. Take your eye off of the shiney penny and let’s discuss the Constitution, the scope of Presidential Power, Executive Privilege and immunity. Let’s discuss who Cheney met with to devise this extraordinary energy policy, and where was the oversight of mortage companies and hedge funds for the past seven years. (Oh yeah, Hillary’s not elite, but Chelsea works for a hedge fund . . . let’s talk about that) Let’s talk about legislation to put an end to anonymous legislators blocking legislation, putting it on indefinite hold and slipping in provisions after Congressional approval.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:12 pmBadmoodman Says:
Kyl fancies himself as McCain’s Attorney General. So, given the above statement, he’d be perfect.
It boggles the mind that one friggin state can elect and continually re-elect these two asswipes.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:17 pmI agree and disagree with rockyroad.
I spent most of my life practicing law, initially litigating government contracts and later as counsel for an aerospace firm where I got to assist contract negotiators and reviewed proposed terms and conditions. Strangely enough, many contracts were not carefully reviewed. You would not believe the number of times that a client at a division would call with a potentially serious contract dispute. I would always ask them whether they read the contract. 90% of the time they had not. 60% of the time the contract already gave them a fairly simple indication of liability and how to proceed. In the other 40% of cases, we were able to review the contract and figure out an appropriate way to proceed in order to minimize our exposure or successfully resolve the dispute.
Most people really did not read contracts well unless it was a standard form contract to be given to customers or a really significant deal, eg. M&A, stock offering, construction of a plant. We increased successful contract negotiation by simply creating teams to review terms and conditions as well as revisions thereto.
My guess is that these bills are too long. Each rep or senator is pretty much on their own with their personal staff. Besides, a bill like this would not likely receive a lot of attention, especially when it comes to last minute revisions most of which are technical in nature.
There are several things that could be done to prevent this in the future:
1. Re-instate the practice of limiting revisions to minor, technical issues with appropriate political consequences for those who fail to comply.
2. Require all mark ups to be clearly outlined both separate from and in the body of the bill.
3. Create Democratic teams utilizing members of various legislators’ staff to review each bill and the amendments/revisions thereto. A report would go back highlighting trick provisions such as this. You know, like they teamed up to look at the NIE and secret intelligence reports prior to voting on the Iraq . . . Well maybe next time.
Sounds like commonsense, it will never
May 5th, 2008 at 6:45 pmHeck, Arizona can’t even hold a candle to Oklahoma in that department.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:46 pmJMOHR,
I appreciate your comments and your suggestions are certainly worthy of consideration.
My experience has been that when we are dealing with critical contracts and agreements, we send back redlines all day long. No a typo goes unnoticed, much less a provision that would have to be several lines long.
A discussion needs to occur about these administrative procedures. Legislation should be passed, as you suggest, that anytime a substantive change is made to a piece of legislation, the indivual(s) advocating the change should be required to identify the change, the authors of the change and the date of the change. If they fail to do so, the change should be blacklined out of the final legislation.
No doubt, Congress, were it to consider such legislation, would become so bogged down in the details that they’d end up arguing over whether a comma was substantive, some anonymous legislator would put a hold on the passage, another would slip in something negating its effect in its entirety, no one would notice and it would pass. Afterwards, all who should be ideologically against the “slipped in” provision would profess ignorance . . . and so we go . . .
That’s a bit bleak, but at least if the public demands the use of blacklining, identification of the additions and sponsors of additions, we would have some transparency, and the culpable legislators and passive facilitators could be identified.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:46 pmJHMOR,
Just one more thing. When I wrote earlier, I wasn’t discussing whether the clients read the contracts thoroughly, I was speaking about the responsibility who’s duty is to obtain from the client their objectives and parameters, thoroughly understand their clients’ objectives and negotiate a contract that absolutely reflects those objectives. If opposing counsel inserts provisions that in any way impair those objectives, it is the duty of counsel to immediately recognize and address those changes. Clients expect their attorneys to turn over 50 page docs that contain no suprises and that are fully ready to be signed. Presumably, counsel has fully discuss and disclosed every provision at every step along the way . . . to discuss every redline with their client . . . if you had numerous problems with clients who were shocked after the fact by the provisions of the contracts that they signed . . . there was a failure of communication that is not acceptable.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:53 pmRockyroad: Like I said, I substantially agree with you. Our corporation set definite levels of approval and legal review based on the contract amount, contract type (standard contract terms for a particular customer or program), the customer and the importance of the product (new products received intensive review on even small contracts.) We encountered problems with the clients even when contracts had been vetted. Contracting personnel just did not really go back to review problems in terms of contract clauses. I mentioned this fact because the legislators are acting more as the wayward clients acted. The current system allows every legislator to be a fee agent when a disciplined review of legislation would permit each piece of legislation to be treated more as a contract would be treated in business. When I was with the Air Force I became involved with a number of program contracts and supporting legislation. It was amazing to see the number of bills that went through without most members knowing what was really in the legislation. I really doubt that any single representative or senator has a sufficient staff to keep up with every piece of legislation and thoroughly vet it.
I agree with blacklining. It would help in retrospect. However, this administration has used the lack of a disciplined approach to review legislation as a means to slip in extremely offensive provisions for political purposes. The use of centralized review would also keep those legislators with off the wall interpretations in check. They would have a harder time with placing a hold on a bill for a trivial and unreasonable interpretation. Policy differences would arise and that would be acceptable. Not only should the author of changes be identified, but also those placing anonymous holds should be identified although many of them seem to come to light after awhile.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:34 pmJMOHR,
Once again, I appreciate your comments. Your suggestions include:
1. Re-instate the practice of limiting revisions to minor, technical issues with appropriate political consequences for those who fail to comply.
2. Require all mark ups to be clearly outlined both separate from and in the body of the bill.
3. Create Democratic teams utilizing members of various legislators’ staff to review each bill and the amendments/revisions thereto. A report would go back highlighting trick provisions such as this.
Mine include:
1. Anytime a substantive change is made to a piece of legislation, the indivual(s) advocating the change should be required to identify the change, the authors of the change and the date of the change.
2. If they fail to do so, the change should be blacklined out of the final legislation.
3. Every legislator should be required to blackline final legislation for substantive changes.
Our ideas are consistent. Let’s see if anyone bites . . .
May 5th, 2008 at 9:04 pmAgain JMOR, I appreciate your thoughts.
So far, you have suggested:
There are several things that could be done to prevent this in the future:
1. Re-instate the practice of limiting revisions to minor, technical issues with appropriate political consequences for those who fail to comply.
2. Require all mark ups to be clearly outlined both separate from and in the body of the bill.
3. Create Democratic teams utilizing members of various legislators’ staff to review each bill and the amendments/revisions thereto. A report would go back highlighting trick provisions such as this.
Mine have been:
1. All members be charged with blacklining so that they can’t claim ignorance.
2. Anytime a substantive change is made to a piece of legislation, the indivual(s) advocating the change should be required to:
identify the change, the authors of the change and the date of the change. If they fail to do so, the change should be blacklined out of the final legislation.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:35 pmSorry to post twice . . . it didn’t show up the first time. But I did send it on to the Obama campaign.
With your military background, if you were to forward your thoughts, it might carry more weight.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:38 pmLook, someone else needs to give Jon Kyl a break. Why does Jon Kyl always have to kneel before this administration and suck its collective cock. Please give this poor guy a break.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:01 pmBecause Jon Kyl doesn’t always have to kneel before this administration and suck its collective cock.
You’re the elephant, I’m just repeating you’re words.
He doesn’t have to, he does it because he likes it.
Nuff said?
May 5th, 2008 at 10:46 pmJust before you bow down to him, do you think “yummy”?
May 5th, 2008 at 10:59 pm.
Does Senator Kyl fancy himself to be a Senior Official?
.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:54 am