“In November, the city agreed to pay $450,000 to eight war protesters to settle a civil lawsuit in which they accused F.B.I. agents of detaining them in a Washington parking garage and interrogating them on videotape about their political and religious beliefs.

For years, the city police and the F.B.I. said that the interrogation had never happened and that they had no records of such an incident. The police also said no F.B.I. agents had been present when officers arrested the protesters for trespassing.

But as lawyers for the protesters were preparing for the trial, which was scheduled to begin in federal court Nov. 30, they unearthed police logs that confirmed the role of a secret F.B.I. intelligence unit in the incident.” (Emphasis added).

There they go again. This is unfortunately part of a longstanding pattern by elements within FBI headquarters of stonewalling and/or making misleading statements concerning the existence vel non of records sought by citizens and litigants.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the FBI street agent is, generally speaking, the crown jewel of federal law enforcement. He/she is often ill-served, however, by certain rogue elements within headquarters leadership.

The illegal mass arrests occurred on former Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey’s watch.

I was struck by the last two paragraphs, and particularly the last sentence, of Johnson’s story:

“In naming a special prosecutor, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan identified six people to be scrutinized — members of the prosecution team and the chief of the public integrity unit. Other leaders at the department’s criminal division weighed in on the case from time to time, especially after the judge began to complain in the course of last year’s trial about evidentiary problems, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

New officials at the Justice Department this year sifted through files and provided documents and e-mail about the case to Schuelke and the subjects of his investigation. But the criteria they used for sharing electronic messages may not have captured all the communications involving people in the criminal division or other areas of the department’s front office about the Stevens case, the sources said. Officials turned over only e-mail in which at least two of the six Stevens prosecutors were included as addressees, they said.”

Such a limitation on the DOJ’s disclosure of documents to Schuelke is quite remarkable and alarming. If Schuelke knew about it, he certainly should not have put up with it.  The DOJ pledged full co-operation with Judge Sullivan’s probe. If DOJ higher-ups, past or present, had a hand in any of the conduct causing Judge Sullivan to hold the six Stevens-connected prosecutors in contempt, the truth must come out.

Maybe it it was all a mistake. I really don’t wish a white collar criminal investigation on anyone, but what makes Charlie so special? DOJ has not hesitated to prosecute Congressional staffers and mid-level federal officials for relatively picayune failures to disclose income on their financial disclosure forms. And Rangel’s disclosure problems are not an isolated event. The developer of the yacht club also converted Rangel’s mortgage to an interest free loan. WSJ says that this appears to be a violation of the House ban on gifts. And Rangel apparently listed both DC and Harlem residences as homesteads in order to save on taxes.

Here is a situation where the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia or DOJ’s Public Integrity Unit should already be investigating. Here is a situation where the failure to initiate an investigation is most certainly a political act.

Full disclosure: I represent and have represented witnesses, subjects, and targets in investigations carried out by the Public Integrity Unit. This is not about the line attorneys in that unit. It is about how political the new Administration is going to be in the way that it investigates and does not investigate public corruption in Washington and around the nation. An omission, as well as an indictment, can be a political act.

The Acting U.S. Attorney in Sacramento, Lawrence Brown, criticized the referral and reported Walpin to an integrity committee for inspectors general. According to Brown’s letter of complaint, the U.S. Attorney’s Office “highlighted numerous questions and further investigation they [Walpin's office] needed to conduct, including the fact that they had not done an audit to establish how much AmeriCorps money was actually misspent.”

That, standing alone, sounds pretty lame to me. If a U.S. Attorney reported every incomplete federal criminal referral to an integrity committee, we would have quite a backlog. Besides, the U.S. Attorney’s job is to assess the criminal referral and either reject it outright or direct the referring agency to do additional work. It is the very rare referral that results in an immediate indictment.

However, Acting U.S. Attorney Brown also complained about something much more serious in my view–repeated statements to the media by Walpin’s office prior to the Sacramento mayoral election. These statements apparently prompted the U.S. Attorney’s Office to announce, before the election, that it would not file charges against Johnson. Negative statements to the news media by law enforcment sources about politicians embroiled in election battles are, barring unusual circumstances, clearly improper. It is not a federal agent’s job to attempt to influence an election.

Walpin staunchly defended his work, stating that he acted with “the highest integrity” and that he reported his conclusions “in an honest and full way.”

The Anchorage Daily News story is here. DOJ’s press release announcing the move is here. The Government’s Motion in Kott’s case is here.

Attorney General Eric Holder stated as follows: “After a careful review of these cases, I have determined that it appears that the Department did not provide information that should have been disclosed to the defense….Department of Justice prosecutors work hard every day and perform a great service for the American people. But the Department’s mission is to do justice, not just win cases, and when we make mistakes, it is our duty to admit and correct those mistakes. We are committed to
doing that.”

Assistant AG Lanny Breuer added: “The Criminal Division must ensure that defendants receive all appropriate discovery materials, and today’s action demonstrates that commitment to this responsibility….We will continue regular discovery training for all Criminal Division prosecutors to make certain that they perform their duties in adherence to the highest ethical standards. Every day, hundreds of career prosecutors work to uphold this Division’s proud tradition of being vigilant, ethical and stellar in the
execution of their work. This action is faithful to that tradition.”

Kudos are in order for Holder and Breuer. Their statements strike just the right balance. The overwhelming majority of DOJ prosecutors perform their work in an entirely ethical manner. The production of exculpatory material to defense counsel remains the chief area in which some fall short of the mark. Of course, the jury is still out on who fell short and why in the Stevens and other Alaska prosecutions.

Kohring is an arch-conservative Republican. According to his attorney, DOJ’s action “is enough to make Vic Kohring become a Democrat.”

Reminds me of the old joke: A conservative is a liberal who got mugged. A liberal is a conservative who got arrested.

Kent’s attorney, Dick DeGuerin, announced that Kent is retiring from the bench because of a disability–alcoholism. This is an effort to allow Kent to keep his $169,300.00 annual salary while in retirement. Kent had not served long enough to retire based on years of service. If he cannot retire based on a disability, he can only resign and receive nothing. Representatives John Conyers and Lamar Smith called on Kent to resign or face impeachment, according to this AP story by Michael Graczyk in the Washington Post.