Conyers Pushes for Answers on Phone Jamming Cover-Up

In the aftermath of the New Hampshire phone jamming, the Republican National Committee could have gone two ways, Allen Raymond writes in his new book. They chose the scapegoating/stonewalling route.

The question of whether they had any help from the political appointees at the Department of Justice is one House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) wants an answer to. His letter today to Attorney General Michael Mukasey (a follow-up to the one he sent in October) is below.

Since the crime at issue happened more than five years ago, let me refresh you on the details. Our timeline of the scandal is here.

Charles McGee, then the executive director of the New Hampshire GOP, was the one who had the genius idea of jamming Democratic phone lines. He called Jim Tobin, the New England Regional Director of the Republican National Committee, to ask for help implementing it. Tobin then called Raymond, whom he knew from working on the 2000 Steve Forbes campaign and who ran a telemarketing consulting firm, to see if he could do the job. Raymond said he could, and things went on from there.

The jamming scheme came to light in early 2003, but it took until the summer of 2004 before Raymond and McGee pleaded guilty. Tobin himself, who fought the charges tooth and nail with the backing of the RNC (who dropped $3 million on his lawyers), wasn’t indicted until the December after the 2004 election.

Democrats have long alleged that the Justice Department slow-rolled the probe. The FBI only assigned one, part-time agent to the case, they say, and prosecutors refused to follow the case to its logical conclusion, such as charging the New Hampshire GOP.

A McClatchy piece yesterday substantiated a number of those complaints, quoting an anonymous official as saying that the probe was delayed in order to avoid the scandal clashing with the 2004 election. Conyers’ letter takes that ball and runs with it, demanding answers.

Raymond himself provides some grist for Conyers’ mill.

First, Raymond argues that there is no way that Tobin could have been involved in the calls on his own authority. “The Bush White House had complete control of the RNC and there was no way someone like Tobin was going to try what he was proposing without first getting it vetted by his higher-ups,” he writes. Raymond should know — he used to be a regional operator for the RNC, which is the same position Tobin had.

Second, Raymond writes that as investigators were closing in on him for his role in the phone jamming, he had a lunch with Tony Feather, a big-time GOP operator at DCI Group, the Bush administration’s favored consulting firm. Raymond writes:

“We met for breakfast… and I laid it out for him.

“Jim Tobin is the linchpin. He’s the guy who put this thing together. Look, you don’t need to worry about me….

But if the feds ever come knocking on my door, all bets are off — I’m telling them everything… If the feds come to my door, I’ll bring this right to yours. I’ll bring it right to the RNC.

“That’s not a threat,” I assured him. “That’s just the reality. And you should know that. You should know that now.”

“Okay, fine, fair enough,” he said. “I hear you. I’ll have a few conversations.”

To me, it was a political case that Bush’s Department of Justice could quash to protect the RNC, once the RNC understood that it needed protecting….

Raymond writes that the RNC certainly didn’t move any mountains to protect him, but he certainly thinks they were moved to protect Tobin and the White House.

Conyers’ letter:

December 20, 2007

The Honorable Michael Mukasey

Attorney General of the United States

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

On October 3, I (along with several other Members of the House Judiciary Committee) wrote to Acting Attorney General Keisler regarding the Justice Department’s handling of the New Hampshire phone jamming case and other matters (letter enclosed). In that case, Republican political operatives jammed the telephones of the New Hampshire Democratic Party and Manchester Fire Fighters Association on Election Day 2002, in an effort to disrupt get out the vote operations. Although over two months have passed, I have yet to receive any response to the questions posed in that letter.

One concern about the Department’s handling of the New Hampshire matter stated in that letter is that Department officials may have intentionally delayed the indictment of James Tobin, the 2002 Northeast Regional Director for the Republican National Committee, until after the 2004 Presidential election to minimize the political impact of the indictment on Republican electoral interests. That decision allowed Mr. Tobin to serve the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign through virtually the entire 2004 election cycle – indeed, if a journalist had not publicly exposed Mr. Tobin’s role in this serious election day misconduct(a role that was well-known to the Justice Department officials controlling the timing of the indictment), it appears that Mr. Tobin would have served the campaign on Election Day itself.

Now, important new information has come to light that corroborates that exact allegation and raises further suspicion about the other issues that the Judiciary Committee has been investigating. According to the McClatchy newswire, an official “with detailed knowledge of the investigation” confirms that “senior” officials of the Department “slowed the inquiry,” which “protect[ed] top GOP officials from the scandal until the voting was over.”1 The McClatchy piece contains a detailed timeline of these events, asserting that the frontline prosecutor handling this case aggressively pressed for action, but that various Justice Department officials ordered delays, moved slowly on requests for action, and resisted his efforts to expand the probe.

These charges are of great concern to me. As you know, the United States Attorney firing scandal has revealed that former Department leadership brought an unreasonable and improper focus on political considerations into Department decisionmaking, and that political officials at the White House had unprecedented and entirely improper access to Department officials (a policy that I appreciate your timely steps to correct). That problem appears to have infected personnel decisions at both the career and political level, and there is grave concern that it may have led to politically selective prosecutions such as the bringing of questionable indictments of Democratic officials or discouraging meritorious prosecutions of Republicans. Our investigation into the firing of David Iglesias has revealed direct political pressure on the U.S. Attorney regarding the timing of an indictment to serve Republican electoral interests, charges that resonate in the McClatchy New Hampshire story described above.

Against this backdrop, it is clear that the Judiciary Committee must press on with its investigation of this serious matter. Accordingly, in furtherance of the Committee’s investigation, and in accord with the March 29th agreement between the Department and the Committee in which the Department previously made top officials available to the Committee under mutually agreeable procedures, I request information and documents and the taking of interviews in this matter.

While some Department officials involved in the matter are known to us, many others are not. Accordingly, as a first step in scheduling productive interviews, I request a list of all Department personnel, current and former, who had input into the decisions whether to investigate the phone jamming matter and the scope of any such investigation, and all Department personnel, current and former, who had input into the decision whether to bring any indictments in the phone jamming matter, including the scope and timing of any such indictments. Please include the title and dates of Department service for each such person.

In addition, I request that the Department produce to the Judiciary Committee all documents in its possession relevant to the approval, timing, and scope of any indictments in this matter, and all documents relevant to the approval, timing, and scope of the Department’s investigation of these issues, including both internal documents and communications with other government officials and private parties

I am hopeful that we can proceed together in a cooperative and voluntary manner on this important issue. Accordingly, please provide the list of personnel requested above no later than Friday December 28, 2007, so that interviews can be timely scheduled in the new year, and please produce the requested documents and a complete response to my October 3, 2007, letter no later than Friday, January 5, 2008. Responses should be directed to the Judiciary Committee office, 2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 (tel: 202-225-3951; fax: 202-225-7680). Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.

Chairman

cc: Hon. Lamar S. Smith

Hon. Jerrold Nadler

Hon. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott

Hon. Linda T. Sánchez

Hon. Trent Franks

Hon. Louie Gohmert

Hon. Chris Cannon

Hon. Paul Hodes

Hon. Brian Benczkowski