House Republicans yesterday held a mock hearing on Capitol Hill to criticize Democrats for proposals to revise the Patriot Act.

Democrats say there are civil liberties concerns with the anti-terrorism law, originally passed in 2001 in the wake of the attacks on New York and Washington. They want to make it harder for the FBI to obtain information about what kind of books people check out of libraries, for example.

Republicans say the changes will weaken national security and have clamored for a full Judiciary Committee hearing about the proposed changes. But Democrats, who control Congress and the White House, haven’t obliged.

So Republicans were reduced to holding what was billed as a “forum” Tuesday, complete with witnesses and C-SPAN cameras. But there were no Democratic lawmakers present and few news media.

“It appears that no hearing will be held on this ill-advised piece of legislation and it will go straight to markup, an unwarranted departure from regular committee process,” House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said at the forum. “The committee should not take up such important legislation without first fully examining the bill and receiving input from the administration’s national security experts on all its provisions.”

Rachel Brand and Will Moschella (photo by Main Justice)

Two former Bush Department of Justice officials appeared as witnesses. Former Office of Legal Policy chief Rachel Brand and ex-Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Will Moschella criticized the Patriot Act revisions.

At issue is The USA Patriot Amendment Act of 2009, introduced by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) on Oct. 20. The bill would allow the controversial “lone wolf” provision to sunset at the end of the year and reauthorize the records and “roving wiretap” powers.

The committee held a mark-up of the bill Wednesday and will continue its work Thursday.

Here’s a summary of what the Conyers bill would do to the provisions:

- Lone wolf: The bill would not extend the government’s power to track a target who does not have any discernible affiliation to an international terrorist group or other foreign power. The provision has applied only to non-U.S. persons. It has never been used by the government.

-Records: The legislation would continue to allow the government to compel third parties — including financial, travel and telephone companies — to provide access to a suspect’s records. But the bill would place some new restrictions on this authority. Republicans have been especially critical of language in the bill that would make it much more difficult for the government to obtain periodical or book records from libraries or bookstores if the documents would identify patrons.

-Roving wiretaps: The bill would continue to allow the government to monitor phone lines or Internet accounts that a terrorism suspect may be using. But the legislation would add more controls. The bill would restrict the roving wiretap to a specific individual, foreign agent or foreign power. Civil liberties groups have expressed fears that the government can currently use the wiretap authority to unintentionally monitor unintended targets.

Brand and Mochella used words like “troubling” and “unwise” to describe the Conyers bill. Many of the twelve panel Republicans nodded  in agreement with the Bush officials during the forum.

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who chaired the committee from 2001 to 2007, called the amendments “ultra-left wing” and a ”travesty.” Sensenbrenner introduced the Patriot Act in 2001.

The Justice Department has said it supports reauthorization of all expiring Patriot Act provisions, but it has declined to comment on any proposed changes. The legislation endorsed by the Senate Judiciary Committee extends the sun-setted provisions while putting tighter controls on the powers.

A spokesperson for Conyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Slate Magazine Senior Legal Correspondent Dahlia Lithwick (By Steve Bagley for Main Justice)

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee’s Constitution and civil rights subcommittee said Thursday the conservative wing of the Supreme Court was acting against the cause of civil rights.

Committee members said the point of their hearing yesterday was not to criticize the Supreme Court, but to discern how to legislate in the face of what they characterized as an agenda against civil rights. “We could be blasting the hell out of the court system,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) said, “because they’ve sure done some pretty lousy work, not just recently, but historically.”

One of two Republicans to attend the hearing, ranking minority member Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (Wis.) took an opposing view, noting Supreme Court refused to “strike down” the Voting Rights Act of 1965 when it was up for renewal in 2006.

Conyers was unmoved. He mentioned three Supreme Court decisions from the past several years, including Alexander v. Sandoval, Gross V. FBL Financial Services, and Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tires.

In Ledbetter, Conyers noted, Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg read her dissenting opinion aloud in court, calling the majority decision a “cramped interpretation” that was “incompatible with the statute’s broad remedial purpose.” Congress changed the law, in effect over ruling the court, when it passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. President Obama signed it into law in one of his first official acts as president.

Noting these precedents, subcommittee chair Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Congress needed to continue to examine how Supreme Court decisions effect civil rights. “Calling balls and strikes is the job of umpires,  but the Justices have a more complicated tasks,” Nadler said.

Those decisions, Nadler and panelists said, slowly chip away at civil rights. One panelist, Charlestown School of Law Prof. Armand Derfner, said he believes the laws have been misinterpreted by the courts.

“Today’s Supreme Court takes a very different approach to interpreting Congress’ laws,” Derfner said. “Fifteen cases the Supreme Court has decided, Congress has had to correct. It’s astonishing to have a record like that.”

Prof. Aderson Francois of Howard University School of Law took a more measured approach. He told the committee in his written testimony that “while the Court has certainly issued its share of decisions that can be fairly characterized as hostile to the advancement of civil rights and equality, it is probably premature to conclude that the Court has been – or will be – consistently anti-civil rights.”

Francois added that the tenure of Chief Justice John Roberts has not been a major change from that of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, another conservative. But “given the Supreme Court’s poor record in matters of civil rights over the last 20 years, the continuation of the Rehnquist Court jurisprudence under Justice Roberts has indeed left civil rights enforcement in a fragile and precarious position,” he said.

Rep. Frank Johnson (D-Ga.) asked panelists a provocative question about the confirmation process. “How can we make so they don’t deceive or lie about their intentions?” Johnson said of judicial nominees.

“I don’t know that there’s a way to do that,” Derfner replied.

Panelist Dahlia Lithwick, legal analyst and senior editor of Slate Magazine, said the media could do a better job of explaining the issues to the public. ”I think the Supreme Court is exquisitely sensitive to public opinion,” she said.

Don Siegelman

The Office of Special Counsel says in a new report it found no evidence to support a whistle-blower’s claims that the U.S. Attorney’s office for Middle District of Alabama acted inappropriately in its public corruption prosecution of former Gov. Donald E. Siegelman (D) and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.

The OSC launched the investigation following allegations by Tamarah Grimes, a former paralegal in the office, who alleged officials in the district did not report improper jury communications, among other things. The OSC is an independent agency with jurisdiction only to look into Grimes’s claims that she was retaliated against as a whistle-blower. She was fired in July, which she said was due to her attempt to expose the misconduct – a claim the DOJ denied.

Grimes also claimed the Middle District caused the government to incur unnecessary costs due to gross mismanagement. She said victim impact funds were misused and that U.S. Attorney Leura Canary abused her authority by obstructing an Office of Personal Responsibility investigation into the conduct of Assistant U.S. Attorney Randolph Neely. She also said officials launched a DOJ Office of Inspector General investigation into her conduct following her whistle-blowing.

Tamarah Grimes

Then-Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey ordered an investigation, which was headed by Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis and conducted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Ronald R. Gallegos of Arizona and Steven K. Mullins of the Western District of Oklahoma. After DOJ determined Grimes’ claims were unfounded, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) and House Judiciary commercial and administration law subcommittee  Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) requested an additional investigation.

The second investigation by OSC “confirmed DOJ’s initial investigation findings that no improper communication with the jury occurred,” according to this analysis of disclosures, agency investigations and reports, by William E. Reukauf, associate special counsel at OSC.  The report is broken into eight parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7 and Part 8. Reukauf signed off on the second investigation in a letter to President Obama.

Siegelman argues he was targeted for prosecution for political reasons. He has appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court.

A Justice Department official Tuesday gave the Obama administration’s case for reauthorizing three expiring Patriot Act provisions that expand the government’s powers in counter-terrorism investigations. But House Judiciary Committee Democrats weren’t entirely convinced.

Todd Hinnen (Main Justice)

Todd Hinnen, National Security Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General, told House Judiciary Committee members that roving wiretaps, the authority to access business records and the ability to track “lone-wolf” terrorists, or those without visible ties to a foreign terrorist organization, are still needed to probe suspected terrorists. The Justice Department said last week it supported the reauthorization of the three provisions that expire at the end of the year.

Here’s a little bit more about the provisions:

• Lone wolf: Allows government to track a target without any discernible affiliation to a foreign power, such as an international terrorist group. The provision only applies only to non-U.S. persons. It has never been used in a FISA application.
• Business records: Allows investigators to compel third parties, including financial services and travel and telephone companies, to provide them access to a suspect’s records without the suspect’s knowledge. From 2004 to 2007, the FISA court issued about 220 orders to produce business records.
• Roving wiretaps: Allows the government to monitor phone lines or Internet accounts that a terrorism suspect may be using, whether or not others who are not suspects also regularly use them. The government must provide the FISA court with specific information showing the suspect is purposely switching means of communication to evade detection. The government has applied for roving wiretaps an average of 22 times a year since 2001.

Hinnen said, however, the administration is open to congressional amendments to the Patriot Act provisions, if they don’t hamper the ability of  law enforcement authorities to be effective.

House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-Mich.) said he did not support reauthorizing the provisions without making some changes to them. He and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said they were particularly concerned with the “lone wolf” provision, which has never been used.

“Now is the time to consider improving the Patriot Act, not just extending the provisions,” Conyers said at the House Judiciary constitution, civil rights and civil liberties subcommittee hearing.

Republicans said they supported the Justice Department’s position. The subcommittee ranking member, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), even called Hinnen a “breath of fresh air.”

Conyers, however, was not as pleased with Hinnen, who has worked at the Justice Department since January.

“You know, you sound like a lot of people who come over here from DOJ, and yet you’ve been there for only a few months,” Conyers said at the hearing. “Do you think that’s a good thing or a bad thing?”

Hinnen reassured Democrats throughout his testimony that the Justice Department will be in close communication with Congress as it moves forward on Patriot Act legislation.

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-Texas) introduced a bill in March to reauthorize the provisions.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced legislation Tuesday that would also reauthorizes the provisions, but allows Congress and the public to better monitor the use of the powers.

“This hearing is only the beginning of a process working closely together to create legislation that will maintain the operational effectiveness of these important [provisions] and protect the privacy and civil liberties of the American people,” Hinnen said in his testimony before the panel.

Attorney General Eric Holder will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate cases in which CIA members and contractors may have broken anti-torture laws during the interrogations of suspected terrorists, the Justice Department announced this afternoon.

Assistant U.S. Attorney John H. Durham, a 20-year veteran of the Connecticut U.S. Attorney’s Office, was tapped for the job. Read a Washington Post profile of Durham here. Durham is already investigating the destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes that allegedly showed the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods. He was tapped by then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey to oversee that probe.

In a statement, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said:

The President has said repeatedly that he wants to look forward, not back, and the President agrees with the Attorney General that those who acted in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance should not be prosecuted.  Ultimately, determinations about whether someone broke the law are made independently by the Attorney General.

Durham will determine whether there is enough evidence to warrant a full investigation into CIA officials who may have violated the law in their handling of suspected terrorists, according to the news release.

The Attorney General’s decision comes on the heels of the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility recommendation released today that urged Holder to reopen nearly a dozen CIA prisoner-abuse cases.

“There are those who will use my decision to open a preliminary review as a means of broadly criticizing the work of our nation’s intelligence community,” Holder said in the news release. “I could not disagree more with that view.”

He added, “That is why I have made it clear in the past that the Department of Justice will not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees.”

Congressional Democrats including Senate Judiciary  Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-Mich.) and House Judiciary constitution, civil rights and civil liberties subcommittee Chair Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) applauded Holder’s decision. Leahy said he hopes this investigation will hold responsible the people who “undermined our values and our laws.”

“I recognize how difficult this decision has been for Attorney General Holder, and I am grateful that the Justice Department is finally being led by an independent Attorney General who is willing to begin investigating this dark chapter in our country’s history,” Leahy said in a statement. “I had no doubt that he would put the interests of the law ahead of politics, and he has demonstrated that.”

But they said that more must be done. Nadler said Holder’s decision was the “first step.”

“As I have said for many months, it is vital that this special counsel be given a broad mandate to investigate these abuses, to follow the evidence where it leads, and to prosecute where warranted,” Nadler said in a statement. “This must be a robust mission to gather any and all evidence without predetermination of where it may lead.  Seeking out only the low-level actors in a conspiracy to torture detainees will bring neither justice nor restored standing to our nation.”

The House Judiciary Committee released today the transcripts from interviews it had with former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and ex-White House Counsel Harriet Miers along with more than 5,400 pages of Bush White House documents. Rove and Miers testified before the panel about the 2006 U.S. Attorney purge.

Read the transcripts and documents here.

Here’s the news release from the office of House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-Mich.)

House Judiciary Committee Releases Rove and Miers Interview Transcripts and Over 5,400 Pages of Bush White House Documents

Conyers: White House “Driving Force” Behind US Attorney Firings

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) today released over 700 pages of on-the-record interview transcripts of Karl Rove and Harriet Miers on the US Attorney firings and the Bush Administration’s politicization of the Department of Justice.  Conyers also released over 5,400 pages of Bush White House and Republican National Committee emails on these subjects.

The released materials reveal that White House officials were deeply involved in the US Attorney firings and the Administration made a concerted effort to hide that fact from the American people.  “After all the delay and despite all the obfuscation, lies, and spin,” Conyers said, “this basic truth can no longer be denied:  Karl Rove and his cohorts at the Bush White House were the driving force behind several of these firings, which were done for improper reasons.  Under the Bush regime, honest and well-performing US Attorneys were fired for petty patronage, political horsetrading and, in the most egregious case of political abuse of the US Attorney corps – that of US Attorney Iglesias – because he refused to use his office to help Republicans win elections.  When Mr. Iglesias said his firing was a ‘political fragging,’ he was right.”

Key new facts revealed in the materials released today include:

•    2005 White House “Decision” to fire David Iglesias – It has previously been known that New Mexico Republicans pressed for Iglesias to be removed because they did not like his decisions on vote fraud cases.  New White House documents show that Rove and his office were involved in this effort no later than May 2005 (months earlier than previously known) – for example, in May and June 2005, Rove aide Scott Jennings sent emails to Tim Griffin (also in Rove’s office) asking “what else I can do to move this process forward” and stressing that “I would really like to move forward with getting rid of NM US ATTY.” In June 2005, Harriet Miers emailed that a “decision” had been made to replace Iglesias.  At this time, DOJ gave Iglesias top rankings, so this decision was clearly not just the result of the White House following the Department’s lead as Rove and Miers have maintained.

•    Iglesias criticized by Rove aide for not “doing his job on” Democratic Congressional Candidate Patricia Madrid  – An October 2006 email chain begun by Representative Heather Wilson criticized David Iglesias for not bringing politically useful public corruption prosecutions in the run up to the 2006 elections.  Scott Jennings forwarded Wilson’s email to Karl Rove and complained that Iglesias had been “shy about doing his job on Madrid,” Wilson’s opponent in the 2006 Congressional race.  Just weeks after this email, Iglesias’ name was placed on the final firing list.

•    An “agitated” Rove pressed Harriet Miers to do something about Iglesias just weeks before Iglesias was placed on the removal list – Karl Rove phoned Harriet Miers during a visit to New Mexico in September 2006 – according to Miers’ testimony, Rove was “agitated” and told her that Iglesias was “a serious problem and he wanted something done about it.”

•    Senator Domenici personally asked Bush’s Chief of Staff Josh Bolten to have Iglesias replaced – In October 2006, Senator Domenici stepped up his campaign to have Iglesias replaced.  According to White House phone logs and emails, as well as Rove’s own testimony, Domenici spoke with President Bush’s Chief of Staff Josh Bolten about Iglesias on October 5, 2006, and during October 2006, Domenici or his staff spoke with Karl Rove at least 4 times.

•    Todd Graves removed in Rove-approved deal with Republican Senator – Kansas City US Attorney Todd Graves was removed as part of a White House-brokered deal with US Senator Kit Bond.  In exchange for the Administration firing Graves, Senator Bond agreed to lift his hold on an Arkansas judge nominated to the Eighth Circuit federal appeals court. A White House email stated that “Karl is fine” with the proposal.

•    Miers obtained favorable statement on Rick Renzi in violation of DOJ policy – When rumors of the FBI investigation of Rep. Rick Renzi surfaced in October, 2006, one of Rove’s subordinates contacted Harriet Miers, who called Deputy Attorney General McNulty seeking a possible statement that would have “vindicated” Renzi.  Even though this was contrary to standard DOJ policy, such a statement was issued several days later.

“I have provided a copy of the materials released today to special U.S. Attorney Nora Dannehy to assist in her effort to determine whether federal criminal charges are appropriate and to pursue any such charges,” said Conyers.  “In the meantime, the Committee has honored its pledge to get on-the-record statements from Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, as well as the relevant White House documents, and is pleased to make this unprecedented collection of Bush Administration materials directly available to the American people by posting it online.

“I am especially grateful to the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and the House Democratic leadership for their strong and unwavering support of this investigation, including the citations for contempt of Congress issued by the House in 2008.  I also thank all members who voted in support of those citations and authorized the historic litigation that was instrumental in bringing us to this point.  Today’s release marks a powerful victory for the rule of law, and should be celebrated by all who cherish our constitutional system of separation of powers and open, transparent government.”

An electronic copy of the materials released can be found on the Committee’s website at http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_WHInterviews.html.  The release is pursuant to an agreement reached in March 2009 between the Committee and the former Bush Administration, with the assistance of the Obama Administration, to resolve the Committee’s lawsuit and the contempt citations issued by the Judiciary Committee and the full House of Representatives with respect to the refusal of the Bush Administration to produce subpoenaed White House documents or permit the testimony of former White House officials Karl Rove and Harriet Miers on the U.S. Attorney firings.

Former Eastern District of Michigan Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Convertino will represent a former state representative embroiled in a Michigan bribery scandal, The Detroit Free Press reported this afternoon.

Convertino will defend former state Rep. Mary Waters. Waters and political consultant Sam Riddle were charged with paying a $12,500 bribe to a Southfield councilman to receive approval to relocate and expand a pawnshop. Riddle also faces charges in connection with a case that snared former Detroit City Council member Monica Conyers, wife of House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.).

Monica Conyers pleaded guilty last month with taking bribes to vote in favor of a $1.2 billion waste disposal contract for Synagro Technologies. Riddle, a former aide to Monica Conyers, is also charged in the Synagro matter. Read our previous post on Monica Conyers here.

Convertino received national media attention for his handling of a 2003 terrorism trial, which prompted a DOJ ethics investigation into whether he committed misconduct. Two of the defendants in the case were found guilty, but their convictions were overturned. The former federal prosecutor was acquitted in 2007 of conspiring to hide evidence in the case. We previously reported that he is suing the DOJ to find out who leaked the news of the ethics investigation.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) had a lot on his mind going into a House subcommittee hearing today on the Bureau of Prisons.

John Conyers (Gov)

His wife, former Detroit City Council member Monica Conyers, pleaded guilty in federal court last month to one count of conspiring to commit bribery and could spend up to five years in prison. Last week, a conservative legal group asked the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate whether he was a player in his wife’s corruption scandal.

At the panel hearing, Conyers wanted BOP Director Harley Lappin to give him a general assessment of U.S. prison life.

“I don’t know if there’s anything called prisoner morale, but what’s it like in the slammer?” Conyers asked.

The House Judiciary chair and House Judiciary crime, terrorism and homeland security subcommittee members also had concerns about prison overcrowding and insufficient staffing.

BOP received $5.6 billion last year. President Obama requested almost $6 billion for the bureau this year. The House Appropriations Committee report that accompanied the legislation on the DOJ budget called the understaffing “chronic.” The report said staffing problems were the result of “inadequate budget requests.”

“Our number one priority right now in the Bureau of Prisons  is increasing the number of staff in our institutions that directly supervise inmates,” Lappin said.

A conservative legal group asked the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct this week to investigate whether House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-Mich.) was a player in his wife’s corruption scandal, The Washington Post reported today.

Monica Conyers (U.S. Marshals)

Former Detroit City Council member Monica Conyers resigned from her post last month after she pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of conspiring to commit bribery. She could spend up to five years in prison for allegedly accepting at least $6,000 to support a $1.2 billion waste disposal contract for Synagro Technologies.

The Landmark Legal Foundation called 0n the House ethics committee to investigate whether the House member broke any rules by not recording on his financial disclosure forms payments his wife took, according to The Post. A spokesperson for the congressman declined to comment to The Post.

John Conyers (Gov)

The legal group also asked the panel to look into a 2007 letter in which the House Judiciary chair asked the Environmental Protection Agency to quickly approve a waste project that would have helped a backer of his wife, The Post said. The letter originally came from his wife’s office. The spokesperson for the congressman told The Post he made the request to help his constituents.   Read our detailed report on the allegations here.

Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan Terrence Berg said his office doesn’t have any evidence that would connect the congressman to his wife’s illegal activities. Several news outlets have reported that Conyers and his wife have led relatively separate lives during their 20-year marriage.

Don Siegelman

Department of Justice whistle-blower Tamarah Grimes, who accused federal prosecutors of misconduct in the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman (D), has been fired, and claims in a press release that the firing came as a direct result of her efforts to expose prosecutorial misconduct, reports Scott Horton.

The DOJ denies that Grimes was terminated because of her whistleblowing. “The Department takes seriously its obligation under the whistleblower law and did not violate it with regards to the termination of this employee.  For privacy reasons, it would be inappropriate to comment any further on this personnel matter at this time,” said department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler.

Grimes also alleges that she wasn’t the first whistleblower in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Alabama to be fired:

I am the second employee to be terminated from the Us. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Alabama for opposing unlawful conduct in the workplace. A third employee awaits her fate after seeking relief from violence in the workplace. The message to those left behind is clear: The price for opposition at any level, is at a minimum, termination.

Grimes, whose firing has been confirmed by the Department, says that she received a notice of immediate termination from Deputy Director and Chief of Staff of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys Terry Derden on June 9, exactly one month ago.  The release, written in the third person, also notes that:

Ironically, her termination came just one week after two significant events. First, attorneys for Richard Scrushy requested permission to interview Ms. Grimes under federal regulation 28 CFR § 16.21 relating to allegations of prosecutorial misconduct during the Siegelman/Scrushy prosecution. Second, Ms. Grimes submitted a letter to Attorney General Holder on June 1, 2009 providing details of the misconduct on the part of the prosecutors in the Siegelman/Scrushy trial.

The press release explains that:

In a letter sent to Ms. Grimes’s attorney on June 9, 2009, the agency stated that the whistleblower disclosures were unrelated to her termination.

Here’s Derden’s explanation (as characterized by Grimes’s press release):

Mr. Derden alleges that Ms. Grimes’s termination arose from a management decision made after- hours meeting in the lobby bar at the Embassy Suites Hotel in Montgomery, Alabama during an active mediation more than 3 months after the agency learned of Ms. Grimes’s whistleblower disclosures.

Horton says that, according to the Justice Department, Grimes was terminated because she presented “an unreasonable risk to operational security.”

Leura Canary

You may remember that Grimes provided internal prosecution e-mails to Congress and the Justice Department, which were also obtained by TIME Magazine, allegedly showing evidence of juror misconduct, and that U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama Leura Canary had not fully recused herself from the Siegelman case as promised.

We reported back in May on Siegelman’s attempts to get the Department of Justice to review the prosecution, which relies heavily on information revealed by Grimes.  You can read our latest report on Siegelman’s attempt at getting a new trial here, and our latest report on Scrushy’s efforts here.

The Justice Department’s investigatation into these accusations concluded that Alabama prosecutors had not “violated any law, rule or regulation,” in this October 2008 report.  The report went so far as to say that the evidence “strongly supports” the positions taken by the prosecutors.  But then, three days after then-Sen. Barack Obama’s victory in the presidential election, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) responded with a letter to then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey criticizing the DOJ report as “one-sided” and urging him to revisit the allegations made by Grimes:

[W]e have recently learned that this issue and others raised by Ms. Grimes was referred by the Office of Special Counsel to your office for evaluation. In response, an initial report has been prepared by two Assistant United States Attorneys which essentially concludes that, despite the plain statement to the contrary in this email chain, no messages were actually sent by any members of the jury to the prosecution through the US Marshals.

John Conyers

…

We are troubled, however, that the investigators appear to have reached this conclusion without interviewing the US Marshals who supervised the Siegelman jury and who are described in the email as having been the conduit for jury messages to the prosecution. Nor do the investigators appear to have interviewed any member of the jury.

It’s also worth noting that Conyers ended the letter by giving Grimes a huge thank you, and throwing in a footnote reminding Mukasey that you can’t just fire whistle-blowers:

We appreciate Ms. Grimes providing this information, which she apparently has previously presented to several executive branch offices.  It is no easy thing to speak up in these circumstances, but we in Congress and all Americans depend on whistleblowers like Mr. Grimes taking action when they learn of troubling facts like those described above.

…

Any employee who has the authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, with respect to such authority– take or fail to take … a personnel action with respect to any employee … because of any disclosure of information … which the employee … reasonably believes evidences a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or gross mismanagement… an abuse of authority…

But apparently that’s what ended up happening anyway.  Grimes concluded her letter with a plea to Attorney General Eric Holder:

Eric Holder

My hope remains with the Attorney General of the United States. I remain confident that Mr. Holder will provide assistance to the employees of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Alabama, to wrongfully terminated former employees of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and to citizens of the United States within the Middle District of Alabama whose interests have not been well served under the Canary administration.