Internal Draft Document Reveals Bloch-Headedness

POGO has gained access to an extraordinary internal document from the Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal agency charged with protecting whistleblowers from reprisal.  Clearly marked "DRAFT," it is a memo dated January 18, 2008, to Special Counsel Scott Bloch from the members of a special task force.  The task force was created, according to the memo, in May 2007, "to pursue certain complex and high profile investigations, such as the firing of the U.S. Attorneys and the political presentations given by the White House Office of Political Affairs (OPA)."  The stated subject of the memo is "Summary of Task Force Activities and Recommendations," but it reads at times like an anguished cry from investigators charged with an important mission but virtually every recommendation they make is countermanded by their boss.  If they recommend going forward with an inquiry, Bloch says no.  If they say they lack evidence or jurisdiction, he orders them to go forward.

The inescapable conclusion reached from poring through the contents of this 13-page memo is that Bloch was deliberately creating the impression of a huge ongoing multi-faceted investigation of the White House--at the same time that he himself was being investigated by another arm of the White House for various forms of misconduct.  [NOTE: someone used a highlighter on the document, making certain passages nearly impossible to read.  We have transcribed those darkened parts here.] 

Here is my analysis, along with some juicy quotes.

Office of Political Affairs:
The task force (TF) began to examine allegations that 25 federal agencies had received political briefings from the White House Office of Political Affairs that may have violated Hatch Act bans against the use of government resources to promote or oppose a political party or candidate. The task force received hundreds of documents from the agencies and thousands from the White House about the briefings. But as the investigators proceeded in their classic methodical way, they received new directions from their boss: transfer a Hatch Act complaint against Commerce Secretary Gutierrez from the Hatch Act Unit to the task force); merge two complaints against Karl Rove into the ongoing OPA investigation; draft new requests for information to the White House demanding copies of all email sent or received by 50 OPA employees from January 2001 through November 2007, from both the employees' government accounts and their RNC accounts.   

The first cry of anguish followed: "TF expressed concerns that this request is too broad and may exceed OSC's jurisdiction" (emphasis in original).

But there was more. The Special Counsel demanded that the TF seek even more records from the White House: all travel records on Air Force One; all procedures for telephone and fax machines; all grant awards, etc. Again the protest from the task force: "After reviewing all documentation received and finding no information or evidence to suggest that agencies directed grants or agency resources to help candidates or political parties TF believes this request is overly broad." 

The task force recommended ways to narrow the investigation, but Bloch denied them. When the task force drafted a letter and subpoena to the RNC, Bloch returned the draft with the order that it be expanded to include ten new topics.

U.S. Attorney Firings:
After former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias filed a complaint with the OSC alleging that his discharge may have violated the Hatch Act, the task force was ordered by Bloch to broaden the inquiry to all nine U.S. Attorneys who had been fired. According to the task force's memo, to establish a Hatch Act violation, there must be proof that an individual employed by an executive branch agency had used official authority to influence the results of an election. Iglesias had complained about calls he had received from Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, both Republicans of New Mexico. The Justice Department meanwhile sent more than one letter to OSC asking it to suspend its investigation pending DOJ's criminal inquiry. Bloch writes Justice saying OSC will not suspend, even though "TF does not find any evidence of a Hatch Act violation…and expresses concern about the lack of any evidence that there was a Hatch Act violation."   

Political Hiring Practices and Personnel Decisions at Justice Department:
Following public hearings in Congress from former Justice Department officials that "certain officials at DOJ took into consideration political affiliation when determining whether to hire or promote certain individuals," along with testimony from the former chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division that he was ordered to change evaluations of attorneys based on political affiliation, the task force recommended "that this case be opened immediately and that the TF investigate whether individuals at DOJ committed any PPPs (prohibited personnel practices) when they took political affiliation into consideration when hiring and making other personnel decisions."

Nine days later, "TF is told that the Special Counsel has directed the TF not to open or investigate allegations concerning DOJ political hiring practices." Throughout August and September 2007, the TF continued to request permission to investigate these allegations, "arguing the sworn testimony before Congress appears to establish a prima facie case of numerous PPPs." 

Finally, in November, the task force was given permission to open a case--but "no other activity or devotion of resources authorized at this time."

Possibly Politically Tainted Prosecution:
The task force opened files concerning prosecution of the former Democratic governor of Alabama, Don Siegelman, and allegations that the prosecution had been pursued following directions from Karl Rove at the White House. But then "TF is informed that the Special Counsel did not authorize the Task Force to investigate these allegations and that do so [sic] is a breach. The Special Counsel requests that this file be closed immediately."   

Voter Registration Fraud Case:
Indictments were filed against four individuals associated with a liberal organization, ACORN, for engaging in election fraud. ACORN had reported the fraud itself and had fired the individuals, but a senior Justice official in Washington rushed to file the indictments a few days before the 2006 election, despite clear DOJ policy against bringing such actions right before an election because of the possibility of influencing the outcome.

The task force wrote a memo "outlining the reasons that the Hatch Act case investigating this matter should be opened.” The Hatch Act expressly forbids any Executive Branch official from taking actions that might influence an election. The task force was told they were "not authorized to open up this file." The task force protested strongly: 

Because the facts raise the strong possibility of violations of two Hatch Act provisions, the TF requests that a case file be opened into these allegations. OSC is the only agency charged with enforcement of the Hatch Act…it could be perceived that the Office of Special Counsel was abdicating its responsibility to enforce the Hatch Act if we were to take no action in this matter. More importantly, [if the actions were]…an attempt to affect the results of an election, this would constitute one of the most egregious violations of the Hatch Act.

Second Investigation of Lurita Doan:
When Special Counsel Bloch ordered a new investigation of GSA Administrator Lurita Doan be opened, the "TF raised objections to this request because OSC had previously concluded its investigation into Lurita Doan and had referred the matter to the President for disciplinary action. The TF was directed to investigate whether Doan had a larger scheme in place to use agency resources for political purposes." 

Bloch ordered the task force to request documents from the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Homeland Security regarding a 2005 investigation of Doan's husband. The task force objected, saying it would be improper since "Doan was not a federal employee at the time of the DHS OIG investigation." But the task force was ordered to go forward and to particularly request a email message dated May 2005 from Lurita Doan to her husband.

The DHS OIG response was received at OSC in July 2007 but not given to the task force until November. At that point the task force was dismayed to discover that the "DHS OIG investigation is not related in any way to the May 17, 2005 email and questions why DHS produced the investigative file." The task force again two weeks later expressed its concern that the DHS OIG report was "not related to anything that OSC is currently investigating and the allegations in the report fall outside of OSC jurisdiction." The task force also expressed concern that the DHS OIG had provided information that "greatly exceeds, and arguably is unrelated to" the OSC request. The task force renews its recommendation that the case be closed since there is no evidence or information to support the allegations.   

Karl Rove:
The task force was ordered to investigate allegations that White House official Karl Rove had violated the Hatch Act by engaging in unlawful political activity during the 2006 election period. The task force learned that all of Rove's travel had been designated political and thus no official funds had been spent on it. Further, they found that on the one trip where Rove traveled on Air Force One on what had been wrongly attributed to official business, reimbursement had already been made.

Nevertheless, additional requests for information were prepared and sent to the White House regarding Rove's travel. As previously noted, the Rove cases were ordered by Bloch to be combined with the huge all-encompassing OPA case in November 2007. 

-- Beverley Lumpkin

Breaking News: FBI Agents Raid OSC Offices

The Wall Street Journal and NPR are reporting that FBI agents have raided the offices of Special Counsel Scott Bloch, seizing computers and documents belonging to Bloch and his staff as part of an ongoing investigation into alleged obstruction of justice.  Although Bloch has not been officially charged with any crime, FBI agents also searched his home and shut down email access at OSC offices across the country. 

The Journal previously reported that Bloch hired a private tech company, Geeks on Call, to conduct a seven-layer scrub of his computer and several office laptops.  Bloch claimed he was deleting a virus, but investigators suspect that he was destroying evidence related to allegations that he had used his office for political purposes and retaliated against career employees.

We'll keep you posted as we learn more.

-- Michael Smallberg

UPDATE: Click here for more background on Scott Bloch and the Office of Special Counsel.  You can also learn more by reading POGO's previous blog posts:

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2007/11/bloch-scrubs-di.html
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2007/05/office_of_speci.html
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2006/09/leave_sharon_st.html
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2006/05/who_wrote_this_.html
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2005/01/purge_at_agency.html

UPDATE 2: POGO is especially interested in what turns up, as we are in the midst of completing an investigation into OSC's handling of whistleblower disclosures and whistleblowing reprisals complaints from Federal Air Marshals.

A Lesson in Retaliation

In the world of academia, dissent and critical thinking are not only encouraged, but expected.  By contrast, there is perhaps no better way to ensure career failure in the federal government, and especially the military, than to consistently present challenging or dissenting views to your superiors.

For this reason, it's hardly surprising that POGO received a letter from University of Virginia doctoral student and former Human Terrain System (HTS) member, Zenia Helbig, alleging that she had been retaliated against. (HTS is an Army program intended to help the military better understand Iraqi culture by sending civilian anthropologists into Iraq.) Helbig wrote to POGO:

"I brought every criticism and concern identified in the "Recruiting and Retention" and "Training" sections of this memorandum to the attention of my superiors at BAE and Program Management personnel at HTS.  Admittedly, I did so somewhat naively, believing that all the personnel and organizations involved were there "for the mission" just as much as I was, and that they needed to only be made aware of the problems to immediately take action to fix them."

Perhaps the same "naiveté" that got Helbig fired from HTS is also compelling her to press on in her uphill battle to reclaim her security clearance and her good name.  I doubt that she was aware of the odds facing whistleblowers when she mounted a public campaign to clear her name--only 3 of the 186 cases that have gone before the Federal Circuit have resulted in a victory for the whistleblower--but so far she seems to be beating those odds.

Helbig is pushing the one button that the federal government seems to respond to more than anything else--public scrutiny.  To this date, her story has been told in Newsweek, Wired.com and Asia Times, just to name a few. 

Undoubtedly, it helps that her story is so sensational.  It's not every day that a group of civilian anthropologists are recruited to go over to Iraq as cultural advisors. That in itself is a story.  But when that mission is also plagued by allegations of severe mismanagement by no-bid contract winner BAE, and also faces overlapping criticism of the program in general by the American Anthropological Association, it becomes a story that will not quickly go away.

It's unfortunate that it takes such a sensational story to get the attention of the news media, but if that's what it takes to get Helbig her good name and her security clearance back, that's what it takes.

-- Jake Wiens

Props to Oberstar and the House Transportation Committee

House Transportation Committee Chairman Oberstar and his staff deserve to be commended for their tremendous FAA oversight work.  The ripples from their recent hearings are continuing to be seen.  Not only have they forced the FAA and the airlines to take maintenance and inspections more seriously, but they also highlighted the plight of FAA whistleblowers who suffered retaliation for just trying to do their jobs.  I heard some blowback on the radio today--industry representatives suggesting that Congress should rethink this oversight, given the inconvenience to air travelers while the airlines perform the checks they should have already conducted.  Instead of rethinking oversight, someone should publicly thank Chairman Oberstar and the Transportation Committee for their terrific work.  Remember, the critics would be the first to point fingers if there had been a crash.

As usual, Jon Stewart said it best on Tuesday's Daily Show: "It's all sort of ironic, when you think about it.  When you fly, you are inspected quite thoroughly, whereas the plane itself is, perhaps, occasionally vacuumed.  See, with this administration, if a passenger blows up a plane, it's a 'failure in the war on terror,' but if the plane just blows up on its own, it's 'the market self-regulating.'"

-- Danielle Brian

Whistleblowers Front and Center at Tomorrow's FAA Hearing

FAA whistleblowers are going to be the stars of the show at tomorrow's marathon House transportation committee hearing (pdf) on the cozy relationship between the FAA and major airlines.

Here is the hearing's first panel:

Mr. Charalambe ("Bobby") Boutris
Aviation Safety Inspector and Boeing 737-700 Partial Program Manager for aircraft maintenance Southwest Airlines (SWA) Certificate Management Office (CMO)

Mr. Douglas E. Peters
Aviation Safety Inspector and Boeing 757 Partial Program Manager American Airlines Certification Unit, AMR CMO

Mr, Michael C. Mills
Assistant Manager, Dallas Fort Worth Flight Standards District Office (FSDO)

Mr. Paul E. Cotti
Supervisor, American Eagle Airworthiness Unit, AMR CMO

Mr. Robert A. Naccache
Ret, Assistant Manager, SWA CMO

Mr. Terry D. Lambert
Manager, Safety and Analysis Group, Flight Standards Division, FAA Southwest Region

According to the USA Today:

Government officials have blocked enforcement of safety rules at major airlines for years because they have a cozy relationship with the companies, according to the testimony of U.S. inspectors who will appear before Congress Thursday.

The testimony alleges for the first time that inspectors have been pressured by Federal Aviation Administration officials to change findings or to soft-pedal enforcement actions for several of the nation's largest airlines, including Northwest, United and Continental. The controversy over the FAA's oversight has so far involved only Southwest Airlines.

The inspectors claim FAA officials were often more concerned with airline profit margins than safety and made them work under the specter of intimidation, according to the testimony, provided to USA TODAY.

Thursday's hearing before the House Transportation Committee was prompted by two whistle-blowers who charged that their bosses at the FAA had prevented them from enforcing serious safety matters at Southwest a year ago. The FAA issued a $10.2 million fine against Southwest last month for intentionally flying jets that had not received critical inspections and acknowledged that its inspectors had not acted properly. [emphasis added]

In other aviation safety oversight news, in Washington state, jurors continue to deliberate the fate of former Boeing quality assurance inspector Gerald Eastman.  Eastman, after raising concerns about the safety risks of what he felt were lax inspections of planes, went to the press with internal Boeing information.  Eastman's actions were discovered by Boeing investigators and is being prosecuted for stealing Boeing proprietary information. He states his motive was simply to bring to light safety concerns of public interest which were not being addressed.  Given the recent Transportation Department Inspector General report which verifies that there are problems with Boeing and other major aerospace manufacturers' quality assurance systems, it might be worthwhile for the House transportation committee to take a look at Eastman's case and others as a possible subject matter for a future hearing.

-- Nick Schwellenbach

The Federal Graveyard of Whistleblower Cases

A new column in Legal Times underscores why Congress should finish up its bill on whistleblower protections. Legislation has passed in the House and Senate, but now needs to be reconciled before being sent to President Bush, who has already threatened a veto.

The article highlights why so many whistleblower lawsuits are doomed to die a slow and painful death. After taking their claims before administrative judges at the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), where they almost never win their cases, whistleblowers are often forced to appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. That is exactly what happened to the former Chief of the U.S. Park Police, Teresa Chambers, who appealed her case to the Federal Circuit following a ridiculous ruling by MSBP which denied Chambers whistleblower protections. Her case illustrates how patriotic truth-tellers can end up in a never-ending churn of legal contortions. Chambers was notified she would be removed from her position in December 2003, and today, in early 2008, there is still no legal resolution in her case. Although she prevailed before the Federal Circuit, her "reward" is that she is now forced to go back to the incompetent MSPB for yet another hearing of her case.

Carol Czarkowski was another whistleblower who prevailed before the Federal Circuit (the decision in her case came in November 2004). It took Czarkowski eight years to reach a settlement with the Navy, her former employee, after they repeatedly attempted to legally stonewall her.

Still, the track record of the Federal Circuit is the leading reason why whistleblowers are denied justice. According to attorneys Debra Katz and Nicole Williams of Katz, Marshall and Banks, who write about Chambers' case in Legal Times:

Out of the 186 whistle-blower cases that came before it [the Federal Circuit] from October 1994 to Feb. 14, 2008, this employee victory was only the third time that the court ruled for the whistle-blower.

The recently passed whistleblower legislation, which still needs to be finalized by Congress, would end the stranglehold that the Federal Circuit has on these cases by allowing whistleblowers to appeal to any of the relevant U.S. District Courts, as is done for other kinds of government employee litigation. Without this legislative provision, it is not an understatement to say that efforts to improve whistleblower protections would be useless.

-- Beth Daley

Matthew Diaz to Be Honored at 2008 Ridenhour Prizes

On Thursday, April 3rd, POGO will be celebrating the fifth anniversary of the Ron Ridenhour Prizes.  The prizes were established by The Nation Institute and The Fertel Foundation, in partnership with POGO, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) and the Fund for Constitutional Government, to "recognize those who persevere in acts of truth-telling that protect the public interest, promote social justice or illuminate a more just vision of society."

The recipient of this year's Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling is Matthew Diaz, a former JAG officer at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, whose incredible story was recently chronicled in the New York Times Magazine.

Diaz first became interested in law as a young man, after his father was convicted of murder and sent to death row in a case fraught with questionable evidence.  After consistently receiving stellar performance reviews during his time as a Navy lawyer, Diaz was assigned to the military's detention camp at Guantanamo Bay in 2004.

Not long before he arrived, the Supreme Court had ruled that Guantanamo Bay prisoners were entitled to judicial review as a means of challenging their incarceration. Although he believed that many of the prisoners posed a serious threat to the United States, Diaz quickly came to the conclusion that the Pentagon was blatantly undermining the Court's decision.  For instance, the military leadership still refused to release the names of the prisoners, making it difficult for any outside lawyers to contact them.

Diaz soon decided that something had to be done.  One early morning in January 2005, he printed out the names and serial numbers of the 551 prisoners, consolidated the information onto tiny pieces of paper stuffed inside a Valentine's Day card, and mailed it to a lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights, which had originally filed a petition in the Supreme Court case.

Diaz knew he was probably risking his career by disclosing such sensitive information; he soon learned there would be other consequences as well.  The lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights was forced to turn the list of detainees over to the Justice Department and the F.B.I., which easily identified Diaz as the man behind the mailing.  In May 2007, a jury of naval officers discharged Diaz from the military and convicted him on four counts, including the disclosure of information that "could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation."

Even though a federal court had by this time ruled that the list of names was public information subject to the Freedom of Information Act, Diaz was sentenced to six months in prison, making him the only U.S. serviceman to be sent to jail for defying the administration's detention policies.  His case is currently under appeal.

The other recipients of this year's Ridenhour Prizes are:

• Bill Moyers, a veteran journalist whose latest series, Bill Moyers Journal, premiered on PBS in April 2007.  He will be awarded the Ridenhour Courage Prize in recognition of his "fierce embrace of the public interest and his advocacy of media pluralism, and for contributing an unyielding moral voice to our national discourse;" and
• James D. Scurlock, who will be awarded the Ridenhour Book Prize for his latest work, Maxed Out: Hard Times in the Age of Easy Credit, "a disturbing account of America's unsustainable relationship with debt."

-- Michael Smallberg

Coast Guard Blogger Fired

Our sympathies go out to Mike McGrath, a contributor to "An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog," who reports being fired from working for one of the Coast Guard's contractors in part for his blogging. McGrath comes from a Coast Guard family -- he has had a career working for the Coast Guard on and off since 1981 and a father with a 24-year career. On Coast Guard Report he describes what happened:

Was told that my position would have been downsized anyways within the next few months, my behavior on the blog sites just made it easier to make me the first to go.

I don't mind if someone wants to let me or any other contractor go because they have to reduce headcount, or some other "Business" reason - that makes perfect sense to me and I understand as a contractor that these contracts come and go with the wind - that's the risk we take as contractors and is the nature of our world.

What I take issue with is that CG leaders over-reacted to and I believe misinterpreted some of my blogs and comments - this drove them to handle my departure the way they did. While I won't go into the details, let me say that there are certainly more professional ways of handling a person's departure, rather than the explosive Friday afternoon yelling session with the contractor companies' senior folks via conference call, then having said contractor company send a letter in the mail to let said contractor know he is no longer employed, then firing off a late Friday afternoon email that in essence says go home and wait for said letter - which is exactly the way I interpreted the whole situation - and by the way all without letting said contractor know that any of this was going on.

Did I mention that I just had my performance evals completed within the last 2 weeks, scored perfect all across the board, got a raise (which I will never see) and that there was no indication from anybody that there was anything wrong occurring; no feedback, no counseling, no pointing out of where I might be violating any written policy, nothing - no indication whatsoever. Yeah, now you know why I have such heartburn with all this.

In January, McGrath described being told by his superiors to "back off" on his blogging:

I was sort of encouraged (with some very strong negative overtones) to be careful about posting my personal information and my opinions on these blogs....I just wanted to report that I now understand what it feels like to have that experience; and to state emphatically that I won't be backing down.

McGrath's last blog entry before being fired described his frustrations with an unfinished Coast Guard investigation into an incident in which his son died. Another blog entry was critical of efforts to reorganize the Coast Guard. Yet, in his blogging he frequently expressed his love of the Coast Guard and a sincere desire to make it better.

As the world wide web has grown, more and more employees at government agencies and contractors have taken the risk of expressing their opinions and exposing the inner workings of their institutions on blogs as well as on YouTube. Some of these individuals are also whistleblowers who expose corruption or possible harms to the public.

Government agencies and companies are all too happy to fire someone like McGrath in order to send a message to other employees to keep their mouths shut. Left unchallenged, these jack booted thug firings ultimately may help to keep the public in the dark about institutional corruption and risks to the public. Unfortunately, in an Orwellian turn of events, the Supreme Court ruled two years ago that government employees have no free speech rights to discuss their official work.

Other contributors to "An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog" aren't backing down. In fact, they believe that efforts to silence Coast Guard critics are backfiring. Mike McGrath says he's starting to write a book about his experiences with the Coast Guard.

-- Beth Daley

Correction: POGO corrected this entry from its original - "26-year career working for the Coast Guard" was changed to "career working for the Coast Guard on and off since 1981" and "permanently brain damaged" was changed to "died."

Whistleblowing Is Not Industrial Espionage: The Unjust Ironies of the Gerald Eastman Case

Behind the liberal latte-sipping, post-industrial idea of Seattle that rests in the national consciousness, the reality is quite different.  The town and its environs is an industrial powerhouse and long ago was a major center of the labor movement.  For instance, it was the site of America's first city-wide "general strike" in 1919.  Despite decline, unions there are still strong, largely because it is proudly ground zero for the nation's number one export industry: aerospace.  And that means, to a large extent, Boeing. 

Seattle residents still consider it a slap in the face when Boeing's corporate headquarters moved to Chicago in 2001, but the core of the commercial aviation part of the company remains.  That is considered the heart of the company, with the workers, technicians and engineers the lifeblood of it.  But there is a startling disconnect between the man on the ground at Boeing and the vast apparatus of corporate control that seeks to stifle dissent.  The case of a longtime Boeing quality assurance technician, Gerald Eastman, highlights this.  Moreover, Boeing often hypocritically engages in the same kind of activity for which Eastman was busted and is now facing a jury trial over.  However, Eastman sought to expose issues of the public interest and safety, whereas Boeing has repeatedly simply sought unfair and illegal advantages over its corporate rivals, which ultimately costs the taxpayer and the consumer.

Eastman, after trying to raise concerns about the integrity of Boeing quality assurance system, first through his Boeing quality assurance managers, then through internal chains of command in the company, next through the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), finally decided he had no other choice.  He decided to bring his concerns to the press.  After a series of articles that did raise questions about Boeing's activities, including the possibility that Boeing had improperly used classified taxpayer-funded R&D in its commercial aircraft, Eastman was identified by Boeing's relentless and powerful security team after they received an anonymous tip about Eastman. 

Eastman was caught with thousands of Boeing documents with proprietary markings on them.  Perhaps some of these were truly sensitive documents, however at many major companies, almost every document is marked proprietary whether it contains a trade secret (still a very poorly defined term) or not.  How can a corporate whistleblower provide evidence for his allegations and not use proprietary information (or marked as proprietary)?  The answer: it's impossible.

While we cannot speak to the guilt or innocence of Eastman, I have talked to him several times since he was arrested.  He and his website will tell you that he sought simply to improve quality control at Boeing out of concern for the public, and to show that classified military information was improperly ending up in commercial aircraft.  A recent Department of Transportation IG report shows that his concerns about Boeing's quality assurance system had at least some merit, and furthermore, shows that the FAA--one of the places he went to with his allegations--does not always do a good job of identifying systematic safety issues. 

Other Boeing employees who found serious problems at Ducommun, a major supplier of parts for Boeing, were retaliated against for trying to raise concerns about Ducommun at Boeing.  As their unsealed complaint states (pdf), when they "brought this information to the attention of Boeing management, the initial reaction within the Boeing procurement community was that a serious problem had been uncovered. However, as the ramifications of Boeing’s own quality control deficiencies became understood to Boeing management, a radical change occurred. [The Boeing employees] became the subject of harassment, threats and intimidation. Rather than make disclosure to the United States Federal Aviation Administration ('FAA'), Boeing chose to cover up and conceal the information from the government."

According to prosecutors (pdf), some of the documents on Eastman's computer corresponded with a "March 5, 2006, article revealing engineering concerns that lightning could cause fuel tanks on the 787 to explode."  Seems Eastman was concerned about aviation safety.  And he wasn't the only one, at least on this specific issue: Vince Weldon, now a retired Boeing engineer, had a similar concern about the 787 and lightning (pdf) and some believe was arguably forced out of Boeing because he had raised concerns.

The Seattle Times article, supposedly based in part on documents found on Eastman's computer, seems to bear out much of Eastman's belief that Boeing has indeed improperly migrated classified information into its commercial aircraft which are sold abroad.  It reported in 2006 that:

The engineers, veterans of Boeing's work on the B-2 stealth bomber two decades ago, told [Boeing] investigator Rick Barreiro that technology and know-how developed for that secretive military program would be used in manufacturing the company's newest commercial jet.

Again, Eastman has written that this technology was stolen from Northrop, the B-2 bomber’s prime contractor:

This information—the technical data and engineering procedures defining how to design composite structures of aircraft not detectable by radar—stealth aircraft—was developed by prime contractor Northrop during B-2 Bomber production for the Air Force, and required both Northrop and federal government approval before Boeing could use this data on anything other than the B-2 Bomber subcontracting work they were doing for Northrop.

Indeed, Boeing has been busted numerous other times for exporting sensitive information overseas and for having the proprietary information of its rivals.  Boeing was order to pay $10 million after it "was alleged that Boeing violated the Arms Export Control Act, and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations by exporting technical data and defense services to Russia, the Ukraine, Norway and Germany 'without the required approvals from the Department [of State] and, in other circumstances, violated the terms and conditions of approvals that were provided by the Department.'" 

In another case, "The Boeing Company was alleged to have violated the Arms Export Control Act, and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations in connection with its involvement in the Wedgetail project… by violating the express terms and conditions of Department of State munitions license and other authorizations, by exporting defense articles and defense services without a munitions license or other authorization, and by omitting material facts from its applications for munitions licenses or other authorizations."  Boeing was ordered to pay $4.2 million in this case.

While Boeing was the lead system integrator for the National Missile Defense Program, they were found to be illegally in possession of Raytheon’s proprietary documents (pdf) and had used them to win a major contract for the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle part of the program.

In another case, Boeing was found with some 25,000 Lockheed Martin proprietary documents while the two companies competed for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle contract (see this affidavit; pdf). This was part of $615 million settlement Boeing made with the government.

With the Future Combat System Lead System Integrator contract, Army officials and others expressed reservations several years ago, worrying that “Boeing could get an unfair advantage on the work it bids for” since Boeing executives James Albaugh and Roger Krone obtained access to competitor’s secret information, thus weakening company firewalls, according to the Wall Street Journal (cited in testimony before Congress; pdf).

Recently, Alabama Aviation has claimed, in a bid protest filing with the GAO, that Boeing had improperly used Alabama Aviation's proprietary information to help it defeat Alabama Aviation.

Then there was the massive and now largely-forgotten Justice Department investigation from the 1980s called Operation Uncover, where Boeing and several other defense contractors were engaged in a massive and illegal classified document-swapping black market. At Boeing, investigators even learned about a library filled with classified Pentagon budget documents they were not supposed to have.

Perhaps if Boeing security were focused less on Big Brother-like attempts to stamp out disclosures to the press on issues of public importance from the rank and file, and more on controlling truly sensitive information, the company and the country would be in better shape.  Ironically, Boeing has tried to wrongly cast the Eastman case as one of industrial espionage, when Boeing repeatedly has been among the worst, if not the worst offender of it itself.

According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

A King County Superior Court judge on Monday denied Eastman's request to delay the trial a week. His public defender asked for more time to gather documents from Chicago-based Boeing Co.

"We haven't had any time to prepare for my defense," Eastman said outside the Seattle courtroom.

Senior deputy prosecutor Scott Peterson argued against delaying the trial, saying that the state would begin to lose witnesses March 28. Numerous Boeing executives, including former vice president and general manager of the 787 program, Mike Bair, have delayed travel plans and vacations so that they could testify, Peterson said.

Eastman told me last night:

My trial started today, much to my chagrin. A judge in the morning denied our request for continuance because the prosecution hadn't given us access to requested files from my computer yet, among other issues. The case was assigned to a judge this afternoon at 1:30 PM PST. Tomorrow jury selection begins. Talk about being railroaded. I guess my right to a fair trial is trumped by the prosecutor's wish to have a trial on his schedule. It was a bad day, indeed, and I had just begun to get full time representation from my attorney as of last week, and only started substantive work on preparing our defense three days ago.

Again, I nor POGO can speak to Eastman's guilt or innocence.  I find the judge's refusal to give Eastman more time to prepare a defense troubling, especially considering the uphill battle he faces. He certainly deserves the time and access to information necessary for a fair defense.  Someone's vacation plans don't trump the demands of a working and fair justice system.

-- Nick Schwellenbach

Troubled Waters

Yesterday, in the Washington Times, David Axe reported that deployment of the Coast Guard's National Security Cutters will be delayed by six months because the ship's radios are not waterproof. That article sent the Coast Guard into a frenzy yesterday to challenge what they said were inaccuracies, according to CGBlog.org. Navy Times reports that the Coast Guard has demanded a retraction of the front page article. We'll be watching do see how the details work themselves out.

The Cutters are part of the troubled $24 billion Deepwater program which has been plagued by delivery delays, failures and scandal. Former Lockheed Martin engineer Mike DeKort blew the whistle early on the fact that the Coast Guard failed to ensure weather durability of external equipment in the program such as the radios.

Last week, the Navy Times reported that an internal Coast Guard report recommended ditching production of two National Security Cutters in favor of other alternatives. The article noted "the risk of 'connectivity problems' among Coast Guard assets and between it and other agencies."

That news followed a statement from the Coast Guard that suggested problems were brewing with the Cutters' classified communications system which involved "some risk" to the delivery schedule. That statement reaffirmed concerns raised by the disclosures of a second whistleblower, Coast Guard engineer Anthony D'Armiento. The statement outlined what has been called by some an unknown process for testing and deployment (Interim Authority to Operate) of the Cutters. The statement raised the specter that the Coast Guard would prematurely accept the Cutters from contractors Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman before major problems were resolved with the ships' communications system. The Coast Guard made this same mistake when it accepted eight 123-foot Deepwater boats despite numerous flaws in those boats, which were later taken out of service with plans to be scrapped. According to some reports, the Coast Guard has denied that it will sign the contract Form DD 250s acceptance forms until the Cutters until the problems are resolved. The Coast Guard will lose important leverage to compel Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman to fix serious communications problems if it accepts the National Security Cutters before they are ready.

D'Armiento has been on administrative leave for more than 5 months after he leaked pages from a document which exposed that the Cutters were at high risk for not meeting contract requirements for TEMPEST and Information Assurance. While the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General ostensibly investigates him for leaking this document, the Coast Guard released a full unredacted version of the document to POGO. In 2005, POGO criticized the Department of Homeland Security for issuing a management directive which prohibits the disclosure of information that may be obtainable under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), raising the specter that whistleblowers like D'Armiento would be retaliated against for releasing information which Congress intended to make available to the public.

-- Beth Daley

UPDATE: David Axe provides a point by point response to the Coast Guard's full out attack on his blog. He also helpfully wrote in to our blog to clarify some points regarding the Troubled Waters blog entry (see comments below).

A Call from Serpico

I had a happy surprise this morning when I got a call from POGO friend and legend Frank Serpico, the man who took down the corrupt New York City police dept in the 1970's. He chided me for never having told him about The Art of Anonymous Activism, co-authored by POGO, the Government Accountability Project, and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. He ran across the book recently when an admirer of his asked him to autograph a copy. He told me he thought the book was great and would help a lot of people: "I think the book is a wonderful resource and a must read for any conscientious employee in public service or any employment for that matter." Can't get a better plug than that!

Click here to order a copy, or click here to read Chapter 1: "Blowing the Whistle May Be Hazardous to Your Professional Health."

-- Danielle Brian

Explosive Allegations at ATF Lead to Whistleblower Retaliation

If the second in command at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), a 23-year veteran of the agency, is not immune to whistleblower retaliation, it’s hard to imagine who would be. 

Yesterday’s Washington Post reported that former ATF Deputy Director Edgar A. Domenech filed a 13-page complaint to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) alleging that ATF violated the Whistleblower Protection Act, 5 U.S.C. § 2302, by “demoting him, denying him a bonus and attempting to give him a poor job review.”   

Readers of POGO's blog might scoff at the idea that a demotion, denial of a bonus, and poor job review for whistleblowing is newsworthy these days.  In fact, it’s hard to remember a day here at POGO where we haven’t heard a story of an employee getting fired, transferred across the country, or getting his or her desk placed in a closet in the basement for whistleblowing.

But this is a newsworthy story.  It’s newsworthy because Edgar A. Domenech’s status as Deputy Director highlights the fact that our government has a culture of retaliation that permeates agencies at all levels.  It didn’t matter that Domenech was a Deputy Directory, or that he exposed some pretty serious financial misconduct by then-director Carl J. Truscott.  What matters was that he was a whistleblower and, as such, he, just like so many other government employees, learned the price of speaking out against injustices witnessed in the workplace.

This case of retaliation makes it clear that whistleblower retaliation is alive and well at all levels of government.  If the second in command at an agency can’t raise questions about misconduct, who can?  

-- Jake Wiens

Wikileaks Wins

Readers of this blog are no doubt aware that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a motion last week on behalf of POGO to save Wikileaks, the anti-corruption web site that a California federal court ordered to shut down earlier this month.  The court had acted at the request of Bank Julius Baer, which argued that the site was posting confidential documents--banking records that allegedly show clients engaging in money laundering and tax evasion. (POGO's earlier posts on this case can be found here and here.)

The court's ruling touched off a firestorm in First Amendment advocacy circles and gave Bank Julius Baer lots of unwanted publicity.  Last Friday, after hearing arguments from public interest and media organizations, including the motion filed on behalf of POGO, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White backtracked and lifted the injunction shutting down Wikileaks.  (Of course, as POGO noted, the site and the offending documents were always accessible through other means.)   Judge White's order is here.

-- Neil Gordon

Attorney Urges End to Investigation Into Coast Guard Whistleblower

In a series of letters issued this week, Attorney Debra Katz urged the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General to end a 5-month investigation into Coast Guard whistleblower Anthony D’Armiento. The basis for the investigation had been on whether D’Armiento improperly disclosed information to the public. However, the information Mr. D’Armiento disclosed was provided by the Coast Guard to the Project On Government Oversight in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

To read the letters, click here.

To learn more, see "POGO Criticizes Lack of Accountability in Coast Guard Program and Scurrilous Investigation of Whistleblower" or "Coast Guard Deepwater Program Whistleblower Suffers Retaliation."

-- Beth Daley

Exchange Between Senator McCaskill and Marine Commandant Conway on Franz Gayl

Read this exchange closely from yesterday between Senator Claire McCaskill and Marine Corps Commandant James Conway regarding Marine Corps science advisor Franz Gayl, who has disclosed problems with the Marine Corps' ability to rapidly procure equipment requested by marines in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Conway basically promises to Senator McCaskill that the Marines will try to find a way to screw over Gayl, hence the immediate follow-up letter from Senators McCaskill and Kennedy we posted last night defending him.  Check out the italicized text in particular:

McCaskill: I know that Senator Kennedy talked about the MRAP problems in terms of availability. I’m concerned about the whistleblower. I’m concerned about Franz Gayl. I would like some reassurance from you that Mr. Gayl is not going to face any adverse employment decisions or actions because of his whistle blowing in regard to the study that was done that has now come out as part of the public discourse.

Conway: Ma’am, he works for the Marine Corps. I’ve purposefully stayed at arms length from that discussion. I have never met Major Gayl. I can say there is an investigation underway to determine whether or not he has complied with the guidance that was given to him by his boss. We are making every overture to ensure that we don’t violate any aspect of his whistleblower status. But if it’s determined that Mr. Gayl has done something other than what his leadership and his bosses have instructed him to do, then that outcome will have to be determined as to what happens to Mr. Gayl.

McCaskill: Well I know that General Magnus recently referred him to the Office of the DoD IG, which I think is an appropriate move. I know how hard it is internally to be careful in this regard, and I know there are some whistleblowers who have not followed direct instructions and who have gotten out in ways that maybe they shouldn’t have, but the impact that dealing negatively with whistleblowers has on the entire operation is something that we really need to avoid. Whistleblowers are so important to accountability regardless of whether we’re talking about a bureaucratic agency that’s dealing with the taxpayers or whether we’re talking about the military. I just want to make sure that I didn’t leave this hearing without expressing to you how strongly I feel, and how closely I’ll be watching to make sure that any whistleblower, and this whistleblower in particular, is treated with respect and deference and under the letter of the law, in terms of any potential adverse consequences because of what he did. I think it’s tremendously important and I didn’t want to leave without expressing this.

Conway: I can assure you that he will be treated in accordance with the law.

-- Nick Schwellenbach

POGO Seeks to Intervene on Behalf of Wikileaks

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a motion this week on behalf of POGO to intervene in a lawsuit that resulted in the shutdown of Wikileaks, an anti-corruption website where whistleblowers can anonymously upload documents.  A similar motion was filed by Public Citizen and the California First Amendment Coalition.   

A California federal court issued the permanent injunction a few weeks ago in response to a lawsuit filed by a Swiss bank, Julius Baer Group.  The bank complained that a former employee was uploading confidential records that allegedly contained evidence of the bank's tax evasion and offshore dealings.  Instead of ordering Wikileaks to remove these individual documents, the judge ruled that the entire site must be shut down.

The motion filed on behalf of POGO claims that the injunction violates the public's First Amendment right to "receive information and ideas."  Wikileaks has previously posted documents of great interest to the public, such as a manual describing the U.S. Army's operations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

An amicus curiae brief was also filed by a group of media and public interest organizations, including Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet & Society's Citizen Media Law Project (CMLP), the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, and the Society of Professional Journalists.  David Ardia, director of the CMLP, said in a statement that the court overstepped its boundaries in shutting down a "website that has been at the forefront exposing corruption in governments and corporations around the world."

A hearing on the Wikileaks case is scheduled for tomorrow.  In the meantime, you can still access the site at wikileaks.ws, wilileaks.be, and wilileaks.cx.

-- Michael Smallberg

No, We're Not Entering the Debate on Immigration--This Is About Whistleblowing

ABC's Washington, D.C. affiliate, WJLA (Channel 7), ran a story earlier this week on Lloyd Miner, a law enforcement veteran of 24 years who is facing time in a federal prison after blowing the whistle on his former boss at the U.S. Citizenship Immigration Services.

Miner's former boss, Robert Schofield, was caught accepting bribes and sexual favors in exchange for green cards and phony visas.  Miner helped to expose Schofield's criminal operations, but he soon found himself under investigation and surveillance. 

Last April, federal agents stormed Miner's home looking for evidence of a connection to Schofield.  After no such evidence surfaced, they decided instead to arrest his girlfriend, who was living in the U.S. on an expired student visa.  When she was released to Miner after he posted bond for her, officials charged him with harboring an illegal immigrant.  As a result, he could now be facing a 10-year jail sentence.

Rosemary Jenks, a lobbyist for tougher immigration laws, believes that officials are giving Miner an unusually harsh punishment as retaliation for his whistleblowing:

"We're supposed to be in a war against terrorism, and they're prosecuting Lloyd Miner for falling in love with an illegal alien...To be honest with you, the moral of the story: if you work for the government, don't blow the whistle."

Unfortunately, no one plans to be a whistleblower, and every case is different, but we recommend that public employees check out The Art of Anonymous Activism: Serving the Public While Surviving Public Service.  Click here to read Chapter 1, "Blowing the Whistle May Be Hazardous to Your Professional Health."   

-- Michael Smallberg

Consumer Product Safety Commission & Whistleblower Protections

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has received a lot of attention in the recent weeks and months.  The "little agency that couldn't and wouldn't" has inspired the Senate's Commerce Committee to include "best practices whistleblower protections" in a bill written to strengthen the CPSC.  The whistleblower provision in S. 2663 provides equivalent witness protection fights for citizens defending America against unsafe products as those given to individuals who challenge security threats in the ground transportation industries approved almost unanimously last year in the 9/11 law.

Congressman Dingell's Energy and Commerce committee inexplicably left this provision out of the House bill.  The CPSC has a proven track record of always favoring industry concerns over public safety.  Given the public's outrage with the CPSC, it will be hard for the Chairman to justify this action.

A diverse group of good government and consumer protection organizations sent a letter of support to the Senate for S. 2663.  As the groups note, whistleblower protection is a necessary enforcement cornerstone for the promise of reform to be realized most effectively.

-- Marthena Cowart

Whistleblower Documents Web Site Ordered to Shut Down

In the 1970s, when President Nixon wanted to stop the leaking of embarrassing information, he turned to a special unit known as the "White House Plumbers."  Last week, a Swiss bank used a plumber in the form of a U.S. federal court to plug the release of embarrassing documents by Wikileaks, an international anti-corruption Web site where whistleblowers can anonymously post documents.

Wikileaks is openly defying a California federal court, which granted a permanent injunction last Friday ordering the site to shut down.  Swiss company Bank Julius Baer sought the injunction to prevent the site from posting what it claims are stolen documents provided by a disgruntled former employee.  The Court also ordered Wikileaks to stop displaying or distributing the documents, which allegedly show the bank’s involvement in money laundering and tax evasion in the Cayman Islands.  Wikileaks believes the orders violate the First Amendment and vows to appeal.

Wikileaks started in December 2006 as a means of exposing the unethical behavior of corporations and governments, primarily in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.  Its first major scoop was the exposure of corruption by former Kenyan president Daniel Arap Moi.  The site also posts documents relating to the U.S. military's operation of the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and the rules of engagement for U.S. troops in Iraq.  Since its launch, Wikileaks has received over 1.2 million documents from anonymous sources.

Clearly, the Court and Bank Julius Baer underestimated the ingenuity of the Web development community.  As of today, the site is currently inaccessible through its familiar Wikileaks.org address as per the injunction, but it can still be accessed though its IP address as well as through numerous “mirror sites” such as wikileaks.ws, wikileaks.be, and wikileaks.cx.  Noted blogs such as TPM Muckraker are also closely following the case.

POGO understands how difficult it can be to obtain information documenting fraud, waste or abuse in the government or the private sector.  Although we recognize that certain information needs to be protected from disclosure, a balancing test must be performed that considers the public harm that could occur if such information is not released.

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for February 29.  Stay tuned.

-- Neil Gordon

Nearly Two Decades Later, Still No Relief for National Security Whistleblower

When it comes to whistleblower retaliation, there's no case quite like Richard Barlow's.

POGO recently released a Richard Barlow resource page, with dozens of documents and news articles relating to his case.  While working as a counter-proliferation officer at the Central Intelligence Agency and the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the late 1980s, Barlow learned that top Executive Branch officials were allowing Pakistan to illegally manufacture nuclear weapons.  He also discovered that these officials were lying to Congress about Pakistan's nuclear weapons network, headed by A.Q. Khan, because telling the truth would have obligated the U.S. to cut off military aid to Pakistan, at a time when covert aid was being funneled through Pakistan to aid the Afghan jihadists in their struggle against the Soviet Union.

Because he merely suggested that Congress should know the truth about this critical national security threat, Barlow became the target of a vicious retaliatory campaign that cost him his job and his security clearance, and caused irreparable damage to his marriage and personal life.

In the nearly twenty years since his firing, numerous follow-up investigations have confirmed Barlow's allegations and discredited those who labeled him a traitor.  At one point, a near-unanimous majority in Congress, along with President Clinton, concurred that Barlow should be granted modest relief in the form of a pension.

But a few individual Members of Congress have so far succeeded in thwarting any congressional effort to either compensate Barlow or to address the numerous national security issues raised by his case.

In 1998, despite widespread consensus that Barlow deserved to be compensated, the Senate Judiciary Committee bowed to the objections of a single senator, John Warner (R-VA), and referred Barlow's case to the Court of Federal Claims.  The Court was supposed to examine the factual basis for a Senate amendment to provide Barlow with relief.  During the proceeding, however, a number of Executive Branch officials (including George Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence, and Michael Hayden, Director of the National Security Agency) invoked the State Secrets Privilege to block all evidence of crimes against Congress.  The judge accepted the invocation of the State Secrets Privilege, but allowed the trial to continue, meaning that Barlow was forced to make his case without access to nearly any evidence of Executive Branch misconduct.

In his analysis of the case, Louis Fisher, a specialist in constitutional law at the Library of Congress, argues that the Court ultimately failed to follow the Senate's instructions:

"The executive branch, by asserting the state secrets privilege, essentially told the court that it was not entitled to know the facts, and the court, in accepting this position, essentially told the Senate--and Congress--that it was not entitled to know the facts."

The Senate Armed Services Committee recently considered another amendment, supported by POGO (see here and here), to provide Barlow with pension relief.  But this time, a few anonymous Members on the Senate Judiciary Committee placed a hold on the bill, essentially sending it to its death.

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on a legislative initiative to reexamine the State Secrets Privilege.  In his testimony at the hearing, Louis Fisher argued that judges should not automatically accept the Executive Branch's invocation of the State Secrets Privilege, as was the case with Barlow's trial:

"In state secrets cases, federal judges have at times treated executive assertions about state secrets with "deference" or "utmost deference."  Either standard undermines the principle of judicial independence, the essential safeguard of checks and balances, and the right of private litigants to have a fair hearing in court.  Unless federal judges look at disputed documents, we do not know if national security interests are actually at stake or whether the administration seeks to conceal not only embarrassments but violations of law."

It is encouraging to see Congress turn its attention to the abuse of the State Secrets Privilege by Executive Branch officials.  Nonetheless, as Barlow points out in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the recently proposed State Secrets Protection Act may not have made much of a difference in his case.  For instance, it doesn't instruct courts how to handle properly classified information that shows evidence of criminal activity by the Executive Branch.

So after nearly two decades, Congress continues to deny relief to a patriotic intelligence officer, choosing instead to protect Executive Branch officials who lied to Congress and jeopardized national security.

Stay tuned in the weeks ahead, as POGO will be giving you an opportunity to take action to help resolve Barlow's case.

-- Michael Smallberg

Bloch's Double Standard

Two weeks ago, U.S. Special Counsel Scott Bloch accused the Department of Justice (DOJ) of blocking his supposed investigations into the U.S. attorney firings when DOJ's Inspector General asked Bloch to defer his review until they had completed their own investigation.  At the time, the dueling investigations argument didn't pass muster with Bloch's office.  But that same defense was good enough for Bloch to use in his own defense last week in a letter to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman and Ranking Member Tom Davis.

The Committee wants to question Bloch about his seven-level wipe of computers at his office.  That may have been an effort to cover up wrongdoing or obstruct an investigation into Bloch himself, according to the Wall Street Journal.  Bloch has canceled scheduled interviews with the Committee twice.

According to Bloch's letter last week:

This letter is in response to your letter of January 16, 2008 regarding the Committee's request for a transcribed interview of me.  I continue to have substantial concerns about the Committee's request because any such interview may touch on a matter that remains under investigation by the Office of Personnel Management ("OPM").

That sounds familiar.  According to the Washington Post a few weeks back:

[DOJ Inspector General Glenn] Fine's office generally does not comment on investigations, but Cynthia Schnedar, a spokeswoman for the inspector general, rejected Bloch's letter as "both factually inaccurate and misleading."

She added: "We agree with the Department of Justice that the more responsible course would be for Mr. Bloch to postpone his limited review--as OSC has stated that it has done in other instances--so that it does not interfere with the Office of the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility's comprehensive joint investigation into the U.S. Attorney firings."

James P. Mitchell, a spokesman for Bloch, challenged Fine's office to explain the alleged inaccuracies in detail.  "We have our jurisdiction," he said.  "We have always said we will not be interfering with this investigation."

Looming in the background are questions as well about whether Bloch perjured himself when he testified before the Committee's Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia. Members of Congress questioned Mr. Bloch at the hearing about the circumstances surrounding the leak of an Office of Special Counsel report chastising GSA Administrator Lurita Doan.  Sources say Bloch lied when he claimed he knew nothing about the leak of the report, and that he, in fact, may have directed that it be leaked in order to bask in the media spotlight.

Sources also raise questions about whether Bloch's supposed investigation of the U.S. attorney firings at DOJ is even within OSC's jurisdiction, whether he is being disingenuous in claiming to be actively investigating Karl Rove, or whether Bloch is simply using every last trick in the book, from seven level security wipes to phony high profile investigations, to save his own hide.

-- Beth Daley

While Fear of Retaliation Alive and Well, Bush Administration Puts Kibosh on Whistleblower Protections

The Washington Post reported yesterday on a new study from the Ethics Resource Center which offers up a rare glimpse into how often government employees witnessed misconduct and what they did about it.  According to the report, "Just over half of federal employees observed misconduct in the past year. In the past twelve months, 52 percent of federal government employees observed at least one type of misconduct. Of this 52 percent