Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gonzo's Assistant buys vacation home with Oil Prez & Lobbyist - I missed that

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
rumpel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 08:00 PM
Original message
Gonzo's Assistant buys vacation home with Oil Prez & Lobbyist - I missed that
Edited on Mon Mar-19-07 08:20 PM by rumpel
Conyers Letter:



February 15,2007

The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
U.S. Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

We are writing to request that you provide prompt answers to disturbing questions about the Department of Justice’s handling of consent decrees with ConocoPhillips delaying its compliance with pollution cleanup rules, as well as other activity related to apparent conflicts of interest involving recently resigned Assistant Attorney General Sue Ellen Wooldridge. The information contained in recent press reports suggests potential unethical, if not illegal, conduct by a senior Justice Department official and, even more disturbing, apparent complicity in such behavior by the Department.

Specifically, recent press reports indicate that shortly before her resignation in January as head of the Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, Ms. Wooldridge approved and signed consent decrees that included delays of two to three years for ConocoPhillips to significantly reduce emissions causing pollution. Yet nine months earlier, Ms. Wooldridge purchased a $1 million vacation home with ConocoPhillips Vice President and top lobbyist Donald Duncan. As presidential appointments expert Paul Light of New York University has commented, this conduct by Ms. Wooldridge “creates the impression of favoritism, or favors due”, and “political appointees have been indicted for less.”

Several additional factors create even more concerns. According to one report, the home purchase was cleared in advance by Department of Justice ethics officials. And one report suggests that while Ms. Wooldridge did not recuse herself from the ConocoPhillips litigation, she did orally recuse herself from matters involving clients of a third co-owner of the $1 million vacation home, J. Steven Griles.

This is a matter of serious concern to the House Judiciary Committee, which is charged with oversight responsibility over the Department, as well as to the entire House Democratic Caucus. Accordingly, we ask for prompt answers to the following questions, along with copies of any documents relating thereto:

. Was Ms. Wooldridge’s vacation home purchase in fact cleared by Department officials?
. If so, how, when, and by whom? Were documents and written materials provided by her? Were there also conversations involving her and Department officials? Please provide a copy of any written clearance and related documents.
. Was the clearance limited to the specific home purchase, or did it also allow MS Wooldridge to participate fully in future Department matters involving ConocoPhillips, including the consent decrees?
. What criteria were used with respect to the clearance, and how does the process and criteria used compare to that utilized with respect to other Department employees? Please identify and provide information and documents with respect to any other Department employee provided with ethical clearance under comparable circumstances.
. What explanation by Ms. Wooldridge or other information exists concerning why she allegedly recused herself from matters concerning clients of the other vacation home co-owner, Mr. Griles, but not those of Mr. Duncan?
. Please provide copies of all documents relating to the ConocoPhillips consent decrees, particularly any documents sent to, copied to, or sent by Ms. Wooldridge.

In addition, questions have been raised concerning Ms. Wooldridge’s relationship with Mr. Griles, who is a target of the Department’s public corruption investigation involving convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Just before her resignation from the Department of Justice, Ms. Wooldridge reportedly amended financial disclosure documents indicating that she had failed to properly report a number of expensive gifts she and Mr. Griles exchanged in 2003 and 2004. It has been reported that you and other top Department officials were unaware of Ms. Wooldridge’s romantic relationship with Mr. Griles until months after she had been confirmed to her position in the Department, long after Department prosecutors had begun investigating Mr. Griles. And while it has been reported that Ms. Wooldridge orally recused herself from matters involving Mr. Griles’ clients, she reportedly did not mention this alleged recusal or her relationship with Mr. Griles in answers to the Senate in connection with her Department nomination. In connection with these serious concerns, please provide answers to the following questions, along with copies of any documents related thereto:

. Did the alleged oral recusal by Ms. Wooldridge take place?
. If so, when, and to whom and how was it communicated?
recusals?
. What was the scope of the recusal, including whether it included other companies with the same interests as Mr. Griles’ clients?
. How did the handling of this apparently oral recusal compare with standard Department policy and practice concerning recusals?
. When did you or other senior Department officials become aware of Ms. Wooldridge’s close relationship with a target of a Department public corruption investigation and what action, if any, was taken as a result?

In addition to the significant ethical questions discussed above, concerns have been raised about the enforcement actions taken or not taken by the Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, especially during Ms. Wooldrige’s tenure, and the House Judiciary Committee intends to pursue such concerns as well. As part of those oversight efforts, however, it is crucial that answers and documents related to the serious questions raised above concerning Ms. Wooldridge’s conduct at the Department of Justice be provided as soon as possible. Please respond at your earliest convenience, and in any event no later than March 1, through the Judiciary Committee office, 2138 Office Building, Washington DC 205 15.Raybum House


above in pdf format
and other such juicy letters at:
http://judiciary.house.gov/

:popcorn:

correction letter dated march not february - no it IS February - sorry
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MasonJar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. Wow! The DOJ is looking as crooked as the WH...well, almost,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trashcanistanista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Holy Shit!
Is this for real?:o
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 08:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. K&R
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumpel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
4. I would love to see the reply
it should have been responded to by March 1, according to the letter


Romantic involvement...

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 05:52 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC