Special Counsel's office to probe Rove's activities (LA Times)

[marmar]

Low-key office launches high-profile inquiry

The Office of Special Counsel will investigate U.S. attorney firings and other political activities led by Karl Rove.

By Tom Hamburger, Times Staff Writer
April 24, 2007

WASHINGTON — Most of the time, an obscure federal investigative unit known as the Office of Special Counsel confines itself to monitoring the activities of relatively low-level government employees, stepping in with reprimands and other routine administrative actions for such offenses as discriminating against military personnel or engaging in prohibited political activities.

But the Office of Special Counsel is preparing to jump into one of the most sensitive and potentially explosive issues in Washington, launching a broad investigation into key elements of the White House political operations that for more than six years have been headed by chief strategist Karl Rove.

The new investigation, which will examine the firing of at least one U.S. attorney, missing White House e-mails, and White House efforts to keep presidential appointees attuned to Republican political priorities, could create a substantial new problem for the Bush White House.

First, the inquiry comes from inside the administration, not from Democrats in Congress. Second, unlike the splintered inquiries being pressed on Capitol Hill, it is expected to be a unified investigation covering many facets of the political operation in which Rove played a leading part.

"We will take the evidence where it leads us," Scott J. Bloch, head of the Office of Special Counsel and a presidential appointee, said in an interview Monday. "We will not leave any stone unturned."

Bloch declined to comment on who his investigators would interview, but he said the probe would be independent and uncoordinated with any other agency or government entity.

The decision by Bloch's office is the latest evidence that Rove's once-vaunted operations inside the government, which helped the GOP hold the White House and Congress for six years, now threaten to mire the administration in investigations. ....(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-probe24apr24,0,3535547.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[Norquist Nemesis]

1. Rove must've really pissed off Cheney

"First, the inquiry comes from inside the administration, not from Democrats in Congress. Second, unlike the splintered inquiries being pressed on Capitol Hill, it is expected to be a unified investigation covering many facets of the political operation in which Rove played a leading part."

Does the OSC work independently, or do they have to have directive from Bush/Bush Admin in order to conduct an investigation? Anyone?

[Triana]

2. bu$hit appointed Whitewasher...don't expect much ...

...except - well - Whitewash.

[Norquist Nemesis]

6. Oh, not expecting anything let alone much

At least they didn't send it off to that bullshit Office of Personal Responsibility (or whatever the hell they named it).

Hoping against hope that career staff will do a thorough job and, if prevented from doing so, blow the whistle on them like there's no tomorrow!

[woodsprite]

3. Since Bloch's an appointee, I'll hold the applause for awhile. n/t

[Norquist Nemesis]

7. Definitely a smokescreen

but I still need to look up some stuff on the OSC...

[fasttense]

4. The head of Office of Special Counsel was hand picked by bush and use to work

for the justice department.

"On June 26, 2003, President George W. Bush nominated Scott J. Bloch for the position of Special Counsel at the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. The U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed Mr. Bloch on December 9, 2003. On January 5, 2004, he was sworn in to serve a five-year term."

"From 2001-2003, Mr. Bloch served as Associate Director and then Deputy Director and Counsel to the Task Force for Faith-based and Community Initiatives at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he worked on First Amendment cases, regulations, intergovernmental outreach, and programmatic initiatives. Before serving in the Justice Department, he was a partner with Stevens & Brand, LLP, of Lawrence, Kansas."

I'm not sure this guy can be impartial. It will probably be just another report that says the justice department did wrong but it was simply mistakes and not criminal.

[dennis4868]

5. I am sure....

that delete button on Rove's email is in full gear today...delete delete delete...

[Norquist Nemesis]

8. OSC site is interesting...

http://www.osc.gov/ppp.htm#q1

What are "prohibited personnel practices?"

Twelve prohibited personnel practices, including reprisal for whistleblowing, are defined by law at § 2302(b) of title 5 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). A personnel action (such as an appointment, promotion, reassignment, or suspension) may need to be involved for a prohibited personnel practice to occur. Generally stated, § 2302(b) provides that a federal employee authorized to take, direct others to take, recommend or approve any personnel action may not:

(1) discriminate against an employee or applicant based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicapping condition, marital status, or political affiliation;

(2) solicit or consider employment recommendations based on factors other than personal knowledge or records of job-related abilities or characteristics;

(3) coerce the political activity of any person;

(4) deceive or willfully obstruct anyone from competing for employment;

(5) influence anyone to withdraw from competition for any position so as to improve or injure the employment prospects of any other person;

(6) give an unauthorized preference or advantage to anyone so as to improve or injure the employment prospects of any particular employee or applicant;

(7) engage in nepotism (i.e., hire, promote, or advocate the hiring or promotion of relatives);

(8) engage in reprisal for whistleblowing – i.e., take, fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take a personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant because of any disclosure of information by the employee or applicant that he or she reasonably believes evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety (if such disclosure is not barred by law and such information is not specifically required by Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs – if so restricted by law or Executive Order, the disclosure is only protected if made to the Special Counsel, the Inspector General, or comparable agency official);

(9) take, fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take a personnel action against an employee or applicant for exercising an appeal, complaint, or grievance right; testifying for or assisting another in exercising such a right; cooperating with or disclosing information to the Special Counsel or to an Inspector General; or refusing to obey an order that would require the individual to violate a law;

(10) discriminate based on personal conduct which is not adverse to the on-the-job performance of an employee, applicant, or others; or

(11) take or fail to take, recommend, or approve a personnel action if taking or failing to take such an action would violate a veterans’ preference requirement; and

(12) take or fail to take a personnel action, if taking or failing to take action would violate any law, rule or regulation implementing or directly concerning merit system principles at 5 U.S.C. § 2301.
....


Now, if they enforced those Rove would have been out the door before noon on his first day.