[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ALLEGATIONS OF SELECTIVE PROSECUTION: THE EROSION OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE
IN OUR FEDERAL JUSTICE SYSTEM (PART II)
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 14, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-178
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-372 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida RIC KELLER, Florida
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California DARRELL ISSA, California
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MIKE PENCE, Indiana
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio STEVE KING, Iowa
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM FEENEY, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York JIM JORDAN, Ohio
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Sean McLaughlin, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California, Chairwoman
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan CHRIS CANNON, Utah
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia JIM JORDAN, Ohio
ZOE LOFGREN, California RIC KELLER, Florida
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts TOM FEENEY, Florida
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
Michone Johnson, Chief Counsel
Daniel Flores, Minority Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman
MAXINE WATERS, California LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
Bobby Vassar, Chief Counsel
Caroline Lynch, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
MAY 14, 2008
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Linda T. Sanchez, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Commercial and Administrative Law.............................. 1
The Honorable Chris Cannon, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commercial
and Administrative Law......................................... 78
The Honorable Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee
on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security..................... 79
The Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security............................... 80
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary, and Member, Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law............................................. 82
WITNESSES
The Honorable Paul W. Hodes, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Hampshire
Oral Testimony................................................. 145
Prepared Statement............................................. 148
Mr. Allen Raymond, Bethesda, MD
Oral Testimony................................................. 154
Prepared Statement............................................. 157
Paul Twomey, Esq., Twomey Law Office, Epsom, NH
Oral Testimony................................................. 162
Prepared Statement............................................. 164
Mr. Mark Crispin Miller, Professor, New York University, New
York, NY
Oral Testimony................................................. 247
Prepared Statement............................................. 248
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Material submitted by the Honorable Linda T. Sanchez, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California, and
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law:
Letter dated September 18, 2007, from the Honorable Paul W.
Hodes, a Representative in Congress from the State of New
Hampshire, to the Honorable John Conyers, Jr............... 4
Letter dated April 29, 2008, from Holly McCullough, Manager,
Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh--Squirrel Hill.............. 76
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, and Member, Subcommittee
on Commercial and Administrative Law........................... 85
Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, and Member, Subcommittee
on Commercial and Administrative Law:
Letter dated May 12, 2006, to the Honorable Alberto Gonzales,
Attorney General of the United States from the Honorable
John Conyers, Jr........................................... 86
Letter dated October 3, 2007, to the Honorable Peter D.
Keisler, Acting Attorney General of the United States from
the Honorable John Conyers, Jr............................. 90
Letter dated December 20, 2007, to the Honorable Michael
Mukasey, Attorney General of the United States from the
Honorable John Conyers, Jr................................. 97
Letter dated January 31, 2008, to the Honorable Michael B.
Mukasey, Attorney General of the United States from the
Honorable John Conyers, Jr................................. 100
Letter dated February 29, 2008, to the Honorable Michael B.
Mukasey, Attorney General of the United States from the
Honorable John Conyers, Jr................................. 104
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from the Honorable Paul W.
Hodes, a Representative in Congress from the State of New
Hampshire...................................................... 270
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Allen Raymond, Bethesda,
MD............................................................. 271
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Paul Twomey, Esq., Twomey
Law Office, Epsom, NH.......................................... 273
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Mark Crispin Miller,
Professor, New York University, New York, NY................... 274
ALLEGATIONS OF SELECTIVE PROSECUTION: THE EROSION OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE
IN OUR FEDERAL JUSTICE SYSTEM (PART II)
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Commercial
and Administrative Law,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 2:17 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Linda
T. Sanchez (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law] presiding.
Present: Representatives Conyers, Sanchez, Scott, Watt,
Cannon, Gohmert, and Coble.
Staff present: Norberto Salinas, Majority Counsel; Daniel
Flores, Minority Counsel; and Adam Russell, Majority
Professional Staff Member.
Ms. Sanchez. This joint hearing of the Committee on the
Judiciary, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law,
and Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
will now come to order.
Without objection, the Chair will be authorized to declare
a recess of the hearing at any point.
I will now recognize myself for a short statement.
During a March 6, 2007, Commercial and Administrative Law
Subcommittee hearing on a measure regarding the appointment of
U.S. attorneys, we posed the following question: Are important
decisions about our justice system being made for political
reasons? Seeking answers, the Judiciary Committee has
investigated whether the Department of Justice has allowed
politics to seep into its decision-making.
The investigation initially focused on the firings of
several United States attorneys for their reluctance to bring
politically based prosecutions. Gathered evidence led the
Judiciary Committee to look into other activities of the
Justice Department, namely whether the Justice Department's
hiring of career employees was based on the illegal criterion
of political affiliation. We also began an examination of
whether the Justice Department brought Federal prosecutions
based on political motivations.
Today, we continue this investigation and focus on another
aspect of the Justice Department's actions. If the Justice
Department prosecuted individuals for political expediency, did
it refrain from prosecuting individuals for political purposes?
Today's hearing is the second joint hearing by the
Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee and the Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee on allegations of
selective prosecution. At our first joint hearing in October of
2007, we heard testimony about Democrats being
disproportionately targeted for Federal prosecutions under the
current Administration. This joint hearing will focus on
limited Federal prosecutions against Republican-leaning
individuals and groups.
Under this Administration, the Department of Justice has
investigated allegations of voter fraud, but has seemingly
turned a blind eye to investigating allegations of vote
suppression.
On Election Day in 2002, Republican Party members and a
Republican political operative impeded the New Hampshire
Democratic Party and the Manchester Firefighters Association in
their efforts to get out the vote. A Department of Justice
investigation into the incident led to four individuals being
indicted or pleading guilty for their involvement in
suppressing voter turnout.
However, there are allegations that senior Justice
Department officials limited the inquiry possibly to prevent
the investigators from determining whether White House
officials and top Republican National Committee personnel were
involved. As a result, the Judiciary Committee was requested to
investigate allegations of vote suppression in New Hampshire.
We do not know if the investigators were able to determine
why there were many phone calls between one of the indicted
individuals, James Tobin, and the White House on the day of the
election. However, we have learned that the RNC has paid the
legal fees to defend Mr. Tobin, a decision apparently approved
by the White House. If there are indications that more senior
officials in the RNC or even the White House were involved, why
did the Justice Department appear to limit the investigation?
We also have learned that the Justice Department did not
fully investigate another troublesome allegation of vote
suppression. Media reports in 2004 revealed that employees of
Sproul & Associates, a Republican-connected voter registration
firm, were apparently trained to fraudulently identify
themselves as non-partisan and then register Republicans to
vote while discouraging Democratic-leaning individuals from
registering to vote. For those Democratic-leaning voters who
completed registration cards, Sproul employees in Pennsylvania,
Oregon, and West Virginia allegedly destroyed those
registration cards.
Although these activities are clearly aimed to suppress the
Democratic vote and to favor Republican candidates, the Justice
Department quickly determined that there was insufficient
evidence to prosecute Sproul & Associates. If the media alleged
vote suppression efforts by a Republican-connected firm, why
did the Justice Department not fully investigate these
activities?
On three separate occasions, the Judiciary Committee has
requested from the attorney general answers to a series of
questions and documents about the Justice Department's handling
of these cases. The Justice Department has failed to address
our specific questions and has only provided cursory responses.
We have also invited the Department of Justice to send a
witness to testify at this hearing, but it has chosen not to
present a witness. That is unfortunate because the American
people need to be assured that political considerations play no
role in determining whether a Justice Department investigation
is pursued or whether an individual is prosecuted.
Finally, although some may allege that we are wasting time
holding this hearing, I question whether those critics would
tell the American people that an investigation into efforts to
suppress their right to vote is a waste of time. The American
people want to be secure in the knowledge that the Federal
Government will protect their right to vote and will prosecute
individuals who seek to limit that constitutional right.
There is simply no place for partisan politics in a
prosecutor's decision to move forward with a prosecution or to
end an investigation. Accordingly, I look forward to the
testimony of our witnesses today.
Before I conclude, I am going to ask unanimous consent to
enter into the record two documents relevant to this hearing
today. The first document is a September 18, 2007, request from
Representative Paul Hodes, who is here with us this afternoon,
to Chairman Conyers to investigate allegations of phone jamming
in New Hampshire on Election Day in 2002. The second document
is a letter from Holly McCullough, the manager of Carnegie
Library of Pittsburgh-Squirrel Hill, dated April 29, 2008. In
the letter, Ms. McCullough documents evidence from the fall of
2004 involving voter registration efforts by Sproul &
Associates.
[The information referred to follows:]
Ms. Sanchez. I now at this time would like to recognize my
colleague, Mr. Cannon, the distinguished Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, for his opening remarks.
Mr. Cannon. I thank the gentlelady.
And I want to thank Congressman Hodes in particular. I
think this is the second time you have testified before this
Committee, the other time on a rather more technical and,
frankly, more interesting topic. I think that was performance
royalties, as I recall.
Thanks for being here.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome to our other witnesses who are not yet at the
table.
Let me state at the outset that all Members reject the
concept of suppression of lawful voting, and I want to be
crystal clear about that, but you have to ask why are we
holding this hearing today.
I think the gentlelady suggested that some have said it is
a waste of time, not the issue of suppressed voting, but rather
whether in this case there is sufficient reason for us to
pursue that. In the case of the New Hampshire phone jamming
matter, there are two pending trials. Should we be holding
hearings in the midst of criminal trials? And in his recent
letter to Chairman Conyers on the Siegelman matter,
Representative Davis made it clear there are several reasons
why we should not.
One of our witnesses today may well be one of the witnesses
at those trials. I submit that the place for him to be a
witness is there, not here.
Second, these cases are old news. The courts and the
department have already dealt with them. To pick them up now as
we head toward the 2008 election makes me wonder if this
hearing is not more about election year politics than genuine
oversight.
And, third, I ask: Is it the department that is selectively
prosecuting or is the Democratic majority in Congress
selectively investigating? We all know the evenhandedness of
the Bush administration in prosecuting public corruption on
both sides of the aisle and other politically charged cases,
and we all should know of allegations formed by the Obama and
Clinton campaigns this election cycle, allegations that each of
these campaigns has attempted to suppress the other's votes.
Why are we not investigating that?
We have held a host of hearings this term into allegations
the department has been politicized. None of them have been
substantiated. Along the way, the majority has ignored a host
of other real and pressing issues that the country urgently
needs to tend to. We should be holding hearings on those
pressing issues today, which brings me to my final point.
Some weeks ago, I wrote the Chairwoman urging her to hold
hearings on neglected Republican bills to stamp out
discriminatory State taxes from cell phones to pipelines. Other
Ranking Members wrote similar letters to the Chairs of their
subcommittees. Why have we not turned to these legislative
priorities? Why do we incessantly continue looking over the
shoulders of the department and the courts, questioning the
work we cannot do for them while ignoring the work that only we
can do.
You know, the heading and the title of today's hearing is
intriguing. It is the ``Joint Hearing on Allegations of
Selective Prosecution Part II: The Erosion of Public Confidence
in our Federal Justice System.'' That title encompasses a host
of very important issues. I suspect that the issues we deal
with today are not going to rise to the level of what I think
this Committee should be dealing with.
We have had a number of hearings where corruption has been
thrown out. I repeatedly have asked the Chair that if she says
that, she needs to substantiate it. Let us hope that at least
the hearing has something worthwhile either in the way of
substantiating corruption or recognizing that we are chasing
shadows here.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Sanchez. The gentleman yields back.
At this time, I recognize my colleague, Mr. Scott, the
distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security, for his opening remarks.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I would like to thank my colleagues on the Commercial
and Administrative Law Subcommittee for joining us in holding
Part II of this joint hearing.
For over a year now, Republicans as well as Democrats have
accused this Administration of firing Bush appointed U.S.
attorneys for improper political reasons, including some who
may have been fired because they did not indict Democrats in
time to affect an upcoming election or pursue alleged vote
fraud cases that would have helped Republicans.
Some think that these allegations are serious, and some may
be not so serious. But the fact is we have been unable to
ascertain the truth of the allegations for several years.
For example, several senior Department of Justice officials
question the credibility of the attorney general's original
response to the allegations. Several high-ranking Justice
Department officials have quit. Another one pleaded the Fifth.
White House officials have refused to respond to subpoenas. And
the U.S. attorney incident highlighted a growing concern, and
that is the misuse of prosecutorial discretion to affect
elections.
In October of last year, we held a joint hearing where the
Republican former attorney general Dick Thornburgh and others
testified about politically motivated and aggressive
prosecutions that benefited Republicans. Today's hearing is a
follow up that focuses on allegations of interference with
voters' rights and the department's failure to adequately
investigate and prosecute voter suppression cases, including
the phone jamming case that arose in New Hampshire in 2002 and
the equally troubling activities of Sproul & Associates during
the 2004 election cycle that also benefitted Republicans.
Although these incidents occurred years ago, we have been
stymied in conducting meaningful oversight on these issues due
to the department's refusal to meaningfully respond to requests
for information, and, in fact, we invited the Department of
Justice to today's hearing, but they declined to send anybody.
The phone jamming incident involved the jamming of
telephones belonging to the New Hampshire Democratic Party and
the Manchester Firefighters Association on Election Day 2002.
This disruption of the get-out-the-vote effort has led to the
criminal prosecution of three perpetrators, two of them serving
jail time, including Allen Raymond, a witness here today, and
Charles McGee, the 2002 executive director of the New Hampshire
Republican Party. These individuals pleaded guilty to charges
under 18 USC 371, conspiring to commit the offense of engaging
in interstate telephone communications with the intent to annoy
or harass.
Although the prosecutions of relatively low-level officials
have proceeded, there are serious questions about the scope of
the department's investigation and prosecution effort and its
failure to go after higher-level officials. According to
published reports, 22 phone calls were exchanged between the
New Hampshire Republican officials and the White House Office
of Political Affairs starting at 11:20 a.m. on Election Day
2002 and running past 2 a.m. on Election Night, and 110 phone
calls were placed between Mr. James Tobin, the New England
director for President Bush's 2004 campaign, and the White
House in the 2 months surrounding the election.
It is not clear what action, if any, was taken to determine
the significance of these communications, and to add more
intrigue to the case, the FBI special agent working on the
matter allegedly was instructed not to follow the investigative
leads back to Washington.
The second matter of today's hearing pertains to a voter
registration firm, Sproul & Associates, which declined to
register Democratic voters and even apparently went so far as
destroying registration cards collected from Democratic voters
in several States during the 2004 election cycle. A former
employee described in an affidavit being trained to register
only Republicans and to tear up Democratic registrations in
that State.
The alleged misconduct taken by this firm clearly
suppressed votes and would violate Federal law, but yet we are
unaware of any meaningful Justice Department action with regard
to this firm and the practices it engaged in. These two cases
add to a growing list of disturbing incidences that raise
questions as to the department's impartiality in pursuing or
choosing not to pursue cases. The department's commitment to
protecting and enhancing all citizens' right to vote has also
been damaged and needs to be restored. I hope this hearing will
help clear up the air about theses two unusual cases.
I yield back.
Ms. Sanchez. The gentleman yields back.
I want to thank Mr. Scott for his opening statement.
At this time, I would recognize Mr. Gohmert for his opening
remarks.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Chairwoman Sanchez.
I must agree with my colleague, Ranking Member Cannon. You
know, why are we here today?
The majority has been wasting the Committee's time and
resources for 16 months now trying to find some silver bullet
that they believe will completely destroy an Administration
that some here on Capitol Hill despise.
Now we just cut short a markup of seven crime bills so we
could hold a hearing on these allegations of supposed selective
prosecution for political purposes. We went all through that as
the majority went after Attorney General Gonzales for political
reasons letting go some U.S. attorneys. So much time was
wasted.
We were taking up just within the last hour or two what may
be the most important criminal bill that this Committee has
taken up, the Debbie Smith DNA Reauthorization Act. It had some
great provisions in it, great bipartisan work on getting that
done. We did not finish the bill so we could stop that and come
in here and have this hearing.
The claim apparently is selective prosecution in a case
that dates back to 2002 and allegations of phone jamming in New
Hampshire on Election Day 6 years ago. This issue is a bit old.
The Department of Justice has already brought charges against
the four individuals alleged to have been involved. This case
is old enough that two of the defendants who pled guilty have
already completed their sentences.
The majority claims misconduct by the White House, the
Justice Department, the RNC. Once again, desperation has led us
to have a hearing on baseless accusations against nameless
individuals. Now there apparently were some bases, and those
are being pursued, and if there is a base, then pursue it, but
this hearing was not held, I must point out, in 2007. We waited
until an election year to hear about Republicans using
politics.
We have heard over and over, had hearings repeatedly
concerned about issues like Scooter Libby, and we have had
Joseph Wilson come in here and testify, and I tell you I have
heard him testify more than once, and, as a former judge, it
sure looks to me like we have had false testimony. Nobody is
pursuing any of that. We had Scooter Libby prosecuted when the
special prosecutor knew immediately after beginning the
investigation that Scooter Libby did not leak the information.
So he goes after him, gets him to make more than one statement,
and then pursues him for making a false statement, which
certainly appears to me could be done against Joseph Wilson
without a special prosecutor, but that is not being done.
What I find truly ironic is that unlike many of the
previous rants about selective prosecution, this actually
involves Republican and not Democratic defendants. What appears
here is that if a case involves a Democrat, the department went
too far; if it involves a Republican, it did not go far enough.
Again, is there possible hypocrisy here?
Let me just point out, with Attorney General Gonzales, the
hearings made clear over and over there was no illegal or
unethical conduct. U.S. attorneys were let go for political
reasons. We had a President named Clinton let go 92 U.S.
attorneys, and it was purely for political reasons. There were
allegations there was more skullduggery than that. None of that
was pursued and not even with the new Justice Department.
I was informed that Bob Ney who was being investigated was
told, ``You either enter a plea by October 12 in 2006, or we
will not negotiate,'' and if that were true, that is clearly
this Justice Department using politics to help one party over
another.
We had hearings; we have had information in meetings over
the issues involving Congressman Jefferson. If the Justice
Department could prove a fraction of what they swore to in
their 80-page affidavit, they could have had him prosecuted
long before the 2006 election, yet here all this time later,
nothing has been done. The prosecution has not moved forward.
There were reports of other Democratic members of our body,
according to published reports and newspapers, allegations of
potential criminal wrongdoing. Nothing seems to be coming
forward from Justice Department there.
We had election fraud that was alleged in Washington State,
yet nothing was pursued there when it would have helped
Republicans.
Ms. Sanchez. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Gohmert. Oh, I did not see a clock. Well, let me just
finish since I did not have a clock warning.
Ms. Sanchez. So finish your final thought. We are anxious
to move the hearing along because----
Mr. Gohmert. All right. Let me finish by saying this. There
were 1,000 FBI files in the Clinton White House. Chuck Colson
went to prison for one, and nothing was done to anybody. Those
were lay-down prosecutorial cases. So I have trouble getting
all upset on this. Let's let justice take its course.
In closing comment, I ask one of the leaders in the Justice
Department previously, ``Is the veneer of appointed Republicans
in your department just so thin that the Democratic underlings
in the department just run things?'' and he said, ``The veneer
is much thinner than you would ever imagine.''
I yield back.
Ms. Sanchez. The gentleman yields back his time.
At this time, I would like to recognize the Chairman of the
full Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Conyers, for his opening
statement.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I appreciate these hearings, and the fact that we have two
of our colleagues, Chris Cannon and Judge Gohmert, that I
consider to be personal friends, joining me in this examination
this afternoon. I think it is very critical.
I have been listening carefully, and both my friends have
asked about other investigations that you in your wisdom have
chosen not to pursue, but since they have listed them now
publicly, I would like to meet with Chairwoman Sanchez and
Ranking Member Cannon and determine which of these matters
ought to be inquired into.
Gosh, Chris Cannon wants to even examine concerns about
voting matters expressed by the Clinton and Obama campaigns. I
notice that the McCain campaigns are not significant enough to
reach his concern, but as important as the hearings were this
morning, I say to Judge Gohmert, we are talking about people
who have violated election laws and the criminal code, some of
whom who have already been found guilty and some whose trials
are pending, but you say we do not need to worry about the ones
that have been found guilty and we cannot question the ones
that are about to go to trial. What are we here for?
To me, Chairwoman and Members of this Committee, the single
most important responsibility of the House Judiciary Committee
between now and November 4 is to bring back the most honest and
protected and guaranteed system of casting our ballots for
governance that we have needed and have not had in a long time.
Everyone here knows that the elections of 2000 and 2004
created--well, there are books written on it now. There are
lawsuits. There are people in prison.
But I want my Members on the House Judiciary Committee to
be interested and concerned about how we get most people to
feel comfortable about the assurances of their right to vote,
the integrity of the voting process, and of the administration
of justice itself. That is why we have jurisdiction over the
Department of Justice. The reason is to make sure that the
Justice Department does its job.
Now I have letters going back to May 12, 2006, where I have
been asking Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to appoint a
special prosecutor. I have letters going back about the subject
matter that we are discussing today. I have about three
letters, I think, so far to his successor, Attorney General
Mukasey, asking for the letters and the information regarding
our subject matter. So we are kind of getting a little bit
tired of this.
Now the Republican National Committee is in big trouble in
several respects, but the one that we are concerned with most
today is the delaying of the prosecution and the interfering
with the related civil case in the New Hampshire phone jamming
case, the failure to bring any charges in the Sproul case.
There was a videotape of destroyed Democratic registration
cards and extensive evidence of numerous acts of registration
and voting misconduct.
And what has our Committee, Madam Chair and gentlemen of
the Committee, gotten out of this? Almost total stonewalling.
Almost total stonewalling. And the patience of your Chairman is
unlimited in these matters almost. But let me tell you if
anyone thinks--without regard to whether it is D or R involved,
we are going to continue an investigation and, as lawyers, take
our experience to anywhere that it may lead, including, if
necessary, subpoenas for the relevant documents.
Now this is directly to the attorney general of the United
States whom I consider a friend of mine. You better get some
documents answered fast, Mr. Attorney General, or you will be
receiving a request from me to the Committee to issue a
subpoena in this regard. I am not going to be slow-walked
through the November 4 elections as if I have not been here 42
solid years.
Mr. Cannon. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Conyers. With pleasure.
Mr. Cannon. I thank the gentleman and the Chairman of the
Committee, and, in fact, as is almost always the case, we have
large areas of agreement and only one point that I would like
to make. The gentleman has talked about returning back to a
state where we have confidence in the system.
We have a great deal more information today about the
system. I think it is important, I think the gentleman would
agree, that the American people need to have confidence in the
system of how we vote and how the votes are counted, but that
in comparison, rather than saying back to a system, I would
hope that the gentleman would say we have always had flaws,
maybe historically much greater flaws, than we have currently,
but, I mean, characterizing that there is no place for known
errors that should be left unprosecuted because I would hate
the American people to listen to this hearing and think that
somehow in the vast majority of cases their votes are perverted
or discounted or not counted appropriately.
I think it is pretty clear that the vast, vast majority of
voting is done in ways where people show up at their local
precincts, they are known by the people that hand out ballots,
and those are not partisan people, but people who are committed
to a process, and that where we have those rare areas, we ought
to prosecute them. The disagreement here is only whether or not
the appropriate thing is to oversee a prosecution in the midst
of the prosecution as opposed to looking at the whole system to
find out where those errors might be.
And, frankly, we have a much larger problem in America I
think, than the current examples of problems with the voting,
and that is with the discretion of prosecutors which is
virtually unchecked, and that is an area where I think it is
just vital that this Committee focus some attention, and so
while I am not disagreeing largely, I would hope that the
American people take from this that we are assiduous in looking
at violations, but that the system as a whole has proven itself
to be sound and that, when a person votes, his vote is
overwhelmingly likely to be taken as it is and counted
appropriately, and the elections that are based on his or her
votes are appropriately decided.
Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Conyers. I thank the gentleman, and I am sure that he
is helping the citizens of this great country sleep more
comfortably in their beds at night knowing that things are
mostly okay and there are only a few things that we have to
clean up in the process.
Well, we have a Department of Justice that is supposed to
be doing the cleaning up. We are not a prosecutorial body. We
do not come here to name who has committed crimes or who should
stand trial to be found guilty or innocent. What we do is
investigate and oversight and improve the legislative process
as a result of that, and so that is all we are trying to do.
But when you have the level of politicization--and I am not
naive about it. This did not start during this present
Administration. I do not suggest that at all, and I hope that
we can continue this hearing without becoming partisan in our
comments. We are all avid Republicans and loyal Democrats and
all that, but when we come to the hearings of this Committee,
it is far more important that we try to prove to the American
people rather than tell them most things are okay.
But many things are not okay, and no one knows better than
Chris Cannon. We have problems with the machinery, the computer
system, the touch screen. All of that is in disarray. We have a
witness here who has written books about this subject matter,
and so I am going to put the rest of my comments in the record,
ask unanimous consent to put in the May 12, 2006, letter to
then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and all the letters I
have written to the present attorney general asking as politely
as we can for the information that is needed for this Committee
to have the kind of hearings that we deserve, and I thank the
gentlelady for her generosity in allotting me time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative
in Congress from the State of Michigan, Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary, and Member, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative
Law
This hearing brings together two of the most important subjects of
the Committee's work: protecting and preserving the right to vote, and
keeping politics out of the Department of Justice.
We will hear today about disturbing examples of vote suppression in
New Hampshire, Nevada, and around the country, and about an even more
disturbing failure of the Department to throughly address these
matters.
Let me be specific and identify three serious problems with these
cases, that call for serious solutions.
First, politics appears to have infected the phone jamming
prosecution in several ways. Evidence suggests the Department did not
investigate or prosecute higher ups at the RNC or White House, delayed
the prosecution effort, and interfered with a related civil suit.
Second, despite compelling evidence of wrongdoing such as videotape
of destroyed Democratic voter registration cards and on-the-record
statements regarding political abuse of the voter registration process,
the Department does not appear to have conducted any meaningful
investigation in the Sproul case.
Third, the Department has simply stonewalled our oversight on these
matters, refusing to provide complete answers to our questions and
refusing to provide any documents in response to our requests.
This hearing, like others we have held before on these issues,
represents an important step forward in solving these problems.
Overall, I see three important steps that we should take to address
these matters.
First, we must continue our aggressive investigation of these
matters, including a subpoena for relevant documents if stonewalling
continues.
Second, through hearings like this and other steps, we must expose
and publicize these problems to provide public accountability for the
Administration and to help ensure that Department decisions are made on
a nonpartisan basis in connection with the 2008 elections.
Third, we must conduct regular staff meetings and Committee
oversight of the Department's voting rights and prosecution practices,
including a hearing with Attorney General Mukasey this summer.
I thank the Subcommittees for holding this important joint hearing
and look forward to hearing from our witnesses today.
Ms. Sanchez. Without objection, the documents that you
request be made a part of the record will be made a part of the
record. I want to thank you for your opening statement.
[The information referred to follows:]
Ms. Sanchez. I am going to urge Members that we move the
hearing along as quickly as we can, and, for that reason, I am
pleased to introduce our first witness. Our witness for the
first panel is Congressman Paul Hodes who represents the Second
District of New Hampshire, elected on November 7 of 2006.
Representative Hodes has emphasized economic development,
health coverage for college students, and the need for
independent advocates for our veterans as part of his first-
term goals. Mr. Hodes currently serves on the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee and the Financial Services
Committee.
Prior to his election to Congress, Mr. Hodes served as an
assistant attorney general and as the special prosecutor for
the State of New Hampshire.
I want to thank you for your willingness to participate in
today's hearing. Without objection, your written statement will
be placed into the record in its entirety, and we are going to
ask that you limit your oral remarks to 5 minutes. I am sure
you are familiar with the lighting system. So I am not going to
belabor that point.
And at this time, I would welcome your testimony on the
subject matter of today's hearing because we have kind of
gotten off on some relevant but tangential issues about voter
suppression. So, at this time, I would invite you to give your
oral testimony.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE PAUL W. HODES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Mr. Hodes. Thank you, Chairwoman Sanchez and Chairman
Conyers, Ranking Member Cannon, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member
Gohmert, and distinguished Members of the Committee, for
holding this important hearing today. I am glad to be able to
testify and raise some of the unanswered questions that
surround the New Hampshire phone jamming case.
In 1968, Justice Hugo Black wrote, ``No right is more
precious in a free country than that of having a vote in the
election of those who make the laws under which as good
citizens we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are
illusory, if the right to vote is undermined. Competition and
ideas in governmental policies is at the core of our electoral
process and in the First Amendment freedom.''
Nearly 6 years ago, political operatives sought to subvert
our electoral processes for their own political gain. Today, we
are talking about the integrity of our elections, the very
foundation of representative democracy. I am here to help
ensure that New Hampshire voters are represented, their
elections are conducted with integrity, and that justice is
served.
On November 5, 2002, Election Day, Republican political
operatives jammed the phone lines of key Democratic get-out-
the-vote efforts. Three of these political operatives have been
prosecuted for this scandal.
Allen Raymond, who I expect to testify here today, was the
political operative hired by the New Hampshire Republican Party
and was responsible for jamming the phones. He pleaded guilty
to conspiracy to engage in interstate telephone communications
with intent to annoy or harass on June 30, 2004.
Charles McGee, the 2002 executive director of the New
Hampshire Republican Party, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
engage in interstate telephone communications with intent to
annoy or harass on July 28, 2004.
James Tobin was the 2002 regional political director for
the Republican National Committee and the 2004 New England
director for the Bush-Cheney campaign. Tobin was convicted of
conspiracy to commit telephone harassment and aiding and
abetting telephone harassment on December 25, 2005. He was
later acquitted on appeal. His case now is in the First Circuit
Court of Appeals.
Despite years of investigation and prosecution, significant
and serious questions remain unanswered. There is evidence that
the political scheme runs deeper and wider than these
individuals who were prosecuted and convicted.
This Committee, as you have heard, has been investigating
the phone jamming case since 2006 when on May 12, 2006,
Chairman Conyers asked then Attorney General Gonzales about the
``outstanding issues'' in the phone jamming case and requested
the appointment of a special prosecutor. Additional letters
were sent by Senators Leahy and Kennedy of the Senate Judiciary
Committee to then Attorney General Gonzales. However, no
special prosecutor was ever appointed and the Bush
administration continues to claim executive privilege on key
questions.
It remains unclear whether the White House was involved in
the phone jamming scandal. On Election Day 2002, 22 phone calls
were exchanged between New Hampshire Republican officials and
the White House Office of Political Affairs from 11:20 a.m. to
2:17 a.m. Who at the White House received those calls? Were
White House officials knowledgeable of the phone jamming or
plans to jam the phones? Are there documents that the White
House possesses that could help the Committee or the Department
of Justice to answer these questions?
Secondly, there were major delays in prosecuting the phone
jamming case that have not been properly investigated. The
phone jamming occurred on November 5, 2002. Yet Mr. Tobin was
only indicted after the 2004 presidential elections where he
was an employee of Bush/Cheney 2004.
Furthermore, according to the McClatchy newswire, as
recently as December 19, a Department of Justice employee
admitted that senior DOJ officials delayed the investigation.
Did the DOJ deliberately wait until after the 2004 presidential
election to begin the prosecution of a Bush-Cheney 2004
employee?
In short, we need to know whether others were involved in
the election interference, whether they attempted to cover up
the involvement of other political operatives, and whether
there was a concerted effort to delay prosecution. Was there a
connection between the phone jamming plot, the Republican
National Committee, and the White House?
The question has been asked before, many years ago,
essentially what did they know and when did they know it. At
the very least, the DOJ had a conflict of interest in
investigating this political scheme and should have appointed a
special prosecutor. The questions surrounding phone jamming
warrant an unbiased complete investigation, which we have not
had.
The people of New Hampshire and of America deserve nothing
less than the full truth. They deserve to know whether the 2002
elections they participated in were tampered with by Republican
political operatives and whether there was a concerted effort
to cover up the political trickery.
I commend this Committee for trying to give the citizens of
my home State and this country the answers that they deserve.
The right of Granite Staters to enjoy free and fair elections
was put in jeopardy, and they need to know the full truth.
Political fraud cannot be allowed to compromise the
electoral process. It happened before, and acts that compromise
our process undermine the fabric of democracy and have no place
in America.
Election tampering degrades who we are as a Nation and as a
democracy. Let's make sure that those who broke the law and
betrayed the people's trust are brought to light and brought to
justice.
Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any questions you
may have of me.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hodes follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Paul W. Hodes, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New Hampshire
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Congressman Hodes.
We certainly appreciate your testimony, and we understand
how important it is to you, and that, in fact, is why we are
looking at these issues of politicization of the DOJ and
through the numerous avenues that we have had at our disposal
to ask questions and to try to receive information that would
help clarify these and many other issues, we have gotten very
little, if any, cooperation from the Department of Justice to
help us in our investigation.
So I can hear the frustration in your voice. I share that
frustration. I think the subcommittee really has fought in good
faith to try to get details of information so that we can check
to make sure that the process has integrity, that it is non-
partisan in the application and the prosecution of laws, and
that has been thwarted time and time again.
But, at this time, we normally do our 5 minutes for
questioning. I do not have any questions for you. I would ask
if there are any others on the dais that do have questions.
Mr. Cannon?
Mr. Cannon. I do, Madam Chair.
Ms. Sanchez. Mr. Cannon is recognized for questioning.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And we are just trying to sort of put this together, and
could you help me a little bit here? The activity you have
testified about happened about 6 years ago, right?
Mr. Hodes. Correct.
Mr. Cannon. And you had three people that were found
guilty, one is still on appeal, and he was reversed, but the
guilty plea is now on appeal, right?
Mr. Hodes. Correct.
Mr. Cannon. You have made broader allegations of where this
was all going, but, as I understand it, the telephone calling
started about 7 a.m.
Mr. Hodes. Really what I am here to do is to raise
questions more than give you answers. There are many others who
are more familiar with the intimate details of what happened.
There are records which show hundreds of phone calls from
various of the people involved in this scheme, and, in
particular, as I have suggested, on Election Day, 22 phone
calls were exchanged between New Hampshire Republican officials
and the White House Office of Political Affairs----
Mr. Cannon. I understand that, but, if you do not know the
answer, I do not want to persecute you and ask you. We are just
trying to get some information.
Mr. Hodes. You asked me whether or not it happened at 7
a.m.
Mr. Cannon. Do you know when? Was it 7 a.m.? Are you aware?
Mr. Hodes. I would defer to the records which are a better
source. My information is that----
Mr. Cannon. My understanding is that the telephone jamming
ended at about 7:30. So it did not go on for very long. Is----
Mr. Hodes. The telephone jamming did not go on for very
long?
Mr. Cannon. Is that your understanding?
Mr. Hodes. My understanding is that the telephone jamming
occurred. Whether it went on for very long or not----
Mr. Cannon. This is not an argument. Pardon me. If you do
not understand, if you do not have the history, that is fine. I
am asking. You do not know then when it stopped?
Mr. Hodes. I do not have the precise time.
Mr. Cannon. Are you aware of who called it off?
Mr. Hodes. My understanding is that there were Members of
the Republican State Committee who eventually called it off,
but I would defer again to----
Mr. Cannon. Well, you say eventually. That means----
Mr. Hodes. May I just finish my answer, Mr. Cannon? I was--
--
Mr. Cannon. Well, I----
Ms. Sanchez. Please allow the witness to answer the
question.
Mr. Cannon. Pardon me. It is my time, and I do not mean to
hector the witness, but I----
Ms. Sanchez. The witness is attempting to answer your
question.
Mr. Cannon. Madam Chair, it is my time.
Ms. Sanchez. I under----
Mr. Cannon. It is not your time and not your time to direct
how I handle it.
Ms. Sanchez. I understand, but you will allow the witness
the courtesy of answering your question. If you want additional
time----
Mr. Cannon. Madam Chairman, it is not a matter of courtesy
that you judge.
Ms. Sanchez [continuing]. I would be happy to give you
additional time.
Mr. Cannon. It is a matter of courtesy that I judge. I am
just asking a couple of simple questions. When you talk about
eventually, that makes it sound like a longer period of time.
If you do not know how long it was, then that is all we need to
understand.
Mr. Hodes. I am informed that the timeframe was 7 a.m. to 9
p.m. continuing throughout the day.
Mr. Cannon. And does your information suggest that it was
planned from 7 to 9 or that it went from 7 to 9:00?
Mr. Hodes. My information is, my understanding is that
there was no plan to terminate the phone jamming earlier, and I
would defer to others who were more intimately involved in
these matters. You will be hearing from Attorney Paul Twomey
who was intimately involved in all phases of both criminal and
the civil cases which resulted from this matter, and I bet that
he will be able to give you with specificity the answers you
seek.
Mr. Cannon. That is fine.
Ms. Sanchez. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Cannon. I would be happy to yield.
Ms. Sanchez. I was just going to mention that our second
panel of witnesses probably more appropriately can answer the
detailed questions that you have----
Mr. Cannon. Well, reclaiming my time, I understand that,
and I----
Ms. Sanchez [continuing]. Regarding the specifics.
Mr. Cannon. Again, I do not mean to hector the witness. I
just want to find out what he knows as colleagues. I do not
mean to even ask questions that are difficult.
But let me just shift gears a little bit here. I think you
are aware of the claims between the Obama and the Clinton
campaigns about vote suppression. Have you heard those
allegations?
Mr. Hodes. In general, I am aware that concerns have been
raised. I have no intimate knowledge and was not expecting to
testify today in any way about anything happening----
Mr. Cannon. Generally speaking, should this have been----
Mr. Hodes [continuing]. With the Obama or Clinton campaign
allegations. I was here----
Mr. Cannon. Well, should this----
Mr. Hodes. I was here to testify about the----
Mr. Cannon. I am not asking you----
Mr. Hodes [continuing]. Phone jamming matters in New
Hampshire.
Mr. Cannon. Reclaiming my time, since it is almost gone
here, recognizing the importance of vote suppression, is that
the sort of thing this Committee should look at, the problems
in Nevada between the two Democratic candidates, the claims
that each are making here that they are trying to suppress the
vote?
Mr. Hodes. I take----
Mr. Cannon. Is that urgent for this Committee?
Mr. Hodes. Well, far be it for me to dictate to the
Committee what its jurisdiction or interests should be. I
appreciate that the Committee is investigating this important
problem, 2002, Republican operatives jamming phones in New
Hampshire and a lack of investigation----
Mr. Cannon. Reclaiming my time----
Mr. Hodes [continuing]. And follow up.
Mr. Cannon. I think you have actually said that several
times. So why don't I yield back, Madam Chairman, and we can
move on with this hearing.
Thank you.
Ms. Sanchez. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
time.
Okay. If there are no further questions, I would like to
thank Congressman Hodes for his testimony, and I will excuse
you at this time. We appreciate again your patience.
And we will take a brief recess, so we can seat our second
panel of witnesses who I think more appropriately can answer
some of the questions that have been raised.
Thank you, Mr. Hodes.
Mr. Hodes. I thank the Committee.
[Recess.]
Ms. Sanchez. Okay. I would like to call the subcommittee to
order.
I know that we have two of our three witnesses for the
second panel seated, but, as we are expecting votes at
approximately 3:15, I would really like to get everybody's
testimony in before then. So I am going to go ahead and
introduce the witnesses on our second panel for today's
hearing.
Our first witness on this panel is Allen Raymond. Mr.
Raymond is a business development consultant and one of the
authors of ``How to Rig an Election: The Confessions of a
Republican Operative.''
Prior to writing his book, Mr. Raymond owned a Virginia-
based GOP phone bank company called GOP Marketplace and also
held a paid position as executive director of the Republican
Leadership Council. During his service as executive director,
Mr. Raymond took part in a phone jamming scheme during the 2002
New Hampshire elections which resulted in his conviction and a
3-month Federal prison sentence.
Our second witness is Paul Twomey. Mr. Twomey owns a
private law practice focusing on criminal defense and voting
rights law. Prior to 1985, he worked for the New Hampshire
Public Defenders Program.
Since 2004, Mr. Twomey has represented on a pro bono basis
the New Hampshire Democratic Party, the Republican, Democratic,
and the Independent candidates for office on issues such as
ballot order rotation, mid-decade redistricting, and the New
Hampshire phone jamming case. He has served as State counsel
for the Howard Dean presidential campaign and associate State
counsel for the Kerry-Edwards campaign.
Mr. Twomey is currently the New Hampshire legal chair for
the Obama campaign.
And our final witness for this panel, who has just joined
us, is Mark Crispin Miller. Professor Miller teaches Media,
Culture, and Communication at New York University. His writings
on film, television, propaganda, advertising, and the culture
industries have appeared in numerous journals and newspapers.
In 2005, Professor Miller authored ``Fooled Again: The Real
Case for Electoral Reform.'' He is also the author of the
``Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder,'' and
``Cruel and Unusual: Bush-Cheney's New World Order.''
I want to thank you all for your participation in today's
hearing.
Again, you will note that we have a lighting system. When
your time begins, you will see a green light. After 4 minutes
of testimony, the light will turn yellow to warn you that you
have 1 minute remaining. When your time has expired, you will
see a red light. If you are mid-sentence, we will allow you to
finish your final thought before moving on to the next witness.
After each witness has presented his testimony,
subcommittee Members will be permitted to ask questions subject
to the 5-minute limit.
And with that, I would invite Mr. Raymond to begin his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF ALLEN RAYMOND, BETHESDA, MD
Mr. Raymond. Good afternoon, Chairman Conyers, Chairman
Sanchez, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Cannon, and Members of
the Committee.
Your invitation to speak to you today was welcome. It gave
me an opportunity to further my goal of bringing transparency
to the events now known as the New Hampshire phone jamming of
Democratic Election Day phone lines at the direction of the
Republican National Committee, the New Hampshire Republican
State Committee, and made possible by my own efforts as the
Republican consultant who arranged for the telemarketing
services that conducted the jamming of the phone lines.
Such an opportunity is welcome because it allows for the
public service of illuminating the worst practices by bad
actors within our electoral process so that awareness may
dampen similar attempts in the future to taint our electoral
process.
Justice Brandeis wrote that ``sunlight is the best
disinfectant; electric light, the best policeman.'' This was
the spirit in which I wrote ``How to Rig an Election:
Confessions of a Republican Operative,'' a book I encourage you
all to read, if you have not already.
What I hope the book and my appearance before you today to
be is a public service. My desire is to shed a ray of sunlight
on a process that requires periodic disinfection and perhaps
evoke from this distinguished Committee the electric light that
will better patrol our election process and, more importantly,
the trade people within it.
Political management is a big business, boasting master
degrees from top-tier universities and flaunting riches to
political operatives eager for success. Already this election
cycle, there has been spent in Federal elections alone $900
million, and that is before the big show in the fall when a new
President of the United States is going to be elected.
This is not to suggest that money is the source of why many
Americans are disenchanted with the political campaign process.
Money in politics is like water, it will always find a way. As
long as money is equated with free speech, the money will flow
to campaign coffers.
The source of the reason why Americans instinctively know
that the system does not work as the framers intended is that
politics has become a big business, a cost per vote business.
The stakes are great, both money and power, and the temptation
can be irresistible for many in the business of running
campaigns to try and win at all costs, and I know this
firsthand.
As you may know and as you have said here today, I pleaded
guilty to the charge of phone harassment in the New Hampshire
phone jamming case and was incarcerated for 3 months at a
Federal correctional institution.
When confronted with my crime by our government, despite
prior confidence that the law had not been transgressed, I did
not hesitate to take responsibility for my actions.
Unfortunately, I am the exception, not the rule, by being the
only actor in this conspiracy to take responsibility for their
conduct without indecision or hesitation.
This is not to say new laws that address the symptoms of
the problem should be crafted to prevent future abuses. Rather,
I encourage this Committee to seek a new vantage point and
confront the origin of the problem.
Politics is populated by political professionals who, when
not working on Capitol Hill, are working for either a major
political party committee, a political consulting company, a
lobbying firm, or in government relations for either a
corporation or trade association, or for some other instrument
like politically oriented non-profit committees--or for all
concurrently.
Therein is the solution you should consider. Just as
lobbyists are required to disclose their activities to comply
with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and its amendment in
2007, so should it be considered that political consultants be
required to conduct themselves under the same transparency.
Transparency seems the sunlight that is best for real reform.
The protest such a bill would provoke is validation of the
idea.
In fairness to my former colleagues in the Republican Party
and in the spirit to treat them better than they treated me, I
cannot link the New Hampshire phone jamming scheme in any way
to President George Bush's White House. However, having worked
at the Republican National Committee in two capacities--as a
regional political director similar to Mr. Tobin's position
during the 2002 election cycle and as chief of staff to a
Republican National Committee co-chairman and at the National
Republican Senatorial Committee--I have the ability to speak to
the processes in place while I was employed there, but not
thereafter and not in the context of a Republican
administration in the White House.
Neither of the national Republican campaign committees
mentioned above is managed by rogues, nor do they employ them.
Knowing firsthand how both committees operate was a key factor
to accepting the job of placing the phone jamming program with
a telemarketing vendor following Mr. Tobin's inquiry on the
matter.
My training at both the RNC and the NRSC taught me two main
operating procedures: the first being that as an agent of
either committee one never instructed another committee on
vendor preferences unless that committee was financing a
program and the other being that unusual programs never saw the
light of day without a thorough vetting by committee attorneys.
When approached by Mr. Tobin about being hired to conduct
the unusual program of jamming Democratic Party phone lines, I
made the calculated assumption that both criterions had been
met.
Therefore, knowing Mr. Tobin knew of the program, it would
seem to follow that there would be interest during the course
of the investigation into this matter as to whether Mr. Tobin's
superiors were also aware of the program, unless Mr. Tobin had
safely concealed his rogue status during nearly a decade of
employment at the RNC.
However, I must also be fair and stress not being privy to
every detail of this investigation, and, therefore, the
questions raised may well have been satisfied.
I am before you today by invitation and welcome your
questions.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Raymond follows:]
Prepared Statement of Allen Raymond
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you. We appreciate your testimony, Mr.
Raymond.
At this time, I would invite Mr. Twomey to give his
remarks.
Use your microphone.
TESTIMONY OF PAUL TWOMEY, ESQ., TWOMEY LAW OFFICE, EPSOM, NH
Mr. Twomey. Sorry.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, Chairman Scott, Chairman
Conyers, Ranking Member Cannon.
My name is Paul Twomey. I am from Chichester, New
Hampshire.
A functioning democracy needs two essential things at its
basis. It needs rules and procedures. It needs a system set up
so the people have an equal and a fair access to elections,
that all people and all ideas operate on a level playing field.
That by itself is not enough. We have those things in our
constitutions State constitutions, and our Federal
constitutions. Those types of rules and procedures also existed
under despots and dictatorships in the Soviet Union. You need a
second element. You need a mechanism to enforce the rules, to
deter those who would cheat, and to make sure that the level
playing field stays level.
For almost two centuries, the Department of Justice has
admirably performed that function. Both the Civil Rights
Division, the Public Integrity Division, the Criminal Division
have all operated to stand up to those who sought to abuse
power and those who sought to cheat to gain power. This is a
critical function because when the people in a democracy fail
to believe that the elections are fair, they opt out of the
system.
We now have a situation in which almost half the people in
our country do not engage in their wonderful right to vote in
elections. Anything that diminishes the confidence of the
people in the fairness of elections is a serious matter. It is
a serious matter the day it happens, the day after it happens,
6 years after it happens.
The tragedy of the New Hampshire phone jamming is not that
the citizens' rights to freely associate and to communicate
with each other were violated. This is a terrible thing, and it
is, quite frankly, the kind of thing that has happened other
times in the past.
The real tragedy is that when the citizens whose rights to
free association were violated turned to the Department of
Justice for justice, they did not get justice.
Now I am going to talk to you and I have used about half my
time. Let me be very quick.
There are a number of ways in which the Department of
Justice did not provide justice, one of which is delays.
Ranking Member Cannon said two things that were somehow
difficult for me to square. One, he said that he should not be
holding hearings in the middle of trials. And I agree with
that. In general, you should not be because you should respect
the right of people to have trials without interference by
legislative bodies.
Well, that has been said to the people of the State of New
Hampshire since 2002. There have been trials going on since
2002. The Department of Justice has slow walked this case and
stretched it out so that there has never been a time when we
could get the answers and the full answers to what went on.
At the same time, Congressman Cannon said it is old news.
Well, it is old news because we have not gotten the answers. We
have been asking for the answers. Well, first of all, we
forwarded this to the police immediately. It took a Manchester
police officer exactly 1 day to essentially solve the case as
to the people that actually effectuated it. It was then turned
over to the Department of Justice.
It took the Department of Justice 18 months to bring an
indictment. It took them 9 months to interview a single person.
There is no reason whatsoever that we understand now why that
happened, and, again, during this entire period, my clients
were continually asking the U.S. attorney's office and the
Department of Justice what was going on.
In December of 2003, all of the essential information was
generated, all of the people had been spoken to. Mr. Raymond
had spoken to the FBI, told them the full story. Mr. McGee, who
was the executive director of New Hampshire Republican Party,
had told them the full story. They had everything they needed
to bring indictments in December of 2003.
They slow walked the case through. They did not bring any
indictments again until, I believe, July 28 of 2004. At that
time, they did not indict Mr. Tobin, who was a regional
director of the RNC and the Republican Senatorial Committee.
There have been published reports, which I believe to be
true, that the prosecutor in this case, Todd Hinnen, wanted to
indict Mr. Tobin earlier, that he was forbidden to do so until
after the presidential election. That is political interference
with the administration of justice, and that is something that
this Committee should take seriously.
There are numerous ways in which the Department of Justice
interfered with justice. A second way is that after the
indictments were first brought by the civil case, as we were
about to start our discovery, on the very first day of
discovery, the Department of Justice, which had known about the
civil case for a period of time, intervened at the last moment
and brought about a halt in discovery. That set us back by 18
months in which we were unable to ask any questions of anybody.
Again, there have been published reports by the McClatchy
newspapers that individuals high in the Department of Justice
have stated that that interference was not done at the request
of the prosecutor, but that he was ordered to interfere with
the civil case and to slow walk it.
Ms. Sanchez. Mr. Twomey, if you could summarize your final
thought, I am sorry, but your time has----
Mr. Twomey. Okay. I will very quickly say there is numerous
evidence to believe that the White House may have had some
involvement in this, the Political Office. There is a refusal
to indict the New Hampshire Republican Party and perhaps the
Republican National Committee, but at least the Republican
State Party. The prosecutor wanted to indict them because they
have obstructed justice. They withheld information. They
refused to turnover their internal investigation. Again,
higher-ups at the Department of Justice interfered.
I could probably go on, quite frankly, for about 2 hours,
and I am talking as fast as I can, and I am out of time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Twomey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul Twomey
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3, 6 and 7
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 8
Attachment 9
Attachment 10
Attachment 11
Attachment 12
Attachment 13
Ms. Sanchez. I thank you for your testimony. Hopefully, we
will be able to listen to some more of your information during
our round of questions.
Mr. Twomey. Thank you.
Ms. Sanchez. At this time, I would invite Mr. Miller to
please give his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MARK CRISPIN MILLER, PROFESSOR,
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, NEW YORK, NY
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Chairman Sanchez, Chairman Scott,
Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Cannon. I am very grateful to
have been asked to speak here.
I want to start my attesting that I am not a Democrat or a
Republican, but an Independent dedicated to the promise of
American democracy as envisioned by Tom Paine. I believe with
him that the right to vote is the basis on which all our other
rights depend. Thus, the issue here is ultimately not the
victory or defeat of either party, but the people's right to
choose their government and thereby live and rule in freedom.
Such was once the view of the U.S. Justice Department whose
Voting Rights Section strongly championed the individual right
to vote by prosecuting all forms of illegal vote suppression.
Since 2001, however, the department has turned a blind eye
toward such crime.
Take the case of Sproul & Associates, an Arizona firm hired
by the Republican National Committee to run stealth voter
registration drives throughout the Nation prior to the 2004
election. Starting in the summer, Sproul's troops haunted
public areas posing as non-partisan opinion pollsters or
petitioners for liberal causes.
Through such deception, the firm worked to inflate the
number of registered Republicans, by any means necessary.
Closely following a script, the operatives asked leading
questions in order to identify Republicans and then asked them
to fill out registration forms. The teams were ordered not to
register Democrats or Independents.
Nevertheless, many Democrats filled out the forms, and
those forms were destroyed. Far more frequently, however,
Sproul's troops bamboozled Democrats and Independents into
registering as Republicans, either by altering the registration
forms without their knowledge or by misleading them into re-
registering themselves.
Such service was expensive. According to their filings with
the Federal Election Commission, the RNC paid Sproul well over
$8 million, the party's eighth-largest expenditure of the 2004
campaign.
And what did they get for it? Aside from ripping up the
registration forms of many Democrats, the company appears to
have created thousands of unwitting faux Republicans in Ohio,
Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Minnesota,
Michigan, and Oregon.
Thanks to those inflated numbers, there appeared to be more
registered Republicans than there were in reality, a
misimpression that would seemingly explain the party's upset
wins in those States where the exit polls predicted otherwise.
In Ohio, for example, countless Democratic votes were
stolen through the tactics documented in the full Committee's
seminal report on the election there: voter caging, thwarted
registration drives, broad refusal of provisional ballots,
organized disinformation and intimidation, shortages of
functioning machines in Democratic districts only, and numerous
machine irregularities undoing only Democratic votes.
Those tactics were used also in those other States where
the exit polls predicted a Republican defeat and where Sproul
had also helped inflate the number of grassroots Republicans.
Thus, the company not only broke the law, but also may have
figured in a larger plan to block the vote.
There are oddities, moreover, in the party's FEC filings,
with nine expenditures totaling well over $1 million incurred
somehow in 2005, suggesting an attempt to shave down the amount
spent on Sproul's services.
And so Sproul & Associates clearly merited a full
investigation, and yet the DOJ did nothing. If there has been a
Federal probe of Sproul's activities, I have never heard of it.
Far from coming under Federal suspicion, Nathan Sproul, the
firm's director, was invited to the Christmas party at the
White House 2 months after the election.
And while the DOJ has winked at practices that
disenfranchise tens of thousands of Americans, that now wholly
partisan department focuses obsessively on voter fraud, which
numbers in the tens. Between 2002 and 2005, 24 people were
convicted of illegal voting, with another 62 convicted since.
Those low numbers reconfirm the scholarly consensus that
voter fraud is actually quite rare. It is, in fact, the highly
serviceable myth that helps to justify the actual vote
suppression and election fraud that Sproul and others carry out
to benefit their party.
Today, the fantasy of voter fraud preoccupies the managers
at Justice and the Supreme Court. It is, therefore, up to
Congress to return us to reality and redirect this Nation
toward democracy.
I thank you all, and I will take your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Crispin Miller
My name is Mark Crispin Miller. I am a professor of media, culture
and communication at New York University, and a longtime analyst of
media and politics. Lately my work has focused on the growing dangers
of election fraud and vote suppression in this country. My books
include Fooled Again: The Real Case for Electoral Reform (2005), and,
more recently, Loser Take All: Election Fraud and the Subversion of
Democracy, 2000-2008.
I am not a Democrat or a Republican, but an Independent dedicated
to the promise of American democracy as envisioned by Tom Paine. I
believe, with him, that the right to vote is the basis on which all our
other rights depend. And so the issue here is ultimately not the
victory or defeat of either party, but the people's right to choose
their government, and thereby live, and rule, in freedom.
Such was once the view of the US Justice Department, whose Voting
Rights Section strongly championed the individual right to vote, by
prosecuting all forms of illegal disfranchisement. But things have
changed since 2001, as the Department now turns a blind eye toward
illegal vote suppression, as long as such blocked votes would not
advantage the Republicans.
Take the case of Sproul & Associates, an Arizona firm hired by the
Republican National Committee to run stealth voter registration drives
throughout the nation prior to the 2004 election. Starting in the
summer, Sproul's troops haunted public areas, posing as non-partisan
opinion pollsters, or petitioners for liberal causes. Through such
deception, the firm worked to inflate the number of registered
Republicans, by any means necessary.
Closely following a script, the operatives asked leading
questions--a form of ``push polling''--in order to identify Republican
respondents, and then asked them to fill out registration forms.
The teams had been instructed not to register Democrats or
Independents. Nevertheless, many Democrats filled out the forms--and
those forms were destroyed: ``We caught [my supervisor] taking
Democrats out of my pile, [and] hand[ing] them to her assistant, and he
ripped them up right in front of us,'' said one Sproul worker in Las
Vegas.
More frequently, however, Sproul's troops bamboozled thousands of
Democrats and Independents into registering as Republicans, either by
altering the registration forms, or by misleading people into thus re-
registering themselves.
Such service was expensive. According to their filings with the
Federal Election Commission, the Republican National Committee paid
Sproul well over $8 million--making it the RNC's eighth-largest
expenditure of the 2004 campaign. And what did the party get for it?
Aside from disenfranchising those Democrats whose forms were ripped up
by Sproul's staff, the company created thousands of unwitting faux-
Republicans, in Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania, West Virginia,
Minnesota, Michigan and Oregon.
Thanks to those inflated numbers, there appeared to be more
registered Republicans than there were in reality--a misimpression that
would seemingly explain the party's unexpected victories in those
places where the exit polls predicted otherwise. In Ohio, for example,
countless Democratic votes were stolen through the tactics documented
in the full committee's excellent report on the election there: voter
``caging,'' thwarted registration drives, broad refusal of provisional
ballots, organized disinformation, blunt intimidation tactics,
shortages of functioning machines in Democratic districts only, and
numerous ``machine irregularities'' undoing only Democratic votes.
Those tactics were used also in those other states where the exit polls
predicted a Republican defeat--and where Sproul's firm had also helped
inflate the number of grass-roots Republicans.
Thus Sproul's firm not only broke the law, but may also have
assisted in a larger plan to block the vote. (There are oddities,
moreover, in the RNC's filings with the FEC, with nine expenditures,
totaling well over $1 million, incurred somehow in 2005, suggesting an
attempt to minimize the sum spent on Sproul's services.)
Thus Sproul & Associates clearly merited a full investigation by
the Justice Department; and yet the DoJ did nothing. If there has been
a federal probe of Sproul's activities, I've never heard of it. Far
from coming under federal suspicion, Nathan Sproul, the firm's
director, was invited to the Christmas party at the White House two
months after the election.
And while the DoJ has winked at practices that disenfranchise tens
of thousands of Americans, that now wholly partisan Department focuses
obsessively on ``voter fraud,'' which numbers in the tens. Between 2002
and 2005, 24 people were convicted of illegal voting, with another 62
convicted since. Those low numbers reconfirm the scholarly consensus
that ``voter fraud'' is actually quite rare. It is, in fact, a highly
serviceable myth, and/or delusion, that helps to justify the actual
vote suppression, and election fraud, that Sproul and others carry out
to benefit their party. Today the fantasy of ``voter fraud''
preoccupies the managers at Justice, and the Supreme Court. It is
therefore up to Congress to return us to reality, and redirect this
nation toward democracy.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Professor Miller.
We will now begin our round of questioning, and I will
begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes of questions.
My first question is for Mr. Twomey. Do you think that it
is appropriate for the Bush administration to refuse to explain
key questions in the jamming scheme, such as who knew about the
scheme at the White House and when they were aware of it?
Mr. Twomey. In one word, no. We sought to get information
from the White House about all the calls to the White House.
There can be innocent explanations for those calls. This was
during an election.
But if we could see a pattern of who Tobin calls, Tobin
being the RNC Bush-Cheney guy who made the calls, and what
those people next did, we could have determined whether or not
those were innocent calls or whether those were calls that were
part of the conspiracy. We sought those. The White House
refused to provide them.
My understanding is that this Committee has not been able
to get any information on that either.
Ms. Sanchez. That is correct.
My second question is also for you. Do you think that the
Department of Justice had a conflict of interest in
investigating the phone jamming case?
Mr. Twomey. I think that those at the higher levels of the
Department of Justice had an absolute and clear conflict of
interest.
The two attorney generals, Ashcroft and Gonzales, had
obvious connections. Mr. Gonzales was in the White House when
this occurred. He was White House counsel.
There is a question about the White House Political Office
having been part of it. That is an obvious conflict.
Mr. Ashcroft was a member prior to his becoming attorney
general of the Republican Senatorial Committee. That is where
Mr. Tobin worked, one of the places he worked, besides the
Republican National Committee. Those are obvious conflicts.
They should have taken themselves out of this, out of the
chain of command making these decisions.
I do not believe the trial level attorneys themselves had a
conflict, but the problem was they could not make the decisions
on the case. We were told several times that the reasons things
took so long and the reasons that certain things did not
happen, such as indicting Mr. Tobin on a timely basis, was
because of orders from above.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
Mr. Raymond, you indicate in your book ``How to Rig an
Election'' that your case went all the way to the top of the
Department of Justice and was on John Ashcroft's desk. Do you
think it was an unusual circumstance that the attorney general
was personally looking into your case? And do you think the
attorney general made selective decisions on which individuals
to go after and that you were particularly targeted?
Mr. Raymond. I cannot speak to the attorney general. I have
no----
Ms. Sanchez. Is your microphone on? I am sorry.
Mr. Raymond. Is that better?
Ms. Sanchez. That is much better.
Mr. Raymond. I cannot speak to the motives of the Attorney
General Ashcroft. I have never worked at the Department of
Justice. I can say that a number of aides to Mr. Ashcroft have
political backgrounds. That is how I met some of them. One had
formerly been a political director of the Republican National
Committee and, in fact, I think had been Mr. Tobin's superior
at the time. So I certainly think that those calculations could
have come into effect. I cannot speak to whether or not they
did in fact.
Ms. Sanchez. Do you think it was wrong for Mr. Tobin to
continue to serve as a Bush campaign official when the
Department of Justice had evidence that he was a clear
participant in the jamming scheme?
Mr. Raymond. Well, my understanding is once he was indicted
and it was made public, he resigned. So it is a question of who
knew what when, to coin a silly term, but I think that if his
superiors had no idea it was going on, I think it was fine. If
they did, then that is another matter entirely.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
Professor Miller, have you heard of any other instances
with any other voter registration firm where people were
trained to register only voters of a certain party?
Mr. Miller. I have not.
Ms. Sanchez. So, to your knowledge, that was a unique
circumstance?
Mr. Miller. No. That is unique. It is worth noting also
that Sproul's people often represented themselves as being with
a group called America Votes, which is a well-established and
respected non-partisan voter registration operation, and the
people from America Votes eventually complained about this
because this was clearly a partisan effort, and to answer your
question, I cannot think of any other examples of that
happening on either side.
Ms. Sanchez. Okay. Can you describe in detail some of the
other voter suppression strategies that might have been
employed in the 2004 or the 2006 elections?
Mr. Miller. That is a very big question. There are a number
of books on the subject, and I would respectfully suggest that
this should be, you know, a matter for a full investigation on
its own. There has been a great deal of such activity.
And let me answer one of Ranking Member's earlier questions
in this regard. I do not believe that this kind of
investigation should be restricted to what Republicans do. I do
indeed believe that Democratic vote suppression and election
fraud should be prosecuted as well. I am kind of a purist on
this matter, and what is good for the goose is good for the
gander.
I also would agree that there has been election fraud in
our history, sadly, forever. It goes way back, but having
studied this and written extensively about it, I must
conclude--and I am not the only one to draw this conclusion--
that what has happened over the last 7 years is unprecedented
in our history, both for its scale and for its technological
sophistication.
The use of electronic voting machines of any kind seems to
me quite perverse because what you have there is, in essence, a
secret vote count. To have electronic machines on which you
either vote or which count your vote is to use a technology
that is tantamount to having somebody take the ballots home,
pull the blinds, and then come out in the morning and say,
``Here is the number. Take it or leave it.''
Moreover, the companies that make the machines are private
companies and are, therefore, unaccountable. So this represents
something new, and even as we speak, there are things
happening, such as the Veterans Administration now refusing to
help wounded veterans register to vote, which was a policy they
had briefly promised to change, and now we hear that they are
not going to do it after all.
I think that if we believe in universal suffrage and we
believe in the right to vote, we should do everything we can to
make that possible. Voter fraud is a problem, a very, very
minor problem, but it seems to me that we could much more
easily solve it by, for example, putting video surveillance in
polling places than in passing laws that disenfranchise tens of
thousands of people. That is like treating a minor headache by
getting a lobotomy, you know.
So, again, I appreciate your question and want to repeat
that this matter is far too important, I think, to be left to
either party and one that a Committee like this one should plan
future investigations of.
Ms. Sanchez. Okay. If the Committee will indulge me, I have
one final question, which, hopefully, will be instructive.
But, as I am sure you are aware, this is an election year.
What do you think that we could do now to prevent situations
like the New Hampshire phone jamming or Sproul's destruction of
voter registration cards or any other attempts to suppress the
vote? Prospectively, looking ahead, what would be some
suggestions----
Mr. Cannon. Would the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Sanchez. I would yield.
Mr. Cannon. I suspect the fact that two guys have gone to
jail and a third might go to jail actually works its wonders in
dissuading people from illegal activity.
Ms. Sanchez. I would tend to agree to some extent, but no
doubt there are further steps, I am sure, that could probably
be taken to try to prevent those types of things from repeating
themselves.
Mr. Cannon. Well----
Ms. Sanchez. You are----
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Ms. Sanchez. May I ask, Professor Miller?
Mr. Miller. I mean, there have been grassroots movements
all over the country, which are bipartisan, by the way, to try
to either get rid of paperless voting machines and replace them
with optical scanners or to get rid of both types of machinery
and go back to hand count of paper ballots. Those movements
have failed. A lot of reformist movements have failed for very
complicated reasons.
I think that the best thing that people can do now is to
plan to monitor the election process aggressively and to make
sure, whichever party they belong to, that they are registered
because a lot of people are now turning up at the polls to find
their names have been expunged. This is something that is often
a result of voter caging, often a result of the improper use of
felons' lists, but is also sometimes kind of summary action
that relates to the fact that now we have electronic voter
rolls. I mean, this is a terrible idea.
So, basically, what I am suggesting is that people have to
become informed about the issue, know what their rights are,
make sure they are registered, monitor the process, make a
tremendous racket if they see improprieties and so on, and
understand that it does not matter which party wins. It really
does not.
If people are prevented from voting in an election, even if
their chosen party wins, a terrible wrong has been done here,
and there are people on the Republican side who agree with me
very strongly about this.
Ms. Sanchez. I agree that it is not a partisan issue, I
think, with respect to an individual's right to vote.
Just very quickly, Mr. Twomey, any suggestions
prospectively, looking ahead, that might help prevent some more
types of incidents?
Mr. Twomey. I do not think there is anything that you can
do in a general sense that will stop everybody from trying to
gain an unfair advantage in elections. But I can tell you one
thing, that if you cut off investigations and you do not engage
in oversight of the Department of Justice, people will be
encouraged to do it on a large-scale basis.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
My time has expired.
Mr. Cannon is recognized for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Let me just associate myself with the comments of the
gentlelady, which does not happen all that often, but this is
really not a partisan issue, and, Professor Miller, I think you
made that point. And I am not all that familiar with the Sproul
case, but the way you characterized it is absolutely awful, and
you have several crimes embedded in the description that you
made that ought to be prosecuted.
Let me ask Professor Miller, did you say that you do not
know of another case like Sproul where only one party was
targeted for registration?
Mr. Miller. I cannot think of one offhand, no.
Mr. Cannon. Are you familiar with the--pardon the familial
reference here--but the Loretta Sanchez-Bob Dornan race in 1996
where you had Hispanic groups registering voters, including at
least 90 people who were here illegally?
Mr. Miller. I have heard about it, yes, but, you know, I
have not looked into it.
Mr. Cannon. Okay.
Mr. Miller. But I thought she was referring to, you know,
nationwide registration drives.
Mr. Cannon. Well, are you familiar with ACORN?
Mr. Miller. ACORN? Yes, I am quite familiar with ACORN.
ACORN has been sued repeatedly by lawyers for the Republican
Party and has always prevailed. I think that ACORN is an
entirely respectable operation.
Mr. Cannon. But their focus has been registering Democrats,
has it not?
Mr. Miller. They are a liberal group, but they register
people equally. They do not discourage people from registering.
Mr. Cannon. But they do focus on areas where they think----
Mr. Miller. They focus on areas where there are more
Democrats, yes.
Mr. Cannon. So the difference between ACORN and Sproul is
that ACORN does not throw away or change registration documents
after they have been filled out and----
Mr. Miller. Well, they do not represent themselves as being
something they are not. They do not throw away registration
forms from the other side. They do not alter registration
forms. I think those are significant differences.
Mr. Cannon. Yes. Granted they are significant differences,
although, I suppose, in this business, we often have people who
are running for public office that represent themselves as
something they actually are not.
Mr. Miller. I cannot believe that. [Laughter.]
Mr. Cannon. Thank you. I appreciate your comments,
Professor. Well taken.
Mr. Twomey, I was a little surprised by some of your
opinions that were so clear about the Department of Justice. We
have colleagues here of both parties who are under
investigation, and all of them are really desperately wondering
why it takes the Justice Department so long to do anything.
It seems to me that much of your concern goes to what you
have called the delay in the Justice Department. Are you
frustrated because of the case in New Hampshire, or do you have
broader experience where you have seen the Justice Department
move more quickly?
That is not a trick question, by the way.
Mr. Twomey. Okay. I have been a criminal defense lawyer for
30 years. The election law stuff I do is all pro bono. It is a
sideline.
Mr. Cannon. Have you done Federal prosecutions at----
Mr. Twomey. Federal and State prosecutions.
The case against Tobin to the level it went is a simple
case. As I said, it took a Manchester police officer an hour to
basically bring the investigation to a conclusion to that
level.
I have never seen a case take so long to come to trial, I
mean, that was solved in the investigative sense so quickly. I
mean, it is just astonishing to me.
Mr. Cannon. Okay. My sense is that this is not a political
issue, but rather an organizational issue----
Mr. Twomey. If I could----
Mr. Cannon [continuing]. At the Department of Justice.
Mr. Twomey. If I could just say, I guess so, if we did not
have reports that the prosecutor said that he was ordered to
slow it down, if he did not tell people that the delays were
due to interference by people above him, if there were not
reports that he was told not to indict Mr. Tobin until after
the presidential election. I might indulge in, I guess, the
same kindness that you indulge, but we have a lot of evidence
to indicate that it was political.
Mr. Cannon. Were those political people or career people
that made those suggestions?
Mr. Twomey. That is what we need to find out. That is what
we are asking you to find out. Was there political interference
or wasn't there? If you----
Mr. Cannon. Well, but do you know the people that were
quoted as having said to slow it down?
Mr. Twomey. Do I know them? No.
Mr. Cannon. Do you know who they were in the----
Mr. Twomey. No, I do not, and I think that is what your
function as Congress is, is to engage----
Mr. Cannon. How do you know that they were told that?
Mr. Twomey. I do not want to talk over you, but could I
answer the question? I do not know those people, but your
function in Congress is to engage in oversight and to come to a
conclusion. If you come to a conclusion that these were not
political decisions and that they were prosecutorial decisions
based fairly, I am fine with that. But I do not think that is
what you are going to find, if you investigate it.
Mr. Cannon. What I would like to know from you to help us
in that regard is--you are aware that there were apparently
some conversations from Justice saying slow it down--how are
you aware of those so that we can go back and take a look?
Mr. Twomey. Okay. I am aware of it from several sources.
One is that two attorneys involved in the case, one Mr.
Raymond's attorney and one an attorney for the Democratic
party, a civil attorney, told me that the prosecutor in the
case said that to them, okay. I am also aware from the reports
in the McClatchy newspapers where they indicate that a senior
Justice Department official said the same thing. I was not
there, and I do not have any ability to----
Mr. Cannon. Could I ask you to do us a couple of favors?
One is, if you can recall who the prosecutor was, I would like
to have the Committee have his name and whether context you
could provide on that.
Mr. Twomey. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. The McClatchy papers ought to be relatively
simple to get copies of if you could make those available to
us.
Mr. Twomey. Well, let me give you his name. Let me first
say that I believe that all the trial level prosecutors--there
was a change in the middle--all of them were people of the
highest integrity. The name of the initial prosecutor that I
was referring to then is Todd Hinnen.
Mr. Cannon. All right.
Ms. Sanchez. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Cannon. Would the Chair indulge me in one more comment?
Ms. Sanchez. I believe Mr. Scott wanted to question before
we went to the floor, but we will be returning, and I would be
happy to give you time after.
Mr. Cannon. May I just make one comment?
I just want Mr. Raymond to know I really enjoyed the
performance and the book. I hope you sell more books based upon
this hearing, although it does not look to me like we have a
lot press here.
Ms. Sanchez. Mr. Scott is----
Mr. Cannon. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Sanchez [continuing]. Recognized for 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Raymond. Thank you very much, Mr. Cannon. Appreciate
that.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
I just wanted to ask Mr. Raymond. You were convicted. Who
else was convicted? First of all, are you represented by an
attorney here today?
Mr. Raymond. I am, yes. Pam Bethel sitting behind me.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. How many people were convicted of
incidents involved with the phone jamming?
Mr. Raymond. There were three convictions, one acquittal.
Mr. Scott. And were people involved who were not roped into
the prosecution?
Mr. Raymond. Everyone that I dealt with was charged in this
case.
Mr. Scott. Who hired you?
Mr. Raymond. I was hired by the New Hampshire Republican
State Committee at the direction of the agent of the Republican
National Committee in New England.
Mr. Scott. Did they know what you were going to do?
Mr. Raymond. Yes. They instructed me to do exactly what I
did.
Mr. Scott. And the people in the Committee hired you?
Mr. Raymond. Yes. The New Hampshire Republican State
Committee hired me. They were my client.
Mr. Scott. Madam Chair, we just have a few minutes. I would
defer to the Chairman at this point, if he has questions.
Ms. Sanchez. Mr. Conyers? Mr. Conyers is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Conyers. Oh, thank you very much.
How many minutes do we have left?
Ms. Sanchez. We have 6 minutes and 30 seconds remaining in
this vote. If you would like, we can come back and finish any
unanswered questions.
Mr. Conyers. I would prefer to come back, Madam Chairman.
These are very important witnesses, and this is a very
important session.
Ms. Sanchez. I absolutely understand.
Mr. Scott, is there anything further?
Mr. Scott. Reclaiming my time then, how many people of the
Republican Committee knew what you were going to do?
Mr. Raymond. Well, to my knowledge, only Mr. Tobin. To my
direct knowledge, only Mr. Tobin. I can only speak to Mr.
Tobin's involvement.
Mr. Scott. What did other people who were involved in the
Committee think you were going to do when you were hired?
Mr. Raymond. Are we talking about the New Hampshire
Republican State Committee, or are we talking about the
Republican National Committee, sir?
Mr. Scott. Both.
Mr. Raymond. Well, the New Hampshire Republican State
Committee, their executive director instructed me to do the
phone jamming. As for the RNC, again, I cannot speak to
anything beyond Mr. Tobin. He is the only one at the RNC with
whom I discussed this program.
Mr. Scott. You discussed the program. And those are the two
other people who were convicted?
Mr. Raymond. Yes, sir.
Mr. Scott. Do you have any information to know that others
in the Committee knew what phone jamming was about?
Mr. Raymond. I have no direct knowledge of that, no.
Mr. Scott. Were others hired to do the same thing?
Mr. Raymond. Were other vendors hired to do the same thing?
Mr. Scott. Right.
Mr. Raymond. Yes. No. I was the only vendor hired to do
this job, to my knowledge. After approach by Mr. Tobin, having
worked with Mr. Tobin when I was at the Republican National
Committee----
Mr. Scott. Did others of the Committee know what you were
hired to do? Is there any way that people in the Republican
National Committee knew that you had been hired and did not
have a clue as to what you were up to?
Mr. Raymond. The best way to answer----
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman? Madam Chairman? Would the
gentleman yield for just a moment?
Mr. Scott. I yield.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Raymond, we are very pleased and proud
that you are here. We also know that you are still on
probation. If I were you, I would answer these questions with
great care in terms of their accuracy.
Mr. Raymond. Yes, sir, I understand that. All I can tell
you, sir, is that the only person at the Republican National
Committee with whom I have direct knowledge knowing of this
program was Mr. Tobin. I brought to that calculation to take on
the assignment using my experience, having worked at the
Republican National Committee, both as a regional political
director and as a chief of staff to the Republican National
Committee co-chairman. However, I do not have any knowledge
directly of anyone else at the Republican National Committee,
other than Mr. Tobin, who had any knowledge of this program.
Mr. Conyers. Would the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. Scott. I yield.
Mr. Conyers. Are you telling us, sir, that you have never
met another person in the Republican Party doing the same kind
of work that you were hired to do?
Mr. Raymond. The phone jamming was a very unusual request,
and it is----
Mr. Conyers. I know all about the phone jamming because you
wrote a book about it.
Mr. Raymond. Right.
Mr. Conyers. Now are you telling us here before the
subcommittee on--well, two subcommittees. Are you telling us
that you have never met anyone else doing the same work as
yourself?
Mr. Raymond. I guess, if you could indulge me, sir, it
means Republican----
Ms. Sanchez. If I could ask the Chairman to----
Mr. Raymond [continuing]. Or phone jamming specifically?
Ms. Sanchez. If I could ask the Chairman to clarify that
question, do you mean other forms of voter suppression, or do
you specifically mean phone jamming? Does that help clarify?
Mr. Raymond. Yes. I mean, are we speaking specifically
about phone jamming?
Mr. Conyers. Yes, specifically about phone jamming. Are you
suggesting to us, sir, that you are the only person in the
employ of the Republican Party and divisions thereof that were
doing phone jamming that you had ever heard of?
Mr. Raymond. This is the only time that I had ever
encountered phone jamming. Yes, sir.
Mr. Conyers. And you do not know anyone else that has ever
done this before you?
Mr. Raymond. As I sit here today, it does not come to mind.
When it was presented to me at the time----
Mr. Conyers. Okay. All right.
Mr. Raymond [continuing]. It was the first time I had heard
of that and it was very unusual.
Mr. Conyers. Do you think that, as far as you know, this is
the first time that they ever engaged in phone jamming?
Mr. Raymond. Certainly the first and only time I ever did.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Conyers. I did not ask you that question.
Mr. Raymond. Could you repeat the question, sir?
Mr. Conyers. All right. In other words, you are suggesting
to us or you are telling us here today that you had never heard
of anybody that had ever done phone jamming in the Republican
Party before you?
Mr. Raymond. Yes. This is the first time a program such as
this had ever been presented to me.
Mr. Conyers. That is not the question that I asked you.
Mr. Raymond. Okay.
Mr. Conyers. You know, I would----
Mr. Raymond. I----
Mr. Conyers. You know, I admire you coming here. I am proud
of the book that you have written. But I want to remind you,
sir, please do your best here with these questions, and I know
that if they are confusing or if I am not being clear, as I
should, you may want to think over very clearly these questions
I have already asked you and some more I am going to ask you
while we are in recess.
Ms. Sanchez. I think this is a nice natural breaking point.
We have very little time remaining in the vote. We will recess.
We will allow Mr. Raymond to think over the question that Mr.
Conyers posed to him, and perhaps when we return, we can take
up this line of questioning again.
The Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Ms. Sanchez. If we could please ask the witnesses to come
forward and sit, I realize we are short one witness right now,
but the Committee is going to come to order and we are going to
continue with some questions and, hopefully, we will be joined
by Professor Miller shortly.
I believe prior to the vote, it was Mr. Scott's time for
questioning. Well, Mr. Scott had yielded time to Mr. Conyers. I
am going to give the time back to Mr. Scott to do with what he
will, and we will recognize Mr. Conyers for questions
afterwards.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Raymond, I----
Ms. Sanchez. Mr. Scott, to be fair, I will give you 2
minutes of questions.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Ms. Sanchez. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Mr. Raymond, I had asked questions about phone
jamming specifically, and maybe I should have asked it more
generally. Was there a general strategy that you would use
tricks and schemes to try to trick people out of voting?
Mr. Raymond. In my book, I detail dirty tricks, absolutely.
Yes, sir. If you want, I can give you some details on that.
Mr. Scott. Yes, please.
Mr. Raymond. You know, there are many ways to use data.
There are many ways to deliver a message. A message can be
delivered to try and alienate people. There are many ways to
use existing infrastructure to anticipate political attacks, to
divert political attacks.
One example I would give you is using the Federal Election
Commission. In an example I talk about in the book, managing a
campaign with a candidate that had taken a contribution from a
questionable source, knowing that questionable source could
become a problem in the campaign, we directed that donor, that
source, to give a little bit of money to our opponent so when
that attack came, we could then dilute the attack and move on.
Mr. Scott. Well, what about tricking people out of showing
up on time to vote in the get-out-the-vote effort?
Mr. Raymond. Yes, sir. I personally have never myself done
that, and what I think I hear you saying are these things that
you read about in the media about, you know, the election is
now being held on Wednesday. That is not something I ever did.
It is not something I ever witnessed personally being done. So
I cannot speak to that.
I, however, in running campaigns, have seen instances where
flyers show up on Election Day generally targeted at lower-
income voters. One comes to mind in New Jersey when I was
running a campaign a long time ago in the 11th District where
flyers showed up on the street saying on Election Day, look out
for the jump-out boys, and back then, what that meant was
undercover police officers. These are clearly meant to
intimidate people from voting.
Legendary is the 1981 case in New Jersey, the Ballot
Security Task Force, which I am sure the Committee is fully
aware of, that actually resulted in an injunction against the
Republican Party, and New Jersey being the place where I
entered politics, where I, so to say, cut my teeth.
So these are all things that as you run campaigns, you
become made aware of, and you certainly know that they are part
of the fabric of this business.
Ms. Sanchez. The time of the gentleman has expired.
At this time, I would recognize Mr. Conyers for 5 minutes
of questions.
Mr. Conyers?
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is very interesting. I have a question for Mr. Allen
Raymond, and I want to commend you for being here with us
today, sir.
Mr. Raymond. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Conyers. I want to commend you for the book that you
have written because I think it is important for the American
people to know some of the things, even though they may be
unsavory, that they go on and you had the courage to come
forward about it and to come forward to this Committee. So I
thank you very much.
Mr. Raymond. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Conyers. You finished graduate school and joined the
GOP for one reason, because rumor had it that there was big
money to be made on the Republican side of the aisle.
Mr. Raymond. Yes, sir.
Mr. Conyers. And from the earliest days of the so-called
Republican revolution, in culmination in the second Bush White
House, you played a key role in helping GOP candidates twist
the truth beyond recognition.
Mr. Raymond. Yes, sir.
Mr. Conyers. During a decade of crucial and bitterly fought
campaigns, your career took you from the nastiest of local
elections in New Jersey through runs for Congress and the
Senate and right up to a top management position in a bid for
the presidency itself.
Mr. Raymond. Yes, sir.
Mr. Conyers. And so this book that you wrote, I think, is
an astonishing and frank look at some of the campaigning that
goes on in the Republican establishment. I am paraphrasing now.
Courageously on your part, you have acknowledged this, not
just here, but in other forums, and that is why I want you to
consider my questions of you not hostile or trying to embarrass
you in any way because the vote of the American people is the
cornerstone of democracy, and it is not like we have gathered
here today to pretend that everything has always been nice up
until this Administration. The history of voting in American is
full of things that have gone on. Everybody has heard about it.
But we have never met anybody like you with the courage
enough to come forward and write it, to put it into American
history. You are not writing hearsay or something you found out
about going on in the library. You were in it, and now you are
here to help this Committee, the voters of this country. That
is what we stand for.
You have heard me say here that the most important thing
that this Committee can do between now and November 4 is make
sure we have the fairest elections that are humanly possible,
and we have heard from Attorney Twomey and Professor Miller and
yourself that there are some big challenges ahead. This is not
an easy job.
And so I just wanted to thank you for everything that you
have done and the way that you have helped us.
Now didn't Abramoff write checks for the work that you were
doing?
Mr. Raymond. Well, there were certainly reports in the
media that----
Mr. Conyers. Oh, wait a minute. Stop. I do not care about
any reports in the media. I have all the reports in the media
we will ever need. Didn't you get checks from Abramoff for the
work that you were doing?
Mr. Raymond. Just so I can clarify, sir, in the New
Hampshire Republican phone jamming? The phone jamming incident?
No. I was paid by the New Hampshire Republican State Committee
Victory Committee, so that the funds that I received directly--
--
Mr. Conyers. No, you are answering the question that you
wanted to answer. I did not say the New Hampshire phone
jamming. You said it. I am talking about in anything and
everything else. Now, look, we have had a nice conversation so
far.
Have you ever talked to Karl Rove?
Mr. Raymond. In one instance. Yes, sir. I met Karl Rove.
Mr. Conyers. Wait a minute. Have you ever talked to Karl
Rove?
Mr. Raymond. Yes, sir.
Mr. Conyers. Now be careful about this. We have a rather
large investigatory staff here of lawyers.
Haven't you talked with him more than one time?
Mr. Raymond. I have only met Mr. Rove once.
Mr. Conyers. I did not ask you that. Haven't you talked
with him more than one time?
Mr. Raymond. I have only spoken with Mr. Rove on one
occasion that I recall, sir.
Mr. Conyers. All right. Could it have possibly been two
occasions?
Mr. Raymond. I only have one recollection of meeting Mr.
Rove.
Mr. Conyers. Okay. All right. Now have you ever talked with
Mr. Abramoff?
Mr. Raymond. I have never spoken with Mr. Abramoff. No,
sir.
Mr. Conyers. Have you known people that have?
Mr. Raymond. Yes, sir.
Mr. Conyers. And who are those people?
Mr. Raymond. Michael Scanlon, sir.
Mr. Conyers. Who is he?
Mr. Raymond. Mr. Scanlon was a business partner of Mr.
Abramoff.
Mr. Conyers. Did you ever talk with Mr. Scanlon?
Mr. Raymond. Yes, sir.
Mr. Conyers. Now we are just about through, if you answer
properly.
Now let me ask you this. What was the relationship of
certain persons in the White House to the operation that you
were doing?
Mr. Raymond. If by the operation, you mean the phone
jamming, I have no knowledge of any involvement by the White
House, any direct knowledge by the White House, in this
program.
What I can speak to is when I worked at the Republican
National Committee, I understood the processes in place for
people like Mr. Tobin--I formerly held that similar position in
the mid-Atlantic region of the country--on how programs come to
light. Stop me if I am giving more information than you care
for, but----
Mr. Conyers. You have not given me enough information yet,
Mr. Raymond. Please continue.
Mr. Raymond. Yes, sir. So my understanding when I was
working at the RNC was twofold: one, as I said in my remarks,
that a regional political director for the Republican National
Committee did not instruct another committee or campaign, for
that matter, whom to hire unless the RNC was directing the
funds.
The second criteria would be that a program as unusual as
the phone jamming, which was the first time I had ever heard of
such a thing--in fact, when it was presented to me, it took
some time for me to figure out how to actually, one, do it,
and, two, I, in fact, as I say in my book, saw it as so unusual
that I actually consulted counsel. However----
Mr. Conyers. You talked with your lawyer about----
Mr. Raymond. Yes, sir.
Mr. Conyers [continuing]. Its appropriateness.
Mr. Raymond. Its appropriateness, its legality. Yes, sir.
So the other thing that I had learned working at the
Republican National Committee was that a program as unusual as
this was did not see the light of day unless vetted by RNC
attorneys, and so that was the operating procedure I knew,
having had the same job at the Republican National Committee as
Mr. Tobin did when he called me in 2002 about the phone jamming
program. That is the knowledge I brought to that call. Those
were the variables that I assessed in accepting the assignment,
among others and, frankly, in the end, had a great deal to do
with why I proceeded with the assignment.
Mr. Conyers. If I could ask you unanimous consent to ask a
question of Attorney Twomey, Madam Chair?
Ms. Sanchez. Without objection, the gentleman will be given
1 additional minute for questions.
Mr. Conyers. This may take more than 1 minute, Madam Chair.
Counsel, you have heard the witness to your left talk about
a variety of issues that I have raised with him. Would you help
me understanding and shed some light on some of the subjects in
our discussion, please?
Mr. Twomey. Certainly, Congressman. There were three things
I heard that I think I can give you some information on.
You asked him about who knew at the Republican State
Committee in New Hampshire. As far as we can tell, everybody
knew--the chair, the vice chair, the executive director, the
finance director, and probably five to seven other people.
There has only been one person that worked there that we have
been able to identify who denies knowing about the phone
jamming. Mr. McGee testified he discussed it with all of them.
The finance director who took part in some of the payments said
it was openly discussed.
In regards to the Abramoff question, sometime shortly
before the payments were made to Mr. Raymond--and he would not
necessarily know this--two strange checks came into the New
Hampshire Republican State Committee, one from the Mississippi
Choctaw and another from the Agua Caliente tribe of California.
Let me focus on that. They added up together to almost
exactly the same amount as was paid to Mr. Raymond, which is
one thing that brought it to my attention in the first case.
We subsequently found out that the Choctaw money, which was
$10,000, came in a single check that was hand delivered by a
senior staffer of one of the New Hampshire senators to the
Republican State Committee, that the Republican State Committee
knew that it was an illegal donation--a maximum for an entity
like the Choctaw Nation was $5,000--that they spent a
considerable amount of time trying to decide how to handle this
thing, and then pretended like it had been two separate
donations, put one in their Federal PAC and one in their State
PAC.
So we thought for a couple of years that it actually would
have been a $5,000 donation that they transferred because they
made a transfer the same day. So it was very hard. Until we
finally got discovery, we had never realized that it was a
$10,000 single donation.
So the Choctaw Nation was, I am sure the Committee is
aware, probably the greatest source of funds for Mr. Abramoff.
No Indian tribe had ever donated any money to any State
committee in New Hampshire prior to this date, and, actually,
the next year, the Chippewa band in Michigan did make a
donation, though.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Sanchez. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Cannon has asked unanimous consent for 2 additional
minutes of questioning.
Mr. Cannon is recognized.
Mr. Cannon. I hope the clock runs at the same speed that it
ran for the prior questioners.
Mr. Raymond, were you a Republican before you decided to
become a Republican consultant, or were you not a member of a
party?
Mr. Raymond. Prior to opening my own consultancy, I had
worked in Republican politics since 1992, beginning on the
Victory Committee for the Bush-Quayle campaign in 1992, and----
Mr. Cannon. So you just bumped into being a Republican
because there was more money there. You had been a Republican,
right?
Mr. Raymond. No, that is a very good question, sir.
Actually, I went to graduate school and got a master's degree
in political management. Coming out of that program, I made a
decision on where to go and whom to work for, and the decision
I made was to go to New Jersey and work for Republicans because
that is where the most opportunity was.
So, actually, I come from a long family of Democrats. My
mother was mortified, but, in fact, to me, it was a business
decision having just finished a master's degree in political
management.
Mr. Cannon. Where did you get your master's?
Mr. Raymond. The Graduate School of Political Management,
which is now affiliated with George Washington University.
Mr. Cannon. Neat program, actually.
Mr. Raymond. It is a very good program. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cannon. So, basically, you are not a Republican or a
Democrat. You are a guy who decided that the money was in one
place and you went there, right?
Mr. Raymond. I was a campaign professional. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cannon. Exactly. Okay. And, of course, campaign
professionals talk to each other. Do only Republicans do nasty
things?
Mr. Raymond. No, I would not say that, sir. I would say it
happens on both sides equally.
Mr. Cannon. I have not read your book, but I suspect that
there is a lot of fun poked at on people on both sides of the
spectrum.
Mr. Raymond. Yes, sir. I tried to be very fair to everybody
except for those who did not deserve the treatment.
Mr. Cannon. And I take it those are the Republicans that
you say threw you under the bus?
Mr. Raymond. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Cannon. Of course, having been a professional, being
thrown under the bus was not actually unexpected, was it?
Mr. Raymond. Well, I think that it was a bit of a surprise
to me, not so much being thrown under the bus. I expected that
when the scandal broke. It was the treatment thereafter. It was
the $3 million spent on Mr. Tobin's behalf by the Republican
National Committee that convinced me that the Republican Party
was not a place that wished me to be around.
Ms. Sanchez. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Cannon. I ask unanimous consent for another couple of
minutes, Madam Chair.
Ms. Sanchez. I will give you 1 additional minute. I would
like to wrap up this hearing before the next series of votes. I
do not want to be running to the Capitol in high heels as we
did last time.
Mr. Cannon. That is hard.
Ms. Sanchez. One additional minute.
Mr. Cannon. Is Professor Miller not returning?
Ms. Sanchez. We have not been able to locate Professor
Miller, and I do not know where he is. I suspect----
Mr. Cannon. We should try and get him some questions for
the record and ask----
Ms. Sanchez. We will have an opportunity to submit written
questions to the witnesses. His stuff is still here. I imagine
he is somewhere, but we have not been able to locate him.
Mr. Cannon. Mr. Twomey or Mr. Raymond, are you aware of
ACORN, the left-wing political activist group that registered
people?
Mr. Raymond. No, sir.
Mr. Twomey. I have read reports. I cannot say I know a
whole lot about it, but I have read newspaper reports and
magazine articles. I think I read one on the train down here as
a matter of fact.
Mr. Cannon. Are you aware that eight workers of ACORN
pleaded guilty of Federal election fraud by submitting
falsified applications or that, on March 13, 2008, the
Philadelphia election officials accused the Association of
Community Organizations for Reform Now of submitting voter
registration paperwork that was false or that they were accused
of registering 18 felons in Milwaukee or that Barack Obama is
associated with them, has been associated as a lawyer? Are
those things new to you at all?
Mr. Twomey. The very first thing you said, I learned on the
train down here. I do not know if I learned it. I read an
article that said something about eight people, and I think it
also indicated that those people were disavowed by ACORN, but I
really do not know very much about ACORN. I know nothing
whatsoever about any connection with any of the presidential
candidates. And the middle thing is that I cannot even
remember, but I did not know it and I do not know it to be
true. I really have very little information bout ACORN that I
can share with you, sir. If you want to ask me a question about
something I know about, I will be glad to answer it.
Mr. Cannon. You have----
Ms. Sanchez. The time of the gentleman has expired. I
believe Mr. Raymond----
Mr. Cannon. You are not familiar with it?
Mr. Twomey. No, sir. No.
Ms. Sanchez. The time of the gentleman----
Mr. Cannon. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
Mr. Conyers. Madam Chair?
Ms. Sanchez. Yes?
Mr. Conyers. You are the Chairperson of this important
Committee. I have one question.
Ms. Sanchez. The Chair really would like to conclude this
hearing before the next series of votes. If you can ask your
question quickly, I will give you time.
Mr. Cannon. I certainly have no objection, Madam Chair.
Ms. Sanchez. The gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds.
Mr. Conyers, your 30 seconds starts now.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Raymond, the Republican National Committee
was controlling your activities that brought you to this
hearing. Is that correct?
Mr. Raymond. The Republican National Committee?
Mr. Conyers. RNC.
Mr. Raymond. I am not sure I understand the question. I was
invited here. I am no longer affiliated with any political
party or political committee.
Mr. Conyers. No, but when you were doing the things that
you were doing to subvert the electoral process, the RNC was in
control of your activities.
Mr. Raymond. Yes. When I worked for the Republican National
Committee, I----
Mr. Conyers. Is that correct?
Mr. Raymond. Yes, sir.
Mr. Conyers. Of course. That is logical. Now wasn't the RNC
in touch with the White House? Now I have warned you several
times about accuracy. Wasn't the RNC in touch with the White
House, as far as you knew, about the things you were doing?
Mr. Raymond. I would have to answer that question by
telling you, sir, that I never worked at the Republican
National Committee when there was a Republican administration
in the White House. However, understanding processes, it would
stand to reason--and I accept and accepted at the time--that
the political operation within the White House would directly
control the Republican National Committee as the chairman is
appointed by the President and, in fact, the political
director----
Mr. Conyers. Of course.
Mr. Raymond [continuing]. Was bound to become the chairman
of the Republican National Committee. So, yes, although I did
not have any direct knowledge, I take it this means that they
would.
Mr. Conyers. I understand. In other words, Mr. Tobin was
getting instructions or was clearing his activities with
somebody?
Mr. Raymond. Yes, sir. He certainly was.
Mr. Conyers. I mean, he was not----
Mr. Raymond. He was not in charge, yes.
Mr. Conyers [continuing]. Some wild lone ranger out there.
It was coordinated.
Mr. Raymond. As I said----
Mr. Conyers. He would not be able to do these kinds of
things that you were doing without somebody over him being in
control?
Mr. Raymond. My experience with the Republican National
Committee is it does not employ rogues, nor is it run by
rogues, and Mr. Tobin certainly worked there for nearly a
decade and would have to have concealed----
Mr. Conyers. I do not know who the rogues are and the
people that have not been prosecuted yet or who the criminals
are. I do not want to characterize anybody. There was a chain
of command, and this Committee will probably have to continue
this inquiry.
Mr. Cannon. Would the gentleman yield for one moment?
Mr. Conyers. Of course.
Mr. Cannon. Mr. Raymond, I think, has testified now based
upon his understanding of the politics of the RNC and the White
House, although he did not work at the RNC when the White House
was controlled by Republicans. But to the degree you are aware
of that, you are also probably aware of the fact that when
Democrats have been in control of the White House, the
Democratic National Committee has also been run by the White
House. Is that not fair to say?
Mr. Raymond. Yes, sir. I think that would speak for itself.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Cannon. And so some of the shenanigans----
Ms. Sanchez. The time----
Mr. Cannon [continuing]. That happened under the Clinton
administration----
Ms. Sanchez. The time of the gentleman has expired----
Mr. Cannon. Would that not be the case?
Ms. Sanchez [continuing]. And I----
Mr. Raymond. We cannot speak to that.
Ms. Sanchez. I do not know that that is relevant for the
inquiry about the specific phone jamming because my
understanding is there was a Republican administration when
that happened, that there was some funding issue that came
through the RNC, and that there may have been some direction
from upper echelon party operatives directing this type of
activity to happen.
With that----
Mr. Cannon. If the Chair would yield----
Ms. Sanchez [continuing]. I----
Mr. Cannon [continuing]. It is true that----
Ms. Sanchez. I would like to conclude the hearing today.
There will be an opportunity to submit additional questions.
I want to thank the witnesses for their cooperation and
being here to testify. We realize it has been trying with the
votes in between.
I only regret that the DOJ did not send a witness so that
we could have asked specific questions as to what happened
within the DOJ.
Without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to
submit any additional written questions, which we are going to
forward to the witnesses and ask that you answer as promptly as
you can so that they can be made a part of the record.
And without objection, the record will remain open for 5
legislative days for the submission of any additional
materials.
Again, I want to thank everybody for their time and
patience. I wish we could have been more focused in the
questioning and in the comments to the subject matter of
today's hearing, but, again, I thank the witnesses for their
indulgence.
And, at this time, the joint hearing of the Subcommittee on
Commercial and Administrative Law and the Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:54 p.m., the subcommittees were
adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from the Honorable Paul W. Hodes, a
Representative in Congress from the State of New Hampshire
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Allen Raymond, Bethesda, MD
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Paul Twomey, Esq.,
Twomey Law Office, Epsom, NH
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Mark Crispin Miller, Professor,
New York University, New York, NY