This story keeps getting worse & worse. If you recall, the Wash. Post first reported in March of this year (diaried here) that the White House held a political briefing with the General Services Administration in which it detailed the ways in which the Agency could, in agency head Lurita Doan's words, 'help our boys.' This alone was an obvious violation of the Hatch Act (meant to keep many of our gov't's officials away from blatantly partisan political actions).
This was followed by evidence that these briefings were held in at least 20 political agencies, in what appeared
to be a regular effort in which the White House sent senior political officials to brief top appointees in government agencies on which seats Republican candidates might win or lose, and how the election outcomes could affect the success of administration policies
The White House's response to all this? It was just 'morale boosting', whatever that means.
So is that why Federal Agencies proceeded to dump millions in handouts into battleground districts?
WASHINGTON — Top Commerce and Treasury Departments officials appeared with Republican candidates and doled out millions in federal money in battleground congressional districts and states after receiving White House political briefings detailing GOP election strategy.
Political appointees in the Treasury Department received at least 10 political briefings from July 2001 to August 2006, officials familiar with the meetings said. Their counterparts at the Commerce Department received at least four briefings — all in the election years of 2002, 2004 and 2006.
The House Oversight Committee is investigating whether the White House's political briefings to at least 15 agencies, including to the Justice Department, the General Services Administration and the State Department, violated a ban on the use of government resources for campaign activities.
McClatchy beats as gently around the bush as it can with the implications:
Commerce and Treasury political appointees later made numerous public appearances and grant announcements that often correlated with GOP interests, according to a review of the events by McClatchy Newspapers. The pattern raises the possibility that the events were arranged with the White House's political guidance in mind.
Gee, ya think?
more:
One congressional aide, who asked to remain anonymous, said the investigation was revealing "a number of remarkable coincidences" similar to how Treasury and Commerce events appeared to coincide with the strategy in the political briefings
I'm thinking some perjury investigations surrounding Agency head statements before congress need to get started a.s.a.p.
And the cause of those 'remarkable coincidences? None other than the Secretaries of the Treasury & Commerce Departments:
In the months leading up to the 2002 election, then-Commerce Secretary Don Evans ... made eight appearances or announcements with Republican incumbents in districts deemed by White House aides either as competitive districts or battleground presidential states.
During the stops, he doled out millions of dollars in grants, including in two public announcements with Rep. Heather Wilson, a New Mexico Republican in a competitive district...
In 2006, Evans' successor, Carlos Gutierrez, and his aides also made public announcements with several Republican congressional incumbents, including in the battleground states of Missouri, Pennsylvania and New Mexico. Weeks before the 2006 election, Gutierrez and Congresswoman Wilson announced $3.45 million in grants for Albuquerque organizations. ...
The same year, then-Treasury Secretary John Snow and Santorum announced an award of millions in tax credits to Pennsylvania organizations. Santorum later lost his seat.
Snow and his aides also made appearances in 2006 with Republican incumbents or doled out grants in Virginia, Iowa and Ohio, states seen as crucial to the GOP retaining control of Congress.
Contrast with Clinton's term?
"Nothing remotely like that happened," during the Clinton administration, Hawke said. "I never experienced anything like that. The notion that the White House would be holding meetings with Treasury appointees just didn't fit."
But of course, that doesn't matter. As Steve Benen at TPM said this morning, it's become shockingly obvious that BushCo only cares about one thing: using the power of the state as a tool of the ruling party.
UPDATE: I see that the always awesome MLDB (who nails a ton of these stories on gov't corruption and general Administration criminality) diaried this last night. Must have fallen off the screen in the quiet Friday night lull.
UPDATE II: Digby does the math: Mass Agency Politicization + US Attorneys x Karl Rove = Watergate
But, you know, it isn't just the power point parades or the pep rallies or the largesse being doled out to GOP candidates in trouble that's being investigated for Hatch Act violations. There's this, and if it has traction, it could open up a very interesting avenue into the big crimes:
...fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias revealed key new details about the Office of Special Counsel’s (OSC) probe into Karl Rove and other White House officials reported today by the Los Angeles Times.
Iglesias said that on April 3, he filed a Hatch Act complaint with the OSC, charging that Karl Rove and others may have violated the law by firing him over his failure to initiate partisan-motivated prosecutions.
These Hatch act investigations may end up being more potent than anybody realizes. Remember, Watergate started out as a third rate burglary.