In Hass, the Court stated: "The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government . . . [A]ny conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operation and reports as fair, impartial and reasonably accurate, would be to defraud the United States by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law or departmental regulation."
In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft defined "defraud" as follows: "To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government " to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicanery or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention."
During the Watergate and Iran-Contra investigations, this statute was used to prosecute numerous administration and military officials. The Iran-Contra Independent Counsel, former Federal Judge Lawrence Walsh, noted in his final report that under this statute, it can be a fraud against the government, and a violation of 18 USC 371, "even when those who engage in the fraud are Government officials pursuing presidential policy."
In short, if Rumsfeld and Ashcroft agreed, during their video conference call with Ridge, that the terror threat level should be raised because it would be good for President's Bush's reelection, when they had no solid intelligence that would call for raising the threat level, then that plan could have been a conspiracy to defraud the government.
Following Rumsfeld and Ashcroft Denials, Ridge Flip-flops -- But Why?
Within twenty-four hours of Countdown's breaking this story, and not surprisingly, since it suggested criminal behavior, both Rumsfeld and Ashcroft denied Ridge's claim. That was certainly understandable. Less understandable is Ridge's subsequent action. When appearing on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show" on September 1, the official publication date of his book, Ridge did a flip-flop and disavowed his own book -- or as Keith Olbermann later noted, Ridge followed in the tradition of former NBA star Charles Barkley by claiming he was misquoted in his own autobiography.
Confronted by Rachel Maddow regarding what he had written, Ridge started babbling: "At the end of the day, I am using in the book, is there more intelligence, is there something -- that is new. That is not speculation about politics. Because at no time -- at no time -- at no time did politics enter in my judgment, anybody's equation." Yet, while protesting a bit too much, he was soon telling Rachel that, in fact, politics were in his equation after all: "I'm saying that I was not pressured. I'm saying in the book, since I am the secretary, and if we do decide to raise the threat level, the consequences to oversee the enhanced security right before the election belong to my -- my departments. And I say at the end of this discussion, a vigorous discussion where people were rendering judgments in my mind based on what they think is in the best interests for the safety and the security of the country, I am using in the book, is there something else here? What am I missing? I don't get it. Is it politics? Is it security? What's driving this discussion?"
If Ridge was so sure that Rumsfeld and Ashcroft only had the best interest of the country in mind, then why did he wonder, at the time, if politics were involved? I find it difficult to believe Ridge's post-publication retraction. As the author of ten non-fiction books, I would be the first to acknowledge that mistakes do happen, but not mistakes consisting of entire sections of a book. Not mistakes in material that has been specially and uniquely italicized for emphasis. And particularly not mistakes in material that the publisher has used to sell the book by highlighting it on the book jacket copy and in advertisements -- such material, after all, is typically reviewed by the author as well. Nor, if Ridge had been mistaken, would he have likely claimed -- as he has also written -- that this was the reason that he wanted to leave the Bush Administration, which he did shortly after the incident. Few people completely bollix their account of the core reason they left the most important job they ever held.
If Ridge has, in truth, misstated himself in the book (and on the jacket), he can put this controversy to rest by enlisting the denials of all those he involved at the time in dealing with the pressure to raise the threat levels -- namely, General Hughes; Jim Loy; Susan Neely, who worked for him at the Department of Homeland Security; and Dan Bartlett, who Ridge wrote was the one who enlisted the President in squelching the push by Rumsfeld and Ashcroft.
Or maybe an enterprising journalist will run these four people down and ask them about the controversy over the raising of the threat level, in order to sort out the truth. In addition, presumably there is a copy of this video conference somewhere -- a piece of evidence that could also be revealing and could resolve this matter. On the other hand, if Ridge is now providing protection for what could have been criminal behavior by his former colleagues, then that is another story. That would be a cover-up -- and that too, could be criminal. It would be unfortunate if Ridge, having reported criminal behavior, then thought better of it, is now embarking on his own crime.
1 | 2
