Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 8 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
General News   

NH Attorney Twomey's Statement to Congress re: Phone Jamming Election Crime Etc.

By the web  Posted by Joan Brunwasser (about the submitter)       (Page 3 of 4 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.   No comments
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Joan Brunwasser

through the advancing of attorney's fees;

• Whether the corporation while purporting to cooperate, has engaged in conduct that

impedes the investigation (whether or not rising to the level of criminal obstruction).

It would be difficult to imagine an organization more worthy of prosecution that the New Hampshire Republican State Committee and the Republican National Committee. The offense was extremely serious, striking at the heart of our democratic form of government. The entire management structure of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee took part in or was aware of the events. Most critically, the New Hampshire Republican State Committee refused to waive its attorney/client and work product protection in order to assist the prosecution of the criminal case and actually asserted evidentiary privileges in the context of both the criminal and civil case which impeded the investigation. Shortly after public disclosure of the involvement of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee, its counsel took statements from many if not all of the individuals involved in the case. The Republican State Committee refused to turn these materials over to the prosecution of the criminal case or the defense of the civil case, hiding evidence behind an assertion of attorney/client privilege and work product. While they have a legal right to do so, a fair handed application of the DOJ standards in the Thompson Memo would require organizational indictment for non-cooperation.

Furthermore, it appears that the New Hampshire Republican State Committee may have engaged in an affirmative act of obstruction of justice. On the first day of the Tobin trial, the prosecutors complained bitterly that they had just learned of the existence of the computer utilized by New Hampshire Republican Party Executive Director, Charles McGee, during the course of this criminal conspiracy. The prosecutors stated that the computer was subject to a grand jury subpoena issued to the New Hampshire Republican State Committee over a year earlier. Because of the failure to produce the computer in a timely manner, no forensic evaluation was able to be performed on the computer for the Tobin trial. Rather, the DOJ entered into an agreement with the New Hampshire Republican State Committee that they would make it available for analysis after the trial. Nearly a year later, undersigned counsel for the Democratic Party was informed that no analysis had ever been performed on this computer and it appears that the Justice Department has not since demanded that it be produced, thus allowing the NH RSC to enjoy the benefit of their failure to obey a Grand Jury subpoena. Similarly, it appears that the Republican National Committee or individuals associated with it may have engaged in an obstruction of justice. The trial attorneys in the Tobin case had sought the production of his desk calendar for the time period relating to the phone jamming. A copy of a desk calendar was provided to the Department of Justice, however, it appears that the Republican National Committee told the Government that it did not have possession of the original. In the subsequent civil case, the Democratic Party filed a motion to force the production of the original. Shortly before the motion was to be heard in court, the Republican National Committee miraculously discovered that they had the original calendar in spite of their past denial to the prosecutors. This was turned over to the Department of Justice and subsequent analysis showed that there had been deletions of critical notations from the copy given to the DOJ. 8 To date, no action has been taken over this apparent act of obstruction of justice on the part of the Republican National Committee or one of its employees. Based upon all of the above factors, an inquiry into possible high level DOJ protection of Republican organizations is appropriate. Counsel for the Democratic Party was informed by Agent Fuller that she was told not further investigate this matter and that it would be 'handled in Washington'. Providing a doctored piece of evidence in response to a Grand Jury subpoena and falsely claiming to not have the original are highly suggestive of serious obstruction of justice. It is shameful that the Department of Justice has apparently taken no action other than to lift a carpet and sweep the evidence.

On December 20, 2007, in the same article cited above McClatchy reporter Greg Gordon stated that he had been informed by a Justice official with knowledge of the case that federal prosecutor Todd Hinnen had sought to criminally indict the New Hampshire Republican State Committee for their responsibility for the phone jamming and their failure to cooperate with the government but was overruled by officials higher in the Justice Department. Given the highly politicized nature of the all of the actions of the Justice Department in this case, it is imperative that there be a substantial inquiry into whether political considerations dominated the rationale for this decision.

V. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS FAILED TO TAKE OBVIOUS INVESTIGATIVE STEPS WHICH WOULD BE LIKELY TO LEAD TO THE EXPOSURE OF INVOLVEMENT OF HIGHER UPS IN THE PHONE JAMMING

In 2003, at the very onset of the FBI investigation, former New Hampshire Republican State Committee member, Charles McGee told the investigation that he believed that an individual named Darryl Henry who was a lobbyist for the American Gas Association and the United States Chamber of Commerce were involved in some degree in the phone jamming in New Hampshire on Election Day 2002. (See Appendix 7) In spite of this information, the Government waited almost two years to interview Mr. Henry. When Chuck McGee was called to testify as a witness for the Government in the December, 2005 trial of James Tobin, McGee testified under oath that Darryl Henry had stated that he was aware that the phone jamming had been terminated by the State Party in the morning of 2005 and that he would have his friends at the Chamber pick it up. 8 In October 2006, the New Hampshire Democratic Party deposed Darryl Henry as part of their civil suit. In response to each and every question concerning his involvement and the involvement of the Chamber of Commerce and the involvement of higher up individuals, Mr. Henry asserted his right to remain silent and declined to answer any questions. 9

Documents obtained in discovery of this case, shows that Henry was in New Hampshire for a meeting with Tobin and NHRSC officials in late October 2002 during the time period when the phone jamming scheme was allegedly being planned. Phone records from this period show Henry having frequent communications with both Tobin and the NHRSC.

In addition, Henry has other connections with the New Hampshire Republican politics and the US Chamber of Commerce. In 2001, Henry helped organize and served as spokesman for the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth (AEEG), a coalition organized by the United States Chamber of Commerce which consisted of natural gas producers including the American Gas Association, Henry's employer). 10 From 2002 to 2003, the AEEG's sole lobbyist was John H. Sununu, President of JSH Associates Inc. who is the father of John E. Sununu, one of the candidates in the 2002 Senatorial election. 11 It is difficult to understand why no further action has been taken in regards to Mr. Henry. At a very minimum, Mr. Henry should be brought before a Grand Jury and given use immunity in order to determine what if anything he knows about the involvement of other individuals and organizations in the phone jamming of 2002 or the subsequent cover-up.

There also exist unresolved questions concerning the involvement of Republican Party groups in the funding of James Tobin's defense. The Republican National Committee has admitted to paying millions of dollars to Tobin's criminal defense attorneys up to the point of his conviction. Within weeks of his conviction and the purported cessation of RNC legal payments to Tobin, a corporation was set up in Maine with an address identical to Tobin's residence. Subsequently, several hundred thousands dollars were paid to this entity, Northeast Strategies, by the re-election campaign of Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chaffee. These payments were listed as being for the purpose of consulting, yet oddly enough almost perfectly match the unpaid balances of Tobin's legal bills. 12 If these payments were not for valid election purposes then the FEC reports filed in connection with them would constitute a knowing falsehood. On May 17, 2006, during the sentencing hearing of James Tobin, his defense adduced testimony and argument to the effect that he had lost his only political client and was without a source of income. On that very date, a payment of $88,268.00 was sent from the Chaffee campaign to Tobin's home address. It appears that the Justice Department has taken no steps to determine whether the information given the Federal Judge sentencing Tobin was either false or deliberately misleading. To this date they have apparently never reported this information to either the Court or the US probation office which was supervising Tobin.

VI. THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HAD A CLEAR AND DIRECT CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THIS CASE. AN EXAMINATION OF THE CONTACT BETWEEN HIS OFFICE AND THIS CASE SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN.

The United States Attorney for the District of New Hampshire, Thomas Colantuono, was elected in partisan elections as a Republican candidate for both State Senator and Executive Counsel. As such, he would have been intimately involved in the political affairs of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee. In the year 2000, he was a Republican candidate for congress. During the 2004 election, Attorney Colantuono's wife was a paid operative for the Republican National Committee passing out leaflets which had been paid for by the New Hampshire Republican State Committee endorsing the Bush/Cheney campaign. She thus accomplished the hat trick of advancing of working for the goals both James Tobin's present and past employer as well as the employer of Charles McGee.

Based upon these clear conflicts, at some point in the prosecution, Attorney Colantuono referred the matter to main justice. An attorney from his office however continued to play some role in the proceedings. It is not known whether to what information was provided to Attorney Colantuono and to what information he had access. At some point in time during the proceedings, main justice chose to terminate the role of the attorney from Colantuono's office. Again, it is not known the basis for this termination. It clearly would have been a better practice for no one working for Attorney Colantuono to play any role in the prosecution, a definitive conclusion concerning the propriety of Colantuono's involvement in this case cannot be reached without utilization of investigatory tools available only to the Congress.

VII. SUMMARY

The purposeful interference with the phone communications of the New Hampshire Democratic Party on Election Day in 2002 was a political crime committed by political operatives for political gain. The Department of Justice is headed by political appointees, most of whom were closely associated with entities whose conduct was at issue in this case. The DOJ prosecution was marked by inexplicable inordinate delays, interference with the civil suit, and a failure to hold accountable Republican Party organizations in spite of a willful refusal to cooperate if not acts of obstruction. In both New Hampshire and Washington, the top DOJ officials had actual conflicts of interest and should have been fully recused from any participation in the case.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Rate It | View Ratings

Joan Brunwasser Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Joan Brunwasser is a co-founder of Citizens for Election Reform (CER) which since 2005 existed for the sole purpose of raising the public awareness of the critical need for election reform. Our goal: to restore fair, accurate, transparent, secure elections where votes are cast in private and counted in public. Because the problems with electronic (computerized) voting systems include a lack of (more...)
 

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Follow Me on Twitter     Writers Guidelines

 
Contact EditorContact Editor
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Interview with Dr. Margaret Flowers, Arrested Tuesday at Senate Roundtable on Health Care

Renowned Stanford Psychologist Carol Dweck on "Mindset: The New Psychology of Success"

Howard Zinn on "The People Speak," the Supreme Court and Haiti

Snopes confirms danger of Straight Ticket Voting (STV)

Fed Up With Corporate Tax Dodgers? Check Out PayUpNow.org!

Literary Agent Shares Trade Secrets With New Writers

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend