Scott Horton, of Harper's magazine, reports that the DOJ terminated Tamarah Grimes' security clearance as a prelude to firing her--and as an end run around the No Fear Act of 2002.
Is there anything in the public record to indicate Grimes was a security risk? No.
Horton reports that Terry Derden, of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, formally denied that Grimes' dismissal was connected to her whistleblower status. And a DOJ spokesman provides the usual "we can't comment further on a personnel matter" quote. But Horton, an adjunct professor at Columbia University School of Law, doesn't seem to be buying it. He calls Derden's denial "pretty thin gruel." And after describing an after-hours meeting in a hotel bar, where the decision to fire Grimes apparently was made, Horton writes: "The appearance of an act of retaliation could not be stronger."
Meanwhile, the Grimes story is gaining national attention.
John Schwartz reports on the matter in today's edition of The New York Times. Schwartz notes that an internal Justice Department investigation and a review by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee came to very different conclusions about Grimes' allegations:
The department investigated Ms. Grimes's accusations, and in its report last October said the Alabama prosecutors had not "violated any law, rule or regulation" or engaged in mismanagement. The report said the evidence "strongly supports" the positions taken by management in the dispute.
The House Judiciary Committee, however, released a report the next month criticizing the Justice Department report as incomplete and "one-sided."
Farhan Dareda, of mainjustice.com, provides a solid overview of the Grimes case, noting a strong critique of the DOJ report from John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee:
The Justice Department's investigation into these accusations concluded that Alabama prosecutors had not "violated any law, rule or regulation," in this October 2008 report. The report went so far as to say that the evidence "strongly supports" the positions taken by the prosecutors. But then, three days after then-Sen. Barack Obama's victory in the presidential election, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) responded with a letter to then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey criticizing the DOJ report as "one-sided" and urging him to revisit the allegations made by Grimes:
[W]e have recently learned that this issue and others raised by Ms. Grimes was referred by the Office of Special Counsel to your office for evaluation. In response, an initial report has been prepared by two Assistant United States Attorneys which essentially concludes that, despite the plain statement to the contrary in this email chain, no messages were actually sent by any members of the jury to the prosecution through the US Marshals.
We are troubled, however, that the investigators appear to have reached this conclusion without interviewing the US Marshals who supervised the Siegelman jury and who are described in the email as having been the conduit for jury messages to the prosecution. Nor do the investigators appear to have interviewed any member of the jury.
Conyers, Dareda reports, also included a warning about the importance of treating whistleblowers in a lawful manner:
It's also worth noting that Conyers ended the letter by giving Grimes a huge thank you, and throwing in a footnote reminding Mukasey that you can't just fire whistle-blowers:
We appreciate Ms. Grimes providing this information, which she apparently has previously presented to several executive branch offices. It is no easy thing to speak up in these circumstances, but we in Congress and all Americans depend on whistleblowers like Mr. Grimes taking action when they learn of troubling facts like those described above.
Any employee who has the authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, with respect to such authority take or fail to take ... a personnel action with respect to any employee ... because of any disclosure of information ... which the employee ... reasonably believes evidences a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or gross mismanagement... an abuse of authority.
In an in-depth analysis at Huffington Post, Andrew Kreig notes the curious juxtaposition of the Grimes firing and Rove's recent testimony behind closed doors before staff members of the House Judiciary Committee.
Perhaps no state has been infected with the Rove mindset to such an extent as Alabama. And that Alice in Wonderland mindset is best on display in Montgomery and the Middle District of Alabama, where Grimes worked.
In "Roveland," the innocent become guilty, the legal becomes criminal (for Democrats and unloyal Republicans), and the dedicated employee becomes a "security risk."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).