Sei sulla pagina 1di 23

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju67329.000/hju67329_0.

HTM
INVESTIGATION OF MISCONDUCT AND
MISMANAGEMENT AT ICITAP, OPDAT AND
CRIMINAL DIVISION'S OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 2000
Serial No. 128
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office,
Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
JAMES E. ROGAN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARY BONO, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MAXINE WATERS, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., General Counsel-Chief of Staff
JULIAN EPSTEIN, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
HEARING DATE
September 21, 2000
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
OPENING STATEMENT
Hyde, Hon. Henry J., a Representative in Congress From the
State of Illinois, and chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
WITNESSES
Fine, Glenn, Acting Inspector General, Office of Inspector
General, United States Department of Justice
Holder, Eric, Deputy Attorney General, United States
Department of Justice
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE
HEARING
Fine, Glenn, Acting Inspector General, Office of Inspector
General, United States Department of Justice: Prepared statement
Holder, Eric, Deputy Attorney General, United States
Department of Justice: Prepared statement
Jackson Lee, Hon. Sheila, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Texas: Prepared statement
APPENDIX
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Material submitted for the record
INVESTIGATION OF MISCONDUCT AND
MISMANAGEMENT AT ICITAP, OPDAT AND CRIMINAL
DIVISION'S OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2000
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Henry J. Hyde, F. James
Sensenbrenner, Jr., George W. Gekas, Howard Coble, Bob Barr,
Asa Hutchinson, Edward A. Pease, Chris Cannon, Joe
Scarborough, John Conyers, Jr., Howard L. Berman, Zoe Lofgren,
Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, and William D. Delahunt.
Staff present: Daniel M. Freeman, parliamentarian-counsel;
Joseph Gibson, chief counsel; William Moschella, chief
investigative counsel; Kirsti Garlock, counsel; Steve Pinkos,
counsel; Sheila F. Klein, executive assistant to general counsel;
Amy Rutkowski, staff assistant; James B. Farr, financial clerk;
Sharon L. Hammersla, information resources manager; Blaine
Aaron, professional staff member; Perry Apelbaum, minority
general counsel; Ted Kalo, minority counsel; and Mathew
Nosanchuk, minority special counsel.

Hon. HENRY J. HYDE, Chairman,


Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
DEAR CHAIRMAN HYDE: I would like to thank you and the
Committee for your careful oversight in this latest Department of
Justice scandal, which unfortunately appears to reach into the
highest levels of the federal service. I also wish to thank you and
your staff for allowing me the opportunity to address, through this
letter, some of the history concerning this shameful episode and
the Department's apparent decision to remain in a state of denial
rather than to address the causes at the root of the problems
uncovered.
The Inspector General's (IG) report released last week said that
the Justice Department's latest national security scandal ''should
have been apparent to any taking the time to look.'' It said that the
''disturbing history'' of senior Department officials' some close
advisors to Attorney General Janet Reno, others recent recipients
of hefty cash awards from herhad allowed Criminal Division
employees to become ''cynical about the ethics of the department
as a whole.'' The IG report noted that their three-year investigation
was the result of disclosures that I had made in April 1997
concerning illegal and unethical conduct in the Department's
international training programs. Unfortunately, in what has become
a pattern for Inspector Generals' reportsthe case of Fred
Whitehurst and the FBI crime lab was one of the most notorious
examplesthe IG has engaged in a practice of bashing the
whistleblowers even as it seeks to take credit for our work.
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This hearing comes at an interesting time. Earlier this week,
Rep. Christopher Cox laid bare the failing U.S.-Russian
relationship, including a searing indictment of the lost
opportunities to fight international crime under the Clinton-Gore
administration. Not surprisingly, much of the blame lands squarely
on Janet Reno's scandal-racked Justice Department. ''The lion's
share of our aid was aimed at shoring up'' the corrupt government
of then-President Boris Yeltsin, Cox reported, while U.S. aid
programs for the rule of law ''were just a tiny fraction of our
attention.''
It didn't have to be that way. In the early 1990s, when I worked
on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for Sen. Alan Cranston
(D.-Calif.), we worked closely with the office of then-Attorney
General Richard Thornburgh to provide such assistance to the
newly emerging democracies of Eastern Europe and the former
Soviet Union. It was a heady time, when both political parties
embraced a dream of a ''new world order'' that would be ushered in
with the fall of the Berlin Wall. As you know, U.S. security
interests abroad are best protected when the United States speaks
with one, bi-partisan voice, and at the time it looked like we were
on our way to breaking down our own ''wallthat of unnecessary
and messy wrangling over foreign policy.
Under Sen. Cranston's direction, I co-founded a Congressional
staff working group set up by the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS) in order to draw attention to the law
enforcement needs of the formerly communist region. Sen.
Cranston pushed hard for the establishment of FBI legal attache
offices to be established east of Vienna, an initiative fought behind
the scenes by a turf-conscious CIA. We also sought to loosen
restrictions on foreign police training, a controversial effort among
our liberal Democratic friends, who constantly decried efforts they
saw as ''getting us back into the torture business.''
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
U.S. foreign police training efforts had been curtailed in the
mid-1970s due to concern about intelligence agency infiltration in
such programs and documented allegations that U.S. support was
being given to forces that routinely tortured and killed political
opponents. The argument squarely meshed with the Cold War
divide between ''hawks'' and ''doves,'' and effectively immobilized
the marshaling of U.S. expertise to help developing countries
create better legal systems.
With the fall of communism, however, a strong case could be
made that the development of professional civilian police forces
could not only effectively fight common crime and drugs, but also
be enlisted in the struggle to secure human rights. In Latin
America, there was another argument in favor of professional and
humane police trainingmilitary coups were virtually impossible
when the police remained loyal to civilian government.
I had some personal experience in democratic development that
I thought would be of service in helping to implement these new
policies that we had played a role in crafting. In the 1980s, I had
served in as a special correspondent for Newsweek and the
Washington Post in Buenos Aires, where I covered the 1985 ''dirty
war'' trials of the former military juntas. (In 1993, a book I
published on the subject was called a ''tour de force'' by The New
York Times.) From 1987 to 1990, I served as director for Latin
American programs and the civil-military project of the National
Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) headed by
former Vice President Walter Mondale.
In the months before the IG began its investigation, I was
optimistic about my future at the Justice Department. In 1996, I
received an ''outstanding'' annual performance evaluation. Thomas
Snow, acting director of the Office of Prosecutorial Development
and Training (OPDAT), wrote that ''I learned very early during my
tenure to rely heavily on the talent and enthusiasm of my OPDAT
colleague, Mick Andersen.''; Division ethics officer James
Silverwood praised my ''excellent professional skills.'' My letters
of recommendation from supervisors and co-workers attest to the
fact that I was a ''team player.'' Even Vice President Al Gore's
brother-in-law, then Assistant Attorney General for the Civil
Division, Frank Hunger, invited me to lunch in the Department
cafeteria to discuss how to set up international programs under his
direction (Please see attached documents.)
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I found that my optimism was misplaced. Before the IG
investigation began I had complained to Division Executive
Officer Robert Bratt about high-level leaks of highly classified
documents to uncleared contractors. I and a co-worker had brought
to Silverwood's attention a lucrative no-bid contract awarded to
Bratt's former superior, Assistant Attorney General for the
Criminal Division, Jo Ann Harris. A co-worker and I stopped a
translation service overrun, at the hands of a Bratt lieutenant, that
cost more than $100,000, from more than doubling. Bratt did
nothing, and my personal situation soon began to worsen.
The Criminal Division's security office was increasingly
perceived to be ''in the tank'' with Mr. Bratt and other senior
officials whom the IG found responsible for ''egregious
misconduct.'' So in April 1997 I took my concerns about leaks of
CIA documents to the main Justice security office headed by Jerry
Rubino. Despite Rubino's promise of confidentiality, I later found
that I had been fingered to Bratt by Rubino's office as the person
whose disclosures sparked the IG's investigation.
As you will note in the IG report, a great deal of my disclosures
concerning wrongdoing were upheld and even expanded upon
during the subsequent more than three-year long criminal
investigation. In addition to the security leaks, the unbid contracts,
and the waste of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, I
provided the IG with a number of other investigative leads that
were found to have merit. For example, I complained about Bratt
giving a career federal service position to a former girlfriend who
had been a waitress at Lulu's bar on M Street. I also told the IG
that Bratt subordinates helped him repair his beachfront home in
Delaware. I provided all the documentation necessary for the IG to
find that Bratt's replacement as Criminal Division Executive
Officer, Sandie Bright, had arranged for Department of Justice
computers to be ''donated'' to her husband's school district, creating
a glaring appearance of favoritism and impropriety. I also was the
person who referred a senior Division lawyer to IG investigors
after he told me he had evidence that Bratt and his chief assistant
Joseph Lake had committed visa fraud.
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At the same time, I was disappointed that the IG did not address
other, equally relevant, issues concerning the Harris contract and
allegations from ICITAP co-workers that I had brought to their
attention concerning Department of Justice contractors'' sexual
relationships with adolescent girls in Haiti. I was also concerned
that left unmentioned were several serious security flaws that I had
reported to the IG about the Office of International Affairs, at the
time headed by Fran Fragos-Townsend. When I arrived at OIA I
found that uncleared college interns were allowed to eat their
lunches unsupervised in the room where highly-classified
information concerning international criminal matters was stored.
(Ms. Fragos-Townsend is now Ms. Reno's senior advisor on
intelligence issues.)
My disclosures did not help me however; I soon found that my
professional life was in shambles. I was stripped of the interim
secret security clearance I held for 18 months. The only
explanation was to rewrite history and claim I never had one,
although I had received written notice of the interim clearance and
regularly been reviewing classified records since being hired. I was
removed from the OPDAT office and reassigned to Bratt's
Administrative officesat a time Bratt said my performance was
again under review. Stripped of my duties and absent a security
clearance, I was for a time warehoused in an office used to store
''burn boxes'' full of classified information. The absurdity of this
situation was underlined when Bratt also asked me to stay late to
help draft a memorandum on highly-sensitive immigration issues
that he was to present the next morning to Attorney General Reno.
I also was banned from the OPDAT office where I continued to
file my time and attendance sheets, and was spit on and screamed
at a zealous former co-worker who apparently was eager to be seen
as carrying out management's vendetta against me. The fact I no
longer had a security clearance was used as a justification for my
dismissal from service on September 3, 1997.
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The IG's office could have protected me. It did not. In the
summer of 1997, two of its investigators used the same phrase at
different times: ''Do what you need to do to save yourself.'' When
the IG later found I had gone to Congress and the press to do just
that, they started warning colleagues who had remained friends to
stay away from me. (A senior ICITAP manager who had remained
my friend, a person of normally unflappable and sunny disposition,
said the pressure brought to bear was so blatant that he ended up
telling the investigators to ''go (expletive deleted) themselves.''
According to this friend, one senior investigator even suggested I
had engaged in whistleblowing ''for the money.'' (There was no
potential money to be made. Federal Whistleblowers are limited to
actual, not punitive, damages.)
When I was dismissed from federal service, Frank Hungerthe
Vice President's brother- in-law and my one-time lunch companion
failed to stop the Civil Division reprisal against me, despite
brother-in-law Al's ''personal guarantee'' given in 1993 to USA
Today that punitive actions against whistleblowers would end.
(Ironically, I had supported Gore for president in 1988 and had
worked as unpaid issues staff in the Clinton-Gore campaign of
1992.) In a May 25, 1993 cover story, in which the Vice President
was interviewed about ''reinventing government,'' it was reported
that:
In fact, the primary focus is on changing the culture at federal
offices . . . Gore said the (ReGo effort) will produce . . . a
reduction in fear. Gore emphasizes that federal workers who report
waste or abuse will not be punished. ''I give my personal guarantee
that an employee of the federal government who assists us will not
suffer retribution,'' the vice president said.
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I should also mention that in 1997, before my disclosures
became widely known, the Vice President's office had
recommended me for a political appointment.
In 1998, the powerful Assistant Attorney General for
Administration, Bratt's friend and mentor Steve Colgate,
announced to the prestigious Legal Times that Bratt would be fully
vindicated. At this point it appeared that the system was truly
broken. It was quite apparent that there was no controlling legal
authority at Reno's Justice Department.
My case points to a glaring loophole in free speech protection
for whistleblowers. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989
does not cover those who engage in protected speechmaking
complaints about official misconduct, waste, fraud and abuseand
who suffer reprisal through removal of their security clearances.
Even supervisors guilty of grave mishandling of national security
information have it in their power to strike back at those who bring
these serious breaches of public trust to the authorities by stripping
them of their ability to work with classified information. The result
is often a loss of duties, which is then used to get rid of the
offending employee.
Although I was completely vindicated by the Inspector General's
report for my whistleblowing disclosures, three years after I was
released from federal service I am still is awaiting vindication for
my claims of reprisal for daring to ''commit the truth.'' Several
other courageous Department whistleblowers are also the possible
victims of reprisal by the Department of Justice. The following
paragraphs briefly detail their allegations:
VALLEREY VANDEGRIFT, TRIAL ATTORNEY, AVIATION
AND ADMIRALTY SECTION
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. Vandegrift worked in the ''crash and splash'' unit at DOJ,
which defends US with respect to air and sea disasters, e.g., a plane
crashes and survivors sue FAA. When Ms. Vandergrift worked
with senior attorney on two cases, she noted excessive settlements
in both. In one, a plaintiff's attorney allegedly tried to bribe
attorneys in a case that eventually settled for $33 million with U.S.
paying approximately $28 million (only 6-7 plaintiffs). After Ms.
Vandergrift complained, she was given unsatisfactory performance
evaluation and asked to leave DOJ or else could never practice law
again. Both the fraud and the retaliation occurred while Vice
President Gore's brother-in-law, Frank Hunger, was AAG for Civil
Division. Ms. Vandegrift's husband elevated the matter to Mr.
Hunger, Ms. Reno and Mr. Goreto no avail. Ms. Vandegrist
became severely depressed and has sought treatment for stress
GREGORY C. SASSE, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY
''I reported important cases being compromised and I reported
harassment and reprisals against me personally in connection with
my environmental prosecutions and my efforts to form and
promote an environmental crimes task force in northern Ohio.
''The retaliation consisted of systematic efforts to create a
completely hostile work environment, including verbal abuse, a
more than double caseload;. . .; no training or seminars;
interference with important, complex cases; downgrades in
performance based upon pretexts; arbitrary, hidden deadlines; and
adverse work standards.
''My environmental discrimination/WBer lawsuit will have a
pre-conference hearing on October 3, 2000. I just won a decision
from the administrative board of review of the Department of
Labor denying DOJ's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.''
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DANIEL JACOBS, TRIAL ATTORNEY
''After I made disclosures of government wrongdoing, [AAG]
Lois Schiffer issued orders prohibiting me from speaking to my
own lawyers, under threat of disciplinary action. . . . DOJ also
made veiled threats of criminal prosecution were I to show copies
of documents to them.
''In Jacobs v. Schiffer, 47 F. Supp 2d 16 (D.D.C. 1999), Judge
Thomas Penfield Jackson issued a published decision enjoining the
prohibition, and in Jacobs v. Schiffer, 204 F.3d 259, 265 (D.C. Cir.
2000), the Court of Appeals unanimously awarded me attorneys
fees, finding DOJ's posiiton to have been inexplicable. DOJ has yet
to address how it intends to reedy the negative impact on my
exemplary 16-year career at the Department.''
SUSAN SWIFT, ATTORNEY ADVISOR
Among other things, Ms. Swift reported the alleged misconduct
of OLC's Executive Officer, who she said, used her official
position for the private gain of herself and others on a regular
basis, and violated anti-discrimination laws. Ms. Swift alleges that
the Justice Department official submitted fraudulent time sheets
and leave slips for herself and others and encouraged other OLC
employees to do same thing; used government vehicles for
personal errands; used government personnel for personal errands
(e.g., sent an employees to buy ''ice cream''her code word for
beeras if he were her personal lackey; unfairly harrassed an
African American female paralegal through ostracization and bad
performance evaluations), and exhibited blatant racism by saying
''I'm glad I don't work in the Civil Rights Division anymore
because they were all black there.''
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
According to Ms. Swift, as a result of reporting wrongdoing, the
OLC Executive Officer and a Deputy Assistant Attorney General
who allegedly had participated in the time sheet fraud
surreptitiously broke into Ms. Swift's office computer, had OPR
investigate her in an unheard of 30-day expedited inquiry;
proposed that she be fired; kept her on administrative leave for
over 3 years; urged a DC SWAT team to storm her apartment
when she became depressed and suicidal, and then contrived
reasons to have her arrested by the FBI in an apparent effort to
push her over the edge; and forced her into a psychiatric ward. Ms.
Swift developed post traumatic stress disorder andwhile facing
possible criminal chargeswas allegedly sexually exploited by an
OPR attorney. When Ms. Swift resisted the pressure to resign, she
was suspended for 2 weeks and transferred to a litigating division
even though she does not know how to litigate. DOJ eventually
revoked the suspension, and Ms. Swift obtained an order
expunging her arrest records which the US Attorney's Office failed
to honor. The alleged misconduct by senior Justice officials was
reported to Reno, Holder, current OPR management, former OLC
AAG Walter Dellinger, and current OLC AAG Randy Moss. The
failure to expunge has been reported to OPR. DOJ officials have
done nothing.
Mr. Chairman, Schopenhauer once wrote that ''every truth
passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first, it is
ridiculed. In the second, it is opposed. In the third, it is regarded as
self-evident.
In the case of federal whistleblowers, we are well familiar with
all three steps. We suffer the first two; finally, when a truth'' like
the findings of the Inspector General's reportbecomes self-
evident, most people seem uncomfortable with those of us who
helped bring the truth to light.
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Doing the right thing has not been easy. Until my alimony
payments ended a few months ago, 60 percent of my after-tax
income went to alimony and support for my two children. Both
they and my parents have lived many anxious and unhappy days as
a result of the retaliation I have sufferednot only by those who I
accusedrightlyof wrongdoing, but also at the hands of the
Inspector General.
As you will note in the IG report, I am faulted on two occasions.
Once, as a contractor, I took home a classified document that had
been buried in a pile of papers I was given by ICITAP
management to work with. As the IG report itself noted, in a
profile of the security situation in the office I worked:
After the SEPS sweep in April 1997, ICITAP conducted a search
of its unsecured files for classified documents. Classified
documents were found mixed in with unclassified documents in
the ''central country files,'' which were stored in unlocked file
cabinets in hallways and accessible to anyone walking through
ICITAP.
In using the mound of papers I brought home, I did not find the
classified document and only discovered it about six months later,
when I was cleaning my apartment. I should mention that just a
few weeks earlier, I had incurred the wrath of senior ICITAP
management for challenging violations of EEO and security rules
by them. I could have destroyed the document (I had not signed
out for it; I could not even be held responsible for having it as it
was given to me as a contractor.) However, I returned it to the
same people about whom I had complained. The difference, which
the IG did not bother to note, is that rather than evade
responsibility, I accepted it, even when it meant going back to
people who clearly had their knives out for me.
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the second case, the IG muttered darkly in print about a
relationship I had with a Russian woman. However, they again
shaded facts that would have placed my actions in a more correct
light. The woman I was dating for approximately two months
already had been screened and selected by the Department's
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) as an academic fellow. The
Justice Department also provided her with a pass which allowed
her free access to numerous offices, including areas of OPDAT
where I did not work. She worked closely with a U.S. Agency for
International Development grantee working on anti-organized
crime issues in the former Soviet Union. She was also the close
friend of the son of a former senior official of the CIA who later
went on to be ambassador of an important Asian country. I should
also point out that what she characterized as joking requests for
classified information were repeated twice, not three times, as the
IG reports. The first time, I ended the banter firmly by telling her
never, ever to joke about such matters. The second time, I ended
the relationship within 24 hours.
The IG faults me because I did not report the incidents for
several weeks. However, the IG did not report that I felt
uncomfortable about making an accusation that might be unfair
given the circumstancesand end up smearing her to no purpose.
It also failed to say that when I did report the incident, it came after
learning that another Russian national on a visitors program was
believed to be an intelligence agent. It neglected to say, however,
that the two FBI agents who interviewed me about her told me, and
told a fellow worker, not to worry, as I had done the right thing. It
also did not report that, according to FBI sources, the woman was
''cleared.'' The IG also did not say that, had I never reported the
incident, no one would have been the wiser; I did so out of concern
that, the possibility, however remote, that the woman was a spy
needed to be dealt with. Nor did they note that the I had never
received from the Department the security briefing required of all
personnel handling classified information; I only found out that the
Department was required to offer such training a year later.
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition, in the footnotes the IG includes comments from
ICITAP management which are patently false, particularly given
the time frames in which they allegedly occurred; probably
originated from the gang that was found to have committed
egregious faults, and about which I was never able to respond.
Given the IG's shabby treatment of Fred Whitehurst, its
shocking disclosure of the confidential complaint about
whistleblower reprisal filed by a co-worker and friend, and their
own treatment of me, the appeal made in the report that those
aware of wrongdoing should go to the IG and report it is a
mockery. Anyone who does so is likely to be investigated and later
defamed, and possibly destroyed, by the same people who
smilingly tell us that they are open for business. And what about
the wise injunction of committee minority staff director Julian
Epstein, who just a few weeks ago declared on national television,
apropos of another Clinton- era situation, to the effect that if you
are cleared you shouldn't be smeared?
Mr. Chairman, such dereliction shows that then it comes to
whistleblowers, the only thing they can count on from the IG is
that they can't count by them. Going to the IG for protection
against retaliation is an exercise in futility. The country and
western song, ''Stand by your man,'' should be adopted as an
anthem by the IG as 'stand by your witness.'' Unfortunately, my
own example at the hands of the IG serves as a powerful
disincentive for people to come forward and do the right thing. I
think it is necessary to note that, like all other components of the
Justice Department, the IG's office space and other perks are doled
out by Mr. Colgate, Mr. Bratt's useful friend and, at the same time,
head of the Justice Management Division.
On a personal note, I would like to ask how am I supposed to
account for the two years I spent at the Justice Department? I am
now faced with seeking employment in a company town whose
companythe federal governmenthas shown me the door. In
job interviews, I will likely have to explain what happened. I hope
that they will listen to me, about my accomplishments, and why
making waves was the right thing to do. Washington is a busy
town, however, and who is going to take the time to check out the
factsparticularly when most people think, reasonably, that the
Justice Department is in the business of dispensing justice, and its
Criminal Division is free of criminals? I am not optimistic I will
get a fair hearing.
Page 125 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
People have a right to expect that their tax dollars are spent
wisely . . . and impartially. The lot of a whistleblower may be that
of a lonely sentinel, but he or she is really accompanied by
millions of Americans who are willing to pay for government
servicesbut also who expect that public officials serve, not take.
It is a modest pretention. So, too, is the expectation that people
who take risks to protect the common interest are themselves not
exposed to unnecessary harm.
Again, I very much appreciate the opportunity you have afford
me, and the work that you are doing to ensure that the Department
gets back on the right track.
Sincerely,
Enclousers (3)

re: Martin E. Andersen
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: From September 30, 1996
until April 4, 1997, I served as the Acting Director of the Office of
Professional Development and Training (OPDAT) in the Criminal
Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. This period proved to
be one of significant reorganization and expansion for OPDAT.
Fortunately, I learned very early during my tenure to rely heavily
on the talent and enthusiasm of my OPDAT colleague, Mick
Andersen.
Page 126 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Andersen demonstrated a combination of long term vision
and practical day to day problem solving. In a time devoted to
instituting management reforms and creating standard operating
procedures, Mick was a never ending source of new ideas and
suggestions. For example, he assisted me in establishing
standardized bi-weekly reporting from our overseas resident legal
advisors (RLAs), made very useful contributions to the design of
our improved office management information system, and drafted
a comprehensive plan to regularize the smooth deployment of new
RLAs.
Of Mick's many strengths, the one I most often drew upon was
his gift as a writer. Whether assigned a lengthy policy piece, or a
short, pithy paragraph for submission to the Attorney General's
weekly report, the result was always clear, accessible, and
analytically sound. Moreover, he consistently turned out a superb
written product on very short deadlinea talent both valuable and
rare.
Both I and the entire Office benefited from the fact that Mr.
Andersen is a team player. He routinely sought out additional
responsibility, and gladly took on the additional work which
accompanies such responsibility. He also often volunteered to help
busy OPDAT colleagues complete their assigned dutiesand did
so without seeking credit or recognition. I was particularly
gratified by his unsolicited creation of a morale boosting,
Wednesday lunch group for all interested OPDAT staff.
In short, I would gladly recommend Mr. Andersen for any
position which requires outstanding communication skills,
insightful analysis, and a strong sense of mission.
Page 127 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Sincerely,

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This is to recommend
Martin Andersen. Since approximately 1996, I have worked with
Mr. Andersen in the Criminal Division's Office of Professional
Development and Training. My working experience with him has
been very positive.
Mr. Andersen's contributions to the office have been marked by
innovation and enthusiasm. He has displayed exceptional writing
and research skills. His good judgement and excellent
communications skills have served this office well. At all time he
has been willing to assume responsibilities beyond his own and his
work product has been first rate.
Beyond his excellent professional skills, I have found that Mr.
Andersen has been a ''team player'' and supportive of the mission
of the office. It has been a pleasure working with Mr. Andersen
and I believe that he will make a positive contribution as he
assumes his new assignments.
Page 128 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Sincerely,

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I am writing to offer my
highest recommendation to Martin ''Mick'' Andersen, who served
for nearly 18 months as the senior advisor for policy planning at
the Overseas Prosecutorial Development and Training (OPDAT)
program of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. I
first began working with Mick in my capacity as program director
for anti-organized crime assistance in Eastern Europe and the
former Soviet Union (NIS). Then as now, I have thoroughly
enjoyed my association with him.
During his time at OPDAT Mick has received accolades for his
many important contributions to the work of the Justice
Department overseas. Whether dealing with Latin America, Haiti,
Eastern Europe or the NIS, Mick has shown keen insight into the
peoples and problems of the countries where we have worked. In
particular, his work was key to establishing OPDAT policies
regarding the scope and quality of its work. Also, Mick worked
with me in the development of the strike force assistance program
in the NIS. He has prodigious research and writing skills, and a
strong sense of teamwork and fair play.
Page 129 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
During our year-and-a-half-long association, Mick has become
more than just a valued co- worker, but a trusted friend as well.
Beyond his professional skills, Mick has shown he is a person of
integrity and honesty and someone who gets along well with
others. As I move on to my new position as a naval officer
stationed in the Far East, I will miss his wise counsel and sound
policy judgement. I recommend him without hesitation.
Sincerely,