Ex-Gov Who Wanted Ambassadorship to India Just Got 5 of 18 Counts Thrown Out by Appeals Court

Posted: 12:24 am EDT

 

In December 2008, then Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris, were arrested for what U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald called a “political corruption crime spree” that included attempts to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.  He was accused of talking on FBI recordings about plotting to extract a $1.5 million campaign contribution from U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.—in exchange for appointing Jackson to Obama’s vacated seat. Via Politico:

A federal criminal complaint detailed Blagojevich’s attempt to cash in on his power to appoint Obama’s replacement by first attempting to arrange a presidential cabinet appointment. When that failed, Blagojevich hoped for an ambassadorship.

Specifically, India or South Africa …er, no, India.

Via Lapham's Quarterly

Via Lapham’s Quarterly

Just to show how little Blago and his chief of staff knew about the diplomatic service. Blagojevich in one recording says, “How much would you think a position like that would pay? I mean, again, this requires a lot of travel, it’s a lot of work. A reasonable…”  The chief of staff responds, “Well, I mean you’d get an expense account. So it’s not all in pay.”

In 2015, the caps for Senior Foreign Service pay is between $172,074 – $183,300. He would have received hardship and COLA differentials. They’re currently 20% + 10% respectively of basic pay for FS employees assigned in New Delhi. The ambassador’s expense account? Teh-heh! Best read Bloomberg’s The Economics of Being a U.S. Ambassador.

Poor sod probably did not realize that the Indian monsoon would also ruin his properly combed hat.

In any case, for those who were hoping that Blago’s case would temper similar arrangements in the future will be disappointed. On June 22, the United  States  District  Court  for  the Northern  District  of  Illinois dismissed five of the 18 counts and ordered that the former governor be resentenced. Below is an excerpt from the Appeals Court ruling dated July 21, 2015.

Blagojevich now asks us to hold that the evidence is insufficient to convict him on any count. The argument is frivolous. The evidence, much of it from Blagojevich’s own mouth, is overwhelming. To the extent there are factual disputes, the jury was entitled to credit the prosecution’s evidence and to find that Blagojevich acted with the knowledge required for conviction.

But a problem in the way the instructions told the jury to consider the evidence requires us to vacate the convictions on counts that concern Blagojevich’s proposal to appoint Valerie Jarrett to the Senate in exchange for an appointment to the Cabinet. A jury could have found that Blagojevich asked the President-­‐‑elect for a private-­sector job, or for funds that he could control, but the instructions permitted the jury to convict even if it found that his only request of Sen. Obama was for a position in the Cabinet. The instructions treated all proposals alike. We conclude, however, that they are legally different: a proposal to trade one public act for another, a form of logrolling, is fundamentally unlike the swap of an official act for a private payment.

Because the instructions do not enable us to be sure that the jury found that Blagojevich offered to trade the appointment for a private salary after leaving the Governorship, these convictions cannot stand. Compare Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957), and United States v. Rivera Borrero, 771 F.3d 973 (7th Cir. 2014), with Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (1991). (Perhaps because the jury deadlocked at the first trial, the United States does not seriously contend that any error was harmless; a one-­line statement in the brief differs from an argument. Cf. Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. 57, 60–62 (2008) (an error of this kind is not “structural”).)

McCormick describes the offense as a quid pro quo: a public official performs an official act (or promises to do so) in exchange for a private benefit, such as money. See also United States v. Sun-­Diamond Growers of California, 526 U.S. 398, 404– 05 (1999); United States v. McDonnell, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11889 (4th Cir. July 10, 2015). A political logroll, by contrast, is the swap of one official act for another. Representative A agrees with Representative B to vote for milk price supports, if B agrees to vote for tighter controls on air pollution. A President appoints C as an ambassador, which Senator D asked the President to do, in exchange for D’s promise to vote to confirm E as a member of the National Labor Relations Board. Governance would hardly be possible without these accommodations, which allow each public official to achieve more of his principal objective while surrendering something about which he cares less, but the other politician cares more strongly.

A proposal to appoint a particular person to one office (say, the Cabinet) in exchange for someone else’s promise to appoint a different person to a different office (say, the Senate), is a common exercise in logrolling. We asked the prosecutor at oral argument if, before this case, logrolling had been the basis of a criminal conviction in the history of the United States. Counsel was unaware of any earlier conviction for an exchange of political favors. Our own research did not turn one up. It would be more than a little surprising to Members of Congress if the judiciary found in the Hobbs Act, or the mail fraud statute, a rule making everyday politics criminal.

Let’s work this through statute by statute. Section 1951, the Hobbs Act, which underlies Counts 21 and 22, forbids interference with commerce by robbery or extortion. Blagojevich did not rob anyone, and extortion, a defined term, “means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right” (§1951(b)(2)). The indictment charged Blagojevich with the “color of official right” version of extortion, but none of the evidence suggests that Blagojevich claimed to have an “official right” to a job in the Cabinet. He did have an “official right” to appoint a new Senator, but unless a position in the Cabinet is “property” from the President’s perspective, then seeking it does not amount to extortion. Yet a political office belongs to the people, not to the incumbent (or to someone hankering after the position). Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12 (2000), holds that state and municipal licenses, and similar documents, are not “property” in the hands of a public agency. That’s equally true of public positions. The President-­elect did not have a property interest in any Cabinet job, so an attempt to get him to appoint a particular person to the Cabinet is not an attempt to secure “property” from the President (or the citizenry at large).

Sekhar v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2720 (2013), shows that the phrase “obtaining of property” in the Hobbs Act must not be extended just to penalize shady dealings. Sekhar holds that a recommendation about investments is not “property” under §1951(b)(2) for two principal reasons: first, in the long history of extortion law it had never before been so understood (similarly, political logrolling has never before been condemned as extortion); second, the making of a recommendation is not transferrable. The Court restricted “property” to what one owner can transfer to another. By that standard a job in the Cabinet (or any other public job) is not “property” from the employer’s perspective. It is not owned by the person with appointing power, and it cannot be deeded over. The position may be filled by different people, but the position itself is not a transferrable property interest. A position is “held” or “occupied” but not “obtained,” and under Sekhar something that cannot be “obtained” also cannot be the subject of extortion.

Section 666, the basis (through a conspiracy charge) of Count 23, forbids theft or bribery in publicly funded programs (of which the State of Illinois is one). Count 23 relies on §666(a)(1)(B), which makes it a crime for an agent of a covered organization to solicit “corruptly … anything of value” in connection with a transaction worth $5,000 or more. “Corruptly” refers to the recipient’s state of mind and indicates that he understands the payment as a bribe or gratuity. United States v. Hawkins, 777 F.3d 880, 882 (7th Cir. 2015). It would not be plausible to describe a political trade of favors as an offer or attempt to bribe the other side.

[…]

So if a Governor appoints someone to a public commission and proclaims the appointee “the best person for the job,” while the real reason is that some state legislator had asked for a friend’s appointment as a favor, then the Governor has committed wire fraud because the Governor does not actually believe that the appointee is the best person for the job. That’s not a plausible understanding of §1346, even if (as is unlikely) it would be valid under the First Amendment as a criminal penalty for misleading political speech. And no matter what one makes of the subject, the holding of Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010), prevents resort to §1346 to penalize political horse-­trading. Skilling holds that only bribery and kickbacks violate §1346. So unless political logrolling is a form of bribery, which it is not, §1346 drops out.

The prosecutor insists, however, that Blagojevich’s situation is different and uncommon because he sought a post in the Cabinet for himself. It isn’t clear to us that this is unusual. The current Secretary of State was appointed to that position from a seat in the Senate, and it wouldn’t surprise us if this happened at least in part because he had performed a political service for the President. Ambassadors, too, come from the House or Senate (or from state politics) as part of political deals.

Some historians say that this is how Earl Warren came to be Chief Justice of the United States: he delivered the California delegation at the 1952 Republican convention to Eisenhower (rather than Senator Taft) in exchange for a commitment to appoint him to the next vacancy on the Supreme Court.

[…]

If the prosecutor is right, and a swap of political favors involving a job for one of the politicians is a felony, then if the standard account is true both the President of the United States and the Chief Justice of the United States should have gone to prison. Yet although historians and political scientists have debated whether this deal was made, or whether if made was ethical (or politically unwise), no one to our knowledge has suggested that it violated the statutes involved in this case. (Whether it might have violated 18 U.S.C. §599, and whether that statute is compatible with the First Amendment, are issues we do not address.)

Read in full here (pdf).

#

 

21.5 Million Americans Compromised, OPM’s Ms. Archuleta Still Not Going Anywhere

Posted: 1:36 am  PDT

Excerpt via opm.gov:

OPM announced the results of the interagency forensic investigation into the second incident.  As previously announced, in late-May 2015, as a result of ongoing efforts to secure its systems, OPM discovered an incident affecting background investigation records of current, former, and prospective Federal employees and contractors.  Following the conclusion of the forensics investigation, OPM has determined that the types of information in these records include identification details such as Social Security Numbers; residency and educational history; employment history; information about immediate family and other personal and business acquaintances; health, criminal and financial history; and other details.  Some records also include findings from interviews conducted by background investigators and fingerprints.  Usernames and passwords that background investigation applicants used to fill out their background investigation forms were also stolen.

While background investigation records do contain some information regarding mental health and financial history provided by those that have applied for a security clearance and by individuals contacted during the background investigation, there is no evidence that separate systems that store information regarding the health, financial, payroll and retirement records of Federal personnel were impacted by this incident (for example, annuity rolls, retirement records, USA JOBS, Employee Express).

This incident is separate but related to a previous incident, discovered in April 2015, affecting personnel data for current and former Federal employees.  OPM and its interagency partners concluded with a high degree of confidence that personnel data for 4.2 million individuals had been stolen.  This number has not changed since it was announced by OPM in early June, and OPM has worked to notify all of these individuals and ensure that they are provided with the appropriate support and tools to protect their personal information.

Analysis of background investigation incident.  Since learning of the incident affecting background investigation records, OPM and the interagency incident response team have moved swiftly and thoroughly to assess the breach, analyze what data may have been stolen, and identify those individuals who may be affected.  The team has now concluded with high confidence that sensitive information, including the Social Security Numbers (SSNs) of 21.5 million individuals, was stolen from the background investigation databases.  This includes 19.7 million individuals that applied for a background investigation, and 1.8 million non-applicants, predominantly spouses or co-habitants of applicants.  As noted above, some records also include findings from interviews conducted by background investigators and approximately 1.1 million include fingerprints.  There is no information at this time to suggest any misuse or further dissemination of the information that was stolen from OPM’s systems.

If an individual underwent a background investigation through OPM in 2000 or afterwards (which occurs through the submission of forms SF 86, SF 85, or SF 85P for a new investigation or periodic reinvestigation), it is highly likely that the individual is impacted by this cyber breach. If an individual underwent a background investigation prior to 2000, that individual still may be impacted, but it is less likely.

So, are we supposed to wait for another credit monitoring offer from OPM’s partners for this BI hack, after already being offered credit monitoring for the personnel data compromised in an earlier breach?

Yes. Wonderful.

Ms. Archuleta should do the right thing and resign.

Part of OPM’s public response to these breaches has been to protect the director’s record at the agency.  While she remains in charge, I suspect that the fixes at OPM will also include shielding the director from further damage. News reports already talk about OPM’s push back. Next thing you know we’ll have “setting the record straight” newsbots all over the place.

While it is true that Ms. Archuleta arrived at OPM with legacy systems still in operation, these breaches happened under her watch. Despite her protestation that no one is personally responsible (except the hackers), she is the highest accountable official at OPM.  Part and parcel of being in a leadership position is to own up to the disasters under your wings.  Ms. Archuleta should resign and give somebody else a chance to lead the fixes at OPM.

via reactiongifs.com

via reactiongifs.com

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

OPM Director Writes Investigation “Update” on Data Breach on July 4th, 8 p.m. Yawn. Rumble Burble CYA

Posted: 3:14 am  EDT

 

Katherine Archuleta who remains OPM director following the drip, drip, drip reports on the OPM data breach wrote a blog post at 8 pm on Saturday, July 4th, updating the “hardworking Federal workforce” on the “Cyberintrustion Investigation.”

The update does not provide any real update on the investigation, except to say they hope to have something this week. Two sentences on the investigation from an eight para message. Oy!

The purpose of the message appears to be — to show that the director is working on a Federal holiday. At 8 pm, too. While you all are celebrating the Fourth of July, the OPM director who is “as concerned about these incidents as you are,” is writing a blog post, and talking about the “tireless efforts” of her team. She wants folks to know that she “shares your anger,” and that she remains “committed to improving the IT issues that have plagued OPM for decades.” She also writes that she is “committed to finishing the important work outlined” in her Strategic IT Plan.

Hey, no one is personally responsible for this breach except the hackers, and it looks like Ms. Archuleta is committed enough that she won’t be going anywhere. No, not even to go back in time.

Here’s the part of her message that gave me a nasty headache. She writes, “I encourage you to take some time to learn about the ways you can help protect your own personal information.” 

Ay, holy molly guacamole!

May I also encourage OPM to take some time to learn about the ways it can help protect the personal information of Federal employees, job applicants, retirees and contractors, and their family members, because why not? See this timeline:
.

.

Cybersecurity is already a priority in our lives and work. We’re all in this great mess because it wasn’t a priority for OPM.  I certainly welcome more substantive details of this breach but these updates that are nothing more than rumble burble CYA are mighty useless, and they don’t do  anything to improve my perception of OPM or its leadership.

Dear White House. Please.Make.Her.Stop.

*

Via opm.gov

As our hardworking Federal workforce enjoys a much-deserved holiday weekend, I want to share a quick update on the ongoing investigation into the recent theft of information from OPM’s networks.

For those individuals whose data may have been compromised in the intrusion affecting personnel records, we are providing credit monitoring and identity protection services. My team has worked with our identity protection contractor to increase staff to handle the large volume of calls, and to dramatically reduce wait times for people seeking services. As of Friday, our average wait time was about 2 minutes with the longest wait time being about 15 minutes.

Thanks to the tireless efforts of my team at OPM and our inter-agency partners, we also have made progress in the investigation into the attacks on OPM’s background information systems. We hope to be able to share more on the scope of that intrusion next week, and in the coming weeks, we will be working hard to issue notifications to those affected.

I want you to know that I am as concerned about these incidents as you are. I share your anger that adversaries targeted OPM data. And I remain committed to improving the IT issues that have plagued OPM for decades.

One of my first priorities upon being honored with the responsibility of leading OPM was the development of a comprehensive IT strategic plan, which identified security vulnerabilities in OPM’s aging legacy systems, and, beginning in February 2014, embarked our agency on an aggressive modernization and security overhaul of our network and its systems. It was only because of OPM’s aggressive efforts to update our cybersecurity posture, adding numerous tools and capabilities to our networks, that the recent cybersecurity incidents were discovered.

I am committed to finishing the important work outlined in my Strategic IT Plan and together with our inter-agency partners, OPM will continue to evaluate and improve our security systems to make sure our sensitive data is protected to the greatest extent possible, across all of our networks.

We are living in an era where cybersecurity must be a priority in our lives at work and at home. I encourage you to take some time to learn about the ways you can help protect your own personal information. There are many helpful resources available on our website.

I’m wishing you a safe and relaxing 4th of July weekend.

#

State Department Appoints 3rd Special Envoy For Guantanamo Closure in Six Years

Posted: 1:35 am  EDT

 

On June 30, Secretary Kerry announced the appointment of Lee Wolosky, as the State Department’s Special Envoy for Guantanamo Closure:

Today, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Lee Wolosky, as the State Department’s Special Envoy for Guantanamo Closure. Lee will lead our ongoing diplomatic engagement to make possible the closure of the Guantanamo detention facility in a timely manner, consistent with American interests and the security of our people.

Lee Wolosky is a highly-skilled and experienced attorney who served as the National Security Council’s Director for Transnational Threats under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. He is ideally qualified to continue the hard diplomatic engagement that is required to close Guantanamo in accordance with President Obama’s directives. Lee will assume lead responsibility for arranging for the transfer of Guantanamo detainees abroad and for implementing transfer determinations, and overseeing the State Department’s participation in the periodic reviews of those detainees who are not approved for transfer.

In so doing, he will engage directly with America’s overseas friends and partners, while consulting closely with other interested U.S. agencies and with the appropriate committees of Congress.

I am very pleased at Lee’s decision to return to government service and look forward to working closely with him in his new position.

The State Department says that the incoming special envoy has not yet visited the detention facility at Guantanamo but that Mr. Wolosky, whose new appointment does not require Senate confirmation, “intends to visit the detention facility and meet with the detention facility leadership very soon.”

Mr. Wolosky is the third appointee to this position since it was created in 2009.

In January 2013, the NYT reported that Daniel Fried, the first special envoy for Gitmo closure was reassigned, his office closed, and his former responsibilities “assumed” by the office of the department’s legal adviser.   Via NYT:

Mr. Fried’s special envoy post was created in 2009, shortly after Mr. Obama took office and promised to close the prison in his first year. A career diplomat, Mr. Fried traveled the world negotiating the repatriation of some 31 low-level detainees and persuading third-party countries to resettle about 40 who were cleared for release but could not be sent home because of fears of abuse.

But the outward flow of detainees slowed almost to a halt as Congress imposed restrictions on further transfers, leaving Mr. Fried with less to do. He was eventually assigned to work on resettling a group of Iranian exiles, known as the M.E.K., who were living in a refugee camp in Iraq, in addition to his Guantánamo duties.

But in June 2013, the AP reported that President Obama had chosen a high-powered Washington lawyer Clifford Sloan to reopen the State Department’s Office of Guantanamo Closure, shuttered since January 2013 and folded into the department’s legal adviser’s office “when the administration, in the face of congressional obstacles, effectively gave up its attempt to close the prison.”

Sixteen months later, Secretary Kerry announced the departure of Special Envoy Clifford Sloan on December 22, 2014:

I’d like to have about a hundred Cliff Sloans. He’s the real deal. He’s the model of someone very successful on the outside who comes in to the State Department and builds relationships instead of burning bridges, gets people on board with a tough assignment, masters the inter-agency process, and just keeps his head down and proves the doubters dead wrong.
[…]
Now the results are clear. We’ve made huge progress thanks in large measure to Cliff. This guy promised me 18 months, and he delivered maximum effort for each of those 18 months. Cliff was very skillful negotiating with our foreign partners and allies, and it’s a big part of why we moved thirty-four detainees on his watch, with more on the way. Cliff also played a major role in our successful efforts to reform the Congressional restrictions on foreign transfers, and in launching the new Periodic Review Board process.

The NYT reported that the resignation of Mr. Sloan, apparently a close confidant of Secretary Kerry, came as officials at the State Department and the White House increasingly expressed frustration with the Defense Department’s slow pace of transferring approved prisoners. In an interview, Mr. Sloan denied that he was leaving because he was frustrated by foot-dragging at the Pentagon. He said he had always intended to stay a maximum of 18 months, noting that he was right on schedule.

#

The U.S. Embassy of Curtailments — Hurry! Nominations Now Open

Posted: 12:44 am  EDT

 

One political ambassador went though five DCMs during his tenure as President George W. Bush’s ambassador in paradise. The whole two Bush terms. We even wrote a tanka about it.  Another political ambassador went through seven permanent and temporary DCMs in less than one term at US Embassy Luxembourg under President Obama.

There is no shortage of criticisms when it comes to the appointments of political ambassadors, of course. But let us point out to something good here. The political ambassadors know when to exit the stage, and that’s a good thing. Even if we’ll never know for sure how hard or how lightly they’re pushed to exit right, we know that they will not be candidates in the State Department’s well-oiled recycling program.

So, what should we make about news of curtailments from an embassy headed by a career ambassador when the official report is handled with such a, um… soft touch?

  • Embassy Tallinn’s single-officer consular section suffered successive curtailments of assigned officers in the 20 months between February 2013 and September 2014. During that period, eight temporary duty officers provided approximately 10 months of management coverage.
  • Management operations at Embassy Tallinn were recently disrupted for a 6-month period because of curtailments in the management and general services officer positions.

Wait — that’s three positions, aren’t we missing a few more? The consular section had successive curtailments? Like — how many? There was a year-long gap in the political officer position; was that gap a result of another curtailment?

The IG report on Embassy Tallinn does not answer those questions and does not elaborate the reasons for these personnel gaps and curtailments, which we are told are “old news.”

But see — people do not take voluntary curtailments lightly. Not only do they need to unpack, repack, unpack again their entire household, kids have to be pulled out of schools, pets have to be shipped and there may be spouses jobs that get interrupted.  And most of all, in a system where assignments are made typically a year before the transfer season, curtailments mean the selection for the employee’s next assignment back in DC or elsewhere contains pretty slim pickings.   The employee may even be stuck in a “bridge” assignment that no one wants. So, no, curtailments are not easy fixes, they cause personal and office upheavals, and people generally avoid doing them unless things get to a point of being intolerable.

In any case, we like poking into “old news” … for instance, we are super curious if the curtailed personnel from Tallinn similarly decamped to Baghdad or Kabul like those curtailments cited in the OIG report for US Embassy Luxembourg? No? Well, where did they go … to Yekaterinburg?

Did they curtail for medical reasons, that is, was post the cause of their ailments? And no, we have it in excelent authority that no one has microwaved Embassy Tallinn like the good old days in Moscow.

The report says there were curtailments and that “stronger leadership from the Ambassador and his greater adherence to Department of State rules and regulations are necessary.”

Also that the “most significant findings concern the need for stronger leadership from the Ambassador and his greater adherence to ethics principles, Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) guidelines, and security policies.”

Wow!  This report is mighty short on details, what happened?

We take special note on the use of the following words: Strong-er. Great-er.  Both comparative adjectives, see? Suggesting that chief of mission (COM) already has strong leadership and great adherence to principles and policies.

And this is the report’s most significant findings? That the COM just need to move the dial a notch up?

Are the fine details on  ethics, EEO, security flushed out to the Classified Annex of this report, to entertain a limited readership with “need to know” badges? And their inclusion in the annex is for national security reasons?

Strong-er. Great-er.  Sorry folks, but it must be said, a heck of a crap-per. Additional post to follow.

#

Photo of the Day: Meet John Kerry’s Top Lieutenants

Posted: 2:43 am EDT

 

 

Who’s missing from the picture? Tom Sullivan.  He was appointed Deputy Chief of Staff on April 20, 2015 but his bio was not up at state.gov when we blogged about these appointments in May. The official bio is now up:

Tom Sullivan serves as Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy at the U.S. Department of State. Most recently, he was Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Legislative Affairs.

Prior to joining the Department of State in August 2012, he worked for U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar from 2007-2012, serving as her Deputy Chief of Staff.

He previously worked at the Council on Foreign Relations as a Research Associate to President Emeritus Leslie Gelb from 2003-2005.

A native of Minneapolis, MN, Tom holds a M.A. in International Affairs from the University of Chicago and a B.A. from Yale University.

Related post:
Who’s Running Foggy Bottom? You Get Three Guesses. Wait, Four Guesses?

#

New No. 4 Wanted: Wendy Sherman to Step Down as State Department’s “P” After Iran Talks

Posted: 12:52 am EDT

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

Via NYT:

Ms. Sherman, the No. 3 official at the State Department, said she did not expect to take another post in the administration, and she has not announced any plans. But she is close to Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose presidential campaign she supported in 2008, and who is running again for the Democratic nomination.

It was Mrs. Clinton who brought Ms. Sherman back into the government to handle Iran and other issues. Previously, she had worked as a social worker in Boston, a Senate campaign aide, and a counselor to Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright during the Clinton administration, handling North Korea. Her congressional critics often cited that credential in critiquing her negotiations with Iran.

She’s actually No.4 (Kerry, Blinken, Higginbottom) and depending on what happens with the Iran Talks and 2016, we might see her again.  Is this the start of the exodus from the 7th Floor?

We don’t think this position will be too attractive for a political appointee at this point. Counting the vetting, nomination and confirmation, the wait could be anywhere between a couple of months to half a year. If that happens, that’ll give the new “P” barely a year on the job before the 2016 election, and the traditional resignation required when the new administration takes office in January 2017.  That would be like 6 months to transition to the new job, and 6 months looking for a new job.  Any political appointee who takes this on would appear desperate. We could be wrong, of course, but we anticipate that a career diplomat will succeed Ms. Sherman as “P.” This position has traditionally been assigned to a career diplomat, and that’s the most logical step right now.

#

U.S. Senate Confirms Two Ambassadors and 6 Foreign Service Lists Before Memorial Day Break

Posted: 2:46 am EDT

 

The U.S. Senate was burning the midnight oil Friday night working on S.1357, the FISA extension and managed to also confirmed by voice vote the nominations of our next ambassadors to Mali and Costa Rica before dawn May 23rd; they were just two of the seven nominees waiting for a full Senate vote.

The Senate now stands adjourned (except for pro forma sessions) until 4:00pm on Sunday, May 31, 2015. Roll call votes are possible after 6:00pm during Sunday’s session but that’s it for now until after the break.  Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R.2048, the USA Freedom Act upon its return.

Here are the two ambassadors lucky enough to make it through the Senate obstacle course and who can now pack their bags and household effects after a wait of 7-10 months.

Paul A. Folmsbee, of Oklahoma, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Mali. (Folmsbee, Paul A. – Republic of Mali – October 2014)

Paul A. Folmsbee, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, class of Minister-Counselor, currently serves as Executive Director, Bureau of African Affairs in the Department of State. Known as a talented leader and manager, he has served with distinction in many of our nation’s most demanding positions and challenging posts. Mr. Folmsbee’s excellent communication skills and experience building inter-agency teams and will serve him well as Chief of Mission in Mali.

Previously, Mr. Folmsbee served as the Senior Civilian Representative for Regional Command East, Afghanistan (embedded with the 1st Cavalry at Bagram) (2011-2012), Consul General, Consulate Mumbai, India (2008-2011), Provincial Reconstruction Team Leader, Sadr City / Adhamiya in Baghdad, Iraq (embedded with the 2/82 Airborne) (2007-2008), Director of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, Embassy Islamabad, Pakistan (2006-2007), Management Officer, Embassy Port-au-Prince, Haiti (2003-2006), Management Officer, Embassy Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (2000-2003), General Services Officer, Embassy La Paz, Bolivia (1997-2000), General Services Officer, Embassy Colombo, Sri Lanka (1995-1997), Management Officer, Embassy Libreville, Gabon (1992-1995), Area Management Officer, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Department of State, (1990-1992), General Services Officer, Embassy Nairobi, Kenya (1987-1989), and General Services Officer, Mission to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Geneva, Switzerland (1985-1987).

Mr. Folmsbee earned a B.A. in Political Science from Tabor College in Hillsboro, Kansas in 1982, a M.A. in Social Anthropology from the University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma in 1985 and was issued a pilot’s license in 1978 by the FAA after studying aviation at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. He is the recipient of five Department of State Superior Honor Awards, five Meritorious Honor Awards and a medal from the Polish Government for service in Afghanistan working with Polish troops. He speaks French and Spanish.

Stafford Fitzgerald Haney, of New Jersey, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Costa Rica. (Haney, S. Fitzgerald – Republic of Costa Rica – July 2014)

S. Fitzgerald Haney is a Principal and Director of Business Development and Client Service (Europe, Middle East and Africa), Pzena Investment Management, New York, New York. Known as a talented international businessman and manager, he has many years of experience serving in senior-level marketing, financial services and manufacturing positions across Latin America. A proven leader with extensive international experience, Mr. Haney will bring essential skills to the task of furthering bilateral relations with the Government of Costa Rica, a key U.S. partner in Latin America and within the Organization of American States.

Previously, Mr. Haney served as Senior Vice President, Ethnic Consumer Products, International Discount Telecommunications (IDT), Newark, New Jersey (10/2006-02/2007), Director, Strategic Planning, Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation, New York, New York (12/2002- 09/2006), Senior Associate, Israel Seed Partners, Jerusalem (09/1999-06/2001) and Vice President, Marketing and Strategic Planning, Citibank, Mexico City, and Monterrey, Mexico (07/1997-02/1999). He held positions with Pepsico Restaurants International (07/1993-07/1997), including Marketing Director, Sao Paulo, Brazil, Senior Marketing Manager, Mexico and Central America, Mexico City, Mexico and Marketing Manager, San Juan, Puerto Rico. He was Assistant Brand Manager, Procter and Gamble, San Juan, Puerto Rico (07/1991-07/1993). He served as Appointed Member, City of Englewood Planning Board and Board of Adjustment, Englewood, New Jersey (12/2004-12/2008).

Mr. Haney earned a B.S. in international economics and a M.S. with distinction in international business and diplomacy from Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, Washington, D.C., 1986-1991. He was the recipient of the Brunswick-Hanigan Scholarship, the Dean’s Award for Academic Excellence and Distinction in Oral Examination at Georgetown University and is a Member of the National Jesuit Honor Society. He speaks Spanish, Portuguese, Hebrew and Conversational French.

 

The Senate also confirmed six Foreign Service lists which include the names of  about 600 nominees.

2015-05-23 PN72-3 Foreign Service | Nomination for Douglas A. Koneff, which nomination was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 13, 2015. (It looks like three names have been removed from this list and those FSOs remain stuck in the Senate).

2015-05-23 PN259 Foreign Service | Nomination for Judy R. Reinke, which nomination was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on March 4, 2015.

2015-05-23 PN260 Foreign Service | Nominations beginning Brian C. Brisson, and ending Catherine M. Werner, which 56 nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on March 4, 2015.

2015-05-23 PN368 Foreign Service | Nominations beginning Peter J. Olson, and ending Nicolas Rubio, which 3 nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on April 15, 2015.

2015-05-23 PN369 Foreign Service | Nominations beginning Craig A. Anderson, and ending Henry Kaminski, which 346 nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on April 15, 2015.

2015-05-23 PN370 Foreign Service | Nominations beginning Anthony S. Amatos, and ending Elena Zlatnik, which 212 nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on April 15, 2015.

 #

FOIA and Clinton Aides: Some Shock and Awe at the Foggiest Bottom

Posted: 1:02 am EDT

 

.

That WSJ article above has this to say about the Keystone-related documents subject to FOIA and the rapid dominance doctrine in the halls of Foggy Bottom:

The Keystone documents Ms. Mills objected to were all either held back or redacted, the same person said. After Ms. Mills began scrutinizing documents, the State Department’s disclosure of records related to Keystone fell off sharply, documents that include a court filing show.

Two others with knowledge of State Department records procedures said political appointees were allowed greater say than the FOIA experts thought was appropriate. It was hard to push back against the political staff, one said.

The pipeline project was so sensitive that an expert on FOIA was invited to a State Department policy meeting to advise on how to prospectively shield documents from disclosure, such as by marking them as involving the “deliberative process,” said a person who attended.

That’s the infamous exemption for the “deliberative process,” otherwise known as the “b-5.” In early May, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on “Ensuring an Informed Citizenry: Examining the Administration’s Efforts to Improve Open Government.” Joyce Barr, the Assistant Secretary for Administration, as well as Chief FOIA Officer for the Department of State was one of the witnesses and made news for reportedly saying that Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email account for official business was “not acceptable.” Too late much?

One other witness at that hearing was Thomas S. Blanton, the Director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University. Below is from his prepared statement on the “b-5″ exemption, also known as the “withhold it if you want to” exemption.

One reason why FOIA does not work is the abuse of the most discretionary exemption in the FOIA, the fifth or “b-5” on deliberative process. This exemption also includes attorney-client privilege, and every lawyer in this room shivers at the idea of infringing on that. Yet, I would point out that the Presidential Records Act dating back to 1978 has eliminated the b-5 exemption as a reason for withholding records 12 years after the President in question leaves office. Through the PRA, we have conducted a 35-year experiment with putting a sunset on the deliberative process exemption, and the facts show us no damage has been done with a 12-year sunset. Yes, some embarrassment, such as the junior White House lawyer who vetted (and rejected) a certain Stephen Breyer for a Supreme Court nomination back in the 1990s. But no new spate of lawsuits. No re-opened litigation. No damage to the public interest. Embarrassment cannot become the basis for restricting open government. In fact, embarrassment makes the argument for opening the records involved.

According to Mr. Blanton, the Justice Department’s use of the “withhold it if you want to” exemption is at an all-time high this year, invoked 82,770 times to withhold records that citizens requested. The same exemption used by the CIA to withhold volume 5 of a 30-year-old internal draft history of the disaster at the Bay of Pigs. This is the same exemption used by the FBI to censor most of the 5,000 pages it recently “released” on the use of the Stingray technology to locate individuals’ cell phones.  Apparently, this is the exemption that the administration also used to keep the Office of Legal Counsel final opinions out of the public domain according to Mr. Blanton.

So, are we terribly shocked yet?

#