Per
TPM Muckraker and dcg2's
diary we learn:
...in a round of calls Monday evening, Lewis fired 60 investigators who had worked for his committee rooting out fraud, waste and abuse, effective immediately. As in, don't bother coming in on Tuesday.
The investigators were contract workers, brought on to handle the extraordinary level of fraud investigations facing the panel. Sixteen permanent investigative staff are staying on, according to CQ.
The question, obviously, why?
I venture to guess after the jump.
My immediate thought was of the recently released report on the Duke Cunningham scandal by the House Intelligence Committee. After all, Cunningham managed to steer contract after contract to his buddies in exchanges for riches. But how did he manage to actually do it? That would seem to lead towards none other than the House Appropriations Committee, which Lewis chairs and these contractor investigators are responsible for scrutinizing.
The unclassified summary, put together by a special counsel to the House Intel Cmte., was completed and released to the committee on Friday (the 13th). From page two of the unclassified summary:
We have also requested that the House Appropriations Committee (HAC) permit us to speak with some current and former staff, but we have not received a response to this request.
Why would the House Appropriations Committee, under Lewis' control, obstruct the special counsel's investigation? Does he have something to hide to does he simply want the appropriations process to exist outside of special counsel's focus? Did Lewis get word that this was going to be released early and pre-emptively fire the contracted investigators?
Does Lewis have something to hide about his personal involvement in aiding Duke Cunningham and his clients? Did Lewis not want these contractors to be interviewed by the special counsel? Why hasn't Lewis responded to the special counsel's request?
Back in January, Laura Rosen reported:
In repeated interviews with The American Prospect, however, the press spokesman for the Appropriations Committee has indicated that Lewis has decided to only "informally" investigate those "programmatic recommendations" made by Cunningham in the past -- although Cunningham himself has admitted corrupting the program process. "There is an informal review going on," committee Spokesman John Scofield explained in December. "It's not something we had made a big announcement on."
Now, compare that sentiment with CQ's recent blurb about Lewis' firing of the investigators:
Lewis' decision "has in fact stalled all of the investigations on the staff," said one of the contractors, a former FBI agent, who asked not to be identified. "This eviscerates the investigatory function. There is little if any ability to do any oversight now."
. . .
"In effect, no investigative function is going to be done," said the contractor, who called the decision "misguided."
"This staff has saved billions and billions of dollars, we've turned up malfeasance and misfeasance," the contractor said. "It's results justify the expense of the staff. I have no idea why the chairman would do this."
First: an 'informal review.' Now: no review.
A couple sticking points in the theory: if Lewis was truly interested in axing the entire House Appropriations Committee investigative staff, then he would have fired the permanent staff (he didn't). (Perhaps he thought that would have been overboard?) Secondly, wouldn't being fired tend to make you particularly talkative with federal investigators?
But given that Lewis has received over $60k in contributions from Cunningham business associates Brent Wilkes and Mitchell Wade and has previously decided against fully investigating Duke Cunningham's conduct while on the Appropriations Committee, one has to wonder: what is Lewis hiding?
Update [2006-10-20 1:48:24 by jorndorff]: The USA Today has now picked up the firing story and provides a bit more context:
The investigators, attached to the committee's Surveys and Investigations division, were released during the past week, committee spokesman John Scofield said. He said that the quality of the unit's work had been questioned by leaders of the Republican-controlled committee, including some Democrats, but he declined to say who.
...
It's unclear how the departures will affect the work of the unit, whose contract staff is made up of former employees of the FBI, CIA and other government investigative services. Some of them had worked for the unit for several years. Scofield said the dismissals would not compromise any ongoing investigations. Scofield said he could not identify the specific work being done by investigators because much of the unit's inquiries involve classified information.
...
"There is nothing sinister here. It's about how we do the best oversight."
The committee's ranking Democrat, David Obey of Wisconsin, was in his home state and could not be reached for comment.
Established in 1943, the investigative unit has focused mainly on defense and intelligence spending programs. Its reports usually are not made public.
Note that Scofield's account of the status of ongoing investigations directly conflicts with that of an unnamed former employee quoted by CQ and that the area's focus is defense and intelligence programs--precisely the kind of contracts Cunningham steered towards his corrupt business associates.