U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

42–372 PDF 2009

ALLEGATIONS OF SELECTIVE PROSECUTION: THE 

EROSION OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN OUR 

FEDERAL JUSTICE SYSTEM (PART II) 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 14, 2008 

Serial No. 110–178 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California, Chairwoman 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

MICHONE JOHNSON, Chief Counsel 

DANIEL FLORES, Minority Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 14, 2008 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Commercial and 

Administrative Law ............................................................................................. 1 

The Honorable Chris Cannon, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Utah, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law ........................................................................................................... 78 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 79 

The Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 80 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, and Member, 

Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law .................................. 82 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Paul W. Hodes, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New Hampshire 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 145 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 148 

Mr. Allen Raymond, Bethesda, MD 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 154 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 157 

Paul Twomey, Esq., Twomey Law Office, Epsom, NH 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 162 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 164 

Mr. Mark Crispin Miller, Professor, New York University, New York, NY 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 247 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 248 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee 

on Commercial and Administrative Law: 

Letter dated September 18, 2007, from the Honorable Paul W. Hodes, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of New Hampshire, to 

the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. ................................................................. 4 

Letter dated April 29, 2008, from Holly McCullough, Manager, Carnegie 

Library of Pittsburgh—Squirrel Hill ........................................................... 76 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, Chairman, Committee on the 

Judiciary, and Member, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative 

Law ........................................................................................................................ 85 

Page

IV 

Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, Chairman, Committee on the 

Judiciary, and Member, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative 

Law: 

Letter dated May 12, 2006, to the Honorable Alberto Gonzales, Attorney 

General of the United States from the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. ...... 86 

Letter dated October 3, 2007, to the Honorable Peter D. Keisler, Acting 

Attorney General of the United States from the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. .......................................................................................................... 90 

Letter dated December 20, 2007, to the Honorable Michael Mukasey, 

Attorney General of the United States from the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. .......................................................................................................... 97 

Letter dated January 31, 2008, to the Honorable Michael B. Mukasey, 

Attorney General of the United States from the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. .......................................................................................................... 100 

Letter dated February 29, 2008, to the Honorable Michael B. Mukasey, 

Attorney General of the United States from the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. .......................................................................................................... 104 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from the Honorable Paul W. Hodes, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of New Hampshire ................... 270 

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Allen Raymond, Bethesda, MD ....... 271 

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Paul Twomey, Esq., Twomey Law 

Office, Epsom, NH ................................................................................................ 273 

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Mark Crispin Miller, Professor, 

New York University, New York, NY ................................................................. 274 

(1) 

ALLEGATIONS OF SELECTIVE PROSECUTION: 

THE EROSION OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN 

OUR FEDERAL JUSTICE SYSTEM (PART II) 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL

AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 2:17 p.m., in 

Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Linda 

T. Sa ́nchez (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and 

Administrative Law] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Conyers, Sa ́nchez, Scott, Watt, Cannon, 

Gohmert, and Coble. 

Staff present: Norberto Salinas, Majority Counsel; Daniel Flores, 

Minority Counsel; and Adam Russell, Majority Professional Staff 

Member. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. This joint hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, and 

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will 

now come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair will be authorized to declare a recess of the hearing at any point. 

I will now recognize myself for a short statement. 

During a March 6, 2007, Commercial and Administrative Law 

Subcommittee hearing on a measure regarding the appointment of 

U.S. attorneys, we posed the following question: Are important decisions about our justice system being made for political reasons? 

Seeking answers, the Judiciary Committee has investigated whether the Department of Justice has allowed politics to seep into its 

decision-making. 

The investigation initially focused on the firings of several 

United States attorneys for their reluctance to bring politically 

based prosecutions. Gathered evidence led the Judiciary Committee 

to look into other activities of the Justice Department, namely 

whether the Justice Department’s hiring of career employees was 

based on the illegal criterion of political affiliation. We also began 

an examination of whether the Justice Department brought Federal prosecutions based on political motivations. 

2 

Today, we continue this investigation and focus on another aspect of the Justice Department’s actions. If the Justice Department 

prosecuted individuals for political expediency, did it refrain from 

prosecuting individuals for political purposes? 

Today’s hearing is the second joint hearing by the Commercial 

and Administrative Law Subcommittee and the Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security Subcommittee on allegations of selective 

prosecution. At our first joint hearing in October of 2007, we heard 

testimony about Democrats being disproportionately targeted for 

Federal prosecutions under the current Administration. This joint 

hearing will focus on limited Federal prosecutions against Republican-leaning individuals and groups. 

Under this Administration, the Department of Justice has investigated allegations of voter fraud, but has seemingly turned a blind 

eye to investigating allegations of vote suppression. 

On Election Day in 2002, Republican Party members and a Republican political operative impeded the New Hampshire Democratic Party and the Manchester Firefighters Association in their 

efforts to get out the vote. A Department of Justice investigation 

into the incident led to four individuals being indicted or pleading 

guilty for their involvement in suppressing voter turnout. 

However, there are allegations that senior Justice Department 

officials limited the inquiry possibly to prevent the investigators 

from determining whether White House officials and top Republican National Committee personnel were involved. As a result, the 

Judiciary Committee was requested to investigate allegations of 

vote suppression in New Hampshire. 

We do not know if the investigators were able to determine why 

there were many phone calls between one of the indicted individuals, James Tobin, and the White House on the day of the election. 

However, we have learned that the RNC has paid the legal fees to 

defend Mr. Tobin, a decision apparently approved by the White 

House. If there are indications that more senior officials in the 

RNC or even the White House were involved, why did the Justice 

Department appear to limit the investigation? 

We also have learned that the Justice Department did not fully 

investigate another troublesome allegation of vote suppression. 

Media reports in 2004 revealed that employees of Sproul & Associates, a Republican-connected voter registration firm, were apparently trained to fraudulently identify themselves as non-partisan 

and then register Republicans to vote while discouraging Democratic-leaning individuals from registering to vote. For those Democratic-leaning voters who completed registration cards, Sproul employees in Pennsylvania, Oregon, and West Virginia allegedly destroyed those registration cards. 

Although these activities are clearly aimed to suppress the 

Democratic vote and to favor Republican candidates, the Justice 

Department quickly determined that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Sproul & Associates. If the media alleged vote 

suppression efforts by a Republican-connected firm, why did the 

Justice Department not fully investigate these activities? 

On three separate occasions, the Judiciary Committee has requested from the attorney general answers to a series of questions 

and documents about the Justice Department’s handling of these 

3 

cases. The Justice Department has failed to address our specific 

questions and has only provided cursory responses. 

We have also invited the Department of Justice to send a witness 

to testify at this hearing, but it has chosen not to present a witness. That is unfortunate because the American people need to be 

assured that political considerations play no role in determining 

whether a Justice Department investigation is pursued or whether 

an individual is prosecuted. 

Finally, although some may allege that we are wasting time 

holding this hearing, I question whether those critics would tell the 

American people that an investigation into efforts to suppress their 

right to vote is a waste of time. The American people want to be 

secure in the knowledge that the Federal Government will protect 

their right to vote and will prosecute individuals who seek to limit 

that constitutional right. 

There is simply no place for partisan politics in a prosecutor’s decision to move forward with a prosecution or to end an investigation. Accordingly, I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses 

today. 

Before I conclude, I am going to ask unanimous consent to enter 

into the record two documents relevant to this hearing today. The 

first document is a September 18, 2007, request from Representative Paul Hodes, who is here with us this afternoon, to Chairman 

Conyers to investigate allegations of phone jamming in New Hampshire on Election Day in 2002. The second document is a letter 

from Holly McCullough, the manager of Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh-Squirrel Hill, dated April 29, 2008. In the letter, Ms. 

McCullough documents evidence from the fall of 2004 involving 

voter registration efforts by Sproul & Associates. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

4 


1-1.eps
5 


1-2.eps
6 


1-3.eps
7 


1-4.eps
8 


1-5.eps
9 


1-6.eps
10 


1-7.eps
11 


1-8.eps
12 


1-9.eps
13 


1-10.eps
14 


1-11.eps
15 


1-12.eps
16 


1-13.eps
17 


1-14.eps
18 


1-15.eps
19 


1-16.eps
20 


1-17.eps
21 


1-18.eps
22 


1-19.eps
23 


1-20.eps
24 


A-1.eps
25 


A-2.eps
26 


A-3.eps
27 


1-23.eps
28 


1-24.eps
29 


1-25.eps
30 


1-26.eps
31 


1-27.eps
32 


1-28.eps
33 


1-29.eps
34 


1-30.eps
35 


1-31.eps
36 


1-32.eps
37 


1-33.eps
38 


1-34.eps
39 


1-35.eps
40 


1-36.eps
41 


1-37.eps
42 


B-1.eps
43 


B-2.eps
44 


B-3.eps
45 


B-4.eps
46 


B-5.eps
47 


B-6.eps
48 


B-7.eps
49 


B-8.eps
50 


B-9.eps
51 


B-10.eps
52 


B-11.eps
53 


B-12.eps
54 


B-13.eps
55 


B-14.eps
56 


1-38.eps
57 


1-39.eps
58 


1-40.eps
59 


1-41.eps
60 


1-42.eps
61 


C-1.eps
62 


C-2.eps
63 


1-52.eps
64 


1-53.eps
65 


1-54.eps
66 


1-55.eps
67 


1-56.eps
68 


1-57.eps
69 


1-58.eps
70 


1-59.eps
71 


1-60.eps
72 


1-61.eps
73 


1-62.eps
74 


1-63.eps
75 


1-64.eps
76 


2-1.eps
77 


2-2.eps
78 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I now at this time would like to recognize my colleague, Mr. Cannon, the distinguished Ranking Member of the 

Subcommittee, for his opening remarks. 

Mr. CANNON. I thank the gentlelady. 

And I want to thank Congressman Hodes in particular. I think 

this is the second time you have testified before this Committee, 

the other time on a rather more technical and, frankly, more interesting topic. I think that was performance royalties, as I recall. 

Thanks for being here. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Welcome to our other witnesses who are not yet at the table. 

Let me state at the outset that all Members reject the concept 

of suppression of lawful voting, and I want to be crystal clear about 

that, but you have to ask why are we holding this hearing today. 

I think the gentlelady suggested that some have said it is a 

waste of time, not the issue of suppressed voting, but rather whether in this case there is sufficient reason for us to pursue that. In 

the case of the New Hampshire phone jamming matter, there are 

two pending trials. Should we be holding hearings in the midst of 

criminal trials? And in his recent letter to Chairman Conyers on 

the Siegelman matter, Representative Davis made it clear there 

are several reasons why we should not. 

One of our witnesses today may well be one of the witnesses at 

those trials. I submit that the place for him to be a witness is 

there, not here. 

Second, these cases are old news. The courts and the department 

have already dealt with them. To pick them up now as we head toward the 2008 election makes me wonder if this hearing is not 

more about election year politics than genuine oversight. 

And, third, I ask: Is it the department that is selectively prosecuting or is the Democratic majority in Congress selectively investigating? We all know the evenhandedness of the Bush administration in prosecuting public corruption on both sides of the aisle and 

other politically charged cases, and we all should know of allegations formed by the Obama and Clinton campaigns this election 

cycle, allegations that each of these campaigns has attempted to 

suppress the other’s votes. Why are we not investigating that? 

We have held a host of hearings this term into allegations the 

department has been politicized. None of them have been substantiated. Along the way, the majority has ignored a host of other real 

and pressing issues that the country urgently needs to tend to. We 

should be holding hearings on those pressing issues today, which 

brings me to my final point. 

Some weeks ago, I wrote the Chairwoman urging her to hold 

hearings on neglected Republican bills to stamp out discriminatory 

State taxes from cell phones to pipelines. Other Ranking Members 

wrote similar letters to the Chairs of their subcommittees. Why 

have we not turned to these legislative priorities? Why do we incessantly continue looking over the shoulders of the department and 

the courts, questioning the work we cannot do for them while ignoring the work that only we can do. 

You know, the heading and the title of today’s hearing is intriguing. It is the ‘‘Joint Hearing on Allegations of Selective Prosecution 

Part II: The Erosion of Public Confidence in our Federal Justice 

79 

System.’’ That title encompasses a host of very important issues. I 

suspect that the issues we deal with today are not going to rise to 

the level of what I think this Committee should be dealing with. 

We have had a number of hearings where corruption has been 

thrown out. I repeatedly have asked the Chair that if she says 

that, she needs to substantiate it. Let us hope that at least the 

hearing has something worthwhile either in the way of substantiating corruption or recognizing that we are chasing shadows here. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time, I recognize my colleague, Mr. Scott, the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security, for his opening remarks. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And I would like to thank my colleagues on the Commercial and 

Administrative Law Subcommittee for joining us in holding Part II 

of this joint hearing. 

For over a year now, Republicans as well as Democrats have accused this Administration of firing Bush appointed U.S. attorneys 

for improper political reasons, including some who may have been 

fired because they did not indict Democrats in time to affect an upcoming election or pursue alleged vote fraud cases that would have 

helped Republicans. 

Some think that these allegations are serious, and some may be 

not so serious. But the fact is we have been unable to ascertain the 

truth of the allegations for several years. 

For example, several senior Department of Justice officials question the credibility of the attorney general’s original response to the 

allegations. Several high-ranking Justice Department officials have 

quit. Another one pleaded the Fifth. White House officials have refused to respond to subpoenas. And the U.S. attorney incident 

highlighted a growing concern, and that is the misuse of prosecutorial discretion to affect elections. 

In October of last year, we held a joint hearing where the Republican former attorney general Dick Thornburgh and others testified 

about politically motivated and aggressive prosecutions that benefited Republicans. Today’s hearing is a follow up that focuses on allegations of interference with voters’ rights and the department’s 

failure to adequately investigate and prosecute voter suppression 

cases, including the phone jamming case that arose in New Hampshire in 2002 and the equally troubling activities of Sproul & Associates during the 2004 election cycle that also benefitted Republicans. 

Although these incidents occurred years ago, we have been stymied in conducting meaningful oversight on these issues due to the 

department’s refusal to meaningfully respond to requests for information, and, in fact, we invited the Department of Justice to today’s hearing, but they declined to send anybody. 

The phone jamming incident involved the jamming of telephones 

belonging to the New Hampshire Democratic Party and the Manchester Firefighters Association on Election Day 2002. This disruption of the get-out-the-vote effort has led to the criminal prosecution of three perpetrators, two of them serving jail time, including 

Allen Raymond, a witness here today, and Charles McGee, the 

80 

2002 executive director of the New Hampshire Republican Party. 

These individuals pleaded guilty to charges under 18 USC 371, 

conspiring to commit the offense of engaging in interstate telephone communications with the intent to annoy or harass. 

Although the prosecutions of relatively low-level officials have 

proceeded, there are serious questions about the scope of the department’s investigation and prosecution effort and its failure to go 

after higher-level officials. According to published reports, 22 phone 

calls were exchanged between the New Hampshire Republican officials and the White House Office of Political Affairs starting at 

11:20 a.m. on Election Day 2002 and running past 2 a.m. on Election Night, and 110 phone calls were placed between Mr. James 

Tobin, the New England director for President Bush’s 2004 campaign, and the White House in the 2 months surrounding the election. 

It is not clear what action, if any, was taken to determine the 

significance of these communications, and to add more intrigue to 

the case, the FBI special agent working on the matter allegedly 

was instructed not to follow the investigative leads back to Washington. 

The second matter of today’s hearing pertains to a voter registration firm, Sproul & Associates, which declined to register Democratic voters and even apparently went so far as destroying registration cards collected from Democratic voters in several States 

during the 2004 election cycle. A former employee described in an 

affidavit being trained to register only Republicans and to tear up 

Democratic registrations in that State. 

The alleged misconduct taken by this firm clearly suppressed 

votes and would violate Federal law, but yet we are unaware of 

any meaningful Justice Department action with regard to this firm 

and the practices it engaged in. These two cases add to a growing 

list of disturbing incidences that raise questions as to the department’s impartiality in pursuing or choosing not to pursue cases. 

The department’s commitment to protecting and enhancing all citizens’ right to vote has also been damaged and needs to be restored. 

I hope this hearing will help clear up the air about theses two unusual cases. 

I yield back. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. The gentleman yields back. 

I want to thank Mr. Scott for his opening statement. 

At this time, I would recognize Mr. Gohmert for his opening remarks. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Chairwoman Sa ́nchez. 

I must agree with my colleague, Ranking Member Cannon. You 

know, why are we here today? 

The majority has been wasting the Committee’s time and resources for 16 months now trying to find some silver bullet that 

they believe will completely destroy an Administration that some 

here on Capitol Hill despise. 

Now we just cut short a markup of seven crime bills so we could 

hold a hearing on these allegations of supposed selective prosecution for political purposes. We went all through that as the majority went after Attorney General Gonzales for political reasons letting go some U.S. attorneys. So much time was wasted. 

81 

We were taking up just within the last hour or two what may 

be the most important criminal bill that this Committee has taken 

up, the Debbie Smith DNA Reauthorization Act. It had some great 

provisions in it, great bipartisan work on getting that done. We did 

not finish the bill so we could stop that and come in here and have 

this hearing. 

The claim apparently is selective prosecution in a case that dates 

back to 2002 and allegations of phone jamming in New Hampshire 

on Election Day 6 years ago. This issue is a bit old. The Department of Justice has already brought charges against the four individuals alleged to have been involved. This case is old enough that 

two of the defendants who pled guilty have already completed their 

sentences. 

The majority claims misconduct by the White House, the Justice 

Department, the RNC. Once again, desperation has led us to have 

a hearing on baseless accusations against nameless individuals. 

Now there apparently were some bases, and those are being pursued, and if there is a base, then pursue it, but this hearing was 

not held, I must point out, in 2007. We waited until an election 

year to hear about Republicans using politics. 

We have heard over and over, had hearings repeatedly concerned 

about issues like Scooter Libby, and we have had Joseph Wilson 

come in here and testify, and I tell you I have heard him testify 

more than once, and, as a former judge, it sure looks to me like 

we have had false testimony. Nobody is pursuing any of that. We 

had Scooter Libby prosecuted when the special prosecutor knew immediately after beginning the investigation that Scooter Libby did 

not leak the information. So he goes after him, gets him to make 

more than one statement, and then pursues him for making a false 

statement, which certainly appears to me could be done against Joseph Wilson without a special prosecutor, but that is not being 

done. 

What I find truly ironic is that unlike many of the previous rants 

about selective prosecution, this actually involves Republican and 

not Democratic defendants. What appears here is that if a case involves a Democrat, the department went too far; if it involves a Republican, it did not go far enough. Again, is there possible hypocrisy here? 

Let me just point out, with Attorney General Gonzales, the hearings made clear over and over there was no illegal or unethical conduct. U.S. attorneys were let go for political reasons. We had a 

President named Clinton let go 92 U.S. attorneys, and it was purely for political reasons. There were allegations there was more 

skullduggery than that. None of that was pursued and not even 

with the new Justice Department. 

I was informed that Bob Ney who was being investigated was 

told, ‘‘You either enter a plea by October 12 in 2006, or we will not 

negotiate,’’ and if that were true, that is clearly this Justice Department using politics to help one party over another. 

We had hearings; we have had information in meetings over the 

issues involving Congressman Jefferson. If the Justice Department 

could prove a fraction of what they swore to in their 80-page affidavit, they could have had him prosecuted long before the 2006 

82 

election, yet here all this time later, nothing has been done. The 

prosecution has not moved forward. 

There were reports of other Democratic members of our body, according to published reports and newspapers, allegations of potential criminal wrongdoing. Nothing seems to be coming forward from 

Justice Department there. 

We had election fraud that was alleged in Washington State, yet 

nothing was pursued there when it would have helped Republicans. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Oh, I did not see a clock. Well, let me just finish 

since I did not have a clock warning. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. So finish your final thought. We are anxious to 

move the hearing along because—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right. Let me finish by saying this. There were 

1,000 FBI files in the Clinton White House. Chuck Colson went to 

prison for one, and nothing was done to anybody. Those were laydown prosecutorial cases. So I have trouble getting all upset on 

this. Let’s let justice take its course. 

In closing comment, I ask one of the leaders in the Justice Department previously, ‘‘Is the veneer of appointed Republicans in 

your department just so thin that the Democratic underlings in the 

department just run things?’’ and he said, ‘‘The veneer is much 

thinner than you would ever imagine.’’ 

I yield back. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. The gentleman yields back his time. 

At this time, I would like to recognize the Chairman of the full 

Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Conyers, for his opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I appreciate these hearings, and the fact that we have two of our 

colleagues, Chris Cannon and Judge Gohmert, that I consider to be 

personal friends, joining me in this examination this afternoon. I 

think it is very critical. 

I have been listening carefully, and both my friends have asked 

about other investigations that you in your wisdom have chosen 

not to pursue, but since they have listed them now publicly, I 

would like to meet with Chairwoman Sa ́nchez and Ranking Member Cannon and determine which of these matters ought to be inquired into. 

Gosh, Chris Cannon wants to even examine concerns about voting matters expressed by the Clinton and Obama campaigns. I notice that the McCain campaigns are not significant enough to reach 

his concern, but as important as the hearings were this morning, 

I say to Judge Gohmert, we are talking about people who have violated election laws and the criminal code, some of whom who have 

already been found guilty and some whose trials are pending, but 

you say we do not need to worry about the ones that have been 

found guilty and we cannot question the ones that are about to go 

to trial. What are we here for? 

To me, Chairwoman and Members of this Committee, the single 

most important responsibility of the House Judiciary Committee 

between now and November 4 is to bring back the most honest and 

protected and guaranteed system of casting our ballots for governance that we have needed and have not had in a long time. EveryVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:06 May 19, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\COMM\051408\42372.000 HJUD1 PsN: 42372
83 

one here knows that the elections of 2000 and 2004 created—well, 

there are books written on it now. There are lawsuits. There are 

people in prison. 

But I want my Members on the House Judiciary Committee to 

be interested and concerned about how we get most people to feel 

comfortable about the assurances of their right to vote, the integrity of the voting process, and of the administration of justice itself. 

That is why we have jurisdiction over the Department of Justice. 

The reason is to make sure that the Justice Department does its 

job. 

Now I have letters going back to May 12, 2006, where I have 

been asking Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to appoint a special 

prosecutor. I have letters going back about the subject matter that 

we are discussing today. I have about three letters, I think, so far 

to his successor, Attorney General Mukasey, asking for the letters 

and the information regarding our subject matter. So we are kind 

of getting a little bit tired of this. 

Now the Republican National Committee is in big trouble in several respects, but the one that we are concerned with most today 

is the delaying of the prosecution and the interfering with the related civil case in the New Hampshire phone jamming case, the 

failure to bring any charges in the Sproul case. There was a videotape of destroyed Democratic registration cards and extensive evidence of numerous acts of registration and voting misconduct. 

And what has our Committee, Madam Chair and gentlemen of 

the Committee, gotten out of this? Almost total stonewalling. Almost total stonewalling. And the patience of your Chairman is unlimited in these matters almost. But let me tell you if anyone 

thinks—without regard to whether it is D or R involved, we are 

going to continue an investigation and, as lawyers, take our experience to anywhere that it may lead, including, if necessary, subpoenas for the relevant documents. 

Now this is directly to the attorney general of the United States 

whom I consider a friend of mine. You better get some documents 

answered fast, Mr. Attorney General, or you will be receiving a request from me to the Committee to issue a subpoena in this regard. 

I am not going to be slow-walked through the November 4 elections 

as if I have not been here 42 solid years. 

Mr. CANNON. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CONYERS. With pleasure. 

Mr. CANNON. I thank the gentleman and the Chairman of the 

Committee, and, in fact, as is almost always the case, we have 

large areas of agreement and only one point that I would like to 

make. The gentleman has talked about returning back to a state 

where we have confidence in the system. 

We have a great deal more information today about the system. 

I think it is important, I think the gentleman would agree, that the 

American people need to have confidence in the system of how we 

vote and how the votes are counted, but that in comparison, rather 

than saying back to a system, I would hope that the gentleman 

would say we have always had flaws, maybe historically much 

greater flaws, than we have currently, but, I mean, characterizing 

that there is no place for known errors that should be left 

unprosecuted because I would hate the American people to listen 

84 

to this hearing and think that somehow in the vast majority of 

cases their votes are perverted or discounted or not counted appropriately. 

I think it is pretty clear that the vast, vast majority of voting is 

done in ways where people show up at their local precincts, they 

are known by the people that hand out ballots, and those are not 

partisan people, but people who are committed to a process, and 

that where we have those rare areas, we ought to prosecute them. 

The disagreement here is only whether or not the appropriate 

thing is to oversee a prosecution in the midst of the prosecution as 

opposed to looking at the whole system to find out where those errors might be. 

And, frankly, we have a much larger problem in America I think, 

than the current examples of problems with the voting, and that 

is with the discretion of prosecutors which is virtually unchecked, 

and that is an area where I think it is just vital that this Committee focus some attention, and so while I am not disagreeing 

largely, I would hope that the American people take from this that 

we are assiduous in looking at violations, but that the system as 

a whole has proven itself to be sound and that, when a person 

votes, his vote is overwhelmingly likely to be taken as it is and 

counted appropriately, and the elections that are based on his or 

her votes are appropriately decided. 

Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman, and I am sure that he is 

helping the citizens of this great country sleep more comfortably in 

their beds at night knowing that things are mostly okay and there 

are only a few things that we have to clean up in the process. 

Well, we have a Department of Justice that is supposed to be 

doing the cleaning up. We are not a prosecutorial body. We do not 

come here to name who has committed crimes or who should stand 

trial to be found guilty or innocent. What we do is investigate and 

oversight and improve the legislative process as a result of that, 

and so that is all we are trying to do. 

But when you have the level of politicization—and I am not 

naive about it. This did not start during this present Administration. I do not suggest that at all, and I hope that we can continue 

this hearing without becoming partisan in our comments. We are 

all avid Republicans and loyal Democrats and all that, but when 

we come to the hearings of this Committee, it is far more important 

that we try to prove to the American people rather than tell them 

most things are okay. 

But many things are not okay, and no one knows better than 

Chris Cannon. We have problems with the machinery, the computer system, the touch screen. All of that is in disarray. We have 

a witness here who has written books about this subject matter, 

and so I am going to put the rest of my comments in the record, 

ask unanimous consent to put in the May 12, 2006, letter to then 

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and all the letters I have written to the present attorney general asking as politely as we can for 

the information that is needed for this Committee to have the kind 

of hearings that we deserve, and I thank the gentlelady for her 

generosity in allotting me time. 

85 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

This hearing brings together two of the most important subjects of the Committee’s work: protecting and preserving the right to vote, and keeping politics out of 

the Department of Justice. 

We will hear today about disturbing examples of vote suppression in New Hampshire, Nevada, and around the country, and about an even more disturbing failure 

of the Department to throughly address these matters. 

Let me be specific and identify three serious problems with these cases, that call 

for serious solutions. 

First, politics appears to have infected the phone jamming prosecution in several 

ways. Evidence suggests the Department did not investigate or prosecute higher ups 

at the RNC or White House, delayed the prosecution effort, and interfered with a 

related civil suit. 

Second, despite compelling evidence of wrongdoing such as videotape of destroyed 

Democratic voter registration cards and on-the-record statements regarding political 

abuse of the voter registration process, the Department does not appear to have conducted any meaningful investigation in the Sproul case. 

Third, the Department has simply stonewalled our oversight on these matters, refusing to provide complete answers to our questions and refusing to provide any documents in response to our requests. 

This hearing, like others we have held before on these issues, represents an important step forward in solving these problems. Overall, I see three important steps 

that we should take to address these matters. 

First, we must continue our aggressive investigation of these matters, including 

a subpoena for relevant documents if stonewalling continues. 

Second, through hearings like this and other steps, we must expose and publicize 

these problems to provide public accountability for the Administration and to help 

ensure that Department decisions are made on a nonpartisan basis in connection 

with the 2008 elections. 

Third, we must conduct regular staff meetings and Committee oversight of the 

Department’s voting rights and prosecution practices, including a hearing with Attorney General Mukasey this summer. 

I thank the Subcommittees for holding this important joint hearing and look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Without objection, the documents that you request 

be made a part of the record will be made a part of the record. I 

want to thank you for your opening statement. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

86 


4-1.eps
87 


4-2.eps
88 


4-3.eps
89 


4-4.eps
90 


5-1.eps
91 


5-2.eps
92 


5-3.eps
93 


5-4.eps
94 


5-5.eps
95 


5-6.eps
96 


5-7.eps
97 


6-1.eps
98 


6-2.eps
99 


6-3.eps
100 


7-1.eps
101 


7-2.eps
102 


7-3.eps
103 


7-4.eps
104 


8-1.eps
105 


8-2.eps
106 


8-3.eps
107 


8-4.eps
108 


8-5.eps
109 


8-6.eps
110 


8-7.eps
111 


8-8.eps
112 


8-9.eps
113 


8-10.eps
114 


8-11.eps
115 


8-12.eps
116 


8-13.eps
117 


8-14.eps
118 


8-15.eps
119 


8-16.eps
120 


8-17.eps
121 


8-18.eps
122 


8-19.eps
123 


8-20.eps
124 


8-21.eps
125 


8-22.eps
126 


8-23.eps
127 


8-24.eps
128 


8-25.eps
129 


8-26.eps
130 


8-27.eps
131 


8-28.eps
132 


8-29.eps
133 


8-30.eps
134 


8-31.eps
135 


8-32.eps
136 


8-33.eps
137 


8-34.eps
138 


8-35.eps
139 


8-36.eps
140 


8-37.eps
141 


8-38.eps
142 


8-39.eps
143 


8-40.eps
144 


8-41.eps
145 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I am going to urge Members that we move the 

hearing along as quickly as we can, and, for that reason, I am 

pleased to introduce our first witness. Our witness for the first 

panel is Congressman Paul Hodes who represents the Second District of New Hampshire, elected on November 7 of 2006. 

Representative Hodes has emphasized economic development, 

health coverage for college students, and the need for independent 

advocates for our veterans as part of his first-term goals. Mr. 

Hodes currently serves on the Oversight and Government Reform 

Committee and the Financial Services Committee. 

Prior to his election to Congress, Mr. Hodes served as an assistant attorney general and as the special prosecutor for the State of 

New Hampshire. 

I want to thank you for your willingness to participate in today’s 

hearing. Without objection, your written statement will be placed 

into the record in its entirety, and we are going to ask that you 

limit your oral remarks to 5 minutes. I am sure you are familiar 

with the lighting system. So I am not going to belabor that point. 

And at this time, I would welcome your testimony on the subject 

matter of today’s hearing because we have kind of gotten off on 

some relevant but tangential issues about voter suppression. So, at 

this time, I would invite you to give your oral testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE PAUL W. HODES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 

HAMPSHIRE 

Mr. HODES. Thank you, Chairwoman Sa ́nchez and Chairman 

Conyers, Ranking Member Cannon, Chairman Scott, Ranking 

Member Gohmert, and distinguished Members of the Committee, 

for holding this important hearing today. I am glad to be able to 

testify and raise some of the unanswered questions that surround 

the New Hampshire phone jamming case. 

In 1968, Justice Hugo Black wrote, ‘‘No right is more precious in 

a free country than that of having a vote in the election of those 

who make the laws under which as good citizens we must live. 

Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory, if the right to vote 

is undermined. Competition and ideas in governmental policies is 

at the core of our electoral process and in the First Amendment 

freedom.’’ 

Nearly 6 years ago, political operatives sought to subvert our 

electoral processes for their own political gain. Today, we are talking about the integrity of our elections, the very foundation of representative democracy. I am here to help ensure that New Hampshire voters are represented, their elections are conducted with integrity, and that justice is served. 

On November 5, 2002, Election Day, Republican political 

operatives jammed the phone lines of key Democratic get-out-thevote efforts. Three of these political operatives have been prosecuted for this scandal. 

Allen Raymond, who I expect to testify here today, was the political operative hired by the New Hampshire Republican Party and 

was responsible for jamming the phones. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to engage in interstate telephone communications with intent to annoy or harass on June 30, 2004. 

146 

Charles McGee, the 2002 executive director of the New Hampshire Republican Party, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to engage in 

interstate telephone communications with intent to annoy or harass on July 28, 2004. 

James Tobin was the 2002 regional political director for the Republican National Committee and the 2004 New England director 

for the Bush-Cheney campaign. Tobin was convicted of conspiracy 

to commit telephone harassment and aiding and abetting telephone 

harassment on December 25, 2005. He was later acquitted on appeal. His case now is in the First Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Despite years of investigation and prosecution, significant and 

serious questions remain unanswered. There is evidence that the 

political scheme runs deeper and wider than these individuals who 

were prosecuted and convicted. 

This Committee, as you have heard, has been investigating the 

phone jamming case since 2006 when on May 12, 2006, Chairman 

Conyers asked then Attorney General Gonzales about the ‘‘outstanding issues’’ in the phone jamming case and requested the appointment of a special prosecutor. Additional letters were sent by 

Senators Leahy and Kennedy of the Senate Judiciary Committee to 

then Attorney General Gonzales. However, no special prosecutor 

was ever appointed and the Bush administration continues to claim 

executive privilege on key questions. 

It remains unclear whether the White House was involved in the 

phone jamming scandal. On Election Day 2002, 22 phone calls were 

exchanged between New Hampshire Republican officials and the 

White House Office of Political Affairs from 11:20 a.m. to 2:17 a.m. 

Who at the White House received those calls? Were White House 

officials knowledgeable of the phone jamming or plans to jam the 

phones? Are there documents that the White House possesses that 

could help the Committee or the Department of Justice to answer 

these questions? 

Secondly, there were major delays in prosecuting the phone jamming case that have not been properly investigated. The phone 

jamming occurred on November 5, 2002. Yet Mr. Tobin was only 

indicted after the 2004 presidential elections where he was an employee of Bush/Cheney 2004. 

Furthermore, according to the McClatchy newswire, as recently 

as December 19, a Department of Justice employee admitted that 

senior DOJ officials delayed the investigation. Did the DOJ deliberately wait until after the 2004 presidential election to begin the 

prosecution of a Bush-Cheney 2004 employee? 

In short, we need to know whether others were involved in the 

election interference, whether they attempted to cover up the involvement of other political operatives, and whether there was a 

concerted effort to delay prosecution. Was there a connection between the phone jamming plot, the Republican National Committee, and the White House? 

The question has been asked before, many years ago, essentially 

what did they know and when did they know it. At the very least, 

the DOJ had a conflict of interest in investigating this political 

scheme and should have appointed a special prosecutor. The questions surrounding phone jamming warrant an unbiased complete 

investigation, which we have not had. 

147 

The people of New Hampshire and of America deserve nothing 

less than the full truth. They deserve to know whether the 2002 

elections they participated in were tampered with by Republican 

political operatives and whether there was a concerted effort to 

cover up the political trickery. 

I commend this Committee for trying to give the citizens of my 

home State and this country the answers that they deserve. The 

right of Granite Staters to enjoy free and fair elections was put in 

jeopardy, and they need to know the full truth. 

Political fraud cannot be allowed to compromise the electoral 

process. It happened before, and acts that compromise our process 

undermine the fabric of democracy and have no place in America. 

Election tampering degrades who we are as a Nation and as a 

democracy. Let’s make sure that those who broke the law and betrayed the people’s trust are brought to light and brought to justice. 

Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any questions you may 

have of me. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hodes follows:] 

148 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PAUL W. HODES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE


Hodes-1.eps
149 


Hodes-2.eps
150 


Hodes-3.eps
151 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Congressman Hodes. 

We certainly appreciate your testimony, and we understand how 

important it is to you, and that, in fact, is why we are looking at 

these issues of politicization of the DOJ and through the numerous 

avenues that we have had at our disposal to ask questions and to 

try to receive information that would help clarify these and many 

other issues, we have gotten very little, if any, cooperation from the 

Department of Justice to help us in our investigation. 

So I can hear the frustration in your voice. I share that frustration. I think the subcommittee really has fought in good faith to try 

to get details of information so that we can check to make sure that 

the process has integrity, that it is non-partisan in the application 

and the prosecution of laws, and that has been thwarted time and 

time again. 

But, at this time, we normally do our 5 minutes for questioning. 

I do not have any questions for you. I would ask if there are any 

others on the dais that do have questions. 

Mr. Cannon? 

Mr. CANNON. I do, Madam Chair. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Mr. Cannon is recognized for questioning. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And we are just trying to sort of put this together, and could you 

help me a little bit here? The activity you have testified about happened about 6 years ago, right? 

Mr. HODES. Correct. 

Mr. CANNON. And you had three people that were found guilty, 

one is still on appeal, and he was reversed, but the guilty plea is 

now on appeal, right? 

Mr. HODES. Correct. 

Mr. CANNON. You have made broader allegations of where this 

was all going, but, as I understand it, the telephone calling started 

about 7 a.m. 

Mr. HODES. Really what I am here to do is to raise questions 

more than give you answers. There are many others who are more 

familiar with the intimate details of what happened. There are 

records which show hundreds of phone calls from various of the 

people involved in this scheme, and, in particular, as I have suggested, on Election Day, 22 phone calls were exchanged between 

New Hampshire Republican officials and the White House Office of 

Political Affairs—— 

Mr. CANNON. I understand that, but, if you do not know the answer, I do not want to persecute you and ask you. We are just trying to get some information. 

Mr. HODES. You asked me whether or not it happened at 7 a.m. 

Mr. CANNON. Do you know when? Was it 7 a.m.? Are you aware? 

Mr. HODES. I would defer to the records which are a better 

source. My information is that—— 

Mr. CANNON. My understanding is that the telephone jamming 

ended at about 7:30. So it did not go on for very long. Is—— 

Mr. HODES. The telephone jamming did not go on for very long? 

Mr. CANNON. Is that your understanding? 

Mr. HODES. My understanding is that the telephone jamming occurred. Whether it went on for very long or not—— 

152 

Mr. CANNON. This is not an argument. Pardon me. If you do not 

understand, if you do not have the history, that is fine. I am asking. You do not know then when it stopped? 

Mr. HODES. I do not have the precise time. 

Mr. CANNON. Are you aware of who called it off? 

Mr. HODES. My understanding is that there were Members of the 

Republican State Committee who eventually called it off, but I 

would defer again to—— 

Mr. CANNON. Well, you say eventually. That means—— 

Mr. HODES. May I just finish my answer, Mr. Cannon? I was—— 

Mr. CANNON. Well, I—— 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Please allow the witness to answer the question. 

Mr. CANNON. Pardon me. It is my time, and I do not mean to 

hector the witness, but I—— 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. The witness is attempting to answer your question. 

Mr. CANNON. Madam Chair, it is my time. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I under—— 

Mr. CANNON. It is not your time and not your time to direct how 

I handle it. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I understand, but you will allow the witness the 

courtesy of answering your question. If you want additional 

time—— 

Mr. CANNON. Madam Chairman, it is not a matter of courtesy 

that you judge. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ [continuing]. I would be happy to give you additional time. 

Mr. CANNON. It is a matter of courtesy that I judge. I am just 

asking a couple of simple questions. When you talk about eventually, that makes it sound like a longer period of time. If you do not 

know how long it was, then that is all we need to understand. 

Mr. HODES. I am informed that the timeframe was 7 a.m. to 9 

p.m. continuing throughout the day. 

Mr. CANNON. And does your information suggest that it was 

planned from 7 to 9 or that it went from 7 to 9:00? 

Mr. HODES. My information is, my understanding is that there 

was no plan to terminate the phone jamming earlier, and I would 

defer to others who were more intimately involved in these matters. You will be hearing from Attorney Paul Twomey who was intimately involved in all phases of both criminal and the civil cases 

which resulted from this matter, and I bet that he will be able to 

give you with specificity the answers you seek. 

Mr. CANNON. That is fine. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CANNON. I would be happy to yield. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I was just going to mention that our second panel 

of witnesses probably more appropriately can answer the detailed 

questions that you have—— 

Mr. CANNON. Well, reclaiming my time, I understand that, and 

I—— 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ [continuing]. Regarding the specifics. 

Mr. CANNON. Again, I do not mean to hector the witness. I just 

want to find out what he knows as colleagues. I do not mean to 

even ask questions that are difficult. 

153 

But let me just shift gears a little bit here. I think you are aware 

of the claims between the Obama and the Clinton campaigns about 

vote suppression. Have you heard those allegations? 

Mr. HODES. In general, I am aware that concerns have been 

raised. I have no intimate knowledge and was not expecting to testify today in any way about anything happening—— 

Mr. CANNON. Generally speaking, should this have been—— 

Mr. HODES [continuing]. With the Obama or Clinton campaign 

allegations. I was here—— 

Mr. CANNON. Well, should this—— 

Mr. HODES. I was here to testify about the—— 

Mr. CANNON. I am not asking you—— 

Mr. HODES [continuing]. Phone jamming matters in New Hampshire. 

Mr. CANNON. Reclaiming my time, since it is almost gone here, 

recognizing the importance of vote suppression, is that the sort of 

thing this Committee should look at, the problems in Nevada between the two Democratic candidates, the claims that each are 

making here that they are trying to suppress the vote? 

Mr. HODES. I take—— 

Mr. CANNON. Is that urgent for this Committee? 

Mr. HODES. Well, far be it for me to dictate to the Committee 

what its jurisdiction or interests should be. I appreciate that the 

Committee is investigating this important problem, 2002, Republican operatives jamming phones in New Hampshire and a lack of 

investigation—— 

Mr. CANNON. Reclaiming my time—— 

Mr. HODES [continuing]. And follow up. 

Mr. CANNON. I think you have actually said that several times. 

So why don’t I yield back, Madam Chairman, and we can move on 

with this hearing. 

Thank you. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

Okay. If there are no further questions, I would like to thank 

Congressman Hodes for his testimony, and I will excuse you at this 

time. We appreciate again your patience. 

And we will take a brief recess, so we can seat our second panel 

of witnesses who I think more appropriately can answer some of 

the questions that have been raised. 

Thank you, Mr. Hodes. 

Mr. HODES. I thank the Committee. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Okay. I would like to call the subcommittee to 

order. 

I know that we have two of our three witnesses for the second 

panel seated, but, as we are expecting votes at approximately 3:15, 

I would really like to get everybody’s testimony in before then. So 

I am going to go ahead and introduce the witnesses on our second 

panel for today’s hearing. 

Our first witness on this panel is Allen Raymond. Mr. Raymond 

is a business development consultant and one of the authors of 

‘‘How to Rig an Election: The Confessions of a Republican Operative.’’ 

154 

Prior to writing his book, Mr. Raymond owned a Virginia-based 

GOP phone bank company called GOP Marketplace and also held 

a paid position as executive director of the Republican Leadership 

Council. During his service as executive director, Mr. Raymond 

took part in a phone jamming scheme during the 2002 New Hampshire elections which resulted in his conviction and a 3-month Federal prison sentence. 

Our second witness is Paul Twomey. Mr. Twomey owns a private 

law practice focusing on criminal defense and voting rights law. 

Prior to 1985, he worked for the New Hampshire Public Defenders 

Program. 

Since 2004, Mr. Twomey has represented on a pro bono basis the 

New Hampshire Democratic Party, the Republican, Democratic, 

and the Independent candidates for office on issues such as ballot 

order rotation, mid-decade redistricting, and the New Hampshire 

phone jamming case. He has served as State counsel for the Howard Dean presidential campaign and associate State counsel for the 

Kerry-Edwards campaign. 

Mr. Twomey is currently the New Hampshire legal chair for the 

Obama campaign. 

And our final witness for this panel, who has just joined us, is 

Mark Crispin Miller. Professor Miller teaches Media, Culture, and 

Communication at New York University. His writings on film, television, propaganda, advertising, and the culture industries have 

appeared in numerous journals and newspapers. 

In 2005, Professor Miller authored ‘‘Fooled Again: The Real Case 

for Electoral Reform.’’ He is also the author of the ‘‘Bush 

Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder,’’ and ‘‘Cruel and 

Unusual: Bush-Cheney’s New World Order.’’ 

I want to thank you all for your participation in today’s hearing. 

Again, you will note that we have a lighting system. When your 

time begins, you will see a green light. After 4 minutes of testimony, the light will turn yellow to warn you that you have 1 

minute remaining. When your time has expired, you will see a red 

light. If you are mid-sentence, we will allow you to finish your final 

thought before moving on to the next witness. 

After each witness has presented his testimony, subcommittee 

Members will be permitted to ask questions subject to the 5-minute 

limit. 

And with that, I would invite Mr. Raymond to begin his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF ALLEN RAYMOND, BETHESDA, MD 

Mr. RAYMOND. Good afternoon, Chairman Conyers, Chairman 

Sa ́nchez, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Cannon, and Members 

of the Committee. 

Your invitation to speak to you today was welcome. It gave me 

an opportunity to further my goal of bringing transparency to the 

events now known as the New Hampshire phone jamming of Democratic Election Day phone lines at the direction of the Republican 

National Committee, the New Hampshire Republican State Committee, and made possible by my own efforts as the Republican 

consultant who arranged for the telemarketing services that conducted the jamming of the phone lines. 

155 

Such an opportunity is welcome because it allows for the public 

service of illuminating the worst practices by bad actors within our 

electoral process so that awareness may dampen similar attempts 

in the future to taint our electoral process. 

Justice Brandeis wrote that ‘‘sunlight is the best disinfectant; 

electric light, the best policeman.’’ This was the spirit in which I 

wrote ‘‘How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative,’’ a book I encourage you all to read, if you have not already. 

What I hope the book and my appearance before you today to be 

is a public service. My desire is to shed a ray of sunlight on a process that requires periodic disinfection and perhaps evoke from this 

distinguished Committee the electric light that will better patrol 

our election process and, more importantly, the trade people within 

it. 

Political management is a big business, boasting master degrees 

from top-tier universities and flaunting riches to political 

operatives eager for success. Already this election cycle, there has 

been spent in Federal elections alone $900 million, and that is before the big show in the fall when a new President of the United 

States is going to be elected. 

This is not to suggest that money is the source of why many 

Americans are disenchanted with the political campaign process. 

Money in politics is like water, it will always find a way. As long 

as money is equated with free speech, the money will flow to campaign coffers. 

The source of the reason why Americans instinctively know that 

the system does not work as the framers intended is that politics 

has become a big business, a cost per vote business. The stakes are 

great, both money and power, and the temptation can be irresistible for many in the business of running campaigns to try and win 

at all costs, and I know this firsthand. 

As you may know and as you have said here today, I pleaded 

guilty to the charge of phone harassment in the New Hampshire 

phone jamming case and was incarcerated for 3 months at a Federal correctional institution. 

When confronted with my crime by our government, despite prior 

confidence that the law had not been transgressed, I did not hesitate to take responsibility for my actions. Unfortunately, I am the 

exception, not the rule, by being the only actor in this conspiracy 

to take responsibility for their conduct without indecision or hesitation. 

This is not to say new laws that address the symptoms of the 

problem should be crafted to prevent future abuses. Rather, I encourage this Committee to seek a new vantage point and confront 

the origin of the problem. 

Politics is populated by political professionals who, when not 

working on Capitol Hill, are working for either a major political 

party committee, a political consulting company, a lobbying firm, or 

in government relations for either a corporation or trade association, or for some other instrument like politically oriented non-profit committees—or for all concurrently. 

Therein is the solution you should consider. Just as lobbyists are 

required to disclose their activities to comply with the Lobbying 

Disclosure Act of 1995 and its amendment in 2007, so should it be 

156 

considered that political consultants be required to conduct themselves under the same transparency. Transparency seems the sunlight that is best for real reform. The protest such a bill would provoke is validation of the idea. 

In fairness to my former colleagues in the Republican Party and 

in the spirit to treat them better than they treated me, I cannot 

link the New Hampshire phone jamming scheme in any way to 

President George Bush’s White House. However, having worked at 

the Republican National Committee in two capacities—as a regional political director similar to Mr. Tobin’s position during the 

2002 election cycle and as chief of staff to a Republican National 

Committee co-chairman and at the National Republican Senatorial 

Committee—I have the ability to speak to the processes in place 

while I was employed there, but not thereafter and not in the context of a Republican administration in the White House. 

Neither of the national Republican campaign committees mentioned above is managed by rogues, nor do they employ them. 

Knowing firsthand how both committees operate was a key factor 

to accepting the job of placing the phone jamming program with a 

telemarketing vendor following Mr. Tobin’s inquiry on the matter. 

My training at both the RNC and the NRSC taught me two main 

operating procedures: the first being that as an agent of either 

committee one never instructed another committee on vendor preferences unless that committee was financing a program and the 

other being that unusual programs never saw the light of day without a thorough vetting by committee attorneys. 

When approached by Mr. Tobin about being hired to conduct the 

unusual program of jamming Democratic Party phone lines, I made 

the calculated assumption that both criterions had been met. 

Therefore, knowing Mr. Tobin knew of the program, it would 

seem to follow that there would be interest during the course of the 

investigation into this matter as to whether Mr. Tobin’s superiors 

were also aware of the program, unless Mr. Tobin had safely concealed his rogue status during nearly a decade of employment at 

the RNC. 

However, I must also be fair and stress not being privy to every 

detail of this investigation, and, therefore, the questions raised 

may well have been satisfied. 

I am before you today by invitation and welcome your questions. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Raymond follows:] 

157 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALLEN RAYMOND


AR-1.eps
158 


AR-2.eps
159 


AR-3.eps
160 


AR-4.eps
161 


AR-5.eps
162 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. We appreciate your testimony, Mr. 

Raymond. 

At this time, I would invite Mr. Twomey to give his remarks. 

Use your microphone. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL TWOMEY, ESQ., TWOMEY LAW OFFICE, 

EPSOM, NH 

Mr. TWOMEY. Sorry. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, Chairman Scott, Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Cannon. 

My name is Paul Twomey. I am from Chichester, New Hampshire. 

A functioning democracy needs two essential things at its basis. 

It needs rules and procedures. It needs a system set up so the people have an equal and a fair access to elections, that all people and 

all ideas operate on a level playing field. 

That by itself is not enough. We have those things in our constitutions State constitutions, and our Federal constitutions. Those 

types of rules and procedures also existed under despots and dictatorships in the Soviet Union. You need a second element. You need 

a mechanism to enforce the rules, to deter those who would cheat, 

and to make sure that the level playing field stays level. 

For almost two centuries, the Department of Justice has admirably performed that function. Both the Civil Rights Division, the 

Public Integrity Division, the Criminal Division have all operated 

to stand up to those who sought to abuse power and those who 

sought to cheat to gain power. This is a critical function because 

when the people in a democracy fail to believe that the elections 

are fair, they opt out of the system. 

We now have a situation in which almost half the people in our 

country do not engage in their wonderful right to vote in elections. 

Anything that diminishes the confidence of the people in the fairness of elections is a serious matter. It is a serious matter the day 

it happens, the day after it happens, 6 years after it happens. 

The tragedy of the New Hampshire phone jamming is not that 

the citizens’ rights to freely associate and to communicate with 

each other were violated. This is a terrible thing, and it is, quite 

frankly, the kind of thing that has happened other times in the 

past. 

The real tragedy is that when the citizens whose rights to free 

association were violated turned to the Department of Justice for 

justice, they did not get justice. 

Now I am going to talk to you and I have used about half my 

time. Let me be very quick. 

There are a number of ways in which the Department of Justice 

did not provide justice, one of which is delays. Ranking Member 

Cannon said two things that were somehow difficult for me to 

square. One, he said that he should not be holding hearings in the 

middle of trials. And I agree with that. In general, you should not 

be because you should respect the right of people to have trials 

without interference by legislative bodies. 

Well, that has been said to the people of the State of New Hampshire since 2002. There have been trials going on since 2002. The 

Department of Justice has slow walked this case and stretched it 

163 

out so that there has never been a time when we could get the answers and the full answers to what went on. 

At the same time, Congressman Cannon said it is old news. Well, 

it is old news because we have not gotten the answers. We have 

been asking for the answers. Well, first of all, we forwarded this 

to the police immediately. It took a Manchester police officer exactly 1 day to essentially solve the case as to the people that actually effectuated it. It was then turned over to the Department of 

Justice. 

It took the Department of Justice 18 months to bring an indictment. It took them 9 months to interview a single person. There 

is no reason whatsoever that we understand now why that happened, and, again, during this entire period, my clients were continually asking the U.S. attorney’s office and the Department of 

Justice what was going on. 

In December of 2003, all of the essential information was generated, all of the people had been spoken to. Mr. Raymond had spoken to the FBI, told them the full story. Mr. McGee, who was the 

executive director of New Hampshire Republican Party, had told 

them the full story. They had everything they needed to bring indictments in December of 2003. 

They slow walked the case through. They did not bring any indictments again until, I believe, July 28 of 2004. At that time, they 

did not indict Mr. Tobin, who was a regional director of the RNC 

and the Republican Senatorial Committee. 

There have been published reports, which I believe to be true, 

that the prosecutor in this case, Todd Hinnen, wanted to indict Mr. 

Tobin earlier, that he was forbidden to do so until after the presidential election. That is political interference with the administration of justice, and that is something that this Committee should 

take seriously. 

There are numerous ways in which the Department of Justice 

interfered with justice. A second way is that after the indictments 

were first brought by the civil case, as we were about to start our 

discovery, on the very first day of discovery, the Department of 

Justice, which had known about the civil case for a period of time, 

intervened at the last moment and brought about a halt in discovery. That set us back by 18 months in which we were unable 

to ask any questions of anybody. 

Again, there have been published reports by the McClatchy 

newspapers that individuals high in the Department of Justice 

have stated that that interference was not done at the request of 

the prosecutor, but that he was ordered to interfere with the civil 

case and to slow walk it. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Mr. Twomey, if you could summarize your final 

thought, I am sorry, but your time has—— 

Mr. TWOMEY. Okay. I will very quickly say there is numerous 

evidence to believe that the White House may have had some involvement in this, the Political Office. There is a refusal to indict 

the New Hampshire Republican Party and perhaps the Republican 

National Committee, but at least the Republican State Party. The 

prosecutor wanted to indict them because they have obstructed justice. They withheld information. They refused to turnover their inVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:06 May 19, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\COMM\051408\42372.000 HJUD1 PsN: 42372
164 

ternal investigation. Again, higher-ups at the Department of Justice interfered. 

I could probably go on, quite frankly, for about 2 hours, and I am 

talking as fast as I can, and I am out of time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Twomey follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL TWOMEY


PT-1.eps
165 


PT-2.eps
166 


PT-3.eps
167 


PT-4.eps
168 


PT-5.eps
169 


PT-6.eps
170 


PT-7.eps
171 


PT-8.eps
172 


PT-9.eps
173 


PT-10.eps
174 


PT-11.eps
175 


PT-12.eps
176 


PT-13.eps
177 


PT-14.eps
178 


PT-15.eps
179 


PT-16.eps
180 


PT-17.eps
181 


PT-18.eps
182 


PT-19.eps
183 

Attachment 1 


A-1.eps
184 


A-2.eps
185 


A-3.eps
186 

Attachment 2 


PT-22.eps
187 


PT-23.eps
188 

Attachment 3, 6 and 7 


PT-24.eps
189 


PT-25.eps
190 


PT-26.eps
191 


PT-27.eps
192 


PT-28.eps
193 


PT-29.eps
194 


PT-30.eps
195 


PT-31.eps
196 


PT-32.eps
197 

Attachment 4 


C-1.eps
198 


C-2.eps
199 


PT-33.eps
200 


PT-34.eps
201 


PT-35.eps
202 


PT-36.eps
203 

Attachment 5 


PT-37.eps
204 


PT-38.eps
205 


PT-39.eps
206 


PT-40.eps
207 

Attachment 8 


PT-41.eps
208 


PT-42.eps
209 


PT-43.eps
210 


PT-44.eps
211 


PT-45.eps
212 

Attachment 9 


PT-46.eps
213 


PT-47.eps
214 


PT-48.eps
215 


PT-49.eps
216 


PT-50.eps
217 


PT-51.eps
218 


PT-52.eps
219 


PT-53.eps
220 


PT-54.eps
221 

Attachment 10 


PT-55.eps
222 


PT-56.eps
223 

Attachment 11 


PT-57.eps
224 


PT-58.eps
225 


PT-59.eps
226 


PT-60.eps
227 


PT-61.eps
228 


PT-62.eps
229 


PT-63.eps
230 

Attachment 12 


PT-64.eps
231 


PT-65.eps
232 


PT-66.eps
233 


PT-67.eps
234 


PT-68.eps
235 


PT-69.eps
236 


PT-70.eps
237 


PT-71.eps
238 


PT-72.eps
239 


PT-73.eps
240 


PT-74.eps
241 


PT-75.eps
242 


PT-76.eps
243 


PT-77.eps
244 

Attachment 13 


PT-78.eps
245 


PT-79.eps
246 


PT-80.eps
247 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I thank you for your testimony. Hopefully, we will 

be able to listen to some more of your information during our round 

of questions. 

Mr. TWOMEY. Thank you. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. At this time, I would invite Mr. Miller to please 

give his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MARK CRISPIN MILLER, PROFESSOR, 

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, NEW YORK, NY 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Chairman Sa ́nchez, Chairman Scott, 

Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Cannon. I am very grateful 

to have been asked to speak here. 

I want to start my attesting that I am not a Democrat or a Republican, but an Independent dedicated to the promise of American 

democracy as envisioned by Tom Paine. I believe with him that the 

right to vote is the basis on which all our other rights depend. 

Thus, the issue here is ultimately not the victory or defeat of either 

party, but the people’s right to choose their government and thereby live and rule in freedom. 

Such was once the view of the U.S. Justice Department whose 

Voting Rights Section strongly championed the individual right to 

vote by prosecuting all forms of illegal vote suppression. Since 

2001, however, the department has turned a blind eye toward such 

crime. 

Take the case of Sproul & Associates, an Arizona firm hired by 

the Republican National Committee to run stealth voter registration drives throughout the Nation prior to the 2004 election. Starting in the summer, Sproul’s troops haunted public areas posing as 

non-partisan opinion pollsters or petitioners for liberal causes. 

Through such deception, the firm worked to inflate the number 

of registered Republicans, by any means necessary. Closely following a script, the operatives asked leading questions in order to 

identify Republicans and then asked them to fill out registration 

forms. The teams were ordered not to register Democrats or Independents. 

Nevertheless, many Democrats filled out the forms, and those 

forms were destroyed. Far more frequently, however, Sproul’s 

troops bamboozled Democrats and Independents into registering as 

Republicans, either by altering the registration forms without their 

knowledge or by misleading them into re-registering themselves. 

Such service was expensive. According to their filings with the 

Federal Election Commission, the RNC paid Sproul well over $8 

million, the party’s eighth-largest expenditure of the 2004 campaign. 

And what did they get for it? Aside from ripping up the registration forms of many Democrats, the company appears to have created thousands of unwitting faux Republicans in Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Minnesota, Michigan, and Oregon. 

Thanks to those inflated numbers, there appeared to be more 

registered Republicans than there were in reality, a misimpression 

that would seemingly explain the party’s upset wins in those States 

where the exit polls predicted otherwise. 

248 

In Ohio, for example, countless Democratic votes were stolen 

through the tactics documented in the full Committee’s seminal report on the election there: voter caging, thwarted registration 

drives, broad refusal of provisional ballots, organized 

disinformation and intimidation, shortages of functioning machines 

in Democratic districts only, and numerous machine irregularities 

undoing only Democratic votes. 

Those tactics were used also in those other States where the exit 

polls predicted a Republican defeat and where Sproul had also 

helped inflate the number of grassroots Republicans. Thus, the 

company not only broke the law, but also may have figured in a 

larger plan to block the vote. 

There are oddities, moreover, in the party’s FEC filings, with 

nine expenditures totaling well over $1 million incurred somehow 

in 2005, suggesting an attempt to shave down the amount spent on 

Sproul’s services. 

And so Sproul & Associates clearly merited a full investigation, 

and yet the DOJ did nothing. If there has been a Federal probe of 

Sproul’s activities, I have never heard of it. Far from coming under 

Federal suspicion, Nathan Sproul, the firm’s director, was invited 

to the Christmas party at the White House 2 months after the election. 

And while the DOJ has winked at practices that disenfranchise 

tens of thousands of Americans, that now wholly partisan department focuses obsessively on voter fraud, which numbers in the 

tens. Between 2002 and 2005, 24 people were convicted of illegal 

voting, with another 62 convicted since. 

Those low numbers reconfirm the scholarly consensus that voter 

fraud is actually quite rare. It is, in fact, the highly serviceable 

myth that helps to justify the actual vote suppression and election 

fraud that Sproul and others carry out to benefit their party. 

Today, the fantasy of voter fraud preoccupies the managers at 

Justice and the Supreme Court. It is, therefore, up to Congress to 

return us to reality and redirect this Nation toward democracy. 

I thank you all, and I will take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK CRISPIN MILLER

My name is Mark Crispin Miller. I am a professor of media, culture and communication at New York University, and a longtime analyst of media and politics. Lately my work has focused on the growing dangers of election fraud and vote suppression in this country. My books include Fooled Again: The Real Case for Electoral 

Reform (2005), and, more recently, Loser Take All: Election Fraud and the Subversion of Democracy, 2000–2008. 

I am not a Democrat or a Republican, but an Independent dedicated to the promise of American democracy as envisioned by Tom Paine. I believe, with him, that 

the right to vote is the basis on which all our other rights depend. And so the issue 

here is ultimately not the victory or defeat of either party, but the people’s right 

to choose their government, and thereby live, and rule, in freedom. 

Such was once the view of the US Justice Department, whose Voting Rights Section strongly championed the individual right to vote, by prosecuting all forms of 

illegal disfranchisement. But things have changed since 2001, as the Department 

now turns a blind eye toward illegal vote suppression, as long as such blocked votes 

would not advantage the Republicans. 

Take the case of Sproul & Associates, an Arizona firm hired by the Republican 

National Committee to run stealth voter registration drives throughout the nation 

prior to the 2004 election. Starting in the summer, Sproul’s troops haunted public 

areas, posing as non-partisan opinion pollsters, or petitioners for liberal causes. 

249 

Through such deception, the firm worked to inflate the number of registered Republicans, by any means necessary. 

Closely following a script, the operatives asked leading questions—a form of ‘‘push 

polling’’—in order to identify Republican respondents, and then asked them to fill 

out registration forms. 

The teams had been instructed not to register Democrats or Independents. Nevertheless, many Democrats filled out the forms—and those forms were destroyed: ‘‘We 

caught [my supervisor] taking Democrats out of my pile, [and] hand[ing] them to 

her assistant, and he ripped them up right in front of us,’’ said one Sproul worker 

in Las Vegas. 

More frequently, however, Sproul’s troops bamboozled thousands of Democrats 

and Independents into registering as Republicans, either by altering the registration 

forms, or by misleading people into thus re-registering themselves. 

Such service was expensive. According to their filings with the Federal Election Commission, the Republican National Committee paid Sproul well over $8 million— 

making it the RNC’s eighth-largest expenditure of the 2004 campaign. And what did 

the party get for it? Aside from disenfranchising those Democrats whose forms were 

ripped up by Sproul’s staff, the company created thousands of unwitting faux-Republicans, in Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Minnesota, Michigan and Oregon. 

Thanks to those inflated numbers, there appeared to be more registered Republicans than there were in reality—a misimpression that would seemingly explain the 

party’s unexpected victories in those places where the exit polls predicted otherwise. 

In Ohio, for example, countless Democratic votes were stolen through the tactics 

documented in the full committee’s excellent report on the election there: voter ‘‘caging,’’ thwarted registration drives, broad refusal of provisional ballots, organized 

disinformation, blunt intimidation tactics, shortages of functioning machines in 

Democratic districts only, and numerous ‘‘machine irregularities’’ undoing only 

Democratic votes. Those tactics were used also in those other states where the exit 

polls predicted a Republican defeat—and where Sproul’s firm had also helped inflate 

the number of grass-roots Republicans. 

Thus Sproul’s firm not only broke the law, but may also have assisted in a larger 

plan to block the vote. (There are oddities, moreover, in the RNC’s filings with the 

FEC, with nine expenditures, totaling well over $1 million, incurred somehow in 

2005, suggesting an attempt to minimize the sum spent on Sproul’s services.) 

Thus Sproul & Associates clearly merited a full investigation by the Justice Department; and yet the DoJ did nothing. If there has been a federal probe of Sproul’s 

activities, I’ve never heard of it. Far from coming under federal suspicion, Nathan 

Sproul, the firm’s director, was invited to the Christmas party at the White House 

two months after the election. 

And while the DoJ has winked at practices that disenfranchise tens of thousands 

of Americans, that now wholly partisan Department focuses obsessively on ‘‘voter 

fraud,’’ which numbers in the tens. Between 2002 and 2005, 24 people were convicted of illegal voting, with another 62 convicted since. Those low numbers reconfirm the scholarly consensus that ‘‘voter fraud’’ is actually quite rare. It is, in fact, 

a highly serviceable myth, and/or delusion, that helps to justify the actual vote suppression, and election fraud, that Sproul and others carry out to benefit their party. 

Today the fantasy of ‘‘voter fraud’’ preoccupies the managers at Justice, and the Supreme Court. It is therefore up to Congress to return us to reality, and redirect this 

nation toward democracy. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Professor Miller. 

We will now begin our round of questioning, and I will begin by 

recognizing myself for 5 minutes of questions. 

My first question is for Mr. Twomey. Do you think that it is appropriate for the Bush administration to refuse to explain key 

questions in the jamming scheme, such as who knew about the 

scheme at the White House and when they were aware of it? 

Mr. TWOMEY. In one word, no. We sought to get information from 

the White House about all the calls to the White House. There can 

be innocent explanations for those calls. This was during an election. 

But if we could see a pattern of who Tobin calls, Tobin being the 

RNC Bush-Cheney guy who made the calls, and what those people 

next did, we could have determined whether or not those were inVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:06 May 19, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00253 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\COMM\051408\42372.000 HJUD1 PsN: 42372
250 

nocent calls or whether those were calls that were part of the conspiracy. We sought those. The White House refused to provide 

them. 

My understanding is that this Committee has not been able to 

get any information on that either. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. That is correct. 

My second question is also for you. Do you think that the Department of Justice had a conflict of interest in investigating the phone 

jamming case? 

Mr. TWOMEY. I think that those at the higher levels of the Department of Justice had an absolute and clear conflict of interest. 

The two attorney generals, Ashcroft and Gonzales, had obvious 

connections. Mr. Gonzales was in the White House when this occurred. He was White House counsel. 

There is a question about the White House Political Office having 

been part of it. That is an obvious conflict. 

Mr. Ashcroft was a member prior to his becoming attorney general of the Republican Senatorial Committee. That is where Mr. 

Tobin worked, one of the places he worked, besides the Republican 

National Committee. Those are obvious conflicts. 

They should have taken themselves out of this, out of the chain 

of command making these decisions. 

I do not believe the trial level attorneys themselves had a conflict, but the problem was they could not make the decisions on the 

case. We were told several times that the reasons things took so 

long and the reasons that certain things did not happen, such as 

indicting Mr. Tobin on a timely basis, was because of orders from 

above. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Raymond, you indicate in your book ‘‘How to Rig an Election’’ that your case went all the way to the top of the Department 

of Justice and was on John Ashcroft’s desk. Do you think it was 

an unusual circumstance that the attorney general was personally 

looking into your case? And do you think the attorney general 

made selective decisions on which individuals to go after and that 

you were particularly targeted? 

Mr. RAYMOND. I cannot speak to the attorney general. I have 

no—— 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Is your microphone on? I am sorry. 

Mr. RAYMOND. Is that better? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. That is much better. 

Mr. RAYMOND. I cannot speak to the motives of the Attorney 

General Ashcroft. I have never worked at the Department of Justice. I can say that a number of aides to Mr. Ashcroft have political 

backgrounds. That is how I met some of them. One had formerly 

been a political director of the Republican National Committee and, 

in fact, I think had been Mr. Tobin’s superior at the time. So I certainly think that those calculations could have come into effect. I 

cannot speak to whether or not they did in fact. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Do you think it was wrong for Mr. Tobin to continue to serve as a Bush campaign official when the Department 

of Justice had evidence that he was a clear participant in the jamming scheme? 

251 

Mr. RAYMOND. Well, my understanding is once he was indicted 

and it was made public, he resigned. So it is a question of who 

knew what when, to coin a silly term, but I think that if his superiors had no idea it was going on, I think it was fine. If they did, 

then that is another matter entirely. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. 

Professor Miller, have you heard of any other instances with any 

other voter registration firm where people were trained to register 

only voters of a certain party? 

Mr. MILLER. I have not. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. So, to your knowledge, that was a unique circumstance? 

Mr. MILLER. No. That is unique. It is worth noting also that 

Sproul’s people often represented themselves as being with a group 

called America Votes, which is a well-established and respected 

non-partisan voter registration operation, and the people from 

America Votes eventually complained about this because this was 

clearly a partisan effort, and to answer your question, I cannot 

think of any other examples of that happening on either side. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Okay. Can you describe in detail some of the other 

voter suppression strategies that might have been employed in the 

2004 or the 2006 elections? 

Mr. MILLER. That is a very big question. There are a number of 

books on the subject, and I would respectfully suggest that this 

should be, you know, a matter for a full investigation on its own. 

There has been a great deal of such activity. 

And let me answer one of Ranking Member’s earlier questions in 

this regard. I do not believe that this kind of investigation should 

be restricted to what Republicans do. I do indeed believe that 

Democratic vote suppression and election fraud should be prosecuted as well. I am kind of a purist on this matter, and what is 

good for the goose is good for the gander. 

I also would agree that there has been election fraud in our history, sadly, forever. It goes way back, but having studied this and 

written extensively about it, I must conclude—and I am not the 

only one to draw this conclusion—that what has happened over the 

last 7 years is unprecedented in our history, both for its scale and 

for its technological sophistication. 

The use of electronic voting machines of any kind seems to me 

quite perverse because what you have there is, in essence, a secret 

vote count. To have electronic machines on which you either vote 

or which count your vote is to use a technology that is tantamount 

to having somebody take the ballots home, pull the blinds, and 

then come out in the morning and say, ‘‘Here is the number. Take 

it or leave it.’’ 

Moreover, the companies that make the machines are private 

companies and are, therefore, unaccountable. So this represents 

something new, and even as we speak, there are things happening, 

such as the Veterans Administration now refusing to help wounded 

veterans register to vote, which was a policy they had briefly promised to change, and now we hear that they are not going to do it 

after all. 

I think that if we believe in universal suffrage and we believe in 

the right to vote, we should do everything we can to make that posVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:06 May 19, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00255 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\COMM\051408\42372.000 HJUD1 PsN: 42372
252 

sible. Voter fraud is a problem, a very, very minor problem, but it 

seems to me that we could much more easily solve it by, for example, putting video surveillance in polling places than in passing 

laws that disenfranchise tens of thousands of people. That is like 

treating a minor headache by getting a lobotomy, you know. 

So, again, I appreciate your question and want to repeat that 

this matter is far too important, I think, to be left to either party 

and one that a Committee like this one should plan future investigations of. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Okay. If the Committee will indulge me, I have 

one final question, which, hopefully, will be instructive. 

But, as I am sure you are aware, this is an election year. What 

do you think that we could do now to prevent situations like the 

New Hampshire phone jamming or Sproul’s destruction of voter 

registration cards or any other attempts to suppress the vote? Prospectively, looking ahead, what would be some suggestions—— 

Mr. CANNON. Would the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I would yield. 

Mr. CANNON. I suspect the fact that two guys have gone to jail 

and a third might go to jail actually works its wonders in dissuading people from illegal activity. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I would tend to agree to some extent, but no doubt 

there are further steps, I am sure, that could probably be taken to 

try to prevent those types of things from repeating themselves. 

Mr. CANNON. Well—— 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. You are—— 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. May I ask, Professor Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. I mean, there have been grassroots movements all 

over the country, which are bipartisan, by the way, to try to either 

get rid of paperless voting machines and replace them with optical 

scanners or to get rid of both types of machinery and go back to 

hand count of paper ballots. Those movements have failed. A lot of 

reformist movements have failed for very complicated reasons. 

I think that the best thing that people can do now is to plan to 

monitor the election process aggressively and to make sure, whichever party they belong to, that they are registered because a lot of 

people are now turning up at the polls to find their names have 

been expunged. This is something that is often a result of voter 

caging, often a result of the improper use of felons’ lists, but is also 

sometimes kind of summary action that relates to the fact that now 

we have electronic voter rolls. I mean, this is a terrible idea. 

So, basically, what I am suggesting is that people have to become 

informed about the issue, know what their rights are, make sure 

they are registered, monitor the process, make a tremendous racket 

if they see improprieties and so on, and understand that it does not 

matter which party wins. It really does not. 

If people are prevented from voting in an election, even if their 

chosen party wins, a terrible wrong has been done here, and there 

are people on the Republican side who agree with me very strongly 

about this. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I agree that it is not a partisan issue, I think, with 

respect to an individual’s right to vote. 

253 

Just very quickly, Mr. Twomey, any suggestions prospectively, 

looking ahead, that might help prevent some more types of incidents? 

Mr. TWOMEY. I do not think there is anything that you can do 

in a general sense that will stop everybody from trying to gain an 

unfair advantage in elections. But I can tell you one thing, that if 

you cut off investigations and you do not engage in oversight of the 

Department of Justice, people will be encouraged to do it on a 

large-scale basis. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. 

My time has expired. 

Mr. Cannon is recognized for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Let me just associate myself with the comments of the 

gentlelady, which does not happen all that often, but this is really 

not a partisan issue, and, Professor Miller, I think you made that 

point. And I am not all that familiar with the Sproul case, but the 

way you characterized it is absolutely awful, and you have several 

crimes embedded in the description that you made that ought to 

be prosecuted. 

Let me ask Professor Miller, did you say that you do not know 

of another case like Sproul where only one party was targeted for 

registration? 

Mr. MILLER. I cannot think of one offhand, no. 

Mr. CANNON. Are you familiar with the—pardon the familial reference here—but the Loretta Sa ́nchez-Bob Dornan race in 1996 

where you had Hispanic groups registering voters, including at 

least 90 people who were here illegally? 

Mr. MILLER. I have heard about it, yes, but, you know, I have 

not looked into it. 

Mr. CANNON. Okay. 

Mr. MILLER. But I thought she was referring to, you know, nationwide registration drives. 

Mr. CANNON. Well, are you familiar with ACORN? 

Mr. MILLER. ACORN? Yes, I am quite familiar with ACORN. 

ACORN has been sued repeatedly by lawyers for the Republican 

Party and has always prevailed. I think that ACORN is an entirely 

respectable operation. 

Mr. CANNON. But their focus has been registering Democrats, 

has it not? 

Mr. MILLER. They are a liberal group, but they register people 

equally. They do not discourage people from registering. 

Mr. CANNON. But they do focus on areas where they think—— 

Mr. MILLER. They focus on areas where there are more Democrats, yes. 

Mr. CANNON. So the difference between ACORN and Sproul is 

that ACORN does not throw away or change registration documents after they have been filled out and—— 

Mr. MILLER. Well, they do not represent themselves as being 

something they are not. They do not throw away registration forms 

from the other side. They do not alter registration forms. I think 

those are significant differences. 

Mr. CANNON. Yes. Granted they are significant differences, although, I suppose, in this business, we often have people who are 

254 

running for public office that represent themselves as something 

they actually are not. 

Mr. MILLER. I cannot believe that. [Laughter.] 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you. I appreciate your comments, Professor. 

Well taken. 

Mr. Twomey, I was a little surprised by some of your opinions 

that were so clear about the Department of Justice. We have colleagues here of both parties who are under investigation, and all 

of them are really desperately wondering why it takes the Justice 

Department so long to do anything. 

It seems to me that much of your concern goes to what you have 

called the delay in the Justice Department. Are you frustrated because of the case in New Hampshire, or do you have broader experience where you have seen the Justice Department move more 

quickly? 

That is not a trick question, by the way. 

Mr. TWOMEY. Okay. I have been a criminal defense lawyer for 30 

years. The election law stuff I do is all pro bono. It is a sideline. 

Mr. CANNON. Have you done Federal prosecutions at—— 

Mr. TWOMEY. Federal and State prosecutions. 

The case against Tobin to the level it went is a simple case. As 

I said, it took a Manchester police officer an hour to basically bring 

the investigation to a conclusion to that level. 

I have never seen a case take so long to come to trial, I mean, 

that was solved in the investigative sense so quickly. I mean, it is 

just astonishing to me. 

Mr. CANNON. Okay. My sense is that this is not a political issue, 

but rather an organizational issue—— 

Mr. TWOMEY. If I could—— 

Mr. CANNON [continuing]. At the Department of Justice. 

Mr. TWOMEY. If I could just say, I guess so, if we did not have 

reports that the prosecutor said that he was ordered to slow it 

down, if he did not tell people that the delays were due to interference by people above him, if there were not reports that he was 

told not to indict Mr. Tobin until after the presidential election. I 

might indulge in, I guess, the same kindness that you indulge, but 

we have a lot of evidence to indicate that it was political. 

Mr. CANNON. Were those political people or career people that 

made those suggestions? 

Mr. TWOMEY. That is what we need to find out. That is what we 

are asking you to find out. Was there political interference or 

wasn’t there? If you—— 

Mr. CANNON. Well, but do you know the people that were quoted 

as having said to slow it down? 

Mr. TWOMEY. Do I know them? No. 

Mr. CANNON. Do you know who they were in the—— 

Mr. TWOMEY. No, I do not, and I think that is what your function 

as Congress is, is to engage—— 

Mr. CANNON. How do you know that they were told that? 

Mr. TWOMEY. I do not want to talk over you, but could I answer 

the question? I do not know those people, but your function in Congress is to engage in oversight and to come to a conclusion. If you 

come to a conclusion that these were not political decisions and 

that they were prosecutorial decisions based fairly, I am fine with 

255 

that. But I do not think that is what you are going to find, if you 

investigate it. 

Mr. CANNON. What I would like to know from you to help us in 

that regard is—you are aware that there were apparently some 

conversations from Justice saying slow it down—how are you 

aware of those so that we can go back and take a look? 

Mr. TWOMEY. Okay. I am aware of it from several sources. One 

is that two attorneys involved in the case, one Mr. Raymond’s attorney and one an attorney for the Democratic party, a civil attorney, told me that the prosecutor in the case said that to them, 

okay. I am also aware from the reports in the McClatchy newspapers where they indicate that a senior Justice Department official said the same thing. I was not there, and I do not have any 

ability to—— 

Mr. CANNON. Could I ask you to do us a couple of favors? One 

is, if you can recall who the prosecutor was, I would like to have 

the Committee have his name and whether context you could provide on that. 

Mr. TWOMEY. Yes. 

Mr. CANNON. The McClatchy papers ought to be relatively simple 

to get copies of if you could make those available to us. 

Mr. TWOMEY. Well, let me give you his name. Let me first say 

that I believe that all the trial level prosecutors—there was a 

change in the middle—all of them were people of the highest integrity. The name of the initial prosecutor that I was referring to then 

is Todd Hinnen. 

Mr. CANNON. All right. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. CANNON. Would the Chair indulge me in one more comment? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I believe Mr. Scott wanted to question before we 

went to the floor, but we will be returning, and I would be happy 

to give you time after. 

Mr. CANNON. May I just make one comment? 

I just want Mr. Raymond to know I really enjoyed the performance and the book. I hope you sell more books based upon this 

hearing, although it does not look to me like we have a lot press 

here. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Mr. Scott is—— 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you. I yield back. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ [continuing]. Recognized for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. RAYMOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Cannon. Appreciate 

that. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

I just wanted to ask Mr. Raymond. You were convicted. Who else 

was convicted? First of all, are you represented by an attorney here 

today? 

Mr. RAYMOND. I am, yes. Pam Bethel sitting behind me. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. How many people were convicted of incidents involved with the phone jamming? 

Mr. RAYMOND. There were three convictions, one acquittal. 

Mr. SCOTT. And were people involved who were not roped into 

the prosecution? 

Mr. RAYMOND. Everyone that I dealt with was charged in this 

case. 

256 

Mr. SCOTT. Who hired you? 

Mr. RAYMOND. I was hired by the New Hampshire Republican 

State Committee at the direction of the agent of the Republican 

National Committee in New England. 

Mr. SCOTT. Did they know what you were going to do? 

Mr. RAYMOND. Yes. They instructed me to do exactly what I did. 

Mr. SCOTT. And the people in the Committee hired you? 

Mr. RAYMOND. Yes. The New Hampshire Republican State Committee hired me. They were my client. 

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Chair, we just have a few minutes. I would 

defer to the Chairman at this point, if he has questions. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Mr. Conyers? Mr. Conyers is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Oh, thank you very much. 

How many minutes do we have left? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. We have 6 minutes and 30 seconds remaining in 

this vote. If you would like, we can come back and finish any unanswered questions. 

Mr. CONYERS. I would prefer to come back, Madam Chairman. 

These are very important witnesses, and this is a very important 

session. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I absolutely understand. 

Mr. Scott, is there anything further? 

Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time then, how many people of the 

Republican Committee knew what you were going to do? 

Mr. RAYMOND. Well, to my knowledge, only Mr. Tobin. To my direct knowledge, only Mr. Tobin. I can only speak to Mr. Tobin’s involvement. 

Mr. SCOTT. What did other people who were involved in the Committee think you were going to do when you were hired? 

Mr. RAYMOND. Are we talking about the New Hampshire Republican State Committee, or are we talking about the Republican National Committee, sir? 

Mr. SCOTT. Both. 

Mr. RAYMOND. Well, the New Hampshire Republican State Committee, their executive director instructed me to do the phone jamming. As for the RNC, again, I cannot speak to anything beyond 

Mr. Tobin. He is the only one at the RNC with whom I discussed 

this program. 

Mr. SCOTT. You discussed the program. And those are the two 

other people who were convicted? 

Mr. RAYMOND. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do you have any information to know that others in 

the Committee knew what phone jamming was about? 

Mr. RAYMOND. I have no direct knowledge of that, no. 

Mr. SCOTT. Were others hired to do the same thing? 

Mr. RAYMOND. Were other vendors hired to do the same thing? 

Mr. SCOTT. Right. 

Mr. RAYMOND. Yes. No. I was the only vendor hired to do this 

job, to my knowledge. After approach by Mr. Tobin, having worked 

with Mr. Tobin when I was at the Republican National Committee—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Did others of the Committee know what you were 

hired to do? Is there any way that people in the Republican NaVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:06 May 19, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00260 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\COMM\051408\42372.000 HJUD1 PsN: 42372
257 

tional Committee knew that you had been hired and did not have 

a clue as to what you were up to? 

Mr. RAYMOND. The best way to answer—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman? Madam Chairman? Would the gentleman yield for just a moment? 

Mr. SCOTT. I yield. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Raymond, we are very pleased and proud that 

you are here. We also know that you are still on probation. If I 

were you, I would answer these questions with great care in terms 

of their accuracy. 

Mr. RAYMOND. Yes, sir, I understand that. All I can tell you, sir, 

is that the only person at the Republican National Committee with 

whom I have direct knowledge knowing of this program was Mr. 

Tobin. I brought to that calculation to take on the assignment 

using my experience, having worked at the Republican National 

Committee, both as a regional political director and as a chief of 

staff to the Republican National Committee co-chairman. However, 

I do not have any knowledge directly of anyone else at the Republican National Committee, other than Mr. Tobin, who had any 

knowledge of this program. 

Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentleman yield to me? 

Mr. SCOTT. I yield. 

Mr. CONYERS. Are you telling us, sir, that you have never met 

another person in the Republican Party doing the same kind of 

work that you were hired to do? 

Mr. RAYMOND. The phone jamming was a very unusual request, 

and it is—— 

Mr. CONYERS. I know all about the phone jamming because you 

wrote a book about it. 

Mr. RAYMOND. Right. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now are you telling us here before the subcommittee on—well, two subcommittees. Are you telling us that 

you have never met anyone else doing the same work as yourself? 

Mr. RAYMOND. I guess, if you could indulge me, sir, it means Republican—— 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. If I could ask the Chairman to—— 

Mr. RAYMOND [continuing]. Or phone jamming specifically? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. If I could ask the Chairman to clarify that question, do you mean other forms of voter suppression, or do you specifically mean phone jamming? Does that help clarify? 

Mr. RAYMOND. Yes. I mean, are we speaking specifically about 

phone jamming? 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, specifically about phone jamming. Are you 

suggesting to us, sir, that you are the only person in the employ 

of the Republican Party and divisions thereof that were doing 

phone jamming that you had ever heard of? 

Mr. RAYMOND. This is the only time that I had ever encountered 

phone jamming. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. And you do not know anyone else that has ever 

done this before you? 

Mr. RAYMOND. As I sit here today, it does not come to mind. 

When it was presented to me at the time—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. All right. 

258 

Mr. RAYMOND [continuing]. It was the first time I had heard of 

that and it was very unusual. 

Mr. CONYERS. Do you think that, as far as you know, this is the 

first time that they ever engaged in phone jamming? 

Mr. RAYMOND. Certainly the first and only time I ever did. Yes, 

sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. I did not ask you that question. 

Mr. RAYMOND. Could you repeat the question, sir? 

Mr. CONYERS. All right. In other words, you are suggesting to us 

or you are telling us here today that you had never heard of anybody that had ever done phone jamming in the Republican Party 

before you? 

Mr. RAYMOND. Yes. This is the first time a program such as this 

had ever been presented to me. 

Mr. CONYERS. That is not the question that I asked you. 

Mr. RAYMOND. Okay. 

Mr. CONYERS. You know, I would—— 

Mr. RAYMOND. I—— 

Mr. CONYERS. You know, I admire you coming here. I am proud 

of the book that you have written. But I want to remind you, sir, 

please do your best here with these questions, and I know that if 

they are confusing or if I am not being clear, as I should, you may 

want to think over very clearly these questions I have already 

asked you and some more I am going to ask you while we are in 

recess. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I think this is a nice natural breaking point. We 

have very little time remaining in the vote. We will recess. We will 

allow Mr. Raymond to think over the question that Mr. Conyers 

posed to him, and perhaps when we return, we can take up this 

line of questioning again. 

The Committee stands in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. If we could please ask the witnesses to come forward and sit, I realize we are short one witness right now, but the 

Committee is going to come to order and we are going to continue 

with some questions and, hopefully, we will be joined by Professor 

Miller shortly. 

I believe prior to the vote, it was Mr. Scott’s time for questioning. 

Well, Mr. Scott had yielded time to Mr. Conyers. I am going to give 

the time back to Mr. Scott to do with what he will, and we will 

recognize Mr. Conyers for questions afterwards. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Raymond, I—— 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Mr. Scott, to be fair, I will give you 2 minutes of 

questions. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Raymond, I had asked questions about phone 

jamming specifically, and maybe I should have asked it more generally. Was there a general strategy that you would use tricks and 

schemes to try to trick people out of voting? 

Mr. RAYMOND. In my book, I detail dirty tricks, absolutely. Yes, 

sir. If you want, I can give you some details on that. 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, please. 

259 

Mr. RAYMOND. You know, there are many ways to use data. 

There are many ways to deliver a message. A message can be delivered to try and alienate people. There are many ways to use existing infrastructure to anticipate political attacks, to divert political 

attacks. 

One example I would give you is using the Federal Election Commission. In an example I talk about in the book, managing a campaign with a candidate that had taken a contribution from a questionable source, knowing that questionable source could become a 

problem in the campaign, we directed that donor, that source, to 

give a little bit of money to our opponent so when that attack came, 

we could then dilute the attack and move on. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, what about tricking people out of showing up 

on time to vote in the get-out-the-vote effort? 

Mr. RAYMOND. Yes, sir. I personally have never myself done that, 

and what I think I hear you saying are these things that you read 

about in the media about, you know, the election is now being held 

on Wednesday. That is not something I ever did. It is not something I ever witnessed personally being done. So I cannot speak to 

that. 

I, however, in running campaigns, have seen instances where flyers show up on Election Day generally targeted at lower-income 

voters. One comes to mind in New Jersey when I was running a 

campaign a long time ago in the 11th District where flyers showed 

up on the street saying on Election Day, look out for the jump-out 

boys, and back then, what that meant was undercover police officers. These are clearly meant to intimidate people from voting. 

Legendary is the 1981 case in New Jersey, the Ballot Security 

Task Force, which I am sure the Committee is fully aware of, that 

actually resulted in an injunction against the Republican Party, 

and New Jersey being the place where I entered politics, where I, 

so to say, cut my teeth. 

So these are all things that as you run campaigns, you become 

made aware of, and you certainly know that they are part of the 

fabric of this business. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

At this time, I would recognize Mr. Conyers for 5 minutes of 

questions. 

Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

This is very interesting. I have a question for Mr. Allen Raymond, and I want to commend you for being here with us today, 

sir. 

Mr. RAYMOND. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. I want to commend you for the book that you have 

written because I think it is important for the American people to 

know some of the things, even though they may be unsavory, that 

they go on and you had the courage to come forward about it and 

to come forward to this Committee. So I thank you very much. 

Mr. RAYMOND. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. You finished graduate school and joined the GOP 

for one reason, because rumor had it that there was big money to 

be made on the Republican side of the aisle. 

Mr. RAYMOND. Yes, sir. 

260 

Mr. CONYERS. And from the earliest days of the so-called Republican revolution, in culmination in the second Bush White House, 

you played a key role in helping GOP candidates twist the truth 

beyond recognition. 

Mr. RAYMOND. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. During a decade of crucial and bitterly fought 

campaigns, your career took you from the nastiest of local elections 

in New Jersey through runs for Congress and the Senate and right 

up to a top management position in a bid for the presidency itself. 

Mr. RAYMOND. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. And so this book that you wrote, I think, is an astonishing and frank look at some of the campaigning that goes on 

in the Republican establishment. I am paraphrasing now. 

Courageously on your part, you have acknowledged this, not just 

here, but in other forums, and that is why I want you to consider 

my questions of you not hostile or trying to embarrass you in any 

way because the vote of the American people is the cornerstone of 

democracy, and it is not like we have gathered here today to pretend that everything has always been nice up until this Administration. The history of voting in American is full of things that 

have gone on. Everybody has heard about it. 

But we have never met anybody like you with the courage 

enough to come forward and write it, to put it into American history. You are not writing hearsay or something you found out about 

going on in the library. You were in it, and now you are here to 

help this Committee, the voters of this country. That is what we 

stand for. 

You have heard me say here that the most important thing that 

this Committee can do between now and November 4 is make sure 

we have the fairest elections that are humanly possible, and we 

have heard from Attorney Twomey and Professor Miller and yourself that there are some big challenges ahead. This is not an easy 

job. 

And so I just wanted to thank you for everything that you have 

done and the way that you have helped us. 

Now didn’t Abramoff write checks for the work that you were 

doing? 

Mr. RAYMOND. Well, there were certainly reports in the media 

that—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Oh, wait a minute. Stop. I do not care about any 

reports in the media. I have all the reports in the media we will 

ever need. Didn’t you get checks from Abramoff for the work that 

you were doing? 

Mr. RAYMOND. Just so I can clarify, sir, in the New Hampshire 

Republican phone jamming? The phone jamming incident? No. I 

was paid by the New Hampshire Republican State Committee Victory Committee, so that the funds that I received directly—— 

Mr. CONYERS. No, you are answering the question that you wanted to answer. I did not say the New Hampshire phone jamming. 

You said it. I am talking about in anything and everything else. 

Now, look, we have had a nice conversation so far. 

Have you ever talked to Karl Rove? 

Mr. RAYMOND. In one instance. Yes, sir. I met Karl Rove. 

261 

Mr. CONYERS. Wait a minute. Have you ever talked to Karl 

Rove? 

Mr. RAYMOND. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now be careful about this. We have a rather large 

investigatory staff here of lawyers. 

Haven’t you talked with him more than one time? 

Mr. RAYMOND. I have only met Mr. Rove once. 

Mr. CONYERS. I did not ask you that. Haven’t you talked with 

him more than one time? 

Mr. RAYMOND. I have only spoken with Mr. Rove on one occasion 

that I recall, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. All right. Could it have possibly been two occasions? 

Mr. RAYMOND. I only have one recollection of meeting Mr. Rove. 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. All right. Now have you ever talked with 

Mr. Abramoff? 

Mr. RAYMOND. I have never spoken with Mr. Abramoff. No, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. Have you known people that have? 

Mr. RAYMOND. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. And who are those people? 

Mr. RAYMOND. Michael Scanlon, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. Who is he? 

Mr. RAYMOND. Mr. Scanlon was a business partner of Mr. 

Abramoff. 

Mr. CONYERS. Did you ever talk with Mr. Scanlon? 

Mr. RAYMOND. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now we are just about through, if you answer 

properly. 

Now let me ask you this. What was the relationship of certain 

persons in the White House to the operation that you were doing? 

Mr. RAYMOND. If by the operation, you mean the phone jamming, 

I have no knowledge of any involvement by the White House, any 

direct knowledge by the White House, in this program. 

What I can speak to is when I worked at the Republican National Committee, I understood the processes in place for people 

like Mr. Tobin—I formerly held that similar position in the mid-Atlantic region of the country—on how programs come to light. Stop 

me if I am giving more information than you care for, but—— 

Mr. CONYERS. You have not given me enough information yet, 

Mr. Raymond. Please continue. 

Mr. RAYMOND. Yes, sir. So my understanding when I was working at the RNC was twofold: one, as I said in my remarks, that a 

regional political director for the Republican National Committee 

did not instruct another committee or campaign, for that matter, 

whom to hire unless the RNC was directing the funds. 

The second criteria would be that a program as unusual as the 

phone jamming, which was the first time I had ever heard of such 

a thing—in fact, when it was presented to me, it took some time 

for me to figure out how to actually, one, do it, and, two, I, in fact, 

as I say in my book, saw it as so unusual that I actually consulted 

counsel. However—— 

Mr. CONYERS. You talked with your lawyer about—— 

Mr. RAYMOND. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS [continuing]. Its appropriateness. 

262 

Mr. RAYMOND. Its appropriateness, its legality. Yes, sir. 

So the other thing that I had learned working at the Republican 

National Committee was that a program as unusual as this was 

did not see the light of day unless vetted by RNC attorneys, and 

so that was the operating procedure I knew, having had the same 

job at the Republican National Committee as Mr. Tobin did when 

he called me in 2002 about the phone jamming program. That is 

the knowledge I brought to that call. Those were the variables that 

I assessed in accepting the assignment, among others and, frankly, 

in the end, had a great deal to do with why I proceeded with the 

assignment. 

Mr. CONYERS. If I could ask you unanimous consent to ask a 

question of Attorney Twomey, Madam Chair? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Without objection, the gentleman will be given 1 

additional minute for questions. 

Mr. CONYERS. This may take more than 1 minute, Madam Chair. 

Counsel, you have heard the witness to your left talk about a variety of issues that I have raised with him. Would you help me understanding and shed some light on some of the subjects in our discussion, please? 

Mr. TWOMEY. Certainly, Congressman. There were three things 

I heard that I think I can give you some information on. 

You asked him about who knew at the Republican State Committee in New Hampshire. As far as we can tell, everybody knew— 

the chair, the vice chair, the executive director, the finance director, and probably five to seven other people. There has only been 

one person that worked there that we have been able to identify 

who denies knowing about the phone jamming. Mr. McGee testified 

he discussed it with all of them. The finance director who took part 

in some of the payments said it was openly discussed. 

In regards to the Abramoff question, sometime shortly before the 

payments were made to Mr. Raymond—and he would not necessarily know this—two strange checks came into the New Hampshire Republican State Committee, one from the Mississippi Choctaw and another from the Agua Caliente tribe of California. 

Let me focus on that. They added up together to almost exactly 

the same amount as was paid to Mr. Raymond, which is one thing 

that brought it to my attention in the first case. 

We subsequently found out that the Choctaw money, which was 

$10,000, came in a single check that was hand delivered by a senior staffer of one of the New Hampshire senators to the Republican 

State Committee, that the Republican State Committee knew that 

it was an illegal donation—a maximum for an entity like the Choctaw Nation was $5,000—that they spent a considerable amount of 

time trying to decide how to handle this thing, and then pretended 

like it had been two separate donations, put one in their Federal 

PAC and one in their State PAC. 

So we thought for a couple of years that it actually would have 

been a $5,000 donation that they transferred because they made a 

transfer the same day. So it was very hard. Until we finally got 

discovery, we had never realized that it was a $10,000 single donation. 

So the Choctaw Nation was, I am sure the Committee is aware, 

probably the greatest source of funds for Mr. Abramoff. No Indian 

263 

tribe had ever donated any money to any State committee in New 

Hampshire prior to this date, and, actually, the next year, the 

Chippewa band in Michigan did make a donation, though. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. Cannon has asked unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes of questioning. 

Mr. Cannon is recognized. 

Mr. CANNON. I hope the clock runs at the same speed that it ran 

for the prior questioners. 

Mr. Raymond, were you a Republican before you decided to become a Republican consultant, or were you not a member of a 

party? 

Mr. RAYMOND. Prior to opening my own consultancy, I had 

worked in Republican politics since 1992, beginning on the Victory 

Committee for the Bush-Quayle campaign in 1992, and—— 

Mr. CANNON. So you just bumped into being a Republican because there was more money there. You had been a Republican, 

right? 

Mr. RAYMOND. No, that is a very good question, sir. Actually, I 

went to graduate school and got a master’s degree in political management. Coming out of that program, I made a decision on where 

to go and whom to work for, and the decision I made was to go to 

New Jersey and work for Republicans because that is where the 

most opportunity was. 

So, actually, I come from a long family of Democrats. My mother 

was mortified, but, in fact, to me, it was a business decision having 

just finished a master’s degree in political management. 

Mr. CANNON. Where did you get your master’s? 

Mr. RAYMOND. The Graduate School of Political Management, 

which is now affiliated with George Washington University. 

Mr. CANNON. Neat program, actually. 

Mr. RAYMOND. It is a very good program. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CANNON. So, basically, you are not a Republican or a Democrat. You are a guy who decided that the money was in one place 

and you went there, right? 

Mr. RAYMOND. I was a campaign professional. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CANNON. Exactly. Okay. And, of course, campaign professionals talk to each other. Do only Republicans do nasty things? 

Mr. RAYMOND. No, I would not say that, sir. I would say it happens on both sides equally. 

Mr. CANNON. I have not read your book, but I suspect that there 

is a lot of fun poked at on people on both sides of the spectrum. 

Mr. RAYMOND. Yes, sir. I tried to be very fair to everybody except 

for those who did not deserve the treatment. 

Mr. CANNON. And I take it those are the Republicans that you 

say threw you under the bus? 

Mr. RAYMOND. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. CANNON. Of course, having been a professional, being thrown 

under the bus was not actually unexpected, was it? 

Mr. RAYMOND. Well, I think that it was a bit of a surprise to me, 

not so much being thrown under the bus. I expected that when the 

scandal broke. It was the treatment thereafter. It was the $3 million spent on Mr. Tobin’s behalf by the Republican National ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:06 May 19, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00267 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\COMM\051408\42372.000 HJUD1 PsN: 42372
264 

mittee that convinced me that the Republican Party was not a 

place that wished me to be around. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. CANNON. I ask unanimous consent for another couple of minutes, Madam Chair. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I will give you 1 additional minute. I would like 

to wrap up this hearing before the next series of votes. I do not 

want to be running to the Capitol in high heels as we did last time. 

Mr. CANNON. That is hard. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. One additional minute. 

Mr. CANNON. Is Professor Miller not returning? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. We have not been able to locate Professor Miller, 

and I do not know where he is. I suspect—— 

Mr. CANNON. We should try and get him some questions for the 

record and ask—— 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. We will have an opportunity to submit written 

questions to the witnesses. His stuff is still here. I imagine he is 

somewhere, but we have not been able to locate him. 

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Twomey or Mr. Raymond, are you aware of 

ACORN, the left-wing political activist group that registered people? 

Mr. RAYMOND. No, sir. 

Mr. TWOMEY. I have read reports. I cannot say I know a whole 

lot about it, but I have read newspaper reports and magazine articles. I think I read one on the train down here as a matter of fact. 

Mr. CANNON. Are you aware that eight workers of ACORN pleaded guilty of Federal election fraud by submitting falsified applications or that, on March 13, 2008, the Philadelphia election officials 

accused the Association of Community Organizations for Reform 

Now of submitting voter registration paperwork that was false or 

that they were accused of registering 18 felons in Milwaukee or 

that Barack Obama is associated with them, has been associated 

as a lawyer? Are those things new to you at all? 

Mr. TWOMEY. The very first thing you said, I learned on the train 

down here. I do not know if I learned it. I read an article that said 

something about eight people, and I think it also indicated that 

those people were disavowed by ACORN, but I really do not know 

very much about ACORN. I know nothing whatsoever about any 

connection with any of the presidential candidates. And the middle 

thing is that I cannot even remember, but I did not know it and 

I do not know it to be true. I really have very little information 

bout ACORN that I can share with you, sir. If you want to ask me 

a question about something I know about, I will be glad to answer 

it. 

Mr. CANNON. You have—— 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. The time of the gentleman has expired. I believe 

Mr. Raymond—— 

Mr. CANNON. You are not familiar with it? 

Mr. TWOMEY. No, sir. No. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. The time of the gentleman—— 

Mr. CANNON. Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Yes? 

265 

Mr. CONYERS. You are the Chairperson of this important Committee. I have one question. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. The Chair really would like to conclude this hearing before the next series of votes. If you can ask your question 

quickly, I will give you time. 

Mr. CANNON. I certainly have no objection, Madam Chair. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. The gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. 

Mr. Conyers, your 30 seconds starts now. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Raymond, the Republican National Committee 

was controlling your activities that brought you to this hearing. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. RAYMOND. The Republican National Committee? 

Mr. CONYERS. RNC. 

Mr. RAYMOND. I am not sure I understand the question. I was 

invited here. I am no longer affiliated with any political party or 

political committee. 

Mr. CONYERS. No, but when you were doing the things that you 

were doing to subvert the electoral process, the RNC was in control 

of your activities. 

Mr. RAYMOND. Yes. When I worked for the Republican National 

Committee, I—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Is that correct? 

Mr. RAYMOND. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. Of course. That is logical. Now wasn’t the RNC in 

touch with the White House? Now I have warned you several times 

about accuracy. Wasn’t the RNC in touch with the White House, 

as far as you knew, about the things you were doing? 

Mr. RAYMOND. I would have to answer that question by telling 

you, sir, that I never worked at the Republican National Committee when there was a Republican administration in the White 

House. However, understanding processes, it would stand to reason—and I accept and accepted at the time—that the political operation within the White House would directly control the Republican 

National Committee as the chairman is appointed by the President 

and, in fact, the political director—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Of course. 

Mr. RAYMOND [continuing]. Was bound to become the chairman 

of the Republican National Committee. So, yes, although I did not 

have any direct knowledge, I take it this means that they would. 

Mr. CONYERS. I understand. In other words, Mr. Tobin was getting instructions or was clearing his activities with somebody? 

Mr. RAYMOND. Yes, sir. He certainly was. 

Mr. CONYERS. I mean, he was not—— 

Mr. RAYMOND. He was not in charge, yes. 

Mr. CONYERS [continuing]. Some wild lone ranger out there. It 

was coordinated. 

Mr. RAYMOND. As I said—— 

Mr. CONYERS. He would not be able to do these kinds of things 

that you were doing without somebody over him being in control? 

Mr. RAYMOND. My experience with the Republican National Committee is it does not employ rogues, nor is it run by rogues, and 

Mr. Tobin certainly worked there for nearly a decade and would 

have to have concealed—— 

266 

Mr. CONYERS. I do not know who the rogues are and the people 

that have not been prosecuted yet or who the criminals are. I do 

not want to characterize anybody. There was a chain of command, 

and this Committee will probably have to continue this inquiry. 

Mr. CANNON. Would the gentleman yield for one moment? 

Mr. CONYERS. Of course. 

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Raymond, I think, has testified now based 

upon his understanding of the politics of the RNC and the White 

House, although he did not work at the RNC when the White 

House was controlled by Republicans. But to the degree you are 

aware of that, you are also probably aware of the fact that when 

Democrats have been in control of the White House, the Democratic National Committee has also been run by the White House. 

Is that not fair to say? 

Mr. RAYMOND. Yes, sir. I think that would speak for itself. Yes, 

sir. 

Mr. CANNON. And so some of the shenanigans—— 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. The time—— 

Mr. CANNON [continuing]. That happened under the Clinton administration—— 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. The time of the gentleman has expired—— 

Mr. CANNON. Would that not be the case? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ [continuing]. And I—— 

Mr. RAYMOND. We cannot speak to that. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I do not know that that is relevant for the inquiry 

about the specific phone jamming because my understanding is 

there was a Republican administration when that happened, that 

there was some funding issue that came through the RNC, and 

that there may have been some direction from upper echelon party 

operatives directing this type of activity to happen. 

With that—— 

Mr. CANNON. If the Chair would yield—— 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ [continuing]. I—— 

Mr. CANNON [continuing]. It is true that—— 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I would like to conclude the hearing today. There 

will be an opportunity to submit additional questions. 

I want to thank the witnesses for their cooperation and being 

here to testify. We realize it has been trying with the votes in between. 

I only regret that the DOJ did not send a witness so that we 

could have asked specific questions as to what happened within the 

DOJ. 

Without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit any additional written questions, which we are going to forward to the witnesses and ask that you answer as promptly as you 

can so that they can be made a part of the record. 

And without objection, the record will remain open for 5 legislative days for the submission of any additional materials. 

Again, I want to thank everybody for their time and patience. I 

wish we could have been more focused in the questioning and in 

the comments to the subject matter of today’s hearing, but, again, 

I thank the witnesses for their indulgence. 

267 

And, at this time, the joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law and the Subcommittee on Crime, 

Terrorism, and Homeland Security is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:54 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

(269) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

270 

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM THE HONORABLE PAUL W. HODES, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

f 


9.eps
271 

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM ALLEN RAYMOND, BETHESDA, MD 


10-1.eps
272 

f 


10-2.eps
273 

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM PAUL TWOMEY, ESQ., 

TWOMEY LAW OFFICE, EPSOM, NH 

f 


11.eps
274 

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM MARK CRISPIN MILLER, PROFESSOR, 

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, NEW YORK, NY 


D-1.eps
275 


D-2.eps
276 


D-3.eps
277 

Æ 


D-4.eps