White House employee fired for trying to protect president's life
By Bill Conroy, Posted on Sun May 6th, 2007 at 04:48:59 PM EST

LINK

Sometimes, the truth is right in front of us, even if it comes in the form of a seemingly misspoken sentence.
During the political storm that erupted in early 2006 over the Bush administration’s plans to turn over port security to a United Arab Emirates-based company, the president was quoted on Fox News saying the following on March 12 of that year:

"People don't need to worry about security. This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America."

Apparently, if we are willing to heed the story of a former West Wing lead mailroom assistant, Laura C. Jones, the president’s gaff underscores another truth: that his staff isn’t concerned about White House security either.

Rather, the Bush inner circle seems more concerned with silencing individuals who threaten to expose politically embarrassing (and job-threatening) security breaches, even if those lapses pose a threat to the life of the president.

With friends like those, you have to wonder why Bush remains so focused on frightening the American people about foreign boogiemen. Based on Jones’ documented experiences inside the White House, it seems the president should be more focused on protecting himself from security threats brought about by the dysfunction of his own staff.
Jones began working at the White House mailroom in 1995 as part the Office of Administration, which is under the Executive Office of the President. In 2003, after receiving a number of awards for her dedicated service over the years, she was promoted to lead mail assistant to the West Wing, and was among a very few people within the Office of Administration who had top security clearance that allowed her access to the president and his staff.

Jones told Narco News that the West Wing mailroom is very close to the Oval Office. In fact, Jones recalled that one day someone from the president’s staff complained that the odor of burned micro-waved popcorn in the mailroom was disrupting a meeting in the Oval Office.

The mailroom’s proximity to the office where the president conducts business is a key fact to keep in mind given what happened in the West Wing mailroom on March 24, 2004.

Less than two months prior to that date, three U.S. Senate office buildings were closed temporarily after highly poisonous ricin powder was discovered in the mailroom of the office of then U.S. Sen. Bill Frist. As a result of the ricin incident, on March 24, 2004, Jones and her co-workers in the West Wing were still taking the antibiotic Ciprofloxacin as a precaution.

It was in that context, then, that Shane Chambers, special assistant to then White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, brought a package to the West Wing mailroom. Chambers had been handling appointments at the White House that day and Jones says it is likely the package was given to Chambers by someone who had come to visit the president.

However, Jones stresses, to this day she isn’t certain where the package came from originally, only that it was clear at the time that the package had not gone through the rigorous off-site security clearance required for all mail delivered to the White House.

“I told him (Chambers) that the package had to be sent to another location to be X-rayed, opened and checked for powder before it comes to us,” Jones says. “… I told him that I could give the package to a driver who could take it to the location where it would be checked.”

But that’s not what happened. Instead, Jones says, her supervisor in the mailroom that day overruled her and allowed the package through, “and (despite the ricin threat) they opened it up right there in the mailroom of the West Wing,” Jones says.

Inside the package, Jones says, were a series of smaller packages, each with a label bearing a name. The names on those labels included President George W. Bush, First Lady Laura Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Chief of Staff Andy Card, according to Jones.

“I do not know what was inside the little packages,” Jones says. But she adds that the packages were sent forward to the president and his staff, despite the reckless disregard for their security in this case.

In the wake of the incident, Jones contacted a higher-level manager in her department to express her concern about how the package had been handled due to the threat it posed to the president and his staff.

After that act of internal whistleblowing, however, Jones’ life would never be the same, she claims.

Jones alleges her managers ignored her warning about the security breach and began to retaliate against her by increasing her workload, writing her up on bogus charges related to her workplace behavior, and eventually transferring her out of the White House, stripping her of her high-level security clearance and subjecting her to harassment by the Secret Service.

Jones filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) discrimination complaint as result of her treatment. That case is still in the appeal process. She also filed a whistleblower complaint with the government watchdog agency the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which declined to act on her complaint.

(The OSC itself is mired in controversy because its director, Scott Bloch, in 2005 allegedly improperly dismissed hundreds of whistleblower cases and re-assigned a dozen OSC personnel without warning to other offices around the country. Bloch is now himself the subject of a retaliation complaint filed by a group that includes current and former OSC employees. For more information, read the recent expose on Bloch in Mother Jones, which also references the House of Death case that has been the subject of extensive coverage by Narco News.)

Calling Card

Jones’ story has even more twists that expose the dysfunction within the White House. After Jones was informed by her manager in mid-July 2004 that she was being transferred from the White House to another mailroom located several blocks from the White House — which included a change in work hours and a reassignment of her parking spot — she put a call into Andy Card’s office.

From Jones’ EEO pleadings:

Mr. Card specifically directed (Jones) and three other co-workers during a personal lunch outing shortly after 9/11 that he had an open door policy and expected (Jones) to come directly to him if there were ever any issues that were un-resolvable. He stated that if he could, he would help them.
When (Jones) called Mr. Card, Ms. Harriet Miers … the deputy chief staff to Mr. Card (and later Counsel to the President) answered the phone. Ms. Miers immediately recognized (Jones’) voice and inquired of (Jones) if she could assist her with any issues. (Jones) then proceeded to explain to Ms. Miers specifically her EEO concerns and that she had gone through her chain of command but retaliation was only becoming progressively worse and that no one was talking to her about her career demise and severe changes in her work environment.

Ms. Miers told (Jones) that she would advise Mr. Card and further see what she could do to find out about (Jones’) EEO situation. Both parties then ended the phone conversation.

About an hour after her conversation with Miers, Jones received a phone call from the director of Human Resources for the Office of Administration – Executive Office of the President (OA-EOP).

From Jones EEO pleadings:

(The Human Resources director) told the (Jones) that she had “stepped on toes” and that (Jones) had “put employees jobs on the line.” (The director) told (Jones) that not only was she being transferred on Monday, July 19, 2004, (to the mailroom at 1800 G St.) but they were taking away her navy blue badge (allows top security West Wing access) and giving (Jones) a green badge (lesser access and nowhere near the White House). (The director) also stated that (Jones’ manager) could sue (her) for slander for stating that a box came into the West Wing that was not radiated and properly secured.
Jones contends the retaliation continued while she was at the 1800 G St. mailroom. Her desk was put in a corner, she claims, to humiliate her. While at the G Street mailroom, Jones was suspended from work twice, once in August 2004 and again in January 2005, allegedly for “insolent” behavior toward management and for using “insolent language toward … co-workers,” according to a July 8, 2005, OA-EOP memo outlining the rational for her termination from federal employment.

That’s right, Jones was fired after some 16 years of recognized outstanding performance as a federal employee.

Jones’ EEO representative, Matthew Fogg, who is an executive director with the Federally Employed Women’s Legal and Education Fund, claims the suspensions that led to Jones' firing were based on bogus charges and were part of the pattern of retaliation against her.

Fogg puts it this way:

She tried to protect the president’s life, and yet she has been relegated to a zero. She is a hero who has been relegated to a zero.
Jones’ EEO pleadings allege that her whistleblowing and eventual firing are directly related:

From the time (Jones) reported the March 24, 2004 (package) incident to the Equal Employment Opportunity director on April 6, 2004, and through July 19, 2004, (when she was reassigned to the G Street mailroom) and beyond, (Jones) experienced a documented career first litany of extreme harassment and hostile working conditions, which included heavy workloads in work assignments, change of work location, change in parking location, loss of computer privileges, loss of high-level security clearance, change of work hours, being prevented from returning to the Old Executive Office Building to gather personal belongings, placed under surveillance by United States Secret Service (USSS) Officers who displayed her photograph in “roll call” and around to other USSS officers….
Fogg also points out that Jones’ version of events is given credibility by the fact that an administrative judge with the Office of Administrative Hearings upheld her claim for unemployment compensation in the wake of her termination from the OA-EOP.

“It validates her story and says there is culpability on the part of the government in her case,” Fogg adds.

More of the same

The March 24, 2004, security breach reported by Jones is not an isolated incident. While Jones was working at the G Street mailroom, she again had to deal with another security breach that she reported to her managers — which, Fogg says, also resulted in no action to correct the problem other than retaliation against Jones.

The following is from a Sept. 3, 2004, email Jones sent to her supervisors in the wake of the G Street incident:

… When I started unloading the car in the mailroom, the phone rang and Paul was telling me that the Pelican case was outside sitting on the sidewalk, and that I had better get it. I asked him what he was talking about and he said that he wasn’t kidding. I went outside and there were at least seven guys standing there and said that Paul had just taken it off the truck and set it on the sidewalk and left it there.”
Jones told Narco News that the “Pelican” was one of eight or so highly secured briefcases (with combination locks) that come to the White House each day. They contain highly sensitive documents and it is a priority that the briefcases are handled securely and delivered to the appropriate person.

“In this case, someone just set the Pelican by the mailroom door, outside, on the curb,” Jones says.

Fogg says the handling of the Pelican briefcase, as well as the March 24, 2004, package incident, go the heart of concerns raised recently by U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Waxman sent a letter to former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card on April 23 of this year outlining those concerns.

From that letter:

Since I first wrote you on March 30, 2007, I have received new information that suggests there may have been a systemic failure to safeguard classified information at the White House during and after your tenure [Card resigned in March 2006] as White House Chief of Staff. Multiple current and former White House security personnel have informed my staff that White House practices have been dangerously inadequate with respect to investigating security violations, taking corrective action following breaches, and physically securing classified information.
… On March 16, 2007, the Oversight Committee held a hearing to examine the disclosure by White House officials of the covert status of CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson. At this hearing, the current Chief Security Officer at the White House, James Knodell, testified that the White House Security Office (1) did not conduct any internal investigation to identify the source of the leak (2) did not initiate corrective actions to prevent further security breaches, and (3) did not consider administrative sanctions or reprimands for the officials involved.

… Following the hearing, my staff heard from multiple current and former security officials who work or worked at the White House Security Office. These security officials described a systemic breakdown in security procedures at the White House. The statements of these officials, if true, indicate that the security lapses that characterized the White House response to the leak of Ms. Wilson’s identity were not an isolated occurrence, but part of a pattern of disregard for the basic requirements for protecting our national security secrets.

… According to the security officers who spoke with my staff, they were prohibited from investigating multiple White House security breaches that were reported to the White House Security Office by concerned officials, such as Secret Service agents. In fact, they said that the practice within the White House Security Office was not to document or investigate violations or take corrective action.

It would seem that ignoring security procedures for mail to be delivered to the president is a national security threat given that such a practice could place the president’s life in danger. Jones’ efforts to report the incident on March 24, 2004, and the alleged retaliation brought against her as a result, fits the pattern outlined in Waxman’s letter — as does the Pelican briefcase incident.

Narco News contacted Waxman’s office for a comment on Jones’ case. Karen Auchman, a press spokeswoman for Waxman, said she was not familiar with Jones’ case, but promised “to pass it along to the people in the Congressman’s office who are handling [the White House security] matter … to see if they can provide a comment.”

Waxman’s office never got back to Narco News.

Narco News also contacted the White House press office for a comment on the Jones case. An individual named “Andy” (who refused to provide his last name) promised to pass along Narco News’ question to someone who could respond. No one from the White House press office has yet called Narco News back to provide a comment.

Jones, to date, is still trying to find another job. She said this whole affair has turned her life upside down.

“I almost lost my house (due to the expense),” she says.

Jones also alleges that one of her co-workers who provided a favorable affidavit in her EEO case has since been fired — after being suspended and followed around by the Secret Service.

Jones’ EEO case might well make its way into federal court in the near future, Fogg says, if the EEO Commission declines to reverse a recent ruling against her. Jones’ appeal to the EEOC is still pending — as is Jones’ future.

“I remember telling one federal agent that the package incident put the president’s life on the line,” Jones says. ”He said, ’What about your life?’ ”

Stay tuned …

From the No Fear Coalition:
NOTIFICATION AND FEDERAL EMPLOYEE ANTIDISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION ACT OF 2007

White House chief of staff resigns
Successor Joshua Bolten has authority to make more staff changes
The Associated Press, March 28, 2006
LINK

WASHINGTON - White House chief of staff Andy Card has resigned and will be replaced by budget director Joshua Bolten, President Bush announced Tuesday amid growing calls for a White House shakeup and Republican concern about Bush’s tumbling poll ratings.

Though there was no immediate indication of other changes afoot, the White House did not close the door on a broader staff reorganization. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bolten will have the authority to make personnel shifts if he deems them necessary, and he declined to say whether top aides, such as the two current deputy chiefs of staff, Joe Hagin and Karl Rove, would remain in place.

"All of us serve at the pleasure of the president," McClellan said. "It's premature to talk about any future decisions that may or may not be made."

Bush announced the changes in a nationally broadcast appearance in the Oval Office.

“I have relied on Andy’s wise counsel, his calm in crisis, his absolute integrity and his tireless commitment to public service,” Bush said. “The next three years will demand much of those who serve our country. We have a global war to fight and win.”

Card, 58, stood stoically with his hands by his sides as Bush lauded his years of service through the Sept. 11 attacks, war and legislative and economic challenges. Gripping the podium, Card said in his farewell: “You’re a good man, Mr. President.” Card’s eyes were watery. Card said he looks forward to just being Bush’s friend. Bush then gave him five quick slaps on the back and the two walked out of the Oval Office together.

The president called Bolten, 51, a man with broad experience, both on Wall Street and in Washington, including the last three years as director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Combating sliding approval ratings
Alarmed by Bush’s declining approval ratings and unhappiness about the war in Iraq, Republicans have been urging the president to bring in new advisers with fresh ideas and energy. Bolten has been with Bush since his first campaign for the White House. There was no immediate indication of other changes afoot.

“The good news is the administration has finally realized it needs to change its ways, but the problems go far deeper than one staffer,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. “Simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic by replacing Andy Card with Josh Bolten without a dramatic change in policy will not right this ship.”

Bush gathered with members of his Cabinet in the Rose Garden at mid-morning after discussions about the war on terror. He ignored shouted questions from reporters about why he made the staff changes. Bush said he would deliver a speech on Wednesday about Iraq.

“We had a chance to honor two members of my Cabinet who won’t be with us much longer — Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, Chief of Staff Andy Card,” Bush said. “These two folks have served our country with distinction and honor. I’m proud to work side-by-side with them, and I’m proud to call them friend.”

Surprise announcement
Just Monday night, Card had given what participants described as a stirring speech to the Butler County Republican Party in Ohio.

“When I heard this morning, I said ’What?”’ said Scott Owens, executive director of the party. Owens said that Card gave no indication of his imminent resignation announcement.

To the public, Card may be best known as the aide who calmly walked into a Florida school room and whispered into Bush’s ear that America was under attack on Sept. 11, 2001. He was known for keeping his cool under pressure. When Bush’s father, then President George H.W. Bush, got sick at a banquet in Tokyo, aides and security officials ran toward the president. Card ran in the opposite direction, out the door to make sure the motorcade was ready to rush Bush away.

“Josh is a creative policy thinker,” Bush said. “He is an expert on the budget and our economy. He is a man of candor and humor and directness. No person is better prepared for this important position.”

“I’m deeply honored now by the opportunity to succeed Andy Card as White House chief of staff,” Bolten responded. “I said, ' Succeed Andy Card, not replace him,’ because he cannot be replaced.”

A call for fresh ideas
The move came as Bush is buffeted by increasing criticism of the drawn-out war in Iraq and as fellow Republicans have suggested pointedly that the president bring in new aides with fresh ideas and new energy.

Card came to Bush recently and suggested that he should step down from the job that he has held from the first day of Bush’s presidency, said an administration official earlier.

Bush decided during a weekend stay at Camp David, Md., to accept Card’s resignation and to name Bolten as his replacement, said the source who spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to pre-empt the president.

Bolten is widely experienced in Washington, both on Capitol Hill as well as at the White House, where he was deputy chief of staff before becoming director of the Office of Management and Budget.

At a White House news conference last week, Bush was asked about rumors that a shake up in the White House staff was in the works. Bush said he was “satisfied with the people I’ve surrounded myself with.”

“I’ve got a staff of people that have, first of all, placed their country above their self-interests,” he said at the time. “These are good, hard-working, decent people. And we’ve dealt with a lot. We’ve dealt with a lot. We’ve dealt with war. We’ve dealt with recession. We’ve dealt with scandal. We’ve dealt with Katrina.

“I mean, they’ve had a lot on their plate. And I appreciate their performance and their hard work and they’ve got my confidence,” he said.

Bush said, “I’m satisfied with the people I’ve surrounded myself with. We’ve been a remarkably stable administration, and I think that’s good for the country.”

Departure of the 'chief'
A veteran of the administrations of both President Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush, Card was widely respected by his colleagues in the Bush White House. They fondly called him “chief.”

He usually arrived at work in the West Wing by around 5:30 a.m. and frequently did not leave until 9 or 10 p.m.

Card plans to stay on the job until April 14, when the switch with Bolten takes place.

Associates said that Card, who was secretary of Transportation and deputy chief of staff for the first President Bush, had wanted to establish himself as the longest serving White House chief of staff. Sherman Adams, who served as President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s chief of staff, still has that distinction.

A recent AP-Ipsos Poll found that Bush’s job approval has dipped to 37 percent, his lowest rating in that poll. Nearly 70 percent of people say the U.S. is on the wrong track, a six-point jump since February. Bush’s job approval among Republicans plummeted from 82 percent in February to 74 percent, a troubling sign for the White House in an election year.

Card did not immediately disclose his plans. His resignation immediately prompted questions about whether he would return to Massachusetts to run for governor or perhaps challenge Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., who currently faces no major GOP challenge for re-election this fall, or Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., whom he helped defeat as the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee and who faces re-election in 2008.

Card, a Holbrook native, served as the state representative from his hometown from 1975 to 1982.

Parentadvocates posted a story about Dubai and New York's ports on 3/14/06:
New York , the Takeover of the NY Port Terminal by Dubai Ports World, and Why New Yorkers Were Concerned

The Port Security Controversy
February 27, 2006
LINK

Many Americans are upset by the thought of a Dubai-based corporation running port operations in several major American cities. The company involved now has agreed to delay taking over those operations while the Bush administration and Congress settle their differences and address the ire of the American people.

There’s nothing necessarily wrong with a company from the United Arab Emirates being involved in U.S. port operations. After all, Islamic terrorists have lived in many European countries, and nobody suggests that E.U. corporations should be similarly disqualified.

But this is not a matter of one foreign company buying another and taking over existing operations in the United States. The Dubai company, DP World, is owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates. It is in essence an agent of a foreign government, which raises questions: Does DP World truly operate like any corporation, answering to a board of directors, serving shareholders, and working to boost profitability? Or does it serve the foreign policy and economic goals of the United Arab Emirates?

This is not a true free market transaction, but rather a marriage of multinational corporate and state interests. And surely the American people should have a say over foreign governments doing business here, especially when that business affects port security.

It's important to note the administration did not bother to consult with Congress or the state governors involved. The Treasury department approved the purchase with no congressional oversight whatsoever. While many applaud unchecked presidential authority when it comes to war in Iraq, wiretapping, and other national security matters, they now demand that Congress overturn a unilateral administration decision. The lesson learned is that everybody likes presidential power when they agree with how it’s used. When they don’t, they rediscover that the Constitution authorizes Congress to make policy after all.

There also is an important states’ rights issue involved in this controversy. Why are Treasury department bureaucrats in Washington making decisions about port security? Most American ports are owned by U.S. states, cities, or local port authorities, not the federal government. Do Treasury department personnel 1500 miles away really know what’s best for the ports of Galveston or Freeport?

I strongly support those governors who have indicated they do not intend to allow the federal government to dictate who will run their ports. I hope Texas state officials display the same determination and resist a potentially dangerous federal dictate regarding the operation of our ports.

April 24th, 2007 12:05 am
White House security violations alleged
By Stephanie Kirchgaessner, Financial Times
LINK

The White House was on Monday accused by a senior Democratic congressman of systematically ignoring security breaches and violations involving classified material, including leaving "sensitive" classified information unattended in a hotel room.

Henry Waxman, chairman of the House oversight committee, said interviews with current and former White House security personnel raised questions about alleged failures by the Bush administration to investigate security violations.

In a letter to Andrew Card, former White House chief of staff, Mr Waxman asked him to testify voluntarily before the House committee for government reform.

Mr Waxman's inquiry into White House security policies followed a hearing last month in which James Knodell, chief security officer at the White House, said his office had never conducted an internal investigation to identify who leaked the name of Valerie Plame, a former covert CIA agent, to several reporters.

The matter was investigated by a special prosecutor at the justice department, Patrick Fitzgerald, who oversaw the conviction of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a former aide to vice-president Dick Cheney, on obstruction and perjury charges.

Mr Waxman said security officers told the House committee they were prohibited from conducting unannounced inspections of the White House's West Wing. The unnamed officials told Mr Waxman that, while security specialists had access to the West Wing during the Clinton administration, access was revoked by the Bush administration.

In one case, an unnamed senior White House official instructed the security office to block inspection of the West Wing by officers of the Information Security Oversight office, which has authority to conduct inspections of all executive offices.

Officials who spoke to Mr Waxman criticised Mr Knodell and his deputy, Ken Greeson, as "poor managers...loath to inconvenience or embarrass White House officials". "I have to give Representative Waxman credit for persistence, if not creativity. We haven't arrived at any new policies to make Senior White House officials available to testify to Congress since Representative Waxman's previous letter. And I don't expect a new policy when we receive tomorrow's letter," the White House security said.