History > 2005 > USA > Justice

Justice Department

In letter to Congress,

Justice Dept. defends spy program

Posted 12/22/2005
9:55 PM
USA TODAY
By Kevin Johnson

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration outlined an unflinching defense of the president's recently disclosed domestic spying program in a letter to Congress asserting that the action is a "reasonable" strategy to secure the nation during a time of war.

The Justice Department letter, transmitted late Thursday to leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees, comes in response to criticism challenging the legal authority of a program that allows for surveillance of suspected terrorists and spies in the USA without a court-ordered warrant.

"Foreign intelligence collections, especially in the midst of an armed conflict in which the adversary has already launched catastrophic attacks within the United States, fits squarely within the 'special needs' exception to warrant requirement," Assistant Attorney General William Moschella wrote in the five-page letter.

Moschella said the presidential authority allowing for the surveillance conducted by the super-secret National Security Agency was deeply rooted in what is known as the Authorization for the Use of Military Force approved by Congress Sept. 14, 2001, before the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

That authorization, Moschella wrote, provided President Bush broad authority, including the power "to order warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance within the United States."

Bush acknowledged the existence of the secret operation after it was revealed last week in The New York Times.

Bush said the program was reserved for monitoring the international communications of people in the USA with suspected links to al-Qaeda.

"Intercepting communications into and out of the United States of persons linked to al-Qaeda in order to detect and prevent a catastrophic attack is clearly reasonable," Moschella said.

Moschella's letter also marks a likely preview of the administration's strategy to defend the program in upcoming hearings on the matter promised by congressional leaders.

Bush, Moschella's letter said, determined the nation needed "an early warning system" after the 9/11 attacks.

    In letter to Congress, Justice Dept. defends spy program, UT, 22.12.2005, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-22-spy-program-letter_x.htm

Justice Department Asks Court

to Release Case of Terrorism Suspect

December 10, 2005
The New York Times
By NEIL A. LEWIS

WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 - The Bush administration pleaded with a federal appeals court on Friday to allow Jose Padilla, who is accused of terrorism, to be released from military custody so he could face criminal charges in a civilian court.

In a brief filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, Va., the Justice Department sought to explain why the court should let go of the Padilla case. The administration had evidently aroused the ire of the appeals court when it announced last month that it was no longer seeking to hold Mr. Padilla as an enemy combatant in a Navy brig in South Carolina.

Before the government changed course and decided to charge Mr. Padilla in a civilian court, it had vigorously sought approval from the appeals court to detain him as an enemy combatant. The appeals court ruled in the government's favor only to find that the administration no longer wanted or needed its support. When the Justice Department asked the court to agree to the transfer, the appeals court balked, instead asking the government to explain itself.

In papers Friday, lawyers for the Justice Department said that the president had the authority to choose to prosecute Mr. Padilla on charges of participating in a terrorist cell in North America. As a consequence, the issues raised in the case before the appeals court as to whether he could be held as an enemy combatant were now moot. The court should even withdraw its opinion on the matter, the department said.

Mr. Padilla, a former Chicago gang member, was originally accused by administration officials of planning to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in some American cities. But the recent criminal charges make no mention of this accusation.

Some legal analysts said the case was not moot because the government could later declare again that Mr. Padilla was an enemy combatant. The Justice Department said Friday that while such a move was possible, it was too speculative to say the case was not moot.

    Justice Department Asks Court to Release Case of Terrorism Suspect, NYT, 10.12.2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/10/politics/10padilla.html

Report Finds Cover-Up

in an F.B.I. Terror Case

December 4, 2005
The New York Times
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 - Officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation mishandled a Florida terror investigation, falsified documents in the case in an effort to cover repeated missteps and retaliated against an agent who first complained about the problems, Justice Department investigators have concluded.

In one instance, someone altered dates on three F.B.I. forms using correction fluid to conceal an apparent violation of federal wiretap law, according to a draft report of an investigation by the Justice Department inspector general's office obtained by The New York Times. But investigators were unable to determine who altered the documents.

The agent who first alerted the F.B.I. to problems in the case, a veteran undercover operative named Mike German, was "retaliated against" by his boss, who was angered by the agent's complaints and stopped using him for prestigious assignments in training new undercover agents, the draft report concluded.

Mr. German's case first became public last year, as he emerged as the latest in a string of whistle-blowers at the bureau who said they had been punished and effectively silenced for voicing concerns about the handling of terror investigations and other matters since Sept. 11, 2001.

The inspector general's draft report, dated Nov. 15 and awaiting final review, validated most of Mr. German's central accusations in the case. But the former agent, who left the bureau last year after he said his career had been derailed by the Florida episode, said he felt more disappointment than vindication.

"More than anything else, I'm saddened by all this," Mr. German said in an interview. "I still love the F.B.I., and I know that there are good, honest, hard-working agents out there trying to do the right thing, and this hurts all of them."

Robert S. Mueller III, director of the F.B.I., has emphasized repeatedly, both publicly and in private messages to his staff, that employees are encouraged to come forward with reports of wrongdoing and that he will not tolerate retaliation against whistle-blowers.

Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who has been a frequent critic of the bureau, said of Mr. German: "Unfortunately, this is just another case in a long line of F.B.I. whistle-blowers who have had their careers derailed because the F.B.I. couldn't tolerate criticism."

Michael Kortan, an F.B.I. spokesman, said the bureau had not been briefed on the findings. But Mr. Kortan said that when the F.B.I. received the report, "if either misconduct or other wrongdoing is found, we will take appropriate action."

Ann Beeson, associate legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the inspector general's findings, coming just days after the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from an earlier F.B.I. whistle-blower, pointed to the need for tougher measures to protect those who report abuse. "With courts reluctant to protect whistle-blowers, it is crucial that Congress pass additional protections," Ms. Beeson said.

Mr. German's case dates to 2002, when the F.B.I. division in Tampa opened a terror investigation into a lead that laundered proceeds, possibly connected to a drug outfit, might be used to finance terrorists overseas. The F.B.I. was considering initiating an undercover operation to follow the lead, and Mr. German, who had extensive experience infiltrating militias, skinheads and other groups, was asked to take part.

But in the coming months, Mr. German would alert F.B.I. officials that the Orlando agent handling the case had "so seriously mishandled" the investigation that a prime opportunity to expose a terrorist financing plot had been wasted. He said agents had not adequately pursued leads, had failed to document important meetings with informants, and had tolerated violations of rules and federal law on the handling of wiretaps.

The report, in one of its few dissents from Mr. German's accusations, said it could not confirm that the F.B.I. had missed an important chance to expose terrorism. Rather, it cited two findings by the bureau that the prime informant had misled agents about the terrorism angle in the case and that "there was no viable terrorism case."

Nonetheless, the inspector general found that the F.B.I. had "mishandled and mismanaged" the investigation, partly through the failure to document important developments for months at a time. The report also found that supervisors were aware of problems in the case but did not take prompt action to correct them.

Moreover, after Mr. German raised concerns about the lack of documentation, an unnamed agent in Orlando "improperly added inaccurate dates to the investigative reports in order to make it appear as though the reports were prepared earlier," the inspector general found.

In addition, someone used correction fluid to backdate by two months a set of forms that the main informant had signed as part of a bugging operation, in which he agreed that he had to be present for all undercover taping.

The backdating was significant, the inspector general said, because the informant had taped a 2002 meeting with several suspects but had left the recording device unattended while he went to use the restroom - a violation of federal law.

Mr. German became increasingly vocal within the F.B.I. about what he saw as the bureau's failure to correct missteps, taking his concerns directly to Mr. Mueller in a 2003 e-mail message. His complaints, the inspector general found, led agents in Florida, Washington and Oregon to distance themselves from him.

In the most serious instance, the head of the F.B.I. undercover unit, Jorge Martinez, froze Mr. German out of teaching assignments in undercover training and told one agent that Mr. German would "never work another undercover case," the report said.

Mr. Martinez told investigators that he did not remember making the statements but that if he had, it was a "knee-jerk reaction but did not mean to indicate I was retaliating against him," the report said.

The inspector general disagreed. It said in the report that Mr. Martinez's treatment of Mr. German amounted to improper retaliation and "discrimination that could have a chilling effect on whistle-blowing."

    Report Finds Cover-Up in an F.B.I. Terror Case, NYT, 4.12.2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/politics/04fbi.html

New Twist in Texas Districting Dispute

December 3, 2005
The New York Times
By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM and ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Dec. 2 - The Justice Department acknowledged on Friday that top officials had overruled a determination by its civil rights staff in 2003 that a Congressional redistricting plan for Texas, advantageous to Republicans, would violate the voting rights law.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales defended approval of the plan, telling reporters on Friday morning that he was confident that the decision was correct. Conflicting views simply reflected a healthy deliberative process, Mr. Gonzales said.

The plan, which had largely been developed by Representative Tom DeLay and which was subsequently upheld by a three-judge federal appeals court panel, led to Republicans' gaining five seats in the House in the election last year.

Pointing to the court's acceptance, Mr. Gonzales said the skepticism of career lawyers did not "mean that it was an incorrect decision."

"Ultimately, someone has to make a decision," he said. "We're not going to politicize decisions within the department."

Democrats sharply disagreed. They said the rejection of the lawyers' conclusion was the latest example of how the Justice Department in the Bush administration substituted politics and ideology for sound judgment.

President Bush, a former governor of Texas, has referred to the redistricting dispute and the indictment of Mr. DeLay, who stepped down as House majority in October after being indicted in a campaign finance case, as purely Texas issues with no White House connection.

The general position of the staff lawyers in the Civil Rights Division was known. But on Friday, The Washington Post reported the details of a memorandum unanimously endorsed by the six lawyers and two analysts in the voting rights section that strongly criticized the plan, saying it would dilute the voting strength of minorities in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

"In sum, the proposed plan reduces the level of minority voting strength," the memorandum concluded. "The state failed to follow its traditional redistricting principles preserving communities of interest and forbidding fragmentation or packing of minority voters."

Despite that unequivocal finding, the Justice Department approved the plan, and Texas officials repeatedly referred to the approval in defending against the Democratic court challenge.

Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, states like Texas with histories of racial discrimination in voting have to have the Justice Department approve their redistricting. The three-judge panel upheld the redistricting plan against the Democratic lawsuit in June. The case is pending before the Supreme Court.

In recent weeks, developments in the Justice Department and elsewhere in the government have involved instances in which political appointees countermanded the judgment of professional staff experts whose conclusions were not in line with the administration's philosophy.

On Tuesday, the Justice Department lawyer who has led the civil racketeering case against the tobacco industry for five years announced that she was retiring because of disagreements with supervisors.

"I didn't feel like I had the support at all times of the political team," the lawyer, Sharon Y. Eubanks, said.

Last month, the nonpartisan examiners at the Government Accountability Office said that the Food and Drug Administration had relied on politics and ideology rather than science in rejecting over-the-counter sales of the morning-after contraceptive Plan B.

In broadcasting, the inspector general of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting found that its former chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, had repeatedly crossed boundaries in the law intended to protect public television and radio from political interference.

Referring to the Justice Department cases, Mr. Gonzales said the decisions were "not based on politics."

Discussing the process, a spokeswoman for the White House, Dana M. Perino, said it was "entirely appropriate" that the president's appointees "develop policies for implementation by the federal government."

Democrats used the tobacco case and the voting rights memorandum to renew their argument that the administration was improperly politicizing government functions. The party's whip in the House, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, said the disclosure "that political considerations at the Justice Department apparently overrode proper enforcement of the Voting Rights Act should appall and disturb every American."

In a clear allusion to the department's investigation of Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist, and his dealings with Republicans in Congress, including Mr. DeLay, Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said the Texas decision raised "real questions about what is going to happen with other sections of the Justice Department and ongoing investigations."

In 2002, Mr. DeLay, the Texan who was the Republican whip at the time, engineered enough Republican victories to take control of the state's Legislature.

Normally, legislatures redraw the maps of their states' Congressional districts once a decade, after the census. But Republicans in Texas used their majority to create a new map in 2003. It resulted in Republicans' gaining five House seats in 2004, substantially strengthening Mr. DeLay's position in Washington.

Mr. DeLay stepped aside as majority leader in October after being charged in a Texas court with conspiracy to violate the state's election laws by arranging for corporate contributions to be used in Republican campaigns for the Legislature in 2002.

Carl Hulse contributed reporting for this article.

    New Twist in Texas Districting Dispute, NYT, 3.12.2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/03/politics/03texas.html

U.S. Lawyer in Tobacco Suit

Is Leaving Post

December 1, 2005
The New York Times
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 - The Justice Department lawyer who has led the government's civil racketeering case against the tobacco industry for the past five years is leaving the department after clashing with some of her supervisors over the direction of the multibillion-dollar case.

The Justice Department told the federal judge hearing the case of the lawyer's departure on Wednesday.

The lawyer, Sharon Y. Eubanks, said in an interview that she was leaving voluntarily to explore work as a lawyer in the private sector or elsewhere and that she had enjoyed her 22 years at the Justice Department.

But Ms. Eubanks acknowledged the clashes with supervisors at the Justice Department, including Robert McCallum, associate attorney general; Peter Keisler, the head of the civil division; and Dan Meron, Mr. Keisler's deputy.

"I didn't feel like I had the support at all times of the political team," Ms. Eubanks said.

Justice Department officials declined to comment on Ms. Eubanks's departure, citing the privacy of personnel matters.

Ms. Eubanks was at the center of a political dispute over the summer when she objected to a decision by senior department officials to reduce the penalties they were seeking in the case by $120 billion.

She and other career lawyers, who had spent nine months trying the tobacco case, objected to the decision, saying in an internal memo that the move would be seen as politically motivated and legally groundless.

The government's lawsuit against the tobacco industry is still pending.

The judge in the case, Gladys Kessler, is expected to issue a decision early next year on the question of how much in damages, if any, the tobacco industry should have to pay as a result of accusations from the government that it had engaged in a decade-long pattern of fraudulent conduct in marketing cigarettes.

    U.S. Lawyer in Tobacco Suit Is Leaving Post, NYT, 1.12.2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/01/national/01lawyers.html

Congressional Memo

Political Donations,

Bribery and the Portrayal of a Nexus

November 25, 2005
The New York Times
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 - The American system of underwriting political campaigns is often derided as legalized bribery. Now the Justice Department is contending that it can amount to illegal bribery as well.

In pursuing a case that threatens to envelop Congress in an election-year lobbying scandal, federal prosecutors are arguing that campaign dollars and other perks routinely showered on lawmakers by those with legislative and political interests on Capitol Hill can reach the level of criminal misconduct.

The prosecutors say that among the criminal activities of Michael Scanlon, a former House leadership aide who pleaded guilty on Monday to bribery conspiracy, were efforts to influence a lawmaker identified in court papers only as Representative No. 1 with gifts that included $4,000 to his campaign account and $10,000 to a Republican Party fund on his behalf.

Lawyers and others who follow such issues say the case against Mr. Scanlon amounted to a shift by the Justice Department, which, they say, has generally steered clear of trying to build corruption cases around political donations because the charges can be hard to prove.

"The department has rarely charged campaign contribution cases," said Joseph E. diGenova, a defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor. "It would be a surprise that a contribution that has been lawfully reported" would lead to a criminal charge.

The case against Mr. Scanlon, who became wealthy in a partnership with the lobbyist Jack Abramoff, reaches far beyond the contributions to Representative No. 1. Court documents filed by prosecutors lay out an extensive conspiracy in which Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Abramoff, identified in the documents only as Lobbyist A, sought to defraud clients - mainly Indian tribes with gambling interests - and win legislative help from lawmakers in exchange for campaign donations, trips, dinners, greens fees and jobs.

Watchdog groups and some lawmakers say the emerging details of how at least one set of well-connected lobbyists operated should help build momentum for changes in lobbying rules. And, they say, the case demonstrates that the Justice Department shares their longstanding contention that campaign contributions can be used to game the system.

"I think the Justice Department wants to show that there is a line that can be crossed," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics.

Others say a vast majority of lawmakers are committed to operating within the rules that already exist and in any event would not be easily swayed by the attentions of special interests, no matter how generous.

"Contributions can only take you so far," said former Senator John B. Breaux, a Louisiana Democrat who has relocated to a K Street law firm and is now advising clients on lobbying strategy. "I tell them, 'Look, you can give to an elected official and take them to lunch, dinner and breakfast. But if you are asking them to vote yes on an issue and they have 2,000 letters from home telling them to vote no, then you have a problem.' "

Representative Bob Ney, an Ohio Republican who has acknowledged being Representative No. 1, dismisses any suggestion that he was persuaded to do Mr. Scanlon's bidding because of campaign aid or perks like meals, entertainment or overseas travel.

"Whenever Representative Ney took official action," a statement from his office said, "actions similar to those taken by elected representatives every day as part of the normal, appropriate government process, he did so based on his best understanding of what was right and not based on any improper influence."

But the scrutiny of Mr. Ney has caught the attention of anxious lawmakers who have lobbying relationships of their own. It has also spurred advocacy groups. The campaign finance watchdog Democracy 21, for instance, is calling for inquiries by the House and Senate ethics committees into whether three dozen other members of Congress received contributions in exchange for intervening on behalf of a client of Mr. Abramoff.

The Associated Press reported this month that various lawmakers of both parties had asked the Interior Department to reject a casino application from a tribe that was a rival to one of Mr. Abramoff's clients. The lawmakers later received campaign aid from the tribe and Mr. Abramoff. Among the beneficiaries was the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, who received a $5,000 contribution to his political action committee shortly after sending a letter to the department in 2002.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid, said Mr. Abramoff and the donation had had nothing to do with the position of the senator, who Mr. Manley noted was an author of Indian gaming laws and an opponent of new Indian casinos. "There was absolutely no connection between the letter and the contributions," he said.

Federal law requires that to prove bribery, the government must establish that a "thing of value" was provided in a direct effort to obtain a specific official act - the essential quid pro quo. A more vague expectation that something like a contribution might influence a public official has been deemed insufficient.

Mr. diGenova and others said that as a result, the Justice Department had been reluctant to try to link official actions to political donations, leaning instead toward cases in which public officials had been personally enriched.

Those watching the current case see Mr. Scanlon's decision to cooperate in the continuing investigation of Mr. Abramoff and others as a crucial link to the possibility of further charges: as an insider, he could conceivably provide evidence of a strong tie between efforts to influence lawmakers and their official actions.

Criminal charges aside, some watchdogs and members of Congress say they hope that public exposure of lobbying abuse stirs the Congressional ethics committees to police lawmakers more aggressively and that it simultaneously builds support for tighter lobbying restrictions.

"I think most Americans play by the rules and expect their leaders in government to do the same," said an author of one such proposal, Representative Martin T. Meehan, Democrat of Massachusetts. "It is time for Congress to clean up its act."

    Political Donations, Bribery and the Portrayal of a Nexus, NYT, 25.11.2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/25/politics/25memo.html

Indictment Portrays Padilla

as Minor Figure in a Plot

November 24, 2005
The New York Times
By NEIL A. LEWIS

WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 - Jose Padilla, whose newly unsealed indictment on conspiracy charges signals a marked change in the Bush administration's legal approach to dealing with terrorism suspects, is mentioned only sparingly in the government's account.

The indictment, announced Tuesday by the Justice Department, portrays Mr. Padilla as a distinctly minor though thoroughly willing player in a scheme run by others to support radical Islamic fighters in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya and elsewhere.

The four other defendants charged in the 30-page indictment are pictured as active conspirators setting up bogus charities and businesses to raise money to support those combatants. Mr. Padilla, a 34-year-old former Chicago gang member, is accused of being a kind of courier for the four others, someone eager to play a role somewhere on the battlefront.

The other defendants were indicted on the same charges last year, attracting only modest attention, apparently because there was no indication then that the case involved Mr. Padilla.

He, on the other hand, had by that time become widely known, an American citizen arrested in Chicago in 2002 after arriving on a flight from overseas and detained since then at a Navy brig in South Carolina as an unlawful enemy combatant. In the earlier indictment, a person who turned out to be Mr. Padilla was identified only as an unnamed co-conspirator.

The government charges that three of the defendants - one based in Canada, another in California and a third in Florida - were the principal figures in the money-raising effort. Much of the indictment is based on what it describes as taped conversations among those three and a fourth defendant.

Although the indictment does not say so, officials confirm that the conversations are from wiretaps authorized by a special court that reviews law enforcement applications to eavesdrop on foreigners suspected of intelligence activities.

In the indictment's recounting of the conversations, the principals converse in what officials describe as code, referring to arms shipments and attack plans as sporting events or, on some occasions, as vegetables.

But any such efforts to conceal the nature of the subjects discussed were seemingly clumsy. In one conversation, for instance, Adham Amin Hassoun talks with another defendant, Mohamed Hesham Youssef, about soccer equipment. The indictment says that Mr. Hassoun later told investigators he had indeed been referring to sports equipment, but that he was unable to explain why he had then asked Mr. Youssef if he had enough "soccer equipment" to "launch an attack on the enemy."

In other talks, reminiscent of tape recordings of organized crime figures, the defendants appear to use a code involving vegetables, the indictment says. They sometimes talk about zucchini and "green goods," which the government has suggested could mean weapons.

Mr. Padilla's role, however, appears limited. Among the overt acts that the government says demonstrate his participation in the conspiracy is his 1996 application for a passport. The other defendants are overheard in the apparent wiretaps saying Mr. Padilla would be getting money, had traveled to Egypt and Afghanistan and had considered visiting Yemen. He also "filled out a 'mujahideen data form' in preparation for violent jihad training in Afghanistan," the indictment charges.

Lawrence Barcella, a former federal prosecutor, said some overt acts cited in a conspiracy indictment might often seem innocuous, as in the case of applying for a passport.

"There's nothing illegal in applying for a passport, but it's the prosecutor's burden to show that an overt act like that had some connection to the conspiracy," Mr. Barcella said.

"A conspiracy is an agreement to commit a crime," he said, "and an overt act can be a relatively benign event that shows agreement to further that conspiracy."

Mr. Padilla is charged with two counts of conspiracy: to further murder and kidnapping outside the United States and to provide material aid to terrorists. He is also charged with directly providing material aid to terrorists.

    Indictment Portrays Padilla as Minor Figure in a Plot, NYT, 24.11.2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/24/politics/24indict.html

US sues Missouri

over voters in 2004 election

Tue Nov 22, 2005 9:17 PM ET
Reuters

KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department has sued Missouri, a swing state won easily by President George W. Bush, for voting violations in the 2004 election, including registering more people to vote in some counties than their entire voting-age population.

The complaint, filed on Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, said 29 Missouri counties and election jurisdictions had more people registered to vote than there actually were people of voting age living in those areas.

One Missouri county, for instance, showed voter registrations that amounted to more than 150 percent of the true voting-age population in that county.

Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan acknowledged the voting irregularities in the 2004 federal election but said in a statement that the Justice Department's decision to file suit was costly and unjustified as the state was working to correct its voters rolls.

"Clearly, a problem exists. It defies common sense that we would have more registered voters than people of voting age in any Missouri county," said Carnahan. "The Secretary of State's office and the Department of Justice share the same goal of ensuring fair and accurate elections."

The lawsuit also alleges that some voters were removed from registration lists without notification, in violation of the law, while some ineligible voters were not removed.

Missouri was considered among a number of potential swing states in the 2004 election, but ended up with 53 percent voting for Bush and 46 percent going to challenger John Kerry.

    US sues Missouri over voters in 2004 election, R, 22.11.2005, http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-11-23T021708Z_01_MCC308178_RTRUKOC_0_US-ELECTION-MISSOURI-LAWSUIT.xml&archived=False