Was Peter Clark - the former Deputy Chief of the Fraud Section of the Criminal Division of the DOJ, who was leading the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act investigation against Halliburton - one of the names redacted from the DOJ data dumps this past week?
From a letter I wrote to Senators Byrd and Rockefeller on September 20, 2006:
*****************************************************************
My Tenure at Halliburton/KBR
I worked at Halliburton’s Kellogg, Brown & Root offices in Arlington, Virginia from August 2001 (just before the September 11th attacks) until April 2003 (just after we went to war in Iraq). Needless to say, this was a very interesting time to be in the belly of the war machine beast. I worked in the Government Proposals group, responding to Federal, State, and local requests for proposals. The proposal responses I worked on included the logistics support contracts for Iraqi operations (LOGCAP III), Iraqi oilfield reconstruction (RIO), embassy security upgrades and rebuilding (e.g., the Afghan embassy re-build project), nuclear non-proliferation (DTRA CTRIC), and other crucial projects.
Mis-Directed E-Mails Open My Eyes to Halliburton’s True Nature
In the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, the company’s PR flaks mounted an internal public relations campaign to convince rank and file employees that Halliburton had a special role to play in the war on terror. With posters, e-mails, and other polished tactics, the company indoctrinated new employees to believe that Halliburton’s activities around the globe were designed to foster democracy and freedom abroad, and energy independence at home.
Several of my more seasoned co-workers counseled me to not buy into the propaganda. I soon had firsthand support for their sense of skepticism.
One day, the entire Proposals Group was summoned to a meeting that lasted quite a while (a couple of hours at least). When I returned to my desk after that meeting, I was surprised to discover that my corporate e-mail inbox was overflowing with new messages.
“That’s odd,” I thought. “Everyone who would have been e-mailing me was in that meeting.”
Scrolling through the e-mails, I discovered that I was on the “cc: list” – along with many others inside and outside the company – for the original e-mail. The other e-mails cluttering my inbox were the “Reply to All” responses that some of the other “cc: list” recipients had made in response to the original e-mail.
The original e-mail should have been sent to David >>>R.<<< Smith – the Vice President of Tax for Halliburton, appointed to that role during Vice President Dick Cheney’s tenure as CEO:
http://contracts.onecle.com/halliburton/smith.emp.1998.09.29.shtml. See also the insider trade filings for the other David Smith, at the SEC’s EDGAR website.1
The Halliburton attorney who authored the original e-mail chose the first David Smith in the internal address book by mistake (I surmise he was thinking hierarchically, rather than alphabetically). Alphabetically, the first David Smith in the address book (and there were several of us with that common name who worked for the company) was me: David A. Smith. I guess the Halliburton attorney’s kindergarten teacher didn’t teach him his alphabet; mine did.
As I scrolled through the responses, it became clear that the subject under discussion was certain projects Halliburton was seeking to undertake in Nigeria, including a liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant. So far, the e-mails pertained to my job function, and I continued to scan them for whatever specific action item(s) I was being asked to perform. It was not uncommon for my proposal group to work with our counterparts in overseas offices, to produce key personnel curriculum vitae, past project write-ups, etc.
However, it quickly became clear that something was wrong. The e-mails centered around how to defend the company from a Federal investigation that the Houston home office had just learned about, arising under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Intrigued – I am a policy wonk and Byrd Scholar after all – I began to read the e-mails more carefully. As I did, it became apparent that the responses I had mistakenly received were from the company’s entire “damage control fire brigade”: the public relations flaks were weighing in on how to spin the investigation, should it become public knowledge. The attorneys (both in-house and external) were weighing in on how to mount a legal defense, and how to keep the DOJ and SEC thrown off the scent. Government Relations personnel were weighing in on how to call in favors from the Executive Office of the President – including specific mention of making contact with the Vice President’s office.
Aghast, I continued to search the e-mails for the specific action I was being asked to undertake. “Why has this correspondence been sent to me?” I kept wondering.
The answer soon became clear. The other David Smith – VP of Tax at Halliburton – was being asked to weigh in on how to explain away the source of the bribes paid to Nigerian officials. After all, a dirty foreign bribe is usually paid with dirty, offshore, untaxed money, right?
The dilemma I now faced was: it was only a matter of time before the original e-mail’s author discovered that he had erred in sending the e-mail to me. Eventually, the silence of the other David Smith would prompt a phone call, or some other form of direct follow-up, to prod him for his input on how to defend against the tax evasion implications of the FCPA investigation. When he inevitably replied that he hadn’t seen any of the e-mail conversation, the backtracking would reveal that I had received the e-mails instead.
I approached my supervisor with my problem. He said that I should just ignore them. I protested, pointing out that my silence might be misconstrued, and land me in hot water. Mulling it over, he told me to go ahead and alert the original sender. (As an aside, it was not uncommon for me to receive mis-directed e-mails – intended for one of the other David Smiths in the company – but they usually were either benign, or at worst, a dirty joke.)
When I alerted the original sender (the Halliburton attorney), he fired back an angry e-mail, ordering me to destroy all copies of the e-mails I had received, and to send him a signed written letter to the effect that I had done so. Rather than thanking me for proactively (and quietly) alerting him to his mistake, he essentially “shot the messenger” – acting as if I were the one who had done something wrong.
Department of Justice Contacted Me in July 2004
In late July 2004, I received a phone call from Mr. Peter Clark, the Deputy Chief of the Fraud Section of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. He informed me that another U.S. Attorney was on the line with him, along with two FBI agents from the Houston Field Office. He asked if he could record the conversation. I agreed.
At Mr. Clark’s request, I recounted the information above. He asked me whether I had preserved copies of the e-mails. Rather than answering directly, I pointed out that – should I produce what I purport to be true copies of those e-mails – I would become Karl Rove’s new pet project (a la Valerie Plaime).
Instead, I explained to Mr. Clark that the young man who maintained Halliburton’s e-mail backups for the Arlington, Virginia office could surely produce copies directly from the company’s own storage system, and also pointed out that the e-mails that would be of most interest to the ongoing FCPA investigation would be those e-mails that were exchanged by the damage control fire brigade after the correct David Smith was looped in (e.g., what did the Tax group down in Houston have to say about how to spin the dirty bribe money’s tax status and offshore source?). Excitedly, Mr. Clark rang off, promising to call with further updates.
Later that same day – much to my surprise – he did just that. He informed me that following the morning phone call, FBI agents showed up in both Arlington, Virginia and Houston, Texas, demanding copies of both my e-mail account’s backups, and the other David Smith’s. At this time, Mr. Clark informed me that his team of investigators had been stymied at almost every turn up until this point – hinting that the obstruction was coming from the Administration itself. He informed me that I was free to share the details of our conversation (and of the FBI activities resulting from those conversations) with anyone I chose – including, he said very pointedly, the media.
Well, I regret that I didn’t do so. Therein lies a tale unto itself – and one that I would gladly share with you.
It is noteworthy that soon after the general election in 2004, Peter Clark resigned from the Justice Department, and went into private practice. Since then, the investigation and enforcement activities appear to have languished. I surmise that Mr. Clark was worn out, after trying to butt heads with those above his pay grade: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=peter+clark+deputy+chief+fraud.
After all, some might consider it a “career-limiting move” within the Justice Department to investigate a Vinson & Elkins client, such as Halliburton.2 That’s the Enron and Halliburton law firm, where the current Attorney General – surely, the “Clarence Thomas” of the current Administration’s Cabinet – was a partner.3
*****************************************************************
The full letter is available here: http://www.halwhistleblowers.org/092006senateinvestigationrequest.pdf
For more information:
http://www.halwhistleblowers.org/
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=halliburton+foreign+corrupt+practices+act
FYI...
- Dave
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
