Bill Richardson was Subject to Further Questions Over Joining Obama Admin

Previously undisclosed, it appears Bill Richardson was the subject of an inquiry into whether he mis-led the Obama admin about his connections to CDR. Connections that later forced Richardson to withdraw his name from the Obama cabinet.

Questions about whether President-elect Barack Obama's transition team was misled during the vetting process for Gov. Bill Richardson's nomination for commerce secretary were investigated by a federal grand jury that recently ended its term without returning an indictment.


Obama nominated Richardson after the November 2008 election, but the governor withdrew his name two months later in the midst of a different federal grand jury probe. That investigation involved contributions to Richardson-affiliated political organizations by a California firm that was awarded lucrative state contracts.

Richardson and Rubin go way back and the intimate connections between the two led to subpoenas about massive donations that were funneled by CDR to interest groups that were designed around pushing Bill Richardson. Eventually Richardson was non-exonerated in regards to the massive muni-bond scandal that sank such politicians as Larry Langford.

Documents generated as part of a heated legal battle over what evidence the grand jury in the Commerce inquiry would be allowed to review enabled the Journal to piece together the existence of that investigation.


The issue involved what information the governor and his staff had in their possession, and what they disclosed, about the ongoing contract investigation at the time Richardson went through the vetting process for Commerce.
The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals published two heavily redacted opinions on Aug. 18 dealing with several claims, including attorney-client privilege, raised by defense lawyers, in the Commerce matter.


The appeals court reversed a lower court ruling that prevented grand jurors from reviewing certain documents and information; dismissed claims of prosecutorial misconduct and affirmed the lower court's ruling that two attorneys in the case would be required to answer nine specific questions from the grand jury.
The appellate judges decided to publish the redacted opinions because of the need "to advance the law on certain issues.


"The district court's approach treads upon the grand jury's broad investigatory powers, undermines its secrecy and causes unnecessary delay, as has amply been demonstrated in this case," one of the opinions said.


All names were taken out and replaced with "Attorney #1", "Attorney#2", "employee #1" and "Subject" of the investigation. The state of New Mexico is not mentioned nor do the opinions list the names of the attorneys involved.
The appeals court noted that "the subject of the Grand Jury has filed an objection to the publication of these two opinions. Alternatively, the subject of the investigation has suggested redactions ... and reported that those suggested redactions were agreeable to the United States Attorney."


The U.S. Attorney's Office wouldn't comment. Richardson's attorney, Peter Schoenburg, didn't return a telephone message asking about the opinions, and Richardson's spokesman said in an e-mail that he didn't know anything about them.
However, several people familiar with the broad outlines of the case confirmed that the documents deal with an inquiry into information on forms required for Richardson's nomination as Obama's commerce secretary.


The forms are usually completed by the nominee's staff and/or lawyers. They require detailed information about the nominee, his family, finances, personal history and legal problems and are signed under penalty of perjury by the nominee. The issue was the nominee's characterization of a federal investigation at that time into how a California financial firm landed lucrative business deals with the state while making political contributions to Richardson political committees in 2004.

Did Richardson's staff mis-characterize the investigation?