What a Dumb Justice Department We Have

by Sean Hackbarth

The NY Times gives us two more pieces of evidence that the Justice Department is run by bumbling fools.

First, a 33-year old lawyer with no prosecutorial experience was considered to be a U.S. Attorney in Michigan:

Rachel L. Brand, by her own admission, has never prosecuted so much as a traffic case. But in January 2006, when Justice Department officials began to discuss removing some United States attorneys, Ms. Brand was proposed as the top federal prosecutor in the Western District of Michigan, an e-mail message released on Friday shows.

In the end, Ms. Brand, who heads the Office of Legal Policy in the department, decided that she did not want the position and was not nominated to succeed Margaret M. Chiara, then the top prosecutor for the district. Ms. Chiara was later ousted.

Brand helped Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Sam Alito through their confirmation hearings. I’m sure she was wise enough to know a few Senators would question her lack of experience.

She did plenty of work for the White House, Justice Department, and Bush campaign so that’s how her name got on the radar. But it takes plenty of chutzpa for Kyle Sampson, Alberto Gonzalez former chief of staff, to think she’d be good at running a U.S. Attorney’s office. Even if she’s some up-and-coming brilliant legal mind she’s only 33. She hasn’t done anything yet. (I can relate. I’m 32, and I haven’t done anything yet.)

Second, the Justice Department turned over an e-mail by Sampson that listed U.S. Attorneys that could be fired along with possible replacements:

The Jan. 9, 2006, e-mail was sent by Mr. Sampson to Harriet Miers, the former White House Counsel, and William Kelley, another White House lawyer. In the message, Mr. Sampson proposed the dismissal of a total of seven United States Attorneys and named at least one replacement candidate for each prospective vacancy.

Because of deletions in the copy of the e-mail turned over to Congress, the names of only four of the United States Attorneys slated for removal and their possible successors are disclosed. The names of the replacement candidates, in most cases, are followed by a question mark, suggesting that Mr. Sampson might have been uncertain about them.

The United States Attorneys identified for removal are four who were ultimately dismissed: Margaret Chiara in Michigan, Kevin Ryan in San Francisco, Carol C. Lam in San Diego and H. E. Cummins III in Arkansas. Justice Department officials have acknowledged that Mr. Cummins was an able prosecutor who was removed solely to make room for J. Timothy Griffin, a former aide to Karl Rove, the White House senior political adviser. Mr. Griffin was appointed to the job on a temporary basis.

“Please treat this as confidential,” Mr. Sampson wrote, in a numbered summary of the seven prosecutors to be fired along with their possible replacements. The copy of the e-mail turned over to Congress was edited so that the identities of three of the prosecutors and their potential successors cannot be determined.

“If a decision is made to remove and replace a limited number of U.S. Attorneys, then the following might be considered for removal and possible replacement,” Mr. Sampson’s e-mail said.

Yet Sampson told a Senate committee, “I personally did not. On December 7th, I did not have in mind any replacements for any of the seven who were asked to resign.”

I expect a Clinton-style word parsing explanation that on 12.07 he didn’t have any replacements in mind but that changed a month later.

Gonzalez and Sampson decided to mislead Congress and pour gasoline on this story instead of saying what they did and let it be at that. No wonder these guys couldn’t plainly state, “U.S. Attorneys serve at the discression of the President. We fired them. No laws were broken. So what?” They’re not that smart no matter how many fancy degrees they have or how much work they’ve done in the Federalist Society. Thankfully President Bush never nominated Gonzalez to the Supreme Court. We’re not stuck with a buffoon with a lifetime appointment.

[via memeorandum]

Save and Share:
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • email
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Diigo

3 Responses to “What a Dumb Justice Department We Have”

1

Yeah, that’s right, Sean. These are all things that they did by accident, because they’re not intelligent (yet somehow, nobody noticed beforehand.) LOL!

Gonzalez and Sampson decided to mislead Congress and pour gasoline on this story instead of saying what they did and let it be at that.

Probably because if they’d told the truth they would have gone to jail. But, you know, keep pretending like the loss of political face is a worse problem than the Bush administration obstructing justice to manipulate the 2006 elections.

2

Congrats. You’ve reached a conspiracy level not even Chuck Schumer has stooped to.

3

You’ve reached a conspiracy level not even Chuck Schumer has stooped to.

Hardly. I’ve simply applied my brain to the issue. I recommend you do it sometime.

It’s all there in the memos, Sean. Have you even read any of them?

Leave a Reply




You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>