The federal Office of Special Counsel is investigating allegations that Rachel Paulose, U.S. attorney for Minnesota, mishandled classified information, decided to fire the subordinate who called it to her attention, retaliated against others in the office who crossed her, and made racist remarks about one employee.
Paulose did not return phone calls seeking her comment. Black Ink will publish any response that she makes.
The investigation has been under way since June. The Office of Special Counsel, which handles complaints about retaliation against whistleblowers and prohibited personnel practices by political appointees such as Paulose (that’s her at the podium in the photo at right), appears to be taking the allegations seriously. Investigators from two of its regional offices have been to Minnesota to interview witnesses and may be back for more. I could not find out when the OSC, an independent executive branch agency that is not part of the Justice Department, might complete the investigation.
The allegations also undermine the claim, which was put out for public consumption in April, that four top supervisory officials in the office had voluntarily stepped down to lower positions because of differences with Paulose over management style. The highest ranking of those four, former First Assistant U.S. Attorney John Marti, resigned after learning that Paulose was about to dump him. Marti, who remains in the office as an assistant U.S. attorney, also declined to discuss the matter.
While the allegations are unproven, the ongoing investigation reaffirms that a dysfunctional climate in the top federal law enforcement agency in Minnesota continues.
By most insider accounts, Paulose remains at odds with much of her staff, who are non-political career officials. Federal investigators interviews with the staff about their boss’s alleged misdeeds keep alive the hope among her critics that she will not last until the end of President Bush’s term.
If the Office of Special Counsel finds evidence of serious wrongdoing by Paulose, they could refer the matter to the president, the only person who could remove her. The lesser specific allegations of bad personnel practices, if substantiated, could be referred to Paulose for corrective action. If Paulose remains in office until the end of Pres. Bush’s term, it would be normal practice for the next president to replace her.
The investigation does not deal with questions of how Paulose’s predecessor, Tom Heffelfinger, came to be included on the list of U.S. attorneys targeted for dismissal, or how Paulose was chosen to replace him. Those questions put Paulose’s appointment into the larger controversy about improper politicization of the operation of U.S. attorney’s offices nationwide, which led to the recent resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
The conflicts enumerated in this matter are not explicitly political or ideological, except for one instance in which Paulose allegedly made false statements about a job candidate who had liberal associations.
But the pattern of the matters under investigation by the special counsel may shed some light on the gray area between issue of “management style” and issues of politics.
When Paulose took over the office, she told several of the career officials there that she demanded total personal loyalty. At least one replied that loyalty was owed to the Constitution, not to her. Many of the allegations raise the possibility that Paulose crossed the line while seeking to punish personal disloyalty.
The allegations
My knowledge of the allegations comes from sources familiar with the investigation. The summary below reflects the areas into which the investigators have been inquiring:
*As U.S. attorney, Paulose received regular reports about the status of the war on terror, drawing on up-to-date information assembled by intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The reports, classified “secret,” were supposed to kept locked up. For about a year, Paulose regularly left the reports loose in her office, sometimes unattended, where they could have been seen by unauthorized people. Marti spoke to her about it and, as required by regulations, filed a report with the national office that oversees U.S. attorneys.
Paulose began threatening Marti with the loss of his position as the No. 2 attorney in the office. He heard from colleagues and even from a federal judge that Paulose was bad-mouthing him, making false allegations against him and telling them that she was going to replace him.
*Paulose committed large and small acts of retaliation against others in the office whom she accused of disloyalty to her. In one instance, after changing the job assignment of one employee, Paulose allegedly said that she would make the woman so miserable that she would want to quit. In some instances, Paulose allegedly ordered those in charge of performing job evaluations to downgrade the reviews of those she considered disloyal, or turned down requests that they be allowed to perform work outside the office. The allegation is that Paulose took these actions against employees for reasons other than the quality of their work, but rather for offenses like advising her that some actions she was contemplating would exceed her legal authority.
*Paulose allegedly denigrated one employee of the office, using the terms “fat,” “black,” “lazy” and “ass.”
Cross-posted at Minnesota Monitor.
[…] by Phoenix Woman on September 18th, 2007 Poor widdle bay-bee: The federal Office of Special Counsel is investigating allegations that Rachel Paulose, U.S. […]
More than a modest scoop, Spot would say.
I’ve read elsewhere that the OSC is short of funds to investigate Hatch Act violations by Karl Rove.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004204.php
This is the same OSC that claimed in June it would leave “no stone unturned” on Rove and all of the other USAgate allegations. Talk is cheap.
This and Par in the same day?
Wow.
If the OSC completes the investigation and finds Paulose at fault, in any degree, does that finding become public?
I have been told that if the OSC submits a report to the president on the matter, that would be a public document.
Let the Powerline watch begin. ;)
http://www.google.com/search?q=rachel+Paulose&btnG=Search&domains=powerlineblog.com&sitesearch=powerlineblog.com&sa=Search
Who could have possibly seen something like this coming after her swearing in ceremony?
Paulose made a public statement claiming the allegations WERE NOT TRUE. And it isn’t ethical for her to comment until the investigation is complete. Interesting no one here has made this comment. :-)
[…] is what happens when you emphasize political loyalty above competence, character, and everything else: The federal Office of Special Counsel is investigating allegations that Rachel Paulose, U.S. […]
[…] Despite many requests, and a promise to publish any response she decided to make, U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose declined to comment directly to Black Ink about the federal Office of Special Counsel investigation of her leadership of the office. […]
[…] Star Tribune is reporting what Eric Black broke yesterday: The internal upheaval that roiled the upper ranks of the U.S. attorney’s office in Minnesota […]
gump #6, paulose@ swearing in ceremony, from your link .”He must indeed have a blind soul who cannot see that some great purpose and design is being worked out here…..”
Annie: there’s a wealth of interesting Paulose material on Power Line. Katherine Kersten got in on the act too. Here’s a clip of her and David Strom talking about Paulose and the recent firing scandal at DOJ:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjDmFWy3I74
http://www.startribune.com/blogs/kersten/?cat=84
I view this entire escapade as a massively scaled down cognate of the Iraq WMD debate (and a relatively similar copy of the questions concerning General Petraeus’ credibility). Here’s how the basic theme goes:
1- Idea/Person X is suggested by Group A
2- Group B raises questions about I/P X’s history, validity, competency, etc.
3- Group A refuses to publicly legitimize questions with a direct answer; instead opting for direct attacks on Group B for having the nerve/distaste to question the credibility of I/P X. (This is especially effective with media relations. By refusing to acknowledge any legitimacy in Group A’s claims, Group B does not provide the “balance” needed to fill out a fair and balanced report.)
4- I/P X passes with little to no scrutiny.
5- When I/P X fails, Group B claims that this was an isolated incident that no one could have predicted.
Repeat to your heart’s delight.
Kersten had a particularly riveting defense of Ms. Paulose:
(quote on)
So why are the critics piling on Paulose today? Two reasons.
She’s young, female, a “person of color” and an immigrant. (Her grandfather came here from India with $7 in his pocket in the 1960s, she has said, and the rest of the family followed.) If she were a political liberal — as such people are expected to be — she would be the toast of the town. But she’s not. In some folks’ view, such renegades must be run out of the public arena quickly before other minority folks get similar uppity, independent ideas.
Second, she’s an evangelical Christian. “This image of her as a kind of Jesus freak is just bizarre,” says Kendall. “I’ve read things [about this] I find hard to believe. The descriptions of her aggressive religiosity just couldn’t be farther from the person I knew.”
(quote off)
…does it follow that if she really did call a coworker a black fat ass that she did so because she’s a minority evangelical Christian?
More double standard nonsense here:
http://minnlawyer.blogspot.com/2007/04/double-standard.html
Maybe there is a creator and maybe he does have a great purpose and design. If so, this is one of his funnier jokes.
Whoops…#5 should read “When I/P X fails, Group A claims that this was an isolated incident that no one could have predicted.”
Also, I forgot to put Monica Goodling’s testimony up in the last post:
ELLISON:Did Rachel Paulose’s political affiliation play any role in her hiring?
GOODLING:Yes, it did.
ELLISON:And that would be that she was a Republican?
GOODLING:Yes.
ELLISON:Did her religious affiliation play a role in her hiring?
GOODLING:No, it did not.
…also, don’t forget the crown jewel of Power Line links:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/016156.php
“When I spoke with her before she met with Senator Dayton on Wednesday, I told Rachel that if things didn’t work out for her in the legal profession, she could always go into modelling. Rachel laughed and recalled her grandparents, who had fled persecution by the Communists in East Asia to come as immigrants to the United States with seven dollars in their pockets. She said she thought it would take a miracle for her confirmation to occur this session, but that her family (devout Christians) believes in miracles.”
-Scott Johnson (I think he used to be the owl guy when they had nicknames)
At least she’ll have that to fall back on. Although I’m not really sure if TCF hires models. Maybe she can be Goldie Gopher at the new TCF stadium.
There’s alot more to this.
Why did Hefflefinger resign?
Why did Minneapolis FBI SAC Deb Streibel Pierce get fired along with Sioux Falls, SD, FBI agents DAVE HELLER, AND DANNY REYNALDS?
Why did South Dakota US Attorney JAMES MCMAHON GET FIRED?
Aren’t all these feds incriminated by my 47 page US DOJ OIG Complaint?
How many people know who contacted Senator Grassley three weeks before the Bush White House was forced to admit the existence of the NSA TSP?
Anybody want to read the memo I sent to Senator Grassley?
Anybody want to know about 3 murders of three people tied to me and my complaint?
Any reporters bother fact checking my complaint and posts?
Anybody bother calling DR. MARK GORDON to see if the facts in my DOJ OIG Complaint are accurate?
Anybody want to look at the Canadian RCMP arrest warrant for former Miami FBI agent TERRY NELSON’S BIG SKY CALI COCAINE DRUG PIPELINE INTO MONTANA where Gov RACICOT obstructed and also laundered the drug money into GOP campaigns?
How wet………………and stupid……………….IS THE GUTLESS PUNK MAINSTREAM MEDIA MORON ACT?
Good luck morons….the info in on the web under my name “tommythebug” or “Thomas S. Bean”.
Go to “Hollow Mantras of Vison” at blogspot…or see posts by “tommythebug” at “conspiracy cafe.net”.
Good luck morons….you AIN’T EVEN IN THE BALLPARK ON THIS MINNESOTA US ATTORNEY SCANDAL?
[…] says he wants to make sure the allegations that Paulose mishandled classified material, retaliated against staff members whom she c…are properly investigated. Those allegations are already under invetigation by the Office of Special […]
[…] counsel investigation, and comes up with one more problem for Paulose that I didn’t have in last week’s modest scoop. The Office of Special Counsel is an independent agency within the executive branch, not part of […]
[…] month Rachel returned to the news in connection with this report by former Star Tribune staffer Eric Black: The federal Office of Special Counsel is investigating […]
[…] OSC investigation (which includes several other allegations) continues. There’s also the dismal job review Paulose received from a team of Justice […]
[…] and tenure as U.S attorney for Minnesota. Regular readers of Black Ink won’t find much here that they haven’t seen before. But it can’t be good for Paulose to find herself identified (and on page one of the Times no […]