The New York Times went deep on the tale of Rachel Paulose’s appointment 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 less) as the personification of the legacy of Alberto Gonzalez-ism faced by Attorney General Michael Mukasey on his third day in office.
Paulose has been in a bunker for some time, cut off from contact with most of her subordinates, spending many days out of the office, and declining all interviews except with the friendliest of reporters. But I was impressed that she declined to defend herself even to the New York Times. I wrote in October that there were signs she was entering her final days. I’ll see if I can turn up any new information and work on a piece trying to put the case into perspective.
This, of course, is the most important reason for valuing competence in an Attorney General, even if you disagree with some of his positions.
The day-to-day activities of the Justice Department, in particular the U.S. attorneys, are what have the most effect on our daily lives, and the (undeclared) ‘war on terror’ is a distraction from the real issues.
Why is Rachel Paulose not talking to the press? Might it be because Paulose knows the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility commenced an investigation on June 21, 2007, into allegations of serious public corruption involving career attorneys in the Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s Office? The allegations came from an outside source who has absolutely no connection with the U.S. Attorney’s Office or Rachel Paulose. Could it be that the present and former employees of the Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s Office, who are critical of Paulose, are actually the wrongdoers involved in the public corruption? Maybe Senator Norm Coleman is expressing concern because both his Minnesota and Washington, D.C. offices received numerous documents detailing the public corruption in May of this year.
This what you’re referring to (from the Washington Post September 23:
Given that child pornography is one her top priorities, it’s also worth mentioning the case her office botched. She had insisted on keeping a guy in jail for the year before he came trial,but the jury was out for only two hours before finding him innocent. I don’t share Gonzales’ and Palouse’s view that child pornography is one of the top two or three threats to America; instead I suspect that they picked it because it’s easy to prosecute, has unsympathetic defendants and runs up the statistics. Palouse was stunningly incompetent in either the selection or the preparation of the case to get the kind of outstanding butt kicking that a jury being out for only two hours represents. What the Packers did to the Viking is mild compared to that.
Dear pkbrandon:
I am familiar with Dan Eggen’s Washington Post article of September 23, 2007; and whether we are talking about the same investigation by the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility is highly unlikely. Only a very limited number of individuals even know about this investigation into public corruption within the Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s Office. This investigation was prompted by private citizens in Minnesota, who were victims of the public corruption, and began contacting Senator Norm Coleman’s office and the Department of Justice in the spring of this year. In fact, the victims first contacted Coleman’s office requesting an investigation by the DOJ in 2005.
Only a very limited number of individuals even know about this investigation into public corruption within the Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s Office
And your source is….?
Ok, how about some description of the alleged “public corruption” involved, since you’re one of the “very limited number of individuals [who] even know about” it….
Dear pkbrandon:
My source is me. I, along with another victim of the public corruption, contacted the Department of Justice and Norm Coleman’s office. On June 21, 2007, I received written confirmation from the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility that the allegations were being investigated. Interestingly, the date of the letter corresponded with the date of the article written by Jake Sherman for the Star Tribune regarding Heffelfinger attending a meeting at the Justice Department. The letter was signed by the fourth in command in the Office of Professional Responsibility.
May I ask who you are, and what your interest may be in this U.S. Attorney’s Office matter? I was rather surprised anyone even responded to my first posting. Now, I am even more surprised you responded so quickly to my response to you. Please enlighten me.