Sand Rant

Reasonable Doubt – Politicization and Unintended Consequences for the DOJ

Before I get started, I want to give my Senator, Mark Pryor a shout out for the guy that was the first to open the door and smell a rat at the DOJ.  I also want to thank Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, whose gratitude and fervent need to reward Tim Griffin for his good “caging” work brought them to the decision that Tim should get to go home and serve as the USA in the Eastern District of Arkansas. A decision they no doubt regret today.
 
Karl Rove’s master plan to transform the DOJ into a cloaked Borg of one minded political soldiers that would do the political/retribution/vote suppression dirty work for this Administration and/or the Republican Party for years to come has destroyed any credibility of any case the Government may bring against any person or group that has any political ties. Richard B. Schmitt at the LA Times earlier this week says it so much better than I;

Defense lawyers in a growing number of cases are raising questions about the motives of government lawyers who have brought charges against their clients. In court papers, they are citing the furor over the U.S. attorney dismissals as evidence that their cases may have been infected by politics.

Missouri lawyers have invoked the controversy in challenging last year’s indictment of a company owned by a prominent Democrat, on suspicion of violating federal wage and hour laws. The indictment, which came two months after the owner announced that she was running for political office, was obtained by a Republican U.S. attorney who also has been criticized because he charged workers for a left-leaning political group on the eve of the 2006 midterm election.

….

B. Todd Jones, a former U.S. attorney in Minneapolis, said such arguments are now “given credence in the public eye because they are seeing that maybe there were political decisions made. Any defense lawyer worth their salt is going to say this is a political prosecution that shouldn’t have been brought.”

Yes, that’s Bradley J. Schlozman…working, working, working.

And what did the DOJ expect, that the actions of USA’s across this country wouldn’t be questioned? Let’s start with the most egregious offender, the above mentioned and eminently qualified Bradley J. Schlozman’s and his actions in Missouri. First, the President and Alberto Gonzales slips Schlozman into Missouri as the very first USA to be a “temp” under that little then unknown provision in the Patriot Act…before the ink is dry on the bill.. And what did Schlozman bring to the table?  Nothing! Mr. Schlozman has never prosecuted a civil or criminal case in his lifetime. Gives you great confidence in our Government that a guy who has no prosecutorial experience gets to be a U.S. Attorney doesn’t’ it? So why was Scholzman there?

Well, let’s start with the Talent/McCaskill Senate race in ‘04. Rove identified Talent’s seat and Missouri as a must keep. McCaskill was polling well and how was Rove going to keep more of the independents and the soft R’s from crossing the isle and vote for the Democrat. Let’s see, indict the evil leaning democratic voter registration group ACORN right before the election? Bingo. But there was a problem, the US Attorney; Todd Graves wouldn’t sign off on that indictment.

Murray Wass reported; 

In the case involving ACORN, Hearne had urged the Justice Department long before the election to investigate the activist organization and similar groups that registered Democrats. When Hearne came to believe that the U.S. attorney for western Missouri, Todd Graves, was not taking seriously allegations that ACORN workers were registering people who did not qualify to vote, he took his complaints to senior officials in Justice’s Civil Rights Division and to the White House, according to a former Justice official and a private attorney who worked with Hearne. The private attorney said in an interview that Hearne boasted to him about having discussions with administration officials who wanted Graves replaced.

What to do? Throw Graves to the curb and bring in the best Republican political animal (snark intended) Bradley J. Schlozmam to do the deed. Schlozman’s qualifications for this assignment;

 Schlozman ordered supervisors to tell the women that they had performance problems or that the office was overstaffed. But one lawyer, Conor Dugan, told colleagues that the recent Bush appointee had confided that his real motive was to “make room for some good Americans” in that high-impact office, according to four lawyers who said they heard the account from Dugan.
In another politically tinged conversation recounted by former colleagues, Schlozman asked a supervisor if a career lawyer who had voted for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a onetime political rival of President Bush, could still be trusted.

Apparently, Schlozman has no problem with lying or bending department policies, or blind sighting careers because the ends justify the means with Bradley.

So, in March of ‘04, Schlozman quietly moves into the USA’s office where Rove has put the chess pieces in place, the plan to suppress the independent and soft R vote in Missouri by indicting ACORN accusing them of voter fraud. Not bad, suppress the vote by accusing others of voter fraud. April, May, June, July, August and September lumber on, but the ACORN indictment would have little affect on the elections if they were indicted in the summer months…too much time for the temprate voters to forget. Nope, we’re waiting until 5 days before the election…bam!!!

For those of you who got to watch Schlozman v Leahy on the timing of the ACORN indictment, I’ll let you relive it right here;

But as Leahy continued to question Schlozman on the case, it was clear that the senator was becoming increasingly angry with, even condescending to, Schlozman. “Why didn’t you just wait a couple weeks more? Wasn’t it obvious to you … that just the bringing of the charges could have had an effect on the election?” Leahy asked. And when Schlozman responded that he felt the indictments would have no effect on the election and that no person would be disenfranchised, Leahy quipped, “That’s not my question at all, Mr. Schlozman, and you know it.” “I didn’t think it was going to have any effect on the election at all, no, Senator,” Schlozman clarified, prompting Leahy to exclaim, “Amazing!”
Finally, when Schlozman asserted that “the Department of Justice does not time prosecutions to elections,” Leahy outright yelled at him in response.
“Yes, they do!” Leahy said. “That’s what the manual says, and you — rather reluctantly, I felt — admitted that you read it.”

The ringing of Leahy yelling still sweetly resonates doesn’t it?

I could go on with the Wisconsin case and many other questionable politically motivated cases that have the stink of Rove all over them.  But, I digress, back to the Unintended Consequences and the DOJ’s serious problem with reasonable doubt; I’ll let the LA Times continue to help here;

The controversy may also be feeding anti-government feelings that many jurors bring to cases, even when defense lawyers do not overtly try to exploit the situation.

“It has become part of the background that jurors have in their minds when they deliberate,” said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), a former assistant U.S. attorney. “Jurors will think, ‘Gee, is there a political motivation for this? Is it being brought because the U.S. attorney wants to curry favor with the attorney general and keep his job?’ Corruption cases are tough enough to prosecute without having to defend yourself against attack.”

The jury pool has a bad taste in their mouths and there will be no way to get this cat back in the bag for the DOJ. Any case that has any political undertones will be able to use the “is this political” question, will juries stand for that, probably not. The Unintentional Consequences are that those innocent victims of a political hit have yet one more defense, those that are guilty, will also get to use that defense. The days of prosecuting white collar corruption, that has any political ties or undertones, from large contributors to political parties, candidates or cause, as well as elected officials (see Congressman Jefferson) will be crippled by the intentional politicization of the DOJ. What was once our first line of defense against political corruption may be toothless for decades.