The U.S. Justice Department again showed how its protects its own in scandals involving government lawyers. The DOJ has long been notorious in refusing to seriously punish its own lawyers for wrongdoing while pushing the legal envelope on criminal charges against others. The slightest discrepancy in testimony or omission in reporting can bring a criminal charge from the DOJ. The DOJ is particularly keen in finding intentional violations or substitute for intent in federal rules — bending laws to the breaking point to secure indictments. However, when its attorneys are accused of facilitating torture or lying to the court or withholding evidence, the general response is a long investigation and then a slap on the wrist. This week is no exception. Waiting until late Thursday to inform Congress to guarantee a low media coverage, the DOJ announced that it had found no intentional violations by its attorneys in the failed prosecution of U.S. Senator Ted Stevens — despite the contrary finding made by an independent investigation. Instead, the investigation again offered rhetorical punishment as a substitute for true punishment — declaring that the attorneys were only guilty of “reckless professional misconduct.” As a result, Joseph Bottini will be suspended for only 40 days and James Goeke will be suspended for 15 days. Even that level of punishment is viewed as noteworthy for the DOJ given its prior history of whitewashing misconduct by its attorneys. Even the finding of misconduct and brief suspension was contested within the department by Terrence Berg, a lawyer with the department’s Professional Misconduct Review Unit.
Prosecutors brought charges against Stevens for concealing gifts on financial disclosure forms. However, they concealed evidence like conflicting statements by witnesses that was obviously supposed to be turned over to the defense. The special prosecutor found that Mr. Bottini and Mr. Goeke had intentionally withheld evidence. However, the DOJ wiped away the finding and found effectively negligence.
For civil libertarians, it brings back to mind the slap on the wrist given Judge Jay Bybee and Professor John Yoo for their roles in the Bush torture program. They just showed “poor judgment” in misrepresenting the governing law on torture and ratifying a policy of torture. Other notorious DOJ lawyers like Monica Goodling or former Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson were never charged over their actions and testimony vis-a-vis the hiring scandals of the Bush Administration.
Many of us in practice were shocked by the earlier decision that the DOJ lawyer could not be charged with contempt because they were not directly ordered to comply with legal and ethical rules. Most of us assumed that we are always required to comply with such rules, but it left the impression that DOJ attorneys have to be specifically ordered to act in a reasonable and ethical way.
I have litigated against the Justice Department for years and I have many friends and people who I respect in that department. However, I have also run across DOJ attorneys who routinely misrepresent and withhold evidence with impunity. There is a clear sense that they are untouchable and it is a common complaint that judges often shy away from sanctioning the government for misconduct. Once again, I have had cases with some of the best at the department — lawyers who act ethically and civilly out of their personal commitment to the bar and the profession. However, the department as a whole has a checkered history in dealing with its own violations — and this is a good example of the problem.
I cannot see how anyone could withhold this evidence without realizing that they were violating core obligations in a criminal case. I am not sure which is a greater indictment — the notion of an intentional withholding of evidence or a culture that made the attorneys believe it was alright to withhold the evidence. What is clear (as made evident by the celebration of the defense counsel for the lawyers this week) is that the report sends another message to DOJ attorneys that the department will protect them in even the most obvious violations of legal and ethical rules.
The DOJ’s timing of the release of the report just before the Memorial weekend speaks volumes about its view of the investigation and public. The Department often releases stories on Thursday nights to hit the low coverage window of the end of the week. It decided after years to release the report just before Memorial Weekend to further avoid any public scrutiny or backlash. It was the perfect closing moment for the investigation — a largely rhetorical punishment announced in a whisper by the department.
I have always loved the fact that the Justice Department is unsure of the meaning of the motto on its seal Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur. It appears to refer to the Attorney General as the person “who prosecutes on behalf of justice.” Cases like this one may offer a more clear understanding of what it means to work “on behalf of Justice.”
Source: NY Times
home cellulite treatment
Fabulous, what a web site it is! This webpage gives useful information to us, keep
it up.
—————–
Screw you. Game over. And who exactly are us? Do you have mice in your pocket?
“Ford was not an elected president. He was appointed by Nixon after Agnew resigned. Then Nixon resigned.” -Matt Johnson
And your point, Matt?
What is a “loyalist?” -Matt
Gee, Matt… why don’t you ask Ford? Oh, golly gee, you can’t. He’s dead. Well, I’m sure you’ll figure it out.
anon nurse,
I saw a documentary about William Colby over the weekend. Bob Woodward spoke about Ford’s decision to replace Colby with George Bush, Sr., as director of the CIA. When asked why he had chosen Bush, in lieu of Colby (who apparently a certain degree “of fidelity to the law and Constitution”, Ford’s response was that Bush was “a loyalist.” When asked about “other loyalists”, the following was Ford’s short (but telling) list:
Rumsfeld, Cheney, Kissinger, and Greenspan
==========================================================
Ford was not an elected president. He was appointed by Nixon after Agnew resigned. Then Nixon resigned.
What is a “loyalist?”
Another interview with Charles Ferguson:
AlterNet Executive Editor Don Hazen talks to Ferguson, the Academy Award winner for “Inside Job,” about his new book on the rapid rise of “Oligarchy America.”
May 29, 2012
Charles Ferguson has followed up his Academy Award-winning documentary film Inside Job, with a hot potato of a new book: Predator Nation: Corporate Criminals, Political Corruption, and the Hijacking of America (Crown Business).
http://www.alternet.org/story/155643
Sovereign immunity and the related immunities enjoyed by public officials are a serious problem however everyone should be aware that corporations have worked long and hard and spent billions on lobbying and political contributions to create what can fairly be termed “corporate immunity”. This immunity extends not only to the actions of the corporation as corporation but also to the CEOs who run them. Corporations are virtually free to commit massive fraud, poison our waters and air, sell products that hurt and maim and breach contracts with their workers and others yet they rarely have to pay the price of these wrongful acts.
No one should be above the law.
anon nurse,
Your post on Ferguson and the financial crimes isn’t off topic. It’s completely of a piece with this nation’s lack of the rule of law. Interestingly, I find more people who are willing to speak out, taking courageous stances, insisting on the rule of law, in of all places, the financial industry.
Writers and posters on the blog naked capitalism speak out every day about the criminality of this govt.. They will show what that criminality is doing to our society.
I have found most so called “left” wing groups and people to be utterly corrupted and/or mute in the face of any crime this govt. wishes to commit. This has been devastating as wide spread opposition to injustice has evaporated in favor of “winning” elections. If people in this and other nations suffer, if one’s entire social fabric is torn asunder so that “lefties” can “win”, that’s just fine with “lefties”.
Principled opposition is actually coming from the business community. Many people here understand on a practical level that a society doesn’t function well without the rule of law. Crony capitalism is destructive towards commerce. They will openly say that and they will show why it doesn’t work. We need more voices to take on financial, war, and surveillance/police state injustice in this society.
People with power are untouchable. That is the sign of the rule of men, not the rule of law. -Jill
The covert, domestic program of which I’m aware could not exist in a country in which “the rule of law” has meaning and value. What we have is a case of powerful people doing some reckless, dangerous and truly terrible things, but the program remains under wraps. Left unchecked and unexposed, it doesn’t bode well for this country of ours.
I saw a documentary about William Colby over the weekend. Bob Woodward spoke about Ford’s decision to replace Colby with George Bush, Sr., as director of the CIA. When asked why he had chosen Bush, in lieu of Colby (who apparently a certain degree “of fidelity to the law and Constitution”, Ford’s response was that Bush was “a loyalist.” When asked about “other loyalists”, the following was Ford’s short (but telling) list:
Rumsfeld, Cheney, Kissinger, and Greenspan
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/29/inside_job_director_charles_ferguson_wall (Charles Ferguson on his new book, “Predator Nation: Corporate Criminals, Political Corruption, and the Hijacking of America” )
OT:
““Inside Job,” Charles Ferguson’s Oscar-winning documentary film on how government, Wall Street and academia colluded to deliver us the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, made a powerful case that something was very very rotten at the heart of the American political/economic nexus. His follow-up book, “Predator Nation: Corporate Criminals, Political Corruption, and the Hijacking of America””…
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/18/corporate_criminals_gone_wild/
Friday, May 18, 2012
Corporate criminals gone wild
The maker of the documentary film “Inside Job” has a new book excoriating Wall Street — and President Obama
By Andrew Leonard
Excerpts:
“Inside Job,” Charles Ferguson’s Oscar-winning documentary film on how government, Wall Street and academia colluded to deliver us the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, made a powerful case that something was very very rotten at the heart of the American political/economic nexus. His follow-up book, “Predator Nation: Corporate Criminals, Political Corruption, and the Hijacking of America,” can be considered the legal brief that dots every “i” and crosses every “t” in his argument. A tightly argued, profusely footnoted and deeply enraged castigation of everyone involved, “Predator Nation” isn’t just a factually unchallengeable account of how Wall Street blew up the global economy. It’s a denunciation, a call for justice and a warning: After getting away with the crime of the century, Wall Street still isn’t satisfied.
…
“Predator Nation” is an angry book. Were you this angry before you started making the film “Inside Job”?
No, I absolutely was not. I remember the first time I got any kind of inkling of what was to come was in August or September 2007, when Charley Morris sent me a copy of a galley proof of his book, “The Trillion Dollar Meltdown.” It was scary and powerful, but I couldn’t bring myself to believe it. I remember calling Charley and saying, “You lay out a very convincing case but really, these people aren’t that crazy, they aren’t that stupid. They are regulated. Can it really be this bad?”
And he said: “You just wait.” And boy, he was right.
It’s not that I thought that investment bankers were like Mother Teresa. I knew that they weren’t. But the degree of nakedness and extremity of the dishonesty and its pervasiveness was a huge shock to me. It turned out that many banks, on a very large scale, and without any disclosure, had created and sold securities with the intent of betting on their failure. And this was done with the knowledge and approval of senior management of all these banks, including the oldest and most traditional.
How do you explain this behavior? How did we get to a point where it was routine for Wall Street bankers to behave in ways that most Americans would consider frankly immoral?
I think this has its roots all the way back in the 1970s and the beginning of the era of deregulation. But there was a kind of inflection point during the five-year period between 1997 and 2003 — the late Clinton and/or early Bush administration — when all the rules just went away. You went from a period, a regime, where people did have at least some concern about going to jail, to a point where everything is legal, and derivatives couldn’t be regulated at all and nobody went to jail for anything. And looking back I would say that this period definitely started under Clinton. You absolutely cannot blame this on George W. Bush. (end of excerpts)