We previously discussed the controversy surrounding Rachael Rollins, the former U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts nominated by President Biden who was implicated in alleged criminal and unethical conduct. The case presented a glaring contrast to how the Justice Department treats its own officials accused of crimes in comparison to less favored individuals. Now, Rollins has been stripped of her bar license based on the same conduct.
Rollins was a figure lionized by the media and many Democrats in Congress. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) heralded Rollins as the ideal U.S. Attorney. Despite her position in Massachusetts, Los Angeles Times’ editorial board dedicated a long editorial to proclaiming Rollins as
“among President Biden’s smartest appointments, and if her nomination is finally approved in the Senate she would become the top federal prosecutor in Massachusetts, handling cases involving national security, white-collar crime, public corruption, cybercrime, gang violence and civil rights violations. Biden’s nomination of Rollins, while hardly radical, represents a threat to the Republican narrative about Democrats and crime, as do Boston’s enviable crime stats … The point is that when GOP senators claim that Rollins’ policies increase crime, they’re just making things up to justify blocking one of the nation’s most successful criminal justice leaders.”
Rollins later resigned from office after investigators uncovered evidence that she had lied to them, a federal crime commonly charged against others.
The OIG released detailed findings against Rollins for allegedly seeking to influence a Suffolk County, Mass., district attorney election last year. She also was accused by the OIG of lying under oath during an investigation into the matter. The report states that “on December 16, 2022, pursuant to the Inspector General Act, 5 U.S.C. § 404(d), the OIG referred the false statements allegation to the Department for a prosecutive decision. On January 6, 2023, the Department informed the OIG that it declined prosecution.”
According to the OIG, Rollins sought to help Boston City Councilman Ricardo Arroyo in the Democratic primary for Suffolk’s district attorney by providing derogatory information to the Boston Globe and Boston Herald regarding his opponent, then-interim D.A. Kevin Hayden. The OIG said the information included “non-public, sensitive” DOJ material that Rollins acquired as a result of her federal position. The material suggested that Hayden was being investigated for public corruption.
The OIG further found that Rollins leaked more material after Arroyo lost to Hayden.
The OIG accused Rollins of violating a host of Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, including Section 2635.702 (the use “of public office for private gain”) and Section 2635.703 (the use “of nonpublic information”).
The most serious charge was that Rollins “falsely testified under oath … when she denied” providing the non-public information to the Herald reporter.
The investigation also found an array of other violations, including disregarding ethical warnings on political activities and soliciting expensive sports tickets.
What is most striking about the OIG report is that Rollins took some of these steps after barely being confirmed by the U.S. Senate because questions were raised over her judgment and partisanship. Rollins was confirmed in 2021 after Vice President Kamala Harris cast a tie-breaking vote due to all 50 Republican senators opposing her nomination. Every Democratic senator voted for her despite the concerns, including a video from January 2021 in which she threatened the arrest of reporters.
The DOJ’s declination of charges follows a similar pattern that suggests a higher threshold standard applied by prosecutors in charging one of their own.
Conversely, this is the same department that pursued figures like Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn for false or misleading comments made to agents about a meeting with Russian diplomats. The media heralded that case, and legal experts clamored for prosecution.
With Rollins, after an investigation found that she lied to investigators, the DOJ refused to file any charges at all. It is unclear what the DOJ felt was lacking in those findings or the underlying evidence. However, as shown by prior declinations — in cases like the contempt referral against former Attorney General Eric Holder, or the determination that former FBI Director James Comey removed FBI material and, through a friend, leaked it to the media — the Justice Department often seems to find insurmountable problems when asked to charge a fellow prosecutor or investigator
The Rollins case showed a sense of total license to ignore criminal and ethical rules. She even was accused of giving Arroyo advice on how to handle the sexual assault allegations brought against him during his campaign and also provided media outlets with “negative information” about his challenger, Kevin Hayden. She was overtly political and used her office to advance favored candidates.
If the past is any indication, most of the media would not delve too deeply into such contradictions if Trump is charged. And selective prosecution complaints are notoriously difficult to litigate. Even if the Justice Department did not secure a favorable judge for such a case, most judges are leery of adjudicating claims of motivation and bias.
With the recent pass given President Joe Biden on his serial violation of mishandling classified material, the Rollins case reinforces the view of many that the Justice Department continues to apply our laws in strikingly different ways for similarly situated defendants. Ironically, the sense of license displayed by Rollins proved correct. When it comes to favored individuals, the blindfolds appear off at Justice.
Letticia James, AG, NY also has violated her ethical code for attorneys by constantly talking about Trump outside the courtroom. This is a violation of the Ethical Canon, she too should be prrosecuted.
Another criminal, woke racist bites the proverbial watermelon!
Arbitrary enforcement seems to be the phrase of the day.
DOJ favors Dems and throws the book at Republicans? This is my shocked face.
Turley’s Focus On Dubious Blacks Omits Mark Robinson
Yesterday Professor Turley told us about Kayla Aliese Carter, a young woman less-than-serious about her job as a diversity officer. Today Turley writes about Rachel Rollins, an ex-U.S. Attorney, and Fani Willis, the embattled D.A. All three of these women are Black; which arguably makes this ‘Dubious Black Women Week’ on Turley’s blog.
But there’s a Black man Turley hasn’t written about who warrants attention. Mark Robinson is Donald Trump’s hand-picked candidate for Governor of North Carolina. Below are excerpts from a recent Roll Call piece describing Robinson’s long history of radioactive controversies.
***
A lot of people now know about Mark Robinson, the Republican candidate for governor in North Carolina. Some national and international outsiders looking in were shocked at his Super Tuesday win.
So, what exactly has Robinson said to make national media finally notice? Take your pick, since the list of racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic comments and personal insults is long.
The civil rights movement that provided the path for Robinson, a Black man, to rise to his current post of lieutenant governor? He has said it was “crap.”
Women? Robinson’s message to a North Carolina church was that Christians were “called to be led by men,” that God sent Moses to lead the Israelites. “Not Momma Moses,” he said. “Daddy Moses.”
Robinson reserves especially toxic rhetoric for members of the LGBTQ community, unapologetically, and often in sermons.
And though Robinson has tried to clean up his record with a trip to Israel, the Hitler-quoting candidate wrote in 2018 on Facebook: “This foolishness about Hitler disarming MILLIONS of Jews and then marching them off to concentration camps is a bunch of hogwash.”
https://rollcall.com/2024/03/14/if-mark-robinson-is-your-standard-bearer-you-might-reexamine-your-standards/
Remember Trump’s endorsement of Herschel Walker in the Georgia senate race? Republicans would prefer to forget it. Walker was Trump’s kind of Black guy. But Walker was woefully unprepared for the scrutiny a senate race would bring.
Yet Mark Robinson promises to make Herschel Walker look like a polished dignitary when this gubernatorial contest gets totally underway.
Another Dubious Trump Pick: Bernie Moreno -Ohio
Bernie Moreno is Donald Trump’s hand-picked candidate to challenge the Ohio U.S. Senate seat held by Democrat Sherrod Brown.
Moreno, an immigrant from Columbia, built a chain of car dealerships. He was formally an advocate of LGBTQ rights. But now Moreno features himself as an upright MAGA type disapproving of gays and gay-related deviates.
However Moreno’s past support of gays has suddenly come to light, creating an awkward situation for Ohio Republicans.
Unsaid is their resentment of Trump for meddling in their primary contest.
https://apnews.com/article/ohio-senate-election-2024-bernie-moreno-09e34f6331708c192c89d7c1727c2458
I like what I have seen of Mark Robinson, because I see him as an authentic black man, not some race-traitor like Jim Clyburn or Maxine Waters. You can fix his misinformed opinions, because he is not in the pay of the DNC. I like Mark Robinson for the same reason I like Jimmy Dore. Dore is downright ignorant about a lot of things, but he is authentic. And he is capable of learning.
“So, what exactly has Robinson said to make national media finally notice? Take your pick, since the list of racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic comments and personal insults is long.”
************************
When all your charges are conclusory statements without even one example of proof you’re either a woeful student of reasoning or a Dimocrat. Sort of the same thing.
The singular American failure has been and remains the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
Separation of Church and State.
Fani Willis plays the race card and begs for “grace” in church.
Who still listens to these people?
“If he’s false, she’s false.”
– Professor Turley
As the quality of America’s population keeps trending down, things that make no sense keep moving forward as if they make sense when they clearly wrong headed.
All I can hope is these three prosecutors and their legal supporters get disbarred, and we have reached “peak insanity” of Affirmative Action and it goes back in the dumpster where it belongs.
Jonathan: Sorry to break in but the verdict is in. Judge McAfee just ruled that he will not disqualify DA Fani Willis. McAfee gave Willis two choices. Either resign from the case or get Nathan Wade to resign or be fired. I expect we will see Wade resign in short order.
McAfee found the defendants did not meet their burden of showing Willis’s personal relationship with Wade amounted to a conflict of interest. McAfee found Willis to be credible in her testimony that her personal relationship with Wade did not interfere in her prosecution of her case against DJT and the other defendants. This pretty much puts to rest your claims in a previous column (3/6/24) the “she [Willis] could find herself ‘on trial’ as the allegations mount against her and her lead prosecutor”. Willis was never “on trial”!
Willis should read McAfee’s decision carefully. He did not give her a free pass. The lesson for Willis? Never get involved in a personal relationship with someone you work with closely on a daily basis. It can only expose you to outside criticism and an opportunity for defendants to raise all sorts of extraneous issues that have no bearing on your case.
So what happens next? Willis will appoint another experienced prosecutor to handle the case. Hopefully, Judge McAfee will set a trial date shortly and the case will move forward in an orderly fashion.
“Willis will appoint another experienced prosecutor . . .”
Maybe one with actual experience — and a moral compass.
But she’ll never get the chance. She’s a dead cat bouncing.
So, meanwhile, Fani gets to stay, because, ‘Trump’? Anyone with a brain can see what’s going on here, and we can only expect a regime like the DNC to behave like a regime at this point. If it weren’t for the florid prose they dress up their malfeasance in, our modern dems would absolutely be the old fascist guard or even the National Front. How much longer before even that veneer slips? It cracks me up that dem voters still think they are on the side of what is right and just. This is all just despicable, but my all means, ‘vote blue no matter who’, turnips.
With respect to the McAfee decision.
Trump should be celebrating.
McAfeee did him a favor – the trial has been delayed significantly – Willis still faces multiple investigations, impeachment as well as the the GA prosectorial integrity board which as of yesterday was reauthorized to investigate and remove her.
She is going to be proceeding very slowly. This case is essentially dead regardless.
But even more importantly Trump once again appears to be persecuted by a corrupt and biased system.
Outside the MSM people grasp that Willis likely obstructed justice, lied under oath, lied to the court in pleadings, received kickbacks from Wade, and misapproriated Federal Funds.
Yesterday McAfee tossed the most serious charges – because they were not crimes. While Willis can get those back – it will take months to do so – and that presumes that she can cite a specific oath of office and a specific portion of that oath of office that Trump allegedly tried to induce state officials to violate.
The left rants that the RICO charges remain – but that is like celebrating because the conspiracy charges remain after the underlying crime has been dismissed. Racketeering – like conspiracy can only exist when there is an underlying crime.
Regardless, to anyone familiar with the Facts – the McAfee decision stinks to high heaven.
And that is GOOD for Trump. Trump is campaigning that he is being politically persecuted by corrupt democrats and biased judges,
and McAfee just added proof.
One of the things those on the left do not understand is that they not only need to successfully convict Trump, but they have to persuade voters that is was done fairly. Otherwise they are pushing voters TOWARDS Trump, not away from him.
John Say, I really do enjoy your comments and I, naturally, agree with them almost all of the time. However, you were adamant that Fani would get bounced and of course she didn’t. At least not yet. You use cogent legal analysis but you forget to mix in Democrat corruption and shamelessness. In a fair world she would be bounced, as she might be eventually, but the Dems don’t play fair and of course we live in DOUBLESTANDARDSTAN.
She was effectively bkunced
HullBobby,
DOUBLESTANDARDSTAN.
Ya got that right.
The weakest part of the opinion was his dismissal of Bradley’s texts, Yeartie’s testimony and the cell phone data. All to avoid concluding that Wade and Willis both lied about when the relationship began. If he had concluded they lied, he would have had to disqualify both of them on the basis of forensic misconduct (separate from actual conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest). Thus is what Steven Sadow argued very effectively on behalf of Trump.
Daniel,
Thank you for that short, concise analysis.
Daniel: Agree with you. I have never appeared before a GA court, but regarding the alleged lying under oath: I believe (like in most states-and federal, I think) this is a severable issue/allegation that could have been held back, (either sua sponte or upon a party’s motion for abeyance/to be held in abeyance) until the presentment of more probative evidence that would warrant a finding on the issue.
I did not read the Order, but I think he left the door open for parties to amend their pleadings? In other words, even if an option for amended pleadings is available, I still think he could have sent a stronger message by simply stating that he was reserving ruling on that issue pending further development in pleadings and evidence…that would have sent an unequivocal message to Fani, et al, leaving them shaking in their boots instead of her office bragging that she prevailed.
(oops. I DID appear before a Georgia court once…going 80+ on my way to FL. very embarrassing.)
John Say,
That is a different way to look at it.
And I think you are mostly right.
Yes, we watched Miss Fani’s circus show of *actual crimes and corruption* with our own eyes and ears…
and the judge allows HER to continue prosecuting Biden’s political enemies for what she herself just got away with…
Oh but for sure we should absolutely trust those elections down in Georgia are totally legitimate.
also, will Nathan Wade be required to return the nearly one $$ million dollars he was paid by his lover DA Fani?
Maybe Willis can get the Grand Jury Foreman to fly in on her broom and help her get back the charges that Judge McAfee threw out.
“If he’s false, she’s false.”
– Professor Turley
____________________
The United States of Corruption in Barack Obama’s Banana Republic.
Separation of Church and State.
Fani Willis plays the race card and begs for “grace” in church.
Who still listens to these people.
Fani Willis’ conduct was improper so she must…fire the man. Another chapter in my book, Life in Doublestandardstan.