More evidence---very much like all the other evidence---that for certain officials of this Administration, "justice" = "just us (and the people we like)." Even Newt Gingrich thinks Gonzalez ought to go.
Meanwhile, the Democrats and Arlen Specter (Ethical Republican) haven't been able to shame Gonzalez into going. It's beginning to look as if the only way to get rid of him is through impeachment.
This story in The Washington Post suggests that the DoJ pressured a U.S. attorney (whose name subsequently appeared on one of those lists they were always making) to hold off on a plea agreement he was negotiating with Purdue Pharma.
The night before the government secured a guilty plea from the manufacturer of the addictive painkiller OxyContin, a senior Justice Department official called the U.S. attorney handling the case and, at the behest of an executive for the drugmaker, urged him to slow down, the prosecutor told the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday.
John L. Brownlee, the U.S. attorney in Roanoke, testified that he was at home the evening of Oct. 24 when he received the call on his cellphone from Michael J. Elston, then chief of staff to the deputy attorney general and one of the Justice aides involved in the removal of nine U.S. attorneys last year.
Brownlee settled the case anyway. Eight days later, his name appeared on a list compiled by Elston of prosecutors that officials had suggested be fired.... Brownlee ultimately kept his job. (Washington Post; links in original).
Mr. Elston, who made the call, did not. Mr. Elston, you may or may not remember, announced his resignation on or around June 15 after some unpleasantness surrounding his alleged propensity to make lists and---allegedly---to call up fired prosecutors to let them know they might suffer retaliation if they spoke publicly about their firings .(Washington Post.)
At the time Elston made the call to Brownlee, Brownlee had authorization from the head of the criminal division to execute the plea agreement. (Washington Post.)
But whose idea was it for Elston to call Brownlee? When Brownlee received the call from Elston suggesting that he "slow down," Brownlee asked him if he was acting on behalf of the deputy attorney general Paul McNulty. Elston said no. Brownlee then told Eston to go away "and he did" (Washington Post). Elston's attorney is now saying that he did in fact call at the direction of McNulty, and that McNulty had intervened at the request of Purdue's defense attorney, who made an eleventh hour appeal for more time (Washington Post).
Anyway, former prosecutors are saying---and this is I don't doubt---" that defense attorneys routinely try to appeal to high-ranking department officials in an effort to derail prosecutions." (Washington Post).
Two former Justice Department officials from Democratic administrations and one from a Republican administration said that headquarters officials sometimes called U.S. attorneys' offices to relay concerns from defense lawyers, particularly in sensitive cases where defendants had made elaborate presentations to avert indictment. Two weeks before the plea agreement, lawyers for Purdue Pharma and the former executives met with criminal division officials, including a McNulty aide, people involved in the case said (Washington Post)..
This is the part---which I also don't doubt---that makes me raise an eyebrow: "Justice Department officials said it was not unusual for senior members to weigh in on major criminal cases, and a spokesman, Dean Boyd, said the department "encourages healthy internal debate and discussion on complex cases like this one.""(Washington Post) Well, you wouldn't want a pharmaceutical company not to have the benefit of healthy internal debate, would you? Probably I'm just being cynical to think that there would be less weighing in on behalf of the defendant in a case involving, say, a drug dealer who wasn't a pharmaceutical company.
After all, this was a very serious case indeed.
The manufacturer of the potent painkiller OxyContin and three current and former executives at the company yesterday pleaded guilty to falsely marketing the drug in a way that played down its addictive properties and led to scores of people becoming addicted, prosecutors said.
The Purdue Frederick Co. and its chief executive, top lawyer, and former medical chief agreed to pay a total of $635 million to resolve charges filed by the U.S. attorney in the Western District of Virginia, who called OxyContin "one of our nation's greatest prescription-drug failures."
"Even in the face of warnings from health-care professionals, the media and members of its own sales force . . . Purdue continued to push a fraudulent marketing campaign," U.S. Attorney John L. Brownlee said....
In a 2002 report, the Drug Enforcement Administration traced 142 deaths to OxyContin overdose and said the drug contributed to another 318 fatalities. The DEA said the number of deaths related to the substance rose 400 percent from 1996 to 2001.
Under the terms of the plea deal, Purdue pleaded guilty to a single felony count and agreed to pay $470 million to the government and $130 million more to settle civil claims over injuries and deaths. Virginia will receive nearly $5.3 million to fund health-care fraud investigations and $20 million to fund a prescription drug monitoring program. (Washington Post; links in original)
142 people? Damn, that sounds pretty bad to me, and that's just the number of people who actually died as a result of overdose. What price the war on drugs now? Or don't we care when it's corporations who are pushing highly addictive painkillers?
Of course, the people whose relatives are among the dead who overdosed on oxycontin care.
Q. Why do you blame Purdue Pharma for the OXYCONTIN epidemic?
A. The trail of addiction and death due to the Oxycontin epidemic was fueled by the over prescribing and easy street access to this powerful narcotic. Instead of acknowledging the problem, Purdue denied it, as they aggressively marketed this powerful narcotic to general practitioners for moderate pain. They downplayed the risks and exaggerated the benefits; however, they were not selling widgets, but a powerful drug that almost always causes addiction that often leads to death (OXYAbuseKills.com)
If you're interested, their site
lists examples of alleged wrongdoing by Purdue Pharma "documented in
newspapers, magazines, television, and the book, Painkiller, by New
York Times journalist Barry Meier." (And speaking of Barry Meier, this article is fraught with interest).
I don't want to jump to conclusions, but here are some of the allegations currentl before us:
- Brownlee had authority to execute a plea agreement in a case against a pharmaceutical company involving the death of over 140 people.
- He was telephoned by Elston the night before. Elston, who asked him to slow down, allegedly leaned on other U.S. attorneys who failed to dance to the DoJ's tune.
- Brownlee's name subsequently appeared on one of Elston's lists.
- The case ended with Purdue Pharma apparently losing "90 percent of the profits it initially made from the drug." (Barry Meier) (In fact, some people (including the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter) apparently think the terms of the settlement were too lenient.(Washington Post))
Anyway, setting aside the particulars of the Oxycontin case, this latest revelation isn't going to do Gonzalez any good, though at the same time it's not clear to me that it's going to do him any harm. When you think about it, it's hard to see how the case against him could be much worse. In a July 25 column, WaPo's Dana Milbank quotes Specter (a Republican like they used to make 'em) as follows:
"The department is dysfunctional. . . . Every week a new issue arises. . . . That is just decimating, Mr. Attorney General. . . . The list goes on and on. . . . Is your department functioning? . . . What credibility is left for you? . . . Do you expect us to believe that? . . . Your credibility has been breached to the point of being actionable."
And that was just from the top Republican on the committee, Arlen Specter (Pa.). Democrats had to scramble to keep up with the ranking member's contempt. (Dana Milbank)
And yet he's still hanging on. even though Newt Gingrich thinks he should go. "[T]he scandal-ridden Gonzales has the support of the only person who matters -- President Bush -- and that allowed him to be as contemptuous as he was contemptible. To Leahy: "I think you've misunderstood my response." To Specter: "I'm not going to answer this question." To Dick Durbin (D-Ill.): "I'm not going to get in a public discussion here."" (Dana Milbank)
He's not going to go unless he's pushed out. Some Democrats are now discussing whether this could be arranged.
Those who are defending the attorney general are parsing their words carefully. Vice President Cheney, while telling CNN's Larry King of his "high regard" for Gonzales, said he wouldn't "get into the specifics with respect to his testimony."... Only when the question of impeachment was raised did White House officials find a voice. President Bush's press secretary, Tony Snow, yesterday accused Inslee and his co-conspirators of "a race to be the most toxic."
When it comes to toxicity, however, Inslee is not one of the usual culprits. His list of co-sponsors is relatively free of the usual left-wing firebrands; many are political moderates, and several, including Inslee, are former prosecutors.
"Impeachment is a very serious subject," began Inslee, who brought his reading glasses and a poster detailing Congress's authority to impeach any "civil officer" of the United States. "It should only be used as a last resort when the basic fundamental tenet of American democracy is at risk, and unfortunately that is the case now." (Dana Milbank; links in original)
For some interesting insight into the man himself, see:
The Wonketeers are all so mean. I found it...sad. In every sense.
NOTEWORTHY BLOG REACTIONS:
At Poliblog, Dr. Steven Taylor remarks:
This is a case of a DoJ official trying to influence a criminal prosecution because that official was doing a favor for a former USA:...
I am not saying this is the first time something like this has ever happened, but I am saying it shouldn’t happen. Further, given all of the other problems with the Bush DoJ, incidences like this are amplified in terms of the significance.
To me all of the stories about the DoJ raise serious questions as to whether the people who have been running it of late are really interested in actually executing the laws of the land, rather than pursuing narrow political goals. It continues to make me think that some sort of more politically independent Justice Department needs to be created. More Tales of the DoJ
At The Carpetbagger Report,
We know that throughout 2006, various U.S. Attorneys were considered for replacement, for reasons that appear to have almost nothing to do with merit. We also know that in several instances, prosecutors were considered for dismissal based on pure partisanship (either too willing to prosecute Republicans, or unwilling to file trumped up charges against Dems).
But in a few instances, names showed up on lists for unclear reasons. U.S. Attorney John Brownlee, for example, was targeted for replacement last year, despite not having any meaningful connection to partisan political court cases. What happened with him? Was he not a loyal Bushie?...
The DoJ’s defense is hardly persuasive.
Justice Department officials said it was not unusual for senior members to weigh in on major criminal cases, and a spokesman, Dean Boyd, said the department “encourages healthy internal debate and discussion on complex cases like this one.”
Healthy internal debate? The criminal division at the Justice Department had already signed off on Brownlee’s efforts. Elston called Brownlee at home, the night before a guilty plea that had been in the works for months, to urge him to back off. This wasn’t about “discussion” or “debate.”...
[O]ne has to wonder, how many cases have there been in which U.S. Attorneys did back off from criminal prosecutions because political appointees asked them to? How a prosecutor can end up on one of the DoJ firing lists
At Law Prof on the Loose:
As the Post article explains, it is not inherently suspicious for senior Justice Department officials to have some input on individual cases. But the suspicious thing is, as it has long been, this: according to Elston's lawyer, the list reflected recommendations Elston "had received from others in the administration, not his own views."Look, this scandal has been going on for months now. Dick Cheney calls it "a bit of a witch hunt" and claims that "there's no charge" or allegation of wrongdoing. But if there were a legitimate explanation for why each U.S. Attorney got fired, wouldn't DOJ have been able to produce it by now? Wouldn't we at least know who made up the ultimate list? Why is the list always the product of recommendations by nameless "others"? Why is the reaons for putting names on the list always something like, "it was the consensus recommendation" or "it was the advice I got from others"? U.S. Attorneys Update
At The Wall Street Journal Law blog, Peter Lattman says:
So is this new evidence of senior DOJ officials in D.C. trying to exert undue influence over cases, or just much ado about nothing? Yesterday, senior DOJ officials said it’s the latter — it’s not unusual for “Main Justice” to weigh in on big cases, they say. Others say it’s the former, especially since the criminal divison had already signed off on the plea agreement. ...
“Normally, there’s a lot of deference given to U.S. Attorneys in matters of timing,” said former DOJer Michael Bromwich to the WaPo. “The kind of micromanagement that this suggests could easily have a chilling effect in some circumstances. More on the U.S. Attorney Mess, Starring John Brownlee (links in original)
At Bring it On! National News, my favorite title so far and a good recap Justice Interrupted… by Justice
RELATED RECENT BN-POLITICS POSTS
House Dems Move Toward Gonzales Impeachment
- Who Will Defend Gonzalez? Fox News: "We Had No Takers."
- Gonzales' Questionable Candor and Character (Updated))
- Senators Call for Perjury Investigation as More Officials Indicate Contradict Gonzales
- Senate Panel Subpoenas Karl Rove & Other White House Staffer
AND SEE:
Justice Department & Fired U.S. Attorneys
LINKED, QUOTED, OR CITED
- Amy Goldstein and Carrie Johnson, U.S. Attorney Became Target After Rebuffing Justice Dept. (Washington Post)
- Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein, Justice Dept. Official To Quit (Washington Post)
- Carrie Johnson, OxyContin Makers Admit Deception (Washington Post)
- Barry Meier, Big Part of Oxycontin Profit was Consumed by Penalties (New York Times)
- Dana Milbank,With Senate and Gonzales, Familiarity Breeds Contempt (Washington Post)
- Dana Milbank, Here Lies a Man Impeached (Washington Post)
- OXYAbuseKills.com
- Oxycontin Questions and Answers (FDA)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073102163.html?hpid=topnews
Comments