A cloud of suspicion over the rest of Justice’s decisions

Seeds of doubt abound. Now that the nation has learned that several U.S. Attorneys were pressured to bring politically-charged cases for Republicans’ benefit, and many of those who refused lost their jobs, it’s inevitable that previous [tag]Justice Department[/tag] decisions will start to garner fresh scrutiny.

Paul Krugman noted a couple of weeks ago, for example, that Chris Christie, the former Bush “Pioneer” who is now the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, issued subpoenas as part of an investigation against Sen. Bob Menendez (D) shortly before last year’s election.

This week, some Dems are looking further back. (thanks to K.Z. for the tip)

New Hampshire Democrats say they will ask Congress to investigate whether prosecution of a Republican phone-jamming scheme on Election Day 2002 was intentionally delayed until after the presidential election two years later. The furor over alleged political firings of eight federal prosecutors prompted the move, Kathy Sullivan, chairwoman of the state’s Democratic Party, told The Associated Press Tuesday.

And why wouldn’t it? In 2002, Republicans hired a telemarketing firm to jam the phone lines at the Democratic Party and the Manchester firefighters union, a nonpartisan group offering rides to the polls on Election Day, in order to disrupt get-out-the-vote efforts. The scandal resulted in four criminal convictions, but James Tobin, New England chairman of Bush’s campaign in 2004, was not indicted until a month after Bush won a second term.

“Why did it take so long for the indictment against Mr. Tobin to be brought?” Sullivan asked. “His name was apparently out there and known to the Department of Justice for several months and yet nothing was done with him until after the 2004 election.”

Did politics play a role in the delayed indictment? I have no idea, but benefit of the doubt has gone out the window.

Every suspicious indictment and investigation suddenly deserves scrutiny. And it’s getting it.



* Did the U.S. Attorney’s office in Pennsylvania intentionally target Bob Casey allies to undermine his Senate campaign against Rick Santorum?

* Why was the career U.S. Attorney in Guam removed in 2002 after he started investigating disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff?

* Why has Western Pennsylvania’s U.S. attorney, Mary Beth Buchanan, spent a disproportionate amount of her time launching public-corruption investigations against Democrats, while overlooking Republicans?

* In July 2005, the [tag]U.S. Attorney[/tag] in Denver decided not to pursue a matter in which bouncers at a Bush event impersonated Secret Service agents to throw out three law-abiding ticket-holders because of their bumper sticker (the Denver Three controversy). Did politics dictate the decision?

As Bud Cummins, one of the purged prosecutors, explained:

“[T]he public must perceive that every substantive decision within the department is made in a neutral and non-partisan fashion. Once the public detects partisanship in one important decision, they will follow the natural inclination to question every decision made, whether there is a connection or not.”

Exactly. [tag]Bush[/tag] administration officials may have obstructed justice, politicized federal prosecutors, and lied to Congress, but let’s not overlook the fact that they also undermined the public’s confidence in the justice system, as well.