Minnesota Journalist Blogger Scores "Modest Scoop"

Remember the name Eric Black. He runs a website called Eric Black Ink. This is what he modestly says about himself.

After 30 years of scribbling for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, I acquired the right to refer to myself as a humble and obedient ink-stained wretch. Now I seek the wily and elusive prey called wisdom and truth. Fellow seekers are most welcome to join the hunt.

I am a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Pilot Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely mine. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.

This link will take you to what he calls a modest scoop.


I have been following Rachel Paulose's sad tale for a while now. I thought I knew the story and suspected Rachel was being investigated, but like everybody else I believed the top four career professionals in the Minneapolis AG office voluntarily resigned in protest. Eric reports that they jumped because Rachel was about to dump them.

More importantly he fleshes out Rachel's apparent short coming.

When Paulose took over the office, she told several of the career officials there that she demanded total personal loyalty. At least one replied that loyalty was owed to the Constitution, not to her. Many of the allegations raise the possibility that Paulose crossed the line while seeking to punish personal disloyalty.

Demand absolute personal loyalty. Punish personal disloyalty. Good governor, how does a person with that kind of personality find herself appointed to lead career professionals? Oh, I remember now, she was a Monica Goodling chum. Birds of a feather flock together and all that. Read Eric's entire post. It is more than a modest scoop. It is an example of what independent journalists can accomplish.

Oh, "good governor" is one of Rachel's favorite sayings. She is an evangelical so she really can't say "good God."

There's more: "Minnesota Journalist Blogger Scores "Modest Scoop"" >>

Rachel Paulose Has A Bad Day

This is from the Minnesota Monitor's Eric Black.

Rachel Paulose, the embattled U.S. attorney for Minnesota, suffered through an awkward moment Tuesday when a retirement party for a long-serving prosecutor in her office turned into a thunderous ovation for several of Paulose's severest critics. Word of the incident has buzzed through the Twin Cities federal legal community and become the latest symbol of a very rough 18 months since Paulose took over the top federal law enforcement job in Minnesota.

Reports suggest that 90% of the "room erupted with loud, sustained applause that could not be taken as anything other than solidarity with Paulose's internal critics and appreciation for the sacrifice they had made to protest against her -- clearly a spontaneous release of the tensions within the office." Among those in attendance were 5 of the Federal Judges serving Minneapolis. "One of the eyewitnesses said she had a glazed look during the ovation."

I'd bet you she took her frustrations out on her kickboxing partner Tuesday night.

There's more: "Rachel Paulose Has A Bad Day" >>

Karl , That's Another Fine Mess You Have Gotten America Into

Turning the Department of Justice into a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party must have sounded good to Karl Rove when the idea was first proposed. Well, there is a very practical reason why the DoJ should be kept out of politics. In the end the DoJ is all about prosecuting people for breaking the law. Defense lawyers are smart, they work hard for their money. If a criminal defense lawyer can convince a judge or a jury that the prosecutor's motives aren't pure, he just might win his case.

This morning the LA Times is reporting that in a series of cases across the country defense attorneys have challenged or are challenging the motives of the U.S. Attorneys in bringing charges against their clients.

A good example involves Rachel Paulose up in Minneapolis. According to the LA Times article, last month:

Lawyer Daniel Gerdts won an acquittal in federal court in Minneapolis last month for a New York computer consultant who had been accused of bringing child pornography into the United States on his way back from a business trip to Asia.

The defendant, who worked for a Japanese producer of adult videos, said he was hired to set up Web pages to market the videos and to search the Internet for pirated copies. He conceded he might have inadvertently downloaded child porn in the process of doing his job.

In court, Gerdts said prosecutors had failed to exercise proper discretion in bringing the charges. During his closing argument to the jury, he suggested a reason, alluding to published reports of upheaval in the office since Rachel Paulose had become U.S. attorney in 2006.

Paulose is believed to have gotten the posting with the help of Monica M. Goodling, a former Gonzales aide who recently testified under a grant of immunity from prosecution that she "crossed a line" by improperly allowing politics to influence hiring decisions at the Justice Department. Several senior prosecutors in the Minneapolis office resigned their management posts to protest Paulose's leadership.

The effect of Gerdts' courtroom remark was unclear. Government lawyers objected, and the judge told jurors to ignore the comment.

After the verdict, jurors said they did not believe the government's accusation that the defendant had intentionally downloaded contraband files.

Another case involves charges brought by Bradley Schlozman against a Springfield, Missouri company and an Arkansas Democratic politician. That case is still developing. Knowing Bradley Schlozman's loyal Bushie reputation, I, for one, am anxious to see if Schlozman was pursuing justice or just the election of a Republican.

As long as Alberto Gonzales is Attorney General, and as long as Karl Rove is pulling his strings, we are never going to know whether or not charges in politically connected cases are politically motivated. That might sound normal in a banana Republic, but it is no way to run America.

There's more: "Karl , That's Another Fine Mess You Have Gotten America Into" >>

You Know How I Said Your Situation Could Be Worse?

Today I am busy fighting for truth, justice and the American way, but last night I noticed something in last night's document dump that bears further investigation.

On Saturday December 16, 2007, there was a brief email exchange between Monica Goodling and Rachel Paulose discussing the trials of Tim Griffin.

Monica--Subject Re: My Friday Afternoon --

"You know how I said your situation could be worse? Welcome to Tim's world. (BTW this was an interim AG appointment, just like yours [redaction]Tim, mind you, is an Oxford grad with prosecution exp. Will send you his release."

Rachel--Subject Re: My Friday Afternoon --

"good governor. Thank you for the reminder to count my blessings. I on my way to kickboxing class. Are you in the office late afternoon?"

I know what you are thinking. This is just Monica letting off steam. It is office talk among gal pals, and nothing more. Think about it a little. Monica was sharing her thoughts with Rachel about the trials of Tim Griffin. Rachel might have something to tell congressional investigators. At the very least, the exchange would suggest a telephone call, or an examination of their emails.

At the very least I would like to know what was redacted. It is taken right out of the middle of the relevant part of the Goodling email. I don't think it was a brownie recipe. The redaction is without doubt obstruction.

There's more: "You Know How I Said Your Situation Could Be Worse?" >>

I Am Afraid Monica's Freudian Slip Is Showing or How Rachel Paulose Can't Catch A Break.

God I love this job. I have been following the really brain dead public relations campaign to rehabilitate the fading career of Rachel Poulose. Rachel is a young Republican with a wonderful resume. She seems to have some problem with the "little people." Shortly after she took the job of US Attorney in Minneapolis, four of her top aides got so fed up with her imperious ways they took demotions rather than spend time working with her directly. Instead of learning the obvious life lessons from that early debacle, she apparently has decided to fight back. As near as I can tell she has surrounded herself with a truly clueless PR posse that has done an absolutely crappy job. For example, last monday she tried to reintroduce herself just days before Monica Goodling was going to testify. That reintroduction didn't go very well. Neither did Katherine Kersten's followup whine.

Luckily for Rachel, Monica didn't have a lot to say about her, and it was mostly good. Monica did make some unfortunate comments about Rachel's predecessor, Tom Heffelfinger. Heffelfinger was the very model of a loyal Republican US Attorney right up to last week. All through the US Attorney scandal, even after he was found to be on the list of attorneys to be fired, he insisted that his resignation was entirely voluntary.

As has been typical of the Gonzales Justice Department, Monica found a way to really anger the former US Attorney. She criticized his professional work. As will be revealed below, the Clucking Stool thinks she might have suffered what we used to call a Freudian slip.

In response to a question from Representative Keith Ellison, Monica said, "There were some concerns that he (Heffelfinger) spent an extraordinary amount of time as the leader of the Native American subcommittee of the AGAC (Attorney General's Advisory Committee)."

Heffelfinger replied by telling KARE11 News he was "extraordinarily outraged" to hear his work criticized. Heffelfinger was proud of his work with Native Americans. He told the AP, again quoting KARE11,

"I did spent a lot of time on it," Heffelfinger said of the American Indian issue. "That's what I was instructed to do" by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft. Given the higher rates of violence suffered by American Indians, Heffelfinger said, the time was warranted, but it didn't take away from other priorities.

"I had to work hard, but I was comfortable with the mix of my local responsibilities and my Native American responsibilities," said Heffelfinger, who oversaw his office's investigation into the 2005 shooting that claimed 10 lives on the Red Lake Indian Reservation in far northern Minnesota.

Throughout the US Attorney scandal there is a common theme, a theme most of the loyal Bushies like Sampson, Goodling and their boss have yet to figure out--you just don't tell a proud professional that the work he is proudest of is crap, not unless you really want to have your hat handed to you.

This morning the LA Times carried a story by Tom Hamburger, Times Staff Writer, and former Minnesota native, tying Heffelfinger's good work on behalf of Native Americans to another overarching theme of the Gonzales justice department--the ongoing Republican campaign to suppress the minority vote. Yep, Heffelfinger refused to take part in a campaign to suppress the Native American vote, a campaign that involves two of our old favorites, Brad Schlozman and Hans von Spakovsky.

As you will recall Von Spakovsky and Schlozman are voting suppression specialists linked to Republican voter suppression campaigns in Missouri and Georgia. Since most poor people of color are Democrats, from the point of view of Brad and Hans suppressing the vote of poor people of color is a good thing.

The basic Republican voter suppression plan, as advanced in Missouri and Georgia, is for local Republicans to plant the frightening image in the minds of the local media and the general public of thousands of poor black people showing up at the polls to vote Democratic dozens of times.

For a lot of technical reasons the kind of "voter fraud" that concerns Republicans is virtually non-existent. That doesn't stop the patented Republican voter suppression campaign. The Republican solution to the terrible, but non-existant, problem of "voter fraud" is to require each voter to present a special and expensive voter ID card at the polling place on election day. Republican legislatures eagerly enact such laws. Members of the local media write puff pieces singing the praises of Republicans who have solved a truly frightening problem.

Since poor people can't afford to pay a lot for their voter or state ID, or they might not realize they need one until the last minute, voter suppression of the poor Democratic minority is almost a sure thing.

Ordinarily, the United States Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division is all over such state statutes. After all poll taxes and the like are illegal under Federal law, and have been since Jim Crow days. Enter Schlozman and Von Spakovsky. Their job was to overrule or otherwise defang the career professionals in the civil rights division. Theirs was the most successful part of the Republican voter suppression campaign in the last couple of elections. In both, the Civil Rights Division, now largely manned by loyal Bushies, was essentially neutered. Fortunately, opponents didn't need DoJ help to convince the courts that the Missouri and Georgia laws were illegal.

There are 32,000 Native Americans living in the Saint Paul area alone. The ID they use in their daily lives is the ID card issued by their tribe. It is widely thought that a lot of those Native Americans vote for Democrats.

According to LA Times:

Citing requirements in a new state election law, Republican Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer directed that tribal ID cards could not be used for voter identification by Native Americans living off reservations. Heffelfinger and his staff feared that the ruling could result in discrimination against Indian voters. Many do not have driver's licenses or forms of identification other than the tribes' photo IDs.

Heffelfinger had one of his staff e-mail the Civil Rights Division. It was made clear that Heffelfinger was very concerned about Kiffmeyer's directive and believed something needed to be done. The Times article continues

About three months after Heffelfinger's office raised the issue of tribal ID cards and nonreservation Indians in an October 2004 memo, his name appeared on a list of U.S. attorneys singled out for possible firing.

"I have come to the conclusion that his expressed concern for Indian voting rights is at least part of the reason that Tom Heffelfinger was placed on the list to be fired," said Joseph D. Rich, former head of the voting section of the Justice Department's civil rights division. Rich, who retired in 2005 after 37 years as a career department lawyer — 24 of them in Republican administrations — was closely involved in the Minnesota ID issue

Rich is the lawyer who received the e-mails from a member of Heffelfinger's staff. Rich started working the case. According to Rich Schlozman and Von Spakovsky promptly placed impossible conditions on the conduct of the investigation effectively squelching it.

According to the Star Tribune, one of Rachel Paulose's first acts after appointment was "to remove Lewis, who had written the 2004 e-mails to Washington expressing concern about American Indian voting rights." I wonder if that's when her management problems began?

UPDATE: I just remembered Hans Von Spakosky has a confirmation hearing scheduled for June 13. With this story breaking right now, maybe he is the guy who can't catch a break?

There's more: "I Am Afraid Monica's Freudian Slip Is Showing or How Rachel Paulose Can't Catch A Break." >>

Katherine Kersten Whines Some More About Rachel Paulose

If you want an object lesson in how not to improve your public image, look no further than Katherine Kersten's whine on behalf of Rachel Paulose. Listening to the segment on the David Storm Show is painful. Maybe if Rachel would tell Kersten to just shut the f**k up, and spent the next 524 days working her ass off doing a bang up job as US Attorney in Minneapolis, she might be able to salvage her career. If she allows her PR team to continue with their pathetic campaign, Rachel won't be able to find work as a municipal clerk in a small Minnesota town.

Let us review. In the last week her Public Relations Team scheduled a press conference right in the middle of the runup to Monica Goodling's testimony. Of course, questions were asked Monica about Rachel's appointment. The morons at Powerline jumped in to attack the press for using the poorly timed presser to ask obvious questions related to her appointment. Now Paulose's chief apologist gives a whiny interview on a friendly talk show. She comes off looking whiny.

Earth to Rachel, earth to Rachel. The more your people talk, the worse you look. The best advice anybody could give you is shut up, become friends with the people who work in your office, and do your job to the best of your ability for as long as you are US Attorney. Take it.

There's more: "Katherine Kersten Whines Some More About Rachel Paulose" >>

The Odd Rehabilitiation of Rachel Paulose

One of the pleasures of this job is reading offbeat stories about "important" people far, far away. Following their ups and downs. It's just sort of fun checking in to see how old friends are doing.

Rachel Paulose is someone I have been following. You remember Rachel. She is the very talented, but very young and very political U.S Attorney in Minneapolis. Upon ascendancy to her position she promptly pissed off her professional staff and had to deal with the voluntary demotions of her four top assistants. Most people would have thought that after that mess her best course would be to keep her head down, do her job, and above all show some appropriate humility.

I guess when you are born to the purple, humility is considered inappropriate. Apparently she has elected to strike back with a public relations campaign. As a result she continues to find herself in the middle of a twin cities media storm.

Proud of her rapid rise through the political ranks, when appointed she staged an elaborate ceremony to crown herself the new US Attorney in Minneapolis. She didn't even occur to her to invite the person she replaced. She might have asked about protocol but that would have meant talking to the little people.

In short order both the coronation and her imperious approach to her job angered key career professionals. Her four top people demoted themselves rather than work with her. Her office is easily the Department of Justice's poster child for management problems.

At about the same time some pinhead at main justice decided to claim that management and or performance problems led to the firing of the famous Gonzales 8. Only one of those US Attorneys had any management problems to speak of. Certainly none of them found him or herself at the heart of anything like Paulose's self-inflicted problems.

Apparently because they felt they needed to do something to help with the larger US Attorney firing scandal, main justice didn't fire Paulose out of hand. Instead they sent one of their people to smooth things over. As part of that smoothing the 4 self-demoted promised not to say anything in public about Paulose and her management problems.

Within weeks a couple of articles appeared bad mouthing the 4 self-demoted officials. Although they referred to unnamed sources, Rachel's fingerprints were visible. The four career professionals were jealous. They were picking on a poor, poor, but brilliant "woman of color," a woman with a future they could not imagine. The four demoted employees complained that Rachel had betrayed them. Not a smart move for somebody wanting achieve success as US Attorney. Rachel's march to the US Supreme Court has been damaged, probably irreparably.

It's all about Rachel, after all, so last week self-confessed conservative columnist Katherine Kersten filed a puff piece called The Real Rachel Paulose which essentially reviewed her admittedly fine resume. "So why are the critics piling on Paulose today?" Kersten opines "Two reasons.

She's young, female, a "person of color" and an immigrant. (Her grandfather came here from India with $7 in his pocket in the 1960s, she has said, and the rest of the family followed.) If she were a political liberal -- as such people are expected to be -- she would be the toast of the town. But she's not. In some folks' view, such renegades must be run out of the public arena quickly before other minority folks get similar uppity, independent ideas.

Second, she's an evangelical Christian. "This image of her as a kind of Jesus freak is just bizarre," says Kendall. "I've read things [about this] I find hard to believe. The descriptions of her aggressive religiosity just couldn't be farther from the person I knew."

Somehow Kersten overlooked Paulose's imperious management style and the rather ugly problems they have fostered in the day to day operation of her office. Perhaps as important Kersten overlooked the highly political process that led to Paulose's appointment. That oversight was not missed by the blog Norwegiantly.

The other day Paulose's office brought charges against a bunch of folks involved in a prostitution ring. I guess Paulose, or her public relations people, thought it would be the perfect story to reintroduce her. Nothing heavy. Nothing self-important. Just Rachel doing her job.

Apparently Paulose is surrounded by idiots. On Monday, at the height of the swirl about Rachel's friend Monica Goodling's coming testimony, Paulose decided to have a presser. Not smart. After all Goodling is at the heart of the red hot US Attorney scandal and both she and Paulose admit they are friends, but they claim they became friends only after Monica decided Paulose was fab for the job of US Attorney. Somebody in Paulose's camp must have realized a presser might drift from the prostitution story. Never fear, as Brian Lambert reports

In what may have been a first for a Minnesota public official soliciting media attendance at a press conference in a public building, US Attorney Rachel Paulose's staff announced prior to the start of her Monday press conference that Ms. Paulose would NOT be taking questions off the topic of her indictment of 25 people in a prostitution ring.

Any bets as to the success of that announcement? Apparently it was like waiving a red flag in front of a bull. Lambert continues.

Obviously Paulose, stepping out of her double secret probationary sanctum for the first time since it was confirmed that yes indeed her predecessor, Tom Heffelfinger, was on a list of US Attorneys considered for firing, and only two days before her friend, the equally fresh-faced and unworldly Monica Goodling, was scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee didn't want her photo op ruined. She collared some pimps and she was orchestrating credit for herself. Control was being exerted to prevent some no doubt Democrat-voting media twit from jostling her tiara with a biased question about, you know, how in the hell did she get her job?

And if it weren't for KARE-11's Scott Goldberg, followed by MPR's Elizabeth Stawicki and KSTP's Dana Benson, she might have pulled it off.

A controversy has developed involving Rachel's supporter Scott Johnson of Powerline and Kare11's Scott Goldman. Apparently Johnson is offended that Goldman, Stawicki and Benson went off the "ground rules" to ask Paulose questions about the impending Monica Goodling testimony. Goldman responded to Johnson's complaint by pointing out

In our industry, ground rules are conditions agreed upon by both parties before an interview takes place. The Paulose press conference didn’t begin with an agreement. It began with a decree.

And this is something I wanted to write about even before it appeared in the blog, because the press conference began so unusually:

Immediately before Paulose walked up to the podium, an aide announced that Paulose only would answer questions about the prostitution investigation.

That’s not a ground rule. That’s a joke.

A public official, in a public building, at a public meeting, can not tell reporters they are not allowed to ask questions about unpopular topics. That would be like Tony Snow announcing President Bush won’t be taking any questions on Iraq. Come on.

Let’s remember the backdrop:

1. This was the very first press conference Paulose held after three of the top lawyers in her office resigned their management positions and called her management style into question.

2. This was the very first press conference Paulose held after the news broke that the name of her predecessor, Tom Heffelfinger, had surfaced on a Justice Department “hit list.”

3. This was the very first opportunity we had to ask Minnesota’s new U.S. attorney about the scandal surrounding her boss, Alberto Gonzales.

4. This press conference happened to be taking place two days before Monica Goodling, the White House aide who played a role in hiring Paulose, was scheduled to testify in front of the House Judiciary Committee.

Knowing all of that, why on earth wouldn’t we ask Rachel Paulose about the elephant in the room?

In fairness the reporters did wade through the prostitution ring story for 27 minutes before they asked about the elephant. It is nice to know that the 4th estate is alive and well in Minneapolis.

It's pretty obvious that Paulose needs a new public relations team.

There's more: "The Odd Rehabilitiation of Rachel Paulose" >>

McClatchy Drops Bomb At Bottom Of Story

For months it has been suspected that Thomas Heffelfinger was pushed out of the Minnesota US Attorney job to make way for Rachel Paulose. Heffelfinger has insisted he left for personal reasons. Tonight Marisa Taylor and Margaret Talev, of McClatchy's Washington Bureau, offhandedly report at the bottom of a somewhat related story that

a U.S. attorney in Minnesota, who disagreed with the Justice Department on a case involving voting rolls, was asked to resign early last year.

Minnesota only has one US Attorney.

My guess is they confused Minnesota with Missouri. Todd Graves was pushed out in part because he disagreed with Brad Schlozman about a voting rolls case. If not, it is the biggest dropped lede in years. I can't wait to see the later additions.

Hey, the reporters live in Washington. Missouri, Minnesota, all those flyover states look alike.

There's more: "McClatchy Drops Bomb At Bottom Of Story" >>

Deputy AG McNulty quits Department of Justice

Dan Egan of the Washinton Post is reporting that Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty has announced resignation "saying he is leaving the Justice Department later this summer to enter the private sector, officials said. . . . McNulty is the latest senior Justice official to announce his departure amid the swirl of controversy over the firings last year of nine U.S. attorneys. Three other top aides to Gonzales have quit in recent months." In addition to Monica Goodling and all the other familiar names in the US Attorney firing scandal, McNulty is professionally linked to Rachel Paulose, the embattled US Attorney in Minneapolis.

There's more: "Deputy AG McNulty quits Department of Justice" >>

Keith Ellison Has Questions About The Appointment Of Rachel Paulose

Joe Bodell of the Minnesota Monitor has posted tidbits from a Saturday interview with Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minn) concerning Rachel Paulose's appointment to the USA position in Minneapolis and the Department of Justice's handling of her performance issues. Bodell reports that

Ellison recently issued a request to the Department of Justice along with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., requesting copies of communication regarding former U.S. Attorney Tom Heffelfinger and his replacement in the Minnesota office, Rachel Paulose. Ellison said Saturday he does not blame Paulose for her situation but rather the Bush Administration for putting ideological requirements above experience, competence and capacity to pursue justice.

More ominous, according to Ellison, is who was not fired: "the eight were fired, but clearly those that were retained were loyal Bushies. These demotions in the Minnesota office are a serious matter, and Ms. Paulose received help from Washington on management issues. If the eight who were fired were let go for 'performance issues', did they get any help before being fired? ...If they were let go for 'performance reasons', how does Ms. Paulose stay for 'performance reasons'?"

Congressman that is a question we are all pondering.

There's more: "Keith Ellison Has Questions About The Appointment Of Rachel Paulose" >>

Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Go Back To Minnesota

A few weeks ago Rachel Paulose and John Kelly (from main justice) secured a promise from the three senior attorneys and the senior administrator who revolted against her infant terrible routine that they wouldn't talk to the press. That promise wasn't seen by Paulose and Kelly as stopping them from unleashing "unnamed sources" against the Minneapolis four. I guess in loyal Bushie land loyalty only goes one way. Of course, the career guys have now formally complained. You can read their letter here.

Damn, the damage that can be done when newspapers print stories from unnamed sources. Both the New York Times and the Star Tribune should be ashamed.

There's more: "Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Go Back To Minnesota" >>

Todd Graves--US Attorney Target Number 10?

Pressrelease 365 reports the following:

Kansas City, MO 04/09/07 - Medical Supply Chain founder Samuel Lipari unearthed a US Department of Justice memo revealing the Office of the Attorney General had targeted not eight but ten US Attorneys including the former attorney for the Western District of Missouri, Todd P. Graves. The documents were obtained during Medical Supply Chain's discovery related to the civil antitrust action Medical Supply Chain, Inc. v. Novation LLC, et al, Western District of Missouri case #05-210-CV-W-ODS filed on March 9, 2005.

The e-mail dated January 9th, 2006 from Kyle Sampson, chief of staff for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, to Harriet Miers and William Kelley at the White House, shows the ten U.S. Attorneys that were first selected to voluntarily resign or face termination. Attorneys that resigned were redacted. Todd P. Graves of Missouri resigned March 24, 2006.

Why would Samuel Lipari be in a position to unearth this tidbit. Well, it seems that his company Medical Supply Chain, has been actively engaged in a civil anti-trust suit against Novation, LLC, Volunteer Hospital Association (VHA), University Health System Consortium (UHC) and Neoforma, Inc. Lipari claims the companies "were involved in a scheme to monopolize hospital supplies to defraud Medicare through payments to administrators and kickbacks. The scheme resulted in almost all of Kansas City, Missouri St. Luke's hospital's one hundred million dollar supply budget being purchased through Novation LLC. St. Luke's merged with University of Kansas Hospital after Irene Cumming, CEO of the University of Kansas Hospital was given a job by University Health System Consortium (UHC) on March 19, 2007."

It appears that Todd Graves had been investigating and prosecuting Medicare fraud cases. Lipari claims that "Bradley Schlozman failed to prosecute public corruption related to the Medical Supply Chain litigation."

I have long suspected Todd Graves was one of the targeted, but redacted, prosecutors, but that is because a Graves family member was implicated in a separate scandal involving Matt Blunt and state fee offices. A scandal later investigated by Bud Cummins. ePluribusMedia's mit2174 published an article making the connection entitled Heffelfinger, Graves, and the U.S. Attorney "purge" on Thursday, March 15, 2007. Thomas Heffelfinger "resigned February 28, 2006 to return to the private sector. At the time, he cited "personal" and "financial" reasons for his resignation. (sources: Pioneer Press, 2/15/06; Star Tribune, 2/15/06)." He was replaced by Rachel Paulose.

What is new is the implication that Schlozman was not brought in to engage in voter suppression or to clean up after Grave's problems with the Fee License Scandal, but to squelch a particular medicare fraud investigation. I don't know whether to believe Lipari's assertion, but it bears watching. Lipari might simply be trying to stir the pot to help his civil suit.

On a possibly "related" note Minnesota Campaign Report's mswsm has written an interesting report entitled Why the Deception about Paulose's Work History and Residency? that seems to imply Paulose, who had been active in health care litigation, was sent from Washington to protect one of her former clients, a Minneapolis base health care company. Again a stretch, but given the way the Department of Justice has been politicized one that doesn't seem as far fetched as it would have a few years ago.

There's more: "Todd Graves--US Attorney Target Number 10?" >>

The Audacity of Arrogance

KARE11 is reporting that Jeanne Cooney has apologized for her boss's "mistakes" in the wake of the self-demotions of three of the top prosecutors in the Minneapolis US Attorney's office. Ms. Conney has also announced that Ms. Paulose personally met with her Assistant United States Attorney's on Monday and had an all office meeting on Tuesday.

"At both of those meetings, the U.S. attorney took responsibility and apologized for her mistakes," Cooney said in a telephone interview Tuesday night. "She also said something to the effect that she pledged to do better as we move forward. She asked employees to remain focused on our mission and our service."

Ms. Paulose reminds me ever so much of Her Royal Majesty the Queen, another high born woman who seldom speaks directly to the common people.

Sorry for the snark. I really do hope Paulose learns a little humility. It will stand her in good stead.

There's more: "The Audacity of Arrogance" >>

CBS News Gets It--The Justice Department Has Been Gutted

Andrew Cohen of CBS News has delivered a special report on the dumbing down of the Justice Department. He writes that

career professionals at Justice — nonpartisan federal lawyers who make up the backbone of the department — have been squeezed out or otherwise marginalized over the past few years by ideological (and in many cases underachieving and intellectually weak) attorneys chosen more for their partisan views and political connections than for their ability to offer unbiased and sharp stewardship over the nation's federal laws.

He goes on to connect the dots from Paulose to the bogus Thompson case and concludes:

When you populate an office with ideologues and partisans and underachieving talent, you get an ideological and partisan office with underachieving results. And if there is any department in our federal system that can least afford to be ideological and partisan and underachieving, it is the Justice Department. This sorry state is true today, regardless of how and when the scandal over the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys is resolved. Of all the dismaying legal legacies left by this administration, this one surely ranks near the top.

A true must read for everybody.

Speaking of Rachel Paulose, it is being reported by the AP that

John Kelly, deputy director and chief of staff of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys in Washington, will spend "several days" here while the Minneapolis office undergoes a management transition.

Apparently Wunderkind Rachel has created such a mess even main justice realizes she needs adult supervision.

It looks like the mainstream media is beginning to understand the importance of a Department of Justice that works, and works hard, for all of us, not just the President's friends.

Related--Mash at docstrangelove.com makes the following observation in his post discussing the method Frist and the Republicans used to obtain Paulose's confirmation.

It seems to me if you are going to replace experienced and respected United States Attorneys with cronies of the Bush Administration with dubious qualifications, you do not take the rule of law very seriously. It seems to me that when US Attorney jobs are handed out as political rewards to cronies like ambassadorships have been in the past, the message sent to the populace is that politics triumphs the rule of law. It seems to me that is a direct assault on the United States Constitution. To the extent that the United States Senate has colluded with the Executive Branch in carrying out the politicization and trivialization of the Justice Department, we the citizens are being abandoned by your elected representatives in favor of political favors.

We are left with the embarrassing sight of a United States Attorney whose ego eclipses her qualifications. We are left with Rachel Paulose.

There's more: "CBS News Gets It--The Justice Department Has Been Gutted" >>

Rachel Paulose--Persecuted for Being An Aggressive Bush Loyalist?

Yesterday I read some things about Rachel Paulose that seemed to indicate she was a brilliant but callow youth unequipped by either training or experience to handle her job. Much like a young West Point graduate in over her head, she tried to compensate with a dictatorial style alienating all the people around her. In the Army old sergeants and captains teach young lieutenants the fine points of leadership. Nothing in her resume indicates she ever encountered a wise old sergeant. In short, it could be argued that the problems in Minneapolis are nothing more than a bright rising star running into reality. In time she will either learn how to lead or will be sent back to private practice. Nothing unusual about the situation. Every administration, indeed many organizations, have bright young stars who are pushed too far, too fast. Most of them learn. Those who don't, fail. An isolated problem. Not really tied to the US Attorney scandal.

This morning's New York Times article suggests that Justice Department headquarters sees the matter differently. Ms. Paulose has been victimized by her subordinates. According to Paulose's unnamed supporters at Justice Department headquarters, the "older lawyers had difficultly dealing with a young, aggressive woman who had tried to put into place policies important to Mr. Gonzales like programs to combat child exploitation."

In short, the problems in Minneapolis are caused by professional jealousy and immaturity on the part of the rebellious lawyers. She is just doing her job with zeal. The career professionals are rebelling against headquarters polices as much as they are rebelling against Ms. Paulose's lack of leadership skills. The employees are the problem, not the supervisor.

Three observations. First, the "rebellious" lawyers are career professionals. They have years and years of experience. They were there when Paulose arrived. They were there when her predecessor arrived. When both Ms. Paulose and Mr. Gonzales are gone in two years they will still be there. They are all smart and realize that their Paulose or Gonzales problem will be solved in time. They have been there, done that. They all know how to get along with political appointees, even aggressive political appointees.

Second, blaming the career professionals doesn't help Ms. Paulose learn to be an effective leader. In fact blaming the career professionals reflects an immaturity on the part of the Ms. Paulose’s defenders at Justice Department headquarters. Who might those defenders be? How about her former boss Paul J. McNulty. Didn't his decision to trash the fired Gonzales 8 really start Mr. Gonzales' woes. In this case the buck stops with Mr. Gonzales for not telling Paulose' unnamed defenders at Justice Department headquarters to stifle. If MrNulty is one of Ms Paulose's unnamed defenders, maybe it is time for him to go. If I were Gonzales, I would be asking for the names of the "unnamed defenders." Maybe he already knows. If so, given his tenuous hold on his department, he is a fool for allowing the comment.

Third, isn't everybody against child exploitation. Just what other department policies has she embraced with "a single-minded zeal that cost her the confidence and trust of lawyers in her office." How about prosecuting Democrats to the exclusion of Republicans? That seems to be a popular headquarters policy career professionals don't seem to embrace with much vigour. Most of the career professionals believe in the Rule of Law.

There's more: "Rachel Paulose--Persecuted for Being An Aggressive Bush Loyalist?" >>

More on the DoJ--Minnesota and Wisconsin

Is Department of Justice melting down? I just got back from the grocery store to discover more on the Rachel Paulose matter. It seems the two Minnesota senators are now refusing to discuss the leadership collapse at the Minneapolis office. Senator Schumer calls it an example of prosecutors being "deprofessionalized" under Gonzales.

The Carpetbagger Report blogs on the tragic lengths to which Wisconsin U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic went to be a "Loyal Bushie" in last years election. Apparently as part of a thankfully failed Republican effort to unseat Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, Biskupic brought a politically motivated but bogus case against a member of Doyle's administration and somehow won a 16 month conviction.

Since the official was convicted,how do we know the charge was bogus?

Well, when it reached the Court of Appeals the case was summarily thrown out on the day of the oral argument and Biskipic's target was ordered immediately released.Steven Walters and John Diedrich of the Milwaukee Sentinal Journal report

The three-judge panel in Chicago acted with unusual speed, ruling after oral arguments by Thompson’s attorney and the U.S. attorney’s office.

During 26 minutes of oral arguments, all three judges assailed the government’s case, with Judge Diane Wood saying at one point that “the evidence is beyond thin.” During a news conference later Thursday, Doyle, a former state attorney general, said the three judges did an “extraordinary thing” by entering an order finding Thompson innocent and ordering her immediate release.

Are there no depths the "Loyal Bushies" won't plumb to advance Karl Rove's political agenda?

The tragedy in this farce is that Biskupic's victim, Georgia Thompson, was subjected to a humiliating trial, spent 4 months in jail, had to pay for her defense, probably wrecking her financially, and lost her $77,000 per year state job, all to advance the political chances of some Republican politician.

“[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.” Bud Cummins.

UPDATE: At least one Milwaukee defense lawyer thinks Biskupic should be fired. His blog has a link to the audio of the oral argument. Skip to the last 15 minutes. It's a hoot. Rarely does a court ever trash a lawyer, especially a DoJ lawyer, so badly.

There's more: "More on the DoJ--Minnesota and Wisconsin" >>

Monica Goodling's BFF In Over Her Head in Minnesota

The current US Attorney in Minneapolis is Rachel Paulose. At 33 Paulose is currently the youngest US Attorney and is easily the least experienced. A former special assistant to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Paulose worked as a senior counsel for deputy attorney general Paul McNulty and is best friends with Monica Goodling – the assistant U.S. Attorney and liaison between Karl Rove's shop and Alberto Gonzales, who recently took the Fifth rather than testify before Congress. You might recall that Monica Goodling was the known as the "buzz saw" driving the US Attorney selection process.

Sometimes appointing your best friend forever to a job just doesn't work out. Especially if her only qualification is that she is a Loyal Bushie. Is seems she has so completely pissed off the professionals in Minnesota that, according to MyFox9

four of her top staff voluntarily demoted themselves Thursday, fed up with Paulose, who, after just months on the job, has earned a reputation for quoting Bible verses and dressing down underlings.

Deputy U.S. Attorney John Marty is just one of the people dropping themselves in rank to simply a U.S. Attorney position. Also making the move are the heads of Paulose’s criminal and civil divisions and the top administrative officer.

The Minnesota Star Tribune is reporting that

The job changes followed a visit to the office by a representative from the Executive Office of the U.S. Attorney in Washington, D.C. . . .

"It's just absolutely extraordinary that these three top managers would voluntarily demote themselves," said one defense attorney knowledgeable about the office. "I mean, it's a rank cut. ... And then it would be a salary cut, too."

A source familiar with the office said Thursday's resignations were more about management style and communication than politics. But they take on added significance because they follow a number of other managers who have voluntarily stepped aside since Paulose took over.

Apparently Paulose is a bible thumping dictator with few people skills. You might say she is the very definition of a modern Loyal Bushie.

Can anybody say "Heck of A Job, Rachel."

I wonder if Alberto is going to have to talk about her during his coming Congressional performance.

UPDATE: Paulose's resume is part of the famous document dump at part 2 page 11. There is a wonderful background piece about Paulose at Minnesota Campaign Report titled The Curious Case of Rachel Paulose.

There's more: "Monica Goodling's BFF In Over Her Head in Minnesota" >>