One more prosecutor-purge story before we move on to other subjects today. McClatchy has an important piece about a top Justice Department official allegedly threatening one of the fired U.S. Attorneys.
A high-ranking Justice Department official told one of the U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration that if any of them continued to criticize the administration for their ousters, previously undisclosed details about the reasons they were fired might be released, two of the ousted prosecutors told McClatchy Newspapers.
While the U.S. attorney who got the call regarded the tone of the conversation as congenial, not intimidating, the prosecutor nonetheless passed the message on to five other fired U.S. attorneys. One of them interpreted the reported comments by Michael Elston, the chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, as a threat.
I’m intrigued by this notion of the chat being “congenial.” If someone threatens you, but they smile while they do it, isn’t it still threatening? “It’s a nice career you have here; it’d be a shame if something happened to it.” See how “congenial” that sounds? The person is complementing the lawyer’s career.
In this case, Justice Department officials denied that the conversation with the U.S. attorney ever took place. Elston said he’s chatted with the purged prosecutors, but never threatened anyone.
That said, it’s not clear why the U.S. Attorneys would make up something like this. To make the Justice Department look bad? The Justice Department already looks bad.
Besides, given the Bush gang’s propensity for thuggery, would anyone seriously be surprised if a top Justice Department official did threaten the prosecutors?
According to one of the fired U.S. attorneys, Elston made the comments during a telephone conversation after Democrats began questioning whether the administration was attempting to purge more independent-minded Republican appointees in order to replace them with more partisan candidates.
According to the former U.S. attorney, Elston made a “pointed comment that indicated that somehow anyone who talked might become more embarrassed if the story continued on.”
“The inference was that they were holding themselves back from saying more about why people were fired — that it was likely the department was going to step up the defense of their actions,” the fired prosecutor said. “It could have been construed as friendly advice or a casual prediction. But I think it was expected that everyone would be told about the call.”
When conveying the message to the others, the prosecutor tried to make it clear that the meaning of the conversation shouldn’t be overdramatized.
But another former U.S. attorney, who wasn’t a party to the Justice Department conversation, interpreted the comments as a threat, especially since it came when congressional Democrats were contacting the attorneys about possibly testifying before Congress.
“I took it to mean that negative, personal information would be released,” the prosecutor said. “That if we made public comments or if we were to testify in Congress, that the gloves would come off and the Department of Justice would make us regret that we were talking.”
Here’s a thought: how about Congress sending Mr. Elston a subpoena. Maybe he’ll remember more about what he told to whom once he’s under oath.
I’m obviously not in a position to know one way or the other what Elston said and what his message may have inferred, but based on the organized-crime-like tendencies of the Bush gang, none of this strikes me as at all implausible.