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?
It’s an interesting story, actually.
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.
Now, in this case, Brownlee managed to keep his job. But what transpired in this case is nevertheless amazing — the Justice Department pressured a U.S. Attorney to back off a case involving a pharmaceutical company that broke the law, because a company exec asked for special treatment.
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.”
“Normally, there’s a lot of deference given to U.S. attorneys in matters of timing,” said Michael R. Bromwich, a former Justice Department inspector general. “The kind of micromanagement that this suggests could easily have a chilling effect in some circumstances.”
Exactly. The tactics here weren’t subtle — back off certain cases or you can lose your job. Brownlee did the right thing, and followed through on his case, but I’m sure he got the message about what his superiors think about U.S. Attorneys who try to exercise their own independent judgment.
For that matter, one 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?