What Remains Unsaid

/in /by

Here’s my favorite exchange from Stanford Lawyer’s interview of Carol Lam (h/t bmaz):

YOU SERVED UNDER BOTH JOHN ASHCROFT AND ALBERTO GONZALES.  HOW DID THAT TRANSITION FROM ASHCROFT TO GONZALES AFFECT YOUR LIFE AND YOUR DUTIES AS A U.S. ATTORNEY?

The structures of the department were in place, so I didn’t expect a lot of impact from the change in attorney general under the same administration. There are a great many traditions that have built up over the years at the Justice Department that should carry the institution forward on its own momentum. The people come and go, but the institution carries on. So I was surprised by how much change there was.

Note carefully. The question was "How did the transition from Ashcroft to Gonzales affect your life?" To which Lam answers "It shouldn’t have–all the structures of DOJ should have prevented it–but it did, to a surprising degree." Not really an answer to the question, but telling nonetheless.

The only place where Lam really provides any hint of what those changes are is when she describes DOJ having a "straight shot" to the White House.

What these events did show me is that you can’t have a Department of Justice that’s a straight shot to the White House, and that was really the problem here.

We’ve been told the investigation into the USA Purge is ongoing. And Senator Whitehouse’s bill to expose the involvement of the White House in DOJ matters passed out of SJC with large bipartisan support. But we don’t yet know the extent of the White House’s involvement in everyday DOJ operations. And Carol Lam isn’t really telling about those details, either.

image_print
  2. Rayne says:

    I had the sense in reading that interview that Lam has been practicing her parsing for quite a while. It was pretty dense material.

  3. Marie Roget says:

    IMO none of the fired USAs are going to go into what they know of the DOJ/WH linkage publically. Lam was equally careful during the SJC and HJC testimony in March. Another hearing (yes, I know) to delve specifically into this area might elicit something from them under subpoena, particularly from looser lips like David Iglesias, Bud Cummins, or John McKay. Maybe even Lam would give it up under subpoena in closed testimony…

    Speaking of McKay, I was in Seattle last weekend on business & heard this from friends who attended the Tom Wales Foundation annual awards dinner on 10/13: Apparently McKay was the closing speaker & really â€let the DOJ have it†for about 5 minutes. Write up from the emcee of the event here:

    http://www.crosscut.com/law-justice/8280/

  4. Jodi says:

    The new bill is only window dressing.

    The next White House or the one after, can send over a list of 1000 people that can talk.

    The real question is and should be about what these people can talk about.

  6. John Lopresti says:

    Another article about Lam written March2007 with comments open thru April2007 has an addendum which is a Kyle Sampson email written in somewhat coded language with oblique references, sent to eop; all that preceded Lam’s Stanford Law magazine interview by four months. I note the Stanford journalist’s mention of the former Breyer clerk, a prof there, who was in attendance also at the Lam interview. I liked Lam’s words of encouragement to hearten students who might be dismayed by what was then a scandal over the purges in DoJ at WH’s behest. The scotusblog’s coproprietor is involved with a practicum for Stanford 3Ls and greater. So it is a republican conservative campus but west coast Republican. I look forward to an opportunity to study the carefully screened interview, maybe reading it in parallel with the Mukasey argument forum which is in hiatus a few more days until reconvenement.

  7. Marie Roget says:

    â€PS
    Rove still runs the political office, even though he isn’t there.â€

    Of course he does, Albert.

    And is Karl Rove always the infallible political â€genius†touted by many? Not so much. If Rove had wanted to damage the GOP in Seattle WA, he couldn’t have found a better way than by firing U.S. Attorney John McKay. Article below lays out why:

    http://www.crosscut.com/mudville/1164/

  9. Anonymous says:

    25 attempted passes, 21 completed passes, 354 yards passing, 6 Touchdown passes, no interceptions. Tom Brady sucks – four incompletions! Jeepers EW, Pats are looking downright scary good. Super Bowl is here this year. Should I make reservations for you?