Anybody remember Justice Robert H. Jackson? Yes, the same Robert Jackson from the Nuremberg war crimes trials. Well, before he was a Supreme Court Justice, before the war crimes trials, Robert H. Jackson was Attorney General of the United States.

In 1940 he gave an incredible speech. His audience? The United States attorneys form all over the country. They were assembled in the Great Hall at DOJ for the Second Annual Conference of United States attorneys.  http://www.roberthjackson.org/Man/theman2-7-6-1/

That speech inspired and informed the conduct of US Attorneys for years after, right up to the moment Bushco perverted the noble traditions of federal prosecution.

Attorney General Jackson reminded them

The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous. He can have citizens investigated and, if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations. Or the prosecutor may choose a more subtle course and simply have a citizen’s friends interviewed. The prosecutor can order arrests, present cases to the grand jury in secret session, and on the basis of his one-sided presentation of the facts, can cause the citizen to be indicted and held for trial. He may dismiss the case before trial, in which case the defense never has a chance to be heard.

Attorney General  Jackson did not believe that the US Attorneys were subservient to himself or DOJ, to the contrary, while acknowledging that DOJ had a role to play in coordinating and standardizing the interpretation of the law so that there would be uniformity and predictability throughout the United States, he emphasized the independence of the USAs in their respective districts.

Your responsibility in your several districts for law enforcement and for its methods cannot be wholly surrendered to Washington, and ought not to be assumed by a centralized Department of Justice. It is an unusual and rare instance in which the local District Attorney should be superseded in the handling of litigation, except where he requests help of Washington. It is also clear that with his knowledge of local sentiment and opinion, his contact with and intimate knowledge of the views of the court, and his acquaintance with the feelings of the group from which jurors are drawn, it is an unusual case in which his judgment should be overruled

So, contrary to the "loyal Bushies" marching in lockstep to the drumbeat of Abu's weirdly skewed prosecutorial priorities, for generations DOJ has run on the principal that USAs should tailor their activities to the specific needs of their local district.

Further, Jackson praised the Hatch Act and it's power to shield federal prosecutors from pressure to use their office to the advantage of one political party or the other :

The federal prosecutor has now been prohibited from engaging in political activities.  I am convinced that a good-faith acceptance of the spirit and letter of that doctrine will relieve many district attorneys from the embarrassment of what have heretofore been regarded as legitimate expectations of political service.  There can also be no doubt that to be closely identified with the intrigue, the money raising, and the machinery of a particular party or faction may present a prosecuting officer with embarrassing alignments and associations.  I think the Hatch Act should be utilized by federal prosecutors as a protection against demands on their time and their prestige to participate in the operation of the machinery of practical politics.

In short, Jackson say the Hatch as a good excuse for USAs and AUSAs to be able to fend off attempts by politicos to co-opt the awesome power of their office to achieve political ends.

For over a generation, it was these principals that were inculcated into DOJ lawyers serving in the USAOs. Young lawyers like Jim Comey cut their teeth on these ideals. And for my entire professional life, I have seen no other standard, nor ever guessed that any other standard might ever be applied.

Contrary to the gobbletygook, clapptrap, distortions and apparently outright lies being slung around these days; this is not a question of a change in style from a previous administration to the current one.

This is a wholesale departure from long established traditions and well settled fully functioning and successful policies that have served this nation well under both Republican and Democratic administrations since at least our grandparent's day.

I don't know what Jim Comey is going to say today. But I know that he was "brought up" as a lawyer in the same traditions that all federal prosecutors of my generation learned. I also know that I have long admired his integrity and courage and have long feared his wrath (not that it has ever been directed at me, but it is terrifying to witness).

As a side note, I was at the Law Day dinner at the Waldorf on May 1st. All the talk that night was on two topics: 1)The USA firing scandal/raping and pillaging of DOJ, and 2) an online petition that was circulated that day calling for the restoration of habeas corpus.

I am happy to report that lawyers, judges, and other public servants known to me to be registered republicans where amoung the most outraged with respect to the former, and amoung the ardent supporters of the latter.

This is not about political party any more. This is about the rule of law. It is also about whether we are a civilized country striving to reach our best aspirations or whether we have sunk into barbarism where might makes right and where the term "serves at the pleasure of the president"  is twisted from a courtly expression used by one who would resign in protest if he could not in good conscience carry out a directive from the President which the appointee felt to be wrong, into an excuse, a coverup for nefarious meddling into the charging decisions made at the District level.

As Lord Moulton once famously observed

"The measure of a civilization is the degree of its obedience to the unenforceable."

As opposed to the current administrations view "if is it is not a clear violation of an often used criminal statute, then it's perfect;ly OK." And even then they have some carve out exceptions for "quaint" crimes involving violations of the Geneva conventions.

I will leave you with one last, chilling  thought form the eloquent Lord Moulton

"Tyranny is yielding to the lust of the governing."

 

Related posts:

  1. Holder Names Durham Special Prosecutor for Torture
  2. Michele Brown, Prosecutor with Whom Christie Has “Ongoing Financial Relationship,” Resigns
  3. Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission
  4. Chris Christie, Former US Attorney, Claims He’s Still “Got” Federal Prosecutors
  5. Tortured Logic: GOP Senators Concerned Prosecutor Will Make You Dead