not a good look. One month into a Justice Dept investigation she abruptly resigns. Dems have to do a better job vetting people. At least they did something about it. Massachusetts US Attorney Rachael Rollins to resign after Justice Department watchdog probe (msn.com) Massachusetts U.S. Attorney Rachael Rollins will resign following a monthslong investigation by the Justice Department's inspector general into her appearance at a political fundraiser and other potential ethics issues, her attorney said Tuesday. The Justice Department's watchdog has yet to release its report detailing the findings of its investigation, but an attorney for Rollins told The Associated Press that she will be submitting a letter of resignation to President Joe Biden by close of business Friday. The resignation of a U.S. attorney amid ethics concerns is an exceedingly rare phenomenon and is especially notable for a Justice Department that under Attorney General Merrick Garland has sought to restore a sense of normalcy and good governance following the turbulent four years of the Trump administration. Rollins' attorney said she has been “profoundly honored” to have served as U.S. attorney and proud of her office's work but “understands that her presence has become a distraction.” Attorney Michael Bromwich — a former Justice Department inspector general — said Rollins will make herself available to answer questions “after the dust settles and she resigns.”
Seriously? The party that supports Trump, MTG, Gaetz, and Tuberville is saying Democrats need to do a better job vetting people?
Good thing she voluntarily stepped down. Could have just pulled a Clarence Thomas and refused to do anything.
you must have me confused with some other poster. I don't lower the bar because the other guy did too.
big difference in the ability to have her removed. obviously something was identified that neither side wanted to make public. if it was that bad, should DOJ be prosecuting or did they cut a deal to sweep it under the rug?
or maybe her appearance at a political fundraiser created an appearance of impropriety. Not everything is a conspiracy. It does cite other ethical issues, but they probably aren’t that sexy ETA: leaking and lying under oath. Ok, that’s a bit of a sexy violation for a public official. She should definitely be out. But I don’t see any indication of a more widespread coverup US attorney in Massachusetts leaked sensitive information to journalist and lied under oath, DOJ watchdog report says | CNN Politics
Thanks for sharing but I'm not a fan of your political rhetoric. One US attorney investigated for potential ethics violations does not indicate a widespread issue. Also, while US Attorneys are nominated by the President, law enforcement performs an extensive background check and the Senate confirms. It could very well be there were no red flags and the alleged acts occurred after confirmation. Lastly, the "Dems" didn't act here, the Justice Department's IG did. That is not a political role. If she was guilty of the ethics charges, I think everything went the way it should.
This "scandal" and the consequence of forced resignation cannot be fully understood outside the context of prior administration. According to the article, she's forced to resign for violations of the Hatch Act, primarily attending fundraisers while in the Office of US Attorney. US attorneys are political appointees but are supposed to be apolitical in the discharge of their duties. What she did is wrong but may not have resulted in her losing her position in earlier Administrations. Officials from all parties attempted to observe the Hatch Act, transgressed in limited ways on a fairly regular basis, and would often be censured and/or apologize. That changed in the Trump Administration, in which significant violations were blatant, routine and purposeful. At least 13 former Trump administration officials violated the law by intermingling campaigning with their official government duties, according to a new federal investigation released Tuesday. The report from the Office of Special Counsel says the officials broke the law without consequence and with the administration’s approval as part of a “willful disregard for the Hatch Act,” which prohibits government officials from using their official roles to influence elections, including supporting candidates while acting in their official capacities. Among the officials cited are former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Jared Kushner, who served as senior adviser to the president, former White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, Kellyanne Conway, then counselor to the president, Stephen Miller, who served as Trump’s senior policy adviser, and Robert O’Brien, the former national security adviser. Conway had been repeatedly cited by the office, which at one point went so far as to call for her removal. “In each case, the subject official was identified by their official title, discussed administration policies and priorities related to their official duties, and/or spoke from the White House grounds,” the report reads. The report notes the office repeatedly warned Trump White House officials about their violations, but that the former president who is responsible for enforcing the law for high-ranking officials never bothered to do that. Probe finds Trump officials repeatedly violated Hatch Act Kelley Ann Conway is a textbook example, with the OSC making specific finding about her repeated violations When reporters noted the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) found she violated the Hatch Act with two interviews she gave in late 2017, Conway was dismissive. “Blah, blah, blah,” she said as one reporter recounted the OSC’s findings. “If you’re trying to silence me through the Hatch Act, it’s not going to work,” Conway said. “Let me know when the jail sentence starts,” she added. https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ses-hatch-act-violation-let-me-know-when-the/ So I suspect that this administration correctly noted that it would have to be extremely vigilant in enforcing the Hatch Act's prohibitions if that standard was going to have any continued vitality, not overlooking even limited transgressions. I am not saying this is a limited transgression. But I don't think it's one that would've resulted in loss of position previously. But if the legal standard of not mixing politics and official duties was going to survive, it had to be enforced tightly. Just another way that Trump corrupted us, requiring others to go beyond what they would have previously to try to preserve the Republic.
We need to stop giving people like her a soft landing without a prosecution-she leaked sensitive DOJ material to influence a local election. Try her in court-don’t give her a farewell cake and an NDA. Want to actually stop this shit? Prosecute and if convicted throw some people in jail instead of simply letting them move on to their next station in life. It’s not hard math.
That many issues in that quick of a time frame is telling. Glad that DOJ acted as it did. Props to the WH for staying out of it. She knew it was a high profile position for a black female and failed miserably to represent herself accordingly.
Here's a more recent and comprehensive overview of the ethics allegations https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/17/massachusetts-federal-prosecutor-resign-ethics-scandal.html Potentially lying to the investigators (18 U.S.C. § 1001) might be her biggest problem.
Like I said, Im not lowering the bar because the other guy did. Props to DOJ IG and WH for staying out of it. Negative to machine that promoted and vetted her. Her approach was systemic and didn't start when she accepted this high profile position. It isn’t a single issue. The fear is that she was promoted by a machine invested in promoting people for DEI reason and overlooking more deserving applicants. This only provides fodder for that narrative used to create division. Just or not, trailblazers should know they will be held to a higher standard, let alone a minimal legal one.
I highly doubt this could have resulted in a 1001 prosecution, esp. after the McCabe debacle on similar facts. It is unethical. The suggestion that she wasn't properly vetted for DEI reasons is pure speculation, and I suspect completely untrue, being very, very familiar with the process in Florida.
Seems like the “fear” that she wasn’t fully vetted for DEI reasons is a baseless attempt to make a prosecutorial ethics issue into a race issue because she’s black
Remember, if the choice is a white male, it was on the basis of pure merit; otherwise, underserving diversity
Who is saying that? The poster you’re responding to certainly doesn’t represent those you mentioned by name here. Matter of fact, he calls out the crazies routinely so you might want to retract this post.
