Does anyone understand former United States Attorney Tom Heffelfinger's response to the question put to him last night on Almanac: "How much do you want to know the truth of what is transpiring with your name attached to it?" (http://www.tpt.org/a...)
Since the topic of the Department of Justice (DOJ's) "brouhaha" seemed carefully framed by his Almanac hosts from the git-go to avoid all mention of the issue of Heffelfinger's controversial replacement, Rachel Paulose, the easy answer is probably "not too much."
We did learn, however, that Heffelfinger's near-firing has been one of the most frustrating experiences of his career for the following reasons: 1) the source that he was on that early list to be fired is anonymous and unconfirmed. (When in doubt, it's always good to shoot the messenger, huh? Especially after well-known but misplaced reliance on unconfirmed sources like "Curveball."); 2) the list of U.S. Attorneys to be fired was compiled by a "kid" with little prosecutive experience (again while not commenting on Paulose who is similarly situated to Kid Kyle Sampson); 3) Minnesota's United States Attorney's office always got "rave reviews" from Washington's main Justice even if main Justice was "disinterested" in Minnesota's Indian Country issues. (Although the disinterest in Washington about Indian Country issues is true enough, Heffelfinger can't be grasping at this as the reason the Bush Administration would have wanted to replace him, can he?); and 4) morale in the U.S. Attorneys' offices and in DOJ is as low as it's ever been (although in the same breath Heffelfinger opined that it would have been no problem if A.G. Gonzales had "merely reached out" and told all the attorneys "your time is up" without the false pretense of saying they were being fired for performance issues. But how can this be when Heffelfinger previously said political connections are only relevant to getting appointed as U.S. Attorney, not relevant to performing the job afterward?).
Even with 24 years working in a component agency of the Department of Justice and knowing Mr. Heffelfinger a little bit, I have to say I'm sorry I couldn't make any more sense of what he said. At its root, it's hard to know if Heffelfinger's frustration stems from what actually transpired in DOJ or from being personally caught up in the scandal of what has transpired. Scandals tend to have such potential negative impact on one's political connections and future job aspirations. It might depend, for instance, on whether Heffelfinger still wants to be seen as "on the (Republican) team." As one of his former colleagues, U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins, is reported to have initially said on February 20, after being fired and just as the DOJ scandal was starting to come out, "I still want to be on the team, and I don't have any hard feelings, I would like to be a federal judge someday, and I didn't think the Democrats are going to nominate me." (http://news.national...)
This makes Almanac Host Cathy Wurzer's first question all the better. In a situation like this, how much of the truth does someone like Tom Heffelfinger even want to know?
(Okay, I admit it -- *this* I missed over the weekend. - promoted by MNCampaignReport)
Fred Frommer from the AP talked to "a senior congressional judiciary aide" who confirmed that "senior Justice Department officials had raised concerns" about former Minnesota U.S. Attorney Tom Heffelfinger. This revelation came in private congressional interviews with Kyle Sampson, Alberto Gonzales' former Chief of Staff and the apparent point man for the "purge" of U.S. Attorneys.
This adds even more credence to the speculation that Mr. Heffelfinger was one of the prosecutors originally targeted for "purging," and one of the two prosecutors mentioned in this April 14th, 2006 memo from Kyle Sampson:
[If you haven't already, read my case for the significance of this memo here, where I speculated that Tom Heffelfinger of Minnesota and Todd Graves of Missouri were the two U.S. attorneys mentioned in this critical memo. ]
[UPDATE]: McClatchy is now confirming that "Congressional investigators probing the firings of eight U.S. attorneys saw Thomas Heffelfinger's name on a version of the list that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, began assembling in early 2005." They have this double-sourced, though the Justice Department is refusing to confirm it--folks, this is a bombshell. Heffelfinger is continuing to deny that any pressure was placed on him.
[UPDATE 2]: A diarist at DailyKos pointed out this list of documents that the DOJ is purposely withholding from investigators because they involve "congressional and media inquiries" into the purge scandal.
A couple of documents on this list, apparently a back-and-forth exchange between Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling, may provide crucial information on the Heffelfinger resignation and the Paulose appointment:
Also check out my piece on Rachel Paulose, the mysteriously well-connected but seemingly under-qualified replacement for Mr. Heffelfinger.
Read the rest of this entry for more interesting tidbits from the Heffelfinger/Paulose saga.
(Light on material today -- but some more analysis of U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose here, cross-posted from a pretty successful diary on DailyKos. - promoted by MNCampaignReport)
The Star Tribune wrote an article about Rachel Paulose on Sunday. TPM and mncapaignreport.com found the information lacking and questionable. After a little digging, I found the information very disturbing.
United States Department of Justice (Jan 2006 to present)
Dorsey & Whitney (Oct. 2003 to Dec. 2005)
Williams and Connolly (Oct. 2002 to Oct. 2003)
At Wiki someone changed the order of her private practice and thus her residency.
She worked in private practice after 1999 at the Dorsey & Whitney law firm in Minneapolis until 2002.[3] From 2002-2006 she was a member of the Williams & Connolly law firm in Washington D.C. Her work at this firm focused on health care litigation and business.[1]
From 2002 to 2005, Paulose worked in private practice for law firms including Williams & Connolly in Washington, D.C., focusing primarily on business and health care litigation.
(One of these days I'll just set Smit's diaries on Heffelfinger/Paulose/Purge-gate to go automatically to the frontpage... - promoted by MNCampaignReport)
Nick Coleman, the Star Tribune star columnist, seems to be the first in the local mainstream media to pick up the Heffelfinger / Paulose story, first reported in my diaries here and here. His piece in the Strib today contains several interesting quotes from Mr. Heffelfinger himself, and also brings up the key fact, mentioned in the KSTP broadcast, that Mr. Heffelfinger was not invited to Ms. Paulose's investiture ceremony:
"Rachel Paulose put together the guest list, and why I was not on the guest list, only she can answer," says Heffelfinger.
Paulose's spokesperson, Jeanne Cooney, claimed that Paulose and Heffelfinger get along "very well," but said:
"I'm not going to discuss Rachel's personal investiture invitation list to anybody. It was a public event. Anybody who wanted to go could have gone."
This just adds fuel to the flames of speculation that Heffelfinger was targeted, though Mr. Heffelfinger claims once again in Coleman's piece that he "left for [his] own reasons."
But Coleman's piece ultimately does a disservice to the story by getting key facts in the saga wrong. Read below the jump to see where Coleman's piece went off-track.
(I tried to wait, but this stuff is too good not to promote. I've had a couple of well-placed folks tell me there's probably nothing to this, but with research like this, it's becoming a bit more difficult to accept.....read on. - promoted by MNCampaignReport)
MNCR: Edited gently to make the images less site-layout-killing.
A week ago, I wrote a diary about Minnesota's new United States Attorney, Rachel Paulose, and her possible connection to the "attorney purge" scandal currently engulfing the White House and the Department of Justice. I speculated that the resignation of the previous U.S.A., Thomas Heffelfinger, was related to the current scandal, and it seemed clear to me that the 33-year-old Paulose was chosen because of her her political connections to the conservative establishment and the Republican Party rather than her being the most qualified candidate for the job.
On Tuesday, Minnesota Public Radio interviewed Tom Heffelfinger, and he claimed that politics played no role in his resignation:
The former U.S. attorney for Minnesota says he never felt political pressure from the White House that allegedly led to the firings last year of eight other U.S. attorneys around the country. On Tuesday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales admitted the firings were mishandled, but rejected calls for him to resign. Tom Heffelfinger stepped down from the Minnesota post a year ago, but he says politics wasn't the reason.
[...]
Tom Heffelfinger resigned his post as U.S. attorney in Minneapolis last February. He had served two stints -- the first from September 1991 to April 1993, and then again from September 2001 to February 2006.
He says no one ever pressured him to leave his post or asked him to leave. He resigned based on a personal decision, driven by his career and his family finances. Moreover, he says he was not pressured to investigate Democrats.
"I got no direction whatsoever at any time during this administration, or my last tour as U.S. attorney, to consider politics," he said. "To the contrary, partisan considerations are irrelevant to a public integrity investigation."
Is he telling the truth, or just being a good soldier for the Bush administration and the Republican team? Keep in mind that Heffelfinger is a Republican through and through, and thus has motive not to rock the boat by involving himself in this scandal. The City Pageslabeled Heffelfinger a "Republican spin doctor" for his role in an investigation into theft at Metropolitan Council Transit Operations. He was appointed as U.S. Attorney by both Bush I and Bush II, ran unsuccessfully as a Republican for Hennepin County Attorney in 1986, and donates heavily to Republican candidates. Based on my investigation into the internal Justice Department documents released recently by the House Judiciary Committee (available at their website), my investigation reveals that there is a good chance that Heffelfinger was one of the U.S. Attorneys originally targeted for dismissal by officials at the Department of Justice and the White House.
(Excellent work by the diarist to gather up the necessary links and information to connect us to a huge scandal going on across the country. Alberto Gonzales figures to be in at least as much trouble as the recently convicted Scooter Libby over politically-motivated firings of U.S. Attorneys. - promoted by MNCampaignReport)
It seemed like a fairy-tale: University of Minnesota graduate goes to Yale Law, gets a few high-profile jobs, including stints at Dorsey & Whitney and the Justice Department, and winds up, at age 33, the youngest serving U.S. Attorney, the first woman to hold that position in Minnesota and the first U.S. Attorney of South Asian descent. Her appointment to the post is sponsored by Republican Senator Norm Coleman, but also endorsed by outgoing Democrat Mark Dayton, who makes it his final priority in the Senate to see her confirmation through in the waning hours of the session.
This is the narrative we have received from the media of the meteoric rise of Rachel Paulose, the new U.S. Attorney in the Minnesota district. But with the recent furor over the firings of the "Gonzales Seven"--several of whom were involved in ongoing corruption investigations, and others of whom have revealed that they were pressured to speed up investigations by sitting members of Congress--and their replacement by up-and-coming partisans, the curious case of Rachel Paulose merits a closer look.
In this diary, I'll look at the circumstances surrounding the departure of Paulose's predecessor, Thomas B. Heffelfinger; the path to the post for Paulose; and the possible connection between the Paulose appointment and the growing U.S. Attorneys scandal, which promises to offer more explosive fun in the coming days. (If you have no idea what I'm talking about, read the archives of Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo from the past week or so. Josh's blog broke this story a couple of months back and has been on top of every new development.)
UPDATE: If you are interested in learning more about Tom Heffelfinger's departure, and the case for why he may have been a part of the "purge," read my diary "Tom Heffelfinger and the U.S. Attorney 'purge'"
