Avoiding the Question

What is annoying me today, you might ask. Get yourself a beer and let me tell you. I suspect that many of you, from your experience in depositions and trials, are highly attuned to the practice of obfuscation and avoiding the question. In fact, during this never-ending primary season, which began four years ago, we are bombarded every day with non-answers. But today my subject is that religious zealot John Ashcroft. I will bypass what really makes blood shoot out of my eyes and just say that Bible study conducted by and in the office of the Attorney General is outrageous and just plain wrong. That is a rant for another day.

Today's subject is the hen in the hen house. It seems that during his tenure as the Attorney General, Ashcroft set in motion a mechanism (allegedly because Arthur Anderson was forced out of business) whereby a corporation under Justice Department scrutiny can agree to be monitored by, well, someone who has a vested interest in the fact that an investigation is necessary. It's called a deferred prosecution agreement. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying a vested interest in the outcome of the monitoring itself, but a vested interest in being the monitor, regardless of expertise or competence. The New York Times reported on this sweet deal back in January and again Tuesday.

Who is the devious mastermind behind this scheme? A company under investigation agrees to pay for the privilege of being monitored. Why would a company do this? Why, in the hopes of getting lenient treatment from the very folks who initiated the investigation that led to the need for the monitoring program in the first instance. It's nothing but a bald-faced trade-off for paying a hefty fine and avoiding a lawsuit. The finest example of George Bush’s Justice Department protecting big business from greedy and unscrupulous trial lawyers. And, as usual, with no consideration for harm done to the public trust. Now, what is the difference between paying the hen to monitor the hen house to the tune of 52 million dollars or paying to defend a legitimate lawsuit. I guess it’s just into whose pocket the corporate dollars go. And the outcome. A hen in the hen house is much preferable to a fox in the hen house, eh?

So Ashcroft’s association with George Bush has led him to a lucrative career as a hen-in-the-hen house. Now as if I am not annoyed enough to learn of the DC bar's new lifetime employment program, I learn that John Ashcroft does not possess the requisite skill and competence to answer the most simple of questions. Ashcroft was the “star witness” in a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing looking into a surge of unregulated out-of-court settlements between federal prosecutors and corporations under investigation. I learned in my research today that these agreements are supposed to have court oversight, but that the fees are, until today, secret.

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft this morning staunchly defended U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie's decision to appoint him to a lucrative 52 million dollar contract as an independent monitor, accusing Congress of wasting time and taxpayer dollars on the issue. "There is not a conflict, there is not an appearance of a conflict," Ashcroft said during a testy exchange with Rep. Linda Sanchez, the Democratic Congresswoman chairing the hearing.

Here is his response to the question of whether he is the beneficiary of a “no-bid contract steered to him by a political ally.”

"Not a single cent of taxpayers is spent for monitors, this hearing cost far more in tax dollars than my monitorship will cost in tax dollars."

What? Tax dollars? Wasn’t the question about cronyism in the awarding of a a 52 million dollar employment/retirement contract? The deal was brokered for Ashcroft by former Ashcroft toady U.S Attorney Christopher Christie and was "crafted entirely at Christie’s discretion." The companies under investigation faced a difficult choice: either agree to Christie’s terms and pay the substantial fees charged by the monitors that he appointed, or face prosecution. Gosh, business as usual!

When asked if Christie had done anything unlawful or unethical, Ashcroft replied by waving a bunch of newspaper articles and saying, "Here 's Mr. Christie's record." * * * "I really don't believe that Mr. Christie is a law violator. His record as a prosecutor is outstanding." He was, however, extremely informative about how he is going to earn his 52 million dollar fee:

Ashcroft said he has built "an exceptional monitoring team" of 30 lawyers, investigators and accountants. He said such monitoring "protects the public and the corporate stakeholders' interest much better than just allowing a company to pay a large fine and agree to systemic changes without any ongoing oversight.

I know I will sleep better tonight knowing that Ashcroft is monitoring a company that tried to bribe doctors to use their hip and knee replacements. I can only shake my head in wonderment, wish I had such connections, and say that John Ashcroft once lost an election to a dead guy. But, in true peter principle style, John Ashcroft rose to his highest level of incompetence. And a pretty lofty level it was. And lucrative too.

Always Annoyed