Prosecutor Says Bush Appointees Interfered With Tobacco Case

[paulk]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

The leader of the Justice Department team that prosecuted a landmark lawsuit against tobacco companies said yesterday that Bush administration political appointees repeatedly ordered her to take steps that weakened the government's racketeering case.
Sharon Y. Eubanks said Bush loyalists in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's office began micromanaging the team's strategy in the final weeks of the 2005 trial, to the detriment of the government's claim that the industry had conspired to lie to U.S. smokers.

snip...

Eubanks, who retired from Justice in December 2005, said she is coming forward now because she is concerned about what she called the "overwhelming politicization" of the department demonstrated by the controversy over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. Lawyers from Justice's civil rights division have made similar claims about being overruled by supervisors in the past.

Eubanks said Congress should not limit its investigation to the dismissal of the U.S. attorneys.

"Political interference is happening at Justice across the department," she said. "When decisions are made now in the Bush attorney general's office, politics is the primary consideration. . . . The rule of law goes out the window."


--------------------

This is of particular interest to me since my S.O. worked on this case, including working directly with Eubanks - which also included witnessing some of the questionable behavior Eubank's alludes to.

I think more and more of this sort of thing is going to start coming out as people begin to speak up - now that there is hope of some real investigation.

[Tanuki]

1. I wish she had spoken up in 2005, eom

[paulk]

3. she did speak up about in 2006

http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/pressclip.php?view=2659

She may have been prevented from commenting on the trial any earlier because the judge in the case hadn't made a ruling yet, or perhaps because the internal DOJ investigations hadn't concluded. There was also a call for Congressional investigations, which weren't pursued with much enthusiasm by the Republican controlled Congress.

That she's making these charges public again is because of the publicity surrounding the attorney firings.

[yellowcanine]

2. But Charles Krauthammer says there is no evidence of obstruction of any prosecutions.

If Charlie says it it must be true. :sarcasm: