The 12/07/2009 edition of the Wall Street Journal posted this expose, "Baucus Tie to Nominee Kept Mum." Reporters Brody Mullins and Julie Jargon wrote, "In nominating his girlfriend for the job of U.S. attorney, Montana
Sen. Max Baucus didn't disclose the relationship to the White House . . ."
Alleged partiality of the DOJ is being recognized as a legitimate reason to get out of prison by Mississippi attorney Paul Minor and the judge he bribed, John Whitfield. How can this candidate for US Attorney claim impartiality if she benefited from the partiality and that is what got her nominated? "
Our government, which has been under attack by a plague of lack of public confidence, seems to be circling the wagons. This expose may give reason for our government to investigate but should not give allowances for excuses. "[S]upporters of Mr. Baucus say that the fact that Mr. Baucus didn't disclose the relationship suggests he didn't try to exert influence over the selection. " Excuse me? Legitimizing influence to beget influence? That's like legitimizing a judicial bribe as a "gift" between friends.
By ethical standards judges and lawyers, including US Attorneys, are to be held to a HIGHER standard of conduct, not equal, not lesser. Confidence in the integrity of the US judiciary, government officials, and federal attorneys are at an all time low. The problem results from too much secrecy and too many complaints dismissed without investigation. If we want to clean up courts and clean up the environment we have to start by cleaning up our government and setting an example.
I was a victim of judicial impartiality and judicial disregard for ethics and the law in a case that eventually ended with a conviction of my former lawyer and former judge. The question will always remain, how did these judges and US Attorneys get nominated in the first place and would that nomination influence their decisions? The answers may surprise you.