Department of Injustice

By Scott Horton

Eric Lipton and Jennifer Steinhauer at the New York Times report on the struggle between cashiered U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton and the FBI over the practice of tape-recording confessions. In Charlton's case, differences over policy have been advanced as the justification of his dismissal, and the policy dispute over taping confessions has been cited repeatedly by DOJ apologists.

Paul K. Charlton, the United States attorney in Arizona, was ousted after spending months protesting a Federal Bureau of Investigation policy that, for practical purposes, forbids the taping of almost all confessions, in stark contrast to the practice of many local law enforcement agencies in Arizona and other locations across the country.

Mr. Charlton blamed the F.B.I. policy for the resulting plea bargain in the Navajo reservation assault case, as well as the acquittal of a defendant in a child sexual abuse case and a suspect in a prison murder indictment.

Eight states, by law or court action, mandate taping of interviews with suspects in at least serious felony cases, turning a tape recorder or video camera into an important tool in convictions, like DNA tests, fingerprints and ballistics. More than 450 law enforcement agencies in major cities and smaller jurisdictions also require the taping of certain interrogations.

So why would a U.S. attorney be dismissed over insistence on following what is clearly a higher and more professional practice? Good question. The answer is fairly obvious, but it is not raised anywhere in the Times piece: it is that this is obviously not the reason for Charlton's dismissal. On the other hand, the fact that Charlton had launched a major investigation into a Republican seeking re-election in a tightly contested race was. As the Arizona Republic reports:

Two weeks after Arizona U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton was ordered to give up his post, he sent an e-mail to a top Justice Department official asking how to handle questions that his ouster was connected to his investigation of Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz.

Charlton, one of eight federal prosecutors forced to resign last year, never received a written response . . .

When the first list of U.S. attorneys targeted for ouster was drafted, Charlton's name was not on it. But his name was on a subsequent list, drafted in September. Although the Renzi inquiry was not yet public, it is likely the Justice Department was aware of the investigation, said a former U.S. attorney who is familiar with the protocol when a sitting lawmaker is involved.

As Max Blumenthal has noted, Charlton stood in good graces until roughly the time that Kyle Sampson learned of his investigation into Renzi, in a seat that the GOP could no longer count as safe. Then the situation changed. And then a frantic search began for "disagreements" with him.

The Times piece on Charlton is a perfect pairing with their earlier piece on New Mexican David Iglesias. Both start with the premise that every official statement coming out of the Department of Justice is an honest and accurate portrayal of what has transpired. This is an astonishing level of credulity for the newspaper of record.