SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
Need to create a login? Want to change your email address or password? Forgot your password?
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Alberto Gonzales isn’t leaving. But evidently many of his best career staff are planning to do exactly that if he hangs around. Speaking at a conference at Seattle University Law School, former U.S. attorneys John McKay, David Iglesias, and Paul Charlton offered a number of further insights into the rapid degeneration of the Department of Justice following the arrival of Alberto Gonzales and Paul J. McNulty. The three warned that the current controversy was severely damaging to morale at the Department of Justice. According to a report in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, they anticipated a mass exodus of the best professionals working there.
the appearance of impropriety has wasted the credibility of the Justice Department, and they suggested new leadership would be needed to restore it. Iglesias said he has spoken with many U.S. attorneys and assistant U.S. attorneys around the country. “To a person, they’re sickened by this. Some are actively looking for work,” he said. “Morale is terrible across the country.”
McKay told the audience, which included law students, lawyers and members of the public, that he hopes the scandal does not only lead to the “corruption of ideals.” “I hope there are some lessons about integrity and the willingness to pay a price,” he said.
The Seattle Times also reports that the three focused on Alberto Gonzales’s role in the politicization of the Department.
McKay said he first had concerns about politics entering the Justice Department in early 2005, when Gonzales addressed all of the country’s U.S. attorneys in Scottsdale, Ariz. “His first speech to us was a ‘you work for the White House’ speech,” McKay recalled. “‘I work for the White House, you work for the White House.’ ” McKay said he thought at the time, “He couldn’t have meant that speech,” given the traditional independence of U.S. attorneys. “It turns out he did.”
More from Scott Horton:
Six Questions — October 18, 2014, 8:00 pm
Nathaniel Raymond on CIA interrogation techniques.
I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:
The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.
Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”