No Comment — November 12, 2007, 7:10 am

Fire Brian Roehrkasse

Here’s some cogent advice for Michael Mukasey. If he wants to demonstrate that he’s determined to do something to rebuild the reputation of the Department of Justice, he should start by issuing walking papers to some of the people who have done the most to destroy the Department’s reputation. And DOJ press spokesman Brian Roehrkasse must stand pretty much near the top of that list.
Last week I had a discussion with some network media colleagues who are working on a story I have been covering heavily. At one point they relayed a series of statements from a DOJ spokesman. It must have been Brian Roehrkasse, I offered, because virtually every statement made was either a rank falsehood or a conscious distortion. And indeed, it was.

Roehrkasse has a well formed reputation with the media, namely, as a political hack and shameless dissembler.

And the advice to fire him is being freely dispensed now. In an interview with NPR’s “All Things Considered” broadcast on Saturday, here’s what Bush’s former U.S. Attorney in Little Rock, the highly regarded Bud Cummins, had to say:

Former Arkansas U.S. attorney Bud Cummins, who was among those fired, had a bit of advice for Michael Mukasey, who was sworn in Friday as attorney general. Cummings said it’s nothing personal, but he thinks Mukasey should fire Brian Roehrkasse, the Justice Department’s communications director.

“This guy, frankly, intentionally misled and deceived the press and the public on a number of occasions, and just told outright lies,” Cummins said. Cummins said that when you speak for the Justice Department, you have a higher ethical standard to speak the truth.

Back at the end of August, Paul Kiel surveyed some of Roehrkasse’s more spectacular whoppers up through that point. It’s worth reviewing them to get an idea of just how much of a disgrace this man is:

Disgruntled Employees
The Justice Department’s initial strategy in dealing with the U.S. Attorney’s scandal was to describe any former U.S. Attorney who spoke candidly and accurately about what had happened a “disgruntled former employee.” Roehrkasse is at the center of this disinformation campaign. Indeed, Alberto Gonzales wrote a famous op-ed calling the firings an “overblown personnel matter,” and it’s widely rumored that Roehrkasse was behind that chronic whopper too. Typical of the preliminary Roehrkasse lies at the early phase is this statement in the Washington Post on March 7:

The senior official, Michael J. Elston, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty, wrote in a letter to the Senate that he never intended to send a threatening message in his talks with Cummins. Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said that “a private and collegial conversation” was “being twisted into a perceived threat by former disgruntled employees grandstanding before Congress.”

Lies About Little Rock
Here’s what Roehrkasse told the Arkansas Gazette-Democrat about Cummins’s firing and replacement:

“We are hopeful that by working with the two U.S. senators from Arkansas, we will make a nomination that the senators support and the Congress approves.” Roehrkasse explained, “When a U.S. attorney resigns, there is a need for someone to fill that position.” He noted that often, the first assistant U.S. attorney in the affected district will serve as the acting U.S. attorney until the formal nomination process begins for a replacement. But in this case, “the first assistant is on maternity leave,” he said, referring to Jane Duke, who gave birth to twins earlier than expected the same week of the announcement.

Almost every element of this statement was subsequently evolved to be a lie or conscious dissembling. Just for starters, a large part of the friction over the change in Little Rock came from the fact that the Arkansas senators were circumvented—not allowed to provide input—because a determination had been made to appease Karl Rove by installing one of his “voter caging” dirty tricksters as the U.S. attorney. But here’s Kiel’s summary:

First, it was no secret to Bud Cummins, the former U.S. attorney for Little Rock, or others in the Department that he had in fact been asked to step down. So he was fired and did not resign (a fact that was not public at the time). And second, it was similarly no secret that Griffin would replace Cummins. Emails show senior Department aides Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling working back in August of that year on installing Griffin.

The notion that the Department ever considered replacing Cummins with his first assistant is simply not true. “Clearly, nobody ever considered appointing her,” Cummins told me. “There was a plan in place, and it was obvious from September that Tim Griffin was going to become the U.S. attorney. In light of everything that was known by all of us, this was a ridiculous statement.”

It’s a good example of the Roehrkasse style: figure out what standard policy was and insist that it was followed, even when he knows that it absolutely was not. Lie tenaciously and aggressively throughout.

If you know what’s good for you, you’ll zip it
The practice of omertà was another essential element of the U.S. Attorneys scandal. Terminated U.S. attorneys were cautioned to keep silent about what had happened, and were threatened that their reputations would be sullied if they didn’t. On March 6, the McClatchy newspapers broke the story of the key role played in this process by the chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General McNulty:

According to one of the fired U.S. attorneys, Elston made the comments during a telephone conversation after Democrats began questioning whether the administration was attempting to purge more independent-minded Republican appointees in order to replace them with more partisan candidates.

According to the former U.S. attorney, Elston made a “pointed comment that indicated that somehow anyone who talked might become more embarrassed if the story continued on.”

“The inference was that they were holding themselves back from saying more about why people were fired – that it was likely the department was going to step up the defense of their actions,” the fired prosecutor said. “It could have been construed as friendly advice or a casual prediction. But I think it was expected that everyone would be told about the call.”

Here’s how Roehrkasse responded:

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse criticized McClatchy for running the story. “It is unfortunate that the press would choose to run an allegation from an anonymous source from a conversation that never took place,” he said.

Roehrkasse wants the media to think that the allegations stem from a source in the shadows and that they’re therefore not credible. So he piles one false insinuation on another. In fact, before Roehrkasse spoke Cummins had given sworn testimony on the subject, backed up by a produced contemporaneous email. Shortly thereafter three other witnesses had spoken under oath to confirm the account, which could never seriously be controverted by Justice.

These allegations are extremely serious matters, involving a potential obstruction of justice. And Roehrkasse’s response is to aggressively disseminate lies about them, all as official statements of the Department of Justice.

Political Prosecutions in Albuquerque
A critical allegation with respect to the dismissal of the Albuquerque U.S. Attorney David Iglesias is that Senator Pete Dominici was part of a partisan conspiracy seeking his ouster because he failed to use his office to advance bogus claims of voter fraud and a corruption charge against a prominent New Mexico Democrat in a state that sits, electorally speaking, on the edge of a knife. The Senate began an inquiry, the charges have been strongly corroborated by numerous sources, and under pressure, Dominici was forced to announce he would not seek re-election to the Senate. Here’s how Roehrkasse responded to the allegations:

The Justice Department said last night that Domenici called Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty during the first week of October to discuss Iglesias. This followed three calls to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales in September 2005, January 2006 and April 2006 during which, Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said, Domenici “expressed general concerns about the performance of U.S. Attorney Iglesias and questioned whether he was up to the job . . .

“At no time in those calls did the senator mention this corruption case,” nor did he specifically ask for Iglesias’s ouster, Roehrkasse said.

Again, the basic thrust of Roehrkasse’s statements and the specific denial that the corruption case was mentioned are all lies. Alberto Gonzales subsequently admitted that Domenici had in fact discussed corruption cases in his call.

This isn’t an attempt to comprehensively survey the Roehrkasse record, but it goes a long way towards showing his style and approach. He views himself as a political plumber, and he thinks that the media can be kept in line by pumping a steady stream of lies. This is standard fare for electoral politics in America. But institutions like the Department of Justice are badly damaged when this sort of political hucksterism replaces honesty and candor in its relations with the public.

At this point, the Justice Department has extremely serious credibility problems. And Brian Roehrkasse has contributed to them in a big way.

Share
Single Page

More from Scott Horton:

Conversation August 5, 2016, 12:08 pm

Lincoln’s Party

Sidney Blumenthal on the origins of the Republican Party, the fallout from Clinton’s emails, and his new biography of Abraham Lincoln

Conversation March 30, 2016, 3:44 pm

Burn Pits

Joseph Hickman discusses his new book, The Burn Pits, which tells the story of thousands of U.S. soldiers who, after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, have developed rare cancers and respiratory diseases.

Context, No Comment August 28, 2015, 12:16 pm

Beltway Secrecy

In five easy lessons

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

December 2017

Document of Barbarism

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Destroyer of Worlds

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Crossing Guards

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“I am Here Only for Working”

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Dear Rose

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Year of The Frog

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Destroyer of Worlds·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In February 1947, Harper’s Magazine published Henry L. Stimson’s “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.” As secretary of war, Stimson had served as the chief military adviser to President Truman, and recommended the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The terms of his unrepentant apologia, an excerpt of which appears on page 35, are now familiar to us: the risk of a dud made a demonstration too risky; the human cost of a land invasion would be too high; nothing short of the bomb’s awesome lethality would compel Japan to surrender. The bomb was the only option. Seventy years later, we find his reasoning unconvincing. Entirely aside from the destruction of the blasts themselves, the decision thrust the world irrevocably into a high-stakes arms race — in which, as Stimson took care to warn, the technology would proliferate, evolve, and quite possibly lead to the end of modern civilization. The first half of that forecast has long since come to pass, and the second feels as plausible as ever. Increasingly, the atmosphere seems to reflect the anxious days of the Cold War, albeit with more juvenile insults and more colorful threats. Terms once consigned to the history books — “madman theory,” “brinkmanship” — have returned to the news cycle with frightening regularity. In the pages that follow, seven writers and experts survey the current nuclear landscape. Our hope is to call attention to the bomb’s ever-present menace and point our way toward a world in which it finally ceases to exist.

Illustration by Darrel Rees. Source photographs: Kim Jong-un © ITAR-TASS Photo Agency/Alamy Stock Photo; Donald Trump © Yuri Gripas/Reuters/Newscom
Article
Crossing Guards·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Ambassador Bridge arcs over the Detroit River, connecting Detroit to Windsor, Ontario, the southernmost city in Canada. Driving in from the Canadian side, where I grew up, is like viewing a panorama of the Motor City’s rise and fall, visible on either side of the bridge’s turquoise steel stanchions. On the right are the tubular glass towers of the Renaissance Center, headquarters of General Motors, and Michigan Central Station, the rail terminal that closed in 1988. On the left is a rusted industrial corridor — fuel tanks, docks, abandoned warehouses. I have taken this route all my life, but one morning this spring, I crossed for the first time in a truck.

Illustration by Richard Mia
Article
“I am Here Only for Working”·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

But the exercise of labor is the worker’s own life-activity, the manifestation of his own life. . . . He works in order to live. He does not even reckon labor as part of his life, it is rather a sacrifice of his life.

— Karl Marx

Photograph from the United Arab Emirates by the author. This page: Ruwais Mall
Article
The Year of The Frog·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

To look at him, Sweet Macho was a beautiful horse, lean and strong with muscles that twitched beneath his shining black coat. A former racehorse, he carried himself with ceremony, prancing the field behind our house as though it were the winner’s circle. When he approached us that day at the edge of the yard, his eyes shone with what might’ve looked like intelligence but was actually a form of insanity. Not that there was any telling our mother’s boyfriend this — he fancied himself a cowboy.

“Horse 1,” by Nine Francois. Courtesy the artist and AgavePrint, Austin, Texas
Article
Dead Ball Situation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

What We Think About When We Think About Soccer, by Simon Critchley. Penguin Books. 224 pages. $20.

Begin, as Wallace Stevens didn’t quite say, with the idea of it. I so like the idea of Simon Critchley, whose books offer philosophical takes on a variety of subjects: Stevens, David Bowie, suicide, humor, and now football — or soccer, as the US edition has it. (As a matter of principle I shall refer to this sport throughout as football.) “All of us are mysteriously affected by our names,” decides one of Milan Kundera’s characters in Immortality, and I like Critchley because his name would seem to have put him at a vocational disadvantage compared with Martin Heidegger, Søren Kierkegaard, or even, in the Anglophone world, A. J. Ayer or Richard Rorty. (How different philosophy might look today if someone called Nobby Stiles had been appointed as the Wykeham Professor of Logic.)

Tostão, No. 9, and Pelé, No. 10, celebrate Carlos Alberto’s final goal for Brazil in the World Cup final against Italy on June 21, 1970, Mexico City © Heidtmann/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images

Factor by which single Americans who use emoji are more likely than other single Americans to be sexually active:

1.85

Brontosaurus was restored as a genus, and cannibalism was reported in tyrannosaurine dinosaurs.

Moore said he did not “generally” date teenage girls, and it was reported that in the 1970s Moore had been banned from his local mall and YMCA for bothering teenage girls.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today