Almost agreeing with Abbe Lowell

Posted on June 22, 2012 by Sanely Insane

It is not always agreeable to agree with Abbe Lowell, an able if sometimes unpleasant criminal defense attorney.  And frankly, even Attorney General Eric Holder could have successfully defended the loathsome former DEMOCRAT presidential candidate John Edwards, Mr. Lowell’s most recent successful defense.  But, to give credit where it’s due, Mr. Lowell in Prosecutor’s bad decisions, properly cites the United States Department of Justice for horrendous bad judgment and unprofessional performance that spans two administrations, from the injustice served on Senator Ted Stevens (R. AK) to the recent acquittals of Roger Clemens and Mr. Edwards.

Sadly, because Mr. Lowell is a creature of Washington and a close confidant of the discredited attorney general, his prescription to cure what ails is exactly what ails:

He whines that, “Pointing out prosecutorial indiscretion is easier than finding a solution for it.” And that there, “is little accountability  for Justice Department attorneys who make bad choices . . ”  And, of course he defends his friend Mr. Holder with an ad hominem assault on Republicans in a “Congress [that] would rather threaten the attorney general with contempt in an election year than tackle a real problem of wasted law enforcement resources.”

In classic liberal fashion, his first proposed punishment is to close the libraries and fire the police or, in this case the equivalent: “Cutting the Justice Department’s budget would only make it harder for real crimes to be pursued.” And, he seeks a bureaucratic solution: “[T]he department’s inspector general or a similarly skilled official should do postmortems on failed cases to identify why decisions were made and who made them (this is critical), and to report annually on how much is spent on questionable but high-profile cases.”
No Mr. Lowell, we have an attorney general, albeit a pitiful one presently. It is his or her job to impose order in the Justice Department, to set prosecutorial standards, and, yes, to fire lawyers who violate defendants’ rights as happened in the Stevens’ case or reassign to back-room paper pushing, lawyers who bring cases like Clemens and Edwards.
Mr. Lowell would fire in a New York second, an associate who lost a case as a result of egregious error, lapse in judgment or failure even to collect a retainer. Why can’t he advocate the same for Washington bureaucrats?
This entry was posted in Liberalism. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a comment