Their Corruption: The Partisan Fundraising of Federal District Attorney
A few days ago, we wrote about the fact that the US Supreme Court does not have a code of conduct. American federal prosecutors have such a code, but it did not help Rachael Rollins.
Rachael Rollins is a federal district attorney in Massachusetts. If we compare it with our prosecutor’s office, then this position is very conventionally that of the prosecutor of the Lviv region. Powerful specialists are nominated for this position by the US president, but the Senate must approve the nomination. Rollins was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.
Recently, Rollins’ colleague from the “had questions” © from her colleague from the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice (it’s like a division of internal control). And these were quite wow questions.
And so last week, they published a 150-page report where they listed 3 points of accusation against her. These are not criminal charges but disciplinary ones. However, they are interesting as they very, very strongly echo the accusations that can be regularly read on Ukrainian social networks.
Participation in partisan political fundraising. In mid-July 2022, Rollins attended a fundraising event hosted by a Democratic Party donor. Among the guests was, in particular, the first lady of the United States, Jill Biden.
Ethical and other rules of the Department of Justice allow the participation of its employees in such events, but only with the consent and within the limits of the instructions of the Deputy Attorney General or a person authorized by them.
Rollins applied for such permission and received clear instructions: she could meet for a moment only with the first lady and only outside the premises in which the event will take place (“brief meet-and-greet outdoors”); she must leave the location immediately after this meeting. Instead, Rollins went to the event, where she chatted with a political party donor, gossiped with guests, and posed for photos with the event hosts and guests.
During an internal investigation, she shocked her colleagues from the Office of the Inspector General with statements that she allegedly acted within the guidelines and that if she did break any rules, it was only through the fault of her subordinates. The authors of the report answered these objections nicely:
We also found Rollins’s efforts to blame her staff for her own ethics failures deeply disturbing and contrary to her own independent responsibility as U.S. Attorney to hold herself to a high ethical standard and exercise sound judgment.
Надання партизанської підтримки кандидату, спроба впливу на вибори шляхом надання ЗМІ чутливої інформації про конкурента. Це є ключовим звинуваченням у бік Роллінс. Їх паралельно висунув інший орган — Офіс спеціального радника, який слідкує за тим, аби федеральні службовці не використовували свою посаду для всяких недоброчесних штук.
Providing partisan support to a candidate, attempting to influence the election by providing the mass media with sensitive information about a competitor. This is the key accusation against Rollins. They were stated in parallel by another body — the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which monitors that federal employees do not use their position for all kinds of unscrupulous things.
Rollins actively advised and coordinated the election campaign of the Democratic candidate for the position of the district attorney of the state (she used to hold this position herself, so she knew how such things are done). But her role was not limited to this.
In one of the most critical moments of the election race, Rollins began giving The Boston Globe and The Boston Herald negative information about her favorite’s competitor and also told the media where else to look. Moreover, she tried to create a narrative in the media that there is an investigation against her favorite’s competitor on suspicion of — surprise, surprise — corruption. In her efforts, Rollins went so far as to ask her subordinate to prepare and release a letter stating that their office was investigating this competitor.
During an internal investigation, Rollins lied to colleagues in the Inspector General’s office — claiming someone else was a source for the Globe and Herald. Later, however, she admitted that she should be understood and forgiven. This did not move the authors of the report very much:
[W]e found that Rollins lacked candor during her OIG interview when she answered questions about her communications with the Herald reporter before the primary election and when she described how she first learned of the Globe’s interest in a transit police misconduct case … Furthermore, we believe that Rollins’s actions fell short of the standards of professionalism, judgment, and impartiality that the Department should expect of a U.S. Attorney.
By the way, her lies might lead to criminal prosecution, but the Department of Justice decided not to do this.
A number of other misdemeanors. If the mentioned accusations were not enough, the Inspector General’s office would have stocked up on a number of other stories.
In particular, Rollins used her position to obtain tickets to Boston Celtics games; allegedly went on official business trips at the expense of third parties and also asked the Department of Justice for compensation; even continued to accept donations to her campaign fund (just in case).
Also, Rollins did not hesitate to give the media comments, which are difficult to call relevant, in cases in which the proceedings were still ongoing.
***
Rachael Rollins announced her resignation a day before the Office of the Inspector General released its report. She stayed on the post for 16 months.
Massachusetts practitioners say the local bar association may launch its own disciplinary proceedings against Rollins. If this happens, in the worst-case scenario for her, she will be suspended from the legal profession for a year or two; for the best — a public reprimand will be announced.
✍️Volodymyr Petrakovskyi
