Ruemmler & Obama

Ironic that we are just now getting a call from a prominent Democratic crisis manager for White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler to resign.  He bases it on reports of her prior knowledge of the IRS’s discriminatory and politicized harassment of conservative groups at the same time he touts her “impeccable legal credentials.”

Lanny Davis obviously knows nothing of–or like many others, simply chose to ignore–the unethical and corrupt practices Ruemmler employed while on the Enron Task Force along with former Acting Attorney General Matthew Friedrich (who later micromanaged the corrupt prosecution of former Senator Ted Stevens), and with now Deputy Director/head legal Counsel for the FBI Andrew Weissmann.

In fact, every case the Enron Task Force prosecutors actually took to trial was reversed in whole or in part for some form of their overreaching, illegal or unethical tactics.

Our question is:  Why is she in the White House in the first place?’  . . . . Unless, . . . obviously, this is the kind of  “talent” this President wants, and, apparently it was . . .  and, worse, it still is.

In a statement published in the Huffington Post in 2011 when she was appointed, Obama praised Ruemmler as “an outstanding lawyer with impeccable judgment. . . .”

In the same 2011 article, former Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick said Ruemmler; “brings several strengths to the post, namely that she already knows the ‘traditions and values’ of the administration as well as the people there. In addition, Gorelick said, Ruemmler is someone who  ‘can be forceful when she needs to.'”

Really, where is the surprise that Ruemmler would condone or cover-up the IRS’s malevolent tactics?   No one has even acknowledged that Ruemmler has long had a serious grievance pending against her in front of the DC Disciplinary Authority–one that the DC Bar has had for 10 months, is still under active consideration, and could result in her suspension or disbarment if and when they thoroughly investigate it.  The grievance provides substantial evidence–and there is even more if anyone asks to see it–that she and her colleagues on the Enron Task Force actually yellow-highlighted and then hid from the defense evidence of key witnesses that directly contradicted their case, their specific arguments to the jury, and caused the conviction and imprisonment of four innocent Merrill Lynch executives on concocted charges and “facts” while these unethical and dishonest prosecutors were promoted by Obama to serve as Chief Legal Counsel to the FBI (Andrew Weissmann) and White House Counsel.

They not only hid the exculpatory evidence they had yellow-highlighted, but in defiance of a court order, they gave the defendants misleading summaries instead.

Even the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, whose record on the Enron Task Force’s trials was embarrassing at best with several Supreme Court reversals, held that Ruemmler and her team “plainly suppressed” evidence favorable to the defense.  That finding establishes a clear violation of ethical rule 3.8–not to mention the Supreme Court’s admonition that the United States Attorney “seek justice.”  This is NOT what we would call “impeccable legal credentials” or “impeccable judgment”–unless that kind of calculated dishonesty and win-at-any-cost mentality is exactly what you want. Indeed, why is she still practicing law?

If a real investigation were ever done, the evidence suggests that the former prosecutors now perched on high should find themselves suspended, disbarred or on the other end of an indictment.  How much damage has to be done before someone with the ability to do so will conduct a real investigation?