Is Rachel Paulose Being Hounded from Office by People Who Are Soft on Prostitution?

In your opinion . . . . . . in the hypothetical situation where, say, the prosecution by the Minnesota USAttorney’s office of both human trafficking and street crime eligible for Federal prosecution* were shamefully neglected under previous US Attorneys with the silent blessing of the professionals in the local office (who, for various reasons, by no means all of them discreditable, had other priorities) would you expect the previous US Attorney to, in his assessment of his replacement who had reversed that practice, to leap to accept the notion that the change in direction of the office might be a cause of some of the “friction” between a new US Attorney (seen by the local staff as a transient occupant of the office) and the local staff?

Or might it not be eminently predictable that he would try to wave the suggestion away?

It’s hardly a “breaktaking” speculation to suggest that the Paulose’s reversal in the neglect of emphasis on trafficking and gun crimes is something that the local career prosecutors might well find embarrassing and/or irritating, given the history, and in fact, while Ms. Hughes’ letter does refer to “those in the Justice Department who have subverted the Bush presidential directive on human trafficking” it does not, as you and Mr. Heffelfinger suggest, argue that the opposition to the presidential direction in the Justice Department excludes the career prosecutors in the Minneapolis office who have apparently not, at least until directed by Rachel Paulose, chosen to focus much attention on the problem.

______________________
* Say, in an unhypothetical situation, where a long-term sting on “straw purchases” under a previous US Attorney resulted in  one straw seller who was caught dead-bang-to-rights for more than 1000 illegal gun sales (possible sentence:  five millennia) being given a plea bargain, presumably by the Fairy Godmother department of the local USAttorney’s office, that got him a sentence of less than five years. 

Evidence? joelr, you can rationalize about why Heffelfinger said what he said to make it consistent with the paranoid story about “dark forces” within Alberto Gonzales’ DOJ sympathetic to human traffickers being responsible for Paulose’s troubles, but that doesn’t supply any affirmative evidence in favor of that wild story.  How anybody can hold up such a piece of completely unsupported speculation as a rebuttal of the abundant evidence of her utter lack of management skills and judgment is beyond me.

Well, that’s one way to avoid an uncomfortable possibility, I guess. If you simply attempt to reframe what appears to be an entirely likely speculation, buttressed by quite a lot of evidence — that Paulose’s acting on a different set of priorities (check) than the career locals had been acting on (check) is at least one of the things that ticked them off (check; a bunch were ticked off)– by mischaracterizing it, I’m sure you can, eventually, get a TKO on your own strawman.

Or is it “straw people”? 

Another other choice, of course, is to confront the possibility that, for once, the NYTimes and Eric Black got things right in their speculation:  that part of Paulose’s problem with her subordinates is that she was attempting to “… serve Mr. Gonzales’s agenda rather than that of career prosecutors in the office,” something that the NYTimes comes out speculates was a cause of her troubles.

Had Eric Black done a better job in his reporting — had he engaged his professional skepticism that seems to be turned up to 11 when talking to any Republican but was apparently, err, otherwise occupied while interviewing Mr. Heffelfinger — he might have seen that a difference in agenda was entirely consistent with Heffelfinger’s notion that her problem is “based in Minneapolis” and Professor Hughes’ suggestion that at least one of her priorities is a reason (if not likely to be the only reason) for the campaign against her, and explored that possibility by pitching something other than softballs to Mr. Heffelfinger.

But, of course, it’s easier for you to to brush off that suggestion by creating the strawman of the “‘dark forces’ within Alberto Gonzales’ DOJ sympathetic to human traffickers” to take a whack at. 

Yup.  It makes for a simpler narrative, and I can understand you jumping for it. 

What’s Eric Black’s excuse?

Take your blinders off. Since when is pointing out a total lack of evidence for your “entirely likely speculation” [sic] that Paulose is a victim as yet completely unidentified persecutors within the DOJ “reframing” and “knocking down strawmen?”

There’s been no evidence that the local AUSAs were “ticked off” because Paulose wanted to chase human traffickers — there’s plenty of evidence they were “ticked off” because they perceived Paulose to lack management skills and treated people like dirt.  Professor Hughes cites no evidence whatsoever, so I see no reason to assign her comments any weight.  All she offered was unsupported speculation.

As for Tom Heffelfinger: first, you do know that Heffelfinger is a Republican, right?  By your reasoning, Black’s skepticism should have been “turned up to 11″ when interviewing him.  Or do you disown Heffelfinger because he dares say things that might hurt the Dear Leader in the White House and his camp followers like Paulose?  Second, how was Black supposed to “push back” at Heffelfinger using Professor Hughes’ hypothesis in the face of Heffelfinger’s claim that he knew nothing to support it and the complete absence of other evidence to support Hughes’ speculation to use as a “handle” in questioning?  At least there’s real evidence to support the charge that Paulose is an incompetent, insensitive manager of the USA office in Minnesota and Heffelfinger’s comment that Paulose’s problems lie in Minneapolis is “entirely consistent” with that charge.  Of course, Heffelfinger’s comment is also “entirely consistent” with  any claim for which there is no evidence, such as Hughes’ bizarre conspiracy theory or, for example, a claim Paulose’s critics are acting under mind control exercised by George Soros — but that supplies no basis to place any credence in a such a hypothesis.

In closing — I didn’t create any “strawman of the ‘dark forces’ within Alberto Gonzales’ DOJ sympathetic to human traffickers.”  Professor Hughes did, apparently to distract attention from the abysmal job Paulose was doing as USA in Minnesota.  I asked you if you knew of any evidence to support it and, apparently, you don’t because you didn’t point to any in your message. 

“But, of course, it’s easier for you to brush off” a request for evidence by “creating the strawman” of Eric Black being a card-carrying member of the liberal media establishment “to take a whack at.

“Yup.  It makes for a simpler narrative” than making a substantive response to my request, “and I can understand you jumping for it.”  Twit.

I’m sure . . . . . . that your violation of the Minnesota Monitor comments policy will be addressed in the typical manner. 

Bored now.

In your opinion . . . . . . in the hypothetical situation where, say, the prosecution by the Minnesota USAttorney's office of both human trafficking and street crime eligible for Federal prosecution* were shamefully neglected under previous US Attorneys with the silent blessing of the professionals in the local office (who, for various reasons, by no means all of them discreditable, had other priorities) would you expect the previous US Attorney to, in his assessment of his replacement who had reversed that practice, to leap to accept the notion that the change in direction of the office might be a cause of some of the “friction” between a new US Attorney (seen by the local staff as a transient occupant of the office) and the local staff?

Or might it not be eminently predictable that he would try to wave the suggestion away?

It's hardly a “breaktaking” speculation to suggest that the Paulose's reversal in the neglect of emphasis on trafficking and gun crimes is something that the local career prosecutors might well find embarrassing and/or irritating, given the history, and in fact, while Ms. Hughes' letter does refer to “those in the Justice Department who have subverted the Bush presidential directive on human trafficking” it does not, as you and Mr. Heffelfinger suggest, argue that the opposition to the presidential direction in the Justice Department excludes the career prosecutors in the Minneapolis office who have apparently not, at least until directed by Rachel Paulose, chosen to focus much attention on the problem.

______________________

* Say, in an unhypothetical situation, where a long-term sting on “straw purchases” under a previous US Attorney resulted in  one straw seller who was caught dead-bang-to-rights for more than 1000 illegal gun sales (possible sentence:  five millennia) being given a plea bargain, presumably by the Fairy Godmother department of the local USAttorney's office, that got him a sentence of less than five years. 

Evidence? joelr, you can rationalize about why Heffelfinger said what he said to make it consistent with the paranoid story about “dark forces” within Alberto Gonzales' DOJ sympathetic to human traffickers being responsible for Paulose's troubles, but that doesn't supply any affirmative evidence in favor of that wild story.  How anybody can hold up such a piece of completely unsupported speculation as a rebuttal of the abundant evidence of her utter lack of management skills and judgment is beyond me.

Well, that's one way to avoid an uncomfortable possibility, I guess. If you simply attempt to reframe what appears to be an entirely likely speculation, buttressed by quite a lot of evidence — that Paulose's acting on a different set of priorities (check) than the career locals had been acting on (check) is at least one of the things that ticked them off (check; a bunch were ticked off)– by mischaracterizing it, I'm sure you can, eventually, get a TKO on your own strawman.

Or is it “straw people”? 

Another other choice, of course, is to confront the possibility that, for once, the NYTimes and Eric Black got things right in their speculation:  that part of Paulose's problem with her subordinates is that she was attempting to “… serve Mr. Gonzales's agenda rather than that of career prosecutors in the office,” something that the NYTimes comes out speculates was a cause of her troubles.

Had Eric Black done a better job in his reporting — had he engaged his professional skepticism that seems to be turned up to 11 when talking to any Republican but was apparently, err, otherwise occupied while interviewing Mr. Heffelfinger — he might have seen that a difference in agenda was entirely consistent with Heffelfinger's notion that her problem is “based in Minneapolis” and Professor Hughes' suggestion that at least one of her priorities is a reason (if not likely to be the only reason) for the campaign against her, and explored that possibility by pitching something other than softballs to Mr. Heffelfinger.

But, of course, it's easier for you to to brush off that suggestion by creating the strawman of the “'dark forces' within Alberto Gonzales' DOJ sympathetic to human traffickers” to take a whack at. 

Yup.  It makes for a simpler narrative, and I can understand you jumping for it. 

What's Eric Black's excuse?

Take your blinders off. Since when is pointing out a total lack of evidence for your “entirely likely speculation” [sic] that Paulose is a victim as yet completely unidentified persecutors within the DOJ “reframing” and “knocking down strawmen?”

There's been no evidence that the local AUSAs were “ticked off” because Paulose wanted to chase human traffickers — there's plenty of evidence they were “ticked off” because they perceived Paulose to lack management skills and treated people like dirt.  Professor Hughes cites no evidence whatsoever, so I see no reason to assign her comments any weight.  All she offered was unsupported speculation.

As for Tom Heffelfinger: first, you do know that Heffelfinger is a Republican, right?  By your reasoning, Black's skepticism should have been “turned up to 11″ when interviewing him.  Or do you disown Heffelfinger because he dares say things that might hurt the Dear Leader in the White House and his camp followers like Paulose?  Second, how was Black supposed to “push back” at Heffelfinger using Professor Hughes' hypothesis in the face of Heffelfinger's claim that he knew nothing to support it and the complete absence of other evidence to support Hughes' speculation to use as a “handle” in questioning?  At least there's real evidence to support the charge that Paulose is an incompetent, insensitive manager of the USA office in Minnesota and Heffelfinger's comment that Paulose's problems lie in Minneapolis is “entirely consistent” with that charge.  Of course, Heffelfinger's comment is also “entirely consistent” with  any claim for which there is no evidence, such as Hughes' bizarre conspiracy theory or, for example, a claim Paulose's critics are acting under mind control exercised by George Soros — but that supplies no basis to place any credence in a such a hypothesis.

In closing — I didn't create any “strawman of the 'dark forces' within Alberto Gonzales' DOJ sympathetic to human traffickers.”  Professor Hughes did, apparently to distract attention from the abysmal job Paulose was doing as USA in Minnesota.  I asked you if you knew of any evidence to support it and, apparently, you don't because you didn't point to any in your message. 

“But, of course, it's easier for you to brush off” a request for evidence by “creating the strawman” of Eric Black being a card-carrying member of the liberal media establishment “to take a whack at.

“Yup.  It makes for a simpler narrative” than making a substantive response to my request, “and I can understand you jumping for it.”  Twit.

I'm sure . . . . . . that your violation of the Minnesota Monitor comments policy will be addressed in the typical manner. 

Bored now.