Tag: David Kustoff

Categories
Opinion

Politics and Prosecutors

Former United States attorney David Kustoff says politics did not influence decisions made in the Memphis office during his 26-month tenure, despite an inspector general’s report that criticizes a Bush administration appointee in Washington for applying a loyalty test to job applicants.

Kustoff resigned in June to enter private law practice with city councilman Jim Strickland. Kustoff previously ran for the Republican nomination for the 7th District congressional seat and was Shelby County Republican Party chairman and director of George W. Bush’s campaign in Tennessee in 2000 and 2004.

“There are no political considerations made involving the investigation or prosecution in any case,” Kustoff said in an interview Tuesday.

A harsher view of the U.S. Justice Department under former attorney general Alberto Gonzales, however, is contained in the inspector general’s report released last week. It says that White House liaison Monica Goodling routinely asked potential federal prosecutors such questions as “What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?” and “Why are you a Republican?” and “Aside from the president, give us an example of someone currently or recently in public service who you admire.”

She also asked 34 job candidates for their views on abortion and 21 candidates for their views on gays, according to the report.

Kustoff was one of three candidates for the job in 2006, after United States attorney Terry Harris resigned to take a job with FedEx. Kustoff said he was interviewed in Washington by career Justice Department employee and former organized-crime prosecutor David Margolis and three others.

“I think Monica was in part of one of the interviews, but she did not ask any questions,” Kustoff said.

He said he was asked about his ethics and priorities but was not asked about Operation Tennessee Waltz, which had received national media attention by then.

In the Flyer interview, Kustoff would not comment on specific cases during his tenure, but he said he was involved in “any and all major and minor decisions.” He did not personally try cases, leaving that job to career prosecutor Tim DiScenza and others. The Tennessee Waltz indictments had already been handed up and some of the defendants had been prosecuted or pled guilty when Kustoff took over the office.

Kustoff also oversaw the investigation known as Main Street Sweeper, which resulted in a split decision. Former city councilman Rickey Peete pleaded guilty, but former city councilman Edmund Ford Sr. went to trial and was acquitted days before Kustoff left office. After the trial, a separate indictment against Ford and former MLGW chief executive Joseph Lee was dropped.

All of the Memphis public officials indicted in Tennessee Waltz and Main Street Sweeper were Democrats.

Asked if the feds’ credibility has been damaged by reports of political interference in the hiring and firing of prosecutors, Kustoff said, “In the Western District of Tennessee it did not affect morale within the office or anyone’s job performance. From a national perspective, no doubt it did not look good, but it did not affect our operation.

“We have the best law enforcement in this district,” he said. “I base that not only on working with all facets but in talking to my fellow United States attorneys. They would talk about problems and issues they would have with law enforcement or local district attorneys. We had none of those issues here. [We] really came together to effectuate some really good investigations like Main Street Sweeper and Operation Last Call.”

Kustoff said he hired “three or four” assistant prosecutors, but they were only interviewed locally, not in Washington. He recalled his own decision to apply as being influenced by extensive conversations with Harris and Shelby County district attorney general Bill Gibbons. The president appoints U.S. attorneys based on recommendations from the state’s senators and governor if they are from the same political party. If not, then congressmen could have a voice.

There is likely to be a new U.S. attorney in Memphis next year no matter which party controls the White House. Career prosecutor Larry Laurenzi has the job on an interim basis for the second time.

Kustoff said he has no immediate plans to reenter politics.

“I am very happy practicing law and raising my family,” he said.

Categories
Editorial Opinion

Where the Buck Stops

It turns out that District Attorney General Bill Gibbons and U.S. Attorney David Kustoff are in the habit of talking daily. And, though some small talk gets in once in a while (the two are longtime acquaintances who share a background as Republican activists), most of their conversations involve decidedly serious matters — such as who gets to handle which cases.

The fact is, several of the high-profile recent prosecutions of prominent political figures involved potential violations of both state and federal law and could have been investigated and gone to grand jury and subsequently to trial either way. One such is the ongoing case of former MLGW president Joseph Lee and retiring councilman Edmund Ford, charged with trading political and financial favors. Another is the forthcoming prosecution of former county commissioner Bruce Thompson for allegedly doing something similar in lobbying the Memphis school system on behalf of a high-stakes contractor.

In one sense, there is no mystery as to why both these cases are scheduled for federal court. The preliminary investigations were done by the FBI, in tandem with the U.S. Attorney’s office, and the normal handoff is from one set of feds to the other. But that’s not the only consideration, according to Gibbons, who has at least a nominal claim to prior intervention and ultimate jurisdiction on these and other prominent cases that end up being dealt with at the federal level. The D.A. says there’s another issue involved: the well-known fact that punishments in federal court, subject to fixed sentencing guidelines, tend to be more severe.

For one thing, Gibbons notes, there are fewer sidetracks like early parole or even outright diversion, both of which are available in the state system. As Atlanta Falcons quarterback and dog-murderer Michael Vick discovered only this week, the maximum early release he might expect from his federal sentence of 23 months incarceration is fixed by established practice at 15 percent of that time — three months. Had he been tried in state court in Virginia, where his crimes were committed, Vick might somehow have wangled a way to cop a plea and get suited up for the current football season. And that, given widespread public revulsion to Vick’s deeds, would not have gone down well.

Conversely, we suppose, there are instances in which the wider discretions available to jurists in state prosecutions might be more suitable to a specific kind of crime by a specific kind of criminal.

An instructive saga is that of the late Mafia chieftain John Gotti, who escaped conviction several times before finally being nailed — at least partly because New York and federal courts competed for the honor of trying him and got in each others’ way. So if our two chief local prosecutors do in fact coordinate policy on criminal prosecutions — if each occasionally, and for good reason, agrees to pass the buck to the other, as it were — the ends of justice will presumably end up being well served. But it is an aspect of the judicial process that bears continued scrutiny.

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

From the 2007 Campaign Annals: The Case of the Horrified Partisan

Bob Schreiber, the financial professional and environmental
activist who just finished a remote second to winner Jim Strickland in the
District 5 city council race, says that he nevertheless enjoyed the experience,
even the daily grind of going door-to-door to promote his candidacy.

He tells this story: At one house, the occupant who
answered his knock, “this lady who was 55 or 60-ish,” immediately demanded,
“What are you, a Republican or a Democrat?” Schreiber says he told her he tried
to be independent, making up his own mind about issues, regardless of party
considerations.

The woman was skeptical and responded tersely, according to
Schreiber. “She said, ‘I am a Republican, and I never in my life voted for a
Democrat! What’s more, I early-voted, and I didn’t vote for you!’ Just
like that. So I said, ‘Well, who did you vote for?'”

Schreiber says the woman immediately answered: “David
Kustoff told me who to vote for.” and that he responded, “Did you by any
chance vote for Jim Strickland?” to which the voter replied with a satisfied nod
and the firm answer, “Yes!” He waited a beat and then said, “Do you realize you
just voted for the past chairman of the Democratic Party?”

The woman, said Schreiber, responded with open-mouthed
shock, as if she’d swallowed poison unknowingly.

As it happens,
Strickland, who indeed was chairman of the Shelby County Democrats a decade or
so back, is the law partner of Kustoff, a former Republican chairman who, as a Bush
appointee, is serving these days as U.S. Attorney for the Western District of
Tennessee.

And, for the record, Strickland clearly had ample support across party lines, polling 73 percent of the District 5 vote.