The new Minnesota Lawyer weblog provides updates on the controversy surrounding U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose. Specifically, Mark Cohen's editor's column states that, while the controversy over her swearing-in was overblown, disagreement and resignations over her managment style is a serious matter. My take on the swearing-in and other matters is here.
The reporter who "broke" the swearing-in story clearly sees the subsequent controversy as vindication of his original report. Local TV reporter Bob McNaney combines gloating and self-pity in his very first weblog posting. But is there any link between an inexpensive, if formal, investiture ceremony and being a difficult boss?
McNaney and others who cling to the investiture ceremony compromise their credibility, I think, on the subsequent story. The story morphed from being a waste of taxpayer dollars (except that it only cost $225), to a conflict of interest (since using the law school atrium for free might make prosecutors too chummy with...defense attorneys who...went to law school there? As opposed to prosecutors who themselves graduated from St. Thomas undergraduate or law school?), to a waste of office time (except that the arrangements would take just as much time if it were held in a middle school gymnasium).
The only obvious link between the two is that people are gossiping behind Paulose's back. That may be because she is a difficult manager. Or she may have been treated unfairly. But is it even worth exploring why people want to undermine the new USA? Is it possible that Paulose actually is the wronged party in this dispute?
Labels: Paulose controversy