Legal News

Ashcroft to Congress: Don?t Discriminate Against Public Servants

By Dan Slater

Yesterday, former AG John Ashcroft appeared before a House judiciary subcommittee to answer questions about a lucrative monitoring contract he received from Chris Christie, New Jersey’s U.S. attorney. The implication, made mostly by Democrats, is that giving Ashcroft’s firm the no-bid contract — rumored to be worth between $28 and $52 million — amounted to political cronyism. Click here, here and here for past LB coverage on the monitoring controversy.

Here’s a Law Blog summary of the back-and-forth between Ashcroft and committee members.

Linda T. Sanchez (D., Calif): “You don’t believe that it may be a conflict of interest in a former employee hiring the former boss, or suggesting that he be hired, for a very lucrative contract?” Sanchez described the contract as a “sweetheart deal” in which “Mr. Ashcroft was selected” — by New Jersey U.S. attorney Chris Christie — “with no public notice and no bidding.”

Ashcroft: “There is not a conflict, there is not an appearance of a conflict.” He said that, given his background at the DOJ and governor of Missouri, he was an obvious candidate for the monitoring assignment. “I don’t think there should be discrimination against individuals who have had the privilege of public service,” he said. “This hearing costs far more in tax dollars than my monitorship will cost in tax dollars.”

Tom Feeney (R., Fl.): It’s “fundamentally wrong” to question the credentials of Ashcroft, who, because of his record at the DOJ in prosecuting large health-care companies, is “perhaps the most qualified individual in the country” on the sorts of issues faced by a corporate monitor in the health care industry.

Here are stories from the NYT and WaPo, and here’s more complete coverage from the White Collar Crime Prof blog, where you can find a full transcript of the testimony.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on March 12, 2008 (boomark / email).