New York Times reporter Philip Shenon fashions the allegations against my friend United States Attorney Rachel Paulose as raising a test for Attorney General Mukasey. Shenon's article provides mostly a rehash of the story so far with comments by knowledgeable Minnesotans including former Assistant United States Attorney Hank Shea, who spoke at Rachel's swearing-in, and Democratic former Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court Sandy Keith:

Hank Shea, a veteran white-collar crime prosecutor in her office, said that “the office is now running well, certainly much better than it had been in the prior year.” Mr. Shea said that as a result of her “baptism by fire,” Ms. Paulose “has learned difficult lessons in the last year, and I think she has grown and matured as a leader and, more importantly, as a person.”

He acknowledged, however, that in taking the job, “she did not have the necessary experience that the position of U.S. attorney demanded of her.”

A. M. Keith, a former chief justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, said he had known Ms. Paulose since her undergraduate days at the University of Minnesota, and he described her as “brilliant.”

Mr. Keith said he suspected that criticism of Ms. Paulose could be the result of her age and of sexism; she is the youngest United States attorney in the country and the first woman to run the Minneapolis office.

“She’s young and a woman, and maybe her style isn’t perfect,” Mr. Keith said. “But she’s an extraordinary lady.”

Shenon also spoke with Rachel's two immediate predecessors, Republican Tom Heffelfinger (who has become a local hero because he might have been fired by Alberto Gonzales if Heffelfinger had not resigned when he did) and Democrat Todd Jones:

Ms. Paulose has not been accused of bringing politically motivated prosecutions — an accusation against other United States attorneys appointed during Mr. Gonzales’s tenure.

She did, however, embrace some of Mr. Gonzales’s larger law enforcement priorities, including his call for aggressive prosecution of child pornographers and criminals involved in human trafficking.

That has led to accusations, both within her office and in legal circles in Minneapolis, that other important crimes are not being prosecuted.

Her predecessor, Thomas B. Heffelfinger, who was appointed by President Bush in 2001, would not comment on Ms. Paulose’s performance.

But in an interview, Mr. Heffelfinger did say he was concerned that the office now seemed to be focused on “large-volume, rapid-turnover cases,” like gun crimes, which are typically handled by state and local prosecutors, and that there were fewer prosecutions of white-collar crime and other “low-volume, high-time-commitment cases.”

“You have to do both,” he added.

Another former United States attorney in Minneapolis, B. Todd Jones, who held the job in the Clinton administration, said he understood from former colleagues that the office under Ms. Paulose was “dysfunctional” and that there was “an inability to have effective leadership move forward in a nonpartisan way.”

A fact sheet released by Ms. Paulose’s office said that indictments were at an all-time high, with a tripling of child-pornography cases and a doubling of gun prosecutions.

Both Heffelfinger's and Jones's hits are simply unfair. Shenon does not even allude to any important case that is not being brought, or the existence of any partishanship on Paulose's part. I believe that this is what is known in the trade as mud-slinging. Indeed, Shenon acknowledges, let it be repeated:

Ms. Paulose has not been accused of bringing politically motivated prosecutions — an accusation against other United States attorneys appointed during Mr. Gonzales’s tenure.

She did, however, embrace some of Mr. Gonzales’s larger law enforcement priorities, including his call for aggressive prosecution of child pornographers and criminals involved in human trafficking.

Rachel seems not to have spoken on her own behalf to Shenon. Fair readers of Shenon's article may note that the case against Rachel seems to have evolved; she now stands accused of having embraced the prosecutorial priorities of the Attorney General of the United States. Shenon puts it this way:

It was Mr. Heffelfinger’s abrupt departure as United States attorney in February last year that led to the initial suspicion that Ms. Paulose had been sent to Minneapolis to serve Mr. Gonzales’s agenda rather than that of career prosecutors in the office.

Well, yeah. Shenon is laboring under a basic misundrstanding; he has things backwards. The office of the United States Attorney does not exist to serve the agenda of career prosecutors. It is proper for the president and Attorney General to set law enforcement priorities and for their appointees including the United States Attorneys to implement them. Indeed, refusing to do so is insubordinate. (Moreover, one could add another count to the indictment against her. Rachel believes in the administration's prosecutorial priorities.)

In short, Shenon finds the gravamen of the case against Rachel to be her implementation of the priorities of her superiors and her failure to follow the agenda of her subordinates. In his own way, Shenon seems to have lurched into the truth of the case against Paulose.

If the case against Rachel presents a test for Michael Mukasey, my guess would be that both he and she will pass the test, though perhaps not if the New York Times is doing the grading.

JOHN adds: Shenon implies what we have long suspected is the view of many liberals, including many at the Times: that it is the role of federal employees to battle against, and refuse to implement, the policies of Republican administrations. Still, this particular instance borders on the bizarre. The policy which Rachel is being criticized for implementing is Gonzales's effort to crack down on the trade in human sex slaves. It is hard to imagine the Times, or anyone else, criticizing this priority if it came from anyone but Gonzales, or any administration other than that of George Bush.

To comment on this post, go here.