Questions Arise Over Communications During Job Vetting and Prosecution
In the wake of the recent indictment of Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, New Jersey’s US Attorney, Philip Sellinger, finds himself facing potential scrutiny regarding his communications with the senator and an adviser during the vetting process for his position. Although Sellinger has not been accused of wrongdoing in the Menendez bribery charges, the indictment raises questions about his interactions during the selection process. It highlights broader concerns about the influence of senators in appointing US attorneys.
Sellinger’s Role in the Indictment
Sellinger referred to as “Official-3” in the indictment, was nominated for the role of New Jersey’s chief law enforcement official at the recommendation of Senator Menendez. Initially, Sellinger expressed the possibility of recusing himself from a bank fraud prosecution against Menendez’s friend, real estate developer Fred Daibes, due to his prior work on a related case in private practice. However, Sellinger returned to consideration after another candidate did not work out.
Menendez’s adviser later met with Sellinger and relayed the message that Sellinger might not have to recuse himself from the Daibes case, ultimately leading to his appointment as US Attorney for New Jersey. The Senate confirmed Sellinger in December 2021.
Potential for Tension and Distraction
The reference to Sellinger in the Menendez indictment underscores the potential for tension and distraction when senators who choose US attorneys become involved in legal proceedings. Legal experts and former prosecutors emphasize that even the perception of influence-peddling affecting prosecutorial decisions can erode public confidence in law enforcement.
Kim Ringler, a former New Jersey executive branch ethics counsel, cautions against placing undue weight on what she considers “triple hearsay” about Sellinger in the indictment. However, she suggests that transferring the Daibes case to a different venue upon Sellinger’s appointment might have been advisable in hindsight to protect the integrity of investigative work.
Internal DOJ Review and Transparency
John Sciortino, a former attorney in the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility, anticipates an internal DOJ review to shed light on Sellinger’s conversations. Many lawyers support the need for transparency in the DOJ inquiry to confirm that Sellinger acted appropriately in his communications and actions related to the Daibes case.
Potential Impact on US Attorney’s Office
While Sellinger is portrayed positively in the indictment for resisting Menendez’s interventions, his case still casts a shadow over the US Attorney’s Office, which cannot publicly defend itself. Legal experts stress that politicians should not feel they can control the Department of Justice, highlighting the importance of maintaining independence.
Sellinger’s Background and Political Connections
Philip Sellinger’s nomination as US Attorney for New Jersey came after a career as a civil litigator and Democratic fundraiser. He had briefly worked in the Newark-based US attorney’s office in the early 1980s. Sellinger’s political connections and fundraising efforts within the Democratic Party, including hosting events for Menendez, Senator Cory Booker, and Hillary Clinton, played a role in his appointment.
Conclusion
The indictment of Senator Menendez raises questions about the role of New Jersey’s US Attorney, Philip Sellinger, in the vetting process and his communications regarding the Daibes case. While no allegations of wrongdoing have been made against Sellinger, the case underscores the importance of transparency and independence in prosecutorial decisions and the potential for tension when senators select US attorneys. An internal DOJ review is expected to clarify Sellinger’s actions and communications.
Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.