Skip to main content

Dannehy On Her Way

John Durham and Nora Dannehy, AP photo, Bob Child

Nora Dannehy has overcome one hurdle on her way to an appointment as an associate justice to Connecticut’s State Supreme Court.

The state legislature’s Judiciary Committee voted Tuesday, 8/19/2023 -- 30 votes recommending confirmation and four against – to send Dannehy’s appointment to the state House and Senate for approval which, according to one report, is “expected to vote to confirm Dannehy during a special session on Tuesday [ 8/26/2023].”

Her Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing was, according to the report, “the first time Dannehy has spoken publicly about her decision to leave the investigative team led by a colleague, former U.S. Attorney John Durham. Among other things, Dannehy said [then Attorney General William] Barr pressed the Durham team to produce an interim report, presumably critical of the treatment of former President Donald J. Trump, that she feared could have influenced the outcome of the 2020 presidential election had it been published.”

Concerning Barr’s attempted release of an interim report, Dannehy told the committee, “Attorney General Barr began to speak more publicly and specifically about the ongoing criminal investigation. I thought his public comments violated DOJ guidelines. In the late summer of 2020, just months before the 2020 presidential election, he wanted a report written about our ongoing investigation.”

The interim report referenced by Dannehy was not released. But, Dannehy observed, “Publicly, he [Barr] would not rule out releasing that report before the presidential election. I had never been asked to write a report about an investigation that was not yet complete. I then saw a version of a draft report, the conclusions of which I strongly disagreed with [emphasis mine]. Writing a report — and particularly the draft I saw — violated longstanding principles of the Department of Justice. Furthermore the Department of Justice has a longstanding policy of not taking any public actions in the time leading up to an election that might influence that election.”

“I simply could not be part of it so I resigned,” she said. “It was the most difficult personal and professional decision I’ve had to make.”

The completed and unexpurgated Durham Report was later released to the public. According to the news report, “Durham never issued the interim report that Dannehy testified about and she was not asked at the hearing if she knows what became of it.”

Neither was Dannehy asked at her hearing whether Durham’s completed report was equally unacceptable to her as Barr’s unpublished interim report. One should always applaud the courage of public officials who resign, as Dannehy did, rather than compromise the principles of justice and constitutional probity to which they should adhere.

According to the news report, Dannehy told the Committee, “she made her views about Barr’s meddling known to others on the Durham team, but was not persuasive. She said she is unable to go into detail about the disagreement because she and others on the team were involved in the analysis of ‘highly classified information’ that cannot be discussed.”

Durham’s supposed acquiescence to the publication of an interim report and its non-disclosure suggests that Dannehy’s views concerning Barr’s meddling may have carried some weight with “the Durham team.” And Dannehy’s claim that she is unable to go into detail concerning her disagreement with Barr because “she and others on the team were involved in the analysis of ‘highly classified information’ that cannot be discussed, does not preclude a public discussion of a document, the actual Durham Report, that has long been made public.

Surely it is a matter of public interest whether or not an applicant to the Connecticut Supreme Court who worked for so many years with Durham and worked assiduously on the Durham Report agrees or disputes the findings of the final report.

 Dannehy’s position on the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v Wade in its Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision is historically infirm. Dannehy argued before the committee that the high court’s reversal of Roe v Wade “took away an individual right, and I don’t think that has ever been done before.”

She also said, according to the news report, “… the court also violated the legal principle of stare decisis, which requires courts to follow precedent, unless it is found to have been egregiously wrong.”

Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg argued that Roe v Wade was improperly decided. The high court’s decision vacating Roe v Wade returned decision making on the matter of abortion from judicial to state legislative bodies. A state statute in Connecticut incorporating Roe v Wade, passed in 1990, protects women in Connecticut from judicial temporizing on the matter of abortion. And if stare decisis were to be enforced without exception, the high court never could have freed itself from the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) ruling that African Americans could not be considered U.S. citizens and that Congress could not prohibit slavery in the U.S. territories.

Dannehy may want to re-read Abraham Lincoln’s “Speech on the Dred Scott Decision,” delivered on June 26, 1857.


Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p