The People’s Lawyer: Lessons from the Thornburgh Era

The recent drama between the Attorney General of the United States and the White House has cast a dark shadow on the institutional integrity of the U.S. Department of Justice. This crisis of confidence brings to mind a critical moment in history when a President instinctively chose the interests of the citizens he served over his own. 

In the summer of 1988, President Reagan appointed former Pennsylvania Gov. Dick Thornburgh as U.S. Attorney General. After Vice President George H.W. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis that November, speculation for a permanent appointment began immediately. “Short lists” appeared everywhere, and since Thornburgh’s team had had no communication with the President-elect’s office, we were uncertain of what would happen next.

Much of the media speculation focused on Illinois Gov. Big “Jim” Thompson. It made sense. He was a crime-busting U.S. Attorney and a key political backer of Bush for many years.

By contrast, Thornburgh was a moderate Republican similar to Bush, but they were not close friends – politically or personally – at that time. Their only real tie was a common friendship with Elsie Hillman, the Pittsburgh Grande Dame of the GOP.

So, when Thornburgh was asked to meet with the President-elect at the Naval Residence at 9 a.m. on the Saturday after the election, he had absolutely no idea what to expect.

He returned to his D.C. home later that morning, where his wife, Ginny, Robin Ross, and I were waiting. As he opened the door, he had a big smile and gave us a “thumbs up.” We were delighted, but what he told us about the meeting remains as important today as it was then.

Thornburgh recounted the President-elect’s words:

“We don't know each other very well, and some advised me to appoint somebody close to me – like my lifelong friend Jim Baker – who would protect me and my interests at all costs.”

But Bush explicitly rejected that path.

He continued: “I am choosing you, to whom I am not especially close, because it will be seen as your being independent, which will be important in carrying out the U.S. Attorney General’s responsibilities.”

In that era, the White House and the U.S. Department of Justice operated under long-established procedures about who could contact whom and on what topics. Those boundaries were sacrosanct, especially regarding criminal investigations. Contact on such matters was a “no-no.” There were no lists of who should be investigated; the only list I kept in my locked cabinet was for Supreme Court possibilities.

One of my roles in the Attorney General’s office was serving as a White House liaison, handling frequent, routine personnel matters. Only once did a mid-level White House staffer contact me about the status of a criminal investigation. My response was immediate: “You don't want to ask me about that, and I am not going to give you any answer. Let’s pretend this conversation never happened and go on to our other business.”

It never happened again.

Compare that to our current political environment, where leaders seem to search endlessly for their own “Roy Cohn” to target lists of enemies.

President Bush understood that high standards of integrity define our institutions, recognizing that the appearance of independence was just as vital as independence itself. We must demand that our leaders find the courage again to follow his lead.