Throughout history change has always been effected by one person inspiring other people to do something about something that he or she feels is wrong. Often times it is about like minded people finding each other and coming together to take a look at a situation in a way that other people haven't ever done before. It's about talking about a dangerous or taboo topic that is done behind closed doors so that others don't know what you are talking about. It was the stuff of revolutions and slavery. Now we are faced with a new problem called domestic terrorism and spying. It is a frontier that we face because of advancements in technology and a determination by certain people to strike back at individuals that they believe have kept them from success. They do this by breaking the law and feel that they have to do so to make their own playing field even by tilting the fields of unsuspecting Americans. It's something that I am tackling today and in the next few days while considering the lives of many of my friends and colleagues while drafting a letter to introduce my team to prosecutors with whom I have a solid reputation. This is a delicate transition...one that has to be done with tact and confidence. It is historical. It is new. It is my reputation on the line and I have to do it the way I DO IT.
These kinds of transitions would have been much easier to make with help. That help wasn't available to me. I've made blind decisions. I've used what I think I will call "Enright-like" thinking when it comes to the calls that I've made. I use to work with Hon. William B. Enright Ret. and paid very close attention to the kinds of judgments he made in his courtroom and the fairness with which he decided his cases that were never overturned in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal. He was fair. He listened to everything and gave both sides a fair chance to present...taught me to see both sides and listen. Balanced decision making comes from listening and using good judgment when leading a team. Make no mistake, my decisions rest with me, but they come from close observations of him.
There is nothing easy about making unilateral decisions. You want as much input as you can get. I'd much rather speak to as many people as you can so I take as much time as I can with my friends when I decided to put them in to this investigation. I know their strengths. I know each one of them to be honest. I know each one of them to be scholarly. I know each one to have a particular talent. I know that each one will be truthful and I know that each will be good for the prosecution of Laurie and Brian in their own way. I have no hesitation that they have a wealth of knowledge that I could never have had all on my own, though my own knowledge is vast and lengthy. Laurie has a long history of lying. Now she has a history of lying under oath. The path that she's taken will lead her to a courtroom to explain why she's lied and either way someone is going to see her jailed for it. I think it is interesting that a woman that prides herself on knowing everything has absolutely no way of explaining how she does...except the system she says she knows nothing about, but we will show, she does nothing but talk about all day long.
So now I'm thinking about all of the people that I need and whom I have to leave out of the letter I am drafting so that Laurie can't harass them...Jonathan are you thinking now? I don't want to give away the obvious. I want her wondering whom might just know some things that she never expected to talk....if Laurie thinks she knows whom I am suggesting, she might not find out until it is far too late. I'm not going to give that away either My Dear...you'll just have to wait and see...
