Scrutinizing Major Events During a Notable Attorney General's Term
Since her first run for the position of Florida's attorney general back in 2010, certain moments and inaccuracies during her time in office have been closely monitored. This article highlights some of the key events and controversies during her tenure within the country's supreme law enforcement position.
Handling and Release of High-Profile Files
Before taking on the role of a top prosecutor, she expressed strong dissatisfaction with the lack of transparency in the federal government's case against a particular financier, whose legal proceedings began in Palm Beach, Florida, where he owned a beachfront mansion.
Shortly after becoming attorney general, she claimed to have a list of the financier's clients for review, assuring that there was "a lot of information" ready for disclosure. This was consistent with the promises made during the political campaign that the files would be opened to the public.
During an event held at the White House in February, she presented influential individuals with binders containing what she labeled as the "first phase" of the files. However, these binders were primarily filled with documents already accessible to the public.
In a letter addressed to the director of the FBI in February, she demanded all withheld documents related to the financier's case and called for an investigation into why these files had not been delivered to her office. The files were subsequently handed over and a statement was released in July by the Department of Justice (DOJ), revealing that a comprehensive review found no incriminating 'client list' and no further disclosure was deemed necessary or justified.
Despite a court order in December requiring the release of all grand jury records related to the case under the Transparency Act, it has been estimated that roughly 2.5 million files are yet to be made public.
Questionable Conduct During a Judiciary Committee Hearing
During a heated hearing in February, when senators asked her pointed questions about her involvement with the financier and his victims, she consistently refrained from answering. Instead, she often responded by criticizing the questioning lawmakers.
Investigations into Political Adversaries
At her confirmation hearing in January, she assured that she would not pursue legal action against political rivals - a stark contrast to the promises made during the electoral campaign. She argued that such practices were characteristic of the previous administration.
However, during her term, she initiated investigations into several individuals that have been identified as political adversaries, including the Chair of the Federal Reserve, the Attorney General of New York, a former FBI director, and a former CIA director.
Some of these investigations were launched following a post on Truth Social in September which called for prosecutions. In response to questioning from Democratic senators at a hearing in October, she vowed to continue her efforts to ensure that law enforcement and the judicial process could proceed without political interference.
Distorted Timeline of Fraud Investigations in Minnesota
In December, she claimed that the Justice Department had been probing into fraud in Minnesota for several months and had charged 98 individuals. However, this statement only tells half the truth as it omits the fact that a significant number of these charges were made before her administration.
Major fraud investigations involving a Minnesota nonprofit, Feeding Our Future, began in 2021. By mid-January, prior to the start of her administration, prosecutors had charged 70 people in connection with the case and an additional five for a related juror bribery scheme. The investigations continued under her administration, resulting in the number of defendants linked to the Feeding Our Future case growing to 78, and 15 more people charged in other related schemes.
Exaggerated Claims on Fentanyl Seizures
As her administration approached the 100-day mark, she claimed that fentanyl seizures had saved between "119 million" and "258 million" lives. This statement was found to be grossly inaccurate.
While it's true that the Drug Enforcement Agency had seized 119 million potentially lethal doses of fentanyl, it's mathematically impossible that these seizures could have saved up to 75% of the U.S. population. Her calculations were based on the assumption that 2 milligrams of fentanyl is lethal for everyone, which is not the case as the lethal dose varies based on an individual's height, weight, and drug tolerance. Furthermore, not all seized fentanyl is pure, and only a fraction of the U.S. population is at risk of overdosing on opioids.