The most amazing thing about the downfall of US attorney Rachael Rollins is that it actually happened at all.
Given her status as a member of multiple protected classes, I believed she was totally immune, invulnerable.
And you know what – so did Rachael, obviously, or she wouldn’t have behaved in such a brazen fashion.
How many times must I repeat the obvious, ancient wisdom?
“Never write when you can speak, never speak when you can nod, and never nod when you can wink.”
And to update to today: “And never, ever text. Period.”
Rachael Rollins is a textbook example of why some prominent figures never text, period. Even a single ill-considered thought can sink you forever, at least if you’re not in a Democrat-protected class. But the lesson of Rachael Rollins is, even at some point you can go so far off the rails that the protected-class shields fail.
Look at the texts between her and Ricky Ricardo Arroyo, the Boston city councilor who was running last year for district attorney of Suffolk County, Rachael’s old job.
Her saddest text of all may be, “OFF THE RECORD!!!!”
Here are some of her statements about her successor, Kevin Hayden, that turned out to be not OFF THE RECORD!!!!
She told Arroyo to have “No mercy. Finish him.” When Arroyo told her the Globe was getting ready to put a rocket in his pocket she replied, “I’m working on something.” When Hayden won she said, “They are not above the law.”
But Rachael was, apparently. Or so she thought.
“He will regret the day he did this to you. Watch.”
Hey Rachael, watch this. I just thought of another old saying that can reworked for this occasion:
“It is better to remain silent and be thought corrupt than to begin texting and remove all doubt.”
Rollins asked her card-carrying fellow traveler Arroyo if his campaign was doing opposition research on Hayden, including “domestic calls to his house.”
Granted, politics ain’t beanbag. But damn, anybody should be able to cover their tracks a little better than this. Like when she leaks a story to this newspaper and then when it appears she sends a text to one of her underlings:
“Wtf!?! When was the office contacted about this? And why wasn’t I called? How are they quoting things?”
Because you sent things to the newspaper, Rachael. That’s how. She’s too cute by half, to use another old political expression.
This is embarrassing for all concerned, especially the Boston Globe. They bit on the fake stories she was peddling about Hayden. But hey, the bow-tied bumkissers had an excuse – they had fallen madly in love with Rollins. It was their biggest crush on anyone since swooning over Monica Cannon-Grant, the BLM grifter and racial arsonist now under indictment by… the US attorney’s office.
Reading all the Globe pundits’ 180-degree U-turns on Rachael yesterday, I recalled the immortal words of the late Rep. Joe Early:
“They ran like rats!”
Just to cite one abrupt reversal, this was Joan Vennochi in 2021: “For Biden, Rachael Rollins is brilliant and a little risky.”
This was Joan yesterday: “The case against Rachael Rollins. She waged it herself.”
Baffling, all these anti-Rollins screeds in a Democrat agitprop sheet that just two years ago was assuring us that Rachael “came to office with a thoughtful and creative reform agenda.”
Monica Cannon-Grant could not be reached for comment.
Some of the extinguished prosecutor’s texts are puzzling.
How about this one from last July 12 about some people endorsing Hayden: “5 endorsements. 4.5 of them White.”
What does that mean, 4.5 of 5 are white? Was one of Hayden’s supporters… half-white? Rachael, isn’t your father a… oh, never mind.
So many other questions. Like, why do you suppose Arroyo’s father Felix “No Show” Arroyo abruptly quit his $174,532-a-year hack job at the courthouse a few weeks back? That question now seems answered.
Another mystery: do you suppose the Board of Bar Overseers has copies of these two reports, by the DOJ’s inspector general and the Office of Special Counsel (OSC)? Can somebody say, disbarment?
Rachael was, as you might expect, a legend in her own mind. As she brags of a judicial ruling last summer:
“Stood alone on this. Wrote the pleading and signed it myself. Fought my office tooth and nail to do so and then had to fight my 4 ‘collegues’ and won.”
Is she perhaps referring to “colleagues?” I think this gives us a clue as to perhaps who dropped the dime on Rachael – her disgruntled collegues, er, colleagues.
By the way, the OCS points out that “all text messages are reproduced as written and include the sender’s typographical and grammatical errors.”
Another question: are any heads going to roll at the Globe? I’m asking for a certain husband-and-wife team. It’s Friday, always a good time for a late-afternoon hit. But hey, the standards are different at the Globe.
At the Globe, if you break stories and put bad guys in jail, you get fired, like Andrea Estes. If you get caught red-handed making bleep up, like Kevin Cullen, you keep shuffling zombie-like toward retirement, never missing a paycheck, never breaking a sweat.
Full disclosure: I made the IG’s report, as kind of an afterthought, after Rachael called in to my radio show last Christmas. Not the most prestigious recognition I’ve ever received, but I’ll take it.
One final question: Who is ultimately responsible for this terrible (dare I say it?) racist travesty against Rachael Rollins? I’ll bet you can guess the answer. And indeed there it is in the fourth paragraph of her lawyer’s response to the damning OCS report.
Rollins’ attorney, Michael Bromwich, points out that her greatest critic in Washington was Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton – “a strong supporter of former President Donald J. Trump.”
Bingo! I knew it!
“The Trump Administration,” Bromwich continued, “was populated by several high-ranking officials who openly, routinely and defiantly violated the Hatch Act with no consequences.”
Amazing. In addition to everything else he did, Donald Trump whacked Rachael Rollins! Is there anything Trump can’t do?