Q: Attorney General Ashcroft, why have you called this press conference?

A: I want to let the country know that the DOJ will now be monitoring attorney-client conversations. I know this makes many people uncomfortable, so I just want to be perfectly open and clear about any questions you may have.

Q: Some people are saying that this will systematically lead to unjust trials. What is your response?

A: To that I say, “Wake up people: It’s called the Department of Justice. That’s the complete opposite of unjust.” A more serious question, please.

Q: Mr. Ashcroft, how does this new move, considering its immediacy and relative unilateralism, square with our Constitutional Rights?

A: Ah. So, some of you might be concerned about the Constitution. The President and I are aware it says a few things and has some good points, and the Sixth Amendment is in there and centuries of case law and so on and so forth. I know this “Constitution” took years to write, several states almost refused to ratify it because the Bill of Rights wasn’t strong enough, we fought a couple of wars over what it means, and it was the crowning achievement of some of the greatest political minds in human history, but I want everyone to know, I, John Ashcroft, have a plan. And I have gone over it with several other people who are my employees.

In order to make sure that nobody’s Civil Rights are violated, each attorney whose phone we tap is going to have a special team assigned to him or her. The members of this team have been genetically engineered so that they don’t get selfish, ambitious, angry, hysterical, or vengeful. And, they always have all the necessary information about everything, and they know exactly how to apply it. And these special teams will make sure that nothing improper happens to the attorney they’re listening in on, unless there is an emergency. As determined by the president of the Carlyle Group. Who is a very nice guy, though not genetically engineered.

Q: Mr. Attorney General, how do these new standards compare with the old ones?

A: Some people are worried because of these administrative changes that we’ve made. Let me just go over those. It used to be that we could monitor attorney-client discussions, but there had to be a clear danger that unmonitored communications could lead directly to property damage or loss of life, and a judge had to approve this. In the wake of September 11, as you know, things have been a little different. Some days are “Code Yellow”, and some are “Code Red”, the FBI has made several bad predictions, including the one about the impending attack against the bottom of Lake Michigan, and the recent warning that “something bad is about to happen.” We’ve gotten rid of the INS, and the budget surplus was starting to behave suspiciously, so we got rid of that too. In short, things are pretty chaotic, and the Federal Government could use some reliable information.

So, we came up with this: instead of an imminent-danger standard and judicial review for attorney-client monitoring, we’re changing over to a you-have-a-beard standard, to see if that helps. Maybe these defense attorneys know something? We’ll find out, at any rate. Clients say some pretty funny stuff to their lawyers, may I just say. Oops! I think I just violated attorney-client privilege! (audience laughs)

Q: The Lynne Stewart case has become the judicial test for your new standard. Assuming Lynne Stewart needs to hire an attorney; will you be monitoring communications between the two of them as well?

A: Keep in mind two things. First, the burden of proof standard we have in this nation: You are innocent, until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you made suspicious comments to your attorney. Second, I believe very strongly in possibly respecting attorney-client privilege on some kind of voluntary basis, but I know of nothing which provides for an attorney-attorney privilege.

Q: Mr. Ashcroft, President Wilson and his Attorney General during World War I supported legislation that infringed heavily on freedom of speech in order to catch German spies. It was very much done in the name of wartime emergency. But the people who ended up going to prison under these new laws weren’t German spies, but labor leaders and socialists. In other words, the political undesirables du jour. What makes you think this crisis will be any different?

A: Again, we have made every preparation. Remember: special teams, genetic engineering, President of Carlyle Group.

Q: What else is the Department of Justice doing to ensure our safety?

A: We’re working on a proposal to quarter troops in private houses. America, please don’t worry. I have a plan.