Rachael Rollins, the former U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts, didn’t hold back last week during a live stream, commenting on the federal indictment of Boston City Councilor Tania Fernandes Anderson. Rollins, who stepped down in 2023 amidst a couple of ethics investigations, had some strong words to share, calling the charges against Fernandes Anderson “bull[expletive].” During the conversation, Rollins was joined by City Councilor Julia Mejia, who mentioned that she had been receiving a number of questions from her constituents about the case.
While Rollins was quick to clarify that she wasn't commenting on the guilt or innocence of Fernandes Anderson, she didn’t mince words when discussing the nature of the charges. Rollins labeled them as “de minimis,” a legal term meaning minor or trivial. “This isn’t like Rachael Rollins was running drugs from Massachusetts to Rhode Island and New Hampshire, or human trafficking people up and down the coast,” Rollins emphasized. “This all seems pretty petty.”
At the heart of the case, Fernandes Anderson, a Democratic City Councilor in her second term, faces accusations of orchestrating a kickback scheme involving her City Hall office. The charges allege that she hired a relative to work in her office, paying them a substantial bonus under the condition that some of the money would be funneled back to her. According to federal prosecutors, at one point, the relative handed over $7,000 in cash to the councilor inside a City Hall bathroom.
Rollins, however, questioned why the federal prosecutors were pursuing the case rather than state authorities, especially since the alleged crimes took place in Boston. She pointed out that the city of Boston receives federal funding, and because Citizens Bank, where the check was deposited, is based outside Massachusetts, Fernandes Anderson could technically be charged with an interstate crime. “We can find a federal nexus for anything we want,” Rollins quipped. “Do you see what bull[expletive] this is?”
Rollins didn’t stop there. She went on to make a pointed reference to a case involving a group of wealthy white men who were accused of paying for sexual favors through an interstate brothel ring. Rollins highlighted that the U.S. Attorney’s office had decided not to charge these men federally, instead pushing the case to state authorities to prevent their names from being made public. “When all those wealthy white men were caught up in the human trafficking case, the U.S. Attorney’s office didn’t want to charge them federally,” Rollins said. “They kicked it down to the state so their names wouldn’t get out. This just shows that they don’t want to find federal nexuses when it’s people that look and live like them.”
Rollins made it clear she wasn’t defending Fernandes Anderson, but she did suggest that, if the allegations were true, the case could have potentially been resolved administratively rather than brought to federal court. Her comments underscore a broader frustration about what she sees as selective application of justice when it comes to cases involving powerful individuals.
Meanwhile, U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts Joshua Levy, who took over after Rollins resigned, defended the federal indictment. In a press conference, Levy emphasized that the actions of Fernandes Anderson undermined the public's trust in elected officials. “When her constituents elected Ms. Fernandes Anderson, she had a fundamental obligation to act with the utmost integrity,” Levy remarked. “Public service is a privilege, and all of us in public service have a duty to act with integrity and fairness in all that we do.” Levy further stated that the alleged illegal payment inside a City Hall bathroom only added to the gravity of the charges against the councilor, calling it a particularly egregious aspect of the case.
The FBI also weighed in on the situation. Stephen Kelleher, the assistant special agent in charge of the FBI’s Boston division, didn’t mince words either. He condemned Fernandes Anderson’s actions as a betrayal of the public trust, accusing her of enriching herself while pretending to serve the people of Boston. “The behavior we allege in [the] indictment is a slap in the face of the hard-working taxpayers in the city of Boston,” Kelleher said. “Nobody is picking on Tania Fernandes Anderson and her inner circle. We believe this is a situation of her own making.”
It’s clear that this case has become a flashpoint in the debate over the accountability of public officials. Rollins’ fiery comments have sparked a wave of discussions about the motivations behind federal charges and the way powerful individuals are treated under the law. While the investigation continues, it’s evident that both sides are digging in their heels. The situation also raises bigger questions about ethics in public service, with some drawing parallels to other high-profile cases where influential figures seemingly escaped full scrutiny.
In addition to the political implications of the case, the public’s perception of justice and fairness is being put to the test. Rollins' comments, in particular, underscore a broader frustration with the idea that the justice system sometimes appears to favor the powerful. Her reference to the wealthy men involved in the brothel ring case highlights what she sees as a double standard when it comes to prosecuting those with connections and resources.
For now, Fernandes Anderson is facing the legal consequences of the charges leveled against her, and the public will be watching closely to see how the case unfolds. The actions of public figures like Fernandes Anderson inevitably shape the way the public views government and its officials. If the allegations are proven true, it could have serious implications not only for her political career but also for the trust constituents place in their elected representatives.
The case against Fernandes Anderson is just one example of how the intersection of power, politics, and legal consequences plays out in the real world. While Rollins' outspoken criticism may have made waves, the legal process will ultimately determine the outcome. It’s a reminder that even those in positions of power are not above the law—and that the pursuit of justice, however messy and complicated, continues to be a critical element of maintaining a fair society.
Login