What did the Department of Justice report conclude about the INSLAW/PROMIS allegations and why?
Executive summary
The Department of Justice’s official report concluded there was "no credible evidence" that Justice Department officials conspired to steal or illicitly distribute INSLAW’s PROMIS software and recommended no further compensation to INSLAW because DOJ had adhered to the contract and INSLAW had waited years to press some claims [1] [2]. That finding sits in tension with earlier bankruptcy-court rulings and some congressional reports that found improper conduct or raised serious concerns about DOJ’s handling of PROMIS [3] [4].
1. What the DOJ report actually concluded
Special Counsel Nicholas Bua’s investigation — later summarized in a Department of Justice release and related materials — determined there was no credible evidence supporting INSLAW’s broad conspiracy allegations that DOJ officials conspired with outsiders such as Earl Brian to obtain or distribute PROMIS, and it expressly rejected claims tying PROMIS theft to plots involving Iran hostages, Israeli slush funds, or secret intelligence operations [5] [1]. The Justice report also agreed with local police findings about the unrelated death of journalist Danny Casolaro, and it stated DOJ had followed the terms of its 1982 contract with INSLAW, recommending against additional compensation [1] [5].
2. Why DOJ reached that conclusion — evidence and legal posture
Bua’s report and the 1994 DOJ summary emphasized that investigative review did not uncover documentary or testimonial proof of the alleged high‑level conspiracies; investigators found insufficient evidence to support claims of fraud, trickery or illicit distribution networks involving DOJ leadership [5] [2]. The DOJ report cited procedural and evidentiary factors — including long delays in some INSLAW claims and inconsistencies in witness accounts — as reasons not to credit the more sensational conspiracy theories put forward by INSLAW and some commentators [1] [6].
3. Contradictory judicial findings and why they matter
The DOJ report did not erase earlier judicial decisions. A bankruptcy court in 1988 entered findings that DOJ “fraudulently obtained and then converted” INSLAW’s enhanced PROMIS and declared INSLAW the sole owner of the proprietary enhancements [3]. That ruling — and the language used by Judge George Bason describing “trickery, fraud and deceit” — underpins why many observers and some members of Congress continued to view the affair as unresolved despite DOJ’s later report [3] [7].
4. Subsequent federal rulings and the narrowing of INSLAW’s claims
Later federal litigation narrowed the scope of INSLAW’s allegations. In 1997 Judge Christine Miller issued a 186‑page opinion finding “no merit to the claims” that had driven persistent allegations of DOJ wrongdoing, and an August 1997 DOJ statement highlighted that federal courts ultimately rejected many of INSLAW’s broad theft-and-conspiracy theories [6]. The 1997 decision emphasized that the 1982 contract required a public‑domain version for U.S. Attorney’s offices and found INSLAW had installed a different, proprietary version without notice — a factual posture important to the courts’ reasoning [6].
5. Congressional and investigative skepticism: why critics did not accept DOJ’s closure
Multiple congressional inquiries and investigative journalists continued to question the completeness of the record, noting DOJ’s limited cooperation with some probes and pointing to unresolved anomalies, alleged lost or destroyed files, and witness testimony that supporters say the DOJ probe downplayed [8] [9]. The House committee report and other critics argued that senior DOJ officials knew INSLAW’s ownership claim was legitimate and that continued government use of PROMIS merited further review — a perspective that almost directly contradicts the DOJ’s “no credible evidence” finding [4].
6. Bottom line: competing authorities and open threads
The DOJ report closed the Department’s internal investigation by asserting no credible evidence of conspiracy and by relying on procedural and evidentiary judgments; however, that administrative conclusion did not override earlier bankruptcy‑court findings that favored INSLAW on ownership and conversion, nor did it fully satisfy congressional skeptics and investigative reporters who point to unanswered questions about document handling and motive [1] [3] [4]. Where the DOJ saw insufficient proof to sustain criminal or conspiratorial claims, other institutions saw legal or factual bases for continued suspicion — leaving the PROMIS/INSLAW saga recorded as contested rather than definitively settled [6] [8].