I Know That This AG Scandal Is Centered Around The Firing Of The 8 - But .....

[global1]

has anyone focused on those AG's that didn't get fired? Was any pressure put on them and in fact they caved and did what *Co wanted them to do - therefore they weren't fired?

Perhaps - some of them would be available for testimony to say that undue pressure was put on them by this administration. I know that then they would be in trouble - but maybe - just maybe - some would be willing to testify for the sake of the country.

[Old and In the Way]

1. I suspect that the AG's will get lots of focus from here on out.

Actually, a look at the analysis of the USA investigations show that 80% of the political cases are being filed against Democrats...so they are already politicizing the DoJ. But they will have a lot more attention and exposure on their political agenda going forward.

FireDogLake has an interesting map up on the 2006 electoral landscape. The states that are in play seem to be getting the new USA's.

[maddezmom]

2. well we know Yang left with a 1.5 signing bonus to a law firm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2774840

Robert J. Conrad from NC was appointed to be a Judge
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x270120

[lligrd]

3. Apparently AG Appointment's and Firing's Are Always Political

and I find that quite disconcerting. Maybe I should thank this asinine administration for bringing it to my attention?

[jelly]

6. That's one way to think about it; hopefully we can expect some reform.

On the other hand, nobody has suggested that firing a USA with the express intent to interfere or kill an ongoing investigation is legal. That would be obstruction of justice. The question remains to be answered whether Bushco crossed that line.

[cassiepriam]

8. But Bush asked the AGs to commit crimes, isn't that more than political?

[lligrd]

10. No Argument There

My point was just that allowing Prosecutors to be appointed by the White House makes them political appointments. I don't think that lends itself to justice.

[LiberalFighter]

12. Can't get around the WH appointing prosecutors...

Senate need to do better in the advise and consent department.

In addition, they need to limit the prosecutors ability to prosecute anyone they feel like just because they can.

They should be considered independent as long as the prosecutors act independently and honorably. If there is a code they are suppose to abide by then they need to abide by it. If the code needs revision then revise it. If they violate the code then the President must remove them if he doesn't then the Senate must. If they falsely indict/prosecute someone they get prosecuted and lose their federal pension and benefits.

[cassiepriam]

13. I agree that it is a very political process to begin with.

[jelly]

4. Some nice lateral thinking, there.

We should keep an eye out for corruption investigations by remaining USAs which were abruptly dropped, or corruption investigations which should have, by all rights, been pursued but were not.

[LiberalHeart]

11. or were pursued and shouldn't have been.

[jelly]

5. sorry double post.

[cassiepriam]

7. What crimes did they commit to pass the loyalty test??

[fasttense]

9. If the so called justice department was busy investigating 7

Democratic officials to every 1 repuke, then how many repuke criminals were overlooked? If you solve this word math problem, you get to be the next AG. ;-)