US ATTORNEYS Threatened & Told NOT To Discuss Details Of Prosecutor Purges

[kpete]

U.S. attorney worried 'gloves would come off' over criticism of ouster
By Marisa Taylor
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON _ A high-ranking Justice Department official told one of the U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration that if any of them continued to criticize the administration for their ousters, previously undisclosed details about the reasons they were fired might be released, two of the ousted prosecutors told McClatchy Newspapers.

While the U.S. attorney who got the call regarded the tone of the conversation as congenial, not intimidating, the prosecutor nonetheless passed the message on to five other fired U.S. attorneys. One of them interpreted the reported comments by Michael Elston, the chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, as a threat.

...............

But another former U.S. attorney, who wasn’t a party to the Justice Department conversation, interpreted the comments as a threat, especially since it came when congressional Democrats were contacting the attorneys about possibly testifying before Congress.

“I took it to mean that negative, personal information would be released,” the prosecutor said. “That if we made public comments or if we were to testify in Congress, that the gloves would come off and the Department of Justice would make us regret that we were talking.”

more at:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16840449.htm

[drm604]

1. K&R

:kick:

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. These guys are about to testify before congress...

And they try this? I do believe that the name for that is "suborning perjury".

Any lawyers present who can clarify?

[NanceGreggs]

8. Sounds more like obstruction of justice to me ...

... along intimidation of a witness.

Best defense for the witnesses, IMHO: SPILL YOUR GUTS about every last detail. Then any retaliation looks like exactly what it is: retaliation for telling the f*ckin' truth.

[Spangle]

15. What they were trying to blame Clinton of doing

And they spent how much money trying to find some sort of evidence of it. But yet, could not....

[kestrel91316]

22. Can we say "witness intimidation", kiddies?

[mod mom]

3. Looks like they're putting the NSA spying to use on these US Attorneys. nt

[DemReadingDU]

5. wonder what that illegal wiretapping discovered?

sounds like blackmail

[mod mom]

10. I have to think it's a factor in their ability to keep people (and repukes) in line.

Why would so many intelligent people vote for the Iraq War, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act? And why the hell are any Dems holding back on Murtha's bill? Just saying...those must be some damning photos, or tapes.

Blackmail is a minor infraction when you are willing to lie to start a war or steal elections for your sick twisted agenda like they are.

[DBoon]

13. Even if they have impeccable backgrounds

if you know enough personal details about someone's life, it is very easy to manufacture credible lies that are almost impossible to refute.

Just because you have nothing wrong doesn't mean they can't hurt you

[mod mom]

14. Exactly and I didn't mean to imply they had done something that might be used

against them.

[DBoon]

17. No prob, I was making a general point

That even the innocent can be intimidated by spying programs

[Morgana LaFey]

23. Hey, why have a good spy program if you can't use it for things like

this? HUH?

:sarcasm:

[riderinthestorm]

4. Bring. It. On.

"previously undisclosed details about the reasons they were fired might be released"....

Like "poor performance" :sarcasm:

Or "taking too long on that investigation into those pesky Dems" :sarcasm:

Or "too much digging into Rethug corruption" :sarcasm:

Go fucking nuts and please, puh-leeze, reveal ALL!!! Frankly, I would love to see what piece o' shit reason they spew to possibly justify these firings.

[robinlynne]

6. They do everything to shut up whistleblowers in this country, but the shit

is so stinky in this administration that it jsut keeps oozing out from every pore. It is amazing that these guys are still holding on to power.

[bananas]

7. Isn't it a federal crime to threaten a prosecutor?

Oh, they were fired and aren't prosecutors anymore,
so it's perfectly legal.

[robinlynne]

11. It has to be a crime to threaten a congressional subpoenaed witness....

[HCE SuiGeneris]

9. And this negative personal information...

just how was it obtained? I can just see the illegal taps and bugging of their homes, and Joe FBI with photos shot of their personal sex lives. Pretty good picture of reality IMHO.

Cretinous government at work ON the people.

[MagickMuffin]

12. Then There's This: Bush's Director for U.S. Attorneys Mysteriously Resigns

Michael Battle, the director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, will resign on March 16. This is the man responsible for firing them (ahem- Resigns). And now he is FIRED:wow:just:wow:

It's posted here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2756024

Original article here:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/189

[Supersedeas]

21. nothing to see here--feed them more right wing talking pts about Libby's conviction

[formercia]

16. Witness tampering

people do hard time for such behavior.

[benld74]

18. Retribution-I believe that is the word.

[libodem]

19. Wow, can we become anymore like the pinko-commies we

were taught to hate? These Republics are acting like the One Party System they so desire our government to become.

[terisan]

20. Remember Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill. He was fired by Bush after

many disagreements with the administration on their economic policies. He was going to speak out forcefully about things going on in the administration and said something to the effect that " he was old, rich and ..... what can they do to me"? Within days he toned down his remarks considerably, and in my opinion, seemed scared-or at least nervous.

I would think that since then they have been circumventing the law and using the Patriot Act to spy on lawmakers.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

24. I'd say, retaliatory and discriminatory discharge via Sctn 1983.

They certainly have a cause of action,...if they want to pursue it.

There is a specific federal law against this type of politically motivated discharge,...a "1983" action.

Since these individuals have not only been treated as dispensible but also objects of oppressive tactics, they should take offensive actions and save their own asses.

That's all I have to say.