The Firing of the U.S. Attorneys Was Not Political

[Stephanie]

It was Criminal Obstruction of Justice. Why isn't anyone saying so?

[Missy Vixen]

1. The rules are different for them

Right?

:rofl:

Julie

[CrazyOrangeCat]

2. What a trio of creeeeeeps! n/t

[SoCalDem]

3. Sure.. and the critter that followed Little Red Riding Hood to Grandma's

was a chihuahua puppy :)

[skepticscott]

4. It would be more accurate to say

that it was done with the intent of obstructing justice and directing federal law enforcement efforts preferentially against Democratic officeholders and those who might vote for them, and away from Republicans and their supporters. There is nothing illegal about firing US attorneys for any reason at all (or no reason), and the the Constitution also gives Congress the power to let Senate confirmation of those officers be bypassed and appointment authority be given to the AG exclusively (which it did in the renewed Patriot Act, though covertly and without question at the behest of the White House). The real issue here, and what makes the whole thing illegitimate, is the purpose behind it, which was to turn the US attorneys from law enforcement officers working for the public to political hit men for the president and his party. That, of course, is why the whole thing was shrouded in the same secrecy as almost everything this administration does. If all of this was really in the best interests of the country and not just Shrub's favorite part of it, the case for doing it could have been made openly and honestly.

[jelly]

5. What if removing a particular US Atty was intended to stamp out an open investigation

involving Republican targets? Wouldn't that count as obstruction of justice?

[Stephanie]

8. such as Lam

http://www.10news.com/news/11255228/detail.html?rss=sand&psp=news

"The fact is there are additional investigations that have come from that. The fact is that the day before she left office she filed two additional indictments," Feinstein said, referring to charges Lam filed last month against an ex-CIA official and a defense contractor tied to Cunningham.

"Now they weren't of members of Congress," Feinstein added. "But whether this has had a chilling effect over that investigation I don't know. But I'm concerned about it."

***

Lam's office began investigating Cunningham and his associates on bribery allegations in July 2005. Cunningham pleaded guilty and was sentenced in March 2006 to more than eight years in federal prison for taking more than $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors.

Last month, actually two days before Lam left her post, her office obtained indictments of one of the defense contractors and a former top CIA official accused of fraud in the expanding corruption investigation.

[jelly]

9. Exactly. If that's not obstruction of justice,

well, it should be, dammit. :shrug:

[skepticscott]

11. Wish it were so

but based on my reading of the federal statue concerning obstruction of justice, I'm not sure that this situation is covered. The law does prohibit using "force" to "impede" "any officer in or of any court of the United States... in the discharge of his duty" , or to, by force.... influence, obstruct, or impede, or endeavoring to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, but it is not at all clear that the lawful authority of the president to fire US attorneys constitutes an illegal use of "force". Maybe the new AG can make this a test case (right).

[Patsy Stone]

6. oops

ed: wrong place in the thread.

[Patsy Stone]

7. I'd just like to ask

When, exactly, did the Administration decree that ultimate judgment of an action's moral rectitude become inextricably linked to its legality?

[Sydnie]

12. when they tried to make a bj illegal

:hi: Patsy! :hug:

[indepat]

10. This is not about partisan politics: it's all about complete loyalty and obedience to der Fuhrer