I was floored by comments from the guest on Washington Journal this morning. Mr. Goodman made every attempt to agree with callers from both ends of the political spectrum. The chief source of discussion was Executive Privilege with respect to the U.S. Attorney firings. But, there was also a bit of discussion regarding a justice department official taking the 5th Amendment.
First, Mr. Goldman seemed to marginalize and trivialize the taking of the 5th by a Justice Department official--repeating some talking points about the forum being fraught with danger because some Senators may have already made up their minds. Whoa! As if to say, telling the truth to power was a worthless endeavor for someone who works at the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE!?!
But THEN, even more incredulously, when a right wing hack called to claim that the President has every right to fire U.S. attorneys, (that the Attorneys serve at the 'pleasure' of the President), and that no crime was committed, Mr. Goodman completely agreed and stated unequivocally that there was NO LAW that could have been violated as a result of the firings. Further, Mr. Goodman suggested that the 'cover-up' was worse than any potential legal culpability. And Mr. Goodman is a lawyer...who is employed by a Legal periodical to work specifically on the U.S. Attorney story for the Legal Times!?!
Even a cursory look at Part 1 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code reveals numerous laws ripe for further examination and investigation given some of the public reports surrounding this matter.
Have a look-see here:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I.htmlConsider Chapter 11 - Bribery Graft and Conflicts of Interest (Note here Bribery is broadly defined)
Consider too Chapter 41 - Extortion and Threats
And another to consider, almost DIRECTLY on point, with some of the news reports in the public domain, Chapter 73 - Obstruction of Justice
Here, Mr. Goldman should consider Chapter 73, Section 1503 (a):
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001503----000-.htmla) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede...an officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty,....or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
I just find it hard to believe that with someone in the Justice Department (THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT) asserting the 5th, and with so many legal minds, including lawyers, prosecutors, judges (former and current ones), legislators, law enforcement types, and 'legal' journalists, that no one has the initiative to look at the US Code and hazard theory as what criminal statute might cause a Justice Department official to fear self-incrimination. In the days to come, consider carefully what the so-called legal analysts have to say about this.
The firing of U.S. Attorneys is a legal matter. The pending cases that these attorneys were investigating were legal matters. ASSERTING THE 5TH is a legal matter. Yet, there seems to be a complete lack of 'legal curiosity' (IF NOT down right misrepresentations and SPIN) from 'legal types' and others posing in the Media with respect to this firings and asserting the 5ht in this matter.
How can someone claim to be a lawyer, claim to be covering this story, and not be curious enough to look at the potential statutes which may come into play when a Justice Department Official asserts the 5th. AND IT IS A JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL (it is not like this stuff happens everyday--that a Justice Department Official asserts the 5th). These people as sworn to uphold the Constitution, sworn to uphold and ENFORCE the U.S. laws, and we have someone from the Department asserting the 5th.
To me, it is as if the Media has completely accepted (or are participants in disseminating) the White House spin. The White House spin intends to do two things: 1. to marginalize any investigation of this matter as meaningless political theatre (Tony Snow's Political Spectacle talking point). And in service to that point the Media focuses on Congressional personalities, the in-fighting between those who rightly protect Presidential perogatives and the newly elected Democrats who want some Congressional oversight of any matter no matter how trivial; and 2. to trivialize the Justice Departments actions as nothing more than a Public Relations problem (the President's PR apology for mistakes in how the firings were 'communicated'). In service to this second point, the Media focuses on how one public statement or another doesn't jive with something stated earlier...but that there really is no there, there. So, the Media focuses on Mr. Gonzalez's tongue twisters thus serving point one making this entire matter look like a Political Spectacle about nothing but sloppy communicating.
Trivialize and marginalize...meanwhile, a Justice Department official is taking the 5th--so, the knee jerk reaction of the media is a trivialize and marginalize that too--no matter what a stretch and how ludicrous the attempt at trivialization is. A Justice Department official taking the 5th because some Senators may have made up their mind--nothing to see here--move on!?! If Justice Department officials are in fear of questions from some crotchedty old Senators, what the hell-kind of Justice would they be defending from bad guys who want to destroy our society and country? Nevermind, almost forgot, the real bad guys are the crotchedty old Senators who have those terrible but meaningless questions--nothing to see here--move on.
Occasionally, a National media personality will suggest that there is a taint of public corruption or that the Democrats are attempting to make this look like some public corruption. And another occasional news account will point to potential public corruption of U.S. Attorneys with respect to enforcing election laws...or in the case of Carol Lamm, potential public corruption of her office that was involved in a public corruption prosecution and further investigation.
So, with all that....look at the 2nd word of 18 US Code 1503 (a)...
And yet, not one peek at or peep about...not one mention of the U.S. Code that might be potentially relevant to a Justice Department offical taking the 5th. Nadda. We are force-fed lots of pictures of crotchedty Senators and goofy pictures of Gonzalez...but nadda peep about the LAW.
Instead, we have media/legal types suggesting just the opposite on National television--that no LAW applies to this matter. So, is a manufactured, media-driven spectacle about the superficial margins of the U.S. attorney firings (in service to WH talking points) while ignoring the law at the core of the matter, what we have come to expect from the media.
Am I the only one who finds the Media coverage (or lack thereof) odd?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
