Realized belatedly that I was in GQ and my comments might contain too much editorializing. My apologies.
That’s what the investigation is supposed to be about… of course, it’s no surprise the Bushies are resisting any subpeonas.
As to what actual crime may have been committed, possibly obstruction of justice. And then there’s the possible impeachable offense of President Bush violating his Oath of Office to “Faithfully Execute the Laws”.
I hope I’m not undermining your arguments, but I’m starting to come around to the “dump Gonzales” camp. Not because I think he committed some sort of horrible offense, but because if he’s stupid enough to lie about such an inconsequential matter, then perhaps he’s too stupid to be a cabinet-level official. I mean, the firings were not illegal, and maybe not even unethical. Gonzales could have just said, “Hell yeah, we fired them because they wouldn’t tow the party line. And we have every right to do that. What’s your problem?” The Democrats would still bitch about it, but since his argument would be bulletproof, the “scandal” would go nowhere. But no, he misrepresents his involvement in the firings, and brings the scandal on himself. What an idiot :rolleyes:
Issues numbers 2 and 4 indicate pressure from Congresscritters that e-mails and other statements indicate were the (alleged) reasons that prompted the firings. If the White House ordered the firings in support of the Congresscritters’ complaints, then the WH engaged in obstruction of justice. Not (yet) proven? True. However, it is rather much more than a scholastic exercise to determine whether that was the sequence of events and motives and certainly justifies a Congressional investigation.
Nitpick: it’s ‘toe the party line’, as in keeping strictly to it.
There is, however, still the issue of this being completely unprecedented. Usually a change of administration (and probably party control of the WH, as I doubt Bush had problems with many of Reagan’s USAs) brings the dismissals or resignations of all the US Attorneys – but that’s at the beginning of the first term, not the middle of the second. This hasn’t happened before. Besides, firing someone for incompetence and firing someone because he wouldn’t investigate the other side enough are two different things.
What I want people to realize is that “no crimes were committed” is a partisan talking point that serves only to deflect from the real issue. If further investigation finds evidence of actual crimes, then dump everyone concerned. However, no actual crime needs to be proven for there to be a serious issue of impropriety or incompetence.
The notion that an action has to rise to the level of an actionable crime before accountability takes over is false, pernicious, and against everything American government is supposed to stand for.
Bush, Reagan, Carter; they all fired all 93 USA’s at the beginning of their tenure. That’s their prerogative. But there’s a difference between firing all of them to put in your own cronies, and firing them for “performance issues”. Depending on which survey you believe, only a handful (1-3) USA’s were removed in the past 25 years for inability to do the job.
That’s what I was attempting to state, in a manner that kept this from dropping into GD or the Pit.
Eli
The interference was an attempt to speed up an investigation, not to hamper one. From what I’ve read, this is something not done, but can it be considered obstruction of justice, which it would be if they tried to get him to halt an investigation?
Legal people?
Of the eight prosecutors removed, (nine if we go back to the guy in Guam a couple of years earlier), there are slightly different events preceding each removal. The New Mexico prosecutor was not pressed to speed up the investigation, he was pressed to produce indictments prior to the completion of the investigation. The lady in Southern California was ostensibly removed for not prosecuting enough illegal immigrants, although she had increased the number of monied interests behind the coyotes and had recently successfully prosecuted the case involving Duke Cunningham, R-CA and was in the midst of an investigation of Jerry Lewis, R-CA. The guy in Guam was, indeed, removed for pursuing an investigation related to (ta-daaa), Jack Abramoff, and his successor dropped the investigation.
A premature indictment (that could result in either a case that is thrown out of court or a mistrial, while “coincidentally” preventing a candidate from being elected), would qualify as obstruction of justice in my view. Eliminating prosecutors who happen to be investigating Republicans appears to be obstruction of justice, as well.
Iglesias was the only one of the eight for which Congressional interference is known of - for now, of course. Strictly speaking you are correct about the calls, but I think if he had caved in, he would have had to move up the indictments by speeding up the investigation, or thing would be too obvious.
Whether this is technically obstruction of justice depends on how the statutes are written, which is why I was asking for a reading by an attorney.
Yes the immigration excuse for Lam seems to be just as much nonsense as the poor evaluation excuse. I can’t imagine that an attorney is protected just because he or she is investigating someone of the same party as the Administration. The two examples you gave are suspicious - perhaps there is a smoling gun in the 18 day gap.
BTW, the Times yesterday reported that an early list had Fitzgerald listed as expendable. They speculated that the DoJ figured this was just too blatant, and he was taken off the potential hit list.
I didn’t think there was any question of a crime. Then I hear on the news today that the attorney for one of the Justice Dept. or administration officials has announced that she will invoke her right under the 5th ammendment.
It’s my understanding that you can’t do this unless you are actual peril of being charged with a crime. Is that wrong?
Her attorney stated it differently:
From http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=afo4ETPuzkHc&refer=us
I suppose if I were her attorney I would have said something along those lines too.
However, it still seems to me that she has to be in peril in the “legaly perilous” environment. Aren’t minor witnesses given immunity thereby removing the peril so that they can be forced to testify against more important miscreants?
And, if you aren’t afraid of incriminating yourself, why is the atmosphere in a Congressional hearing any more “legaly perilous” than that of a courtroom?
Congress isn’t made up of judges and professional jurists, it’s made up of politicians. That why the environment is so “legally perilous.” If you go before Congress, you are allowing yourself to be judged by people whose primary characteristics are ambition, dishonesty, and power lust.
It’s a given that anything Goodling says will be interpreted in the worst possible light. Who’s to say that Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama or some other ambitious Democrat won’t accuse her of perjury, just to score a few political points? Minor officials like Goodling are in very real jeopardy from two different sides: Congress might try to pin crimes on them to add to the “body count,” and the Bush Administration might try to use them as scapegoats. I say that her lawyer is a smart man in advising her to keep her mouth shut.
Congress is not bound by the same rules of procedure, evidence, discovery, etc. as those found in a court of law. Any congresscritter (or staffer) can sit at a hearing table, throw out a leading or ambiguous question with no judge to rule the question out of order, and then use the answer to come back at a later date and cry “obstruction!” or “perjury!”.
I suspect that the firings were purely political, with increasing evidence that they may have been carried out to hide illegal activities, but the right to decline to incriminate oneself is enshrined in the Constitution (as amended) and I would not see it torn down even to get at these people.
The attorney didn’t say 'perilous to my client’s good name because of possible unsubstantiated accusations." He said, or was quoted as saying, “legaly perilous.” If committe members make claims, Congress doesn’t hold the trial. The matter is referred to a US Attorney to investigate and carry forward, or not as the case may be. Congress can’t charge someone with a crime, in the legal meaning of “charge.”.
The fact that a witness may be wrongly villified isn’t “legal peril.” My questions as to whether or not you have to have grounds for thinking you might be charged with a crime as a result of your testimony remains unanswered.
Maybe that’s what’s she’s afraid of. 
*[sub]bolding mine-ed.[/sub]
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013272.php has a mini-thread on the 5th amendment claim that’s pretty good. Likely to be follow-up on it as his lawyer readers reply. (Context: Talking Points Memo is not non-partisan at all. They are also the ones who basically broke the whole story and probably have more info than anyone at this point.)
I am not a lawyer, but I do watch TV I remember an episode of The Sopranos where some guys (he said with a Joisey accent) got sent to intimidate a juror, so he’d go the right way in the trial of Uncle June. It worked, and the jury was deadlocked. I believe the “Let’s get to a juror” is a staple of mob movies and series.
That’s how I view this scandal. The mob boss (consisting of some conglomeration of Al “Lefty” Gonzales, Karl “Knuckles” Rove, and perhaps George “W” Bush) sends his thugs (Heather “Scarface” Wilson and Pete “Eight Finger” Dominechi) to lean on some mope (David “Julio” Iglesias) to get him to do what they want. Something similar seemed to happen with McKay in Washington State, although I’m less certain of the details, and something similar certainly seemed to happen with Carol “On the” Lam in San Diego. When Tony Soprano does it, and the mope is a juror, I know the name for it – jury tampering. When the President’s Administration does it, and the mope is a lawyer (or lawyers), I don’t know what it’s called, but it’s no less despicable.
Look, I get why the president gets to appoint the US Attorneys. He has a platform, and part of his privilege is to decide what his army of L’il Executive Branchers are going to do. Prosecute the mob, or drugs, or child porn, or what have you. That’s great. Appoint attorneys who are well-known for tearing up drug dealers and pedophiles.
But dammit, Mr. President, you don’t get to have an agenda of “Covering up for corrupt members of my party.” Justice is blind, isn’t she?
That’s where this line of thought started. She must think that a US Attorney might find something if an investigation is made.