Mukasey: The Law Is What The DoJ Says It Is

In the case of NM USA David Iglesias and WA USA John McKay, both have claimed their firings occurred after they failed to bring bogus indictments of election fraud against Republican political opponents just before elections.

In the case of CA USA Carol Lam, she indicted and won a conviction against Republican Congressman Randall "Duke" Cunningham and was in the process of indicting more corrupt Republicans when she got fired. Such a motive falls into the realm of potential obstruction of justice.

Most all of the fired USA's have demonstrably shown how the justifications given for their firings were bunk. In other words, the official explanations given to justify their unprecedented firings were false misrepresentations to the public and Congress.

In the case of AR USA Bud Cummins, his replacement, Tim Griffin was Karl Rove's former chief of opposition research. US federal prosecutors are supposed to be apolitical, Ag. Did you know that Ag ? US Attorneys are also supposed to be confirmed by the Senate. Tim Griffin was slipped into the job without Senate knowledge by Gonzales using a virtually unkown patriot act provision.

When such circumstantial evidence and potential for foul play exists and you have an AG and multiple DAG's now disgraced and out of office over their inconsistent claims and obfuscation in this matter, it warrants getting the truth from those ultimately involved and responsible in the White House.

.
 
And...to slightly change YOUR words...
You're talking about subpoenas regarding the use of presidential pardon power. From what I understand, it's a different animal. The authority of a president to fire USAs
it's absolute. Under those circumstances, there's not much leverage to dermand to know 'what was he thinking about'.
 
So...the old "we don't know what we don't know, so we need to get to the bottom of this" argument...

Hell...the Republicans were using that same logic in the case I cited...

And the Republicans were rightly rebuked...
 
Ag, you're still missing the point and clinging to an irrelevant example.

In the instance you cite above, Clinton exerting Executive Privilege is not done to obstruct an investigation or hide other criminal acts. In the case of Bush's firing 8 US Attorneys, there is ample evidence for potential lawbreaking as is outlined in the NYT piece I linked just above.

And to repeat, if my understanding is correct, there is precedent from the Supreme Court that executive privilege does not hold when it is being used to impede investigation into criminal acts.

.
 

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Back
Top