• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DOJ: No charges for Bush-era US attorney firings

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
AP said:
WASHINGTON — Prosecutors have concluded their two-year investigation into the Bush administration's firing of U.S. attorneys and will file no charges, the Justice Department said Wednesday.

The investigation looked into whether the Bush administration improperly dismissed nine U.S. attorneys as a way to influence investigations. The scandal contributed to mounting criticism that the administration had politicized the Justice Department, a charge that contributed to the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

In 2008, the Justice Department assigned Nora Dannehy, a career prosecutor from Connecticut with a history of rooting out government wrongdoing, to investigate the firings.

In particular, she looked into whether the firing of New Mexico U.S. attorney David Iglesias and whether then-Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., or others should be prosecuted for his dismissal.

"Evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of David Iglesias," the Justice Department said in a letter to lawmakers Wednesday. "The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias."
LINK

So the two year investigation turned up nothing, and no charges were filed. As I recall - these attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President. Didn't we already know this?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
249,030
Reaction score
74,826
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
In 2006, the US Attorney from the SD of California ( a college friend of mine-I spoke to at our 25th reunion)
noted she thought she was going to get booted by the Bush
administration. At the time she was appointed, the dems has gained
control of the senate by Jefford's defection and the Bush
Administration wanted a GOP zealot as the USA but Feinstein and Boxer
had threatened to block his appointment. Carol Lam, a former Asst US A
and a merit appointed judge was deemed Republican enough to suit the
GOP and moderate enough to suit the Dem senators. After the
patriot act was passed, there was a provision that if a USA was
appointed mid-term, that appointment would not need senate approval
(and by then Bush had a gop majority) (that provision was later removed when the Dems took control of congress in early 2007)

so Lam-who spent alot of time going after Corrupt health care
providers (including a year long trial she personally was involved
with that only resulted in a watered down consent decree) rather than
after the massive amount of illegals (which was more popular with LE
agencies and local politicians) figured now that BUsh could get a
zealot and given she had pissed off the local law enforcement
agencies, she was gonna get replaced.

She joked that the Border Patrol and local sheriff's called her "catch and release carol"


BTW it had nothing to do with her office taking down "Top Gun and
blatant corrupt Porker Duke Cunningham.

another US Attorney-I believe it was in san francisco got booted because his office had the lowest morale of all the major US attorney offices. One in little rock got booted because Rove wanted to give this plumb to a close ally. While that is not exactly the greatest reason for a chance-it has nothing illegal or even improper about it. Most US attorneys are appointed due to patronage or pay offs. One of the best US Attorneys in Ohio's history (now Judge Edmund Sargus Jr) was the son of one of John Glenn's closest allies-the late Edmund Sargus -general counsel of the United Mineworkers.
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
Messages
845
Reaction score
305
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I haven’t been paying much attention to these things recently…is this the one that sets the precedent for Obama to fire prosecutors who look too closely at his shady dealings, or is it the one that lets him fire prosecutors who refuse to bog his political enemies down in trumped up charges?
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,963
Reaction score
50,861
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
An investigation is not just to find guilt, but to find when there is no guilt. In this case, there is no guilt, nothing prosecutable. I am a big fan of investigations, it would certainly be wrong then to get upset over the investigations findings. I am no fan of Bush or his people, but in this case, apparently there was nothing illegal, so end of story.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
An investigation is not just to find guilt, but to find when there is no guilt. In this case, there is no guilt, nothing prosecutable. I am a big fan of investigations, it would certainly be wrong then to get upset over the investigations findings. I am no fan of Bush or his people, but in this case, apparently there was nothing illegal, so end of story.
While I appreciate your desire for the truth, in this case there was never a need for an investigation in the first place. It was, what I think as time goes on we'll find, one of many worthless investigations into so called "Bush scandals", pushed for political gain rather than any actual wrong doing going on. (And I DO hope the GOP doesn't try stupid tit-for-tat crap if they regain the House/Senate)

I do hope though, that your stance of "Investigation is over, let it go" is the opinion of the majority :)
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
MrVicchio said:
While I appreciate your desire for the truth, in this case there was never a need for an investigation in the first place. It was, what I think as time goes on we'll find, one of many worthless investigations into so called "Bush scandals", pushed for political gain rather than any actual wrong doing going on. (And I DO hope the GOP doesn't try stupid tit-for-tat crap if they regain the House/Senate)

I do hope though, that your stance of "Investigation is over, let it go" is the opinion of the majority.

Well said and may I add... "indeed".

befuddled_stoner said:
I haven’t been paying much attention to these things recently…is this the one that sets the precedent for Obama to fire prosecutors who look too closely at his shady dealings, or is it the one that lets him fire prosecutors who refuse to bog his political enemies down in trumped up charges?
No - this investigation just wrapped up and was going on for the last 2 years, reviewing the Bush Attorney firings that occurred in 2006. Many politicians claimed that these replacements were "illegal", and demanded an investigation. That investigation just wrapped up.
 
Last edited:

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,963
Reaction score
50,861
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
While I appreciate your desire for the truth, in this case there was never a need for an investigation in the first place. It was, what I think as time goes on we'll find, one of many worthless investigations into so called "Bush scandals", pushed for political gain rather than any actual wrong doing going on. (And I DO hope the GOP doesn't try stupid tit-for-tat crap if they regain the House/Senate)

I do hope though, that your stance of "Investigation is over, let it go" is the opinion of the majority :)
I honestly do not know whether there was a need for the investigation. I also, as I have said, have no problem with investigations for the most part(though I would add there needs to be some mechanism to insure investigations are not political witch hunts).

I commend you for the part I bolded, both for what you said and how you said it.
 
Top Bottom