|
|
,
Add to My Group(s)
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 7/28/10: Permalink
View Article Stats
Add to My Group(s)
View Article Stats
Obama Justice Department Appears to be Participating in a Coverup
By Roger Shuler (about the author)
Become a Fan (34 fans) -- Page 2 of 3 page(s)
What is a citizen to do? We are to take the word of Nora "Trust Me" Dannehy.
And we are to do that even though we now know there is reason to question Dannehy's supposedly impeccable credentials.
How might Dannehy's findings be summarized? Here is our best shot: Were the firings politically motivated? Yes. Did they violate department principles? Yes. Were they possibly criminal? No.
If those findings seem contradictory to you, join the crowd.
Absurdities pile one on top of another as you get into the specifics of Dannehy's findings. Consider just three findings, involving the possible criminal charges in the case--obstruction of justice (18 U.S. Code 1503), theft of honest services (18 U.S. Code 1346), and false statements (18 U.S. Code 1001):
* Causing a U.S. attorney to be fired for political reasons is not an impediment to his official duties--Dannehy/Welch say the statute on obstruction of justice penalizes only forward-looking conduct that endeavors to "influence, obstruct, or impede." But they conclude that causing David Iglesias to be fired did not impede his work. We can only assume that Dannehy/Welch actually wrote this with a straight face.
* Bushies did not engage in undisclosed, biased decision making--Dannehy/Welch found the effort to remove Iglesias from office was not "a scheme to get him to use his Office in return for anything of value, including his continued employment." That, however, is not the standard set out for honest-services fraud. In fact, honest-services case law specifically states that it does not hinge on whether "anything of value" changes hands. The actual standard, the one Dannehy/Welch obviously don't want regular Americans to know about is this: Did public officials, in this case members and allies of the Bush administration, engage in "undisclosed, biased decision making" when they sacked David Iglesias? Given that Dannehy admits their motivations were political, the answer obviously is yes.
* You can make statements to Congress that are "inaccurate" and "misleading" but are not "knowingly false"--This is what Dannehy/Welch found regarding Bush-era Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and his apparent false statements to Congress. How absurd is this conclusion? If a person makes a statement that is both inaccurate and misleading, that means it was made with intent, correct? After all, you can't unintentionally mislead someone. That means the statement was not just innocently inaccurate--it was knowingly false. And such statements are criminal.
For more details on Dannehy's legal conclusions please check out our earlier post:
Report on U.S. Attorney Firings Reads Like a Farce
All of this raises a disturbing question: Do Obama and Holder even want to be taken seriously on justice matters? Will Holder go down as "the most laughable attorney general in U.S. history"?
It could happen. But these are not laughing matters. And John Conyers should not treat them as such.
We don't pretend to be experts on Congressional authority, but it's our understanding that Conyers could decide to conduct his own investigation--looking not only into the U.S. attorney firings, but also political prosecutions under the Bush DOJ. Conyers already has indicated that he has serious problems with Dannehy's handiwork.
Congress has both oversight authority and the "power of the purse." Through much of the Bush presidency, evidence strongly indicates that taxpayer dollars were used not for legitimate justice matters but for political matters. Regardless of what "Trust Me" Dannehy wants us to believe, those actions were almost certainly criminal--there clearly is probable cause to bring criminal charges.
Conyers owes it to taxpayers and to Congress to conduct a broad and thorough investigation. If members of the Obama administration indeed have engaged in a coverup, that means some Democrats could get caught in Conyers' net?
Our response to that possibility? So be it.
The Obama administration has had some 19 months to show that it takes justice matters seriously. It has failed at every turn--and John Conyers should hold them accountable.
Become a Fan (34 fans) -- Page 2 of 3 page(s)
And we are to do that even though we now know there is reason to question Dannehy's supposedly impeccable credentials.
How might Dannehy's findings be summarized? Here is our best shot: Were the firings politically motivated? Yes. Did they violate department principles? Yes. Were they possibly criminal? No.
If those findings seem contradictory to you, join the crowd.
Absurdities pile one on top of another as you get into the specifics of Dannehy's findings. Consider just three findings, involving the possible criminal charges in the case--obstruction of justice (18 U.S. Code 1503), theft of honest services (18 U.S. Code 1346), and false statements (18 U.S. Code 1001):
* Causing a U.S. attorney to be fired for political reasons is not an impediment to his official duties--Dannehy/Welch say the statute on obstruction of justice penalizes only forward-looking conduct that endeavors to "influence, obstruct, or impede." But they conclude that causing David Iglesias to be fired did not impede his work. We can only assume that Dannehy/Welch actually wrote this with a straight face.
* Bushies did not engage in undisclosed, biased decision making--Dannehy/Welch found the effort to remove Iglesias from office was not "a scheme to get him to use his Office in return for anything of value, including his continued employment." That, however, is not the standard set out for honest-services fraud. In fact, honest-services case law specifically states that it does not hinge on whether "anything of value" changes hands. The actual standard, the one Dannehy/Welch obviously don't want regular Americans to know about is this: Did public officials, in this case members and allies of the Bush administration, engage in "undisclosed, biased decision making" when they sacked David Iglesias? Given that Dannehy admits their motivations were political, the answer obviously is yes.
* You can make statements to Congress that are "inaccurate" and "misleading" but are not "knowingly false"--This is what Dannehy/Welch found regarding Bush-era Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and his apparent false statements to Congress. How absurd is this conclusion? If a person makes a statement that is both inaccurate and misleading, that means it was made with intent, correct? After all, you can't unintentionally mislead someone. That means the statement was not just innocently inaccurate--it was knowingly false. And such statements are criminal.
For more details on Dannehy's legal conclusions please check out our earlier post:
Report on U.S. Attorney Firings Reads Like a Farce
All of this raises a disturbing question: Do Obama and Holder even want to be taken seriously on justice matters? Will Holder go down as "the most laughable attorney general in U.S. history"?
It could happen. But these are not laughing matters. And John Conyers should not treat them as such.
We don't pretend to be experts on Congressional authority, but it's our understanding that Conyers could decide to conduct his own investigation--looking not only into the U.S. attorney firings, but also political prosecutions under the Bush DOJ. Conyers already has indicated that he has serious problems with Dannehy's handiwork.
Congress has both oversight authority and the "power of the purse." Through much of the Bush presidency, evidence strongly indicates that taxpayer dollars were used not for legitimate justice matters but for political matters. Regardless of what "Trust Me" Dannehy wants us to believe, those actions were almost certainly criminal--there clearly is probable cause to bring criminal charges.
Conyers owes it to taxpayers and to Congress to conduct a broad and thorough investigation. If members of the Obama administration indeed have engaged in a coverup, that means some Democrats could get caught in Conyers' net?
Our response to that possibility? So be it.
The Obama administration has had some 19 months to show that it takes justice matters seriously. It has failed at every turn--and John Conyers should hold them accountable.
I live in Birmingham, Alabama, and work in higher education. I became interested in justice-related issues after experiencing gross judicial corruption in Alabama state courts. This corruption has a strong political component. The corrupt judges are (more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
Comments
The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.
This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.
| No comments |