Democrats & Liberals Archives

Department of Obstruction of Justice

The Wall Street Journal reports the Justice Department stonewalled a federal investigation of Congressman Rick Renzi (R-Ariz) and then fired the prosecuting US attorney. This revelation comes on the heels of US Attorney Carol Lam’s firing after she announced her intent to investigate Congressman Jerry Lewis (R-Calif).

A pattern of deliberate obstruction of justice is emerging from Alberto Gonzales' so-called Department of Justice. A pattern that includes close consultations with White House officials and Senate testimonies full of "I don't recall"'s.

Posted by American Pundit at April 26, 2007 12:15 PM
Comments
Comment #218520

American Pundit,

False claims leading to war.
Torture.
mishandling of the war and hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the war.
Ex. rendition.
Katrina response.
Cronyism, corruption.
Placing political hacks in important positions to eliminate checks and balances.
outing a CIA agent.
Spying on Americans.
When is enough, enough?

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at April 26, 2007 2:54 PM
Comment #218525

Andre

When is enough, enough?

The million dollar question Andre. It befuddles me that any group of people can be so blatantly arrogant and defiant to ethical behavior and still be allowed to function in a leadership position. The rest of us would long ago have been suspended or even fired pending investigation. It almost seems as though unethical behavior can be tolerated when it involves the powerful and wealthy.

Posted by: ILdem at April 26, 2007 3:19 PM
Comment #218527

Salon has an interesting article, today, regarding torture. How can one profess to be ethical and a practice an immoral behavior at the same time is beyond me.
It is certainly not something I understand.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/04/26/torture_policy/?source=newsletter

Posted by: Linda H. at April 26, 2007 4:07 PM
Comment #218529

The admiistration of justice should be fair and blind instead of political. The role of justice can be expensive and ruinous of repudations and should not be used to defeat political opposition or advance purely parocial political interests. This now happens daily in every court house in America.

But government- local,state, federal -is a big business and the stakes are high, which is the reason for such cut throat tactics. That is the main problem: government by interest groups. Each groups spends millions of dollars to get its’ way and when they can’t they go to court. What a way to run a country!

Danny L. McDaniel
Lafayette, Indiana

Posted by: Danny L. McDaniel at April 26, 2007 4:27 PM
Comment #218533

AP,

CBSNEWS.com announced today that Rick Renzi has taken a leave of absence from two more House Commities.

That’s three in the last week.

NPR reported today that he may be ready to step down alltogether.

Posted by: Rocky at April 26, 2007 4:37 PM
Comment #218538

It’s downright amusing how you lead off a post with an iron-clad statement of something as fact when the article you link to paints a far more ambiguous picture.

The Wall Street Journal reports the Justice Department stonewalled a federal investigation of Congressman Rick Renzi (R-Ariz) and then fired the prosecuting US attorney./blockquote>

That is simply NOT what the Wall Street Journal reports. It says that there were delays in the case which were eventually overcome and that Chuck Schumer—who happens to be a partisan Democrat, if anyone is not aware of that—wants to INVESTIGATE whether there was any obstruction involved. Big surprise there.

In either of the cases you mention, the fact that a US Attorney was or was merely planning to investigate a Republican is in no way evidence that they were fired for that reason. Such an idea is further discredited by the fact that the Department of Justice continued to go after those Republicans AFTER the attorneys in question were fired.

Here’s an idea for all future US Attorneys who want to make it impossible to fire them. Make sure you investigate (or drop hints that you some day MIGHT investigate) individuals somehow connected with both parties. That way, if you get fired for any reason, you can always allege that the reason was a partisan attempt to obstruct your investigation. Even if the investigation goes forward under other leadership (even if it goes forward more vigorously) somebody will always be gullible and partisan enough to believe your story.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 26, 2007 5:21 PM
Comment #218577

LO:

OK, maybe AP slightly overstated the WSJ’s conclusions. However, even the most fatuous apologist for the Bush administration at this point would be forced to say that, given the highly suspicious circumstances under which these firings took place, it is at least worthy of investigation.

I mean, the whole POINT of doing an investigation is to find out what was at work behind what appears to be some inappropriate and enormously suspect behavior. The investigators don’t have to make the whole case until all the evidence has been gathered.

You seem to be demanding that the strength of the case has to be up to a legal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt before any of the investigating has even been done.

Posted by: Yossarian at April 27, 2007 12:59 AM
Comment #218578
you lead off a post with an iron-clad statement of something as fact when the article you link to paints a far more ambiguous picture.

LOL! Kind of like, “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” :)

LO, you write, “It says that there were delays in the case which were eventually overcome”

Sure. After the election. The fact is — and this is what the WSJ reports — the Justice Department delayed authorization for the Renzi investigation until after the election. And then they fired the investigating US Attorney.

Such an idea is further discredited by the fact that the Department of Justice continued to go after those Republicans AFTER the attorneys in question were fired.

I have yet to hear that the DoJ is continuing the investigation of Rep. Lewis after they canned Carol Lam.

The fact is, there is an obvious pattern of obstruction of justice in these firings that extends to the White House.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 27, 2007 1:18 AM
Comment #218606

As I stated elsewhere, the entire Bush administration is corrupt from the TOP on DOWN. It has been this way from DAY DAMN ONE. Even the “revered” US Supreme Court plunged itself into this rottenness of American politics by decided to appoint the moronic, platinum-spoon-in his-mouth, idiot George W. Bush as “president” of the United States.

The only recourse left for America now seems to be waiting for the constitutionally protected “end of this entirely too long, too senseless, too reckless, too immoral, too terroistic national nightmare”

Posted by: Kim-Sue at April 27, 2007 12:16 PM
Comment #218631

Well, I was wrong. I thought that after the election, we could dispense with the tiresome hatefilled diatribes concerning the President. But, it was not meant to be. There are still those that, apparently, have no other purpose in life but to say the most hateful, derogatory, venomfilled spewings and submit them as political discourse. If they had any ideas to submit, it would be different. But they don’t. Their puerile offerings do nothing to advance the cause they apparently support. Oh well, as my Daddy used to observe,” Isn’t it a shame how people learn to hate before they learn to spell”.

Posted by: John Back at April 27, 2007 5:40 PM
Comment #218639

John, I’m not sure who you’re referring to.

I thought that Republicans might address specific issues and specific ideas rather than just throw around blanket statements of hate and BS, but I guess that wasn’t meant to be either.

Why don’t you participate in the discussion rather than just make ignorant remarks that add nothing, John?

You can start by explaining why a thread that has nothing directly to do with President Bush would spark a Bush-hater rant… Or was your enigmatic post some weird kind of automated GOP hate-spam that I look silly responding to?

Tell us, John. We all want to know what you think of the US Attorney firings.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 27, 2007 8:01 PM
Comment #218642

AP-

Perhaps I need to simplify my language. I was under the impression that I was dealing with intelligent persons. Where is the hate-spam? I hate no one. Nor do I spew out Republican talking points. I am an equal opportunity critic. I think both sides are about the same, not worth voting for. I am hoping for a good, solid Indie of some reasonable philosophical position to emerge before next November.

And, I think the prosecutor firings was just the latest in a long series of total screw-ups by this administration. I also believe that a case could be made for obstruction of justice, perjury, and malfeasance and misfeasance against several, if not all the higher echelon of this administration, and I hope someone in Congress will push to the limit to find out the truth.
The sad part is it could have been done in a way that did not lead to this mess. Since all prosecutors serve at the will and pleasure of the President, any of them, or all of them, coould have been fired with no reason given. It qwas when the attempts at justification started that the problems arose. As I said, a total screw-up.

ZAsk me anything and I will give you as complete an answer as I can.

Posted by: John Back at April 27, 2007 8:35 PM
Comment #218680

Thanks John. I totally agree that this mess could have been avoided. I half expected that Gozales would go before the Senate and stuff a reasonable explanation for everything that happened right down their throats.

But that didn’t happen.

And when piece after piece of evidence appears that points to a pattern of obstruction of justice by the DoJ and the White House, “I don’t recall” just doesn’t cut the mustard.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 28, 2007 3:04 PM
Post a comment