http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2007/03/cunningham_scan.php

and this too;

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013285.php

It’s astonishing really. Here we have a guy who thinks that there should be no oversight of the executtive because someone might choose to lie during the investigation talking about missing the big picture …

You know dugger libby didn’t have to lie to the investigators. He could have told them the truth. Anyone involved in this USA situation has the same option. Perjury is only part of the mechanics of an investigation if someone CHOOSES to perjure themselves.

Taking the 5th because you don’t want to have to make that choice is not a valid position.

Just as the Bush administration trying to subvert the justice system for pure political power and then lying about it is actually about a Democratic congress playing “Gotcha”.

Given the lack of honor, integrity, honesty and credibility in the Bush adminstration; it’s love of cronyism, corporate favoritism, and partisanship; and several years of a Republican rubberstamp congress that didn’t even pretend to hold the adminstration accountable; I can see why a Bush-lover like Dugger would want all oversight into the shady dealings of the Bush adminstration dropped.

I haven’t said Libby was tricked. I agree Libby committed a crime – by definition. But I also that crime was not the crime for which the investigation was initiated and that the crime part of the mechanics of the this investigative process. The answers he gave did not reveal he committed ‘the’ crime.

I know you are not very fond of conservatives and Bushies, but I would hope one day, you and others will look at the big picture of all of this (also review Weinberger and Cisneros) and you won’t find it a reason to cheer. IMO – its sad.

With Libby being the last ‘gotcha’, I would happily agree to revise this ugly ‘gotcha’ process. On my side and yours, Clinton years and earlier, it has always, IMO, really been about politics.

Likewise, Dugger.

Maybe you misread the sentence just prior: I DON’T believe an actual crime has taken place (other than maybe lying to Congress). But even if it’s not illegal, it sure is embarrassing to fire a bunch of people–people who just got good job reviews–and not be able to give anybody a reason for it.

And if you could please tell me how, in the secretive world of washington politics, someone can prove a crime without an investigation into suspicious matters I’m all ears. There is enough of an appearance of wrongdoing or unethical behavior here to warrant an investigation.

You’re only argument against an investigation is that it might lead to other Bush administration officials being charged with perjury, as if they have no choice in the matter to not lie under oath.

Although this being the Bush administration, that may well be the case…

To sum up you want to stop an investigation into possible wrongdoing because some of those people being investigated might break the law during the course of the investigation by lying to the investigators.

The idea that people ae being tricked into providing conflicting testimony because of faulty memories is just more conservative bullshit spin that no one in their right mind believes.

You well know Scooter Libby’s crime was purely a by-product of the investigation.

And I’m thinking we have got to have a crime before we investigate. Right now, politicians and ideologues don’t like the way this ‘looks’ – despite it being legal.

USA: Well, I’ve been investigating Duke Cunningham’s dealings with Dusty Foggo and Porter Goss, and a lot of it seems to point back to Rep. jerry Lewis of California…”

Atty. Gen.: Uh huh, that’s great. You’re fired.

USA: Wha…?

No, it just makes it a lie.

Scooter Libby committed a crime: He perjured himself. This crime wasn’t uncovered in some fishing expedition to catch him out. He lied under oath to investigators. That was his choice. He chose to commit a crime.

In the case of the USAs you already have conflicting testimony from DOJ officials and testimony that is contradicted by subsequent evidence. I’m no lawyer but it seems to me that if there is probable cause or the appearance of malfeasance, whatever the term is, then there is justification for an investigation.

You seem to think that an investigation is entirely unwarranted because the president can do whatever he wants. That’s a dangerous attitude to have in a democracy my friend. Or don’t you care?

I believ a ‘bogus’ reason for doing something legal does not then make the action illegal.

frame

You first have to establish the crime – the obstruction of justice, if you say so – in this case. Firing those attorneys is perfectly legal. What is the crime? Establish the crime first.

md

Are you saying that a crime – has been established? I don’t know of one. What crime specifically? You seem to be claiming that those attorneys were asked to do something illegal (the use of a government department for the pursuit of political gains.).
You prove that? Who did it? Maybe what you mean is that if you guys were allowed a fishing expedition, you might uncover a crime – like Scooter Libby’s.

“The firing is not a crime nor is the motive for the firing’

And this

seems like backtracking

from this:

” The issue here is not that he fired them, but why he fired them.”

It’s true that the AG can fire U.S. Attorneys for any reason at all. But so far, the AG has offered only one reason–performance–and that turned out to be bogus. Beyond that, the only reason seems to be “because we can.”

Sure. That would be unfortunate. However, it probably wouldn’t happen if you didn’t invent a cover story out of whole cloth the way Mr. Libby did.

The actus reus here is not the firing, it is the use of a government department for the pursuit of political gains.

The mens rea is to subvert the Constitution and the will of the people by manipulating the results of an election of giving the appearance that a political party is corrupt.

Motive is irrelevant. Motive is almost never an element of amy crime. Motive can only be used an added piece of evidence that puts together the pieces of the puzzle that is a crime.

The firing is not a crime nor is the motive for the firing. But the firings are evidence of the administrations attempt to commit a crime or a part of a conspiracy to commit a future crime (i.e., replace these attorneys with ones more willing to do the Administration’s bidding). Attempt and Conspiracy are crimes (called inchoate crimes) which often carry the same or a slightly lesser punishment than the act itself.

I shoot I guy and tell the cops it was in self-defense. Only through an investigation do they discover that no, I had been planning to shoot the guy for months in premeditated fashion.

Bush tells everyone he fired the USAs for performance related issues. But what if an investigation reveals that there was actually an orchestrated campaign to fire attorneys who were investigating republicans? Would have no problem with that? If you didn’t have a problem with that I would seriously question your judgement.

Tell me, if the president fired the USAs to block investigations of fellow republicans, would you dismiss it as the president’s perogative? Do you understand the implications of that for the future of our democracy?