E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAfter a nearly two-year investigation, a career federal prosecutor has concluded that no criminal charges should be filed in connection with the firings of nine U.S. attorneys during the Bush administration.
Nora Dannehy, a prosecutor from Connecticut appointed by Michael Mukasey when he was attorney general, concluded that no prosecutable criminal violations were committed in the most controversial of the firings -- of David Iglesias in New Mexico.
It's true, she concluded, that former Sen. Pete Domenici and other state Republicans tried to get him fired. But the investigation found that none of them -- or anyone in the White House or Justice Department -- sought to lean on him to bring voter fraud or public corruption cases against Democrats in the days leading up to the 2006 elections.
She concluded that Domenici's actions were at least partly politically motivated, but that "a public official does not violate the law by seeking the removal of a United States Attorney for his failure either to pursue a particular case the official believes is legitimate or to pursue certain types of cases the official believes should be brought, even if the public official's motives are partisan and inconsistent with the values" of the Justice Department.
She also concluded that there was insufficient evidence to charge any former Bush Justice Department officials with misleading Congress or other investigators about the reasons for the firings.
In a letter to members of Congress disclosing the prosecutor's conclusions, the Justice Department says investigators questioned more than 60 people and that the Bush White House "fully cooperated."
Leave a Comment:
That's too bad. David Iglesias was railroaded by those within the Bush administration--they were apparently careful enough to avoid taint in the process.
Actually, it sounds like the prosecutor was quite thorough, the Bush Administration fully cooperative and not trying to hide anything. Apparently, in a world where it's important what the definition of "is" is, in this case there was apparently no "there" there.
If it was wrong for Bush to fire 8 of the Clinton appointed prosecutors, why was it OK for Clinton to fire ALL of the Bush Sr. appointed prosecutors?
It sounds like selective memory works quite well for the Democrats, who tried to make a big deal about nothing.
MSNBC, Tell Sponge Joe the liar to change his tune or go off air like his radio show!!!
In other words, the investigation be damned. We made up our minds before hand and we are not going to let the evidence get in the way. The attorneys work under the direction of the President. He has the right to hire and fire personnel under him. Clinton hired and fired US attorneys as he felt. Bush had the same right.
A two year investigation that was nothing more than a witch hunt by those on the left that would try to do anything to bash the Bush Administration. A complete waste of time and a waste of money.
sfcret,
How many investigations do you think will be launched by the House if the Republicans win the majority? The single intent will be to paint the WH in a bad light for the 2012 election. The end result will be the same … a witch hunt that is waste of time and money.
That is the way politics works in DC. Got to love it.
Dennis,
The House, if it goes Republican, will not need to investigate. The American voters will have already rendered judgement!
Kind of like the Kenneth Starr investigations. I CAUGHT HIM! HE GOT A BJ!
Was there ever an investigation when Clinton fired 90-some attorneys??
Well of course not, even when it became known that some of the Attny's were instrumental in investigations of criminal activity by Bill Clinton as Governor...why procecute?
Actually, Clinton was acting under a time-honored tradition of new presidents cleaning house in the justice department. Bush departed from that tradition when he kept most of the prior complement of attorneys on board.
I think the prosecutor's comments sum things up nicely, but don't look for Bush haters to even blink an eye. Their world hasn't been changed by this judgement.
It figures...... business as usual in Washington ! No one is ever held accountable !!!
This is because FOX and the conservatives take every issue to the lowest common denominator. Had the administration done this it would have been another 4 day news cycle about how BIG GOV is chasing ghosts. The Obama administration cannot govern because there is an entire party dedicated to blocking it. Say what you will but evil is organized.
DrStrangedog,
You are so right! Why look at what the democrats did when they regained the House and Senate while G.W. Bush was President! I think John Conyers (dem from Detroit, MI) is still investigating anything he hears to try to get Bush. Bush couldn't get anything meaningful passed once the dems took control, because they were obstructing, trying to set up the 2008 elections. Say what you will, but evil has a short, convenient memory....and is organized.
I can't wait until the GOP gets back in power to see how they fix the deficit, healthcare and raise the retirement age to 70. Why should they care about retirement, since they all have a guaranteed income. At 65 I can just watch them try to do a better job with the economy while not taxing their rich friends. I don't think they really want to be back in power, but are just blustering to make Obama's job harder.
Being 65, your should remember President Reagan. He cut taxes and employment began to take a marked improvement within the first year. It then helped to install one of the longest periods of economic growth in modern history. Huge government program have only stunted the economy and history bears that out.
Another thing to remember in the history of the USA each and every time that taxes have been cut, especially during a recession, the revenue for the Treasury increased due to payrolls increasing, new job, new business. And everything taxes are increased the opposite occurs.
So my question do you want more jobs, or more unemployment?
marcilynnj,
It stands to reason that the retirement age will have to be raised with respect to Social Security. On the upside, if they incrementally raise the age of retirement, and excuse the folks currently within sight of retirement, there will be less damange to the pending retireees. In addition, those of us/you who are 10-15 years away from retirement can make plans accordingly, and while we will be impacted to a certain extent, that would be better than to reach retirement, and suddenly be told that there's no money available. Personally, I think means testing, in addition to a gradual increase in the retirement age, is the way to go. That probably means that I'm going to lose out, but my plans don't actually rely on Social Security very much, as I've not been confident of SSA being able to remain solvent.
Sorry, this is off topic, but I wasn't able to get in on the apparent Sherrod marathon earlier today. I had already commented yesterday when I said she was taken out of context and the action to force her to resign or fire her was unwarranted.
Fox News handled this very poorly and should apologize. The NAACP handled it very poorly and should apologize. Tom Vilsack handled this very poorly and should apologize. If the President wants to take responsibility for his administration, he should offer reconciliation. Ms. Sherrod should not only get her job back but possibly be considered for a higher position in the administration.
No one should be sued or criminally prosecuted. Everything Keith Olbermann says is edited to be tailored to his message. Same for O'Donnell. Same for Hannity. Same for O'Reilly. Same for Maddow. Same for Richard, Washington State.
Then there is Rondescending, Indiana.
Now, will someone tell me the difference between Andrew Breitbart and Michael Moore. Or Andrew Breitbart and Al Gore. Or Andrew Brightbart and Al Franken. They are all examples of editing for their own benefit and according to their own agenda.
So let's not get our briefs and panties in a wad about something that they and almost every poster on this blog does on a daily basis. The faux outrage is comical.
Well stated Richard, every side edits the material to help their viewpoint. I just find it curious that MSNBC will not run many of the stories which do not put the Obama administration and Congress in a bad light. Editing is expected but ignoring is why they are getting killing in the ratings
Richard:
Hold on a second Richard. "No one should be sued or criminally prosecuted"? Seems to me that much more dmaage has occurred to this woman than just losing her job. Her name and face was originally splashed all over the news calling the woman a racist and ripping her character apart based on a news story that did not provide the entire story. It's one thing losing a job and another thing altogether for one's character to be torn to shreds on national television.
Whether Sherrod takes any action and against who is up to her. I understand that her character is such (positive) that she will most likely not pursue some form of reparations. But to say if she gets her job back all is well and forgiven is bull. News organizations , reporters, persons who provide news organizations tapes of individuals, etc. have to learn that they cannot post a person's picture all over the television and accuse a person of being a racist or anything else that damages their character unless they have done their best to validate the charges. AAnd in this case their were players who did not do their best to validate this information. All is not well and forgiven if Sherrod just gets her job back. She has been damaged by false charges and unprofessional reporting and by God someone needs to atone or pay up.
Ca,
I agree with the point of damage, and if it were a private industry job, I could see lawyers lining up outside her doors to take her case. As she worked for the government, and as I understand it, she is limited to recovery of position and back pay, there won't be much interest from the lawyers. It might very well be that she could sue Breitbart, maybe she would be able to sue Fox News, maybe the NAACP, but all of those carry some heavyweight attorneys (with the possible exception of Breitbart), on staff to deal with any and all issues of this nature.
Apologies really don't mean that much in my opinion, when the apology is muted, compared to the widely broadcast negatives from early in the week. It's kind of like when the newspapers make a factual error on page one, and then two days later print a retraction on page 20, everyone remembers the page one data, and nobody sees the page 20 retraction. Ms. Sherrod has been chastized unnecessarily, and apparently will take the high road out, for that I commend her, and wish her nothing but the best.
It might be interesting to find out who sent the tape to Breitbart, as there doesn't seem to be much doubt that it was an actual videotape, and what the tape had on it when Breitbart got it. That's no excuse for Breitbart, but I would like to know the entire genesis of the tape.
Richard,
Fox covered the apology of the head of the Ag. dept., also the apology of the Obama administration. Will anyone apologize to Glenn Beck for him saying she was wronged, then misquoted?
I honestly don't know all the context in the Glenn Beck scenario. I'll have to get more information before I comment on that. Can you help me out with a little more detail?
Yes - he supported the employee and suggested that the federal government had wronged her. Why the hell can't democrats see that their leaders would throw any/all of us under the bus to save their political asses? Whatever happened to all of those centrist democrats who were screaming for moderation during the GW Bush administration? Where are those voices now?
FYI: Keith Olbermann is going to be back tonite towards the end of Countdown for a Special Comment on the Breitbart video incident.
Thanks for the warning. No channel surfing tonight.
That should be a joke.........................
How many millions did this subterfuge of acts to propagate beliefs that are not true cost taxpayers?
Keith was right. Everybody failed this lady, including and especially, President Obama's Administration.
We voted for change. And one of the biggest changes we were seeking was to have a President who did not hunker down to these hateful lying racists. But that is exactly what is happening. The media is no better. They demanded to know how the White House was going to respond to this situation, just like they always do no matter the situation. And the White House buckled. Because the media wants/needs/thrives on drama. And will not give up. And what happens? A lady loses her job.
But no one else will. No one in the media will lose their job. No one at the NAACP. Certainly no one who works @ Fox. They thrive on this stuff. And that's because they literally hate people who aren't like them.
When is the White House going to figure this out?! They are in charge. They need to tell the media to back off.
The media.
There is no media. Just corporate money making machines. Nothing but a bunch of sell outs. With zero journalistic integrity. Zero.
Thanks Keith. I despise racism. Despise it. I bet most people in this country do. Yet because the GOP run most of the radio stations and CNN and Fox and most of the daytime programming on MSNBC, no one is speaking out. God forbid the minority get a voice in this country. The only time they do is when a story like this surfaces and then some on the right cry "foul" - when it's too late.
It's just easier to make certain the white GOP males in this country are happy on a day to day basis. Right Scarborough? Right Buchanan? You two never gave a damn about minorities. That's why your're Republicans.
I so miss David Shuster. I know it's a big no-no to look for another job when employed. But he's a great journalist. And there are so few of them around anymore.
Geez, can't you forgive him?
If you despise rascism then you will join with me to decry Ms. Sherrod's comments later in her speech. She stated that all those who opposed the Health Care Bill were rascist. These type of comments are bigoted and play the race card. The left need to stop throwing out the race card every time someone disagrees with their policies. No one is going to take them seriously.
Pat Boston
Agree with your comment, Keith told the truth nothing left out. Morning Joe, Buchannan should be sitting out their contract. They like Fox jumped on this woman something terrible. Not for Mike Barnacle the only one on the show even the guests called her a racists, Mike stood up to Joe and the gang.
MSNBC as Keith said was no better than other stations
Why did MSNBC invite the Andrew guy on MSNBC they further perpertrated this lie. Hopefully MSNBC for those on the network like Joe will learn something from this but I doubt it since Joe was the Lead in as Always for Fox News Stories for the remainder of the day. Check out Morning Joe's racist comments and compare them to Fox news, they always do the 600 a.m. lead in for Fox, Joe and company should have moved to Fox long ago.
What a waste of resources and tax dollars - but that's been par for the course since 1/19/09.
Hey all, don't have a lot to say, I'm disgusted by this whole thing with the riechwing smear it makes me want to puke. I'm watching the night msnbc, a relief from the Joe sponge hannitybeckoriellybozzel etc assh@#$%. Fufwha my riechwing c@$ drinkers. I wonder if Rush was hung upside down if he would look like the Moose..lol.
Some of the MSNBC watchers should actually watch what Fox said in it's entirety rather than just take Olberman's or Maddow's edited take on Fox. Those two will be very objective. Sure!! OReilly apologized for not checking deeper into the speech. However, he did state that she should be chastised for her latter comments about those who opposed health care all being rascist. He also pointed out that these comments were definitely a violation of the Hatch Act which are dismissal grounds. This was verified by a former federal attorney.
It's interesting to note that NONE of the usual crowd of bloviating lefty liberals have any comments here on this development. Quoting one of the most prolific bloviators:
<crickets>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!