Prosecutor purge reaches crisis mode for White House

The prosecutor purge scandal is now cooking with gas. There’s no way around it: these guys are busted. Given what we’ve learned this morning, the house of cards White House and Justice Department officials built is crumbling.

The White House was deeply involved in the decision late last year to dismiss federal prosecutors, including some who had been criticized by Republican lawmakers, administration officials said Monday.

Last October, President Bush spoke with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to pass along concerns by Republicans that some prosecutors were not aggressively addressing voter fraud, the White House said Monday. Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, was among the politicians who complained directly to the president, according to an administration official.

Up until now, administration officials had said, repeatedly, that the White House had a tangential connection to the purged prosecutors, having “signed off” on a Justice Department list that was based solely on “job performance” issues. Every rationalization was bogus — officials have been lying, blatantly, in some instances under oath.

Indeed, as far as the White House was concerned, there was talk of firing all the federal prosecutors.

The White House suggested two years ago that the Justice Department fire all 93 U.S. attorneys, a proposal that eventually resulted in the dismissals of eight prosecutors last year, according to e-mails and internal documents that the administration will provide to Congress today.

The dismissals took place after President Bush told Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales in October that he had received complaints that some prosecutors had not energetically pursued voter-fraud investigations, according to a White House spokeswoman.

Just to clarify, White House concerns about the prosecutors failing to purse voter fraud enough are referring, of course, to prosecuting Democrats. Several of the purged U.S. Attorneys were definitely “energetically pursuing” voter-fraud investigations, but because the targets were often Republicans, the White House was displeased.

The resignations have already begun.

Last week, Michael Battle, the Director of the Executive Office of the United States Attorney, and the person who personally contacted all of the purged U.S. Attorneys to tell them they’d been fired, resigned. Yesterday, D. Kyle Sampson, Gonzales’ chief of staff, and the man who helped narrow down the list of prosecutors to be fired, also resigned.

I guarantee they won’t be the last.

Take a few minutes to read the whole WaPo article on this, because it’s filled with documented evidence that obliterates every defense the Bush gang and congressional Republicans have offered to date. We learned, for example, that:

* The change to the Patriot Act was crucial.

Sampson also strongly urged bypassing Congress in naming replacements, using a little-known power slipped into the renewal of the USA Patriot Act in March 2006 that allows the attorney general to name interim replacements without Senate confirmation.

“I am only in favor of executing on a plan to push some USAs out if we really are ready and willing to put in the time necessary to select candidates and get them appointed,” Sampson wrote in a Sept. 17 memo to Miers. “It will be counterproductive to DOJ operations if we push USAs out and then don’t have replacements ready to roll immediately.

“I strongly recommend that as a matter of administration, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments,” he wrote.

By avoiding Senate confirmation, Sampson added, “we can give far less deference to home state senators and thereby get 1.) our preferred person appointed and 2.) do it far faster and more efficiently at less political costs to the White House.”

* Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) better have a damn good lawyer.

On the day of the Dec. 7 firings, Miers’s deputy, William Kelley, wrote that Domenici’s chief of staff “is happy as a clam” about Iglesias.

A week later, Sampson wrote: “Domenici is going to send over names tomorrow (not even waiting for Iglesias’s body to cool).”

* Rove was directly involved with replacing Bud Cummins with one of his acolytes.

The e-mails show that Rove was interested in the appointment of a former aide, Tim Griffin, as an Arkansas prosecutor. Sampson wrote in one that “getting him appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc.”

* Bush officials lied to Congress, which the last time I checked, was illegal.

Administration officials say they are braced for a new round of criticism today from lawmakers who may feel misled by recent testimony from Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty and William E. Moschella, principal associate deputy attorney general.

Josh Marshall summarizes:

As has happened so many times in the last six years, the maximal version of this story — which seemed logical six weeks ago but which I couldn’t get myself to believe — turns out to be true. Indeed, it’s worse. We now know that Gonzales, McNulty and Moschella each lied to Congress. We know that the purge was a plan that began at the White House — and it was overseen by two of President Bush’s closest lieutenants in Washington — Miers and Gonzales.

Watergate was a third-rate burglary. This has just as much potential.

It’s like a Moebius strip: if you fire all the federal prosecutors, then no one will be left to prosecute you for obstructing justice! Brilliant!

  • As both Krugman & Turley pointed out on Olbermann last night, it’s not just about what the people who were purged did… it’s also about what the ones who were not purged were forced to do (or cover up) to keep their jobs.

    Especially since the unPATRIOT act allowed them to be appointed without Senate confirmation…

  • I keep hearing the name Harriet Miers (she of the Supreme Court fiasco). For example, this from the Denver Post:

    Justice Department officials said Monday that they only recently learned that the idea of dismissing federal prosecutors originated in the White House more than a year earlier. In 2005, Harriet Miers, then the White House legal counsel, asked a Justice Department official whether it would be feasible to replace all 93 U.S. attorneys when their four-year terms expired, according to the department.

    She sent her query to D. Kyle Sampson, later to become chief of staff to Gonzales, the officials said. Sampson, who once worked with Miers in the White House, replied that filling so many jobs at once would overtax the Justice Department. As an alternative, he suggested replacing a smaller group, according to e-mail messages and other internal memorandums compiled by the Justice Department in recent days.

    You’d think this crowd would learn from past fiascoes, but why should they? The Congressional Democrats seems to just roll over, so why bother?

  • Just a quick speculation about potential fallout. I’ve watched this scandal unfold here in NM with a good deal of amusement. If Domenici goes down, Richardson would appoint a Democratic replacement, which would of course help with our razor thin majority as it currently stands. The downside is that Domenici is extraordinarily popular here even among democrats, and his downfall may induce some degree of sympathy, thus swinging this 50/50 state more toward the republican side.

  • to Ed Stephan #4. The Dems are not even remotely rolling over on this,a nd they are vigorously pursueing oversight and accountability hearings on a wide array of issues. The only issue they seem to be struggling on – a bit – is Iraq, and that’s because Iraq is unbelievably difficult on policy and political grounds.

  • goona be time soon for Drudge to start pushing some faux “scandal” about a Democrat to get everybody distracted and get the wingnuts into a frenzy. Who will it be? Obama? Hillary? Edwards? Pelosi?? Where’s the outrage???

  • Ed Stephan – The MSM already has Harriet Miers at the epi-center of all this:

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/congress.prosecutors.ap/index.html

    But I have a question – would firing ALL prosecutors have been the correct move? Since Clinton did that in ’93? That would have proven that individual firings were not politically motivated, but part of a clean sweep?

    OR would replacing ALL prosecutors now be different since new USAs could be appointed without Senate confirmation?

    Can someone please elaborate?

  • wvng (#6), We’ll see. When the House Democratic Caucus majority (no one knows the individual votes) voluntarily decided to take its prohibition against using military force against Iran out of consideration – thus giving the Bush Crime Family a green light to bomb the shit out of Iran, repeating what happened in 2002 – I’d saying that’s a sign that it’s willing to roll over rather than ruffle anyone’s feathers. They didn’t even take it to the Republicans. Just caved before the issue even came up. No balls. Big disappointment.

  • Kudos to TPM, you and the blogsphere for keeping this story alive and forcing the MSM to cover it. I just checked the Fox Noise website and its the lead story.

  • Harriet Miers is just a red herring folks, who is being tossed out now in hopes that the pack hot on the pursuit will be thrown off the trail. This scandal is all about Bush and Rove, (through Gonzales) and others pressuring U.S. prosecuting attorneys to do their bidding for partisan purposes. If they were originally going to fire all 93 attorneys two years ago, they would have done it then, no?

  • “Watergate was a third-rate burglary. This has just as much potential.”

    bring it on!

  • I love this section from the Post’s article:

    Sampson sent an e-mail to Miers in March 2005 that ranked all 93 U.S. attorneys. Strong performers “exhibited loyalty” to the administration; low performers were “weak U.S. attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.” A third group merited no opinion.

    So, these people were judged based on their performance as claimed — but the definition of performance was loyalty! These latest revelations are so rich.

  • This should cut right to the bone on the bogus meme that Republicans are even remotely “tough on crime”. No matter how you slice it, the idea of replacing all the USAs at once would be extremely disruptive. And letting ethically-challenged people like Rove pick the replacements is obviously a bad idea (given Rove’s legal troubles!).

    Once upon a time, lying to congress used to get people in serious trouble. I’m sure the Republicans will try to assert that it’s nothing to worry about, happens all the time, and besides Clinton did it.

  • 1) A Dem Congress took power Jan 9
    2) Harriet Miers resigned Jan 4 07 but effective Jan 31 of this year.
    3) Everyone wondered why.
    4) The prosecutor purged was “discovered” soon after.
    5) Hearings were done
    6) Harriet is up to her eyeballs in this mess
    7) Harriet was known to be W’s willing lackey.

    My silly brain figures that Harriet resigned to take the heat off W as someone (don’t know who) figured that the prosecutor purge was going to hurt as the Dems would hold hearings.

    The WH really did believe Rove (who did not believe the Dems were going to win) and that Bush’s Brain really shit the bed with his “numbers.”

    I think that Rove’s arrogant miscalculation is the lit match to the implosion of the WH. If he thought 2005 and 6 were bad years…

    I’m not sure which is making me giddy with Schadenfreuda, the fact that Turdblossom backfired on Bush in a big awful way or the fact that Bush and his supporters bubbles are bursting in real time.

  • Wow, we get a change in Congress and a second scandal results in those responsible resigning. Accountability – what a concept!

  • #13 – following on, from your point…

    Two were given strong evaluations: […] Kevin V. Ryan in San Francisco, whose firing has generated few complaints because of widespread management and morale problems in his office.

    The guy with no management skill who basically p*ssed off his team got an A+ from the Bushies. Yet he got fired for performance-related reasons.

    Which brings about an important question… can the AG be fired for being irredeemably stupid?

  • CB addressed this yesterday, but I still haven’t seen much of an answer: What could happen to Domenici beyond a note being put in his permanent file? Does the ethics committee have the ability to do more than that? Has he lied to or obstructed an investigative body?

    Clearly the allegations are of highly improper contacts, but Domenici is untouchable politically in NM. If there is no legal action against him, he can survive the political fallout. I don’t see him resigning unless there are legal implications. Improper conduct alone could, at best, make him decide not to run next time, which he may be considering anyway.

    Maybe I’m missing something big, but since the attorneys served at will, this looks like purely political damage with no legal bite (beyond perjury or obstruction in the cover-up). If I’m wrong, by all means, enlighten me!

  • I’ve finally figured it out. George W is Sonny Corleone!

    The Bush family has a mafioso structure. Loyalty is the greatest virtue. Omerta governs communications. Rove is Consigliere, (the position once held by Baker to Bush I), Albeto Gonzalez is Tom Hagen, and if we’re not careful, Jeb Bush will become Michael.

    Sonny (Santino) was war time leader–blasting at everything in sight. He used brawn instead of brain.

    In the end everything was in shambles. Even the Godfather said, “I never thought you were a bad consigliere, Tom. I thought Santino was a bad don,..”

    btw I see that a blogger (gacerny.blogspot) saw something similar in 2003, and added that Neil Bush is Fredo. So true. But I still have trouble picturing George Senior as the Godfather. Maybe that’s Barbara’s role.

  • “But I have a question – would firing ALL prosecutors have been the correct move? Since Clinton did that in ‘93? That would have proven that individual firings were not politically motivated, but part of a clean sweep?”

    Ohioan, I’m not sure you are using this bogus”Clinton did it” meme to push back or have just picked up this wingnut talking point, which I have seen before. It is an unbelievably dishonest argument. Yes, Clinton replaced all, or nearly all, USAs in 1993. This is SOP for an incoming president, especially of a differtnt party. Bush, unremarkably, did the same in 2001. But it is unprecedented for a president in midterm to dismiss eight, let alone all 93, of his appointed USAs for political reasons.

  • All the healines are reading “Bush wanted to fire 93 US Attorney’s…but ONLY fired 8”

    It kinda dampens the seriousness of the allegations doesnt it….
    The media cannot or will not get to the heart of the matter which is this The Bush adminstration yet again put politics above policy, ignored the rule of law, lied about it and got caught……..again.

    The parallels with the Libby trial, Walter Reed, and the prosecutor purge seems to be lost on the MSM…

    I guess I a, going to have to pray that Drudge does a story (fat chance) on the parallels b/c that is the only way the MSM seems to process information these days.

  • Ya think the revelation that they wanted to fire all 93 is actually a tactic? “It can’t be politically motivated; we wanted to wipe them all out.”

    There would be some fine symmetry if Harriet Miers is the nail in the Bush coffin, considering that her SCOTUS nomination in 2005 is what greased the slide toward 29% approval (already in motion thanks to the SocSec debacle and the gutpunch of Katrina).

  • It kinda dampens the seriousness of the allegations doesnt it….

    I don’t think so. It just shows that these guys are even crazier than anyone imagined. In any case we have blatant lies both to congress and to the public. If the administration cared about its credibility they’d have fired everybody connected to this immediately. Except that they’d have had to fire Rove, too.

    Remember that these are prominent republican U.S. Attorneys being screwed over. This isn’t just a case of Bush sticking it to the liberals – it’s within the family. It’s the GOP shooting itself in the face.

  • Let me be the first to point out that if Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico steps down, Governor Richardson, DEMOCRAT of New Mexico gets to make the appointment. This will give the Dems one more seat and remove any influence Liberman had.

  • Domenici’s lies are a matter of public record. Regardless of whether he lied under oath, he lied to the People. It’ll be a true comedy of errors, should the Rethugs in the Senate attempt to stonewall a chamber-vote on ol’ Dom—and if I remember hy political history correctly, the Senate “can” remove one of its own. and as his lies demonstrate no other premise than to cover up the purge, they can be construed as having only one conclusionary purpose—to obstruct justice itself.

    Ol’ Dom might want to start getting his financial affairs in order; he’ll certainly not be allowed to take them with him, when he’s fitted out for a federal prison cell….

  • #21 Marlowe – I think you misunderstood. I know that “blame-Clinton-he-did-it” is the wingnut talking point of the day. I’m trying to understand what exactly is the difference, so we can effectively push back with the truth.

    You point out that the fact that this is “mid-term” is what separates SOP from what happened now. I think it’s the fact that the PATRIOT act allows Bush to appoint people without confirmation that is all-new about these firings, and I was just looking for someone to comment on that…

  • What I want to know is who in F slipped the provision in the Patriot Act to let USA be appointed w/o Senate confirmation.

    He/she had better have one hell of an excuse, because that is where everything starts, w/o that provision, no purge. And more importantly who was leaning on whom to get that provision pushed through, where was the heat coming from, Gonzalez, Bush, Rove, maybe even Cheney.

  • Domenici’s lies are a matter of public record. Regardless of whether he lied under oath, he lied to the People.

    Again, that is political damage, not legal.

    if I remember hy political history correctly, the Senate “can” remove one of its own….

    Ol’ Dom might want to start getting his financial affairs in order; he’ll certainly not be allowed to take them with him, when he’s fitted out for a federal prison cell….

    So perhaps he can be removed from the Senate (I’m not holding my breath), but what would possibly put him in a prison cell? I’m still not seeing it, folks.

  • Ohioan–
    The difference is that pretty much every new president “releases” the previous administration’s USA’s — I put that in quotes because they only serve on 4-year terms, so it’s not like they were really fired, per se.

    If a prez gets a second term, he usually keeps the ones he already appointed (who, it should be noted, needed Congressional approval). After all, he appointed them (or perhaps kept a few on as holdovers for whatever reasons), so why fire them?

    The difference here is that:

    1. It was done mid-term, which has never been done before;
    2. It was obviously done for political reasons, not performance reasons;
    3. Pretty much everyone in Bush Co. lied about it … some under oath.

    The only thing that kept them from firing all 93 probably wasn’t logistics, but because it would have really, really gotten some attention due to its scope.

    IMHO, they only fired a select few with the thought that no one would notice. And to quote the hack Dr. Phil and what he may say to Bush, Abu Gonzales, et al:

    “How’s that workin’ out for ya?”

  • OK. From what we know so far, the best theory for legal liability for Domenici would be obstruction of justice (governed in federal law by 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1501-1517). Section 1503 is the primary vehicle for punishing those who obstruct or who endeavor to obstruct federal judicial proceedings.

    A non-authoritative summary states that Section 1503 proscribes obstructions of justice aimed at judicial officers, jurors, and witnesses. The law makes it a crime to threaten, intimidate, or retaliate against these participants in a criminal or civil proceeding.

    Section 1503 also contains an Omnibus Clause, which includes under obstructon a person who “corruptly or by threats of force, or by threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice. This clause offers broad protection to the “due administration of justice.” Federal courts have read this clause expansively to proscribe any conduct that interferes with the judicial process.

    So we need a threat, construed expansively, and beyond a reasonable doubt. With Pete we have what is roundly considered a threat, but with plenty of leeway for doubt. How expansive is the clause? I don’t have time to review the case law.

    Back to the summary: To obtain a conviction under section 1503, the government must prove that there was a pending federal judicial proceeding, the defendant knew of the proceeding, and the defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding.

    Here there was an on-going investigation that had not advanced to the proceeding stage. We have some phone calls and implied attempts to influence. Unless the case law reveals this is enough, it looks too thin to mount a case (unless/until we learn more).

    So, answering my own question, Domenici does have a possible legal problem, but more evidence of pressure would almost certainly be necessary. My guess is that he lawyered up as a preventive measure to keep him from perjuring himself during the investigation.

  • I am suddenly reminded of the Chef Aid episode of South Park where the record company exec almost compulsively shouts “I am above the law!” I predict this will be the administration’s defense for lying to Congress among other illegal conduct.

  • * Bush officials lied to Congress, which the last time I
    checked, was illegal.

    Didn’t the Republicans impeach a president for lying to Congress not too long ago???

  • Laszlo’s cherry-picking omits a portion of my comment, thus:

    ***…as his lies demonstrate no other premise than to cover up the purge, they can be construed as having only one conclusionary purpose—to obstruct justice itself.***

    …and then promotes the following, being that:

    ***… [a] the government must prove that there was a pending federal judicial proceeding, [b] the defendant knew of the proceeding, and [c] the defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding.***

    There was a pending judicial proceeding by the New Mexico USA into alleged voter fraud (meeting subthesis requirement “a”), said allegations made by the New Mexico GOP. Domenici knew of those proceedings (this qualifies subthesis “b”), and factual evidence now links Domenici to the telephone calls made prior to the USA being fired—those (subthesis-qualifying) calls being back-and-forth conversations with various NM GOP personnel who were simultaneously communicating with DoJ and the WH on this very topic, and the smoking-gun call made directly to the USa prior to employment termination.

    Domenici should be smart enough not to commit a crime with his own government-supplied telephone, in his own Congressional office, Laszlo. He couldn’t even use a pay-phone in the hall? What a doofus. Section 1503—the foundation of your defense of this crimninal—will be the very tool that convicts him of a felony, and diaqualifies him from holding the office of United States Senator….

  • Steve,

    There was a pending judicial proceeding by the New Mexico USA into alleged voter fraud (meeting subthesis requirement “a”),

    Do you have a source for this assertion that there was a “pending judicial proceeding”?

    Please note, I’m not saying there wasn’t such an event, but I just haven’t seen it in such clear terms. Thanks in advance.

  • #30 – thanks unholy.

    Looks like CB now has a separate post debunking the Clinton-did-it-too defense. I’m e-mailing an edited version to CNN & MSNBC, because they are really overdoing this one.

  • Gawd, they’re dropping like flies! This truly is the fuse to the powder keg.

    This project, purportedly originated

    “.. when then-White House counsel Harriet E. Miers suggested to Sampson in February 2005 that all prosecutors be dismissed and replaced. “

    ‘Purportedly’, since

    “..She [White House spokeswoman Dana Perino] said White House political adviser Karl Rove had an early conversation with Miers about the idea of firing all chief prosecutors and did not think it was wise. “

    [The poison in the ear? Is Miers the next Libby?]

    ” E-mails show that Justice officials discussed bypassing the two Democratic senators in Arkansas, who normally would have had input into the appointment, as early as last August. By mid-December, Sampson was suggesting that Gonzales exercise his newfound appointment authority to put Griffin in place until the end of Bush’s term.

    “[I]f we don’t ever exercise it then what’s the point of having it?” Sampson wrote to a White House aide. “

    It was carefully planned, as evidenced by

    “[the] little-known power [that was] slipped into the renewal of the USA Patriot Act in March 2006 that allows the attorney general to name interim replacements without Senate confirmation.”

    Take a few minutes to read the whole WaPo article on this, because it’s filled with documented evidence that obliterates every defense the Bush gang and congressional Republicans have offered to date. — CB. Hear, hear! This is incendiary. See what hearings and a few timely “invitations” can bring tumbling out of the woodwork?

    P.S. NeilS #20 : But I still have trouble picturing George Senior as the Godfather. I wouldn’t try — the Godfather (Don Vito Corleone) was essentially a good character.

  • Edo,

    The investigations by the USA—being a direct agent of DoJ—constitute a preliminary prerequisite of a judicial proceeding, and may be considered a part of the overall process. I may have misused the phrase, but the folks that kept going after the New Mexico USA needed evidence against specified individuals. The only way that this could come up to the federal level is if someone—somewhere—had already drawn up indictments, and was trying to “reverse engineer” the investigations so the complaint could move on to the grand jury. If this is the case, then Gonzo and Co. are looking at much more than simply “obstructing justice.” This could become multiple acts of organized racketeering by senior members of the WH, which would make Nixon look very, very good by comparison—and could implode the entire Bush administration within a matter of months—if not weeks.

    Again, I may have misused the phrase, but these guys knew in the beginning that a last-minute outcome was not going to affect the electoral process, because any indictments would have remained sealed from public disclosure prior to and during the presentation to the grand jury.

    These guys had to have an agenda—and deep down, the only thing that makes even the slightest bit of common sense to me is that someone—somewhere—already had drawn up the indictments, without the USA’s knowledge of the fact. And the only way to do that is to move higher up into the hierarchy—which means Washington….

  • I didn’t cherry-pick anything, as I’m not arguing with you nor offering a defense. I’m trying to clarify the legal threat and the elements that will need to be met. I agree that his actions meet the statutory requirement of “corruptly,” so I didn’t even address that.

    What I was “promoting” were merely the elements of the offense as stated by the summary. No defense; just what the prosecution will have to show. The phone calls he made to Iglesias may be construed as attempts to influence the investigation, but I don’t think that is a slam dunk case. As for calls to others, like the WH, maybe that tips the scale, but I’m not as certain as you are. The after-the-fact lies are a separate source of potential liability.

    You say that the “investigations by the USA—being a direct agent of DoJ—constitute a preliminary prerequisite of a judicial proceeding.” We’ll have to take your word on that, I guess.

    There’s no need to scold me, though. I asked to be enlightened, after all, and I never offered a “defense.” Sheesh.

  • Domenici originally genied having made the phone call—yes, Laszlo?

    You quoted portions of my post, and then asked a question that was preemptively answered by a portion of the post that you chose to omit. Structuring a comment in such a way does meet the classic definition of “cherry-picking”—unless, of course, the clessic definition is now deemed to be “oh so pre-9/11.”

    And in what country do criminal judicial proceedings commence without preliminary investigation by a prosecutor?

    Oh…I forgot…we’re in “Amerika,” aren’t we?

  • Steve, I quoted from your post #26 in my post #29. You accuse me of cherry-picking, as far as I can tell, in my post 32, analyzing the legal elements. The rest of these accusations you are throwing at me are simply incomprehensible. I’m not arguing with you or mounting a defense. I’m trying to evaluate the case and the legal standards that will need to be met.

    The attorneys served at will. Firing them was smarmy, but not a crime. The phone calls to Iglesias may be construed as an attempt to influence an investigation, but I’m not sure that is enough to convince a jury, or that it meets the statutory standard. The calls to others, like the WH, may tip the scales. Is it OK if we clarify the law so that we can evaluate that? There is certainly a violation of Senate ethics rules, but what punishment can result from that, a slap on the wrist or removal? Is there broad discretion in application of the rules?

    An investigation precedes a criminal proceeding, but that does not necessarily mean it is part of a proceeding. A proceeding may not technically begin until charges are filed; I’m not sure how it is specifically defined. If a legal case is to be built, these elements have to be met fully, under the exacting definitions in the law. If the investigation and proceeding are technically separate, then the element is not met here. That isn’t a defense, it is an evaluation of the case.

    I’d like to get an idea of what crime the guy committed before we fry him, if that’s cool with you. A lot of people are throwing around terms like “out of the Senate” and “prison cell” but nobody is talking about substance. I’d like to see some legal analysis before I’m ready to conclude he is out.

    Here is one legal commentator who agrees that the case is more complex than anyone is acknowledging and will require more investigation.
    http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20070312_tobias.html

  • Comments are closed.