The smell test
Again, thus far we have nothing concrete showing the US Attorney firings were a response to prosecutions related to Republican politics.
But that position is getting harder and harder to hold.
And, I would offer this as a macro observation: I just don't see the Democrats pushing this hard on this issue if they didn't think there was enough yet to be revealed that they could crack open in hearings.
But that position is getting harder and harder to hold.
Fired San Diego U.S. attorney Carol Lam notified the Justice Department that she intended to execute search warrants on a high-ranking CIA official as part of a corruption probe the day before a Justice Department official sent an e-mail that said Lam needed to be fired, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Sunday.
And, I would offer this as a macro observation: I just don't see the Democrats pushing this hard on this issue if they didn't think there was enough yet to be revealed that they could crack open in hearings.
posted by mikevotes at
9:27 PM
2 Comments:
Why else would they be so clumsy and loath to say "Hey, we fired them because we wanted to" unless they fired them for very bad reasons - like they wanted to cut off criminal prosecutions of their own and bring in attorneys who would prosecute the other side without prosecuting Repubs.
By
Reality-Based Educator, at 6:09 AM
Good point.
If you're defense is "we fired them because we're pricks" the truth is certainly worse.
However, we still don't have the smoking gun and I don't know if we'll get it.
Of course, writing the LAm email does show some carelessness. I think somebody's going to have to break for this to really open up.
We may learn the truth from "a preponderance of the evidence", but I fear we may not get proof on this one.
However, the results from the former may be enough.
By
mikevotes, at 6:51 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home