![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
At the Pleasure of the President
May. 1st, 2007 03:20 pmLast night I heard – yet again – another GOP apologist insisting that the entire Department of Justice investigation is irrelevant and unnecessary “because there was no underlying crime.” Because, after all, “the U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.”
The suggestion they’re trying to make – en masse, no less – is that the act of firing and replacing a U.S. Attorney is Gonzales’ (and Bush’s) right. And that because it’s their right, no crime has taken place.
What they’re very carefully attempting to maneuver us away from is the truth: that an action that may be perfectly legal outside of any context can become a crime within another context.
For instance, it’s perfectly legal for me to take company records home with me to work on, so long as they aren’t protected by any federal laws (such as patient health records, SEC data, etc.). I can even "lose" them without automatically incurring criminal prosecution (although my employer would probably fire me twice). However, if my company is under investigation for criminal activity, and I "lose" the records – something that wouldn’t normally be a crime – I could in fact be prosecuted for obstruction of justice.
It's not illegal to wait in a car in a legal parking spot outside of a bank -- unless you're waiting for the bank robbers to come out with the loot so you can drive them away.
See, that’s how they’re trying to use their talking-point misdirection. The arguably legal act of firing politically neutral attorneys and replacing them with party loyalists becomes obstruction of justice because of the intent to influence federal prosecutions.
THAT’S the underlying crime. Which makes the investigations both relevant and necessary.
Now all these neocon apologists can shut the hell up and go back to whacking off to footage of IED explosions or something.
The suggestion they’re trying to make – en masse, no less – is that the act of firing and replacing a U.S. Attorney is Gonzales’ (and Bush’s) right. And that because it’s their right, no crime has taken place.
What they’re very carefully attempting to maneuver us away from is the truth: that an action that may be perfectly legal outside of any context can become a crime within another context.
For instance, it’s perfectly legal for me to take company records home with me to work on, so long as they aren’t protected by any federal laws (such as patient health records, SEC data, etc.). I can even "lose" them without automatically incurring criminal prosecution (although my employer would probably fire me twice). However, if my company is under investigation for criminal activity, and I "lose" the records – something that wouldn’t normally be a crime – I could in fact be prosecuted for obstruction of justice.
It's not illegal to wait in a car in a legal parking spot outside of a bank -- unless you're waiting for the bank robbers to come out with the loot so you can drive them away.
See, that’s how they’re trying to use their talking-point misdirection. The arguably legal act of firing politically neutral attorneys and replacing them with party loyalists becomes obstruction of justice because of the intent to influence federal prosecutions.
THAT’S the underlying crime. Which makes the investigations both relevant and necessary.
Now all these neocon apologists can shut the hell up and go back to whacking off to footage of IED explosions or something.
