A "truth commission" run by Sen. Leahy?

[eisely]

Personally I think the failure to pursue vote fraud cases is a grounds for dismissal, particularly in light of what we now know of ACORN.

 

I did not see the word "illegal" used.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

What ACORN fraud? You do know that they are legally required to report every name turned in, even absurd ones that they themselves point out are dubious? And that to commit voter fraud, someone matching that name, like "Mickey Mouse" has to show up and attempt to vote?

 

And do you agree with the DOJ report that a special counsel be appointed to further investigate the US Attorney removals?

[GernBlansten]

I would think that you would welcome the commission. Nothing disinfects like sunshine. If Bush and his band of brothers did nothing wrong, this commission would do nothing more than clean up his legacy.

[eisely]

There is a great deal that can be written about ACORN but it would be pointless to do so since they too will likely get even more millions out of the so called stimulus package.

 

But I digress.

 

The only reason for suggesting a special prosecutor is doubt about the agency's ability to investigate itself. With the change in administration, I would think that any concern about an internal white wash would go away. If anything, the concern should be about a politicized prosecution.

 

Be that as it may, special prosecutors are rarely a good idea. The law requiring special prosecutors on the least suspicion of wrong doing in the executive branch was originally put in place by democrat controlled congresses as a response to the original watergate scandal. Special prosecutors were used to pursue a variety of allegations during the Reagan years, resulting in, among other things, a bogus indictment of Sec. Defense Weinberger days before the 1988 general election in a transparent attempt to influence the election.

 

This of course was followed by a renewal of the law and the investigations of the Clinton years. After the democrats had a taste of these out of control relentless investigations, they wisely let the law lapse without renewal. To be clear, at that point in time the democrats no longer controlled majorities in the congress, but nobody was speaking up in defense of the special prosecutor law at that time.

 

Subsequent special prosecutors have been named from time to time under the authority of the AG. Fitzgerald is the most noted recent example and an example of a special prosecutor who would not close up shop until he convicted somebody of some offense, even after he knew the identity of the original leaker.

 

With respect to the US attorney firings, I think it best to let the justice department under the new administration make its own determination. If the new AG and his subordinates think there are provable criminal violations, they should proceed and they are capable of doing so without appointing a special prosecutor. The justice department would retain accountability for the outcomes. In this vein, if the justice department thinks there are no grounds for prosecutions, they should say so to clear the air.

 

Again, what real purpose would be served by Sen. Leahy's "truth commission?"

[scoutingagain]

Yes, they refused to prosecute. They did not refuse to investigate. They did investigate and came to the conclusion there was no fraud to prosecute. Or would you rather have Federal Prosecutors prosecute citizens simpley because the President or his cronies believe they should be?

 

SA

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

eisely, since you refuse to even back up your accusations about ACORN, I'll ignore them.

 

scoutingagain, this was an investigation. The investigation recommends a special counsel to investigate further. They did NOT conclude that no fraud took place, they recommend further investigation. You know, going back to the old-fashioned idea that you investigate people *prior* to locking them up.

 

There's also this:

...there are gaps in our investigation because of the

refusal of certain key witnesses to be interviewed by us, including former White

House officials Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and William Kelley, former Department

of Justice White House Liaison Monica Goodling, Senator Pete Domenici, and

his Chief of Staff. In addition, the White House would not provide us internal

documents related to the removals of the U.S. Attorneys.

 

The investigators do not appear to even have had subpoena power, much less the power to bring charges.

[eisely]

Merlyn,

 

I assume you are referring to the congressional investigations of the DOJ attorney controversy. Correct?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I'm referring to the DOJ report that I linked to earlier.

[eisely]

Merlyn,

 

I am still somewhat confused. You began by mentioning a DOJ Inspector General report, and apparently that is what you are still talking about. I would not think that subpoena power would be required for an Inspector General investigation. Of course any targets of any investigation still retain their 5th ammendment rights, regardless of subpoenas.

 

The controversy about the individuals you named of which I am aware revolved around refusal to testify before congressional committees on grounds of executive privilege and separation of powers. It is my understanding that congressional committees in general require a special grant of subpoena power if they feel they need it. That is why your mention of subpoena power and the ongoing controversy about Karl Rove et al testifying or not testifying makes me think you are referring to the congressional investigation.

 

As far as I know the continuing refusal of former members of the Bush administration to testify before congress on these matters is still up in the air.

 

Clearly claims of executive privilege and separation of powers can be abused, but the issue goes beyond any particular dispute. There have been some cases litigated on these issues, but, if I am not mistaken, the federal courts have tended to shy away from getting involved in these disputes between the legislative and the executive branches. There will come a time when the Obama administration will refuse information to the congress on these same grounds.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I'm confused why a DOJ report that says there ought to be more investigation by a special counsel somehow means "there's nothing to see here, move along." I think more investigation IS warranted.

[eisely]

I am confident that if Eric Holder and his minions think there is sufficient evidence of a crime to warrant further investigation, they will do so.

 

Coming back to the original point of the thread, what does Sen. Leahy's proposal add to all this?

[eisely]

The attorney general has finally done the right thing and announced that the DOJ will not be prosecuting intelligence agents. Now if DOJ would just be as zealous in pursuing the government sanctioned gun running pursued under this administration. See link:

 

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/August/12-ag-1067.html

 

 

[Eagle732]

Ha, Dems calling for a "Truth Commission".

 

Pot calling Kettle black.

 

The truth is so rare in DC it's been added to the Endangered Species list.