Waas' Latest on the U.S. Attorney Firings

By Jeralyn, Section Misconduct
Posted on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 01:59:14 PM EST
Tags: U.S. Attorneys firing (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Murray Waas has the latest on the probe into the U.S. Attorney firings. It's partly about the nine Bush officials who refused to cooperate.

Karl Rove (as we noted the other day from the interview his lawyer gave to Raw Story) are cooperating now.

Rove will not rely on (1) a White House claim of immunity for senior advisors to the president, (2) executive privilege or (3) his personal privilege against self-incrimination. He will cooperate with the investigation.

[More...]

Did Rove get immunity in exchange for his cooperation? Luskin won't answer that one. Here's what Luskin wrote the House Judiciary Committee last July (pdf). Note that the White House claim of immunity for senior advisors is not the same as executive privilege and a federal judge in D.C. struck down Rove and Harriet Mier's claim of senior advisor immunity in this 93 page opinion, also last July.

That decision is being appealed and Public Record reports DOJ was due to file its brief today, but instead, it asked for a continuance as negotiations are ongoing. I haven't seen a copy of the motion to continue.

< Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | Why Obama Is Right (And Feingold Is Wrong) On Afghanistan >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Waas' Latest on the U.S. Attorney Firings | 11 comments (11 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Immunity for Rove? Jayzus. The guy needs to (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Angel on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 03:42:38 PM EST

be in jail.

Long Shot (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by squeaky on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 04:15:02 PM EST

I know that it is such a long shot as to almost be absurd, but I would love to see Jason Leopold's story about Rove getting indicted turn out to have been true. The missing link would have been that he got a deal, pardon or immunity but it was and is secret.

Certainly it is hard to imagine that Rove will cooperate in any useful way, but I guess we will see very soon.

We all know that (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by NYShooter on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 11:55:42 PM EST

the eight U.S. Attorneys were fired for failing to pass the Bush Administration's litmus test for ideological purity and political obedience.

What about the remaining 84? Has there been any investigation as to whether they used their offices to prosecute people for their ideological and/or political positions? How many people are sitting in jail, or had their lives ruined in other ways, for reasons that would never have been addressed under an honest DOJ?

It seems to me that a complete, thorough, top-to-bottom investigation is called for.

Is anyone concerned that criminal laws (none / 0) (#3)
by Green26 on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 09:35:51 PM EST

are being used too often in gray areas of politics?

I believe in clear laws being enforced. However, I wonder if some of these criminal investigations are operating in primarily political subject matter.

The Valerie Plame matter is an example. From what I read, the conclusion was that there wasn't, or probably wasn't, any violation of the law in the disclosure of her name, etc.

I don't know much about the US Atty firings or political hirings at DOJ, but do these things merit massive criminal investigations? Is this not something better done by Congressional investigators and committees?

: That's incorrect (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Steve M