Why I'm concerned Attorneygate might blow over

[garybeck]

At a friend's house last night, NPR, the "most liberal" of the "liberal media" was on. I find many of my friends still listen to NPR as the gospel and that is very frustrating to me but that's another subject.

Anyway, we're listening to NPR and they're giving an update on the US Attorney firings, and all they ever talked about is Iglesias. No mention of Carol Lam whatsoever. When they talk about the reasons the attorneys were fired, all they talk about is being fired for "political reasons" because they didn't pursue the cases they were asked to pursue. And I think they have a legal leg to stand on if they were fired for "political reasons."

But the real offenses are on with Carol Lam and a few others, who can't be explained away by saying they simply didn't pursue the cases they were asked to. This is not "political reasons," it is obstruction of justice, which is illegal. IMHO, the Carol Lam case in itself is enough to get Gonzales, if not also Rove indicted for obstruction of justice. to make this clear, I'm not a lawyer but I think anyone with half a brain can understand, if a prosecutor is pursuing a case against someone, and they are fired to prevent that case from being investigated, that is pure and obvious obstruction of justice.

It really bothers me that the Carol Lam situation is not being discussed in the media, and it seems Iglesias is waved out in front, as a shield against some of the other cases.

When i hear NPR going along with it, it's troubling.

IMHO, they are taking too much time dragging this out. They should focus the investigation on Lam and a couple others who appear to also have been fired because they were preparing to indict a Republican politician. They need to narrow their focus and get the media and the people to realize that a clear crime has been committed because Lam was about to indict someone, in fact she had notified her superiors that she was going to do it and something like the next day she was fired. If they dropped all the other cases and just focused on Lam some heads would roll.

Who cares if some of the others were fired because they didn't do something they were asked to do? That's very different than firing someone because they were about to indict someone.

But thus far all the firings seem to be lumped together and Iglesias is the only one they mention in the media.

Am I overreacting? I don't think so. I just did a Google News search on "Carol Lam" and "David Iglesias" and found that Iglesias has twice as many news stories. It should be the reverse!

Sorry for the rant, but listening to NPR going along with the game just really ticked me off. I hope the day comes soon where the Carol Lam firing gets as much attention as Iglesias. If that doesn't happen I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing blows over, like every other impeachable offense thus far.

[aquart]

1. Could be. One thing I can promise you...

As soon as one scandal dies down, another will explode. There is NOTHING in this administration that is not dirty.

All we really have the power to do is expose it. We don't have a majority, or Republicans with more allegiance to the constitution than the Party. And, of course, we want to avoid tossing anything to Roberts.

[ORDagnabbit]

2. could be that congress isnt doing anything.......

subpenoa shmubenoa....doesnt do anything. condi ignores hers, gonzo lies through his....

there is no enforced accountability by congress and it pisses me the hell off.

[Old and In the Way]

3. If the American people wait for the media to educate them on what

this administration is doing....it'll never happen. We have to take on this role. For example, I've recently become acquainted with a retired AF officer. He's pretty moderate, but knows Bush is bad news. I sent him some stuff about Carol Lam and how this is a threat to our 2 Party system of government. He didn't realize the depth of corruption.....and he's now reading TPM and DU.

[flyarm]

4. i have the same fears!! I thought Conyers hearing yesterday was a

rehabilitation exercise, it was obvious the rethugs have gotten the memo..pissy pants is not going to let gonzo go anywhere..and they had better play pissy pants ball..or else..

as far as NPR , other than democracy now..i no longer listen..

i tried to tell my son..pissy pants has destroyed NPR..my son still naively listens..i told him npr is now soft propaganda...


fly

[evlbstrd]

5. I think it's building.

Monica Goodling is being compelled to testify before Congress. She may go Gonzo on them, remembering nothing, or she may crumble before the questioning.
And, while the Lam firing needs more investigation, the overarching theme is vote suppression. Oh, and the direct connection to the White House.

[garybeck]

6. i hope you're right

i'm getting so tired of things blowing over.

[evlbstrd]

7. I hear that.

Gonzalez clearly antagonized the committee yesterday. He's pissed on their legs and told them it's raining.

[garybeck]

9. Yah, I'm starting to wonder what Leahy is up to....

is all his "tough dog" image just a smoke screen? I've heard the talk, now let's see the walk. It's time to go in for the kill. This thing is starting to drag on. If little old me sitting here at my computer can figure it out, I would think that Patrick Leahy can figure it out. They keep saying the investigations have to run their course, well, I think it time to run the courses. or I'm starting to smell another huge pile of BS.

i think if this were the republicans investigating dems, the headlines would be all about Lam, and they would be going for the jugular, not asking Gonzales to come in again, as if he would magically start remembering shit he forgot before. duh. c'mon. they need to stop being such wimps and go for it.

[evlbstrd]

10. This is real and it's serious.

Leahy and Conyers smell rats and they're determined to smoke them out.
I understand your frustration. None of the scandals get the media exposure they should.

[MasonJar]

8. A substantive argument! Send it on to the Committees. ASAP