Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Carney To Fox Reporter: 'Seriously?' ("In defense of a 'firewall'")
In defense of a 'firewall'
By Steve Benen
When it comes to the mess surrounding the Justice Department's subpoenas of Associated Press phone records, the White House has a relatively straightforward response: neither President Obama nor anyone in the West Wing had anything to do with this. The Justice Department oversees investigations, and the White House doesn't interfere.
The defense isn't altogether satisfying -- the president could denounce such subpoenas, even if they're legal -- but Obama and his team can at least argue, accurately, that DOJ decisions are made at the DOJ, as they should be.
With this in mind, it was interesting to see Wendell Goler, Fox News' White House correspondent question the "firewall" between the West Wing and the way in which the Justice Department conducts a federal investigation.
For those who can't watch clips online, Goler noted that President Obama sat next to Attorney General Eric Holder at an event yesterday at the Police Officers Memorial, and asked whether the AP investigation came up in conversation. Press Secretary Jay Carney said, "You can be sure that the firewall that we maintain is always maintained."
It led to this exchange:
- more -
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/05/16/18296616-in-defense-of-a-firewall
By Steve Benen
When it comes to the mess surrounding the Justice Department's subpoenas of Associated Press phone records, the White House has a relatively straightforward response: neither President Obama nor anyone in the West Wing had anything to do with this. The Justice Department oversees investigations, and the White House doesn't interfere.
The defense isn't altogether satisfying -- the president could denounce such subpoenas, even if they're legal -- but Obama and his team can at least argue, accurately, that DOJ decisions are made at the DOJ, as they should be.
With this in mind, it was interesting to see Wendell Goler, Fox News' White House correspondent question the "firewall" between the West Wing and the way in which the Justice Department conducts a federal investigation.
For those who can't watch clips online, Goler noted that President Obama sat next to Attorney General Eric Holder at an event yesterday at the Police Officers Memorial, and asked whether the AP investigation came up in conversation. Press Secretary Jay Carney said, "You can be sure that the firewall that we maintain is always maintained."
It led to this exchange:
Q: Walk me through why it's necessary to maintain that firewall.
CARNEY: Seriously? So it is entirely appropriate that criminal investigations conducted by the Department of Justice be independent of the White House, of any White House. And in a case like this when, according again to the Attorney General, that this is an investigation that has to do with an egregious leak of classified information, it would be doubly inappropriate for other components of the administration to cross that line and to communicate with the Justice Department about that ongoing investigation. So we do not.
- more -
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/05/16/18296616-in-defense-of-a-firewall
Seems to me the Fox Noise reporter is upset that there is a firewall. I mean, maybe they believe that the Bush administration's actions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy) were the norm.
Prosecutor’s 2006 Firing Won’t Result in Charges
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON — A special prosecutor has decided not to bring any criminal charges in connection with the firing of a United States attorney in 2006 in a political controversy that dogged the George W. Bush administration until its final days, the Justice Department announced Wednesday.
The special prosecutor, Nora Dannehy in Connecticut, spent nearly two years investigating whether the firing of the United States attorney in New Mexico, David C. Iglesias, broke the law and whether Justice Department officials lied to Congress about it....Ms. Dannehy concluded that while the politically motivated firing of Mr. Iglesias violated Justice Department principles, it was not a crime and did not warrant criminal charges. She also concluded that misleading statements made by the former attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, and others at the Justice Department did not rise to the level of a crime, according to a summary of the investigation sent to Congress by the Justice Department.
<...>
In her investigation, Ms. Dannehy appeared to draw a legal distinction between firing Mr. Iglesias for political reasons, which she said violated Justice Department principles, and doing so to influence an investigation that could harm Democrats, which would be illegal.
There was “insufficient evidence” that anyone in the White House or the Justice Department sought to pressure Mr. Iglesias to bring a criminal case before the 2006 election, nor was there evidence that the Justice Department tried to fill his spot with a prosecutor who would be more inclined to bring a political prosecution, the Justice Department said in its summary of Ms. Dannehy’s investigation.
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/us/politics/22justice.html?_r=1
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON — A special prosecutor has decided not to bring any criminal charges in connection with the firing of a United States attorney in 2006 in a political controversy that dogged the George W. Bush administration until its final days, the Justice Department announced Wednesday.
The special prosecutor, Nora Dannehy in Connecticut, spent nearly two years investigating whether the firing of the United States attorney in New Mexico, David C. Iglesias, broke the law and whether Justice Department officials lied to Congress about it....Ms. Dannehy concluded that while the politically motivated firing of Mr. Iglesias violated Justice Department principles, it was not a crime and did not warrant criminal charges. She also concluded that misleading statements made by the former attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, and others at the Justice Department did not rise to the level of a crime, according to a summary of the investigation sent to Congress by the Justice Department.
<...>
In her investigation, Ms. Dannehy appeared to draw a legal distinction between firing Mr. Iglesias for political reasons, which she said violated Justice Department principles, and doing so to influence an investigation that could harm Democrats, which would be illegal.
There was “insufficient evidence” that anyone in the White House or the Justice Department sought to pressure Mr. Iglesias to bring a criminal case before the 2006 election, nor was there evidence that the Justice Department tried to fill his spot with a prosecutor who would be more inclined to bring a political prosecution, the Justice Department said in its summary of Ms. Dannehy’s investigation.
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/us/politics/22justice.html?_r=1
Lies? Pffft! "Insufficient evidence"
Key Bush aides' e-mail may be lost
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/12/nation/na-emails12
Bush White House email controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
Nora R. Dannehy was appointed Acting United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut on April 4, 2008. She is the first woman to hold the office, which was established in 1789. Dannehy, who graduated from Harvard Law School in 1986, joined the United States Department of Justice in 1991. Prior to her appointment, she had served as Professional Responsibility Officer for the District.[1]
On September 29, 2008, Dannehy was appointed by United States Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey to continue an investigation into the dismissals of nine federal prosecutors in 2006. She is to determine if anyone should be prosecuted following the investigation by the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility of the Department of Justice, which concluded that political pressure drove the dismissals of at least three federal prosecutors in 2006.[2]
On December 10, 2010, Dannehy was named by Connecticut Attorney General elect George Jepsen to the post of Deputy Attorney General of the state.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nora_Dannehy
On September 29, 2008, Dannehy was appointed by United States Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey to continue an investigation into the dismissals of nine federal prosecutors in 2006. She is to determine if anyone should be prosecuted following the investigation by the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility of the Department of Justice, which concluded that political pressure drove the dismissals of at least three federal prosecutors in 2006.[2]
On December 10, 2010, Dannehy was named by Connecticut Attorney General elect George Jepsen to the post of Deputy Attorney General of the state.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nora_Dannehy
Dannehy was appointed by Mukasey, and the investigation resulted in no criminal charges. I wonder if the outcome would have been different if all the evidence had been available (that is, not gone missing)?
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
