Changing the Rules
DiFi has a habit of using hearings to introduce new allegations against DOJ and she has done so again today. Here’s Christy’s version of the interchange:
Read to you what has been dropped from the earlier addition of the DOJmanual. (1) restriction on bringing a voter fraud case close to anelection. (2) Care for overt investigations in the pre-electionperiod and while election is underway. “Most if not all prosecutionsand investigations should await the end of the election.†— underlinedin the prior volume — has been removed. Reason for that was to notimpact the election. Gonzales, predictably, has no idea what Feinsteinis talking about and can’t answer why those changes were made.
The issue is that DOJ has recently revised the US Attorney’s (I think) manual. And they weakened–and in one important case–removed the restrictions on taking voting rights cases in the days leading up to an election.
In other words, DOJ just made it easier to tamper with elections by taking political cases against organizations like ACORN.
Does it rhyme with Snarl Cover?
Some creepy guy, like the Dick or Chimpy McStupid?
Impeach Gonzo: he obviously isn’t competent to run a pushcart.
A pushbroom at the end of a parade, that he might be able to manage.
At this point Gonzo is beaten. But will it have any real impact? He won’t step down. He’ll stand there like a punching bag till his stuffing falls out. Gonna have to impeach, and there is enough grounds to build a hotel upon.
Plame had Congress change the jobs for the AGs. Specter ws behind some of the legislation.
There’s nothing like an indictment, or even just a leaked FBI investigation, to swing an election.
Absent an explanation (and does anyone think the DOJ or the White House will give an answer, never mind an honest answer, to the question:
Why was this policy changed, by whom and on whose authority?
Apart from how these changes in DOJ policy are connected to the US Attorney firings, can we hold an election and know the US Attorneys or other prosecutors won’t try to swing it to the Republicans with a politically motivated unjust indictment?
Good grief! Either he or Schlozman was asked questions about the manual in a previous hearing, I don’t remember. This is a sign of terminal carelessness.
(Atmosphere at Kos so nasty did not have heart to turn on PC during hearing hours)
Good catch. I happened to see the Feinstein exchange noted the importance of the charge. This info majorly underlines the notion that no â€law†was broken by the dismissals. Her point, as I understood it, is that the USAs were following the guidelines with regard to election fraud and some were dismissed because of that. Problem for admin? Simple; change the guidelines. Jeez. I’m not in favor of impeachment, but watching Gonzales play front man and rope-a-dope made me want to give him such a smack.