Politics at the DOJ
[Guest post by DRJ]
Obama’s Justice Department doesn’t seem to have any problem clearing Obama supporters accused of wrongdoing. First it was the Philadelphia poll watchers case, a case the Obama DOJ had already won but still dismissed.
Now the DOJ has reportedly killed a year-long criminal investigation into pay-for-play involving NM Governor Bill Richardson and a large Democratic donor:
“The decision not to pursue indictments was made by top Justice Department officials, according to a person familiar with the investigation, who asked not to be identified because federal officials had not disclosed results of the probe.
“It’s over. There’s nothing. It was killed in Washington,” the person told The Associated Press.”
Nothing to see here. Move along.
— DRJ
Barack Obama’s dirty socialist NPR used to do a daily look at hints and rumors of politicization at the Justice Department.
They’ve stopped doing that.
happyfeet (6b707a) — 8/27/2009 @ 5:56 pmI think this may eventually come back when the press decides he is not the second coming. Maybe that will never happen but he is so thin skinned I think he will pi** off enough reporters that eventually critics will appear. Even Roosevelt went too far. He cannot take even mild criticism and even the sycophants in the press must come to the point where they have to deal with their self respect.\
It may even come from the left after he has lost Congress and they start to mourn the chance that was lost.
Mike K (2cf494) — 8/27/2009 @ 6:21 pmHmmm…..
Isn’t this the same New Mexico that there was such a furor over the US Attorney there being dismissed because he refused to follow up on allkegations of corruption (David Iglesias). Wonder if there will be the same coverage of this as there was of Karl Rove calling for that guy’s removal?
Apparently, word hadn’t reached the FBI and others that crimes by Democrats in New Mexico should not be looked into…..
doug (49dd6f) — 8/27/2009 @ 6:22 pmKeep your friends close. Keep your friends closer.
NCC (996c34) — 8/27/2009 @ 6:27 pmThe DOJ is becoming more politicized by the day, by the very people who pretended they wanted to restore purity to the administration of justice. This is the most duplicitous administration in American history. It will remain so unless and until the media somehow manages to uncorrupt itself.
Terry Gain (f3f8a5) — 8/27/2009 @ 6:28 pmThe D after the name must stand for “Doubtless innocence”…
Or, more like Dollahz!
Bob Reed (99fc1b) — 8/27/2009 @ 6:29 pmI wondered what happened to all those “Politicizing the DOJ!!111!” cries.
Turns out “That’s Different!” strikes again.
Techie (482700) — 8/27/2009 @ 6:30 pmThat’s good news.
Bill Richardson is one of the good guys.
Sunburn (5d93e3) — 8/27/2009 @ 6:55 pmFTFY!
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 8/27/2009 @ 7:01 pmEric Holder wouldn’t be doing all this corrupt seedy crap at his thugly Black Panther fight da poower Justice Department if someone hadn’t given Barack Obama orders to rehabilitate Bill Richardson’s crooked fat dirty socialist ass. Count on him joining the administration at some point I think. Immigrations czar maybe?
happyfeet (6b707a) — 8/27/2009 @ 7:06 pmBarack Obama’s dirty socialist NPR used to do a daily look at hints and rumors of politicization at the Justice Department.
They’ve stopped doing that.
Was that before or after Eric Holder moved to throw out Ted Stevens’ conviction because of prosecutorial misconduct?
steve (dba6e2) — 8/27/2009 @ 7:07 pmThat cost Black Panther boy nothing and besides their case had fallen apart and at that point they were trying to keep that dirty socialist prosecutor hoochie’s ass out of jail. oh. Brenda Morris is the skeezer’s name. Nasty hoochie what will throw your ass in jail just cause you’re a Republican.
Anyway, the dirty socialists had already stoled the Alaska seat.
happyfeet (6b707a) — 8/27/2009 @ 7:15 pmIt was in the news.
happyfeet (6b707a) — 8/27/2009 @ 7:19 pmAt least sunshine admits that he is alright with corrupt Dems.
JD (1206f2) — 8/27/2009 @ 7:28 pmsteve, that’s not exactly how the prosecutorial misconduct issue came to light in the Stevens case. The judge had already held the Justice department in contempt when Holder made that decision.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/27/2009 @ 7:40 pmHope (there’s) change
Jim (582155) — 8/27/2009 @ 7:45 pmwah, wah, wah, crying because Obama is getting away with doing what the Bush Administration was afraid to do…
… and please don’t say that the Bush Admin was too principled. I’ll start laughing so hard I’ll never be able to sleep.
steve sturm (3811cf) — 8/27/2009 @ 7:55 pmsteve sturm, only children think that laughing at something makes it go away.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/27/2009 @ 8:00 pmSPQR, not even a judge can hold “the Justice Department in contempt.” But the point is taken.
DoJ also declined prosecution of Rep. Don Young, who faced federal investigations of connections to Bill Allen, an Alaska businessman convicted of bribing state lawmakers, and a spending bill earmark that benefited a campaign supporter in Florida.
steve (dba6e2) — 8/27/2009 @ 8:08 pmSteve Sturm, you can say the Bush administration was more lawful just because they didn’t think they could get away with worse. I disagree, but I think you are on to a real truth.
Obama’s administration is much less afraid of scrutiny and legal repercussions than they ought to be. They are ridiculously political in ways that are absolutely unacceptable. They had real voter intimidation.. thugs threatening to beat people up at the polls, and they had a conviction, and let it go. Meanwhile, they are filing injunctions against Georgia to prevent them from requiring IDs to vote… as that would intimidate.
There is no shame. Obama’s administration is fearless. That’s worth noting.
Juan (bd4b30) — 8/27/2009 @ 8:12 pmIndeed, sunturd luvs him there some of that free and tangy criminal liberal sauce. He slops it on everything he eats… which must be a gluttonous amount, since it oozes from every word and chubby pore. Crime, its what’s for dinner (and what passes for democratic party policy).
ray (3c46ca) — 8/27/2009 @ 8:22 pmNotice how steve, sunshine, DSCSA, and their ilk can only argue by saying “Look! Something shiny!”. How f*cking difficult is it ti simply argue in favor of, or against, the actual positions held, about the actual topic at hand?
JD (d0d3cb) — 8/27/2009 @ 8:23 pmAnyone want to start a pool on when the FBI is told to scrap their investigation of ACORN?
daleyrocks (718861) — 8/27/2009 @ 8:31 pmThe “actual topic at hand” is the charge Eric Holder’s DoJ is passing on open-and-shut corruption prosecutions against Democrats, but not Republicans.
Sorry if Alaska doesn’t count.
The fact the Richardson probe “was killed in Washington” is not reassuring.
steve (dba6e2) — 8/27/2009 @ 8:48 pmTime for the Justice Department to actually embrace what “Justice” really means
EricPWJohnson (9208b2) — 8/27/2009 @ 9:20 pmsteve,
Do you have a link or some additional information regarding the DOJ’s decision not to prosecute Alaska Rep. Don Young? I’m not disputing what you’ve said because I haven’t read much about Rep. Young but, as of June 2009, the Anchorage Daily News listed Young as still under investigation and one of his aides was indicted in March 2009 on corruption charges.
DRJ (3f5471) — 8/27/2009 @ 9:31 pmThe Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise.
kazooskibum (a4dd38) — 8/28/2009 @ 5:33 amLet’s be clear, while it may look wrong and may play wrong with the public, what Holder is doing is NOT illegal. And all of your respective whining doesn’t make what Holder is doing illegal. Prosecutors, as I’m sure our host will attest, have discretion to bring or not bring charges, and there’s a rather small list of when doing so is illegal… and that list doesn’t apply to (1) deciding to pursue the CIA or (2) letting Richardson or the Black Panthers off the hook.
So it isn’t a case of illegality any more than what the Bush Admin did or didn’t do. It is that the Obama Administration is willing to actually exercise its discretion in ways that benefit it, as opposed to the Bush Admin which cut and ran just about anytime someone made a fuss (I have never seen an Administration so unwilling to defend itself in public as Bush’s).
Yes, Obama doesn’t have a bunch of reporters screaming as Bush did, but if Bush had been more willing to defend himself (and perhaps, thought to have a Press Secretary better than the incompetent McClellan)…. ah, one can dream…
steve sturm (369bc6) — 8/28/2009 @ 6:07 amGibbs makes Scottie seem competent, no small task.
JD (07b76c) — 8/28/2009 @ 6:25 amAndy McCarthy has some thoughts on what Holder is doing and it sounds pretty logical to me. This administration is motivated by concepts foreign to most Americans.
Mike K (2cf494) — 8/28/2009 @ 7:35 amsteve sturm, and another strawman dies an ignomious death at your hands.
SPQR (5811e9) — 8/28/2009 @ 9:45 amSPQR: what strawman?
I didn’t know that you were Patterico’s designated arbiter of what is and what isn’t illegal behavior.
steve sturm (3811cf) — 8/28/2009 @ 11:08 amDo you have a link or some additional information regarding the DOJ’s decision not to prosecute Alaska Rep. Don Young?
Not an announced decision. US District Court Judge John Sedwick apparently will not grant a sixth extension in sentencing bribers Bill Allen and Rick Smith. They’re the star witnesses. The judge demanded “a detailed request under seal giving the name and the date for each indictment that will rely on information from the VECO executives.”
Prosecutors might see the pair as likely to be more cooperative–and perhaps less unsavory–if they are not on temporary release from federal prison when they go on the witness stand.
As to Bill Richardson, the government took a parting shot, walking away.
steve (dba6e2) — 8/28/2009 @ 2:58 pmsteve, that hardly makes Holder’s DOJ look better. Since the reports are that the decision not to prosecute was made above Fouratt’s head.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/28/2009 @ 3:02 pmsteve sturm, your #32 makes no sense. My point about strawmen is that no one had claimed that Holder was acting illegally. So your overwhelming victory over that strawman was unimpressive.
Nor have I claimed to be Patterico’s anything.
Try dialing up the coherence.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/28/2009 @ 3:04 pm“Immigrations czar maybe?”
He qualifies: despite the last name, he is “Hispanic”.
(So am I: mom’s family got run out of Spain during the Inquisition. Yeah, I know. “that’s different!”).
the friendly grizzly (b10310) — 8/28/2009 @ 7:37 pm