By Robert Parry
March 14, 2007
In 2005, when the White House launched a plan to oust U.S. Attorneys who showed insufficient political loyalty, George W. Bush was hoping to solidify one-party Republican control of American political life, in part, through aggressive prosecution of Democrats for alleged “voter fraud.”
One part of Bush's power grab was to unleash attack-dog GOP prosecutors to rip into Democrats who had been trying to get more Americans to vote. But where Republicans claimed “voter fraud,” such as allowing some released felons to cast ballots, the Democrats saw Republican “voter suppression” aimed at frightening minority citizens away from the polls.
Read on.
1 comment:
I see a strange deviance of logic in this whole attorney-firing controversy. It is generally agreed that no one is above the law in this country. If a Republican senator of New Mexico were to feel uncomfortable enough without hiring a lawyer for possible charges of obstruction of justice, a serious crime, arising from his insinuating phone call to a U.S. attorney to hurry up criminal investigation against his political opponent, how is that those public officials in DOJ, including the attorney-general, and in the White House, including the president, are immune from being charged with the same grave crime arising from their active interference with and/or derailing criminal justice for apparent political gain by getting rid of the US attorneys in puruist of corrupt politicians?
I find something dysfunctionally amiss here.
Post a Comment