This carries all the moral gravity of a jury acquitting a man of murdering his wife but admitting afterwards that they did all believe testimony that he habitually came home late from work without calling.
The press is dutifully spinning this as a gratuitous decision by special prosecutor, Nora Dannehy, unrelated to the actual strength -- or utter weakness -- of the facts. The intended message is that, if Dannehy only wanted to she could have charged the Bushies with crimes, but she just chose not to, for reasons we aren’t going to elaborate.
But au contraire, Dannehy’s report, offered to the House Committee on the Judiciary through the filter of Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich, details it this way:
The investigative team determined that . . . the evidence did not demonstrate any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of David Iglesias[indexed in Democrat talking points as the gravest crime of the 21st century] . . . .Additionally, the investigative team determined that there was insufficient evidence to show that any witness made prosecutable false statements to either Congress or the [Office of Inspector General or Office of Professional Responsibility], or corruptly endeavored to impede a congressional inquiry.Which The New York Times headline presents this way: “Prosecutor’s 2006 Firing Won’t Result in Charges.”
Never mind why.
Here’s the headline in The Washington Post: “Justice Dept. won't file charges in Bush-era firings of U.S. attorneys.”
Just don’t ask why.
Reduced to a sound bite, which is what this will be reduced to if it isn’t ignored all together, the exoneration of Bush will be erased from history, while the “impropriety” charge will be cryogenically preserved for a thousand years as proof of criminal actions that, inexplicably, were left uncharged.
I learned during the 2000 election, and every day since, that no matter how many tribunals or factfinders explode Democratic myths, they simply will not die.
As proof, I offer the response of Congressmanissimo-for-Life Representative John M. Conyers Jr., the Michigan Democrat and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee whose political mission is now laser-focused on placing former President George W. Bush behind bars, and who now says Dannehy’s decision:
[S]hould not be seen as an exoneration.Except that Dannehy’s report is an exoneration. And she reports that there wasn’t evidence enough to show either false statements by Bush administration witnesses, or any effort to impede Conyers’s and Patrick Leahy’s obnoxious investigations. The report says not a word supporting any “impropriety” -- disputed or undisputed. More than likely, Conyers never read the 5 ½ -page report, any more than he read the health-care bill.
“There is no dispute that these firings were totally improper and that misleading testimony was given to Congress in an effort to cover them up,” he said.
The only portion of the report at all useful to the Democrats comes in the conclusion, undoubtedly written by Assistant AG Weich, where he explains that Dannehy was only asked to investigate “possible criminality,” while AG Eric Holder must hold the God’s-eye perspective of “ensuring that partisan political considerations play no role in the law enforcement decisions of the Department [of Justice].”
This horse shit statement can only be appreciated after we first re-write the above NYT and WaPo headlines to read, “Default in 2006 Voter Intimidation Case Won’t Result in Judgment Against Black Panthers," or, “Justice Dept. won’t pick up free judgment against wrongdoers in 2008 voter intimidation case.”
Unlike Dannehy’s decision in the Gonzalez-era DOJ firings, the Justice decision to scuttle its own case against the New Black Panther Party really wasn’t made on the basis of a lack of evidence, but in spite of uncontroverted evidence. In short, it was a purely political decision.
And then the other day, a whisper of news escaped about how the Department of Homeland Security has been slow-walking Freedom of Information requests, while “senior political advisers” made determinations based on info about requesters it was illegal to ask for -- “such as where they lived, whether they were private citizens or reporters — and about the organizations where they worked. . . .If a member of Congress sought such documents, employees were told to specify Democrat or Republican.” (“AP IMPACT: A political filter for info requests”).
No politicization there.