"But I'm not sure Monica will get us where we need to go in this, either--the White House. After all, she has been given a good deal of authority. The delegation to her of hiring authority on political hires, for example, makes no requirement that she consult anyone. She didn't have to consult with Harriet Miers and Karl Rove--that was just consultative, not managerial. So she will honestly be able to testify that she was in charge of this whole process. She was not ordered to do what she did--it's not clear anyone ordered her to politicize DOJ. Which means she will have the ability to be perfectly honest--but also perfectly effective as a firewall.
I hope I'm going to be pleasantly surprised. But right now, I'm very skeptical that Monica's immunity deal is going to do us much good."
"So in Pakistan where the CJ of the Supreme Court was removed because he was anti-corruption and pro-human rights, the country reacted. In the US, however, where a US territory - Guam - has become a hothouse for the sex-slave trade and for money laundering, the public does nothing when the chief investigator on the case is removed by the President of the United States. Remember too, that Jack Abramoff is not just a lobbyist. He is a major player in the Karl Rove and George W. Bush circle of friends and he has been implicated in everything from fraud to murder. And this is but one tiny pin-prick of a scandal so serious that it alone should be grounds for impeachment.
There were no lawyer protests. There were really no major protests about this at all. In fact, most of the TV coverage of the larger attorney-gate scandal has been promoting the scandal as political party dispute. The whole sordid mess has been demoted by the corporate media from the serious corruption and likely criminal activities to nothing more than the opinions of pundits and showcased as a food-fight between the two major political parties. Some members of Congress even continue to publicly defend these dealings as a matter of the President's authority, when it is quite clear that they are defending something entirely different (perhaps themselves?).
It would be a neat trick to run a party on mutual blackmail, where trust and loyalty are earned through mutual blackmail.
But back to the comparison and the largely absent moral, legal, and Constitutional outrage that no one seems fully vested in resolving- in the US that is. By the way, I am not advocating violence and I never have. I am simply comparing the culture of a country where lawyers have peacefully marched in protest of government abuses of power and the culture of a country where government abuses of power are either ignored or presented as the opinion. I wonder which country is closer to a democracy? Anyone?
When the ABA found out about the signing statements, for example (yet another scandal of massive misuses and abuses of power) they called a meeting to review the legality and Constitutionality of the President's pretend-play at being fully the decider. After they found that most of the signing statements were in direct violation to the separation of powers, they issued a memo.
I wonder what would have happened if legal minds, practicing attorneys, and DOJ officials stood in peaceful protest to any number of extra-legal activities of this administration? It would be a wonder to behold. In Pakistan, that is what the attorneys did, still in their best court room apparel, when they were attacked by the police. The violence now is in reaction to the government violence and it will beget more violence - such is the cycle.
It would really be a something to see our legal scholars, practicing attorneys, DOJ officials standing together, and dressed for court and we the people watching from the national jury pool. Not even when habeas corpus was suspended and left up to the interpretation of the President (The Military Commissions Act) did our legal minds leave their offices to stand together on the sidewalks."