Just an oversight

[Lanya]

(May 05, 2007 -- 09:08 PM EDT)

The Post has a run-down on the latest reports that the firing of US Attorney John McKay may have been tied to what Main Justice apparently believed was his over-zealous investigation of the assassination of Tom Wales, a federal prosecutor in McKay's office who was a big proponent of gun control laws.

DOJ spokesman Brian Roehrkasse explains why the DOJ failed to release documents that show that yet more of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's testimony to Congress was false.

It was, said Roehrkasse, an "inadvertent mistake."


-- Josh Marshall

[Heh.  That's a good one.]
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013993.php

[Michael Tee]

Wow, that sounds like it could be a tip-of-the-iceberg story.  The article didn't have much in it though.  Where is the investigation now into Wales' murder and who is "leading" it?  What are the ties of the person now "leading" the investigation (if any) to Gonzales and/or the NRA?  What were Gonzaels"  "official" reasons for firing the guy?

OTOH, this might all come to nothing.  There are lots of gun-control advocates, why would this one be singled out for assassination?

Still, bears some looking into and I hope some good journalists out there are doing just that.  Meantime, I think they got enough on this amoral snake to put him away for years.  I hope somebody can muster up the will.

[BT]

As with most of Joshua Micah Marshall's posts more is left out than is included.

Wales was shot on 10/11/2001.

The crime was thoroughly investigated by local state and federal agencies.

Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., said: “It was suggested that Mr. Sampson had concerns or that concerns had been raised … relating to the murder of an assistant U.S. attorney named Thomas Wales, in which Mr. McKay had requested some action by the department.”

It was suggested.........

Even McKAy has a hard time believing the innuendo:

“I would be stunned to learn somebody back there put me on a list to be fired because I was pushing on the Wales investigation. This one is bizarre and insulting. It’s insulting to Tom’s family and my office and the people who cared about Tom.”

http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/05/tom_wales

[sirs]

D'OH       

[Michael Tee]

<<The crime was thoroughly investigated by local state and federal agencies. >>

Yeah, just like the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK.  "Thorough investigations" that go nowhere.  Or lead to "lone nuts" acting alone.  Well, there's hope - - in this one, they didn't even bother to come up with a lone nut.  Maybe this means there really WAS a crime without a solution, unconnected to reasons of state.

In which case, why WAS the guy fired?

[BT]

In which case, why WAS the guy fired?

Because apparently he served at the pleasure of the president, and the president was no longer pleased. That in the end is all that matters.

[Michael Tee]

And what exactly was it that caused the "President" to become displeased with him?

[BT]

And what exactly was it that caused the "President" to become displeased with him?

I'm not so sure the law cares. Perhaps you can show me different.

[Michael Tee]

<<I'm not so sure the law cares. Perhaps you can show me different.>>

What the President does in office is surely of broader concern than whether or not it's strictly legal.  Otherwise why all the concern about the Presidential BJ in Clinton's time?

Presidential discretion was exercised, perhaps even lawfully.  And a public servant was dismissed and replaced with another as a result.  Inquiring minds want to know WHY?  And what is the "President" hiding?

[BT]

Otherwise why all the concern about the Presidential BJ in Clinton's time?

The concern was the lyiing uder oath. It wasn't about the blowjob per se.

[domer]

Of course the law cares, you literalist know-nothing. Suppose, just for one example, an investigation were nascent in that particular federal district which will (everyone predicts) lead ineluctably to very strong evidence indeed of bribe-taking by the Governor of Texas in  1998, and the incumbent is a straight-arrow who will go where the evidence takes him but the alternative attorney has, through affiliation or outright agreement, shown an unwillingness to pry into a matter he considers closed.

[BT]

Then i suggest that those who think the reasons for dismissal matter come forth with something more than idle speculation, you rude quibbling know-it-all. Have they?

All i see is a controlled trial by the press and those who seek gain from manufacturing scandals.

If Gonsalez were your client, how would you defend him?

[domer]

Sometimess law enforcement investigators can gain access to information (subpoena power et al.) when an investigative journalist cannot. In any case, it is only journalistic ethics that would bind someone to a story such as this, but it is a legal mandate (let's posit) for a matter of this nature to be pursued by the responsible prosecutor, a more demanding standard to which obstruction of justice or cognate crimes would apply. Really, BT, your ethics are going in the toilet the more you seek to defend/justify this administration come what may.

[BT]

My ethics are fine, thank you very much.

Who would the prosecutor prosecute if there is no suspect?

The murder is six years old. How many grand juries need to be convened?

Is the United States government implying that the local district attorney is not up to snuff in this case? Murder being a state offense.

Was any new evidense discovered that would make McKay want to bring the open case to the forefront other than the popularity of Wales and his causes?

And I am not necessarily defending either Bush or Gonsalez, I and simply asking you and yours to present your case instead of just slinging slurs.

Any idiot can do that. Ask Knute.

[Plane]

Often voters care when the law does not....

.........and Vice versa.

Did anything really happen?

Does it need to be about anything real , to have a desireable political effect?


Watch this space , odds are even that the next administration will be Democrat , then will this accusation be followed up on , or dropped?