Educated guess:

Because we are now in the "safe zone" for some actual oversight by Congress (minimal: no tipping over the boat please, just rock it slightly, froth at the mouth, and appear to be somewhat functional)... and because oversight is clearly heading straight for the pack of liars and crooks from the current maladministrator on down... it's time that the DOJ appear to be something other than the maladministrator's personal lawbreaking agency.

Therefore, to deflect blame or at least stop it from reaching the top, it's deemed in the best interests of those who might not find prison a good option to thrown certain underlings (hacks) under the bus with orders to take the fall and otherwise shut up. Hence DOJ is now "investigating".

This is, of course, the old exercise of politics that falls under the heading, "Crimes will be committed. Others will be blamed".

This pattern does not fare well for all the others not yet sacrificed. Some may consider themselves in similar peril. Therefore we may very well see from a few of the less-strident, less religious, less strident, and more intelligent few, an attempt to save themselves by grabbing the rug that leads to the scene of the crime and yanking hard while they still can.

In other words, the maladminstration may find itself in a rather inconvenient position where previous blood pacts of secrecy and silence are abandoned in favour of reason and sanity.

Of course, with emails lost and documents shredded (maybe) it might come down to one word against another. Who do believe?! What a quandry.

Irony - those on the inside may well do the job Congress cannot find the balls to do on their own which is to reveal the crimes and force "justice", and correction, to come at long last.

Posted at August 7, 2008 5:38 PM in response to Waas: DOJ Probe Has Expanded to the White House

Lying.

You don't, under questioning, recount the entire parable. You answer a question succinctly and let the interrogator lead it along.

He was clearly nervous; did not look Specter in the eye; shuffled; and blathered out the whole thing in a long, rehearsed sentence.

Lying. And poorly coached.

Another one lines up for jail.

Posted at July 30, 2008 6:36 PM in response to Gonzales Was Oblivious To Politicization At DOJ: IG

For once I am rather pleased to be a part of the "United States Of America", the one reading "United States of America v. Theodore F. Stevens"

May this total scumbag go down with many more to follow.

Posted at July 29, 2008 5:56 PM in response to BREAKING: U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens Indicted in Federal Court

Sanchez was merely memorializing. All of it can and will be used against this talking-in-tongues gasbag.

Posted at July 19, 2008 7:40 AM in response to Ashcroft Cites Executive Privilege, Discusses Waterboarding with House Judiciary

Yawn.
Yaaawwn.
Feeling very sleepy.

Conyers and the rest: Good timing! Fantastic piece of work. Democrats (yawn) to the rescue (zzzzz).

Now that the ol' clock has just about run down, courageous and bold assertion of your basic constitutional duties (your job, in case it wasn't made clear previously) surface.

At this point?? Too late already. Get a life!

Posted at June 27, 2008 10:06 PM in response to Conyers Finally Subpoenas DOJ For Documents

The google search took me less than 60 seconds.

It seems that the charming Mr. Cargol was "trying to build a friendship and help a friend build up self-confidence". This was his answer when confronted with allegedly sending "sexually explicit emails" to a university employee:

http://wc.arizona.edu/papers/95/62/01_5.html

"Cargol later sent the man an e-mail that one source told the Republic was "very clear in its nature - very vivid. You could see there was the (sexual) overture." "

Note that the newspaper story did not suggest, upon reading whatever was sent, that self-confidence was boosted.

Cargol was "shocked" at his firing.

O Shock! O Horror! What will I do now to fill the gap left with the loss of that cushy 180K$/year alleged job? Why, get another one, of course.

Posted at June 11, 2008 6:30 PM in response to Would Googling Him Have Been So Hard?

I knew this nonsense from Boner (sic) was coming.

Waxman's frustration with the pathetic EPA maladministrator has been building for some time and I expected that it would come to a head, and it did. My theory is that the Republicans expected it to happen. In fact, I'd grant that they planned it this way. I bet they were pushing for a complete Waxman meltdown and Issa was part of the performance.

I watched the entire hearing. Issa was talking over the Chairman and disrupting. That's the single issue. Issa was rude, disruptive, and disrespectful. He has no right to protest.

The fact that Issa shut his face after Waxman issued his demand says it all: guilty. Issa was "imtimidated"? Good.

Of course, in the setting of a congressional hearing, the rules are quite different. If it were a matter of a private citizen doing the same thing as Issa, it would be called "disorderly conduct" and subject one to arrest.

Chairman Waxman was generous. Had it been me I would have thrown him the hell out after a single, firm warning.

Posted at May 21, 2008 12:08 PM in response to Boehner Demands Apology From Waxman for "Abusive Outburst"

I watched it, knowing that today might be the day where Waxman finally loses it. I was actually expecting him to reach across the dias and grab Johnson by the throat.

Good theatre. Now let's see Waxman follow through with some action.

Posted at May 20, 2008 5:09 PM in response to Johnson's Stonewalling Drives Waxman to Gavel-Pounding Distraction

Dock workers along the US West coast held a one day work stoppage to protest the illegal war. Why not the EPA workers refusing to show until Johnson - the total ass - is gone?

It also has a benefit: the enabling of further environmental destruction would be temporarily curtailed.

I'm encouraged here.

It's "the people" who may save our nation, despite the asshats allegedly in charge.

Posted at May 2, 2008 7:57 AM in response to EPA Staff Reps: We're Mad As Hell And We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

testing writes:

There are two issues: The legal memoranda; and the alleged illegal conduct. We're not yet sure whether the memoranda was written before or after the alleged illegal conduct. If it's written after, the it does not fall under the "pre-decisional, deliberative" shield. If it's the latter, then the issue isn't whether Yoo is a criminal defense lawyer, but whether the subsequent conduct unreasonably relied on his memo. If a lawyer permits, condones, argue for, or assents to alleged war crimes, and those argument are frivolous, then the lawyers' legal arguments can be attached to the subsequent alleged illegal conduct.

In the first instance, "If it's written after, the it does not fall under the "pre-decisional, deliberative" shield.", here's what I think it falls under: (a) being an Accomplice of the act, (b) Obstruction of Justice, (c) Abuse of Office and (d) Official Malfeasance. Most certainly there are laws that will put Yoo on the hook for essentially condoning something he should know full well is illegal, and then doing nothing to stop it.

Posted at April 11, 2008 6:04 PM in response to Berkeley Law Dean: Yoo Was Not The Decider