Recently, Donald C. Shields, from the University of Missouri-St. Louis, and John F. Cragan, from Illinois State University, accounted for all of the public officials investigated by all U.S. attorneys across the country. They found that under the Bush administration, for every one Republican investigated, seven Democrats were investigated.

Is there a moral to the story…or is it that the U.S. attorneys under Bush are targeting Democrats?



NPR : New Jersey Corruption Keeps U.S. Attorney Busy

The moral of the story is point the finger back at the other to take away from your own wrongs. Look at what Sandy Berger and William Jefferson got away with! Just for two!
If anybody would honestly look at what Clintons have gotten away with in the past 20 years they would have to lock them up and throw away the key.

I think if the Dems didn't have the liberal activist groups to hide behind the stats would be even higher. But hypothetically speaking if there was to be a thorough investigation of both parties, I suspect for the most part Congress would come to a halt due to absences.

Bobby

A scumbag is a scumbag. Shall we begin with the Democrat scumbags?

Already mentioned is William Jefferson and Sandy Burglar - who has yet to take his promised polygraph.

Someone has a page devoted to Democrat corruption in North Carolina alone, where "Former state House Speaker Jim Black, once one of the most powerful men in North Carolina government, was sentenced... to more than five years in prison for illegally taking cash from chiropractors while promoting their agenda." The guy requested up to $200,000 of taxpayer money for his defense.

A recent bust in NJ "snagged 11 Democrats" including "Sammy Rivera, the mayor of Passaic and a prominent friend of Hillary." When you add Mr. Hsu that makes 3 friends of Hillary already.

"The House Ethics Committee announced an investigation... of Rep. Bob Filner's run-in with a baggage worker at Dulles International Airport last month. The incident resulted in misdemeanor assault and battery charges against the congressman."

"A top adviser and fundraiser for [Democrat Illinois] Gov. Rod Blagojevich was charged in an indictment unsealed Wednesday with scheming to collect millions of dollars in kickbacks from companies seeking to do business with the state."

"Fourteen people, including current and former city officials, were charged in a federal indictment unsealed... alleging a bribery and extortion scheme within Dallas City Hall." Included in that list were Democratic state Rep. Terri Hodge and former Democrat Mayor Pro Tem and one-time mayoral candidate Don Hill. "A separate indictment announced Monday accused former [Democrat] City Council member James Fantroy of embezzling $50,000 from Paul Quinn College in Dallas."

If time permitted I'm sure I could go on, but what's the point?

Did you read the article…? Christie, who's never lost a corruption case in six years on the job, keeps a running tally of the officials he's prosecuted. By his count, he's at 126. 126 officials in 6 years found guilty in one state alone, and New Jersey isn't in the top 10 of most corrupt states.

God save us.

I think all political figures after a while are dishonest in some ways. It is a matter of the beast of political power, owing for favors and asking for favors.

I just can't wait for President Hillary Rotten to start firing Federal DAs. How soon do you suppose the Democrat controlled Congress would take to haul her AG in for a public flogging ?

Hello again, tom:

Of course, she's going to fire them all. You know she is. They ALL do that. Bush did that.

Soooooo, I suppose you're saying that even though Alberto couldn't remember why he fired them, he's sure it was for performance. Riiiight.

You have heard the phrase "loyal Bushie" come from that department, haven't you? How can you, in the face of all that evidence, think Alberto didn't fire them because they weren't towing the Bush political line?? Do you think it's OK to politicize the Justice Department??

Or did the NY Times do it? Sometimes I got to wonder...

excon

Not so sure about that.

When it comes to politically motivated prosecutions, how about the Scooter Libby case? Fitzgerld continued although he knew somebody else was guilty.

The difference now is that no one took notice of DA firings before . I thnk it would be fair for Republicans in the House to insist on committee hearings related to any firings of a President Evita. I want to hear her AG admit under sworn testimony that they were fired for political reasons.

Excon,

"Of course, she's gonna fire them all. You know she is. They ALL do that. Bush did that."

Bush DID NOT fire all the DA's According to Rush (blowhard) Limbaugh yesterday,He kept the Billy boy DA's on.

DC

I work in NJ . I can tell you that the Dems have turned the state into a cesspool of corruption. I have no doubt that investigations of officials from the State distort the over-all national percentage you cite .Corruption is as much of the character of the state as the smell in the air when you drive on the Jersey Turnpike near the Linden oil fields .

A look at recent New Jersey corruption cases -- Newsday.com



Honestly ,the reason there are so many Democrat public officials in the state who have or will do the frog march soon ,and so many others under investigation is that they are the ones in control. The few times the Republicans gave it a go they were the happy pigs at the trough .

Recently NJ had a slogan contest . Here were some of the better suggestions :

"New Jersey: The only state you have to pay to leave."

"What you make, Trenton takes"

"Come to New Jersey, where the landscape will take your breath away - and so will your tax bill."

"New Jersey: Things are as bad as they seem."

"New Jersey: Where the roads are paved and the pockets lined with good intentions"

"New Jersey: Pay to play, play to win"


"New Jersey: Corrupt and proud"


"New Jersey: We can have you killed"


"New Jersey: It's a death trap, it's a suicide rap, get out while you're young."

"New Jersey: One state, under indictment."

"New Jersey: Everything you've heard is true."

Hello:

When Democrats say Republicans are crooked they loose credibility in my book. When Republicans say the Dems are crooked, they also loose credibility.

If ALL you see is the OTHER guy's corruption, you yourself are corrupted by your own narrow mindedness and tunnel vision.

Because what I see, is political corruption of ALL stripes.

As usual, I see it clearer than you.

excon

After my first post, I remembered Janet Reno's fine job keeping things clean in Bill's administration.

How about this one:

"New Jersey: If this is what it's like, I'd hate to see Old Jersey"

Elliot

excon,

If they ALL do that [fire federal attorneys] then why was it bought up as an issue in the first place? And if they have the right to do so, even for purely partisan reasons, why was Gonzalez hounded out of office? And for what reason should the Republicans not do the same thing to the next Democrat president's AG?

Elliot

Hello El:

They can FIRE them for any reasons whatsoever. But, they can't LIE about why they did it.

If, when asked why he did it, Gonzales could have given the lawyerly and quite correct response of, no comment. Instead, he lied. I think liars in high places should be called into account.

It amazes me how short your memory is.

excon

That is why you supported impeaching Bill?

Hello labman:

It is. Like I said, liars in high places should be called into account.

The Woverine has a short memory. You have NO memory whatsoever. I'm not a Democrat. I don't like Democrats. I don't like Bill Clinton. I don't Like Hillary Clinton. I never did.

Fortunately, you don't have to rely on my memory either. Everything I've ever written here is archived for your perusal. Go find where I supported Bill.

Those who look for hypocrisy are liable to find it.

excon

How about saying nothing on the subject at all? You seem to be fine with that. Does the admin have to give a reason for firing the attorneys? Clinton didn't. Neither did any other President. It was never even questioned before Bush came along.

If instead of testifying "I don't remember" (which is the same thing as saying "no comment" in my book) Gonzalez had come out and directly "no comment", do you think the Dem Congress would have stopped pressing the issue? Would they have been satisfied with that response?

The point is that the question should never have been asked in the first place. Congress has no right to know the answer to the question. It's none of their business. The entire affair bordered on (stepped over?) breaking the separation of powers between the Legislative and the Executive.

Gonzo could have answered, "I fired them because I didn't like their ties", or "I fired them because none of them would let me screw their wives." He could have said anything he wanted or nothing at all on the subject. He could have lied through his teeth on the subject. None of it is actionable by Congress or anyone else except the President. Congress doesn't have the right to know. The PEOPLE don't have a right to know in this case. And therefore, Gonzo could have deliberately lied to the public under oath and it wouldn't have mattered, because Congress has no say in the matter.

Gonzo was indeed a fool, but not because he fired these guys or even because he lied or claimed he didn't remember why they were fired. He's a fool because he let Congress dictate the fight without simply telling them in the strongest of terms "Go screw yourselves, this is none of your business, and I have no intention of honoring your illegal subpoena on a matter that is outside your constitutional powers. You don't like it? Arrest me, if you like, and we'll have a nice little Constitutional crisis." And Bush should have backed up such a statement with his own. THAT was Gonzo and Bush's error. Not any lies that may or my not have been told, not the firings themselves, just not telling Congress to go screw themselves.

Elliot