Comments on: Shorter Schloz’ Criminal Referral

By: timbo

timbo — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 03:03:38 +0000

Declining to prosecute now might not be declining to prosecute in the future…

By: klynn

klynn — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:56:31 +0000

KO did a great job on pulling out the emails. I cannot believe they declined prosecution. Well, I can.

By: BooRadley

BooRadley — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:35:32 +0000

BULLSEYE!

By: Rayne

Rayne — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 06:32:17 +0000

Yeah. The name jogged a memory that I finally pieced together (wish I had Marcy’s holographic memory, would have saved me from stewing all evening on this).

Acosta’s and John Tanner’s paths are tightly entwined; Tanner replaced Joseph Rich, the flaming lib that Schloz wanted out, having been promoted by Acosta to voting rights section.

Acosta “rotated” to FL when Tanner moved up from the FL farm team to replace Rich, worked on “caging support” during 2004, shall we say. Certainly well-placed for Latino outreach in Miami, where the Latin/Hispanic population may be more conservative in voting habits.

A key case that Acosta worked on in FL: Abramoff and Sun Cruz.

The circumstances around Acosta are quite suspect.

By: Rayne

Rayne — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:12:07 +0000

I don’t know that I trust Acosta.

Wasn’t the southern district of Florida, where Acosta was assigned in 2005 as USA, a sensitive district for a number of reasons in terms of voting rights and politics? the Bushies wouldn’t send anybody but a solid team player to that district…

By: BlueStateRedHead

BlueStateRedHead — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:25:13 +0000

We believe that his violations of the merit system principles set forth in the Civil Service Reform Act, federal regulations, and Department policy, and his subsequent false statements to Congress render him unsuitable for federal service.

is litigating for a firm in a federal jurisdiction count as federal service. IANAL had heard time and again that lawyers are officers of the court. Does it matter which court?

By: BlueStateRedHead

BlueStateRedHead — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:20:37 +0000

The career prosecutors not to prosecute, did they give a reason.
Does it impede the new AG from prosecuting?

Can there be civil suits against Schlotz by those denied positions. What happened to that idea re: Goodling.

And can we get some member of the bar to file moral turpitude charges against, “righteous sentences” Rachel (name?) and all those mentioned in IG reports who are now bar members.

If Gonzo is unemployable, surely we can make these people the same.

By: freepatriot

freepatriot — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:04:19 +0000

here’s another one for the legal beagles

does Congress have to file a complaint or something before an indictment can be issued for perjury before Congress ???

cuz arlen specter is all for the rule of law, let’s talk to him about this …

By: freepatriot

freepatriot — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:01:09 +0000

why can’t the new DOJ under Holder still indict this fool?

no reason except statute of limitation, or presidential pardon (and Statutes of limitation can change)

looks to me like the schloz is a BIG FAT MEATBALL hanging right over the plate

all we need is for some hungry young AUSA to step up with a bat in his hand …

By: jonL

jonL — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:48:17 +0000

Could one of the lawyers answer this question please: So what if the DOJ has decided not to indict this criminal. Since their has been no adjudication in this matter why can’t the new DOJ under Holder still indict this fool?