I read this commentary in the online version of The Wall Street Journal on Monday, take a look...
Contempt and Congress by Professor John Yoo
In the byline it said the author was a Professor at Boalt Hall School of Law (UC Berkeley), so I went to their website, found his email, and sent him my thoughts, which are as follows:
To: jyoo@law.berkeley.edu
From: bob@highlyquestionable.com
That was Monday afternoon, still awaiting a reply. I'll let you know how that goes.
Attorney General Gonzales testified again today, telling more lies and offering at least one "I'll get back to you on that" kind of statment. He has got to go.
Contempt and Congress by Professor John Yoo
In the byline it said the author was a Professor at Boalt Hall School of Law (UC Berkeley), so I went to their website, found his email, and sent him my thoughts, which are as follows:
To: jyoo@law.berkeley.edu
From: bob@highlyquestionable.com
Dear Professor Yoo,
When I read your commentary in The Wall Street Journal I wondered if the Bancroft family had already approved the sale of the paper to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.
As a law professor, you should know the meaning of "any or no reason" when it comes to employment at will. That doctrine states that I can fire an employee for any or no reason, but I cannot fire them for an illegal reason, such as because they are female, or because they are of African descent, or because they are confined to a wheelchair. These are illegal reasons.
I submit to you that the firing of a US attorney because he or she failed to prosecute cases in a way most advantageous to the Republican party during an election year is an illegal reason. The firings of December 7, 2006 suggest just such a pattern. Some of those who were fired were either guilty of prosecuting Republicans (Carol Lam, Paul Charlton & Daniel Bogden), refraining from prosecuting Democrats (David Iglesias), or refusing to initiate "voter fraud" investigations where none existed, simply because an election was extremely close (John McKay during the 2004 Washington state gubernatorial race).
Do you agree that, if true, that conduct would be illegal? If so, shouldn't Congress be allowed to investigate such an abuse of power? Didn't the framers want the Legislative branch to serve as a check on the Executive branch? Would you agree that they didn't want the government to use the criminal justice system to prosecute their political enemies?
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Scofield, Esq.
That was Monday afternoon, still awaiting a reply. I'll let you know how that goes.
Attorney General Gonzales testified again today, telling more lies and offering at least one "I'll get back to you on that" kind of statment. He has got to go.
