|
Ace:
Let's see here... US Attorney has a track record of excellence in election fraud situations, works with FBI and investigates 100 claims of voter fraud. Finds that all are not substantiated enough to go to court (and the FBI agrees) and does not file suit. To me, that sounds non-political.
Then he gets fired for not pursuing the cases involving the opposition party before the election. Oh yeah, these are the cases that weren't pursued for legal and evidentiary reasons. That part sounds political. Let's have the former without the latter. I really can't imagine how other US Attorneys could help but interpret this to mean that to preserve their jobs, they have to produce a number of politically favorable prosecutions, regardless of legal or moral validity.
In terms of bias, Ace, I can tell that you've got absolutely 0 clue how I vote. Yeah, we've all got biases, but I make an effort to see around mine. Ask yourself this - who is served by a system in which it is appropriate for the justice system to be subserviant to the current party in power. It sure isn't the voters/taxpayers. I thought government was supposed to serve the people, not itself, and not at the expense of the integrity of the judicial system.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
|