3 ms·

The reaction to this frustrates me immensely, because Obama is doing the right thing. The Obama White House is attempting to regrow the wall between political

The reaction to this frustrates me immensely, because Obama is doing the right thing. The Obama White House is attempting to regrow the wall between political and constituent concerns and law enforcement concerns. The Department of Justice should operate with the most minimal of political interferences (since I don't think it's possible to avoid them all together) with the goal of maintaining its independence. That said, I absolutely do think that what Chris Dodd has been doing is not above board. I don't know who has jurisdiction or who to inquire with further, but the White House isn't the right place. I'd be interested if someone knows who in the DoJ would be the appropriate folks to contact.

invisible 15y ago
Then, don't you think the White House would send a letter to the DoJ pointing them to this if they really cared? They may not need to investigate it themselves, but helping the message get sternly to the right people should be appropriate.
- knowtheory 15y ago
  That's not what they said though. They said they don't comment on petitions that are matters of law enforcement. They may very well have done that. Although, yes, one would think that it'd be in their best interest to communicate that if they had in fact done so.
newbusox 15y ago
I would guess that the office to contact would be the US Attorney's Office for Washington, D.C., http://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/about/contact.html http://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/about/contact.html. They (and possibly others US Attorney's Offices) almost certainly have jurisdiction. For those interested, the anti-bribery statutes are at 18 U.S.C. 201 (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/11/201 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/11/201) and subsequent provisions within that chapter (there are also other, conceivably applicable statutes that might be charged in bribery or corruption cases). As you can see, the wording in the statutes is extremely broad so, if so inclined, it's possible to make an argument that many, many things are bribery (although, realistically, "bribery" has been significantly narrowed by the courts).

invisible 15y ago

Then, don't you think the White House would send a letter to the DoJ pointing them to this if they really cared? They may not need to investigate it themselves, but helping the message get sternly to the right people should be appropriate.

knowtheory 15y ago
That's not what they said though. They said they don't comment on petitions that are matters of law enforcement. They may very well have done that. Although, yes, one would think that it'd be in their best interest to communicate that if they had in fact done so.

newbusox 15y ago

I would guess that the office to contact would be the US Attorney's Office for Washington, D.C., http://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/about/contact.html http://www.justice.gov/usao/dc/about/contact.html. They (and possibly others US Attorney's Offices) almost certainly have jurisdiction. For those interested, the anti-bribery statutes are at 18 U.S.C. 201 (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/11/201 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/11/201) and subsequent provisions within that chapter (there are also other, conceivably applicable statutes that might be charged in bribery or corruption cases). As you can see, the wording in the statutes is extremely broad so, if so inclined, it's possible to make an argument that many, many things are bribery (although, realistically, "bribery" has been significantly narrowed by the courts).