I agree but Mukasey won’t be there after January and I think this investigation will go well beyond that date.

“I know, just more credulous musing by a former LEO who is naïve enough to expect the legal profession to be a bit more credible and honest than the current evidence strongly suggests.”

********************

You have every right to expect that, and many lawyers do meet the criteria you and I expect. There is something about being near all that power that causes even honest men to think they do good, by doing bad. I suspect there are many heros who brought down these thugs in many ways and on many fronts–some may even have .Esq after their names. Like the foot soldiers in every battle they remain nameless, while the generals take the credit. Their contributions are no less magnificient despite the shroud of obscurity. Academics too have played a role in this by bringing these outrages to the plate of the American public in forums like this and elsewhere. Most of us fight for the good and follow the rules, it’s just that a few also fight for the bad, and they get most of the headlines.

I’m not holding my breath.

The main reason I accessed this site was an attempt to gain some basic insight into one of the eminent legal minds of today. Even so, I am further dismayed by the apparent lack of substantive influence legal scholars of Professor Turley’s caliber have on the legal questions of our times. Perhaps that results from the void or vacuum existing between practical, in the courts lawyering, and the highly laudable–albeit rarefied–position as an esteemed academician.

We need pillars from the Ivory Towers of Academic Jurisprudence to venture into governmental law in positions that will unfold within the next administration in attempts to return the honor and integrity that has been stripped from the current politicized legal system. To be certain, I am a 30-year registered Republican, so I have no political agenda; instead, I just want legal professionals as *public servants* who others and I can trust. Our Democracy cannot exist without the fair and impartial rule of law exemplified by the Lady of Justices’ blind impartiality that we all first learned about during middle school Civics classes.

Notwithstanding the Supreme Court, the USA needs an independent and unbiased “legal Czar” to review contentious legal issues through the jurisprudential prism of fairness and transparency and then posit “nonbinding legal opinions” to the 3 Branches of Government for further consideration.

I know, just more credulous musing by a former LEO who is naïve enough to expect the legal profession to be a bit more credible and honest than the current evidence strongly suggests.

Dannehy is still under their control. Rep. Conyers’s wants an independent prosecutor. Is she another mukasey?

Could we laymen please get a legal explanation of why this aspect of the case is not being pursued?