Had fired federal attorneys found $700 Million in fraud?

March 14, 2007 11:03 AM

Hypothesis: Had some of the fired federal attorneys uncovered a $700 million fraud by "defense contractors" which were actually fronts for Republican PACs? Why fire so many federal attorneys? Could stifling a $700 million fraud investigation justify it? Quite possibly. Evidence? How about identical addresses for fake companies and fund-raising firms? Contracts going to companies which did not exist prior to 2001 with no previous clients? More evidence is surfacing now. This has the feel of the real smoking gun.
posted by mooncrow (16 comments total)

Would you say that now is the time for my hopes to get up?
posted by DU at 11:07 AM on March 14, 2007

I kind of hope this is true, and if true I hope it becomes a scandal that wrecks the White House and Congressional Republicans (more plausible now with the Ds emboldened and in control of Congress). But it's not like the explanations already hinted at in the mainstream press aren't perfectly believable by themselves; it's all too plausible that, even without some grand conspiracy, this White House could use even these most exalted of personnel appointments to reward the more-loyal and punish the less-.

No matter how it comes out, though, I can't wait for this to hit the mainstream.
posted by grobstein at 11:09 AM on March 14, 2007

What if they discovered that the Republicans were Reptilican Shape Shifters? Wouldn't that be a reason to fire them?
Or what if the prosecutors were secretely homosexual aliens? Wouldn't that be a reason to fire them? Let's ask FreeRepublic!
posted by klangklangston at 11:10 AM on March 14, 2007

As I'm reading it, the only connection they can draw between the ousted AUSAs and the alleged crooks are that they are in the same state? I may be missing something, so fill me in if I am.
posted by Falconetti at 11:10 AM on March 14, 2007

pretty funny, however, probably needs something better than a single DU link to survive
posted by edgeways at 11:10 AM on March 14, 2007

Please, even on that page it acknowledges: "I haven't connected the dots yet on the GOP CongressCrooks listed above and which US Attorneys would be in charge of indicting them in their district." [flagging]
posted by twsf at 11:12 AM on March 14, 2007

This has the feel of the real smoking gun crappy post.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:14 AM on March 14, 2007

There are a lot of exclamation points, so it must be true!!
posted by OmieWise at 11:14 AM on March 14, 2007

This is proof of the Broken Windows theory.

1
2
3
4

Once you allow one shitty editorialized post to remain, people get encouraged and emboldened to post further shitty posts. Like a single link to that hole of trash DU that is purely speculative in nature.
posted by dios at 11:16 AM on March 14, 2007

Democratic Underground?
posted by empath at 11:16 AM on March 14, 2007

My next post is going to be the following hypothesis: 'I can't believe it's not butter' actually tastes better than butter and is made from babies.

If this post lives, that one better.
posted by Stynxno at 11:17 AM on March 14, 2007

Wrong, OmieWise! It is in fact the use of bold type which certifies the veracity of the claims. I believe this has been true since the Gutenberg Bible, 2nd edition (The Bible: Now totally true)
posted by wemayfreeze at 11:18 AM on March 14, 2007

I heard they were fired for lighting up in the break room. Well that's what I heard.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:22 AM on March 14, 2007

MetaFilter: did it -- in style, with hookers.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 11:24 AM on March 14, 2007

That headline is so deliciously FoxNews:

"Had fired federal attorneys found $700 Million in fraud?"

"Do liberals support terrorism?"

"Does Hillary Clinton really hate Christians?"

I think Jon Stewart said it: You can report anything as news if you follow it with a question mark.
posted by LordSludge at 11:24 AM on March 14, 2007

needs more cameltoe.
posted by pruner at 11:25 AM on March 14, 2007