Reply #85: Thanks for posting this.

[Qutzupalotl]

A few weeks ago, I pointed out that there were legacy attorneys on a couple of odious cases. I didn't have time to research them all, so I'm glad someone took the ball and ran with it.

The question we should ask when we hear any similar "WTF" arguments from Justice is
WHO IS DOING THE ARGUING?

In every case, it is the attorneys. Some of the attorneys will be pre-Bush, but if they survived the Gonzalez purge, their motives are suspect, IMO.

We don't know how much input, IF ANY, is coming from Obama or Holder. I suspect their involvement is minimal. As legal scholars, they know about separation of powers, and probably noticed the dustup over politicizing the Justice Department from the previous administration. ;)

Several attorneys refused to leave citing ongoing cases. As the cases wind down, the attorneys will be replaced with Obama appointees. That's an efficient, if apolitical, way to handle these cases.