Apparent facts discovered through logical inquiry that would lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an accused person has committed a crime, thereby warranting his or her prosecution.

How important is this concept to a prosecutor? The American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct state:

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

Dannehy's findings, as spelled out in Welch's letter, are filled with enough probable cause to choke an elephant. But Dannehy apparently was looking for more than probable cause, the usual prosecutorial standard. She appointed herself judge and jury, too, ensuring that the American people would be forever hoodwinked on at least one chapter in the book of Bush-era sleaze.

A reasonable person might also expect that Dannehy's findings, as relayed by Welch, would include some citations to applicable law. After all, the letter is filled with conclusions of law. But she and Welch never tell us what that law is, never cite case law to support their findings. That's almost certainly because there is no case law to support the findings.

What is a citizen to do? We are to take the word of Nora "Trust Me" Dannehy.
And we are to do that even though we now know there is reason to question Dannehy's supposedly impeccable credentials.

How might Dannehy's findings be summarized? Here is our best shot: Were the firings politically motivated? Yes. Did they violate department principles? Yes. Were they possibly criminal? No.

If those findings seem contradictory to you, join the crowd.

Absurdities pile one on top of another as you get into the specifics of Dannehy's findings. Consider just three findings, involving the possible criminal charges in the case--obstruction of justice (18 U.S. Code 1503), theft of honest services (18 U.S. Code 1346), and false statements (18 U.S. Code 1001):

* Causing a U.S. attorney to be fired for political reasons is not an impediment to his official duties--Dannehy/Welch say the statute on obstruction of justice penalizes only forward-looking conduct that endeavors to "influence, obstruct, or impede." But they conclude that causing David Iglesias to be fired did not impede his work. We can only assume that Dannehy/Welch actually wrote this with a straight face.

* Bushies did not engage in undisclosed, biased decision making--Dannehy/Welch found the effort to remove Iglesias from office was not "a scheme to get him to use his Office in return for anything of value, including his continued employment." That, however, is not the standard set out for honest-services fraud. In fact, honest-services case law specifically states that it does not hinge on whether "anything of value" changes hands. The actual standard, the one Dannehy/Welch obviously don't want regular Americans to know about is this: Did public officials, in this case members and allies of the Bush administration, engage in "undisclosed, biased decision making" when they sacked David Iglesias? Given that Dannehy admits their motivations were political, the answer obviously is yes.

* You can make statements to Congress that are "inaccurate" and "misleading" but are not "knowingly false"--This is what Dannehy/Welch found regarding Bush-era Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and his apparent false statements to Congress. How absurd is this conclusion? If a person makes a statement that is both inaccurate and misleading, that means it was made with intent, correct? After all, you can't unintentionally mislead someone. That means the statement was not just innocently inaccurate--it was knowingly false. And such statements are criminal.

For more details on Dannehy's legal conclusions please check out our earlier post:

Report on U.S. Attorney Firings Reads Like a Farce

All of this raises a disturbing question: Do Obama and Holder even want to be taken seriously on justice matters? Will Holder go down as "the most laughable attorney general in U.S. history"?

It could happen. But these are not laughing matters. And John Conyers should not treat them as such.

We don't pretend to be experts on Congressional authority, but it's our understanding that Conyers could decide to conduct his own investigation--looking not only into the U.S. attorney firings, but also political prosecutions under the Bush DOJ. Conyers already has indicated that he has serious problems with Dannehy's handiwork.

Congress has both oversight authority and the "power of the purse." Through much of the Bush presidency, evidence strongly indicates that taxpayer dollars were used not for legitimate justice matters but for political matters. Regardless of what "Trust Me" Dannehy wants us to believe, those actions were almost certainly criminal--there clearly is probable cause to bring criminal charges.

Conyers owes it to taxpayers and to Congress to conduct a broad and thorough investigation. If members of the Obama administration indeed have engaged in a coverup, that means some Democrats could get caught in Conyers' net?

Our response to that possibility? So be it.

The Obama administration has had some 19 months to show that it takes justice matters seriously. It has failed at every turn--and John Conyers should hold them accountable.

Americans simply must know the truth about the ugly deeds of the Bush Justice Department. It's critically important for us now, and it will be even more important for generations to come.

Scott Horton says Holder has helped set up a formula for disaster. And it must not be allowed to stand:

Dannehy's decision not to proceed is an open invitation to future administrations: the White House is free to manipulate the Department for political purposes, and Justice Department officials are free to lie to Congress.