Posted on 07/07/2011 3:22:41 PM PDT by mandaladon
Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder Thursday requesting an explanation as to why the Justice Department declined to file charges against a federal prosecutor with child pornography found on his work computer.
The finding against the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) was made by the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
According to the Inspector General’s report, the AUSA admitted to spending a significant amount of time each day viewing porn at work.
“The OIG conducted an investigation concerning allegations that an AUSA was using his government computer to view inappropriate material on his government computer,” the Grassley letter quoted from the OIG report. “The investigation determined that the AUSA routinely viewed adult content during official duty hours, and that there was at least one image of child pornography recovered on the AUSA’s government computer. The AUSA acknowledged that he had spent a significant amount of time each day viewing pornography.”
Grassley further questioned why the department kept employing the individual for at least two months following the report; what types of cases this AUSA prosecuted; the status of the individual’s pension; and what types of Internet filters the Department now uses.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
This is the result of having a bunch of pigs in charge of the filthy sty,
The laws are for the peons. Not the “smart” people who run things.
execute them
/not sarcasm
Who does this surprise?
This guy should be tried in Texas.
Actually in most corps because of wrongfull termination nobody is suspended in two hours, maybe to days for legal to look at
You really expect federal government workers to be not given their due process ???
Whenever “government” actually fires someone normally they have their ducks in a row because goernment unions certainly will make it as hard as possible to rid themsleves of these scumbags
It SHOULD be handled as a criminal matter.
AFAIK, all child porn is criminal. Why isn’t this guy arrested?
Read the entire article. The guy was surfing for porn at work, which is wrong but surprisingly common. They thought he had one item of what they characterized as child porn. That could mean a lot of different things. He’s not one of the pedophiles who collect and trade the stuff.
One item of child porn on a computer constitutes a crime. Or does the law allow one freebie?
“At least one item of child pornography” could also mean a lot of things.
The fact that he was not referred for prosecution and worked in a prosecutor's office tells me it was very likely not child porn.
Or that he was a democrat
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.