Dianne Feinstein: “there could be a straightforward explanation for this e-mail that has nothing to do with public corruption cases Carol…”

“there could be a straightforward explanation for this e-mail that has nothing to do with public corruption cases Carol Lam was pursuing. However, the timing looks really suspicious and it raises serious questions, questions that need to be answered. Because if any U.S. attorney were removed because of a public corruption investigation or prosecution, this could very well comprise obstruction of justice. I believe that irrespective of the intent behind the decision to fire Carol Lam and the other U.S. attorneys working on public corruption cases, such a removal sends a message to all other Federal prosecutors, whether intended or not, that creates a chilling effect. Because of this, there should have been very careful consideration given to what steps should have been taken to ensure it was clear there was good reason to remove the prosecutor, that the office itself had a comprehensive plan in place to ensure no cases or investigations would be harmed or slowed in any way and that ongoing public corruption cases had absolutely nothing to do with the removal of the U.S. attorney. However, in the case of Carol Lam and in the case of five other U.S. attorneys, the administration failed to meet even these bare minimum standards.”