Which candidate, if elected, will fully investigate the previous administration?

[onehandle]

(That would be Bush/Cheney and their cronies.)

Any answer other than "Neither" will require explanation.

[LakeSamish706]

1. The only candidate that might have done this would have been Kucinich. n/t

[Khaotic]

8. I agree

but remember Dennis told his supporters to back Obama if his group wasn't viable in Iowa.

I think Obama will be a lot more agressive if he gets into the White House.

[blm]

2. When the congressional investigation gets underway, then I think Obama will cooperate

and grant access to documents needed and requested.I believe Sen. Kerry will be a great advisor for him on open government matters.

I believe Clinton would do exactly what Bill did and NOT cooperate or facilitate access to documents the investigations would need.


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[Kittycat]

4. I agree with this.

I don't think he'll push for it, but I doubt he would fight it either.

[flyarm]

5. bull..he will never investigate..he has already said he wants to negotiate with repigs! eom

[blm]

7. He's not suppose to - he CAN facilitate access to documents and I believe he will.

I believe once a congressional investigation gets under way, a President Obama WILL listen to Kerry who will likely be a close advisor on these matters.

[onehandle]

6. That's not the question. A President has the power to set up an investigative body.

What Congress does doesn't count.

And up to now, they have been more interested in baseball.

[blm]

13. Two weeks ago I heard Kerry say investigations WILL happen. He seems to trust

that they will or I doubt he'd have brought it up. Kerry doesn't TAKE investigations lightly or use them for partisan show. If he says it he means it.

I see Senate and congressional investigations happening in earnest and a President Obama declassifying the information and documents needed.

[onehandle]

15. As you know, I have great faith in Senator Kerry.

Do you happen to have any links to this statement?

[blm]

18. It was a rally televised by Cspan. Possibly Boston. It was liveblogged here at the time

and I commented at the time - several of us did. Pretty sure it was Boston.

[blm]

23. Archives are down now - but I think it was Feb3.

.

[goldcanyonaz]

3. Neither, they will state that the American people want to move on.

[blm]

27. Nah - Hillary would say that, but Obama has open government advisors close

to him, so I foresee a senate investigation that appeals to President Obama for his cooperation on documents and GETS IT. Unlike the 90s when Clinton staunchly protected Poppy Bush and his secrets.

[bowens43]

9. Neither. It's over.

[onehandle]

10. At least three people so far said Obama would. I need some details. nt

[JimGinPA]

11. The Clintons Have Nothing To Gain Investigating Their Cronies

I'd like to think Obama would support, if not instigate, investigations.

[onehandle]

14. You'd "like to think?" Has anyone asked him? nt

[JimGinPA]

20. Don't Need To Ask Hillary - She'd Just Cackle nt

[Wizard777]

12. I think Obama will. To not investigate would reflect on Obama's integrity. Not Bush's.

To overlook Bush's crime would establish Obama as being equally, if not more, corrupt than Bush. I don't think Obama is going to allow that to happen. I can see Obama saying that if they have done nothing wrong. Then they have nothing to fear from investigations or even trials.

[Az_lefty]

16. Clinton definitely won't...we already know this from past experience

Obama will, depending on who he appoints as AG and whether they want to pursue it.

[onehandle]

19. Obama will if they want to pursue it?

Do they?

[blm]

26. Interesting editorial from NYT from 1993:

The last two paragraphs stand out. Remember - Bill never mentions one word about BCCI in his book.


The End of the B.C.C.I. Case?


Published: August 19, 1993



>>>>>
The verdict confirms that however much B.C.C.I. sought a foothold in American banking, its major criminal mischief in the form of drug financing, money laundering and banking fraud occurred abroad. That's where most of the victims, depositors and shareholders in a $12 billion bust reside, and where several nations must continue to search for wrongdoers.

To his credit, Mr. Morgenthau prodded investigators in Congress and the Justice Department to inquire into B.C.C.I.'s alleged control of First American Bank, once the largest bank in the nation's capital. Seeing a basis for alleging a scheme to defraud New York State bank regulators, he brought more far-reaching charges than the Justice Department did and took the charges to trial first.

Unlike the Federal grand jury, Mr. Morgenthau added a questionable charge of bribery. Mr. Clifford and Mr. Altman, officers and lawyers for First American, made millions by purchasing stock in their bank with money loaned by B.C.C.I. It was a greedy transaction, but was it a bribe? The trial judge said there wasn't enough evidence even to submit that charge to the jury.

In earlier testimony before a Senate investigating committee, Mr. Clifford and Mr. Altman said they had naively assured Federal regulators that First American was free of B.C.C.I.'s control. They said they had been duped about the international bank's illegal activities. Intentionally or not -- and intent matters a lot -- they were highly compensated for putting their own reputations on the line for B.C.C.I. The jury verdict found no crime -- either because there was insufficient proof of B.C.C.I. control, or insufficient proof of intent to mislead, or both.

The acquittal may prompt the Justice Department to abandon any plans it may have had to prosecute its own case. That would extricate both men from criminal liability, though not from pending civil lawsuits -- including one from the Federal Reserve Board, which insists that it was deceived about B.C.C.I.'s role in American Bankshares. Mr. Morgenthau, meanwhile, still hopes to bring B.C.C.I.'s overseas leaders to trial in New York.

Perhaps other investigations at home and abroad will bring more telling evidence to the surface. Even though the New York inquiry hit an embarrassing snag, it is much too soon for the Justice Department to walk away from the unanswered questions -- including why Justice itself failed for years to help Mr. Morgenthau and Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts in their efforts to expose B.C.C.I.'s corruption.

[blm]

24. The AG has no choice BUT to pursue if the President directs it. This is why some of

us are so offended by Clinton's decisions in 1993 and 1994 regarding all the outstanding matters on IranContra and BCCI and CIA drugrunning.

After receiving the BCCI report when he took office, the right move would have been for President Clinton to direct Justice to go after Bush administration and Jackson Stephens and other named figures based on what was presented in the report which was written after a 5 and 1/2 year investigation led by Kerry.

Jackson Stephens bankrolled Bill's political career and his primary campaign - the report was ignored, protecting all the principle figures - GHWBush, Stephens, Marc Rich, AQ Khan, Dubai and Saudi royals, and many more. Bill wouldn't even mention BCCI in his book.

[Tom Joad]

17. Nobody Will!! Nobody will investigate.

Nobody will completely end the Occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan!
Nobody will institute full single-payer health insurance in the US!
Nobody will fight for fair trade rather than corporate-friendly "free" trade.

NOBODY for President!!

[old guy]

21. Neither.

Not that they would not like to see it happen, but by the time * leaves office the paper trail will be shredded to the point that he could deny ever being president and no one could prove otherwise.

[Iceburg]

Which candidate if elected will be fully investigated? /nt

[Iceburg]

22. Which candidate if elected will be fully investigated? /nt

[emilyg]

25. Neither.

[Uzybone]

28. Neither

not a chance

[blm]

29. Hey, one, voters for Hillary didn't explain as you requested.

Rulz iz Rulz.

;)

[onehandle]

36. I agree. Somebody better 'fess up! nt

[stillcool]

30. I don't want them investigated...

I don't want another 9/11 Commission, another Warren Commission, another Iran/Contra Investigation. I want a Justice Department, and prosecution, and conviction.

[DutchLiberal]

31. Mike Gravel.

[Lilith Velkor]

32. Yyyup. n/t

[Ichingcarpenter]

35. I would be 100% sure he would

Obama 40%
then Clinton 20%
and I'm being liberal with those percentage.

[DuaneBidoux]

33. As much as I will get flamed it is not in the US (and our) interest to investigate him fully.

It is in our interest (Dems) and the interest of all Americans to clean up their mess as best we can (domestic and international) and to get decent working conditions and health care for Americans. To begin to tackle environmental issues generally and global warming specifically. To begin to rebuild international alliances with Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere, so that we can fight radical Islam in a way that will work for us and for the women and other minorities in the Middle East (by showing them we have something real to offer beyond guns). for us to begin to work on alternative and sustainable forms of energy both for environmental and security reasons, for us to begin trade arrangements that will begin to build up working conditions and trade for all workers globally and not just for the international corpocracy.

And we have room to do this AND to focus on investigating our war criminal? Let the prick go, if there is a God he'll get his. If we REALLy want to be in power for the next 50 years to do good things we'll focus on the above and forget the rest. If we do the above little else will come to matter.

Edited to add:

To begin to appoint liberal judges in federal and hopefully some Supreme Court positions (otherwise no legislation will matter) and to begin to make sure that every vote that is cast counts and that vote suppression is once and for all stopped).

[blm]

37. No. THAT is NOT good for America and look how it worked out BEFORE when we did it.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

You want a repeat?

BushInc should've been in jail by the end of 1994 or at least fully exposed to American people. Instead they were PROTECTED By Bill Clinton throughout the 90s and planning their return to WH in 2000.

The Dem president doesn't HAVE to focus on it, but cooperate with investigators when they request documents as Bill would not.

Open the books to investigative reporters and historians and let the chips fall where they may - the public will GET that Repubs screwed this country over and endangered them needlessly and have been doing it for decades.

Just think of all the issues you CAN get done when GOPs are exposed in all their Bushprotecting glory.

[Jed Dilligan]

34. Neither. Too tough a sell to Middle America.