What if Obama prosecutes Bush and Bush is found not guilty?

[Political Tiger]

A guilty verdict in any prosecution of Bush and/or his cronies is not a forgone conclusion. Some people seem to think Obama can just declare Bush guilty and that's that, but it doesn't work that way. Would Bush be tried in a military court or a civilian court? Who would sit on the jury? Where would the trial be held? Who would be the judge? What evidence would be admitted and what evidence would not be admitted? A criminal prosecution is not as simple as it might seem, the OJ Simpson murder trial probably being the most famous example of that.

I'm not saying Bush should or should not be prosecuted.

I'm just bringing this up as food for thought.

Sometimes we have to be careful of what we wish for.

[firedupdem]

1. Hey! I was looking for you! I have to remember the new name!

When people are looking for a reason to slam the Prez....a raw story with a flashy headline will do.

[rpannier]

4. Curious

How is that post slamming the President

[Political Tiger]

7. I'm glad you found me! :)

I've been busy past few weeks and haven't been able to post much, but I do look in every now and then, and yes, I have noticed Raw Story has become the new vehicle for those who aren't happy with Obama.

[Cleita]

2. I don't think there can be a prosecution without an investigation first.

Don't we and his victims deserve at least this?

[Political Tiger]

6. True, but an investigation doesn't guarantee a prosecution

and a prosecution doesn't guarantee a guilty verdict.

I guess what I'm saying is that if after all this (investigation/prosecution) Bush is found not guilty, wouldn't that embolden the right and those who say Bush did no wrong?

I'm making no judgments here, just thinking out loud.

[Cleita]

10. If an honest investigation, and I emphasize the HONEST,

indicates that Bush is as pure and innocent as new fallen snow, that should end it then. Obama does not have to have his Attorney General's office do this. Congress should. He can prod Congress to do this. If a Congressional investigation turns up proof of wrong doing, then his Attorney General can take it from there.

[LakeSamish706]

3. That hopefully is what the new AG will determine. It will take some doing to....

investigate and determine if there is enough evidence to win in a prosecution.

[liberal N proud]

5. A little more of Americas dignity would be restored

[Political Tiger]

8. True, but I think electing Obama has already

done much to restore that dignity.

[liberal N proud]

12. True, Obama becoming President went a long way

I think investigating bu$h and Cheney would help complete the restoration.

[Political Tiger]

28. I think there should be an investigation. n/t

[CJCRANE]

9. It isn't Obama's job.

They got people who deal with those kind of issues.

I wouldn't worry about it. Leave it to the experts.

On edit: It seems like it must be a possibility if the talking points against it have already been released.

[EraOfResponsibility]

11. And might I just add to this point

How do we know the GOP won't do everything it can be hinder both an investigation and prosecution?

[Political Tiger]

27. No doubt they would! n/t

[JayMusgrove]

13. Why not let an international court indict and convict Bush?

Just turn him over to the guys in the Netherlands. I'm sure the jury will be more fair and just.

Bust and his cronies, all in an international jail for the rest of their life. True justice!

Oh how I can dream.

[Political Tiger]

23. I agree with that! n/t

[davidwparker]

14. Tiger, there is more going for the Earth being flat than * not being guilty. n/t

[Political Tiger]

24. Stranger things have happened

But I'm not talking about him being guilty, but about him being FOUND guilty.

[Solomon]

15. If they charged Bush, there would be so many charges, that

they would get a conviction of something. That's why if you commit what you think is one criminal act. you are always charged with 10 crimes for that act.

Just imagine how long an indictment of George Bush would be. Longer than Don Giovanni's list of conquests.

[santamargarita]

16. Prosecute who? He's too busy looking forward...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8204025

[Gabi Hayes]

17. keep those monsters in court, defending the indefensible, for the REST

of their unnatural lives

let them use their ill-gotten millions keeping one step ahead of the prosecutors, be they state, local, federal, or international.

[Life Long Dem]

18. "What if"?

:shrug: "What if"?

"What if" I trust mainstream media?

"What if" I trust Obama?

"What if" Clinton prosecuted Clinton?

[crimsonblue]

19. Obama should just punt it over to the UN.

Let the UN try Bush. In this country, it would be all but impossible to find an impartial jury / judge panel.

[Honeycombe8]

20. Obama can't prosecute anyone. He's President. I think you mean the fed. govt.? nt

[Political Tiger]

25. Yes, I agree, but many people keep insisting Obama

is responsible for prosecuting him.

[mmonk]

21. It's the mother of open and shut cases. To say they aren't guilty

or even possibly not guilty is denial of reality. But maybe we should just give up the constitution of the United States. Maybe we should stay with a new elective dictatorship model where the executive branch determines each term whether they will abide by our laws, checks and balances, or Constitution. But let me know, because if we are, I've had enough with this sick place on earth.

[Political Tiger]

26. Many people thought the OJ Simpson case

was "the mother of open and shut cases." Yet Simpson walked.

But again, I'm not talking about whether Bush is guilty or not, but whether he would be FOUND guilty.

In other words, if Bush was ever tried by a jury, I don't think anyone on this board would be allowed on the jury because we already have our minds made up. A "jury of his peers" might not feel as strongly as we do and choose to find him not guilty. It's just something to consider and think about.

[mmonk]

30. But he was tried in court.

[H2O Man]

33. Clearly,

had the police and prosecutors have thought of the possibility OJ would be found "not guilty," they could have avoided wasting the time and energy they invested in trying to uphold the law. I also think that McMurphy should have thought of this when he tried to lift the sink.

[Honeycombe8]

31. I'm not a lawyer, but I work in a law firm. Knowing someone is guilty is very different

from proving it. It's pretty difficult to prove someone is guilty of a crime. And everyone has a viewpoint as to what a "slam dunk" is in a criminal case. For instance, I DON'T think it's a slam dunk. I think it's a probable case of guilt that would be very diffiult to prove.

Guilt of torture? The W.H. claims the Geneva Convention doesn't apply, since that applies only to normal wars where there are at least two armies, etc. The so-called war on terror isn't/wasn't that kind of war.

Against our national laws? Depends. Waterboarding isn't included as a method of clearcut torture. Waterboarding is discussed in some military rules or regs or whatever. Not sure what it says. But those aren't constitutional laws, so it's not a slam dunk that they apply to the Executive Branch.

First, you have to find a clear cut law that applies to the Executive Branch that clearly meant that waterboarding is torture. Then you have to prove waterboarding occurred. If you get past those two high hurdles, you have to prove that the Executive Branch ordered it. Without a confession, that's an almost impossibly high hurdle. Not impossible. But nigh on impossible.

Just as if you were accused of a crime, you would want, and our laws intentionally make, it difficult to convict someone of a serious crime. But first, you have to find a clearcut law that applies.

As for the warrantless wiretaps...what wiretaps? We all know they occurred. But the thing about warrentless wiretaps is, there is little proof they occurred, outside of executive privilege for national security.

And then you nave the national security issue, that makes certain facts exempt from being told to the other side and definitely the public.

I don't think they should get away with doing the things they did. I think they should pay big time. But at some point, you have to weigh the practicality of it against the cost to our attention and our pocketbooks. Our country is bordering on a depression. We're broke. Can we really afford to turn our heads away from that issue, even a bit, to focus on this one? Maybe. There is a principal involved. And an example should be made for future presidents. Still.....it's not clearcut.

[mmonk]

32. Here's a clear cut law.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340---A000-.html
It's clear, leaves no interpretation what so ever. So the only question is are we to let the executive branch determine what is law or not law by just saying so? If one can look at the Constitution and honestly say, "yes, the executive branch is sole determiner of what is law and we have to obey the executive like a king", then you are correct, this isn't open and shut, President=King and we are a monarchy. Otherwise, he is in violation of US law and also the Constitution of the United States.

But whether the Congress and Judiciary abdicate their Constitutional powers to executive despotism or not is the real question. If he is prosecuted, then we know the answer is no, they won't yield to executive despotism.

[Canuckistanian]

22. So be it.

At least there would be an attempt at ruling by "laws instead of men".

[iamthebandfanman]

29. he probably should be tried at an international court.

not just an american one.