How Should the Next President Deal with the Bush White House's Crimes?

[Octafish]

Amy Goodman asks an important question.



I vote: investigate, prosecute and sentence the guilty. All of them.

How Should the Next President Deal with the Bush White House's Crimes?

By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!
Posted on July 26, 2008, Printed on July 26, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/92829/

EXCERPT...

The criticism of Obama's stances has come as part of a larger debate over whether efforts to hold the Bush administration accountable would jeopardize an ostensibly higher goal of ensuring a Democratic win this November.

I'm joined right now, in addition to Glenn Greenwald, who blogs at Salon.com, the legal scholar by Cass Sunstein, who's an informal adviser to Barack Obama, professor at Harvard University and the University of Chicago Law School. He is co-author of the book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness and is cited as one of the most-cited legal scholars in the country.

SNIP...

Glenn Greenwald: You know, I think this mentality that we're hearing is really one of the principal reasons why our government has become so lawless and so distorted over the past thirty years. You know, if you go into any courtroom where there is a criminal on trial for any kind of a crime, they'll have lawyers there who stand up and offer all sorts of legal and factual justifications or defenses for what they did. You know, going back all the way to the pardon of Nixon, you know, you have members of the political elite and law professors standing up and saying, "Oh, there's good faith reasons not to impeach or to criminally prosecute." And then you go to the Iran-Contra scandal, where the members of the Beltway class stood up and said the same things Professor Sunstein is saying: we need to look to the future, it's important that we not criminalize policy debates. You know, you look at Lewis Libby being spared from prison.

And now you have an administration that -- we have a law in this country that says it is a felony offense, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine, to spy on Americans without the warrants required by law. We have a president who got caught doing that, who admits that he did that. And yet, you have people saying, "Well, there may be legal excuses as to why he did that." Or you have a president who admits ordering, in the White House, planning with his top aides, interrogation policies that the International Red Cross says are categorically torture, which are also felony offenses in the United States. And you have people saying, "Well, we can't criminalize policy disputes."

And what this has really done is it's created a two-tiered system of government, where government leaders know that they are free to break our laws, and they'll have members of the pundit class and the political class and law professors standing up and saying, "Well, these are important intellectual issues that we need to grapple with, and it's really not fair to put them inside of a courtroom or talk about prison." And so, we've incentivized lawlessness in this country. I mean, the laws are clear that it's criminal to do these things. The President has done them, and he -- there's no reason to treat him differently than any other citizen who breaks our laws.

CONTINUED...

http://www.alternet.org/rights/92829/how_should_the_next_president_deal_with_the_bush_white_house%27s_crimes/

Interesting discussion. Would more Americans listened to Amy Goodman.

Adlai Stevenson, too:

"Corruption in public office is treason."

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

[Octafish]

22. Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

South Africa wanted to get the Truth, even if it meant forgiving murderers.

Truth: The Road to Reconciliation

Would such a body be appropriate for Bush and his cronies?

[Solly Mack]

58. That would have to involve the victims of America's crimes, yes?

Because it would be beyond arrogant for America to think it could hold such a commission without including those the Bush administration have harmed.

I wonder how the tortured/invaded/occupied/detained/raped/maimed/bombed out will feel about an "America feels good about itself again" commission....because that's all it would be if those who have suffered the crimes of the US government were not allowed to participate. Not allowed to tell the world just what the US government has done to them.

As for me and reconciliation - if the people next door support torture then they may live in the house next to me but they will never be my neighbor.

[Octafish]

73. Excellent points, Solly Mack.

The South African example may not make a good model for the USA. To set things right requires more than a venting of hurts and wrongs.

To get things started, though, we need the Truth. Once the turds' names are in the open and on the record, all would know whose neighbor did what to whom.

From there, I had thought, We the People could figure out what needs to be done. And there still would be no statute of limitations on murder and treason.

[Solly Mack]

105. The full truth can come out in a trial

A good deal of the truth is out already.

Some people will never - ever - acknowledge that the Bush administration committed any crimes. Some because they are just as guilty and it serves their own interests to protect the Bush administration. Some because they just can't accept that the America they were conditioned to believe in would ever engage in such atrocities. Some because,to them,torturing the "enemy" is A-OK.

Americans don't deserve an easy way out for the last almost 8 years - and a phony "healing" that does not seek actual justice for the crimes committed is the easy way out....for America as a whole and for the guilty in particular.

[leveymg]

93. Truth Commissions are only appropriate in post civil-war situations, when trials would spark

further violence and make those convicted "martyrs". That is not the situation here. The Bush-Cheney gang will be in no position to resist prosecution after January. Dubya and Dick sure as hell aren't martyrs. They have no armies of their own. So, just convene a Grand Jury and indict them, already, like any other criminals.

This is still a nation under law, isn't it, or are we ruled by a junta? If that's the case, we have to purge all of them, including the Supreme Court, and start fresh.

[Phred42]

101. Weak. that;s not NEARLY enough.

THERE MUST be serious consequences For everyone (either party) that has destroyed this country

NO GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARDS FOR ANYONE!

[Demeter]

124. We Prefer Truth and Consequences!

And the consequences should be on the criminals, not the public.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

2. Hang the bastards! nt

[Octafish]

23. The Rosenbergs got the electric chair in 1953.

One would think that would be a deterrent.

And Mrs. Rosenberg certainly didn't deserve it.

[PDJane]

3. indicte, imprison..........

and bring a large broom to sweep out the remnants of the last administration, particularly in justice.

[Octafish]

26. Gov. Siegelman would make an excellent Special Prosecutor.

Here's a relatively balanced perspective:

Politicized Justice Is Not Justice

Steve Chapman
June 28, 2008
The Chicago Tribune:

In his zest to purge enemies in the government, Richard Nixon was so thorough that he set out to remove a "Jewish cabal" at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. President Bush and his subordinates may match Nixon for paranoia. Some of them lay awake nights wondering how to keep ideologically questionable applicants from infiltrating the Justice Department's summer internship program.

According to the department's inspector general in a report issued this week, they had some success in heading off this potential catastrophe — eliminating many candidates with subversive affiliations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. But the report condemned the effort, finding that it involved official misconduct and broke the law.

Political abuses in the summer internship program may be no more than a minor threat to honest government. The same cannot be said of abuses in the hiring and firing of federal prosecutors, which the inspector general is also investigating. Back in 2006, the Justice Department abruptly dismissed nine U.S. attorneys, some apparently because they declined to prosecute certain Democrats.

One of those fired was David Iglesias of New Mexico, who was shown the door after deciding not to seek indictments in a case involving a Democratic state senator — and after getting ominous phone calls from congressional Republicans asking how the case was proceeding.


SNIP...

Republicans may dismiss such notions as 8th-grade civics tripe, or as sour grapes from those whom the American people have wisely kept out of the White House. But it also happens to be the view of Bush's former deputy attorney general, James Comey.

In testifying before Congress about the intrusion of politics into the hiring of career prosecutors, he said, "If that was going on, that strikes at the core of what the Department of Justice is. … It deprives the department of its lifeblood, which is the ability to stand up and have juries of all stripes believe what you say and have sheriffs and judges and jailers — the people we deal with — trust the Department of Justice."

CONTINUED...

http://www.creators.com/opinion/steve-chapman/politicized-justice-is-not-justice.html

I agree with you 100-percent, PDJane. A large broom for total cleaning power.

[tularetom]

4. Try them for treason and execute those who are found guilty

Obama doesn't have to telegraph that he's gonna do this. The American sheeple have been conditioned by the librul media to believe these are complex issues and most of can't understand them so it's best not to even bring them up. Bullshit. It's black and white and certainly our courts are capable of sorting out the sheep from the goats. I will volunteer for jury duty if these pieces of smegma are put on trial.

[Octafish]

74. Speaking of goats...

...a case an honest Department of Justice might be interested in investigating is that whole 9-11 thing. Especially as it relates to all the warnings the FBI field offices sent to Washington about suspicious fellows interested in learning how to fly airplanes.

Bush Knew.

If I could nominate you for the role of prosecutor, I would, tularetom. Not many people know that smegma is the right word for these treasonous, warmongering, NAZI gangsters.

[wordpix]

100. as a traditionalist, I kind of like tar and feathers, myself

:evilgrin:

[FreakinDJ]

5. By Impeaching Nancy Pelocy for not doing her constitutional duty

and begining impeachment on Bush

Accessory to Crimes

[Thothmes]

63. Pelosi cannot be impeached.

She is not a Constitutionl officer. She is duly elected representative of the citizens of her district in California. The can choose not to vote for her. Or the House of Representatives can take action to censure her or reject her credentials. But she cannot be impeached.

[puebloknot]

87. Can you clarify? In Friday's hearing "around" impeachment ...

... the point was made that the first impeachment in our history was of a member of the legislature.

The point came up because there was a discussion about impeaching both Bush and Cheney, and it was brought out that Cheney claims not to be a member of the executive branch when it suits him (he claims to be a member of the legislative branch). And the point was made that Cheney could be impeached as a member of the legislative branch, just as that first man had been, historically.

Why can't Pelosi be impeached? Does the fact that she's Speaker, as well as an elected member of the House, prohibit it?

Not being argumentative here. Just trying to understand it.

[madokie]

96. Maybe someone doesn't know what they're talking about

I understand impeachment to include most all elected officials

[puebloknot]

133. Yes. John Dean wrote an article pointing to the possible "wisdom" ...

... of impeaching those lower on the ladder, rather than Bush and Cheney, to set an example for future generations of politicos. I didn't agree with him, and still don't. But there is historical precedent for impeaching a member of Congress:


sethttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_6.htm


"Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment:
II. The Historical Origins of Impeachment
C. The American Impeachment Cases
The following is from a report written and released by the Judiciary Committee in 1974 in the aftermath of the Watergate crisis.
Previous Page | Table of Contents | Next Page
C. The American Impeachment Cases
Thirteen officers have been impeached by the House since 1787: one President, one cabinet officer, one United States Senator, and ten Federal judges. 84"

[NYC Liberal]

118. Because there's already a process in the Constitution for Members of Congress:

Expulsion.

The Senator you're talking about is kind of a tricky case. Basically, the House voted to impeach him, then the Senate voted to expel him (completely separate from the impeachment), then tried to hold a trial. But they dropped it because they decided they lacked jurisdiction. Though of course, it was never settled whether they lacked jurisdiction because he'd already been removed from office or because members of Congress can't be impeached.

Anyway, it's a moot point because the better path is expulsion. It's faster. Why would you bother with an impeachment in the House (majority vote) followed by a trial in the Senate (2/3rds vote), when you could just expel them with a 2/3rds vote in ONE house? (Unless of course, you were trying to expel a Representative and thought you'd have a better chance of getting the 2/3rds vote in the Senate as opposed to the House...)

[puebloknot]

134. Please do elaborate on the expulsion process you speak of.

And in our wildest dreams, do we think "expulsion" would be easier than impeachment? And please cite a reference for your assertion that members of Congress can't be impeached.


I assume you are referring to the impeachment of Senator William Blount in 1797.

If the House "voted to impeach him," he was *impeached.*

From the WP article cited in my other response in this thread:

1. Exceeding the Powers of the Office in Derogation of those of Another Branch of Government

The first American impeachment of Senator William Blount in 1797, was based on allegations that Blount attempted to incite the Creek and Cherokee Indians to attack the Spanish settlers of Florida and Louisiana, in order to capture the territory for the British. Blount was charged with enraging in a conspiracy to compromise the neutrality of the United States, in disregard of the constitutional provisions for conduct of foreign affairs. He was also charged, in effect, with attempting to oust the President's lawful appointee as a principal agent for Indian affairs and replace him with a rival, thereby intruding upon the President's supervision of the executive branch.87


"He was charged ...." Impeachment charges; a trial in the Senate weighs those charges.

[NYC Liberal]

136. You don't know about expelling a member of Congress?

US Constitution, Article I, Section 5: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member

So:

Expulsion: 2/3rds of a single House (of which the person is a member)
Impeachment: 51% of the House of Representatives + 2/3rds of the Senate

Impeachment takes longer. Since either way you're going to have to get a 2/3rds vote in one of the Houses, impeachment just adds another vote.

---------------------------------

Now, as for evidence that members of Congress can't be impeached. First of all, the impeachment clause says: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Article II, Sec. 6: The president "Commission(s) all the Officers of the United States." The president "commissions" ALL "officers" of the United States. If Members of Congress were "officers of the United States," that would mean the President commissions them. He doesn't. They are elected.

Article II, Sec. 2: The president appoints "... all other Officers of the United States." Again, if Members of Congress were officers of the United States, the president (or someone under him) would appoint them. He doesn't, they are elected.

It's pretty obvious that "officers of the United States" are people APPOINTED by the president or someone under him to an office created by Congress (including judges).

[puebloknot]

142. It won't happen. And if it *were* undertaken ...

... it would likely be a secret proceeding.

Impeachment proceedings would be a public matter -- with at least *some* news coverage and a chance to get on the record the malfeasance, or to be more correct, crimes of this administration.

[NYC Liberal]

144. It's public record just like anything else

Here's the vote for expelling James Traficant: http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2002&rollnumber=346

[Octafish]

76. Perhaps what we need to do is show her what we're talking about...

There are a lot of crimes. Many good soul(s) are chronicling them -- on DU and elsewhere:

Hard Evidence Of Bush's Crime Of Iraq

(The True But Sickening Story Of Why We Are Really There)

EXCERPT...

Links to Chapters

* Main Summary
* Executive Summary
* The Worst Crime in American History
* Facts of the Crimes & The Law on the Crimes
* Bush et al's 18 Major Federal Crimes: Probable Cause for Prosecution
* The Smoking Gun: Bush Plans War Months Before 9/11 or WMD
* Compelling Eye-witnessed Evidence of Cover-up & Crimes
* Absence of WMD Verified Prior to Attack: Betrayal by the CIA
* Bush's Treason in Afghanistan
* How You Can Help Solve the Problem of Bush et al Forever
* A Right Wing Talk Show Host Apologizes for Supporting Bush

CONTINUED...http://bushcrimes.net/

If enough people call her, write to her and link with her -- and her office -- she might not feel so, eh, vulnerable to the Bush Transnational Criminal Enterprise. This, to me, demonstrates real criminality and indicates total corruption:Bush and his cronies use the Department of Justice to persecute political enemies and protect their cronies.

[bbgrunt]

107. great link. thanks. but I doubt that Nanci would

be swayed. It's all about the money and their view of political advantage. Justice be damned.

[lynettebro440]

6. K&R

:kick:

[Octafish]

78. Bush-Cheney crony got Iraq oil deal

Thank you, lynettebro440. Here's what we're talking about:

Bush-Cheney crony got Iraq oil deal

by Jason Leopold
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Jul 8, 2008, 00:26

Ray Hunt, the Texas oilman who landed a controversial oil production deal with Iraq’s Kurdistan regional government, has enjoyed close political and business ties with Vice President Dick Cheney dating back a decade -- and to the Bush family since the 1970s.

Despite those longstanding connections -- and Hunt’s work for George W. Bush as a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) -- the Bush administration expressed surprise when Hunt Oil signed the agreement last September.

At that time, administration officials said Hunt Oil’s deal with the Kurds jeopardized delicate negotiations among competing Iraqi sects and regions for sharing oil revenues, talks seen as vital for achieving national reconciliation.

“I know nothing about the deal,” President Bush said. “To the extent that it does undermine the ability for the government to come up with an oil revenue sharing plan that unifies the country, obviously, if it undermines it, I’m concerned.”

However, on July 2, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released documents showing that senior administration officials were aware that Hunt was negotiating with the Kurdistan government and even offered him encouragement.

Hunt also personally alerted Bush’s PFIAB about his oil company’s confidential contacts with Kurdish representatives.

SNIP...

“Documents obtained by the Committee indicate that contrary to the denials of Administration officials, advisors to the President and officials in the State and Commerce Departments knew about Hunt Oil’s interest in the Kurdish region months before the contract was executed.”

CONTINUED...

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3464.shtml

Gee. We the People need computers just to track the criminality of the Bush White House, they create it so fast.

[peacebird]

7. off to the greatest page you go! K & enthusiastically R'd!!!

:kick:

Amy Goodman rocks!
:loveya:

[anonymous171]

8. He should investigate for a while, then begin prosecution 8-9 months before midterm elections.

[IDemo]

9. Greenwald for AG

[bigwillq]

10. Investigate

and imprison the guilty.

We need to hold these criminals accountable. I hope Obama feels the same way.

[dysfunctional press]

11. i hope that everyone realizes that NOTHING is going to be done to/about the cheney misadministration

so don't get your hopes up.

they're going to be allowed to skate, in the same way that billy boy clinton let poppy and his crew skate the first time around.

you can bet the farm on it.

[exothermic]

15. I wouldn't even bet a cold cup of coffee against that.

:grr:

[FreakinDJ]

16. Sad but True

The Dem leadership has gone over to the "Dark Corporate Side" shared by their republican cohorts

[Blue_In_AK]

21. Absolutely.

If anything happens to these guys, I will happily eat my words, but I don't see it happening. We will be moving on "in the interests of unity," and "for the good of the country."

[Independent_Liberal]

40. I know, you all keep saying that, but after yesterday, I have reason to think otherwise.

Never say never.

[dysfunctional press]

65. why is that?

:shrug:

[Independent_Liberal]

66. Perhaps I'm a bit of an optimist, but...

I just feel it was a big opening for our efforts to educate the public on everything. I really don't think it's going away. And when we finally have everyone well informed, they might not be so quick to let the crooks slide away. Just how I feel. Even though you may disagree with me.

[dysfunctional press]

67. i do disagree.

unless the mainstream and corporate owned/controlled media takes up the cause, the public WILL NOT be 'educated'.
how many network news shows even mentioned what you see as a 'big opening'...? :shrug:

don't get me wrong- i'd LOVE for you to be correct.

but you aren't.

[datasuspect]

56. they market the "Democrat vs. Republican" sports team imagery

and people get all RAH RAH RAH SIS BOOM BAH about their political "team."

the people who actually control and own us don't think in these terms. they know it is a pure marketing ploy.

[Canuckistanian]

12. First off, let's not repeat the mistakes of the past

Unlike Clinton, who let Iran-Contra and BCCI slide.

And then there was Nixon's pardon, although I doubt Jimmy Carter could have done anything about that after Ford's cover-up.

[intheflow]

13. I'm hoping for the Hague, myself.

Just about given up hope for the U.S., so am looking toward the international community stepping up. A girl can dream, can't she?

[exothermic]

14. The question is "will" not "should." If it's a Republican, nothing. If it's a Democrat,

nothing.
:shrug:

[LiberalEsto]

17. Urge Congress to do its job nt

[elehhhhna]

18. Turn all docs over the Den Haage. and let them weigh in. Or name the jerks as "enemy combatants" &

proceed accordingly.

Pootie poot had a thieving ceo sentenced to 20 years -- HARD LABOR!

Sounds good.

[Joanne98]

19. Put them all in prison. If we don't, they'll do this again. They'll be back

8 years from now, after we've got a surplus and steal everything again.

[EFerrari]

25. They'll be back and in the Congressional Ethics Office like Porter Goss.

[Joanne98]

37. Oh I know! That's so depressing.

[Blue_In_AK]

20. They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law

but they won't be, since they've kind of rewritten all the laws for their own protection.

[mmonk]

24. There won't be anything dealt with it seems.

The only two with any chance of inheriting a Pesidency with powers beyond the usual Constitutional restraints seem in no mood to bring it up.

[slipslidingaway]

27. Are we sure that crimes have been committed?

[mmonk]

28. If Democratic party leaders say there is some question

as to whether there have been any crimes committed at all, then there must not have been. All that appear to have been are illusions.

[slipslidingaway]

33. Well then there must not have been, maybe they were just really

bad policies.

:(

[mmonk]

36. I was kidding. Of course there were clear crimes

and breaches of the Constitution. Sorry about that. I agree with Elizabeth Holtzman that there is a prima facie case for impeachment.

[slipslidingaway]

44. Except that at least one leader in our party is not sure if crimes

have been committed...and then the recent statements by Cass Sunstein.

:(

Obama...

"What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve. So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity..."

[mmonk]

45. I know.

And I share your :-( face.

[slipslidingaway]

48. OK and Cass Sunstein for Supreme court???

Just posted this below in the thread...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/25/fein/index.html

"...Jane also asked Fein about Obama adviser Cass Sunstein's recent statements that Bush officials should not be prosecuted for their illegal detention, interrogation and spying programs. To get a sense for why this matters, National Journal this morning listed Sunstein as one of a small handful of likely Supreme Court appointees in an Obama administration. But -- similar to Fein's point regarding Jay Rockefeller, Jane Harman and comrades -- Sunstein has long been one of the most vocal enablers of Bush radicalism and lawlessness, having continuously offered himself up over the last seven years to play the legal version of the TNR role of "even-liberal-Cass-Sunstein-agrees-with-Bush....

UPDATE: To be clear, it's far from certain, obviously, that Obama would appoint Cass Sunstein to anything, let alone to the Supreme Court."

[mmonk]

49. Let's hope your update is true it's not certain.

If so (he is), Sunstein would be on it most likely.

[slipslidingaway]

51. Yes, here is the embedded link to the National Journal article,

just quickly skimmed through so far.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cs_20080726_6164.php

[mmonk]

52. Disturbing.

Listed as one of the most talked about prospects.

[slipslidingaway]

53. :(( n/t

[bbgrunt]

109. this is NOT a good sign. I share your :((( and raise you a (.

[slipslidingaway]

122. :)))) Agree and posting the links below as a reference for later...

Sunstein Embarrasses Himself, Not So Complex Now?
by Armando
Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 11:17:06 AM PDT

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/23/14176/260

"...Then Sunstein says this:

So if FISA is ambiguous, or its applicability is in question, the prudent thing to do, as the first President Bush liked to say, is to interpret it so that FISA doesn't compromise the president's Constitutional power. And that's very reasonable, given the fact that there's an authorization to wage war, and you cannot wage war without engaging in surveillance.

First FISA is NOT ambiguous, and you do not create ambiguity in order to defer to the President. Has Sunstein actually read the relevant FISA provisions? Apparently not.18 U.S.C. Section 2511:..."


Sunstein Wildly Wrong on Warrantless Wiretaps; Kerr Clarifies: No Monarchy
by Armando
Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 08:22:59 AM PDT

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/27/112259/40


Sunstein on "The President's Inherent Power"
by Armando
Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 10:45:21 AM PDT

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/28/134521/54


Sunstein's Dangerous Advice to Obama
By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 09:51:34 AM EST

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/7/19/105134/542

"Some folks are beginning to notice that Cass Sunstein is no defender of the rule of law. Via Glenn Greenwald, Ari Melber writes:

Cass Sunstein, an adviser to Barack Obama from the University of Chicago Law School, cautioned against prosecuting criminal conduct from the current Administration. Prosecuting government officials risks a "cycle" of criminalizing public service, he argued, and Democrats should avoid replicating retributive efforts like the impeachment of President Clinton--or even the "slight appearance" of it.

What people do not realize is Cass Sunstein has been defending the Bush Administration's illegal actions and the Bush Administration's preposterous claims for many many years now. This is who he is. I think that any connection he has to Barack Obama is extremely troubling."

[Fovea]

126. The bright line is intent

Does the policy deliberately subvert the intent of law or stated policy such as the EPA post 911?

Such as outing Plame and her Brass Plate?

Such as stovepiping info from discredited sources to support an illegal war?

Such as deliberately turning governmental services to known corrupt companies (with whom the executive has formal ties) in no bid contracts?

These are not stupid judgements, these are cynical manipulations of policy and bureaucracy to further private profit and corrupt philosophies.

The intent was best stated by Grosser Nosetwist...
And when you talk about weakening the people's government to the point where you can drown the government in a bathtub, *you are committing an act of Sedition.*

[Greyhound]

29. I'll bet you $1000 that he does exactly what Clinton did, nothing.

We will be placated with some bullshit about, "that was in the past and we must now move forward" or something similar, and they will all get off to return and finish the job, if anything needs finishing at this point.

[happydreams]

32. I wouldn't take you up on that bet.

That is exactly what is going to happen. If you speak up to loudly, as I did the other day, you'll get your fucking topic locked for being to goddamn divisive.

This species deserves what it gets.

[Blue_In_AK]

38. You do have to watch what you say around here sometimes. n/t

[happydreams]

138. "watch what you say"....

Where have I heard that before? }(

[Fuzz]

30. "Crimes" is the key word. "rule of law" Follow where the clues lead

and punish where appropriate. No one is above the law. We are a nation of laws, not of men. This basic principle must be adhered to.

[RufusTFirefly]

31. Bill Hicks had it right

I have this feeling that whoever's elected president, like Clinton was, no matter what promises you make on the campaign trail - blah, blah, blah - when you win, you go into this smoky room with the twelve industrialist, capitalist scumfucks that got you in there, and this little screen comes down... and it's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before, which looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll.... And then the screen comes up, the lights come on, and they say to the new president, 'Any questions?'

"Just what my agenda is."

[EFerrari]

81. Yes, Bill Hicks did have it right. Watch. n/t

[flashl]

106. Reminds me of ...

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

Perkins writes, "The book was to be dedicated to the presidents of two countries, men who had been his clients whom I respected and thought of as kindred spirits–Jaime Roldós, president of Ecuador, and Omar Torrijos, president of Panama. Both had just died in fiery crashes. Their deaths were not accidental. They were assassinated because they opposed that fraternity of corporate, government, and banking heads whose goal is global empire."

[EFerrari]

115. Precisely. n/t

[bleever]

34. Cass Sunstein lifts the tent for the camel's nose

of lawlessness:

When I talk about a fear of criminalizing political disagreement, I don't mean to suggest that we shouldn't criminalize crimes. Crimes are against the law, and if there's been egregious wrongdoing in violation of the law, then it's not right to put a blind eye to that. So I guess I'm saying that emotions play an important role in thinking about what the legal system should be doing. But under our constitutional order, we go back and forth between the emotions and the legal requirements, and that's a way of guaranteeing fairness. And as I say, very important to have a degree of bipartisanship with respect to subsequent investigations.

In other words, enforcement of the law is a matter not just of statutes and procedures, but also of comity and consensus, even when it requires the consensus of people who may be implicated in the crimes, or political associates of those who are.


I expect that Obama has an understanding of the consequences of the failures to enforce the law in the cases of Watergate and Iran-Contra. But it also seems that there is a tremendous extra-legal factor that presidents have been unable to resist, which is the fear of losing control of the national conversation.

In the best case scenario, Sunstein is truly envisioning a process of investigating and prosecuting that skillfully manages to avoid polarizing the nation. My fear is that the Pelosi mind-set, which believes it's best to just get through this and rebuild later, will prevail. I would expect the same kind of consequences we saw from letting Watergate and Iran-Contra slide, which is further erosion of the Constitution.

But Obama is a very smart fellow, so I also believe we should remain optimistic and very vocal.

[Pastiche423]

60. Do you have a reason to believe we should remain

optimistic and very vocal?

I don't when it is more of the same status quo.

[bleever]

80. Yes,

because the alternative is getting weaker all the time.

[Pastiche423]

92. That's not what I meant.

Do you have a reason to believe we should remain optimistic and very vocal optimistic and very vocal even though Obama is reversing some of his primary stances on important issues, such as FISA? He could have voted no and still change the bill after he won the WH.

[bleever]

130. I guess my view is that we should push for him to do the right thing,

even when we might lose. We're bound to be disappointed sometimes, but I think it's still important on issues like FISA and retroactive immunity to keep getting our views across the best we can.

[Pastiche423]

131. I believe you are right

[mod mom]

108. bleever, Bill clinton was a very smart fellow as well but sold out our rule of law

by allowing the criminals not to be exposed, re-group and hence lead to the mess we are in now.

We have seen over the past 8 years that the idea of bi-partisan justice is non-existent. here is an example (which could be reproduced many times):

-snip

Hon. Steve Chabot (R-OH) is a member of the Judiciary Committee, was House Manager during the Clinton Impeachment and is quoted below:

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, every member of our committee recognizes that this is likely the most important vote we will ever cast, and all of us would prefer that the president's actions had not led us down this fateful path. However, we have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and we must fully accept that responsibility.

Back in 1974, Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, who served on the judiciary committee during Watergate, said that she would vote to impeach President Nixon, in part, because -- and I quote -- "the presidential cover-up is continuing even through today."

The historic record, the law, and the Constitution tell us that the charges against the president do indeed rise to the level of impeachable offenses. They constitute serious violations of criminal law and fall squarely within our Founding Fathers' definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Mr. Chairman, impeaching the president is an extremely serious matter. Throughout these proceedings, I've tried to keep an open mind, giving the president every opportunity to refute the facts that have been laid before our committee, but now all of the evidence is in and a decision is at hand.

It has become apparent to me that impeachment is the only remedy that adequately addresses this president's illegal and unethical acts. Allowing the president's actions to go unpunished would gravely damage the Office of the President, our judicial system and our country.


The statements above are excerpts from transcripts of the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment hearings. December 10-11, 1998. Each congressman is a current member of the House Judiciary Committee.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/Seven-Republican-Members-o-by-Cheryl-Biren-Wrigh-080711-38.html


SO OF COURSE, THIS REPRESENTATIVE WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF IMPEACHMENT-RIGHT? A SEARCH OF HIS WEBSITE HAS NO MENTION OF THE CRIMES OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION:

http://wwws.house.gov/search97cgi/s97_cgi/index.jsp?ViewTemplate=memberview.hts&Action=FilterSearch&QueryText=IMPEACHMENT&SearchPage=/MemberSrch.html&ResultTemplate=memberresult.hts&filter=member_srch_flt.hts&SourceQueryText=oh01%2Bvdkvgwkey%20%3Csubstring%3E%20%22/chabot/%22%20or%20oh01_chabot&image.y=13&Collection=members&image.x=59

TO ME, RULE OF LAW SHOULDN'T EVER PLAY POLITICS. I BELIEVE MR SUNSTEIN IS WRONG TO THINK WE MUST HAVE BI-PARTISANSHIP. THE LAW IS THE LAW.

[bleever]

129. I agree, mod mom.

The supposed "need for bipartisanship" undermines the rule of law. That was what I was objecting to about Sunstein's remarks.

Clinton was a very smart guy. The hope I was holding out was that Obama has learned from Clinton's failure in this respect. Clinton decided to "go along to get along", and all of the gains made by his administration were reversed by the criminal contingent that should have been held accountable, when they took office.

Impeach, indict, imprison.

[Usrename]

35. Bush and Cheney need to be turned over to the ICC.

Our courts are not equipped to deal with them.

SCOTUS is worse now than it was back when they decided Bush v. Gore.

Let the International Criminal Court deal with them.

They have no strategic intelligence value.

[bbgrunt]

110. I agree that our courts AND our political leaders

are not equipped to deal with them. I wish I were wrong, but I doubt the ICC is equipped to deal with them either. It would be equivalent to moving a trial to another jurisdiction because the well was poisoned here, but I seriously doubt that the well has not been poisoned everywhere regarding this regime.

Even if that were a successful alternative, it wouldn't solve the corporate take over problems here. Unless we are able to muster enough balls to begin to deal with it ourselves, conviction by the ICC will only shift power to corporate dems who will use the same tactics but be even smarter about covering their tracks.

[sellitman]

39. Two words

Leg irons

[Kolesar]

41. And then we have no grassroots movement who is writing to Congress or the press about this matter

So these issues never make it onto *anybody's* priority list.

[Me.]

42. Rendition Flights To Gitmo

where they will be served those lovely meals Duncan Hunter spoke about while waiting for their lawyers to not show up.

[mmonk]

55. They also have the right to hang themselves for dessert making it their last meal

if they so choose.

[ArbustoBuster]

43. I wish Glenn Greenwald (whom I respect) wouldn't call it the Iran-Contra scandal.

It was the Iran-Contra treason, following the definition of treason given in our Constitution.

[Enthusiast]

111. And I agree with you.

It was treason! And The Bush Administration's actions have been equally treasonable. This country is fucked.

[slipslidingaway]

46. Bruce Fein and Glen Greenwald on Cass Sunstein and more...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/25/fein/index.html

"...Yesterday, Jane Hamsher spoke with Bruce Fein on BloggingheadsTV about why the Democrats have, in general, failed to hold the Bush administration accountable for their multiple crimes (Slate yesterday detailed some of the many Bush crimes). Here is what Fein -- echoing an argument I made a couple of weeks ago -- said on that topic:

see video at link

Jane also asked Fein about Obama adviser Cass Sunstein's recent statements that Bush officials should not be prosecuted for their illegal detention, interrogation and spying programs. To get a sense for why this matters, National Journal this morning listed Sunstein as one of a small handful of likely Supreme Court appointees in an Obama administration. But -- similar to Fein's point regarding Jay Rockefeller, Jane Harman and comrades -- Sunstein has long been one of the most vocal enablers of Bush radicalism and lawlessness, having continuously offered himself up over the last seven years to play the legal version of the TNR role of "even-liberal-Cass-Sunstein-agrees-with-Bush."

During my Democracy Now debate with him, Sunstein said: "I'd be honored but surprised if the military commissions cite some of my academic articles." But as Talk Left's Armando documented, Sunstein would be an ideal and highly likely "legal scholar" for the Bush administration to cite as part of its military tribunals, as Sunstein was an early and outspoken supporter of the theory that Bush had the authority to order military commissions (a theory which the Supreme Court rejected in Hamdan). Identically, while Sunstein now pretends to disagree with Bush's theory as to why he had the power to spy on Americans in violation of the law (Sunstein said on Democracy Now: "while I agree with Senator Feingold that the President's position is wrong"), Sunstein defended those theories as "very reasonable" when he was on right-wing talk radio with Hugh Hewitt in late 2005 during the height of the NSA controversy.

It's really hard to imagine a worse person on whom Obama could be relying as a legal adviser, let alone a potential Supreme Court nominee, and here is what Fein had to say about Sunstein's view of things:..."

see link for video

[mod mom]

47. WTF?...so according to Cass Sunstein, * can get away with violating the constitution as long as he

...so according to Cass Sunstein, * can get away with violating the constitution as long as he says it's his interpretation?

from the article:

Goodman: I recently spoke to Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who's been a leading congressional voice against the Bush spy program. This is some of what he had to say.


Sen. Russ Feingold: The President takes the position that under Article II of the Constitution he can ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. We believe that that's absolutely wrong. I have pointed out that I think it is not only against the law, but I think it's a pretty plain impeachable offense that the President created this program, and yet this immunity provision may have the effect not only of giving immunity to the telephone companies, but it may also allow the administration to block legal accountability for this crime, which I believe it is.

Goodman: Cass Sunstein?

Cass Sunstein: Well, there has been a big debate among law professors and within the Supreme Court about the President's adherent authority to wiretap people. And while I agree with Senator Feingold that the President's position is wrong and the Supreme Court has recently, indirectly at least, given a very strong signal that the Supreme Court itself has rejected the Bush position, the idea that it's an impeachable offense to adopt an incorrect interpretation of the President's power, that, I think, is too far-reaching. There are people in the Clinton administration who share Bush's view with respect to foreign surveillance. There are past attorney generals who suggested that the Bush administration position is right. So, I do think the Bush administration is wrong -- let's be very clear on that -- but the notion that it's an impeachable offense seems to me to distort the notion of what an impeachable offense is. That's high crimes and misdemeanors. And an incorrect, even a badly incorrect, interpretation of the law is not impeachable.

-snip
http://www.alternet.org/story/92829?page=2


:mad:

[bbgrunt]

112. Sunstein is beginning to give me nightmares.

[Overseas]

50. I agree. Investigate and prosecute and sentence the guilty and RESTORE

the large dedactions the Bush gang made to our constitution.

[Prophet 451]

54. Prosecute

Give them their day in court, as it should be.

[Me.]

57. Ray Of Hope

We need to get this out there, in front of the public. This might help do just that.

Willie Nelson agrees to Farm Aid-type event in support of Impeachment

“Willie Nelson, speaking on the Alex Jones show, has just announced that he would be a driving factor in a new Farm Aid-type event that will focus on supporting Dennis Kucinich's efforts to impeach george bush. It will also be an anti-war event. This plan is literally coming together as I type. Willie has just committed to it.

Mr. Nelson also believes that the event could be used as a platform for those who do not believe the government's official story of 9/11 to speak out and let their feelings be known.

The event was conceived by a caller into the Alex Jones radio show just minutes ago who suggested that Willie back or organize the event as a way to take the efforts to impeach bush and advocate for a new 9/11 investigation, which is supported by the majority of victims' families, to the next level.

The venue will be either in New York City or in Austin, Texas. Both Mr. Nelson and Mr. Jones agree that the event should be held soon so that it can be used as a way to enhance Congressman Kucinich's efforts.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3663078

[Edweird]

59. We already have a process for dealing with them, impeachment.

We just aren't using it. Going after them once they have left office will set a dangerous precedent that will be used by the next republican president no matter what. Either we impeach or they get away with it.

[JNelson6563]

61. While it's fun to dream, here's the reality.

Look at history, all of it. You will see that rulers of all stripes are always, always, always loathe to to prosecute, take issue with, execute or otherwise hold former or current peers accountable. Tis a rare thing.

They don't want set precedent.

That's the way it is. I know Obama's going to bring at least some change and all but not in this regard. Mark my words.

Julie

[sofa king]

62. Investigation, prosecution, revocation of citizenship, ostracism.

And I'm not kidding. This has been the most criminal government the world has ever seen, and I guarantee you that you'll know that sooner or later.

There are really only two ways to go about it. One is to let them get away with it, hear a new revelation every couple of weeks for the next fifty years until it all drifts into abstraction, and wait for them to come back in an even worse way. If our system of government survives George Bush and Dick Cheney, it certainly won't survive their spiritual and intellectual successors when they return--and they will, as they did after Reagan and Nixon.

The other way is to treat them like the fascist war criminals that they are, take away their ability to participate in this government forever, permanently discredit their political philosophy, and run them the hell out of this country forever, as a warning to their legions of criminal followers.

I know which way we're gonna go on this. Long since now I lamented the death of America. There's still freedom here, but it's the freedom of the jungle: freedom is the space you can hack out with a machete, and from now on our government is the chupacabra, listening for your noise.

[lpbk2713]

64. Investigate all the way back to the Y2K selections.

And prosecute as necessary. Even if it will require building a new prison
to hold all those Gopper criminals, conspirators and enablers.

[mopinko]

68. .

[Care]

84. Your Images Are My Dreams

Thank you.

[dpbrown]

69. Arrest, Indict, Prosecute, Imprison

No surrender. It's time we win this war on corruption!

[bonito]

70. Kick n/t

[host]

71. In a "One Party" political system, with two right wings, like the one we have....

There is much more consensus about nothing happening....no challenges, no change....than what you are willing to map your minds around.
Nothing will be done. How much do you expect the next president to do, if he is the candidate who reversed himself on telecomm amnesty and anti fourth amendment warrantless surveillance....or if he talks about a "central front on the war in terror, on the taleban, on al-qaeda"....it's all just a show...this is an example of how they get it done:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3681811&mesg_id=3682626

....Why do you think there is no "left" in the US, just two right of center political factions that accept they are of two rival parties, when they aren't......

[norepubsin08]

72. Have every single person

who served in the bush administration tied to a post and shot for treason!

[specimenfred1984]

75. Subpoenas, Hearings, Indictments, Trials, Verdicts

It's the way America is supposed to work. As many others have said over the years, "Without justice there can be no peace".

[Care]

85. If I Had My Way

President Obama would be able to issue an Executive Order to arrest and jail the criminals from the previous administration. I definitely trust President Obama to use that power wisely. That would make us a true nation of justice.

[host]

86. The Same Obama that voted for FISA & Telco amnesty and calls it "the war on terror"?

That Obama? He's not different enough from McBush to even discern....all major party candidates brought to you, with "PTB Approved", stamped on their foreheads!

[Care]

123. No, The Obama That Will Be President.

I am quite sure that after he is elected that he will be acting exactly how we would want a progressive president to act.

[sattahipdeep]

128. Moyer's has said what many still fear to say

a secret government has mushroomed in the United States.




http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/07/15/p27043

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jmowreader]

77. Seppuku.

[wial]

79. Save on prison space

Put them all in a cell together. Give Bush a branding iron, Cheney a shotgun, Rove a stick of butter and Rumsfeld a book of Confucian quotations. Set up a video camera, wait an hour, then show the world what they really were.

It might break the Geneva Conventions but the ends would justify the means.

[diane in sf]

91. Nice :)

[leftofthedial]

82. executive order

gitmo

torture

hand over to international tribunals

[Frisbee]

83. Two words...

Hang em'. I know that DU is heavily anti-death penalty, but I think at least a few people need to swing over what has happened, though I would sleep well at night if I knew they'd live the rest of their lives in prison, preferably with NO visits from family members. And by prison, I mean a tiny cinder block cell with 30 minutes a day alone in the yard for exercise. And ideally that exercise is making little rocks out of big ones. But we all know that they will all walk away scott free. What these assholes have done to this country as well as hundreds of thousands on innocent Iraqi's and Afghani's is mind-boggling.

[JawJaw]

88. Did these a few years back....

Still dreaming that they come true one day!

[frog92969]

89. "Suicides" and "Accidents"

Let them lose the game by their own rules.

Their guilt is obvious, justice would not be denied.

[diane in sf]

90. Thoroughly and severely--psychopaths have no conscience so it would be very

good to preemptively disarm the next generation of fascist bastards by terrifying them with real consequences for law breaking. I think a sort of Nuremburg trial for the entire Bush administration and their enablers is called for.

[Razorblade02]

94. If McCain Gets in there ..It Ain't Gonna Happen..

Just more massive cover ups to protect Bush and Cheney. Just one more reason to vote for Obama.

[madokie]

95. Maybe its time to invest in rope making

I know its damn sure time to be stretching some.

[Kitty Herder]

97. And no pardons!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDCfEkopryo

[Tab]

98. What I think will happen

What I think will happen: nothing.

What I hope will happen: throw the proverbial book at them

But what I think will happen: nothing.

[wordpix]

99. first we need to IMPEACH BUSH before he PARDONS everyone else

THEN Obama should let the Justice Dept. and courts take care of the rest. BUT we must IMPEACH.

[Phred42]

102. Exactly!

[Festivito]

103. What if it goes back to big Swiss banks?

Would we be ready to take on the Switzerland, and its whole world full of complicits?

Meanwhile, or just anyway:

I'd like trials, convictions, incarcerations and to throw them a bone in order to get the truth.

There needs to be some prison time, and there needs to be some forgiveness, because, if for no other reason, that is who we are when we are at or near our best.

[Phred42]

104. Should a Bear shit in the woods?

[totodeinhere]

113. They all should be prosecuted, but...

we need to be sure to respect our system of justice. Just because Bush and his cronies did not respect justice doesn't mean that we should do the same thing. Be sure that they get fair trails according to the law. Then allow them to appeal their sentences under the law. And do not execute any of them. Capital punishment is wrong no matter who the criminal is.

[formercia]

114. "Corruption in public office is treason."

Give them all their fair and due process, lock up the guilty ones in the deepest, dankest dungeon in Iraq. They wanted to stay forever in Iraq, then grant them their wish.

[Martin Eden]

116. what SHOULD be done ... or what MIGHT to be done?

I think it's pretty obvious an Obama administration will not pursue criminal charges against CheneyBush. I'm not saying he SHOULDN'T do it, I'm just saying it ain't gonna happen.

What MIGHT be done however, is for Obama to have a more transparent administration and make it very clear the abuse of power and criminal conduct of the previous administration will NOT be tolerated and will NOT establish a precedent for acceptable conduct going forward.

I'd like to see the ChenyBush abuses laid bare as an example of what Obama will not do. Presented with the FACTS perhaps the PUBLIC will DEMAND that justice be done ... but I'm not holding my breath for that.

[cyclezealot]

117. Dems don't have the guts to pursue Impeachment

I am sure they will find another Lee Hamilton who displayed his cowardice after Iran Contra. Anyone has the guts to go after Bush , INc. it will have to be Vincent Bugliosi.

[man4allcats]

119. Prosecute and convict Bushco, then send them

to the gallows. I'll be more than happy to buy the rope.

[lonestarnot]

120. Just a note unrelated to topic, but thought I would share. LOL

Everytime I'm about to get into some flame ass war, someone kicks up one of your enlightening threads and the war is off. LOL Thanks Octafish! Carry on! :toast: and back to your thread to read now.

[lonestarnot]

121. And they stand to be held accountable just like every defendant when sentence is passed!

[Fovea]

125. "Corruption in public office is treason."

Try them, and hang the guilty.
Turn the rest over to the Hague for war crime tribunals.

Most Murikans don't even have a clue about how badly we have been wounded by the Bush Gang.

[klyon]

127. criminalizing policy disputes

I agree no one should be arrested for putting forth a particular position in a policy dispute but once a policy is undertaken that is against the law then the course is clear. The law must be upheld. Iran contra and Nixon's crimes are great examples and it is because our Congress and Justice department failed to pursue legal action that we are in the position we are in today with lawlessness rampant in the White House. If no one is held accountable we will revisit this again in the future. It is time to chart a new course and hold the President accountable for his actions.

[cleveramerican]

132. Don't get sucked into that sick web.

look forward, not back.

DO SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY HELPS ORDINARY AMERICANS.

let the historians sort out W's screw-ups.

[puebloknot]

135. "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."

Looking forward, not back, a la Ford's pardon of Nixon and the Iran Contra excuse for a holding to account has helped a lot of ordinary Americans to lose their lives in wars of aggression. Setting that standard for accountability (lack thereof) has led to our current national emergency.

We are in extremis, and ordinary Americans are suffering at every level. But sweeping yet another era of crimes against the Constitution under the rug will not do. It will not accomplish what you desire. It will lead to some future Clever American, et al. to have to live through yet another nightmare like the one we are currently enduring.

I don't claim to have an answer. But impeachment would get the crimes of this administration on the public record, whether or not the Senate has the balls to take action -- which action would involve many members of Congress and which is the reason "that sick web" will likely be consigned to some dark place.

Nancy Pelosi asserted she was going to move on, do something that actually helps ordinary Americans, in lieu of impeachment. We see what she has done. A nod to minimum wage, while continuing to fund an illegal occupation, making her complicit with Bushco.

A wound must be cleaned before healing can occur. The Constitutional remedy for a rogue President and members of his administration is impeachment!

[cleveramerican]

141. there are a limited number of things any president can accomplish

I hear your point but I just think his and our efforts would be better placed elsewhere.

If he wastes time and energy on past crimes of past administrations, he will be cast by future campaigns as failing to deliver on his campaign of hope and change, And they will be right.He will be a one term president and deservedly so.

The country is weary of partisan bickering in lieu of any genuine progress on pressing national issues.
The new president would be well advised to keep this in mind.

[puebloknot]

143. "Hope and change" fashioned out of brushing criminality under the rug?

No sale!

We've seen it before. Why are we gullible to swallow the same pill again: "Let's move on to a new day, maybe a new world." But who is going to speak for those who lost their lives for this shell game?

[cleveramerican]

145. it really is an either/or proposition

I would choose moving forward every time, and so would the vast majority of my fellow Americans.

Which is why what you propose will never happen.

[puebloknot]

146. Which is why, if your math is correct, there is a *reason* ...

... that comparisons are being made between "Good Americans" and "Good Germans," circa 1939.

[DailyGrind51]

137. Cart 'em off to Gitmo sans charge or trail, placing former inmates

as THEIR jailers. That will fix the bastards!:evilgrin:

[blues90]

139. if nothing is done to put these criminals in prison

Then we might as well just go lawless all across the board and get it over with.

To do nothing is only to promote more of the same. I don't give a damn who is president in 2009 , if they do nothing then they are just as guilty and also should be kicked to the curb.

Change the laws which protect the president. If in office and a crime has been committed they go to jail just like anyone else . Enough of this King of the world crap .

If a presidnt is murdered like JFK they put in the VP , same thing this time after jan 20 2009.If they break the law. replace them.

I am so sick of politicians being put up on the high road or worshipped , fuck them , they work for the people , this includes Obama and his high road to the white house bullshit. Wnat to be a rock star get a guitar or STFU.