Prosecutions of any of the Bush Gang?

[Guest eastburbguy]

(It's been a while since I posted here; I am not so sure about the "thin but bright line" between "current events" and "politics" - forgive me if I trespass. )

The early rumblings of speculation are beginning to be heard about whether there will be "consequences" for any of the Bush crowd who (may have) committed crimes while in office. Obama has signaled his view by stating his desire to look forward and not back. This week Congressman John Conyers threw what might turn out to be the first grenade when he subpoenaed Karl Rove to testify before the House Judiciary Committee.

There are those who are rational and not necessarily left-wing ideologues, eg. Constitutional Law Professors, who predict that, as more light gets shined on the sheer number of illegal/extra-legal/unConstitutional/extraConstitutional actions taken, and how egregious they were, pressure, both popular and moral, will build to where "something" will have to happen.

While there are clearly those who believe and wish Bush and Cheney would be shot at sunrise, that's not going to happen, IMHO (i.e., no sanctions for either of them).

So what does the gang here think will happen? Will a handful of underlings take the rap for their superiors? Will Rumsfeld be indicted for War Crimes? Will Gonzo finally face the music? Will it all blow over?

Let's talk.

[TotallyOz]

I do not think the Obama administration will allow any prosecutions to proceed against the top tier.

I was quite surprised that Bush did not blanket pardon many in the last day. To me, this says he does believe that he was 100 percent right on all issues.

My hope is that prosecutions against any violations of law will proceed. Where would it end? The voters knew what was going on and voted anyway. Do "we the people" go to trial next? IMHO, the world has already convicted us. Now, we need to undo the harm done in the past.

Both Obama and Clinton has made gestures to the Arab world. Lets hope that we are able to move forward instead of backward.

[Guest raulgmanzo]

There have been theories put forth as to why Bush did not issue blanket pardons for members of his administration.

There has been at least talk of prosecution of members of the Bush administration in various international or foreign courts. In at least some of these courts it is easier to bring charges against foreign nationals if it is shown that the accused will NOT face trial in their home country.

In case anyone finds this far fetched one need only remember that a spanish judge did issue an international warrant for the arrest of Chile's Pinochet which caused Pinochet to be held in England for quite some time ( more than a year?) before he was allowed to return to Chile for health reasons. I believe the issuance of the warrant had been possible because an amnesty granted Pinochet in Chile precluded his prosecution at home.

It has been suggested by some that IF Bush pardon members of his administration (including himself) that warrants could be issued and Bush et al could face arrest upon entering the EU.

Speaking of Pinochet, both presidents Bush sr. and jr.helped block the investigation and prosecution of crimes by Pinochet. It would be ironic if Pinochet's evasion of justice ultimately contributes to a precedent to prosecute a Bush.

Raul

http://daddysreviews.com/finder.php?who=raul_g_chicago

http://maleescortreview.com/index.php?file...rt_id=106120684

[TownsendPLocke]

Many Dem's.myself included,found the whole Monicagate thing a huge wast of time and money.

Of course a blowjob and lying about receiving that blowjob is a different kettle of fish than the Treasonous crimes committed by the Bush administration.

Thing is,it is a rocepical thing,you go after them and 8-12 years later they come after you=even if it means going after you for getting a blowjob during office hours.A lot of this was past 8 years wa spent righting "wrongs' done to(or by) Nixon,Bush,and Reagan.we just do not have the time or money for that sort of thing right now.

I hope some of them go to jail-but I will not be betting any money on it.History will judge them,as will their beloved G-D.

[Guest StuCotts]

Obama is making an honest effort to assemble a bipartisan coalition to support his staggeringly huge reforms. Prosecuting any of the Bushies, regardless of how hard they worked to deserve it, would just get in the way. Accordingly, when he's been asked about it in interviews, he hasn't dismissed the possibility, which would only alienate his left, nor has he shown any real enthusiasm for pursuing it. Barring anything major and unforeseeable, it looks unlikely.

[caeron]

The vindictive part of me would love to see Bush and Cheney get called out properly for what I view as poisoning the well, but I think it would not best serve the country.

I think we, as a nation, need to focus on a better way forward, and I think the new administration agrees.

I suspect, therefore, they may do enough to shine a light in some dark corners, but unless there is really shocking misconduct, that will be the extent of it. You can't go after people for the grey areas. Even if they're really, really dark grey. Unless it's totally open and shut wrongdoing, it will just become partisan rancor and derail any hope of coming together as a nation.

What I hope is that with a little light on the subject, all of us will think to ourselves "That isn't the nation we want to be." and we'll be better as a nation going forward. Though I fear the majority are still willing to trade liberty for security.

[Guest epigonos]

I must agree with StudCotts on this one with one added point. ALL presidential administrations, current and future, are going to be very hesitant to open that can of worms. It would set an unhealthy prescient for future Congressional Majorities and Administrations to bring charges against the proceeding administration. The only thing that would likely happen is endless court cases and endless protestations of executive privilege. It could also easily become a series of recurring witch hunt reminiscent of the days of Joseph McCarty.

Even though I am NOT a fan of Obama I sincerely believe he has taken the correct position on this matter. Let’s get over it, and move on. He has his agenda and, I would be willing to bet money, that he doesn’t want to get that agenda side tracked by living in the past.

[Guest chillmaster01]

While I am totally against what has happened in past we the people and even most democrats are just as guilty. We relected Bush to 2nd terms when we knew there were issues. Democrats voted and I sincerely believe they had sufficient information to question what was going on in Iraq.

While I think this is a time of healing for the enitre country and I feel both Republicans and Democrats were almost equally guilty. There is little chance this administrtaion is going to want to take or allow any actions against a prior administration especially being they know that they share in the actions or at least had knowledge and voted until the American People decided for themselves they had enough. Only then did finger pointing happen. American People have a better sense of right or wrong than any policitician.

PJ

[AdamSmith]

...Also, Waxman, Rangel et al. can subpoena and hold hearings til the cows come home. But as prosecutions would presumably have to be instigated by Obama's Justice Department, it seems Congress would have to produce some pretty dramatic evidence indeed to overcome Obama's reluctance to get into this morass.

These transgressions, taken together, may have been impeachable had the will existed when the goons were in office. But convincing the necessary people that they are now actionable in court seems a still higher mountain to climb.

[Guest StuCotts]

I must agree with StudCotts

It could also easily become a series of recurring witch hunt reminiscent of the days of Joseph McCarty.

Many loud thanks for your endearing typo. However unrelated to reality it is, it looks good.

Beyond that, I can't agree with any attempt to link the present situation to the McCarthy disgrace. McCarthy's accusations were based on exaggeration, distortion and outright lying. None of that would be necessary now. Simple statements of fact would be enough to bring many indictments.

[KYTOP]

We should just let the past be the past. Bush is gone, we have a new President, and now it is time to move on. This country has enough to deal with trying to plow into the future without trying to blame about the past.

Hope everyone forgets it and just moves on,,,, for the good of the country and us all.

[TampaYankee]

In a perfect world, investigations that lead to prosecutions ought to be pursued, but this isn't a perfect world. Weighing the balance of moving ahead versus looking behind must favor moving ahead. Political strife arising from what many would see as political prosecutions would detract us from the necessary and important tasks that we face.

However, I believe that we ought to know what happened and who did it for the simple reason that we not repeat history. So I favor some investigations but not prosecutions as a practical matter. I am content to let 'the players' of that history look over their shoulders whenever they engage in foreign travel.

There are two exceptions to my practical 'no prosecution' stance though. 1. The politicization of the Justice Dept in the firing of eight prosecutors for not following thru with political prosecutions and 2. the role of the White House and DOJ in the prosecution of the Alabama governor on what appears to be trumped up charges for purely political motivatons.

Having our leaders shred the constitutional protections to unreasonable search and seizure and to fabricate foundations out of thin air to commit war crimes is one thing... well two things actually. But permitting the polticization of the DOJ for political purposes and to deny political oppoonents of their freedom in that pursuit strikes at the very heart of our freedoms. This cannot be tolerated lest our freedoms will be defined not by the Consitution but by the political party in power and the political party we belong to. And once that party is fully entrenched they will be in a position to write our future history. This cannot be tolerated. It must be investigated whever it goes and prosecuted to the fullest extent. Our Democracy depends on it.

[Guest epigonos]

I never cease to be amused by those who complain bitterly about the Bush/Gonzales team politicization of the Justice Department. People a look back in U.S. history will clearly show that the Justice Department has ALWAYS been the most politicized of the Cabinet posts. Before being too critical regarding the removal of the eight (8) U.S. Attorneys by Bush/Gonzales one MUST understand that these appointments are purely political. The real criticism should be NOT that Bush/Gonzales removed them but rather how the stupid fools did it. Remember that in the first two years of their presidential terms Ronald Reagan replaced 89 U.S. attorneys, Bill Clinton replaced 89 and George Bush replaced 88. What Bush and Gonzales failed to do was remove them at the beginning of Bush’s second term they delayed. Had the eight been removed at the beginning of Bush’s second term not a whisper would have been heard. One very valid criticism of George Bush is that he bungled damn near everything he tried to do with shitty timing.

Also please keep in mind that everything done in Washington D.C. by the legislative and executive branches of government and even some of decision of the judicial branch are done for POLITICAL REASONS. For better or worse politics has ruled this country since the tumultuous presidential election of 1800

[TampaYankee]

Before being too critical regarding the removal of the eight (8) U.S. Attorneys by Bush/Gonzales one MUST understand that these appointments are purely political. The real criticism should be NOT that Bush/Gonzales removed them but rather how the stupid fools did it.

I am well aware that the appointments are political. I am also well aware that the President has the authority to remove them. The potential crime here is not that they were appointed or that they were removed. The potential crime is why they were removed. The fact that a legal action was taken to cover up an illegal action or to further the pursuit of that illegal action does not make all ok. Let the investigation go forth and the chips fall where they may.

[BiBottomBoy]

I'd love to see Bush and his cronies prosecuted, but I worry that doing so would be a distraction from Obama dealing with the war and the economy.

[Guest epigonos]

The only way there is a problem in the removal of a U.S. Attorney is if they are removed because of gender, race, creed, etc. If, for example, the President doesn’t like the way they operate their offices he can remove them. All one hundred plus United States Attorneys serve at the “PLEASURE†of the President. “Supposedly†the eight were removed because they failed to pursue the legal objectives of the President – the pursuit of cross border crime. Instead they chose to emphasize other crimes. Carol Lam the U.S. Attorney in San Diego, for example, chose to pursue crimes involving political corruption. In this pursuit she investigated, indicted, tried and convicted Republican Congressman “Duke†Cunningham for political corruption – taking bribes. Now many people, myself included, might consider the pursuit of those guilty of political corruption more important than the pursuit of those guilty of cross border crimes. That is irrelevant if the President wanted the pursuit of cross border crimes emphasized over those of political corruption HE HAS THAT RIGHT.

[BiBottomBoy]

There were published reports suggesting that Bush had no problem with the U.S. Attorneys abandoning cross border crimes in order to go after corrupt democrats. He only intervened when they went after corrupt republicans.

[Guest StuCotts]

There were published reports suggesting that Bush had no problem with the U.S. Attorneys abandoning cross border crimes in order to go after corrupt democrats. He only intervened when they went after corrupt republicans.

And wouldn't go after Dems on clearly trumped-up charges.

[BiBottomBoy]

True dat.