Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Come on X... whether his arguments are well reasoned and mature or not is irrelevant to this point." Well, if you're going to tell him that if he was as old as you he'd see things differently then you've opened the door to the "maturity" issue. It becomes very relevant.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Yes, those things need to be fixed. But not by the people who'd be investigating this.>> <And you don't think this would be any distraction to those with jobs to do ? You mention the schools -> Do I think if the Justice Department (NOT the Congress - I've specifically said this should NOT be a Congressional investigation) looks into this that it would distract those in the Dept. of Ed? Not particularly, no. <if Dems ramp this up- fully expect the GOP to pursue even deeper in the Illinois pay to play scandal. > I'd be fine with that. Though I think that should probably be an IL state investigation. <What is the end gain ? Again,I said,if there are felonies to be prosecuted- then let's do so. If there are things that were enacted that need to be reversed - let's do so. Agreed.> Well, that's all I'm talking about.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>This should be a largely behind the scenes investigation<< <It won't be. It will be Ken Starr 2.0. Remember, you heard it here first.> Well, you heard it HERE first that it doesn't have to be. Starr himself turned the Clinton mess into a circus. Another prosecutor, finding nothing of import in the previous investigations, would simply not have made a big deal (or anything at all) about Clinton's personal indiscretions. It wasn't what he was charged with finding out. So yes, it would take Justice Dept. lawyers with some scruples, but there are such animals.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I know no one here wants to hear it but here goes anyway. While there are points to be made on both sides of the investigate fully - or fix what may be wrong (if anything) - and unless there is a clear cut felonius infraction - letit go -- some people have made their hatred of Bush so personal - they really cannot process choice as rationally as they do when approaching other points. just IMHO
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Another prosecutor, finding nothing of import in the previous investigations, would simply not have made a big deal (or anything at all) about Clinton's personal indiscretions.<< I believe these folks exist. But let's look at it for a moment. You launch this probe, costing who knows how much money. It goes on for months. At the end of that time, if no clear wrongdoing can be found, no high crimes that would result in convictions, now you have to explain to the taxpayers why all this money was spent. So, there is pressure to get some results. This is why Starr kept digging and looking for something, anything to go after Clinton with. I am not saying the guilty should go free or that we should turn a blind eye to illegal behavior by anyone. If we have evidence that crimes were committed, of course those should be prosecuted, no matter which party or politician gets caught in the net. But I am very nervous about the idea of a huge Easter Egg hunt that a probe of this sort would turn into. I just am not convinced as of now that Congress is capable of the sort of restaint it would take to keep from making it political vigilantism. We'll see.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> It's the function of the Attorney General's office to investigate high crimes, is it not? << Current AG Mukasey continues to refuse to investigate or prosecute matters presented by congress, or even enforce authorized subpeonas. He's little more than a political tool of the bush white house.
Originally Posted By gadzuux <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/01/14/national/w103034S39.DTL&tsp=1" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...TL&tsp=1</a> Federal court hits Bush White House over e-mail By PETE YOST, Associated Press Thursday, January 15, 2009 (excerpt) A federal court tore into the Bush White House on Thursday over the issue of millions of apparently missing e-mails, saying the administration failed in its obligation to safeguard all electronic messages. There is a profound societal interest as well as a legal obligation to preserve all records and "the importance of preserving the e-mails cannot be exaggerated," Facciola wrote. The Bush White House has represented to the court that no records created in an office covered by the Presidential Records Act are transmitted to offices covered by the Federal Records Act. But there is no factual record on which to base that conclusion, said Facciola. He ordered the EOP to conduct a search of all offices regardless of which law covers a White House office, saying the issues in the case must be dealt with in "true emergency conditions" because there are just two business days remaining before the Bush administration ends. "The records at issue are not paper records that can be stored, but electronically stored information that can be deleted with a keystroke," Facciola wrote. "Additionally, I have no way of knowing what happens to computers and to hard drives in them when one administration replaces another." Facciola's opinion is the third time in two days that a federal court has taken the Bush White House to task for its handling of missing e-mail, a problem first publicly disclosed three years ago by the federal prosecutor investigating the administration's leaking of Valerie Plame's CIA identity. On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy issued a document preservation order, directing the White House to search employee workstations for e-mails created between March 2003 and October 2005. At a hearing Wednesday afternoon, Facciola admonished the White House for not previously conducting a search of individual workstations as the magistrate had recommended in a report last April. In response to Facciola's opinion, one of the private groups that sued in the case, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said it plans to pursue the matter in court after the Obama administration takes office. << Entirely predictable, right down to the last day. Criminal actions compounded by cover-ups and flouting direct instructions from both the legislative and judicial branches. But maybe we should just let it go. Right.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I know no one here wants to hear it but here goes anyway. While there are points to be made on both sides of the investigate fully - or fix what may be wrong (if anything) - and unless there is a clear cut felonius infraction - letit go -- some people have made their hatred of Bush so personal - they really cannot process choice as rationally as they do when approaching other points.> Well, from my point of view it's past being about Bush. I've already said there's probably no tenable way to prosecute him personally. For me it's all about knowing the truth about what went on IN OUR NAME and preventing future administrations, of either party, from pulling the same stuff again. So the next would-be Woo or Gonzalez would have to remember that there are consequences to breaking the law, and that the law is not what they decide it is.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I am not saying the guilty should go free or that we should turn a blind eye to illegal behavior by anyone. If we have evidence that crimes were committed, of course those should be prosecuted, no matter which party or politician gets caught in the net.> But how do find that evidence without an investigation? That's all I'm calling for. Not show hearings. An investigation, and if nothing is found, then nothing is found. If something is found, turn it over to the courts (NOT Congress). <But I am very nervous about the idea of a huge Easter Egg hunt that a probe of this sort would turn into. I just am not convinced as of now that Congress is capable of the sort of restaint it would take to keep from making it political vigilantism.> Which is why I don't want Congress within 10 miles of this. Maybe the kind of investigation I'm calling for isn't possible. But I think it is. And I think it should be attempted.
Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/opinion/16krugman.html?ref=todayspaper" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01...ayspaper</a> Here's Paul Krugman on why we should prosecute the administration's crimes. Excerpts: >>Let’s be clear what we’re talking about here. It’s not just torture and illegal wiretapping, whose perpetrators claim, however implausibly, that they were patriots acting to defend the nation’s security. The fact is that the Bush administration’s abuses extended from environmental policy to voting rights. And most of the abuses involved using the power of government to reward political friends and punish political enemies. At the Justice Department, for example, political appointees illegally reserved nonpolitical positions for “right-thinking Americans” — their term, not mine — and there’s strong evidence that officials used their positions both to undermine the protection of minority voting rights and to persecute Democratic politicians. The hiring process at Justice echoed the hiring process during the occupation of Iraq — an occupation whose success was supposedly essential to national security — in which applicants were judged by their politics, their personal loyalty to President Bush and, according to some reports, by their views on Roe v. Wade, rather than by their ability to do the job.... Why, then, shouldn’t we have an official inquiry into abuses during the Bush years? One answer you hear is that pursuing the truth would be divisive, that it would exacerbate partisanship. But if partisanship is so terrible, shouldn’t there be some penalty for the Bush administration’s politicization of every aspect of government? Alternatively, we’re told that we don’t have to dwell on past abuses, because we won’t repeat them. But no important figure in the Bush administration, or among that administration’s political allies, has expressed remorse for breaking the law. What makes anyone think that they or their political heirs won’t do it all over again, given the chance?<<
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Another good quote from that piece: "But the price of protecting their comfort would be high: If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we’ll guarantee that they will happen again. Meanwhile, about Mr. Obama: while it’s probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he’s going to swear to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That’s not a conditional oath to be honored only when it’s convenient. And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable."
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <"But the price of protecting their comfort would be high: If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we’ll guarantee that they will happen again. < we prosecuted the Watergate bunch - did that stop all future abuses in government ? while his quote is likely true - so is, if we prosecute them all, future abuses are STILL likely to occur
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Here's another viewpoint to consider.... >>Some readers have asked me how future law-breaking could be prevented if past misdeeds go unpunished. First, criminal prosecution isn't the only or necessarily the most effective mechanism for deterrence. To the extent that they weigh the potential penalties for their actions, government officials worry as much about dealing with career-ruining internal investigations or being hauled before congressional committees. Criminal prosecution and conviction requires such a high level of proof of conscious wrongdoing that the likelihood of those other punishments is much greater. Second, the looming threat of criminal sanctions did not do much to deter the actions of Bush administration officials. "The Terror Presidency," former Justice Department official Jack Goldsmith's account of the legal battles within the administration over torture and wiretapping, is replete with accounts of how officials proceeded despite their omnipresent concerns about legal jeopardy. "In my two years in the government, I witnessed top officials and bureaucrats in the White House and throughout the administration openly worrying that investigators acting with the benefit of hindsight in a different political environment would impose criminal penalties on heat-of-battle judgment calls," Goldsmith writes. Third, punishment is not the only way to prevent wrongdoing. If someone is caught breaking into your house, by all means, press charges. But you might also want to consider installing an alarm system or buying stronger locks. Responsible congressional oversight, an essential tool for checking executive branch excesses, was lacking for much of the Bush administration. Fourth, there is a cost to pursuing criminal charges. As appalling as waterboarding is, for example, it was pursued with the analysis and approval of lawyers who concluded, however wrongly, that it did not rise to the level of torture. If government officials cannot safely rely on legal advice, they will err on the side of excessive timidity. Fifth, focusing governmental energy on uncovering and punishing the actions of the past will inevitably drain energy and political capital from the new administration. It would be a better use of the administration's time to figure out how to close Guantanamo and deal with the remaining prisoners. I am not arguing against any criminal prosecution of any Bush administration official, no matter what the facts -- just saying that the bar is awfully high. Lying to investigators and covering up questionable activities should be prosecuted because such conduct frustrates the capacity of other government checks to function. And prosecution would be justified if there is evidence, as Obama put it, of "genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies ... that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws."<< <a href="http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/jan/02/ruth-marcus-prosecuting-bush-administration-crimes/" target="_blank">http://www.commercialappeal.co...-crimes/</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <we prosecuted the Watergate bunch - did that stop all future abuses in government ?> You might as well ask yourself: we prosecute rapists and murderers and thieves every day. Does that stop all future crimes?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And I'll underscore this key phrase: >>Responsible congressional oversight, an essential tool for checking executive branch excesses, was lacking for much of the Bush administration.<< Right. And now, many in congress want a do-over, to pretend they weren't in compliance with a lot of this stuff all along.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 It infers that if we do prosecute this admin -somehow that will fix the future - of course it would guarantee zero. people can have an opinion on whether to do this or not -on the merits of the cases - but I don't need some 'expert' to tell me we're doomed if we don't - and prosecute, and infer we'd lower the risk if we did. Not buying that argument
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Our last governor from Illinois is still in jail- did that deter the current one -not one iota
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The author in #93 makes some points, but... <And prosecution would be justified if there is evidence, as Obama put it, of "genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies ... that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws."<< Again, how will this evidence be found without investigations? It seems to me this author has certain things backwards. She argues that congressional hearings (as opposed to criminal prosecution) may be greater deterrents because the level of proof is less, there's more possibility of exposing wrongdoing that may not be technically illegal, etc... but then turns around and says (rightly) that such hearings are likely to be divisive, so we can't do them. Then she says that if real crimes have been committed, she's fine with prosecuting them, but doesn't seem to want any investigations to take place that could uncover them. <As appalling as waterboarding is, for example, it was pursued with the analysis and approval of lawyers who concluded, however wrongly, that it did not rise to the level of torture. If government officials cannot safely rely on legal advice, they will err on the side of excessive timidity.> And I find more danger in letting administration lawyers provide "cover" for illegal acts by coming to the desired conclusion that these things are not illegal. The reasoning used to justify some of this stuff under the aegis of the "unitary executive" and the like needs to be exposed for what it is and stopped. The law can't be what the president (or his lawyers) decide it is.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It infers that if we do prosecute this admin -somehow that will fix the future - of course it would guarantee zero.> Actually, no. You inferred that, he didn't imply it. His argument is not that if we do prosecute, we guarantee it won't happen again, but rather the opposite: that if we don't prosecute, we guarantee it WILL happen again. That's not the same thing.
