The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Prosecuting the Bush Administration: Now with a Grand Jury!
enlightenedbum
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
TPMMuckraker reports that a Grand Jury is investigating the role of former Senator Pete Domenici and senior White House aides (Rove?) in the firing of former US Attorney David Iglesias.
Article goes to lay out further background and information about the case and who's leading the investigation and other good tidbits. Now this case in particular is being led by a Mukasey appointee so doesn't involve the thorny political issue of the new President of one party prosecuting members of his predecessor's administration. However, a hot topic recently with the confirmation hearings of Attorney General Holder has been torture prosecutions for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Ashcroft, Yoo, Addington, and so on. So I'd like to use this particular case as a jumping off point to discuss the various suspected/admitted crimes of the Bush Administration and what should be done to them criminally.
Your major potential areas of criminal conduct are:
US Attorneys firing scandal and more generally the politicization of the Justice Department.
Torture: both in violation of US code and international law. The former administration basically admits to this one and seems proud of it.
Violations of FISA, aka domestic spying on Americans. Accusations by Russell Tice, an NSA whistleblower, allege that the government monitors all communications, particularly that of journalists.
There may be more, it was an exciting eight years. But I believe those are the three biggies.
So how should the Holder Justice Department handle these cases? Or should President Obama appoint a special prosecutor so that it appears independent from the White House?
Not surprisingly, I'm in favor of thoroughly investigating the past eight years and if (I should say when, we know we tortured people) crimes are uncovered we need to prosecute to the full extent of the law. There are two major reasons for this. 1) Particularly in the case of torture, we need to restore our reputation and not only cease the practice but make clear to the world that we do not condone that behavior. 2) By my count 6 of the previous 7 Presidents have either committed a felony, had high ranking members of their administration commit felonies while they themselves maintained plausible deniability, or pardoned their immediate predecessor or the high ranking members of the preceding administration.
I think we need to symbolically end the two tiered justice system and the best way to do that is to convict former President Bush and Vice President Cheney for their crimes. I would prefer this be done via a Special Prosecutor with full subpoena power, preferably Pat Fitzgerald. Do you agree/disagree? Why? Etc.
A federal grand jury probe of the firings of nine U.S. attorneys during the Bush administration is focusing on the role played by recently retired Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and former senior Bush White House aides in the 2006 dismissal of David Iglesias as U.S. attorney for New Mexico, according to legal sources familiar with the inquiry.
The federal grand jury is investigating whether Domenici and other political figures attempted to improperly press Iglesias to bring a criminal prosecution against New Mexico Democrats just prior to the 2006 congressional midterm elections, according to legal sources close to the investigation and private attorneys representing officials who prosecutors want to question. Investigators appear to be scrutinizing Iglesias' firing in the context of whether he was fired in retaliation because Domenici and others believed that he would not manipulate the timing of prosecutions to help Republicans.
Previously, Domenici was severely criticized by two internal Justice Department watchdog offices, the Department's Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), for refusing to cooperate with their earlier probe of the firings of the U.S. attorneys. In part because of their frustration that Domenici and his chief of staff, Steve Bell, as well as several senior White House officials, would not cooperate with them, the Inspector General and OPR sought that a criminal prosecutor take over their probe. It is unclear whether Domenici will now cooperate with the criminal probe. Domenici's attorney, Lee Blalack, in an interview, declined to say what Domenici will do when he is contacted by investigators.
The focus of the grand jury probe was described by a federal law enforcement official, two witnesses who have been recently been asked to answer questions from investigators, and an attorney representing a former Justice Department official who has been told that investigators want to question his client. People who had been contacted by investigators spoke on the condition that they not be named because they did not want to upset federal law enforcement officials who would question and investigate them and also because they believe that simply being questioned might unfairly tarnish their reputations.
Article goes to lay out further background and information about the case and who's leading the investigation and other good tidbits. Now this case in particular is being led by a Mukasey appointee so doesn't involve the thorny political issue of the new President of one party prosecuting members of his predecessor's administration. However, a hot topic recently with the confirmation hearings of Attorney General Holder has been torture prosecutions for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Ashcroft, Yoo, Addington, and so on. So I'd like to use this particular case as a jumping off point to discuss the various suspected/admitted crimes of the Bush Administration and what should be done to them criminally.
Your major potential areas of criminal conduct are:
US Attorneys firing scandal and more generally the politicization of the Justice Department.
Torture: both in violation of US code and international law. The former administration basically admits to this one and seems proud of it.
Violations of FISA, aka domestic spying on Americans. Accusations by Russell Tice, an NSA whistleblower, allege that the government monitors all communications, particularly that of journalists.
There may be more, it was an exciting eight years. But I believe those are the three biggies.
So how should the Holder Justice Department handle these cases? Or should President Obama appoint a special prosecutor so that it appears independent from the White House?
Not surprisingly, I'm in favor of thoroughly investigating the past eight years and if (I should say when, we know we tortured people) crimes are uncovered we need to prosecute to the full extent of the law. There are two major reasons for this. 1) Particularly in the case of torture, we need to restore our reputation and not only cease the practice but make clear to the world that we do not condone that behavior. 2) By my count 6 of the previous 7 Presidents have either committed a felony, had high ranking members of their administration commit felonies while they themselves maintained plausible deniability, or pardoned their immediate predecessor or the high ranking members of the preceding administration.
(W - torture, FISA violations, possibly knew about the US Attorneys, Clinton - perjury, HW - pardoned Iran-Contra people, Reagan - Iran-Contra, Carter - nothing I know of, good job Jimmy! Ford - pardoned Nixon, Nixon - Watergate)
I think we need to symbolically end the two tiered justice system and the best way to do that is to convict former President Bush and Vice President Cheney for their crimes. I would prefer this be done via a Special Prosecutor with full subpoena power, preferably Pat Fitzgerald. Do you agree/disagree? Why? Etc.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
enlightenedbum on
0
Posts
The best part is, there is absolutely no reason they shouldn't be prosecuted. There isn't a single rational, legal, ethical...I mean, there's just no reason at all. No one on the face of the planet earth could offer a coherent defense for not at least investigating this to its logical end. Anyone who has been paying attention to facts these past 8 years has to agree, because there's really no other conclusion to be drawn.
If Bush and Cheney are not put on trial I will never be proud to call myself an American again. I don't care what this country does in the future. If we let allow a President to illegally torture captives and spy on citizens without a warrant then our system of government has utterly failed. If the President can walk away from crimes that I'd get a life sentence for then there is no reason to ever trust our legal system to work again.
This is a very serious test that I fully expect our government to fail.
I'm reasonably sure Bush had himself insulated quite well from the crimes you speak of, someone along the line will be a fall guy before it ever gets to him. See: Ronald Reagan.
Although I will admit I didn't expect this to happen, either.
He said he knew about and authorized waterboarding in an interview on one of the networks... he wasn't well insulated on the torture front.
Honestly, I think Bush is a True Believer and thinks all he did was right and just and likely gave little to no thought to personal legal consequences.
This is almost definitely true.
I ask this as a businessman, and that's all.
As I understand it, these attorneys were fired because they would not go after illegal immigrants. Now, my question is, their job is to enforce the law. If one of my employees refused to do his/her job, I would fire them. Why is it different in this case?
Again, I'm asking this honestly... there is no sarcasm or anything else intended.
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197970666737/
:^:
Some of them, Iglesias in particular, were fired for not prosecuting Democrats just prior to the 2006 midterms. Because he felt he didn't have a case.
Which, to me, really makes this case amusing.