Should the Justice Department investigate the Bush Administration?

mmarsh

mmarsh

Active member
As some of might know, the new Attorney General is being pressured into investigating, and if necessary, prosecute members of the former Bush Administration for a variety of possible crimes including:

Torture, illegal wiretapping, the politicization of the Justice Department, using the Justice Department for political ends, unethical relations between government and lobbiests, The Iraq War, the 9/11 commission, etc...

Do you think Obama and the Attorney General Eric Holder should investigate possible crimes committed by the previous administration? Or do you think that what happened in the past should stay there?

Your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
As if politics aren't crazy enough! Now the administrations must be concerned that the administrations coming in behind them will prosecute them for the decisions made that are contrary to the "popular belief" of the moment?!

That is such bull! This is why our officials are only allowed a set amount of time in office before being re-elected.

I'm just happy to be alive! LOL
 
AB_Shorts_Momma said:
As if politics aren't crazy enough! Now the administrations must be concerned that the administrations coming in behind them will prosecute them for the decisions made that are contrary to the "popular belief" of the moment?!

That is such bull! This is why our officials are only allowed a set amount of time in office before being re-elected.

I'm just happy to be alive! LOL
Click to expand...
So, do you believe that because politicians are only elected for a set time they should be allowed to be corrupt, break the law and make the country's political system a laughing stock in the eyes of the world, without fear of being caught?

Why didn't the people of the US just wait until Richard Nixon's term was up and let him go? As it was he was never really made to pay for his crimes, his boot lickers had to fall on their swords for him.

No one should be above the law.
 
AB_Shorts_Momma said:
I believe in the justice system, I don't believe in the headhunters that are out to make a name for themselves.

Melody
Click to expand...

I agree. The way it would work would be another "witch hunt".

Although if they were really going after corruption they should. The case is that in looking into the following, there would not be an impartial investigation.
"the politicization of the Justice Department, using the Justice Department for political ends, unethical relations between government and lobbyists."

They would have to be careful not to ensnare any current office holders are employees as that might reflect badly on the current executive branch.

It could help now and in the future to keep the executive branch from overstepping its authority.
 
It could only be a "Witch hunt" if the perpetrators were breaking the law themselves, which would be rather pointless in view of the circumstances as they would then leave themselves open to prosecution. Normal legal procedures would apply to all persons concerned.

To exclude any person or group from legal scrutiny is just plain stupid. Another thing that is as bad, is the Presidential right to Veto. It should be removed as it negates the democratic rights of the citizens.
 
It's the way the checks and balances work... Let's say (hypothetically) that medical science found a cure for cancer, but to fund the production, we have to raise taxes, and everyone is for it. I mean, it's cancer for crying out loud! Well, the President decides that he's going to stick to his word about NOT raising taxes and vetoes the bill. If there is a 2/3 majority in Congress, it doesn't matter if he wants to or doesn't want to sign it... He MUST pass the bill.



All slightly off topic. Quite frankly, I think they should investigate this presidency just like they investigate any other presidency. Simple as that... Just like Watergate, and Monica Lewinski, etc.
 
AB_Shorts_Momma said:
As if politics aren't crazy enough! Now the administrations must be concerned that the administrations coming in behind them will prosecute them for the decisions made that are contrary to the "popular belief" of the moment?!

That is such bull! This is why our officials are only allowed a set amount of time in office before being re-elected.

I'm just happy to be alive! LOL
Click to expand...

The problem the way I see it, is if politicians start thinking they can can get away with breaking the law without any sense of fear, then their successors will be encouraged to keep doing so and to take it further.
If Obama doesn't investigate (and if necessary prosecute) certain members of the Bush team it will set a terrible precedent for the country.

The Don Seagleman case in Alabama for example really has me steamed, as does the firing of the 9 US attorneys. Here we have a clear cut example of the politicization of the justice system. Not only are both cases TOTALLY illegal and immoral, I happen to view that as treason as it is a direct attack on American Constitution. Rove, Gonzales, and Goodling should all hang for it. Its far worse than what Nixon did. We dont want a Justice system like that run by Nazi Judge Roland Freisler.
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
As some of might know, the new Attorney General is being pressured into investigating, and if necessary, prosecute members of the former Bush Administration for a variety of possible crimes including:

Torture, illegal wiretapping, the politicization of the Justice Department, using the Justice Department for political ends, unethical relations between government and lobbiests, The Iraq War, the 9/11 commission, etc...

Do you think Obama and the Attorney General Eric Holder should investigate possible crimes committed by the previous administration? Or do you think that what happened in the past should stay there?

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

My first question is who is pressuring the Attorney General?
It is not his boss President Obama. He could just tell him to do it.
If it is Senators and Congressmen what kind of investigation would they except into unethical relations with lobbyist? Only into past practises or would they be open to where ever the investigation led?

How about into the Iraq War and torture. Would the investigation only be about Rumsfeld. You should remember who the current Secretary of Defense (Gates) is, he was part of the Bush administration.

What about the Justice Department. With the exception of a few Obama and or Holder Appointees these are career employees not politicians. How good a job are they going to do investigating themselves? Having the justice department investigating itself does not sound realistic.

This is what makes it a "Witch Hunt" and pretty much politics as usual.
But if it would help President Obama avoid making bad decisions and breaking the law then go for it.
 
hmmm, tough subject, lemme ask you this...while we all question peoples authority, why arent we questioning our own? we all know politicians are 2 faced, its up to us to "elect" the lesser of 2 evils...(and yes, politics are evil) but when we do elect them, are we suppose to believe that they are god's given children to save us from the corrupt and naughty people??? try this experiment out....put a mirror up and have a politician look at it...wait a few seconds and then have an college grad look in it....wait a few seconds and then have an everyday joe w/a highschool deploma look at the mirror....what do all these people have in common?? answer, there all human...and all humans(who have a brain) know that temptation will always win, no matter how small the subject is. why is it so shocking that any administration has done something "corrupt" or "unsat" to the common people?? basic answer, "they are leaders they should know better..." yes our leaders should know better, but with all that power at there fingure tips, for someone to say look the other way and ill give you this in return...i'd think about it, wouldnt you? wouldnt they? lastly, i think its all hype anyways, Obama isn't god. he already has to much stuff to deal with right now anyways, he's to busy thinking of now and the future of the country, not so much what people messed up on or what people did prior to his presidency...should we look into it...yes, but only when the time is right...thats my two cents...:peace:
 
Chukpike said:
My first question is who is pressuring the Attorney General?
It is not his boss President Obama. He could just tell him to do it.
If it is Senators and Congressmen what kind of investigation would they except into unethical relations with lobbyist? Only into past practises or would they be open to where ever the investigation led?

How about into the Iraq War and torture. Would the investigation only be about Rumsfeld. You should remember who the current Secretary of Defense (Gates) is, he was part of the Bush administration.

What about the Justice Department. With the exception of a few Obama and or Holder Appointees these are career employees not politicians. How good a job are they going to do investigating themselves? Having the justice department investigating itself does not sound realistic.

This is what makes it a "Witch Hunt" and pretty much politics as usual.
But if it would help President Obama avoid making bad decisions and breaking the law then go for it.
Click to expand...

1. I think Obama is yet undecided, or if he has decided he's keeping it secret. Judging from his speeches he seems to favor investigations to a degree, but perhaps not widespread. If there are investigations it will target his aides, not Bush himself. Most of the pressure is coming from Democrats, but some independents as well. These including Certain newspapers, some members of Congress. The pressure seems to be building with this new subpoena of Karl Rove. I know Conyers would love to see Rove, Miers, and Gonzalas roast.

2. Iraq and Rumsfeld is on the table as well, particularly the reasons that lead up to the Iraq war. A senior member of the UN stated last week he has enough evidence to indict Rumsfeld for warcrimes, if the Hague indicts Rumsfeld Obama might have to force his hand...and it wont be in protecting Rumsfeld.

Robert Gates is problably in the clear as he arrivied only 2 years ago after most of the allegations took place. Furthermore he has been known to be much more moderate than Rumsfeld in his running of the DOD.

3. Justice is probably going to get the biggest review. The career officers that were there before Bush will not be touched. Those that were illegally forced out by Goodling might possibly be reinstated or compensated for their illegal termination. The Bush political appointees will not be fired (as Goodling did with the Democrats) but they are probabaly not going to be made very welcome. Either they will have to start working in a equal bipartisan way, or they will be encouraged to work elsewhere. (I heard this on talk radio this morning).

The Heads of Justice like Gonzalas, Goodling, Miers and other people like Karl Rove are in for a tough time. Goodling has already admitted her guilt under oath, and is facing additional charges not covered by her immunity. A indictment against Rove is immenient unless he starts to cooperate immediately (and Conyers is about out of patience). Gonzalas and Miers are also under Senate Subpoena and will be dealt with the moment they are done with Rove. I doubt Ashcroft will be targeted as he actually attempted to stop the illegal wireless tap program.


Mayser

The problem of doing it later is that evidence disappears, people die, people forget, the case gets harder to investigate as time goes on. If your going to do it, its best to do it now. Besides, from a political view its probably better to do it now as well. I don't think Obama wants to be living in the Bush shadow forever. His actions to date seem to suggest he wants to flush the Bush Era down the toilet as quickly as possible and move on.
 
Last edited:
Mayser

I don't see it as a tough question. For a start selecting, the lesser of two evils is one thing, but performing a criminal act just to get your own way is completely different.

As for being human, it can similarly be argued that the all of worlds criminals are human, but never the less they have to pay the price for their criminality.

And lastly the fact that the President is a busy man, is no reason to ignore criminal acts.

If it's good enough for politicians to break the law, why should anyone else be prosecuted. The fact that they are elected to positions of great responsibility and public trust only makes their criminality worse.

I don't know about in the USA, but in Australia, "Theft as an employee" e.g. Embezzlement, attracts a greater sentence than otherwise, and it should be so with politicians.
 
Last edited:
and i totally agree with you seno, i dont believe criminal acts from anyone should go unpunished...im a strong believer in crime and punishment...as its always said, no one is above the law. what makes this difficult is the fact that these people arent as dumb as we hope they are....they've done there homework and know how to watch their 6, but when they do screw up and many have, its hard to go in and gather all the evidence we need for a conviction...im not saying president Obama should ignore these criminal acts done by the prior administration, im just saying,with load of things to accomplish, esspecially for his first 100 days, figuring out who did what and ect., shouldnt be on the presidents list of things to do, yes the justice department should investigate, no the president doesnt need to eyeball the investigation, we dont call them(Justice Department) experts for nothing...
 
Mayser said:
and i totally agree with you seno, i dont believe criminal acts from anyone should go unpunished...im a strong believer in crime and punishment...as its always said, no one is above the law. what makes this difficult is the fact that these people arent as dumb as we hope they are....they've done there homework and know how to watch their 6, but when they do screw up and many have, its hard to go in and gather all the evidence we need for a conviction...im not saying president Obama should ignore these criminal acts done by the prior administration, im just saying,with load of things to accomplish, esspecially for his first 100 days, figuring out who did what and ect., shouldnt be on the presidents list of things to do, yes the justice department should investigate, no the president doesnt need to eyeball the investigation, we dont call them(Justice Department) experts for nothing...
Click to expand...
The only thing different to a normal criminal investigation is that many (all) of the defendants will use their positions of power to call in old debts, and hire the very best lawyers. This will make any case very expensive to prosecute. I have no doubt that many will also put pressure on their contacts to perjure themselves, and perhaps take a minor fall for the Party. This is usually the way these things run.
 
So under this logic we should charge Clinton for selling US Missile Secrets to China, not going after Osama Bin Laden when Sudan handed him over on the Silver Platter.... what about going after FDR for failing to prevent Pearl Harbor and getting us involved in WWII. The US Military cracked the Japanses "Code Purple". We knew what they were up too..... or maybe Wilson for knowing through British Intelligence that German Uboats were operating in the North Atlantic, targeting US Shipping, and smuggling US made Arms to the UK on the RMS Lusitania.

No.... Bush screwed up in some area.... He was not perfect. But he sure as hell hasn't done what some other Presidents have done....

Eirc Holder was the Deputy AG under Janet Reno..... he was responsible for Waco... also for letting the 16 members of the Boricua Popular Army (Terrorist Group) free.... Boricua Popular Army had connection to Victor Manuel Gerena, a co-conspirator and one of the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, or the millions of dollars stolen by the group in a 1983 robbery of Wells Fargo in West Hartford, Connecticut.

One condition of their release was that they did not in anyway need to give any information about Victor Manuel Gerena.

He was also in charge of the forced deportation of Elian Gonzalez..... what people don't know is that during the Cold War a similar situation happened with a Soviet Child.... he wanted to stay just as Elian Gonzalez did. Guess what.... the kid stayed in the USA.


Inselian.jpg


Eric Holder is for heavily armed storm troopers tearing kids away from their families at gun point....

He's for his Gestopo having Armor and Machine Guns for self defense from unarmed citizens. But he's also for citizen being screwed and not being able to own any firearm what so ever.
 
Last edited:
Nobody has excused the other Presidents as far as I can see. However some of the things you have outlined may seem unforgivable, but they were not defined criminal acts.

Anyone suspected of criminal activities or criminal misuse of power, should be investigated, just as you or I would be.
 
5.56X45mm said:
So under this logic we should charge Clinton for selling US Missile Secrets to China, not going after Osama Bin Laden when Sudan handed him over on the Silver Platter.... what about going after FDR for failing to prevent Pearl Harbor and getting us involved in WWII. The US Military cracked the Japanses "Code Purple". We knew what they were up too..... or maybe Wilson for knowing through British Intelligence that German Uboats were operating in the North Atlantic, targeting US Shipping, and smuggling US made Arms to the UK on the RMS Lusitania
Click to expand...

From what I have heard and read, it was Admiral King, being very anti British refused to pass on or act on intelligence from the Royal Navy regarding U boats operating off the US coast, costing hundreds, if not thousands of US merchant seamen's lives.

As for the attack on Pearl Harbour, I must admit I am a tiny bit suspicious as the Japanese codes had already been broken.
 
5.56X45mm said:
So under this logic we should charge Clinton for selling US Missile Secrets to China, not going after Osama Bin Laden when Sudan handed him over on the Silver Platter.... what about going after FDR for failing to prevent Pearl Harbor and getting us involved in WWII. The US Military cracked the Japanses "Code Purple". We knew what they were up too..... or maybe Wilson for knowing through British Intelligence that German Uboats were operating in the North Atlantic, targeting US Shipping, and smuggling US made Arms to the UK on the RMS Lusitania.

No.... Bush screwed up in some area.... He was not perfect. But he sure as hell hasn't done what some other Presidents have done....

Eirc Holder was the Deputy AG under Janet Reno..... he was responsible for Waco... also for letting the 16 members of the Boricua Popular Army (Terrorist Group) free.... Boricua Popular Army had connection to Victor Manuel Gerena, a co-conspirator and one of the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, or the millions of dollars stolen by the group in a 1983 robbery of Wells Fargo in West Hartford, Connecticut.

One condition of their release was that they did not in anyway need to give any information about Victor Manuel Gerena.

He was also in charge of the forced deportation of Elian Gonzalez..... what people don't know is that during the Cold War a similar situation happened with a Soviet Child.... he wanted to stay just as Elian Gonzalez did. Guess what.... the kid stayed in the USA.


Inselian.jpg


Eric Holder is for heavily armed storm troopers tearing kids away from their families at gun point....

He's for his Gestopo having Armor and Machine Guns for self defense from unarmed citizens. But he's also for citizen being screwed and not being able to own any firearm what so ever.
Click to expand...
---------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, you make alot of allegations there. I wonder why if was as bad as you claim why he was never prosecuted? He was prosecuted for getting a BJ, I might remind you. Do you really think Bush didn't prosecute Clinton because they liked him so much? Or perhaps it was a much easier explaination, like the fact there was a shred of evidence to support all the wild allegations you just made

Go ahead and get someone to try and prosecute Clinton if you can back your wild claims with physical evidence, but I will remind you it was already tried by professional attorneys and they failed.
 
The original topic of Should the Justice Department Investigate the Bush Administration seems to have been lost in a rush to judgement.

First if President Obama decides to have the Justice Department investigate, then they will investigate to find out if any laws have been broken. (They probably would have too, otherwise it would be deemed a cover-up. Cover up would not necessarily be a bad thing as it could stimulate long term conspiracy theories for years to come.)

Until the investigations happen and charges are brought we will not know who did what. Then only after the charges are brought and convictions are won will we maybe know what went on.

Currently we will have to wait until President Obama gets his Justice Department appointees in place.

The current Obama nominee for the Justice Department of Legal Policy Mark Gitenstein would need some type of waiver from the White House since he violates the White House's own ethics rules. The White house policy bars "anyone who has registered to lobby in the last two years from working in a related area of the administration".

Mr. Gitenstein has been a Lobbyist for the US Chamber of Commerce from 2000 to 2008 and has also worked as counsel to the chamber's Institute for Legal Reform that has pushed for changes in ligation rules and adding business-friendly judges to state courts. LA Times story 2/5/2009

This would be the man who would be deeply involved with any investigation. So until President gets his appointees in place there will be no investigation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top