« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Conyers Wants Criminal Probe Of Bush Officials' Wrongdoing
Over the weekend, President-Elect Obama said we should "look forward as opposed to looking backwards" on the question of prosecuting Bush administration officials for torture, illegal wiretapping, and other possible crimes committed in the name of national security.
But yesterday, the House Judiciary committee got behind a very different approach, releasing a nearly 500-page report that recommends establishing a blue-ribbon commission -- along the lines of the 9/11 commission, but with subpoena power -- to investigate whether crimes were committed. (Last week, as we reported over at Election Central, Judiciary chair John Conyers and nine other lawmakers introduced a bill to set up such a commission.)
The report also advocates an investigation by the Justice Department, potentially involving a special prosecutor. And in addition to focusing on issues of torture, wiretapping, and the like, the report also recommends continuing to probe matters like the leaking of the name of former CIA agent Valerie Plame, and the US Attorney firings.
It'll be interesting to see how Democrats will reconcile Conyers' aggressive stance, which seems to enjoy broad support among the party's base, with Obama's more cautious approach.













Of all these options, which ones can lead to the arrest, conviction, and imprisonment of these dirtbags? If a special prosecutor were appointed, would we gain anything additional from having this commission? I'm not interested in whether John Conyers gets more C-SPAN time. What's important is bringing Bush Administration officials to justice.
January 14, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
The more these details surface and the louder the pardon clamor gets (I like how Obama is playing it cool, btw), the more I think the Nixonians in W's administration have figured out a way for Bush to pardon himself (after pardoning everyone else). There has to be an ace in the hole here. The mitigating scenario is that pardons would tarnish the legacy that they are so confident will be present for future generations, but in reality that may not be as big a deal as I think.
January 14, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what is equally as important is investigating how many voters ACORN manufactured in this election. I'd be willing to bet enough to put McCain in the White House.
Sorry John Conyers instead of hauling President Bush before your irrelevant committee because he urinated on you albeit it not enough, why don't you go after a Deomcratic partisan group.
January 15, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't get your hopes up, folks.
January 14, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
This stuff only mattered back when we were able to prosecute and punish people in high places.
Now that this option no longer exists, it is a waste of time and energy pining for the past. Sometimes it IS too late. "WE The Voters" took too long to decide we needed to clean house and kept voting BOTH MOBS into office long enough we no longer have the ability to choose folks who will actually represent US.
It is now all about the scoundrels choosing their OWN scoundrels, rather than the other teams scoundrels. The common folk are no longer involved in the equation... IMHO
January 14, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's never too late to do the right thing. Even if we can't get them for past deeds, we can stop them from future ones, by clearly identifying them to be the crooks they are.
January 14, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
FYI: Bush can be impeached even after he leaves office.
January 14, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I voted for PE Obama hoping against hope he would see that the only way for this nation to heal and restore foreign respect is to bring these criminals to justice. But he has now plainly demonstrated that he is just another piece-of-shit. I voted for him over Clinton because Obama promised to restore law and she promised business as usual. How stupid am I; this is what a Madoff investor feels like. I completely reject the the argument that it is too embarrassing to the presidency to bring a president to trial. You are not trying the Presidency (office of) you are trying the man who abused it. By not trying the man, you spit and shit on the Office of the Presidency and the Constitution. This puts Obama in the very same category as Bush. Okay, you can kiss out great nation good-bye. As a veteran, it saddens me and these political criminals are no better than the Mafios, just better organized.
January 14, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not necessarily Obama's job to clean up the mess his predecessor made. His job, in less than a week, is to be the President of the United States. The head of 1 of 3 branches of government.
Congress' job -- then, now and when Obama is the POTUS -- is to police the POTUS, tell him what laws to enforce and make sure, through oversight, that the POTUS and all those who serve in the Executive Branch follow the law. Another job it has, IMHO, is to not make laws that allow the POTUS to hide what it's doing from Congress, the Courts or the "American people."
Obama's got a new hat to wear. It's unlikely, without Congressional investigations which produce actual evidence, that Obama's DOJ will do much other than stop the bad practices going forward. Obama, as POTUS, wants to look forward. While admirable, this only puts the problem off to the next POTUS who, like Cheney / Bush, don't take so kindly to the rule of law.
Congress, however, has that same hat it's always had and which it has allowed to grow moldy in the closet for the past 8 years. It can choose to ensure that the law is the law and is upheld and followed. It's time for Congressional leaders to do their jobs. Once the "facts" come out - and a judge just yesterday order the Bush administration to turn over certain documents to the Obama administration rather than the Archives - the snowball, if one is created, will take care of itself.
January 14, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Congress' job -- then, now and when Obama is the POTUS -- is to police the POTUS, tell him what laws to enforce..."
Is it to much to ask that ALL laws be enforced?
If there are 'bad' laws, or laws that can be ignored by any segment of society, especially the lawmakers, repeal them.
January 14, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Conyers Wants Criminal Probe Of Bush Officials' Wrongdoing"
Yeah,well the people in hell want Ice Cold Bud Light too!
My mother always told me to "wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills first".
Who do you think will get their wish fulfilled first??
Windancer
January 14, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that it's critical to publicly air the facts, many of which are widely acknowledged, and seek criminal prosecution if laws were broken by members of the Bush administration. I think it would send a clear signal to other nations that the United States is a nation of laws (really!), but this is an important domestic lesson as well. A young person growing up in this era would not be wrong to conclude that the truth doesn't matter and that one should lie, cheat, and steal to gain financial (or other) advantage. We can't expect people to follow the law if our elected officials don't follow the law. It's that simple. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant," as Louis Brandeis wrote. It is time to let the sun shine in.
January 14, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
A "commission" is where the truth goes to die....there will be nothing but a lot of double talk and speeches about high ideals....unless "we" force the issues...keep writing and phoning...!
January 14, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Consumetheconsumer, I agree to the extent that Congress has the oversight responsibility over the Executive Branch. Remember, the only reason for the existence of the "Executive" Branch is to "execute" the laws enacted by Congress (not forgetting the Prez's signature). If you bother to read Article 2 of the Constitution, you will find that the President has NO POWERS outside that given to him (hopefully someday, her) by Congress and tons of by advise and council of the Senate. However, if anyone bothers to read history, it is the conduct of past presidents that set precedents for future behavior. Such as, the peace transfer of power which was given us by President G. Washington along with dozens of other behavior that has shape the presidency away for that of a monarchy/dictator. Now we just had a President, namely G.W. Bush, who publicly expressed the desire to be a Dictator, and, with Chaney, et al.'s help and enthusiastic aide from Fox News, unsuccessfully attempted a coupe to overturn the US Constitution. For this high-treason, they all should, including, Bush, Chaney, Rice, Gonzoles, etc and not forgetting Linbaugh, Hannity, O'Riley, etc., (I would include Murdock, but he is not American and has no obligation to the US-which is why he should not own any American news organization. Could you imagine a Soviet national owning CBS in 1980)
In any case, Congress needs to insist that the President obey the law or impeach him (Shame on that traitor Nancy Pelosi for taking impeachment of the table. The only thing I can think of as why is she is a knowing participant in the Bush Administration's ongoing criminal operation.
Along with Congress, the new President has a duty to the Constitution and the People of the United States to say that it is unacceptable to wage aggressive war, loot the treasury, torture, violate the Bill of Right (and Bush has violated every one of them), and the countless other crimes committed and THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES! By the way, didn't Bush, in 2000, run on restoring dignity to Oval Office and personal responsibility? It is time for him to make good on at least the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY part. Bush has already irrevocably soiled the Oval Office. PE Obama's first order of business it to clean it up!
January 14, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, add WAR PROFITEERING to the list
January 14, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Justice doesn't belong to the President, nor even to Congress. Justice belongs to the people. One of the biggest problems confronting our government today is an almost total lack of respect for and confidence in our political leaders. Failure to pursue justice in the face of such obvious crimes as these only exacerbates our distrust of politicians, giving the us, the people, the perception that there are two classes of justice--one for regular people, and one for politicians which amounts to nothing more than quid pro quo justice.
January 14, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, a commission. We can put Lee Hamilton in as Chair and watch what he DOESN'T investigate.
As to the Plame case, in my opinion, Fitzgerald covered up the Cheney/Rove connection, settling for Libby.
Why did Fitzgerald allow Rove to return to the Grand Jury 5 times to adjust his testimony?
I'm not as enamoured with Fitzgerald as many others seem to be.
January 14, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree, and I can't understand why it happened. Do you think he is corrupt? Or that he was threatened in such a way that he couldn't do the right thing? He seems like such a straight arrow, but I agree with you that he let Cheney, Rove, and possibly even Bush off. I also think he handled the Blagojavech presser so ineptly (inflammatory statements, subjective opinions, etc) that it may make his prosecution impossible. Why would this careful, knowledgeable, prosecutor do this?
January 14, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
CVille,
I think he's corrupt as far as paritsanship is concerned vis a vis his allowing Bush/Cheney/Rove to escape the Plame fiasco.
Ollie North fell on his sword for Reagan; Libby, with the help of Fitzgerald, fell on his sword for Bush/Cheney.
January 15, 2009 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ollie's sword was not that sharp or painful. He completely got off and now has a luractive job selling security things; writes books that the far-right loonies eat up; and is a regular "expert" on Fox News.
Tell me how that was "falling on a sword."
January 15, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink