Should Obama approve Investigation?

http://www.dailykos.com/

Well it appears there is a growing interest in forming some sort of inquiry commission concerning the alleged crimes committed by high level officials in the Bush Administration.

There is also some opposition amongst Democrats because they dont want to appear "vindictive", as well as the possibility some Dems were briefed on what was going on and took no meaningful steps to stop it.

So does anyone think they should go ahead with this inquiry?

Does anyone think they will?

If Obama doesn't approve an investigation, then I think that Jay Rockefeller should spend the next four years looking for a trigger to impeach Obama.

So does anyone think they should go ahead with this inquiry?

Yes, I would say that you do.

If Obama truly wants change and wants to reach out to Republicans then he knows that Jay's Senate Intelligence Committee was briefed on and had access to all intelligence the White House had access too, he knows democrats have a tremendous amount of liability in all the decisions made and any inquiry will do nothing but alienate Republicans, increase the animosity currently in Washington and bog down Congress for the next 4 years.

Sure, I think they should go ahead with the investigation.

Well there is speculation that Pres. Bush might just issue a blanket pardon for everyone involved anyway.

So we will see.

I'm not suprised that all the goodwill generated after the election will be long gone before January considering we're not even two weeks from it and there are those calling for criminal investigations of the current adminstration.

Let's all band together as men and women of good will and throw our political enemies into prison as we've been threatening lo these last eight years.

Why don't we apply the same logic that proponents of the so-called Patriot act have parroted in the past, 'If you don't have anything to hide, then why are you afraid if we examine your documents?'

That should be done to any president, regardless of party affiliation.

Bush claimed that his administration couldn't be held accountable, that the rules simply didn't apply (after 9/11), and that the executive branch wasn't liable.

Blanket pardons would be tantamount to admitting that maybe the Administration wasn't so sure about their legal standing.

Before you say another word, I took Clinton to task for the appalling number of pardons he passed out when he left office.

Every administration should be investigated? Fine. I have no problem with that.

Blanket pardons are not acceptable either.

Bush claimed what? Where does that come from?

I believe Nixon was the first to claim blanket authority for the Exec.

I believe his quote was, "If the President does it, it's legal."

There is one position that it would be best if there was a blanket pardon before any investigation.

That way there would be no claim that it was vindictive in nature.

Just an attempt to find out what all happened in our name.

I am not sure what I think about it.

For my part it should have been done years ago while the trail was still hot.

And to do it now will no doubt create a lot of resentment amongst the diehard republicans.

(many of whom still claim Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11, even after Pres. Bush and VP Cheney admitted that was just a lie.)

Bush has claimed executive privilege on:

1) the misuse of government agencies
2) the firing of US attorneys
3) the facts justifying the Iraq "war"
4) covering up the truth about Pat Tillman's death
5) the Valerie Plame case
6) the political prosecution of former Governor Donald Siegelman

This isn't my take on it, nor is it Paul Abrams' (where you can find these examples listed [linky clicky]),
these are actual instances where Bush did claim "executive privilege"

Remember United States v. Nixon ? Executive Privilege does not extend to withholding information related to criminal activity.

I believe that every president needs to be held accountable for their actions while in office.

Congressional members including many ranking democrats had access to the same information Bush had. If an investigation is launched and it is shown they were derelict in their duty are you guys willing to see them prosecuted as well?

Congressional members including many ranking democrats had access to the same information Bush had. If an investigation is launched and it is shown they were derelict in their duty are you guys willing to see them prosecuted as well?

Absolutely. Why do you assume I would be against it? Not too many independents in either part of congress. I have no loyalty to either of the big two.

One of their jobs is to provide a check to presidential excesses.

Anyone complicit in defrauding the public should be hamstrung, democrat or republican or third party.

Well Aaron you have made that claim at least a dozen times.

Do you really think that someone briefing members of Congress (including the opposite political party) would tell them stuff that involved violations of criminal law?

That would be kinda dumb, dont you think?

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/11/sands-moyers/

I didn't read your link Sherm because it's a partisan piece of crap blog.

Those briefing Congress are not political. They are professional members of our national security organizations and yes, they tell Congress EVERYTHING. Not only do they tell them everything, they provide all the information in which the used to come to their conclusions so if someone in Congress disagrees with their assessment, they are free to counter it using the same information.

The CIA, FBI, NSA and other organizations are not political parties that serve at the whim of a President. They are career professionals that serve to protect this country.

Thank god.

You didn't answer the question. If any member of Congress is found to be derelict in their duty are you willing to see them prosecuted as well, regardless of party affiliation?

Hadley was particularly concerned that the public might learn of a classified one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, specifically written for Bush in October 2002. The summary said that although "most agencies judge" that the aluminum tubes were "related to a uranium enrichment effort," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department's intelligence branch "believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons."

link

Just sayin'...

If congress had the same info as Bush, every one of them should also be tried.

I didn't read your link Sherm because it's a partisan piece of crap blog.

Translation: "I won't read notin' that don't confirm my existing prejudices".

I've read a link to the same cite earlier Frank thus I didn't need to read it again. Unlike you, I do consider all sides.

And I don't need to ask you the same question I ask Sherman. Based on your PH'ness, I know the answer.

Executive privilege is a concept based on the belief that the executive, judiciary, and legislative are equal and none has the authority to compel the others to do anything beyond what is required in the Constitution. Your post said that “Bush claimed that his administration couldn't be held accountable, that the rules simply didn't apply (after 9/11), and that the executive branch wasn't liable.” A claim of executive privilege says something more like, “I don’t have to tell you.” That’s deceptive. I spent a few minutes trying to verify your list which is somewhat nebulous in a few spots.

George Washington refused to turn over documents relating to the Jay Treaty since the request came from the House of Representatives and the Senate had the authority to approve treaties. Truman issued a broad order rebuffing efforts by the Congress seeking documents relative to the Alger Hiss case. It was Eisenhower who coined the term “executive privilege” to rebuff the McCarthy committee. But you are correct that Nixon was the first to actually test the concept at the Supreme Court. Clinton was the next and last to invoke it.

Bush has used it too often but I do not agree that every case you cite is an egregious abuse of power. Siegelman is. That alone is troubling enough. If you want to investigate the Siegelman case, I’d agree. Bush had every authority to cashier nine federal attorneys.

I’m quick to take a partisan stand, I’ll admit. The Republican Party has abandoned me, abused my trust, and done everything possible to alienate me. But I’ll be goddamned if I’ll hop in and cheer on the bipartisan spirit so I can keep my mouth shut when the other side forgets bipartisanship. You’d argue with a free lunch. Paul Abrams? Let him come here and make his own arguments. I’m sure they’ll find more favor at the Huffington Post.

I’m quick to take a partisan stand, I’ll admit. The Republican Party has abandoned me, abused my trust, and done everything possible to alienate me. But I’ll be goddamned if I’ll hop in and cheer on the bipartisan spirit so I can keep my mouth shut when the other side forgets bipartisanship. You’d argue with a free lunch. Paul Abrams? Let him come here and make his own arguments. I’m sure they’ll find more favor at the Huffington Post.

Shoot the messenger much? You would discount anything that comes through the Post.

Fine. Just never use NRO or FreeRepublic as a reference.

A claim of executive privilege says something more like, “I don’t have to tell you.” That’s deceptive.

Wait, I'm being deceptive?

Didn't Bush swear an oath to uphold the COTUS? Using executive privilege to cover up the fact that he has betrayed his oath sounds like he thinks he can't be held accountable.

Don't get me wrong, Congress let him get away with it.

Yes, presidents give pardons. Wasn't everyone in the "Whiskey Rebellion" pardoned? Not every president, however, takes us into an unjustified war and lies to us to get there.

Paul Abrams is a biomechanical attorney. I don't care what he thinks about constitutional issues. Chill. You want to catch up on the gossip at the Huffington Post, have at it.

Maybe Boosh should be investigated. If he has done something criminal even the Berger Court didn't accept executive privilege as way out of criminal charges.

I have a problem with the guy who asks for a bipartisan spirit to sit here and speculate about persecuting his political enemies.

I have a problem with the guy who asks for a bipartisan spirit to sit here and speculate about persecuting his political enemies.

Did I single him out? I said EVERY president's actions when leaving office deserve to be scrutinized in greater detail.

You missed the part where I said that Clinton's pardons should have been examined in more detail.

BTW, I rarely read the Post. I just love it when GOP partisans go rabid over someone that was a former prominent GOPer.

Oops. I may have been hasty in my response.

Were you referring to Abrams or me?

Neither, Terry. I think he was referring to Sodbuster.

Neither, Terry. I think he was referring to Sodbuster.

Oh, well, I have no argument.

I have no beef with sherm, but we are rarely on the same side of an issue.