MrMarcus1914 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Democrats May Be Headed to Showdown With Obama Over Bush Probes Email | Print | A A A By James Rowley Feb. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Some Democrats in Congress don’t want to let George W. Bush leave town. They want to continue investigating alleged wrongdoing by former administration officials like Karl Rove just as President Barack Obama is urging them to turn the page. House Judiciary Committee Democrats have a long bill of particulars. They want to force Bush-era officials to testify about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys and alleged politicization of law enforcement. They want to press inquiries into Bush’s program of warrantless wiretaps and into allegations that suspected terrorists were tortured in U.S. custody or turned over to other countries for such mistreatment. Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who leads the Judiciary Committee, has called for a “truth and reconciliation commission” to investigate such Bush administration tactics. So far, Obama hasn’t endorsed the probes. “I’m more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards,” the president said, in telling reporters Feb. 9 that he would examine Leahy’s proposal. “My general orientation is to say, ‘Let’s get it right moving forward.’” The first opportunity for an intraparty clash among Democrats may be over a subpoena of Rove, the man who helped guide Bush’s political fortunes. The House Judiciary Committee wants to ask Rove his possible role in firing U.S. attorneys. No Stonewalling “We are going to finish the investigation we started,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat who heads a judiciary subcommittee on constitutional rights. “The committee can’t allow any administration to just stonewall, run out the clock and say goodbye.” The possibility of criminal prosecutions may spark the type of partisan bickering Obama wants to avoid. Eric Holder, Obama’s new attorney general, assured Republicans at his Senate confirmation hearing that he isn’t planning a wholesale criminal investigation of current or former government officials, though he wouldn’t rule out going after lawbreakers. There won’t be any attempt to “criminalize policy differences” with the Bush administration, he said. Obama, in his first days in office, ordered the closing within a year of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp for suspected terrorists in Cuba and banned U.S. intelligence agencies from using the harshest interrogation techniques. Sept. 11 Responses That isn’t enough for some Democrats who want to probe the Bush administration’s responses to the Sept. 11 attacks that reset the rules for counter-terrorism. Leahy said his proposed truth commission would help get to the bottom of how the previous administration authorized and employed such tactics as waterboarding, the interrogation technique used by the Central Intelligence Agency to simulate drowning. Obama’s Justice Department angered civil liberties groups this month when it sided with the Bush administration and invoked the so-called state-secrets doctrine to try to block a lawsuit accusing a Boeing Co. unit of helping the CIA deliver terrorist suspects to be tortured in foreign countries. Within days, lawmakers proposed legislation to give courts more power to review such secrecy claims. Pressure from human rights groups for a full accounting of the government’s terrorist detention and interrogation programs may sharpen differences between Congress and the president. ‘Confusing Messages’ “There are very confusing messages coming from the Obama administration,” said Margaret Satterthwaite of the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at New York University. The nation is “poised” to learn whether Obama will “account for this abusive program” or “we are going to continue to have stonewalling and silence.” The Rove subpoena will test Obama’s willingness to give Congress the information it seeks. Rove has been ordered to appear Feb. 23 for closed-door questioning by lawyers with the House committee probing the firing of nine U.S. attorneys and allegations that politics prompted the prosecution of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman of Alabama. Siegelman is appealing a 2006 bribery conviction and seven- year prison term for taking a $500,000 campaign contribution from HealthSouth Corp. founder Richard Scrushy in return for a seat on the state’s hospital regulatory board. Executive Privilege Bush invoked executive privilege to bar congressional testimony by Rove and other White House aides about the firings. The Obama administration must now decide whether to side with its predecessor. The subpoena is an opportunity for Holder “to send an early signal of how he intends to handle some of the leftover baggage of the Bush administration,” said Representative Artur Davis, a Democrat from Alabama who is running for governor. “The subpoena raises complicated legal questions” because the administration’s “obligation to protect the institution of the presidency” is “in conflict” with the committee’s “desire to get to the truth,” presidential spokesman Reid Cherlin said in an e-mail. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers of Michigan is one of the Democrats seeking to complete the Bush probes. The congressman also proposed a “blue-ribbon commission” to review Bush’s use of wartime powers to authorize surveillance, detention and interrogation techniques. Not all Democrats in Congress favor continued investigations. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein of California is reserving judgment. Legal Opinions “We’ve got a new CIA director; it is pretty clear there is going to be a major change,” she said in an interview. She said Congress should still get to see the legal opinions of the Bush Justice Department that authorized detention and interrogation policies. “That’s important,” she said. Democrat Charles Schumer of New York, who led the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation of the U.S. attorney firings, said he supports congressional restraint. “There should be a general inclination not to look back” except for “egregious cases,” Schumer said. Some say that while the nation’s economic crisis may be pushing other concerns aside, it doesn’t eliminate the need to uncover past mistakes. “There is room for members of the Senate or the House to do what we are supposed to do, which is oversight,” said Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. Congress “can walk and chew gum.” To contact the reporter on this story: James Rowley at jarowley@bloomberg.net Last Updated: February 16, 2009 00:01 EST Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Trademarks Thoughts: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Yeah, they country has no pressing issues of importance.. let's have a witch hunt while our economy is in shambles and terrorists are out to kill us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Anybody who breaks the law should be prosecuted regardless of their status. This is hardly a controversial statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Soooo.... The democrats didn't impeach over the shredding of the Fourth Amendment (via warrantless wiretaps) because it was an election year, and they remembered what happened to Clinton's popularity during impeachment. But now that they've got their cake comes the eating it, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Anybody who breaks the law should be prosecuted regardless of their status. This is hardly a controversial statement. Sure. But have the nutsack to do it when it's going on, rather than sacrificing MY rights to win an election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Sure. But have the nutsack to do it when it's going on, rather than sacrificing MY rights to win an election. Nutsacks are for war not politics. I'll agree that it shouldn't be that way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Anybody who breaks the law should be prosecuted regardless of their status. This is hardly a controversial statement. It's a stupid game that is never going to end and a waste of tax payer money. I am sure Obama and his staff will do something stupid and the Republians will retaliate when the time is right. I think Obama is doing the right thing, probably because he has the intel to "turn the page". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 truth commission :rotflmao: Beware of any politican or political party who wants the government to have a "truth" commission...or anything with "truth" in front of it (Truth Panel, Truth Hearings, Truth Committee). The idea that you can trust politicians to simply go after the truth is more than a bit naive. Usually it ends up being a commission/committee/panel to declare their version of the "truth". Because, seriously...if a "truth commission" actually took place, does ANYONE really expect the members of the committee to come back and say "Looks like we were wrong...nothing illegal occurred. Nevermind..."? lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Mixed feelings. I suspect that the Bush Administration did do several things that were wrong (illegal) and did so consciously. The question is though will it be more productive to hold your nose or punish? On the one hand, law breakers need to be punished and corruption should not be tolerated. On the other, this will further embitter and deepen the trenchlines between parties and ideologies at a time when working together would be prudent. The incredible division between the parties since the Clinton years needs to end at some point. For that reason, I suggest it's better to let the bad guys get away this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I don't see how they can prosecute Bush without daylighting the activities of so many others on both sides of the aisle. Is it any wonder that you do not see the names of Obama, Reid and Pelosi as being gung ho about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Geez, the next thing you know Congress will be wasting time and money going after Major League baseball too... Oh wait... :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Mixed feelings. I suspect that the Bush Administration did do several things that were wrong (illegal) and did so consciously. The question is though will it be more productive to hold your nose or punish?On the one hand, law breakers need to be punished and corruption should not be tolerated. On the other, this will further embitter and deepen the trenchlines between parties and ideologies at a time when working together would be prudent. The incredible division between the parties since the Clinton years needs to end at some point. For that reason, I suggest it's better to let the bad guys get away this time. Well said. That's twice in one day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Bush isnt a "Jr." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Well said. That's twice in one day. My batting average is so high I'm being investigated by MLB for steroid use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 It is the right thing to do, but a loser politically Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Mixed feelings. I suspect that the Bush Administration did do several things that were wrong (illegal) and did so consciously. The question is though will it be more productive to hold your nose or punish?On the one hand, law breakers need to be punished and corruption should not be tolerated. On the other, this will further embitter and deepen the trenchlines between parties and ideologies at a time when working together would be prudent. The incredible division between the parties since the Clinton years needs to end at some point. For that reason, I suggest it's better to let the bad guys get away this time. I'll agree up to the end. I think the precedent you send is to strong. There should be an investigation dealing specifically with Bush/Cheney/cabinent members. If you have the information to go after them, do so. If you don't, let it go. I don't want to see a lot of time/money wasted, and we end up with a convition of the Assistant to the assistant of somebody in the CIA/Dept. of Justice. The message NEEDS to be sent to the people at the top of the food chain that if blatantly violate the Constitution/Treaties, you will be dealt with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 It's a really hard call, Peter. If found guilty half of America will probably disbelieve the verdict and it will become a bitter partisan rallying cry much the way that half the country says "lying under oath" and the other half decries six years of witchhunts and expanding investigations ending in lying about an affair. I don't like letting the bad guys get away, but there will be huge collateral fallout. In effect, if the Dems decide not to prosecute they are just Ford pardoning Nixon. I think in hindsight Ford probably did the right thing. It is a tough one though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Anybody who breaks the law should be prosecuted regardless of their status. This is hardly a controversial statement. Obama's appointees won't want to hear that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 My batting average is so high I'm being investigated by MLB for steroid use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Interesting. Overall, I am for just letting it go and moving on with the problems we are facing as a country and world. There are much bigger and more important things to take care of. If you go after crimes like this, it ends up taking over the next several years instead of getting things done. However, I do find it funny that we are ALWAYS, and I mean ALWAYS, complaining about corrupt politicians. However, when it comes to dealing with political corruption and breaking the law (myself included) on the highest level we always back off. We don't deal with it. We don't punish people. We just go, "Oh well, lets move on." And then we wonder why politicians think they can get away with it......because, they can. Because we don't care really. We don't have a proper non-political system set up to go after corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I hope they do go after them. Really, I do. Because if they actually DID do something illegal, I want them prosecuted. m pretty confident though that they didnt. And as such, this withchunt will be a disaster for the Dems that support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 It's a really hard call, Peter. If found guilty half of America will probably disbelieve the verdict and it will become a bitter partisan rallying cry much the way that half the country says "lying under oath" and the other half decries six years of witchhunts and expanding investigations ending in lying about an affair.I don't like letting the bad guys get away, but there will be huge collateral fallout. In effect, if the Dems decide not to prosecute they are just Ford pardoning Nixon. I think in hindsight Ford probably did the right thing. It is a tough one though. 1. I think w/ Nixon taking the pardon was essentially an admission of some guilt. 2. I think what Bush has done is different than the Nixon White House because clearly with respect to Nixon, they were acting mostly for their own benefit. They inherently knew they were guilty/wrong. There could be no realistic claim that breaking into the Democratic HQ was for the good of the country. The Bush argument would be it was needed to protect the country as a whole. WE NEED to stand up and say, we don't WANT somebody to protect us if that person is breaking the law in doing so. We ARE NOT children. We understand there is an inherent risk to our form government, and we are willing to take that risk (even though I would argue that Bush could have done things that would have been legal that weren't done to mitigate the risk). Seriously, I think this is an issue people should contact their representatives over. The idea that we the people NEED protection, even if it means violating laws/treaties is a dangerous precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Anybody who breaks the law should be prosecuted regardless of their status. This is hardly a controversial statement. If that were the case there would be a lot less democrats in Congress starting tiwth those that scream the loudest but lucky for them they don't have to obey the laws or acknowledge the rights we do if so Frank and Dodd would be standing next to Madoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 If that were the case there would be a lot less democrats in Congress starting tiwth those that scream the loudest but lucky for them they don't have to obey the laws or acknowledge the rights we do if so Frank and Dodd would be standing next to Madoff Ha-Ha. Amen to that. This won't ever come to pass----the Dems actually coming after Bush for his "perceived" illegal acts. If there is a clear cut case of illegal, Constitution violating activity, of course I'm for it being pursued. I haven't read that this has happened. If someone can document in this post where Bush broke the law I'd love to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Perhaps you guys can send your evidence against Dodd/Frank to Patrick Fitzgerald. I'm guessing tapes of Sean Hannity will be insufficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.