• All I hear from Congress talking heads is that we shouldn't move back in time, shouldn't investigate the past.
    How ridiculous.  All crimes occur in the past; doesn't make them any less of a criminal act. 
    If we don't look back and prosecute the law breakers (an OMG the conservatives and repubes just LOVE to "fight crime" like illegal aliens), then that means it's OK if you don't get caught before a new administration comes in?
    That is not ok.

    January 23, 2009 at 4:16 p.m.

  • You make a good point about our government servants but when the AG lies to both houses of congress (video proof) ,thumbs their nose at congress and ignores a congressional subpoena what are we supposed to expect from the everyday criminal?
    That is why I think lying under oath should always be punished;if not, what benefit do you get for telling the truth?
    If congress passes a law and the president attaches a signing statement saying he does not have to abide by it,then why go to all the expense of having our congress vote on a bill?

    January 19, 2009 at 1:32 p.m.

  • When I became a private detective in 1978 and began investigations into the goverment's enforcement of the law and prosecution of those charged with crime, I learned the truth of what I had always thought.  The government of the U.S. is in reality a huge gang of criminals, utterly the greediest, most power-maddened people we can find.  They are in fact the dregs of our society, and the profligate scum of the earth.  I know because for years, I infiltrated their most secure places, their inner sanctums, and I recorded their doings.  I did my investigations so well that for decades - until 9-11, matter of fact - they did everything they could to destroy me. 
    The odd fact is that while I have never been trouble by the common criminal, government has been the bane of my existence.
    Of course, we have a government of criminals because we tolerate and accept it.  It is only what you would expect that a nation of scofflaws should be governed by scofflaws.  Come on, friend - look around you.  When do we observe, ever, the rule of law? Every, single, time I leave the house, I am almost immediately confronted with someone here in South Texas violating the law.  Stops signs, speed limits, litter, you name it.  To leave the house is to risk your life, literally.  We are the most lawless society imaginable, with the government leading pre-eminently in that aspect. 
    We're about - we've begun, in fact - to pay the price of our criminal nature.  It may, in the final analysis, save "the Nation of Laws." 

    January 19, 2009 at 1:16 p.m.

  • First, I never will never buy the “They did it too” argument because it is perfect fully legal to fire all 100 U.S. attorney generals. Now if Obama fired Fitzgerald while he is investigating a Democrat; that would cause some concern.
    Janet Reno never had a former Governor Don Siegelman sent to prison for political reasons and Alberto Gonzales will go down as our nation’s “yes man” and the worst AG ever. Confirmed by Republicans.How many e-mails were deleted?
    Evidently you buy into if a president does it; then it must be legal. I don’t. If Bush had the goods on the Clinton administration then by all means investigate but the reason he was not given credit…He had a Democratic congress so he knew it was unlikely.Another point July 25, 1997
    A combative Haley Barbour, the former Republican National Committee chairman, denounced what he said were "inaccurate, incomplete" and "outright false claims" that illegal foreign campaign contributions were passed through a party organization that he controlled. [This would have been part of the investigation.]
    I believe in the power of the press because even the NY Times and Washington Post fell for the lies and propaganda in the lead up to the fiasco in Iraq.
    You never mentioned lying to both houses of congress, ignoring a congressional subpoena, or torture violations but I imagine you will take a partisan position and look back eight years but ignore the last eight years….When do punish liars; when you are sure you will have your particular party in power?

    January 19, 2009 at 7:47 a.m.

  • Eight US Attorneys were dismissed in Bush's second term. Bill Clinton dismissed all 93 when he took office. Appointees serve at the discretion of the administrator who puts them in office. End of story.

    In her last three years as Clinton's AG, Janet Reno did a fine imitation of the Sgt Schultz character on Hogan's Heroes ("I see nothing; I hear nothing.")  Scandal after scandal within the Clinton administration went unexamined by its Justice Department. The icing on the cake was a number of highly questionable pardons by Clinton, with quid-quo-pro being suspected, particularly in the Marc Rich case.

    As Republicans took over in 2000, many pressed Bush to investigate former Transportation Secretary Hazel R. O'Leary, former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, various members of trade delegations appointed by Ron Brown, and examine the pardons and illegal foreign contributions to Clinton himself, including from Communist China.

    President Bush said NO. He wanted to move forward, not waste time on political witch hunts. For this decision, Bush received no credit at that time (or now) from Democrats and the media.

    There has been considerable hyperbole about Constitutional issues as the Bush administration strove to protect our homeland.

    In the aftermath of 9/11, the N Y Times went on a tear, demanding to know how this plot could have escaped detection. One of its editorials specifically called upon the government to devise a way to track funding for terrorists. In an act of ultimate hypocrisy, four years later the N Y Times exposed the intel program put in place to do what it had recommended. This involved monitoring money moving through European banks, and it had been very successful until the exposé.  No US citizen's Constitutional rights had been violated. Simply to inflict political damage on Bush, the Times sabotaged a valuable intelligence tool.

    Last fall, plenty of posters at Huffington and Moveon fumed over Obama's 180 on FISA, but a federal court decision on Jan 16 moots any action against Bush administration officials over warrant-less taps of international calls.

    Obama and Congress have more than enough to keep them busy. They would do well to remember the goodwill precedent Bush set, because there is no guarantee the next president after Obama will be a Democrat.

    January 19, 2009 at 2:40 a.m.

  • I hear you and I am not that naive;I know we have tortured in the past but we buried our mistakes and we punished the lower level for water -boarding in Vietnam...The forth amendment issue I am more inclined to rein in but forgive past mistakes.
    I said Bill Clinton should be punished for lying under oath ,so I feel the same way about Alberto Gonzales for lying to both houses of congress and Karl Rowe for ignoring a congressional subpeonea...If it is unenforceable then get rid of it.
    I think Obama will override many of Bush's signing statements with executive orders..That's acceptable.
    Thanks for you input .

    January 18, 2009 at 7:14 p.m.

  • That's probable for the best Mike,

     I watched Rohm Emanuel on cnn the other night, he promised a open administration, every one can see anything, IMO , that is a bad idea, there are some decisions that have to be made without  us citizens input. A decision might be unpopular with some of the electorate but is in the best intrest of the country.

     Complete transperancy is not all ways a good idea.

    January 18, 2009 at 7:01 p.m.