Nothing can be done until the obstructing criminals are out of office except to jot down their respective heights and weights in order to design a proper scaffold that will dispatch them in a humane manner. I think we can all agree that we can do better than the Saddam fiasco.
Notes to scaffold designers and event planners:
1. A proper noose has 13 turns in the knot.
2. The rose garden would be an excellent location.
3. Remote control electronic trap-door hardware is now available for simultaneous openings.
4. Political science majors should be encouraged to attend.
one thing i have yet to hear from the candidates is what they intend to do about the bush administration's criminality. are the criminals allowed to just wander off to their corporate boards, think tanks, and vacation home, or does accountability still exist, in this country?
Posted by Turkana at January 30, 2008 10:20 AMWell, is the concept of "accountability" still something that a majority of BushAmericans desire? I don't see it, at all.
They don't want impeachment, apparently, no matter how many laws are basically admitted to have been intentionally broken.
They don't care why we actually invaded Iraq or the lies used to do it. They can't be made to care about "telecom" (i.e. executive) immunity for warrantless spying. And they don't seem to care very much about the politicization of the DOJ.
We are a deeply degenerate nation.
So it would be imprudent, I guess, for a Dem candidate to say what they'd do about Bushco's crimes. But I know what Hillary's husband DIDN'T DO about Iran-Contra when he came into office---perhaps she'll ask Bill what to do about the felons of Bushco.
Oh, and Obama is a law professor. And an expert in constitutional law. That gives me a hint.
Posted by euzoius at January 30, 2008 10:46 AMobama's been no more clear about accountability than has hillary. as for the american people- it's hard to judge their support, since it's rarely polled. but it does get fairly strong support (particularly impeachment of cheney), when it is polled- and that despite absolutely no discussion of it from democrats or the pundits.
Posted by Turkana at January 30, 2008 11:04 AMAnd an expert in constitutional law.
Yeah, well, so's Ann Coulter, huh? I'm not saying they're peas in a pod, but wasn't it Obama who diaried on dKos a while back saying that though Bushco had done questionable things, it doesn't mean they should be impeached? And hasn't he said he wants the inter-party bickering to end? I'm just saying, we haven't gotten any answer on this very good question from either of them, and if you're going to use their past behavior as a guide, neither of them seem likely to pursue charges once they're in office.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 30, 2008 11:04 AMI will never forgive Schumer and Feinstein for their votes for Mukasey.
Posted by via at January 30, 2008 11:13 AMand just who helped his nomination Chuck and Dianne????? If I remember correctly, there were six Democratic senators who broke with the Party to help ensured Mukasey's place in history. It's those Democrats who vote with the GOP that must be sent on a permanent vacation.
Posted by Judith at January 30, 2008 11:15 AMI can't deny your additional evidence, coyote, and likely went too far.
But I doubt either one is going to directly address it because I question if a majority even want the logical implications of having a rule of law. So it would be quite brave and progressive to actually speak about it, I think.
Historically speaking, nothing ever seems to be done about past administration crimes. Perhaps its a problem of our "system" and attitude.
Posted by euzoius at January 30, 2008 11:16 AM
feinstein and schumer- indeed...
Posted by Turkana at January 30, 2008 11:21 AMPeople move on quite quickly and never understand the implications of not holding others, especially politicians, accountable. It's the Reagan attitude of a new dawn, a new day, and let's just move forward from here. If they cannot be dragged before the Hague, then they should be hung them by their balls, and one by her tits.
Posted by Judith at January 30, 2008 11:26 AMPerhaps its a problem of our "system" and attitude.
So true. And as much as the media likes a dogfight, they somehow can't stand when Republicans are investigated for wrongdoing, so the public gets a rather one-sided view of these things.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 30, 2008 11:32 AMjudith..ouch!!
Posted by dennis at January 30, 2008 12:14 PMhttp://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/obama-in-2001-r.html
this speaks volumes about Obama's judgement with people if he thinks Rumsfeld and others were so called mainstream people....Geezzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by athyrio at January 30, 2008 01:38 PMAccountability? No, these guys have way too much on their plates to address ethics. Sorry, ensuring that the economy is strong enough to pave the way for more corporate scandal is much more important.
Posted by Ashley Burr at January 30, 2008 04:12 PMDate: January 30, 2008
To: Whom It May Concern
From: Joe Carson, PE, , netmultiple-time prevailing whistleblower in Dept. of Energy , petitioner in multiple cases against US Office of Special Counsel (OSC) Knoxville, TN 865-300-5831
Subject: Special Counsel Scott Bloch letter to AG Mukasey (attached) and LA Times Story of January 29, 2008
I am a co-founder of OSC Watch , which has 3 objectives: 1) expose how the OSC, since 1989, has failed to comply with its primary statutory duty - to protect federal employees from prohibited personal practices (PPP’s), 2) stop OSC’s lawbreaking, and 3) obtain a measure of justice and restoration for the 10,000 or more loyal, patriotic, federal employees, who sought OSC’s protection from PPP’s since 1989 and failed to obtain the protection OSC is required to provide. The members of the OSC Watch Steering Committee are nearing completion of a petition to Congress to conduct oversight of OSC focused on OSC Watch’s concerns about systemic and persistent OSC lawbreaking.
I am also a party to a number of legal actions against OSC, alleging a number of aspects and instances of OSC’s failure to comply with relevant law to protect federal employees from PPP’s or report the results of investigations it conducts per 1216. In those cases, it is an assistant United States Attorney who represents OSC against my claims of OSC’s failures to protect federal employees, including United States attorneys, against PPP’s. Had OSC complied with its statutory duties to protect federal employees from PPP since 1989, I think that the Department of Justice, as other federal agencies, particularly the Department of Energy, would be much different places and I think national tragedies, such as 9/11, failure of levees in New Orleans, loss of space shuttle Columbia, might have been averted and the Department of Justice would be much more resistant to being used as a political spoil. A trial court decision in one of those cases, finding significant OSC non-compliance with aspects of it statutory duties to protect me, is attached.
My comments are Special Counsel Bloch’s letter to AG Mukasey are focused on its first two pages about OSC’s PPP investigations (conducted per 1214) and the Hatch Act and 1216(a)(4) investigations at DOJ.
1. Special Counsel Bloch’s legal claims about his jurisdiction to investigate violations of law under OSC’s jurisdiction by DOJ are correct, as far as he goes. But he fails to state what his fundamental statutory duty is to the DOJ employee(s) who filed PPP complaints with OSC - to investigate the PPP complaint, to determine the whether “there are reasonable grounds to believe a PPP has occurred, exists, or is to be taken,” and appropriately report that PPP determination. If OSC makes a positive PPP determination, it must report it to AG Mukasey per 1214(e), to enable AG Mukasey to comply with his statutory obligation to “prevent PPP’s” in DOJ, per 5 USC 2302(c). That is where OSC’s statutory duties end, it has complete discretion as a prosecutorial agency about formally seeking corrective action or disciplinary action as a result of his PPP investigations. Mr. Bloch’s five year tenure at Special Counsel will end, coincidentally, in January 2009, his claims about the end of the current administration are disingenuous, it is his statutory 5 year tenure ending that is more relevant.
2) Special Counsel Bloch fails to mention that he has subpoena power over DOJ to execute his legal jurisdiction over it, as described at 5 USC 1212(b). He apparently has not subpoenaed DOJ for information to this point. If he issues subpoenas DOJ for documents, depositions, or responses to interrogatories and DOJ does not comply with OSC’s subpoena, OSC can request the US Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to seek an order from Federal District Court to enforce it. MSPB would use its attorneys, not DOJ ones, in such an action.
I suggest the following questions for OSC:
1) How many PPP complaints, alleging how many specific PPP’s, has it received from DOJ employees since 2001?
2) How many times has OSC determined “there are reasonable grounds to believe a PPP has occurred, exists, or is to be taken,” as a result of its investigations of these PPP complaints?
3) For each positive PPP determination, where is the public record of its determination, its transmittal of that determination to DOJ, and the Attorney General Certified DOJ response, as required by 5 USC 1214(e) and 1219(a)(3)?
4) Why has OSC not subpoenaed DOJ to provide the information OSC needs to conduct its ongoing PPP investigations?