Obama Would "Immediately Review" Potential Of Crimes In Bush White House

Attytood's Will Bunch has a new interview with Barack Obama:

Tonight I had an opportunity to ask Barack Obama a question that is on the minds of many Americans, yet rarely rises to the surface in the great ruckus of the 2008 presidential race -- and that is whether an Obama administration would seek to prosecute officials of a former Bush administration on the revelations that they greenlighted torture, or for other potential crimes that took place in the White House.

Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted -- but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as "a partisan witch hunt." However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because "nobody is above the law."

Read the full transcript of the exchange here.

Comments

[aofh]

Not to impeach is a leadership decision, and the leadership is under the sway of the DLC. Should Obama win the Presidency, Dean and his 50-state strategy will be vindicated undermining the DLC notion that the party has to please the fat cats. Should he bring a new crop of Democrats into Congress with him, maybe they'll get rid of the gutless leadership, and we'll stop being a constitutional monarchy.

[Geauterre]

If the international community saw that this nation put justice ahead of politics, law ahead of corruption and malfeasance of office, that could be the change that gives this nation a rebirth. It's certainly something to think about.

However, Senator Obama must be careful. We're talking about expelling satraps who have been immersed in power, and entrenched in positions of high office and influence. This could be a dangerous undertaking.

[ang4ever]

He is just making noise, a meaningless, aimless rant. Only saps like emmabovery will chugalug it - another way to pander for votes.

[shedances]

Thank God someone's willing to.

[UncensoredReports]

A "promise" of another 9/11 omission commission type whitewash from obama

Impeach Bush and Cheney for Torture

On Friday, George Bush told ABC News he personally approved of the approval of torture - including waterboarding - by Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and George Tenet.
'Yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved.'
In the wake of this shocking and appalling confession, we've come to a historic moment where every American - and every Member of Congress - must take a stand.
Either you're for torture or you're against it. And if you're against it, you must support the only Constitutional remedy for a President and Vice President who commit war crimes: impeachment.
Tell Congress to Impeach Bush and Cheney for Torture
http://www.democrats.com/impeach-for-torture
Dr. Martin Luther King famously said of the Vietnam War, 'A time comes when silence is betrayal.'
When our President and Vice President personally approve torture, that time is now.

[druidlady42]

The voting public need to be reminded--or even informed--that the revered, sanctimonious "war hero" John McCain, who so publicly proclaimed his abhorrance of torture, quietly voted TWICE within this past year to give Bush and the corrupted Justice Dept.'s AG SOLE and ultimate authority to decide WHO is designated an "enemy combatant", WHO will be subject to "enhanced interrogation" and imprisonment without trial, and WHAT KIND of torture will be applied! So much for his "principled stand against torture" and adherence to Congressional and international law!

How can a man like McCain, who was tortured himself, stoop to embracing (physically and by his votes) the authors of our own country's unlawful policies of torture?

[tbone99]

PLEASE SIGN! We need to make it happen now, because, god forbid, McCain wins , without censure for this criminal policy, he has said it will be his policy too.

[DMcD]

If I could have but one wish left in life ----- prosecuting and punishing these evil and currupt bastards would be IT. This gives me something to cheer for ------ make it happen Obama.

[ang4ever]

Just an empty ranting. It would be easier to prove that God exist, or that God does not exist !

[druidlady42]

My heart's deepest wish, too!

[new logic]

To those still confused about who runs this country...­.watch the film"THE GOOD SHEPHERD"

[realrick]

Oh, c'mon, Mr. Obama, this isn't important.

Don't you listen at all to the corporate media? It's your bowling score and your comment about small town PA is what matters!

The Constitution? Well, it was nice while it lasted....­.

[Observer1]

Obama's statement shows two things.
1. Good politician: Tell the American people what they want to hear and you have a winner.
2. Naive: Bush/Cheney will never be impeached. He has broken no law.

When he had they opportunity to protest in the Senate, never happened. He was busy campaigning.
I like the guy, and he will probably be the next President.­. But there is one thing to remember. Hope can disappear very quickly when the guy you pin your hopes on cannot deliver.

And that is the problem. American politics has nothing to do with substance, but more to do with style and pie in the sky dreams. Thank God, Pelosi has China to distract the American people from their own problems. All smoke and mirrors.

But not to worry:

Obama will pledge to immediate remove all troops from Iraq once elected.. Tell the people what they want to hear..

[23000Days]

What a cynic, observer! You must have figured out by now that Obama's presidency will be bottom-up grassroots connected. We all know that our hopes will require constant support and nudging to come to fruition. Whether Obama delivers depends on us. What he delivers depends on us as well.

BTW: Look at all the other options, then get on the bandwagon!

[realrick]

I actually understand your cynicism. Like many Americans, you come by it honestly. It's exactly the kind of thing Obama was talking about when he made the 'bitter" comment. People have been so let down by Washington that they are cynical that anything can change.

I learned, for the worse, in the 1960s that one person can make a difference when Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were killed.

Obama's run a terrific campaign so far and is in the process of beating the biggest electoral juggernaut the Democratic Party has seen since the Kennedys. I realize that change doesn't happen overnight and is a day by day process. But, based on the guy's track record so far, I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps you should too.

[UncensoredReports]

From what I've read, obama "promises" a partial removal from Iraq, escelation in Afghanistan, & a new illegal war of aggression in Pakistan. He votes for war money as if it was his duty.

[YellowPanties]

You forgot to mention how the moon is made of cheese, which would have been a fitting conclusion to your wrongheaded comment.

Bush has broken plenty of laws: signing statements, wiretaps without warrants, denial of habeas corpus, rendition programs, ordering torture of detainees, using the Justice Department for partisan purposes, outing Valerie Plame, firing US attorneys, lying to Congress about pre-war intelligence - just to name a few.

Bush swore to uphold and defend the Constitution and instead he has sought to undermine its very essence.

With enough Democratic votes, he and Cheney will be brought to justice.

[ched]

You're right that Bush/Cheney will never be impeached, but not because they haven't broken any laws -- they have.

If Obama is in a position to direct the DOJ to investigate, it will, by definition be too late to "impeach" the Republican crooks and war criminals, since they'll already be out of office.

Instead, as the article states, they can be investigated and prosecuted for crimes committed in office, but only if those crimes were committed "willfuly" (as opposed to negligently, or as the bad result of well intended actions, for which gov't officials are immune). Thus, his correct use of the term "willful" referenced to correct legal standard.

After 8 years of complete disregard for the Constitution, it's going to be such a pleasure to have a Constitutional Law scholar in the White House.

[abluevoice]

Here is what I can't figure out:
If the parties were reversed and the Dems had done all the things the Bush administration had done in the past 7 years that were probable "high crimes and mis-demeanors", just to name a few obvious ones, the build up to the invasion and the selling of it, the outing of a CIA agent, the partisan corruption of the Justice dept, the missing $8 billion in Iraq, the warrantless wire tapping, the corrupt and secretive energy policies, the incompetence and corruption post Katrina, The White House torture meetings, and all the crooked friends of the President and Vice President, Abramoff and Delay, etc.......­..There would be ongoing Republican investigations, special prosecutors and daily coverage by the media and exposure of all these probable illegalities of the Democratic administration in power. Even if the Republicans, with the roles reversed, didn't think they could impeach the Democratic President and Vice President, they would surely use all the investigations and exposure as a campaign tactic to capture the White House.

Look at what the Republicans did to Bill Clinton when he had a 70% approval rating even after Monica. They didn't worry about polls, or try to guess what would get them the most votes, they took him down and Gore for a consentual affair which was merely a grain of sand in comparison to the obvious, overwhelming and dangerous , law breaking of these Republican Bums in the White House. And they won..

[tbone99]

"...one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity..­.. "

Obama,dumb policies is when you waste money building a bridge to nowhere.

Policies that shred our constitution , imprisoning and torturing possibly innocent people and tearing up a whole country , killing hundreds of thousands out of lust for profit is criminal! Don't tell me you're not sure Obama?

" I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. "

Dude-we passed "Exceptional Circumstances" about six years ago.Rememb­er being against the war...
and why?

[ErikW65]

Because impeachment's a moot point. Pelosi and Reid made the decision not to pursue it. You want Obama to make a stink that accomplishes nothing and pushes him to the left, so he's less electable, because you don't like him. Obama's not "purely progressive" enough for you. We get it. Vote for Nader already, and stop it with your cranky, taunting posts. You're like a proverbial sniper, firing shots from an unseen position somewhere to the left.

[tbone99]

Somebody needs to inject a little reality into his fandom. He's a politician, good on some things, can use improvment on others.Tha­ts our job as citizens - to keep politicians true to their promises and communicate what we the populace want.I don't think there's a politician out there who will answer all our needs .In my opinion that kind of hero worship can lead to some very dark places, ala Bushco , where his constituency didn't start to criticize anything until it was way too late and we're where we are now because of it.

[yathink]

Impeachment , conviction of an impeachment indictment, precludes pardon. Period. Also, an impeachment inquiry in the house requires evidence from the executive branch. Executive privilege is not an argument. Pelosi has violated her oath to support the constitution. They must have given her quite a deal. I don't want to even go there, but the ongoing refusal to allow articles to be introduced is suspicious. The ongoing refusal to vote on Cheney's impeachment is even more telling. If she can defend herself, I will listen. Otherwise, all of this is a crime. Law? What law? Constitution? What's that? Bush says it's a GD piece of paper. What does the speaker say?

[ched]

Pelosi took impeachment off the table because she herself was privy to Bush's torture policy. Thus, if she were to attempt to prosectute the Bush admin, she would put herself in jeopardy.

[ProFromOre]

Everyone needs to understand that the "War Act" and some other bush slimed past everybody gives him all kinds of power the president doesn't usually have. The clauses in these documents must be negated before anything is done.

Presently Bush has the 'permission' to:

Militarily attack any country that arrests a US citizen, (think International Court)

Suspend all function of the US, take control from the Legislature, suspend the Nov 08 election - for any reason he decides.

Detain ANYONE, indefinitely, if HE decides they are a threat.

Strike pre-emptively ANYONE, ANYWHERE, if he believes they might be a threat now or in the future.

Unless Bush is stripped of these illegally obtained powers, he is too powerful to indict, or bring to trial. He knows it, that's why he's so brazen.

[WAstateliberal]

Yathink and ProFromOre are right on the money. Congress had no authority to delegate this power to Bush. The issues are unconstitutional delegation and separation of powers. I must also confess that despite initial high hopes, I have been supremely disappointed in Speaker Pelosi on this issue. However, I also have to remind myself that when we re-took Congress in '06, the Democrats stupidly proclaimed that changes were on the way when they knew very well that you cannot accomplish much when you have a despot in the White House and your majority is not veto-proof. Without veto-proof numbers, the '06 midterms were much less momentous than they were trumped up to be. Still, the Democrats' fear of their own shadow on impeachment is disgraceful.

[Squirtapotamus]

Pelosi uses the same argument for not pursuing impeachment that Ford used when pardoning Nixon. "This will spare the country trauma and allow healing to occur." Yet because of that pardon, Cheney and Rumsfield were able to rise to power. The corrupt neocons have bested us and they are all going to walk away after having robbed the treasury. Given this, I'll take the rookie socialist any day. At least he can generate some compassion for his fellow citizens. The fascists currently in control? No compassion.

[MrXfromplanetX]

See what Robert Newman has to say about Tony Blair. What were the charges for Nazi war criminals at the trails of Nuremberg "conspiracy to commit aggression against" another country http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-47796974961332975666

Sound familiar?

Why hasn't Obama or Clinton done more? Dennis Kucinich has been trying to get Bushed impeached, but the man didn't have a chance since the mainstream media wouldn't cover him.

Did everyone know Michael Powell (Colin Powell's son) got rid of the equal access laws so we can only hear from politicians who have millions of corporate dollars.
http://mrxfromplanetx.com/orwell-rolls-in-his-grave

I would recommend reading John De Graaf's "Take Back Your Time" to find more time and then get involved with the caucus process in order to get politicians who will actually do something.
http://alternativeconservative.com/caucus

[yathink]

I have just tried to email Obama to thank him for this comment. But they will no longer accept all the junk they would surely get from the trolls here or anyone else. Crime is defined as a willful, intentional violation of a standing law. Law means that it was passed by the congress and signed by the president. Any president, not just the one currently sitting in the White House. Especially not the one currently sitting (or sleeping) in the White House. Impeachment of any executive official precludes a pardon. Pelosi needs to look at her motives for calling that whole thing off. Impeachment is the only procedure which SHOULD be used to require that the executive abide by the law. If she doesn't believe that, then she is violating the law. It's really pretty simple. Call her at 202-225-4965.

[arbroath]

It is the Constitution of the United States that the president swears to uphold. Not political gambit. Not the interests of his party. That should be the simple, unequivical and terrifying (to those now in power) answer to the question. This answer, however, will bring down the hellfire and brimstone of the corporate mainstream media upon his head. This honorable answer will ruin any chances of him becoming president. And then, as a result, further drive the U.S. into its ultimate fate and future as a 4th rate global power.

[tea in the harbor]

I don't think one time will hurt, but it is probably best to leave this topic alone until January.Th­is will be my final comment on the subject!

[itmaybetoolate]

It SHOULD happen but it WON'T happen. Obama must not believe that bush has committed any impeachable crime while pResident so he is unlikely to think so after. His inaction on bush while he was a senator speaks more loudly than does his words in this interview.

[resonate]

What?! Way to put words into his mouth.... Uhg. Its easy to see how the American public gets so missinformed.

[GrainOSand]

At the very least it is easy to see how the attempts are made to mis/dis-inform.

[itmaybetoolate]

What words did I put into his mouth? When has he called for bush's impeachment? He is a Constitutional scholar. If he takes no action against a rogue president , how are we to interpret that? Does he not have the courage to stand up for the Constitution?

[Bub]

Maybe his 'inaction' on Bush was really action, maybe his inaction was to run for President. Maybe he got to the Senate, saw the lay of the land, saw Feingold beating his head against the wall, and decided to take another approach.

The problem with Impeachment, was its deminishment. Because of Clinton's impeachment, Impeachment of Bush might, in historical context, be framed as 'tit-for-tat'. Now I'm a big believer in tit-for-tat, but Impeachment has to send a message to down the road of a much different and grander scale. We have to find another way to tat their tit and the wrongs of the Bush administration have to be singled out for what they were and are - a gross assault on the constitution and on governing for the public's interest, as apposed to governing purely for a narrow private interest.

[itmaybetoolate]

Rationalizations. The Constitution calls for impeachment when the president commits criminal acts. What does Clinton's impeachment have to do with it? Who cares if it is seen as 'tit for tat." bush either committed criminal acts or he didn't. If someone in the congress believes he did, that person should call for impeachment. Running for president is not a solution to bush's criminal behavior. Obama has no guarantee that he will win. Besides, Obama isn't running on a "vote for me and I will hold bush accountable" ticket.

And, finally, I agree that impeachment sends a message - we will not tolerate criminal behavior. Obama and most of his congressional cohorts choose NOT to send that message.

[LLT]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but what's all this talk of Bush pardoning anyone in this context? It would be a hypothetical Obama administration investigation, yes? Bush would no longer be the POTUS (God I just love how that sounds), nor have the authority to be pardoning anyone.

What am I missing?

[illinoisan]

I'm not 100% sure, and there's no precident for it, but I think Bush could pardon himself and everybody else in December or early January.

[plainsman]

If he's not been charged or convicted of any crimes before he leaves office, how can he pardon himself. Would he have to spell out exactly what the crimes he might be tried for were, in a way, admitting to those crimes so he could cover himself?

Maybe he could offer himself immunity, but wouldn't that require congresses approval? If he could just pardon possible future crimes, what is stopping him from saying all future crimes committed by the Republican party, I hereby pardon?

[accountability]

he can't pardon himself or Nixon would have.

Ask Hillary, she is the one who got him out he had no intention of leaving until she found the legalities that would allow impeachment proceedings. He then quit. If he could have pardoned himself I habve no doubt he would have.

Anyway, he can't pardon himself in International laws can he?
LOL

YAAAAAYYYYY!

[LLT]

Respectfully, I don't believe that's correct. I believe once the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed and the oath of office has been administered, the powers are transferred completely. But regardless, my point is we seem to be talking about the launch of an hypothetical investigation well after inauguration day and miles and months away from any eventual charges being filed much less prosecuted, and well beyond the reach of any so called grace period for the outgoing executive’s orders, even if there is such a grace period.

Are you talking about some kind of preemptive blanket immunity? I'm certainly no constitutional expert, but I don't *think* that's within the scope of executive power. However, I certainly agree that it sounds like something this sleazy, corrupt administration might try to get away with before slinking and slithering away next January.

[Ozarks]

Bush would have to be accused, tried and found guilty before January 20, 2009. He cannot "future pardon" himself , Chaney, Rice, Ashcroft , Rumsfeld and whatever other cronies are now huddling in the White House. But due to his extreme stupidity I can see him trying with a last address to the American public. He would probably say : In the event I and my friends are convicted of violation of Fisa and the 4th Amendment, the Constitution regarding Habeas Corpus, the Geneva Convention on torture and war crimes , I hearby , with a signing statement , retroactively pardon myself and friends should all these violations be brought to light and I and friends are found guilty. Then he will go to his "ranch" and be happy.

[illinoisan]

Why wait until January? There's plenty that could get done right now in Congress. They could have indictments ready right there to hand out on the steps of the Capitol during the inaugural. They could slap the cuffs on Cheney and the gang during the speech.

[TLV]

Most of the people of this nation and the world would weep with joy. How does someone sleep at night knowing people hate him this much?

[accountability]

" I sleep just fine."

Pathological Narcissists always have people around them that reinforce what they must believe about themselves.

They are also sociological and emotional vampires, feeding on others views of them both positive and negative. Therefore they just rest in a coffin during the day.

;-)

Damn this is a pleasant thread.
The last 4 days have been quite hellish. Almost bitter.

[Ozarks]

It is not hate , it is disgust. Hate would involve emotions. I just want to see his smirk vanish when he reads all the charges leveled against him and his cronies.

[accountability]

Why wait until January indeed.

Well my dear, I'll tell you.
LOL

Because Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table, then she had the table moved to the basement, the second level basement, in a closet in the second level basement. In a vault in the closet in the second level basement.

That's why.

Its chained and padlocked in triplicate, electronically protected with invisible laser beam silent trip alarms. There are round the clock guards... also in triplicate. To gain entry one must have quadruple Identification. SS# Driver's License, fingerprints and Iris recognition.

Even then Nancy must accompany you to make sure you don't touch anything.

Nancy is terrified she will have a failed speakership. After being the first woman and the highest office any woman has ever held she doesn't wanna screw it up.

I don't know, any other ideas?

[Ozarks]

leave impeachment off the table . ON January 20, 2009 he couldn't be impeached anyway, but as a US citizen he can be accused of various criminal acts.

[Grommitt]

Not only have Pelosi and her spineless Democrats failed us, but so has Chief Tecumseh. Enough with this farting around. Just being rope to the inaguration, and hang the lot from the nearest trees.