It’s hard to keep track of the Bush track-record. It’s dark at the bottom of an abyss. I think Iraq will always define the Bush presidency, along with their failure to protect us from the 9/11 attacks. Hurricane Katrina and the economic collapse at the end of their second term will be prominent features of any historical discussion. But, there’s more. So much more.
When President Bush nominated his lawyer, Harriet Miers, to the Supreme Court, I wasn’t entirely sure she should be opposed. I remembered how Poppy had pulled a fast-one on the wingnut base by nominating David Souter, a pro-choice judge. I thought Miers might be Bush’s way of protecting the GOP from the consequences of their anti-choice rhetoric. If we defeated Miers, I figured, we’d be sure to get some Federalist Society troglodyte in her place. That didn’t mean that I thought Miers was qualified, or that it was at all appropriate to nominate someone that would be judging some of the same decisions she had counseled the President on in the White House. I just figured we couldn’t filibuster every judge he put up, and that Miers might, at least, be sympathetic to women’s privacy rights.
As it turned out, the Republican base had the same suspicions and promptly sank Miers’ chances of being confirmed to the lifetime position. And that’s a good thing, because I’m increasingly convinced that Ms. Miers is headed for prison. If Bush had had his way, we’d probably be thinking about impeaching a sitting Supreme Court justice, which would be a sorry spectacle both here at home, and around the world.
Harriet Miers appears to be at the very heart of the scandal surrounding the politicization of the Department of Justice, and the inappropriate firing of U.S. attorneys for political reasons. Ms. Miers defied a congressional subpoena and refused to cooperate with the DOJ’s Inspector General investigation. She’d already be in prison for those actions if the Justice Department had not refused to do their job. Under an Obama administration, there is no doubt that Miers will be forced to cooperate with Congress, and she’ll face the choice of telling the truth or taking the fifth. Her actions so far heavily suggest that old saying that where there is smoke there is fire. I don’t think there is any doubt that the truth will land Ms. Miers in legal trouble.
Add this is the list of the Bush administration’s many accomplishments.
There are so many members of this Hall of Shame, they could fill up one of their detention camps constructed (or not) by Halliburton.
No prison for Harriet. He will pardon her, along with thousands of others. While that will not prevent her from having to go before Congress, the people she will testify against will all have been given pardons also.
Pardons for all!
nalbar
I’m sure you’re right, or some other mechanism of obfuscation will be used to keep these criminals out of office.
Notice there’s a “police” for street crime, but not a “police” for white collar, industrial, or financial crime? Oh, I’m wrong, that would be the FBI and the SEC. Good to see how efficiently they police our upper classes.
Humph!
It’s still the remnants of Feudalism that runs the capitalist class.
He could very well pardon Harriet Miers, but that would be an incredible black mark, considering he nominated her to the Supreme Court. He’d obviously like to avoid that if at all possible.
Yes, but if the person he nominated for the supreme court
actually went to prison, wouldn’t that be an even blacker mark?
yeah. These are choices Bush has created for himself.
A black mark?
We’re still talking about Bush/ Cheney, right?
They don’t think like that. Anything they do is automatically ‘good’, and so could NEVER be a black mark.
Besides, there is no way to avoid it short of a McCain win, And considering how the two hate each other there is no way Bush would risk even that.
nalbar
I wonder if someone who has been pardoned by a president is required to testify anyway even though they cannot be convicted. For instance, to give testimony about a case they’re involved in and in so doing running the chance they will incriminate themselves.
Presidential pardon is one of the most authoritarian details of the U.S. system. Can you pardon someone for murder? I guess so. The pardon season is fast approaching.
In order to take the fifth amendment, you have to be subject to prosecution. If you are immune from prosecution, you have no right against self-incrimination. So, in a way, a pardon takes away Miers’ right to avoid answering questions.
And if she is interrogated in a case regarding another defendant and found to be lying she can faces charges for lying. Or would she be pardoned for all crimes she has, may have committed or will commit? How is it possible that she can be pardoned if she hasn’t been charged. There is no charge aginast her, as far as I know. All she has done illegaly is ignore a congressional subpoena. What does Bush say: you are pardoned for all the years you have worked in the White House or something like that?
Bush can’t pardon future crimes. He can pardon Miers for all activities she carried out in her capacity as his counsel between certain dates.
When his own words were handed back to him, even so wily a man as the Cardinal realized the weaknesses inherent in blanket pardons. The wording is wonderful. As long as the document doesn’t have to be produced.
Bush isn’t as clever as Richelieu, and men such as Addington aren’t either. They’ll try to game the system like they did with Libby, but there are so many people involved that they’ll miss somebody. Are they ALL loyal Bushies? Will they remain loyal if their Fearless Leader moves down to his enclave in Paraguay?
Unfortunately, we have another example. Iran-Contra. The men who went unpunished merely hibernated… and returned to government even more corrupt than when they left. Death dealers and arms merchants and dictators. Given our ever-increasing lifespans, do we want to take the chance that in 20 years they will return to complete their mission?
There will be no justice until we deal with the demons inside our own government… it can be done with regret and with humility, but it MUST BE DONE.
In order to take the fifth amendment, you have to be subject to prosecution. If you are immune from prosecution, you have no right against self-incrimination. So, in a way, a pardon takes away Miers’ right to avoid answering questions.
Ayup. So if he pardons Miers, then she loses all ability to stonewall on his behalf.
But if he doesn’t pardon Miers she goes to jail.
And if he does pardon her and she lies or stonewalls, well those are new crimes, and so she’d go to jail anyway.
Either way, I think after he leaves office she either testifies or goes to jail. Unless the next administration decides to “put the past behind us” and doesn’t press the issue.
I think that Bush is way to arrogant to pardon Miers because he would be admitting that his administration at his direction was involved in criminal activity. Ford’s pardon of Nixon admitted nothing because he was not directly involved with Nixon. Bush will think the democrats will never have the guts to go after Miers or anyone else because the democrats are afraid of the republican base and will want to ‘move on’.
A pardon on the other hand would suggest crimes were committed while individual people that may have standing were damaged. No individual from Nixon’s crimes were damaged. The pardon would not protect Miers from civil damages, same as OJ. While the pardon would protect her from past crimes it would not protect against future crimes such as perjury.
It’s going to be the exclamation point on the Bush/ Cheney years. He will certainly pardon the big fish, but what about all the torturers and eavesdroppers who actually did the dirty work? We can’t have those people running loose on us, yet they are not the REAL problem.
It’s going to be fun (and painful) watching the MSM explain all the pardons away.
And the big question is what Obama does. Does he let it all slide so ‘we can move on’ (that is what I think), or does he explain to the American public that to prevent it from happening again he MUST expose ALL the truth?
That is the big, last gambit for Bush. Pardons are the last attempt at hiding the truth. Make it so the are no important people to go after, then get the party to say it is all a waste of time and money.
nalbar
Yes, ‘we can now move on’, I’m sorry to say you are probably right. Obama remains enigmatic.
On the political front, NO ONE will go to prison. They’ll all go help Bush clear brush in Dallas or in Uruguay.
On the economic front, Japanese and Chinese investors will demand their money and a pound of flesh.
I do expect a flurry of pardons, and I also expect a deficit of witchhunting in the next administration. Nevertheless, people will go to jail. It won’t be anything like what we’d like to see, but some stuff is already in the pipeline and will result in prosecutions. Rove and Miers are prime candidates for pardon. But that won’t be the end of it.
Witchhunting?
Forget it BooMan. Obama will not lift a finger to go after any of them.
He will be convinced/warned/commanded by the Village and The Powers That Be to “demonstrate beyond a doubt that an Obama administration is fundamentally above the partisan rancor that defined so much of the Bush Administration.”
Bush will issue pardons. Obama will be told to let it slide.
And let it slide he will. Even if we do get 60 Senators and a healthy majority in the House, there are enough Bush Dog Democrats who will run against Obama at every turn, especially in districts where they can play the “I voted against the bailout!” card. He’ll have no choice. Change is not coming to Washington…or at least not soon enough for Obama to be able to benefit from it.
We’re going to be seeing too many familiar faces from the Bush years during the Obama years, especially the ones with D’s after their names. Obama will not be a popular President. Not in the least. He won’t be hated as widely as Bush is, but the depth of the rancor will be much more.
Bush Derangement Syndrome will have nothing on Obama Derangement Syndrome. And Obama’s own party will suffer some of the worst cases of it.
Keep a careful eye on those folks, BooMan. The ones already trying to distance themselves from Obama.
Those are the ones who will be gunning for Obama come 2010.
Obama will certainly want to avoid the perception of a witchhunt. He won’t be going out of his way to settle scores. But, he won’t be intervening in legal processes already long underway, either. Nor will he be able to prevent some level of exposure arising out of fairly routine congressional oversight. What we’ll get is less than we want, and more than the Bushies want.
It’s a balancing act, in any case. Crushing the Republicans at the ballot box is one part of justice. It’s nowhere near enough, but it obviates the need to fully criminalize the Bush years.
I agree completely Boo.
I can easily accept all that if Obama also completely refutes the ‘Unitary Executive’ idea, AND destroys the ‘Bush Doctrine’. AND he needs to dissemble the wiretap infrastructure that he will certainly find. AND the new Attorney General has to nail the head of the FBI’s balls to the wall. Robert Mueller serves until 2011 if he serves out his term. He needs to be forced to resign, him allowing illegal wiretaps is the way to get him. Otherwise he will be a cancer for the Obama administration.
That would win me over. I can even accept a administration that has limited success on progressive policies if the above is accomplished.
Obama’s AG appointment is critical. It can’t be a friend or a political payback. It has to be someone who CARES about the constitution.
Like I have said before, we will know about the probable success of an Obama administration BEFORE jan. His appointments will tell us everything.
nalbar
You can’t put Humpty-Dumpty together again. The Imperial Presidency has taken a permanent step forward.
It’s powers are too useful to the incumbent.
Miers wouldn’t have been impeached had she been appointed. If the fixers responsible for allowing Bush to steal the election can’t be impeached, nobody can be impeached. Miers is no more than a street thug compared to the high crime of the Felonious Five.
Well, that all depends. Times change.
“Under an Obama administration, there is no doubt that Miers will be forced to cooperate with Congress, and she’ll face the choice of telling the truth or taking the fifth.”
Really? that’s a pretty bold prediction.
Could someone remind me President Clinton’s actions post-Bush? I seem to recall he refused to bring some pretty awful people from the previous administration to justice:
Yes yes, I know: Obama isn’t Clinton. Not exactly. While I will welcome any investigation under President Obama, I am not holding my breath. I am surprised that someone like you Booman would make such a breathtakingly bold prediction, especially given Mr. Obama’s duplicity on FISA, which (if nothing else) protected lawbreakers at the expense of the public.
That’s a simple FACT. When taken in concert with Obama’s “post-partisan” bullshit, you’ll forgive my doubts of any consequences for Ms. Miers or anyone else associated with Mr. Bush’s crimes.
I predict Obama will be somewhat like Clinton, in that he will want to work with what’s left of the Republican Party, not alienate them from the very start.
But, I don’t see him going so far as to quash the AttorneyGate investigation.
betcha a beer.
Why not a six pack!
harriet miers isn’t worth that much.
If you wanted assign something of similar value, you’d have to choose a bucket of cat piss, and no one wants to win that.
Brendan, I’m not sure you entirely understand Obama’s “post-partisan bullshit.” We’ve become so accustomed to the way the Republicans operate, perhaps we forget that there’s nothing partisan about bringing criminals like Rove and Miers to justice. Fitz tried, he’s a Republican.
Why are we only talking about Miers? What about Karl Rove?
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2008/10/roves-fingerprints-are-at-scene-of.html