Obama AG would “immediately review” potential Bush administration crimes

April 14, 2008 Bush Era, Impeachment Evidence, Pennsylvania 10

waterboard-11-14-07_2.jpg[IFP does not endorse any federal candidate only encourages accountability of all politicans]

philly.com
attytood
by Will Bunch

Obama would ask his AG to “immediately review” potential of crimes in Bush White House
<br .
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.”

The question was inspired by a recent report by ABC News, confirmed by the Associated Press, that high-level officials including Vice President Dick Cheney and former Cabinet secretaries Colin Powell, John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld, among others, met in the White House and discussed the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques on terrorism suspects.

I mentioned the report in my question, and said “I know you’ve talked about reconciliation and moving on, but there’s also the issue of justice, and a lot of people — certainly around the world and certainly within this country — feel that crimes were possibly committed” regarding torture, rendition, and illegal wiretapping. I wanted to know how whether his Justice Department “would aggressively go after and investigate whether crimes have been committed.”

Here’s his answer, in its entirety:

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can’t prejudge that because we don’t have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You’re also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment — I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General — having pursued, having looked at what’s out there right now — are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it’s important– 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. You know, 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. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law — and I think that’s roughly how I would look at it.

The bottom line is that: Obama sent a clear signal that — unlike impeachment, which he’s ruled out and which now seems a practical impossibility — he is at the least open to the possibility of investigating potential high crimes in the Bush White House. To many, the information that waterboarding — which the United States has considered torture and a violation of law in the past — was openly planned out in the seat of American government is evidence enough to at least start asking some tough questions in January 2009.

(Source)

9 Comments

  1. i am going to state my opinion as much as i can before it myfreedom of speech rights get tooken away. please impeach obama i am an angry black woman and i demand him to be impeached immediatly he’s slowly taking our freedom away stop this imposter he is not a natural born american citizen get him out now!!!!!!! he’s breaking the constitution our four fathers would be outraged by his actions!!!!!!!!!!!

  2. Why are you harping on Bush? Obama and his minions (CEOs) are also involved in eavdropping- wait for a month or two- and you will see it in the news.

  3. If Obama had any power,guts.or any devine,devoted purpose to the civilians who built this county and to goverment employees who honestly work for improvement.Obama just all talkin’,with no sense of Dennis Mccullough support to him.he shows this country
    and the great people who built it,he,.continued with there devoted honesty,dedication to
    the people who work for the goverment for peace,against unconstitutionally,like judges who
    rebut/revoke against unconstitutional evedropping.Who i support,help.
    Obama a weak liar.

    However we will evesdrop tape BUSH/CHENEY warcrimes high crimes against are Civilians and Goverment,like NIXONs impeachment.Goodbye Bush.

    VOTE: NADER for President true change/peace.
    fight-on!,grow stronger,impeach.

  4. It seems that they are not currently holding hearings to hold this administration accountable? When will they have actual hearings?

  5. How can we know that Bush will leave in 2009? Bush has seized so much power. Do you think he is going to give it up willingly? Look at his behavior: lies,deception,corruption Bush will do anything to remain in office forever.

  7. “…he is at the least open to the possibility of investigating potential high crimes in the Bush White House”

    Have you ever heard a more political dodge in your life?

    Nancy Pelosi was also “…open to the possibility…” right up until November, 2006.

    The bottom line is that no “politically viable” Presidential candidate is going to endorse either impeachment or, following election, aggressive investigation and prosecution of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or high crimes & misdemeanors against the Constitution without a roaring groundswell of public opinion demanding someone’s head on a pike.

    That groundswell isn’t there, and it’s not gonna be there, ’cause our electorate is too complacent (having had nothing more to contend with than modestly rising food prices and, loss of your home if you bought a subprime mortgage, or the loss of your husband, wife, or child in our imperial adventures – the latter two confined to distinctly small minorities of the populace) to be worried about something as esoteric as ‘government’ when there are really important things to worry about like whether Obama’s too much an elitist or whether Hillary’s really a bitch in private too.

    No, the populations that know there needs to be investigations, the administration of justice, and a restoration of democratic government and principles in America are too far away, too poor, and too isolated to be relevant in our electoral process and the majority of Americans (upon whom the elections appear to turn) are, in turn, too isolated from them to care.

  8. The USATODAY reported in summer ’07 that Obama had already ruled out impeachment. The senator even replied to a concerned citizens letter with the same decision. (raise the hammer org ‘barack obama replied to my impeachment letter’) So lets see if I have this straight. Says one thing on the campaign trail about NAFTA, but reassures Canada it’s all campaign rhetoric. Says one thing about his feelings on race relations in America to Americans, says another to his church members. Says one thing to wealthy women at a conference about poor white folk in small towns, and another TO those poor white folk in small towns. Now, he infers he will ‘investigate’ the administration for crimes after being quite adamant already that he would not seek impeachment….guess whats coming next?

    There are many people living in big white houses on the hill that have bet their future against impeachment. If this were any other period in time, they might have been right. But these people have caused the deterioration of our country’s good name. We as a people are kind, generous, compassionate, hopeful and forgiving. They have set in motion actions that are counter to that which we hold dear and the hope we have in our hearts for the future of our country and our ideals. They have compromised the Constitution of these United States, breaching a trust that touches the heart of every single person living in America today. Politics are one thing, if poor judgement were the only issue here they would be safe in their assumptions. But the situation they find themselves in today, the situation they thought they would never see, which no doubt gave them their courage, is nothing so petty as that. The lines that have been crossed need to be addressed. Our reputation MUST be restored for us to proceed interacting with the world outside our door. Our confidence must be restored for us to once again begin doing the great things this country is capable of. Our constitution must be restored to the liberty ensuring document that has MADE this country the leader it has been in the past and the leader it will be, MUST be, in the future.

Comments are closed.