No one is above the law. If McCain wins however, the issue will be dropped.

oh please. RIDICULOUS.

I feel the same way about this that I felt during the Clinton impeachment: presidents are not above the law, and should not be treated as such. If provable violations are found, yes, absolutely prosecute.

Since McCain isn't in charge of the supreme court, how can he stop someone from pressing charges against the Bush administration?

Personally, I see this as party politics. If they had anything worth pursuing, he'd have been impeached already.

No one's above the law, plain and simple.

What's ridiculous what Dreamsugar said?

" oh please. RIDICULOUS."

Amen.

"Personally, I see this as party politics. If they had anything worth pursuing, he'd have been impeached already."

Absolutely!

This is the first article I've seen about Obama/Biden all week. I thought maybe they were on vacation or something. Glad to see they are still hanging in there.

Republicans have looked into possible wrongdoing when they came into office, reversed regulations and agency policies they disagreed with. The only difference this time is the seriousness of wrongdoing likely to be found.

Of course, Bush will very likely pardon his friends in advance like his dad did, so if anyone's prosecuted, they'll be low level types who didn't rate with the boss.

Wade, I think that was at the subject at hand, not a comment.

Steph, as apposed to the Clinton pardon controversies? Sheesh.

Its a witchhunt, nothing else.

"Since McCain isn't in charge of the supreme court, how can he stop someone from pressing charges against the Bush administration?"

Huh? The Supreme Court has nothing to do with anyone pressing charges against anyone.

They should be somewhat above the law. We put them in office because at some point we trusted the decisions they would make. Leaving the office hated by most should be enough punishment.

Steph, you didn't address the clinton pardons. Is it just a problem when people you don't like do it?

It bothers me that any president, Republican or Democrat, has that pardon power.

I don't really think this is a question anyone here is qualified to answer, as none of us is privy to any direct evidence that has been found against Bush or members of his administration. They should investigate and If evidence is found, they should pursue prosecution. Anyone has yet to present actual evidence of wrongdoing by Bush himself; I have seen evidence of a few small-level crimes committed by a few people in his administration, but nothing serious. Accusations are not evidence and should not be treated as such.

So, which branch handles the prosecution of criminals?

Clinton didn't pardon members of his own administration before they could be tried on charges of violating U.S. law.
Bush Sr. had rich friends etc. on his list of pardons as well, so on that they're equal.

I think talk if this is destructive and devisive.

This doesn't appeal to the average voter, most fair minded people are more concerned with the state of the war, the economy, health care, etc etc.

So if Biden wants to run with this, I encourage him to because it will alienate a lot of voters and ultimately put McCain in the White House.

Just because they're equal doesn't mean either one of them was right.

To be fair, Biden was asked. He didn't bring it up out of the blue.

Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States mostly in New York City and Chicago, convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations.

They were responsible for 6 deaths and the permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law enforcement officials.

In March 2000, Bill Clinton pardoned Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, owners of the carnival company United Shows International, for charges of bank fraud from a 1982 conviction. First Lady Hillary Clinton's youngest brother, Tony Rodham, was an acquaintance of the Gregorys, and had lobbied Clinton on their behalf. In October 2006, the group Judicial Watch filed a request with the U.S. Justice Department for an investigation, alleging that Rodham had received $107,000 from the Gregorys for the pardons, in the form of loans that were never repaid, as part of a quid pro quo scheme.

Clinton issued 140 pardons as well as several commutations on his last day of office.

That pardons controversy was one of the things that pushed me over the edge to strongly disliking Bill Clinton.

IF crimes are found, then yes they should be prosecuted. Bill Clinton lied under oath and he was rightly charged with that...of course much of the investigation DID turn into a partisan witch hunt, but hey, as long its the conservatives doing the witch hunting I guess it doesn't count. Yeah, yeah cheap shot there, just ignore it.

Obama is absolutely right that there is a HUGE difference between a crime and bad governing.

The point here GS, is that we are talking about possible wrongdoing by U.S. Presidential administrations - Presidents pardoning the people they place in positions of authority in the United States government or facing charges by the administration that follows.

that is true, so i doubt he will bring it up again unless asked.

Steph so your point then is that its ok to pardon murders as long as they arent part of the Presidential Admin?

The point of the topic is crimes within administrations. I have said nothing about the merits of any other pardon and I will not.

cabaker, Biden isn't saying he is going to "run with this." He is simply answering the question by saying that yes it should be investigated. If our constitution was truly violated and the power of the president was abused, we should all want to know about it no matter what our political party. I doubt any charges will be brought against Bush, but checks on our government is part of what protects us as citizens and helps maintain the integrity of the United States as a democratic nation. Violations of government power is a serious issue.

They had a case against the administration with the illegal wiretapping until the FISA bill was enacted which let Bush off the hook with one of the most flagrant pieces of illegality that could have been prosecuted by a court. A bill that Obama voted for and McCain didn't, by the way.

I mean If he wants to run with this in the hypothetical sense, not the accusatory one.

Considering all the lies and B.S. Bush told in regards to the Iraq war, Haliburton scandal, etc I have a feeling that the Senate will be prosecuting both Bush, Cheney and Bush's Administration. It is not really up to Obama or McCain to prosecute the Bush Administration, considering the House of Senate and U.S. Supreme Court handle government prosecutions. Mind you when Bush and Cheney's term is done, both them & their Administrations will be in court for a long time considering the scandal trail they left behind in regards to September 11th, Iraq War, Haliburton scandal, etc.

Either way, we should all want to know what happened in our current administration, or else we are kidding ourselves that we are dedicated to being informed and conscientious citizens/voters.

what lies chippy?

Chippyshero, do you have any evidence to back up any of the statements you made?

By the way, saying something that turns out to be false and intentionally lying are two very different things. The leaders of nearly ever major Western country (including France) agreed that Sadaam was developing WMDs.

Hey guys I just heard this on the news - 37.2 MILLION people watched Palin's speech last night.

Its off topic for this thread, I know, but I thought you guys might want to know.

Now friends, let's try to be civil.

But, kim, it's easier to call someone stupid than refute the fact that she doesn't mind pardons as long as she likes the pres. Oh well. That makes life easier.

Congratulations to you guys

And I second that, lil.

Ahhh!!! That coffee cup emoticons freaks me out! His eyes are just so...large.

I'd like to know what conspiracies the Bush Admin had in the run up to 9/11? Please go on about that Chippy.

Your eyes would look like that too if you were dipping your entire body into a vat of coffee, over and over

Jude that sounds like heaven!

Go to the search mode and look up news stories about Haliburton (that one is link to Cheney), the weapons of mass destruction (linked to Bush, when the UN did a thorough check and found nada. Even Bush admitted he was wrong on that one) and other stuff Bush claims that were bogus. You will find that Bush and Cheney have tons of political skeletons in their closet that will come out in the open. Senate is pretty much waiting for both Bush and Cheney to leave office.

I'd prefer if it was a different beverage. Or chocolate frosting.

I think we all know how to use a search engine, chippy. We were asking for evidence of illegal behavior. Admitting that you thought at time there were WMDs and later discovered there were not is not illegal.