Sorry bud, but there were no crimes.

You obviously are very confused about how the criminal justice system works in this country. The question is whether there should be an investigation. Obviously, a prosecutor need not prove that a crime was committed before opening an investigation; all that is required is probable cause to believe the law was violated.

The probable cause here has been established by admissions by the parties, and the Senate armed forces committe report, and other sources. In fact, you yourself appear to concede as much here:

This report is nothing that hasn't been alleged for years. There's no news here. The flaw in your approach is that loudly making allegations with no real proof devalues the allegations. Now that you have some proof years later nobody cares.

Let me ask you something: I'm a prosecutor for a living. How would you feel if this happened: you got mugged, and picked the perp out of a lineup. At this stage all there is is an allegation.

You find out I'm handling your case and call me to ask how the case against the defendant is going. I say I decided to dismiss the case without a trial or even a full police investigation because I decided "no crime was committed." You'd be outraged, right?

You'd yell "But that guy robbed me!!"

And I'd say "The flaw in your approach is that loudly making allegations with no real proof devalues the allegations."

Then you'd call Channel Two news and try to get me fired.

Neither you nor I can decide "no crime was committed" from where we are standing. That is for a jury. The question is whether there is reason to believe the law was violated, and if so, whether it is prudent to proceed with an investigation.

You yourself seem to vacillate between claiming no crime was committed and "mistakes were made, but better to just move on." But let's be clear: you CANNOT argue no crime was committed - that argument is unavailable to you because you are not a trial juror. You can ONLY argue 1) there is no probably cause, or 2) there may be probably cause but better to excuse the behavior.

Thanks.

Also, I love how Shooter argues "that was years ago!" as if that mitigates in some way.

I just came from watching a colleague's summation on a homicide trial. The victim was killed in 2004.

Funny, I don't recall the defense attorney telling the jury "aw, c'mon...it was four years ago! Who cares??"

Are you sure you're a prosecutor?

That's what it says on the door.

I may have been robbed, but don't I have to have proof that the guy I point out, did it?

All you need to convict him is to persuade the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that your testimony is credible and reliable.

I doubt I can just make up a crime and have you go to court with no evidence.

You act like there is no evidence. You yourself conceded there is "some proof."

How about party admissions? Cheney said "we waterboarded." Waterboarding is torture. Torture is illegal. Sounds like a good start.

How 'bout this one: Bush says "we wiretapped without a warrant." Warrantless wiretaps are a felony.

Shoots, let me assure you of something: this is WAY more than is required for an investigation, for probable cause, for an indictment to go to trial. You seem to be arguing that Bush & Co. have an affirmative defense. Fine, but that's a jury question. It's not like the accusers have no evidence.

Well guess what, Article 2 of the Constitution says Bush has extraordinary powers in time of war.

Well...guess what! I just read Article 2 and it says nothing of the sort.

Here's a link: http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec1.html

Show me where it says what you say it does and I'll send Glenn ten bucks.

Or point me to the SCOTUS caselaw that says the executive branch may break the law during time of war. I believe you'll find the recent line of cases on that question went against the executive.

Assuming you discount the Commander in Chief verbiage

If it's OK with you, I WILL discount the C-I-C "verbiage", since it says nothing close to what you just claimed it did.

and/or the powers voted him by Congress

You mean the AUMF? Have you read it? I have. It's not very long. It authorizes the president to use "necessary and appropriate" action to deter and prevent more international acts of terrorism against the U.S.

Now, let's see you construe the words "necessary and appropriate" to mean "committing felonies and breaking sacrosanct international treaties on a mass scale is OK, too!"

Apparently there is no impediment for you or anyone else to walk right up to the President and arrest him on suspicion, yes?

Apart from getting shot by the Secret Service?

let's see you whip up that investigation. After all, you make it sound so simple and easy. But it isn't. Is it.

Why do you assume it's so difficult? Obama just has to tell Holder to appoint a special prosecutor. If Bush could appoint a S.P. to investigate his own vice president over Valerie Plame, why is this so hard?

Now, whether it's a politically wise move for Obama to undertake is another question. I'm on record here as saying I'm not sure he can afford the political capital. But once he makes the decision, yeah, it's a pretty simple procedure.

Like I said before, there are no crimes.

Just so you know, you don't sound any smarter just saying that over and over.