Seems to me that America is going to have to get its ass profoundly and collectively kicked by the world community before anything changes. Because, clearly, by our definition, our politicians and their courtiers are "beyond and above the law". There's nothing "controversial" about the domestic and international laws that were broken and there's nothing "controversial" about our political, business, military, MSM elite circling the wagons to protect each other. What is "controversial" is why American citizens or the citizens of the world will allow our leaders to be "beyond and above the law" and turn our once "fairly decent" country into a rogue state--a danger to each and every country in the world (except those with nukes) by way of threatened violence, actual violence, extortion, and kidnapping?

Why in the F is Chucky Taylor behind bars--because his country didn't possess the military might to threaten those who prosecuted him.

That our leaders don't see that their position is long-term untenable is indicative of their insular inability to see the limits of their collective power.

If there isn't some sort of reckoning then we must look in the mirror and admit that America's foundational principles are nothing more than hollow hypocritical rhetoric, our system of laws little more than well orchestrated theatre (unless you're relatively poor), and that we are no different and no better as a people and as a country than any other 3rd rate tinpot dictatorship that chooses to enslave its impotent populace--we're just allowed to pick the dictator du jour every 4 years, buy all the cheap plastic Chinese crap we can afford, and watch all the inane television programming our little minds and hearts desire.

Bout the only difference I see at this point.

the massive propoganda megaphone for the hard core right? Fish wrap and hamster cage liner. I can't really see any other viable use.

So be it. Anybody who was complicit should be held accountable regardless of the "party" letter after their name. There's politics and there's violation of established law. Politics and its elected practitioners cannot be preemptively immune from the rule of law or the rule of law means nothing. Well it means there's a two-tiered system of justice and that "policy" is whatever politicians say it is, not subject to judicial review and Marbury v Madison among others becomes meaningless. Ergo, not only should the mantra now be "whatever the President does is by definition legal" it should include the corollary "whatever the legislative branch does is be definition legal". Obstruction of justice, conspiracy, aiding and abetting, . . .

Can't imagine the judicial branch is real happy about getting screwed by being thrown under the bus as a coequal branch. We're at a tipping point. The judicial branch doesn't assert itself it becomes irrelevant in the eyes of the masses and revulsion and unrest will rise up like bile in the throats of the hungry homeless.

Lawyers/judges as a class could exert tremendous pressure for accountability here if they simply took a principaled stand and went on strike, or started engaging in cyclical rounds of the "blue-suited" flu to bring the "system of justice" to a grinding halt until agreement is reached on a meaningful process with real penalties for violations uncovered and prosecuted.

Why should I have to adhere to my professional ethical obligations if executive branch lawyers don't? Why should I allow myself to be subjected to a State Bar proceeding while executive branch lawyers are immune? Why can't I build my client's cases on foundations of secret memos and "claim" my client's "interests or secrets" would be compromised if I allowed anyone to inspect and critique my legal reasoning?

This is a national crisis--Yoo et al are being paid by respected institutions of higher learning and legal scholarship . . . Georgetown, CAL . . . . WTF--is Dr. Mengele not available. Students should be boycotting their classes or choosing not to enroll in them.

screw collegiality . . . he ever gives a speech in Oregon I show up wearing a t-shirt that says "F you amoral douche nozzle" and on the back "What's the deal Old Fella? Didn't they teach Con Law at your law school or were you drunk and passed out on Old Granddad".

Lawyers better start policing their own because this is a real problem IMHO.

. . . prosecute political opponents at home . . .

That's the Orwellian money quote right there that misframes the whole debate. It isn't about prosecuting political opponents for being opponents but about prosecution of those "accused of breaking the law." Like anybody else accused of breaking the law regardless of political allegiance.

Any "journalist" who frames it that way needs to receive 10,000 e-mails in 10 minutes because it is patently dishonest misframing.

In other words "morally hypocritical knuckledragging reason fearing psychopathic sado-narcissists." Or as I like to think of them the believers in "I'm right, you're wrong, and if you disagree one iota I'll kill or starve you."

1 step forward and 37 steps back yields progress how? I think we should resurrect "controversial" subjects like whether or not the earth is round as opposed to flat and whether or not its 6000 as opposed to billions of years old. Those are policy questions aren't they?