"believed" violated?

We know the President committed felonies by engaging in activities which his own ideologically-sympathetic DOJ officials violated the criminal law.

Glenn, do you know of anyone who has created an updated "state of litigation" on this issue? I believe the ACLU filed some papers challenging the Constitutionality of the retro immunity legislation w/ [Walker?]

To the best of your knowledge, is there presently any legal strategy geared toward uncovering a. What the Bushies were doing up until 2004 and b. What they might have been up to pre-9/11?

This story from Bart Gellman is the kind of baited-breath stemwinder you get out of Washington at best once a decade. Truly mindbending. His book is going to blow some circuits in that town tomorrow.

Not that anyone will notice, as the financial system quakes and tumbles around us. Buy the book anyway, though.

...for the health of our country that all the information about this program be made public as soon as possible.

Cheney's penchant for compartmentalization, I wouldn't even take as "given" that these practices truly ended. I would think Bush and Cheney just found another "work around" that now resides, along with lots of other goodies, in the "man-sized safe".

Seems like I saw something recently about a move for an injunction to freeze all contents of the safe. I sure hope that happens.

We should expect that what these Republican appointees within DoJ thought of as beyond the pale, was some sort of political "smoking gun", something so politically toxic that it could potentially make even their Congressional Republican allies turn on BushCo, perhaps even support impeachment. We are talking about a group of people which included John Ashcroft, after all.

I can't imagine that any violation of the rights of foreigners, or even Americans who could even remotely be presented as "extremists", would fit this bill, would shock the conscience of John Ashcroft, or at least what he seems to have in place of a conscience, a political barometer. Almost certainly what this beyond the pale program consisted of was spying on the Kerry campaign and other Democratic candidates.

Seriously - they approved unauthorized mass spying on Americans as a "lesser" activity. What would have been unthinkable - were they targeting executives? Looking into bank transactions? How about data mining stock transactions?

In short, was the program touching the untouchables? Their actual philosophical and financial base of the Republican Party?

The FBI director was no more tractable than Comey. This was a rule-of-law question, he told the president, and the answer was in the Justice Department. The FBI could not participate in operations that Justice held to be in breach of criminal law. If those were [the President's] orders, he would respectfully take his leave. . . .

Mueller should have just arrested Bush on the spot. Wasn't he the top Federal law enforcement officer in the country? He was ordered to break the law, he knew it was against the law, and he did nothing. Mueller should be arrested for obstructing justice. He should have suffer the consequences of his gross negligence and dereliction of duty. POS.

some of this: Wiretapping lawyers involved in the defense of the Bush administration's treasured Guantanamo Bay show trials.

The attorney Robert Gensburg's home and office phones were almost certainly tapped with the assistance of Verizon:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/08/0082128

Reading emails, reviewing financial statements, etc. was also surely part of this project.

What a clear account of the mess we're in! I'm so tempted to write, "A plague on both your houses."

I watched a press conference chaired by Ron Paul on C-Span yesterday, at which Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr each urged that the best alternative is to vote for one of these third-party candidates. But I'm so frightened of Sarah Palin that I'm fearful of not voting for Barack Obama. I'm still in watch mode.

Check out the beautifully satirical flag bumper-stickers at http://dh2publishing.blogspot.com/ .

Illegal wars, torture, lying before congress and the people, murder, mayhem, otherthrow of governments, theft, ostruction of justice and treason?

You got some pretty small potatoes there, Glenn.

Better than the "Bush Doctrine".

What is the Bush Doctrine? What W calls it when he goes to see a doctor and get a refill of happy pills.

Given the CIA and other agencies routinely 'loose' or destroy evidence they're supposed to keep, what are the chances the American public will ever know what was happening during Bush's first term?

Actually, here's a related question: when the next Administration is sworn in, will either Bush or Cheney still be able to claim "Executive Privilege" to keep their activities from scrutiny? Is there any case law maintaining they can continue to claim this after they'e left office?

Almost certainly what this beyond the pale program consisted of was spying on the Kerry campaign and other Democratic candidates.

Oh, that was surely part of it, but that's small potatoes, and so 1970s of them, and after so many worse scandals since (notably Iran-Contra), not scary enough if revealed.

No, I think we have to look at the timeline again. The worst violations that were going to cause an implosion with Justice were occurring before 2003, perhaps as early as 2000.

Gee. What happened in September 2001?

If you don't think this wiretapping and surveillance issue was about 9/11, you haven't been paying attention. They sure as heck weren't spying on al qaeda or terr-ist cells here in the US. That wouldn't have bothered anyone.

What was the thing they feared the most? When you can answer that question, you can figure out who they were spying on.

and RNC protesters are charged with terrorism under the PATRIOT Act...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTQXRI_IaEE&watch_response

Here's an idea: Congress should impeach President Bush! Really! I mean it! Where are the other people who were under the impression the President couldn't oversee stuff like this in America without getting impeached?

We have little hope of finding out all that did happen during those years, but we have in the open information that should have been used to impeach the president and most of the leaders of the executive branch. Democrats refused to move on impeachment.

So, what now? If a man can get caught committing crimes and all that happens is that there will perhaps be a footnote in the history books, how can we expect future presidents to obey the law? If there is no punishment ever, how could we ever expect men to not rob the local bank when they need money?

Is the idea of punishment for wayward governmental officials too far fetched? Am I too far out on this?