Good catch, Glenn, on Litt's intelligence clients.[...] it will be interesting to learn whether Litt does have some professional interest in any potential investigations. -- aghorn

That was a sweet way to end the post (in Updates). With data about the professional interests of the "nonpartisan" insider expert who wrote the piece. Such a novel concept for our newsmedia & commentariat. Thanks for introducing them to this practice.

Responded to your question in previous dead thread.

First I never thought that 'Americans' are stupid - that's why we elected Obama and I never

ever would be cynical about subjects like the killing in Congo.

But if you please allow me to be cynical about the American 'rule of law' - as I love to be

about the German rules of driving an automobile as fast as you want!

Hey - that's actually a very interesting comparison -

Perhaps some lawyers (just by 'accident' also Americans) should slow down a little!

I like Obama but I liked him better in 07 than in 08. Remember his FISA vote? An investigation into warrantless wiretapping would uncover information not just on the Bush administration but on the involvement of the telecom companies as well. Now the telecoms are immune (thanks to the FISA bill which received broad support, including Obama's) but they still would be reluctant to have their involvement exposed. Of course, Obama and the Democrats are in bed with the telecoms as much as Bush and the Republicans. It was hard to watch footage of the Democratic National Convention without seeing at&t or Qwest logos. Yes, they may be hiding behind the cover of creating harmony between the parties, but the Democrats owe just as much to the Telecoms as the Republicans and that's why you won't see too much digging into these crimes.

With respect to the policies and misdeeds Glenn is talking about, the most important things are that they be exposed in the daylight and that they end.

By "policies and misdeeds," do you mean "crimes and felonies"?

Is this your view for all crimes -- that all that really matters is that they be exposed and stopped -- or do you feel that way only about crimes committed by high political leaders?

If we decide - as you've done -- that political leaders won't be punished when they break the law, only "exposed" after they leave office, what possible reason would political leaders have in the future not to break the same laws? If you remove the punishment aspect of the criminal law, then you turn "laws" into "suggestions."

I'm just wondering if you do that for all crimes -- like the ones on your corner who rob banks and burglarize homes and sell drugs -- or just for the nice people in suits who work in Washington?

There is clearly an elitism that goes beyond any individual and any party, and the big media generally drinks from the same well.

I will never forget hearing the NPR host telling us on election day that today Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain are no better than we are, because each of them has only one vote, just like the listeners.

So where are the listeners on the scale of American humanity on other days, or when involved with other activities. By inference, Glenn Greenwald explains very well where we stand compared to our political leaders, and it is not egalitarian.

"I'm just wondering if you do that for all crimes -- like the ones on your corner who rob banks and burglarize homes and sell drugs -- or just for the nice people in suits who work in Washington?"

Those are not crimes, they are corner policies and robbery and drug misdeeds.

(and forgive me for being too lazy to go back and find out):

What about a nongovernmental truth commission if necessary?

I think this is an excellent idea, sans the "truth commission" terminology. As someone else noted (saburai, I think), that name is uncomfortably Orwellian. Still, since genuine investigations (never mind prosecutions) are highly unlikely--strike that, guaranteed not to happen--why not take these things public in a way Accountability Now has done with mal-performing Democrats? Maybe Glenn, Jane Hamsher, et. al., are considering this. What's to lose?

He's not going to be scared or intimidated by people telling him "don't investigate, it will make you look vindictive or don't investigate people might get mad at us." I think Obama's goals are higher than his concern for politics or if he gets elected again.

He seems to me to be the guy to say, if a crime's been commited then they will face the music. Period.

Till you get a confession that they are the terrorists.

Or better yet, just put hit contracts out on all of them.

Save lot of taxpayer money in the process.

Everybody drops their guard at some time.

Or better yet, just put hit contracts out on all of them.

I've had the same thought (in my darker moments which occur, oddly, 24 hours a day).

Obama's not a pussy

I wish I were as sanguine as you regarding Obama's feline-ness.

Totally off topic -

The sun is out and last night's minor yard-flooding is a thing nof the past...Evidently, in Spring, when the threat of massive storms is past and one is no longer thinking of them, and one builds a large raised berm for Exbury Azaleas at the bottomof even an small incline, it is wise to consider drainage options appropriate drainage options for when those rains return...

you (poor) bastard. Do what I do with my neighbors: beat them physically into submission (a fantasy I have in my darker moments which occurs, oddly, ... well, you know the rest).

I think the azaleas are cool, though. How many did you plant?

Glenn Greenwald:

"In today's New York Times, Charlie Savage identifies the self-serving motive leading new Presidents to continuously uphold this lawbreaking license for their predecessors:"

Because every president eventually leaves office, incoming chief executives have an incentive to quash investigations into their predecessor’s tenure. Mr. Bush used executive privilege for the first time in 2001, to block a subpoena by Congressional Republicans investigating the Clinton administration.

The Charlie Savage quote mischaracterizes the scope and, I believe, the motivation behind that Bush claim of executive privilege. That subpoena related to information involving several cases. From AP:(click sig)

President Bush invoked executive privilege for the first time Thursday to keep Congress from seeing documents of prosecutors' decision-making in cases ranging from a decades-old Boston murder to the Clinton-era fund-raising probe.

And the intent behind it seems to have had more to do with laying the foundation of Bush's (Cheney's) imperial presidency than serial presidential back-scratching.

"I believe congressional access to these documents would be contrary to the national interest," Bush wrote in a memo ordering Attorney General John Ashcroft to withhold the documents from a House investigative committee that subpoenaed them.

The decision institutes a dramatic change in the way the administration intends to deal with Congress after years in which the Justice Department, sometimes reluctantly, shared sensitive investigative documents with lawmakers.

--snip--

More importantly, it sets a new policy in the works for months in which the administration will resist lawmakers' requests to view prosecutorial decision-making documents that have been routinely turned over to Congress in years past.

--snip--

White House counsel Alberto Gonzales recommended Bush invoke the privilege earlier this fall.

Bush's reason for claiming executive privilege was self-serving but it wasn't presidential tribute paid in return for future leniency or part of some presidential forgiveness lineage handshake extended backward to Bill Clinton.

In fact, mountain girl got it right on page 1: "Bush II did not have to investigate or prosecute Clinton's wrongdoings. The Republicans had just spent 8 years doing that."

And there were no establishment cries during those years which "venerat(ed) "centrism" and "bi-partisanship" as the highest religious concepts". During the impeachment years the "rule of law" and "no one is above the law" were echoed by Repuplican, Democrat and established media whore alike, as if they actually believed those phrases conceptually rather than selectively.

There is no evidence of a "self-serving motive leading new Presidents to continuously uphold this lawbreaking license for their predecessors".

There is evidence of a double-standard for centrism and bi-partisanship and forgiveness. The standard for Democrats is not only enforced by the Beltway media via pressure from the Republicans but also enforced from within the Democratic party itself. The Republicans are under no such constraints or pressures, and wouldn't respect them or be swayed by them in any case.