Absolutely right, GG. There is a case to be made for a limited executive privilege, and as long as it is applied in a consistent and principled manner, I don't have a problem with it. But deliberately refusing to investigate misconduct in the name of some misguided sense of "moving on" is not a principle that anyone should be in favor of.

With all the talk about 'bi-partisan' and 'trans-partisan' and 'not being partisan' - clearly a widely accepted concept to be taken as inherently good [morally and technically] -, can anybody give me a good reason why there are political parties at all? I am not taking the cynical PoV that it doesn't matter what name they give themselves as they already believe the same things. I find that many parties all over the world do have major differences between them. It's just that, well, these differences seem to not count anymore, and most everybody is happy with that.

In a country subscribing to the creed of 'competition is good as it works in favour of all by making things better and cheaper' it should be highly disturbing to ask for non- or bi-partisanship - it's just a very small step from a presumed general consensus [be clear: among those benefiting!] to a prescribed general 'Gleichschaltung'.

Last week's episode of South Park was a mild take on Ocean's 11 and such movies. The political caricature was just a nice add-on, I had hoped. Now, it seems, Trey/Parker were spot on: It doesn't matter, Demopublicans all!

BTW, regardless of which way Congress and the White House go, they will always be attacked by right-wing pronutters. Best example are Mr Reid and Ms Pelosi, who, in the view of the O'Haneillys, are Extremists and Communists - even when they side with George Bush Junior.

...generated by some fair War Crimes trials followed by some speedy hangin's at The Hague.

But maybe that's just me.

Bush and Cheney will claim Executive Privilege *after* they leave office. The Dems will not push it to the Supreme Court (too partisan!). They will never be investigated or prosecuted for their crimes.

I'll grant, it's been a long time since my high school civics class. However, my admittedly limited understanding of our government is centered around the division of powers as first told to me: the Legislative branch writes the laws, the Executive branch, well, executes the laws, and the Judicial branch enforces the laws.

I would define the role of the judiciary differently - I would say the role of the courts is to decide cases and controversies among the citizens, to ensure that criminal defendants receive due process under the law, and in doing so, to interpret the Constitution.

Police and prosecutors (part of the executive) are said to "enforce the law" which I take as essentially meaning the same thing as to "execute the law."

For Obama to take on the prosecution of Bush's crimes during his administration it would have a devastating effect on his to ability to govern. The Republicans are already gearing up to destroy Obama just like they did with Clinton. The Justice Department is full of Bush cronies and will need to be totally purged. So are many other departments. His clear out and clean up tasks are quite daunting. I think the opportunity is lost.

I'm out of outrage. We sit around here and bash the "cynics" who suggest "all them politician/crooks" are the same. But other than being wrong about the universal "all", given the few powerless exceptions to the rule, those cynical rascals are right. Isn't that the point of about 1 out of every 5 of GG's pieces--that the political class and their media and business courtiers/enablers (or is it the business class and its political and media courtiers/enablers) have zero intention of being accountable to anyone, not each other, and certainly not the public. Subordinates willingly fall on the sword to protect the status quo, everytime, and the few public servants with even the slightest shred of integrity and courage necessary to speak the truth have their lives ruined quickly and permanently (unless they have the good fortune to become bloggers). Liberal truth tellers get fucked, right wing criminals get radio shows and a loyal following (Liddy, North, Limbaugh). Justice in America is a concept that's almost dead. Try and imagine something like the Church Commission happening today. Get serious. The 9-11 commission was barely comparable with little more than a predetermined final product.

The really big question for me is that if we can't change this dynamic by putting new faces in new positions through elections, and we can't get anyone actually entrusted to enforce the law to actually enforce it, what do we do? Emmigrate to Canada, New Zealand, Europe . . . is it really any different there? If Dick Cheney actually stepped foot in Germany or whichever European country has pending charges against him, do you actually think they'd have the cajones to arrest him and prosecute him? I seriously seriously doubt it.

Maybe Leona Helmsley was right--taxes are for the little people (apparently she meant the law too). I'm still trying to figure out how they suckered me (or I suckered myself into believing) into shelling out for a useless law degree. I can either start small and work my way to enabling the man, or I can starve and declare bankruptcy. That old job delivering the mail is looking better and better by the second. Only I'd rather be delivering the mail in Costa Rica.

If the economy were strong and there were no national security threats or ongoing wars, or any other pressing matters where time, effort, and political capital needs to be expended, then lawbreaking could be investigated?...... But if it were all like that Obama would not have been elected.

While I wrote that Joe Lieberman is a side-show, investigating crimes and misdemeanors of any administration is not. It certainly would set a standard, as it well should. On this point I am very suspicious of government, be it right-wing, right-leaning, center, left-leaning, left-wing (full disclosure: I work for a government). There is a saying in Latin America: For my friends everything, for my enemies the law! That is: If my friends break the law for "higher" purpose that is of course completely different than if done by the "thugs" we oppose. And rare is the government that let the law get into their way when "it is for the better of country". Not only governments: just read some comments by posters here on Salon, be they by "enlightened" progressives or "troglodytic nutwings" (case in point: posts on Glenn's position on Executive Orders).

And if Bush should blanket with a pardon all crimes committed by his administration henchmen, have an independent commission dig up the truth. Truth Commissions could potentially be of even more value exposing of what happened because - for sound reasons - the judicial process is skewed in favor of the accused. (Yes, I am a bleeding heart liberal: What goes for OJ, goes for Dubya, too.)

Glenn, I hear you!