Once again, Glenn, you're upset about something inherent in any two-party system.

Come on people! THIS is what you wanted Obama in office for? To just let blatant violations of the constitution slide in the name of "bipartisanship"?

I don't know anyone here, of serious mind, who's said this. You'll find those who do say this sort of thing but, by definition, they aren't serious. Forgive the language-play to underscore the point.

...is channeling Maldoror?

Glenn: I'm going to appoint an AG who is widely respected, highly accomplished, very smart and independent. And then I'm going to say: "I repeatedly said during the campaign that the rule of law must be restored. I want you to appoint some of the best career prosecutors you have -- hire who you want -- to look at whether there are serious acts of criminality by the prior administration and pursue it where it leads."

There's really no more to it than that.

...that's Elephantman...

allow me to be honest here (and have I ever been anything less?): I wasn't familiar with your reference but thank heavens for Wikipedia. It says that Maldoror renounced all ties to conventional morality and decency.

If this is correct then I am in absolute agreement.

Now let me recover my self-respect: did I tell you I'm nearing the end of a book on the Late Roman Empire emperor, Julian the Apostate? Fascinating stuff.

Julian sounds fascinating. I shall have to go to Powell's.

Maldoror is particularly...difficult. I confess I have not been able to finish the work after about 3 DOZEN attempts. He was a genius, dead at 24...but One Sick Puppy. By page 3 a reader feels as if they have climbed from a cesspool toward something much more disgusting. But the prose is profound. I highly support anyone trying to get through it, with the caveat to keep vodka and even stronger disinfectants nearby while reading. Sort of like having one of the cenobytes from the Hellraiser movies as your life coach...

vodka, got it. But then that's always guaranteed (scotch, too; the more singular the malt, the better).

I'm hesitant, though, about reading this after your comments. History has always been my thing (I'm one of those All-but-dissertation MA people) and I confess to my cowardice when it's a matter of examining the innermost reaches of the soul, particularly when it becomes (and when doesn't it?), shall we say, darkly questionable.

examining the innermost reaches of the soul, particularly when it becomes (and when doesn't it?), shall we say, darkly questionable.

And he will make you question your assumptions there. Perhaps you could rent "Le Fils de Requin" first (Sons of the Shark) to get sort of Brady Bunch feel good (which isn't saying much about the true gist of the film) to get an idea. The protaganist relies heavily on a Maldoror quote...it's also a laugh riot at points, 'cause the opening scene on the bus is just a hoot.

But Ducasse really asks some incredible questions of himself, especially the kind most of us would shy from.

The alleged crooks themselves pay Litt to keep them out of court and prison. Then he gets quoted as an expert in the paper, not as a paid advocate for intel workers under investigation. I'll bet the reporter has been after Litt for years to spill some beans on his clients, but never successfully extracted a quote from Litt until Litt showed up at this conference. Then, happy to have a quote, the reporter forgot what Litt does for a living. Just guessing.

I can certainly understand the fear of retaliation that keeps Democrats from pursuing criminal charges in such matters.

But I think the risk goes beyond retaliation. Prosecutions may simply fail because the victims aren't sympathetic characters but the defendants are. Convictions could result in significant career boosts to the torturers: short prison stays, followed by decades-long careers on talk radio. Maybe it's better to leave these thugs in obscurity rather than boosting them into right-wing herodom.

If a lawbreaking administration is allowed to simply run out its clock, or is simply run out of office, it's very difficult for the next guy to serve justice and govern. That was the rather consistent argument made by Gerald Ford in defense of his pardon of Richard Nixon.

Such prosecutions are so distracting because they can no doubt dramatically motivate the sponsoring president's political foes. Managing such a prosecution requires not only fighting one or more very difficult and high profile legal wars against the best available lawyers, it also requires fighting political attacks from all directions on completely unrelated issues and seeming obsessed with destroying a political opponent to the exclusion of other presidential duties.

And what's more newsworthy than conflict? The prosecutions themselves would be covered almost entirely through the lens of political conflict rather than from the perspective of justice having its day in court.

It's that last problem that ultimately kills these prosecutions. The public is so ready to take sides in an Obama vs. Bush conflict storyline that the conflict is not only easy to simplify to a political spat, it carries its own fuel to propel it in that direction.

And yet, if the story of the Bush administration's abuses were to be told clearly enough to the public, the public might be persuaded to understand prosecutions for those abuses. Unfortunately, clarity is not the virtue most abundant in our mass media.

I've written that down and will look for it tomorrow. Speaking of the latter part of the Roman Empire (which I was but you weren't), have you ever read the fiction of Iain Pears? He wrote what I thought was a particularly interesting late-empire work titled The Dream of Scipio (I'm pretty sure I have that right; I lent it to my nephew who never returned it, the ungrateful wretch)?

Not familiar with it. I'm a massive fan of history, but I like the 8th-14th century (specifically, 12th-14th France). MMM...now I'm hungry for Freedom Fries.

I would, however, love it if Elagabalus had not been written out precipitously my those considering themselves more moral

I did like Graves' Claudius - good work there on a 'catch the reader' basis.