"There is a coherent way to argue against investigations and prosecutions of actions by Bush officials: one could argue that they weren't illegal. Obviously, if one believes that, then that is conclusive on the question." -- GG

This is nearly right, but it's not quite that simple. First, as to investigations, that's how you determine whether there should be prosecutions. So believing there was no lawbreaking really doesn't mean there should be no investigation if there is some evidence to suggest there was perhaps lawbreaking. From what is on record, it's hard to see any arguments against investigations.

Prosecutions are a different story. As Glenn knows, decisions about whether to prosecute crimes are made based on the likelihood of conviction and resources available. Prosecutors often find themselves in the position of believing a crime was committed but knowing they do not have the evidence to convict. So there are certainly circumstances where even if it is believed that a crime was committed, the decision not to prosecute can be correct and legitimate.

None of which is what Mr. Litt is arguing, Glenn would rightly point. He wants bygones to be bygones from the get-go, i.e. no investigations to say nothing of prosecutions. That ought to be a nonstarter.

Disheartening, isn't it, that ex-Department of (In)Justice officials like Lee Casey, Robert Litt, and Douglas Kmiec are hot to exempt their own kind from investigation and/or prosecution. Those of us who are cynical as hell about our "government of laws" (?!) have just been given more reason for our cynicism.

I associate myself with the views of guys like Bruce Fein, Daniel Larison, Jonathan Turley, and Conor Friedersdorf. These people understand that a cesspool government isn't worth having.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/opinion/14fri4.html?ref=opinion

Zounds! I thought that was the spoof edition.

Yes, I can agree with that 110%.

However, I know the pain adnoto feels at seeing the whole corrupt thing clearly while almost everyone else sees "America the Wonderful". It can be a bitch.

(sorry puppies for the disparaging language)

The Bush Administration attempted to destroy the constitutional principle of checks and balances. It is time for the Congress to re-assert its responsibility to uphold the Constitution. As in Watergate, it was the Senate's obligation to investigate, hold hearings, take testimony, obtain documents, and if warranted by the evidence, to impeach, censure, or if possible, to indict. It should do so now, while Bush and Cheney are still in office. Obama's administration can respond accordingly and actually supply what long-withheld documents and information that is subpenaed by Congress. Where relevant, the Justice Department should prosecute if the evidence provided by Congressional investigations so warrants it. That is called the rule of law. Obama and his administration do not have to take the lead in ferreting out misfeasence, or even make it their own policy priorty, until Congress forwards to them sufficient hard evidence that would warrant Justice Department action.

In the meantime, there is no reason to think that other committees in Congress, as well as the vast array of Executive Branch agencies, cannot go forward with their own work on the multitude of critical issues before them. All of it needs to get done, and it's not true that reaasserting the rule of law over the Executive branch of government is somehow going to prevent other significant policies from being pursued as well. Each in its own time.

...of course, Feigold really needs no encouragement from Glenn or us. But the New York Times sure does.

Funny that Glenn should link to Larison. Here's what he writes:

Instead, let’s simply consider what a system governed by the rule of law would require. It would require that those suspected of abuses of power, corruption or the commission of crimes under the color of authority be investigated and, if the evidence merited it, prosecuted. [Italics mine - MD.]

This goes directly to the point of what might be a legitimate argument against investigation (nothing) and what might be an argument against prosecution (insufficient evidence to convict).

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."

Maybe even better would be to get Congress to investigate, with the DOJ agreeing to enforce Congressional subpoenas but not much more until Congress turns up its findings.

If I break the law, I face prosecution.

And if you default on your mortgage payments, you face foreclosure.

If you're a big Wall Street firm, you might just get a taxpayer bailout.

Oops, in America, we aren't supposed to play the class warfare thing. I'll STFU.

Without the rule of law and the expectation of prosecution there is no other problem able to be fixed, or even anything more than a temporary easing of anger.

With two years of "lets not Impeach" anger has built, and Fascistic powers have built till we are on a knife edge that will lead back to a socialized (as socialized dog) society or fall into an unsocialized morass that in the hallmark of third world countries, and failed states.

Without that socializing force the economic disasters, phony wars, Haditha like massacres, and very much worse is the only possible result. If not this presidency than the next. Because we did not get prosecution of the Iran Contras Crowd, Bill Clinton was not the criminal but he was driven to the ground by impeachment, and Bush two skirted the edge of protofascism.

Obama may not go there but his successor almost definitely will.

~Readers wonder on and on, ponder day after day,

all night long, and you 2- all-stars are ding dong?

Hope you never break up. My dear gaud, thank ya'.

If honest, most folk don't know what thee hells ya'?

Ya' goofy as two mouse in the underpants running.

Ya' git vibration from thee 2-field mouse streaking.

Ya' quaking. O sooth otter doom gloom depression.

WKW ya' say? Ya' expressions a.n.t. a bull mugging.

or GOP flop. Ya' ain't defense lawyer's psychologist,

Ya' sure can-can gigs full throttle, ya' way out? huh?

Ya' WKW say? Ya' say sumtin' so we no pour fire fluid?

Ya' depressed reader don't want to squirt lighter fluid?

No. Yesterdays past. And no need for self immolations.

All we are saying:`Give peace a chance. Gimme the truth.

I's say: Thanks for banter, and light hearts. WKW Ya' Say?

Ya better than a AG's DOJ lawyers WHO buy Law Degrees.

Yes. law quacks @ DOJ gov.com.hell. Buy @ Law `n 'dings.

Wall sheep skin, goats, bushy possum hides, all firs $1.98.

Fall nursery stock: tulips, evergreen red berry bushes, beer.

Buy today.

Thomas Hardy say: In The Times Of Crumbling Nasturtiums,

plant flowering shrubs, buy a plow mule or donkey. That remain.

All things change. Dreams fade away. Empires tumble. Vines twist.

Underpants smell if politicians poop in congress pews and do zilch.

What remain, one thing id for certain, a old geezer needs a good horse.

On a foggy morning, wake up and stumble over earthen clods, and love.

~

I was saying the Foggy Bottom Farm Market was on Thursday. It's a Wed-day!

On any day the gardeners come to town it's a happy day. A wagon is stacked high.

The day is more fine that if thee heehaw mules hauled tons of jewell, gold and give away.

I ponder if my brain do wander to old poem authors who save the good mood and foods.