Isn't what Tamm did illegal

-- shooter242

I don't know for certain. But you of the "No crimes were committed" mantra ought to know. You've repeatedly expressed your certainty that Dick and George never committed any crimes, so I don't see why you would be stumped or uncertain about this situation.

"Isn't what Tamm did illegal and isn't the rule of law to be applied impartially."

No and yes. With the "king's authorization" violations of law were commited. Tamm as, I'm sure any lawyer who seeks to conform his conduct to legally mandated professional ethics obligations, pursued the matter internally once he knew. Surely he was rebuffed. He then had a choice--keep quiet or jeopardize his career and future by fulfilling his professional obligation.

Do you think it's ethical to expose a secret illegal program?

Do you think it's ethical to illegally expose a secret illegal program?

Do you think it's fair/just that both Tamm and Pres. Bush et al should be subject to the rule of law equally and impartially?

Do you believe that the President of the United States of America is above the law or by virtue of his proclamation any action he takes is by definition legal?

I've asked you before, why do you hate the Constitution, the concept of the rule of law, and America?

Why are you so pathologically subservient to authority?

Did you wet the bed much as a child (or adult)?

Did you suffer a severe head trauma recently or are you currently taking prescription medication that impairs your cognitive functioning?

I think you could make a case for assaulting these people. I am a Texan. I tried to seek redress for the Iraq War, this spying....... All to no avail.

I dare say the system is rigged. There is no way to petition this gov't, hence, throw a shoe in protest. We have been barred any real engagement with this gov't. I am making a bi-partisan charge here as our representatives have violated their fiduciary duty. Further, I am told that this is the way the world works. I have no recourse. Hence, we are left to resort to extreme measures.

Chunk a shoe if you love America. Let your soles reign down on our men in Washington. We're told we can't bring suit for national security reasons or other diversions that give us no standing. Well, I'm gonna stand shoe in hand. You can deny me, us. But, surely as gravity will make my shoe fall, you will feel my standing.

Who's with me?

This is what I wonder as well? I'm not a lawyer, but to expect someone to not disclose a known crime essentially makes that person part of a conspiracy to the crime, or an accessory to the crime, doesn't it?

Isn't it expected that a citizen would report crimes that he's aware of?

A person cannot knowingly aid and abet a fugitive (a criminal). The courts expect the person to report the fugitive to the police.

So if someone is violating a law, and using 'national security' as their cover, then you'd think the rules of law would still apply. Otherwise, that person who covers up for the criminals by not exposing it would be liable, or an accessory himself. Right?

Not to minimize the unforgivable pain the Mukasey DOJ has put him through, but as a practical matter, can't he just run out the clock at this point? Is there anything more they can realistically do to him between now and 1/20?

I'm sure this is their strategy. But there's no guarantee these proceedings won't continue. Many of the prosecutors are career DOJ employees. One would certainly think that Holder would want to be involved in the decision as to whether to pursue this. And given how emphatic his condemnation has been of the NSA program in particular, there's good reason to believe he wouldn't want to. But that's not guaranteed at all -- whether they'd be willing to come in and quash an ongoing investigation of this type.

Can't Tamm just avoid the subpoena for a couple weeks? He has to be served, so couldn't he just get out a dodge, or stay at home (not answer the door) until Obama is inaugurated and then come back?

All, perhaps, naive.

1. GG you have always leveled a stake in the heart of Beltway/MSM/Sunday pundits and I applaud you for that. Still, doesn't the NYT owe Tamm something? Maybe not as truthful as your diary, but couldn't they print something about Tamm's trial? Yeah, I know the answer - life sucks and so does the NYT, a lot of the time.

2. If we ever get over the Holder nomination (which may be never, given Rove and Spector), will the new DOJ continue to prosecute Tamm? But Mukasey will be gone, no?

3. Cass Sunstein? Didn't he just marry Samantha Power? And doesn't she still advise Obama (informally,of course), who voted for the FISA bill?

4. No, I didn't know about Lichtblau's book until you linked to it (and I try to keep informed). So, could a writer, better informed than I, pen a letter to the editor to the NYT, WaPo, LA Times - fer chrissakes (digby) even HuffPo. OK, how about KO or Maddow? How do we get this out to the non-reality based community? Or the real world, most of whom do not have the luxury to keep informed.

Going back to drinking.

3. Cass Sunstein? Didn't he just marry Samantha Power? And doesn't she still advise Obama (informally,of course), who voted for the FISA bill?

I had no idea she married Cass. Good God! I bet they have a lot of debates over dinner time. Samantha Power is one of the most admirable people on the planet. Can't believe she married him.

1--the obvious one--let the Bush DOJ do its worst; in his first five minutes in office, Obama pardons Tamm, then appoints him to an appropriate job in Justice.

2--perhaps less obvious--in his first five minutes in office, Obama pardons Bush and Cheney, ideally in a document which describes at length their various crimes and misdemeanors and character defects and so on, and includes some language like this: though these men are despicable, nothing would be gained by prosecution, yada yada (in truth simply yielding to the prevailing atmosphere you've described in which people are unwilling, for their own reasons, to see justice done.) Toss them on the same heap as Nixon and Rich; a pardon is not the most attractive resume item. B&C perhaps could make history by declining a pardon, perhaps even using the "Bring it On" challenge again. Perhaps Obama then can then renege on the pardon, using whatever legal pathways Bush himself has created in his recent pardon fiasco.

ice, dreaming