Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why is the Justice Dept going after John Edwards while giving Bush officials a pass?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
Empowerer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 01:12 PM
Original message
Why is the Justice Dept going after John Edwards while giving Bush officials a pass?
Whatever anyone thinks of Edwards' behavior, should he really be facing indictment - especially given the fact that so many Bush Administration officials who are likely to have committed serious crimes, seem to be in no legal jeopardy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. Edwards is a much easier target
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. JE does not involve anyone else, former or current. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
3. Double standards
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
4. Because Bush-appointee George Holding is still the local US Attorney. It's time to let Obama
appoint replacements for the Bushistas
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
former9thward Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. No one is stopping Obama from appointing U.S. Attorneys.
Bill Clinton fired every one of Bush I's US Attorneys the day after he took office. Obama could do the same thing. It is his choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. Burr plans to block U.S. attorney nominee (December 10, 2009 )
RALEIGH, N.C. Republican Sen. Richard Burr said Thursday he will hold up a White House attempt to replace the federal prosecutor overseeing a probe of two-time presidential candidate John Edwards.

Burr said in a statement that he will support the nomination of Charlotte lawyer Thomas Walker only after current U.S. Attorney George Holding completes investigations into Edwards and former Democratic Gov. Mike Easley. Burr said Walker's political contributions to Edwards and Easley "represent a conflict of interest" ...

http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/6589537/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
former9thward Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Nothing is stopping Obama from getting rid of Holding.
A Senator might be able to block a permanent replacement for a period of time. But a temporary person would run the office in the meantime. The office does not shut down or stop doing their cases just because there is not a permanent head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #16
34. actually it was Hagan who was the real problem
she took the same position which made it all but impossible for Obama to name a replacement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-11 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #8
21. I think Obama wanted to be seen as running a less partisan Justice Department
While dismissing the previous administration's US Attorneys is standard procedure, it creates a partisan conflict of interest when you have ongoing investigations against political figures. The Republicans repeatedly pointed out that Clinton fired Bush I's US Attorneys when there were pending investigations of Democrats when we were attacking Bush II for politicizing the justice department. Now granted that argument was largely bullshit because Dubya took it to a whole new level by firing his own US Attorneys and explicitly doing so because they didn't prosecute enough Democrats. Not to mention screening civil service people for their political views.

But even if it's not on the level that Dubya did it and even if the object isn't to influence pending investigations, and even if every President does it, cleaning house on day one is still politicizing the Justice Department. I think not doing that is part of what Obama wanted to change. The problem, of course, is that you have Bush US Attorneys bringing bullshit cases like Don Siegelman and John Edwards that were the result of Bush over-politicizing the Justice Department. So really you kind of have to clean house just to restore the normal order. It's a Catch 22.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #21
32. He failed - it's still a radical-right-wing Justice department
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Um, who is stopping him?
No one has to let him do it, the AsG serve at the pleasure.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. Obama didn't replace them, he embraced them.
He chose not to clean out Bush's people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Thomas Walker Nominated as Next U.S. Attorney for E.D.N.C. (December 1, 2009)
Charlotte, NC lawyer Thomas Walker has been nominated by Presidnt Obama to be the next U.S. Attorney in North Carolinas Eastern District ... Walkers nomination must now be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

http://www.securitiesdocket.com/2009/12/01/thomas-walke...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-11 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. USAs serve at the pleasure of the president, he could dismiss him at any time.
He need not wait for a successor to be confirmed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Charlotte's Thomas Walker nominated for U.S. Attorney - again (2 March 2011)
(By Barbara Barrett, Washington correspondent)

President Barack Obama late Wednesday nominated Charlotte attorney Thomas Gray Walker - again - for the position of U.S. Attorney for North Carolina's Eastern District.If confirmed, Walker would replace George Holding ...

http://greensboro-nc.com/news/article/charlottes-thomas...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
5. Edwards' actions do not threaten the presidential powers currently enjoyed
by Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
justiceischeap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
6. The above are all great theories but I think it's more likely that
they don't want to set a precedent where future President's go after previous President's 'cause I'm sure any administration could find wrong-doing by a previous administration and then try them for it. For example, if we're going to try Bush/Cheney for war crimes, then we better make sure the next administration (or even this one) tries Obama because he's using the same policies, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. I agree. Its unfortunate, but if a President leaves office without being indicted, thats it.
As much as I think she is great, this one is on Pelosi. You cannot have Presidents indicting the prior administration because then it will happen every time there is a party change in the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #6
29. Sorry to be the fly in the ointment, but if Obama's administration is
breaking the law, it should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

We have a finite amount of resources. We allocate those resources to hounding Edwards rather than restoring our credibility on the world stage. Whatever.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
7. Well, whom do you want indicted for what?
I'm all for seeing Cheney et al in jail but it's difficult to come up with a charge that's actually workable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Bush and Cheney are both guilty of an unprovoked war of aggression for starters. But...
it cannot be the Obama justice department that handles the prosecution. They should provide all the info necessary for such an indictment to the world court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. That's the thing
Lying the country into an unprovoked war is unfortunately not a crime under US law.

If the Hague comes knocking it's a different story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Well, we are signatories to the UN Charter and thus there is an argument to be made that
items covered in that charter are enforceable under US law, but I dont know if that extends to criminal acts it may be just civil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #14
36. I don't think treaties can enact criminal laws
without a specific law being passed by Congress. I doubt that violating the UN charter is a criminal act in America
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-11 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
15. For the same reason
That they're going to go after Lance Armstrong, but not Goldman Sachs. Armstrong cheated in a silly bicycle race. Goldman Sachs ruined the economy and looted the treasury.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-26-11 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
20. Consider Nixon.
There never was any serious effort to implicate him for the invading and bombing of Cambodia but he was forced from office for trying to cover up a third rate burglary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #20
30. On the contrary, the illegal invasion of Cambodia was one of the
proposed articles of impeachment considered by the House Judiciary Committee. I remember because I was glued to the radio during the entire time (family did not have a television) and listened to the hearings live.

The article was rejected but the vote to do so was fairly close, IIRC.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zoeisright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-11 01:21 AM
Response to Original message
22. VERY good question. And why hasn't Ensign been indicted? Or Diaper Dave Vitter?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. Ensign's case is about a year or two behind Edwards'
At this point, Ensign resigned his Senate seat - even before that his very real chance at the Republican nomination ended. In addition, there was a very negative Senate ethics report that detailed many things that could warrant an indictment.
So, he has faced 3 consequences. Edwards had no seat to lose and no realistic nomination possibilities - even before the scandal. There was no detailed ethics report because he was not in office. I suspect one person watching the Edwards case with person interest is Ensign. If Edwards is indicted and convicted, it is MUCH more likely that Ensign will be indicted on similar charges.

As to Vitter, as far as I know, the only thing he is guilty of is hiring a prostitute. He was humiliated, but he was re-elected by his constituents.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marlakay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-11 02:07 AM
Response to Original message
23. Who really runs this country?
It's the military and corporate powers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughBeaumont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-27-11 07:28 AM
Response to Original message
24. Because IOKIYAR, that's why.
300 years of Authoritarian scorched-earth rule means never having to say "Sorry".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sportsguy Donating Member (389 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #24
33. Embarrassing Question
What is "IOKIYAR"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughBeaumont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. "It's OK if You're A Republican"
It's why Ed Schultz gets suspended but Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage remain on the air continually without EVER a "sorry" coming from any of their sewery gullets. And all three will insist up and down that THEY'RE the victims of "Liberulizm". Simply stunning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
26. He rattled his zipper
The ultimate political sin in the USA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
28. He's a Democrat. No pressure from beck and rush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
31. Edwards is farther left than Bush
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
37. What US domestic laws did Bush violate? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. There be the $64,000 question.
It's the one no one wants asked, because no one has a definitive answer for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 19th 2014, 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC