Dkos: John Dean says Obama might be able to go after telecoms criminally.

[dkf]

Keith Olbermann: "If this gets in through the Senate there's no way to get it out again, is there? I mean, the history of this nation in terms of lost civil liberties is pretty bad about restoring them."

John Dean: "Well I spent a lot of time reading that bill today and it's a very poorly drafted bill. One of the things that is not clear is whether it's not possible later to go after the telecoms for criminal liability. And that's something Obama has said during this campaign he would do - unlike prior Presidents who come in and merely give their predecessor a pass, he said, 'I won't do that.' And that might be why he's just sitting by saying, 'Well, I'm just gonna let this go through but that doesn't mean I'm gonna give the telecom a pass.' I would love it if he gets on the Senate floor and says, 'I'm keeping that option open.'

Olbermann and Dean then discuss the idea of letting the private lawsuits against the telecoms fade away and have someone like Obama or someone else go after the telecoms later on.

Keith Olbermann: In other words, let the private suits drop and get somebody in there to actually use the laws that still exist to prosecute and make the actual statement and maybe throw a few people in jail.

John Dean: Exactly. Exactly. It looks to me as I read this bill and I talk to a number of people in Washington familiar with the bill, and some who are involved in the negotiations, and they say, 'You know, we just didn't think about this issue.' So as it goes to the Senate, maybe Obama's got a shot to take a future look at this thing and not let them have the pass they think they're getting.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/23/0035/51973/576/540462

[darkmaestro019]

1. *I* would love it if he looked dead at the camera

maybe with a little "fanservice" of a wink and said 'I'm keeping that option ON THE TABLE.' Perhaps with a gentle little one-sentence speech after something like "Because it is never okay to let criminal behavior slide for political or personal gain, and I'm not going to allow it while I'm Commander in Chief."


(grumble)


(If he behaves even half that.....nobly....imagine the BAR it will set for future Presidents)


(Please, gods, please)

EDIT: The rum, it does nothing for my spelling. :evilgrin:

[chimpymustgo]

2. Ah, fantasies. With all due respect to John Dean, that really doesn't make much sense.

Immunity is immunity. Secret plan...sure...

[dkf]

4. The immunity is from civil litigation, not criminal.

[flpoljunkie]

3. The Senate debate starts today. We will see what happens.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. So it's a "save the companies, put the decisionmakers in jail" strategy

Interesting.

[hulka38]

8. Aggressive prosecution and harsh sentencing are a much more effective deterent for the white collar

criminal than for average hoodlum, I've always felt. Both civil and criminal would be ideal, of course. But if it's just criminal versus the individual executives making the decisions, it will be more public than the class action suits will be and the individuals responsible will be forced to defend themselves. Their corporate attorneys and advisers will also be exposed. Lessons will be learned.

[roguevalley]

9. there are also fines in some criminal cases. I want all that shit erased.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. I'm all in favor of that.

If I were an investor in one of these telecoms I'd be pissed that some employee used company resources to conspire to commit crimes. Criminal prosecutions for the individuals, I say.

[Reader Rabbit]

6. Would the House members who voted for it be indicted, as well?

For aiding and abetting? As co-conspirators?

[crankychatter]

7. The civil suits are important to DO, what the DoJ and Congress are NOT doing

Investigate the precise machinery of the illegal spying, and the Bush Administration's crimes

If Obama does it... that would be good.