by Meteor Blades
Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:42:09 PM PDT
Today, at his "No Comment" blog at Harper's, Scott Horton took note that when some bureaucrats at the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service that handle federal oil leasing royalties were found to be literally in bed with corporate officials with whom they do the public's business, the Public Integrity Section of Cheney-Bush Department of Justice chose not to prosecute. And they gave no reasons why.
Like wise with Mark Foley. You remember him, surely, the Republican Representative from Florida whose sexually graphic emails and instant messages to former and currently serving Congressional pages made a big splash in 2006. The DoJ is letting that go without prosecution, too.
Public Integrity, Redefined
If you’re trying to understand why the Justice Department under Bush has reached a modern low water level in public confidence, look no further.
Or perhaps consider some of the public integrity cases which are being prosecuted, at a cost of millions in taxpayer dollars. Graft, cocaine and sexual favors at Interior is considered nothing serious. Improper dealings with minors and the texting of sexually explicit solicitations apparently can just be overlooked. Compare this with Sue Schmitz, the Alabama legislator who allegedly underperformed on a series of consultancy contracts, and was sued for fraud as a result: the prosecution’s thundering condemnation was that she kept bad time records on a contract to promote the interests of a secondary education contractor at the legislature. Schmitz’s first trial, at a cost to the public of some $2 million, produced no conviction, so now the Justice Department indicates it will try a second time—rushing to get the prosecution done before regime change in Washington brings an end to the charade.
Or consider the case of Pittsburgh’s Cyril Wecht, also prosecuted in a high-profile case on a series of bizarre petty offenses. That prosecution also failed. In the Wecht case as well, Justice insists on a new trial, and is racing to complete it before the coach turns into a pumpkin on January 20. In the Wecht case, the appeals court has just removed the George W. Bush-appointed judge who presided over the case and whose consistently less-than-even-handed management of the case was the subject of widespread comment.
So how to differentiate the decision not to prosecute the coke-snorting, party-animal Bush appointees at Interior and the party-animal Congressman chasing after young pages from the 63-year-old school teacher in Alabama who kept bad time records and the prominent Pittsburgh medical examiner who had the indecency to make personal use of his fax machine? The latter two are Democrats. [My emphasis - MB]
Like wise with Mark Foley. You remember him, surely, the Republican Representative from Florida whose sexually graphic emails and instant messages to former and currently serving Congressional pages made a big splash in 2006. The DoJ is letting that go without prosecution, too.
Public Integrity, Redefined
If you’re trying to understand why the Justice Department under Bush has reached a modern low water level in public confidence, look no further.
Or perhaps consider some of the public integrity cases which are being prosecuted, at a cost of millions in taxpayer dollars. Graft, cocaine and sexual favors at Interior is considered nothing serious. Improper dealings with minors and the texting of sexually explicit solicitations apparently can just be overlooked. Compare this with Sue Schmitz, the Alabama legislator who allegedly underperformed on a series of consultancy contracts, and was sued for fraud as a result: the prosecution’s thundering condemnation was that she kept bad time records on a contract to promote the interests of a secondary education contractor at the legislature. Schmitz’s first trial, at a cost to the public of some $2 million, produced no conviction, so now the Justice Department indicates it will try a second time—rushing to get the prosecution done before regime change in Washington brings an end to the charade.
Or consider the case of Pittsburgh’s Cyril Wecht, also prosecuted in a high-profile case on a series of bizarre petty offenses. That prosecution also failed. In the Wecht case as well, Justice insists on a new trial, and is racing to complete it before the coach turns into a pumpkin on January 20. In the Wecht case, the appeals court has just removed the George W. Bush-appointed judge who presided over the case and whose consistently less-than-even-handed management of the case was the subject of widespread comment.
So how to differentiate the decision not to prosecute the coke-snorting, party-animal Bush appointees at Interior and the party-animal Congressman chasing after young pages from the 63-year-old school teacher in Alabama who kept bad time records and the prominent Pittsburgh medical examiner who had the indecency to make personal use of his fax machine? The latter two are Democrats. [My emphasis - MB]
Three key issues dovetail:
1. Nuremberg [“Under any civilized judicial system he could have been impeached and removed from office or convicted of malfeasance in office on account of the scheming malevolence with which he administered injustice. ] Source
2. Constitutional clause in re pardon-impeachment [AII S2: “he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” ]
3. State level prosecutions are possible. [Jonathan Turley, “From Pillar to Post”: The Prosecution of Sitting Presidents, 37 American Criminal Law Review 1049-1106 (2000)]
The idea is to ensure impeachment proceedings start.
The outcome is less important than ensuring the evidence is carefully presented.
However, if there is no impeachment, and the President/VP are pardoned, this means the second prong of Nuremberg — prosecutions — cannot be met.
This opens the US to lawful attack to enforce Geneva.
Nuremberg made it clear that unless impeachment or prosecutions were used, the nation could not be considered civilized.
If Americans will not enforce the law against the President through impeachment; nor challenge Pelosi with removal to make way for investigations, Geneva would permit other nations to use military force to constrain the US.
Prosecutions at the DOJ-level may be thwarted, but there are options to use State AG’s to enforce the law.
The arguments defending the President against impeachment are similar to those which attempt to avoid confronting Pelosi. They’re both frivolous.
In the meantime, the effort to remove Pelosi —
to make way for an investigation —
continues.
What You Can Do
A. Say hello to Gareth.
B. Say hello to this Kos diary on this topic.
C. Stay informed, drop by here!!