Comments on: Liberal extremists seek disbarment of Bush lawyers

By: Next93

Next93 — Tue, 19 May 2009 14:07:33 +0000

I’m pretty sure the VP’s offcial authority over this matter was close to zero, whereas the Speaker was in a position to introduce legislation to either outlaw the practice or restrict funding. So if we’re going to start holding kangaroo courts, Pelosi should be one of the first, it not THE first.

By: farstar99

farstar99 — Tue, 19 May 2009 10:12:37 +0000

If one were going to get Pelosi disbarred, does congressional immunity apply, and would the fraud/crime exception apply when the nation was the client?

By: tbeauchamp

tbeauchamp — Tue, 19 May 2009 00:18:46 +0000

Tho I think there’s a difference between unethical and illegal. Wouldn’t unethical be decided by the bar and not by statutes, or do I read it wrong?

By: Jack_Savage

Jack_Savage — Tue, 19 May 2009 00:04:59 +0000

Since I need to remind you:

“I was under the impression that the OLC’s job was to advise the President, not give legal cover to bend or break the law. ”

Remember that? Seems like you have already made up your mind on this, unless I am not understanding. You believe it is obvious that they acted at LEAST unethically, perhaps criminally, then ask whether lawyers who act unethically should be disbarred. Sorry, I’m not playing.

An non-partisan third party? Like the 9/11 commission? Maybe Al Gore? How abot Ward Churchill? Don’t hand me that garbage. When someone like you says “non-partisan third party” you mean “liberal hack who hasn’t been outed as a liberal hack – yet”. Sounds so…so….fair, and yet we have seen the results. Again, I’ll pass, thank you.

I’ll ask you to stop the whiny “boy, I wish we could just investigate to find out the truth.” You have plenty of fishing expeditions going on right now, but just make sure some of your boys (and girls) don’t wind up getting caught in the net.

Try Kos. You’ll be happier there.

By: civil_truth

civil_truth — Tue, 19 May 2009 00:01:30 +0000

The only way to accuse the OLC lawyers of unethical actions is to change the statutes after the fact – or least the accepted interpretation after the fact. Such a change is inherently partisan with the only purpose of punishing political opponents.

Since the process is inherently dishonest and prejudicial (in the strict sense of the word), appointing a “non-partisan third-party” is strictly whitewashing an inherently partisan proscription.

By: tbeauchamp

tbeauchamp — Mon, 18 May 2009 23:54:22 +0000

1.) If lawyers in the OLC acted unethically, they should be disbarred.
2.) A non-partisan third party should find out if they did.

You disagree?

By: civil_truth

civil_truth — Mon, 18 May 2009 23:51:16 +0000

As in one-party government. The bullying you’re already seeing is a downpayment once the Obama administration gets their people in the correct places and brings down the full power of the Justice Department, the Treasury (including the IRS) and the various regulatory agencies against all possible dissidents – backed up by a compliant judiciary. Not to mention the Ministry of Propaganda to orchestrate the media and otherwise rewrite history.

By: Jack_Savage

Jack_Savage — Mon, 18 May 2009 23:40:44 +0000

Seems like you are backing up a little bit – it is hard to reconcile:

“I was under the impression that the OLC’s job was to advise the President, not give legal cover to bend or break the law.

Reading left, right and centrist blogs, the impression I am left with is that the OLC was at best unethical and at worst criminal.”

with:

“Probably not criminal, possibly unethical.”

Why don’t you get your story straight and get back with us? And FWIW, the truth does exist. It’s just that no one on your side is interested in hearing it.

By: Ron Robinson

Ron Robinson — Mon, 18 May 2009 23:37:46 +0000

It seems to me that under Holder’s legal theory, the first person he should investigate should be Speaker Pelosi. After all, she got the earliest word on this ‘torture’ and she did nothing, and raised no objections.

So she should not only be disbarred, she should be vigorously prosecuted.

By: tbeauchamp

tbeauchamp — Mon, 18 May 2009 23:34:29 +0000

I’m no expert, nor do I claim to be, but I read and saw interviews with John Yoo after he wrote the memos, and I heard the same thing from Gonzales where they said, and I’m paraphrasing, “After 911, the question we asked ourselves wasn’t what’s the least we can do, but how far can we push the line.”

Probably not criminal, possibly unethical. You ask me what I know, and I don’t know anything. I can’t. People on the left scream bloody murder at people on the right, and vice versa. The truth is impossible to find. It doesn’t even exist anymore.

I say it’s a bummer we will never find out what happened.

I am for rule of law no matter who’s in charge.

By: Vegas_Rick

Vegas_Rick — Mon, 18 May 2009 23:04:50 +0000

that these attorneys gave “legal cover” to break the law? How do you KNOW that they offered anything more than their honest legal opinion? Did your leftiness know that the Congress passed a law defining torture in 1994? Did you also know that that law DID NOT define water boarding as torture? Did you further know that that law was in effect until 2006? And, finally, did you know that all water boarding ceased in 2003, while the law was still in effect?

I think you may want to do a little investigating of your own.

By: Big Apple Infidel

Big Apple Infidel — Mon, 18 May 2009 22:57:25 +0000

A few short years ago, the Democrats were viewed as a party sliding into the abyss of insignificance, as noted by conservative Dem Zell Miller and others. Now that the political winds have shifted, the resurgent leftists want to engage in show trials of their political opponents on the right.

What happens when the wind blows back to the right? Imagine if abortion becomes defined as murder by a new jurisprudence, with retroactive prosecutions and disbarring of its supporters and practitioners. The same could be said of the use of racial preferences being seen as a civil rights violation, whenever they are used against anybody, white or black, regardless of motivation. Perhaps other left wing policies can be criminalized as well, after-the-fact.

The political winds may shift back and forth; however, like weapons of war, these weapons upon our political discourse, once used, will never be sheathed.

By: randy streu

randy streu — Mon, 18 May 2009 22:50:18 +0000

And, btw, no law was broken in this instance, period.

By: Jack_Savage

Jack_Savage — Mon, 18 May 2009 22:45:46 +0000

I’ll tell you who ought to be investigated, pal, is all your lefty buddies that are giving aid and comfort to terrorists and gutting the CIA. We’ll start with Nancy Pelosi, going through most of the Democrats in Congress and ending up with this nitwit you call a president.

I won’t mention the impression I get of you when I read your garbage, and before you go you might want to contemplate the points raised in the diary. Of course, that would require you to actually come to terms with whose side you are on in this “overseas contingency man-caused trouble once known as a war before we decided that Bush was still the enemy instead of terrorists”.

By: tbeauchamp

tbeauchamp — Mon, 18 May 2009 22:29:17 +0000

I was under the impression that the OLC’s job was to advise the President, not give legal cover to bend or break the law.

Reading left, right and centrist blogs, the impression I am left with is that the OLC was at best unethical and at worst criminal.

The conduct of the office should at least be investigated. It’s a shame that this issue cannot possibly be discussed in a non-partisan manner.

By: casel21

casel21 — Mon, 18 May 2009 22:06:22 +0000

do these folks have standing? If they do, I can think of some complaints to be made against Holder.