Obama Gives Bush "Absolute Immunity" For Everything

[Corruption Inc]

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2013/08/26

"Days before Bradley - now Chelsea - Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison for helping expose U.S. war crimes in Iraq, the Obama Department of Justice filed a petition in federal court arguing that the perpetrators of those crimes - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al - enjoy “absolute immunity” against criminal charges or civil liability. The filing came in a suit brought by Sundus Shaker Saleh, an Iraqi single mother and refugee now living in Jordan, who alleges that the planning and waging of the Iraq war under false pretenses constituted a "crime of aggression" under a law used in the Nuremberg trials. With neither Congress nor Obama willing to hold Bush & Co. accountable for the Iraq catastrophe, supporters see the suit as a last-chance tactic to force the issue back into the public eye - an effort the Obama adminstration clearly opposes. More, all dispiriting, on the increasingly flawed Bush-Obama-lesser-of-two-evils thesis, and the current culture of impunity."


Absolute immunity is a good term for the 1%ers, they are above the law in a country supposedly based on laws.

[earthside]

1. If this is really true ...

... and there isn't something else going on here, then, well --- I may rethink the impeachment question myself.

[geek tragedy]

31. It's not true--federal law gives Bush immunity

from civil lawsuits for every single thing he did as President.

He can be prosecuted criminally, however.

Obama did not create that law--his DOJ merely certified that Bush was acting as President when he invaded Iraq.

[caseymoz]

43. So, why did Obama say it's time to put all that behind us

and look ahead, if he didn't plan on it being policy? Then you see this come out. What a coincidence. And it comes out in the second term when he doesn't have to stand for re-election again.

[geek tragedy]

44. You think this is the first time a former president has been sued like this?

This kind of statement is boilerplate and utterly unremarkable--Bush was acting as President and Commander in Chief of the US armed forces when he launched the invasion of Iraq. That's not even close to being disputed. Democratic presidents issue such statements when Republican former presidents get sued, and vice versa.

As far as the not being willing to prosecute--for 200 years we have had an orderly and peaceful transition from one elected administration with the implicit assumption that presidents don't throw their predecessors in jail. Remove that, and all of a sudden you make it a lot more likely that Presidents and parties will be not willing to leave office, if they suspect their successor will have them thrown in prison, whether the charges are legit or not.

[caseymoz]

48. They do?

First, I want this cited. I don't remember Presidents making any speeches like that. Second, that was pretty flashy declaration for routine boilerplate.

About the excuse to be unwilling to prosecute, I don't believe another President did anything like what Bush and company did. He caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. He cost the country trillions of dollars. What you're talking about is a "gentleman's agreement" to at least informally pardon any and all criminality in the government. If that's the case, there's no reason you can be surprised if our elected officials are outlaws. In fact, I could point out that only cold, numb, cynicism would allow that to take precedence after what the Bush Administration did. It turned the whole world upside down with its mendacity, corruption and incompetence. Really, if you're going to let them go, don't complain when a President in your lifetime starts genocidal race war, and gets away with it.

And can I say other nations have survived transitions of government after criminal activity without that degree of backscratching. Iceland did it in 2009. That's just more support for what's becoming obvious: the US system isn't better than other countries, it's worse.

[geek tragedy]

53. Are you talking about the recent certification or the "no looking backwards" speech?

Re: this:

the excuse to be unwilling to prosecute, I don't believe another President did anything like what Bush and company did. He caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. He cost the country trillions of dollars.

Lyndon. Baines. Johnson.

See also: Reagan, Ronald Wilson; Bush, George Herbert Walker; Roosevelt, Theodore; Wilson, Woodrow.

Can you think of a democracy where a President has prosecuted his immediate predecessor where both were elected?

[caseymoz]

85. I'm sorry, there's not really that much of a comparison.

Though Vietnam did have a far larger casualty figure (and it was spread out over several presidents). None of those guys used their negligent fuck up (9/11) as a means to manufacture a couple wars wholesale. None of them privatized and contracted out parts of the US military to circumvent oversight and collect more pay. None of them bloated the US intelligence apparatus to prepare for oppression within the US. None of them had the huge imperial scheme that Bush had. No one combined criminal negligence with a grand plan the way Bush did.

Moreover, as bad as those crimes were, they all started out with the public behind them, or at least uninterested. The public was complicit. With Bush, millions of people marched against the Iraq War at the start. Now, how else do you tell a president that, no, the people are not behind this. They say it's a crime. He went ahead anyway.

And in hindsight, Vietnam is treated even now an error in judgment, not a crime. And I hate to say all those Presidents became more popular for what they did with the exception of Johnson.

Also, aren't you a little concerned that almost every recent president has done something criminal? The office is becoming more and more lawless, and dangerous. If we don't bust somebody, how are we going to stop that trend? The Cold War is long over. There's excuse now for the president to have extraordinary powers. None.

As for naming consecutive heads of state where both have been elected and the previous one has been prosecuted. I can name one right now: Italy, Silvio Berlosconi, the current PM incumbent, Enrico Letta.

And I know they weren't treating the Burlesconi case in the news as though it was unprecedented in the history of the world. Please, it's nothing that hasn't happened.

By. The. Way. Write. Please. Things. In. Familiar. Order. To. Not. So. As. Make. Your. Posts. Aggravating. To. Read.

And unless you're putting emphasis in your first person novel, Don't. Use. Periods.

[geek tragedy]

87. Gulf of Tonkin

Agent Orange
Illegal bombing of Cambodia

Sorry, but Iraq does not compare to the evil of Vietnam. LBJ lied us into a military escalation. He dropped chemical weapons on our own troops. They're still digging US ordinance out of the jungle there.

And the number of dead is more than a statistic.

If you think we'd be better off with a system as stable and democratic as Italy's (which keeps on producing leaders like Berlusconi) . . .

[1StrongBlackMan]

82. And people would have us believe ...

this is brand new! The concept of personal immunity in tort when operating within the scope has been around for ... oh ... the last couple hundred years.

[gussmith]

51. The Way

of peace, prosperity and equality for all Americans is attained through our Justice Departments. With the most incarcerated population on earth, failure of our leaders to do the jobs they take compensation for, war mongers loose, patriotic whistle blowers jailed, fraud cheaters and schemers free, we will not heal until there is accountability, and at all levels. Only through faith in justice meted will we be united.

[jeff47]

2. Not quite.

You can't sue the President for his official actions as President. You can sue the United States for those same actions.

That's what is going on in that filing.

[sabrina 1]

8. The suit included the premeditation of the Crimes in Iraq

BEFORE they were in power. I guess it doesn't matter, the people have zero to say about what their government does anymore.

And to think we all thought we were putting an end to these crimes by 'voting for Democrats'.

Instead the War Criminals are better off than they ever were before we helped get them the protection of both parties.

[jeff47]

11. And that would be based on what, exactly?

Private citizen Dick Cheney says "I think we should invade Iraq".

You want him to be liable for that? For expressing his opinion?

[JDPriestly]

23. But, if those actions are not official because they are illegal

and therefore unauthorized by the law, you should be able to sue them.

The immunity only applies under most law if the government official or employee is acting lawfully, following for example the instructions of a superior in which case, the superior or the government itself is responsible.

If the government official is not acting according to the law, according to the instructions or orders of officials then that official may be held responsible.

Take a school janitor who injures someone in the course of fulfilling his duties. He cannot be personally sued for what he did if he followed the rules.

But, if that same school janitor injures someone while not fulfilling his duties, say he brutally beats a student in violation of the school's policy, then he can be asked personally to answer for his conduct.

The argument is that the Bush administration has absolute immunity no matter what under the law. Bush should have been impeached and convicted. Unfortunately, Nancy Pelosi did not have the courage or perhaps, she thought, not the votes.

This has to be taken up by some international court.

[jeff47]

29. Then you could sue after they've been convicted

You have to establish the actions were illegal first.

And while the Bush administration was full of some of the worst bastards to ever have power, they were extremely good at getting legal authorization lined up. Or at least lined up enough to provide a fig leaf. In your assault-by-janitor example, it's clear the assault is illegal. But the invasion of Iraq got legal cover. And torture was just some "bad apples", legally. And so on.

This has to be taken up by some international court.

At that point, immunity is irrelevant - it's US law that is providing the immunity. The problem you'll run into is jurisdiction. The US isn't going to hand over any member of Team Bush to an international court.

[JDPriestly]

64. Yes. Jurisdiction is a problem. But an opportunity may come. We shouldn't relent.

It isn't always necessary to have a criminal conviction before a civil trial for an intentional tort.

[stevenleser]

89. I would agree with that. I think if a President is convicted of acting criminally during their admin

they should be able to be sued for that. I think Presidents should have to fear that. I think that would be a good thing.

[BlueJazz]

3. Maybe we need to change the name of the place we live. >>>

[pscot]

4. If the Nazi's had thought of this

they could have avoided all that unpleasantness at Nurnberg.

[brooklynite]

5. Unrec

This is about a CIVIL suit, not a CRIMINAL charge. The Government cannot unilateraly offer immunity from criminal activity (except through an Executive Pardon). However, the Government has an interest in preventing civil suits againt Government officials acting in good faith in their official capacity, so it will request immunity from lawsuits, when the proper target is the US Government itself.

[SidDithers]

9. Shhhhh....

don't interrupt the sputtering outrage.

It's too fun to watch.

Sid

[Initech]

19. Don't bogart the butter!

[sabrina 1]

12. So when do the Criminal Charges begin? The granting of immunity

means that they needed it, it is an acknowledgement of the crimes listed in the Civil Suit.

So that should clear the way for the long-awaited Criminal Charges of the War Criminals, the Liars, the Torturers who so far, have not even been questioned officially about their massive crimes against humanity.

[kentuck]

13. The President cannot pardon until there are some charges and convictions.

I won't hold my breath. But the right wingers are probably glad to hear Obama will not let anyone touch their heroes?

[stupidicus]

15. then explain the Ford pardon of Nixon

and cure my confusion

[brooklynite]

32. The President CAN pardon for crimes "known and unknown"....

...and the President has not done so.

[KharmaTrain]

50. Nixon Had Already Been Named...

...as an unidicted co-conspirator...meaning, if he had been a private citizen rather than president he would have been indicted for obstruction of justice. The "concern" was that once Nixon resigned he was no longer president and protected from liability and thus could be indicted...this was why Ford pardoned him. So far, sadly, no one in the bush regime have been indicted and convicted other than Scooter Libby; who WAS pardoned.

[stupidicus]

74. but

that's not being "charged" or convicted as alleged

After Nixon resigned, President Gerald Ford gave Nixon a presidential pardon for any and all acts he committed during his presidency in that matter. Thus, he was spared from even being accused of any criminal action, much less being convicted of such activity.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_Richard_Nixon_convicted_of_authorizing_the_Watergate_break_in_or_just_the_cover_up

I run across the thing I questioned with some frequency, and think the distinction important, given that the need for charges being needed for a pres pardon doesn't appear to be the case.

[KharmaTrain]

76. Pre-Emptive Action...

...Presidential pardon powers are very broad. They can be used pre-emptively as in the case of Nixon but that's the only case I can think of where this was applied. I recall debates at the time as to the legality of pardoning before there was even an indictment and it was interpreted that the President could issue this kind of pardon considering reports that papers to indict Nixon were already prepared and under seal. Of course we'll never know as the pardon made any future actions moot...

[brooklynite]

14. No - it does not.

It means the Government does not want to establish a precedent whereby Government Officials are subject to civil lawsuit, whether meritorious or not.

As as to your question of criminal charges, I will ask again, a question nobody has answered. What are the specific statutes violated by the Bush Administration that charges could be brought on?

[caseymoz]

45. Torture is one:

USC Title 18 2340a

(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340A

That's off the top of my head. I'm certain a few others could be found.

[brooklynite]

49. To which the Defense will be...

...that the Legal Counsel to the President submitted a brief that, in his opinion, the enhanced interrogation tactics used did not rise to the definition of torture in the statute...and that the alleged offender was not a national of the United States...and that the alleged offender was not present in the United States

[RC]

46. They already have. Remember William Jefferson Clinton?

[HardTimes99]

54. Fraud against the people and government of the United States. - NT

[brooklynite]

55. By which you mean...lying to the public?

If it wasn't under oath, it's not a criminal offense.

[HardTimes99]

56. Um, fraud is entirely different from perjury (lying under oath). Fraud is

the deliberate misrepresentation of material facts (WMD in Iraq and ties between al Quaida and Saddam Hussein) in order to obtain benefit or material gain that would not have otherwise accrued.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

ETA: IANAL so not sure what the relevant federal statutes are.

[brooklynite]

59. and the benefit or material gain was...

[HardTimes99]

62. Read the definition I posted (relevant excerpt pasted below) and

understand that I AM NOT A LAWYER, so my sloppy and hasty phrasing based on a layperson's understanding must be excused. Thus, not so much 'material gain' to Bush and Cheney as 'injury' to the people of the United States and its government:

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

[brooklynite]

78. Provide evidence for 2) and 3)...

If I were the Defense, I would state that my client was misled by faulty intelligence, and made the best judgement from the information available. I would also point out that the leaders of other nations, as well as members of the Congress believed the intelligence as well. Prove that it's not true.

[JDPriestly]

25. Thank you. I suspect the government will get its way.

Then it is off to an international court. I think that maybe some international or foreign court will hear this matter if the US has refused to hear it.

Bush should have been impeached.

And Obama and Kerry need to be very careful in Syria. Let's hope they are right about who is at fault.

[brooklynite]

27. Name an International Court that deals with Civil lawsuits

[JDPriestly]

28. It could easily be turned into a criminal case based on the facts in the

civil suit. The US has not yet brought criminal charges and refuses to even allow a civil suit. It is not surprising, but I should think someone will try to obtain justice in an international criminal court. I don't know of any appropriate venue. But this cannot be allowed to just rest without some price paid. Thousands of lives including those of thousands of mostly young American soldiers were lost.

Justice is weeping through her blindfold. Sooner or later, she will tire of her tears, loosen her blindfold and weigh the actions of the Bush administration criminals on her scales. It may happen only in the history books of tomorrow, but it will happen.

[upi402]

75. "Government officials acting in good faith"

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME????????????????
We would be under the prison for less.
This truly has turned into Republican Underground.


yawn, scratch... youtube George Carlin again

[brooklynite]

80. Again (and for the last time...) we're talking about LEGAL DEFINITIONS.

LEGALLY, no charges have been brought and proven against members of the Bush Administration, so LEGALLY they are deemed to have acted in good faith until proven otherwise.

I stick to FACTS and REALITY, whether I like the answer or not.

[diane in sf]

6. The BFEE would probbly kill him or his family if he didn't

[Populist_Prole]

7. Makes one wonder doesn't it?

I wonder that at the beginning of his term if a few reps from the de-facto power brokers didn't sit him down and lay it on the line along the lines of "Make all the nice populistic speeches as well you may, talk about social issues and all that, but don't mess with the MIC or else"

[Phlem]

40. that basically means

we're fucked no matter who we vote for.



-p

[TBF]

88. ...

Emma Goldman said "If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal".

We do have the sham of a democracy here and they do let us vote - but we basically do get the choice of 2 vetted and corporate approved candidates.

Personally I vote for the one who I think will do the least damage to working folks, and work towards a time when we have an economic system that benefits more than just 5% of the population.

That is why the Communist Party USA, weak though it is, went ahead and endorsed Obama. What else are they going to do given what we're dealing with.

That's why the real work is organizing.

[snooper2]

10. corruption inc., nice handle

Did you really incorporate it or is that just a way to be fancy?

[Scootaloo]

16. well, on hte brink of a new adventure in Syria...

Crossing the I's and dotting the T's, don't you know

[Fuddnik]

20. Tricky Barack just doesn't have the same ring to it.

[99th_Monkey]

22. LOL +100 eom

[geek tragedy]

21. This merely stands for the unremarkable proposition

that Bush was acting as President when he invaded Iraq.

[99th_Monkey]

24. So POTUS is literally 100% above the law in your view

even related to international war crimes, illegal invasions and torture?

really? That has a distinctly Nixonian tone to it.

[geek tragedy]

30. Under US law, he can't be sued in a civil case

in US courts for actions taken as President.

He can be prosecuted criminally, but not sued for damages.

That says nothing about foreign courts and international law prosecutions.

[99th_Monkey]

34. Why did Obama bother then, to sprinkle POTUS fairy dust on the Bush Crime Syndicate? nt

[geek tragedy]

36. Huh? nt

[99th_Monkey]

60. The OP: "Obama Gives Bush "Absolute Immunity" For Everything <--THIS eom

[geek tragedy]

65. Obama did not give Bush anything, the post is a bunch of hyperbolic bs, which

explains why you accept as true without a shred of skepticism.

[99th_Monkey]

67. Which explains why you aren't concerned that "Obama Gives Bush "Absolute Immunity" For war crimes nt

[geek tragedy]

68. Oy, it simply does not occur to you that something might not be true, so long

as it reflects negatively on Barack Obama.

[99th_Monkey]

69. If I "have it in" for Obama so much ...

why did I work to elect him and vote for him . .TWICE.

Sorry. FAIL.

[Progressive dog]

81. Quote from 99th Monkey-

I'll be voting for President Barack Obama
as soon as Obama & Holder pardon Don Siegelman and release him from prison.

So did Obama pardon Siegelman and you voted for him? No he didn't.
Your quote, which you proudly put in your journal on Nov. 2 of last year, says you not only didn't work to elect Obama twice, you didn't even vote for him.
Sorry. Fail.

[99th_Monkey]

84. Great detective work, I must say.

I'm so totally busted.

except that I DID vote AND work for Obama in 2008; and
despite my post, actually DID vote for him again in 2012
(while holding my nose hard on the Siegelman thing).

Since 2012, as it turns out, I have had to hold my nose
on more issues than I can count anymore, so glad I got
the practice.

[SidDithers]

39. WTF is that supposed to mean?...

Sid

[99th_Monkey]

61. The OP: "Obama Gives Bush "Absolute Immunity" For Everything <--THIS eom

[brooklynite]

58. He didn't

Remember, if the President WANTED to completely protect Bush et al, he could grant them a Pardon today. All he did was assert that, as Government agents acting fulfillment of their positions (which they were until proven otherwise), they should be personally immune from civil lawsuits.

[99th_Monkey]

66. The OP: "Obama Gives Bush "Absolute Immunity" For Everything <--THIS

There is essentially no difference imho.

[SidDithers]

70. Repetition doesn't make you any more correct...

the dumbass headline is wrong.

Those deeply infected with ODS are happy believe it, tho.

Sid

[99th_Monkey]

71. It must feel safe & comfortable

to be on the side that just happens to have all the spies,
guns and torturers ...

rather than siding with those struggling against all odds to
save US constitutional rule.

[brooklynite]

72. Interesting choices...

...but I'll side with truth and reality.

[Coyotl]

26. The OP is "absolutely bullshit" for starters.

You might want to give the facts first, then your interpretations.

[Octafish]

33. Yeah. Like the time Poppy pardoned Weinberger and the Iran-Contra traitors...

...not that there's anything wrong with that, if you work for War Inc and Wall Street.

PS: Welcome to DU, Corruption Inc. Like your post.

[Phlem]

35. Hope and change

just not the kind of change the rest of America wanted.



I know, I know, it's the way the system works but I can still be pissed about it.

-p

[TheTruthBeKnown]

37. Sickening Injustice

If Obama's daughters were hurt or raped would he use the same 'rational' he used as soon as he took office saying he didn't want to look back? I guess so. After all, the rapes would've happened in the past even if it was just days earlier. Take it a step further. ALL crimes should never be investigated because they all happened in the past.

I don't know what happened to candidate Obama because that person doesn't exist, if it ever did. Everything prior to his first election undoubtably was an act. A constitutional lawyer would have gone after war criminals unless he wanted to commit similar crimes.

We don't have a functional department of justice. Eric Holder is just a corporate yes man. If he gave a damn about law he would've resigned as attorney general after being told not to investigate, indict and convict all of the war criminals in the Bush Regime. But he has been arresting pot users since being AG even though those 'crimes' happened in the past.

NOTE 1: Not one person responsible for the economic collapse have been put in prison. That's because Obama has surrounded himself with Wall Street criminals. He's even likes Lawrence Summers who helped to cause the meltdown. And Obama wants to put Summers in charge of the Fed! Unbelievable! Corruption pays especially if you steal trillions.

NOTE 2: If you're planning on stealing anything steal at least in the millions. The more you steal the less chance AG Eric Holder will ever come after you. But DON'T smoke pot!!!

[Wait Wut]

42. Do you have a daughter?

Do you know what a horrible trigger your sickening little 'what if' is?

I see people post their thoughts and opinions on DU every single day. 99.9% of them can do so without making a sick comment about the rape of two innocent young girls.

I would strongly suggest a self delete or an edit.

[TheTruthBeKnown]

57. ?????

Compare the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women, children, toddlers and babies (in addition to the killing of 4488 US troops) to my example. Should I also not talk about the war crimes Bush and gang committed because it too was 'sickening'. I guess I shouldn't have mentioned the killing of babies and toddlers even though they are facts.

I didn't describe rape in detail. I merely mentioned it to drive home a point. Do you feel hundreds of thousands of murders is less sickening than two illusionary rapes? You need to step back and look at the big picture. I didn't joke about rape. I'd never do that.

Just what situations would you feel ok with someone mentioning the word rape? Or do you want to be a one person censorship board to decide what can or cannot be said.

I'm sorry I offended your sensibilities but two illusionary rapes is less offensive than hundreds of thousands of murders.

Feel free to voice your opinion on letting war criminals and mass murderers go free. That was the intent of my post. If you can't see that then reread it again and maybe you'll be able to understand the full context of what I obviously wrote about.

[Wait Wut]

63. !!!!!

You're still going to justify this? You can't find any other possible scenario that would help your argument? None???? The only way to get your point across is to use the rape of two young girls?

The 'intent' of your post was obvious. Shock value. It's a cheap tactic and the scenario you used is a trigger for victims of abuse and rape. The rest of your post could be coated with truth and roses, but you lose credibility due to your inability to debate without the disgusting shock value of raping children.

[DeSwiss]

38. I thought he wasn't looking back.

- I guess he has his eyes closed.......

K&R

[SidDithers]

41. Dumbass article from commondreams...

though I'd expect no less. And the ODSers lap it up as if it means something.

Too funny.

The DOJ is basically saying that a government employee can't be sued in civil court for doing their job as part of the government. The Government may still be sued, but not the individual.

The articles about this filing are making it seem like Obama is pardoning Bush et al. or is granting them immunity from criminal prosecution. That's simply not the case.

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good outrage.



Sid

[nashville_brook]

47. why'd he wait so long to do this? is there some action or investigation pending

guess i could read the article...count this as a kick

[AtomicKitten]

52. Civil immunity, not criminal.

However, since BushCo is being allowed to slide and no criminal charges are being brought against them, the point is virtually moot.

[MFrohike]

73. No he didn't

It's procedural immunity based on the office. The executive branch is allowed civil immunity for all acts carried out within the scope of the office. There is a question whether unconstitutional or illegal acts would be covered, but the courts usually dodge that one by use of political question.

The above being said, the arguments for immunity are greatly weakened by the lack of accountability they help to create. The 22d amendment removes one means of accountability and absolute immunity removes much of the rest. The question should be less whether multiple lawsuits will interfere with government business and more whether the ability to sue will limit the tendency of post-war presidents to aggressively expand the scope of the office.

[dkf]

77. Makes sense...he doesn't want to be charged either.

[gopiscrap]

79. Fuck that!

[RudynJack]

83. Did you really expect

a President to prosecute a former president? What world do you live in?

[blackspade]

86. Just painful

[JoePhilly]

90. Another meeting of the Combustable Hair Club ...

... initiated by a low post count member in a drive by OP.

[wildbilln864]

91. k&r! n/t