This message was self-deleted by its author

[branford]

39. I am in no way stating that politicians are immune to criminal prosecution.

However, the power and resources of the State is an ominous and often malevolent force that must only be deployed in clear, definitive and limited circumstances. That is a classically liberal viewpoint, the underpinning of our Constitution and Bill of Rights and an ideology shared by both democrats and republicans, progressives and conservatives. If there is clear proof that a crime has been committed, and there are no other legal impediments to trial such a the expiration of the statute of limitations, I would fully support the prosecution of a president or other elected or appointed official, regardless of their politically party.

Unfortunately, both criminal investigation and charge are too often used for political advantage or to punish those with whom you disagree. Its ease of use and the psychological impact on one's opponents is alluring, regardless of the merits of any allegations. That is the reason that abuse of these levers of power by elected officials is itself criminal. It is precisely why the current scandal with the IRS is potentially so damaging. Even if Obama and the White House were not involved, the damage to the public's perception of and trust in the government is incalculable.

We might have every reason to hate GWB (or Obama, Clinton, GHWB, etc.), but I will never support the use of the criminal justice system as a means of simple revenge or political advantage.

The reference to Richard Nixon is also not really on point. There was in fact evidence that Richard Nixon engaged in a number of crimes and prosecution was a reasonable possibility (and I would have supported). However, Ford exercised his legal and constitutional prerogative and pardoned Nixon, ostensibly to help heal the country. Regardless of our opinions concerning Ford's pardon, it was unquestionably legal and prosecution of Nixon was therefore forever prohibited.