Must be a relatively narrow meaning for what "egregious" means.
Obama Adviser Cass Sunstein Rejects Prosecution of “Non-Egregious” Bush Crimes
by Jonathan Turley
July 21, 2008
With many Democrats still fuming over the refusal of Democratic leaders like Speaker Nancy Pelosi to allow even impeachment hearings into detailed allegations of crimes by President Bush in office, close Obama adviser (and University of Chicago Law Professor) Cass Sunstein recently rejected the notion of prosecuting Bush officials for crimes such as torture and unlawful surveillance. After Sen. Obama’s unpopular vote on the FISA bill, it has triggered a blogger backlash — raising questions about the commitment of the Democrats to do anything other than taking office and reaping the benefits of power.
The exchange with Sunstein was detailed by The Nation’s Ari Melber. Melber wrote that Sunstein rejected any such prosecution:
Prosecuting government officials risks a “cycle” of criminalizing public service, (Sunstein) argued, and Democrats should avoid replicating retributive efforts like the impeachment of President Clinton — or even the “slight appearance” of it.
Sunstein did add that “egregious crimes should not be ignored,” according to one site, click here. It is entirely unclear what that means since some of us take the views that any crimes committed by the government are egregious. Those non-egregious crimes are precisely what worries many lawyers who were looking for a simple commitment to prosecute crimes committed by the government.
CONTINUED...
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/07/21/obama-adviser-cass-sunstein-rejects-prosecution-of-possible-bush-crimes/
Thank you, Puzzledtraveller! And to think some people wonder why the NSA Hoover could have such a big impact on, ah,
who gets impunity.
= new reply since forum marked as read