Republicans Demand Holder Promise No Bush Prosecutions

[enough]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/23/16592/1381/314/688205

Republicans Demand Holder Promise No Bush Prosecutions Hotlist
by SmileySam
Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 02:20:29 PM PST

Of course most of us have suspected something like thise would come down the line. Now Senator Whitehouse is calling them out on it. We have to wonder what went on behind the closed door of Sen. Arlen Specter when he met with Eric Holder, the Obama choice for Atty. Gen.

"Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have asked Eric Holder to make a commitment, before he is even confirmed, that he will not prosecute any Bush Administration officials for their involvement in acts of torture during the last administration."
"Anyone familiar with the criminal justice system - especially those with experience as prosecutors or judges - should know that a prosecutor should make no determination about who to prosecute before he or she has all the facts, and particularly not in response to legislative pressure."

Snip>

There are many reason to protest this behavior from the Right. One of the most pressing imho is something that Emptywheel pointed out to Sen. Whitehouse just the other day.

In particular, I believe, they are delaying Holder's nomination to shorten the time between the day Holder takes over and the day the statute of limitations on violations of FISA Bush committed on March 11, 2004 start to expire--that is, March 11, 2009, just seven weeks away.

At yesterday's Progressive Media Summit, I had an opportunity to remind Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of that timeline. I reminded him, too, that Bush seems intent on delaying the time when an Article III judge assesses the evidence in the al-Haramain document, which probably proves Bush broke the law.

MORE>>>>

Links in article.

[nini]

1. OH HELL NO

THEY ALL NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE IF THEY REFUSE TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW.

[bullimiami]

6. yeah...tell you what....no.

[nini]

19. no to what?

?

[bullimiami]

37. no as in - no promises re: prosecutions.

[nini]

39. thanks for clarifying

:D

I'm in slow mo today

[Hardrada]

2. Why would he do that? What are they scared of?

[tekisui]

3. DON'T DO IT, HOLDER!!!!

If he and Obama make that deal, they carry the burden of those crimes, as well.

[ShortnFiery]

8. It doesn't matter. I heard (KO) from a Constitutional Scholar that Bush could write "SECRET Pardon"

That would NOT have to *ever* be published unless one of Bush's cronies were indicted. Therefore, we could investigate but as soon as we indict "POOF" here's their secret pardon. :(

[ProgressiveFool]

17. That's fine, send them to Europe, then. /nt

[ShortnFiery]

18. Now that's the sprit!

:patriot: :hi:

[pinto]

21. I've never heard of a secret pardon. ? fwiw, I think the (R)'s are just blowing smoke.

[prostock69]

26. Yes, but the pardon doesn't work overseas. n/t

[TheWraith]

28. I think that Dean wasn't stating the other part of that equation.

Yeah, you could keep a pardon secret--so long as the next administration was ALSO willing to keep it secret. The Obama crew now has access to the White House legal department.

[bullimiami]

38. but would it be secret from the new executive branch? if so how would it ever be executed?

[sutz12]

4. Well, that pretty much pegs the "D'UH" meter. nt

:shrug:

[derby378]

5. Obama won, they lost, fuck that noise

It's time to hold the Bush administration accountable for their crimes.

[BOSSHOG]

7. If you have nothing to hide!!!!!

Again I say, TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANYTHING IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE VALUE.

All this posturing will just move up bush's move to Paraguay

[tridim]

9. Do the Repukes understand that they're admitting guilt?

Makes our job much easier.

[stopbush]

12. Exactly. They know that prosecutions are IN ORDER for bushco,

but they want to play a Get Out Of Jail Free card for purely political reasons.

[malaise]

10. Holder must promise to uphold the law

and obey the constitution - nothing more, nothing less.
Tweety wants them locked up.

[silverweb]

11. reTHUGs demand obstruction of justice.

That in itself is worth prosecuting.

Call their demand by its real name, Mr. Holder: obstruction of justice.

[4 t 4]

14. What-no way

that's frigging blackmail no way

[silverweb]

16. Huh?

[leftofthedial]

13. does that not make each and every one of them an accomplice after the fact?

[TheKentuckian]

15. They are scared that once the American people get a firm grasp

on what they are up to that they will be the 21st century's version of the Whigs.

[wryter2000]

29. Bingo

And honestly, if there is such a thing as a secret pardon, it won't save them from utter and total irrelevancy for at least a generation.

[spanone]

20. tough shit, boys...ya'll lost.

[Imagevision]

22. Republicans demand...? pfff! - Pelosi Thank gawd diagree's with republican's

[Fireweed247]

23. Gee, they all act like he's guilty of something....

[pinto]

24. LOL. Idiots think any prosecutor would agree to that? See your point on running out the clock though

[FLAprogressive]

25. I would give them the "nuclear option".

[wryter2000]

27. Demands?

You lost, a-holes. You don't have enough votes to be making demands. I fart in the general direction of your demands.

[CitizenPatriot]

30. so they want a promise that Holder will not uphold the law?

This, from the party of "patriots"?

Without justice, there is no law.

ENOUGH.

and....this is an OUTRAGE. NO MORE. They won't make our guy complicit in their dirty dealings. The world is watching.

[serrano2008]

33. Right on! Holder should say,

"Can you please make me a list of which laws I SHOULD uphold then?"

[CitizenPatriot]

31. so they want a promise that Holder will not uphold the law?

This, from the party of "patriots"?

Without justice, there is no law.

ENOUGH.

and....this is an OUTRAGE. NO MORE. They won't make our guy complicit in their dirty dealings. The world is watching.

[Gregorian]

32. Go ahead and promise. THEN PROSECUTE.

The Republicans did nothing but lie. Lying to them isn't lying. Just say anything. It doesn't matter.

[MasonJar]

34. Surely that is not something that he can promise. Surely there are not

enough GOPers to keep him from the appointment. Obama needs to put the screws to work. This is unspeakable and remarkable. What audacious nerve. And obviously these GOPers are not even embarrassed. It seems that they know there is much to investigate and prosecute.

[FatDave]

40. If they band together, they can filibuster.

But I don't think they could get every republican on board with that. Sounds more like their holding it up in the Judicial Committee right now. I've never heard of confirmation of a presidential appointment dying in committee though. I have no idea what kind of power they have there. We're the majority party, so we have the ranking committee members, right?

[damntexdem]

35. As a condition of approval, he must vow to ignore his duty!

Yeah, that's GOP logic, pure and simple.

And even if he gave assurances, what if he prosecuted anyway?

[blaze]

36. A delay tactic, just like you said.

"In particular, I believe, they are delaying Holder's nomination to shorten the time between the day Holder takes over and the day the statute of limitations on violations of FISA Bush committed on March 11, 2004 start to expire--that is, March 11, 2009, just seven weeks away."

[blaze]

41. kick for the evening crowd n/t

[jimlup]

42. Not even the furthest rightwing conservative should be confirmed on these terms!

[NM Independent]

43. FUCK. OFF. COMPLICIT. BASTARDS. n/t