Just How Corrupt was the Bush Administration??

AMCrenshaw

...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
4,671
Reaction score
620
Website
dfnovellas.wordpress.com
And how do you (general you) plan to hold them accountable? Its already established that at best this was unethical, but not illegal. The cronies are already out of the political game. So what is the point?

Knowing as much of the truth (I've heard once or so there are cabinets which are meant to be incorruptible -- that is, structured so that corruption is much less likely-- and which serve as internal investigation...) is as good as holding them accountable-- punishment ain't my thang anyway, but given that our legal system is punitive, yes indeed they must break the law to be punished. Now, let's say for sake of argument they broke the law (or a code of ethics which has some substance) I refuse to dismiss this simply because the cronies are out of the political game. Think about that from a citizen's point of view.


AMC
 

Prozyan

Are you one, Herbert?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
657
Location
Nuevo Mexico
I am thinking of it from a citizen's point of view.

Nothing meaningful will come of it. No matter how unethical or even immoral this may have been, nothing meaningful is going to come of it. Simply for the fact that no future administration wants to be held to that type of accountability and no one really wants to go probing all past firings.

The most that will come out of this is Bush haters will get to raise their little flags and wag their fingers and say "neener, neener, neener, we told you how bad he was" and all the Bush supporters will get to raise their little flags and shake their heads and say "no, no, no, everyone has done it, what about Clinton, or <insert random democrat here>?"

And, in the end, it will go on business as usual.

I'm amazed that here we are, almost a year into "change" and all anyone seems interested in doing is keeping Bush in the spotlight.

Even going with the idealistic "the public deserves the truth" standpoint, I fail to see how any "truth" is going to benefit anyone. Bush haters will still be haters and Bush supporters will still be supporters. And, at the end of the day, it will all go back to business as usual.
 

dgiharris

Disgruntled Scientist
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
6,735
Reaction score
1,833
Location
Limbo
And how do you (general you) plan to hold them accountable? Its already established that at best this was unethical, but not illegal. The cronies are already out of the political game. So what is the point?

Yes. As near as I can tell, Bush's firings of the AGs was NOT ILLEGAL. Just based on the circumstances, they were unethical. However, they are able to hold up the shield "Serve under the privilege of the President". And sorry people, unethical does not equal illegal. No matter how much we may or may not like it.

Even going with the idealistic "the public deserves the truth" standpoint, I fail to see how any "truth" is going to benefit anyone. Bush haters will still be haters and Bush supporters will still be supporters. And, at the end of the day, it will all go back to business as usual.

Actually, the result of retroactive investigations would be worse than people think.

If the US starts the 'habit' of retroactive investigations, this means that instead of the Administration doing what they think is best for America (with the limited information that they have at the time) they will be worried about what some FUTURE panel will be judging them on and also knowing that the future panel will have the hindsight of 20/20 vision.

So what this would do is foster in the ULTIMATE age of Cover Your Ass politics and decision making, 1000 times worse than what we have now. It would result in a sort of leadership paralysis. Furthermore, you now have developed the ultimate political weapon upon which the 'new' administration can go after the old. And since we only have a 2 party system, you end up with the seesaw battle of GOP sticking it to the Dems, and the Dems sticking it back to the GOP, back and forth...

Yes, in theory, retroactive investigations seems like a good idea. But not for evaluating the past job of the President and his administration. Talk about Witch Hunts. You'd foster in the age of the never ending Witch Safari.

Strategically, this would be an extremely bad precedent to set.

and for the record, i'm not a Bush supporter.

Mel...
 

Bird of Prey

Benefactor Member
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
10,793
Reaction score
1,728
Actually, the result of retroactive investigations would be worse than people think.

If the US starts the 'habit' of retroactive investigations, this means that instead of the Administration doing what they think is best for America (with the limited information that they have at the time) they will be worried about what some FUTURE panel will be judging them on and also knowing that the future panel will have the hindsight of 20/20 vision.

So what this would do is foster in the ULTIMATE age of Cover Your Ass politics and decision making, 1000 times worse than what we have now. It would result in a sort of leadership paralysis. Furthermore, you now have developed the ultimate political weapon upon which the 'new' administration can go after the old. And since we only have a 2 party system, you end up with the seesaw battle of GOP sticking it to the Dems, and the Dems sticking it back to the GOP, back and forth...

Yes, in theory, retroactive investigations seems like a good idea. But not for evaluating the past job of the President and his administration. Talk about Witch Hunts. You'd foster in the age of the never ending Witch Safari.

Strategically, this would be an extremely bad precedent to set.

and for the record, i'm not a Bush supporter.

Mel...

I couldn't disagree with you more, Mel. If every time they do something dishonest, they have to cover their asses or else, dishonest people are going to be disinclined to run, or even if they do and get elected, they'll be disinclined to act unethically. But ultimately, holding politicians ethically accountable favors politicians who are honest and don't have to cover their asses. Those men and women will prevail.

The Constitution is flawed; there's no question in my mind. It grants way too much power to the president, particularly in appointments and military conflict. However, that's what we're working with. So it's important to set a precedent to keep the ship clean, lest it doesn't float for all the sewage top deck. . . .
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Mel said:
It would result in a sort of leadership paralysis.

You say that like it would be a bad thing. :ROFL:
 

Fran

Slate grey mole person
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
10,028
Reaction score
855
Location
Paisley, Scotland
Leadership paralysis? Never heard of it.

Oh, hang on...

I don't know how corrupt the Bush administration was, but there are quite a few from Tony Blair's time I wouldn't mind seeing strapped to a chair with a light in their eyes. Let's start with Tony Blair and then move on to... actually, nah, he'd do for me.
 

WriteKnight

Arranger Of Disorder
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
1,746
Reaction score
247
Location
30,000 light years from Galactic Central Point.
It is not illegal to drive thirty miles and hour.
It is illegal to drive thirty miles an hour in a school zone.

It is not illegal to fire these guys 'at the presidents pleasure'
It is illegal to fire these guys if the presidents pleasure is to stop an investigation into illegal activities, or create a probe in order to influence an ellection. (Numerous laws broken)


"The presidents pleasure" is not a blanket pardon for commiting a felony.

"When the president does it - it's not a crime" - is a bad idea.
 

DavidZahir

Malkavian Primogen
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
2,095
Reaction score
268
Location
Los Angeles
Website
undeadwhispers.yuku.com
Really? Tell me, David, since you obviously know me well enough to presume that I have agreed with someone--exactly which politicians are you referring to? You know--the ones I agree with? Let's see...we've never had any interaction that I can remember,
you've been a member of the board for what? Three months? You have all of 219 posts at this moment and yet you know somehow which politicians I agree with?

What amazing insight.

Fortunately, having a mind of my own and having frequently expressed my disdain for people using past political situations in an attempt to divert attention from present ones, I don't believe this qualifies as a motto or any sort of fervent avowal of loyalty to those mythical politicians I agree with. Instead, I see this as a valid observation of political rhetoric and the environment in which our political system (tied as it is to the instant gratification of the media and internet) has evolved over the last forty years.

But of course, you knew that because you know me well enough to know that political rhetoric is a particular area of study of mine.

*rolls eyes*

Next.
Kindly re-read my actual post. I was responding to one specific post and to the logic inherent in the words of that post--which I find ridiculous. I made no comment whatsoever about which politicians you yourself oppose or support, nor any comment about your support or opposition.

I was heaping scorn on an argument, one I believed and still believe deserves that scorn. I do not accept that every single politician is corrupt, nor that all are corrupt to the same degree, nor that that once a politician is out-of-office criminal investigations of said politician's actions are pointless and can only be politically motivated.

What you are doing is an ad hominem attack rather than respond to my actual message. Instead of replying to my argument, you are attempting (not very well, imho) to criticize me by "responding" to things I did not say--to imply my argument is invalid because you've been on the board longer than myself (which is a non sequitur), because you have a mind of your own (another non sequitur), and because you've made a study of political rhetoric (an argument from authority).

You have not replied to what I actually posted at all.
 

Andrew

Most of the rules gotta go...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 23, 2005
Messages
792
Reaction score
64
Location
Alabama
Gerald Walpin, former IG, comes to mind.
 

Diana Hignutt

Very Tired
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
13,314
Reaction score
7,098
Location
Albany, NY
Yes, in theory, retroactive investigations seems like a good idea. But not for evaluating the past job of the President and his administration. Talk about Witch Hunts. You'd foster in the age of the never ending Witch Safari.

Strategically, this would be an extremely bad precedent to set.

and for the record, i'm not a Bush supporter.

Mel...

But that precedant was set at the end of the Reagan years with Iran-Contra, and investigations have followed every president since then (though maybe not Bush Sr.)
 

dgiharris

Disgruntled Scientist
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
6,735
Reaction score
1,833
Location
Limbo
I will amend my argument to this. I would establish some PRETTY HIGH criteria for these retroactive investigations. I'm talking about a serious burden of Proof hurdle and clear evidence of wrong doing.

But that precedant was set at the end of the Reagan years with Iran-Contra, and investigations have followed every president since then (though maybe not Bush Sr.)
This actually helps confirm my fears. Retroactive investigations to me is like handing Al Qaeda Nuclear Weapons that fit inside a suitcase. THe temptation for political mis-use is just too great.

If we are at the point in this country that we cannot trust an Administration to do their job for 4 yrs without serious corruption, then we need to rethink the model of our entire government.

We need to take a step back and look more Strategically at the problem. Retroactive investigations should not become the norm. If there was a problem, an Executive misuse of power, then the appropriate check and balance should be instituted to avoid that in the future. But all of this needs to be done with an eye LOOKING FORWARD.

In summary. Retroactive Investigations should have a strict set of criteria and extremely high burden of proof associated with them along with evidence. They should NOT become the norm. IMHO, nothing Bush has done warrants a Retroactive Investigation (based on the evidence i've seen/heard about thus far).

Mistakes and incompetence are not valid enough reasons. Only crimes are. And despite my loathing of his administration, I do not feel they committed any crimes, or rather, that there is sufficient evidence of them committing a crime. Remember the model of justice in this country, innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Mel...
 
Last edited:

jennontheisland

the world is at my command
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
7,270
Reaction score
2,125
Location
down by the bay
Rather than considering it a retroactive investigation, why not look at it as a post-mortem on the administration. An overall examination of the good, the bad, and the ugly that can be used by future administrations to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors.

And as a handly little byproduct, people might just think about how their actions could be perceived by others in the future. ;)
 

AMCrenshaw

...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
4,671
Reaction score
620
Website
dfnovellas.wordpress.com
Rather than considering it a retroactive investigation, why not look at it as a post-mortem on the administration. An overall examination of the good, the bad, and the ugly that can be used by future administrations to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors.

That's how I put it upthread. Isn't it easier to examine a dead thing? Can't it be more useful that way anyhow?



AMC
 

DavidZahir

Malkavian Primogen
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
2,095
Reaction score
268
Location
Los Angeles
Website
undeadwhispers.yuku.com
I don't understand. If crimes have been committed by a Presidential administration, should those crimes be forgotten and the criminals who did them get off scott free? Because that is what I'm getting from all this.

There seems to be some premises amid all this--that it is impossible for any criminal investigation involving politicians to pursued in an impartial manner, that no matter what any criminal investigation is a witch hunt (if involving politicians), and that to investigate any crime (involving politicians) is to start a pointless inquisition-of-sorts into differences of policies.

There's another premise here--that the governing of this country cannot take place without violating the law.

Well--bullshit.
 

dgiharris

Disgruntled Scientist
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
6,735
Reaction score
1,833
Location
Limbo
Rather than considering it a retroactive investigation, why not look at it as a post-mortem on the administration. An overall examination of the good, the bad, and the ugly that can be used by future administrations to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors.

And as a handly little byproduct, people might just think about how their actions could be perceived by others in the future. ;)

In theory that sounds all well and good. And please I don't mean to sound as condescending as i'm about to sound, but that view is way too niave.

Do you remember how much time and energy was wasted on Investigating Clinton's Blow Job? Multiply that by 1000 and you'd have the climate fostered by 'retroactive' investigations.

I simply do not trust Congress and the two political parties if this were to become the norm.

In the case of Retroactive investigations. You are talking about indefinite-cyclical-neverending-back and forth political WARFARE between the Dems and the GOP that would be the biggest monkey wrench ever thrown into our current bureaucratic machine.

Seriously, what does this accomplish? Bush would never be prosecuted. Cheney would never be prosecuted. At best, you get a few underlings and scapegoats who were not responsible, all the while tying up MILLIONS of man hours and BILLIONS of dollars. Yes, $$$ Billions. Carte Blanche retroactive investigations, lawyers, salary, man hours, etc. all add up to BILLIONS.

And for what? A few scape goats and an impressive media report about how 'bad' the last administration was. It just is not worth it. By the time the investigations and legal trials were done, the NEW administration would be in office and you'd start the cycle all over again.

Seriously, if we can't trust an administration to be corruption free for 4 yrs and if our current checks and balances aren't enough then we need to redo our governmental structure and come up with something else.

Mel...
 

AMCrenshaw

...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
4,671
Reaction score
620
Website
dfnovellas.wordpress.com
I don't understand. If crimes have been committed by a Presidential administration, should those crimes be forgotten and the criminals who did them get off scott free? Because that is what I'm getting from all this.

There seems to be some premises amid all this--that it is impossible for any criminal investigation involving politicians to pursued in an impartial manner, that no matter what any criminal investigation is a witch hunt (if involving politicians), and that to investigate any crime (involving politicians) is to start a pointless inquisition-of-sorts into differences of policies.

There's another premise here--that the governing of this country cannot take place without violating the law.

Well--bullshit.


Excellent post.


AMC
 

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,696
Reaction score
1,534
Location
The City Different
Website
www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
Kindly re-read my actual post. I was responding to one specific post and to the logic inherent in the words of that post--which I find ridiculous. I made no comment whatsoever about which politicians you yourself oppose or support, nor any comment about your support or opposition.

I was heaping scorn on an argument, one I believed and still believe deserves that scorn. I do not accept that every single politician is corrupt, nor that all are corrupt to the same degree, nor that that once a politician is out-of-office criminal investigations of said politician's actions are pointless and can only be politically motivated.

What you are doing is an ad hominem attack rather than respond to my actual message. Instead of replying to my argument, you are attempting (not very well, imho) to criticize me by "responding" to things I did not say--to imply my argument is invalid because you've been on the board longer than myself (which is a non sequitur), because you have a mind of your own (another non sequitur), and because you've made a study of political rhetoric (an argument from authority).

You have not replied to what I actually posted at all.
(My emphasis) I agree. And, by the powers vested in me by my years on the board and my own special study of rhetoric (albeit medieval rhetoric), I hereby bless David's statement. Pax vobiscum, my son.
 

dgiharris

Disgruntled Scientist
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
6,735
Reaction score
1,833
Location
Limbo
I don't understand. If crimes have been committed by a Presidential administration, should those crimes be forgotten and the criminals who did them get off scott free? Because that is what I'm getting from all this.

There seems to be some premises amid all this--that it is impossible for any criminal investigation involving politicians to pursued in an impartial manner, that no matter what any criminal investigation is a witch hunt (if involving politicians), and that to investigate any crime (involving politicians) is to start a pointless inquisition-of-sorts into differences of policies.

There's another premise here--that the governing of this country cannot take place without violating the law.

Well--bullshit.

Good argument. My semi-counter is the following.

In the case of any investigation of this magnitude, the Burden of Proof and entry of charges needs to correspond to a higher standard and subsequently have corresponding evidence to make the charge. So if you have a smoking gun, I have little problem with an investigation of a clear cut crime.

My argument though is based on the reality of execution/implementation, the logistics, and the precedents set.

In theory, I 100% agree with you. But in actuality, I cannot see a successful execution.

#1. The President has 'legal' Veto power as well as the authority to legally Pardon crimes, so this makes for an interesting Catch-22.
#2. I cannot see any President allowing a former President or Cabinet member to go to jail while executing orders from a previous President.
#3. We end up with scape goats that were not responsible
#4. Political infighting and retribution is exascerbated
#5. Resources tied up - Millions of man hours, Billions of dollars
#6. Legalese may be too complex as powers of the President are often set by precedent
#7. The people you are investigating have an incredible knowledge of the laws and powers upon which you are investigating and odds are they've covered their asses
#8. Incidents that fall under the National Security umbrella would be incredibly hard to prosecute as that area of law is constantly defined by precedent and also has a different set of legal standards

Now, if there is sufficient evidence of a clear cut crime to warden an investigation, that is one thing.

But if not, no real good came come of it. How much good came out of the Clinton fiasco?

In summary, in theory, I agree with you, but the reality is I just can't picture a successful execution resulting in a favorable outcome to anyone. IMHO, this is why the Executive branch HAS term limits. I believe the founding fathers understand the utility of having a term limit serve as the ultimate check and balance, because the alternative (especially retroactive investigations) are just too difficult to execute effectively in a political environment.

That is pretty much my argument, hope it makes sense.

Mel...
 
Last edited:

DavidZahir

Malkavian Primogen
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
2,095
Reaction score
268
Location
Los Angeles
Website
undeadwhispers.yuku.com
I don't think the logistics are nearly as difficult as you're portraying.

The trick is for the President to maintain the independence of the Justice Department. In fact, this happens all the time. That is the way the system is supposed to work, and the way it often does.

What I don't see is how a belief in the intelligence and competence of law-breakers is somehow a justification for not even trying to bring them to justice. Nor do I buy that such people have in fact committed their crimes (if they have done so) perfectly without leaving any evidence behind. What this argument comes across as is a plea not to go after criminals with really good college educations--and I find it hard to believe such was your intent.

As for how this would work, here's what comes to my mind.

Professional prosecutors investigate events, mostly by sifting through records and questioning witnesses.

If they determine sufficient evidence exists to charge certain individuals with crimes, then they charge those individuals.

There is a trial. Most trials end in plea bargains. Given that we're talking about some very high-placed public officials, my guess is that there'll be a lot of press coverage--much as there was with all three OJ Simpson trials, the JonBenet Ramsay Grand Jury, Anna Nicole Simpson's will, etc.

If anyone is found guilty, they will then be sentenced by the court. Of course the President may (or may not) pardon those individuals (at some political risk--look at Gerald Ford) or commute their sentences (as Bush did).

Pundits and particularly intense political partisans will make a fuss, on every side. They always do. Look at the Terry Schiavo case, or the tumult involving the Board of Education that tried to teach "Intelligent Design" in classrooms. This has a long tradition and is in no way unusual.

That is how the system more-or-less actually works, imperfectly to be sure but it does work. I don't see any inherent problem--save the relative honest and competence of those actually doing the work. And painting every single attorney working for the Justice Department with the brush of incompetence or extreme partisanship seems frankly too extreme. I don't suppose they are saints, but it seems reasonable to suppose the vast majority are trying to do their jobs in an essentially straightforward manner as they see it.
 

Prozyan

Are you one, Herbert?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
657
Location
Nuevo Mexico
The bottom line is US attorneys hold political offices, which by definition means they serve at the pleasure of the President. It doesn't matter how or why the President dismissed him, there is nothing barring him from doing so. They can be fired for having bad breath, the wrong hair style, or basically whatever suits the President's fancy. They enjoy ZERO job protection. It is really no different than firing a Chief of Staff or any number of political advisors. They serve at the President's discretion. So what if Rove formulated the plan? It was still the President that carried it out, completely within his political authority.

Yes, maybe it sets a bad precedent and maybe it was the first time such authority had been used in the middle of a term and for so blatant political reasons. It was still not illegal.

If you want a controversy, why not talk about the career position hirings at the Justice Department in 2006, which apparently violated several civil service laws? At least there is some meat on that bone.
 
Last edited:

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
Yes, maybe it sets a bad precedent and maybe it was the first time such authority had been used in the middle of a term and for so blatant political reasons. It was still not illegal.

In fact, as has been pointed out in a number of other discussions of this matter, there are some legal strictures regarding these firings (and hirings), notably that they cannot be made for reasons of blatant political bias or requirements for various kinds of political support. Monica Goodling, an assistant to Alberto Gonzales, got caught irrefutably in e-mails and other documents as having done exactly this.

Not to mention that lying about such stuff under oath most definitely absitively posilutely is illegal. Just ask Scooter Libby.

caw
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
The bottom line is US attorneys hold political offices, which by definition means they serve at the pleasure of the President. It doesn't matter how or why the President dismissed him, there is nothing barring him from doing so. They can be fired for having bad breath, the wrong hair style, or basically whatever suits the President's fancy. They enjoy ZERO job protection. It is really no different than firing a Chief of Staff or any number of political advisors. They serve at the President's discretion. So what if Rove formulated the plan? It was still the President that carried it out, completely within his political authority.
It's not that simple. If, as some have alleged, someone like Rove insisted on an investigation of a Democratic candidate for office, the US attorney refused based on a lack of any credible evidence to start an investigation, and then that attorney was fired and replaced with another attorney who instituted the requested investigation, we get into murky criminal waters.

Using political office to obstruct an investigation, or to target an individual for political gain doesn't fall under the "serving at the pleasure of the president" classification.
 

Prozyan

Are you one, Herbert?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
657
Location
Nuevo Mexico
In fact, as has been pointed out in a number of other discussions of this matter, there are some legal strictures regarding these firings (and hirings), notably that they cannot be made for reasons of blatant political bias or requirements for various kinds of political support. Monica Goodling, an assistant to Alberto Gonzales, got caught irrefutably in e-mails and other documents as having done exactly this.

Not to mention that lying about such stuff under oath most definitely absitively posilutely is illegal. Just ask Scooter Libby.

caw

Monica Goodling was caught using political bias for the hiring of civil jobs, not political appointments. In fact, its that whole Department of Justice hiring controversy I mentioned. It has nothing to do with the hiring or firing of the US attorneys, which (and this is a very, very important distinction) are NOT civil jobs. They are political appointments. The Inspector General actually said in 2007 they were moving beyond the US Attorney controversy to examine the civil position hirings.

It's not that simple. If, as some have alleged, someone like Rove insisted on an investigation of a Democratic candidate for office, the US attorney refused based on a lack of any credible evidence to start an investigation, and then that attorney was fired and replaced with another attorney who instituted the requested investigation, we get into murky criminal waters.

It is that simple and there are no murky criminal waters. Political office is political office and it serves at the discretion of the President. If they don't want to prosecute someone the President wants them to it is completely within the realm of Presidential authority to fire that person and get someone in there that will do what the President wants.

It really isn't hard to grasp the idea that US Attorneys enjoy no job protection and they serve at the whim of the President.

The only "murky" part is that no precedent to do what Bush did had been established. But then again, no precedent or law had been established saying Bush COULD NOT do what he did.

Again, unethical, immoral, whatever. Certainly not illegal.
 

WriteKnight

Arranger Of Disorder
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
1,746
Reaction score
247
Location
30,000 light years from Galactic Central Point.
"If they don't want to prosecute someone the President wants them to it is completely within the realm of Presidential authority to fire that person and get someone in there that will do what the President wants."

No. It's not. That is an illegal action.

So is impeding an investigation into someone who is your friend.

Suborning of justice, obstruction of justice, perjury and impeding an investigation are all criminal offences.
 
Last edited: