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...