1. That happened after that Presidential Patron left office.
2. Even so that doesn’t rise to the level of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. And by the way, the only “crimes” the Constitution recognizes are “American crimes”, not international and not political. – Only if the Senate approves a treaty, and only then if Constitutional.

Obama would rather indict Bush for someone pouring water up KSM’s nose, than protect the country from AQ and nuclear attack. Great work Kos!

He will never be President. Just an educated prediction.

Hmmm are you a sniper or something?

I hope you’re right. My opinion is very different.

If Obama is the nominee, I think he might very well win. Without my vote, of course, but I still think he could (and probably will) defeat our RINO candidate. He’ll have a big money and enthusiasm edge. And, of course, by electing a minority, we’ll be making history! (That’s how it’ll be sold, subtly, anyway).

cs89 on April 15, 2008 at 4:19 PM

I agree but I don’t think it will be sold subtly at all. I’ve already encountered people that say that the only reason anyone would not vote for Obama is because they were bigots. My only worry is that he will make two terms and then his wife will be trying for the next two.

Offering bipartisan cooperation to Democrats consistently yields such positive results…

The only problem with the beating Obama will get this fall is that it will be so decisive as to cause the Democrats to better scrutinize the bona fides of future candidates.

moxie_neanderthal on April 15, 2008 at 3:45 PM

I hope you’re right. My opinion is very different.

If Obama is the nominee, I think he might very well win. Without my vote, of course, but I still think he could (and probably will) defeat our RINO candidate. He’ll have a big money and enthusiasm edge. And, of course, by electing a minority, we’ll be making history! (That’s how it’ll be sold, subtly, anyway).

I.e. no, it’s virtually certain that he won’t go after anyone lest it set a precedent for partisan prosecutions by incoming administrations in the future, but to borrow a choice term from a paint-by-numbers answer in the foreign policy vein, all options must remain on the table. Zzzzz.

When did Democrats start worrying about setting legal and/or political precedents?

Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law…

I wish he’d stop hitting Hillary with cheap shots.

So, if Obama wants to do it, I guess I can’t complain (I don’t think he will find much)…. As long as whoever follows Obama investigates and prosecutes him for HIS crimes, which will no doubt be myriad.

The fact that Obama has traveled as far as he has on such thin gruel of a record is an indictment of the Democratic party’s competitive field. For all of Mrs. Clinton incompetancies (and they are many), she is right to recognize that in all likelihood, Democrats will indeed suffer from buyers remorse. Unfortunately for her, she is not the anecdote that first crosses the mind of the electorate and the patient (her party) has already been compromised.

Prediction: The most lopsided election since McGovern.

By the way, the WSJ opinion piece is excellent.

To begin with, he’d have to start an exploratory committee to find the Rayburn Building, since the only day he’s seen it was during orientation when they served him milk and cookies.

I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt

Note that Republicans would merely perceive such a proceeding as a partisan witch hunt – the Messiah will not go so far as to say that it would actually be a partisan witch hunt (which it obviously would be).