not accept leadership that is clearly cruel and immoral and that subverts or ignores the principles of due process for all, not just for Americans in America, and the rule of law.

Even when we are dealing with people who do not share our values as a civil society, we have to stay true to our principles or we will disintegrate into a sham state, into a country that is governed by a secret cabal of cruel sadists.

But we also want to protect our democracy which is based on the idea that we elect our leaders and then that we, because we are responsible for their election, share in the blame for the wrongs they do. We also want, as you explain, to protect our ability to enjoy the peaceful transfer of power each time we elect a new government.

What we need is a process that provides for a sort of "trial" that is more a process of the admission of policies and conduct that have been wrong, morally, politically, ethically wrong, apologies for the wrongs and reconciliation with those who have been wronged and their families.

But the terrible acts of torture which are a betrayal of our highest most important standards, an utter betrayal of our Bill of Rights which has no meaning if it is not to be universally applied to all humans (because it outlines the innate rights of all humans which no government has the authority to transgress of violate).

Thanks for your complex analysis. I do think that Cheney/Bush/Rice and all who condoned and carried out the torture should have a day in court, perhaps not one that could culminate in prison sentences or their loss of freedom, but one that calls them personally to answer for the terrible cruelty and sadism they indulged in.

Let's don't forget that Al Qaeda and now ISIS and some other governments have also participated in horrendous acts sometimes torture of helpless prisoners. But let's stand for the ideal that the wrongs of others do not justify our own wrongs.

What in the world are the Repukes going to bring Obama to trial over? Their fake Benghazi scandal? Immigration executive order? Failure to salute a Marine properly?

None of those things would have anywhere near general public support, much less gain much traction outside of some teabag-driven House Committee hearing.


Now, as for the neocon crimes, people across the world have been calling for a war crimes trial for years!


Apples and oranges apart.

However, don't say that President Obama has done nothing.

For example. The Fifth Amendment prohibits depriving anyone of life or liberty without due process of law. Yet, President Obama has ordered the assassinations of people, including American Citizens, without any judicial review. If instead of a Republican winning in 2016, a more leftist won, wouldn't the urge to bring people to justice for that crime be enough? Wouldn't the Republicans do it just to make a point and get revenge?

However, that aside. Obviously you don't get it. Corruption is the usual catch all in the aforementioned second and third world nations. Lock the guy up, and his supporters, and then try them in showy trials with hand picked jurors.

Violations of Executive Privilege, categorize it as Corruption, and try the person. Misuse of the Recess Appointment. You do know that the court has ruled against President Obama on the Executive Privilege thing right and the Recess Appointments right? You had heard that I presume.

So there are three "Corruption" grounds for persecution right there. Do you think that the people will rush out into the streets to defend President Obama if he was charged with corruption? A small percentage would, certainly. But most would figure that everyone in Washington is Corrupt, and the trial will sort it out. Almost certainly there are other things that can be blown out of proportion and would enough people object to everyone being held accountable? Could we argue that the Bush prosecution was valid but the Obama prosecution was a witch hunt without sounding like hypocrites?

I don't want to see our nation fall into that trap. We have to begin by changing the way we do things. Under the Truman Administration, we enabled the CIA to start with the dirty tricks to further our interests. The idea was that we would use bad things to try and get good results. That is the foundation of overthrowing Governments in the past. The idea of doing bad things led to the installation of the Shah of Iran, and the various Haitian dictators through the latter half of the twentieth century.

Each President is briefed on these and told that this is the only way to get things done. So each one continues the trend started by the one before. Oh President Obama may end the Torture, but we still have people detained in black sites. He could have closed Guantanamo Bay easily. When one lawyer files a motion to have the detainee released, all Obama would have to do is file a response that the Government can not present a sufficient case to justify the detention, and it is the Government's position that the detainment may be illegal. The Judge rules that we have to let them go, Congress can do nothing but sputter and scream. The Judge ruled, and that is that. No one else can speak for the United States except the Attorney General before the Courts, so case is over, they're all released by court order. We haven't done that, because we don't want to be blamed for letting bad guys who were held illegally go. Doing bad things, because it serves a good purpose.

Why has the Obama Administration prevented the extradition of Robert Lady who was convicted, not accused, convicted of kidnapping and torture in an Italian Court? There is a Interpol warrant out for the man, why haven't we turned him over? Couldn't the Republicans or the notional Liberals in the next administration use that as proof that President Obama was protecting the guilty?

Before we can hold people accountable, we have to change that underlying rule that guides us. We have to say no more. We can't just decide that we're going to prosecute Bush but give Obama a pass, because if we do, the next administration will prosecute Obama, and the one after that will prosecute that one in revenge. Then we end up with a Dictator who refuses to hold elections because enemies hope to exploit the elections. National Security and all that.

I don't want that future here. Because then I couldn't support the Democratic Party. I couldn't support any party, because the election would not give the nation a chance to work towards goals, it would instead give a new group the authority to punish those who came before.

Think about it. First, level the playing field, then tell the truth about what happened, and then prevent it from ever happening again.

MANY things in which I'm disappointed and disgusted by that he's done or hasn't done.

However, the GOP is not currently (doesn't mean they wouldn't later) after Obama for the things his predecessors started. They're after things that rile up the base and the base is pro-torture. The only way they would go after Obama is if Bush/Cheney and all their neocon toadies were brought up on charges and they'd go after Obama on similar charges, and rightfully so, imo!!

Just because Obama has a (D) after his name doesn't mean he's immune from our laws, constitution and treaties we've signed.

If that's what it takes, then so be it. It's time we stopped being what we invade countries over.

I put Understandings in quotations for a reason. Remember, we enabled the CIA to do just this sort of thing. We never passed laws prohibiting the CIA from doing it. We passed resolutions, that were non binding. We always find exceptions to those laws. Again, it was the idea that we could do bad things for good reasons that got us into this mess.

In the 1950's, the CIA overthrew governments that looked to be going Communist. They fought a secret war in Laos in the 1960's, remember Air America? The CIA fought the Russians in Afghanistan, and helped Hungary to revolt. Bay of Pigs, all of it. Despite the failures, the abominations, we've never passed laws saying the CIA will be held accountable. We always find reasons not to hold them, or the Administration accountable.

I'm saying that before we start the accountability game, we have to let everyone know that from now on the rules will be followed, and people will be held accountable. That means we begin by passing laws. Laws that make it clear that all the exceptions and excuses will not be tolerated. We pass laws that hold our Government accountable to the same laws that we the people must follow.

That is step one. After those laws are passed, without exceptions for national security. We then enforce the law with a vengeance.

I was just listening to a book, the Cold War. It has a long chapter about this behavior, and how it got started. We quickly learned that we could not take direct action to thwart the plans of the Soviet Union. We were unwilling to stand aside and see how things played out. We, Democrats and Republicans, pushed the boundaries time and time again, until basically nothing was verboten. We pass Executive Orders prohibiting Political Assassinations. Then we sign a document saying that this assassination is excepted because it's not political. We classify the entire thing as ultra top secret and put it in a file never to be opened.

President Obama is doing those things, those bad things, for the hoped for good outcome. It is a flawed argument, the idea that the ends justify the means, but we've been following that argument for more than sixty years. People who are looking forward to retire have never known a time in which it wasn't done that way. We have to change the rules that the game has been played by. And we have to mean it.

Because right now, if we did prosecute Bush Co and the rest of the cabal. This discussion would be held in front of a jury. Now, the defense attorney would be allowed to show the chain of events that Presidents, all Presidents, from Truman on have added a link to. Eisenhower and the illegal flights of the U2 over Russia. Kennedy and the same flights over other nations, the Bay of Pigs, and undermining efforts of democratic representation in other nations. Uganda and Haiti, we would see it all out there as historical precedence for the actions of the President.

I honestly don't know how that trial would turn out. If Bush was found guilty, then the same fate would await President Obama, and the next President, and the one after that as smaller and smaller crimes were prosecuted. When one was prosecuted for failure to insure that the records keeping act was followed to the letter by storing the documents in a box that was the wrong color, we would be on the verge of a dictatorship. Because why leave power if you know you will be charged with some criminal action or another?

I want it to stop. I want it all to stop. The torture, the black sites, the spying on citizens, all of it including the things I haven't mentioned in the line above. I want it all, all to stop. But I understand how we got here, each subsequent President decided that the precedence allowed him to do a little more that would be considered unethical. Certainly Harry Truman never imagined we would end up where we are now. But who can blame him for wanting the tools to accomplish the goal of preventing the fall of several nations, including Italy, to Communism. If Italy had fallen to Communism, then it's likely that Europe as a whole would have fallen too.

That's how it begins, one little thing, a laudable goal that can't be reached by strictly legal means. From there, we move on, we've taken one step across the line for a laudable goal, why not take another for what seems to be an equally laudable goal.

We have to shove the nation back across that line, and inform them that we never cross that line again. We can't decide that twenty one steps across the line was just too much, we should have stayed at twenty steps, that would have been acceptable.

strict traditional moral. This is a man who spent years opposing LGBT equality because of his faith. His faith is opposed to LGBT rights but is fine with anal rape of prisoners? Is that your contention? That is not what his Holy Book says at all. It says that anything done to a prisoner is done to Jesus himself.

God is in the mix but we tortured some folks?

'I'm a Christian, so I believe torture is a Sacrament between one operative and one prisoner. God is in the mix. There is a spiritual element to the relationship'

The Beast has too much of a stranglehold on policy and on all three branches of government (mostly the Executive and Legislative). To pass these laws requires all but killing The Beast and there's way too many hands in that lucrative defense contracting pot.

but haven't Britain and the US long established precedent that the end justifies the means.

What exactly was dropping the atomic bomb on Japan?
Tell me about the slaughter of leaders of independent countries who did not agree with either the British or American agenda?

All of these were violation of international law but who do you think was enforcing these laws?

Does it make it right, legally or morally?

No to both.

No to both

outweighs any concern we might have about future transfers of power. The worst crime they committed was starting a war with cooked-up intelligence. They have the blood of thousands of people on their hands, including thousands of Americans. I cannot deal with these people living as free men. If we don't want to prosecute them in our courts, we should arrest them and deliver them to the Hague for war crimes trials. What these people did was pure evil and we need to see justice done to stand as an example for future generations.

What you wrote is why:

[font size="6"][font color="red"]What these people did was pure evil and we need to see justice done to stand as an example for future generations.[/font color][/font size]

quoting the OP made me think how smooth its been

The US and western nations especially Britain lead the demand to snag and prosecute third world leaders on all sorts of crimes but according to your logic that same action should not apply to the big boys, US in particular.

What you are really saying is that you have no faith in American democracy.

I suppose that is a valid point.

after the fact.

You want to stop this? Well, the way to do it is not to give next criminal cabal the green light and the all clear that no matter what they do there will be no consequences and in fact they will be covered for to the best and fullest degree possible.

You talk of changing principles but by what possible means you support a system devoid of accountability and no incentive but to act lawlessly, evade and foil oversight, to prosecute whistleblowers, and to cover up, deflect, and evade justice no matter from what corner to make sure that your favorite politicians can also act with lawless iimperiouness no matter how you claim fear of conviction on some pretense as you claim which I see as laughable no Obama would not be convicted for the Senate releasing their report and to claim such is dishonest fear mongering and if it isn't we have deeper problems as a country than the fate of one man and of course we do.

You and Obama's lame excuses don't fly with me, your attitude is why we are a nation of conspiracy cover up artists that are renditioning, murdering, torturers and you folks are inviting the wicked to step up their game, push the envelope, and see what new lows they can sink us two at their soonest convenience and that in the highest likelihood we are doing our part for the cause, wink...wink.

If it takes some cycles of recriminations to drain the Swamp and return to equality under the law then so be it. I see the damage of cycle after cycle of looking the other way, covering up, and fake "truth and reconciliation" where ever worse criminality and disregard for civil liberties and the truth are greatly multiplied through the land.

What you see is now the fruit of your way of thinking but wait until the bitter harvest from the next cycle and the one after that and the one after that.

"We tortured some folks". Yes, you did because you choose to side with, cover for, rationalize, and cannonize the torturers and as such joined them even to the point of spying on and interfering with Congress's oversight making every bit a mockery of the rule of law as the ones before.

prosecutions for these authorized tortures. We are not preserving anything of what the US was like when I served in the military(1960-66), and had to sign a card which I still have which says that the US is a signee to the Geneva Convention treaty and I won't take part in any torture practices. The Bush administration chose to ignore this treaty, which is covered by the constitution and both he and Obama chose not to act on other domestic illegalities, like during the financial crisis of 2008-10(about). Somehow, we need to decide to climb back up the hill, or sit in the turd pile with the other third world countries of which we are now part of.

There is good and there is evil. Which will you stand up for? There is no middle ground. There is no compromise. Either no man is above the law or not.

Your stance is immoral.

Bill Clinton did "look forward not back" version 1.0. Thorough investigations of potentially dozens of Reagan-Bush shady actions and connections could have been made, finally without the subjects of the investigations in a position to obstruct access to information.

That action wasn't on Clinton's radar screen. He wanted to avoid the same thing you do, a tit-for-tat partisan prosecution complex.

He got one anyway, only it was one-sided. And the the neocons who eventually made up the Bush Cabal had their roles tacitly approved. "We did nothing wrong."

Conservatives have spent the last two Democratic presidencies foaming over mostly horseshit (and if you look closely, it goes a lot father back). Whereas most of our anger at Republican administrations have been over real abuses of power.

You're not going to get the safeguards until it starts costing the people responsible.

You may think you're advocating breaking the cycle, but that doesn't work when one side still wants blood. They've wanted a Democratic head on a pike since Nixon, and at this point they've even forgotten why. Or invented new, more satisfying rationalizations.

I'll leave off now. I have to go anyway, and I'm trying very hard not to make Munich analogies.

and all authorities, for double and triple standards in the law. Obama and Holder have prosecuted people for cannabis, they have discharged and fired people for being gay, arrested others for protesting that evil action. Obama stood on stages wailing that he is a devout Christian and God is in the mix, it is about Sanctity he said when he was shitting on the rights of LGBT people based on what is clearly a nonexistent set of morality and ethics. He was never fit to judge others, considering he is protecting great wrongs and enormous lies.

'He who refuses to punish evil commands it to occur' -DaVinci.

So are you one of those who also support cops lying and citizens making false accusations against each other, law suites based on lies, force and bigotry? No law, no rules for anyone? Or just for your precious elite?

I don't think we should get to decide that we don't have to follow international law and the consequences that follow breaking international law because it might interrupt our flow of transition from one leader to the next. By not prosecuting we give the message that they can do whatever they want with no consequences. No, I have to completely 100% disagree with you on this. We cannot trade justice for convenience.

like Desmond Fucking Tutu. Then what? We'll get the same bullshit rationalizations. This is either a nation of laws or it ain't.

Maybe Carter but he only had 4 years.

VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF GENEVA CONVENTIONS BAN ON TORTURE IS A WAR CRIME UNDER U.S. LAW

Transcript: http://www.torturingdemocracy.org


CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TORTURE IS A WAR CRIME UNDER THE U.S. CODE PUNISHABLE BY UP TO 20 YEARS IN PRISON

...just a reminder.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_0000234...

repeatedly saying "but in America, we don't have tanks in the street."

Like that was something special. They sounded like they were covering something up, or trying to convince themselves that we didn't just get screwed over.

Then we got THE BUSH/CHENEY ADMINISTRATION.

And we think we're free.

Tanks mount a large cannon in a movable turret.

not that voting is the solution anymore since Citizens United & black box voting, but hey, those Americans were busy back then & couldn't be bothered. What's that old saying? Oh yeah, You don't know what you've got till it's gone.

That taught a generation of cold warriors like Cheney that you could, in fact, be 'above the law'.

And it's why Bush, Cheney, and the rest of them felt safe in breaking so many laws. Because they believe that Americans will be happy enough not to prosecute 'their party's people' for committing crimes, so that 'our party's people' won't be prosecuted when they likewise commit crimes.

When a President commits crimes, they need to be prosecuted. Ditto all of their subordinates. No matter to which political party they belong. And even if it means that 'your' party's President will be prosecuted when he likewise commits crimes.

The "no consequences" is what endangers us morally and physically. Not unlike when police kill unarmed people with impunity. It's not only the crimes they have committed; it's the impunity that burns. It damages us and pisses off people, and rightly so. And those scars don't heal.

Isis is loving this. No consequences for our torture? Oh there will be consequences.

That sort of reasoning ensures that it will happen again. So much for the rule of law.

U.N. Convention Against Torture (signed into law by none other than Ronald Reagan) that requires the U.S. to investigate and prosecute any and all alegations of torture:

The physical crimes did not take place in the United States. So the very first question that would be decided is if you can charge a former President for actions taken while serving in office. That answer should come down in six years or so with an expedited challenge running it's way up to the Supreme Court. Then do the courts have Jurisdiction over the torture since it took place in foreign countries? How about tortures that took place while CIA agents watched but was physically done by people at our behest?

Each question would have to be litigated through the courts, one at a time. Each question would increase the semblance of an idea that no one would ever be held to account.

Do we start by turning the CIA agents over to the nations where the crimes took place? If so, we should begin by immediately handing Robert Lady over to the Italian Government as he has been convicted of kidnapping and torture in their courts.

We can't hand Bush and the rest over to the ICC, as we've never signed onto that body. If President Obama did so today, it would not be ratified by the Senate which means it would never be enacted.

I suppose we could hand them over to foreign courts for trial. Of course, when that happened then when President Obama left office, Air Force One would have to fly him to be tried in the nations we have used Drones to bomb people in. I'm guessing Syria would love to try the President, the fight over who was first would probably take a while, possibly even start another World War. Not my first choice.

So we're back to the American Courts. The Constitution says that serving Congressmen can't be arrested, but it doesn't give those protections to the President. However, for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, it does lay out one penalty. Impeachment. Bush Co and the rest are out of office. So the question will go to the Supreme Court on if the Founders intended to try Presidents, former and present, in the Courts. Figure, five more years on that question. Perhaps we'll put all the questions in one big case and work it up to the Supreme Court. Best guess is a coin toss. But for the sake of argument, let's say that the Court rules that the only accountability that a President can face is impeachment, what then? We have just codified the above the law position of the President as a matter of constitutional precedent. That means that no President could ever be tried for their crimes. Not exactly the precedent I want to see created, but I'm game if you are to roll the dice.

Option two of course is the decision that the Courts can in fact try a President at any time. Then at any moment some Federal Judge can order Federal Marshals to go and arrest the President for anything. That scares me more than codifying the above the law position of the President, and I'd hope that image worries you as well. Sure the arrest warrant can be overturned by a higher court, but do we want the President hauled off on the whim of some Federal Judge?

The best course of action I can see, the one with the best chance of success is to start with a clean slate. From here on, no more of this crap. Passing laws to prohibit it and offer severe penalties for any who do it. It would probably require limits to the Presidential Power, but that's something we can discuss with the legal experts. The point is that we have to change the course we plotted during the Truman Administration where we expected and empowered the CIA and other intelligence agencies to do bad things.

That course has been exposed to the public many times, but we've never challenged the underlying assumption, that the only way to stop bad people, be they rogue terrorist assets, or unfriendly governments, is by throwing the rule book out the window and operating outside the law. I disagree with that assertion, and I think we need to first address that assumption before we start with the show trials that I have no idea how to hold.

are you referring? Before I answer your question, I want to make sure I'm answering the question you intended and not one of my own fancy.

You are preaching to people who despise this president. A month -- fuck -- a week from now it'll be something else.

In other words, we can't handle the truth.

We can be told the truth, but it is pointless to do anything with that knowledge.

Because "But I don't want to see President Obama and the administration persecuted next."
(Prosecuted?)
In other words, fear of the future because 'my' side might be held accountable, too.

Since all leaders are flawed, since no government is perfect, since we are all 'sinners' -- all we can do is say "That is bad; from now on no more more sinning."

American 'exceptionalism' writ large: for some cosmic reason "Presidents and people have to do bad things for good reasons." Americans get to do this with impunity.

This torture report and the failure to prosecute the perpetrators, accompanied by the Obama administration's decision not to go after the Wall Street crooks, is yet more evidence of the moral decay and decline of the nation of the Declaration of Independence.

because their side might retaliate against my side?

That's the most craven thing I've ever read on DU.

Post World War II. The Marshall plan hadn't even gotten started yet. The Italian elections were due to be held, and it looked as if the Communist Party would win huge victories, and the loss of Italy to the Communists was considered unthinkable. So the State Department funneled illegal money to the anti-Communist parties and helped them win an electoral victory. Yes, we broke the law, but we learned that by doing bad things, we could get good results. We accepted and embraced the idea that the ends justify the means as far as the CIA and covert actions went.

That first step seems minor today, funneling money into a political campaign. We would laugh heartily if we found out that was all the CIA was up to today. We would giggle like school girls, literally. But from that first tiny step, there were other steps, and ones beyond that. Each step justified taking the next. Each step was the precedent for taking the next step.

So which step is wrong? Which step is too far? Torture is bad, so that step shall see people punished. Fine, but then was President Clinton wrong in bombing an Aspirin Factory? People died, and so we must hold him accountable right? Back another administration, and we're in another Bush. Was the invasion of Panama really legal? Don't we have to round up some people and hold a trial about that?

Each step led to the next one. The slippery slope argument played out since the end of World War II. We can do one bad thing, and if that works or not, it's the foundation of the next bad thing. We have to start by getting everyone across the line and telling them that this time nobody crosses that line, ever. Because if we object to the Torture, then do we have to hold people accountable for kidnapping suspects from nations without extradition and dumping them in the US where the courts have already decided that the way the defendant got here is irrelevant, the fact that he's here is all that is relevant?

So if the courts can turn their backs on Kidnappings that took place outside of the United States, what makes you think that they will decide they have the jurisdiction to enforce American law in other nations?

The ICC would work, but we're not a part of that. So where do we hold the trials?

In fact, Obama should be held accountable for the unconstitutional execution of U.S. citizens without due process.

The American citizenry is craven. We let our elected officials commit horrid crimes and collectively shrug our shoulders.

It worked in South Africa and it worked in Northern Ireland.

I'm getting the uneasy feeling that the vengeance and violence that led to the torture is merely being cycled back by those with a wish for further vengeance.

I am so glad that we have a Democratic president who officially and unequivocally put an end to these policies in the legal sense, and enunciated the nation's values in the symbolic sense. I don't think they're coming back. Not in our lifetimes.

under Obama. GITMO is open to this day, and detainees who have been cleared of any wrongdoing for 10 years or more are still being physically, mentally, and sexually abused.

You're right that the doctrine of "plausible deniability" has to end, but I really think heads have to roll and careers will have to end in disgrace for that to happen. Even, potentially Obama/Pelosi/Feinstien/Holder, as these abuses continued under their watch.

It is arguably less objectionable to use it in service of a vendetta as it is to choose to overlook crimes as part of a hypothetical quid pro quo in hopes that your opponents might overlook your own transgressions.

I'd prefer that the law is prosecuted based partly on antagonistic motives than to not apply it at all.

The courts long ago turned a blind eye to kidnapping of defendants from nations with no extradition. The courts decided that it didn't matter how the defendant got here, as long as he's here. The courts argument for that was that the crime took place in another nation, and the courts had no jurisdiction to consider the kidnapping charge in Mexico.

So what makes you think that we could try Bush Co for the crimes of torture when the torture did not happen in the United States?

Like all law enforcement, If the perpetrators can't be convicted in your jurisdiction, extradite them to the jurisdiction that can.

We aren't a signatory to that body. We couldn't get it through the Senate. So we're left with extradition. So does Air Force one deliver President Obama to Pakistan on the day he surrenders power? Or do we wait a week before handing him over?

The torture did not take place in the United States. It took place in black prison sites in other nations. The Supreme Court has already ruled that it has no jurisdiction over crimes that physically take place in other nations, in regards to wanted felons who were kidnapped from nations with no extradition. The court ruled that it didn't matter how the wanted person was delivered, the fact he was delivered was all that mattered.

Now, with that as an argument, and a precedence, how do you argue to the Supreme Court that we should hold the Bush Co cabal accountable for crimes that took place in other nations? Then do we see President Obama handcuffed on the podium after the new President is sworn in or do they wait a couple days to take him into custody?

The problems associated with this are so numerous as to be almost insurmountable.

They are in positions of authority.

If it were just bush, I'd be for throwing him in a deep, dark hole. But such prosecution would not bode well for our future.

Not necessarily a jail term or anything in that line but at least a reprimand of some sort.
Shamelessly, i did blog about this today. Sharing my opinion of what and why.

I will simply offer my wife's most common comment (which she says when someone gets off from prosecution): "We've got to stop rewarding people for bad behavior."

But given the hour it was posted, I was tired - and failed to comment and 'kick'. I apologize for that oversight.

This is one of the most insightful, eloquent, and thoughtful OPs I have seen here for a very long time. I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of where we are, where we need to be - and, most importantly, why it is so vitally important to understand the far-reaching consequences of precedent-setting actions.

"We need to change the way we look at things."

Yes, we do.

I know he hasn't issued any pardons, and that the Holder DoJ has indicated that it doesn't currently have plans to prosecute, but the new AG might take a different approach. I wouldn't rule it out until it's been ruled out in other words.