If the Obama Justice Department goes after Edwards, why not Bush?

Here is a story about Obama's justice department going after Edwards.

Talkin Points Memo
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/report_obama_justice_department_green_lights_john_edwards_prosecution.php?ref=fpb


So, Why not George Bush?...didn't he do things that were worse?
Is violation of election laws worse than starting a war under false pretense, killing innocents, then using torture in that war?
I think so. I do not think that I am alone on that.

:shrug:

Nazi prison guard for killing people.
He, the guard, killed ...when???
Oh, yes, l940s...you mean the Germans are more legal than Obama's justice department?

Bush and the banksters deserve punishment. The world cries out!

than violating election laws?
What is is special about going after Edwards, a real has been, from 2007/8 for election law violations?
Sure he broke laws, so did Bush, Wall Street, and Gonzo. remember him??? he broke a law or two.

But no...go after ... Edwards.. great idea

You could argue that NO case against anyone for anything should be done until Bush and his administration is tried. The fact is that a trial of the Bush administration in the US was NEVER going to happen. It would be an indictment of the entire US government. This is an issue separate from anything else. It is the enormity of what Bush is accused of that means he will never be charged.

The comparable case to Edwards is more likely to be Ensign - and the difference between them might be the sources of money used. If Edwards were someone you had disliked, would you care that he might be tried because there is credible proof that he might have broken the law?

Thank you for bringing sanity into this thread.

The generalized "prosecute Wall Street" is the funniest. Like the DOJ can file indictments against "Wall Street."

If there is credible proof, try him. (your words)
If there is credible proof against Bush, try him too.
If there is credible proof against the president of any Wall Street firm, try him too.

So, is there credible proof that Bush broke the law, say on torture?
If there is, try him. At least let him have to testify under oath.
That is the least that can be done to him.
So, you may say no, "..NEVER going to happen.." maybe not.

and maybe.

But, I don't think it likely that Bush will be tried. The reasons are that whether he broke the law or not is more complicated.

For instance on torture, he can cite the expert opinion memos that Yu and others wrote that said that they were within the law. In addition, there are many layers of people between those who tortured and President Bush. Now, I agree that morally, ethically and legally, the man at the top signing off on the policies is the most culpable. Oddly, the proof that Bush, personally, did sign off on waterboarding comes from his own mouth. Still, it is highly unlikely that the US will ever actually try Bush or other top administration people.

(On other things, like lying us into war - they have put out an enormous amount of disinformation that they were fooled by the intelligence - even once blaming Saddam for trying to look more powerful than he was!)

I suspect that it is only when a country is powerless and loses a war that the leaders are ever tried. There may be some counter examples, but they are far from the norm.

History alone will be left to judge what happened starting in late 2000, when they stole the government. (If you are religious and it is within your belief set, he will be judged by God as well.)

Nothing new here.

If anyone goes after a President and his cabinet then no one will be secure in the office. The logic being that the opposition will do what they did to Clinton over everything. I don't like it but I guess it would be politically motivated to go after every thing that might be construed to be a crime.

Plus, Edwards isn't President or even an elected official now, nor was he when he committed whatever campaign crimes he did. He's just a citizen like the rest of us.