A lot of commentators (and Dopers in this forum) have accused some members of the Bush Admin, not merely of bad judgment and evil intent, but of actual crimes. The Valerie Plame affair, the possibility that responsibility for Abu Ghraib might go all the way to Rumsfeld, etc. Of course, they will never be indicted or prosecuted so long as Ashcroft runs the DOJ. But if Kerry wins the election – what then? Will his new AG go hog-wild investigating the crimes and misdemeanors of the previous Admin? Or will Kerry take a “malice towards none, charity for all” approach?
As usual, the deciding factor will be whether it looks good or bad in the majority view. If it looks too vindictive, then no. If there are enough people who feel justice needs to be served, then yes.
Traditionally, even to-the-death opponents in political campaigns have refrained from trying to go after their losing opponents: even to the point of excusing behavior that pretty clearly should have been treated as criminal. I wouldn’t expect the Kerry camp to be much different in this regard.
However, there has been much talk over why Bush has been so vehement about re-writing the law to protect any public release of his papers or doings. No doubt there are some less-than-flattering revelations that will come out once we get a real look into how they’ve conducted policy in the administration, rather than just the occasional pretty shocking account from a former loyalist. I doubt any will result in criminal prosecution, but they will probably hurt Bush’s legacy, and that scares them just as much.
I also wouldn’t put it past an outgoing Bush administration to try and launch frivolous retaliatory investigations into the Kerry campaign during their lame duck months for revenge. Bush’s people have shown that they are nothing if not vindictive, a pox on all who stand in their way or dare to criticize, much less defeat.
Valerie Plame will take down someone minor in the current admin. (i.e., Scooter Libby -level or lower, no cabinet-level folks, and certainly not Rove … he’d find a way to mastermind a shooting civil war before he went to jail), in a very minor way (probation).
No one will go to jail. No one will be prosecuted for anything that happened in Iraq, from lying to incite war, to Abu Ghraib.
It wouldn’t be for anything uncovered to this point, I think. And it would never include Bush. If it did, I think Kerry would pardon him. Not to do so would divide the nation again and do more damage to the country when the attention urgently needs to be focused on other issues
But y’know, this kinda gets to the point of why I think it would be a GOOD idea to set the DOJ hounds on the heels of some of the Bush admin criminals – because it WOULD keep attention focussed AWAY from other issues.
The Republican media machine isn’t going to wither away and die the day Kerry gets elected. If anything, it’ll crank the noise up by a few orders of magnitude. I think a lot of the focus early on will be on the election mechanics itself – as thoroughly scrutinized as this election will be (thanks to the 2000 election). But they’ll also pounce on any policy initiatives by Kerry like a pack of rabid wolves.
Giving them some juicy DOJ investigations to focus on would keep them occupied, giving Kerry cover for his real policy initiatives. Sure, the Pubbies will jump on anything Kerry does along with everything else, but the bulk of the brethren are, shall we say, the salt of the Earth, and aren’t gonna be able to focus on those relatively dry issues when they got a horrible DOJ prosecution to howl about.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking the Pubbie noise machine will cut Kerry the least bit of slack no matter what he does. They’ll go easy on Kerry like they went easy on Clinton. A nice proactive plan for dealing with them is going to be not just useful, but necessary.
It won’t happen. Otherwise, after the next election when there is an exchange of political parties, you will see the same thing happen in reverse.
This is probably one of the most critical questions Mr. Kerry will have to face, and quickly, if and when (please, God) he takes office. While I agree with those who’ve cautioned against vindictiveness and pointed out that Kerry will be working to mend fences in a divided country, and I know that he will most likely be working with a Republican controlled Congress, my gut feeling is with those who say that no progress will be possible for a President Kerry unless he successfully repudiates the “winner take all” right wing politics of the last decade.
I see no way for him to do this without pursuing at least the existing investigations into the intelligence failures and human rights abuses that we know of, and following them wherever they lead. As Chief Executive, he could keep a bipartisan effort honest, and his history as a Senator shows he was not averse to working across the aisle (he worked with Jesse Helms on the Iran Contra exposure) and even uncovering shenanigans among his own party members.
I think the odds are at least 50% that there’ll be a bloodletting, but I don’t see it happening as a strategy for partisan superiority. I think (and I pray that I’m right) John Kerry will labor towards parity of strength among the major parties, because he can’t achieve political unity through perfect political discourse and he won’t try to achieve it through partisan domination.
I doubt Kerry or even the DNC will go after any prosecutions. I think what is more likely, it that once the current administration is no longer in power, people with stories to tell will start to come out of the woodwork. I could see something like that leading to a criminal investigation.
That would be a good thing, wouldn’t it? Every administration would be kept honest for fear of being held to account by the succeeding one.
Can you ensure that those in power will not go on witch hunts against those who just lost power, just because they can? Shouldn’t accountability be addressed only by the People and not political parties? If political parties go after their oppoents, does this not elevate them to entities on par with the People? Would that be a good thing?
Of course, we’re talking only about the two major parties. Would such actions prevent third parties from merely trying to become viable alternatives to the status quo?
“The people,” as such, are not organized as a single body. They have to express their will through organizations, such as their governments and elected officials – and the political parties. The parties are already entities in their own right, and very politically important ones. And sometimes they use their power to witch-hunt any member of the opposing party who seems vulnerable. (Remember Ken Starr?) I’m just speculating that it might not be entirely a bad thing to make that kind of thing more of a routine part of political business than it is now. As I said, keeps 'em honest. At least we can be sure no president will ever dare to get his dick sucked in the Oval Office again! 
No – but criminal prosecution of any third-party leader who does a dirty trick is not a bad thing. Nor would it be a bad thing if, say, the Greens got into power in some state and used the opportunity to investigate all possible wrongdoing by Republicrat officials and leaders.
I’ll name three Bush Admin officials who might really have something to worry about if Kerry won: Douglas Feith, Harold Rhode, and Larry Franklin, who are suspected of passing on classified information to Israel. We’re discussing the case in this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=278908&page=1&pp=50 The FBI is investigating the matter. According to the London Financial Times, the White House is pressuring the FBI and the Justice Department to shut down the investigation. But a Kerry White House might pressure them to redouble their efforts. 
Politically speaking I think Bush has a good chance at a comeback in 2008… so Kerry shouldn’t cut Bush any slack just to be nice or polite.
Kerry should investigate the Bush government once they take over… the way Bush has been walking the legality line on the edge I doubt there will be a major criminal prosecution stuff though… but Kerry should check it out nonetheless. Not for “revenge” only of course, thats silly. If he does find something serious the more reason to prosecute Bush minions.
Like I mentioned elsewhere… I’ve seen a good governor of Brasilia not investigate the former administration, one that was rife with corruption and political dealings, in order to avoid being “nasty”. He lost the next election against Bush style populist campaign. Now we have that same dirty old governor still in power… and doing the same old tricks.
First time I’ve seen anyone suggest that. Could you explain your thinking?
Unless McCain goes for president in 2008 I don’t see any strong republican contenders. Bush will remain popular with his key voters no matter how well Kerry does. If Kerry does an average job or gets unlucky Bush could be back in the presidency in 2008 easily.
I don’t think its that far fetched… and that scares me. Of course 4 years can change things a lot… especially if Bush goes back to drinking.
Not a chance in hell. IF he came back he could only serve for 4 years…he’d be an automatic lame duck president. Besides, you are going on the premise that there won’t be a strong Republican candidate in '08…why would that be the case??
Its completely far fetched…and you are jumping at shadows.
-XT
I'm surprised by these reactions... unless of course republicans take their party back. Then Bush doesn't have much of a chance. As for the Lame Duck president... you can always have another good vice president that will take the next election.
If Bush is as strong as he is now... why doesn't he have a chance in 2008 ?I’m not being confrontational… I just think Bush hit a nerve in public opinion that somehow keeps him well in poll despite the mess Iraq is becoming… despite slow economic cycle. I’m being pessimistic because Bush is very similar to the governor of Brasilia. He uses the same tactics and his voters have the same limitations. Once he lost an election we thought he was a goner… how mistaken we were.
Didn’t seem to work with Clinton.
Sorry, boys, but these fantasies of seeking indictments of your political opponents isn’t going to fly. Kerry had better not let anyone know that he wants to try this before Jan. 20, or Bush can simply flip him the bird and issue blanket pardons all around. If Kerry does keep it under his hat and decides to have a go, he had better keep a stack of blank pardon forms for himself and everyone else in his administration come 2009. What goes around is damn well gonna come around. 
Nor do I have much faith in Kerry’s ability to do this, either. He is quickly going to have to point to some specific statute that has been violated, and show specific evidence that it was violated. Dark accusations from the Democratic Underground are not going to do it for a court of law.
And of course we can count on all the fair-minded liberals who condemned Ken Starr and the Republican witch hunt to come out just as strongly against this piece of partisan bullcrap.
Can’t we?
Regards,
Shodan
The Plame affair hardly constitutes partisan bullcrap. Treason was committed. The Bush admin is investigating it, but you have to wonder what’s going on behind the scenes on that one, since the trail potentially leads to Rove. The three admin guys who leaked classified stuff to Israel are also hardly the subjects of “partisan bullcrap.”
“Partisan bullcrap” would be something more along the lines of investigations of who in the Bush admin go blowjobs. That’s REAL partisan bullcrap. See the difference?