# What are the odds Congress will go after Bush officials for abuses of power? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 22, 2009, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428 "2009-01-22T08:55:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/1 "2009-01-22T08:55:09Z")
I hear a lot of rumbling lately about the Congress possibly going after Bush Administration officials for egregious various abuses of power, but it seems to me this would be somewhat counter-productive as there are other more pressing issues at hand re the economy etc. What are the real world chances (in your estimation) that the Congress will call Bush officials to account? ---
**Author:** ![Rigamarole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/77aa72/32.png) [@Rigamarole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rigamarole)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/2 "2009-01-22T08:56:55Z")
Zero. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/3 "2009-01-22T09:44:18Z")
The chances are exactly zero but I have to denounce the argument that “there are more important things to be done” which is used by many people of all stripes and specially by those with Bush stripes. As some English duke remarked when someone said hanging a man for stealing horses seemed too harsh a punishment: > [@](#): > > We don’t hang people for stealing horses - we hang them so that horses might not be stolen. America is always adamant that no bad deed against Americans go unpunished when done by foreigners but is very understanding with its own. Anyone harming Americans _must_ be punished, not so much to punish the deed, but so that the world will know you cannot do evil and get away with it. But now that statement is not important. Nothing we do now will undo the damage and it is better to move on, etc. Not worth it. Why was it that at Nuremberg the judges did not say the same thing? Nothing will bring back the dead so let us just move on… The world takes good note. America committed egregious crimes and pardoned itself. Not only did America not accept any responsibility for what it did but it pardoned the leaders and instigators, Bush, Congress… I did not and do not expect anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/4 "2009-01-22T09:50:58Z")
Why would they go after Bush officials now, instead of when it could have actually made a difference? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/5 "2009-01-22T10:04:46Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > Why would they go after Bush officials now, instead of when it could have actually made a difference? Why go after a murderer at all if it will not bring back the dead person? To show America and the world that evil has its just reward? Exept that the Congress and, indeed, America, were accomplices in the crimes. That is why everyone wants to turn the page. Fuck the dead, the tortured, the destruction, America’s reputation. Fuck all that and let us turn the lage like nothing ever happened. If only the rest of the world were so kind. ---
**Author:** ![papaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b77776/32.png) [@papaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/papaw)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/6 "2009-01-22T10:12:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Exept(sic) that the Congress and, indeed, America, were accomplices in the crimes. That is the real reason Congress should not go after them, along with the fact that Bush and his administration did nothing illegal anyway. If “crimes” were committed, were not Congress and the voters complicit? I don’t think any crimes were committed. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/7 "2009-01-22T10:44:07Z")
> [@papaw](#): > > That is the real reason Congress should not go after them, along with the fact that Bush and his administration did nothing illegal anyway. If “crimes” were committed, were not Congress and the voters complicit? > I don’t think any crimes were committed. So you think torture is legal, or should be ? Invasion and conquest on false pretenses ? Lying to Congress ( where ARE those fleets of WMD drones that the Bushies told Congress about ? ) Spying on our own people ? Harassing people for such crimes as being in the ACLU or a Quaker ? Looking the other way while California gets gouged by his energy industry buddies ? And on, and on, and on. If what Bush and friends did was legal, then the law’s a joke. And undeserving of respect. Congress SHOULD go after them, but it won’t. Because it’s composed of cowards and suck-ups. And because Americans as a whole are just that disgusting; we as a people don’t really care if torture and murder has been done in our name. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/8 "2009-01-22T14:15:46Z")
The discussion of whether or not Congress _should_ aside, the answer that there is zero chance that they _will_ seems a bit of an overstatement. Pelosi [wants](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/18/pelosi-bush-investigation_n_158861.html?page=6) > [@](#): > > an investigation into whether the Bush administration broke the law when it fired a group of federal prosecutors. > > She says that what she calls the politicizing of the Justice Department cannot go unreviewed. > > House Democrats last week recommended a criminal investigation to see if administration officials broke the law in the name of national security. Does she have the ability/power/backbone to do it when Obama has signaled clearly that he’d like to not open that box up? I don’t know, maybe not, maybe even probably not, but I’d out the odds of it better than zero. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/9 "2009-01-22T14:27:34Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > Why would they go after Bush officials now, instead of when it could have actually made a difference? To make sure they **never come back,** like Cheney did after serving in the Nixon WH. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/10 "2009-01-22T14:28:32Z")
Why should Congress? Why not just appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and let him file charges if illegal acts are discovered? Take the politics right out of it. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/11 "2009-01-22T14:33:24Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Why should Congress? Why not just appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and let him file charges if illegal acts are discovered? Take the politics right out of it. Maybe [this](http://www.answers.com/topic/special-prosecutor) has something to do with it? > [@](#): > > In an unusual twist, both Reno and Starr publicly opposed reenactment of the special prosecutor law, concluding in hindsight that it had been an unmitigated disaster. Swamped by criticism from both sides of the political aisle, the independent counsel law expired on 30 June 1999. > > Following the death of the independent counsel statute, Congress continued to debate possible replacement legislation to deal with scandals in the executive branch without reaching a consensus. Instead, the attorney general and the Justice Department continued to promulgate regulations by which they hire and fire their own special prosecutors as needed, following the ad hoc Watergate model. These special prosecutors, however, remained attached to the executive branch. Thus, they lacked the aura of neutrality envisioned by the ill-fated special prosecutor law of the 1970s that was designed to restore public trust in government after the devastating experience of Watergate. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/12 "2009-01-22T14:41:01Z")
It’s a shame we’ll never convince them to pass a law enabling a sort of general federal version of the Citizen Review Board some police jurisdictions have. If they knew they’d have to face a panel of people who aren’t beholden to them in some way and are empowered to punish wrongdoing, they’d straighten up a little. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/13 "2009-01-22T14:51:51Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Maybe [this](http://www.answers.com/topic/special-prosecutor) has something to do with it? Aw, nuts. Thanks for the info. Still, Obama could appoint a SP and wash his hands of it from that point on, could he not? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/14 "2009-01-22T14:55:14Z")
**What are the odds Congress will go after Bush officials for abuses of power?** I’d’ve said pretty low a few days ago, there are advantages to letting the past slip away and starting fresh. But now Republicans have drawn a line in the sand over waterboarding **not** being torture: [Republicans delay Holder for a week](http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/republicans-delay-holder-for-a-week-2009-01-21.html) > [@](#): > > “It well could be there would be a request to delay the markup for a week so those questions could be asked,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of the Judiciary panel, said earlier in the day. “I would request an opportunity to ask the questions and get them answered.” > > Cornyn said he was concerned about Holder’s definition of waterboarding as illegal torture at his confirmation hearing last week. Despite the GOP’s well known [penchant for torture](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2009/01/on_torture.html), I don’t see how the _minority_ party can win on this. The majority disagrees with them, and having had the issue thrust in their face, I think it unlikely the majority, particularly the new attorney general, will ignore the letter of the law. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/15 "2009-01-22T14:57:19Z")
My sister asked me a question last night that, embarrassingly, stopped me right in my tracks. I know about the possible illegalities with the appointment of federal prosecutors, vaguely. But in an ideal world, a world in which the Administration would be called to account for the worst of their crimes, **what laws would they be charged under**? I’m not asking for general descriptions of their crimes (approving and ordering torture, lying our way into a war, signing statements that undermine laws, and so on). I want to hear about specific laws, with names or numbers, that the administration arguably violated. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/16 "2009-01-22T15:26:22Z")
When Congress tried to investigate Bush in the past, administration officials refused to answer their subpoenas. When Congress asked the Justice Department to enforce the law and compel them to appear, the Justice Department said that it would be unethical for them to investigate Rove etc… for breaking the law, because the Justice Department had advised them to break the law. Now, Congress can issue subpoenas, and if Rove etc… ignores them they could end up in jail. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/17 "2009-01-22T15:28:32Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Maybe [this](http://www.answers.com/topic/special-prosecutor) has something to do with it? However, there is still a [DOJ Office of Special Counsel,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Department_of_Justice_Office_of_Special_Counsel) which has some political independence of the Admin, as [Patrick Fitzgerald](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Fitzgerald) has demonstrated. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/18 "2009-01-22T15:29:40Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > It’s a shame we’ll never convince them to pass a law enabling a sort of general federal version of the Citizen Review Board some police jurisdictions have. If they knew they’d have to face a panel of people who aren’t beholden to them in some way and are empowered to punish wrongdoing, they’d straighten up a little. [Or, better still . . .](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=264462) ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/19 "2009-01-22T16:10:39Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > My sister asked me a question last night that, embarrassingly, stopped me right in my tracks. > > I know about the possible illegalities with the appointment of federal prosecutors, vaguely. > > But in an ideal world, a world in which the Administration would be called to account for the worst of their crimes, **what laws would they be charged under**? Specifically toward the politicalization of the justice department only? The one they spoke about was the Civil Service Reform Acts, which “prohibit discrimination in the federal work place based on, among other things, political affiliation. See 5 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq.” The most thorough investigation I’ve heard of so far is the Inspector General’s investigation into the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. The report can be found [here](http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0901/final.pdf). Their conclusion: “The evidence in our investigation showed that Schlozman, first as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General and subsequently as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Acting Assistant Attorney General, considered political and ideological affiliations in hiring career attorneys and in other personnel actions affecting career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division. In doing so, he violated federal law – the Civil Service Reform Act – and Department policy that prohibit discrimination in federal employment based on political and ideological affiliations, and committed misconduct.” They also found that he perjured himself repeatedly to Congress. And here’s the catch, they referred it to the DOJ for prosecution, and, shock of shocks, the Bush administration refused to prosecute. Go figure. Holder has said he will take another look at it. As to the firing of the 9 US Attorneys, the OIG also conducted an investigation. The report can be found [here](http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0809a/final.pdf) Warning, 3.56 mg pdf file. It concluded that there was not enough information (because of the stonewalling of the White House), but recommended further investigation. Last I heard, [a special prosecutor has been appointed to see about possible criminal charges](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/washington/30attorney.html?fta=y). Nothing from them about possible criminal charges. The charges I heard that were possible were, of course, perjury and contempt for lying to Congress, obstruction, and violation of the Hatch Act. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/20 "2009-01-22T16:51:41Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > However, there is still a [DOJ Office of Special Counsel,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Department_of_Justice_Office_of_Special_Counsel) which has some political independence of the Admin, as [Patrick Fitzgerald](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Fitzgerald) has demonstrated. As was referenced in my link and quote provided. As were the limitations of that set up. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428.md?page=2)