4um: Obama Would "Immediately Review" Potential Of Crimes In Bush White House

Tonight I had an opportunity to ask Barack Obama a question that is on the minds of many Americans, yet rarely rises to the surface in the great ruckus of the 2008 presidential race -- and that is whether an Obama administration would seek to prosecute officials of a former Bush administration on the revelations that they greenlighted torture, or for other potential crimes that took place in the White House.

Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted -- but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as "a partisan witch hunt." However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because "nobody is above the law."

The question was inspired by a recent report by ABC News, confirmed by the Associated Press, that high-level officials including Vice President Dick Cheney and former Cabinet secretaries Colin Powell, John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld, among others, met in the White House and discussed the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques on terrorism suspects.

I mentioned the report in my question, and said "I know you've talked about reconciliation and moving on, but there's also the issue of justice, and a lot of people -- certainly around the world and certainly within this country -- feel that crimes were possibly committed" regarding torture, rendition, and illegal wiretapping. I wanted to know how whether his Justice Department "would aggressively go after and investigate whether crimes have been committed."

Here's his answer, in its entirety:

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.
So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. 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 -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.

The bottom line is that: Obama sent a clear signal that -- unlike impeachment, which he's ruled out and which now seems a practical impossibility -- he is at the least open to the possibility of investigating potential high crimes in the Bush White House. To many, the information that waterboarding -- which the United States has considered torture and a violation of law in the past -- was openly planned out in the seat of American government is evidence enough to at least start asking some tough questions in January 2009.

Riiiight.. like Obama is single-handedly going to go up against the black-ops spookmasters who have run this vicious empire since the assassination of JFK. Suuuurrrre he is... and if you believe that, I have some snow-capped mountaintop property in Southern Florida to sell you.

Like I mentioned to wudidiz at least Obama is saying he will do this. Show me where Hillary and McCain even bring the subject up.

All that proves is that he's as much of a bald-faced liar as Hillary. SpookDaddy and his Hellspawn will NEVER EVER EVER be prosecuted for ANYTHING, EVER.

I was referring to EJ's assumption that Obama's statement that he would investigate criminal wrongdoing is a lie.

He's a POLITICIAN, ok? He's not a 'savior', he's not 'the second coming', he's not The Lone Ranger, he's not some kind of minor deity, he's nothing more than a freakin' POLITICIAN who has been ALLOWED to become a "serious contender" by the bastards who own this miserable Empire. The ONLY thing I expect from him is to be disappointed, at best. I keep thinking Mugabe was considered to be a pretty good leader when he first got elected too. Carter though he was just dandy.

No one here thinks of Obama as the 2nd Coming. I just wish everyone would not be quite so quick to condemn him w/o any proof.

How many betraying traitors have to pollute the Bleak House with their vile presence before we're allowed to condemn them all out of hand? Geez. I have NO illusions whatsover. Just remember, the German people didn't get rid of the Nazis, it was the rest of the world declaring war against the Nazis and crushing that nation to dust that got rid of the Nazis. I expect nothing less to create any change here.