Barack Obama would truly be a president of change if he held a predecessor administration criminally liable for its misconduct. It has long been something of an unofficial standard of comity between out-going and in-coming presidents to overlook the misconduct of the previous administration. But no president is compelled to do so. Full Story »
Posted by Harv Roth
While I respect both Dean's experience and rather unique viewpoint, this is such a badly written piece that I couldn't quite even make out what he was trying to say. Muddled and confusing, it adds little to the discussion.
While an opinion piece, it well points out the mechanisms behind the Plame investigation, McClellan's new revelations relating to that investigation, and Obama's stance on criminal investigations after his expected term commences. Worth reading.
In an opinion piece by John W Dean he brings out some very interesting points. Dean says that McClellan's testimony is not privileged and can not be exempted by the Whitehouse. He quotes Obama and brings up the presidential customary courtesy of disregarding indiscretions of previous Whitehouse's. This custom is not mandatory.
Mr. Dean uses this article to point out that McClellan's testimony MIGHT set the stage for some kind of action in an Obama administration OR it could well have all been for naught.
Dean brings up interesting views on what can happen ....an end run around the Libby/bush/rove/chene/plame scandal. Lawyerly!
Retrieving Comments
