Why is the Justice Dept going after John Edwards while giving Bush officials a pass?

Whatever anyone thinks of Edwards' behavior, should he really be facing indictment - especially given the fact that so many Bush Administration officials who are likely to have committed serious crimes, seem to be in no legal jeopardy?

appoint replacements for the Bushistas

Bill Clinton fired every one of Bush I's US Attorneys the day after he took office. Obama could do the same thing. It is his choice.

RALEIGH, N.C. — Republican Sen. Richard Burr said Thursday he will hold up a White House attempt to replace the federal prosecutor overseeing a probe of two-time presidential candidate John Edwards.

Burr said in a statement that he will support the nomination of Charlotte lawyer Thomas Walker only after current U.S. Attorney George Holding completes investigations into Edwards and former Democratic Gov. Mike Easley. Burr said Walker's political contributions to Edwards and Easley "represent a conflict of interest" ...

http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/6589537/

A Senator might be able to block a permanent replacement for a period of time. But a temporary person would run the office in the meantime. The office does not shut down or stop doing their cases just because there is not a permanent head.

she took the same position which made it all but impossible for Obama to name a replacement.

While dismissing the previous administration's US Attorneys is standard procedure, it creates a partisan conflict of interest when you have ongoing investigations against political figures. The Republicans repeatedly pointed out that Clinton fired Bush I's US Attorneys when there were pending investigations of Democrats when we were attacking Bush II for politicizing the justice department. Now granted that argument was largely bullshit because Dubya took it to a whole new level by firing his own US Attorneys and explicitly doing so because they didn't prosecute enough Democrats. Not to mention screening civil service people for their political views.

But even if it's not on the level that Dubya did it and even if the object isn't to influence pending investigations, and even if every President does it, cleaning house on day one is still politicizing the Justice Department. I think not doing that is part of what Obama wanted to change. The problem, of course, is that you have Bush US Attorneys bringing bullshit cases like Don Siegelman and John Edwards that were the result of Bush over-politicizing the Justice Department. So really you kind of have to clean house just to restore the normal order. It's a Catch 22.

No one has to let him do it, the AsG serve at the pleasure.

-Hoot

He chose not to clean out Bush's people.

Charlotte, NC lawyer Thomas Walker has been nominated by Presidnt Obama to be the next U.S. Attorney in North Carolina’s Eastern District ... Walker’s nomination must now be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

http://www.securitiesdocket.com/2009/12/01/thomas-walker-nominated-as-next-u-s-attorney-for-e-d-n-c/

He need not wait for a successor to be confirmed.

(By Barbara Barrett, Washington correspondent)

President Barack Obama late Wednesday nominated Charlotte attorney Thomas Gray Walker - again - for the position of U.S. Attorney for North Carolina's Eastern District.If confirmed, Walker would replace George Holding ...

http://greensboro-nc.com/news/article/charlottes-thomas-walker-nominated-for-us-attorney-again

by Obama.

they don't want to set a precedent where future President's go after previous President's 'cause I'm sure any administration could find wrong-doing by a previous administration and then try them for it. For example, if we're going to try Bush/Cheney for war crimes, then we better make sure the next administration (or even this one) tries Obama because he's using the same policies, etc.

As much as I think she is great, this one is on Pelosi. You cannot have Presidents indicting the prior administration because then it will happen every time there is a party change in the White House.

breaking the law, it should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

We have a finite amount of resources. We allocate those resources to hounding Edwards rather than restoring our credibility on the world stage. Whatever.

I'm all for seeing Cheney et al in jail but it's difficult to come up with a charge that's actually workable.

it cannot be the Obama justice department that handles the prosecution. They should provide all the info necessary for such an indictment to the world court.

Lying the country into an unprovoked war is unfortunately not a crime under US law.

If the Hague comes knocking it's a different story.

items covered in that charter are enforceable under US law, but I dont know if that extends to criminal acts it may be just civil.

without a specific law being passed by Congress. I doubt that violating the UN charter is a criminal act in America

That they're going to go after Lance Armstrong, but not Goldman Sachs. Armstrong cheated in a silly bicycle race. Goldman Sachs ruined the economy and looted the treasury.

There never was any serious effort to implicate him for the invading and bombing of Cambodia but he was forced from office for trying to cover up a third rate burglary.

proposed articles of impeachment considered by the House Judiciary Committee. I remember because I was glued to the radio during the entire time (family did not have a television) and listened to the hearings live.

The article was rejected but the vote to do so was fairly close, IIRC.

At this point, Ensign resigned his Senate seat - even before that his very real chance at the Republican nomination ended. In addition, there was a very negative Senate ethics report that detailed many things that could warrant an indictment.
So, he has faced 3 consequences. Edwards had no seat to lose and no realistic nomination possibilities - even before the scandal. There was no detailed ethics report because he was not in office. I suspect one person watching the Edwards case with person interest is Ensign. If Edwards is indicted and convicted, it is MUCH more likely that Ensign will be indicted on similar charges.

As to Vitter, as far as I know, the only thing he is guilty of is hiring a prostitute. He was humiliated, but he was re-elected by his constituents.

It's the military and corporate powers.

300 years of Authoritarian scorched-earth rule means never having to say "Sorry".

What is "IOKIYAR"?

It's why Ed Schultz gets suspended but Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage remain on the air continually without EVER a "sorry" coming from any of their sewery gullets. And all three will insist up and down that THEY'RE the victims of "Liberulizm". Simply stunning.

The ultimate political sin in the USA.

It's the one no one wants asked, because no one has a definitive answer for it.