On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 05:09:41 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


wrote in message
...

Your responses are not based on true facts.. you are even worse.
Funny, with over 200 seperate investigations into the Bush
Administration in the last two years (when they should have been
investigating William Jefferson, and taking care of business) there
was no impeachment of Bush... hummmmm, wonder if any other president
was impeached recently?

--------------------------------------------

There's an interesting dilemma facing Obama when he takes office.
Here's his problem:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office
of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability,
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

If Bush and/or Cheney are guilty (as many have alleged including some in
this NG) of actions that are in violation of the Constitution, then Obama,
by virtue of his oath, is obligated to seek indictments against Bush, Cheney
or both. To not do so means Obama himself is in violation of the oath he
is about to take.

This is not my legal opinion. I am not qualified. It's the legal opinion
of several qualified legal scholars.

He's been pressured for an answer as to his intentions in this regard and
has been evasive in his answers. He speaks of "looking forward" not
backward or passes the buck off to his future attorney general in an obtuse,
cloudy statement. Right.

Anyone care to make a wager as to whether he will actually try to go after
Bush/Cheney?

If he doesn't, isn't he guilty himself?

Eisboch


*If* they are guilty.

It could well be that BO has more sense than jps and Harry, separately or
combined.