Are you withholding judgement on George W. Bush until he's proven guilty in a court of law?

[Occam Bandage]

Poll question: Are you withholding judgement on George W. Bush until he's proven guilty in a court of law?

I've seen quite a few people saying (paraphrased) "Well, Blago's obviously got some bad intentions, and sure it's pretty clear to anyone with a brain he's a petty, incompetent idiot who is inherently corrupt, but there's no publicly-available hard evidence of illegality, even if there was this type of crime is hard to prove anyway, and I believe he's innocent until proven guilty, so I'm going to withhold judgment on him--oh, and fuck Fitzgerald for making such a public show of his baseless witch hunt."

This entire statement could just as easily--and with just as much factual basis--apply to the entire Bush Administration.

So, the question: would you apply it to George W. Bush?

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. Apples and porkchops

Unlike Blago, Bush will never see the inside of a courtroom, so "withholding judgement on George W. Bush until he's proven guilty in a court of law" is tantamount to saying, "holding your breath until pigs fly and trees walk."

[Occam Bandage]

4. So...it's fairer to pass judgement on a man

for which there is no incontrovertible evidence of illegality if the man is not being charged for a crime.

That is a reasonable position that does not at all sound like an after-the-fact justification for hypocrisy.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. I have nothing to say about the Gov. of Illinois, good or bad

Unlike others on this board, I am withholding my opinion until his matter is heard by a judge.

Bush is a different matter, because the so-called leaders of this country are too craven to bring him up on charges. Given the near certainty that he will never be forced to answer for what he has done, I am quite free with my opinion about his guilt.

[Occam Bandage]

13. But why are you "withholding your opinion" on Blagojevich?

Surely you do not think that "innocent until proven guilty" amounts to a public duty to avoid passing judgment on public officials who have not (yet) been convicted of crimes in a court of law.

You needn't believe in a conspiracy of silence or cowardice keeping "the so-called leaders of this country" from prosecuting George W. Bush. The reasons he has not been charged of a crime are happily outlined by Blagojevich's stalwart defenders on this board and others: it is extraordinarily difficult to prove wrongdoing of public officials. It's almost impossible to get evidence from an executive branch official. Most everything is handled by dozens of underlings, so the idea that you can find the chief executive's fingerprints on anything in particular is laughable. Your best hope is some sort of conspiracy charge, but conspiracy charges are jokes. And all it takes is one fall guy willing to go down for obstruction of justice, and your case falls apart.

Disregarding the scope and impact of their crimes, the principal difference between Blagojevich and Bush is that Blagojevich has committed his crimes in a slightly more flagrant manner, and as such a United States Attorney believes he has a reasonable case against him. I do not believe that flagrancy of criminality is a mitigating factor when it comes to passing judgment on public officials.

[olkaz]

11. The possibility of justice does not make this comparison useless.

Pretty weak.

[GarbagemanLB]

2. According to some here, he hasn't been proven guilty so we can't judge him.

[geckosfeet]

5. The proof of his guilt is in thousands of graves scatterred across the world.

Scarred, disfigured and imprisoned human beings.

The economy of one of the greatest countries in the world destroyed through negligence, ignorance, denial and cronyism.

How much of this has to be "proved" in a court of law?

[Occam Bandage]

8. Oh, okay. "The proof of Blago's guilt is in the recent CTA fare hikes."

There we go. Bad policy decisions are now all the evidence we need of criminality.

[olkaz]

10. Wow, somebody is really missing the point here.

Reread. Bush hasn't been found guilty of anything, just like Blagojevich, so if we are to stay with the rationale of the Blagojevich defenders on here, we shouldn't judge Bush either.

Was that so hard? It's about being found guilty **officially**.

[geckosfeet]

39. Point - evidence of incompetence, cronyism and human rights violations abound.

Convicting bUSh of crimes against humanity should be a slam dunk. Convicting him for cronyism (Rico) and influence pedaling a bit more difficult.

Blogo - tapes indicate some form of collusion and intent, but was a crime actually committed? That evidence is less out in the open.

If we start charging people and dragging them into court for talking about doing something rather than for doing something, we are restricting speech.

[olkaz]

42. Where's the beef?

Show me the conviction.

There is a double standard here and you're definitely dancing around it.

[geckosfeet]

61. What conviction? What are talking about? There has been no conviction.

But, I can see graves and broken laws in the trail of Bush.

What has Blogo done - besides shoot his fat mouth off?

[Danger Mouse]

46. Evidence doesn't equate to a conviction, and you don't have all the evidence before you.

There's a lot we don't know about.

[geckosfeet]

62. Yes. Agreed. So?

[wryter2000]

3. Other

"Hell no! And I haven't said much of anything about Blago."

Innocent until proven guilty is a concept in criminal law. I can easily feel certain that someone committed a crime and yet withhold judgement as a juror until the prosecution proves its case.

[Occam Bandage]

6. None of us are or will be jurors in the Blagojevich case.

For that reason, I think "innocent until proven guilty" is nothing but a technicality outside my field, and discard the concept entirely when forming judgment on public figures.

[wryter2000]

56. Exactly n/t

n/t

[Xipe Totec]

9. Witnesses and victims do not withhold judgement; only juries n/t

[DevonRex]

12. Both Blago and Bush have clearly demonstrated their guilt. So

I think they're guilty. In the beginning of the Blago mess, I withheld judgment. But as soon as the tapes were released, it was very clear he was trying to sell the Senate seat. No need to withhold judgment anymore.

I do believe in innocent until proven guilty and if I were a juror, I would definitely withhold judgment until I had seen all the evidence. As a plain old citizen, I have an opinion. And in my opinion he's guilty as hell. Same with Bush. Only he's not just guilty as hell; he should burn in hell for his crimes.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

14. Fitzgerald was out of line

Prosecutors are not supposed to try crimes in public or involve themselves in the political process. They are also not supposed to seek publicity, shame the accused through photo-op 'perp walks' or offer an opinion as to which states are most corrupt.

In general, many prosecutors in this country are a self-righteous grand-standing dishonest megalomaniacs with considerable contempt for our system of justice.

Many prosecutors think they work for the people to do good. That is false. They work for the system and the system works for the people.

It's a distinction lost on many.

Many prosecutors also think that the adversarial system means they are supposed to get convictions and it is the judge's job as referee to restrain them from winning at any cost. That is a diseased view. The prosecutor represents THE STATE at least as much as the judge does. A defense attorney can say anything he wants and the prosecutor can only say what is true and proper and constitutional. That's an advantage for the defendant, and it's supposed to be because he is up against the entire government and both the judge and prosecutor get their paychecks from the same source.

I would defend Bush on matters of prosecutorial grand-standing or de facto denial of due process because I have the ACLU gene. I think in terms of judicial process, not working backward from desired outcomes.

I do not reserve judgment on Blago or Bush because I am a private citizen. Since I am not employed by the system I have no obligation to limit my mental process to a criminal justice framework. (I am free to think OJ did it, for instance. And I am free to disagree with Supreme Court decisions even if they are precedent.)

re: Blago specifically, I do not usually accept a tailored public accusation from the FBI or Justice Dept. as the even-handed presentation of facts it's supposed to be.

I have no doubt he's a crook, but I respect the "prove it" point of view.

And as for the appointment, the only pertinent questions are, "Is he the Governor of Illinois?" and "Is Burris a citizen over 35?" (Or is it 30 for the Senate?) There are no other valid considerations.

[Occam Bandage]

18. The question is not about Fitzgerald's conduct regarding the media,

though Fitzgerald was mentioned, and though you raise many good points about Fitzgerald's media tactics. I also think he was unwise to announce so prematurely--and to fill his announcement with such bombast--especially given that he was unsuccessful in preventing Blagojevich from making a tainted Senate appointment.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

23. I understood the OP. Just expanding the topic a little.

I agree that private citizens are not obliged to think like jurors and that it is not improper for us to call someone a crook who hasn't been convicted.

But we should be mindful of the fact that all the information we have has been culled and arranged to make us have a specific view of things, so we shouldn't go overboard in our certainty.

[olkaz]

24. More like changing the topic. nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

27. Actually, adding context to what should or should not make us skeptical

All the information we have about the case has been hand-picked by a prosecutor to create an impression.

That doesn't mean Blago is innocent by any means. But being aware of how prosecutors conduct themselves is one valid consideration in forming the sort of view of someone's guilt or innocence that the OP discusses.

I believe Blago is a bad-guy but I am always mindful of the fact that most of what I know about the case comes from an interested party.

That skepticism doesn't negate my opinion of Blago, merely tempers it slightly.

Since we ae talking about an elected official, would I vote for Blago? Of course not!!! The presumption of innocence doesn't apply to our votes or political opinions.

[olkaz]

28. Nobody seemed to be talking about this when Fitz was after Libby. Hmm.

It's too bad we missed that tempering then.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

29. I was protective of Libby's rights.

I am protective of every defendent's rights in a criminal trial.

But the fact that Cheney wasn't charged doesn't oblige me to consider Cheney innocent, which I think is the point of the OP.

[olkaz]

30. Then you are absolutely a rare exception.

I'm sure you can recognize the double standard being perpetuated here regarding due process and "innocent until proven guilty".

It's making me ill, honestly.

[Occam Bandage]

31. I agree that, given our adversarial legal system,

it's important to realize that the information presented from either side should be treated as the best case that can be made by using some bits of evidence and omitting others, and that Fitzgerald's case as it stands is more aimed at the public than at the courtroom. He has not presented a full case, and there is some uncertainty as to whether he can assemble a case that will convict Blagojevich.

At the same time, just as you imply that some are going a bit overboard in their readiness to declare their certainty of Blagojevich's criminality, I believe that others are going a bit overboard in their readiness to discard not only the considerable evidence pointing to illegality, but also all evidence that Blagojevich is at minimum an incompetent, mean-spirited, criminal-minded governor.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

36. I agree with you 100% that people tend to be selective in their "reserve"

I would propose that the solution is, however, not to lower the bar on Blago but to raise the bar on everyone else.

I think Bush is a war criminal but I do not think he is a traitor. Treason is a highly specific charge so I try not to use the term lightly.

But that doesn't mean my enmity toward Bush is limited. I can, and do, consider him an enemy of humanity.

[JVS]

15. Only those who are responsible for binding legal judgements are obligated to withhold judgement...

until a case is proven by due process, along with those who enforce their binding judgements. Everyone else can think whatever they want.

[Occam Bandage]

19. Of course. nt

[ProSense]

16. He doesn't have to be convicted to be censured, reprimanded or called on to resign.

According to the criminal complaint, Blagojevich is guilty of discussing his intent to commit a crime. He can be judged on that. You can't discuss a kidnapping or murder and claim absolute innocence.

The Contstitution, which Bush considers a GD piece of paper, gives the U.S. Senate the power to block any appointment by Blagojevich based on the criminal complaint, not on a conviction.



edited for clarity.

[Occam Bandage]

20. And I certainly do hope they block the appointment, though

I do not believe they will. I wish the IL legislature had called a special election, but apparently fear of a Republican taking the seat outweighed their desire to protect the integrity of the seat.

[lunatica]

17. George is guilty by his own admission

Blagojevich is still an unknown who claims innocence. But I do want to know the facts before I decide what I think (which is why I think Bush is guilty of crimes). Facts.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. Bush is never going to face a jury.

So this is really not a valid equivocation.

Fitzgerald worship here is silly. He fucked up the Plame case completely, and that after stalling for months. He couldn't bring the Blagojevich indictment out fast enough. Why is that?

[Occam Bandage]

26. Suppose, for a minute, that the Fitzgerald case falls apart over the next month or two.

Suppose a few Blagojevich aides somehow manage to hide the evidence, coerce the potential witnesses, lay down some confusing dead-ends and red herrings, etc., etc. Fitzgerald calls a conference to say "We weren't able to built the case we needed. The governor is clearly not acting up to the standards of his office, but unfortunately, the public will never know for sure the extent of his malfeasance." He prosecutes one or two of the aides for obstruction of justice, wins, and goes home.

He has now failed to prove Blagojevich guilty. There is no pending trial. At that point, would you consider the comparison in the OP valid? If not, what is the difference? If so, how exactly does Fitzgerald's failure make it more reasonable to pass negative judgment on Blagojevich?

[Warren Stupidity]

34. An interesting but unlikely scenario.

Blagojevich cannot hide behind a constitutional firewall the way Bush et al did, so it is unlikely this will happen.

My initial reaction to the Blagojevich arrest was, like everyone else here, 'what an asshole, he should go to jail'. Since then I have started to question Fitzgerald's motives, and in particular his use of the press to prosecute Blagojevich. At this point, it is highly unlikely Blagojevich can get a fair trial. DA's pull this shit because they can, but it is prosecutorial malfeasance. I now have taken a wait and see approach and no longer assume Blagojevich is guilty.

I have no such qualms with respect to Bush et al as their crimes are manifest and self admitted. There simply is no doubt at all, as far as I am concerned, that the cabal deliberately lied about WMD evidence and al qaeda connnects in order to build an entirely fraudulent case for going to war against Iraq. There is no doubt that the cabal schemed to blow Plame's covert status to both punish Joe Wilson and send a clear message to the intelligence community that any dissent would be dealt with severely. There is no doubt, as their actions were brazen and out in the open and now admitted, that the Cabal decided to violate the Geneva Conventions against torture and mistreatment of prisoners. They wrote memos as damning as those retrieved from the Nazi archives elaborately explaining why their war crimes were not crimes. Cheney is now openly admitting what he has done, daring anyone to go after him. They are war criminals.

War crimes, crimes against humanity are on a whole other level than mere official corruption. Even in your hypothetical, your attempt to draw an equivalence here fails because of the nature of the crimes.

[stillcool]

22. One is talk, the other is action

Authorizing torture is a little different from discussing the possibilities of a 'what's in it for me' deal. Taking a country to war over lies is a little different than expecting a campaign contribution in exchange for securing federal funding, or getting a contract. Letting an American city drown is a little different from being an asshole. I see no comparison at all.

[olkaz]

25. So has Bush been found guilty of crimes for those things yet?

Just curious.

[stillcool]

52. It is not guilt or innocence

it is fact. Whether Congress has legislated that those actions are no longer 'criminal', is another story. The idea of 'law' as far as the Justice Department and the Bush Administration is ridiculous.

[Danger Mouse]

41. You have no proof of that 'action'.

[stillcool]

51. There's plenty of proof...

just no one to take action. No "Justice" Department. I'm sure there is more that the media and our representatives have not seen fit to inform us of, not that it would matter.

[camera obscura]

32. I think there's pretty clear evidence for both being guilty as sin.

[polichick]

33. Good grief - compared to Bush, Blago is a Boy Scout and Choir Boy rolled together...

Besides, we already know what Bush did ~ not so for Blago.

[olkaz]

35. Missing the point completely. Boy Scout and Choir Boy?

Has Bush been convicted of any crimes? No? Then he should be afforded the same limitless patience and defense being offered to Blagojevich around DU.

I shudder to think the damage to this country Blagojevich would have done. His approval rating is lower than Bush's (IN A BLUE STATE) for a reason.

[polichick]

37. Obviously, the point I'm making is there's no comparison.

[olkaz]

40. Subjective comparison of the scope of their respective accusations is not material.

The rule of law applies to both. Both are subject to the exact same protections.

One receives limitless patience, and even support from DU. One does not, and has significant opposition.

The scope of their purported "crimes" is not applicable. There are no degrees of guilt or innocence based on how bad you subjectively view them to be.

It's a double standard, period.

[polichick]

44. Congress has decided that Bush is above the law - so there's no comparison...

...either in scale or in the application of law ~ unfortunately.

[olkaz]

48. How much further do you want to want to stretch?

You can't defend Blagojevich saying he isn't convicted of anything, and then turn around and attack Bush disregarding that exact same rationale. What is so difficult about that?

No, 'cause congress refuses to act!
No, 'cause omg Bush is so much worse!
No, 'cause Blagojevich didn't do anything illegal!

I'm dizzy.

Anyway, the next one, where we hit the truth;

No, 'cause Blagojevich is a Democrat!

[polichick]

49. You're dizzy alright! :)

[PBS Poll-435]

38. I am going to wait 24 "business hours" to answer this

nt

[Danger Mouse]

43. If Blago had an R next to his name these same people would be demanding he be strung up.

They're only defending him because he's a dem. Period.

[olkaz]

45. ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding

Show him what he's won, Bob!

That's right! A BRAND NEW SENATE SEAT!

[Danger Mouse]

47. If an R cheats on his wife, DUer's are outraged, but if it's John Edwards...

lo and behold, some of those same outraged people would be falling over themselves to defend him.

[mvd]

50. There's a reason I have less patience for Bush

- we know we were lied into war; I believe Bush had to have known they were lies
- we have evidence that Bush ordered torture
- we know that Bush abused the Constitution with signing statements and also the firing of staff members based on partisanship
- Cheney all but brags about the Plame thing
- we know about the illegal spying

Only difference is that charges weren't handed out.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

53. Bush and Cheney have essentially admitted everything on the record

The most damning example being, of course, being Bush's admission in 2005 that his (mis-)administration had been wiretapping illegally (without a court order) LONG before what they were doing became "legal" on paper. There are also reams and reams of paperwork and other evidence that we've been torturing and rendering people since around 9/11. Unfortunately, all the evidence in the world of their criminal activity or even their own admissions to wrongdoing won't land them in a courthouse and/or the Hague for some inexplicable reason but we all lived through the past 8 years and know that Bush, Cheney, et. al are guilty as sin and deserve way less leeway in terms of judgement than Blago does. Let's not forget too the Bush (mis-)administration's rampant politicization of the Justice Department and their tendency or preference to go after Democrats. I'm not trying to defend Blago and what he allegedly did (or was trying to do) but there is a HUGE difference IMHO between reserving judgement on Blago (who most of us outside fo Illinois know next to nothing about) vs. reserving judgement on Bush that should be pretty apparent to everybody who has lived through the last eight years of Bushco.

[mvd]

55. It's mind-boggling what Bush has gotten away with

I know impeachment might not have succeeded, but hearings at least should have been scheduled. Then, who knows what minds would be changed.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

57. Right

When Pelosi said that impeachment of Bush, Cheney, et. al would be "off the table" during the 2006 mid-term campaign I didn't take her statement as seriously as I apparently should have. In fact, I thought that it was just a politically calculated statement to avoid any major controversy during the campaign or to avoid giving the Republicans further ammunition against us in that election. Who knew she (and Reid) would actually refuse to cave on THAT statement, particularly when they both ended up repeatedly caving to Bushco on more or less everything else in the last Congress.

Their spineless enabling of (or at least their unwillingness to stand up to) Bushco in the last Congress makes me want to :puke:

[Occam Bandage]

64. So you base your opposition to illegalities on

the extent to which those illegalities embody harmful policies? I'm sure that's not your exact point, but it looks to me like you're coming at this more from a "Bush did these things which were harmful" viewpoint as opposed to "We have better evidence that Bush, personally, acted criminally" viewpoint.

[mvd]

67. Actually it's both, because I believe we know about..

some of the things I spoke about Bush doing.

[Sebastian Doyle]

54. Only an idiot or a Freeper (but why repeat myself) would deny Chimp was guilty

Find the worst serial killer currently on death row in any prison in America. Stand him up next to Chimp Bush, and he'll look like an amateur. Whatever Blago did or did not do, he can't come close to Chimpy's treason, war crimes, mass murder, and theft of billions for his friends.

[WinkyDink]

58. Bush has clearly DONE THINGS, whereas Blago so far has TALKED a big game.

Or don't you consider the fact of an Illegal Invasion to be "evidence"?

[Occam Bandage]

63. Solicitation of bribes is an act, and a criminal one.

I do not believe the invasion of Iraq necessarily constitutes a crime under US law. That case is a very tenuous one, and there isn't any precedent for treating a President's decision to ignore or withdraw from a treaty to be criminal. Torture and wiretapping are more realistic, but, as noted in the OP, good luck finding Bush's personal fingerprints on a specific, concrete, singular illegal action.

[pipi_k]

59. I'm willing to withhold judgement on Blagojevich

only because as far as we know, nobody died.


Whereas Bush clearly WAS the cause...directly or indirectly...of more deaths than we'll probably ever know for sure...

[Forkboy]

60. This isn't a court of law and we're not jurors.

What we say about either of them is just opinions online.

[backscatter712]

65. I'm not judge or jury in Bush's or Blago's trials. I don't have to presume innocence.

Presumption of innocence is not intended to be a blanket proscription for all of American society. Presumption of innocence is intended for a specific situation - a criminal trial, where people are weighing evidence and deciding if they're going to take a person's life, liberty or property away from him for committing a crime. In that specific situation, yes, of course presumption of innocence unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is the rule.

Outside of the courtroom, I don't have to presume innocence. I'm not the one that gets to decide whether they go to prison. I'm just another asshole on the Internet.

So I'm presuming Bush is guilty. I'm presuming Blagojevich is guilty. I've seen enough evidence to make those judgments for myself. If you don't like it, suck it.

[ismnotwasm]

66. No

I'm sick of corrupt ass polititians getting away with everything. Bush flat out gave the finger to our constitution. Blago I don't know as much about but if I had the publicly available information about him that I have on bush, fuck him too.

[Occam Bandage]

68. kick.

[Orsino]

69. If *'s crimes were as fuzzy and debatable as Blagojevich's...

...we'd be in a much better world.