"Imagine if, when Obama got into office, he decided to prosecute Dick Cheney and George Bush for crimes against humanity."

"Oh, my God. Do you know how crazy that would be? You know how divided the country would be then? Well, that's the same thing kind of taking place now on a lesser scale, obviously, because it's not a war crime you're charging someone with, but you could. You could charge Trump with war crimes. You could find some things that he did, especially with bombings. Even what Obama did -- during the administration, they dropped a drone on a US citizen. No trial, no nothing. Boom...."

Said Joe Rogan, quoted — with video — at "Rogan: It's Scary How Many Democrats Are Willing To Set These Precedents To Go After Trump" (Real Clear Politics).

There were people, at the time of the 2008 election, who were quite serious that Obama must prosecute George W. Bush. I vividly remember having to deal with Jane Hamsher on Bloggingheads. She was quite adamant and insulted me — me, a law professor! — for not agreeing that it was absolutely necessary. And the topic came up because VP candidate Joe Biden had made the news by saying the Obama administration might pursue criminal charges against Bush:

 

Imagine if Jane and Joe's notion had won the day back in the first Obama administration! Where would we be now?

ADDED: Here's the blog post of mine from just before that Bloggingheads discussion, "Biden says a President Obama might pursue criminal charges against George Bush." I wrote:

The Clintons have "been through enough" Trump reportedly says, and Kellyanne Conway confirms that his administration won't pursue a criminal investigation.

This sounds like the right approach to me. I don't like the victor in an election using his new power against the person he defeated. I said the same thing about the idea that Barack Obama should pursue criminal charges against George W. Bush. You might remember me standing up to forcible pushback by Jane Hamsher (of FireDogLake) back in September 2008 (who couldn't believe that I, a law professor, didn't believe in enforcing the law to the last letter):



As for the Clintons, don't forget that House Republicans have had their investigation going for quite some time. If Trump really did want the Clintons prosecuted, it might make the best sense to look as though it wasn't his agenda at all, but a longstanding effort in Congress that is simply taking its proper course. But now that Hillary Clinton has suffered the shocking defeat in the election, will the House keep up that work? I see a report from November 13:

Following Donald Trump’s Election Day win, GOP legislators in the House will no longer focus their energies on investigating Hillary Clinton, according to Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy....

“Look, I’m the majority leader, I set the agenda,” McCarthy told Fox News. “The agenda is going to be about job creation, it’s going to be about reforming and repealing Obamacare. It’s going to be on infrastructure. That’s the focus that this election was about.”...

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, pledged to press on with investigating Clinton just two days before Trump’s surprise win in the general election. “We’re going to keep after this until we get to the truth,” Chaffetz told Fox News. “We don’t have it yet.”

Obama's liberal critics catch fire.

!. Jane Hamsher finds it "just weird" that one of Obama's people is denouncing Paul Krugman and the “Firebagger Lefty blogosphere."

I know the goal is to attract the much-prized Independent for 2012. But who do they think is keeping Obama’s poll numbers afloat?

2. Congresswoman Maxine Waters complains that Obama's bus trip didn't include any black communities and has this colloquy with her audience:

WATERS: We don't put pressure on the president.

CROWD: That's right!

WATERS: Let me tell you why: We don't put pressure on the president because y'all loooove the president.

CROWD: No! (grumbling, shouting)

WATERS: You loooove the president. You're very proud. You're very proud to have a black man...

CROWD: That's right! Yes, we are.

WATERS: ...first time in history of the United States of America.

CROWD: (shouting)

WATERS: If we go after the president too hard, you going after us. When you tell us it's all right --

CROWD: It's all right! (shouting)

WATERS: When you tell us it's all right and you unleash us, and you tell us you're ready for us to have this conversation, we're ready to have the conversation!

"BHTV has had 100 DV (or it seems that way) on Palin and only one BHTV head has ever mounted a real defense of her."

"Althouse did it once. And only because no one else was available. I realize BHTV is a left-wing site, but damn - it gets boring."

An apt comment over at Bloggingheads.

ADDED: "DV" means "diavlog" — that is, a video'd conversation between 2 persons. BHTV supposedly pairs people from different or opposite sides, and there really is a vision of producing something like the "civility" we've been hearing so much about lately. But it seems like I'm go-to Palin defender over there. The commenter is wrong that I only did it once. I've done it many times, and I am not a big Palin supporter. I'm more of a big critic of Palin-hating, and there's been a lot of Palin-hating out there to criticize:

September 5, 2008: I defend Palin in a diavlog with Jane Hamsher.

October 14, 2008: In a diavlog with Ana Marie Cox, I argue that Palin is good for the country — even as I say I'm going to vote against her:



November 5, 2008: In a diavlog with Glenn Reynolds, we both defend Palin.

July 5, 2009: I push back when Michelle Goldberg goes all out against Palin.

November 19, 2009: I'm re-paired with Goldberg and consequently better prepared to push back when she attacks Palin. Famous fireworks in this one, when Goldberg doesn't like it when I — as they say — punch back twice as hard.

November 20, 2010: I'm the one BHTV chose to go up against the author of "Palinisms" (a book mocking Palin).

The lameness of Obama's stance on Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Here he is at the MTV "townhall" yesterday:

A Conversation with President Obama on MTV

First, I can't believe he said "you look like a student" to a woman who identified herself as a member of a university faculty. That is an irrelevant and, I would say, sexist remark. Not only is it equivalent to saying "gee, you're pretty," but it's revealing that you have a picture of what professors are supposed to look like and you don't mind derailing the conversation to say she doesn't look like one. I know it's supposed to be a compliment, but it's really clueless. Believe me, I've had people say "you don't look like a law professor" or some such thing to me thousands of times over the last quarter century, and I remain superficially polite, but I can tell you it is not appropriate in a professional setting. Unless we are in a social context where it would be welcome for you to say "you look beautiful," then you should not say "you look like a student." Okay?

Now, to the substance: The woman, Bridget Todd, asks the President:

I know that you’ve mentioned that you want the Senate to repeal it before you do it yourself.

My question is — you as the President can sort of have an executive order that ends it once and for all as Harry Truman did for integration of the military in in '48. So I wonder, why don’t you do that if this is a policy that you are committed to ending?

Obama responds with a lot of words:

First of all, I haven’t “mentioned” that I’m against Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. 

Oh, lord, he begins by getting all pedantic about words. I'll get pedantic back. She didn't say he mentioned that he was against DADT. She said he mentioned that he wanted the Senate to repeal it instead of doing something that he might be able to do on his own.

I have said very clearly, including in a State of the Union Address, that I am against Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and that we’re going to end this policy. 

Fine, so he's repeating the promise that some people feel very bad that he has not kept.

That’s point number one. Point number two, the difference between my position right now and Harry Truman’s, is that Congress explicitly passed a law that took away the power of the executive branch to end this policy unilaterally. So this is not a situation in which, with the stroke of a pen, I can simply end the policy.

Now having said that, what I have been able to do is for the first time get the Chairman of the Joint Chief’s of Staff, Mike Mullen, to say he thinks the policy should end. The Secretary of Defense has said he recognizes that the policy needs to change. And we, I believe, have enough votes in the Senate to remove to go ahead and remove this constraint on me as the House has already done so that I can go ahead and end it.

But, as the linked blog post (by Jane Hamsher) indicates, he doesn't have the votes in the Senate and he hasn't put the weight of the presidency behind getting Senators to vote for repeal. He seems like he's using the statute as an excuse, so that he can play both sides on this issue. I understand the political motivation for that, but it amounts to breaking his promise to end DADT.

Now we recently had a Supreme Court — a district court case — that said DADT is unconstitutional. I agree with the basic principle that anybody who wants to serve in our armed forces, and make sacrifices on our behalf, on behalf of our national security, anybody should be able to serve. And they shouldn’t have to lie about who they are in order to serve.

So don't appeal the case! Say you think the court got it right! Or say that you think DADT isn't unconstitutional. It's just bad policy, and you object to the judiciary taking over in this area.

And so we are moving in the direction of ending this policy. It has to be done in a way that is orderly because we are involved in a war right now. 

That's pretty much a cloaked statement that he thinks the court was wrong and that the policy is constitutional. It's not "orderly" for the court to strike it down. The judiciary shouldn't be supervising the military. I'm going to assert with confidence that that is his opinion.

But this is not a question of whether the policy will end. This policy will end, and it will end on my watch.

The arc of history is long! Keep waiting, oh captive voters. Who else are you going to vote for?

But I do have an obligation to make sure that I’m following some of the rules.

Some of the rules?! Man, if you are only following some of the rules, why not give gay people a break?

I can’t simply ignore laws that are out there. I have to work to make sure they are changed.

Pssst. The Constitution is law.

"A conscious decision was made by certain groups to destroy this presidency the minute it started."

"People say it was the health care bill – no, it wasn’t. I go to every county every year and hold a town meeting. Within days of the president being sworn in, I had people showing up at my town meeting with hats on, with tea bags coming out, saying this is going to be socialism.”

That's Russ Feingold, answering one of 10 questions posed by Jeff Zelenzy in  the NYT. Feingold is, as you probably know, struggling to keep his place representing my state, Wisconsin, in the U.S. Senate. The question was "What explains the difficult political climate for Democrats, considering that President Obama has implemented many policies he campaigned on?" The quote above was the second of 2 explanations Feingold offered. The first was the economy and the tendency people have to blame whoever is in power when the economy is bad.

But it's not the health care bill? Some people think "it’s pretty obvious that the Democrats’ electoral woes are directly tied to the passage of the health care bill." Ironically, that link goes to Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake, who is criticizing the health care bill from the left, that is, hoping for socialism.

Another NYT question for Feingold is: "Are there a lot of undecided voters out there on issues like health care?" He says:

Here in Wisconsin, there’s 40 percent who are locked in on one side, 40 percent on the other and roughly 20 percent independents, they’re not locked in at all. They are holding back and as you calmly and rationally explain, most people say, "No, we don’t really want to repeal that."

Ezra Klein responds to Jane Hamsher's 10 reasons to kill the health care bill.

The liberals are fighting amongst themselves, forcing out some useful points.