Replies

It is surprising that for such a smart fella, Lanny Davis evidently does not recognize how transparently political his demands for prosecution are.

First Davis tries to ascend to the high ground: "I oppose any criminal prosecution of prior-administration officials on torture ...." But all the reasons and considerations supporting this judgment are now to be junked because Dick Cheney has the temerity to criticize the Obama administration: "he went on to attack Mr. Obama as weakening the United States in the war on terrorism because Mr. Obama immediately announced that torture would no longer be allowed." What is wrong with that? Lenny Davis says "Dem's fighting words." Worse, if there is a terror attack Barak Obama will look bad as a result of Dick Cheney's warning.

So for purely political purposes, attorney Lanny Davis who acted as a television shill to shield Bill Clinton from his felonies, now wants the former vice president of the United States indicted so his new boss will not look bad.

And what is the crime? Violation of this statute as described by Mr. Davis himself:

The 1994 federal law making torture illegal defines torture as "any act that causes severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, intentionally inflicted on a person for such purpose as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession."

It is constitutionally impermissible to prosecute someone under a statute so vague that it is unreasonable. This statute is obviously unconstitutionally vague because it criminalizes "any act" which can be "mental" which causes "suffering." Hell, my wife should be doing 10 to 20 right now. Any nagging wife trying to get information out of her husband has committed a crime. The statute is unconstitutionally broad.

Lanny Davis blithely subjected the country to the most mindnumbing contortions to justify the criminal behavior of Bill Clinton at a time when we had objective proof that he was a felon. How do we know that Bill Clinton committed perjury? This we know, for the DNA tells us so.

Now Mr. Davis wants to prosecute patriots because they exercise their right of free speech, because they go before the country and warn of a security threat. Lanny Davis wants to prosecute that because it makes Obama look bad.

I cannot imagine a quicker and surer way to undermine the rule of law in America not to mention a better or surer way to undermine good government.

Also, the US Constitution confer NO executive authority to the VP, except when serving as "Acting President." This never happened during GW Bush's tenure. So, as VP, Cheney never had the authority to authorize anything. How can he be culpable?

It seems the leftists are hell bent on getting their Stalinist show trials, one way or the other.

This, from the same man who once enlightened America about the malleability of words like "is", and did so in defense of a client whose weakening of our intelligence capabilities led directly to the events of 9/11.

I can certainly understand why Democrats would wish to avoid any discussion of their culpability for the atrocities committed against Americans. So, they blame those who first warned us of the threat and who then endeavored to avoid further such horrors by extracting intelligence from the terrorists who might commit them.

For Democrat operatives like Lanny Davis, no sphere of human life is uncolored by politics and so every motivation of their adversaries is instantly suspect. Moreover, many Democrats are no longer satisfied to merely dismiss or ridicule; policy differences must now be criminalized whenever possible. In this way, the rule of law is subordinated to the rule of lawyers, in pursuit not of justice but of partisan advantage.