Liberal Democrats are pressuring lawmakers to launch impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney. But Michael Tomasky, a contributing editor at the American Prospect, warns against it.
“Impeachment is not merely a bad idea, but the single worst course of action that Democrats could possibly undertake — the only thing they could do that might, in one stroke, convert Bush from the figure of contempt and mockery he is now into one of vague sympathy,” he wrote in the Washington Post. “Just as bad, it’s the one move that would definitively alienate nonideological voters and, therefore, harm the Democrats’ otherwise excellent chances for winning congressional seats and the White House in 2008.”
Besides, he points out, there aren’t enough votes to impeach Bush and Cheney. “For now,” he wrote, “impeachment advocates are urging Democrats to start a fight they’d lose.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- RightAngle on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Phantom on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
202 Comments
Heck of a Job brownlee…got those GOP Rovian talking points down pat. too bad we’re on to ya.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_david_sw_070805_the_dumbest_thing_th.htm
gonzo, chainy and duhbya will all be impeached.
wait and see.
Liberal Democrats are pressuring lawmakers to launch impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
The Main Stream Media always has to throw in the word, liberal.
Do they use terms like, religious fanatic, neo-con, fundamentalists, congressman bought off by big business, or oil business family?
No they do not label republicians. Maybe being a repub in 2007 is bad enough.
When is Liberal a bad label? I don’t think it is. I’m a Liberal. I also don’t think Conservative is a bad label either.
So exile! Should they use the terms like, socialist fanatic, neo-leftist, fundamentalists, congressman bought off by big business, or mafia/nepotism family. Should they say that to describe you and your party?
1. There’s not enough time left to impeach this SOB.2. If we impeach Bush, we get Cheney. BRRRRRR!!!!3. Gotcha politics needs to end.
4. This country needs a break. It would be nice if the Democrats could be the party that stops the insanity. The next president will probably be a Democrat and republicans will do all they can to impeach him/her, but that’s just the way they are.
Maybe the answer is for the next president to run an administration above reproach?
I agree. Such a move would be stupid. As stupid as the Republicans trying to impeach Clinton. Just keep doing what you are doing and give the Republicans more rope. They are doing a good enough job of hangin themselves.
“Maybe the answer is for the next president to run an administration above reproach?”
The leadership of both the major parties is nothing but the same good old boys network. There is little hope that they will change on their own. Without a serious challenge to their position of power they will always march side by side down the same path.
“they will always march side by side down the same path.”
RON PAUL 2008
Can you spell Tribalism??
I love this quote from DU. IT was in a discussion about the hope many folks had that the democrats would actually bring the lawless bushco back to reality.
“Hope? I hear many of the democrats will be having back surgery during the august recess
They will have hinges installed to make folding even easier. Procedure is expected to be rather quick as the doctors do not have to remove a spine first.”
heheheheheheheh…….
Good morning grrl.
That quote describes them, doesn’t it! I am not hopeful the operations will be successful.
Luckily, if they stay out of the way bushco is indeed the best ambassador for the Democratic Party one could ever wish for. Problem is the alternative isn’t much of a improvement.
You can’t get worse than bush and there is a chance for better so I will take that chance.
Instead of impeachment for Bush and Cheney, the Congress (both Republicans and Democrats) needs to put a leash on Bush and Cheney. This dubious duo is already trying to pick a fight with Iran. If they succeed, then our country will be paying the price for many more years.
It is time to muzzle Bush and Cheney but let them run their clock out.
A case one can make for impeachment is that it would reign in future presidents from doing what Bush is doing.
But, on the other hand, we’re not likely to get a president this bad again anytime soon.
Even the really bad presidents we’ve had in the past–Grant, Buchanon–didn’t LIE US INTO ENDLESS WAR.
The irony here is that Bush’s mother is related to Buchanan.
It would be a bad idea to start an impeachment proceeding on Bush.
I disagreed with the one on Clinton and even wrote letters of protests about it. For Clinton, it should have been an official letter of censure and nothing more. That whole era made a mockery of the American system and one of the reasons of my dislike of Newt Gingrich and his cohorts.
No matter how far we attempt to advance, society seems to always return to its Tribalistic and Feudalistic roots… That is what we are seeing in Iraq…
If there was any person in the history of the US who deserved impeachment it’s Bush’s whole administration. It drives me crazy the way they get away with this crap.
Yes, they’ve hung themselves, but Dems have GOT to start holding their ground. Just because we don’t have enough votes is not a good enough reason to back down off the principle…and the reality is that the longer Bush is in office, the more dangerous he becomes to our Country.
Let the Demo start a fight they cannot win….Bush did in Iraq.
Like I said many times, if someone’s got the goods, go for it.Never too late.
If there’s an impeachment attempt, next year’s presidential race will be mostly drowned out in the noise and fury of the proceedings.
From a completely unpartisan viewpoint, this would be bad. The louder the noise over the impeachment, the less we’ll know about the candidates for president. The less we’ll know about local Congressional candidates, US Senate candidates, and state legislative races.
Voter tune-out is already bad enough. Impeachment will just make it worse.
Twenty years from now, President Bush will be fondly remembered as one of the greatest presidents of all time.
Question (and a serious one):
Were you to draw up articles of impeachment, what “high crimes and misdemeanors” would you charge to support impeachment by the House?
Charge 1:
Studdering during speeches
Charge 2:
Being ugly
Charge 3:
There are no more legally. Have to take another tact.
I do not support impeachment however will give you a serious answer to your serious question. He “fixed” the intelligence to fit his Iraq policies and that was official misconduct that caused serious and likely irreparable injury to the United States.
“Twenty years from now, President Bush will be fondly remembered as one of the greatest presidents of all time.”
True story.
By the way… you don’t get to impeach a president because you don’t like him. He was elected to the office by the people. If you don’t like it, get more votes or change the system. Not only did you fail to defeat him with the incumbent VP running against him in 2000, but we put him back in office in 2004. If you don’t like him and didn’t vote against him in ‘04 then shut your pie-hole. If you did vote against him in ‘04 then instead of wasting energy trying to get rid of him now with talks of impeachment, spend your time harassing the people that let him win in ‘04… the people that are all talk and no vote.
That is a good question, GMC.
Probably the easiest one to convict on IMHO would be the prosecutor firings.
It wouldn’t be that hard to show that the administration fired prosecutors not for failing to do their jobs, but for OBEYING the law instead of carrying out illegal witch-hunts on behalf of BushCo.
Firing attorneys in charge of prosecuting crimes for refusing to committ crimes is clearly a crime in itself.
Another clear violation of the Constitution and the President’s oath to defend it is the warrantless wiretaps. The President has already lied about how the program was carried out in his public statements, saying that warrants were issued when they weren’t.
It would also not surprise me in the least to find out that the warrantless wiretaps were used against political “enemies” and not just suspected Al Qaeda. If BushCo. wanted a warrant to listen in on suspected terrorists, no judge in the land would hesitate to grant it.
This raises the question of whom the BushCo justice and law enforcement apparatus WAS listening in on and why they felt the need to wiretap people for which they couldn’t get warrants.
He “fixed” the intelligence to fit his Iraq policies and that was official misconduct
Posted by: lindainks55
So do you impeach the congress men and women who saw the EXACT SAME INTELLIGENCE and publicly commented on it?
Graffitti Troll–
It’s “take another tack.” A sail boat changes course or “tacks” against the wind.
“Tact” on the other hand is what you lack.
linda:
Given that the British, the French, the Germans, etc. had reached essentially the same conclusions, how does one prove – or even have serious evidence of – “fixing” intelligence?
I think in a real sense Saddam “fixed” himself. He needed the world to think he had no WMD’s, he needed his own population to believe he had them. So his denials to the world community were always with a “wink and a nod” to his own population. It bit him on the a**.
Now – did he see what he wanted to see? Perhaps, but we all do that. All of our worldviews are shaped by our personal rose-colored glasses.
If you don’t like him and didn’t vote against him in ‘04 then shut your pie-hole.Posted by: smarter than you
Hey. Is that a double negative sort of thing? I always have trouble answering those.
What if don’t like him, but did vote fer him?
Sorry, it’s left over from tactic.Old job sort of thing. But I’m not going to go into that. I don’t want anyone saying I’m a graffiti troll, not disabled, not veteran, not whatever.
“If you don’t like him and didn’t vote against him in ‘04 then shut your pie-hole.Posted by: smarter than you
Hey. Is that a double negative sort of thing? I always have trouble answering those.”
Umm.. no. That’s two different things that can both apply to you. Like.. being a smartass and being a moron.
Considering the majority of Congress said Bush’s illegal wiretaps and violation of the 4th Amendment was perfectly acceptable it doesn’t appear they’ll bother impeaching him.
First step though, impeach Gonzo. The Republicans should be in favor of that since the highest crime in the land is lying under oath. Yeah, that would assume Republicans aren’t hypocrites.
What job was that, Closet?
The mangle the English language job?
Sounds like RepubliKhansas. He studied statistics before they had ANOVA. It was just NOVA back then, heheheh . . .
The idea of impeachment is totally laughable. I have never ever heard a charge that could stick.”Lying” about WMD’s for the war in Iraq? Like the stupidest man alive is supposedly smart enough to craft such a plan?And if even if it were true, the Feds can’t pin perjury charges on Barry Bonds – how are they going to prove Bush “lied” and it wasn’t even under oath if he did?
tack1 (tak) n.
1. a short, sharp-pointed nail, usually with a flat, broad head.
2. Nauta. a rope for extending the lower forward corner of a course. b. the lower forward corner of a course or fore-and-aft sail. See diag. under sail. c. the heading of a sailing vessel, when sailing close-hauled, with reference to the wind direction. d. a course run obliquely against the wind. e. one of the series of straight runs that make up the zigzag course of a ship proceeding to windward.
3. a course of action or conduct, esp. one differing from some preceding or other course.
[snip]
9. on the wrong tack, under a misapprehension; in error; astray: His line of questioning began on the wrong tack.
Copyright © 1966-1994 by Random House Inc., All Rights Reserved.
I agree–the WMD lies are too complicated to be provable as lies; although given Bush’s 26 percent approval rating, it looks like no one is buying what he’s selling.
But there’re a plenty of other cases of malfeasance in this administration. It never seems to end.
Doing a crappy job (as perceived by 74% of the nation) is not an impeachable offense unfortunately (this sword cuts both ways).He was elected and re-elected. Carter was so bad he didn’t get the latter.
Okay, for the hundreth time, I’m NOT GOOD LOOKING ENOUGH to be gay.
Walk. On. By.
GMC,
I see that you wanted more than an answer to your serious question. I think a mock impeachment proceeding here on the blog would be more of an exercise in futility than it would be in Congress. I know you are well informed, you know nothing about me or whether I am well informed or not, but we disagree and neither will say anything to change the mind of the other. I think bush is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors; you do not. A mock trail among people with NO power to make a difference doesn’t seem a worthwhile way to spend my time. Hasn’t it all been cussed, discussed, hashed and rehashed more times than we care to count? Anyone changed their opinions? Not me!
Yeah, TA–
Neither did H. W. Bush . . .
Since when was Truth a closing fight?
I don’t think we should impeach Bush at all, Cheney’s “The Man”.
And I don’t think we need to convict anyone either, just investigate.
Not to get revenge or punish anyone, that would be a matter of where the evidence.
But as long as Bush abuses his executive privelege power, there is no laternative to findint the Truth that some people apparently want buried forever.
The Bush admionistration, particular Cheney and Rove, have defiled our system of Rule of Laws.
Cionsider this crosspost from The Next Hurrah:
“At some point after the election last Nov. 6, Domenici called Bush’s senior political adviser, Karl Rove, and told him he wanted Iglesias out and asked Rove to take his request directly to the president.”
Was he Senior Political Advisor Karl Rove, or was he Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove at that particular moment…
Interesting, the Tale of Two Turdblossoms…
If you were to split Karl into his two administrative halves, the Deputy Chief of Staff, and Director of the Political Office, and put them in separate offices, every time they got together to strategize, it would be a violation of the hatch act, (albeit, interpreted narrowly.”
So, basically, that would make Rove a walking Hatch Act violation, all in one body.
I wonder if it ever hurts?”
They are not law-abiding citizens, they are virtually LAWLESS in the very essence of the word, and unless we use the one privilege-free tool we have, Impeachment, to get to the bottom, we are doomed to repeat this sad time in the history of our great nation..
“Posted by: fake nude celebrity pic | August 07, 2007 at 11:25 ”
And NO ONE is going to ask the editors to remove that post?
I think posts like that are a fitting testament to the subhuman nature of the troll(s). I say WEBlog should leave it right where it is.
Well Tom, I am curious if they DO remove the post if they will say if it is a “liberal” troll or a “conservative” troll.
Highly unusual to make that kind of judgement. Whenever I’ve asked for a post to be removed, I just got an email saying it was done, not comments on the “ideology” of the troll.
If trolls have ideology…
I am sure all you conservatives will appreciate this issue of unbridled executive power a lot more when there’s a Democrat in office…
Do you really want John edwards ot Barrack Obama or Hillary Clinton to have the power you nave vested in Cheney?
For all the “Constitution id Sacred” talk we hear when we bring up gun laws, why don’t you same people PROTECT YOUR CONSTITUTION from unwaranted power accumulation by any one branch. The Constitution requires CO-EQUAL (emphasis on “equal” branches of Government)don’t trash it just to support your conservative agenda.
Farmgrrl,
Do you believe a single thing that comes out of the troll’s keyboard? It could tell me “the sun rises in the east,” and I’d be outside with a compass and a sextant, just to make sure.
JEP,
Nevermind Cheney. Would they want Janet Reno to have the power they’ve given Gonzales?
JEP,
RON PAUL 2008
heheheheh Tom. You are correct on that one.
JEP I have been thinking about the latest dem cave in. One of a long line of cave ins by the new “leadership”.
(They must have all gone to the sebelius school of leadership. The DLC?)
The best explanation I can come up with, other than that they are all addicted to campaign cash and serving the military industrial complex, is that indeed THEY intend to use all these powers at some point in the future.
With little or no distinction between party leaders on the “unitary executive” power grab by bushco, or on the selection of uber conservative supremes, it seems to me that they are ALL aligned, not only with the MIC, but with just “big government” in general.
It is GOVERNMENT grabbing power here for itself. Sometimes this power and liberty hating GOVERNMENT wears a red hat and sometimes a blue hat, but the freakin’ outcomes of both this congress and this preznits administration has been….
BIGGER GOVERNMENTBIGGER DEFICITSFEWER PERSONAL LIBERTIESLESS PRIVACYMORE WARTRASHING OF JUSTICEPISSING ON THE CONSTITUTION
Yeah, I know I’m shouting, but god DAMMIT when will the sheeple wake up?
When they come for YOU?
“I have never ever heard a charge that could stick.”
Well, read my crosspost above…
And try to comprehend this…
IF Rove was acting as “political advisor” when Domenici called him, and first went to Goodling and Sampson to put Iglesias’s name on that list, he’s screwed out of executive privilege because that political office is not legally under Bush’s prifilege umbrella, by any legal interpretation.
HOWEVER, if Rove first acted on Domenici’s call as Bush’s deputy chief of staff, and went to Bush first, that would mean Bush will be implicated in the firing of Iglesias for political reasons, Domenici’s call made that a sure thing.
So either Rove is screwed out of his privilege, or Bush is implicated in a certifiable “high crime” of firing a DOJ atty for purely political reasons.
GET IT! Either Bush or Rove is toast, maybe both of them and the toaster is just toasting slowly.
Bush has committed high crimes in the DOJ scandal, and that is why they are desperaste to keep any testimony out of the public view.
And since most of us think Cheney is the actual “decider” then they are all three implicated.
ANd don’t give me that “pleasure of the President crap” that applies to non-political firings only, if you think otherwise, you don’t know the law.
This IS provably political, Iglesias knows it and so do the rest of the fired ATTYs.
Uh oh. Looks like some nic switching troll forgot to switch nics before reposting.
Editors?
They are not law-abiding citizens, they are virtually LAWLESS in the very essence of the word, and unless we use the one privilege-free tool we have, Impeachment, to get to the bottom, we are doomed to repeat this sad time in the history of our great nation..
Posted by: JEP | August 07, 2007 at 11:35 AM
If ya got the goods, file the charges.–thru your representatives or course. Otherwise, it is mere speculation and ranting.
i don’t think there are any charges that could hold up, but I would certainly be willing to allow others to make the opposite claim, and go for it.
Regardless of the time factor, if Bush, CHeney, ROve, Gonzalez, etc comitted high crimes… they deserve to be impeached.
Go for it. But I am curious, What specifically, would be the charges?
I would think high crimes would be obstruction of justice. No brainer. I think investigation at the links between DOJ and the White House political office would reveal soborning perjury.
I dont know where saying “kiss my ass” to supoenas falls.
“Bush is implicated in a certifiable “high crime” of firing a DOJ atty for purely political reasons.”ANd don’t give me that “pleasure of the President crap” that applies to non-political firings only, if you think otherwise, you don’t know the law.”
Please educate us. What is the cite?
“
…indeed THEY intend to use all these powers at some point in the future.
If the words “Speaker Pelosi” caused them so much distress, imagine what “President Edwards” might do to them, with all that power!
he could have a Union Task Force meeting like Cheney’s Energy Industry Task Force, and no one could stop him…
The R’s need to be scared, very scared, of Bush and Cheney and their power grab, because after they are gone, the power they accumulated remains with the office.
littlejohn;
you don’t nullify an answer by re-asking the question…
“I think investigation at the links between DOJ and the White House political office would reveal soborning perjury.”
You are guessing. You may be right, I am not arguing one way or another. But you are still guessing. You don;t KNOW what it would reveal.
“If ya got the goods, file the charges.–thru your representatives or course. Otherwise, it is mere speculation and ranting.”
It’s kinda hard to investigate and THEN file charges when the entire republican machine is ignoring, with impunity, the supeonas issued by congress.
And give the pass the dems gave the supremes nominations, only a slim chance exists that bushco will be forced to observe the rule of law.
Nice work. Corrupt the justice system and then break the law unfettered.
Oh yeah, and scare the hell outa the bedwetters so they WILLINGLY keep the foxes of both parties in the hen house.
And the sheeple sleep…
littlejohn;
you don’t nullify an answer by re-asking the question…
Posted by: JEP | August 07, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Where was the answer?
“It’s kinda hard to investigate and THEN file charges”
That’s the way the legal system works. You have to have a reasonable expectable of legal and provable guilt before you file charges. Otherwise, it is fishing.
Linda -
Since there is this pressure to impeach coming from the extreme left, it’s a useful exercise to see if there are any real “high crimes and misdemeanors” that translate into impeachable offenses, based upon the admittedly imperfect public info we have.
As has been noted, bad decisionmaking, even incompetent decisionmaking, does not equate to high crimes and misdemeanors. Low approval does not equate to same. And for all the crying over “accumulation of power” in the executive, frankly, this kind of power dispute between branches is part and parcel of the type of government we have. We’ve been here before.
I’ve yet to see anything which could be defined as “high crimes and misdemeanors” supported by evidence sufficent to have any chance of conviction by 2/3 of the Senate. Impeachment is incredibly difficult to do; it was made so for a reason.
We’ve seen, recently, a purely political impeachment, one where there was clear evidence of a real crime, no less. It was a disaster for all involved, accusers and accused alike. While certainly impeachment is ultimately a political exercise, it still takes real evidence to hang the hat on.
I just don’t see it; but I’ve been wrong before (I thought I was wrong once in ‘97, but I was mistaken) ;-)
(for the humor-impared out there, that’s a joke . . .)
Anyway – So show me this real evidence . . .
“The R’s need to be scared, very scared, of Bush and Cheney and their power grab, because after they are gone, the power they accumulated remains with the office.”
And the DLC dems are so freakin’ sure THEY will take the White House in ‘08 that they are letting bush/cheney escape the rule of law. Why?
To set precident that it will be ok for THEM to do the same thing? Supporting the unitary executive power grab could backfire on the dems again if the sheeple finally see through their win-win strategy.
But I bet the worry is so small, give the sheeple’s track record, that they all sleep really well with or without Ambien.
“Do you really want John edwards ot Barrack Obama or Hillary Clinton to have the power you nave vested in Cheney?”JEB
Actually, I do. Whomever wins the election will be my president and vice. Doesn’t mean I’ll like it.
“It is GOVERNMENT grabbing power here for itself. Sometimes this power and liberty hating GOVERNMENT wears a red hat and sometimes a blue hat” ksfarmgirl
I have always had mixed emotions about term limits for congress, but I am leaning more and more that way. Constitutional amendment problem too.
But you are both concerned with absolute power………
Term limits might mean both parties spend their limited number of terms representing the people and not worrying about re-election. More apt to do what is good and that they will want to be remembered for?
But on the other hand, if people keep electing the incumbents. But then, it is difficult for a “regular” joe to get in office against the established power.
Just an idea I’m not even sure about.
Littlejohn;
I don’t have the time or space to educate you, you probably alreadyknow I’m right, but you also know how complex the legalese concerining this issue.
I don’t expect it to change the old concrete in your mind, I do know you would not be so protective of Hillary Clinton’s presidential powers.
If you or anyone else wants to do a serious study of the crimes the Bush Administration has committed, go tohttp://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah
and educate yourself.
I do not hold out hope you will listen to these legal experts, despite the fact they have laid out all the evidence and proof that an impeachment would need to proceed.
You no doubt consider yourself the only one with those credentials.
Unfortunately, educating yourself means admitting you don’t already know everything.
But you are both concerned with absolute power………
That’s a spiritual argument, we are concerned about UNBALANCED power.
“Absolute power” is a red-herring…
Democrats oughta go for it. If they think Bush has committed “high crimes”, then it is their duty to impeach.
But, like their pretend ranting over warrantless wiretapping, it’s all just talk, designed to appeal to the loony left.
I will look at your link. No problem. YOU Made the claim, I asked what law specifically wsa broken, you get on my case. I don;t even supprot Bush. i think he is a moron. SO, you attack me, because I ask for a law cite to back up your claim? Nice
As I said, You got the goods, DO IT! HOW MUCH CLEARER CAN I BE!
LJ, my point was that investigation is indeed needed before charges are filed.
If the preznit and the RNC continually obstruct that investigation, like they did with scooter libby, it ensures that NO charges will ever be filed.
I havent decided if the dems are scared, stupid or lazy because they refuse to get serious about investigations.
All this dancing around that “something big is coming” and “we’re keeping our powder dry” and “wait until (pick one) September October, November, another six months, ‘08, whatever, just will not accomplish anything.
It creates chaos. Which is just what your government wants. They want you to be confused and to view what they do with the proverbial sand in your eyes.
I mean, why else do we need TOUCH voting screens if we dont all have our eyes full of the sand they throw?
:)
“Anyway – So show me this real evidence . . .”
I just did, you ignored it…
Or you just couldn’t grasp the implications of Two Turdblossoms.—–
‘I asked what law specifically wsa broken, you get on my case.’
You asked AFTER the answer was given, as if you did not understand the answer, or as if it wasn’t even there…
Rove’s double-identity can only serve one of two purposes: protecting Rove or protecting Bush, when you fudge the law, that sort of conundrun sneaks up on you eventually.
Like I said, there is no way to educate people who already know everything.
JEP -
That assumes that firing US attorneys is itself illegal, even if for political reasons. It’s not. They do indeed serve at the pleasure of the president.
framgirl;
The blue dogs (you gotta love em’ for taking out so many Republicans) are going to be in for something of a surprise next election, their officdes aren’t going to be threatened by the Republicans, they will be challenged by their own centrists in their own primaries.
When they refused to admit Boyda, they signalled their intractability.
Most of them (bluedog dems) think they won because their constutuents wanted a slight change to the center.
but they were (and obviously are) mistaken, the American public is tired of a corporate controlled government,m whether it is via the DLC or the RNC.
So, farmgirl, keep you chin up about the Democrats, even the bluedogs are going to “get it” next time around.
I agree, the Dems may have dropped the ball.
But at least they are in the game, and that has not been the case since the Clinton impeachment debacle.
Unless I’m mistaken, Boyda and Moore both voted against the wiretap bill.
That should give all Kansans some hope.
JEP, I’ve found that the Bush apologists refuse to click on a website and see what crimes we’re talking about…it’s as if we can’t discuss ONE issue out of the thousands of GOOD LEGIT reasons for impeachment, the reasons must not exist!
It’s like playing a game with them and they stick their fingers in their ears and say “nanana I can’t hear you”. Defend, deflect and deny all day every day.
You said it GMC! Whether there is or is not “real evidence,” there is not “evidence sufficient to have any chance of conviction by 2/3 of the Senate.” Thus, impeachment would be an exercise in futility. It was just such an exercise the last time it was tried. It seems we learn little from history but I’m hoping this was a lesson learned.
Our system is partisan to the extent those charged with these responsibilities will not fulfill them if they must be disloyal to their party. Sad. Our country deserves better than politicians! But it’s what we’ve got.
I know you’re trained in debate, in skillful support of your opinion. I’m not. That doesn’t mean I hold my convictions less strongly than you do. It just means in a debate I will lose.
I’m not one to engage in those exercises in futility.
JEP-
I looked at your link. WHile there were a couple of postlinks I could not get to, I found not one single charge with a specific statute citation. What I saw was speculaiton, bitching, and complaining, and theories.
ANd your answer above, while may or may not be a charge against ROve, what violation of the law did Bush perform? SPecifically. NOt he broke the law bs, but which law? Specifically. And you got the charge, and a reasonable expectation of being able to prove guilt, again, I say GO FOR IT!
How did I, in any instance, state what I know? or that I know everything? TUrn off your “so and so said so” mentality, your attack mentality, and simply answer the question. What specific law did Bush break? Isis your contention that BUsh broke the law ins omeway because of the actions of ROVE?
“It’s not.”
That is either a misunderstanding or a lie.
The President CAN NOT legally fire a US ATTY because they refused to prosecute Democrats, or because they prosecute Republicans.
That would give the office of the president near-royal powers.
Again, if they can prove Bush fired Iglesias on Domenici’s cue because he wouldn’t prosecute Democrats or theur subordinates, Bush has crossed the line.
Sure, Bush can give the order, and the ATTY would have to leave, like they all did. But it is comoing back to bite Bush, on a daily basis, so to suggest that Bush has roay authority, not presidentiual authority, ignores the mess he’s in right now.
If Bush really had that power, do you thnk they would be covering all this up?
And the last time a President tried that, he eventually had to resign.
“LJ, my point was that investigation is indeed needed before charges are filed.”
Sorry, guess I misread your post.
“So, farmgirl, keep you chin up about the Democrats, even the bluedogs are going to “get it” next time around.”
Yeah, right. I’ll believe that about the time sebelius loses an election in kansas…
I believe that Bush gave the go-ahead to Cheney who in turn gave Scooter the orders on outing Plame. That would be a charge to pursue in impeachment and the subsequent obstruction of justice that came about as the result of the pardon.
And this administration obviously has something to hide with respect to the DOJ firings.
Well said, Linda, in the 11:29 post.
It’s like playing a game with them and they stick their fingers in their ears and say “nanana I can’t hear you”. Defend, deflect and deny all day every day.
Posted by: political_mom | August 07, 2007 at 12:18 PM
I am not a Bush defender. If he has committed a crime, then he should pay. AND DEMS need to step up to the plate and make the charge. My simple quesiton is:What statute has he broken?
“I believe that Bush gave the go-ahead to Cheney who in turn gave Scooter the orders on outing Plame. That would be a charge to pursue in impeachment and the subsequent obstruction of justice that came about as the result of the pardon.”
Okay, at least we are getting somewhere with a specific charge.
“What specific law did Bush break?”
I said earlier, wehen Rove came to him with Domenici’s complaint, if Bush ordered Iglesias added to the firing list, he is culpable.
But you still haven’t been able to track my reasoning, read my first post, it clearly states that “Cheney is the man.”
And Cheney’s energy industry task force was a conspiracy to defraud the American people, in those meetings was the origin of not only the California blackouts and $100/barrel gas, Cheney may also have conspired about what would become the Iraq war.
And if you think defrauding the American people isn’t an impeachable offense, you are mistaken.
If they aren’t guilty, why has Cheney moved heaven and earth to keep the record of it out of the public domain?
I was in Sacramento when those summertime blackouts occurred, and old folks died in the sweltering heat, and I feel quite safe to accuse that energy industry task force conspiracy for setting up those blackouts.
Your problem littlejohn, you want the case proven before it can be investigated, that is ludicrous. But it sounds great on paper.
You keep sayin “go for it” but you also know Bush’s unwarranted accumulation of power and his abuse of executive privilege is throwing sand in the eyes of investigators.
Let me repeat, you wan the case proven before it is investigated, and that is either naive or just another responsibility dodge from a Bush enabler.
Editors, please delete the 12:32 post
Mods, you better get a handle on these poser posts, that last one is shameful…
Mods, you better get a handle on these poser posts, that last one is shameful…
and littlejohn, let me repeat,
YOU WANT THE CASE PROVEN BEFORE IT IS EVEN INVESTIGATED!
Just how much evidence does it take to merit investigation, in you book?
Jep-
“And Cheney’s energy industry task force was a conspiracy to defraud the American people, in those meetings was the origin of not only the California blackouts and $100/barrel gas, Cheney may also have conspired about what would become the Iraq war.”
Now you have proven just be ranting, with no real charge, or facts, just plain old bs. Thanks for making yourself so plain.
AGAIN! WHAT CHARGE! WHAT STATUTE! Don;t prove it, just show what statute was violated, and then some facts to at least look like it’s backing it up.
WHAT CHARGE? WHAT STATUTE?
Actually, a federal judge already ruled that the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program violated the law. If Bush ordered it, then he committed an impeachable offense.
JEP_
investigate all you want. or all the COngress wants. Or get a special prosecutor to do it. I have no problem with that. If you come up with something, violaitons of actual statutes, then charge BUsh accordingly. But before you call for impeachment, you need a charge of a violation of a specific law. You have yet to give me one example.
Actually, a federal judge already ruled that the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program violated the law. If Bush ordered it, then he committed an impeachable offense.
Posted by: leftcoaster | August 07, 2007 at 12:40 PM
So, If a Pres does something, later to be found unconstitutional, he can and should be impeached for commniting a crime? Careful here.
“YOU WANT THE CASE PROVEN BEFORE IT IS EVEN INVESTIGATED!
Just how much evidence does it take to merit investigation, in you book?”
Exactly JEP. And they keep throwing sand in the eyes of the investigators and giving the finger to congressional supoenas.
Then they say “what charges?”
Well hell, we need an unobstructed investigation and TESTIMONY instead of ignored supoenas.
And dammit, I went for more coffee. Somebody email me what the 12:32 post was I missed. It musta been good to be deleted that fast!
Unfortunately, Republicans will never vote to impeach even if there are multiple proven charges. They don’t care if they broke the law, only that their party is in power. Just like they obviously don’t care about adultery, only that it was once useful to bash the other side.
So, If a Pres does something, later to be found unconstitutional, he can and should be impeached for commniting a crime? Careful here.
Posted by: littlejohn
—–
So if I steal a car, and later find out it is a crime, can I go to jail?
I’m a little tired of this “Bush was too stupid to know it’s a crime until a judge in court tells him what he did is a crime.”
” But before you call for impeachment, you need a charge of a violation of a specific law.”
Um.. impeading an investigation and refusing to comply with a lawful supoena are not specific enough for you?
How the hell are WE supposed to know a statute number? I thought it was generally understood that ignoring a supoena and impeading an investigation were against the law.
Interesting, when farmgirl hits a nerve that resonates, the troll gets vile…
Also, littlejohn, if you went to Msrcy Wheeler’s site and came back here in that short a period of time, you just proved what I have been saying, your words look good on paper, but the paper’s value is questionable in the first place.
That site is not one artivle, it will take you at least a month to study it, there is an exhaustive body or research that even Superman couldn’t understand with a glance.
Again, since when does a case have to be proven already to investigate it?
If we even suspect the President or Vice President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, shouldn’t we have the right to investigate?
And if they abuse their executive privilege to supress that investigation, isn’t that our cue to investigate with powers above the President’s privilege?
And the only way to do that is impeachment, Bush can not claim executive privilege.
What you won’t address with you casual “go for it, if you can” line is that investigation shouldn’t be something honorable leaders fear, and the fact they are running for cover and huding ubder executive privilege rocks only suggests they are guilty as hell, and that MERITS INVESTIGATION!
And the only way to investigate around executive privilege is impeachment.
Get it?
If Bush and Cheney would just tell us the truth, this impeachment talk would disappear, (unless of course the reason they are hiding is that they are guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, and they know it.)
DUH!!!
Something else along the same lines. They keep all the wiretapping records secret so no one will ever know who they spied on without a warrant. Then they challenge you to name one person whose rights have been violated. You can’t! Because it’s secret!
Funny, huh?
“Bush was too stupid to know”
…actually that is a very unique form of plausible deniability that the Bush people have always depended on for their cover…
ignorance of the law is no excuse, but generic ignorance can get someone like Bush off the hook, at least in terms of “who’s the man.”
IMPEACH CHENEY!
NOT BUSH!
A Cheney impeachment would be one of the most efficient Congressional exercises in a generation. It brings ALL the guilty parties under one umbrella, and no one is ever going to suggest Cheney was “ignorant.”
Just “guilty!”
The President CAN NOT legally fire a US ATTY because they refused to prosecute Democrats, or because they prosecute Republicans.
Senate Votes to Curb Bush’s Constitutional PowerMarch 20, 2007
By: Mary Mostert,
So far, it appears, the firing of eight attorneys by the Bush Attorney General has created far more news than the firing of ninety-three attorneys by Clinton attorney general Janet Reno in 1993. It also has produced a piece of legislation designed to reduce the President’s powers under the US Constitution.
For those who have forgotten that 1993 event, or were infants at the time, Judge Robert Bork described what occurred as follows:
“Reno suddenly fired all 93 U.S. attorneys. She said the decision had been made in conjunction with the White House. Translation: The President ordered it. Just as the best place to hide a body is on a battlefield, the best way to be rid of one potentially troublesome attorney is to fire all of them. The U.S. attorney in Little Rock was replaced by a Clinton protege. The long-running Waco emergency that culminated in the deaths of eighty Branch Davidian men, women, and children again proved that Janet Reno was not in charge in the Justice Department. Webster Hubbell, Hillary’s former law partner in Little Rock and Bill’s man at Justice, coordinated tactics with the White House. The President did not even talk to his attorney general throughout the crisis.
“Scandal followed scandal. Clinton had hardly been sworn in when he fired the entire staff of the White House travel office. The object, it seems clear, was to divert business to friends of the Clintons. The firings were so obviously unsupportable that the FBI was told to issue a press release suggesting criminality in the travel office. The head of the office was indicted and tried, but acquitted almost instantly. An inquiry suggested that Hillary Clinton ordered the coup. Then it was discovered that the White House had asked for and received nine hundred raw FBI files on Republicans. Nobody knew who had issued the request or hired the unqualified security officer who carried it out. The evidence pointed to Hillary, but she denied responsibility. If her denials were false, she probably committed indictable offenses. Janet Reno sat on her hands until she got all these matters out of her bailiwick by handing them off to the independent counsel.”
Now here we are, 14 years later, with a well orchestrated political and media campaign designed to force Attorney General Gonzales (our first Hispanic Attorney General, by the way) to resign. This appears to be an effort to permit the Democrats to block any nomination President George W. Bush may make for replacements.
Today, March 20, 2007 the US Senate suddenly passed Senate bill S 214,which was introduced in by Democrat Diane Feinstein and is designed to give unelected judges the power the Constitution gives only to the President of the United States. Feinstein claims that S214 is only “To amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States Code, to preserve the independence of United States attorneys.
Only, it appears to me to do the exact opposite of that. What it really does is turn over to unelected judges the authority our founding fathers carefully kept out of the hands of unelected folks like kings, queens, and appointed judges.
The current law, in Title 28, section 546 on filling vacancies reads as follows:
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the Attorney General may appoint a United States attorney for the district in which the office of United States attorney is vacant.
(b) The Attorney General shall not appoint as United States attorney a person to whose appointment by the President to that office the Senate refused to give advice and consent.
(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the earlier of-
(1) the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title; or
(2) the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General under this section.
(d) If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court.
Article 2, Section 2 of the US Constitution gives the president the power to “appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.”
The Feinstein Bill eliminates the Constitutuional authority of the President through the Attorney General he nominated and the senate approved to fire attorneys on his staff and gives that power to an unelected judge who would have no actual knowledge concerning personnel matters in the Justice Department. The new section 546 states:
`Sec. 546. Vacancies
“The United States district court for a district in which the office of the United States attorney is vacant may appoint a United States attorney to serve until that vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court.”.
I have been told by a source in the Senate that S214 passed by a vote of 98-0. That means both Democrats and Republicans have voted to undermine the US Constitution. Since I really don’t think most Senators, particularly my senators, Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett, are that hostile to or ignorant of the Constitution, why would they vote for it?
I suspect this piece of legislation has slipped through the cracks by its deceptive title and description: It does “amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States Code” but it does not “preserve the independence of United States attorneys.”
Do we really want the US Justice Department attorneys to be totally independent of the oversight and management of the people we elect – the president and our members of Congress – and appointed by judges who invent things like same-sex marriage and a civil right to kill unborn children?
Hopefully, the House of Representatives will not be easily deceived as our esteemed senators – and if they are, surely President Bush will veto S214.
Littlejohn, answer my question..
since when does a case have to be proven already to investigate it?
Fierce anger and hate on this board today.
Growling and knashing of teeth and fangs.
Bad dogs!
I think the impeachment talk will continue to build.Do you all think Rove will sacrifice Cheney for the Party or will he try to ride out the time until the election hoping for no impeachment?
“and appointed by judges who invent things like same-sex marriage and a civil right to kill unborn children? ”
I think that just about says it all for THIS troll.
Aw farmgirl, you can still marry your bride. No one else wants to.
Abortion not likely a big issue for you.
leftcoaster_I’m a little tired of this “Bush was too stupid to know it’s a crime until a judge in court tells him what he did is a crime.”
Posted by: leftcoaster | August 07, 2007 at 12:45 PM
So, I must presume that your answer is in the affirmative. If what a president does is rules inconstitutional, he should be impeached. Am I correct?
JEP-
“If we even suspect the President or Vice President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, shouldn’t we have the right to investigate?”
yes you should
“And if they abuse their executive privilege to supress that investigation, isn’t that our cue to investigate with powers above the President’s privilege?”
yes it is
“And the only way to do that is impeachment”
Wrong. Impeachment is a trial on specific charges. Not an investigation. Get it now?
Ksfarmgrrl-”thought it was generally understood that ignoring a supoena”
You are correct, but there is this thing about executive priviledge, a recognized legal right. It is always in flux, and in contest between the president and the congress. Not real cut and dried, I don;t believe
Ok Alex, er, I mean Brian, I’ll take:
“try to ride out the time until the election hoping for no impeachment?”
For $200 please…
Littlejohn, answer my question..
since when does a case have to be proven already to investigate it?
Posted by: JEP | August 07, 2007 at 12:55 PM
it doesn’t. I have said that over and over again. However, impeachment is not an investigation, it is a trial. One that must have specific charges. You called for impeachment. I asked what charge? Specifically.I have yet to get an answer.
First lj wants specific charges, then when presented, he cried “executive privelege” just like his dear leader.
And NOW do you see why we dont feed the trolls? It does no good. When it comes to facts, one’s too many and a hundred’s not enough.
lol, KFG
lj, and others, the “other high crimes and misdemeanors” provision in the Constitution does not necessarily mean commission of a crime in the sense of violation of a statute in the opinion of many constitutional scholars. There are many learned articles on this out in the cyber world of the web, which one may peruse at one’s pleasure.
A general statement, then back to work for me: it would appear from the context of that portion of the constitution that the founders were analogizing, at the least, to the Parliamentary Impeachment procedure then extant in England. It seems from my reading of some of the many articles, the “high crimes and misdemeanors” language pertains to political crimes, that is, wrong actions taken by the official that are wrong merely because he/she holds office. It has been suggested by some that the word “constitutional” is implied before the words “crimes” and “misdemeanors”. There is much scholarly debate on this, which I invite all to review at their respective leisure.
Impeachment is the bringing of charges, upon which trial is then held in the Senate.
he broke no law;
boring old obfuscation…
nothing new, nothing meaningful, just dittohead talking points…
“our first Hispanic Attorney General, by the way”
Gimme a break, do you really know what the average hispanic thinks of Gonzales?
Do you also think most blacks respect Clarence Thomas?
If Gonzales is such an icon of ethnic pride, why are Hispanic Americans moving in droves over to the Democratic party?
This ought to be good… I’d really like to hear from hispanics on this, I’m white so I’m really not qualified to use their opinion as a reference, apparently others aren’t so concerned about appearances of hypocrisy.
LJ, real slow now.
If buschco and the DOJ continue to obstruct an investigation and ignore supoenas that MIGHT lead to impeachment, then congress SHOULD jump directly to impeachment. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, do NOT dance this stupid dance with them until they run out the clock.
Dont like that? Then cooperate with the damn investigations.
And BTW, am I the only one here old enough to remember the Saturday Night Massacres?
And am I the only one old enough to remember how the claim of executive privy worked for NIXON?
Not very well if I remember. But that is when guys like Barry Goldwater had the balls to confront their own president when he broke the law.
oh for the good ol days…
“And NOW do you see why we dont feed the trolls? It does no good. When it comes to facts, one’s too many and a hundred’s not enough.
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | August 07, 2007 at 01:00 PM
You oviously have no sense of what I am saying, so you once again paint me as troll. Shows yor complete disregard for anything or anyone who disagrees with you. Your loss
“Aw farmgirl, you can still marry your bride. No one else wants to.
Abortion not likely a big issue for you.
Posted by: lhg | August 07, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Why Miss Scarlett, ah do declahr. I believe I am being trolled by another conservative.
Please remove that homophobic post.
“the “other high crimes and misdemeanors” provision in the Constitution does not necessarily mean commission of a crime in the sense of violation of a statute..”
Correct, Vaughn, and this certainly applies to Cheney’s energy industry task force…
Although I would be surprised if there aren’t actually some statutory violations in that meeting, we know at least one executive lied to Congress about it. That lie itself constitutes a high crime, by statute, if Cheney advised them to take that tack…
I think it was Gerald Ford who said that an impeachable offense is anything a majority of the House says is an impeachable offense.
That said, I have to agree that it would likely be an exercise in futility as long as the GOP can block conviction. However, there has NEVER been a president or VP more deserving of impeachment.
“buschco and the DOJ continue to obstruct an investigation and ignore supoenas that MIGHT lead to impeachment, then congress SHOULD jump directly to impeachment. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, do NOT dance this stupid dance with them until they run out the clock.”
Fine with me. Make the charge obstruction of justice and get on with it. No investigation necessary. THey ignored a subponea, or ordered others to do so, make the charge. No investigation necessary. Just do it. What I said from the very beginning. JUST DO IT!
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm
Above link is to just one of I don’t know how many articles/pieces on the meaning of the phrase. Also contains an interesting analysis of “perjury”.
” Shows yor complete disregard for anything or anyone who disagrees with you.”
Couldnt resist that meme could ya?
I think, sir, today it is YOU who cant tolerate any facts that disagree with your already set in concrete world view.
I think Rove may have to decide which Repub will go down: Bush, Cheney or himself.
BTW, I would love to ask my Representative to represent my voice for impeachment, but I do not think Brownback would listen.
“Fine with me. Make the charge obstruction of justice and get on with it. No investigation necessary. THey ignored a subponea, or ordered others to do so, make the charge. No investigation necessary. Just do it. What I said from the very beginning. JUST DO IT!”
Great. That’s what JEP and I have been saying here. So.. you agreed all along and were just arguing to be arguing?
And you wonder why the troll word was mentioned?
Oh, and lhg, would that post about “my bride” be your response to all the “hate” and “viciousness”?
Hypocrisy, thy name is…
littlejohn, I don’t consider you a troll, you are a subtle subterfuger.
I don’t believe you when you keep repeating “go for it” then follow it with that “if you can.”
So don’t be offended if people call you a troll, it just means we know your real intentions aren’t what you present.
Stop defending yourself and get back to defending Bush…
OH, i’m sorry, you aren’t a Bush defender either…
and why won’t you answer my question…
Do you really believe need PROOF inorder to investigate?
Isn’t that WHAT AN INVESTIGATION IS FOR?
Your refusal to address this pertinent question may be onbe of the reasons people suspect you are really a “troll.”
think, sir, today it is YOU who cant tolerate any facts that disagree with your already set in concrete world view.
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | August 07, 2007 at 01:08 PM
And what world would that be?
Do you really believe need PROOF inorder to investigate?
Isn’t that WHAT AN INVESTIGATION IS FOR?
Your refusal to address this pertinent question may be onbe of the reasons people suspect you are really a “troll.”
Posted by: JEP | August 07, 2007 at 01:12 PM
How many damn times to I have to anwer the fkng question? Very well, I will anser in all caps, maybe you will get the answer
YOU DO NOT NEED PROOF FOR AN INVESTIGATIO! THAT IS WHAT AN INVESTIGATION IS FOR> IMPEACHMENT IS NOT AN INVESTIGATION> IT IS A TRIAL ON CHARGES FOUND DURING AN INVESTIGATION!
IS that loud enough for you?
“No investigation necessary.”
Now that may be Plan B now, push this otwards a futile poltical conflict, amp-up the constitutional d=crisis talk, and maybe timne will run out on the opportunity to actually investigate.
Let me repeat, I could car less who gets punished, or even IF anyone is ever punished.
I just want to know the truth so it never happend again.
Let them have their trillion-dollar treansfer of wealth to the wealthy, let them retire to a sandy palm frond in Dubai, let them keep their bloody no-bid booty of American tax money.
But make them tell us the truth, so we can put some safeguards to prevent this kind of powewr-grab in the future.
Or is even that somehow unacceptable to our apologists?
If we let you heeroes off scot free, as long as they told us the whole story, would you be satisfied?
lj, I don’t mean to belabor this, but you have confused impeachment (the bringing of charges, which perforce requires an investigation, akin to a grand jury proceeding or, under the UCMJ, an Article 32 investigation) with the trial on the charges. Impeachment is not the trial; impeachment is the charging.
YOU DO NOT NEED PROOF FOR AN INVESTIGATIO! THAT IS WHAT AN INVESTIGATION IS FOR> IMPEACHMENT IS NOT AN INVESTIGATION> IT IS A TRIAL ON CHARGES FOUND DURING AN INVESTIGATION!
“IMPEACHMENT IS NOT AN INVESTIGATION”
bullshit…
When executive privilege precludes investigation, it is the only vehicle for discovery.
And discovery is, essentially, investigation…
And what do you call cross-examination, isn’t it, essentially, “investigation?”
You are parsing words here, but at least you admit we don’t need proof for investigation.
You should have left it at that, and maybe your troll creds might diminish.
So stop asking that stupid question “what crimes did they commit” it is starting tosound like a stuck record. We all want to know the answer to that question, but since we can’t investigate (prosecute) the investigators,(executive branch) we have few other options.
Here’s one of them, concerning the DOJ scandal…
this from NYTimes Op-Ed Contributor NEAL KATYAL”IN 1999, when the Independent Counsel Act (the law that gave Kenneth Starr and Lawrence Walsh their mandates) was expiring, I was given the job of writing the new Justice Department rules for the appointment of a special prosecutor since the department would once again be responsible for overseeing such investigations. There was one hypothetical to worry about once the Independent Counsel Act lapsed: a case in which the attorney general…(is)…suspected of possible misconduct. The rules were therefore written to vest the decision about whether to appoint a special prosecutor in the top Justice Department official not embroiled in the controversy. Today, the only way to get to the bottom of the United States attorney scandal — which involved the administration’s firing of nearly 10 percent of America’s top prosecutors — is to use these rules and appoint a special prosecutor.The nightmare has now come true.”http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/opinion/27katyal.html
JEP_
you are either a liar or a poor reader. Your post
Do you really believe need PROOF inorder to investigate?
Isn’t that WHAT AN INVESTIGATION IS FOR?
Your refusal to address this pertinent question may be onbe of the reasons people suspect you are really a “troll.”
Posted by: JEP | August 07, 2007 at 01:12 PM
Completelly ignores my answers, shown below, with timestamp
“investigate all you want. or all the COngress wants. Or get a special prosecutor to do it. I have no problem with that. If you come up with something, violaitons of actual statutes, then charge BUsh accordingly. But before you call for impeachment, you need a charge of a violation of a specific law. You have yet to give me one example.
Posted by: littlejohn | August 07, 2007 at 12:40 PM
“If we even suspect the President or Vice President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, shouldn’t we have the right to investigate?”
yes you should
“And if they abuse their executive privilege to supress that investigation, isn’t that our cue to investigate with powers above the President’s privilege?”
yes it is
Posted by: littlejohn | August 07, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Littlejohn, answer my question..
since when does a case have to be proven already to investigate it?
Posted by: JEP | August 07, 2007 at 12:55 PM
it doesn’t. I have said that over and over again. However, impeachment is not an investigation, it is a trial. One that must have specific charges. You called for impeachment. I asked what charge? Specifically.I have yet to get an answer.
Posted by: littljejohn | August 07, 2007 at 01:00 PM
lj, I don’t mean to belabor this, but you have confused impeachment (the bringing of charges, which perforce requires an investigation, akin to a grand jury proceeding or, under the UCMJ, an Article 32 investigation) with the trial on the charges. Impeachment is not the trial; impeachment is the charging.
Posted by: Vaughn Tolle | August 07, 2007 at 01:21 PM
Vaugn. You are correct. It is much like a grand jury hearing. However, it is not the investigation, out of which charges would be proferred to the house? Am I correct?
What saddens me the most about Bush and his cronies is not that they are in office, but that they were not only elected, but elected twice!
I think that says more about the American people than it does about anything else. Are the majority of us really that shortsighted? (rhetorical question, in case you voted for Bush)
Can marketing (and that IS why Bush won, and why most other candidates regardless of party affiliation win) really sway us so much that we decide that George W. Bush is the person out of the millions in our country that we choose to be our leader?
“Impeachment is not the trial; impeachment is the charging.”
Technically correct, The House does “the trial” and the Senate does “the charging”…
ANd everything leading up to the Senate’s part, all that is done in the house, beginning with the drawing up of the articles of impeachment, is the hearing (which I think can be accurately be described as “investigation” because it requires testimony from assorted individuals to clarify or certify what investigators have discovered, which constitutes an extension of the investigation.)
And once those articles of impeachment are drawn up by the House, no claim of executive privilege can impede the investigation?
Is that accurate?
So Jep-Which is it?
lj, the house votes on the “Bill of Impeachment”, which lists the charges the official is to be tried upon. The charges then are presented to the Senate, which holds the trial (presided over, in the case of the President, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court).
Vaugn Tolle-
Thank you for the clarification.
HA! Brian, funny you should mention this:
“Can marketing (and that IS why Bush won, and why most other candidates regardless of party affiliation win) really sway us so much that we decide that George W. Bush is the person out of the millions in our country that we choose to be our leader?”
I think the short answer is yes, according to this study.
http://www.hdnews.net/Story/kidsdiets080707
Everything tastes better when wrapped with McDonalds wrappers.
“investigate all you want. or all the COngress wants. Or get a special prosecutor to do it. I have no problem with that.”
Are you George Bush? Dick Cheney?
They sure seem to have a problem with it…
It’s easy to say “investigate all you want” when executive privilege abuses preclude that.
Which is why the articles of impeachment does not need to be spedific, they olny need to be vague enough to put on paper, as articles of impeachment, which would establish the suspension of executive privilege.
And that is all most of us are asking, that Bush and Cheney tell the truth…
“Can marketing (and that IS why Bush won, and why most other candidates regardless of party affiliation win) really sway us so much that we decide that George W. Bush is the person out of the millions in our country that we choose to be our leader?
Posted by: brian | August 07, 2007 at 01:34 PM
Yes, it seems to be true. Otherwise, they wouldn;t spend so much moneyon “marketing” would they?
littlejohn, here’s some from the Nixon articles that would apply quite well to this one..
1. making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
2. withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
3. approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
4. interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;
take your pick, if you can honestly tell us that Bush can not be INVESTIGATED for these crimes Nixon committed, you are a Bush apologists.
If you admit there is “evidence” that Bush or Cheney has committed any of these crimes, then stop arguing your “no crime here” red herring.
:::sigh::: So much strife over what’s apparently a misunderstanding over terminology.
JEP-You made a specific charge, that I refused to answer your questions about investigating charges against the President.
A lie, or just incorrect? You refuse to answer which.
And then you ask the rhetorical question “are you George Bush? Dick Cheney?”
Why not answer the question?
Then you post
“Which is why the articles of impeachment does not need to be spedific, they olny need to be vague enough to put on paper, as articles of impeachment”
That is incorrect. THe articles of impeachment are specific charges presented to the Senate for trial, as posted by Vaughn Tollethe house votes on the “Bill of Impeachment”, which lists the charges the official is to be tried upon. The charges then are presented to the Senate, which holds the trial (presided over, in the case of the President, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court).”
Posted by: Vaughn Tolle | August 07, 2007 at 01:38
”
“
And NOW do you see why we dont feed the trolls? .
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | August 07, 2007 at 01:00 PM
ksfarmgrrl, I support you on not feeding trolls – if a troll is someone interrupting the thread with something that does not pertain, is perverse, vulgar language, or if they are stealing your NIC.
But to stereotype anyone who disagrees with your, or your supposed allies views as a “troll” and cast them out as republicans or conservatives, or whatever label you want to call them is prejudice and only shows your fear.
When we disagree with a poster, maybe we should say,And NOW do you see why we dont feed the lesbians? .
JEP_
WHy do you keep posting lies!
“take your pick, if you can honestly tell us that Bush can not be INVESTIGATED for these crimes Nixon committed, you are a Bush apologists.”
You are obviously either a liar, or cannot read.
Lets clarify here…
1. making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;(mushroom clouds, WMD and serin gas?)
2. withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;(The list of Cheney’s Energy Industry Task Force co-conspirators, WH emails?)
3. approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;(Monica Goodling and Alvberto Gonzales’ tete a tete, or the Energy Industry Task Force Executives?)
4. interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, (the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force,) and Congressional Committees;(Libby trial, Iglesisas firing, etc)
ooooohhh, did I win this one?
If you admit there is “evidence” that Bush or Cheney has committed any of these crimes, then stop arguing your “no crime here” red herring.
Posted by: JEP | August 07, 2007 at 01:46 PM
I never said “no crime here” Prove I did. You have already oproven yourself a liar
Or are those just more lies?
JEP-
Which are you, a liar or one who cannot read?
Not once did I answer to any charge against Bush. You either cannot read, or choose not to.
“But to stereotype anyone who disagrees with your, or your supposed allies views as a “troll” and cast them out as republicans or conservatives, or whatever label you want to call them is prejudice and only shows your fear.”
Nice use of the “you dont tolerate anyone who disagrees with you” meme.
I called him a troll because he was picking an argument for no reason. He admitted he agreed with us and then went on to yank our chains anyway. THAT clogs up the thread and just makes the posts go ’round in circles.
You notice I’m not feeding him or that circular crap.
“When we disagree with a poster, maybe we should say,And NOW do you see why we dont feed the lesbians?.”
Nice mix of apples and oranges.
I never said “no crime here”
Like I said, subtle subterfuger.
That isn’t known as a troll on “the blogs” but if I tell you what the term is they use for subtle subterfugers, you will think I am being insulting…
The Newt Gingrich Republics demeaned the whole concept of impeachment when they went after Bill Clinton “just because they didn’t like him.”
All it takes is a majority vote in the House of Representatives to pass articles of impeachment. It might not be long that impeaching the President becomes one of those pro-forma votes like electing the Speaker of the House; the majority party, if different from the President’s, will automatically impeach.
As we learned with the Clinton impeachment, “high crimes and misdemeanors” constitute anything a majority vote in the House says they are. Impeachment is not a judicial action, but a political one. The only similarity between a judicial action is how the House of Representatives acts like a grand jury; the kind that could indict a ham sandwich.
Impeaching Shrub, while justifiable, is meaningless unless Cheney is removed from office first. Then Congress would be tied up with confirmation hearings over whomever Bush replaced him with. By that time, both parties’ 2008 nominees will be all but assured and the prospect of a 4-or-5-month caretaker President would be meaningless.
…and I have NO idea why JEP keeps feeding the trolls. Perhaps we should introduce him to the phrase “walk on by”.
“You have already oproven yourself a liar…”
Where?
JEP-
Can;t answer the question, can you? Liar.
kfg, to respond to the perhaps rhetorical question posed upthread, I, too, am old enough to recall the “Saturday Night Massacre”. I, too, recall the decision of SCOTUS in U.S. v. Nixon on executive privilege. Remember, that U.S. v. Nixon dealt with assertion of executive privilege in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation.
Hey, this was a very fruitful troll-feeding, that list of Nixon crimes with the Bush references was pretty neat, and it wouldn’t have happened without our troll.
I’m just trying to figure out how Nixon and Bush’s lies suddenly became my lies…
“Everything tastes better when wrapped with McDonalds wrappers.
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | August 07, 2007 at 01:40 PM”
Maybe McDonalds and the Federal Election Commission can co-sponsor some sort of peel-and-win contest for the next Presidency.
interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, (the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force,) and Congressional Committees;(Libby trial, Iglesisas firing, etc)
If I took the above literally, I could NEVER fire an Attorney General. They are always investigating someone.
Get Clinton back here! Can we still run him up and disk him? (again)
JEP-
Can;t answer the question, can you? Liar.
What question?
JEP_
Now I know. You can;t read. Thanks for the clarification
“take your pick, if you can honestly tell us that Bush can not be INVESTIGATED for these crimes Nixon committed, you are a Bush apologists.”
Key word, “IF.”
That left it in your court. If I had just said “You are a Bush apologist” you might be right…
But I gave you an out, instead you went to the accusation you imagined, not the question i intended…
Is this what is known as a proxy war?
Two pseudo nics carrying on an old grudge match?
Repeat the question…
farmgirl;
psuedonics?
Is that really you?
Nice mix of apples and oranges.
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | August 07, 2007 at 01:56 PM
It was a mix because you see your troll remarks differently. It appears to others besides myself that you use that term whenever you simply disagree, or as you say, someone continues to disagree and sometimes who add the lable “republican”.
So I’m trying to show you that it is discrimatory and makes people feel badly. Particularly when you use in unfairly (overuse). THen it becomes another waste posting back, “I am not a troll.”
JEP-
The question was:
Are you a liar, or are you just not able to read?
Wondering who’s who here…
“Are you a liar, or are you just not able to read?”
OK, that’s meaningful…
still waiting for an answer.
I’m done…
You certainly are. still waiting, by the way
You are NUTS. I frequently disagree with Tom, Steven, Captain, CF, Ben, et al. And NEVER have I called them trolls.
I tire of that meme. It is what WINGNUTS say when they have nothing else to say.
For the record, JEP has continually misrepresented my position. See my 1:29 post for a summary. Then, he continues with his 1:46 post about me quit using the “no crime here” . Something I did not do, Then he claims in his 1:59 post that somehow “Bush?Nison lies suddenly became his lies” Another lie, as I don;t see anyone saying that, another mispresentation, at 1:51 (i know, out of sequence, it once aain postulates about IF I think BUsh cannot be invetigate, another mispresentation of my position.
He can argue all points he wants, he cannot misrepresent my position.
LJ,
Who peed in your cheerios?
Solly, he’s been crazy since he came back. I still wonder what happened to the old lj and what was done with him…
Troll pee in your cheerios. Man that must suck. And day after day of it. Can you blame him for being pissy?
Gosh, what a productive discussion going on here.
But I’m convinced. Sounds like impeachment is the way to go. It’s on the Dem’s honor to do so since they say all of these crimes have supposedly occurred.
Let’s let America see what the left is really about. Americans may disagree with Bush on Iraq, but that doesn’t mean they all fell and hit their head and turned goofy. Wait ’til they get a real good look at the alternative.
And what is this, insult lj day? It looks to me, that he is just challenging the leftists here to back up their talk. They don’t like that, you know.
Impeachment doesn’t mean a thing without conviction, and that would require Senate republicans put the constitution before their dreams of one-party rule.
Not gonna happen.
Leftcoaster;”Impeachment doesn’t mean a thing without conviction,”
That is not the best perspective, remember that The Truth alone is worth knowing, whether retribution follows or not…
And that “all or nothing” attitude might just discourage lawmakers from seeking the truth…
No offense meant at all, I just think impeachment serves many more purposes than retribution, it also serves to shine a lot of light on all the little cockroaches…
It’s a waste of time and money, we just need to duck our heads and wait for this national nightmare to be over. In less than two years Bush and Cheney will be out and the country can concentrate on cleaning up this awful mess.
I disagree. If it can be proven that BUsh has committed impeachable offenses, then he should be impeached. Period. No whining by the opposition about time, the other side won;t go along with it. The Dems, who are claiming the high moral road, need to back up their rhetoric with action.
LJ, I am trying to make peace with you here, maybe I misjudged your post, but please consider these two statements of yours…
‘I asked what law specifically wsa broken, you get on my case”
“You have yet to give me one example.”
No I gave you 4 at 1:43, then qualified them at 1:51
I got on your case because you won’t respond to those 4 charges.
Tell me you don’t agree with them, but don’t just call me a liar for posting them…
Why no dialogue about that 1:51 post as yet?
If you had addressed that post, instead of calling me a liar for posting it, I might not have thought you a “troll.”
But you still have not addressed those 4 Nixon charges, that have valid applications to a Bush and/or Cheney impeachment, instead you took the argument to some personal level…
All you had to do was either dispute those 4 “charges” or agree with them, instead you have ignored them completely.
Unless I just missed your answer.
I am not trying to be adversarial, but it seems to me when you use phrases like “investigate all you want. or all the COngress wants. Or get a special prosecutor to do it.
I have no problem with that.
(I have no problem with that?)
If you come up with something, violaitons of actual statutes, (I did) then charge BUsh accordingly.
(OK I’ll go right out and do that)But before you call for impeachment, you need a charge of a violation of a specific law. You have yet to give me one example.”
I gave you 4…
Then you totally ignore the examples, and tellme I’m a liar.
I just wonder where you are going with your logic…
You seem quite animated that I questioned your motives. I may have misunderstood your objectives, call me wrong if that is the case, “I have no problem with that”
But I never called you a liar…
And, again I may be mistaklen, that “liar” post seems to be in lieu of an answer to my charges, you are much more concerned about how I address you personally than you are about the issue…
Sorry for offending you, I mean that. Especially if I was wrong.
GMC writes that “That assumes that firing US attorneys is itself illegal, even if for political reasons. It’s not. They do indeed serve at the pleasure of the president.”
Wait a minute, GMC. You’re saying that if the president tells a political appointee that “you must rob a bank at gunpoint or be fired,” and the appointee refuses to commit armed robbery, then yes indeed, the president has committed no crime and everything is just fine.
Nothing to see here.
You gotta be kidding me . . .
So if a college teacher asks a student (over 18) for sex, and that student refuses and the teacher gives the student an F, no law is broken because the teacher can give students any grade he/she wants to.
I guess my point really was, allalong, that there are clearly already numerous valid violations that don’t even need investigation, if Congress wanted to write up articles of Impeachment, they could…
Here’s the crux of our problem, my perception of your post was that you are saying, “Prove it” and when I try to, instead of addressing my proof, you engage in name calling.
So my perception is that you might be a Bush protectionist, and I just like before, I have posed the possibility, not the accusation of that, read carefully.
And the only option you provide to my being a liar is to accuse me of not being able to read, maybe you are the one who needs to read a bit deeper…
Okay Jep-
I did not argue for or against the Nixon charges that you would like to put on Bush. You are right, I did not address them.
The “liar” post came from you consistently misrepresenting my posiiton. See my 2:25 post for a summary. It had nothing to do with your charges against BUSH.I have reread your 4 reasons from the Nixon era at your 1:43 post. If you think they apply to Bush, then by all means, get your representative to start an investigation. Perhaps he can find specific events to which he can apply those 4 items. If he won;t either he knows they don;t apply, or he has no backbone. He certainly can;t take the high moral ground. If those charges can be substantiated, then Bush should not only be impeached, but removed from office. For articles of impeachment to be drafted, the charges have to be specific. Bush did THIS, in violation of THIS.Any congressman can introduce a bill to impeach (at least I think so), then an investigation, then the impeachment hearing.
If you did not intentionally misrepresent my posiition, then I accept your apology, and offer my own. I should not have reduced to namecalling.
When one serves at the pleasure of the President, the President indeed needs no reason at all to fire him/her. If there is a reason for the action, a political reason is as good as any.
The problem becomes assigning an arguably false reason for the action, when indeed no reason is needed.
Capn, if the President does indeed insist upon a political appointee to take an action which is unlawful, the appointee should resign, The reason for the resignation should be a matter of investigation by Congress, if it so desires, as then there might be grounds for considering a resolution for impeachment.
In the absence of applicable statutes or university policies, a professor who takes that stance has the right to so do. Not a good thing at all, but in a vacuum, the professor could take that action (which it is rumored, did happen on many a college campus in the past, but I’ve no links, etc., to substantiate the same).
“if the president tells a political appointee that “you must rob a bank at gunpoint or be fired,” and the appointee refuses to commit armed robbery, then yes indeed, the president has committed no crime and everything is just fine.”
And the crime is even more egregious if the President follows through with the “firing” threat, when the appointee refuses to obey…
Or lets one of his lackeys do it for him…
IT IS BAD ENOUGH THEY ENCOURAGED POLITICAL PROSECUTION ON THE EVE OF AN ELECTION (Schlotzman) but even worse they (Goodling and Sampson, aka Rove) fired Iglesias for refusing to do the same…
Oh, I’m sorry, THE PRESIDENT is the only one who can legally fire a DOJ atty, huh?
“For articles of impeachment to be drafted, the charges have to be specific.”
Again, I am suggesting that has already happened, and those charges especially the part about interfering in investigations, is no longer “non-specific.”
But as for the backbone of Congress, I posted earlier, until the Blue Dogs realize at primary time that their recent victories came from the center, not the right, that backbone will be mushy.
The Blue Dogs’ real opponents next time around won’t come from the Republicans, it will be from right-leaning centrists in their own party. They (bluedogs) missed a lot of very important cues, and they hamstrung Pelosi more than once…
The Republicans are growing more impotent every day. McCain knows it, too, and he’s giving them hell for it…
I think a few people need to read about impeachment a bit more before they discuss it. :)
You liberals STILL trying to come up with some mud on our President, the Honorable Mr. Bush?
HEHE HAHA
Some of you will be calling for impeachment in January of 2009.
Hope you are taking your Zantac, because all you are going to end up with is ULCERS!!
Come JEP, you have a lawyer family, all millionaires as I recall, and you can’t come up with any dirt that will stick?
HoHo HaHa HeHe
“You liberals STILL trying to come up with some mud on our President, the Honorable Mr. Bush?”
As far as I can see, we’re wading up to our necks in his mud.You’re kidding right?
“HoHo HaHa HeHe”
Are they coming to take you away?
Go ahead you Liberal Democrat Socialists, spend the next 6 months impeaching Bush! Y’all are good for nothing, but throwing stones anyway.
Show American what you CAN do.
You CAN impeach the President if you put your money where your mouths are.
You can IMMEDIATELY defund the war in Iraq, if you put your ACTION where your Dem Boy’s promises were.
MAKE MY DAY!
Ignore:
1. Pending Social Insecurity Fiscal Crisis.
2. Energy Independence for America.
3. You want National Healthcare, then DO IT NOW! (I don’t, but that’s the next thing on your damn Socialist agenda.
4. Illegal immigration – solve that! No, you don’t want to! The Mexicans will vote the SOCIALISTS WAY!
SCREW U DEMOCRAT SOCIALIST ROBBERS OF HARD WORKING AMERICAN TAXPAYERS MONEY!
WE AIN’T GONNA KEEP YOUR GRAVY TRAIN GOING FOREVER!
PUSH YOUR AGENDA NOW, the sooner the better.
The sooner you push your TRUE agenda, the sooner America will discover your true Big Brother Socialist Control Freak Agenda!
And then your party will be dead and gone – forever.
Your strategy though, is to disguise your true progression to Socialism, so you don’t dare move so fast, do you?
It isn’t going to happen.
Wake up.
No quit your Liberal Socialist Bitching, you have the Majority now so you can now stop Bitching and start taking Action.
NIKE baby. Just Frickin do it!
We’re tired of hearing your moaning and groaning, now get off your fat lazy liberal Government tit-sucking Socialist asses and DO something.
What in the hell are you waiting for?
Losing Fight!
Are ALL you Democrats LOSERS!?!
Yeah, Dems love to lose wars too. Course they own lose because they give up too soon.
Eg Korea (McArthur had it right, he would have whipped the Koreans, Chinese, and Russians, had Democratic President Truman not FIRED him!)Eg VietnamEg SomaliaEg Iraq
Max, you’ve gone completely Mad!
Madd Maxx!
Herron, you must be a Troll or something.
Mad, not me!
Pissed-off maybe.
Tired of the bitching for sure.
Call me what you want Max.
You’ll be crying in your beer when Bushy gets impeached.
Make my day Herron. I hope you and your Liberal Dem Whackos give it a try.
You will show your true colors while ignoring the issues America cares about the most.
“Yeah, Dems love to lose wars too. Course they own lose because they give up too soon.”
Excuse me?
FDR and Truman finished out WW2 pretty damn nicely . . . of course, the A BOMB helped, but let’s not get into that now.
The Republicans did a helluva good job on Grenada. Wow! That was one to make Chesty Puller proud . . .
Oh, yeah . . . and what did Reagan do after the suicide bomber blew up the Marine barracks in Lebanon?
Turned tail and ran all the home.
Yup, that showed ‘em who’s boss.
Friday 13 July 2007
Bill Moyers: Welcome to the Journal.
Impeachment…the word feared and loathed by every sitting president is back. It’s in the air and on your computer screen, a growing clamor aimed at both President Bush and Vice-President Cheney.
This week’s news only agitated the clamor. The president acknowledged that someone in his administration did leak the name of a CIA agent to the press, but he said let’s move on – even as he refused to let his former White House counsel testify to Congress about political influence at the Justice Department.
So the talk in Washington was of executive arrogance. All the more so as the Democratic House voted to withdraw US troops from Iraq by next spring despite a threat of veto by President Bush. A public opinion poll from the American Research Group reports that more than four in ten Americans – 45 per cent-favor impeachment hearings for President Bush and more than half -54 per cent – favor putting Vice President Cheney in the dock.
Are these the first tremors of a major shock wave…or just much ado about nothing? First, let’s take a look at the last time a president found himself fighting off an impeachment campaign. It happened less than a dozen years ago. And what was the issue:
President Bill Clinton: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky…
Bill Moyers: But he did. And even after that denial in early 1998, President Clinton lied again seven months later – this time under oath to a federal grand jury. But that very evening he had a change of heart.
President Bill Clinton: “Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong….I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that.”
Bill Moyers: For one powerful Republican member of Congress, an apology wasn’t enough. Tom Delay, then the majority whip of the House, convinced speaker Newt Gingrich and Republican leaders that Clinton’s lie called for nothing less than removing the president from office – impeachment. Special prosecutor Kenneth Starr was commissioned to gather the evidence. Starr eventually sent 36 boxes of evidence to the capitol. They catalogued his investigation of Clinton’s finances, a sexual harassment suit filed by Paula Jones and sting operations mounted by the prosecutor to uncover the details of the Lewinsky affair. Nearly 500 pages summarizing the report were quickly posted on the internet. For the next month, the house judiciary committee waded through the report. What the case meant depended largely on party affiliation. Democrats insisted it all came down to lying about sex.
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL): The president betrayed his wife …he did not betray his country
Bill Moyers: Republicans, who controlled the House, argued it was about something more important.
Rep. Bill McCollum (R-FL): Truthfullness is the glue that holds our justice system together
Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA): With his conduct and his arrogance…William Jefferson Clinton has thrown a gauntlet at the feet of the Congress.
Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-MI): This is not Watergate. This is an extramarital affair.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI): Even the president of the United States does not have the license to lie.
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL): Wake up, America, they are about to impeach our president.
Bill Moyers: on october 5, 1998, the house judiciary committee authorized a full impeachment inquiry……only the third u.s. president in history to be seriously threatened with removal from office. The constitution says a president may be impeached for “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. Experts were called to interpret those words:
Leon Higginbotham Jr., Former US Appeals Court Judge: There has never been, never been an impeachment proceeding on this miniscule level…
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., University of New York: All the independent counsel’s charges thus far derive from the president’s lies about his sex life. His attempts to hide personal misbehavior are certainly disgraceful. But if they are to be deemed impeachable, then we reject the standards laid down by the framers in the Constitution and trivialize the process of impeachment.
Prof. Alan Dershowitz, Harvard University: The only reason the majority of this committee cares about perjury is because they believe that President Clinton, their political opponent, is guilty of it.
Bill Moyers: The House Judiciary listened…and then drafted two articles of impeachment accusing Clinton of perjury…a third accusing him of obstruction of justice and yet a fourth, of making false statements. A week later, December 19, 1998, the full House met to consider the articles. They approved two of them…one for perjury…another for obstruction of justice. Republican leaders called for Clinton to resign. He didn’t, and now it was the Senate’s constitutional task to conduct the impeachment trial ordered by the House. The Senators met behind closed doors …and on Friday, February 12, 1999, the verdict was delivered to the chief justice of the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist: Is not guilty as charged in the second article of impeachment.
President Clinton: I want to say again to the American people how profoundly sorry I am for what I said and did to trigger these events and the great burden they have imposed on the Congress and on the American people.
Bill Moyers: One of the fellows you’re about to meet wrote the first article of impeachment against President Clinton. Bruce Fein did so because perjury is a legal crime. And Fein believed no one is above the law. A constitutional scholar, Bruce Fein served in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration and as general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission. Bruce Fein has been affiliated with conservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation and now writes a weekly column for THE WASHINGTON TIMES and Politico.com.
He’s joined by John Nichols, the Washington correspondent for THE NATION and an associate editor of the CAPITOL TIMES. Among his many books is this most recent one, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: THE FOUNDERS’ CURE FOR ROYALISM. Good to see you both. Bruce, you wrote that article of impeachment against Bill Clinton. Why did you think he should be impeached?
Bill Moyers: Bruce you wrote that article of impeachment against Bill Clinton. Why did you think he should be impeached?
Bruce Fein: I think he was setting a precedent that placed the president above the law. I did not believe that the initial perjury or misstatements – that came perhaps in a moment of embarrassment stemming from the Paula Jones lawsuit was justified impeachment if he apologized. Even his second perjury before the grand jury when Ken Starr’s staff was questioning him, as long as he expressed repentance, would not have set an example of saying every man, if you’re president, is entitled to be a law unto himself. I think Bush’s crimes are a little bit different. I think they’re a little bit more worrisome than Clinton’s. You don’t have to have -
Bill Moyers: More worrisome?
Bruce Fein: More worrisome than Clinton’s – because he is seeking
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/071407B.shtml