“Bush Authorized Domestic Spying”

[erik_kosberg]

"Comey Details White House Attempt to Force Approval of Secret Program"

Wow.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

he was on his way home when he got a call from Ashcroft's wife that Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card were on their way to the hospital*. Comey then rushed to the hospital (sirens blaring) to beat them there and thwart "an effort to overrule me."

After Comey arrived at the hospital with a group of senior Justice Department officials, Gonzales and Card arrived and walked up to Ashcroft, who was lying barely conscious on his hospital bed.

This would make a good movie.

[erik_kosberg]

Steve Benen said

I never thought I’d say it, but Gonzales has managed to make Ashcroft look like a man of integrity and principle.

Sad, but true. Of course, Gonzales has should really read Gonzales, Bush and Rove have.

[erik_kosberg]

"The overarching point here, as always, is that it is simply crystal clear that the President consciously and deliberately violated the law and committed multiple felonies by eavesdropping on Americans in violation of the law."

Would someone please try to explain why Bush shouldn't be impeached and convicted right now?

[erik_kosberg]

"Trust the Washington press corps to lunge for the process story, and ignore the substance."

[rmthunter]

erik_kosberg said

"Trust the Washington press corps to lunge for the process story, and ignore the substance."

It's all about John Edwards' haircut. Solve that and you've fixed everything.

[erik_kosberg]

"Gonzales to stick with false statement on warrantless wiretap program."

Well, duh, if you're going to commit perjury and lie under oath, you might as well stick to it. Isn't that after all the job of the nation's highest law enforcement officer?

[erik_kosberg]

The President's Secret Program: A Timeline

It wasn't illegal because it had to be; it was illegal because the White House believed itself above the law.

[drmomentum[$]]

I was amused by Powerline blog yesterday talking about the emergency visit to wake Ashcroft from his hospital-administered drug stupor.

Powerline deftly cast Ashcroft as a hero in the story for refusing to sign off on the program the president wanted (shows integrity). However, the post deftly skips around the idea of anyone possibly that there were any villains.


Rushing in to wake the hospitalized and drugged AG so that he can override the acting AG's decision? Yeah, that's not odd.

[erik_kosberg]

‘I’m not going to talk about it’

Yeah, but others will. Blowback's a bitch.

[erik_kosberg]

"Under FISA, spying on American citizens on American soil without a warrant is a felony. President Bush has been caught red-handed violating that law, and has even admitted as much. If there are no longer consequences for breaking the law, what has our country become?"

[erik_kosberg]

"If the president’s allies are going to offer a defense for what transpired, they’ll have to do far better than this nonsense."

[erik_kosberg]

Was Gonzales' Emergency Visit Illegal?

No doubt, the Justice Department will have Gonzales arrested for this. No doubt.

[erik_kosberg]

Giving the ‘old’ law another look

Impeachment now. Start with Cheney. Let Bush nominate a new veep so that Republicans don't have to deal with a President Pelosi. Then impeach Bush. Just do it.

[erik_kosberg]

"I have seen a proposal for a worse way and that's what the president did with the NSA program."

[erik_kosberg]

Kermit the Frog has no standing.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

erik_kosberg said

Impeachment now.

Bill Moyers did a show on impeachment Friday night. One of his guests was from The Nation and said pretty much what you would expect someone from The Nation to say. The other guest, Bruce Fein, who I hadn't heard of before, was from the American Enterprise Institute and had drafted one of the articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton. I thought the two of them were there to argue with each other, to present the pro- and anti-impeachment views -- but that wasn't it at all. They were both arguing for impeachment and Fein, the conservative guy was, if anything, even stronger in his views that Bush must be impeached if our checks-and-balances form of government is to survive.

I had been on the fence -- actually, pretty much agreeing with Nancy Pelosi that there's no point in pushing impeachment because it wouldn't work and because Bush/Cheney are on their way out the door anyway -- but after seeing this program, I changed my mind. Fein was very convincing:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

[drmomentum[$]]

I wish impeachment would actually accomplish something. But I doubt it.

I think it might have, had the louder calls for it come earlier, or had we just not put Bush back in office.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

To this day, I don't understand why people voted to put Bush back into office.

But, that aside, this is what impeachment could accomplish:

1. Be a reminder that in the U.S. we don't have a king. We have a government that serves the people, not the other way around.

2. Be a reminder that we are not helpless victims of the administration, that we CAN do something about it.

3. Be a reminder that in our system, no one is above the law.

4. Trim back the power of the presidency to its original size. If we don't do this, Bush will be passing on to his successor a presidency with greatly inflated powers. Human nature being what it is, no matter who Bush's successor is, he or she will be unlikely to want to trim back his/her own powers. The way to do that is to do it NOW, before the inflated powers of the position get passed on to the next person -- and the person after that, and the next one after that, etc. in what will become a permanent change to the structure of American government.

On the Moyers show, they were talking about how the current situation is exactly the kind of situation that the framers anticipated, and such a situation is the reason that the framers emphasized the importance of impeachment as much as they did.

I would urge you to watch it, or take a look at the transcript, if you get a chance:

Bill Moyers Journal . Tough Talk on Impeachment | PBS

[drmomentum[$]]

I'll definitely try to catch it, but I do disagree with your list.

1 & 2 would be compelling if we didn't have term limits. But we do. So this king is on his way out already.

3: It's been years we've tried to convince people that Bush has broken the law, and only now are we able to get people to accept he's a lousy president. The only way Bush is going to be subject to the law is if the Republicans decide to show they're not the party of corruption. As a whole, I won't hold my breath on that. There's a chance that getting closer to the election they'll turn on him more, but it's not apparent at the moment. I expect it will happen when it is politically expedient (after the primaries) and when it's far too late.

4: Maybe we should elect someone who we can trust to do that.

I agree with 4, but gee - such a surprise hearing this argument now.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

If you look at what's at stake here as something extending beyond the current administration, then I think the arguments in favor of impeachment start to look a lot more powerful.

While it's true that THIS would-be-king is on his way out, impeachment is a much more emphatic statement against would-be-kings, present and future, then simply waiting passively for Bush to leave. Someone trying to become king is SO offensive to our whole way of government that it requires a stronger response then simply patience.

As for your #4, that we should elect someone we could trust to trim back the Bush-inflated presidential powers back to their original shape and size -- a major premise of the Constitution is that we SHOULDN'T rely on individuals to curb their own power. That's what all the checks-and-balances -- and procedures like impeachment -- are about. You need that kind of machinery to regulate/limit power, becaues you can't rely on people to limit it themselves, not all the time, and you shouldn't have to.

[drmomentum[$]]

Well, you don't have to twist my arm very hard. But it's the Republicans that will have to be convinced. If there were a substantial appetite for even censure in the GOP, the Democrats opposed to impeachment would probably tip over.

And if they didn't, you'd have to figure they are afraid of political backlash. As it is, they're still trying to solve the Iraq problem that has their popularity so low. Though I would argue that Congress is never all that popular anyhow.