Raising the "I" word

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Could Bush be impeached? Should he be?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041100879.html

[poseidon]

AuntieEmma said

Could Bush be impeached? Should he be?

Impeachment is nothing more than an indictment. So, yes, Bush could be impeached. As we saw with Clinton, impeachment really means nothing without removal.

Should he be impeached? Not even close.

[rmthunter]

I couldn't agree with you less, Jeff, in terms of strict legality. Should he be in terms of traumatizing the country? Moot question. Thinking of Dick Cheney as President (at least until he's indicted) traumatizes me.

Will he be? Of course not -- at least, not until after the mid-term elections.

[realtraveller]

poseidon said

Impeachment is nothing more than an indictment. So, yes, Bush could be impeached. As we saw with Clinton, impeachment really means nothing without removal.

Should he be impeached? Not even close.

Agreed. Lying under oath is known to everyone to be a crime.

In this case, we've got law professors and judges like Richard Posner saying that no laws were broken. There are executive orders from Carter and Clinton also ordering warrantless searches. Clinton ordered a search of the traitor Aldrich Ames' home without any warrant.

I don't even think they'll be any political damage. If I see a poll on this issue, I'll post it.

[rmthunter]

I'll try to dig up the links, but I saw something this morning that brought up both Clinton's and Carter's "warrantless" spying, and both orders stipulated that the searches must conform to the requirements of the statute, which in this case is FISA, which does stipulate that warrants are required. Surveillance can begin without the warrants, but the paperwork must be submitted to the court within 72 hours.

[rmthunter]

Found the link. It's at Tbogg.

http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2005/12/lo...of-john-h.html

[theworm[$]]

I'm just shocked that there was such an uproar in the news and amongst people over a blue dress and a cigar and that there isn't now. I'm not saying, at this time, that the man should be removed from office for this, but I sure as heck would like to see an investigation. Kenneth Star spent how much money with Clinton's indiscretions. This is a lot bigger, IMO.

[realtraveller]

What Clinton did was a knowing and willful violation of the laws against perjury..statutes that everyone who watches Law and Order knows (much less a former law professor).

What Bush did is supported as legal and lawful by opinions by his own Attorney General, by former Justice Department lawyers, by law professors and judges (who've written articles just in the past few days).

Clinton lied out of personal greed to avoid paying a judgement to Paula Jones, and out of personal embarrassment.

Bush's lawful actions were done to protect the nation from terrorism. Even the Pelosi's and Dean's of the world aren't making any allegations that the so-called domestic spying was done for political dirty tricks or to get back at political enemies.

[erik_kosberg]

realtraveller said

Even the Pelosi's and Dean's of the world aren't making any allegations that the so-called domestic spying was done for political dirty tricks or to get back at political enemies.

Illegally exposing the name of a covert CIA agent was however clearly done for political dirty tricks and to get back at political enemies.

Impeachment should happen right now. Unfortunately there are way too many spineless people in Congress so we'll probably have to wait until after the mid-term elections.

So-called?

[realtraveller]

erik_kosberg said

Illegally exposing the name of a covert CIA agent was however clearly done for political dirty tricks and to get back at political enemies.

Impeachment should happen right now. Unfortunately there are way too many spineless people in Congress so we'll probably have to wait until after the mid-term elections.

So-called?

So impeach Scooter Libby?

[erik_kosberg]

I'm sorry, but if you think the leak was limited to Scooter Libby and didn't go all the way to the Oval Office, you're terribly naïve.

[realtraveller]

And what about the leakers of the information on the NSA to the New York Times? I'm sure in the interests of "equal justice for all" and no discrimination in prosecutions for the same crime, you'd also call for a special prosecutor to investigate and bring to justice those who violated federal laws in leaking that information.

Uh, yeah, just what I thought.

[erik_kosberg]

Sure, go ahead. Hell, it would probably have the side benefit of forcing some very senior administration folks to testify under oath. Fine by me.

[realtraveller]

For all we know the leaker of the NSA information had a personal ax to grind against the administration or (get out my tin foil hat) the leaker could be an Al-Qaeda plant within the CIA. Heh, there have been Soviet and Israeli spies within the government.

In any event the same sort of investigation and prosecution should be begun as in the Plame matter.

[brian_igo]

realtraveller said

Bush's lawful actions were done to protect the nation from terrorism.

Then why not use the FISA courts? If these people had the clear ties to al Qaeda that Bush, Rice and Gonzales have claimed, then they would have had no problem showing probable cause to FISA and getting a warrant - or going to FISA after ordering the tap if it was an emergency.

And lawful? What Bush did clearly violated the FISA statutes, that is beyond question. The claim that the authorization to use military force issued by Congress after 9/11 authorized Bush to circumvent the FISA is laughable. Not only did the Supremes rule in the Youngstown case during the Korean War that a state of war did not give the president the power to usurp the law, the courts ruled in 2004 in Hamden that the president could not imprison US citizens without trial even if the government alleged that they were connected to al Qaeda.

I am not comforted by the administration's claims when we learn in the same week that the government has targeted Quaker congregations, anti-poverty groups, Greenpeace and a group of vegetarians in Indianapolis as potential terror threats.

[rmthunter]

realtraveller said

What Bush did is supported as legal and lawful by opinions by his own Attorney General, by former Justice Department lawyers, by law professors and judges (who've written articles just in the past few days).

This would be Alberto Gonzales, also known as "Torture-R-Us"?

Clinton lied out of personal greed to avoid paying a judgement to Paula Jones, and out of personal embarrassment.

And this is relevant to illegal wiretaps exactly how?

Bush's lawful actions were done to protect the nation from terrorism. Even the Pelosi's and Dean's of the world aren't making any allegations that the so-called domestic spying was done for political dirty tricks or to get back at political enemies.

No, it's probably just another example of an incompetent administration overreaching itself in its quest for absolute power. They get back at political enemies by smearing them.

[realtraveller]

realtraveller said

Agreed. Lying under oath is known to everyone to be a crime.

In this case, we've got law professors and judges like Richard Posner saying that no laws were broken. There are executive orders from Carter and Clinton also ordering warrantless searches. Clinton ordered a search of the traitor Aldrich Ames' home without any warrant.

I don't even think they'll be any political damage. If I see a poll on this issue, I'll post it.

Here it is. Rasmussen Reports that 64% believe the NSA should be doing what it's doing. That doesn't add up tol political damage.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm

[erik_kosberg]

realtraveller said

Rasmussen Reports that 64% believe the NSA should be doing what it's doing.

No, that's NOT what they report.

Rasmussen said

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States.

Notice that the phrase "without warrants" is nowhere in that sentence?

[erik_kosberg]

Crooks and Liars says it more plainly than I do:

When certain wingnuts are down, they have to leave out what's most important to the argument.

And furthurmore, “New domestic spying poll numbers are very bad for Bush’

[rmthunter]

realtraveller said

Here it is. Rasmussen Reports that 64% believe the NSA should be doing what it's doing. That doesn't add up tol political damage.

60-odd percent believe creationism in some form should be taught in science classes.

That doesn't make it science.

[realtraveller]

Presumably, the 68% of people who say they are following the story closely or somewhat closely know about the lack of warrants.

[erik_kosberg]

All that we can know is that it was a lousy, poorly-worded poll. We can presume that Bush supporters will rationalize it as nebulous support for Dubya's criminal activity.