I want to thank Debra Law for clarifying the issue concerning Bill Clinton's impeachment when she wrote--
Clinton was impeached in accordance with the Constitution that makes the president liable to impeachment for "treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors." The accusations simply were not proven at trial to the satisfaction of the requisite number of senators.
Clinton escaped removal from office because those prosecuting him for impeachable offenses failed to prove their case. The failure of proof does not magically transform the charges against him into non-impeachable offenses.
Do you understand?
And, I really must add--The impeachment of Clinton would have been far far more difficult, if not impossible, if the Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee had been in the hands of a Democrat.
Alas, when President Clinton and his wife fumbled away his first term and the Republicans took the House and the Senate for the first time in decades, he made it much easier for impeachment charges to be levied.
Accordingly, as long as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee is a Republican and in the absence of any issue which is , prima facie, a felony or misdeameanor on the part of the president. the cries of "impeach him"from the few on the far left will have no effect.
That is one of the reasons why the elections in November will be so critical.
I want to thank Debra Law for clarifying the issue concerning Bill Clinton's impeachment when she wrote--
Clinton was impeached in accordance with the Constitution that makes the president liable to impeachment for "treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors." The accusations simply were not proven at trial to the satisfaction of the requisite number of senators.
Clinton escaped removal from office because those prosecuting him for impeachable offenses failed to prove their case. The failure of proof does not magically transform the charges against him into non-impeachable offenses.
Do you understand?
end of quote
And, I really must add--The impeachment of Clinton would have been far far more difficult, if not impossible, if the Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee had been in the hands of a Democrat.
Alas, when President Clinton and his wife fumbled away his first term and the Republicans took the House and the Senate for the first time in decades, he made it much easier for impeachment charges to be levied.
Accordingly, as long as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee is a Republican and in the absence of any issue which is , prima facie, a felony or misdeameanor on the part of the president. the cries of "impeach him"from the few on the far left will have no effect.
That is one of the reasons why the elections in November will be so critical.
And I really must add the testimony of the former Attorney General who served under President Clinton with regard to the FISA controversy. A careful reading of the essay below reveals that only adjudication in an appropriate court will solve the dilemma.
********************
John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. He is now a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw.
President had legal authority to OK taps
By John Schmidt
Published December 21, 2005 //// Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune
President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.
The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.
In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.
In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."
The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.
But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."
Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
FISA contains a provision making it illegal to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The term "electronic surveillance" is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person" (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by "intentionally targeting that United States person." The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act's prohibition on electronic surveillance.
The administration has offered the further defense that FISA's reference to surveillance "authorized by statute" is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action.
But even if the NSA activity is "electronic surveillance" and the Sept. 11 resolution is not "statutory authorization" within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, "encroach upon the president's constitutional power."
FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment.
Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose.
But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.
I think this article will interest Debra:
Retired Supreme Court Justice O'Connor Hits Attacks On Courts
Raw Story, Sunday, March 12, 2006
Supreme Court justices keep many opinions private but Sandra Day O¹Connor no longer faces that
obligation. Yesterday, the retired justice criticized Republicans who criticized the courts.
She said they challenge the independence of judges and the freedoms of all Americans. O¹Connor¹s
speech at Georgetown University was not available for broadcast but NPR's legal affairs
correspondent Nina Totenberg was there.
Nina Totenberg: In an unusually forceful and forthright speech, O¹Connor said that attacks on the
judiciary by some Republican leaders pose a direct threat to our constitutional freedoms. O¹Connor
began by conceding that courts do have the power to make presidents or the Congress or
governors, as she put it "really, really angry."
But, she continued, if we don¹t make them mad some of the time we probably aren¹t doing our jobs
as judges, and our effectiveness, she said, is premised on the notion that we won¹t be subject to
retaliation for our judicial acts. The nation¹s founders wrote repeatedly, she said, that without an
independent judiciary to protect individual rights from the other branches of government those rights
and privileges would amount to nothing.
But, said O¹Connor, as the founding fathers knew statutes and constitutions don¹t protect judicial
independence, people do. And then she took aim at former House GOP leader Tom DeLay.
She didn¹t name him, but she quoted his attacks on the courts at a meeting of the conservative
Christian group Justice Sunday last year when DeLay took out after the courts for rulings on
abortions, prayer and the Terri Schiavo case. This, said O'Connor, was after the federal courts had
applied Congress¹ onetime only statute about Schiavo as it was written.
Not, said O'Connor, as the congressman might have wished it were written. This response to this
flagrant display of judicial restraint, said O¹Connor, her voice dripping with sarcasm, was that the
congressman blasted the courts.
It gets worse, she said, noting that death threats against judges are increasing. It doesn¹t help, she
said, when a high-profile senator suggests there may be a connection between violence against
judges and decisions that the senator disagrees with. She didn¹t name him, but it was Texas senator
John Cornyn who made that statement, after a Georgia judge was murdered in the courtroom and
the family of a federal judge in Illinois murdered in the judge¹s home.
O¹Connor observed that there have been a lot of suggestions lately for so-called judicial reforms,
recommendations for the massive impeachment of judges, stripping the courts of jurisdiction and
cutting judicial budgets to punish offending judges. Any of these might be debatable, she said, as
long as they are not retaliation for decisions that political leaders disagree with. I, said O¹Connor,
am against judicial reforms driven by nakedly partisan reasoning.
Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and former communist countries where
interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, O¹Connor said we
must be ever-vigilant against those who would strongarm the judiciary into adopting their preferred
policies.
It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, she said, but we should avoid
these ends by avoiding these beginnings.
------------------------------------------
Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington.
I agree with Justice O'Connor. No one should criticize the courts--especially the USSC.Now that Judge Roberts and Judge Alito has been added, the courts should be allowed to do thier job.
The recent 8-0 decision to compel Universities and Colleges to admit Recruiters for the Military on to the campus if the colleges wish to retain Federal monies is a step in the right direction.
If you google impeach and bush, you get 6,700,000 search hits.
Bid to give Bush the boot
Quote:WASHINGTON—When the townsfolk gathered in the tiny Vermont community of Newfane for their annual meeting, the agenda was daunting.
There was the town budget to be approved, then the school budget, plus they needed to approve spending $50,000 on the town's property reappraisal.
And, oh yeah. Move to impeach the president of the United States.
And so, at the end of a five-hour meeting, the assembled were asked to consider:
"Whereas George W. Bush has:
"1. Misled the nation about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction;
"2. Misled the nation about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda;
"3. Used these falsehoods to lead our nation into war unsupported by international law;
"4. Not told the truth about American policy with respect to the use of torture; and
"5. Directed the government to engage in domestic spying, in direct contravention of U.S. law;
"Therefore, the voters of the town of Newfane ask that our representative to the U.S. House of Representatives file articles of impeachment to remove him from office."
All in favour?: 129. All opposed?: 21. Meeting adjourned.
For a president on the run, cratering at record-low approval ratings, losing battles with Republicans who are beginning to consider him toxic, seemingly having lost his political stride like an aging slugger who can't catch up to the fastball, impeachment is likely the least of his worries.
More worrisome for Bush is the perception he is so insulated during this second term that he has lost touch with the concerns of the nation, that he is still surrounded by the same top aides in notorious "burnout'' positions who came to power with him five years ago, that the "trust me" president has squandered that trust.
But as a barometer of discontent with the second-term Bush presidency in a mid-term election year, the fact that impeachment has moved from angry bumper stickers to dinner party discussion is telling.
Democrats in Congress, probably quite wisely, won't touch the question.
Michigan's John Conyers introduced a resolution last December requesting an impeachment inquiry to deal with Bush's "manipulation" of pre-war intelligence, but only 26 of 201 House Democrats backed him.
But that hasn't stopped others.
ImpeachPAC.org has endorsed and raised funds for three Democrats who vow to push for impeachment if elected in November's mid-terms.
The organization, led by Democrat Bob Fertik is an offshoot of AfterDowningStreet.org, founded by David Swanson, a former reporter and press secretary who tried to mobilize opposition to Bush after the release of internal memos from the Tony Blair government indicated the White House was intent on crafting the conditions for an invasion of Iraq.
Newfane is one of nine U.S. communities, all in Vermont and California, to pass impeachment resolutions, the largest of which was San Francisco where city supervisors voted 7-3 for impeachment, saying Bush has destroyed civil liberties in his wiretapping program, and failed miserably in his response to Hurricane Katrina.
Lewis Lapham, the outgoing editor of Harper's magazine and one of the country's most outspoken Bush critics, makes the case for impeachment in the March issue of his magazine.
It includes this indictment:
"We have before us in the White House a thief who steals the country's good name and reputation for his private interest and personal use; a liar who seeks to instil in the American people a state of fear; a televangelist who engages the United States in a never-ending crusade against all the world's evil; a wastrel who squanders a vast sum of the nation's wealth on what turns out to be a recruiting drive certain to multiply the host of our enemies.
"In a word, a criminal — known to be armed and shown to be dangerous."
Dan DeWalt, the 49-year-old Vermont woodworking teacher, furniture restorer and musician who introduced the Newfane resolution, says he wants to make impeachment a household word. . . .
The "trust me" president has proven to be untrustworthy and his tiresome rhetoric isn't working anymore . . . at least it isn't working on those Americans that still own a few brain cells.
That is the worrisome question of our times; what has happened to the American brain cells?
Re: BBB
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:As much as I despise Bushco, I favor doing what is best for the country's Common Good. That would mean voting the rascals out of office rather than impeachment. Pay back thinking would not be a good idea.
Both Bush and Cheney would have to be impeached and you still would have the Speaker of the House as president.
I'd rather clean house in the 2006 election.
BBB
I disagree with you on this one BumbleBee,
These guys have committed serious crimes. They should be removed from office and proceedings started to charge them with an assorment of crimes. There are war crimes being committed and in case anyone missed it, Bush confessed to breaking at least one law and basically told the world to ffffff off because he was going to keep on doing it.
Bush, Cheney, & most of his cabinet as well as other associates obviously think they are above the law and they continue to act accordingly. Some of it can be chalked up to incompetence, at least on the part of Bush, but when the AG speaks in support of criminal activity, then something is seriously wrong.
It is a darn shame that the people of this country don't look beyond the Dubai Port deal and demand to know exactly what is going on. If they did most in the top positions of government would be gone.
And we have a VP who should be in prison for shooting a guy & covering up.
mele42846 wrote:I agree with Justice O'Connor. No one should criticize the courts--especially the USSC.Now that Judge Roberts and Judge Alito has been added, the courts should be allowed to do thier job.
The recent 8-0 decision to compel Universities and Colleges to admit Recruiters for the Military on to the campus if the colleges wish to retain Federal monies is a step in the right direction.
I do wish you would show us where former Justice O'Conner said what you credit to her.
The closest thing I can get out of that article is, "O'Connor said that attacks on the judiciary by some Republican leaders pose a direct threat to our constitutional freedoms."
I think there is a world of difference in what you say and in what O'Conner said, if this is what you were talking about.
With that said, the Republicans have made it abundantly clear that they were trying to stack the courts with yes men for George Bush & other rabid right types. I seem to recall reading that one of the religious nut cases, (maybe someone else will remember who & what) had even applauded the murderer who shot one judge. Many judges have body guards because of the religious fanatic, anti-abortion gang and their threats.
In any case the Republican attack on judges has been vicious & many look at that as a direct threat to any judge who does not rule as the rabid right demands.
Nowhere have I ever seen a comment from Sandra Day O'Conner saying that courts should not be criticized. I do believe that she said the courts & the judges should not be threatened and she mentions Tom Delay and his 'rabid, foaming at the mouth, so-called' (my words) Christian groups as being part of that threat.
For Justice O'Conner to say that there should be no criticism of the courts would be as asinine as the hogwash that anyone who criticizes Bush is not patriotic.
Surely you must have learned a little bit in History class. This country was built on dissent. What do you think the Boston Tea Party was? A tea party?? Or the Revolutionary War? A board game?
Those events came about because of the criticism of another tyrant also named George.
Perhaps you think we should not have criticized him either?
Maggs, All good points - as usual. The righties would have us lay down and accept all the BS they have pushed on us - including a president Bush that has broken the FISA laws. They don't want dissent; to destroy this country once and for all.
Debra_Law wrote:oralloy wrote:Debra_Law wrote:Impeachment proceedings were indeed brought against Bill Clinton and he was tried.
And had he been tried using the broad definition of high misdemeanor that you propose using for Bush, he would have been removed from office.
I don't consider it fair play to use a different meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors" for Republicans than are used for Democrats.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Clinton was impeached in accordance with the Constitution that makes the president liable to impeachment for "treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors." The accusations simply were not proven at trial to the satisfaction of the requisite number of senators.
Clinton escaped removal from office because those prosecuting him for impeachable offenses failed to prove their case. The failure of proof does not magically transform the charges against him into non-impeachable offenses.
Do you understand?
The proof that Clinton lied under oath was overwhelming. There was DNA evidence.
Debra_Law wrote:oralloy wrote:Debra_Law wrote:The goal of crime prevention does not justify turning our executive branch officials and law enforcement officers into law breakers themselves. Your rationalization is absurd.
I think preventing al-Qa'ida attacks is a bit more serious than mere crime prevention.
What is absurd about pointing out that all Bush is doing here is trying to protect us from Osama?
Millions of people in this country are victims of murder or violent crimes every year. Millions of people in this country die from cancer and other diseases every year. The losses we suffered on 9/11/2001 pale in comparison. If you're going to tremble in fear and throw away our constitutionally-protected rights for an ounce of illusory protection from a handful of criminals, then you're a coward and you deserve to wear the chains of oppression.
This is why it is important to leave the Republicans in charge until the Democrats learn to take the al-Qa'ida threat seriously.
oralloy
It's fruitless to argue with the whackadoodles. They believe Clinton is, was and always will be a saint, the factuals be damned.
Sturgis.. Since you like facts so much...
Cite the perjury and show why it is perjury. Lying isn't a crime. Clinton wasn't impeached for lying. He was impeached for perjury.
Perjury requires 3 parts.
1. The statement must be material
2. The statement must be cited and shown to be factually untrue. The question and statement can't be ambiguous.
3. You must show intent to lie in the statement.
What is pointless is asking someone blindly convinced of Clinton's crimes to meet the evidentiary standards of perjury. But I will try again. (No one has yet been able to answer this one for me. Are you capable of it Sturgis? I am guessing you can't get much farther than calling people that don't agree with you names.)
Based on the questions and Clinton's statements there is a certain vagueness and ambiguity. That makes it impossible to prove perjury.
If you want to compare the Clinton obstruction article with Bush's present actions in failing to inform the prosecutor of Libby's and Rove's involvement in the Plame investigation we can do that.
The Righteous Right
With so much fight
Telling us just how to live
But when you open their book
And take a look
Their morals leak out through a sieve
Should we pop pills like Rush?
Or gamble like Bennett?
Perhaps just slaughter cats
Like med-student Frist of the Senate
But most disappointing of all is O'Reilly
Why'd he settle with that sex har-ass-ment pest?
After all, he never touched "her-ass"
He only fondled her breast
[Reprinted from One State Two State Red State Blue State]
Sturgis wrote:oralloy
It's fruitless to argue with the whackadoodles. They believe Clinton is, was and always will be a saint, the factuals be damned.
Your failure to recognize the triviality of the Clinton impeachment vs. the calls for the Bush impeachment are nothing short of laughable.
GHW Bush:
Quote:"I will never apologize for the United States of America, ever. I don't care what it has done. I don't care what the facts are."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_655
Junior is cut from the same cloth.
"Facts be damned" can hardly be a criticism of the left when dealing with this family.
Some people still can't figure out the difference between the sexual indiscretion of Clinton and Bush's unjustified war in Iraq. They lack common sense and logic, but they wouldn't know the difference anywhos.
Quote:They believe Clinton is, was and always will be a saint, the factuals be damned.
What an incredibly foolish thing to say.
Noone believes that Clinton was a saint; just that he was a good president who ran the country in a manner which led to increased prosperity for all its citizens, not just the rich.
You folks are so hung up on his personal life, you can't see the fact that his presidency - in terms of progress for our society - knocked the socks off of any Republican presidency in the last 25 years.
Cycloptichorn
Me thinks its a natural human phenomenon to need real bad times to enjoy the good; Clinton vs Bush is a good example. Most can't wait until the next election to change.
