Reply
Fri 6 Jul, 2007 09:47 pm
www.firedoglake.com
Quote:iven that Wexler has such a clear understanding of the issue here, it is unfortunate that he stops at censure. Sure, it'd make for bad press for the President. On Tuesday. But by Thursday, Bush could rest easy that he had ended all scrutiny into his actions, once and for all. Censure would amount to a closing off of inquiry; it would provide a way for the Republicans to defeat any effort to get the grand jury materials that Fitzgerald and his team spent so much effort putting together. It would end this thing, at precisely the moment when the country is finally beginning to understand the magnitude of what Bush and Cheney did.
In fact, our forefathers gave us clear instructions what to do at a time like this, when a President uses his pardon authority to cover up his own crimes.
In the same convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection."
James Madison responded: f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty..
It doesn't take minutiae to prove that Bush has "sheltered" someone whose crime was "advised by himself." It takes Libby's notes and grand jury testimony.
The punishment for the abuse of the pardon power is clear: impeachment. Just as the punishment for Libby's obstruction was clearly 30 months. If we're going to complain about the commutation itself, we have no business letting Bush off with nothing more than censure.
Roxxxanne
Roxxxanne, now you know why I named my female dog Dolly and my male dog Madison.
BBB