Well, obviously Bush is learning. In his secret wiretapping program, he threw out the laws, procedures and guidelines in order to do whatever he wanted. And now he, along with his GOP cronies, are simply throwing out the procedures for MAKING laws that all of us learned back in eighth grade social studies. A budget cut of $2 billion that’s going to crucify the elderly and infirm simply bypassed the whole pesky House/Senate voting thing and was signed into law by Bush.
If Bush were truly upholding the constitution as he vowed to, he would have kicked it back and said, “The buck stops here. If you guys can’t do YOUR job properly, I should at least do mine. Vote on it and send it through the proper way, and then I will sign it or veto it, as the Constitution dictates I am empowered to do.”
He didn’t. He is demonstrably, indisputably in violation of his oath. What the hëll kind of country is this where a bløw jøb is an impeachable offense, but a screw job isn’t?
Categories: 1144 Comments
144 comments on “Okay, can we impeach him NOW?”
• 
Sean, I strongly suggest you read through the SCOTUS opionin in Field. I’ve cited it above. Because I think they are at least partially correct. Each of the three branches of goverment are co equal None sits higher, or lower, than the other. For the president to state, unilaterally, that a certified bill is not legitimate would place the executive above the legislature. It isn’t. They sit at equal levels, and the standing procedures are that once both leaders of Congresss certify that a bill has been passed, the president must respect that action. To act in any other fashion would be to make the legislature subject to prsidential approval above and beyond the mere act of approving or vetoing a bill.
Likewise, for this reason, I think today’s Court will rule just as the Field court did. When presented with a bill, certified by congress, and signed by the President, the court MUST accept that the law was legitimately passed. To do anything else makes the other two branches of government subject to the overriding authority of the court.
Because the legislature and the executive have failed, collectively, to uphold the Constitution, the only recourse we really have, as voters, is to vote them out. I don’t like saying that, but I don’t see any other solution. We’re not likely to get any action from our government.
SCOTUS can (and, I think, should) find that although the bill was “legitimately” passed and signed (as you pointed out, they may have no choice about that), the fact that the House version was never reconciled with the Senate makes it an unconcstitutional law, subject to being struck down by the court. Of course, first a challenge has to make it to SCOTUS…
“When presented with a bill, certified by congress, and signed by the President, the court MUST accept that the law was legitimately passed.”
Since when? One of the jobs that the SCOTUS has done for years is to rule on bills passed into law, once challenged and put before them, and determine if they do or do not violate the Constitution. They’ve done it for years now.
In an 1867 decision, the Supreme Court itself described striking down Congressional legislation as an act “of great delicacy, and only to be performed where the repugnancy is clear.” While that goes a long way back, the fact is that the repugnancy (violating the Constitution) is very clear here.
Want newer examples that range from state to fed levels?
The Texas Sodomy Law in 2003, Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition on an over reaching law meant to be a ban on “virtual child pørņ”, Reno v. ACLU in the Communications Decency Act fight of 1997 and the 1998 striking down of the line item veto.
Lost a paragraph there. Not sure where it went since I know I typed it.
Last paragraph should have been:
Granted, those are all laws that were passed and then deemed to violate the Constitution after the fact. However, a strong case could be made by, to and for the SCOTUS that, regardless of the wording, nature or Constitutionality of the bill itself, the nature of this law’s passing was in itself a violation of the Constitution and it is thus unconstitutional by its very creation process.
“MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — Leading Democrats in Vermont plan to decide in April whether to urge state lawmakers to petition for President Bush’s impeachment using a little-known provision in the rules of the U.S. House.”
More at
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_IMPEACHMENT?SITE=CAANR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Jerry, it’s a tricky thing. The difference in prior SCOTUS acts declaring laws unconstitutional is that the terms of those laws exceeded the authority of the Constitution. They can be struck down because they exceed the authority granted to the government to regulate.
The difference here is that the procedure used to create the law is suspect, not the terms of the law itself. And the Court doesn’t really have the authority to review the procedure used by Congress and the President to ennact a law. They only have the authority to look at the face of the law, and whether it complies with the Constitution.
There are 2 failures/violations here: one in Congress, with the certification that the bill represents the version passed by both Houses. Second is the approval of the President, despite his knowledge that the version he was signing was only approved by the Senate. But, once that’s done, it’s law. The leaders of Congress and the president have failed to uphold the Constitution. It’s now up to Congress to take action to rectify this action.
Consider this analogy. The US has banned human cloning. If some scientist is found violating that ban, he’ll be prosecuted. However, if some scientist manages to clone a human, we wouldn’t destroy the clone. We might still punish the scientist, but not the product of his crime. In this case, regardless of how it came to be, this budget bill is now law. How it came to be law violates the proscriptions of the Constitution, but the best we can do is hold those responsible accountable (remove them from office through election or impeachment). But it will take additional legislation to address the new law.
I know it’s tricky. I just still think that a case can be made that the SCOTUS could strike the law down based on how it was birthed. It didn’t go through the propper channels/process to get where it got.
The clone example doesn’t really work because you’re talking about a life vs a sheet of paper with some fancy words on it. A life has rights of its own while this impropperly passed law does not. It should be challenged and struck down at the first chance.
The SCOTUS has had chances to strike down such laws that were not passed in strictly the correct manner. It’s declined to, although I don’t think there’s ever been a case where the act was knowing and blatant as this.
I know there’s issues with the clone example, since we’re talking about a human being. But it’s appropriate because the law, once it’s created, does exist in it’s own right. In the cloning example the process is regulated, not the product. You punish the offenders, not the creation. And once something is created, you can’t pretend it doesn’t exist just because the process used to create it was not the proper process. It’s still created. You can’t just will it away, or ignore it and pretend it doesn’t exist anymore.
The proper time to stop this action from going forward first rested with the leader of the House. Failing that, it fell to the president to veto the bill as improper. He failed to do that. The Court can’t find this law unconstitutional without investigating and ruling on the procedure used to make this law, which is something I’ve never heard the court to do.
Bobb: the standing procedures are that once both leaders of Congresss certify that a bill has been passed, the president must respect that action. To act in any other fashion would be to make the legislature subject to prsidential approval above and beyond the mere act of approving or vetoing a bill.
… When presented with a bill, certified by congress, and signed by the President, the court MUST accept that the law was legitimately passed. To do anything else makes the other two branches of government subject to the overriding authority of the court.
See, Bobb, you can’t have a system of checks and balances if one branch isn’t able to counter in some way the actions of both of the others. And what you’ve just said is that the leaders of the legislative and executive branches can run roughshod over the judicial. (Yeah, I know it is happening, but they aren’t supposed to be able to and we’re talking about what should happen here.)
According to your description, the two leaders present a bill to the President and certify that it has been passed. He has no choice but to accept that it’s legitimate. And if he signs it, the court has no choice but to accept that it is legitimate law.
EVERYbody knows the bill was never presented to Congress. EVERYbody knows it didn’t go thru the proper constitutional process for making a law. Yet, according to your description, the court can’t do anything about it.
Back to where this started: I simply just don’t agree that one branch of government has to accept as legitimate something presented to it by another branch when they know it just ain’t so. When one branch folow the rules the other branches should not be forced to go along with it; they should say “You didn’t follow the rules now go back and do it right.” Without disrespecting the seperate powers or branches or further violating an established process, the Pres could just say no.
Seriously, picture the two leaders presenting him with a “certified” piece of swiss cheese and can you really argue that the Pres would have to sign or veto it? “Dennis, it’s cheese.” “No, Mr. President. It’s a law.” “Seriously, Denny. I can see the holes in it. Look, {chomp} it’s edible.” “We’ve certified it, sir. So it must be a law.” It’s the kind of thing I easily see John Cleese and Michael Palin acting out.
Missing tag in prior posting. First two paragraphs should have been in italics:
Bobb: the standing procedures are that once both leaders of Congresss certify that a bill has been passed, the president must respect that action. To act in any other fashion would be to make the legislature subject to prsidential approval above and beyond the mere act of approving or vetoing a bill.
… When presented with a bill, certified by congress, and signed by the President, the court MUST accept that the law was legitimately passed. To do anything else makes the other two branches of government subject to the overriding authority of the court.
Arghh! sigh
“…you can’t pretend it doesn’t exist just because the process used to create it was not the proper process.”
Look at that statement again. Roll it around in your mind for a moment. Check out those last six words. That should be the whole argument right there.
“…it was not the proper process.”
I want to put up a shed in my back yard. I get told that the county has to issue permits. I don’t go to the county and get the permits that I need and do it anyway. The county can fine the daylights out of me and have my shed pulled down at my cost if it so chooses. Why? It was not the proper process.
Elections have been overturned in this country because, while the will of the people may have been carried out, the election itself did not follow the proper process.
My boss can’t just call me in and fire me for no other reason then just because he doesn’t like me anymore then he can just promote me to Deputy Chief because he likes me without following the established rules and regulations of our department. Either of those actions would be struck down/reversed by the simple fact that, all together now, “it was not the proper process.”
I can go out and arrest a psycho killer that everybody knows needs to be locked up and see him walk out of court if what I did on the street was not the proper process.
Local, state and federal systems have for years undone things left and right because the thing done was not done in the proper manner. This is no different. The SCOTUS should step up and do its dámņ job since Bush can’t seem to do his.
It looks like this discussion boils down to whether Bush should have vetoed the bill or sent it back to Congress with a Post-It attached saying, “You didn’t follow proper procedure, fix it.”
But don’t both options essentially mean the same thing? The only significant difference is that if Bush had “officially” vetoed the bill, Congress would have had to pass it on a supermajority or restarted the bill process from scratch. Neither option seems to have been politically acceptable to the leaders of Congress, so I guess they decided to slip it in and hope no one noticed.
To bad. They did.
Sean, the checks and balances are on the excercise of power. The president needs to approve bills from congress: they can’t pass along a piece of cheese as a bill, because if they did, any sane president would veto it. But as ridiculous as the example is, that’s exactly what would happen. If congress certified that a block of cheese was a tax bill, and presented it to the president, he’d have to treat it like it was a certified bill. He can’t second guess congress, because he’s a co-equal branch of government. He doesn’t get to say anything about what they DO. He just has a say over the product of what congress does.
Do a google search on stupid laws sometime. You’ll see things like not chewing gum on Sunday, not walking a moose through the park after midnight, not eating ice cream with a spoon. (not real examples, I made them up based on things I’ve seen in the past). Compared to some of the things, a block of cheese for a tax bill sounds darn right reasonable. But despite the nature of the bills, they all were passed. The executive in each case couldn’t just say “this is a silly bill, I’m not going to view it as real.” Because he doesn’t have that authority. It sounds crazy, but that’s the way things work.
Jerry, I’ll use your shed without permits example. What’s the city’s solution? Fine you, and force you to take down the shed. But the shed is still there. It just doesn’t wink out of existence simply because you didn’t have the permits to erect it. It’s still there, until someone does something to remove it.
With this bill/law, it’s exactly as though the president and Cogress built a shed without getting the proper permits. The shed’s been built, and the Court simply doesn’t have the jurisdiction to order Congress to go back and fix the problem. All the Court can do is look to see that the law, however it was ennacted, complies with the Constitution on it’s face.
Bobb, most of what are labeled as stupid laws are usually just outdated statutes that probably sounded perfectly reasonable when they were passed (real example: requiring someone to set off a firecracker or other noisemaker as a warning before crossing an intersection in a “horseless carriage”), but don’t make any sense in a modern context. But, because these laws are often buried in obscure legal texts and almost never cited, they’re forgotten and the legislative bodies simply never got around to repealing.
It’s not the same as handing the president a hunk of cheese and saying it’s a bill. The archaic laws were bills that were passed (presumably) in accordance to the established procedures and signed into law. That they now seem stupid is the result of changing times, not that the people who originally drafted them thought that they were stupid at the time and tried to pull a fast one.
>I want to put up a shed in my back yard. I get told that the county has to issue permits.
Reminds one of the sad-but-true FRANK & ERNEST gag of some years back where a bewildered-looking Frank staggers out of a municipal licensing bureau, trailing dropped forms and papers behind him as he goes. He confides to Ernie: “My great-great-grandfather helped build a nation, but I need 27 forms and permits to add a porch to my house.”
At what point did things take such a turn for the worse, exactly?
“But, because these laws are often buried in obscure legal texts and almost never cited, they’re forgotten and the legislative bodies simply never got around to repealing.”
If I were in charge, I’d make sure the bureaucrats set time aside each year to go through the statutes, and get rid of the ones which are no longer needed. It’d take a while, but it would be a most worthwhile exercise. Maybe, in the course of so doing, it might make them think about crafting better laws in the future? OK, not going to happen. One can dream, though, right?
Bobb: The executive in each case couldn’t just say “this is a silly bill, I’m not going to view it as real.” Because he doesn’t have that authority.
The silliness of the bill isn’t the issue, Bobb. I’d agree that the Pres couldn’t just say that about even the silliest bill ever crafted if it had been passed by both houses of Congress.
To say the Pres’s only options are sign or veto when presented with something just because the leaders of Congress lie and say it has been thru both houses is to say that he’d have to veto a hunk of swiss cheese.
He has the option of saying (and I argue that the correct course of action would be for him to say) “This is not a law. Take it back and do it right.” Note: He wouldn’t be saying it’s a silly law, or a law he doesn’t like or anything of that nature. He would be saying that the constitutional process required was not followed and he is not obligated to act as if it was.
Bobb, the idea you’re pitching just doesn’t work. You’re claiming that the rules that the Constitution set up to run our country can just be sidestepped by three dunces whenever they want to pull a fast one.
The bill was signed into law without being greenlighted by both the House and the Senate. You can not do this. It is against the Constitution. If you don’t follow the rules as laid out by the Constitution when passing a bill into law then then the process has been subverted and the law, even if it is in itself Constitutional by its scope and wording, is unconstitutional by the process of its creation as a law.
“What’s the city’s solution? Fine you, and force you to take down the shed. But the shed is still there. It just doesn’t wink out of existence simply because you didn’t have the permits to erect it. It’s still there, until someone does something to remove it.”
Yes, like sending me to jail for breaking the law and hiring a team, that I would end up paying for, to rip it down. Yes, I have seen cases go that far. And the SCOTUS should step in just the same and rip down Bush’s “law” as well as giving him and his two partners in this crime one hëll of a smack upside the face.
It was not passed legally into law as laid out by the Constitution. It can not and should not stand. To let it stand is just begging Bush (or some other future Prez and his pals) to pull another fast one down the road. Maybe they’ll even pull a fast one with a “law” that will destroy some right, freedom or process of law you hold dear. Maybe then you’ll get it.
Sean and Jerry are working the same argument, but Jerry…
“Maybe they’ll even pull a fast one with a “law” that will destroy some right, freedom or process of law you hold dear. Maybe then you’ll get it.”
This is uncalled for. If you’ve paid any attention to my posts on this subject, and on other posts of mine on government action, you’d see that I’m a staunch defender of rights, and of the rule of law. This has nothing to do with me defending an action simply because I don’t think it affects me. I’ve said numerous times that I don’t like the outcome I’m predicting. But, based on my experience as a lawyer, and my interpretation of SCOTUS precedent, this is the outcome I see.
Both you and Sean want the Court to strike down this law. I ask you, on what basis does the SCOTUS have to investigate the inner workings of Congress, to make sure that the certifications of its leaders is accurate. What is your legal precedent? Show me in the Consitution where it says that the SCOTUS can subpoena the records of congress, tally the votes, compare the versions of the Senate bill to the House bill, and render some decision on it. Show me that.
You can’t. Because such language and precedent does not exist. The Court does not have the authority to examine the inner workings of either other branch of the government. Just as the Executive cannot question the workings of Congress or the Court. If the Court declares a law unconstitutional, the President cannot look at the opinion, decide that the court just drew straws to determine the outcome, and declare the ruling null and void. He doesn’t have that power.
So, yes, just because three bafoons act in a way that’s not allowed by the Constitution, because those baffoons just happen to be the leaders of Congress, and the president, they can pass a law that has cleary violated the procedure set out in the Constitution. Why? Becuase that’s the power we grant them.
If I’m wrong, prove it with precedent. Case law. Show me where the SCOTUS has overturned an act of Congress, signed by the president (or otherwise become law) on the grounds that it was not properly passed. We’re not talking about state law, or local ordinances, which might operate under different systems than the Constitution. We’re talking about a Federal law.
It may not have been passed legally under the Constitution, but only the Congress now has the power to correct it.
Bobb,
A cop and a lawyer arguing!!!!!! Let the sarcasm begin!!!!!
😀
“Show me in the Constitution where it says that the SCOTUS can subpoena the records of congress, tally the votes, compare the versions of the Senate bill to the House bill, and render some decision on it. Show me that.”
“The Court does not have the authority to examine the inner workings of either other branch of the government.”
Don’t have to and I never said that it had that power. I said in prior posts that this law needs to be challenged at the earliest opportunity. I just haven’t focused on the challenge part of the issue for a bit because I was responding to your idea that the law is Constitutional despite the nature of its birthing.
The SCOTUS can’t and doesn’t need to turn in to CSI: DC. The challenge and the challenger are what would bring all those things before the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS then need only hear the arguments and rule on the Constitutionality or Unconstitutionality of the law based on the process of its creation.
“If I’m wrong, prove it with precedent. Case law. Show me where the SCOTUS has overturned an act of Congress, signed by the president (or otherwise become law) on the grounds that it was not properly passed.”
I can’t. But that’s kinda a weak argument when dealing with the SCOTUS. They have, in the long history of the court, ruled on lots of things for the first time and made a numbers of rulings that were firsts. A precedent’s gotta start somewhere.
My argument, my full argument, has been that this should be challenged at the first opportunity, taken before the SCOTUS and that the SCOTUS should rule that the law is in violation of the Constitutional because, despite the Constitutionality of its own wording, it did not follow the process of passage from a bill to a law as prescribed by the laws of the land. To not have someone with the means challenge it and to not have the SCOTUS strike it down is to set a dangerous precedent in itself.
“This is uncalled for.”
Yeah, maybe it was. I should have framed it as a “what if” where it was a law that had a larger impact and more people noticed it rather then taking a swipe.
Theoretical argument to follow. This law goes unchallenged and we roll into the November 06 elections. The Democrats fail to take the House but leave the Republicans only a one member majority. Take into account your Independent members and your moderate Republicans and Bush would never get half of what he wants passed in the house.
The Senate becomes another story. The Republicans pick up a huge majority number after the 06 elections. Many of the newly elected are hardcore Bush backers as well. They’ll give him anything he wants.
Bush goes after Social Security again with plans of sweeping changes in the system. The House gives him a passed reform bill that only gives him around 10% of what he wants. The Senate passes a bill that gives him everything he wants. The House and Senate majority leaders accidentally/on purpose slip him the Senate bill to sign as a certified, passed both bodies bill. Bush signs it because he knows that he can get away with it.
Is it law or can it be struck down? It’s not that different then what happened here. Both have them sidestepping the required processes of signing a bill into a law. Both have two bills that, for slightly different reasons, are different then the unsigned one. Both are claimed to be “accidents” by the parties involved. My example just has them being more blatant about it then the nudge and wink that they did here. The way you’re talking, we would be stuck with it. I don’t think we should be stuck with either situation.
Bobb: Both you and Sean want the Court to strike down this law.
Actually, not really. My main point has always been that I don’t think “sign or veto” are the only choices the Pres has, that he could have sent it back and that would have been the right course to take.
Since he didn’t do that I wouldn’t mind seeing someone stand up for what is right, seeing the one remaining branch of government set things right. But what I want is for the Pres is to not agree to go along with a constitutional violation.
I’m not trained as a lawyer. (I don’t even play one on TV.) So I don’t know the finer points of the limits to each branch’s ability to check and balance the other two. And, at the risk of appearing to wimp out of the discussion, I’m not inclined to spend the effort to research the precedent and case law. But if two branches can collude to overthrow the constitution and there is nothing the third branch can do to stop them, then we don’t have the checks and balances we should.
If the Pres has to act as if something certified by the two leaders is actually what they claim it is, has to take what they say as truth even when he knows it is not just because of “the respect each branch of government must have for the others”, it flies in the face of what common sense and an inherent sense of right and wrong says is right.
Bobb: but only the Congress now has the power to correct it
Congress has to fix this? How can we rely on Congress to be able to fix this? Not in the “those guys never do anything right, you can’t rely on them for anything” sense. But in a “let’s appeal the judge’s ruling back to himself and ask him to reconsider” sense.
If the Speaker, on his own, can “certify” something that has not actually passed the House couldn’t he do the opposite as well? What if Congress passes a bill that would set everything right and Speaker refuses to certify it? He’s lied about their will once already. And if he lies again in the opposite direction, well, apparently everyone has to take what he says as truth. Y’know, out of respect for his branch of the government, and neither of the other branches can touch him.
Anyway, far more discussion that I’d intended to get involved in and I appreciate the respectful manner in which it’s been conducted by all participants. As a long-time lurker here, it’s been kinda fun to actually join in. I’ll have to do it again sometime.
– Sean
Jerry, I agree that this act should be/should have been challenged at the earliest opportunity: By the leader of the House, then by the president. They both failed, because they knew that there was a decent chance that no one would notice. And if they did, by the time they could do anything about it, the bill would have become law already.
The SCOTUS does have precedent in this area, and it’s passed on the opportunity to play CSI: Congress. Granted, the language used by the Court in those cases suggests that those cases involved true error, but the language used suggests a strong unwillingness on behalf of the Court to look into the workings of Congress.
And if it happens again? I’d imagine that if no one in Congress is willing to take the people responsible to task, we’ll be stuck with more laws that violate the Constitution.
“If the Speaker, on his own, can “certify” something that has not actually passed the House couldn’t he do the opposite as well? What if Congress passes a bill that would set everything right and Speaker refuses to certify it? He’s lied about their will once already. And if he lies again in the opposite direction, well, apparently everyone has to take what he says as truth. Y’know, out of respect for his branch of the government, and neither of the other branches can touch him.”
Then Congress would have to initiate procedures to have the Speaker removed.
The problem is that the American people have handed the government to a single party. We’re seeing first hand why this is a bad thing. Checks and balances only work if the people given that power excercise it. I doubt the framers ever thought that collusion between the Congress and the president to subvert the requirements of the Constitution was ever something that would happen.
Maybe they’ll even pull a fast one with a “law” that will destroy some right, freedom or process of law you hold dear. Maybe then you’ll get it.
Yeah, he gets away with this and before you know it, he’ll ignore a law that was designed to provide minimal oversight to protect the privacy of US citizens while still giving the federal government broad latitude to conduct surveillance simply because he found the paperwork inconvenient.
Oh wait . . .
Peter said “What the hëll kind of country is this where a bløw jøb is an impeachable offense, but a screw job isn’t?”
He wasn’t facing impeachment because of a bløw jøb. He was facing it because he lied to a Federal Grand jury and he was called on it. Only a democrat would think telling a lie to a Federal Grand Jury no matter what the question was is OK.
“On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.”
Novafan, that’s BS. He lied about his relationship with an intern. Bush has wholesale violated provisions of the Constitution, mislead Congress and the public about the need to go to war with a sovereign nation, and essentially declared himself above all reproach, law, and consequences. It’s not even a close comparison. If Bush had a Democratic controlled Congress, he’d never have made it to a second term.
As someone who has posted as Bobb here before I must stand up for what Novafan posted. “Fans” of Clinton like to cloak the impeachment as over a oral sex. It was really about a C-I-C who thought he was above the law. The same things Bush ‘hater” claim of him now.
“He wasn’t facing impeachment because of a bløw jøb. He was facing it because he lied to a Federal Grand jury and he was called on it. Only a democrat would think telling a lie to a Federal Grand Jury no matter what the question was is OK.”
And only a Republican would think that a Federal grand jury investigating a purely personal civil matter with no relevance to the interests of the people of the United States is okay. And Bobb’s comment is simply bûllšhìŧ. Clinton supporters never contended he was above the law. To be a Bush supporter can ONLY require the belief that Bush is above the law, again and again, which is probably why his approval ratings are shrinking: Because fewer and fewer Americans can stomach the hypocrisy such a stand requires.
Then again, Clinton’s sole example of “acting above the law” was trying to finesse the meaning of sex in an embarrassing situation. Bush, on the other hand, has repeatedly acted in a manner that shows he has no regard for environmental treaties, the Geneva convention, and the constitution of the United States (to name a few). No one died from Clinton’s lies. Thousands have died from Bush’s lies. Yet Clinton is impeached…and Bush ISN’T? If it were only that a double standard were being applied to Bush, that would be bad enough. It’s that NO standard is being applied.
PAD
Bobb (Waller) & Novafan,
Please…… Clinton lied about having an affair. Saying that that is anywhere near on the same level of the lies that the ever increasing pile of evidence is showing that this administration has pulled is like saying that a half hearted slap across the face is the legal equivalent of beating someone nearly to death with a ball bat.
Well, since there seems to be another Bobb, of the (Waller) variety here, and we seem to have radically divergent views on at least a few points, I guess I’d better revert to the Bobb Alfred name.
So from now on, I, who was once kingbobb, then just Bobb, will no post as Bobb Alfred, for clarity.
Clinton’s impeachment was over oral sex. It was about statements he made regarding his personal relationship with an intern. I’ve seen people explain why it was Congress’ business to investigate…because as the Chief Executive, Congress has a right to know who might be compromising the office.
Unlike Mr. Abramhof, who just about every Republican would like if the country just looked the other way and ingored the influence he has onn multiple offices.
Which is not to say that it’s OK that Clinton lied to the grand jury. He shouldn’t have. But Congress should also have realized that his lie had nothing to do with his competency to continue as president, or the appropriateness of him doing so. Half of Congress would have to resign if having an extramarital affair were all that was required to remove someone from office. And if lieing were all that were required, we’d be holding special elections for every seat tomorrow…and never filling them all at the same time.
Absolutely great post! Peter David Rocks!
I’ll be honest about Clinton. I have in the past. He made a mistake. He tried to weasal out of it on National TV. And he skirted the line of perjury, but by the terms of the investigation, he didn’t lie. He didn’t commit perjury.
Still, he had an affair while married, and a lot of people place a lot of stock on moral values. But if we’re going to play word games, like Bobb (Waller) and Novafan want to, we can do that. But as a word game, Clinton didn’t do anything wrong. While under oath, per the definitions of the Grand Jury, he told the truth. He didn’t think he was above the law. He was skirting the edges of the law, but he was still well within it. As his acquittal shows.
It’s not nearly the same thing. Bush doesn’t skirt on the edges of the law. He waits until someone gives him an excuse that sounds good, and then he runs right over the edge of the law and far, far into beyond the law territory. Clinton avoided the law. Bush IS the law, currently.
Hmm, Bush = Judge Dredd.
The GOP in Congress are about as likely to allow an impeachment go forward as Jessica Simpson is to win the Nobel prize for physics.
Now, now — not so fast. After all, if Britney Spears can be an expert in semiconductors, then we’re already up to at least one sign of an Improbability Drive at work…
No, I’m not kidding. See below.
http://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm
TWL
He was skirting the edges of the law, but he was still well within it. As his acquittal shows.
That’s…debatable. The acquittal during the Senate hearings merely meant that the offence did not rise to the level worthy of removal from office.
As to whether or not he actually committed perjury, I’d say his acceptance of what was essentially a plea bargain on his last day in office answered that question.
But you know what? I find myself thinking about Bill Clinton hardly at all these days and when I do it’s mostly when I see the passion of the anti-Bush crowd and wonder if I came off as nutty as they do when I was railing at BC…sadly, the answer is quite likely yes.
And this may get me kicked out of the rabid rightwing merry marching society but wouldn’t it be a total kick to see him as First Husband? I mean, yeah, eventually he’d do Something Bad and we’d all be reading about it for months but he’d be having so much fun enjoying all the perks of the position with none of the soul crushing responsibility that comes with the job…it would satisfy all of our lust for both politics and celebrity gossip all at once. Then maybe we could concentrate on building a space elevator.
I suspect Bubba Clinton would be bored as first husband. Yeah, he’d love all the perks, but from all I’ve read about him, he’s a policy wonk at heart and loves nothing more than to get involved in the minutiae of government. If Hillary were to become president (still a huge if, IMHO), I would not be surprised if she nominated him for a cabinet level position.
As for the rightwing merry marchin society, it still amazes me how much bile they carry towards him. Reading some of the rightwing message boards, you’d think he’s still in office. And when you look back at his term in office: balanced budget*, defense of marriage act, internet censorship act (excuse me “communications decency act”), welfare reform, etc. The GOP actually got more of their domestic agenda passed under Clinton than they have under Dubya.
*Okay, realize this one is no longer part of the domestic agenda, but you get what I mean.
As for the rightwing merry marchin society, it still amazes me how much bile they carry towards him.
Trust me, it’ll be the year 2525 before the Bush haters stop bringing him up at every opportunity. It’s a cliche that the extremists on both sides are more alike than they want to admit but it’s so true.
I think Hillary will make him the UN representative. He’s be great at it and it would allow him to get out of her hair and travel around the world meeting people and having sex with them.
“Trust me, it’ll be the year 2525 before the Bush haters stop bringing him up at every opportunity. It’s a cliche that the extremists on both sides are more alike than they want to admit but it’s so true.”
True as that may be, I can’t wait to stop talking about Bush.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at April 4, 2006 03:08 PM
Trust me, it’ll be the year 2525 before the Bush haters stop bringing him up at every opportunity. It’s a cliche that the extremists on both sides are more alike than they want to admit but it’s so true.
I dunno if anyone is still reading this thread, but I’ve been following the latest news about the Valerie Plame “outing,” and the evidence that points to Bush and Cheney as the “outers.” I realize they haven’t exactly found anything like the Nixon tapes, here, but I think this looks bad for the prez and his veep.
Bill, I don’t think talk of impeachment is the stuff of the “Bush-hating fringe” anymore. I realize that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has not accused Cheney of authorizing the release of Plame’s identity, and hasn’t accused Bush of doing anything illegal. They’re still somewhat insulated.
But the evidence keeps creeping closer and closer to them. I’m just saying, there may be a smoking gun lying around somewhere and Fitzgerald may stumble across it — if he hasn’t already.
I think Hillary will make him the UN representative. He’s be great at it and it would allow him to get out of her hair and travel around the world meeting people and having sex with them.
I have a restraining order that prohibits Bill Clinton from getting near me for just that reason.
I don’t know Bill, when I first saw the headlines about the latest “news” I thought “Whoa, this must be big.” but when actually read it…if I’m understanding this correctly the news was that Libby said that classified info was disseminated to the news folks with the knowledge and approval of the president. There was nothing in there that actually suggested that the news in question was about Plame. Since the President has the ability to declassify stuff on a whim, no laws were broken (unless he deliberately outed Plame). The only news here is that it can be used against Bush because of his statements in the past that he hated unauthorized leaks and even then it can be pointed out that authorized leaks are another matter entirely.
Unless I’m wrong, always a possibility, this seems more like Libby making trouble for the press than for the president. His strategy seems to be forcing as many news folk to spill their guts as possible until they either refuse to cooperate (which I think could help get him off–how do you convict a guy if the witnesses he needs for a fair trial refuse to cooperate with the law?) or start to put pressure on the prosecuter to drop the charges. I note that the story has died out considerably.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at April 9, 2006 12:25 AM
I don’t know Bill, when I first saw the headlines about the latest “news” I thought “Whoa, this must be big.” but when actually read it…if I’m understanding this correctly the news was that Libby said that classified info was disseminated to the news folks with the knowledge and approval of the president. There was nothing in there that actually suggested that the news in question was about Plame. Since the President has the ability to declassify stuff on a whim, no laws were broken (unless he deliberately outed Plame). The only news here is that it can be used against Bush because of his statements in the past that he hated unauthorized leaks and even then it can be pointed out that authorized leaks are another matter entirely.
Unless I’m wrong, always a possibility, this seems more like Libby making trouble for the press than for the president. His strategy seems to be forcing as many news folk to spill their guts as possible until they either refuse to cooperate (which I think could help get him off–how do you convict a guy if the witnesses he needs for a fair trial refuse to cooperate with the law?) or start to put pressure on the prosecuter to drop the charges. I note that the story has died out considerably.
I certainly agree with you that unless any new facts come to light, this story isn’t very incendiary. It certainly makes Bush and Cheney look bad, but if that were a crime I’d’ve been swinging from the gallows ages ago.
In my brief experience as a journalist, however, I learned that law enforcement officials are often two or three steps ahead of where they say they are in a case. The fact that the president authorized declassification of information, and some of that information “just happened” to include the status of Valerie Plame, leads me to wonder if there isn’t something more lying underneath. I don’t think it’s a huge leap.
That said, the scenario you mentioned where witnesses refuse to cooperate is certainly not outside of the realm of possibility by any stretch. Although I’m not sure what you mean by the story “dying out.” I was reading a new article about it online just last night, and I think if nothing else angry democrats will keep this in the headlines for at least another few days.
And even if the investigation never turns up solid evidence against Bush, I doubt it’ll help his approval numbers. If he wants to be remembered as anything other than a failed president, he’d better pull a rabbit out of his hat. And then soon.
And didn’t you see? I made a little Clinton joke, just for you. It wasn’t all that funny, but it’s the thought that counts. Think of it as an offering from this raving liberal to someone on the other side (although, as I’ve said in the past, I actually don’t consider either of us to be on a “side” and don’t think you’re a “raving” anything.)
Oh I appreciated the Clinton joke! Though, as I’ve said, I’m sort of beginning to like the big lug. He’s definitely a character.
Bush is definitely in a quandary. Something needs to be done with Iran but he has little political capital left to spend. The Israelis did the world a favor once with Iraq and are unlikely to repeat the effort, especially now that Sharon is incapacitated. None of the European leaders are strong enough to risk inflaming public opinion: the Italian leader is all but gone, Blair is about to retire, the German one is too new, France has enough trouble already and it’s leaders WISH they had Bush’s lousy poll ratings…
I realize that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has not accused Cheney of authorizing the release of Plame’s identity
I read something the other day that said that Fitzgerald had in fact said that this appeared to be a concerted effort by Bush & Cheney to ‘out’ Plame.
I’d have to see if I can find the article again though.
But then, based on what we know, I think many of us have already come to the same conclusion long ago.
Either way, Bush has once again proved he’s a hypocrit of the highest order, saying he hates leakers and will punish them, then he’s as dámņëd guilty as those he wants to punish.
In baseball, there’s the “Mendoza line”, which refers to a really bad batting average.
With Bush’s approval ratings continuing to plunge, I think he’s going to set a distinction with the “Bush line”.