yellowsnapdragon @ 167

Having our congress look seriously at the crimes committed by the administration against us is vital. We need to be represented. There is a distinction between defeatism and duty.

How is facing reality defeatism. You arguments about duty are analogous to the arguments made by the right to stay in Irag. Looking seriously at the crimes and then finding Bush NOT GUILTY only validates their side. e.g. Bush, after all this investigation did nothing wrong.

And they were continue to say that Bush did nothing wrong if you DON’T IMPEACH and INVESTIGATE.

They will say that al of this is just “politics” since ush was never impeached at all…

Look, boxer…even if Bush was CONVICTED the Riht wing would still claim that it was all “politics” since Bush was never criminally convicted of anything.

Look at how they are reacting to the Libby case…here’s a guy convicted of four felonies, including obstructing the nvestigation of who divulged a covert CIA officers identity to the Press and their motives in doing so. Yet these folks still consider him a saint!

IF an impeachment will expose the unConstitutional actions of Bush or Cheney to the public, and compel the Republican Senators to DEFEND those actions as simply “politics”…then it will serve it’s purpose.

Because impeachment also places Congressional Representatives under scrutiny. If they protect a Presidents Unconstitutional behavior for partisan reasons this will be made apparent to the public. Likewise an impeachment that s irrelevant to a Presents Constitutional mandate will also impugn those Congresspersons who force it!

That was what the Republican Senators feared when Nixon was on the verge of being impeached…that they would have to defend the indefensible.

Rayne @ 157

They has nothing material in regards to the matter Ken Starr was investigating when they impeached Clinton — only lies about his personal sex life.

I can see we’re going to have to agree to disagree. The footprints lead all around and right up to Bush’s desk in a plethora of scandals already; if we do not have evidence adequate for criminal prosecution, we still have adequate evidence for a political solution to Bush’s repeated gross failures to uphold his oath of office.

And impeachment is a political solution, not a criminal prosecution.

Let me clarify. I should have said that is what you’ll need to impeach and convict. Impeachment without conviction only helps the right. Bush will be proclaimed “NOT GUILTY”. Then what?

But the RIGHT will say that all the assertions of Bush criminal and Unconsttutional behavior were lies if Congress DOESN’T IMPEACH.

So they win that way, too.

Plus they get to say that “Clinton was impeached…Bush wasn’t”.

One possibility is to start the investigations, issue Bills of Impeachment, and start the trial…then suspend it late in his term.

Then when a new Congress is elected…one restarts the trial and convicts or censures him.

Many wll say that this will be moot since Bush will have left office…but it will show that Congress is sincere about protecting the Constitution from “Imperial Executives”. It will place on Bush the onus of being the only President impeached and convicted (if the new Senate actually finds him guilty).

Furthermore, as part of an impeachment conviction one can remove one’s emoulements of office…pension, office space, secret service protection, ability to use the title of President (for example on the “Presidential library”), franking and office privileges…and powers to keep documents and papers secret (under Bushes own Executive Order).

Do it prior to the inauguration of the new President and pardoning power can be removed.

Bits and pieces as I read through Tony Snow’s inane performance today:

Q The jail time issue — normally, somebody at least serves a day in jail, a week in jail, a month in jail.

MR. SNOW: Because the President thought the jail time, in fact, was inappropriate, and therefore, he decided to —

Q I thought he said the jail time was excessive, the sentence was excessive. He didn’t say it was inappropriate.

MR. SNOW: Right. No, he said it was excessive, and he thought that any jail time was excessive. And therefore, he did not see fit to have Scooter Libby taken to jail.

I don’t think that word means what you think it does, Tony.

Q Why not respect what the judge said, then?

MR. SNOW: Well, keep in mind that there is still — he does respect what the judge said, but he also respects what — I think if you took a look at the trial record, at what the parole commission recommended, that what the parole commission recommended was highly consistent with what the President thought was an appropriate punishment here.

Q Well, no, they talked about 16-plus months.

MR. SNOW: No, that is — there’s a range of — what you’re taking a look — this gets very complicated. You have obstruction of justice, and then you have mitigating factors that bumps it down. And the bump down gets you, according, again, to the parole commission, to an area where it would be appropriate, it would be within acceptable guidelines to have such things as home detention or probation. Probation is something that is going to be required in this case.

This is Snow’s “I don’t know what I’m talking about but if I keep talking maybe no one will notice” moment.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news…..703-6.html

Actually someone should tell Tony that it would have been permissable under the sentencing guidelines for Walton to issue consecutive sentences.

In fact, he was “generous” in issuing concordant ones! Libby got off very lightly.

The sentence was hardly “excessive”, especially for a non-cooperating felon who has yet to demonstrate remorse, guilt or an awareness of the severity of their criminal behavior.

The latest bullshit from Bush that I just heard is that under the conditions of Bush’s commutation ability/privilege, Scooter may not be placed under probation.

Something about not legally being able to place a person on probation if that person has not served any jail time.

Does that fall under PW’s “invent some new variation”?

I think the issue relates to WHEN does that probationary period BEGIN…as proation generally initiates when the convicted individual is released from detention.

I would think that, since Bush explicitly said that the commutation ddn’t apply to his fine or probation, upon either the date of Scooters sentencing or the end of his appeals.

Which could mean that Walton would review Scooters behavior during his 2 year probationary period sometime in the Spring of 2009.

At which time Reggie might consider Scooter’s cooperation with Fitz..and his remorse ;-)

And Bush will have been out of office for some 6 months!

SPECIAL COMMENT
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, ‘Countdown’
MSNBC
Updated: 52 minutes ago

Video
http://video.google.com/videop…..mp;q=keith olbermann&total=2214&start=0&num=100&so=1&type=search&plindex=0

transcript
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/

WPITW:

Bill Kristol !

Uh Deb? Pardon my ignorance, but what is WPITW?

I am so pissed off! I am really fed up with this shit. COMPLETELY fed up with it.

If we move to impeach the administration then it won’t pass the Senate and it will be labeled another failure on the part of the Democrats to change anything. The result = no votes for Democrats because they can’t bring about change,
and we get another 8 fucking years of Republican bullshit pissing us in the face.
- or -
If we don’t push impeachment, we still get labeled as scared to take a stand against the obvious corruption and again Democrats are labeled as weak. We spend the next 8 years saying “what if” we had at least tried?

Republicans walk all over every single last constitutional law while we spit and scream
from the sideline.

I have a lot of anger. Much more than before and I am tired of playing by their interpretation of the rules. This administration taught us how to lie, cheat and steal, and I say we show them just what they taught us by shoving it right back down their throats whichever way possible.

Which is why we have to play this smart

and determined.

Nothing worth having comes easily.

Did you see Christy’s post about converting your anger to activism?

Didi you see barbara’s brilllinat idea about flooding Congress with photos of tables with “impeachment” in them.

Baby, don’t get mad, get even!

KO, why didn’t Bush give the outright pardon? Fewer pardons than any governor.

TURLEY:

5th Amendment issue-Libby can still be given immunity by Fitz or congress.
KO, why no Cheney during trial?
Turley, defense said they would make Cheney the focus of the trial. Suddenly changed. Adopted a passive defense. Walked Libby into conviction. Many thought the pardon had been promised.

LooHoo has nailed the money quote .

And the next major talking point

– “commutation ain’t insulation, cause Scooter can be immunized”

Scooter, Shooter and the Commuter are all co-conspirators, so the commutation may be a seperate count of Obstruction.

That was so much fun to type!