In response to Scarecrow’s post on impeachment, I wrote at Needlenose on Tuesday, updating my previous qualms about needing to build a popular consensus:
Before yesterday, there was a public consensus that Dubya is a bad president — but not that he can’t be tolerated in office a moment longer. . . . Now, an easily digestible, commonsense argument about Bush’s lack of a moral compass has been laid out clearly for everyone to see: We have a president who coddles the criminals in his own administration.
Which isn’t to say that the mere fact of the Libby commutation will convince the public of that argument by itself, particularly with the invisible whisperers of the Bush regime fanning out to spread their misinformation, and their loyal press courtiers doing their best to help. Someone needs to make the case, and to do it in a visible public forum.
One problem here is that an overt impeachment inquiry carries so much baggage that it can become a distraction by itself, changing the subject from Bush’s corrupt action to whether it genuinely warrants removing him from office. And while fact-finding hearings can help fuel our rhetorical fire, testimony from “legal scholars [and] pardon experts” may cause the moral focus of the issue to be lost in a sea of minutiae.
A motion to censure the President, however, might be the right tool to cut through the clutter. It would make a simple declaration — that even if Bush has the technical right to commute Scooter’s sentence, in the view of the Congress, he has sent the most corrupting message a president can possibly send to his administration (“If you break the law while working for me, I’ll make sure you never spend a day in jail”), and it was morally wrong for him to do it.
It’s a message that needs to be sent for future generations, so that Dubya’s pseudo-pardon isn’t treated as an accepted precedent. On a practical basis, it begins to lay out a public case for a possible impeachment. And on a purely political level, it would firmly establish Bush and his apologists (including the craven supplicants campaigning for the 2008 Republican nomination) on the wrong side of a clear moral divide — an absolutely essential step in debunking the essential GOP mythology of firm, paternal rectitude.
The Republicans will respond as they always do, with counter-accusations and smoke machines. But if the Democrats speak plainly and insistently, they can repeatedly drag the subject back to its core: That when an official in his administration breaks the law, the President has no business interfering in that official’s punishment. And he should be censured for it.
Update: Talk about getting results!
Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., plans to introduce a resolution that would censure President Bush over his decision to commute the prison sentence faced by former vice presidential aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the congressman said Thursday.
“This presidential intervention is an unconscionable abuse of authority by George W. Bush, and Congress must step forward and express the disgust that Americans rightfully feel toward this contemptible decision,” Wexler said in a statement released by his congressional office.
That’s putting it exactly right.
Related posts:
- GOP Introduces Resolution to Censure Grayson – Debate at 2pm
- Wexler Takes the Pledge – Gets Picketed by Dick Armey
- Wexler Set to Extinguish “Fire,” Resign House Seat
- The Taxpayers Paid Dick Cheney’s Personal Defense Attorney to Obstruct Any Inquiries Into His Crimes
- New White House Counsel Bob Bauer and Scooter Libby Justice
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
18.2441
zed!
oops. Hi Steve.
zed?
Always liked the idea of censure. Russ Feingold as a hero for promoting it. Still irked at those who Sista Soulja’d him for their own political gain.
Zed – I read
Plain speaking!
Censure is something.
Steve @ 1
That’s 18 USC 2441 – right?
Wexler introducing censure in the House.
Ain’t no myth, they wrecked it, dude.
When it said
Liby, Libby, Libby
at the trial, trial, trial,
“Guilty!” “Guilty!” “Guilty!” “Guilty!”
No denial, -nial, -nial.
Let’s have
Censure, Censure, Censure
on Decider-, -ider, -ider!
(OK, many of you are too young to remember the commercials.)
Robert Wexler’s office is putting together a censure motion at this moment.
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 8
The real charge against Libby et al
For the benefit of anyone who has not seen this story mentioned in the prior thread, here is Raw Story’s version: Judge lifts injunction on ‘DC madam’ phone records
Censure would surely be easier to accomplish right now. But impeachment, after more Dems get elected in Nov. should be the goal. More dirty laundry will have piled up by then. The more we push, the faster something will get done.
Here’s the text of Wexler’s censure resolution:
Resolution relating to the censure of George W. Bush
Whereas President George W. Bush has failed to comply with his obligations under Executive Order 12958 concerning the protection of classified national security information in that the covert identity of Valerie Plame Wilson as a Central Intelligence Agency operative was revealed to members of the media, and in June 2003 Bush Administration officials discussed with various reporters the identity of Ms. Wilson as a covert Central Intelligence Agency operative;
Whereas on July 14, 2003, the name of Ms. Wilson and her status as a CIA operative was revealed publicly in a newspaper column by Robert Novak, and on September 16, 2003 the Central Intelligence Agency advised the Department of Justice that Ms. Wilson’s status as a covert operative was classified information and requested a federal investigation;
Whereas knowingly leaking the identity of a covert agent is a criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (P.L. 97-200);
Whereas Arthur Brown, former Asian Division chief of the CIA, stated that, “cover and tradecraft are the only forms of protection one has and to have that stripped away because of political scheming is the moral equivalent to exposing forward deployed military units”;
Whereas Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, effectively stopped the investigation into this potentially grave national security crime by lying to FBI investigators, and Mr. Libby’s perjury shielded the Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush from further inquiry;
Whereas on March 6, 2007, in U.S. District Court a jury found Mr. Libby guilty on four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements to FBI investigators regarding an investigation into the actions of the White House regarding leaking the identity of Ms. Wilson in retaliation for her husband’s contention that the Bush administration twisted intelligence facts to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq;
Whereas on June 5, 2007, Mr. Libby was sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000;
Whereas President George W. Bush had appointed both the Special Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, and the US District Court Judge, Reggie Walton, who were involved in the trial of Mr. Libby;
Whereas in February 2004, President George W. Bush stated that if anyone in his Administration “has violated [the] law, that person will be taken care of”;
Whereas on July 2, 2007, President Bush commuted the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison;
Whereas in commuting Mr. Libby’s sentence, President Bush has finally and unalterably breached any remaining shred of trust that he had left with the American people and rewarded political loyalty while flouting the rule of law: Now, therefore let be it —
Resolved, That the United States Congress does hereby censure George W. Bush, President of the United States, and does condemn his decision to commute the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison, his unconscionable abuse of his authority with regard to the deceitful chain of events concerning the falsifying intelligence on Iraqi nuclear capabilities and the exaggeration of the threat posed by Iraq, his involvement in the clear political retaliation against former Ambassador and Ms. Wilson, and his decision to reward the perjury of Mr. Libby, which effectively protected President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other Administration officials from further scrutiny.
Swopa, i think you’re right about Censure, but only if it’s considered and cast as one more piece of the impeachment puzzle. Because censure alone won’t stop these thugs from further damage to the world. Stopping them in their tracks is far more important than sending message to future generations.
Admittedly the impeachment question is very complex, and censure is a relatively simple step. But in a very real sense we’re fighting for our lives here, and we must keep our eyes on the prize.
Censure has a lot going for it. It’s quick and easy, unlike impeachment. So Congress doesn’t have to put the rest of its’ agenda aside while they go through involved proceedings.
You can issue multiple censures as desired. They put an asterisk next to W’s stats forever. Not that he hasn’t managed to make a place for himself in history already…
It doesn’t preclude impeachment later on, if need be.
It’ll piss Bush off. He’ll do something to respond that will compound the disgrace; he’ll be off his game and the public will see more clearly what he’s made of and what he has done.
It’s all good.
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 14
this might get interesting.
i’m sorry that was really long… don’t know how to link :(
I think they should go for the censure motion, if for no other reason than I’ll enjoy watching all the wingnut conniption fits. :-)
Seriously, given the American public’s opinion of the commutation, if Congress chickens out of censuring the President, 2008 is going to be a grim re-election year for a lot of people. If they do pass a censure resolution, Bush will not be a happy camper, even though the punditocracy will do their best to pass it off as a meaningless gesture.
this is great stuff
if censure fails we win because the bill will be written with language that will be damning to people that think libby should be above the law
if it passes it is the end for the administration
win win
I am in agreement with John Dean. He says there is a strong case to be made for impeachment hearings directed at the Vice-President. Now that, is a “distraction”, I support.
OldCoastie @ 9
Holy crap… do I get results, or what?!?
Swopa @ 24
I’m impressed!
perris @ 22
we need to help them there, we need to come up with language that makes it impossible to vote against censure
like;
“libby was found guilty of obstucting the investigation that would find out who committed treason against this country”
etc
include language like that and see if any republican has the nerve to vote against
jmba @ 20
Here’s a link from ThinkProgress: Wexler plans to introduce censure measure
The Supremes appointed a criminal and his associate, Beloved Leader. One has to wonder if any case (executive privilege etc…) which reached them would be heard in favor of “We the People”, or as with bush v gore they would already have a pre-determined outcome in mind when they granted cert.
I suspect that they would further assist in the cover-up, given that the 5 justices Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy seem to have no love of either the constitution, the average American or the Republic they are charged to protect as the Constitutional third branch of government.
It’s a shame that it has come to this. At least an impeachment hearing would provide no legal or judicial cover for Cheney and his puppet.
Avoid the Rush. (heh) Impeach NOW!
Swopa @ 24
who knew?!?
Swopa @ 25
If we built you a time machine, could you go back and do this a couple of years ago?
ooo – Bob Shrum, kicking Ron Christie in the shins on Hardball!
Bob’s a Dem today? Who knew?
Think about this for a second before drafting the impeachment motion. While Dick Cheney is alive and functioning as VP, we need George Bush to remain a healthy (albeit incompetent) president. Otherwise we are going to nuke Iran five minutes after George leaves office.
I like this tactic — and it invites discussions about whether it goes far enough. That is a good conversation to encourage.
Swopa @ 24
GO Swopa!
I agree with CrazyHorse. Censure only as a precurser to impeachment. Toothless, nonbinding resolutions make me think the dems are flacid.
On the other hand, every little bit of shame heaped on the Administration helps.
LBrowne @ 32
Watch out for low flying pigs!
Scarecrow @ 34
I like your logic.
Impeachment might be a ‘Hail Mary’ pass but Censure is definately a first down using a running game.
Don’t forget to remind the citizenry that ‘President Bush is America’s Greatest Conservative President’ ever. There’s no contest and we need to keep telling ‘the people’ why that is so.
For every minute he stays in office let’s make the ‘conservative’ movement bleed.
It’s the correct thing to do and it’s very good politics.
OldCoastie @ 19
If you are on the Deborah Jeane Palfrey list, raise your hand.
jmba,
To make a link, with a PC not a Mac,
left click with your mouse on the link address you want to link to. Then press Ctrl and C, then click down here in the message box. That’s how i know how to do it, and there are other ways.
We can only hope that people who have dedicated their lives to the rule of law (ie. the judge waltons, fitzgeralds, etc) will rise up to speak truth and rule of law to the neo-cons who are dismantling the country.
so, censure is on the table?
yellowsnapdragon @ 37
Don’t be surprised if you see a lot of pushback from the Wurlitzer on this. My outtamyarse guess is that the White House wouldn’t like Congress to get the idea that they can band together and call the President to account in any way, even if it’s a just a censure.
Swopa @ 24
You should have asked for mass resignations and voluntary submission to world court. Go for it.
Frank33 @ 41
it was only a massage. more of a conversation really. barely any touching at all. just a 250.00 ‘chat.’
Too Cool!
Mitt the Porn Man!!
If you are on the Deborah Jeane Palfrey list, raise your hand.
Which list? The client or the escort list?
I like the idea of framing the crime in simple terms…but rather than just say “Bush coddles”, I think it is *extremely* important to say that he commuted Libby’s sentence to protect the primary leaker in the Whte House this is the key I think… most Americans don’t get it and the Repubs keep framing it as “Bush is protecting his friend”…
glaringly sidestepping the fact that Bush is protecting his ass, or at the very least Cheney’s…. this is what could cause the house of cards to crumble.
Also… I’m not for censure… it is like a non-binding resolution… who tf cares?
YES!!! (sorry I had to shout. it’s a great idea)
yellowsnapdragon @ 36
I think it’s called a shot across the bow, which, you know, isn’t meant to hit. It gets the attention of the potential target and makes sure all the spectators are looking.
For when the next shot is fired.
Whereas Arthur Brown, former Asian Division chief of the CIA, stated that, “cover and tradecraft are the only forms of protection one has and to have that stripped away because of political scheming is the moral equivalent to exposing forward deployed military units”;
Could not put it better. No underlying crime my arse.
People in Spain really know how to demonstrate.
Yeah, which is why–I hate to say it–I’m not so sure censure will pass. Those Bushies really stick together when their a**es are on the line.
AZ Matt @ 47
Hottmitt
Censure is not enough…
Censure might actually work for those “moderate ” Republicans who are trying to distance themselves from W in anticipation of the 2008
debacleelections. They’d never sign on to impeachment proceedings but censure…now there’s a thought.i wonder if this could become an election issue ‘meme.’
you know my opponent supportedthe Libby pardon and I’m wondering if he’d/she’d care to explain why
If censure passed I fear it would be successfully pushed as an accountability job well done.. bad president, bad boy. Now lets bomb something.
If I could be convinced censure was a step to impeachment and war crimes court I would support it wholeheartedly.
Margot @ 42
Or you can go here for some simple instructions on writing html code. It includes how to write out the code for a link.
no censure isn’t enough. neither is 30 months.
but hey sometimes a cup of weak tea beats no tea.
cc in nm @50…The Republicans “framed” the crime in 1996..This law was directed at the North Vietnamese..now it’s time to “hoist the Republicans by their own law
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 244
§ 2441. War crimes
(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
I have to dissent on this point. I think that censure will be shrugged off (correctly) as purely symbolic. Look at what happened to the Vote of No Confidence for Gonzo. If that had been a bill of impeachment he would have either been convicted of the dissenters would have had to go on the record saying his actions were OK.
The only meaningful action is impeachment.
I’m very disappointed in Henry.
Elliott @ 56
last week it was Mitt’s mutt, now it’s Mitt’s smut
Other Pat @ 11
I remember them. I’ve seen the giant can of fruit cocktail they had at their cannery in Sunnyvale, too. (It was a paint job on a water tower: a really big can of fruit cocktail! And it said Libby’s Libby’s Libby’s on the label label label.)
I want the censure (and the impeachment, assuming it gets that far) to say Libby Libby Libby, as well as Bush and Gonzo and Cheney.
I fail to see the serious and oh-so-profound lesson future generations (including future generations of elected officials) will learn by reading that an attempt was made to censure a president for commuting a sentence. Not when the same president has broken multiple laws in plain sight. FISA. HATCH.
If other FDL bloggers are correct, he is also exposed to Obstruction as well.
And what, pray tell, would an impeachment effort distract from? The huge volume of wonderful progressive bills being pumped through the Senate?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 23
OMG!!!
I had no idea! Thanks much for the PurpleMath linkie.
realworld @ 64
Steve T. @ 52
I’ll accept it as that. Scarecrow’s comment above has persuaded me that it would be a good conversation starter with the right framing.
AZ Matt @ 48,
Porno, gay marriage, and school prayer are exactly the kinds of issues that Republics want for the coming campaign. They definately do not want to have to run on their records. I only hope that the Democrats are enough of a party to keep the campaign focused where it belongs.
Mabel’s Wig Shack @ 69
punaise @ 65
And Fred was Nixon’s stoolpidgeon:
Fred the Fink!!!!!!!
sorry for taking up space. my comments are not posting.
Nixon wasn’t forced to resign because the rethugs failed to band together. In fact they were trying to save him behind the screens the whole time. They were force into it because the facts were so stark they knew they would sink with him if they didn’t abandon his ship.
Impeach!
punaise @ 65
snork!
punaise @ 65
you know, punaise, I’m just gonna bite my tongue on this one…
Just an observation…Called the White House today (just to let them know the furor was not a one day thing) and a young man answered. Unlike the usual people who answer the phones on the comment line, he was ready with the GOP talking points. Must have had to recruit the ditto heads to man the phones to blunt the anger. Maybe those fools, college Rethuglicans, were recruited to tell us that this was the same as what Clinton did. I did point out that a blow job and treason were entirely different reasons for lying. A blow job is not illegal, while treason is… at least it was in all other administrations.
Hmmm . . . that was fast, wasn’t it?
For all the pondering about “what is a ’swopa’?”, perhaps the answer is simple. Could it be that “Swopa” is actually Wexler?
;)
Censure makes a lot of sense, as a “sense of the house” resolution of condemnation. Conyers will enjoy leading that discussion, perhaps as part of his hearings.
Don’t settle for easy just because right is harder.
Mabel’s Wig Shack @ 74
MWS, are your words showing up inside realworld’s @ 72?
Mitt’s latest misplaced sop to the fundies:
“Hallelujah! I’m porn again!”
jmba @ 21
Click on the http bar at the top of the screen. Once it’s blue, go edit to copy. Come back to FDL, write your comment, and go edit to paste.
That’s not the fancy way of putting a word instead of a link, but it works. I don’t know the better way…
You know, I’m for whatever it takes to end this MADNESS! Bring it all on.
casual observer @ 67
I don’t see a censure vote as excluding other efforts at impeachment. They’re not mutually exclusive. A censure vote forces Republicans to defend special treatment for Bush cronies — something the’ll be loath to take into the 2008 elections. And anything that calls attention to the regime’s disrespect of law and unfair admin of justice works for the Democrats. I don’t see a downside.
And you can’t impeach for the commutation per se, because a Pres has the right to do it. It’s only relevant if you can prove it’s part of a conspiracy to obstruct justice — I believe it is, but proving it to the pubic requires more than we have, IMO.
The most important outcomes in the next year and a half are beginning the end of the occupation of Iraq, avoiding an attack on Iran, and winning the Presidency while maintaining the majority in Congress.
One thing is certain, Bush is very unpopular right now and the commution of Libby needs to be seized as an opportunity to further expose Republicans who align with backwards Bush policy.
I think there are different ways to achieve the above. Impeachment might also carry the greatest risk for the same desired outcome. Censure fits. Censure also does not exclude the potential for further action.
Censure is a high profile way to [b]amplify/b] how wrong McCained, Ruudy, Mitt, and Fred are. Incredibly, they all support the various unpopular stances Bush takes. Censure arguably looks like the best way to kill two birds with one stone.
The most immediate need is to build the momentum to defund the war this Sept. The Libby commution could be the break we’ve been looking for. A censure could be an efficient and effective pivot bewteen now and then to realize this goal.
perris @ 26
The only thing that I thought would be a valuable addition to Wexler’s version would be to mention of the 12 jurors who unanimously (and beyond doubt) found him guilty of the charges. It would fit in well in the paragraph mentioning Judge Walton.
The Wurlitzer is warming up as I type.
Censure works for me as it is the one thing these spineless people can build upon.
I’ll take any action that sticks to a single Republican. Fight on all fronts. Weaken them however we can. Never give up. Censure is a fine beginning. And make them wear every single crumb. No More Bygones.
1. Censure.
2. Impeach.
3. Firing Squad.
4. Big bowl of popcorn.
Yum.
[Mod Note; let’s try to avoid the references to forms of capital punishment. Thanks.]
Oklahoma kiddo @ 23
There is a strong case to be made that by cummuting Libby’s sentence Bush has abused the pardon power in a way which the framers saw as grounds for suspending the president from office while conducting the impeachment investigation
how do you like them apples? Like the firing of the US Attorneys, the President can do this for nay reason or no reason EXCEPT a reason that in and of itself is illegal.
So, if the president fired a USA becasue that person refused to bring indictments unsupported by evidence–that would be an abuse of his power to fire.
If the president commuted Scooter’s sentence to take away any pressure on Scooter to “flip” and cease his conitnuing obstruction of justice (remember folks, it ain’t just perjury), then the very use fo the pardon power in this manner would itself be a form of obstruction of justice and would constitute an “abuse” rather than a “use” of the pardon power (from which, by common law, the power to commute is derived)
Sparkles the Iguana @ 90
1. Censure
2. Impeach
3. Send in leg-irons to the Hague
4. Make reparations to Iraq
5. Dance in streets
de-lurk
OT, but only slightly
Could someone please re-post the HR # for the bill to impeach Cheeney? I want to call my rep and urge him to support it. I called his local office on Tuesday am, but didn’t know at the time that there was a bill in the works, so I only urged him in to support any investigation into potential impeachment (and at the time, I meant Chimpy, but Cheeney is a worthwhile target as well, IMHO).
Thank you very much, Firepups! I’m having a blast here, lurkin’ and learnin’ and laughin’!
And I also had Uncle Visa pony up $100 to support the outstanding reportage here.
Funnydiva
/delurk
Loo Hoo. @ 83
Loo Hoo, check out myy link at #61. It describes how to do the html without using the little buttons so conveniently provided by FDL. I have found that typing everything out works easier for me than trying to manipulate the buttons correctly. And generally far more forgiving of my errors.
Scarecrow @ 85
Impeachment requires public pressure. The congressional discussion and debate over censure for the commutation would really ratchet up that pressure on every GOP member of the House.
And in contrast to the Senate, the house members are all up for election next year — every one of them would have to answer for his or her vote next fall, and in many cases, that is not something that they will enjoy thinking about if this resolution makes it to the house floor. Some are in safe enough districts to survive voting to support Bush on this, but others will be treading on very thin ice.
As a next step, I like this a lot. As a final step, not at all. But from what I’ve seen of Wexler, this is NOT a final step.
:)
The more votes by Congress critters the better. Force K-Street and Republicans to defend Cheney, Rove and what’s his face, as many times as possible.
dakine01 @ 94
remember: Preview is your friend, and she is looking out for your best interests.
punaise @ 65
Last week it was Mitt’s poochie, now it’s Mitt’s c**chie.
Bustednuckles @ 88
Geez, people are criticizing Clinton as though he pardoned people who broke the law on his behalf, too.
The bowtied puke Tucker is on. How can Clinton criticize a presidential pardon? he pardoned a child molester, etc. puke.
Funnydiva2002 @ 92
Tell your Uncle Visa thanks, and don’t be shy about jumping in!
As for finding specific resolutions and bills, THOMAS at the Library of Congress has a wonderful search engine for just that purpose.
looseheadprop @ 91
So how to we get this in motion?
Scarecrow @ 85
I believe there may be some misreading here. The original post gives the opinion that impeachment would be a distraction. One of my points is–a distraction from what?
Also, I mentioned HATCH and FISA violations as basis for impeachment, not the commutation. But if the commutation does in fact look like obstruction to congress, then why could they not add that in impeachment article as well? I note that the very first objection listed in the Declaration of Independence is: “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” If it is good enough for Thomas, it is certainly good enough for this congress.
Just go home and watched Tweety who (loving to trash the Clintons whenever and however he can) allowed
Uncle TomRon Christie to get away with blah blah blah about Clinton’s pardons. Excuse me but could someone who represents the Dems please make thepoint that Ronnie Raygun issued 393 pardons (DOJ Reagan pardon statistics) while Clinton opnly issued 396 in the same time period (see DOJ Clinton pardon statistics.) And pardoning Cap Weinburger and other Iran-Contra criminals was worse than pardoning Cisneros and Roger Clinton. And Libby was Marc Rich’s pardon attorney fer chrisakes.I know we have to stay on message, but until somebody with the facts jams them into the Wurlitzer really hard, organists like Tweety will continue to (and get away with) declaring debares about Bush’s obstruction of justice and previous pardons as “ties.”
thanks swopa.
censure-well, at least it would be more documented historical evidence that he’s the worst president ever…….
anyone know about past censures? i’m on dial-up, so, google is not my friend……..
AND al gore is on larry king tonight.
now back to catch up on threads from today……..
Scooter’s lying obstructed justice.
Bush’s commutation obstructed justice.
I don’t think it’s a hard case to make to the American people.
Impeach Bush, Impeach Cheney.
Scarecrow @ 55
I know how too. I just want someone to do it with. Like with about as many people as in the immigrant march on May 1, 2006 would be a good start.
punaise @ 97
True. But I’m an old enough f*rt that I tend to stick to ways of doing things that has worked for me in the past.
Seventeen Republican Senators. That is what stands between the American people and getting rid of this abusive government.
Out of a bunch that contents themselves with the thought that Republicans will always follow the propaganda. Well, according to the polls, some Republicans are not following the propaganda.
If you know any of these disaffected elephants, encourage them – as many of them as possible – to express very loudly their dissatisfaction to their Republican Senators. Have them let their politicians know that the Senators cannot bull their way through this even with the help of the Great Wurlitzer.
This is a quixotic experiment. Are there any Republicans left who will stand up for the Constitution? It’s better to do the experiment than to cynically assume the answer.
OldCoastie @ 19
The whitewash is turning dirty ;)
I’m all for sticking it to em wherever we can too — but as someone mentioned above, I don’t see how a censure resolution could avoid the same fate as the no confidence in Gonzo one. That is, won’t the repubs just kill it on the cloture thing so that there is never any meaningful debate?
Keeps them on the defense Oddmommy.
I don’t know about censure. Maybe in 2003 (I know it would have never happened), but I think it just makes Congress look bad. Bush will just say, and I can safely quote him on this…”Congress is going to do what it has to do, and I’m going to do what I have to do, which is lead this country. I think Congress should focus on more important matters.”
It’s a nice idea, but it’s too nice. These guys need their power taken away from them. Disarm them, starting with Gonzo.
Scooter, et al, aren’t worth the paint on one of these paintings.
looseheadprop @ 91
I like them apples.
oddmommy @ 110
I think this issue makes more sense than the attorney issue did to a lot of people. It will be a lot harder politically for them to stop a vote on it. The sounds bites are easier.
thanks y’all
dakine01 @ 61
oddmommy @ 109
That was a vote in the Senate, where many of those voting won’t face the voters again until 2010 or 2012. In the House, they’re all up for election next year.
Also, the rules of the House are much different than those of the Senate. What failed was a cloture vote to cut off debate, and there is no such process in the House. If it gets through committee and Nancy Pelosi wants it on the floor, it gets to the floor and gets voted on.
oddmommy @ 110
I’m not in favor of censure. I think criminal behavior deserves impeachment, not censure. That said, this can’t be stopped by cloture because it would be solely a House resolution. It does not go to the Senate for their confirmation and no Senator can stop it.
Bush would stand censured by the House and the Senate Republicans could suck sand.
Peterr @ 117
The heat is on!
oddmommy @ 110
It forces them to keep voting and being on record as in favor of a two-tier system of justice. Far more easily understood and made into a soundbite than trying to get all the laws that Abu has broken into the average inattentive voter’s head.
Peterr @ 117
ah. ok then — I’m in.
I’ll e-mail Tom Davis and tell him how to vote — fer all the good that’ll do.
janda @ 115
You know, I agree the soundbites are easier…but even now as I listen to the Wurlitzer, I hear “presidential pardons” vs.
“coverup” and “obstruction of justice”
“cronyism”
“treason”
“conflict of interest”
I want to hear coverup and treason more. instead, we’re being re-directed on whether or not a president can pardon anyone.
yellowsnapdragon @ 36
If you are going to try and knock someone down, make sure you do hard enough that he doesn’t get back up.
Censure might be the only way; Clinton was impeached and left office with the one of the highest rating in Presidential history. No need to inflame W’s numbers with impeachment.
But if impeachment is sought, it must be concise, direct, and concentrate on ONE ISSUE. If impeachment advocates get all hot and heavy and tack on the counts, it will muddy the water and fail.
Arca @ 105
The average American has not the slightest idea what “obstruction of justice” means. The message should be direct: the president essentially “pardoned” one of his inner circle, whereas any other person convicted of the same crime has to not only serve time, but under stricter guidelines demanded by this same president.
It is about cronyism, insider politics, and “fuck you” America. This they understand.
censure asking: yes.
Gore/Feingold. Can you imagine the possibilities?
Practicing the link as pandagon suggests
Fitz
Hey it worked… I just learned code. Thanks fdl’ers… Okay now for the picture…Insert Joke.
LBrowne @ 30
I used to listen to Art Bell – wacky stuff. He had this guy on who was really convinced he’d built a time machine. He said to Bell, “I know you’re skeptical, but every time I crawl in there and punch in my data, press the buttons and stuff, when I come back out it’s always at least a few minutes later.”
Other Pat @ 11
Aux contraire! Stephanie Miller has been playing this jingle for weeks:
dreamcatcher @ 124
Agreed. How about “perversion” of justice just to sex it up a bit?
How about a reference or two to the gutlessness of these guys. All big war talk and then scared shitless to go to country club jail? Real manly men, these scooter/shooter types.
Go jmba!
Eight years of Al and 8 years of Russ. Whew!
Bush did say that he’d TAKE CARE of the person who leaked Valerie’s name. And he is!
punaise @ 125
raise your hand if you’re censure
Speaking of time machines, welcome back to 1933:
It’s official. To be patriotic in Russia is to be a fan of Putin, specifically a Putin Youth. During the celebration on June 12th of Independence Day (Russia from the Soviet Union in 1990), “the only groups allowed onto Red Square were the youth group Nashi” – which means “ours” – “the Young Guard and Young Russia,” according to Sergei, a Nashi supporter. Tickets were carefully dispensed only to the faithful near the Krasny Ploshad Metro from a truck, I finally discovered after questioning a dozen reluctant people holding the tickets.
The 120,000-odd Putin Youth members are perhaps the most creepy demonstration of Putin’s “Back to the Future” cult of personality – youth groups created, supported, and used by the Kremlin to harass, bully and intimidate opponents and critics. “The idea was to create an ideology based on a total devotion to the president and his course,” says a Kremlin adviser, Sergei Markov. Obsessed by the color revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia, the Kremlin decided to create their own loyal youth brigades.
Fozzetti @ 134
It all depends on what the definition of is is…
Ed*ard Teller @ 136
I do not like Putin.
If you are interested, this diary has some amazing information about Gladio, as well as a link to a new video of Norman Mineta talking about events in the bunker on 9/11 that conflict with Cheney’s story:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..02421/6941
do-si-do @ 131
Ed*ard Teller @ 136
that’s scary, can’t imagine it going that bad here,
I hope.
Peterr @ 99
Thanks, Peterr!
And, Firepups, I’m working through the comment thread now. Yowza! Even by FDL standards, the rational/logical/intellectual quotient of this discussion is off da chart, and the level of civility and collegiality with which all y’all are expressing different POVs and sometimes disagreeing is, too. Add in that folk are clearly listening, absorbing and _adjusting_ their POVs as the discussion goes on…
well, as my good friend likes to say after tasting some particularly di-VOON home-made edible:
Marry me, or I’ll kill myself!
funnydiva
How many were there for Nixon before he resigned? It seems like there were quite a few issues there–everything from break-ins and dirty tricks to slush funds to the 18 minute gap. I realize he never got the Senate trial, but there was a lot to work with there too.
Which egregious violation should we choose? Can everyone agree on just one? I don’t think so.
With that said, I agree that the impeachment has to be concise and direct to be effective.
I so hope Censure can focus the issue: criminal to our the CIA agent (Treason during war, I think); criminal to lie and obstruct justice (undisputed conviction); conspiracy at the highest levels both to “out” and to obstruct. (RICO anyone?) Surely the facts are there to disclose. What a good response to the chants, loud & childish, of Look what Clinton Did.
Well, yes, Censure is a good idea, and it will help track how and if the tide is turning. However, as far as I am concerned, impeachment is a moral necessity. Even if it does not succeed, it puts Republicans (and any foolish Democrats like LIEberman) on the spot in ways they might come to regret during their next election. I am deeply pained that my party is so busy triangulating that they can’t seem to do the right thing.
Well, at least the count of co-sponsors of the Kucinich impeachment resolution is now up to 14!
Bob in HI
Why the fear of impeachment? It is the only response available to preserve the rule of law when the President breaks it, and the only credible response to the president’s action. Censure is a cop out. The rationale against impeachment is similar to some of the reasons for pardon: that the right wing will whine so loud that it’s not worth holding a criminal accountable.
We have a president who coddles the criminals in his own administration.
This misses the point completely. The point is that we have a president that IS a criminal. He’s publicly admitted it.
Impeachment.
fdl reader @ 140
do-si-do @ 131
oops.
Meant to say:
They are not *even* manly enough to tell the truth.
Sorry for the OT but it appears some Kentucky Dems are getting some cojones. The corrupt R governor called a special session of the legislature and the Dem controlled house met and immediately adjourned rather than waste the money on a political exercise!
Republican is the new dirty word.
I’m waiting and hoping for slam bam thank you Madam…
I just alerted my Nevada network. When I alert them on an action item, I include names, phone numbers and a concise statement for them to use. I find they make the calls if they don’t have to search out information.
Impeach them Speaker. You hold the ‘key’.
Bad Congress, go away!!
Nancy @ 146
Bush has a JAR in the twenties but that does not translate to an equal per cent of people wanting him booted from office. Impeachment is a one bullet exercise. Unfortunately, at this point, a move for impeachment would polarize and alienate the 60%ers who get their news in soundbites on network TV. Censure is a point in time exercise that starts to focus voters on crimes without raising the noise to polarizing levels.
LS @ 151
I have a new theory. Or maybe somebody else thought it up. The scandals keep cascading. Maybe the DOJ and other agencies holding back this stuff are at the point where they’re going to start releasing so much dirt on the GOP at once that we’re so involved sorting through the miles of piles of documents, we won’t even finish reading it until late November of 2008.
AZ Matt @ 154
Maybe someone in the press corps should remind the WH that those domestic bills are not being passed because of the Rs in the Senate who are bragging about being obstructionists.
AZ Matt @ 154
Bwaaaahaha…like Bush spent time solving domestic problems such as the destruction of a major city in America which resulted in 500,000 people losing their homes. Go Cheney yourselves, WH.
I haven’t read the other comments yet, but censure is okay as long as it is part of a larger strategy leading to impeachment.
Censure may be useful because it is like the camel getting its nose under the tent. Once the nose gets under, you can bet the whole camel is following.
In the same way, we can use the censure vote as a cudgel to keep ratching up the pressure for impeachment on members of congress.
Rhetorically, the strategy would be to say to Republicans in congress: “if you thought George Bush’s obstruction of justice in the Libby case was bad enough to justify censure – then you must support impeachment so we can investigate and get to the bottom of this wrongdoing. You can’t say Bush’s behavior is bad enough to censure, and then turn around and walk away from impeachment.”
I believe that Nancy Pelosi right now, is the most powerful and potentially the most important person on this planet.
I am with LHP #90 if at all possible… that would be my choice of the next step.
Go Quakergirl @ 153
Excellent approach!!
Ed*ard Teller @ 156
lol. The thing is, there are so many of us, it won’t take no time a’tall…plus, we’ve been getting so much practice!
The New Censurians: can’t we all just get
alongit on?Ed*ard Teller @ 156
Ah, yes.
My first thought reading the earlier link to the story was “LOOK! BRIGHT SHINY OBJECT!”
IOW, looks like a new twist on the Friday Document Dump…
funnydiva
Domenici breaks with Bush on Iraq!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..83_pf.html
Bring it on!
Bob Schacht @ 145
Amen. Even if Cheney’s minions in the senate ultimately block conviction, impeachment is a moral necessity.
Get Tough @ 123
’scuse me, I think you’ve got this wrong.
First, Clinton was impeached but not convicted. The counts of impeachment against him were so flimsy that the public saw through it. That’s why Clinton ended up with higher ratings.
Second, I think you misunderstand the process. The House drafts Articles of Impeachment, each focusing on one issue. They vote on each Article. The Senate, when it deliberates, votes on each article separately as well, IIRC. If the Articles are strong, it will be good, no matter the outcome. If they are full of crap, as the Republican articles were, then the American People see through the crap. Therefore, I say draft as many articles as there are good, solid, legal arguments for. Make Republicans vote on every single one of them. Every No vote will hang like an albatross around their necks, if you remember my allusion.
Bob in HI
Eureka Springs @ 161
So how does it get started?
Please send messages of support and well thought out and polite suggestions to Speaker Pelosi.
slghtly OT, Tweety has a blog entry up trying to score the CIA leak case.
I don’t know Elliott, move to DC and hound the House and Senate while serving LHP and crew as many snacks as they desire I suppose. *g*
LS @ 159
Congress to Bush: Quit committing crimes and we’ll quit investigating
Josh Marshall sums it all up:
I think Tony Snow and the president need some help. Snow is out there saying that President Clinton has chutzpah for criticizing President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby.
But this really isn’t that complicated.
Setting aside whether Scooter Libby should spend 0 days in jail for what most people spend from 1 to 3 years in jail, the key here is that it’s inappropriate for the president to pardon or commute a sentence in a case in which he (i.e., the president) is a party to the same underlying crime. Because it amounts to obstruction of justice.
It’s really not that complicated.
Who is this idiot on Hardballs? Is it a man or a woman?
Bob Schacht @ 170
And because Clinton was facing more than one charge that they failed. Your assumption that they failed because they were flimsey makes my point for me: Only clear, concise, and minimal counts will win the day.
No, I understand completely how articles of impeachment work. But it does not make sense to muddy the water by throwing every little thing against the wall, see what sticks, and then proceed. Any impeachment proceedings, especially with the right-leaning MSM, that have mulitple claims will be purposefully muddied by the Republicans on the talk shows, and trust me, FDL bloggers are not the only people who call their congresspersons. Keep it simple.
Eureka Springs @ 173
The thought that nothing’s really going to happen until November 2008, or really January 2009, well it’s excruciating.
So I’m game.
I’m good at snack serving, anyway.
I’m of the belief that the House should impeach even without the potential of a Senate conviction.. or the House can vote to impeach and the Senate censures. I think it’s important for posterity that the legislative record shows that there are historical consequences to criminal presidencies.. and if those consequences are even less than handed out by Congress to President Clinton, then we’re basically saying that treason is less sanctionable than marital impropriety. I say, let’s get the House to impeach, regardless of the followthrough in the upper chamber.
LooHoo,
Rivkin…does he sound like Borat? He’s a Poppy Boosh lackey.
Saving Juniors bacon.
Please sterilize all of the Boosh spawn now.
-GSD
Hear, Hear!
gbear @ 87
while the resolution is excellant and impressive and while I agree your addition would be nice, imagine the following paragraph with the emboldened that I have taken libery to edit with what I believe is powerful stuff
oOH BABY!!!
get that going and watch the neo fascists loose controll
Cheney who is alrady insane would go over the edge, he would go on every single talk show and spew his lies
which we would happily expose
it would indeed be grand
GSD, it sounds like a robot. Is it a man or woman?
Elliott @ 81
oddly enough that seemed to happen.
Today, Tony Snow responding to criticism from the Clintons about the Scooter commutation thus:
“I don’t know what is Arkansan for chutzpah [1] but this is a gigantic case of it.”
We have reached a sad time when goyishe [2] Tony Snow is speaking Yiddish from the White House. Don’t we Jews have enough tsouris? [3]
Apparently, in this latest iteration of the “Bill Clinton did it, too” excuse, the White House is seeking to evoke the recollection of the Mark Rich pardon. Gai gezinteh heit. Chub a gutten yur. [4]
On Bill Clinton’s last day in office, he pardoned a refugee from the Nazis, Mark Rich, M.O.T., [5] a financier and philanthropist who had been falsely accused of tax evasion by Rudy Giuliani.
I say falsely accused because such is the opinion of U.S. tax professors Bernard Wolfman of Harvard Law School and Martin Ginsburg of Georgetown University Law Center. It was also the opinion of a panel of distinguished Republican lawyers including I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby. Be that as it may, these kinds of disputes are not unusual, and they are normally resolved in civil suits.
In the Republican orgy of recriminations against the Clinton administration that was the hallmark of the early days of the Bush administration, it was alleged that President Clinton pardoned Rich in return for favors paid to him. Indeed, the Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Barak, who had worked so hard with President Clinton to secure a lasting resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, had made a clemency plea on behalf of Rich, as had numerous other Israeli officials.
Grasping at straws, Clinton-haters pointed out that Rich’s former wife and the mother of his three children, socialite Denise Rich, had made large donations to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Library during Clinton’s time in office. A Federal Prosecutor was appointed to investigate whether or not a crime was committed by Clinton’s exercise of the plenary pardon power. The conclusion arrived at by James Comey, who was to later become the Acting Attorney General under George W. Bush, was that there were no grounds to present to a Grand Jury.
Nobody, not even the most rabid Republicans ever suggested that the pardon of Mark Rich was a part of a conspiracy to protect members of the administration. Never was it suggested that Bill Clinton had a political motive for his decision to right a wrong committed by an over-zealous prosecutor, who now happens to be running for the Republican nomination for President.
Still want to talk about Mark Rich? Gai kakhen afenyam. [6]
“… and tell ’em Menachem Mendel [7] sent ya!”
Footnotes for the Yiddish challenged:
[1] lit. Nerve. Colloq: balls, as in “He had the chutzpah of a blind burglar.”
[2] Non-Jewish, and (when used in an otherwise English sentence) non-Jewish in a stereotypical way.
[3] troubles
[4] “Go and be healthy. Have a good year.” The equivalent to the dismissive “Knock yourself out,” you should pardon the expression.
[5] Member of the Tribe, (e.g. Rich, Libby)
[6] Go shit in the ocean.
[7] Big Mitch
If we start impeachment hearings on Dick Cheney soon, and we do it right, they (the hearings) should conclude not too long before the general election. Let’s use the MSM to our advantage. This is Rove’s nightmare.
At least there won’t ever be a George W. Bush, Jr., at least that we know of…
Mable, be sure to scroll all the way down to make sure you’re at the end of the comment. Preview is your BFF.
Now watch me do the exact same thing…
The imperative is to get rid of the Republicans.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 161
Question is whether she is willing and able to use that power. So far, not so much.
Her problem as far as impeachment, is that she is second in line to succeed to the presidency. If she pushes impeachment, she will be seen as over-reaching. That she is a member of the opposition party makes it even harder for her.
Therefore the impetus for impeachment cannot come from Pelosi but from the floor of the House. Such a movement, if it is to succeed, must be powerful enough to carry Pelosi along with it.
As far as impeachment, therefore, Pelosi is between a rock and a hard place. Having said that, it was still a mistake to declare that impeachment was “off the table.” It was not her decision or call to make (unless she first caucused the House, which I doubt she did).
Mabel’s Wig Shack @ 184
I was having that trouble, too. You have to make sure the cursor is way at the end before you start typing your comment.
Loo Hoo. @ 189
Loo Hoo. @ 189
:-) thank you!
Rats Upstairs!
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/07/05/brother-rat/
Knowing it’ll be epu’d, here’s my frustration for the day: When Judge Walton points out the screw-up of Bush commuting the sentence before it was even begun, Tony Snow brushes off the importance of details in the legal world, just as his boss does with any inconvenience: Oh, well, just make it work to fit our circumstances.
I can only guess that legal folks who know, love and appreciate the law and its details must be going crazy with this type of thinking:
Snow said the White House view was this: “You treat it as if he has already served the 30 months, and probation kicks in. Obviously, the sentencing judge will figure out precisely how that works.”
Loo Hoo. @ 188
it’s a good thing I previewed my response @ 191 before I posted it *g*
Honestly, censure is pure crap. A mere slap on the wrist. Not interrested in the least. I think efforts would be much better spent getting Pelosi’s attention with a recall petition, and continuing to build the impeachment momentum toward cheney first. I think censure is a distraction, stay focused on impeachment.
Rivkin on Softball says Plame sent Joe to Niger, and it was “nepotism”. But how about Liz Cheney? Rifkin (has a strange accent) says Valerie was not covert.
Talking points from the echo chamber. But I think they should mention Brewster Jennings was (covertly) looking for weapons in Iran also.
Other Pat @ 196
Ooooohhhhh. That kind of fuckery is not going to improve Judge Walton’s mood … pass the popcorn! It’s a good thing Tony’s ass can’t be hauled in front of the court!
Frank33 @ 199
Doesn’t the entire Cheney extended family have policy-making positions in the administration???
AngryAmerican @ 198
I agree for the most part. Censure lets off steam. We need to keep the pressure up. I don’t understand a “recall petition”. But I agree Cheney and Gonzo should be our focus.
I’m not sure that I like this idea, it deflects attention from far more potent possible actions. Conyers is going to hold hearings, let’s keep the focus on that. Gonzales could still face impeachment if he keeps ignoring Leahy’s subpoenas, keep up the pressure there.
It’s not that I disagree that Bush’s actions deserve censure, but I think Congress needs to focus their efforts to maximum effect and censure, frankly, does nothing. It should be the last resort if all else fails.
Censure. Impeachment. Jail time. Reimburse the U.S. taxpayer allthe money that’s been stolen.
Now, who could I be describing? Oh, right, the utterly corrupt Bush administration and all the crooked neo-con Republicans who support and enable the Bush administration’s lying, cheating and thieving.
For instance, we not only learned that Bush commuted Libby’s 2 1/2 year jail sentence in a quid pro quo arrangement, but we also learned through a USA Today article that the Republican-controlled Pentagon had blown off an Urgent Request from 2 1/2 years ago from our Marines serving over in Iraq, an urgent request for safer vehicles (MRAPs) that potentially could have saved over 700 lives (and countless severely injured troops) in the 2 1/2 years it took for the Republican-controlled Pentagon to finally place an order for these vehicles.
In anyone’s book, that’s criminal negligence. And for any Republican, especially any Republican supporter of the Bush crime family, to claim that they are “support the troops,” patriotic citizens, I would have to disagree. As I’m certain the family members of these thousands of our troops injured or killed might also disagree, since they are still suffering the consequences of this “criminally negligent” 2 1/2 year delay by the Bush crime family in doing something about this Urgent Request from our troops in Iraq.
During this same 2 1/2 year period, though, the Bush crime family has been throwing billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars at their crony pals in the defense industry, but for some criminally-insane reason they only got around last week to answering this February 2005 Urgent Request from our troops over in Iraq.
As an Air Force veteran, I am outraged at this despicable disregard for our troops by the Bush crime family. Just as (having been a member of the NSA while in the military), I am outraged at Scooter Libby completely skating following his criminal involvement in the outing of a covert CIA agent.
Censure. Impeach. Jail time. And then get all the criminals, and their associates, in the Bush crime family to reimburse American taxpayers for all the billions of dollars they’ve stolen.
fdl reader @ 201
Rivkin is a liar plain and simple.
Impeaching Bush and Cheney at this point does the Republican Party a favor by clearing the field of the “old” crooks so they can attempt to replace them with shiny “new” crooks before the 2008 election.
What I think is needed, and Representative Waxman is the perfect candidate to lead this operation, is to create a virtual “shadow” government of investigative committees, each with a full staff of competent
investigators and expert cross-examiners.
Every executive agency which has a Bush-appointed industry lobbyist or former industrial official at its head, would have its own full time investigative committee assigned to scrutinize every suspect action that agency has ever taken.
Every investigative report issued would potentially be the subject of another censure motion.
These committees would serve not only to expose the corruption in each agency, but would keep each agency head and his/her cohorts busy answering inquiries, testifying and writing briefs to support their (likely)refusals to cooperate. They would thus have much less time to carry out more nefarious acts.
I’d also recommend that the investigation start, not at the top of the agency, but with every secretary to every key decision maker in the agency.
Secretaries frequently know much more than their bosses about who is doing (or not doing) what; they tend to be less practiced at artfully dodging questions and less likely to lie about the facts.
Parliamentary systems of governments routinely have “shadow governments”. We need to systematically build “sunlight” counter-parts to every critical agency so we can stop the Bush-Cheney cabal from doing even more damage between now and January, 2009.
At the Hardball website go check out Joe Wilsons statement about Libby getting off the hook. Wilson stated that the President needs to release the statements made by President Bush and the VP to the Special Prosecutor and Congress should demand this.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/
A censure will send a powerful message: We don’t approve of what you did. Please Mr. President, don’t do it ever again, or we may have to censure you some more!
Now let’s vote to change the federal sentencing guidelines so we can censure some murderers! Or would that be too harsh?
Censure?? Are you kidding me? Why don’t Congressional democrats just paint a sign that says “Gutless” and go stand under it?
It’s making me long for another discussion about term limits. What we’re stuck with is a bunch of careerists who, (perhaps vaguely understandly) are incapable of putting representation of the American people and upholding the Constitution (which, ironically, is their job) ahead of personal and professional concern.
Impeach. Period.
Funnydiva2002 try HR603
Thanks Steve for the 18USC 2441 could not find it . I’m not verygood at law school searches.
The president wasn’t authorized to obstruct justice. The Scooter conviction was part of an investigation that was ongoing at the time of the commutation of his sentence. There has to be a judicial review of this action taken in behalf of Scooter by George Bu$hler.
Dakine,
If obstruction of justice in an investigation of outing a covert spy is not an impeachable offense, what is? Deciding policy based on how you think the “60%ers” will react is the same rationale the Dems used when voting for the Iraq war.
realworld @ 64
Then those who voted for censure against Clinton (and others) should explain why they supported “symbolism” THEN? In fact, they shoukld be compelled to ask why “censure” is a part of the Constitutional tools of Congress AT ALL?
Then ask them if they support something non-symbolic…like IMPEACHMENT!
Because if they don’t they APPROVE of the actions.