boxer @ 139

The Republican impeachment was a complete win for Democrats. Clinton’s polls were never higher. Yeah, smart strategy. While we’re at it, maybe we should shut down the government, that worked well for the Repubs too.

Clinton’s poll numbers going into impeachment were already high. Bush ran on a platform (laughable now but effective then) of restoring ethics to Washington and IIRC the Republicans picked up seats in the Congress. You should not mistake Clinton for the Democratic Party. Clinton survived but if the Party had many more such victories, it would have to disband.

Also the impeachment essentially put Clinton out of the election campaign to support Gore. They tainted Clinton so badly that Gore had to repudiate him.

We have to remember though that much of what led to the downfall of RMN was not done through the impeachment process…it came through the disclosures of Congressional Committees much like Waxman’s and Conyer’s finding case upon case of corruption and unethical behavior.

It was as a CONSEQUENCE of these findings that Articles of Impeachment WERE drawn up…even BEFORE there was a clear chance of success. The Articles were actually an impetus to House and Senate Republicans to meet with Nixon and ask him to resign.

I think that another Committee hearing should be set up discussing the Libby pardon.

Recall that Clinton did NOT assert Executive Privelege with the Rich pardon (allowing Podesta and others to discuss their advice to him). Will Bush assert that those who “advised” him be blocked from testifying?

Call in Cheney, Rove and others who advised Bush. What did they say…under oath!

They should call in Fitz and other DOJ officials to testify as to whether Bush contacted them about the impact of the commutation on the rule of law…and the CIA and query whether such a commutation might encourage those who leak.

The question should be asked why Libby was the only person to have ever received a FULL and COMPLETE commutation of sentence in Bush’s career. 6500 Pardon requests..4 commutations…with three only given after years of the sentence had been served. Libby got a UNIQUE offer of charity from King George!

Impress upon the public just how different this was from the Rich pardon…which was for tax evasion…which Rich’s lawyer Lewis Libby stated was likely unfounded. Note, as well, that Bush Sr. gave many additional commutations and remissions of fines during his term.

At some point make clear that the advice given in the previous hearings (which the Chair should not allow the Republican members to ramble on about) that the “prescription against Presidential abuse of the pardon power comes at the next election” cannot mean that the public can respond against the CURRENT EXECUTIVE or a VP that is running to continue that adminitration.

What then are the means for the public to react against such abuses? That question should be raised for each and every member of the Committee? The public can no longer vote THAT adminsitration out…what then IS TO BE DONE when pardon/commutation is abused to prevent the investigation of criminal acts by the Executive Branch.

Is it the same means that the Founders raised in the Declaration of Independence? That when King George undertakes to protect his agents from the legal codes that offer justice and equitable legal protections for all that rebellion is warranted?

If the process of impeachment is ruled out, then what recourse is left?

Tired Fred @ 94:

While I agree (Cheney must be impeached), I don’t think Bush commuted Libby’s sentence to save Cheney (the Angler series is a good sign Cheney has passed his expiration date). He did it to protect himself.

Yeah, Scooter was cocky all through the trial. Until Walton refused bail – the he looked ashen and scared. As Bush did while announcing the commutation (and I’m sure he was wearing a wire so he could speak coherently; probably also diapers).

Still I think the key to impeaching Bush is through impeaching Cheney. Scooter was Cheney’s boy…and most of what he did was at Cheney’s behest (or…Cheney carried the word from “the Pres”).

One problem is how to get other Cheney staffmembers to break the case open….or to get charges that are limited to Cheney.

For example, it’s Bush that is making the hundreds of specific signing statements that state he will not obey “particulars” of the passed law..a blatantly Unconstitutional “line item” veto.

It’s Bush that forced the resignation of the AUSA’s for political reasons.

It’s Bush that has suspended “habeas corpus”.

It’s Bush that has violated the Geneva Conventions Treaty by giving a Presidential “Order” to torture.

Cheney may be the hand behind these things…but it’s Bush himself that had to implement them.

O/T (please forgive)

David Shuster is kicking ass and taking names as replacement for Chris Matthews on Hardball. I am going to send MSNBC a note that advises them to give him the regular gig. You are invited to do likewise.

i felt the same way – & wrote a beautiful letter praising shuster to the powers that be at msnbc

viewerservices@msnbc.com

I wanna know, why isn’t the entire blogosphere and the country and the WORLD, asking this putz WHAT PART OF Equal Justice Under The Law don’t he know?

Cuz, if he don’t KNOW this, then he’s certainly not qualified to do his job. This is kindergarten level ‘knowing’.

And he don’t know?

THIS is what should be parroted all OVER the MSM . . . the fact that he DON’T KNOW!!!! MY GOD, EVERYONE KNOWS!

SOMEone, ask him the damn question, WHY doesn’t he know the SIMPLEST of things about the law? He’s SPEAKING for the President!!!!

Harumph.

David Shuster is kicking ass and taking names as replacement for Chris Matthews on Hardball. I am going to send MSNBC a note that advises them to give him the regular gig. You are invited to do likewise.

Moreover, who knows if it will succeed? As I used to tell clients, if I could foretell the future, I would be at a horse-track. Worst case we limit the damage he can do in the last 18 months of his term. At a minimum, we publicize his wrong-doing which is common knowledge in the blogosphere, but not generally in the population.

The downside is that the nation would be further polarized. I think it will break in favor of the democrats because the case is so strong against Bush. But at some point in the future, this country will either come together or fall apart.

“… and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!”

For example, we supposedly had to stop gay marriage because it would destroy the sanctity of marriage. Again, that’s crap, but our response to it was to say, no, it’s not a threat to marriage because of this, that and the other. The right wing didn’t give a damn about the sanctity of marriage, they just want to beat up the fags (I am one, so I use the term). But instead of calling them bigots, we get pulled into a debate on whether there is a threat to marriage.

Just call them liars and move on.