Under our Constitution there are various acts a President may take which are “unreviewable.” For example, you may have heard — over and over again — that the USE of the Pardon Power is unreviewable. This is correct. However, many folks don’t know what the term “unreviewable” actually means. Like so many things in law, a word you think you know may not mean what you think it means.
Unreviewable simply means you cannot challenge it in court. Now there can be several reasons why you cannot challenge something in court: you may not have standing to sue, as seems to be the situation in the recent NSA spying case, wherein the court found that the plaintiffs could not show that the had personally suffered any harm from the secret program because the evidence they needed to show harm was, well secret, and so they could not present any evidence to show they had standing. Whew!
Or, as in the lead up cases to Roe v. Wade where the court repeatedly found that cases which took more than 9 months to get to SCOTUS would not present a “case in controversy” by the time it reached SCOTUS, because the plaintiff, the woman bringing suit, would no longer be pregnant and therefor would no longer need an abortion. You just can’t make this stuff up.
Then there is that category of cases that are unreviewable because the Constitution says so, like use of the Pardon Power. So, no matter how aggrieved Team Fitz might feel, no matter who may have standing, no matter whether or not there is a an actual case in controversy–no trip to the courthouse for judicial review of the use of the Pardon Power.
OK, are we all clear on that?
However, could someone PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME how we go from “unreviewable in court” to “nothing can be done about it”?
Abuse of power by the President, no matter what the source of that power (ie, statute, Constitution, common law) is ALWAYS subject to oversight by Congress. Such abuse can be curbed or remediated by various means available to the Legislative Branch, including : legislation, power of the purse and, yes, Impeachment by the House and Trial by the Senate, or even Amendment to the Constitution.
In order to determine whether an abuse of power has occurred and fashion an appropriate remedy, curb or check; it is necessary for Congress to investigate. Rule one in any investigation is to follow the facts and law wherever they may lead you and never pre-determine the outcome.
Oversight by Congress acting in its Constitutional role in the system of checks and balances established by the Framers is every bit as much a part of Congress’ role as is passing legislation. In the long run, of the two tasks, oversight may be the more important.
For those who believe in less government, a gridlocked Congress unable to pass legislation might even seem like a good thing. But to any patriot, to anyone who believes in the rule of law, to anyone who believes in the genius of the Constitution and who takes the words of the Framers seriously, oversight and acting as a counterweight to Executive excess is the essence of our three-branch system.
Look, as a practical matter, the Republicans have made it clear that they will not let the Democrats achieve their legislative agenda and that they intend to gridlock the Senate. I read the newspapers, and the Republicans are not being shy about making their intentions known.
Since we aren’t going to do any meaningful lawmaking (though I whole heartedly support the notion that Harry Reid should DO HIS DAMN JOB and force the Republicans to actually make good on their filibuster threats), shouldn’t we at least get some productivity out of Congress in the form of some MEANINGFUL oversight?
I’m with constitutional and international lawyer, Bruce Fein, who served as associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan and was a member of the ABA Task Force on presidential signing statements. As he pointed out in a recent edition of Bill Moyer’s Journal; “Impeachment is not a constitutional crisis; it is the cure for a constitutional crisis.”
Dear Congress: Get off your ass. Stop worrying about legislation that the republicans will never let you get a cloture on, and DO YOUR JOB. Get thee to some oversight!
Related posts:
- If It’s [Was] Friday, It Must Be State Secrets, Hiding Abuse of Power, in the 9th Circuit
- Abuse Photos: Pentagon CYA with Oak Leaf Clusters
- Gingrich: Fraud and Abuse of Medicare–Intolerable; Fraud, Abuse in Military–Less Problematic
- Feingold Asks Sotomayor about Executive Power
- Wood v. Kagan on Executive Power
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
hi
lhp!
looseheadprop!
oh goodie, lhp ;->
Yes, yes yes!
and I have a question, EPU’d from below:
Can someone here answer my question about the filibuster rule?
I understand that a failure of a cloture motion means that 30 hours of debate may be scheduled on the motion/amendment/bill, whatever.
After the 30 hours, what happens? Is there another vote on cloture? And if it fails, is there another 30 hours of debate?
Or does the motion/amendment/bill simply move to a vote?
I have to agree it is the cure to this crisis the question is will those that need to administer the cure be strong enough to proceed, but perhaps with a little help this will be successful.
off topic
that Dana Rohrbacher is a big wimp
Before the Libby communtation he was a lot of big talk about impeaching the president if he helped Libby and not the border agents…
And now crickets from Dana. Vitter isn’t the only gooper who needs to be in diapers
Yep: Whatever tries to put the Constitution in flight should be put in flight itself.
Use “or abuse” of pardon power is not reviewable is…complete hogwash. Change the constitution!
What a way to completely trump the equal branches theory written in the constitution. The people (criminals) we have witnessed pardoned is absurd and immoral…what a way to undermine the supposedly just Justice system.
TILLMAN
perhaps it would be useful to list other powers that are not “reviewable” such as impeachment, inherent contempt, etc.? and by reviewable, do you mean that one or two of the other branches has some say in the use of such power, like the War Powers Act, where the Congress has the power to declare war while the President has the power to wage war. gosh, I just love your posts, lhp.
beth meacham @ 5
Not that I actually qualify as someone who knows, but I think you have it kind of backwards.
If cloture succeeds, they have 30 hours (extendable by another 60 vote majority) to debate the bill and it’s amendments. Then they must vote.
If cloture fails, Reid can refuse to bring any other business to the floor. That means the only business is the one the cloture vote failed on. So they talk and talk (and Reid interrupts anyone trying to get a nap by calling for quorum) until enough people can’t take it anymore and cloture passes.
Lou Costello @ 10
Tillman, absolutely.
the pardon power is reviewable if it is used to obstruct justice. there seems to be general agreement on that. of course, the remedy is not in overturning the pardon that obstructs, but in impeachment.
http://www.democraticundergrou…..id=1356091
http://www.examiner.com/blogs/…..terrogated
Or maybe for the fortune?
-
GordonM @ 12
No naps? Won’t they get all cranky and stuff.
beth meacham @ 5
That is my understanding of how it works from what I read in the press, but I have not done any original research on this.
If it becomes a reality, I will (I assume) go do the research and do a definative post about it.
They are way too busy doing nothing about what they could be doing to have the time to do what they should be doing, and that is why they aren’t doing it – or something like that..and besides, they say that if they do what they should be doing it would just be a big waste of time and take away from what they could be doing if they weren’t wasting time not doing it.
This was what irritated me about Russ Feingold’s disdain for the idea of impeachment: that even some liberal Democrats think that they can influence the course of policy and get something – anything at all, even – that they want from this Administration, without playing hardball, making threats, and being prepared to carry them out.
We talk about how dangerous yet revealing it is that Republicans project their own ideas and insecurities onto people/movements they identify as their opponents (Democrats at home; “teh terrorists!!!1!” abroad), but at the same time, we’re no less transparent about our *own* projections: that surely our opponents wouldn’t be mean, or harsh, or lie, or use procedural maneuvers to defeat what they can’t on a normal vote – because *we* wouldn’t do those things to *them*, *we* have trouble imagining *them* doing those things to us.
Even when we don’t have to *imagine* much to see how these things develop; we can read the fucking papers and blogs and see exactly what the GOP is doing. But some of us would rather think of our opponents as being as nice and polite and well-intentioned as ourselves – and making policy and political choices as if that were incontrovertibly true.
No wonder we keep getting our asses kicked; we didn’t bother to take off the “Kick me!” sign, because we never would’ve put one on anyone else.
The Constitution — Article II Section 2:
The Constitution is very clear — in Cases of Impeachment, the Presidential Pardon is negated.
It does not stipulate conviction by the Senate — Impeachment removes the power to pardon.
Kathleen @ 9
It just menas you can’t sue. And frankly who would do the suing? Team Fitz? There’s tha whole “standing” thingy to worry about.
The Framers did put a check and balance onthe abuse of these powers–IT’S CALLED CONGRESS
GordonM @ 12
It is a straight up and down vote. No 60 votes I do believe
Kathleen @ 9
It just menas you can’t sue. And frankly who would do the suing? Team Fitz? There’s tha whole “standing” thingy to worry about.
The Framers did put a check and balance onthe abuse of these powers–IT’S CALLED CONGRESSTiredFed @ 11
and wrt impeachment, this just has to be repeated:
low-tech cyclist (formerly RT) says:
July 12th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
“Lessee: Dems can’t pass legislation, and their oversight authority has been gutted. They might as well impeach because they’ve got nothing better to do.”
Kathleen @ 9
It just menas you can’t sue. And frankly who would do the suing? Team Fitz? There’s tha whole “standing” thingy to worry about.
The Framers did put a check and balance onthe abuse of these powers–IT’S CALLED CONGRESSTiredFed @ 11
TiredFed @ 11
Always knew the Republicans were not afraid to go “Nucular”
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/…..ervatives/
argosfalcon @ 16
WOOOO! Scary! Ted Stevens getting cranky!
I can see it now all those lonely lobbyists standing outside the Capital going can’t the republicans come out and play.
TiredFed @ 14
so what about Clintons pardon of Marc Rich?
How about a 200,000 person Impeachment March from the White House to the Capitol?
can I say it for you lhp? ACK! preview is my friend.
TiredFed @ 11
Aw shucks (blushing)
Anyway, back to business.
Unreveiwable ONLY MEANS NO LITIGATION — it does not mean nothing can be done.
Courts review. Congress does oversight.
The Framers saw oversight as the check and balance on this kind of abuse.
Remeber, oversight can lead several kinds of remedies: legilation, ammendment to the constitution, impeachment, cutting off the $.
-ck- @ 20
You are reading this wrong, (Or else I am.) I read it to mean that if the House impeaches and the Senate convicts and removes an officer, such as the V.P. or a federal judge, the President cannot overturn that conviction and removal.
Impeachment cases, begin in the House, but they are still impeachment cases when they are tried inthe Senate.
Kathleen @ 29
Ask Libby
Why is Frances Townsend giving the press a truck load of BS on the TWISTED WH interpretation of the NIE ??
I don’t trust anyone bereft of an upper lip..
Kathleen @ 29
The exception to the use of the pardon power (which includes commutations and such) is in cases of impeachment. What this means is that the President cannot preemptively pardon himself or anyone else to preclude an impeachment proceeding or to prevent or overturn the result. This restriction would have no bearing on the Marc Rich pardon.
A bunch of sleeping, snoring, far*ing, Congressmen…heh..heh…should be a hoot.
TiredFed @ 14
The problem is that folks (nlcuding you) are using the word “reviewable” in its everyday meaning (like reviewing your kid’s math homework to make sure it is correct).
In this instance “reviewable” is a term of art that means you bring it to court. That is where the confusion is coming from.
This abuse is completely subject to examination and oversight and remedy, by Congress.
looseheadprop @ 32
haha. you can blush but you can’t hide. I agree, there’s lots of tools in that little toolbox the founders left us. Let’s just hope someone can figure out how to use them up on Capitol Hill.
BigMitch @ 33
He (or she) also cannot preclude or prevent his (or her) own impeachment.
Mojo @ 35
It seems that there is some haliburton factory that turns out these blonde bimbos preprogrammed to lie for use in bushco. Keeryst the are awful
Kathleen @ 29
As I wrote here:
“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. Gay 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
Apologies to those who have seen it before.
Hate to be a nitpicker, but as much as I like Bruce Fein and would lavish him with praise over the past few years… It was The Nation’s John Nichols who said:
LS @ 18
Exactly! “g”
looseheadprop @ 38
is it “reviewable” (the technical legal thingy) by the Supreme Court if it is found to be for dastardly deeds such as obstruction of justice? not that this would matter with the current SCOTUS.
-ck- @ 20
ck (20), I read that the same way Big Mitch did (33) – that the president can’t pardon himself for being impeached.
And as circumstantial evidence, I’d offer that if impeachment *was* understood to negate the power to pardon, Republicans would have been screaming it from the rooftops when Clinton issued pardons in 2000.
nomolos @ 22
You misread the original comment. The 30-hour period of debate after cloture is invoked can be further extended by a 60-vote majority. The vote on the actual bill or amendment is a simple majority vote.
Kathleen @ 9
The President’s ability to pardon his henchmen puts them above the law. He can pardon them for every crime they ever committed on a daily basis. And, Mr. Madison notwithstanding, the power of impeachment is no safeguard against such abuse, for the President can postpone his pardons to the hour he leaves office.
Worse yet, per John Dean and others, a president can pardon himself, which puts the president above the law. And you can’t impeach him if he does so on the way out of office.
Our Constitution is in desperate need of an amendment regarding presidential pardons.
How does pardon differ from commutement (commutation?) with respect to all this?
TiredFed @ 40
The whole issue of pre-emptive pardons is not clear. Some (Jerry Ford, i.e.) argue (with Supreme Court support) that a pardon requires acceptance, (as with a deed to land, e.g.) and this requires admission of guilt. He justified his pardon of Nixon on this basis, and legend has it that he carried with him till the day he died a copy of the Supreme Court case that supported his view. As you can readily see, a pardon before a conviction is problematic.
TiredFed @ 40
Nor can a President pardon an individual whose crimes are part of the Articles of Impeachment against said President — i.e., if Scooter Libby’s Obstruction of Justice is cited in Articles of Impeachment against Bush and Cheney, Scooter could not be pardoned by Bush or Cheney.
It was actually John Nichols not Fein who said what was cited in the quote:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/jour…..ript4.html
Kathleen @ 29
Chris @ 47
Well, they were screaming from the rooftops, but your point is well taken. They would have been making sense, which they were not.
TiredFed @ 31
Fed,
I cannot type, cannot spell, and have zero computer skills. When I doing stuff like this, where I don’t have my secretary cleaing up my work product, you get this gibberish from me.
TexB @ 50
Commutation is a remission of a portion of the sentence. It does not negate the conviction. A pardon erases a conviction.
again, assuming the (D) Party wants to do any such thing as restoring our constitutional system, yep that’s how they could go about it.
OT–
(Apologies to looseheadprop.)
For MN FDLers interested in getting Coleman out in ‘08:
Mojo @ 35
Got a link?
LS @ 37
Eeewwww, Congress Breath in the morning…..yuck.
BigMitch @ 58
I meant the difference with regards to judicial oversight.
drive by from al the spook:
The combination of Tim Johnston’s illness and LIEberman’s de facto defection to the Rethuglicans make the “all night debate” nothing but a show pony, according to the latest analysis at The Carpetbagger Report.
I think we’ve been had again….but will be happy to be proved wrong!
Dover Bitch @ 42
Faster than I was by this . . . much.
nomolos @ 41
lhp, I love your posts, too. Wish you could be on Olbermann once a week to do a lesson. Would you take a stab at Inherent Contempt for us? I’m looking for any way to avoid the US Atty in DC, the courts or the Bush DOJ.
BigMitch @ 51
From everthing I’ve read, preconviction pardons are routine, e.g. Ford’s pardon of Nixon. That stuff seems to be settled.
The matter of the need for “acceptance” simply prevents pardons from granting unwelcome immunity, because the acceptance seems to have no time limit. So far as I can tell the acceptance can be delayed until the pardon is needed, and then can be accepted one crime at a time. But I’ve not seen precedent one way or the other.
Note: IANAL.
Via @ 62
visualize pillow talk – even more yuck.
nomolos @ 22
I am no means an expert on any of this – but I watched Durbin last night and this morning. The big thing they have been arguing about is McConnell insisting on a 60 vote. Durbin has brought up (and Reid too, I think( that they have had other 50 votes.
This morning, Durbin and McCain were going back and forth. Durbin said he would schedule a vote on a Repub’s amendment this afternoon, and it would be a 50 vote. When McCain didn’t object, Durbin turned around and said (paraphrased) “Now that you have approved a 50 vote on an amendment, it doesn’t make any sense to argue against a 50 vote for any other amendment!” Brilliant! The Dems have 50 votes – so the fight has been about whether they need 60. If Repubs continue to insist, that is the reason for the threatened filibuster.
…at least that is my limited understanding . .
looseheadprop @ 57
Hey lhp, didn’t those used to be the hallmarks of a truly outstanding executive?
times are a-change-in…. NOT
you go grrrrllll!
Big Mitch @ 42
Are you sure Marc Rich is old enough to have been ‘a refugee from the Nazis’? He must have been gey wee!
One can nearly always get groups of lawyers to disagree; I believe it is how we arrived at law courts. Back when I was connected to oil people M Rich was considered to be ‘extremely quick on his feet’ — he having been pardoned I shall put it no higher. He ran for Switzerland and points East before (Dammit, my hand slipped!) the sheriff and posse even began to think of going after him. In fact it was the precipitate departure which alerted authority, I seem to remember.
Perhaps it is a matter of perception as to what is ‘immoral’ in some way, the underlying judgement, presumably, before illegality is decided.
brendan @ 30
I’m in!
BigMitch @ 56
The Impeachment exception on the power of the pardon only applies to crimes associated with Impeachment; hence, Clinton’s power to pardon Marc Rich was unaffected. However, if someone like Bruce Lindsey had been indicted for something like Obstruction of Justice in the Lewinsky affair, that would have precluded a pardon from Bill Clinton.
At any rate, that’s my reading of Article II Section 2.
TiredFed @ 40
Does this mean Bush could or could not pardon Cheney if Cheney was impeached first?
BigMitch @ 58
Have I read from some of the attorneys here that a pardon opens it up for the person to have to testify if one receives a subpoena and with a commutation you still have protection under the fifth?
So that Libby’s commutation protects him from having to testify in the Plame/Wilson civil suit? Is this close?
TexB @ 63
Neither is subject to judicial oversight. Congress can hold hearings on either but can only negate them as part of an impeachment process.
looseheadprop @ 57
lhp has always been up front about this. We love ya, though, in spite of. What counts is that from the content of your writing, there’s absolutely no doubt that you’re a first-rate (and I’d say brilliant) lawyer with admirable political instincts.
The Briefing was on CSPAN2.. it’s over now..
TiredFed @ 45
Nope. Not any way that I can see.
Richard Mellon SCAIFE has now turned on Bush WRT Iraq!
I shit thee not:
That thumping sound you’re about to hear is me falling to the floor in a faint.
Via @ 74
I’m sorry, please strike this question from the record!
kinmo @ 76
Cindy is on her way. Ramsey Clark was the first person I heard call for IMPeachment in 2003
wigwam @ 49
Don’t want to spill any beans, but Iwas at a meeting onthe Hill not too long ago, and you may see one proposed ere long
Sorry here is the link for the march in Sept
http://www.impeachbush.org/sit…..mp;id=5197
abuse of power
obstruction of justice
inherent contempt
hold the elevated “terra” threat and the “Hotties” for Obama, Hillary, Giuliani, eeeekkkk!
-ck- @ 52
I’ve seen well-informed people (at Dkos) argue that the cases-of-impeachment exception only applies to the impeachment proceedings including the trial in the Senate, but does not apply to prosecution of related crimes in a court of law.
On the other hand, CitizenSpook has argued here that conviction in the Senate voids any pardon for the underlying crime.
Personally, however, I prefer your interpretation.
looseheadprop @ 83
But if he can’t pardon himself or Cheney once they have been impeached, it seems to make it all the more critical that the House begin and Impeachment Inquiry right now.
TexB @ 50
Pardon removes the conviction and (because of te priciple of double jeopardy) removes the possibilty of self incrimination with repsect to the crime pardoned from.
Commutation leaves the conviction on the feon’s record (with all attendant side effects such as loss of professional licenses) and just reduces the sentence. As long as you have an appeal pending (like Libby does) you retain your 5th ammendentment privledge with repsect to the crime for which sentence has been commuted.
looseheadprop @ 85
I have always wondered why the Presidents pardon ability had never come under more scrutiny. It is a direct attack on Justice. I get it…. that is the point.
Protect those white boys
looseheadprop @ 89
Right, I knew that part, just wasn’t sure if commutation was subject to review if impeachment is involved.
TexB @ 63
To my knowledge, there is none
Great post LHP!
You mentioned awhile back over at TNH that you were working on some articles of impeachment — how are they coming?
Another quick question for you, since you are a lawyer and I am not… My understanding of impeachment is that it can be used to remove an incompetent executive, not just a criminal one. If that is the case, it seems we could toss in an article or two related to the chronic appointment of incompetent political hacks to positions of real responsibility resulting in the failure of various agencies (e.g., Michael Brown at FEMA, Paul Bremer at IPA, etc.). Kinda like a board of directors chucking out an incompetent and negligent CEO. Is that a correct interpretation or must there be some violation of the law?
TexB @ 63
Oh and PLEASE work with me here
Courts = review
Congress = oversight
looseheadprop @ 88
Both the regular pardon and commutation come out of the same pardoning power listed in the Constitution. Some differences between them have already been noted. Another is that a regular pardon can be accepted or rejected. A commutation does not require acceptance. It goes into effect no matter what. IOW Libby could not refuse it and demand that he go to jail.
Via @ 68
Will add Inherent Contempt to the list.
I have a few in the pipeline before this.
Anytime KeithO calls, I’ll come.
Phoenix Woman @ 80
PW – please look at my 9:44 am comment in the previous thread for more information about this story.
looseheadprop @ 94
Thanks!
looseheadprop @ 94
Thank you! Simple explanations and instructions are best.
OK, you all are way ahead of me, but just compare Commander Guy’s treatment of the Libby family with the treatment of the Tillman family.
OMFG.
To have the unmitigated gall to compare Libby to any soldier makes me puke.
Have I read from some of the attorneys here that a pardon opens it up for the person to have to testify if one receives a subpoena and with a commutation you still have protection under the fifth?
So that Libby’s commutation protects him from having to testify in the Plame/Wilson civil suit? Is this close?
ok I read the answer at 94.
Phoenix Woman @ 80
Did you also see the part where Scaife-Mellon says that Bush is “mentally unstable?”
How often can Reed keep Congress in session with this trick can he keep Congress in session over the weekend? can he cancel Congress’s vacation? Obama and Hilary got plenty of money. However McCain’s campaign needs him for fundraisers over the weekend and Congress’s vacation.
Forcing the most Prowar, ProBush Presidential Candidate to cancel his campagn due to lack of funds would be a feather in out cap. Besides the GOP is prepared for one filibuster imagine how disheartened they would be if they found out they just lost their summer vaction.
Keeping Senator Vitter in Washington and the public’s eye for a few more days could only help too.
I want a vote on every bill the GOP has threatened to filibuster!
Phoenix Woman @ 81
PW -
Is this *really* as big a deal as I’ve been led to believe from various blog readings?
do-si-do @ 99
Or the Plame/Wilson family. RatBastard.
Kathleen @ 89
Every Republican president since Eisenhower has been involved in crimes against the Constitution as a perpetrator and/or as a pardoner. We can’t allow these bastards from putting themselves and their associates above the law. It’s too damn dangerous.
Phoenix Woman @ 82
OMG!
PW
“The Impeachment exception on the power of the pardon only applies to crimes associated with Impeachment; hence, Clinton’s power to pardon Marc Rich was unaffected. However, if someone like Bruce Lindsey had been indicted for something like Obstruction of Justice in the Lewinsky affair, that would have precluded a pardon from Bill Clinton.”
Although I agree, I would go a bit further. If Congress impeached Gonzales, it’s my view that Shrub could not pardon Abu for the crimes alleged in the impeachment document.
Kathleen @ 100
The answer to your first question is yes; I base my answer on what I have read in other FDL threads. Someone else will need to answer your second question, for which my tentative answer is no.
Stephen Parris – (wrt my ? for PW)
Our comments crossed paths………will go look up your ref’d. Back shortly.
How’re things in your neck of the woods these days?
Off-topic begging: For the first time in years, thanks to the absence of DeLay and Abramoff, we have a chance to end the slavery, forced abortions and forced prostitution in the Northern Marianas Islands. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing this Thursday.
There’s a lot going on right now, I know, but this will likely be the only chance these victims will have to have their human rights and dignity restored. If you are calling your senators about the war or any other topic, please, please, please ask them to support S. 1634. Especially if they are on that committee. More here.
Kathleen @ 90
Not really. One of the reasons that the WH has an “office of Pardon Attorney” is precisley to AVOID accidental abuse of the pardon power.
If the standards and regulations of the OPA are follwed, usally very deserving people get a pardon or other clemency.
It is only those cases which deviate (like Nixon, like Weinberger, like Rich, like Libby, etc) that are assaults on Justice.
Hi LHP,
Thanks for your excellent tutorials. Please keep them coming.
Also, I think I recall seeing you saying “more to come” regarding the notion that congress might be able “suspend” the president pending trial in the senate. I’d like to hear more, even if it’s that there is no way that can be done.
Thanks again.
maunga @ 72
I wonder if he ran into Crazy Eddie over there?
no war with Iran petition
http://democracyinaction.org/d…..on_KEY=358looseheadprop @ 114
Who else would be added to that list?
Dover Bitch @ 111
Great heads-up. Thanks!
maunga @ 71
Marc Rich (born Marc David Reich on December 18, 1934) Rich was born to a Jewish working class family in Antwerp, Belgium in 1934. The Rich family immigrated to the United States in 1942 to avoid the Nazis. (from Wikipedia)
phred @ 93
A0 the Articles are comming along well. They are based upon prior Articles of Impeachment and therefore have a sort of precedential quality–what passed muster before, should pass muster again, n’est pas?
Via @ 61
make them eat Freedom Fries ……
OT ~ Georgie’s bunker moment?
‘Mildly profane’ Bush ‘crashes’ Republican meeting on Iraq.
Brisingamen @ 102
Last night’s Daily Show defined “progress” as “the passing of time.” On target, as usual.
Friggin’ awesome editorial. Money quote for me:
I scream this at my TV repeatedly.
Kathleen @ 100
Some very good lawyers agree that the lack of a full pardon preserves his right to take the fifth. It also preserves his incentive to do so.
OFF-TOPIC — but nowhere else to post..
I posted this to the “WHY ARE YOU HERE?” thread — but i’m new here and i don’t think the software prompts if there are new replies in an older thread.. thus I will repost here for some feedback. thanks!
=====================
hello folks –
i’m trying to get a feel for the culture here.
my first impression is that my comments don’t get addressed. that’s okay per se, but i’m too new here to understand if it’s the norm. one of my reasons for coming here is because the dkos megamall can be too big and thus have a lack of focus.
however.even with that high volume traffic, my posts get replies. in a weeks time i have posted numerous times about use of video as a way of helping with the mission of this site.
not a single reply from site front pagers. donate 200 dollars, no reply. It’s not about polite protocol — though as a southernor that would be nice too.. it’s about content and ideation — and interaction on ideas.
i dont want to form the wrong impression but so far the flow of posts and comments here appears to be (1) there are excellent people who blog very thoughtfully and insightfully on front page every day — that’s the currency — the value of that superb brainpower. (2) then there is a comments section, which feels to me like Dfa’s blog during dean campaign… In fact, hi renee in ohio — nice tomeet up again…
The cultural vibehere is much like a chat room where people hang out socially.
id like to get some feedback because if this is a place where front pagers don’t engage the peanut gallery for everyone else, then no thanks. Been there done that.
if im going to take the time to be thoughtful, and my stuff flows by unaddressed, then that,s not fulfilling for me.
many places on web have different cultures and styles, whis is GOOD. but chat rooms are not my cup of tea… so some honest feedback would be greatly appreciated. I simply may not fit here. thanks much!
sonate @ 108
I disagree. I think that if Chimp pardons someone for, say perjury or obstruction of justice relating to crimes in the white house, the pardon is effective, and beyond challenge. The remedy for this abuse of power is not to overturn the pardon, but rather to impeach the culprit, the pardoner, the decider, the chimp-in-chief.
List of people pardoned by Presidents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L….._president
Dover Bitch @ 113
thanks DB, will do. also, i rec’ed the diary and hope other firepups will do likewise.
wigwam @ 114
That’s one of the pieces in the pipeline. The research is done, the post is started but not yet completed. Am working on it
Later FDLers…back to the fields to work. Thanks for sharing your insights with a peasant
RawStory says Sara Taylor has been called back to give a deposition before Waxman’s committee next week. He has, among other things, asked that she prepare to be asked about RNC emails…http://rawstory.com/news/2007/….._0717.html
Families of Libyan children infected with HIV have dropped demands for six foreign medical workers convicted in the case to be sentenced to death.
OT–
wigwam @ 113
Let’s see whether we can put into historical context and/or perspective whatever putative Congressional ability might exist to “suspend” the President pending trial in the Senate. If that ability existed, why wasn’t it used when Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were tried in the Senate?
If I am not mistaken, that comment concerning Presidential suspension arose during the Constutional Convention’s deliberations before the Constitution’s ratification.
Heh heh, Biodun beat me to it.
Good work.
looseheadprop @ 116
You go girlfriend! Can’t wait to see ‘em…
-ck- @ 20
What would an impeachment of Irve L. Libby do to the communtation of sentence? Set it aside? Could such lead to a requirement to testify before Congress and possibly engender a contempt of Congress and the attendant criminations? What might be gained by linking the communtation to a Presidential coverup of criminal activity? How might that be prima facia evidence of impeachable offense to law, constitution, oath of office? IANAL
selise @ 126
Thanks selise. I forgot about the recommend function! This topic, for me, is the number one example of the MSM completely failing. As bad as they have been in other areas, they have been completely absent on this issue. Slavery, rape, the deportation of U.S. citizens… no coverage at all. I just don’t get it.
rhfactor @ 124
I am just an avg commenter, at home with far too much time on my hands these days. I welcome you. Not sure about original video, but there are certainly video clips here daily.
Late night seems to be the most interactive time in my experience.
Remember DeLay calling the Marianas the ‘perfect petri dish for capitalism’? What a perfectly slimy individual.
raven @ 130
The bribes have been paid to Khaddafi and his goons, the families get a pittance. but implict in the deal was an end to the execution nonsense. (and is was clear from the beginning that it was unsterile technique that was the problem, largely because the hospital had no money to buy clean needles or hire competent staff.)
This has been another textbook instance of Libyan blackmail of europe.
rhfactor @ 123
Off topic commens are often not addressed by the poster (unless it is breaking news) b/c the poster has deliberatly set up a discussion of a particular topic.
Once in a while there are “open threads” arond here where folks are specifically invited to talk about whatever they feel like.
Also, sometimes off topic comments excite the other commentors and the threead heads off in tat direction. Some front pagers consider that “hijacking” thier thread, I usually go with the flow.
Also, something to note. You talk about polite.
I spent almost a full year lurking here to learn the culture before I ventured my first comment. I went proably another couple months after I began commenting before anyone responded directly to my comment. When I got that first repsonse,I felt very honored.
Unfamiliar names don’t often get alot of attetnion at first because we have had problems with trolls.
Waccamaw @ 104
This is the guy that funds the think tanks that spew the propoganda and write the policy for Righties for decades now. Without him, Righties would still be sweaty paranoids in cheap polyester suits holding conferences in rural Holiday Inns seeing Commies under every bed.
Hello Rhfactor,
FWIW, I don’t speak for FDL but as a pup here, I post away because it is so welcoming and no one flames. i get ignored all the time but still feel heard and I get to express myself. There’s tons of discussion, whereas on other sites, folks comment and go.
Generally, people here explain to me that we try to keep on the topic of the post mostly unless some compelling news breaks or the topic has been discussed at length already. By then, usually a fresh post is started. Sometimes there is “spillover” from the previous post.
Personally, I tend to skip over really long comments (like the one I’m posting right now) because I have the attention span of a gnat.
Late Nite is where it is a little more freewheeling. You might want to bring personal topics there.
I will suggest that with ever growing readership, FDL powers that be might want to post their ground rules??? It does take a little time to figure out.
Hope this helps.
Via @ 138
He wasn’t kidding, either.
Most recent brief ThinkProgress post: ‘Mildly profane’ Bush ‘crashes’ Republican meeting on Iraq
GordonM @ 141
Note the “Mellon” in the name. In this case, NOT the elven word for “friend”, but the French word for heartless ruthless banking interests. Serious money here, and connections dating back to before the founding of the American Colonies. Compared to the Mellons, Bush is a nuveau riche.
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 132
Steve PArish,
Long time no chat!
Actually that suspension idea applied ONLY to instances where the Presient and VP were being invetiageted via Impeachment Inquiry for abuse of the pardon paower to pardon someone who had commited the crime at thier behest.
it was very narrow and would not have applied to the Jackson or Clito situations
rhfactor –
Don’t throw in the towel yet. The comments here tend to move rapidly, sometimes you will get a response, sometimes you won’t. I only occasionally chime in here myself ’cause I find it hard to keep up. Hang around for awhile and see how things go. If no one engages you, there are other places to go. Like you, it is the discussion I am after, although personally I don’t care too much whether the person who posted replies or whether it is another reader/commenter
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 132
CPA’s right on this one. I completely respect looseheadprop, but this is a waste of time. No Senator or Congressman is going to seriously argue that we can suspend the President based on an extra-constitutional theory
newtonusr @ 143
Dengre wrote:
Sorry to hijack the thread, lhp. I’ll depart now. Great post.
Waccamaw @ 11:31 am -
Upstate South Carolina needs rain.
wigwam @ 122
IANAL but a pardon exempts the pardonee from the punishment for a crime which he/she has committed. The 5th Amendment claim against self-incrimination can only hold if there is a penalty out there but with a pardon there is none. So there is no 5th Amendment protection with regard to what was pardoned.
With a commutation and as long as the appeals process is ongoing, there is still some part of a punishment still potentially out there. So the 5th can be invoked to protect against any incrimination which would undermine the petitioner’s case and bring on what was still left of a punishment after commutation.
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 144
The whole room is bugged by Bush. His ears were ringing, most likely.
phred @ 147
Hi phred!
Arnie @ 135
I’m not entirely sure if Libby was in an impeachale office (don’t bet the rent money on what I am about to say–I really have not researched this)but I pretty much equate impeachable officers with those who require confirmation by the Seante in the first place:
So Cabinet Officers, Federal Judges, US Attorneys–folks like that. The rest of them would just et indicted (as Libby was) and convicted like a regular person
GordonM @ 141
Oh, I yearn for those days….
When evil was actually recognized by a majority of the population.. and treated accordingly..
I’m hoping the “pendulum” is swing back toward that again..
When the folks like the PNAC are shunned for the evil they represent..
Via @ 129
The link says that she’s been asked to show upon the 24th. That’s the same day that Alberto will be in front of the senate judicuary again. Looks like it may be dueling hearings once again.
rhfactor @ 124
Hi rhfactor!!!
Thank you for your insightful comment — this has been an issue for many folks, but having a front pager respond to a given comment is always a treat, and never assured.
There is something of a chat room quality to the comment threads, but there is also serious give and take on many issues.
I commented more often last year, but with the demands of work, finding time to participate in the comment threads is a luxury.
All I can say is, hang in there — pithy comments often become the spark for ongoing discussions in comment threads.
rhfactor @ 126 –
ok, this just me (i don’t dare respond for anyone else)….
i think your idea is great…. but that doesn’t mean that jane and/or christy will have time to take you up on it (btw, have you tried emailing christy?). they are both working flat-out already (and jane is fighting for her life – just finished a major round of chemo for breast cancer).
you’ve made an offer… but, maybe jane (who, after all has produced multiple hollywood movies) has other contacts for video work? or maybe didn’t see your offer. i really don’t know… but my suggestion is to first try something that doesn’t require either christy or jane’s time… is there something that commenters here could help you with?
wrt to getting responses in a comments thread – not sure exactly what you mean here.. are you asking about getting a response from the front-pager or from another commenters?
selise @ 126
Some background from an Alaska perspective: A bill to redress the abuses in the N. Mariana was introduced by Frank Murkowski, who was then the Senator from the Great State. (He subsequently became Gov. and appointed his own successor, Lisa Murkowski, his daughter.) The bill was killed in a house committee by Don Young, who describes himself as the Congressman for All Alaskans.
To say the least, dissention in the ranks of the Alaska congressional delegation is rare, if not unheard of. Murkowski (Mr. and Ms.) Ted Stevens and Young are all Republicans, of course.
Don Young’s role in this is what makes him an Abramoff baby. In the last congressional election, his opponent on the Dem ticket was Diane Benson who previously had run for Governor on the Green ticket. (Greens are a respectable third party in AK, not just a fringe party.)
Ms. Benson did not bring up the N. Marianas in the election, but that was then, and this is now.
Diane Benson has again filed for the race against Don Young. Local Dems who are considered to have even more horsepower are being suggested as a possible opponent of Young.
In no way would I want to minimize the horror of what goes on in the Marianas — slavery is too mild a word. But if this occasion can also be an opportunity to shine some unwelcome attention on Don Young, it’s a good thing.
Note: Our friend, Ed*uard Teller worked on Ms. Benson’s campaign. He can tell you about it.
Other Alaska news: FBI gives Ted Stevens an extension of time in which to correct his financial disclosures relating to the remodel of his home. Paid for by VECO, an oil field service co, whose president recently pled guilty to bribery in another case, not directly involving Ted Stevens, but brushing up against Ben Stevens, son of Ted, and former speaker of the house in the AK State Legislature.
And further, it is a beautiful, cool day in Anchorage.
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 144
Jeebus. Bush has no thinking faculty at all. He’s all fight. His only position on any issue is “you can’t say no to me”.
And yeah, Decider Guy, we know you have decided not to let up. It’s all you’ve got.
ccmask @ 152
There is a possibility Bush is back on the sauce. Laura bitch-slapped him hard on the anti-condom business in public, and he was observed drinking a near-beer in G8, which apparently set off his anabuse cause he was down the whole next day.
Remember the disjointed speeches recently, the ugly incident with the crying little girl. he may be drinking again. It isn’t in cheney’s interest to stop him, and who else could? also, it makes him easier to manipulate in some ways.
so now we potentially have a drunken insane dysfunctional clown running our poor nation. How lovely for us.
lhp @ 11:51 am -
You’re right! (When time permits, please check Facebook and your e-mail.)
looseheadprop @ 146
So, I take it then, it WOULD apply now. Hot d*mn, wouldn’t that be great!
LHP, what about the incompetence question I raised earlier? Just curious. I’ve asked about it a couple of times over at TNH, but to no avail, so was hoping you could give me some insight while you’re here… Thanks!
althespook @ 161
I missed the crying little girl…do tell, please.
phred @ 92
Impeachment is what the house says it is. Incompetence can be a violation of the oath of office to “faithfully execute …” Thus, it can be made into an article of impeachment.
newtonusr @ 153
Hi newtonusr! Nice to see you :)
I LOVE THIS SITE!!!!!! 10 outta 10 times I visit this site, I learn something
Thanks for the Explanation!
Phoenix Woman @ 80
This should make it clear that “neoconservatism” and Republicanism aren’t the same thing. Neoconservatives made cause with the Republicans because they were the ascendant party, the ones with real power, not out of any principle. The constellation of interests that make up the war lobby and that gave us the war don’t include any of the Republican “base”. Rank-and-file Republicans, and even well-heeled zealots like Scaife, supported the war because they support the Republican Party, and they support that party because either 1) they want lower taxes, no matter the price or 2) they’re religious kooks. They’re such cynical, ethically malformed, greedy little fucks that the war was just an abstraction, a necessarily cost to get their taxes lowered. Really, it’s that simple. Now, the scales are falling even from the eyes of these reptiles.
rhfactor @ 123
I just am here to welcome you, RHFactor! I have been on FDL for a couple of years and have found everyone is welcome. I read a lot and rarely post. When I do, sometimes people respond, sometimes not. If people are off-topic, often there is not a response. Or often, as in my case, one comments at the end of the thread, or gets EPU’d as we say, so no-one responds because the crowd has moved to the next thread. (-:
With all of my reading, I seem to have missed your posts. I hope you stay around longer to get a read on the ‘culture’ – we are a varied group with a wide range of ‘cultures’, I think.
boxer @ 148
I have neve suggested that they ACTUALLY DO IT. Only that it belongs in the the national discussion.
Why? Because it negates the GOP talking point about partisan withch hunts. It shows that the Dems are NOT taking a radical (or a Cheney would put it, a “musular”) postion, and instead are pursuing a very plain vanilla, regular course of business overisght.
We have to maitain the theme that it is the WH that is being extreme and acting outside the Constution. Talking about the Madison arguement helps prevent the GOP from putting Congress on defense.
Serious talk of impeachment is all over the blog, all over the streets. How can the MSM and Dem leadership pretend it is not?
Also, I thought I read Stephen Pizzo at Smirking Chimp saying that Pelosi, on a radio show, had said impeachment CAN’T be taken off the table? I need to go back and look for this…
rhfactor @ 123
rh: i’ve only seen one of your comments here and it was very impressive. i didn’t feel qualified to comment about it because you were making a presentation about media and it’s usage which was beyond my knowledge and expertise. i did get the concept and agree that we need to get more into FDL going into a regular Youtube format/presentation (as best i understood it). as regards doing that, i am thinking that Jane, Christy, Pach, or any of our technology-competent members would be needed to get that kind of thing rolling. i personally believe that you have a vitally important contribution to make at FDL but i’m just one of the peons …..
HI
thank you for another great post looseheadprop!
Dover Bitch @ 149
You are not hijacking this thread. Stay. We can multitask.
Fresh thread from Jane, up and running for everyone.
do-si-do @ 160
Now it’s time to contact the repub. Reps posing as constituents and demand that they not be the President’s “b*!tch”! Tell them the President is emasculating them. Attack their manhood. Because of their innate insecurities all repubs. respond reflexively to this and will come out swinging at Bush.
Hugh @ 151
But the potential for self-incrimination can be obviated by the grant of immunity.
Helen @ 156
Sigh, another day where I get no work done.
rhfactor @ 11:35 -
Southerner, here. *g* I read your comments earlier but did not respond b/c I know absolutely nothing about the type of media you propose.
The impression I have is that the front pagers at the Lake have a lot of items on their plates at any given time. Can only suggest that you keep trying b/c good ideas may take time to percolate thru the system.
GordonM @ 11:48 -
Ohhhhhh, thank you! That *does* put things into perspective…..as in red (or should that be white?) flag to other big ticket thugs.
AK -
Icing on the cake!
I might have known you’d be a LOTR fan; named the first piece of property I owned “Rivendell”.
Understand your namesake had a birthday recently. ;-)
looseheadprop @ 154
I disagree with regard to impeachment but not criminal prosecution.
Re impeachment of civil officers,
Article II, Section 4.
Civil officer applies to any employee of the federal government, including judges, excluding those in the military and legislators. From The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation 2002 edition, the annotated text put out by our government:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/const…..02/012.pdf (p.608)
LS @ 18
I don’t know whether I should be scared or elated that I understood everything you said … *g*
((((( LS )))))
BigMitch @ 165
Thanks BigMitch — that was what I thought, but the other day someone was arguing that only crimes were impeachable, so I wanted to double check…
bBigMitch @ 159
Jeebus! You make Alaska sound like Louisiana!
Has any been reading the Senators’ responses downthread: Habeas Corpus Down to the Razor . . . They’re really appalling. Landrieu’s staff hanging up. Liarman’s staff telling a caller, he doesn’t understand “the larger issues.” I think we can safely say that Lieberman and Landrieu are appalling pathetic excuses for senators.
looseheadprop @ 170
Fair enough. I’ve followed your articles/comments for the past few weeks and can tell you’re extremely bright and knowledgeable, but remember you have limited resources and time is of the essence right now.
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 162
Can check e-mail and will. Have no idea how to check facebook. I really am a technotard
rhfactor at 123
1. i’m confused by your confusion.
2. suggest you visit more threads before making final judgement.
3. you do know lhp is short for looseheadprop, no? if not before, you do now.
4. i don’t visit TRex’s comments much – not usually my time of day for blogging; but when i do, i find his to be much more of a social gathering than many of the others.
same might be said of those entitled “Pull Up a Chair” & “The Spin I’m In”
5. you want brain-wrenchingly thoughtful issue analyses?
-uh- you might try upthread on
a. this one,
b. the one preceding it,
c. the one right before that, -oh- and
d. t’other just beyond that’n…
nice to meet yer acquaintance, but i gotta run.
dinner & a movie date with my honey tonite &, before that, we gotta carry bags of softener salt to the basement.
-hey- come to think of it, i don’t remember you commenting on any of my pithy remarks, and i’ve been here most of the midday.
did you try talking about anything specific? like, um, the topics covered by the, um, writers of the posts. ’cause i noticed they answered quite a few questions and discussed a number of issues with various folks throughout the threads….
hm-m-m… well, that’s about it for me.
have a good’un ;->
do-si-do @ 164
From Think Progress: Insult The Girls And Make Them Cry, What A Good Boy Am I!
mui @ 185
I think it is important to note that without these too appalling pathetic excuses of senators, Dems would not be committee chairmen, or majorities on various committees.
note to self
do.not.feed
LHP @ 154
Thanks for the information, somehow I thought impeachment was also for political appointments as well. Live & Learn. All the best……
althespook @ 11:57 am -
If he’s taking disulfiram (Antabuse) and is also back on the sauce, how do his physiological reactions compare to what you see below?
Steroids Found in Pro Wrestler’s Body
~~ModNote: Edited for content to clear filters.~~~
BigMitch @ 177
I would think this would be true before a judicial proceeding. Once charges had been laid such immunity would be tantamount to a pardon, but the pardoning power is a function of the President alone, and so would not be valid, in my opinion but then IANAL.
phred @ 163
Actually, itsgonna be in the post I’m working on.
Shorter version: incompetence and neglect were considered by the Framers to be grounds for Impaechment, but I’m not sure they meant it the way we think of it.
Remember back then Congress wa sonly in sessiona few months out of the year. Courts were only in session part of the year.
I think neglect emant the President not showing up when the rest of the government was in sesision.
Incompetence ma be in the eye of the beholder–I’m not sure how you prove that.
HEY! Out there! Are there any emplyment lawyers luring? Any HR folks?
Hw do you prove ncompetence?
Via @ 171
If you find it, we all want to know. That would be BIG news
Arnie @ 192
For another point of view, see my 180.
LHP said: “I think neglect emant the President not showing up when the rest of the government was in sesision.
Incompetence ma be in the eye of the beholder–I’m not sure how you prove that.”
Think back to Bush’s vacations just prior to 9/11 and Katrina. He didn’t show up for work then. Of course, during Katrina, he let just about his entire administration off, didn’t he? Cheney was in WY, Condi was shoe-shopping….I’ll tell you what is Terror – having this guy as president.
OT – Harry is showing some BACKBONE on CSPAN2… Shutting up nasty Trent Lott..
Give ‘em Hell Harry !!!
hey rhfactor! are you still around?
repeated comment deleted
looseheadprop @ 194
I think that was Barbara Boxer – will look for link
Hugh @ 193
IAAL.
The grant of immunity could be limited to use of the testimony compelled. Since obviously, a prior conviction was obtained without the use of the compelled testimony, the conviction is not effected.
The burden of showing that a conviction is not the result of the use of compelled testimony is heavy. (Thank you, Oliver North.) Therefore, if Libby’s conviction were over-turned, it would be harder (perhaps) to re-try him. However, by that time he will be pardoned.
Hugh @ 180
Thanks for your reply as well.
Just a moment to respond about the ‘process’ of commenting here at FDL. Really smart people reside here with alot going on all around. I don’t really expect to get an answer and some people read a post and simply have nothing to add, or nothing to quibble about.
the point of hanging here is I absorb everything that is said and that is where I learn. If a full blown discussion is what you are looking for, it is really not the norm as far as I can tell. Sometimes one starts about a certain legal or political issue (especially during the Libby trial where people were bringing their thoughts to the table or the pros and cons of impeachment), but is the sharing of “look at what I just read/saw today” kind of feel to it. I am clicking on links all the time.
Just my feeling about the commenting process here.
For example, I have asked over a period of weeks if there would be an FDL breakfast. No one answered, because probably no one knew the answer. :-)
http://impeachforpeace.org/imp…..og/?p=2565
Hugh @ 180
Yeah, I understand what you are saying, but is a staffer, and Liby was jsut a staffer, a civil “officer”?
US Attorneys are “inferior” civil officers. They nb=both are confirmed by the Senate and are in a chain of command below the Attorney General.
It’s the “officer” part. You may want to look over the briefs relating to whether or not PatFitz was an “inferior officer” in his role as SPecial Counsel.
It was those broiefs that firswt got me wondering about this issue.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/author/stephen_pizzo
“My first clue was when I read last week that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told a radio station, “We can’t take impeachment off the table.”
Holy whiplash, Batman, isn’t that exactly the opposite of what she’s been saying since crowned Speaker last January? What happened there?”
punaise @ 204
Boxer has figured it out. the question is, has PELOSI? she’s the keeper of those keys right now.
punaise @ 204
Thanks. But damn! My hopes were up, although I couldn’t believe that wasn’t all over the blogs.
Via @ 205
Something has caused Boxer to stop and smell the burning Constitution. With so much crap going on at once, it may be impossible to know now what did it. I believe the above quote is a misattribution to Pelosi from the Boxer comments. BTW, IIRC Ms. Pelosi was running a telephone poll on impeachment at 202-225-0100. I think it’s automated but it may still be running.
Arnie @ 191
I’m not sure. I know it is for tose who have themselves been confirmed by the Senate.
What I don’t feel secure about is who else it applies to.
FWIW — IMHO:
Pelosi is no dope. Saying Imchimpment is off the table was a tactic. I think the idea was to give King Codpiece enough rope to hang himself. He has made a noose, he has put it around his neck, he has stepped onto a trap door, and he is reaching for the handle.
Impeachment will be back on the table. “Tillman” can turn the trick, and that is why I think it is the biggest issue of the day.
If I had a magic wand, — well, there’s a lot I would do. (Are you reading the Angelina Jolie?) But if I had my drutheres on this particular matter, the entire blogosphere would be coordinating efforts to move this from an isolated article on KO-Countdown, to every media outlet in America.
I will post in EPU’s land just for the record here. I believe Pelosi does want impeachment, but she wants us to drag her kicking and screaming to it. She does NOT want to blamed for the following accusation of ‘politics’ that we, legitimately, accused the republicans of during Clinton’s trial.
She is waiting until the people catch up, all the way catch up and pass her, to impeachment. Then she can say they ‘made me do it.’
My opinion FWIW
GrandmaJ @ 204
My understanding from some e-mails threads I am on is that the schedule at YearlyKos is be reshuffled multiple times.
I am sure no one knew the answer.
punaise @ 205
Merci beaucoup, mon cher punaise
looseheadprop @ 211
I agree LHP. I don’t think the Crt. would allow civil officer to extend too far, it can’t mean anyone in the executive branch.
rhfactor at 123 – To the right of comment number 11 is a box named Meta.. contact info for the big wigs is available there. Also face book is an excellent place for behind the scenes proposals and discussion, even implementation and action. But you have to set up your own face book account, then get a little blue F here so those of us who would like to hear your ideas and discuss may do so without distracting threads.
I liked your video and hope folks will consider what you have to say.
P.S. be careful what you ask for because you just might get it. *g*
looseheadprop @ 213
il n’y a pas de quoi!
BigMitch @ 212
‘Up the long ladder and down the short rope, to hell with King Georgie … the Pope.’
I agree, the Tillman exec priv claim is the lynchpin – pun intended.
looseheadprop @ 194
Thanks LHP — I really appreciate it (and thanks again to you, BigMitch). Can’t wait to see your upcoming posts…
I look forward to whatever the HR/employment lawyers in these parts have to say, but from what I know of such things, documentation is the key, and we’re swimming in evidence of incompetence.
GrandmaJ @ 212
Mine too. I think you have nailed it right on the head
rhfactor at 123 says-”tor says:
July 17th, 2007 at 11:35 am
OFF-TOPIC — but nowhere else to post..
I posted this to the “WHY ARE YOU HERE?” thread — but i’m new here and i don’t think the software prompts if there are new replies in an older thread.. thus I will repost here for some feedback. thanks!
=====================
hello folks –
i’m trying to get a feel for the culture here.
my first impression is that my comments don’t get addressed. that’s okay per se, but i’m too new here to understand if it’s the norm. one of my reasons for coming here is because the dkos megamall can be too big and thus have a lack of focus.
however.even with that high volume traffic, my posts get replies. in a weeks time i have posted numerous times about use of video as a way of helping with the mission of this site.
not a single reply from site front pagers. donate 200 dollars, no reply. It’s not about polite protocol — though as a southernor that would be nice too.. it’s about content and ideation — and interaction on ideas.
i dont want to form the wrong impression but so far the flow of posts and comments here appears to be (1) there are excellent people who blog very thoughtfully and insightfully on front page every day — that’s the currency — the value of that superb brainpower. (2) then there is a comments section, which feels to me like Dfa’s blog during dean campaign… In fact, hi renee in ohio — nice tomeet up again…
The cultural vibehere is much like a chat room where people hang out socially.
id like to get some feedback because if this is a place where front pagers don’t engage the peanut gallery for everyone else, then no thanks. Been there done that.
if im going to take the time to be thoughtful, and my stuff flows by unaddressed, then that,s not fulfilling for me.
many places on web have different cultures and styles, whis is GOOD. but chat rooms are not my cup of tea… so some honest feedback would be greatly appreciated. I simply may not fit here. thanks much!”
===========
rh-i’ve responded quite a few times….quite a few others responded in the positive……….and the other day christie had a post about thoughts about new projects…….i submitted what you have been saying, even sent her an email about…….on another post i told you i had done that and i told you to email your idea to her or jane yourself–their addy is above in the about us section…….
many people here are just putting their thoughts ‘out there’ and don’t get a comment, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t being read and digested…….we each have an area of expertise, and i for one can’t take on all of the causes posted here…….that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be pursued by those that want to……
BigMitch @ 33
You are correct — the pardon authority does not extend to any official subject to impeachment & removal proceedings by Congress.
However, a President retains the ability to bestow pardons upon people convicted of crimes against the United States (such as run-of-the-mill felons like Scooter Libby) even during impeachment proceedings.
slainte,
cl
BigMitch @ 201
The pardon remains theoretical if likely and isn’t a legal argument, but I agree with the rest in the sense that a grant of immunity could hopelessly complicate a judicial process already under way or in the process of appeal.
In EPU-ville … Calling all FDLers in Toronto … Juslin is in town for a couple of days … if you’d like to join us for drinks Tuesday or Wednesday evening, please get in touch with me via Facebook.
looseheadprop @ 220
I suspect that Ms. Pelosi wants Chimpy to be caught in something so vile that even the die hard rethugs will have to agree to out him. And remember above all things, we have to get Cheney out first. do we really want to exchange chimpy for darth? I don’t think so!
GrandmaJ @ 213
You may well be right and I’m dragging as hard as I can ;)
RHfactor@123
For reasons I’ve never understood, one is not supposed to “feed Trolls”, that is respond to off topic posts. With this response I feed a Troll. Hopefully everyone will get over it.
There is an element of chat room here, with people posting “Hi” or “Good Post”. Some get a kick out of being the first comment with something like “zed”. Don’t know what that means. People, maybe those who oppose Trolls, often repeat entire posts. All you do is click on “Quote this comment” and everyone scrolls through five or six inches of what they most likely read before.
Having said that, there’s lots of substance here both in posts and comments. If you have something to say, go for it. If people don’t respond, perhaps they get what you’re driving at, or not. What do you care?
althespook @ 226
We can impeach them both at the same time.
Chris @ 19
Now you’ve got it….. I struggled with this realization myself. Dems have to wake up and realize that the “gentleman’s rules” were never very well-mannered to begin with, ask any woman!
phred @ 227
No, we can’t. Or at least that is what I’ve seen indicated in the various legal blogs i monitor (Full Disclosure: IANAL). An Impeachment takes a day at full steam, it is essentially a resolution passed by the House needing no other legitimacy (as in pres sig, senate equivalent, etc). But the Trial in the Senate is very tedious, very legalistic, and so forth. And remember his Holiness Roberts will be presiding, so he’ll be likely to delay things at every turn.
And there is a fat loophole in the constitution that doesn’t provide a role for the chief justice in a VP’s Impeachment Trial. Would Cheny, as President of the Senate, preside at his own trial? Who knows? It’s never happened before.
So FWIW I think we need to focus on getting cheney out first.
ConnorsMomma @ 230
I firmly believe the Dems are capable and will play hardball. Feingold is just not making the same mistake as Bush. That is, don’t bluff unless you’re ready to play your hand when called.
looseheadprop @ 207
My own position on this has evolved quite a bit over time on this. I started out closer to what your view is now. But I think civil officer can refer to any non-civil service employee of the government. Civil in this sense means non-military and officer can be construed as “belonging to the office” i.e. of the Executive.
I’m open to other opinions but I think that “civil officer” for the Founders had a fairly broad application.
althespook @ 231
Hey AK … how’re you doing? Hope Dad and you are keeping well.
On Bill Moyers’ last show on impeachment, he said that it is possible to impeach both of them at the same time … I’m sure he would have checked this with Fein & Nichols.
Responding to rhfactor @124:
During the day I find FDL to be less of a chat room and more of a place to add to the conversation, or to the sometimes unresponsive, yet hopefully appreciative, collective consciousness.
Sometimes the posters will comment on something, but not to all unless you directly address them in your comment and you ask a direct question. Then they are pretty helpful. Even then I guess they can not respond to all. You have to just have the drive and confidence to say what you believe, often not requiring validation. However, some of the responses and validation are icing on the cake- fun, and confirming. This blog has had even heart warming interaction between those who comment. Blogs to me are mostly an exercise in self- efficacy where you believe strongly in your thinking and you are lucky enough to have a spot to write it.
Sometimes I will read a comment that elicits a response or reaction, and I go for it- asking a question or commenting on another comment. Don’t have a faint heart here.
Some people seem to be more chummy in the evenings at FDL as Tex B mentioned. Political discussion retreats and more personal and social stuff emerges.
So rh factor- given your name- do you work with blood?
althespook @ 231
Thanks for that clarification. IANAL either, but I had thought it was possible to impeach them both at the same time. It is possible that I am confusing simultaneous impeachment with simultaneous suspension which has been discussed recently. Although suspension is rare, it may be appropriate under the current circumstances as LHP noted above. I imagine LHP will clear this sort of thing up in her subsequent posts.
Hugh @ 233
Hugh, I think the issue might be the size of the executive branch as it is now compared to then. I agree the Founders probably viewed the power broadly, but they could not have envisioned what that would mean in today’s government.
Ed Kunin @ 227
ed – off topic comments aren’t necessarily from trolls. it the disruptive comments that cause problems. here’s a description (with history) of internet troll
Petrocelli @ 234
I’m pretty sure Fein confirmed this point when Moyer’s asked him about it. But as noted above, IANAL, so I will defer to those who know better than I do.
Petrocelli @ 234
I agree all the Constitution says on the subject is:
There is nothing there that says that a Pres. and VP can’t be impeached at the same time.
Petrocelli @ 232
ah, missed that. I will always bow to Moyers’ staff and their expertise, plus his own unique gifts. Dad is fine now, been through lots of issues with stuff but almost up and running.
I gotta watch that special, anybody have linky?
althespook @ 241
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html
It is profound. Every representative ought to watch it.
Hugh @ 240
tank oo.
Hugh @ 240
Thanks for the clarification, Hugh.
What a great show that was, huh?
I’m going to watch it again tonight !
althespook @ 244
AK … this is probably the best news hour I’ve seen … ever … they went through the details so precisely and it was A-mazing !!!
selise @ 199
Yes.
I am reading the comments. Interesting. Not at all what I expected. I’ll reply fully to each, but the idea of it being a PRIVILEGE to be here — and to spend a year and mind my manners before I jump in and post, and this notion that posting this as “off topic” is my problem, and that it is a privilege to have a front poster reply, and go read our FAQ about the culture says a lot.
I’ve been online since 1984 — experienced every format of online community, BBSs, Usenet, DejaVu (95), original CNN Forums (95-97) UtneReader’s “Cafe Utne”, FC.com, where I first interacted with Steve Gillaird (99), Netslaves 99-00, SmirkingChimp.com where the Dean campaign more or less started on Matthew Gross’s seminal thread “Ask the Dean Campaign”, DFA’s original blog 03-04, founded DeanLeaders Yahoo List, online projects for Dean campaign including switch2dean.com TV ads, started and ran the framing site Demspeak.com, DailyKos 03-07, Crooks and Liars — and thus I don’t especially feel a need to be lectured about how online communities work, how to post “on-topic”, and how I should behave and be grateful to be here.
The presumption that someone joining a blog community is like a pledge who must go through a proving period and then work self up to be full fledged member and MAYBE interact with the site runners is extremely offputting to me. And not a good use of my time or talents. I came here to innovate with expanding the use of video, posted videos to help illustrate a proof of concept, and they have not clicked — which is fine. I simply was trying to see what the interest level was for advances in new media. I joined July 3rd, after disgusted by the Libby commutation, and being sparked by Jane’s post “Dear MSM: You Ain’t The Only Game In Town Any More”. I donated to give back for the outstanding coverage of all of Plamegate & esp the trial.
Software makes a huge difference in what kind of interaction is possible. I now see how the software works on this site — and that the cultural norm is that when a new thread appears, people announce that as a cue to jump on over to the newest thread.
It doesn’t — maybe by design or choice, maybe not — enable initiation of subjects. So now that I see that, I think this format of interaction doesn’t fit with my goals within the progressive sphere. I didn’t come here to chat; that just doesn’t interest me. I thought there would be interaction with post authors. But one has to try things out before they get the feel for how they work.
So I just wanted to ask for feedback before determining whether or not I am a good fit for FDL. I appreciate the welcoming comments from those who offered them — very nice and appreciated. I have a lot of work to do re Townhall Video Network, so it’s best actually, to simply bow out gracefully, rather than reply further, point for point.
Thank you. I will continue to read FDL because its coverage is amazing — and I still look forward to meeting at YearlyKos with anyone who is media savvy with video AND/OR wants to go ON-camera to help bridge the communication gap with the mainstream.
I understand that some people may not like this reply and feel it an unnecessary critique. But I simply wanted to have closure — having explored something, found it was not what I expected, asked for feedback, got it, thought about it, and realized it’s not a good fit. So, it’s just a date that didn’t work out. No big deal, we all have our matches. No bad feelings. I just didn’t want to disappear without replying.
Onward!
rhfactor
Via @ 171
Via, this is probably something different, but just in case, here is the link to Mike Stark’s diary from June 29th titled: “I talked impeachment with Nancy Pelosi (audio) ” … This was on a conference call of bloggers. So probably the radio comments are newer. but the link below contains the AUDIO LINK to hear her being confronted directly with the question of “why won’t you put impeachment on the table?”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/30/05731/7541
rhfactor – i don’t think you’re being fair. no one told you to “mind your manners”… no one “lectured” you… you asked for a reply, you asked why you weren’t getting the response you wanted… people tried to help.. with suggestions, with questions…
no one (including, i think, the front pagers) reads all the comments on this site… so maybe i’m missing something – but i think i’ve only seen one comment from you before today.
i’m not sure what you want from me… what can i (or any other commenter) do to help?
dmac, you did indeed, and I appreciated it, and thanks for this comment as well. The issue here is that what I’m doing is too far down the road in development to be going through a proposal process here. In retrospect I probably didn’t present it well in that regard. My bad…
Bottom line is: I’m working on moving commentary from text on blogs to video standups. Firedoglake pioneered it for the blogosphere with the Libby Trial and the superb commentary. Josh Marshall followed, and I made assumptions that FDL was the place most likely to be ready to push forward with that.
I’m meeting with Marcy in Chicago so I will just approach it one on one — since I now realize that a number of people don’t have the ability to see YouTube videos here.
Sorry for my in and out series of posts — and apologies if they have been disruptive.
Milan — no, i don’t work in blood… just a college nickname :)
Ed, thanks for the tip re trolls :)
Eureka – thank you — I will check out the facebook page.
rhfactor
rhfactor @ 248
Thanks for the link. I had hoped GrandmaJ was right about it all being a particularly clever ruse on Pelosi’s part, but now I can go back to calling them out for being the spineless unprincipled calculating weasels that they are (and that includes you too Russ — idiot).
looseheadprop @ 46
Then how did Ford pardon Nixon? Or does this mean a President can’t pardon himself? That isn’t right since he would no longer be president…..Was Nixon ever formally impeached or did he resign to avoid that?
Article 2, Section 2 – except in cases of Impeachment
This is saying that the President can pardon convictions of all sorts with the exception of a Congressional conviction for impeachment. So the punishment/penalties imposed by a Congressional impeachment conviction can not be abrogated by Presidential pardon.
hugh says @ 240 that there is nothing that says a Pres and VPres can’t be impeached at the same time. He’s right. The founding fathers had no way to anticipate Bush and Cheney.
The problem is the illusion we live under a government of law and not of men. We can only live under a government of men (and increasingly women) because that’s all there is. Take the present supreme court whose opinions changed with the change of two judges (a cumulative process to be sure). If there were an overriding, controlling law, such a thing would not be possible.
If Congress impeaches both of them, as I hope it does, who is to say it can’t do it? If Bush goes to court, Congress would be wise to ignore Bush and Cheney v. Pelosi and just throw them the hell out.
Clinton’s Pardon of Marc Rich
The Marc Rich Case:
So where is the firestorm over the sleazy pardon of Irwin Libby? Mostly on the blogs.
Let’s review:
Lewis Libby’s presidential reprieve involves a case where the Vice-President’s office was involved in revealing a covert CIA agent, which would seem to fit the bill of a “high crimes” which could subject the Vice-President to Impeachment should congress so will. The grand jury did make a finding that a crime had occurred and Lewis Libby was charged in connection to that crime and he was subsequently convicted for perjury regarding that crime that took place while employed by the Vice President. It would seem that this would be a case where Impeachment of the Vice-President would be a likely remedy, one which is so plausible that the American public favor such a remedy by 54%.
The constitution’s wording does not specify what officer in regard to impeachment they are referring to in Section 2. – Article II – U.S. Constitution. Unless one believes the framers were naives, it is fair to assume they meant what they said…the US President can not pardon his way out of an impeachment…regardless of which officer is being impeached (please see below).
I believe, Patrick Fitzgerald and others have made a legal error in saying that the Libby commutation was legally permissible under the US Constitution. Impeachment is the only legal remedy available for removing “civil officers of the United States” reprieves are not permissible per section 2 article II of the US Constitution in cases of impeachment. Whether acted upon or not, this is a demonstrable case of impeachment.
Because a lot of folks out there believe the founding fathers meant something different from what they said in Section 2. – Article. II “…except in Cases of Impeachment.” Here are few examples:
“the president may not pardon someone who has been impeached” or “means that the president can’t vacate the results of an impeachment” or ” [Cases of Impeachment] does not come into play until the House approves an impeachment article” and so forth.
Okay let’s see how this thinking plays out:
A president commits a crime…Say he beats the First lady to death in the Lincoln bedroom with a lead pipe.
“Oops” he says, I better go pardon myself before anybody impeaches me.
Since some of you agree that “the president may not pardon someone who has been impeached” or “means that the president can’t vacate the results of an impeachment” or ” [Cases of Impeachment] does not come into play until the House approves an impeachment article”
The President who murders his wife and pardons himself a prior to Impeachment proceedings walks???
??????Do you really think the founding fathers were that stupid?????????
If what these folks say is true Nixon could have pardoned himself because impeachment proceding had not yet begun, there had only been hearings into the Watergate break in.
Again:
??????Do you really think the founding fathers were that stupid?????????
“…and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Section 2. – Article. II – U.S. Constitution
phred @ 251
You’re welcome. I confuse the various “Grandmas” across the blogosphere but I think GrandmaJ was a Deaniac (shout out!)… but over at dKos, I do know that “madgranny” will have nothing of that “Pelosi’s great strategy” talk!!
But that subject, of whether this was a great strategic ploy by pelosi — to get Bush feeling like he’s safe from any impeachment, leading him to surely overstep his bounds so blatantly, as he did with ordering Miers to defy Congress, that then she’d lower the boom — was the topic of another pretty thorough discussion at dKos — initiated by a poster there named “occam’s hatchet”… If it interests you, here is that link:
Is Nancy Pelosi a freakin’ GENIUS??
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/12/202315/831
I still can’t figure out if “occam hatchet”’s initial post was snark! Regardless, it prompted a pretty thorough discussion with many sides taken and argued.
My own answer to his title question is — she’s my Congresswoman in San Fran — and HELL NO. She’s deluded into believing that an 08 election of a Dem President will throw pixie dust over the country causing all problems to then be solved, returning us to the rule of law. Funny thing: she has no desire to USE the rule of law to RETURN to the rule of law. I think with Russ’s announcement yesterday — coming from one of our most progressive leaders in the country — it’s a pretty good bet nancy doesn’t have a secret masterplan.
selise @ 249
Howdy Selise — Okay, I hear you :) … I actually spent the past hour and half collecting my thoughts and writing a reply to you, citing what I was speaking of, but I look at it now and it’s just so off-topic for this thread here that I’d rather not post it.
If you like, I can email it to you if you just want to read my thoughts on it.
If so, please send me email to:
rhfactorUSA
at Gmail dotcom
I want to thank the whole bunch of nice and welcoming responses above. Y’all are great — and nice to drop by … Basically, I have been working on video-to-mainstream tools since Dean campaign, and what I was looking for here was specific-project-oriented, not discussion per se. Not because of disinterest — hardly — the front pagers at FDL are fantastic. It’s just that my focus is moving this toolset forward. So there was a mis-match from the start. I just didn’t know it, because I had assumed with the fantastic standup video work throughout the Libby trial, the siterunner’s were already charged and ready to go with expanding that.
All is well — and thanks selise — very nice of you to respond to my concerns. I really do appreciate it :)
Dover Bitch @ 43
I was going to point this out but you beat me to it. LOL
diane @ 252
Nixon resigned to AVOID impeachment.
phred @ 229
God knows that torturing people, or disappearing them, for all practical purposes, forever, initiating wars to fulfill some crazy religious beliefs, or violating the Law of the Land (take your pick: warrantless spying on Americans, functioning signing statements, disobeying subpoenas, violating treaties to which we are signatories) are not “vile” enough.
All I can think is that Bush actually has to sacrifice an infant to his god in the WH Press room to get any rise out of Pelosi.
Why is there no conflict of interest exception like there is in virtually every aspect of civil law, i.e., can’t seek indemnity for own negligence; lawyer can’t represent 2 clients with conflicting interests; grantee can’t notarize own document – shouldn’t the most important laws in the country be treated with similar principles of equity and justice?
rhfactor — It’s late and I imagine everyone has wandered off by now, but I wanted to say thanks for the additional link and your comments as well. I know the FDL comment section isn’t a good fit for what you had hoped to accomplish, but I hope to cross paths with you again sometime, if not here then elsewhere… And yep, Russ’ appalling stance suggests to me that the Dems in both houses are completely and utterly out of touch with their responsibility to uphold the rule of law. Honestly, what don’t they get? For once, I would love to see one of them define their existence in terms of being an American citizen rather than in terms of their party affiliation with their election dreams filled with sugar plum fairies.
And Praedor, I laughed out loud at your comment, but I’m not sure even that would do the trick ;)
phred @ 263
phred — thx, glad the link was useful. Yeah, Russ really pulled a perplexing move there… It just doesn’t fit with everything else about him. The guy was a candidate for President, for god’s sake, and over a year ago in a whole series of straw polls at dKos, when pitted against all the current Dem candidates, he was #1 — with Gore not considered. And #2 with Gore added to choices. But by huge percentage over all those currently in the pack. Wes Clark would come in third when included.
A year ago it seemed like Russ would make a perfect Pres candidate — with one major prob to overcome from the dumb horserace perspective — which lead him to drop out actually: the Jewish name — despite Lieberman paired with Gore in 00 (btw, isn’t is just amazing to consider that schmuck could have been VP right now — and onwards towards becoming President? He’s 180 from Al Gore now — and that’s with both of them moving radically different from how they each were on 99-00)
Anyway, Feingold is a real man of integrity — which is why i am so shocked and dismayed by him. But what he said back in mid Nov 06, after the surprsing House/Senate Dem midterm results (in spite of the usual horrible Beltway Hack Consultant “strategies” of Rham et al) was, he had not expected a Senate majority — and that now with that majority, and the subpoena power and committee control that gave the senate dems, he felt a moral obligation to serve the immediate needs of America — to get us out of Iraq — vs, for example, the more selfish apprpach of Obama — the junior with scarecly 2 years in Senate and already skipping out on his day job to hit the trail in oursuit of his next gig.
But he also said that he weighed the Presidential run very seriosuly, and he inferred, but never directly used the words, “I’d have to spend all this time building up a warchest and I’m swimming upstream because America isn;t ready to elect a Jew President”.
Most people never saw that, but it was in a diary at DailyKos in that time period.
My reason for stating all of that is — he’s the real thing — a man who puts service to country before perosnal gain — and a man who is so eloquent and dircet on Tv in interviews, never ever sounding phony like most of em.
And he’d taken tough stands before — and even before we have now found all whole LAYERS of new dirt on BushCo, he was focused like a lasar on censuring Bush, which went very agaunst the grain at that point.
It is really hard to know what is really in his mind right now. There are poeple who take a dark view and allege that Rove or someone’s got some kind of dirt on these Dems to turn them all inot withering sissies who yak yak but don’t deliver the goods.
I’m really pissed about this — and I am reminded when Boxer stunned all and went to campaign for Joe Lieb which helped him, ultimately, beat Lamont… You could see she felt trapped m by the video of her there. it was clearly a favor called in — and some kind of senate honor code must have convinced her she “owed” Joe — and simply had to do it out of obligation.
So it’s hard to know what the real strory is.
ugh, it’s late, 1:35 am pac, and i have to go to bed.
thanks again for the nice note :)
Mornin’ rhfactor — Just in case you check back again…
Thanks for your take on Russ. I’m from WI originally and so proud of his record and his principled stands, that I was beyond dismayed to see what appeared to me to be yet another Dem putting election considerations for his party ahead of what is good for the country. I was genuinely shocked. I had assumed that he already understood what is at stake in terms of the precedent being set and the real jeopardy our constituional democracy will be in if this precedent is allowed to stand.
I am not an alarmist. I don’t agree with those who fret that the 2008 elections will be suspended. Even for this crowd of Rethugs that would be too heavy handed and would likely result in massive civil unrest.
But it is not a stretch to look down the road and see in the not too distant future a government here that is a monarchy in all but name. I had counted on Russ to be making this argument to his Congressional colleagues. The fact that he is not makes it all that much harder for us regular citizens to get the attention of those who can actually do something about the administration’s abuse of power.
i’m working on a letter to Sen. Feingold. I haven’t given up on him yet. But if he keeps acting like an idiot, I’ll keep calling him one ;)
And just for the record, I too was impressed that Sen. Feingold put the good of the country ahead of his own political aspirations when he chose not to run and to do his job in the Senate. I’m still hopeful that we can persuade him to see the necessity of impeachment.