Dubya OK'd Plame Leak?

Billzebub · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:26 pm **Posts:** 6459

the redworm Wrote:

but you don't think there's a case for impeachment now?

I never said that. Impeachment will require finding that Dubya broke the law--that doesn't appear to be the case. Censure, I think, is viable and warranted in this case--recognize that Prez didn't break the law, but his actions were inappropriate and an abuse of power.

This wire-tap ordeal could now turn around and bite the Dem's in the ass, because if they re-launch a censure iniative, they' stand to look a bit like the boy who cried wolf.

saint · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:28 pm **Posts:** 4271

the redworm Wrote:

Dems: "we censure you"

Rove: :wanker:

good one..hahhaa.

Senator LooGAR · **Posted:** Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:18 pm

the redworm actually Wrote:

the redworm Wrote:

did anyone in this country actually think Clinton should've been impeached? I mean outside of zealots and GOP staffers?

Billzebub Wrote:

I did, and still do. Dude committed perjury and obstructed justice. Unlike the popular revisionist view, the impeachment was not about sex with an intern.

So, that's pretty much a big negatory, ghost rider.

saint · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:28 pm **Posts:** 4271

Billzebub Wrote:

the redworm Wrote:

but you don't think there's a case for impeachment now?

I never said that. Impeachment will require finding that Dubya broke the law--that doesn't appear to be the case.

Bush admitted to not complying with the FISA statute, a clear violation of the law.

Billzebub · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:26 pm **Posts:** 6459

Saint Wrote:

Billzebub Wrote:

the redworm Wrote:

but you don't think there's a case for impeachment now?

I never said that. Impeachment will require finding that Dubya broke the law--that doesn't appear to be the case.

Bush admitted to not complying with the FISA statute, a clear violation of the law.

However, there is legal precedent to question the application of FISA. Even if the law were ruled broken, I think Congress would be hard-pressed to claim the transgression was a high crime or misdemeanor.

Bush's defense will be that he acted in the interest of national defense, and that his actions were not for personal gain (which is only one of the reasons this is totally different from Nixon).

Wire-tapping isn't going to end in impeachment.

greezy · **Posted:** Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:33 pm

i agree with you that the wire-tapping stuff probably won't end in impeachment. but whats the precedent for ignoring an act of congress? shouldn't he have challenged it in court if he thought it was unconstitutional?

Billzebub · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:26 pm **Posts:** 6459

druucifer Wrote:

i agree with you that the wire-tapping stuff probably won't end in impeachment. but whats the precedent for ignoring an act of congress? shouldn't he have challenged it in court if he thought it was unconstitutional?

Hard to say--if you want to keep your surveillance covert, you really can't go out in public and say you want to revisit the law because you'd like to listen in on suspected terrorists' overseas phone calls.

I suspect Dubya got advice from his lawyers that said the law is grey enough on this one that you can get away with it.

Borg166 · **Posted:** Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:37 pm

Billzebub Wrote:

However, there is legal precedent to question the application of FISA. Even if the law were ruled broken, I think Congress would be hard-pressed to claim the transgression was a high crime or misdemeanor.

Bush's defense will be that he acted in the interest of national defense, and that his actions were not for personal gain (which is only one of the reasons this is totally different from Nixon).

It doesn't matter what the reasons are, he broke the law. The fact that he admitted doing it and will repeat it is even worse.

Cotton · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:12 pm **Posts:** 17155

this is why bush never gets sworn in for ANYTHING

Borg166 · **Posted:** Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:49 pm

Look, they're supposed to report to a court when they start tapping people's phones. If not, there's no accountability.

If these are the same lawyers who gave the administration a thumbs-up to torture, god knows what they're doing with the wiretapping.

Elvis Fu · **Posted:** Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:52 pm

druucifer Wrote:

i'd say there's a shot at impeachment if the dems retake the house. there's so many slowly building scandals in this administration that there's a real possibility dems could come up with a smoking gun (er.. more smoking guns). if people like waxman and conyers were to get subpoena power they could blow the lid off any one of them. at the very least, holding big public hearings would get more people talking about it. there's plenty of crimes perpetrated by this adminsitration that don't put dems in a problematic position on national security (i.e. katrina, war profiteering, lobbyist access, signing non-identical versions of bills, etc.)

plus, the dems retaking congress would be incredibly damaging to bush politically--the conventional wisdom becomes "bush policies lost republicans the house." and at least part of the reason that nothing ever gets done about these scandals is that the republican controlled congress works overtime to cover bush's ass. there's no telling what could happen in such a changed political climate.

a guy can dream anyway.

If the Democrats retake the house, do you really think a GOP controlled Senate would convict?

catswilleatyou · **Posted:** Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:57 pm

my understanding is that
bush OKin' the declasifyin' of this type of information
is completely legal

however politically it was a very bad move for him
to make it seem like he was concerned about the leak earlier

but unfortunately for dems any trial about all of this won't be until after 2006 elections?

impeachment? hahahaha

Billzebub · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:26 pm **Posts:** 6459

Borg166 Wrote:

god knows what they're doing with the wiretapping.

That would be listenig to people's telephone calls.

catswilleatyou · **Posted:** Thu Apr 06, 2006 4:05 pm

Billzebub Wrote:

Borg166 Wrote:

god knows what they're doing with the wiretapping.

That would be listenig to people's telephone calls.

Borg166 · **Posted:** Thu Apr 06, 2006 4:22 pm

Billzebub Wrote:

Borg166 Wrote:

god knows what they're doing with the wiretapping.

That would be listenig to people's telephone calls.

touche

HOWEVER...!>!>!>!!!!!

I bet they are tapping my phone because I'm pro-universal health care and support Dennis Kucinich.

Cotton · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:12 pm **Posts:** 17155

yeah, like they've ever felt threatened by Kucinich...

jewels santana · **Joined:** Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:36 pm **Posts:** 10198

so, people who want Bush impeached . . .
are you really super excited for President Dick Chaney?

Elvis Fu · **Posted:** Thu Apr 06, 2006 4:47 pm

the redworm Wrote:

yeah, like they've ever felt threatened by Kucinich...

Outside of catching The Gay, anyway.

Cotton · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:12 pm **Posts:** 17155

jewels santana Wrote:

so, people who want Bush impeached . . .
are you really super excited for President Dick Chaney?

I think't be easier to impeach cheney than bush. and I DON'T want him impeached. Fuck that, why egg on this partisan bullshit for perpetuity? Also, it's gonna leave enough crap in a hat for whoever has the job next, I think interrupting the process will only make it worse. I DO think he is impeachable, though.

Borg166 · **Posted:** Thu Apr 06, 2006 6:22 pm

the redworm Wrote:

yeah, like they've ever felt threatened by Kucinich...

He's the only Congressman in the Democratic Party who can fit into the Republican National Committee's air ducts and get the inside scoop on the GOP.

greezy · **Posted:** Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:08 pm

Billzebub Wrote:

Hard to say--if you want to keep your surveillance covert, you really can't go out in public and say you want to revisit the law because you'd like to listen in on suspected terrorists' overseas phone calls.

I suspect Dubya got advice from his lawyers that said the law is grey enough on this one that you can get away with it.

i'm just very iffy on this. i won't pretend to be an expert on fisa, but i personally haven't heard anybody outside of the administration vigorously defending the legality of his program. from what i know, this is exactly the sort of thing fisa was a reaction to--the ability of the executive to spy on an american citizen without court oversight. there's probably some justice department memos written by the same people that brought us torture and extrordinary rendition that he could claim got him off the hook, but it does seem like a blatant violation of fisa.

Fu Wrote:

If the Democrats retake the house, do you really think a GOP controlled Senate would convict?

probably not. i'm not up on my impeachment mechanics, so i'm not sure if it's the sort of thing they could filibuster. but a dem tidal wave that takes over the house could easily cut the senate to razor thin margins. santorum is toast, chaffee and burns are likely toast, and sherrod brown has a good chance of winning in ohio. if that happens, i could see a moderate republican voting to convict. of course that assumes all the dems would hold together, so short answer: no.

saint · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:28 pm **Posts:** 4271

Billzebub Wrote:

Saint Wrote:

Billzebub Wrote:

the redworm Wrote:

but you don't think there's a case for impeachment now?

I never said that. Impeachment will require finding that Dubya broke the law--that doesn't appear to be the case.

Bush admitted to not complying with the FISA statute, a clear violation of the law.

However, there is legal precedent to question the application of FISA. Even if the law were ruled broken, I think Congress would be hard-pressed to claim the transgression was a high crime or misdemeanor.

Bush's defense will be that he acted in the interest of national defense, and that his actions were not for personal gain (which is only one of the reasons this is totally different from Nixon).

Wire-tapping isn't going to end in impeachment.

then this country is on the road to dictatorship.

a president does not have a defense to breaking the law. he had every opportunity to lobby congress to change the law. the president can not pick and choose which laws to follow.

you may be right that this will not lead to impeachment, but it is only because congress is run by W lackey crooks.

if there is a flip in 06, there may be action.

saint · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:28 pm **Posts:** 4271

Borg166 Wrote:

Billzebub Wrote:

However, there is legal precedent to question the application of FISA. Even if the law were ruled broken, I think Congress would be hard-pressed to claim the transgression was a high crime or misdemeanor.

Bush's defense will be that he acted in the interest of national defense, and that his actions were not for personal gain (which is only one of the reasons this is totally different from Nixon).

It doesn't matter what the reasons are, he broke the law. The fact that he admitted doing it and will repeat it is even worse.

agreed.

saint · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:28 pm **Posts:** 4271

jewels santana Wrote:

so, people who want Bush impeached . . .
are you really super excited for President Dick Chaney?

Frankly it doesn't matter. Bush has broken numerous laws, and should be impeached. If sorry ass Cheney is next in line, so be it.

Black Magic Putin · **Posted:** Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:46 pm

but seriously, who's after cheney, condo? dude would get capped in a hunting accident before sundown if so.

Dubya OK'd Plame Leak?

Who is online