The "I" word is in the air - (Impeachment)

[Ryder]

I guess only us tinfoil hatters that about this. Why is it a revelation to anyone? I make a lot of out country calls (work). I am not real happy about paying for people to eavesdrop on my calls but why should I care? Half of what I say isn't going to be understood by anyone without technical knowhow. The half they do understand was directed at them. They seemed to handle it just fine.

 

[bogie]

Just remember - it'll be a lot better with Hillary Clinton, Chuckie Schumer, Al Gore and John Kerry running things...

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Just remember - it'll be a lot better with Hillary Clinton, Chuckie Schumer, Al Gore and John Kerry running things...

When that happens Republicans will have no one to blame but themselves for allowing an out-of-control administration hijack the party and run it into a brick wall. Thanks guys.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Only one problem with the premise that no majority party will ever impeach a President of the same party: it's already happened.

The Andrew Johnson affair was an anomaly. The Republican party was in the midst of massive internal change at that time. Johnson was not a part of the strongest faction, and so he was eaten by his own party members.

The Republican party has undergone big changes in the last 20 years, but Bush is part of the group that has come out on top. The GOP used to be a party of conservatives, but now has become a party of big government, fiscal liberals with an aggressive foreign policy (ie, the neo-conservatives). Bush is a perfect example of a neo-conservative.

The party has come a long way from the days of Reagan, who said "Governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them". Can you imagine Bush believing a statement like that?

 

[The Drew]

"High crimes and misdemeanors" is the usual formula, I believe.

A gross violation of his oath of office would probably qualify.

pax

Yeah especially the part about defending the constitution...

Really though, the wiretap thing is the first thing that really has any legs as far as the president actually breaking the law...

 

[El Tejon]

Yeah, except for the fact that no law was broken, it's got really strong legs in the Washington Post, New York Times and Democratic Underground.

 

[Waitone]

Impeachment has been on the table since 2004 election. Democrats and their media organs have been throwing stuff on the wall in a effort to find something that sticks. Nothing sticks, up to the current flap. For the strategy to work the issue has to have high emotional content, a perceived personal threat to the voter, and complicated enough to discourage an informed voter from education him or her self. I am beginning to think the wiretap flap has all the required characteristics. The reality of a republican power structure impeaching their president is not the issue. Democrats want the issue, air time, and repetition of 3 second soundbites. This is the beginning of the 2006 campaign.

 

[Trip20]

NOTICE:

THE INTERNET REQUIRES NO PHYSICAL FITNESS PROGRAM

EVERYONE GETS ENOUGH EXERCISE JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS, FLYING OFF THE HANDLE, AND RUNNING DOWN THE PRESIDENT.​

 

[RealGun]

The Republican party has undergone big changes in the last 20 years, but Bush is part of the group that has come out on top. The GOP used to be a party of conservatives, but now has become a party of big government, fiscal liberals with an aggressive foreign policy (ie, the neo-conservatives). Bush is a perfect example of a neo-conservative.

The party has come a long way from the days of Reagan, who said "Governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them". Can you imagine Bush believing a statement like that?

I am not sure why we keep hammering the GOP for not being conservative enough, "neocon", "RINO", and all the other pejoratives. Without being moderate they wouldn't be "on top". Any idealistic party with all the answers would find itself heavily compromised if actually in charge. Both major parties have the same problem, so one would have to pay close attention to tell them apart. However, picking one over the other DOES make a difference. A President is just the current facade. I think bill proposals and partisan voting by Congress is probably a better measure of what a party represents. What actually gets passed does not clearly distinguish one party from another. Relying upon the MSM is probably the worst way to be informed since they pander to cynicism and anti-establishment outrage to make money. Good news is no news. When it's good, spin it negative.

 

[bakert]

I can't believe I scrolled through three pages of this thread. As far as I'm concerned although there were a few pretty good posts there was also a whole lot of drivel. Where does all this information come from. I am a rather cynical old guy that believes nothing written or aired by the news media and very little by publicity seeking Senators or Congressmen. Ramsey Clark?? Impeachment my A--!!

 

[22-rimfire]

The Democrats have been trying to find something to "impeach" GW Bush since he was elected. Seems to be a Democratic past time. It is all a bunch of BS. But Bush will have to pay attention to things. Bush is not a dishonest man. Again, it is a bunch of C*R*A*P.

 

[db_tanker]

Only one word comes to mind while reading this rant from MSNBC....


drivel.



D

 

[GTSteve03]

b-b-b-b-b-b-But Clinton!

Remember folks, the same thing happened last time around, with a Democratic president with a Republican-controlled Congress. The Repubs decided that a blowjob compromised the office of the President and was all ready to impeach Clinton over lying about it.

Lying about a blowjob.

Not violating 4th Amendment rights of US citizens, holding US citizens indefinitely without trial, or using misleading and/or false information to take the country to War.

A blowjob.

 

[The Drew]

Yeah, except for the fact that no law was broken, it's got really strong legs in the Washington Post, New York Times and Democratic Underground.

It's NOT a fact that no laws were broken... It IS a fact that the president NEVER got warrants for these wiretaps, either before or after the fact. And THAT is a violation of all kinds of laws... The CLAIM that the president has the power to break these laws under "war powers" has yet to be substantiated.

 

[xd9fan]

The Republican party has undergone big changes in the last 20 years, but Bush is part of the group that has come out on top. The GOP used to be a party of conservatives, but now has become a party of big government, fiscal liberals with an aggressive foreign policy (ie, the neo-conservatives). Bush is a perfect example of a neo-conservative.

The party has come a long way from the days of Reagan, who said "Governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them". Can you imagine Bush believing a statement like that?

Thats why I spend half my time on this website shaking my head at the comments Camp David makes when he thinks GWB is a conservative!!

This may seem like I am picking on Camp David (and I am..its a fair fight in the battle of ideas) his anti Civil Liberties pro militery at all costs approach is just pre 1940-ish. History is simply not kind when Govts have that kind of power. No Conservative would ever let this fly......but the NEOCONS would.

 

[Trip20]

Drew, your wrong. He did not break all kinds of laws. What will surface is that the government in this case, followed law - and the issue will become how unconstitutional is the LAW.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I am not sure why we keep hammering the GOP for not being conservative enough, "neocon", "RINO", and all the other pejoratives. Without being moderate they wouldn't be "on top".

Hammering the GOP? How did my comments hammer them? Do you disagree that the party has undergone the changes I describe? I was simply describing how the party has changed over the years.

 

[Master Blaster]

If the president broke all kinds of laws please post one law in its entirety that he broke. Also please let us know that jurisdiction this crime is a felony under, and what the penalty proscibed by the law is. Thanks.

BTW no one is going to be able to do this because there is no such law.

If a policeman in your town wiretaps a suspected drug dealer without getting a warrant, (ther is no break in by police to do this since it is a matter of asking the phone company) what law is he violating, does this law carry a penalty?????

As I understand it the evidence he gathered would be inadmissable in court, but there is no actual law on the books that makes this a felony or even a misdemeanor and the policeman will not be arrested.

 

[The Drew]

Drew, your wrong. He did not break all kinds of laws. What will surface is that the government in this case, followed law - and the issue will become how unconstitutional is the LAW.

They didn't follow law, they followed legal opinion... I have never seen ANYWHERE where there is a law that says NO WARRANTS are needed to spy on or search americans.

BECAUSE THERE IS NO LAW

They can in "an emergency" spy first, then go back and get the FISA court to issue a warrant after the fact... This was not done...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Apologize all you want... You KNOW what was done was wrong... you just seem to support it because "W's our guy..." or "he's only spying on terrorists"...

Yeah, and as soon as gunowners and 2a activists become labeled as terrorists, you'll be sorry...

 

[The Drew]

As I understand it the evidence he gathered would be inadmissable in court, but there is no actual law on the books that makes this a felony or even a misdemeanor and the policeman will not be arrested.

It doesn't matter if it is inadmissable, the government will just throw you in prison without taking you to trial just like they have done on many occasions so far... and it will be a LENGTHY legal process you MAY NOT win just to get a trial...

Tell me again how this isn't a violation of the 4th amendment???

 

[Master Blaster]

I'll be happy to explain how its not a violation of the 4th,

after you explain how all the laws regulating the ownership of firearms, are not a violation of the second ammendment.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Master Blaster,

Does the fact that the government violates the 2nd Amendment make it Ok in your mind for them to violate the 4th also?

 

[Trip20]

The Drew - before you get upset with me, know that I do not support what has gone on, and that I do not blindly support "W".

What I would like to see, though, is that "W", et al, is held responsible for relevant happenings, not what people think.

Here's an interesting legal analysis by Prof. Orin Kerr. This was found by TFL Staff member "Antipitas", who is a lawyer if memory serves:

Legal Analysis of the NSA Domestic Surveillance Program:

Was the secret NSA surveillance program legal? Was it constitutional? Did it violate federal statutory law? It turns out these are hard questions, but I wanted to try my best to answer them. My answer is pretty tentative, but here it goes: Although it hinges somewhat on technical details we don't know, it seems that the program was probably constitutional but probably violated the federal law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. My answer is extra-cautious for two reasons. First, there is some wiggle room in FISA, depending on technical details we don't know of how the surveillance was done. Second, there is at least a colorable argument — if, I think in the end, an unpersuasive one — that the surveillance was authorized by the Authorization to Use Miltary Force as construed in the Hamdi opinion.

This is a really long post, so let me tell you where I'm going. I'm going to start with the Fourth Amendment; then turn to FISA; next look to the Authorization to Use Military Force; and conclude by looking at claim that the surveillance was justified by the inherent authority of Article II. And before I start, let me be clear that nothing in this post is intended to express or reflect a normative take of whether the surveillance program is a good idea or a bad idea. In other words, I'm just trying to answer what the law is, not say what the law should be. If you think my analysis is wrong, please let me know in the comment section; I'd be delighted to post a correction.

My point, The Drew, is that there is too much unknown at this point. It's entirely possible, moreso probable, that most persons in this and other threads ranting about broken laws and constitution toilet paper, really don't know what the hell they're talking about.

I'm only asking that we wait to understand what has really happened before we wrap ourselves in the flag, make a kevlar out of the constitution, and start firing our evil black rifles at the capitol.

Here's some additional interesting info:

Pres. Carter executive order 12139:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.

Pres clinton executive order 12949:

Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or
defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section
303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical
searches:

(a) Secretary of State;

(b) Secretary of Defense;

(c) Director of Central Intelligence;

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;

(e) Deputy Secretary of State;

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence

Pres. George W. Bush merely amends previous EO's with his EO 13383, 7-15-05:

Executive Order: Amending Executive Orders 12139 and 12949 in Light of Establishment of the Office of Director of National Intelligence

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section. 1. Section 1-103 of Executive Order 12139 of May 23, 1979, is amended by:

(a) striking "(c) Director of Central Intelligence" and inserting in lieu thereof "(c) Director of National Intelligence";

(b) striking "(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence" and inserting in lieu thereof "(g) Director of the Central Intelligence Agency"; and

(c) adding at the end thereof "(h) Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence.".

Sec. 2. Section 3 of Executive Order 12949 of February 9, 1995, is amended by:

(a) striking "(c) Director of Central Intelligence" and inserting in lieu thereof "Director of National Intelligence";

(b) striking "and" at the end of subsection (f);

(c) striking "(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence." and inserting in lieu thereof "(g) Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; and"; and

(d) adding at the end thereof "(h) Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence.".

Sec. 3. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 15, 2005.

 

[RealGun]

Hammering the GOP? How did my comments hammer them? Do you disagree that the party has undergone the changes I describe? I was simply describing how the party has changed over the years.

I agreed with your quote completely. It was only the basis of my further thoughts. I repeatedly read indictments of the GOP for not being the party some would like it to be. I think these commentators overlook that the party would be extinct or marginal at best if it conformed to their desires. With all due respect to any well informed and politically savvy voter or any other exception, when you have women and blacks voting, the major blocks of the ecomonically dependent essentially, you cannot be purely conservative and put together any kind of plurality. The good ole days are gone. A successful party can only tend to be this or that, essentially moderate. Thus you get the vitriol that they are all alike by those disinclined to be moderate in their views.

 

[Waitone]

The more I read threads like this one, the stronger my conclusion is that there is not a linear continuum to politics. Instead of libertarianism at one end and totalitarianism at the other, I am beginning to see a circle with libertarianism and totalitarianism side by side. The only difference between the two is the approach take.

I am astounded at the Pavlovian response to fragmentary reports from political organs with well-defined axes to grind. All stories of these type run in a cycle where charges are made, facts are explored, spin and counter spin, etc. is conducted. We are early in the cycle yet what I assume to be reasonable and rational people draw conclusions which can be considered extreme. Maybe the latest flap is the final straw in a lot of people's mind. Maybe its the time of year. Perhaps we're looking at a political realignment. I can't figure out the dynamic at work. I see similar conclusions being drawn on both DU and THR. The disturbing part is poster's I've identified as swinging libertarian in the past seem to echo the "logic" I see on DU; hence my conclusion of a circle instead of a straight line.