Bush Broke the Law: IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 11:13pm

Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy winter.

===

On Fox News's "Dayside," Fox’s in-house legal expert, Judge Andrew Napolitano, said the following:

Napolitano: When Congress enacted the FISA act in ‘77, it also made it criminal for anyone in this country to use the power of the government to wiretap without a search warrant. It made it easy to get the search warrant with the FISA law, but it said you have to get the search warrant.

And on CNN's Situation room, Wolf Blitzer asked Alan Dershowitz if the president broke the law:

Wolf: Did the President break the law?

Alan: I think the President broke the law. I think Congress should hold hearings...

Host: So what the president’s done is a criminal act?

Napolitano: The president has violated the law in the name of national security, not wanting to violate the law, believing he’s doing the right thing, but he violated it nonetheless. He can’t pick and choose which laws to obey and not to obey any more than the rest of us can.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 11:16pm

Condi's defense of this blatant disregard for the Constitution is outrageous!!!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 11:16pm

The articles of impeachment are already being drawn up.

---

U.S. Rep. John Lewis said Monday in a radio interview that President Bush should be impeached if he broke the law in authorizing spying on Americans. The Democratic [congressman] from Georgia told WAOK-AM he would sign a bill of impeachment if one was drawn up and that the House of Representatives should consider such a move.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 11:19pm

And on O'Reilly, Jonathan Turley said the same thing:

---

O'Reilly: Professor Turley, how do you see it?

Turley: I don't consider this a close case at all. I think that this operation-ahh-it was based on a federal crime.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 11:23pm

From Talk Left:

---

Seventeen Democrats who are members of the House Judiciary Committee today called on Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner to convene hearings to investigate President Bush's ordering the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of persons within the United States without obtaining court-ordered warrants. They noted in their request that Sen. Arlen Specter has called for similar hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. (More on that here.)

From the letter (received by e-mail):

...we ask that you, too, convene hearings to investigate why the President circumvented the system established under current law, which permits him to seek emergency warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to conduct domestic surveillance. It is imperative we understand the legal authority upon which it is claimed these activities are based and the scope of the activities undertaken.

The signers to the letter include:

Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Rick Boucher (D-VA)
John Conyers, Ranking Member (D-MI)
Howard L. Berman (D-CA)
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
Robert C. Scott (D-VA)
Melvin L. Watt (D-NC)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)
Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Martin T. Meehan (D-MA)
William Delahunt (D-MA)
Robert Wexler (D-FL)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-NY)
Adam B. Schiff (D-CA)
Linda T. Sanchez (D-CA)
Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)
Hearings Requested Into Bush's Warrantless Surveillance

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 11:29pm

Barbara Boxer Asks Presidential Scholars About Former White House Counsel's Statement that Bush Admitted to an 'Impeachable Offense'

December 19, 2005

Washington, D.C.– U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today asked four presidential scholars for their opinion on former White House Counsel John Dean’s statement that President Bush admitted to an “impeachable offense” when he said he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge.

Boxer said, “I take very seriously Mr. Dean’s comments, as I view him to be an expert on Presidential abuse of power. I am expecting a full airing of this matter by the Senate in the very near future.”

Boxer’s letter is as follows:

On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today.

On Sunday, December 18, former White House Counsel John Dean and I participated in a public discussion that covered many issues, including this surveillance. Mr. Dean, who was President Nixon’s counsel at the time of Watergate, said that President Bush is “the first President to admit to an impeachable offense.” Today, Mr. Dean confirmed his statement.

This startling assertion by Mr. Dean is especially poignant because he experienced first hand the executive abuse of power and a presidential scandal arising from the surveillance of American citizens.

Given your constitutional expertise, particularly in the area of presidential impeachment, I am writing to ask for your comments and thoughts on Mr. Dean’s statement.

Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer

United States Senator

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 11:41pm

These Fourth Amendment freedoms cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances may be conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive [407 U.S. 297, 317] Branch. The Fourth Amendment does not contemplate the executive officers of Government as neutral and disinterested magistrates. Their duty and responsibility are to enforce the laws, to investigate, and to prosecute. Katz v. United States, supra, at 359-360 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring).

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 12:13am

Oh, this makes Clinton's blow job in the oval office look like Lucy pulling out the football on Charlie Brown.

The really scary thing is Bush does not understand the magnitude of what he has done, and what he has admitted to doing.

You cannot destroy the Contsitution in an effort to protect it.

Maybe Articles of Impeachment will be enough to get something other than "instinct" through that thick head of his.

Cheney knew exactly what he was doing.

This is not even fun, it is just freaking scary.

No Happy Dancing here.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 12:24am

If Bush was so sure he was not violating the law, then why did he beg the NYT not to publish the story?

Answer - because apparently even his limited intellectual gifts understood that he had broken the law:

"No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism."


Bush’s Snoopgate

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 12:28am

None of this means anything til the republican majority turns on him.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 12:34am

Look around. The Great Work has begun.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 12:39am

Y - you are so correct. Our profession requires us to take oaths and abide by rules of ethics that are not just codified, but essential to protect the legal rights of individuals everyday.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 11:35am

Fave graf from the Newsweek article YWIW linked:

"This will all play out eventually in congressional committees and in the United States Supreme Court. If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974."

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 11:42am

nah, nixon went down because he denied things and tried to cover it up. dubya came right out and said, "yep we did it and we'll continue to do it." bubba's deal dragged out because he denied things (well, that and the right was slathered in santorum over everything he did). can you imagine if he'd come out and said, "look, folks, i had a moment of weakness. i'm sorry, let's move on?" that would have stolen all the right's thunder. reagan didn't deny anything, he just said he didn't remember and suffered no consequences. the lesson is, don't deny. but hmmm, i wonder what that memo says?

[Carl Magnum]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 11:45am

This is all I want for Christmas....make it happen Palsanta Joeyclaus.....please deliver the impeachment.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 11:48am

Come over here and sit on my lap, Carl, and I'll see what I can do. ;-}

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 12:00pm

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.

Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.

[caitiesus1522]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 12:03pm

This is the best Christmas present EVER!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 12:06pm

Jefferson, TouchMe?

More good news! CENSURE!!!

RawStory reports that Congressman John Conyers has introduced a motion to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney for providing misleading information to Congress in advance of the Iraq war, allowing torture, and other provisions.

He is also seeking an investigative body to determine whether the President committed impeachable offenses.

[caitiesus1522]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 12:17pm

rhis is making the 2006 elections look better and better

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 12:20pm

No, PJ...they're all Ben Franklin. He had a knack for witty reparte. I think he was a mo.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 12:25pm

I hear that he is asking for a Super Special Censure for Mr. Cheney.

Ho Ho F*CKing Ho.

[sweetiedarlinmia]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 12:52pm

Just when you things aren't ever gonna go your way... you get a joyous gift like this! Perhaps Congress has had enough of his Czar-like presidency.

Dear Santa,

I know in my last letter I told you that I wanted an extremely hot and intelligent barely dressed man under my tree, but I think I can be happy with an impeachment! Although, I wouldn't turn down the man-man gift.

Sincerely,
SDM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 9:49am

Here is a blog that gathers opinions from all sides of these arguments.

It seems that the spying was constitutional but illegal according to the FISA law.

So the questions remains: Does breaking FISA constitute "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"?
NSA Surveillance: Blog Post Roundup