Sunday, May 28, 2006


161 Days and Counting

Whenever I discuss this issue on other blogs, the false dichotomy of left versus right immediately knocks the discussion off track. Friends, sanctioning criminality is not a partisan issue! The closest I’ve been able to get to agreement with the defenders of Bush’s warrantless wiretapping is on the subject of illegal immigration. I’ve even started looking for talk of impeachment on so-called Right wing websites, like News By Us, not news bias, Commentary, News Analysis and Opinion on the right side of the page, based in Boise, Idaho.

Here’s an example of how incensed a normal, red-blooded American “on the right side of the page” gets when the issue is “foreign nationals illegally on our soil.” The author of The North American What?, David Tatosian, sounds like me when he talks about The betrayal, treasonous acts and crimes committed by Mr. Bush and asks Should we call for his impeachment?

He even takes on criminal enabler Number 1, Alberto Gonzales:
Clearly, when it comes to illegal aliens Mr. Gonzales, like Mr. Bush, feels flagrant criminality is a social, rather than a law enforcement issue.
Clearly, when it comes to illegal wiretapping Mr. Gonzales, like Mr. Bush, feels flagrant criminality is a convenience, rather than a law enforcement issue.

Saturday, May 13, 2006


147 Days and Counting

What is the bottom line here? The Bush administration keeps violating the laws of the United States of America, and the Congress of the United States is negligent in its duty to police these violations.

Every time a defender of this crime spree talks, he or she lies about how it’s really legal because the President always has inherent powers to act in his position as Commander in Chief. Now, I don’t forgive any of them for lying, even if they’re not lawyers, but most of them are lawyers. The part of the argument that’s a lie is the one that ends at “the President always has inherent powers to act” without the rest of the rule which permits the inherent power to act only in the absence of a specific statute.

Readers of this blog will realize that I have concentrated on one and only one high crime as grounds for impeachment: Bush’s admitted violation of FISA.

My friend, The City Troll, writes in a comment this morning that FISA is an unconstitutional restraint on presidential power... On Face the Nation this morning, The Troll's senior Senator, Arlen Specter, unequivocally asserts that "the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has been violated."

How do we square these circles? Simply. Violating a law that is arguably unconstitutional is still a high crime that makes the President subject to impeachment by the House of Representatives. When he is tried in the Senate, he can raise the putative unconstitutionality of the law he violated as a defense.

Listen, this is not rocket science, it isn't even complicated criminal law. It's obvious on its face; just as obvious as the complicity of the Congress in the crimes of this Administration!

Sunday, May 07, 2006


141 Days and Counting

One of the favorite arguments of those who defend the criminal actions of President Bush is that the President of the United States can't violate the laws of the United States because they don't apply to him in his role as Commander in Chief. There is no truth to this argument, but that doesn't affect its popularity. Every day that the Congress lets this violation stand gives the President reason to believe that he can go on violating the laws of the land.

It even emboldens him to do things like appointing the architect of illegal NSA spying in violation of the FISA, Gen. Michael Hayden, to the position of Director of the CIA. Editor & Publisher on May 6, 2006 observes that Hayden, Likely Choice for CIA Chief, Displayed Shaky Grip on 4th Amendment at Press Club.

In an appearance at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on January 23, 2006, the following exchange occurred:
QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, "We reasonably believe." And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say "we reasonably believe"; you have to go to the FISA court, or the attorney general has to go to the FISA court and say, "we have probable cause."

And so what many people believe -- and I'd like you to respond to this -- is that what you've actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of "reasonably believe" in place of probable cause because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause. Could you respond to that, please?

GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order.
But, there is good news in this article.
A new Gallup poll released Monday showed that 51% of Americans said the administration was wrong to intercept conversations involving a party inside the U.S. without a warrant. In response to another question, 58% said they support the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the program.
The National Press Club appearance wasn't the first time Hayden lied to protect the Administration's criminal conspiracy. I am reminded of this example of Hayden’s criminal behavior from ThinkProgress on December 19, 2005, FLASHBACK: Director of National Security Agency Misled Congress. When Hayden was NSA Director, he appeared on October 17, 2002 before a House committee chaired by then-Congressman Porter Goss.
GOSS: OK, my second question, then. General Hayden, you said something about bin Laden coming across the bridge, hypothetical, of course. But I take that to mean that if bin Laden did come there would be capabilities that we have that we can use elsewhere in the world that we cannot use in the United States of America. Is that correct?

HAYDEN: Not so much capabilities, but how agilely we could apply those capabilities. The person inside the United States becomes a U.S. person under the definition provided by the FISA Act.

GOSS: Well, lets — again, I don’t want to get into details. I’m aware of the public nature of this meeting. But let’s just suppose this sniper [in the United States] is somebody we wanted to catch very badly. Could we apply all our technologies and all our capabilities and all our know how against that person? Or would that person be considered to have protection as an American citizen?

HAYDEN: That person would have protections as what the law defines as a U.S. person. And I would have no authorities to pursue it.
We now know that Hayden was lying to protect the criminal activity he was engaged in at the direction of the President of the United States. I encourage the members of the Senate to fully investigate Hayden's perjury on October 17, 2002 and his further criminal activity at the NSA when he comes for confirmation to the CIA post. Maybe that will get the House to stop aiding and abetting Administration lawlessness.

Saturday, May 06, 2006


140 Days and Counting

My friend, The City Troll, from Philadelphia has been chiding me because my new found day job has taken me away from my blogging. Okay, Troll, here's a story from your own backyard, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. It seems your Republican member of the House of Representatives, Michael G. Fitzpatrick, is up for re-election this November. Well, Rob Kall has a suggestion for Congressman Fitzpatrick (How One Moderate, Honest Republican in Congress Can Save His Job and The Nation,, May 5, 2006) that I fully endorse.
If Fitzpatrick actually did something with major courage, and became the first Republican to join the 36 Democrats calling for impeachment hearings, he'd just about guarantee that he'd keep his job, unless he's depending on the right wing extremists in his party for his funding. Maybe he can make it as a new breed of Republican - one who responds to what is actually happening in this country and acts with responsibility, holding the President and Vice president accountable for their impeachable crimes.

Ironically, if he takes the first step and then other honest Republicans face the facts that they are supporting a pair of criminals, maybe he will be joined by other honest Republicans. Maybe there will be other Republicans who will show that they have some honor. If even one Republican signs on to the impeachment bill, that should shame a slew of Democrats to take the leap.

Before we know it, the number of Democrats supporting impeachment may even exceed the number not supporting it. And the number of Republicans supporting it might take on double digits. Once that happens the mainstream media will be forced to spend a LOT of time on impeachment. They will have to spend more time on the issues, on the accusations that the progressives have been talking about and complaining that the mainstream media have been ignoring.
On the other hand, we haven't seen one honest Republican appear in 140 days, so maybe the term "honest Republican" really is an oxymoron.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?