I agree with Bob Krumm:
So, yes, bring forth Rep. John Conyers’ articles of impeachment. It should be Speaker Hastert’s first order of business in the new year. Rush it to the floor for a vote a la Rep John Murtha’s demand for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. And when the motion is overwhelmingly defeated, perhaps then we can put all this nonsensical talk about impeachment behind us and finally focus instead on the nation’s future.
Hat tip.
Friday, December 30, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hey, not so fast.
Look, if Clinton covering up his sex romps w/ Monica was worth impeachment (and I for one thought it was) then a Bush taking a big ol' wiz all over the 4th Amendment is too.
I have considered myself a Bush supporter most of the way- but crime is crime and when anyone, including the President of the United States breaks the law, then there must be accountability.
And John- I though you of all people would be all over this. What sort of Libertarian would ever sacrifice freedom?
I thought that the Clinton impeachment was a scandalous abuse of prosecutorial power by the Republicans, and they should have suffered badly for it. And they did.
I would agree that Bush's actions were questionable -- the wiretaps. But the caselaw establishes that it is by-the-books legal, just like other disreputable police practices, such as no-knock search warrants. I would like for the law to say certain things, but it does not, and impeaching the President on the basis of what I would like to be legal or not is an abuse of the impeachment process.
Both times in our history that a President was impeached were motivated by purely partisan differences with no regard to actual wrongdoing. And impeaching Bush in this case would likewise fall into that category. Were the Democrats genuinely concerned with civil liberties, I would respect this effort more. But they don't. They simply wish to bring down Bush at all costs, so I agree with Krumm's statment: call out the Democrats on their effort. Force them to actually vote to impeach a sitting wartime president on what they know -- and the American people know -- is a phony non-scandal.
It's all noise, just like Murtha's call for an immediate withdraw from Iraq; a game that the Democrats are playing but do not wish to actually follow through.
Anyway, John, if you think that the President should be held accountable, wouldn't you support and up-or-down vote on impeachment?
Up and down right now?
No. That is a pre-mature action aimed only at ending the issue before all the needed information has come to light.
Some hearings or some sort of evidentiary process should precede any form of prosecution.
In criminal court, there is the grand jury. You don't just arrest a suspect the moment it appears they may be guilty. You build a case which leads up to an indictment first and then you go to trial.
So what you are advocating skips a very important step.
Without the office of the special prosecutor (what a bad idea that worked out to be) I'd like to see a committee (half donkeys and half pakaderms) to act as a fact-finding body charged with researching the what the law says and comparing it to what has occurred.
If a majority of that body finds enough basis for an impeach, then you hold your vote. If not, then you don't need a vote.
Post a Comment