If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....

[Andrew Fletcher]

When do we get to seriously start using the "I" word?

[BluffTHIS!]

Depends if it is illegal or just unauthorized. And he gets to go under the Patriot Act as previously in force.

[PoBoy321]

Yeah, apparently you're allowed to lead the country to war under false pretenses, no problem, but if you don't consider a [censored] to be sex, well hell, you might as well kill he guy.

[Andrew Fletcher]

Looks like it was illegal

[canis582]

Illegal isnt the right word.

The term is 'unconstitutional'. Remember when he put that hand on the holy bible and swore to uphold the constitution? He broke that vow to the american people.

Come on, in case you haven't figured it out, the man is made of teflon. He was annointed God by the republicans before the first "election", loses, yet, somehow assumes the duty of president. Outs CIA agents, lies, snorts coke, I can only begin to imagine the stuff the man has done. Here in Cleveland, during the last election, he received more votes than are registered voters in a particular district that historically votes over 90% democratic. You tell me the man is on the level.

[QuadsOverQuads]

um ...

9/11!
Bill Clinton!
Hollywood Celebrities!
ACLU!
'Happy Holidays' Conspiracy!
Gun-Grabbers!

* ... arf!arf!arf!arf!arf! ...*

(now, what was it we were talking about?)


q/q

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Illegal isnt the right word.

The term is 'unconstitutional'. Remember when he put that hand on the holy bible and swore to uphold the constitution? He broke that vow to the american people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it appears that the leaders of the Senate and House intel committees were informed of this program. This means the dems on the committees too. So this was not just some covert op hid from Congress.

Also the real question as to legality is whether the FBI would legally be able to perform such actions as the domestic agency responsible for counter-intelligence on US soil. If the case is that the wiretaps would have been legal for the FBI, then they aren't unconstitutional per se. So to me, it is legitimate to use another agency that possesses the technological capabilities that the FBI doesn't.

I would also imagine that the administration has legally covered its butt so that a prima facie case of legitimate use can be made, in order that there exist no intent to break the law.

[canis582]

Why is everything partisan with you? This is an American Crisis. You are so petty about every little thing. Ever think there could be something wrong with BOTH PARTIES? All you ever do is spew the same tired talking points.
--------------
Bluff this:
Well it appears that the leaders of the Senate and House intel committees were informed of this program. This means the dems on the committees too. So this was not just some covert op hid from Congress.
-------------------

It was hidden from the american people. Where exactly does the buck stop? Not with the president apparently. You cant pass the blame for this. He knowingly violated the 4th amendment and he certainly violated the requirement (Article II, sec. 3) that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

--------------
Bluff THis:
I would also imagine that the administration has legally covered its butt so that a prima facie case of legitimate use can be made, in order that there exist no intent to break the law.
-------------
Oh yeah, a guy he appointed said it was ok, big surprise. Remember the Halloween Simpsons where Burns' lawyer rationalized that it was ok for him to hunt humans. This is similar.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
He knowingly violated the 4th amendment and he certainly violated the requirement (Article II, sec. 3) that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

[/ QUOTE ]

Constitutional interpretation must be really easy when you don't try to make arguments or consider anything counter to what you've already decided. This is not an open and shut case, by any stretch of the imagination.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He knowingly violated the 4th amendment and he certainly violated the requirement (Article II, sec. 3) that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

[/ QUOTE ]

Constitutional interpretation must be really easy when you don't try to make arguments or consider anything counter to what you've already decided. This is not an open and shut case, by any stretch of the imagination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then feel free to counter his argument.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He knowingly violated the 4th amendment and he certainly violated the requirement (Article II, sec. 3) that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

[/ QUOTE ]

Constitutional interpretation must be really easy when you don't try to make arguments or consider anything counter to what you've already decided. This is not an open and shut case, by any stretch of the imagination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then feel free to counter his argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which argument was that? Anyways, it's an intelligence service monitoring international communications of people suspected to be the agents of a foreign international terrorist organization. Imposing a warrant requirement would be a serious hindrance to the government in monitoring the activities of al-Qaeda. I don't know what the current law on this issue is, but there are yes and no answers on closely related questions. A matter for debate. And if there's no warrant requirement, it boils down to whether or not individual wiretaps were reasonable. volokh.com has an interesting bit on the subject.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
It was hidden from the american people. Where exactly does the buck stop? Not with the president apparently. You cant pass the blame for this. He knowingly violated the 4th amendment and he certainly violated the requirement (Article II, sec. 3) that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Congressional oversight IS the American people on classified intelligence matters. Unless you think we should let all our enemies just know everything we are doing.

2. You can't quote the constitution about the president's not taking care to see laws are observed without specifying what laws you think were broken. So what laws were?

3. There is no crisis. Only a strawman crisis asserted by those who wish to bash the administration's handling of the war on terror.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]

1. Congressional oversight IS the American people on classified intelligence matters. Unless you think we should let all our enemies just know everything we are doing.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've always had a lot of difficulties with this argument. Are you therefore saying that the American people have no right to know anything that there government is doing, because if they know, our enemies know?

[BluffTHIS!]

Not "anything" but "some things". What purpose could be served by the general public and thus our enemies knowing the details of our intelligence operations and practices or our intelligence/defense technologies? Although of course anything can be taken too far, and while certainly there is no need to keep classified what we know our enemies have already discovered, we would simply be hurting our interests and endangering the lives of our troops and intelligence operatives by allowing too much to be known. The Chinese in particular have been shown to have an elaborate spying network in the US targeted at our defense technology, so why should we hurt ourselves and make it easier for them just in the interest of the people knowing about such details?

And bi-partisan congressional oversight by the few congressmen/senators on defense and intelligence panels isn't just for show. Although any opposition party is generally going to give the benefit of the doubt to the defense/intelligence establishment, they can't afford politically to just sign off on anything, and especially not something that is actually illegal.

[whiskeytown]

it'll NEVER happen - not in a thousand years....

UNLESS the House/Senate get taken over by Democrats in 2006 - but as long as Republicans are there, they won't crucify their president. -

They'll publically disagree with him, and guys like Arlen Specter will shake their heads and say tsk. tsk... - and they'll distance themselves from him if they have re-election campaigns -

but they won't feed on one another - waste of time discussing it until 2006 really -

that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve it and more - but I'm a realist -

RB

[ QUOTE ]
Imposing a warrant requirement would be a serious hindrance to the government in monitoring the activities of al-Qaeda.

[/ QUOTE ]

And where do you get this amazing bit of information from? "Serious hinderance"??? Please.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what the current law on this issue is,

[/ QUOTE ]

That's obvious.

[ QUOTE ]
but there are yes and no answers on closely related questions. A matter for debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please. Lawyers representing clients can always create "matters for debate". Lawyers -- and officials -- sworn to uphold the constitution have a greater duty. John Yoo should be disbarred; he certainly has been disgraced. As for impeachment, it is certainly more warranted here than it was in Clinton's case. But it is still a bad idea.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
I don't know what the current law on this issue is,

That's obvious.


[/ QUOTE ]

Dick.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Imposing a warrant requirement would be a serious hindrance to the government in monitoring the activities of al-Qaeda.


[/ QUOTE ]
And where do you get this amazing bit of information from? "Serious hinderance"??? Please.


[/ QUOTE ]

US v. Bin Laden (http://www.denistn.mine.nu/pdf2html.php?url=http://www.law.syr.edu/faculty/banks/terrorism/dummyfl/binladen_12_19_00.pdf), holding that similar wiretaps (and physical searches) of US citizens involved in terror organizations were subject to the 4th amendment, but that there was an exception to the warrant requirement because it would hinder intelligence-gathering. Also, one of the people at the Volokh Conspiracy, who is presumably less of a dick than you, feels that the subject is really murky. (http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_12_11-2005_12_17.shtml#1134704543)

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
When do we get to seriously start using the "I" word?

[/ QUOTE ]

When he commits "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." This would be none of those in my opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
When do we get to seriously start using the "I" word?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
When he commits "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." This would be none of those in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or is on the recieving end of a knobjob from an intern with an eating disorder.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When do we get to seriously start using the "I" word?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
When he commits "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." This would be none of those in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or is on the recieving end of a knobjob from an intern with an eating disorder.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have to give it the lefties on this. They've done a great job of turning what was impeachment of the president because of perjury into impeachment because of a bj...

[ QUOTE ]
I have to give it the lefties on this. They've done a great job of turning what was impeachment of the president because of perjury into impeachment because of a bj...

[/ QUOTE ]
So, now you're stalking me from thread to thread. Whatever.
Impeachment for perjury, huh. It seems to me that Ken Starr was supposed to be investigating Whitewater. Yet, his report is primarily about the president's affair with Monica, which Starr learned of through illegal recordings made by Linda Tripp, hardly the kind of stuff that is generally admissable in a court of law, but aparently is admissable in a witchhunt to oust a popular and effective president. Hey, at least he didn't empower the terrorists that we're fighting today like Ronnie and W's dad did. By the way, I love that picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
I don't know what the current law on this issue is,

That's obvious.


[/ QUOTE ]

Dick.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Very eloquent.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Imposing a warrant requirement would be a serious hindrance to the government in monitoring the activities of al-Qaeda.


[/ QUOTE ]
And where do you get this amazing bit of information from? "Serious hinderance"??? Please.


[/ QUOTE ]

US v. Bin Laden (http://www.denistn.mine.nu/pdf2html.php?url=http://www.law.syr.edu/faculty/banks/terrorism/dummyfl/binladen_12_19_00.pdf), holding that similar wiretaps (and physical searches) of US citizens involved in terror organizations were subject to the 4th amendment, but that there was an exception to the warrant requirement because it would hinder intelligence-gathering. Also, one of the people at the Volokh Conspiracy, who is presumably less of a dick than you, feels that the subject is really murky. (http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_12_11-2005_12_17.shtml#1134704543)

[/ QUOTE ]


hahahahahahahahahahahaha

If you don't know the difference between searches on foreign soil, at issue in <u>bin Laden</u>, and domestic searches, do your dignity a favor and stop posting on this topic.

And if former prosecutor, vocal supporter of the Patriot Act, and general defender of government investigatory power Orin Kerr admits that it is "murky", you can be sure that there are no good arguments on your side.

Have a good holiday. I hope someone buys you some history books.

[peritonlogon]

I assume by "I" word you simply mean(unlike how other's have been taking it) investigation. We've seen just how tough it was to have the Deputy Cheif of Staff investigated.... The Comander in Cheif.....come on... untouchable. I seriously doubt there will ever be an investigation done by an independant council... at least not while he's in office.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't know the difference between searches on foreign soil, at issue in bin Laden, and domestic searches, do your dignity a favor and stop posting on this topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go back under your bridge, troll. PoBoy asked for an argument suggesting that the wiretaps might be constitutional. I gave one. Obviously Bin Laden doesn't apply directly, but it's damn close, and in my two minutes of research I didn't find anything closer. So, at the very least, it demonstrates some of the possible arguments that could be used.

[ QUOTE ]
Go back under your bridge, troll. PoBoy asked for an argument suggesting that the wiretaps might be constitutional. I gave one. Obviously Bin Laden doesn't apply directly, but it's damn close, and in my two minutes of research I didn't find anything closer. So, at the very least, it demonstrates some of the possible arguments that could be used.

[/ QUOTE ]

Call me names all you want, but you are disgracing yourself with these types of ill-informed posts.

<u>Bin Laden</u> is "damn close" and supports your argument??? Read it again. The Court in <u>Bin Laden</u> held that there was no need for a warrant for a PHYSICAL search on foreign soil conducted primarily for intelligence purposes. Got that? A PHYSICAL search. As to the electronic sulvellience -- the wiretaps -- at issue in <u>Bin Laden</u>, the Court held that the exception to the warant requirement DID NOT APPLY. To be sure, the Court did not exclude the evidence because it gave the Government the benefit of the doubt and said that its reliance on a lawyer's mistaken opinion of the law showed that it was acting in "good faith". Ironically, the existence of <u>Bin Laden</u> itself would deprive the government of even that argument this time around. But the Court was perfectly clear that a warrant -- i.e., judicial oversight -- was required.

Put another way, <u>bin Laden</u> says pretty much the opposite of what you claim. And all the name calling in the world won't change that. The fact that PoBoy or anyone else asked you to make an argument doesn't give you a pass when you make as bad an argument as you have made here.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I hate to sound like I'm defending Clinton, but he did not commit perjury. Perjury is defined as lying under oath on a subject germane to the investigation. In other words, if you're tesitying as a witness to a robbery and you're asked if you've ever cheated on your taxes and you lie, that's not perjury. They can't put you under oath and ask anything they want.

The judge in the Paula Jones case ultimately ruled that the Lewinsky line of questioning was not germane to the Jones case. Thus, by definition, while Bubba lied, he did not commit perjury.

That being said - to all the liberals who keep bringing up this subject - HE WAS ACQUITTED - what's your beef???

[BCPVP]

My mistake. I should have said lied under oath.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, apparently you're allowed to lead the country to war under false pretenses, no problem, but if you don't consider a [censored] to be sex, well hell, you might as well kill he guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

In your example, did Congress authorize the [censored]?

[ QUOTE ]
Are you therefore saying that the American people have no right to know anything that there government is doing, because if they know, our enemies know?


[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly they do not. If you disagree with this, then you are arguing that we should publish to the world every name, profile, and whereabouts of our undercover CIA agents as well as our Secret Service security protocol and budget. You might as well remove the words "security clearance" and "classified information" from the word bank. Is that what you are arguing? Or will you simply admit that there are some things that the government must keep secret from the American people?

[mackthefork]

Like getting a blow job for instance?

Mack

[andyfox]

"You can't quote the constitution about the president's not taking care to see laws are observed without specifying what laws you think were broken. So what laws were?"

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA requires the approval of a special court before conversations can be intercepted and recorded. The court may authorize warrants to obtain "foreign intelligence" information if the target is linked to "international terrorism." The law says the government must show probabe cause to believe the targeted person is involved in a terrorist group.

One possible explanation for why the president did not seek a warrant from the special court is that the president's lawyers believed he had the power, regardless of the law. Another might be that the administration might have thought it did not have enough evidence to obtain a warrant. Kenneth C. Bass III, an expert on FISA, speculated yesterday that authorities might have seized, say, a computer or a phone that was used by an Al Qaeda operative. "The scuttlebutt is they were then using all the links or phone numbers they found, "Bass said. "It certainly sounds reasonable to say, 'We are targeting people with links to Al Qaeda,' but it may be just a list of phone numbers. That probably wouldn't satisfy the FISA court."

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
As to the electronic sulvellience -- the wiretaps -- at issue in Bin Laden, the Court held that the exception to the warant requirement DID NOT APPLY.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't you like a lawyer? If so, shouldn't you be better at reading cases? Some of the electronic surveillance was not covered because it wasn't authorized by the AG. But the surveillance that took place after the date of the AG's authorization was allowed in under the exception. Read pp.10-11 again: "[O]n April 4, 1997... the Attorney General gave her express authorization for the foreign intelligence collection techniques (including the post-April 4, 1997 electronic surveillance and the August 21, 1997 physical search) that were employed.... For these searches then, the exception to the warrant requirement for foreign intelligence surveillance is applicable and the government was not required to secure a warrant."

The issue is the abuse of power. Just because one party has a majority they can start up impeachment proceedings just because they don't like the guy.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
it'll NEVER happen - not in a thousand years....

UNLESS the House/Senate get taken over by Democrats in 2006 - but as long as Republicans are there, they won't crucify their president. -

[/ QUOTE ]

If enough of the electorate wanted an impeachment it would happen regardless of the congressional makeup.


Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
....if you don't consider a [censored] to be sex, well hell, you might as well kill he guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clinton got disbarred and paid a half million dollar fine. Thats gotta be the most expensive blow job in history or he did something more than just have oral sex.

Stu

[canis582]

[ QUOTE ]
If enough of the electorate wanted an impeachment it would happen regardless of the congressional makeup.


[/ QUOTE ]

The electorate is a group of sheeple who are constantly inundated with propaganda.

People dont realize how big of a deal this is. Unless CNN, MSNBC, fox news, local papers etc say its important, people wont think it is.

People thought nat holloway was important even though there were much more important things to care about.

So, what you're saying is the electorate was demanding that Clinton be impeached for getting a knobjob?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
So, what you're saying is the electorate was demanding that Clinton be impeached for getting a knobjob?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats what the electorate thought, and that is one reason why he did not get convicted.

However any reasonably intelligent person who followed the story knows he didn't get impeached, disbarred, or fined for getting a knobjob.

Stu

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, what you're saying is the electorate was demanding that Clinton be impeached for getting a knobjob?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats what the electorate thought, and that is one reason why he did not get convicted.

However any reasonably intelligent person who followed the story knows he didn't get impeached, disbarred, or fined for getting a knobjob.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, he got impeached because he didn't think that a knobjob counted as sex.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, he got impeached because he didn't think that a knobjob counted as sex.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_impeachment) is a good summary of what actually happened.

Stu

[ QUOTE ]
Thats what the electorate thought, and that is one reason why he did not get convicted.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm confused, are you telling me that the electorate wanted him to be impeached and that is why he was not convicted? That makes no sense at all.
[ QUOTE ]
However any reasonably intelligent person who followed the story knows he didn't get impeached, disbarred, or fined for getting a knobjob.

[/ QUOTE ]
What for then? All she did was give him head, so, it couldn't have been for sexual intercourse. Oh, I know, you are implying that he was impeached for false statements to a grand jury that an unbiased court of law subsequently ruled were irrelevant to the Paula Jones case, right?

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a good summary of what actually happened.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Impeachment is a means of removing criminal officials from high office.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm never allowing my wife to give me head again, I don't want to be a criminal.

[ QUOTE ]
Republicans, who controlled both houses of Congress at the time, believed that Bill Clinton's suspected offenses qualified as impeachable high crimes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now this is closer to the truth.

[ QUOTE ]
Article I: Perjury before grand jury on August 17, 1998
Article II: Perjury in Paula Jones case on December 23, 1997 and January 17, 1998
Article III: Obstruction of justice related to Paula Jones case
Article IV: Abuse of high office


[/ QUOTE ]
None of which had anything to do with Whitewater, which is why he was being investigated in the first place. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Now this is closer to the truth.
[ QUOTE ]

Article I: Perjury before grand jury on August 17, 1998
Article II: Perjury in Paula Jones case on December 23, 1997 and January 17, 1998
Article III: Obstruction of justice related to Paula Jones case
Article IV: Abuse of high office


[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing in there about blow jobs or tossing the salad.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused, are you telling me that the electorate wanted him to be impeached and that is why he was not convicted? That makes no sense at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

First there is a difference between being impeached and being convicted. Clinton was impeached, thats a historical fact. He was tried by the senate and aquitted.

What I'm telling you that the electorate did not want to see him get convicted. If the electorate wanted to see him convicted, Clinton would not have been aquitted. The electorate thought this case was about Clinton having an affiar and wanting to cover it up.

[ QUOTE ]
What for then? All she did was give him head, so, it couldn't have been for sexual intercourse. Oh, I know, you are implying that he was impeached for false statements to a grand jury that an unbiased court of law subsequently ruled were irrelevant to the Paula Jones case, right?


[/ QUOTE ]

He lied under oath. He may or may have not committed perjury. Our whole system of justice depends on people telling the truth under oath. Perjury is a crime that absolutely has to be taken seriously or our justice system becomes a sham.


Stu

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right, he got impeached because he didn't think that a knobjob counted as sex.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_impeachment) is a good summary of what actually happened.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to quote your source:

[ QUOTE ]
Allegations of perjury

In his deposition for the Jones lawsuit, Clinton denied having "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. Based on the evidence provided by Tripp, Starr concluded that this sworn testimony was false and perjurious.

The issue was greatly confused by an unusual definition for sexual contact which excluded oral sex. This definition was ordered by the Independent Counsel's Office during the initial questioning which led to the perjury allegations. [2] During the deposition, Clinton was asked "have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court." The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Afterwards, based on the defintion created by the Independent Counsel's Office, which was limited strictly to intercourse, Clinton answered "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." Clinton later stated that he believed the agreed-upon definition of sexual relations excluded his receiving oral sex.

[/ QUOTE ]

So he got impeached on allegations of perjury because he testified that he had not had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky because as it was defined, oral sex didn't count.

[ QUOTE ]
Aren't you like a lawyer? If so, shouldn't you be better at reading cases? Some of the electronic surveillance was not covered because it wasn't authorized by the AG. But the surveillance that took place after the date of the AG's authorization was allowed in under the exception. Read pp.10-11 again: "[O]n April 4, 1997... the Attorney General gave her express authorization for the foreign intelligence collection techniques (including the post-April 4, 1997 electronic surveillance and the August 21, 1997 physical search) that were employed.... For these searches then, the exception to the warrant requirement for foreign intelligence surveillance is applicable and the government was not required to secure a warrant."

[/ QUOTE ]

Congratulations on getting through an entire post without name calling. Now, I will teach you another lesson:

You are correct, I missed that the Court made a distinction between wiretaps. Thus, the Court's holding, as I originally thought (and should have stuck with) depended on the fact that the searches took place on foreign soil. Note the absence of any excuses about "two minutes of research" or any rationalization seeking to avoid confession of error. Not that I expect you to take the lesson, but, you never know.

I am sure you read with interest Orin Kerr's volokh post analyzing the legality of this scheme. He concludes that the wiretaps may be constitutional (although he allows that his is a strained analysis -- a very significant concession considering the source), but concedes that they are likely illegal.

What say you now?

[BillUCF]

Thank God for an American president with the balls to take decisive action. Both parties in congress couldn't organize a circle jerk if their lives depended on it.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank God for an American president with the balls to take decisive action. Both parties in congress couldn't organize a circle jerk if their lives depended on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, Bill's great.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused, are you telling me that the electorate wanted him to be impeached and that is why he was not convicted? That makes no sense at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

First there is a difference between being impeached and being convicted. Clinton was impeached, thats a historical fact. He was tried by the senate and aquitted.

What I'm telling you that the electorate did not want to see him get convicted. If the electorate wanted to see him convicted, Clinton would not have been aquitted. The electorate thought this case was about Clinton having an affiar and wanting to cover it up.

[ QUOTE ]
What for then? All she did was give him head, so, it couldn't have been for sexual intercourse. Oh, I know, you are implying that he was impeached for false statements to a grand jury that an unbiased court of law subsequently ruled were irrelevant to the Paula Jones case, right?


[/ QUOTE ]

He lied under oath. He may or may have not committed perjury. Our whole system of justice depends on people telling the truth under oath. Perjury is a crime that absolutely has to be taken seriously or our justice system becomes a sham.


Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Clinton didn't get convicted because he didn't abuse the power of the presidency. Abuse of Power is the main condition for removing a president. He probably shouldn't have been impeached in the first place.

Bush, seems to have abused the power of the presidency. I doubt the House will have the political will to impeach him.

It almost is more about what the political will of the House and the Senate as to whether Bush actually committed a crime, if we suppose that he did. I doubt the House "wants " to impeach Bush. So it probably won't happen.

Did you see C. Rice on Meet the Press? She refused to even defend the President against the charge of breaking the law. Instead she dodged the question and insisted that security was the most important priority. I'm guessing the House will probably see things her way and ignore the technicalities of whether laws were broken. If they wanted to get Bush they could have went after him for torture or illegal detainees of prisoners.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
When do we get to seriously start using the "I" word?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right now. I don't think it will happen with the current makeup of Congress, but, after 2006, if Democrats gain control, look out. But hey, wholesale violation of constitutional rights is nothing compared to lying about a blow job.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thank God for an American president with the balls to take decisive action. Both parties in congress couldn't organize a circle jerk if their lives depended on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, Bill's great.

[/ QUOTE ]

You honestly can't make this stuff up...

-Gryph

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
I am sure you read with interest Orin Kerr's volokh post analyzing the legality of this scheme. He concludes that the wiretaps may be constitutional (although he allows that his is a strained analysis -- a very significant concession considering the source), but concedes that they are likely illegal.

What say you now?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea. I'm still plowing through some of the VC comments on Orin's post. Lot of complicated issues. My evidence prof was on Fox last night talking about the subject. He felt that it was OK, but he's really more of an evidence guy than a con law guy, so who knows. My current feeling is that it depends a lot on the specific facts of the program. For example, if we had NSA posts in the Sudan picking up US-bound cell phone calls in the Sudan, then I'd feel better about it, from a legal perspective, than vice versa. But then again, that's kind of a trivial thing to worry about in the middle of a war, so who knows?

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank God for an American president with the balls to take decisive action. Both parties in congress couldn't organize a circle jerk if their lives depended on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you mean divicive ?