Boxer Asks Presidential Scholars About ... 'Impeachable Offense'

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

By Senator Barbara Boxer
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:



http://boxer.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=249975

The following scene from the Robert Bolt play, "A Man For All Seasons" seems very a propos right now:

"Rich: (Moves swiftly to exit; turns) I would be steadfast!

More: Richard, you couldn't answer for yourself even so far as tonight. (RICH exits. All watch him; the others turn to More, their faces alert)

Roper: Arrest him.

Alice: Yes!

More: For what?

Alice: He's dangerous!

Roper: For libel; he's a spy.

Alice: He is! Arrest him!

Margaret: Father, that man's bad.

More: There is no law against that.

Roper: There is! God's law!

More: Then God can arrest him.

Roper: Sophistication upon sophistication.

More: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal.

Roper: Then you set man's law above God's!

More: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact - I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God....

Alice: While you talk, he's gone!

More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."

Doug De Clue
Orlando, FL

It's one of the best. Bolt won an Oscar for his screenplay, and Paul Scofield for best actor. That scene is one that one doesn't forget easily.

overnight :kick:

It's been a very busy week so far, don't ya think? ;)

:kick:

Okay, that just means I prefer her to Feinstein and who wouldn't.

entire Senate. How many impeachable offenses are there now? Lying to go to war. War CRIMES.

I can't even think. It has been going on for so long now I can't remember all the times we said he should be impeached. I just hope that if they do it this time they include all his disgusting acts in the past 5 years. We need to do that as a country so we can start to heal.

I've been playing around with a quote, changing the words to say more precisely what I think it ought to say rather than, perhaps, what the original author intended.

Here it is:



The original is from this document by Dave Berman: http://tinyurl.com/au2pj and the specific quote is below

Glad she's putting out feelers, but there is no legalistic test that defines whether or not an offense is an Impeachable offense.

As the Republicans found out, an action that may be "technically' illegal is NOT an Impeachable Offense unless the people view the action as an intolerable abuse of power.

On the other hand, if the public considers an action to be an intolerable abuse of power, that action is an Impeachable Offense, whether or not it is a violation of written law.

If the electorate demanded Impeachment for "negligent, stupid, mismanagement of a war", then Bush and Cheney could be charged with that “high crime” in the Articles of Impeachment.

It's all about political will. And political will is driven by citizen action. It is up to us.

Our representatives can look to the law for guidance, but they are not limited by the letter of the law. They can look to past Impeachments, but they are not bound by precedence. No "technical' interpretation of the law can trump the will of the people.

Demanding Impeachment is a short hand for all the stages. The first step is an Impeachment Inquiry. Clearly, we have sufficient evidence of wrong-doing to demand an Impeachment Inquiry.

Bush and Cheney have given us much to choose from. They have done things that are prohibited by law (malum prohibitum -- e.g., violating our laws against torture and laws against warrantless domestic spying). They have also committed offenses that are wrong on their face (malum in se -- e.g., "Lying a nation into war," "making boom threats" and "terrorizing the American people with threats of a mushroom cloud in 45 minutes.” .

There is no doubt that we have cause to move forward, even if all we look no farther than the information already in the public domain (e.g. the documents and analysis in Hoodwinked provide the grounds for a dozen articles).

thanks for the link

But, if you want them to get the book in less than a month, it needs to be delivered by hand to a local or DC office. Otherwise it goes through a screening process that apparently take forever.

Prados has done a WONDERFUL job of annotating every document, cross-referencing, and connecting the dots. The results is an air tight case. Their actions expose their consciousness of guilt, even when we are limited to the docs that are in the public domain. Members of the House could take it in its entirety as support for a number of Impeachable Offenses.