He really can do whatever the hell he wants. (Yet another Bush-bashing thread)

It’s shit like this that pisses me off beyond rational thought. I start to sputter and foam gathers in the corners of my mouth and then I start calling Bush supporters ‘idiots’ or worse and my head head starts spinning 'round and 'round in utter, utter helpless rage.
Did Bush break the law? Well, according to the him, that information is classified. The worst part is, there’s nothing you or I or anyone can do about it.

To make myself feel better, I imagine Bush doing a Sylverster Stallone impersonation-- I AM the law!!!

Sounds like “obstruction of justice” to me. Which, as we all remember from 1998, is a serious crime and merits impeachment.

I agree with you, Little Nemo. If he committed obstruction of justice (which is not my call to make) it’s up to Congress to follow through on it.

What’s up with that? It’s not like leaks of sensitive material have been an issue recently or anything.

What, like Plame? Do I detect a hint of sarcasm here? This really doesn’t bother you?
You know Scylla, I’ve never really agreed with your politics, but no big deal; you always had a point or two to make and many of them were good and thought provoking. What has beein surprising me lately is I was mistaken in thinking you were a true conservative. You know, small government, fiscal responsibility, limited governmental power, states rights. Now I see that you seem to be unable to break the beat of the marching you’ve got going there. Lockstep. Either that or listening to the loony left and the rabid right has driven you completely insane and unable to think rationally.

If I have mischaracterized you, well, apologies extended in advance. Somehow I doubt it though. Can you clarify?

My WAG is that Scylla was referring to the New York Times’ busting open the story of the NSA domestic surveillance program and the CIA’s secret torture camps – er, ah, interrogation facilities in other countries.


Anyone else reminded of Nixon firing the special prosecutor during Watergate?

I’m not surprised that he blocked the OPR investigation. I should be shocked, but I’ve seen too much of this kinda shit from Bush. I’d hope for someone to smack Bush hard, but given the total lack of outrage Congress has expressed over the illegal surveillance of American citizens, I’m not holding my breath.

I think Bush’s answer to the energy problem is to hook up a dynamo to the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves.

Guinastasia, that was my first thought. That was such a big deal back then that it was referred to as a “Constitutional crisis.” I think it was October 20, 1973. Maybe a Saturday. It just really made an impression. There was some talk of martial law.

This has barely made a ripple. I wonder if that is a sign of how far we have fallen. Congress appears to be impotent and silent.

Meanwhile, the House is concerned with keeping courts from ruling against reciting the Pledge. I wished they cared more about actually preserving liberty and justice for all.

Are you talking about the Republican controlled House and Senate? Yeah, that’ll happen.

Me? Cynical? Naaaaah!

I agree. Look what happened when that anti-American scandal rag, The New York Times, published all that already published information about the wiretapping program-- the fucking Department of Justice started an investigation. The unmitigated gall of that bastion of traitors and terrorists!

Me? Sarcastic? Heavens no, why would anyone think that?

Not to take away from the importance of Bush’s many trangressions, but the more crap like this that Congress lets him get way with, the more I begin to think that Congress is the bigger problem. It seems they’ve abdicated all responsibility the Constitution places on themselves for holding the Executive in check.

I heard a discussion on NPR the other day with the authors of this book, The Broken Branch. What they had to say made a lot of sense.

The Republican-controlled Congress, thankyouverymuch. Just another example of how voting Republican is a stupid thing to do.

The failure to grant a security clearance has never once been the predicate act for a charge of obstruction of justice. If you believe there is some legal basis for the view that obstruction of justice can exist when the predicate act is the decision to NOT grant a clearance… let’s hear it.

What does obstruction of justice mean, then? Can the president just slap a “top secret” tag on every document he wants hidden from scrutiny, and scuttle any investigation by refusing to grant a clearance?

Bush isn’t obstructing justice here. To say so suggests that justice would be done had Bush not taken these actions, when we all know that it wouldn’t. There’s nothing to obstruct! You wouldn’t build a dam across a dry river bed. Why bother breaking laws when you can simply place yourself above them?

No where in my post did I say there was any legal precedence for charging the president with obstruction of justice.
But he is obstructing the justice department from investigating whether or not the wire-tapping program is illegal. Which makes him a fucking scumbag. I don’t think there is any law against being a fucking scumbag, though-- so he’s free and clear for now. And probably for quite some time. You should call him after his term is over. Show him the work you’ve done here at the Dope on his behalf. He’ll probably need a great legal mind like yours then.

Actually, you do:
Hoover Dam was to be built directly in the path of the Colorado River. In order to do this, the river had to first be diverted.

In the present case, we need to empty congress of its present leadership before it’ll be feasible to build a dam that’ll control the executive’s untamed excesses.

I don’t recall any cases where government officials desiring to do an investigation were not granted security clearances. Do you know of any? It appears this is the first time this has happened in 31 years.

If not, which specific acts cannot contribute to obstruction of justice. I would assume in this case, if there is an investigation of the lack of investigation, very good reasons for not granting the security clearances would be offered, beyond the one given of wanting to limit the number of clearances granted. I thought clearances were given based on need to know, not on a quota system.

There would also seem to be a clear conflict of interest here, if the subject of the investigation can decide to grant investigators access to government (not private) material.

You remember that? And here I thought yiou were in your early 20s.