Dopers will recognize the precatory charge laid upon the person occupying the ofice of president by the constitutional defninition of the job.
We have elsewhere, (and at length), examined “sins of commission” that might be charged to GWB in a hypothetical (fantasy?) impeachment.
Often the defense of otherwise indefensible conduct has been:
“prove he did “x” intentionally.”
Query:Is there a not level of stupidity, incompetence, inattention, CARElessness, pursuant to to which a lawless regimne is allowed to proliferate in the branches of government administered by or commanded by the president, so antagonistic to the concept of :“carefully” overseeing the administration of law as to be an “impeachable offense” in the minds of those who raise “feckless but not furtive, loopy but not lying” as a defense of GWB
With that question in mind, I direct your attention to the recent arguments before the supreme court wherein the lawyer representing GWB made representations in open court that were, in fact, not true statements of the government’s explicit position.
In fact, the president’s lawyer lied to the court.
Of course, GWB was aware of what his lawyer said to the court.
Of course, he knew what was being said was not true.
He did not speak up and correct the court.
He did not take CARE that the law was enforced,(and I submit that lying to the supreme court is about the worst threat to consititutional government imaginable, since they are the last and only real check on the executive…)
Now, before you pick yourself up from the floor from laughing at the idea that GWB could follow a supreme court argument past “may it please the court…” remember that here we speak of
“sins of ommission”
It’s not good enough to be dumb but honest past a certain level of dumb.
That, at least, is my positioni–I think the torture memos coupled with the supreme court arguments in Padilla and Hamdi make GWB a candidate for Leavenworth, let alone a ticket back to texas…
