Yeah, Rove’s going DOWN!
TX DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO INVESTIGATE ILLEGAL VOTER REGISTRATION’
But not of his target, as your first sentence specified. Not even indictments. Not after, what, 5 years and $40 million, was it?
So *did * Starr believe in Clinton’s guilt of something or other? If so, what? We already know he couldn’t prove it or he would have tried.
Poppy was able to maintain a legal residence in Texas (and avoid paying state income tax) just by renting a Houston hotel room 3 nights a year. It would be hard to set a lower legal standard than that, wouldn’t it?
This ain’t shit.
the question is, did Rove meet whatever standard existed in that county? Seems fairly cut and dried.
It ain’t shit politically. It won’t change anyone’s mind about Rove, and it won’t get him out of the White House either.
Let’s clarify, because timeframe is important here. There certainly came a point at which Starr was convinced of Clinton’s guilt, and he did try to prove it: he forwarded detailed documents to the House committee urging them to vote Articles of Impeachment - which they did.
However, there’s something of a paradox here: arguably, Starr became convinced of Clinton’s guilt only after the investigation began, and Clinton was guilty of an act that never would have happened, but for the investigation! In other words, Clinton’s guilt was of lying under oath in a grand jury investigation. That grand jury was convened to investigate Clinton’s lies during a deposition, and that deposition was the result of a concerted effort to attack Clinton! (Admittedly, Starr was not the one pushing the lawsuit, but it can hardly be argued that Starr’s interests and Jones’ interests were not harmonious).
So - what do you mean?
Bzzz, wrong answer. Impeachment has jack shit to do with the legal process. Why would you think otherwise? Clinton was always subject to indictment. Starr never tried even that step, easy though it is. What else ya got for us?
Guilty of what, please? Wasn’t the investigation intended (by Starr and by the Helms proteges who gave him carte blanche) to find something he was guilty of?
Interesting, huh? Starr couldn’t find something Clinton was guilty of, so he tried to create something instead.
That your statement affirming Starr’s good faith was not derived from fact.
Now *that * is true. So is this:
In fact, Starr did not even indict, unless you insist on counting impeachment as an indictment, but his “gaming the system” to defame his target is clear, as reading that porn novel he sent to the House makes clear. How you can insist that your general statements of condemnation don’t apply to this specific prosecutorial investigation is puzzling.
Interesting claims being made by DeLay’s lawyers.
To sum up, they think Earl has been playing dirty pool, and that one Grand Jury wouldn’t even grant him an indictment. As one can purportedly indict a “ham sandwich”, this would cast serious doubt on Earl’s case if true. DeLay’s lawyers are also claiming Earl attempted to “browbeat and coerce” the Grand Jury to keep its collective trap shut about the matter.
Again, if true, Earl’s case might be very weak. One indictment may be for a crime that isn’t even a crime; and the second may be a hurried mess that would not sway one Grand Jury.
I wish the judge presiding over this would get home from vacation. The suspense is killing me! One way or the other, this is a fascinating case.
That is unsettled. Indicting the sitting president has never been done. And I believe it would be a disasterous precedent to set, even if it were permitted.
The correct step is to impeach him first. Remove him from office, and then proceed with criminal actions.
It was settled in 1789. This has been cited for you several times, but without ever sinking in. Perhaps this will be the lucky time:
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "
It shouldn’t be hard for either a textualist or an originalist to interpret the meaning of that. Why is it?
Tell us again why you have thought impeachment is equivalent to legal indictment, except it’s just a special court for defendants who hold public office. That was indeed the spin your party put on Starr’s defamation/humiliation/personal destruction campaign, sure, in an attempt to make it seem not just excusable but honorable, but them still ain’t the facts. Impeachment is strictly a political process, separated by the Constitution itself from any legal status.
Now reassess your opinion of Starr’s non-scumminess in light of that new understanding you (hopefully) have just gained.
I have absolutely no trouble interpreting that Constitutional phrase.
What I said was:
What is the contradiction, specifically, between my words and the Constitution?
This would be harsh. I suggest a more moderate approach, such as removal from office to a sinecure more in line with his talents. He could own the Yankees, for instance. Or coach the Vikings. Something along those lines, where mortal consequences are not likely. A situation where a likeable doofus can be appreciated for his gifts. Perhaps a remake of Gilligan’s Island is in the offing?
It’s not a contradiction but a confusion, which at this point can be considered obfuscation, between the impeachment process and the criminal process. You’re not fooling anyone but yourself. Unless, that is, you can answer these:
-
Why must one impeach before indicting? What difference does that make? From what law, or philosophy of the law, do you derive that pronouncement? (Hint: It’s out of your ass, situationally derived for the Clinton case in fact, but it would do you good to admit it).
-
Why did you declare Starr’s referral to the House for a political process the equivalent of offering an indictment, if in fact there is no connection (and there isn’t)?
There are several other questions you’ve been asked, but, in your customary “debating” form, refuse to acknowledge. Such as, for instance, what do you think Starr thought Clinton was guilty of when starting his work? And how you assess Starr’s “scumminess” in light of both your own pronouncements and the world of fact?
Well, the problem with that idea is that impeachment is not a legal but a political decision – i.e., it’s a decision that only the House of Representatives can make. And given the current composition of the House . . .
Can a sitting president be indicted without being impeached? E.g., by the Justice Department or a state attorney’s office? Interesting constitutional question . . . I don’t know if it’s ever been resolved.
From the idea that the President is a constitutional officer, the chief executive. An indictment means that the indictee is personally subject to the jurisdiction of the court. He is arraigned. Bail is set. The court may restrict his ability to travel outside the jurisdiction in which he is indicted. That’s fine for any other person in the country – but not for the President. Could a court order him not to go overseas, for example? Can it compel him to appear at a specific time for hearings? The President submitting to the personal jurisdiction of a criminal trial judge would undermine the separation of powers doctrine.
Impeachment and removal from office solves that problem. I’d also note that we could solve the problem in other ways – for example, the President could voluntarily step aside under the provisions of the 25th Amendment during the pendency of the criminal process. But without SOME provision to ensure that the chief executive can execute the duties of his office unimpeded, submitting himself to the personal jurisdiction of a criminal court is unwise.
Starr could have pushed directly for an indictment. For the reasons specified above, I believe it would have been horribly unwise.
Have you ever admitted error on these boards? It amuses me greatly to hear you dismiss me as having some sort of evasive debating form, when I believe I address every proposition as honestly as I can, and indeed acknowledge when my opponent has scored a point, offered an argument that I can’t rebut, or shown me to be in error. In contrast, I can’t recall your ever doing that – when the tide goes against you, you change the subject without ever admitting error.
To answer your questions: what do I think Starr thought Clinton was guilty of when starting his work?
I think he thought he’d find Clinton was embroiled in the Whitewater scandal. He discovered illegal activities by McDougal and Tucker, and undoubtedly thought he could convince them to testify against Clinton. Obviously, he was wrong.
And how I assess Starr’s “scumminess” in light of both my own pronouncements and the world of fact?
Not terribly scummy, but by no means sparkly clean. I think he always had a good-faith belief that he was pursuing some actual crime… but the reason for his pursuit was political, not a neutral desire to enforce the law. Here’s an analogy: a cop sees a car leaving a drug neighborhood, so he follows it until he notices a dim tailight, then pulls it over. Now, there’s no question that legally, the traffic code prohibits tailights that don’t have a certain minimum brightness. But it’s also true that in any other circumstance, he’d ignore that infraction.
That cop is acting legally… but it’s still kind of underhanded. That’s how I’d view Starr.
You’ve asked before for folks to chime in when they see leftists behaving poorly. So, not that I expect it’ll do any good, but Elvis, Bricker’s point is perfectly clear to me, and I think he’s making it honestly and without evasion (as, incidentally, he was doing in the other thread about the Geneva Convention). If you find his point confusing, I believe the error lies with you. Whether it’s an failure of intellect or a failure of integrity is beyond my ken.
Daniel
Thank you very much, Daniel. It may not do any good as far as changing Elvis’s behavior or responses, but it does ME a world of good to hear a third-party confirmation that I’m writing comprehensibly and making sense.
But not against the constitution and not against any law. I’ll readily agree with you that it would create problems, and I like the idea of stepping aside temporarily (voluntarily or not), but the President is just another citizen, subject to the rule of law as are all of us.
I’m not sure that it isn’t against the constitution. It’s pretty much a direct action against one branch of government from another.
Exactly, and the Constitution provides that he is. You can argue its wisdom all you like, and I even agree with the reasons you describe, but it still is not what the law is (and isn’t it ironic that you’d be arguing against it?)
But why limit that to the chief executive? Can’t any official make that claim? Can’t anyone else say that his job is too important for him to be distracted with mere criminal law? I have to part ways with you. No one is above, or below, the law, or the system breaks down. In addition, do you really think that an impeachment proceeding is less of a distraction, less time-consuming, than a criminal one? Hell, even a criminal court provides protections for confidentiality etc. to prevent prejudice against him, and defamation of character, etc. - not so in an impeachment, eh?
Not as of 12:01 PM 1/20/01. Did he? No. Why not? Obviously because the desired damage had been done, right?
When it’s been shown to me, yes. You haven’t done so. But that’s a nice try, if typical of your approach, to avoid addressing the subject about which you’ve been asked by reverting to either evasions, omissions, or, this time, ad hominems.
And what does that imply for what he should have done then? Can you make the connection? Do you not think he should have wrapped it up then, instead of entering the world of blowjobs? Why not? That was the question, of course, but perhaps it needed to be spelled out for you.
You just said there was a point at which he realized otherwise, not “always”.
Bingo. Now reconsider your above pronouncements in that light.
And, once he finds that the driver has committed no infraction, he lets him go, with or without an apology. Is that what Starr did? Or is the analogy to a cop who sees a car belonging to someone he wants to get, pulls him over, breaks his taillight and tells him that’s the reason for the pullover, says he saw him leaving a drug house and that he has probable cause for a cavity search, gets out the rubber gloves …
Try that line of reasoning again. No one is above the law, certainly. But no one is below it either. Not even Presidents of the other party.
Daniel, perhaps you can spot the evasions in Bricker’s responses now, too. If you have something to contribute to the discussion, you’re always welcome to start.
BrainGlutton, I already provided the relevant quote to answer your question (it’s Yes, btw).