Technosailor.com Readers! Donate today to assist the International Medical Corps Haiti Relief in their efforts.

21 December 2005 67 Comments

Admitted “Impeachable Offenses”

There’s more volatility on this front as yours truly continues to get PISSED about this spying business. A lively debate from the many different intermingling perspectives – left, right, moderate – continues to rage.

Go check it out
.

Additionally: Though Barbara Boxer is not my idea of a non-partisan source, she has written this letter to Nixon White House Counsel and Presidential Scholar, John Dean, seeking input.

On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today.

On Sunday, December 18, former White House Counsel John Dean and I participated in a public discussion that covered many issues, including this surveillance. Mr. Dean, who was President Nixon’s counsel at the time of Watergate, said that President Bush is “the first President to admit to an impeachable offense.” Today, Mr. Dean confirmed his statement.

This startling assertion by Mr. Dean is especially poignant because he experienced first hand the executive abuse of power and a presidential scandal arising from the surveillance of American citizens.

Given your constitutional expertise, particularly in the area of presidential impeachment, I am writing to ask for your comments and thoughts on Mr. Dean’s statement.

Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer

United States Senator

Pick up your copy of the WordPress Bible, a wildly popular resource for beginners and experts alike.

Popularity: 1% [?]

67 Responses to “Admitted “Impeachable Offenses””

  1. Aaron 21 December 2005 at 8:34 pm #

    You just don’t get it. This is not about Bush. This is about the power of the Presidency and the authority of the courts. I don’t care about the what-when-where-whys of the NYT releasing the article. The administration denies none of it!

    you tell me if those people could keep our country safe…

    Call it a paper trail. I don’t care. It’s the protection of the law to get a warrant. The FISC has denied 4… count them… 4 of over 100 FISC requests since FISA was incepted in 1978. IT’s a shoe-in. Slam dunk. Do it to cover your ass. But whatever, just do it.

    There would be no issue had Bush done the legal thing. He didn’t even have to wait for the warrant. HE had a 72 hour retroactive provision.

  2. Aaron 21 December 2005 at 8:34 pm #

    You just don’t get it. This is not about Bush. This is about the power of the Presidency and the authority of the courts. I don’t care about the what-when-where-whys of the NYT releasing the article. The administration denies none of it!

    you tell me if those people could keep our country safe…

    Call it a paper trail. I don’t care. It’s the protection of the law to get a warrant. The FISC has denied 4… count them… 4 of over 100 FISC requests since FISA was incepted in 1978. IT’s a shoe-in. Slam dunk. Do it to cover your ass. But whatever, just do it.

    There would be no issue had Bush done the legal thing. He didn’t even have to wait for the warrant. HE had a 72 hour retroactive provision.

  3. Mike 21 December 2005 at 8:37 pm #

    Well as a start, we adhere to the rule of law that would not have compromised our security”.

    Excuse me…. What the Fn… does that mean???

    COMPROMISED OUR SECURITY??? HOW????

    Aaron… You know I love this, but I’m heading up to the great “White Out” of Buffalo for Christmas…

    Merry Christmas buddy… We can pick this up later…

  4. Mike 21 December 2005 at 8:37 pm #

    Well as a start, we adhere to the rule of law that would not have compromised our security”.

    Excuse me…. What the Fn… does that mean???

    COMPROMISED OUR SECURITY??? HOW????

    Aaron… You know I love this, but I’m heading up to the great “White Out” of Buffalo for Christmas…

    Merry Christmas buddy… We can pick this up later…

  5. Aaron 21 December 2005 at 8:38 pm #

    was about to check out as well. I said adhering to FISA would not have compromised our security. In the least bit.

    Travel safely.

  6. Aaron 21 December 2005 at 8:38 pm #

    was about to check out as well. I said adhering to FISA would not have compromised our security. In the least bit.

    Travel safely.

  7. Mike 21 December 2005 at 8:52 pm #

    Oh… Before I go… you still have not given an answer to my question…

    Merry Christmas…. Never have been Politically Correct… Never will be…

  8. Mike 21 December 2005 at 8:52 pm #

    Oh… Before I go… you still have not given an answer to my question…

    Merry Christmas…. Never have been Politically Correct… Never will be…

  9. David Nick 21 December 2005 at 11:38 pm #

    You two have been going at this for 5!!!! hours!!!! LOL

    Man, all this drama, I need a beer….a root beer that is ;)

  10. David Nick 21 December 2005 at 11:38 pm #

    You two have been going at this for 5!!!! hours!!!! LOL

    Man, all this drama, I need a beer….a root beer that is ;)

  11. Aaron 22 December 2005 at 10:18 am #

    Mike, I answered your question here

    In summary, I think we can protect both the Constitution and America at the same time and to use sensationalism to make it seem like it’s an either/or situation is stupid.

    In fact, I would go so far as to say that trying to protect one and not both actually undermines the protection of one. If you defend America to the point of scrapping the Constitution, you throw this country into martial dictatorial law. If you defend the Constitution and neglect America, you become too short sighted and can’t see the forest through the trees.

    You need both.

    David,

    Beer is better. Have one for me.

  12. Aaron 22 December 2005 at 10:18 am #

    Mike, I answered your question here

    In summary, I think we can protect both the Constitution and America at the same time and to use sensationalism to make it seem like it’s an either/or situation is stupid.

    In fact, I would go so far as to say that trying to protect one and not both actually undermines the protection of one. If you defend America to the point of scrapping the Constitution, you throw this country into martial dictatorial law. If you defend the Constitution and neglect America, you become too short sighted and can’t see the forest through the trees.

    You need both.

    David,

    Beer is better. Have one for me.

  13. David Nick 22 December 2005 at 11:48 pm #

    Have you guys read Ann Coulter’s column on RealClearPolitics?

    Here’s the link: http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-12_...

    And an excerpt I think is quite Ann Coulter:

    “Which brings me to this week’s scandal about No Such Agency spying on “Americans.” I have difficulty ginning up much interest in this story inasmuch as I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East, and sending liberals to Guantanamo.”

    HeH

  14. David Nick 22 December 2005 at 11:48 pm #

    Have you guys read Ann Coulter’s column on RealClearPolitics?

    Here’s the link: http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-12_22_05_AC.html

    And an excerpt I think is quite Ann Coulter:

    “Which brings me to this week’s scandal about No Such Agency spying on “Americans.” I have difficulty ginning up much interest in this story inasmuch as I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East, and sending liberals to Guantanamo.”

    HeH


Trackbacks/Pingbacks.

  1. California Joins Illinois in Calling for Bush Impeachment » Technology, Blogging and Politics - 27. Apr, 2006

    [...] I still don’t think Bush is going to escape impeachment like I called for in December. My conservative readers scorn impeachment because their boy can do no wrong. I still don’t understand how Republicans support a man who is more liberal than Bill Clinton, but hey, I guess this will piss them off. That’s fine. [...]

  2. The Not So Free State » Blog Archive » Another Conservative Calls for Bush’s Impeachment - 11. May, 2006

    [...] She calls for other impeachable offenses. I’ve documented my calls for impeachment pretty thoroughly but I’ll sum it up for the purpose of a trackback here: [...]

  3. Welcome, WBAL Listeners » Technology, Blogging and New Media - 18. Sep, 2006

    [...] Some other pieces that have been written from an array of perspectives are Open Dialog: How Can We Change a Historical Trend, Admitted “Impeachable Offenses” and Regarding Civil Liberties. As a political pundit, I have taken a markedly independant tone, providing criticism to both Republicans and Democrats. [...]