In article <469EA3C5.6126@...>,
"Brett A. Pasternack" wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> > In article <469BEF91.2D9@...>,
> > "Brett A. Pasternack" wrote:
>
> > > > > Of course. But it's still not *inherently* a partisan move.
> > > >
> > > > You're splitting hairs now. It's close enough for government work.
> > >
> > > You really don't see a difference? You really think that instructing
> > > prosecutors to trump up investigations into Democrats and to cancel
> > > legitimate investigations into Republicans--and firing them if they do
> > > not comply--is no more partisan than any routine political appointment?
> >
> > That's not what I said. I said the court appointments are inherently
> > political and you disagreed with that. I never compared that to trumping
> > investigations.
>
> I had said that the problem with Bush's actions was that it was based on
> partisan interests. You replied by claiming that all appointments were
> based on partisan interests. If you agree that the two aren't
> comparable, and that Bush's actions were more partisan than the norm,
> then I don't see your point. If we're in agreement about that then I
> have no beef.
>
> > > > > > And the idea of a president without a partisan agenda is kinda
> > > > > > like the Loch Ness Monster. It remains merely a hypothetical for a
> >
> > > > > Sure, but that doesn't invalidate the argument.
> > > > >
> > > > > But to bring this back around to the issue: Of course presidents
> > > > > have partisan goals in mind when they make decisions. But there is
> > > > > a huge difference between making a decision for the good of the
> > > > > country while keeping partisan interests in mind and making a
> > > > > decision purely for partisan purposes while ignoring the good of
> > > > > the country. When a new President asks for the resignation of all
> > > > > the US attorneys, that's not a purely partisan move. We can then
> > > > > evaluate his decisions and see if there's anything overly partisan
> > > > > about them. But here the President was unabashedly attempting to
> > > > > subvert the interests of justice and the nation by abusing his power
> >
> > > >
> > > > I still say that even if it's true, the remedy is at the ballot box
> > > > since nothing illegal was done.
> > >
> > > Well, I'm not at all convinced that nothing illegal was done--the
> > > outing of Valerie Plame wasn't legal,
> >
> > Well, that has nothing to do with firing of the U.S. Attorneys.
>
> No, but it's legal grounds for impeachment if we accept your definition.
>
> > > I don't buy the argument that the Constitution procludes
> > > impeaching the president for abusing his office.
> >
> > I buy it. If "high crimes and misdemeanors" is interpreted to mean
> > "anything we (in the other party) don't like and consider abuse", then
> > all we're going to have from this point forward is dueling impeachments.
> > Every single president from now on will be impeached as each side tries
> > to pay back the other side and that's just a ridiculous and
> > counterproductive state of affairs.
>
> Given that the Democrats have good reason to want to deliver such
> payback, and that they have at the very least some arguable evidence
> that Bush has broken the law, and that the Speaker has nonetheless said
> that impeachment is off the table, that doesn't seem to be true of my
> party, anyway.
>
> But you'reuming the worst, and ifume that, they're going to be
> able to manufacture such charges whether they're supported or not. What
> concerns me more is that by your way of thinking, the President can
> abuse his power endlessly and still complete his term. I don't believe
> that was the intention.
>
> > I didn't agree with the Clinton
> > impeachment and unless a violation of law can be shown here, I don't
> > agree with impeaching Bush. Impeachment should only be used (as the
> > Founders explicitly indicated) for instances where the president has
> > committed a criminal offense-- either a high crime or a misdemeanor. You
> > can legitimately debate the meaning of "high crime" but there should be
> > no question that whatever it means, it's fundamentally a crime.
>
> The Judiciary Committee's report following Watergate pursuasively argues
> otherwise:
I understand that others don't agree with me. I'm merely putting forth
*my* view of things. |
