Rule of Law
Patrick Fitzgerald's statement on the commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence
This was sent to The Next Hurrah via email :
We fully recognize that the Constitution provides that commutation decisions are a matter of presidential prerogative and we do not comment on the exercise of that prerogative.
We comment only on the statement in which the President termed the sentence imposed by the judge as “excessive.†The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.
Although the President’s decision eliminates Mr. Libby’s sentence of imprisonment, Mr. Libby remains convicted by a jury of serious felonies, and we will continue to seek to preserve those convictions through the appeals process.
Abuse of Power | Commutation | Leniency | Political Influence | Rule of Law | CIA Spy Leak | Executive Power | Patrick J. Fitzgerald | POTUS - President of the United States | U. S. Department of Justice
Impeach Cheney
Just yesterday I wrote on Daily Gotham about my new Congressional Rep, Yvette Clarke, becoming the fifth Congress Critter to officially call for impeachment of Dick Cheney. Clarke has signed on to Dennis Kucinich's bill, HR 333, which are articles of impeachment against Cheney. For the full text of HR 333, go here.
Back in February I began advocating the impeachment of George Bush based on the exact articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, an arguement widely discussed by former Congresswoman Liz Holtzman, who was part of the House committee that DID impeach Nixon. If anyone can be said to be an expert on impeaching a president, Liz is one of them.
George W. Bush pesonally authorized about 45 wiretaps without any court approval. He has also publically admitted that he has done this.
This is precisely what is covered in Article 2 of the articles of impeachment of Richard Nixon adopted by a bipartisan vote in Congress. Bush is guilty of a crime that was part of the Nixon impeachment. No new case has to be built from scratch, although Liz Holtzman ALSO argues for several more articles of impeachment built around several other areas where Bush has violated the law and/or his oath as President. But the framework for impeachment based on illegal wiretapping already exists from 1974.
Impeachment | Rule of Law | Wiretapping | Congress | Dick Cheney | Yvette Clarke
Sorry, but there is a difference; you just don't get it
There's a thread downstream featuring one of the oldest, and to me most tedious, tropes of American discourse: the fashionably cynical argument that there's no real difference between the two major parties where average folks are concerned. In normal times, this could be dismissed as a modish affectation, the kind that produces the pleasing feeling of being somehow smarter, more in tune with the Zeitgeist, so desired by those who'd like to keep at bay the tedium of making public choices; but these are not normal times. You're just not paying attention, and your argument is akin to doubting the existence of sharks because you haven't been eaten by one yet.
To put it in very stark terms: the foundations of the Republic are under attack. Simply put, while we may have seen precedents for this or that action taken by the former ruling party, we have never, in two hundred and thirty years, seen a systemic assault, on so many fronts at once, on the basic principles of American governance and the civilizational bedrock that underlies them. Once again: among people paying attention, in the academy, legislatures, the bar, business, even the church, this is not a controversial assessment; you, my friend, just haven't been paying attention. And I get impatient with it, because yours is fundamentally a lazy, solipsistic argument.
Empiricism | Evolution | history | Progressive Movement | Radical right | Rule of Law | Secularism | Barking crazy rightwingers
So what do you want for the new year? 'Cause I'm feeling impeachment-ish.

Saddam Hussein was hanged just one crime against humanity, and not for the scores of crimes he committed during his decades long dictatorship.
How come, then, can't we impeach George Bush on the following 10 crimes?
- Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal war of aggression against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, and misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization.
- Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
- Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.
- Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.
- Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.
2007 | Abuse of Power | Crimes | New Year | Rule of Law | Wiretapping | Dick Cheney | George Bush | Impeachment | Iraq | Saddam Hussein | US Constitution

























