From Think Progress:
Specter: If Bush Broke The Law With Warrantless Spying, Impeachment Is A Remedy
Today on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) — who plans to hold hearings on Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program — upped the ante. He said that if it is determined that Bush broke the law, both impeachment and criminal prosecution are legitimate remedies:
STEPHANOPOULOS: There was a lot of talk about that at the Alito hearings, and listening closely to you I certainly seem to take away that you believe the president does not have the right, does not have the inherent power under the Constitution to circumvent a constitutional law, and as far as you are concerned, the FISA law is constitutional, isn’t it?
SPECTER: Well, I started off by saying that he didn’t have the authority under the resolution authorizing the use of force. The president has to follow the Constitution. Where you have a law which is constitutional, like Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, there still may be collateral different powers in the president under wartime circumstances.
That’s a very knotty question that I’m not prepared to answer on a Sunday soundbite. But I do believe that it ought to be thoroughly examined. And when we were on the Patriot Act and found the disclosure of the surveillance, I immediately said the Judiciary Committee would hold hearings, and I talked to the attorney general, and we’re going to explore it in depth, George. You can count on that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, if the president did break the law or circumvent the law, what’s the remedy?
SPECTER: Well, the remedy could be a variety of things. A president — and I’m not suggesting remotely that there’s any basis, but you’re asking, really, theory, what’s the remedy? Impeachment is a remedy. After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution, but the principal remedy, George, under our society is to pay a political price.
The non-partisan Congressional Research Service concluded “that the administration’s justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.”
Observing Arlen Specter this week can give a person whiplash. But, really, this is more a rare example of a Beltway pundit asking the right questions until he gets a truthful answer.
The problem is, the Congressional Research Service’s conclusions, and the likes of Stephanopoulos’ and Specter’s statements, are “dots” of truth about the President’s perfidy that have to be connected, and boldly, in public.
And from the first days after the 2000 election, our national office holders in DC have not shown themselves willing to connected the dots into any kind of unified pattern against Bush. What would inspire them to do it now?
that’s true, but during the Lewinsky affair there were almost no Dems willing to suggest impeachment was appropriate. In this case, many Republicans have used the ‘i’ word.
They don’t think what Bush did is legal, and they are not sure how to handle it. But Specter thinks it was illegal, thinks the remedy is impeachment. And those are the plain inconveniemt facts.
From little bitty stickers to home-made freeway signs, you can make this impeach craft project your new hobby:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/20/151140/22
Such an important point! There are Republicans who would join the Dems if they called for impeachment, but so many say there’s no hope because we don’t hold a majority in the House (or Senate for that matter).
My dad was an old-fashioned conservative (balanced budget, jobs, small government, look to the constitution). I’m sure there are some of those left. It’s hard to imagine a Republican leading the call for impeachment, though.
Is there a Democrat who can lead on this?
Picked up on that one right away. But, my first thought was: is this just another ploy to benefit them in the mid-terms?
And w/the Imperial attitude gwb has, who knows what is going to happen?
hey you guys, found this on truthout today and loved it lots..”Filibuster Bush, Impeach Alito”. What a hell of a statement!
Very interesting, in view of The Maven’s entry on Friday; Gonzlaes to Testify on Domestic Spying. He quoted this from an AP article:
There have been several suggestions today impugning Mr. Specter with the implication that he does not support the President during this very different war with an evil enemy that lurks.
Such suggestions will not help Democrats win elections.
Arlen Specter on Alito when nominated: “I have problems with some of his previous decisions, yadayada, but let’s give our conservative buddy a chance to answer this in the hearings, yadayada, and then decide, yadayada…” (Ya? so I edit and paraphrase a little… lol)
After hearings: “Alito has alayed all of my fears by being so forthright in all of his answers, yadayada, so even a moderate like me must gush over this nomination now! yadayada…”
Now he wants to give bush a chance to make all of this illegal spying easy for him to swallow…
Forgive me if I laugh at anyone that takes him for his word on that “Sunday Morning Sound Byte”.
The hilariously and appropriately ironic part of this is that Specter is the guy who forced the single bullet theory through with support from answers to hypothetical questions. He asked Dr. Perry if the wound in JFK’s throat could be an exit wound, but the only way he got him to say yes was to produce a fantastic (and in unbelievable) hypothetical. Perry allowed that, under that hypothetical scenario, Specter’s hypothetical conclusion was possible. Specter took and ran with that.
Now Specter may have hoisted himself on his own petard. It couldn’t possibly be more appropriate.
Have you seen this?
And then Angleton shows up at Win Scott’s house and pilfers his safe?
And then we find out that the CIA liasion to the House Select Committee was the same CIA officer that handled the Cuban organization that Oswald tried to penetrate? And he never told the committee?
It’s all beginning to add up in my mind.
Yeah – I’ve read all of Morley’s work on Joannides, and talked to one of the HSCA staffers who was thrown out of their offices at CIA when they started getting too close to the truth.
It’s a joy to be able to share this with someone who gets it, Booman!
It’s as simple as this:
If the CIA killed Kennedy, ALL the evidence fits, without any contradictions, because even the competing theories can be linked back to them. Disinformation and muddying the waters is what they do best.
And we know there was a conspiracy for the simple fact that the bullet in the back never went through.
That being the case, how can anyone explain Peter Jenning’s awful “Oswald did it alone” special on the 40th anniversary without noticing that any other alleged conspirator is long dead, but the Agency still has a vested interest in the cover story. And given the CIA’s longtime role with the mainstream media, yes, it all makes a lot of sense when you start to put all the puzzle pieces in. They fit together quite neatly.
I wish I had some faith that anything would come of the “investigation” beyond a tiny wrist slap for Bush’s innocent excess in protecting the American people.