From Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment against Richard M. Nixon:
. . .Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.[snip]
He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.
It was good enough then; it's good enough now.
Yes, I know it says "for purposes unrelated to national security," but I'm willing to bet there are a few people or groups who are unlikely to be considered a threat to the nation who were wiretapped. Like The Truth Project in Florida, it appears.
Posted by Linkmeister at December 20, 2005 12:01 AM | TrackBackWhether the President acted under proper executive authority will undoubtedly be determined during hearings of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But he did follow requirements for legal review of his orders by consulting with the NSA Legal Counsel and the U.S. Attorney General.
He also followed congressional oversight requirements by notifying the appropriate congressional committees in a timely manner. And it is customary for more sensitive activities to be briefed only to a limited number of senior oversight committee members to avoid leaks of classified national security information.
Impeachable? naaahhh
Posted by: pixelshim at December 20, 2005 04:27 AMYeah, and Nixon consulted with his Att'y General, and we all know how John Mitchell ended up. Gonzales has acted equally unlawfully in this.
I've yet to hear any Senators acknowledge they had any input about this; all I've seen is one man saying he was told (paraphrasing): "We're doing this."
Posted by: Linkmeister at December 20, 2005 07:20 AMWhen the Attorney General, in a public news conference, states that:
Again, this is not a situation where -- of domestic spying. To the extent that there is a moderate and heavy communication involving an American citizen, it would be a communication where the other end of the call is outside the United States and where we believe that either the American citizen or theand:
person outside the United States is somehow affiliated with al Qaeda.
And, again, the authorization by the President is only to engage in surveillance of communications where one party is outside the United States, and where we have a reasonable basis to conclude that one of the parties of the communication is either a member of al Qaeda or affiliated with al Qaeda.
... I tend to believe he is aware that his statements must be accurate.
so . . . we are at war ...
Absent other information, which will come out in Congressional Investigations, I suggest that calls for Impeachment are unfounded on this issue.
Posted by: pixelshim at December 20, 2005 08:42 AMYou're free to suggest that. I'm free to suggest that Alberto Gonzales is obfuscating for all he's worth. He's the same guy who said the Geneva Conventions were "quaint."
And his "reasonable basis" may not conform to mine or that of the law's. Notice that he agreed that FISA's provision allowing wiretaps first with retroactive approval within 3 days was too limiting, which is patent nonsense.
Posted by: Linkmeister at December 20, 2005 08:49 AMI'm also (so far) free to suggest that if Gonzales agreed that spying on PETA, the Catholic Workers and Greenpeace was Ok, then why should I believe that the NSA was only spying on al-Qaeda connections?
http://tinyurl.com/c3l6j
Posted by: Linkmeister at December 20, 2005 08:58 AMI would *so* love to see W impeached.
But, he'll be Supreme Leader before long, and we won't have to worry our pretty little heads about anything. (blah)
In this month's Vanity Fair Editorial, Graydon Carter mentions a bumper sticker that says:
"Will someone give Bush a Bl**-job so we can impeach him"?
Crude, but oh so true...
Seems like GW has been giving the country a bj for years.
Posted by: billT at December 25, 2005 09:17 AM