Skip to main content

View Diary: Wake Up Call: U.S. Government Targets Journalists, Happened to Me in 2003, Risen in 2006, AP in 2013 (469 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I have reluctantly concluded that the House (27+ / 0-)

    Judiciary Committee needs to launch formal hearings leading possibly to Obama's impeachment (and removal from office following trial and verdict in the Senate).

    This is just too egregious for me to stomach.

    Call it Obama's "Nixon" moment.

    I've had it. I'll be calling and writing Maxine Waters' office today to request hearings in the Judiciary Committee begin immediately.

    Every American, no matter what his or her politics, should be outraged beyond measure at this gross violation of the First and Fourth Amendments.

    •  Agree, Obama must be reined in. Your (19+ / 0-)

      action is quite valid.

      Impeachment for not only this but for other reasons as well.

      Obama said during the campaign that he should be reigned in on Drone policy.  He should also be impeached for this as well.

      NYT

      For months, Mr. Obama has made vague promises about reshaping the targeted killings. In October, he said on “The Daily Show” that “one of the things we’ve got to do is put a legal architecture in place, and we need Congressional help in order to do that,to make sure that not only am I reined in, but any president’s reined in terms of some of the decisions that we’re making.”
      Thanks for sharing your plan.

      Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

      by divineorder on Tue May 14, 2013 at 07:01:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  His "Nixon" moment passed when the admin (32+ / 0-)

      invoked Nixon's Cambodia doctrine to justify drone strikes in Pakistan. Like Faust calling on Mephistopheles for divine guidance.

      Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

      by the fan man on Tue May 14, 2013 at 07:04:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  IIRC, the illegal and secret bombing of Cambodia (11+ / 0-)

        was one of the articles of impeachment considered (and, IIRC, ultimately rejected or tabled) during the House Judiciary's hearings on Nixon.

        Some irony there.

        Nice allusion to Faust, btw :)

      •  Omigod~! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        the fan man, fuzzyguy, gerrilea

        I'd never heard about that before~! (Obama invoking Nixon).

        Like Faust calling on Mephistopheles for divine guidance.
        There's something intrinsically evil about the ability to accomplish a killing worlds away complete w/"collateral damage" and never hear the cries of your victims. How do they do it?

        We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita; Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty, and to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' I suppose we all thought that, one way or another.

        ~ J. Robert Oppenheimer

        I wonder if the "Princes" who do indeed "do their duty" even think of the innocents...ah, hell I can't stand it.
        •  "At its most disturbing moment, the Justice (6+ / 0-)

          Department invokes the legal reasoning of the Nixon administration for the extension of the Vietnam War into Cambodia."

           

          In 1969 and 1970, Nixon and his National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger, approved secret bombing missions and then outright invasion.  A legal adviser rationalized that decision in a February 1970 report.  “If a neutral state has been unable for any reason to prevent violations of its neutrality by the troops of one belligerent…the other belligerent has historically been justified in attacking those enemy forces in that state,” he wrote.   The Obama administration takes this bad argument and makes worse.  Because “transnational non-state organizations” are so diffuse, and “terrorist organizations may move their base of operations,” the United States is justified in eliminating threats with the consent of a host nation.  If the U.S. government determines that the host nation is “unable or unwilling to suppress the threat,” both the Obama and the Nixon administrations reserved the right to act unilaterally.  
          Bad Precedent: Obama’s Drone Doctrine is Nixon’s Cambodia Doctrine (Dietrich)

          Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

          by the fan man on Tue May 14, 2013 at 01:46:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  While I'm as angry as you are at these blatant (18+ / 0-)

      unconstitutional criminal acts. Impeaching the President now will only serve to get republicans elected, they do more harm than good, in any scenario.

      If we are to go to this level, then dammit, I want the Bush & Cheney Cabal in chains for their war crimes.

      Then add Senators Sessions, Graham & McCain to the list for aiding and abetting the enemy.

      Then purge the Justice Department of the career partisan hacks appointed by these criminals.

      Obama's "Nixon moment" was when we found out the IRS was being used to attack people we don't agree with. Obviously that was the tip of the iceberg.

      Sadly, this is the end result of the toxic divide we face as a nation, perpetuated by the Media itself.

      When have they ever asked real questions?  That's right, they fired Phil Donahue! The Presidential Debates were a farce.  No questions on indefinite detention, secret courts, the targeting and killing of Americans without charges, judge or jury, etc, etc, etc.

      Where were they again?  They are as guilty as those they didn't hold accountable.

      So, I cannot accept impeaching Obama will solve any problems, just create more, unless we clean house completely.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Tue May 14, 2013 at 07:29:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here's the problem with that... (20+ / 0-)

        Mr. Obama said flat-out he won't prosecute BushCo. What do you suggest, then, to make that happen?
         

        "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

        by lunachickie on Tue May 14, 2013 at 07:41:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm reccing your response for its compelling (13+ / 0-)

        logic, even though you disagree with me at least nominally.

        It's actually an interesting argument you're making: don't impeach Obama for his crimes, because his removal from office will allow even worse crimes. Although your logic is pretty much unassailable, there's something really wrong that it has come to such a pass.

        •  I don't think it's so compelling. (6+ / 0-)

          I think you are more right than wrong.
          The moment for holding Bushco accountable seems to have passed, mostly because Democratic leadership, including Obama, let it pass. At this point I don't care what the party affiliation is of the people who are turning us into a crappy police state.

          "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue May 14, 2013 at 09:32:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  but it's not true. Rs aren't worse, just different (0+ / 0-)

          there is a measured thieving going here... and whether D or R, it will get done.

          it can't get much worse than banks making up debt and going after consumers. it can't get much worse because there is NO accountability.

          simple as that.

          “Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn’t do than by the ones you did do.” - Mark Twain

          by pfiore8 on Tue May 14, 2013 at 05:09:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  disagree. THey are worse, watching them (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Yasuragi, CharlesInCharge

            example of how their main goal was entirely from the getgo to make Obama fail. They vote against things if he is for them. This is on the record. Dems don't do that. We didnt' set out to "make Bush fail" even though it looked like he might have stolen the election.

            example 2-Dems don't go so low as to try to keep Republicans from voting by putting up barriers so it's much harder for them to vote than for people of our own party.

            Many other examples.

            •  My anger and dismay at these revelations (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jplanner

              notwithstanding, I must concur with you that Rape-publi-scum are far, far worse than any Dem (other than maybe Lieber-bush).

              It is inconceivable to me that Obama would allow an American city to drown, nor that he would ignore a PDB aking to eh one from Aug. 8, 2001.

              Even as I write this, though, I feel like I'm damning Obama with faint praise.

              •  we have to watch our emotional reactions when (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Onomastic, Jeff Simpson

                we put them down for the record, say here on DK.

                A whole thread was about how Obama deserved to be
                impeached and that he was as bad as Republicans.

                He has not committed high crimes. I don't think he's done anything worse than most other Presidents. He's in charge of a GIGANTIC beaurocracy and is wading against a very stiff tide (wall?)

                People fell into dispair that he broke his "promise" in not closing Guantanamo in his first term, for example. He never said "I promise". He said he wanted to close it.  That did not change. He continued to WANT TO close it but it proved harder than expected. LOTS of things were harder than he expected and some of that was hubris about his ability to get Congress to play ball, some was naivite, but quite a bit was the Republicans special hatred and opposition to him.

                We never ever know what OTHER DATA a President has that we do not know when he makes a decision. Just recently they released some of Johnson's tapes and we find out that Nixon stole the 68 election by gumming up PEACE IN VIETNAM!! Unbeleivable! Just like Reagan's team fixing it so that the hostages would be released after the election in order to tank Carter's chances....
                It shows we never know what is going on behind the scenes. And that the majority of the last presidencts have done very underhanded things.

                Reagan-Iran Contra. He did in fact know. Completely illegal. But Reagan had the press in the palm of his hand and nothing stuck to him.
                GHWB-one term. No big scandal then but much nefarious activity as CIA spy for decades (declassified documents prove). Lied in saying he didn't ever work for CIA when he suddenly was appointed director.
                Ford-only two years. But was on the Warren commission in the 60s. Later admitted it was basically bullshit. He covered up hid, and misrepresented the data around who, why and how JFK was killed. The ARRB (assassination records review board) in the 1990s proved this about the Warren commission.

                Nixon-new revelations about him tanking peace with N. Vietnam in hopes to sabotage Dem victory. It worked.

                Washington and the apparatus of government is complicated corrupting and difficult to govern in. I am not sure that anyone stays squeeky clean. I am not sure what Obama knows that I do not know but there is a lot (think about what Johnson knew about Nixon yet he went to his grave with that). I don't know how much power really a President has over the beaurocrats in say the IRS. I don't know what the CIA told Obama that made him harden around the drones.

                I think Obama is a good person, smart, and wellmeaning. The alternative is so very much worse and I haven't seen a heck of a lot better anyway.

              •  well... (3+ / 0-)

                austerity is allowing people to drown. a health care reform bill that doesn't address costs while forcing us to pay premiums doesn't add up to me.

                the democrats are worse because they promise and promise without any intention of making good. go back to 2007... what have they made good on?

                where is the outrage? where is the accountability? how does a Democratic administration give Monsanto the ag bill, drag whistleblowers down, give our tax money to bankers and allow them to pull down gigantic bonuses and a "performance pay" that is not taxed?

                no. they are worse because they lied to me. at least the republicans are actually closer in words to their hideous agenda and intentions.

                “Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn’t do than by the ones you did do.” - Mark Twain

                by pfiore8 on Wed May 15, 2013 at 02:22:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Nah, the Nixon moment happened long before (6+ / 0-)

        this brouhaha about the Tea Party.

        Anyway, if we're talking about the President using the powers of his office to suppress his political enemies--why is no one upset about the use of Homeland Security to organize the suppression, in many cases violent, of Occupy?  Why are Tea Partiers' rights more valuable than ours? People got beaten and shot and sprayed in the eyes with pepper spray and thrown in jail injured without medical attention for hours--and we're getting riled about the Tea Partiers being treated unfairly by the IRS?

        "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue May 14, 2013 at 09:31:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  While I agree what was done to the OWS (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SouthernLiberalinMD, greenbell

          protesters was a coordinated national attack, there are always consequences when we protest without getting permission slips first.  They knew that going into it, or should have.

          The consequences of civil disobedience must be faced.  I only wish we actually had a 1st Amendment again.  Until we make clear that protesting does not require a permission slip then we must accept the consequences our authoritarian government has decreed.

          As for the teaparty and constitutionalist non-profit groups being investigated by the IRS, that's an act of our created government.  They chose to act in an unconstitutional manner, intentionally.

          Naomi Wolf's 10 steps to shutting down an open society comes to mind here.

          These groups did nothing illegal and were targeted specifically because of their political ideology.  That means when the republicans get control they could do it to us.

          While I may not agree with what they say or believe, I'd defend to the death their right to say and believe it.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Tue May 14, 2013 at 12:09:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  the only way to make clear that protesting (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea, greenbell, fuzzyguy

            doesn't require a permission slip is to do what Occupy did, unfortunately.

            the IRS' policies around taxation of political groups is seriously screwed up to begin with, and the left has been suffering from that for ages--look at all the RW churches and the amount of campaigning they do, with no loss of tax-exempt status.

            I'm not saying what has happened to the TP is necessarily right. I am saying that it only seems to matter when it's their rights being infringed. And I don't like that.

            "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue May 14, 2013 at 01:00:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  rec'd for last line, though with some caveats (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea

            that I put into comment below.

            "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue May 14, 2013 at 01:01:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, let me clarify here (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea

          Because what I said is to some extent wrong:

          I don't know to what degree Obama was behind the suppression of OWS by Home. Sec. and allied police departments. We have been talking as if "the buck stops here" but we're not really in a world where that's true anymore.  So while I hold Home Sec, which is part of the Executive Branch, responsible for what happened in the suppression of Occupy, strict fairness would require that I only ask to what extent Obama knew/was involved. I don't actually know.

          "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue May 14, 2013 at 12:57:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The buck stops in the Oval Office (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea, fuzzyguy, lostinamerica

            If he didn't initiate it, he didn't stop it.

            •  Well, I feel like we're kind of off the map here (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gerrilea

              I don't really know how much control Obama has over the entire Exec. Branch, and in particular the security portion of it--NSA, CIA, Home Sec. generally. I don't want to engage in conspiracy theories, but neither do I want to be unfair, not even to Obama, at whom I'm pretty angry. It's not clear to me that our government is operating on, shall we say, a strictly Constitutional basis, even in the ways it relates to itself--much less in the ways it relates to us.

              So I try to be specific about who's to blame for misdeeds as much as I can with the annoyingly sparse information I've got.

              "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue May 14, 2013 at 01:11:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If it's in the main stream media and it continues (4+ / 0-)

                I'd assume he has no problem with it.   That doesn't mean he encouraged it or even asked Homeland Security or other agencies to intervene, but I didn't exactly see Justice out there making a big deal about making sure OWS got their constitutional rights either.  

                I don't blame it on him alone because it's a long, sad, trend, but we were far more free to protest under the Nixon administration than we are now no matter how much Nixon hated us.

      •  Yes yes yes. A Complete Courtesy Flush (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gerrilea, lostinamerica

        would be wonderful.  Now that's change I can believe in. :-)

        Yeah, I know he said Change. But c'mon, Cuts to Social Security?! This is not the Change I was looking for.

        by CitizenOfEarth on Tue May 14, 2013 at 10:21:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Right-wing wants impeachment, too (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shaharazade, maryabein, cslewis, gerrilea

      There exist many conservatives, including members of the House of Representatives, who also would like Obama to be impeached.

      Tea Party and other conservative groups have been saying for some time now that the government is oppressive and tyrannical.  Recently, 40% of republicans polled said they believed that an armed rebellion was necessary to change the government.

      I too believe our government no longer follows the model of government set forth in the constitution.  In my opinion, this has less to do with Obama the man, and more to do with laws being written by and for the corporate and wealthy interests.  Making sure journalists are hampered in their efforts to report publicly on the doings of the corporations and wealthy interests is, in my opinion, a telling symptom of this larger problem.

      The fact that this happens during a democratic administration tells me that the government we hope for can not be found through party politics: the corporate and wealthy interests own both republican and democratic parties.

      Conservatives will welcome your help to impeach the president.  But our constitutional rights will not be returned to us until our government is no longer run by and for the corporate and wealthy interests.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue May 14, 2013 at 07:53:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hugh, I definitely understand that I am aligning (8+ / 0-)

        myself with the fascists' agenda and thatt causes me some not insubtantial unease.

        However, I take the First and Fourth amendments very seriously and think the cause of a constitutional republic will be served if Congress asserts its co-equal status to hold the Executive accountable.

        Full disclosure: I repeatedly called for Bush and Cheney's impeachment and removal 2001-2009 and, since then, have called for a criminal investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the Bush-Cheney Junta. I would like to think I did (and do) so because I hold the Constitution paramount, not any man or party.

        •  Why can't we prosecute the lot of them? Why (7+ / 0-)

          distinguish between parties?  They're all in on these crimes together.  The torture.  The drones.  The spying.   The war crimes.

          Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

          by CIndyCasella on Tue May 14, 2013 at 08:33:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because Bushco is safely out of office. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea

            OTOH, a fair number of his appointees still grace the halls of the DOJ, etc. It's hard to get rid of civil servants, so they still riddle the Executive Branch. Go after them. At least make them say "I was only obeying orders" on TV.

            "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue May 14, 2013 at 09:34:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No statue of limitations (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gerrilea, CIndyCasella, lostinamerica

              There is no statue of limitations on crimes against humanity.

              We could indeed even today prosecute members of the Bush administration on lying to congress (to start the failed wars), or engaging and sanctioning the use of torture.

              But we do not because of political reasons, not because crimes did not occur.

              "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

              by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue May 14, 2013 at 12:52:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  *Good* point! (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gerrilea, niemann

                But that would be under international law, yes? And I believe that the U.S. has an unfortunate history of ignoring international law.

                "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

                by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue May 14, 2013 at 01:13:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No - under US law (4+ / 0-)

                  It is a crime under US law to lie to congress, and it is a crime under US law to engage in or sanction the use of torture.

                  The take-home message in the failure to prosecute these crimes (both Bush and Cheney each have admitted on TV to having sanctioned the use of torture) is that some people are above the law.

                  The Reagan administration also broke US law in the Iran-Contra business.  The principals in the Reagan administration all escaped prosecution (some smaller fish were prosecuted, and some convictions were later overturned), which in my opinion, lead the Bush administration to conclude they could safely ignore the law.  They were right: they could ignore the law and there would be no consequences.

                  The current administration and future presidents are absorbing these lessons of history.  

                  "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                  by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue May 14, 2013 at 01:59:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, well. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gerrilea

                    So in that case--dammit--any of us could have brought a suit against them. Which we probably should have done, rather than relying on the gov't to do it, and simply being disappointed when they didn't.

                    Argh. I feel like a fool.

                    "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

                    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue May 14, 2013 at 02:19:54 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Impeachment (8+ / 0-)

          It's interesting to me that precisely because the crimes of the Bush administration were nevert prosecuted, that subsequent presidents will rightly conclude that they are above the law.

          And if Obama is indeed impeached and removed, Joe Biden will be president of a country where the president decides unilaterally who is a criminal and is sentenced to death, where journalists are viewed a s a threat to security, where Monsanto owns DNA, where an oil company decides what journalists report about an oil spill, and the buying and selling of law-makers is "protected speech".

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue May 14, 2013 at 09:15:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, I cannot argue with the truth of what you (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CitizenOfEarth, gerrilea

            write. I am therefore reccing your response.

            I guess for me the issue comes down to this:

            one either believes in the value and necessity of a free press or one thinks it is as dispensable as any of the other rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

            I do not mean to argue that you do not value a free press, nor that you see a free press as dispensable, but only to say that I value the right to a free press above almost all other rights. So much so that I am even willing to make common cause with fascists (not without, however, great uneasiness), in the hopes of seeing that right to a free press protected for my and future generations.

    •  True, but both the chair and ranking member (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CharlesInCharge, gerrilea

      of that committee would have a hard time doing what you want. Goodlatte because his party doesn't want this sort of behavior reined in and would rather impeach Obama over some bullshit excuse; John Conyers because it would be really hard, I think, for him to admit that the dream had died. After all, he risked his life as a young man for a world in which a black man could be elected president. In his old age is he supposed to move to impeach the first black man to successfully meet that challenge? It's hard. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is.

      "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue May 14, 2013 at 09:26:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Despite some of the sub-threads here, I'm not (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gerrilea

        sure I want Obama impeached either. His spokesperson, Jay Carney, said the first the WH knew about it was from reading press reports and I think Carney is owed the presumption of honesty, much as it might stretch ingenuity to its limits to do so.

        But I do want this entire mess investigated thoroughly and I think it would do the country a lot of good if the call for the hearing and investigation came from Dems.

        But I appreciate what you're saying too.

        •  I don't think he's owed the presumption of honesty (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea

          But I also don't think he deserves the presumption of dishonesty, either.

          Apparently waiting before forming an opinion some Kossacks no longer feel is worthwhile course.

          Non futuis apud Boston

          by kenlac on Tue May 14, 2013 at 03:59:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have a fully-formed opinion on (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea

            whether or not it's OK for DOJ to do what it did to the AP. Unless the DOJ has some truly stunning info to show me about a two-month-long national security crisis in which millions of lives would be endangered if they didn't throw out this dragnet which took in over a hundred journalists. I don't know what that info would be, but it would have to be pretty fucking monumental to change my mind about what DOJ did.

            But as to who's to blame? I don't know, yet. That's what investigations are for==to find out who, if anyone, is to blame. And to dig up that piece of stunning monumental information to prove me wrong if I am wrong.

            "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue May 14, 2013 at 04:49:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  This WH gets a presumption of honesty? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Don midwest

            After promising last Fall that "there will be no changes to Social Security!  That's a flat guarantee!" -- and then, a few months later, shamelessly proposing changes to Social Security?

            This White House has proven that its word means NOTHING.

            If this White House says the sky is blue we would now have to go to the window to check for ourselves.

        •  Well, the odd thing is, I've ended up (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea, Simplify, CharlesInCharge

          sounding like I'm calling for impeachment, when, like you, I'm actually much more interested in having an investigation.

          I don't think we're ready to impeach--I think we're ready to start asking the questions which could lead to impeachment.

          But because I've been fighting with ultra-partisans who act like I'm out to tar and feather Obama and parade him through the streets, what has ended up happening is that it looks like I'm trying really hard to get the guy impeached. Whereas really, I'm just saying that the Constitution is more important than any one person, and an investigation is called for--and if what's uncovered leads to impeachment, then so be it, whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican.

          "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue May 14, 2013 at 04:47:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  To think that Obama once taught Constitutional (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea, Don midwest

      Law......

      The Executive Branch just keeps growing more strong, no matter which party is in the White House.

      _"Love is the rosebud of an hour; Friendship the everlasting flower."_ Brook Boothby

      by Keith930 on Tue May 14, 2013 at 09:31:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Congress's willingness to fork over (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gerrilea, Don midwest

        its power to the President, and the press active and public's passive acceptance of that dynamic, is the undoing and failure of the Constitutional framework of separation of powers. That, and Ford's contemptible pardon of Nixon.

        I don't blame the founders; 1789 was a long time ago.

        Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

        by Simplify on Tue May 14, 2013 at 10:55:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Sure, knock yourself out. (22+ / 0-)

      Obviously, getting elected twice with over 50% of the popular vote isn't a factor, or a presumption of innocence, or the complete lack of high crimes and misdemeanors, or the surely temporary absence of any actual charge, but man, striking a pose on the internet is damned awesome.

      Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

      by MBNYC on Tue May 14, 2013 at 11:59:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  WTF? - I'm not calling for Obama's impeachment (3+ / 0-)

        necessarily, but I am calling for the House Judiciary Committee to hold hearings, recognizing full well they will be presided over by a party that, if not out and out fascist yet, is heavily trending in that direction. I do so because I place a high premium on the value, and necessity, of a free press. (Former print journalist here.)

        If you might recall, Nixon faced impeachment for 'abuse of power'. There's no federal statute making 'abuse of power' illegal or a high crime and misdemeanor. IIRC, Nixon won re-election in 1972 fairly handily. Should that have immunized him?

        When the DoJ spies on the press, that's grounds for a thorough investigation, no matter where it leads. Anyone disagreeing with that is the most obsequious of toadies.

        •  Calling for a "thorough investigation" is (9+ / 0-)

          not the same thing as calling for HJC to begin an impeachment inquiry, even when you acknowledge that they are bunch of partisan toadies who couldn't find the truth if it tweeked them on the nose.
          Want to walk back your implication that MBNYC is "the most obsequious of toadies" now?

          With the Decision Points Theater, the George W. Bush Presidential Library becomes the very first Presidential Library to feature a Fiction Section.

          by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Tue May 14, 2013 at 12:27:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why else would they be investigating (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SouthernLiberalinMD, jaywillie

            then? To what end would it be an investigation for?

             

            "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

            by lunachickie on Tue May 14, 2013 at 12:34:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Here's what I wrote originally: (3+ / 0-)
            I have reluctantly concluded that the House Judiciary Committee needs to launch formal hearings leading possibly to Obama's impeachment (and removal from office following trial and verdict in the Senate).
            Note the use of the word 'possibly'?????

            What do I have to do, use boldface?????

            The actions of the DoJ in spying on the AP reporters and editors were and are an egregious violation of the Constitution and a thorough investigation is needed to find out who authorized it, when Obama became aware of it and what steps if any he and the WH took to either stop it or allow it to proceed.

            If it turns out Obama and the WH knew about it and allowed it to proceed (which would make Carney's statement yesterday 'inoperative' to resurrect an old Watergate term), then hell yes, impeachment needs to be on the table. Or we should dispense with any notion of a 'free press.'

            So, no, I'm not walking back 'obsequious toady.'

        •  Please. (5+ / 0-)

          The key word being necessarily, right?

          I am calling for the House Judiciary Committee to hold hearings, recognizing full well they will be presided over by a party that, if not out and out fascist yet, is heavily trending in that direction. I do so because I place a high premium on the value, and necessity, of a free press.
          Lenin, that obsequious toady, spoke of useful idiots. You might want to acquaint yourself with his writing.

          Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

          by MBNYC on Tue May 14, 2013 at 12:32:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  LOL! (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fuzzyguy, gerrilea, Jarrayy

            You're kidding, right?

            Lenin, that obsequious toady, spoke of useful idiots. You might want to acquaint yourself with his writing.

            There's plenty of people still defending a Constitutional Scholar who refused to call for the prosecution of an obvious bunch of war criminals. Does your missive to acquaint one's self with Lenin's Useful Idiot Doctrine extend to them, too?

            "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

            by lunachickie on Tue May 14, 2013 at 12:38:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Listen... (10+ / 0-)

              ... I realize this is hard for you, and my heart breaks over that, truly it does, but the President isn't actually implicated in any of this. Not even distantly.

              I know, party-pooper, no fun. Needs more glitter.

              Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

              by MBNYC on Tue May 14, 2013 at 12:50:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Listen... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fuzzyguy, gerrilea, Jarrayy

                I realize this is hard for you--and I actually do give two shits and a damn, believe it or not--but it appears that you didn't answer the actual question:

                There's plenty of people still defending a Constitutional Scholar who refused to call for the prosecution of an obvious bunch of war criminals. Does your missive to acquaint one's self with Lenin's Useful Idiot Doctrine extend to them, too?

                "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

                by lunachickie on Tue May 14, 2013 at 12:54:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Deep Texan, virginislandsguy

                  Could you possibly phrase that so a normal person can understand it? Much obliged.

                  But yes, I do think more people should read Vladimir Ilyitch.

                  Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                  by MBNYC on Tue May 14, 2013 at 01:03:46 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Being deliberately obtuse (0+ / 0-)

                    was never your strong point. And it isn't now.

                    But, well, thanks for admitting that people who cheer for those who protect war criminals aren't normal. A lot of folks have been trying to tell you that for quite some time now...

                    "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

                    by lunachickie on Tue May 14, 2013 at 01:15:12 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  what U.S. laws did they break (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MBNYC, virginislandsguy, aitchdee
                      actually do give two shits and a damn
                      and where is this evidence you have for trial.

                      otherwise, you really don't give two shits...  because those things are required before you prosecute.

                      -You want to change the system, run for office.

                      by Deep Texan on Tue May 14, 2013 at 01:36:29 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  yeah, yeah (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        fuzzyguy

                        we know--"you can't prosecute without evidence!" Which no one has ever disputed.

                        What was always disputed was the "but...but....you can't investigate, either! Because The Future!"

                        You can't get to any evidence without an investigation, unless that evidence happens to fall out of the sky and right into your lap. If you believe that happens every day--or if people have to keep explaining this exact same point to you, over and over and over again--you are not normal.
                         

                        "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

                        by lunachickie on Tue May 14, 2013 at 01:50:52 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  if no laws have been broken (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          virginislandsguy, MBNYC

                          what's to investigate? do you realize they changed the laws before the broke them?

                          what laws do you think you could prosecute if you found evidence, which you think exists?

                          -You want to change the system, run for office.

                          by Deep Texan on Tue May 14, 2013 at 02:07:18 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You can ask the same (0+ / 0-)

                            irrelevant question twenty five different ways, if you so desire. You don't need evidence to investigate. Just ask Ken Starr!

                            "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

                            by lunachickie on Tue May 14, 2013 at 02:21:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  so you're basing your strategy on Starr (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MBNYC, virginislandsguy, turnover, grover

                            reveals a lot

                            -You want to change the system, run for office.

                            by Deep Texan on Tue May 14, 2013 at 02:23:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, it doesn't (0+ / 0-)

                            all it proved was your sophist contention that we need "evidence" to investigate a crime was complete bullshit.

                            "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

                            by lunachickie on Tue May 14, 2013 at 02:27:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Really, Luna? (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sviscusi, MBNYC, Deep Texan, aitchdee

                            You don't think that's the case?

                            So from now on the standard is just that we investigate crimes in absence of evidence? Based on what? Rumor and innuendo? Whim? Desire for revenge?  Paranoia of rainbows made by sprinklers?

                            Investigations of crimes are always initiated on the existence of preliminary evidence.  It's kind of how we do things here.

                            © grover


                            So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

                            by grover on Wed May 15, 2013 at 01:35:34 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  C'mon... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            grover

                            ...an investigation by its very definition is a gathering of evidence -- both physical and circumstantial.  

                            As inconvenient as it may be, the Republicans control the House and it's the constitutional responsibility of the Congress to act as a check on the Executive Branch of government.

                            The lawyers for The Associated Press -- and more than a few elected Democrats -- seem to have a wee problem with how the justice Dept. has used its authority to spy on journalists in an attempt to seal a leak -- the secrecy surrounding the subpoenas and the scope of their reach.  Add to that the fact that the administration has prosecuted an unprecedented number of whistleblowers using the Espionage Act, and I think the Congress has a Constitutional Obligation to investigate the actions taken by the administration.  

                            A Congressional investigation may not uncover illegality, but it can lead to changes in the law which would lead to greater Judicial scrutiny and more transparency.  No one need go to jail in order for the public to benefit from an investigation.

                            We don't know if the Justice Dept. abused or over-stepped its authority in obtaining the AP phone records, BUT, the fact that it was able to obtain them in virtual secrecy is chilling and cause for great concern...and merits a Congressional Investigation.

                          •  I don't disagree with your (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            4kedtongue

                            well-written, well-thought-out comment. But  you're not agreeing with this statement either:

                            all it proved was your sophist contention that we need "evidence" to investigate a crime was complete bullshit.
                            I find it "chilling" (to use the word of the day) that folks here at dkos don't understand that we don't start criminal investigations in the United States unless we have credible preliminary evidence that a crime was committed. Evidence may be testimony, physical or circumstantial evidence. But we don't just start investigations for no darn good reason.

                            And that's what I was objecting to.

                            As to your thoughts, the evidence shows that DOJ may have exceeded the scope of its own policies put in place years ago to protect the freedom of press.  

                            I think somewhat limited hearings are a good idea. Given the classified nature of the underlying matter, Congress should avoid making a public circus of this (ha!). Once we have completed initial hearings, they can proceed with subpoenaing whoever and whatever else they feel is necessary.

                            I'm not a fan of fishing expeditions. I think calls for massive investigations are premature until we know what we're dealing with.

                            But yes, I agree with you in general.

                            But my comment to lunachickie stands for the reason I outlined.

                            Nice chatting with you.  Have a good afternoon.

                            © grover


                            So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

                            by grover on Wed May 15, 2013 at 02:38:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  and the question still stands (0+ / 0-)

                        to the original commenter, but I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting on an answer.

                        "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

                        by lunachickie on Tue May 14, 2013 at 01:52:28 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Let's find out! (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        lunachickie

                        Last one in's a rotten egg!

                        "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

                        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue May 14, 2013 at 01:53:22 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Don't be silly (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          SouthernLiberalinMD

                          that'll never happen. Because Forward! What are you, a Tea Partier?

                          (do I really need a snark tag here? :))

                          "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

                          by lunachickie on Tue May 14, 2013 at 01:56:53 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  you're being silly (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            virginislandsguy, sviscusi, MBNYC

                            what laws have they broken?  what evidence do you have for an investigation?

                            do you realize they made legal what they did, before (while) they were doing it?

                            -You want to change the system, run for office.

                            by Deep Texan on Tue May 14, 2013 at 02:08:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  LOL! (0+ / 0-)
                            what evidence do you have for an investigation?

                            Oh, you're funneee....that alleged "need" never stopped Ken Starr and it wouldn't stop anyone who wanted to take a crack at Bush and Cheney.

                            The only thing standing between the American people and a war crimes tribunal for those murderous, Constitution-fucking bastards are a relative handful of useful idiot apologists and a metric fuckton of hubris.

                            "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

                            by lunachickie on Tue May 14, 2013 at 02:17:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  so you want a witchhunt (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            virginislandsguy

                            a fishing expedition to find something, anything to prosecute.

                            like i said.

                            you're being silly.  not serious.

                            The only thing standing between the American people and a war crimes tribunal for those murderous, Constitution-fucking bastards are a relative handful of useful idiot apologists and a metric fuckton of hubris.
                            in your mind...

                            -You want to change the system, run for office.

                            by Deep Texan on Tue May 14, 2013 at 02:19:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Don't put words in my mouth, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            fuzzyguy

                            apologist hubrite. You're the one who said I needed evidence to launch an investigation into war crimes.

                            I cited an example that proved you wrong.

                            And of course, investigating war crimes--whether you're talking about actually prosecuting the criminals themselves or impeaching the person who used his elected power to protect them--would be a little different than investigating a blow job.

                            But, you knew that, too...
                             

                            "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

                            by lunachickie on Tue May 14, 2013 at 02:26:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Dude or dudette, no offense... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      emelyn, aitchdee

                      ... but maybe you should step away from the machine and get some fresh air. You don't normally strike me as entirely hinged to begin with, but right now, you seem to be really losing it. None of this makes sense.

                      A lot of folks have been trying to tell you that for quite some time now...
                      I'm sorry, what?

                      And from downthread, since I'm polite:

                      all it proved was your sophist contention that we need "evidence" to investigate a crime was complete bullshit.
                      The phrase you're looking for is probable cause. This is not actually difficult, if someone has the slightest clue of what they're talking about.

                      Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                      by MBNYC on Tue May 14, 2013 at 03:38:57 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Wait a minute...are we being called (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              fuzzyguy, greenbell

              Communists now for criticizing the President?

              Shades of the 80s!

              "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue May 14, 2013 at 01:52:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I'm with you. (0+ / 0-)

          Regardless of the party or personality of the official involved.

          "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue May 14, 2013 at 01:49:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  if they hold hearings, they will impeach (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MBNYC

          don't try to create a boundary that does not exist

          Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
          Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

          by TrueBlueMajority on Wed May 15, 2013 at 06:33:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  OK, I think I see the essence of our dispute or (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TrueBlueMajority

            disagreement (maybe).

            You think the Rape-publi-scum in the House have pre-judged and will vote to impeach regardless of what the hearings or evidence show.

            I readily concede that possibility but would remind you that under our Constitution, the impeachment resolution would then move to a Senate trial, in a Senate controlled by Dems.

            And here's where I think our disagreement may come into play (again, I'm sort of reading between the lines).

            You think that any House resolution of impeachment against Obama is a bad thing. I think the American people will view any impeachment of Obama that is done in disregard of the evidence and testimony as a travesty and that will work to further irreparably damage the Rape-publi-scum Party for a generation further. In a weird way, an impeachment by the House viewed as unjust by the American people would work to Obama's and the Dems' long-term benefit. That's my thinking, based on Clinton's fortunes during his second term.

            And if, OTOH, the evidence and testimony prove conclusively that Obama or his staff signed off on this seizure of phone records, why I think that does cross the boundary of an impeachable offense.

            Now maybe I'm reading too much into what's been written here, but I don't think you're arguing that if Obama ordered it, it must ipso facto be legal. For that truly is a Nixonian argument, placing the man above the law and not the law above the man.

            •  some points of possible agreement (0+ / 0-)
              the Republicons in the House have pre-judged and will vote to impeach regardless of what the hearings or evidence show
              everything Rs have done throughout the O administration leads me to believe the above statement is 100% true and nothing could ever persuade me that it is not true

              @#@#@

              an impeachment by the House viewed as unjust by the American people would work to Obama's and the Dems' long-term benefit. That's my thinking, based on Clinton's fortunes during his second term.
              this above statement presupposes the same political situation in the country now as we had during Clinton's second term.  RW propaganda is much more effective now.  How will people view the impeachment as unjust when they have fewer and fewer sources of truthful information that would lead them to believe the impeachment is unjust?

              @#@#@

              I don't think you're arguing that if Obama ordered it, it must ipso facto be legal
              correct.  i am NOT arguing that.  i've seen Frost/Nixon.  I was alive during Nixon's impeachment hearings and when David Frost did the Frost/Nixon interviews.  

              but I would add if his staff signed off on this seizure of phone records, that is not automatically an impeachable offense for Obama himself

              Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
              Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

              by TrueBlueMajority on Wed May 15, 2013 at 02:10:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think we probably agree far more than we (0+ / 0-)

                disagree. I do think, though, that the internet makes access to information much easier than it was during Clinton's tenure.

                If the RW propaganda machine were as effective as you allege it is, Obama could not have won re-election. That he did sort of punctures the myth of an all-powerful right-wing propaganda juggernaut.

                Obviously, if one of Obama's staff signed off on the seizure of phone records but not Obama himself, that's not an impeachable offense for Obama. That'swhat hearings and investigations help discover.

                I was appalled to hear Holder testify at the House Judiciary Committee hearing today that he did not put his recusal in writing, nor could he ostensibly recall exactly when he recused himself, even though this was (by his own admission) a serious threat to national security. There's something stinky there, almost like Holder wanted to have his cake ('serious threat to national security') and eat it too ('recused myself with no documentation thereof, so not responsible'). Would you not agree that Holder's own behavior means it's time for him to pursue other opportunities and spend more time with his family?

    •  Your comment has become (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fuzzyguy

      the comment that launched a thousand flames.

      "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue May 14, 2013 at 01:48:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  perhaps the only road to salvation is just that: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenbell, CharlesInCharge

      liberals, progressives, Democrats, Independents calling for an investigation with the clear understanding that the IMPORTANT thing is not the president, but the office of the president and how the person sitting there carries out his/her duties and UPHOLDS the Constitution and the rule of law.

      i think it would scare Republicans and Tea party people to hell and we could regain control of this conversation... and make it about the COUNTRY and what is right, decent, and lawful.

      like i've been saying: it's the issues, stupid.

      “Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn’t do than by the ones you did do.” - Mark Twain

      by pfiore8 on Tue May 14, 2013 at 02:26:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This sub-thread has become a veritable (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pfiore8, gerrilea

        Hydra-headed monster and I can no longer eeasily discern which comments are intended for me and which for other commenters.

        But even if not intended for me, your comment strikes me as eminently wise. I suggested as much to Rep. Waters this morning in my email to her calling for hearings to investigate the matter, i.e., that it would better serve the country's interests if the Dems led the demand for hearings.

        But I also fear there's a sizable portion of the country that no longer cares much about such niceties as freedom of the press and freedom from warrantless searches. To my mind, if we've lost our free press, we've lost our country except in name only.

    •  Okay, show me (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emelyn, Hedwig, CroneWit, aitchdee

      where, on Daily Kos or anywhere on the internet, you called for George W Bush's impeachment.

      Show me.

      It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

      by Fishgrease on Tue May 14, 2013 at 04:53:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I didn't join Daily Kos until after Bush had left (0+ / 0-)

        office, so I won't be able to show you anything on this site.

        I protested in the streets of Los Angeles (Mar Vista and Palms) twice- and thrice-weekly from Nov. 2001-09, in the process getting physically assaulted, having my car vandalized twice and enduring countless death threats and hurled objects from vehicles. OK, the sign I carried said, "I blame Bush, " not "Impeach Bush". Except when I was doing Latino outreach, when my sign said "Pinche Bush". But there were other protests where I carried signs calling for Bush's impeachment and removal or for his prosecution for war crimes.

        I documented this stuff (the protests, the assaults, the death threats, etc.) pretty extensively on DemocraticUnderground.com when it happened. I no longer post there (for reasons unrelated to this thread) and have no way of recovering those links that I know of. (I posted as 'Coalition_Unwilling' there if you want to search.)

        My rep at the time was - ugh! - Jane Harmon and I wokred as a volunteer on Marcy Winograd's primary campaigns in, IIRC, 2004 and 2006. (All this stuff has sort of congealed in my mind now.) So I hope I've established my anti-Bush credentials to your satisfaction.

    •  are you on the right website? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shrike, sviscusi, aitchdee

      try redstate.

      I'm shocked how quickly some people-you aren't alone-have CONCLUDED that this definetely happened as reported. The news is new. Should suspend judgement to see if it's real.

      The Republicans hate Obama to the extent they gleefully lie through their teeth, overtly block people from voting etc. They lined up lockstep on his first Innaugaration Day to set out to make him fail. This could be an attempt of theirs.

      We need to wait this out given the sad state of Republicans now. They are blinded by hate and will do anything to smear Obama. We need more data.

      •  Why are you imputing conservative (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Don midwest

        or even reactionary views to me? Truth is, I'm a long-time Democratic Socialist (cut from the Michael Harrington mold) and have called for hearings and an investigation, not a rush to judgment.

        I'm not alone, it's true. Both the ACLU and the Electronic Freedom Foundation share my anger and dismay at this. The only question is where the buck stops. That's what investigations and hearings are for.

        •  it seemed like people were CONCLUDING (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TrueBlueMajority

          THINGS, washing their hands of Obama, so quickly. They found these reports definitive. It seems unhelpful and disloyal. Hence the "red state" joke, or admittedly, poke.

          I'm hearing "IMPEACH HIM". Surely you know that the Republicans are incapable of REAL, USEFUL  hearings and an investigation of any Dem President? Issa's true job is to find ANYTHING to smear Obama with.

          It is not realistic to give them that power. They are not normal Americans anymore, those Republicans. Unfortunately. They have behaved like traitors in repressing the vote of the least powerful on purpose to win. The lie outright. They spread propaganda.

          I wrote you an overly long one about Obama's place in the scheme of things ie in the line of recent Presidents. The Republicans especially have gotten away with major things that should have seen possible impeachement. But Dems did not go there. They take Impeachment seriously.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site