I'm supposed to be studying for comps now. I'm supposed to be studying, but I'm so fucking pissed off I can hardly see straight, let alone retain the details of the very boring academic articles I'm supposed to be studying.
Scooter Libby obstructed justice. He was convicted. He is known to be a participant in either the outing of a covert agent of the CIA in a time of war (which is capital treason by definition, a death penalty offense), covering up for the people responsible for the outing, or both. And if Congress had the guts to enforce their powers as delegated to them by the Constitution, for sobbing out loud, we'd have more than enough evidence to convict Libby and several others for that offense.
And now the Felon-in-Chief commutes his sentence.
Remember that press conference on October 6, 2003? Remember what Scott McClellan said?
If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates, that's not the way this President expects people in his administration to conduct their business.
"But that's just McClellan," you might say. Not exactly:
Let me answer what the President has said. I speak for the President and I'll talk to you about what he wants.
So not only did the president not fire a leaker of classified information, he tried to keep the leaker from being convicted for his crimes and made sure that the leaker would never spend a day behind bars. Damn liar! I realize it's not a pardon, but two years probation and a $250,000 fine is a slap on the wrist for this jerk.
Let's revisit what I wrote last July about impeachment for a minute, shall we?
On July 27, 1974, the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives voted 27-11 to approve an article of impeachment against President Richard Nixon on the charge of obstruction of justice. Two more articles of impeachment -- for abuse of power and contempt of Congress -- were approved on July 29 and July 30.
Nixon's crimes were numerous. He had his aides spy on political enemies -- especially rivals in the Democratic party, anti-war protestors, and left wing interest groups -- without warrants. (And even with warrants, a president's aides don't have police powers -- they're not authorized to execute warrants.) He bugged their offices, tapped their phones, and, of course, ordered the break-in at the Democratic party headquarters in the Watergate complex during the 1972 campaign; Mark Felt (a.k.a. "Deep Throat," Woodward and Bernstein's secret source) reported that 50 agents had been hired by the White House to sabotage the Democratic campaign and essentially rig the election. Nixon used the CIA to obstruct the FBI's investigation into the break-in at the Watergate, in part by claiming falsely that the investigation would endanger national security. He also tried to use executive privilege to prevent Congressional investigators from proving his guilt.
In the course of the Senate's investigation into the Nixon administration, it became known that Nixon secretly taped all his conversations in the White House, and it was expected that the tapes would prove his guilt. The rat who was president asserted executive privilege, claiming that Congress had no right to hear those tapes. The Supreme Court, of course, disagreed (United States v. Nixon), with all justices save Rehnquist (who recused himself) signing on to Chief Justice Warren Burger's opinion that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter in determining constitutional questions (not the President), that no one -- even the President -- is completely above law, and that the president cannot use executive privilege as an excuse to withhold evidence that is "demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial." The ruling compelled the Nixon administration to turn the tapes over to Congress. And, well, most of you probably know about the missing 18 1/2 minutes in one crucial tape.
Does any of this sound familiar?
Nixon resigned before he could be formally impeached, and conviction was certain. That, combined with everything I've written above (and all the details I've left out), makes me think that President Richard "I Am Not A Crook" Nixon isn't even in the same ballpark as Dumbya when it comes to the high crimes and misdemeanors the Constitution requires for a president to be impeached.
Consider that the ACLU showed in 2003 that the FBI promoted protest suppression by law enforcement officers and in 2004 that the FBI was spying on religious and protest groups. The New York Times confirmed it. We know all about the warrantless wiretapping shenanigans in conscious violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (folks here have written a lot about this, haven't they?), which was largely a reaction to the excesses and abuses of the Nixon administration. We know about the problems of electronic voting, particularly with Diebold, fraud in Ohio in the 2004 election -- perhaps not enough to steal the election, but problematic any way you look at it -- and the partisan bullshit games that proved in Florida in 2000 that "one citizen, one vote" is nothing but an empty phrase. We know that BushCo routinely obstructs investigations into their wrongdoing by claiming national security concerns. We know that Dumbya has shown grotesque contempt for Congress -- fitting contempt in that as an overall group, they're nothing but a bunch of sycophantic automatons; atrocious in the sense that they're still the legislative branch of the government -- by attaching signing statements to several hundred bills that fundamentally abrogate the will of Congress in an unconstitutional way. We know that BushCo is by far the most secretive administration since -- you guessed it -- Nixon. We know that BushCo is willing to ignore SCOTUS rulings they don't like. And we know that when BushCo proposes superficial changes to their policies to appease complaints about their illegality, they know Republicans in Congress will rubber stamp it. And Dumbya can just attach a signing statement to any bill requiring changes anyway, so no changes actually occur.
This last bit -- that the Republicans in Congress just rubber stamp everything Dumbya proposes anyway -- is what makes him so much more dangerous than Nixon ever was. During Nixon's administration, the Democrats held majorities in both the House and the Senate. Moreover, Republicans of that time seem to have had a little more dignity and honor than they do today -- they actually stood up to the president when he usurped their power, and when the evidence showed Nixon was guilty of the crimes of which he was accused, even those Republicans who voted against each of the articles of impeachment in committee announced publicly that they would vote in favor when the articles were brought before the entire House for a vote. And of course, with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito on the Supreme Court, we're not very far from total enablement of fascism.
All of the above crimes of BushCo are just the tip of the iceberg. Much more could be said, for example, about lying to the American people to start the illegal, immoral, and unnecessary war in Iraq. Much more could be said, for example, about the intentional exposure by BushCo of one of our own covert agents in retaliation for her husband's actions in exposing those lies. (Incidentally, exposing a covert agent in a time of war is capital treason -- you get the death penalty for that. I'm not an advocate of the death penalty, but anything shy of life in prison for Dumbya, Cheney, Rove, Libby, and anyone else involved in the lead is a miscarriage of justice.)
Obviously, impeachment isn't an option unless (until?) we win the November elections and take back the House and the Senate. We need Democratic congresscritters and senators to have subpoena powers so they can compile the evidence against Dumbya, Cheney, and the rest of the BushCo cabal. We need them to be able to convince their Republican colleagues to stop siding with people who think the Constitution is a quaint little document not worth the parchment it's written on. And then we need to remove the lot of them from office.
Because 2008 is too far away and too long to wait for the government to start representing the people instead of itself, and to restore our credibility in the eyes of the world.
I'm sick of being told "we don't have the votes" -- I get that. We didn't have the votes in 1974 either, but the Democrats voted to impeach anyway because justice and the Constitution demanded it. And because they had the guts to stand up to Nixon, they were able to find the evidence that would have gotten the votes needed to remove Nixon from office.
I'm sick of our representatives being so busy trying to keep their jobs when elections are still more than a year away when they ought to be doing their fucking jobs. What I wrote about last July was just the tip of the iceberg. We have been witnessing the wholesale destruction of our Constitution, and our elected representatives possess neither the guts nor the decency nor the common sense to do a damn thing about it!
Contact your representatives and demand that they support House Resolution 333 right now -- it calls for the impeachment of Vice Felon-in-Chief Cheney. Then demand the impeachment of Abu Gonzales. Then demand the impeachment of the worst president in US history. Demand that they subpoena Libby and make him tell them everything he knows -- and if he refuses, demand that they hold him in inherent contempt of Congress.
It's time to break out the damn powder already. I don't give a damn what Speaker Pelosi says; with all due respect it's always worth it to defend the Constitution, whether or not you can succeed. And if our reps won't defend the Constitution, we're going to replace them with reps who will.
UPDATE: Bush's statement is a joke. Some excerpts:
I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby’s appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.
Wrong. He hasn't even been heard in the appeals court yet.
From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.
Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.
I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.
In other words:
What a disgrace!