Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

bushCo knew : could NEVER be Impeached "Independent Council Statute" DIED

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 06:33 AM
Original message
bushCo knew : could NEVER be Impeached "Independent Council Statute" DIED
Edited on Mon Sep-29-03 07:03 AM by ElsewheresDaughter
which was instated in the aftermath of Watergate, had a "sunset clause" (5 years). Was to be voted on every 5 years, and was reinstated every 5 yeasr since 1978...funny tho, in 2000 they let it DIE!...hmmmmm? Congress had the power to keep it or let it die...they let it die...BushCo knew that it was gonna die and that is what has given these evil bastards their BOLDNESS (their IN YOUR FACE arrogance!) ...Now. even though they are caught red handed. there is NOTHING to stop them or bring them to justice. NOTHING...no tools left to Congress!

The law died with ken star...now only the president can call for a "special" council HA! and only he can appoint who will head it...re: kissinger

Democracy Is Dead!!!!

http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/99winter/323.html

January 12, 1999

ROBINSON Welcome to Uncommon Knowledge, I'm Peter Robinson. Our show today, the Independent Counsel Statute, a piece of legislation first enacted in 1978 that must be renewed every 5 years. The next time the statute must be renewed, this very spring. We'll return to the statute in a moment, but first a brief civics lesson. As you know, our founders gave us three branches of government- branch number one, the judicial, the nine justices of the Supreme Court and the 900 some judges who sit on the federal bench. Branch number two, the legislative, the House, the Senate, they make up Congress. Congress enacts laws, the judicial branch interprets them. Branch number three, the executive. Here of course we come to the president of the United States, responsible for administering the vast federal government, for conducting foreign policy, and for enforcing the laws that Congress enacts and the judicial branch interprets. One, two, three, and four- the independent counsel, here he is, Kenneth Starr himself. Of course there isn't really, not formally a fourth branch of the American government. But many would argue that the independent counsel statute in effect establishes just that- a fourth and unconstitutional branch of government, accountable neither to the American people nor to any of the other three branches of government. As I say, this spring Congress must decide whether to reenact the legislation or let it fail. With us today, three guests- John Donohue is a professor of law at Stanford University, David Brady is a fellow at the Hoover Institution. John and David want Congress to reenact the statute but with major reforms. Our third guest, James Brosnahan is a senior partner at the San Francisco law firm of Morrison and Foerster. Mr. Brosnahan served briefly in the office of the independent counsel, he wants Congress to let the legislation die.

more...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 07:00 AM
Response to Original message
1. shameless kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. The 'president' OR the department of justice...
...can call for a 'special' prosecutor. What are the odds of this happening?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Impolitico Donating Member (48 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 07:22 AM
Response to Original message
3. Ummm.....
How exactly does the abolishment of the Independent Council statute culminate in an inability to impeach a President? LOL Did I miss a page?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. with it gone what tool is there to police the police? I guess i am really
Edited on Mon Sep-29-03 07:49 AM by ElsewheresDaughter
ignorant. Please explain to me just how bush can be impeached without the "indepentent council statute?

imho "we the people" have been castrated with the dying of this statute :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tarheel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. The impeachment
process is spelled out in the constitution Elsewhere. Even without the independent council statute, the congress can call for investigative commitees and can bring charges for impeachment if they believe impeachable offences have occurred. (Granted this will never happen with the pukes controlling all three branches)

This is demonstrated by the fact that both previous impeachment proceedings prior to Clinton's were brought without the independent council being in place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. tarheel ....sigh
Edited on Mon Sep-29-03 09:45 AM by ElsewheresDaughter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanMichael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. I see what you mean. Every so often someone will need to...
..."Police" the "Police".

It would be more difficult for Congress to amass the sort of evidence necessary to convict without the IC. Especially with an AG like Asscroft.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomNickell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 08:10 AM
Response to Original message
7. Nixon went down without an IC statute.
There was an active independent press, congressional investigations. This resulted in enough political pressure to force the appointment of a 'Special Prosecutor', which brought Nixon down.

The IC statute proved a total disaster. Turned into a political tool, with the parties competing to force IC investigations on any accusation. The Repubs were the best at that game.

Remember Whitewater? Monica? Cisneros' mistress?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. TomNickel yes but, that was before Reagan did away with the.....
"Fairness Doctrine"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Agree, Tom........and I'm glad the IC has died....it was misused/abused so
badly with Clinton. But, there are still ways to Impeach a President.....and public pressure can do it....along with help from "insiders" as shown with Watergate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
8. We WANTED That Thing Gone
Like some well-intentioned ideas that were poorly executed (e.g., the CA version of the recall, not the MN version), this one had the unintended consequences of abuse that we saw with STARR (to be partisan. The Repukes would claim the 7yrs Iran-Contra thing had abuses in it. ) .

We Libs are reaping what we sowed in going the COURT route for social justice. It was easier, faster, seemingly more conclusive to run to the courts, instead of the painstaking route of getting state laws passed one by one, with pitfalls all along this way. That's why we've ended up with our backs to the wall on Roe-Wade.

The wingnuts took it for a long time, then they did their homework the same way they regrouped under LIMBOsevic and built their talk radio infrastructure of wingnut media, and they started using the legal system against us. By the time we woke up, BINGO, they had the wingnut judges to appoint a wingnut "independent counsel", not to mention SCotUS to annoint a figurehead.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. UTUSN...exactly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 02:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC