The Dead Guy

In “George Bush … War Criminal” - I lay out one case in which I believe that President Bush and his cronies can be tried by the United States and International Courts.

Last night, over at Philadelphia Daily News, Will Bunch asked Senator Barack Obama a very important question about if he is elected President whether his Justice Department “would aggressively go after and investigate whether crimes have been committed.” Obama’s response?

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued … You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I’ve said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law — and I think that’s roughly how I would look at it.

Now Mr. Bunch takes the answer that Obama has ruled out impeachment, but I don’t see that. Obama says he doesn’t think it would be “fruitful” and follows up with “a basic principle … is nobody above the law.” That doesn’t say to me that impeaching Bush (or his cronies) is ruled out, but that he wouldn’t actively pursue it. However, if it is found that there are impeachable offenses found that impeachment would be an option.

I’ve been doing a bit of research on impeachment and Presidential pardons. A major source I have used is Brian C. Kalt’s article in the December 1996 issues of The Yale Law Journal - “Pardon Me?: The Constitutional Case against Presidential Self-Pardons.”

Can an ex-president be impeached? The answer is - Yes. Since a former President receives a pension and other resources from the Federal Government, Congress’s impeachment power can strip these benefits. So, when Bush leaves office in January 2009 - he is not free from possible impeachment.

Can Bush pardon his cronies? The answer is - Yes. But not if Congress decides to impeach them. A Presidential Pardon holds no power over impeachments.

Can Bush pardon himself? The answer is - it’s never been tested. Again, impeachment is a moot point since a pardon holds no power over impeachment. However, against Federal criminal cases this is a grayer issue. The decision would have to be determined by the Court System first. The Court would look at the entire Constitution, not just the Pardon clause for its answer.

What is pointed out is that the Constitution is written to prevent self-dealing, as in:

• Congress cannot give itself a raise (but it can give the next elected Congress a raise).
• The presidential salary cannot be raised until after a presidential election.
• No member of Congress cannot simultaneously hold another federal office and cannot resign from Congress to take a job that was created or whose pay was increased during that Congress’ term.
• During a presidential impeachment trial in the Senate, the Chief Justice presides not the Vice President as it normally would be. Reason? If a President is impeached and removed from Office - who becomes the President? Exactly. This also implies that the Vice President cannot preside over their own impeachment trial, but does preside over other impeachment trials in the Senate.
• “Without the Bill of Rights, a self-dealing Congress and President could control the press, take away guns, search houses, seize property, and jail people indefinitely, all in order to further their own interests at the expense of the will of the majority.” (from “Pardon Me? …”) - Huh, sound familiar?

So a President shouldn’t be able to give a self-pardon as it would bypass the right and responsibility of the Congress as it would be self-dealing and allows the enjoyment of the fruits of the office without control by Congress.

Now you’ll ask - okay, but let’s say Bush does pardon his cronies and no impeachment proceedings occur, but the future Attorney General considers Federal criminal proceedings. Wouldn’t the pardons of his cronies pretty much mean that President Bush is safe because there is nothing to use as leverage against his cronies for testimony? Well, the fun thing about that is - if they are pardoned, they are immune from prosecution and can’t hide behind the Fifth Amendment. So, if they decide to withhold testimony, they can be held for contempt of court - which they are not immune from. And we all know that if the chickenhawks are faced with falling on their sword for Bush or crowing at the sunrise, the sun can’t rise quick enough!

Also, another interesting note about Presidential Pardons. They only work on Federal crimes. Not on civil and not on state criminal charges. So if some plucky state Attorney General can build a strong case on state charges, the Presidential Pardon holds no power over those charges, either.

Thank you, Mr. Bunch, for asking a question that deserved an answer. Thank you, Senator Obama, for the courage and strength to stand up for the Constitution, the United States and the People by responding that President Bush will not escape scrutiny, nor will his administration.

You would think I wouldn’t have to say more. That we have all heard the news. That we all knew what was done was against the law - both domestic and international. One day, maybe soon, we all will know. One day, maybe soon - we’ll see our 43rd President, along with current and former members of his administration, hauled before an international court for crimes against humanity in time of war.

(more…)

Another of the Clinton campaign and supporters cries of “fairness” is that the popular vote of the primaries should be considered when deciding the Democratic Presidential Nominee. If one angle doesn’t work, try another … and another … and another.

I will repeat the same response I have whenever someone tries to rewrite the rules. The DNC determines the Democratic Nominee by only one measure: Delegate count in sanctioned, legitimate elections. However, to quell the cries, I’ve laid out the math of the popular vote scenario. And in the end, Obama is projected to win the popular vote as well as just about every other concept the Clinton campaign wishes they could find a way to win (against the rules).

(more…)

chimerical

Main Entry: chi•me•ri•cal
Pronunciation: \k?-?mer-i-k?l, k?-, -?mir-\
Variant(s): also chi•me•ric \-ik\
Function: adjective
Etymology: chimera
Date: 1638
1 : existing only as the product of unchecked imagination : fantastically visionary or improbable
2 : given to fantastic schemes

(more…)

This is not a new concept. FDR and The New Deal. The late Senator Paul Simon’s 1987 book by the same title as this post (Which I have a signed copy of - I had Senator Simon autograph it for me when he was in Iowa campaigning for the 1988 Democratic Presidential Nomination).

With a country that has resources and infrastructure in dire need of help, we need to put America back to work fixing these problems. Where could we start? Well, there are 10 pieces of U.S. infrastructure we must fix now!

And America needs jobs. The March 2008 unemployment rate is 5.1%. However, many thousands of unemployed workers fall off the rolls each month because they either can’t find a job while on benefits or just plain give up. The US Dept of Labor defines “unemployed” as those who “do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.” It’s not a true look at how many Americans are out of work at any given time. When you add in the discouraged, marginally attached, and those working part-time but can’t find a full-time job - you end up with about 9% rate of unemployment.

(more…)

Bill Clinton

The Chicago Tribune reports in September 2006 former President Bill Clinton spoke at a fundraiser for Fortune Forum, a non-profit set up to tackle problems such as global warming, water shortages and disaster relief. Now, before you hail the chief - the event raised about $1.5 million, of which $450,000 went to Bill Clinton’s speaking fee.

That’s right, almost 1/3 of the money raised went straight into Bill Clinton’s bank account - where I am sure some was transferred over to the Clinton Family Foundation, where just about all of the Clintons’ ‘charitable’ donations of $10.2 million has gone since 2001. (as a side note: Bill is the President, Hillary is the Secretary/Treasurer, Chelsea is a director and Gloria Clinton is the CEO/Manager. Gloria earned $250,000 in 2006 from the CFF.)

$450,000. As also reported in the same article, Clinton gave two other speeches that day and the next while he was across the pond. One was for a London for-profit partnership and the other was in Dublin. The fees he charged for each of those? $280,000 apiece. So, in 2 days, he racked up over $1 million in speaking fees - almost half from the one non-profit speech, alone.

I can understand charging for speeches, even to a non-profit who is attempting to bring change in the world in respect to climate change and disaster relief, that’s what public speakers do. But to charge a non-profit almost twice the amount that is charged to for-profit company is not just dirty - it’s downright despicable.