Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for May 22, 2014
Transcript:
Congressman 1: "No impeachable defense! No impeachable defense!" How can St. Clair keep babbling like that? Congressman 2: Especially since the President left no part of the Constitution unviolated! Congressman 1: Obstruction of justice, hush money payments, secret bombings, 25 top aides convicted or indicted... Congressman 2: My lord, what does it take?! What does it take?!! Congressman 1: *sigh* If only he'd knock over a bank or something... Congressman 2: By George, we'd have him then!
BE THIS GUY over 10 years ago
“The President wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment.”-Nixon attorney, James D. St. Clair, arguing in front of the Supreme Court of the United States.
AKHenderson Premium Member over 10 years ago
Kissinger strikes me as the sort who puts only himself uber alles.
wcorvi over 10 years ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8
gawaintheknight over 10 years ago
It all worked out okay in the end for Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Q4horse over 10 years ago
Benghazi, the IRS, the NSA, the VA and we still can’t get Obama impeached !!! All Nixon did was cover up a burglary.
Jack Straw over 10 years ago
That St. Clair really was creepy. Very patrician and superior. Re: Kissinger – the fact that he got a Nobel and is walking around free, and appearing at posh events, etc, is a further crime. Milosovic died in jail for doing less.
2578275 over 10 years ago
@Q4horseNearly every prez has had somebody call for his impeachment. What frosts my cookies is that Clinton was impeached and Dubya wasn’t.
neatslob Premium Member over 10 years ago
Yes, if the president knocked over a bank, that would do it. But if the bank knocked over the rest of the country, that would be perfectly fine.
lynxreign over 10 years ago
@Q4HorseThe difference is yours are all imaginary.
chipscount over 10 years ago
are they talking about nixon or barry?
David Huie Green LoveJoyAndPeace over 10 years ago
The president IS above the law, subject only to impeachment.He can pardon himself for any and all crimes as well as those done at his orders.Even if he commits crimes, there will be many who continue to support him for political or national security reasons..Thus, it behooves us to choose presidents carefully.
mourdac Premium Member over 10 years ago
The famous “smoking gun”
BE THIS GUY over 10 years ago
@beprepnYes, I found the wording interesting. “This is the President’s point of view, not mine,” is what St. Clair is saying. St. Clair was not a partisan hack. In the past, he had defended draft-dodgers, gone up against McCarthy. He saw Nixon as a client and nothing more.
Ray Thomas over 10 years ago
I know this rerun is about Nixon, but it might as well be about Obama.
kaffekup over 10 years ago
‘but it might as well be about Obama.’.Such an original thought. To every troll here, unfortunately.
David Huie Green LoveJoyAndPeace over 10 years ago
There are plenty of candidates not favored by your beloved Plutocrats and Oligarchs but they are also not favored by the voters. After all, gaining and/or keeping wealth and/or political power is evidence of at least SOME degree of competence..Besides, not all Plutocrats and Oligarchs are alike, despite your prejudices against them.
montessoriteacher over 10 years ago
Of course, when I say “we” I mean my parents. I would have voted for McGovern had I been of age to do so.
montessoriteacher over 10 years ago
“When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” Richard Nixon.
montessoriteacher over 10 years ago
“And so it goes.” Linda Ellerbee. Wonder whatever happened to her?
montessoriteacher over 10 years ago
Actually, Gore won. So, not a perception problem for him among voters. Bush was appointed.
montessoriteacher over 10 years ago
Carter kept us out of war. I see that as a fact to be celebrated, rather than something to berate him for.
montessoriteacher over 10 years ago
It appeared you were basing your argument on perception of voters. Gore won the popular vote, so he didn’t have a problem with the way he was viewed by voters, though he may have had an issue with the antiquated electoral college. Also, there was the largely Republican appointed Supreme Court.
montessoriteacher over 10 years ago
Under Obama, the deficit has fallen at the fastest rate in 60 years. Obama has achieved a great deal if you consider the obstructionism he has been forced to deal with. The level of obstructionism has been unprecedented on the part of the GOP. Many in the GOP have not been willing to govern. For example, many of the governors who have not accepted the Medicare expansion for political reasons. Lots of folks will suffer due to this political maneuver.
montessoriteacher over 10 years ago
The deficit rate is what we are talking about. There is a rate at which it falls. It skyrocketed under Bush, so things can go up and down, as it were. It isn’t as if Obama was elected right after Clinton. He had to clean up after Bush.
whiteaj over 10 years ago
What Q4horse said.
montessoriteacher over 10 years ago
Our constitution has had many amendments.
2578275 over 10 years ago
@Lorenzo Browncoat I don’t know/remember if in the Constiturionif the prez is subject to more than impeachment, but I do remember studying it in HS; that that’s all he can be held accountable for.@DavidHuieGreenObama didn’t give us the problems with VA health care; the problems certainly existed in 1969 and quite likely earlier; I know from experience. If anything positive can be said about VA, I had a little, minor problem getting education benefits; that problem I was able to easily and successfully overcome on my own with a handwritten letter. Oh, I did have a problem with VA in which the recipients weren’t “listening” to what I had written. And that problem was overcome by writing to my congresswoman. Gov’t. bureaucrats don’t like to deal with congresspeople.
David Huie Green LoveJoyAndPeace over 10 years ago
The Supreme Court ruled you don’t get to change the rules after the fact. Only a tyrant would want that.
montessoriteacher over 10 years ago
My first vote was for Carter in his 2nd presidential election, which he lost. I still say the electoral college is antiquated. I stand by my previous comment.
kaffekup over 10 years ago
They don’t have to agree on everything, true, but wanting to put us in our place (or the place they want us in) is one thing they all agree on.
montessoriteacher over 10 years ago
I am sure there have been many failed amendments. Some of them have also passed.
montessoriteacher over 10 years ago
Obama has not been as quick on sending troops overseas as some have been in the past. He is also not the first to have used drones. Bush used drones as well as sending troops overseas for a war that was not needed. Drones are here to stay. We will continue to live in a world which uses drones, just as we will continue to live in a world that uses troops. I prefer to keep our troops safe as much as possible. I would rather see surgical strikes than using boots on the ground. I realize that drones can be used mistakenly. So can boots on the ground. We live in an imperfect world.
montessoriteacher over 10 years ago
I never said anything about scrubbing the constitution. However, the constitution does have several amendments to address issues. There is no reason why there could not be another amendment.
montessoriteacher over 10 years ago
Truman used the A bomb. I suppose you are in line for one of those too. I don’t see a need for a military drone for my own personal use, this doesn’t mean I don’t see the need for them somewhere in the world. That is called a red herring.
montessoriteacher over 10 years ago
Actually, I am not in Congress nor the prez, so no need for me to convince a supermajority. I am also not trying to convince you. You may believe whatever you wish, and I am sure you will.
MamaTiger27 over 10 years ago
DavidHuieGreen – the President CANNOT pardon himself; that is why Nixon eventually resigned and turned the office over to Ford; FORD pardoned him. A President can only pardon OTHERS.
montessoriteacher over 10 years ago
Thank you.
montessoriteacher over 10 years ago
The GOP is counting on apathy among Democrats, as well as putting up obstacles to registration, as their strategy to win elections. They have even said aloud that their strategy is to keep the other side from voting by insisting that there is a problem with voter fraud. There may be a tiny percentage of such, and it exists on both sides. Meanwhile, they put up roadblocks to large numbers of people and disenfranchise many of the working poor, students and elderly, who often do not have government photo ID.
David Huie Green LoveJoyAndPeace over 10 years ago
The only Constitutional restriction on presidential pardon power is that he can’t pardon away impeachment. Pardoning himself would be tacky but is not restricted by the Constitution..Back when the Republicans were impeaching Andrew Johnson was interesting too. They determined early on that he was not guilty of the charges against him but proceeded with his impeachment anyway. They came one vote shy of removing him from office even without any crime on his part.
montessoriteacher over 10 years ago
Even among legal eagles, there is some debate on whether or not the President can pardon herself or himself. Obviously, it would not look good. But technically, there is some disagreement on whether or not it is possible.
tlynnch over 10 years ago
@Q$Horse All Nixon did was lie, cover up, bribe witnesses, money laundering, aiding and abetting a felon, plus the accomplish to a burglary and many other impeachable crimes. “I am not a crook!” made famous by tricky dick. Of course he employed Rumsfield, Cheney, et al.
David Huie Green LoveJoyAndPeace over 10 years ago
How about just an election after impeachment and removal from office.Alcee Hastings was impeached and removed from his federal judgeship for siliciting and taking bribes. While they had the power under the Constitution to permanently ban him from public office, such was not done and he was soon running for office. One of my many cousins voted for him, thinking he was Alice and a woman. (We’re all bright in my family.). The logic regarding additional limitations on the power of pardon does not over ride the written word of the Constitution. Ford gave Nixon pardon for anything he might have done even though it was not established in a court of law that he was as guilty as we know he was.Carter granted amnesty to all draft dodgers even though their guilt was not established. Thus a pardon does not require an initial finding of guilt or even filing of charges and the power of a sitting president is not limited regarding pardons until after he has actually been impeached and removed from office..There is even a related precident elsewhere. One of the early presidentts, I think Jefferson, took office and found a drawerful of appointments his predecessor, in this case it would have been Adams of course, had made but not submitted to the Senate for approval. The new presidemt reasoned they were lawful when made and even though they were bitter political enemies, he passed them on to the Senate..montess would likely call these facts and the reasoning antequated, and it is, but it is also part of the messy foundation of our nation. We have to be willing to accept it in its imperfections or be willing to face the consequences, such as RWR did whem he admitted to his Iran/Contra activities. Those were clearly impeachable offenses but Congress did not impeach because the American people did not push for it..Going back further, President Jackson ignored the Supreme Court and stole vast indian holdings, forcing them to go to Oklahoma which was later also stolen from them. He sold their posessions to friends and others and paid off the national debt.— with stolen money..It is dangerous putting crooks in power.
montessoriteacher over 10 years ago
Antiquated= out of date, obsolete due to age. The constitution can be subject to amendments so that the government can meet the needs of citizens.
BE THIS GUY over 10 years ago
@Q4horsePlease, let me respond:-Benghazi — This is the first time that one political party has used a terrorist attack against an American interest as reason to impeach the President of the United States. On April 18, 1983, the US Embassy in Beirut was attacked by a suicide bomber. Sixty-three people, including 17 Americans were killed.Among the dead was Robert Ames, the CIA’s best Mid East analyst. Six months later, on October 23, the US Marine barracks were attacked by a suicide bomber and 241 American servicemen were killed.On September 20, 1984, the temporary US Embassy was attacked by a suicide bomber and 2 American servicemen were killed.Three attacks by the same method against American interests in the same city within a 17 month period.Nobody called for Reagan’s impeachment.
The Republicans have used Benghazi to attack President Obama and especially Hillary Clinton to undermine her presidential bid. The simple truth is, Benghazi was not Stare Department operation but a CIA one.Of the 35 personnel there, 28 were either CIA operatives or CIA contract employees. It wasn’t even a consulate as some have reported for the following 2 reasons:1- It did not provide consular services to Americans living or visiting Benghazi or Libyans wanting to travel to the US.2- It was not accredited by the host nation, Libya, as a consulate.-http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204712904578092853621061838?mobile=y
.In March 2012, US diplomats moved their operations to Tripoli. Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy, a career diplomat who had held the same position in the Bush Administration, designated the Benghazi compound as a “Special Diplomatic Mission” to provide the CIA cover. The CIA’s main operation in Benghazi was to disarm the Islamist militias. Benghazi had already become extremely unsafe before the September 11, 2012 attack.- On June 12, 2012 a British diplomatic convoy carrying the British Ambassador to Libya was attacked — 2 British security officers were injured.- On June 18, 2012, the Tunisian consulate in Benghazi was stormed by individuals affiliated with Ansar Al-Sharia Libya, allegedly because of “attacks by Tunisian artists against Islam.” (“Benghazi: The Definitive Report” by Brandon Webb)-IRS — So far, there is no proof that White House or any other political appointees requested the IRS to go after Tea Party groups. The highest ranking official so far questioned is a career civil servant.-NSA — If you did not speak out when the Patriot Act was passed, you cannot put on an act of righteous indignation now.The NSA has been doing this since the 1980s if not longer.-VA — In 2007, the Washington Post reported how miserable care wounded servicemen and women were receiving at Walter Reed Hospital. As horrible and tragic as that was, it was not grounds to impeach the President.
Balrog910 over 10 years ago
So, he was “really creepy” I guess he wasn’t too “creepy” to represent William Sloan Coffin when he was accused of representing Yale draft dodgers. The Doonesbury character “Scot” might feel differently than you.
David Huie Green LoveJoyAndPeace over 10 years ago
The Supreme Court is by definition never wrong.In this case, an attempt to change the voting rules after the vote should have been obviously wrong but it wasn’t obvious to you even though I suspect you would disapprove of such an attempt if Republicans were trying to change the rules to take away a Democrat victory..The American people voted to certify the election by voting to reelect GWB four years later. All would have been moot if more Floridians had favored either Gore or Bush. All would have been moot if the people of Tennessee could have brought themselves to vote for their Favorite Son..and I think you meant “precident” but am not sure.