I'm not going to get into the Clinton vs Bush lies because

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Martin Garbus

Wed Dec 28, 1:41 PM ET

An hour after the New York Times described Bush�s illegal surveillance program, I wrote on the Huffington Post that Bush had committed a crime, a �High Crime,� and should be impeached.

Was there then enough evidence to justify the beginning of an attempt to impeach the President?

No.

Did the President have a good defense that he relied on Gonzalez, Ashcroft and the best lawyers in the country (in the Solicitor General�s and Department of Justice�s offices)?

Yes.

Would any significant number of Americans of Congressmen then support such a process?

No.

Given all that, would the turmoil and consequential turmoil have justified the start of that brutal process?

No.

But that has all changed.

Because we shall soon see the consequences of those warrantless searches, the consequences of the government�s five years of secrecy, and even the citizens of the �Red States� will be outraged. Firstly, the warrantless taps will infect hundreds of �terrorist� and criminal cases throughout the country. Not only future cases, but past and present cases, even if there were convictions or plea bargains after the survellance started.

The defendants in �terrorist� and other infected criminal cases, the Court must find, must get access to everything, or very close to everything to make sure they were never improperly surveilled.

The Bush Administration, in these cases will refuse, as did the Nixon administration, to divulge information on national security grounds. Many alleged critical cases must then be dismissed. It will include Organized Crime and drug cases.

The entire criminal process will be brought to a standstill. Cases that should take six months to a year, will take three times as long, as motions go up and down the appellate ladder � as federal judges trial disagree with each other. Appellate Courts will disagree on issues so novel and so important that the Supreme Court will look at them.

Secondly, there will be an endless amounts of civil suits, that we can see will result in substantial damage awards. Commentators claimed there cannot be suits because no one has standing to challenge the surveillance. They are wrong. They do not remember the history of the Palmer Raids in the 1920�s, the surveillance in the Sixties and Seventies. The future will show both the enormous information the new technology has gathered but also the dishonest minimization of the extent of the surveillance.

That minimization is standard operating procedure for governments, whether they be run by Democrats or Republicans.

Thirdly, and most importantly, it is safe to preduct there will be coverups. This administration is not known for its candor.

The coverup starts by trying to get away with the vauge and meaningless defenses. Both Nixon and Clinton tried that.

When that doesn�t work, the coverup will be based on a foundation of small lies. Both Nixon and Clinton tried that.

We do not yet know what the FISA judges already fear � that they have been not just ignored by the executive but misused. The public shall also learn about the FISA judges� misuse of the FISA courts and their warrants. The courts were created to permit eavesdropping and electronic surveillance, not physical break-ins.

But the facts will show that the Bush administration, with the knowledge, and at times, the consent of, the FISA judges, conducted illegal physical break-ins - break-ins that to this day, the involved person, is unaware of.

Were the results of these �terrorist� break-ins then given to criminal authorities to start unrelated prosecutions? Of course.

The American public will also learn what this Administration has thus far successfully hidden. When Bush came into office, he signed an Exeutive Order making all of his, and his father�s, papers privileged. The order, extending 12 years out, also says if the President is incapacitated, then a third person can execute the privilege. This means anybody � a wife, a family lawyer, a child. The order also says the Vice President�s papers are privileged. It is an extraordinary Executive Order � this has never been anything like this. No one ever suggested a Vice President has executive privilege. If we do not find out what they are hiding, we will see witholding on a scale never before seen. He will no longer be able to use 9/11 and the war on terror as an excuse. It will confirm the fact that illegality and secrecy existed long before 9/11, that it started as soon as Bush-Cheney-Rumsfield got into office. It will show deliberate attempts to avoid any judicial or legislative oversight of the illegal use of executive privilege.

Impeachment procedures will come not because of wrongdoing but because of the discovery of lies.

Both Nixon and Cliton faced impeachments because they lied.

It was inconceivable before the Nixon and Clinton impeachment procedures began that there could be, or would be a country or Senate that would be responsive to it.

In the Nixon case, it spiraled from a petty break-in � in Clinton�s case from a petty sexual act.

But what Bush has done, and will do, to protect himself is not petty. It goes to the heart of the government. He already has a history of misleading the public on the searches conducted thus far. As he and his colleagues seek to minimize the vast amount of data collection, the lies will necessarily expand to cover the wrongdoing. Bush can be brought down.

Again, GT brought the whole subject up about presidential integrity. I just wanted to see GT's feeling about what Clinton did, but of course, GT justified Clinton's lies which was what I fully expected. Again, Bush hasn't been proven to lie. Like I have said several times before on this board I will be the first to cry uncle if Bush is proven to have lied by investigation and that doesn't include accusations and conjecture by liberal politicians, grieving mothers, or leftist bloggers.

Clinton gave us 8 years of peace and prosperity DESPITE the opposition of the neocons throughout his administration. Bush failed over and over again DESPITE having party control of both houses. The leadership ability simply speaks for itself. Looking forward to Hill and Bill in charge again. The neocon fanatics have destroyed themselves by their own hand. So be it.

Bill Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating. George W. Bush has an approval rating of 28% and still falling.

Now, what Americans need to understand is that that means every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina and our tax cuts, Clinton added. We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don't think it makes any sense. I think it's wrong.

Clinton also discussed bringing world leaders together to combat the world's chronic problems � including extreme poverty, global warming and religious conflicts � as well as the Hurricane Katrina recovery effort and Hillary Clinton's political future.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We're here on your initiative, and I want to talk about that, but let's begin with Katrina. President Bush has brought you into the recovery effort, but he's not taking all of your advice. You say roll back the tax cuts for the wealthy. He says no tax increase of any kind. We're spending $5 billion a month in Iraq, probably $200 billion on Katrina. Something's got to give.

CLINTON: Well, that's what I think. I think this idea � I think it's very important that Americans understand, you know, tax cuts are always popular, but about half of these tax cuts since 2001 have gone to people in my income group, the top 1 percent. I've gotten four tax cuts.

They're responsible for this big structural deficit, and they're not going away, the deficits aren't. Now, what Americans need to understand is that that means every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina and our tax cuts. We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else.

CLINTON: They should continue to oppose it, and they should make it an issue in the 2006 election, and they should make it an issue in the 2008 election. And they should hope, to goodness, for the sake of our country, that the cows don't come home before we have time to rectify it.

I mean, sooner or later, just think what would happen if the Chinese � We're pressing the Chinese now, a country not nearly rich as America per capita, to keep loaning us money with low interest to cover my tax cut, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Katrina and at the same time to raise the value of their currency so their imports into our country will become more expensive, and our exports to them will become less expensive. And by the way, we don't want to let them buy any oil companies or anything like that.

So what if they just got tired of buying our debt? What if the Japanese got tired of doing it? Japan's economy is beginning to grow again. Suppose they decided they wanted to keep some of their money at home and invest it in Japan, because they're starting to grow?

We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don't think it makes any sense. I think it's wrong.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is there anything coming out of this initiative here that you can apply directly to Katrina and the poverty we saw revealed there?

CLINTON: Oh, yes, we have raised quite a bit of money for Katrina here. And former President Bush and I, you know, we were asked to raise money. We already have $90 million to $100 million. And what we're trying to do is make sure that our money goes directly to the poorest people who have been dislodged by working with church groups and others. We're working on some mechanisms now to do that, and we'll have some announcements in the next week or so.

But I think there will be a lot of money coming forward from the federal government. A lot of it will be necessary, you know, to build the infrastructure, rebuild the fabric of life and not simply in New Orleans but along the Gulf Coast.

CLINTON: Yes; you know, keep in mind, Mississippi was devastated. Everything from a mile in Mississippi was blown down, and Alabama, but we've got to do that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Excuse me; the problems of race that were tied to poverty here, and I know you don't think there's any conscious racism at play in the response, but we saw one more time blacks and whites looked at this event through very different eyes. What can President Bush do about that, and looking back, do you think there was anything more you could have done as president?

CLINTON: Well, I think we did a good job of that. For example, we had the lowest African-American unemployment, the lowest African-American poverty rate ever recorded. We had the highest homeownership, highest business ownership, and we moved 100 times as many people out of poverty in eight years as had been moved out in the previous 12 years.

This is a matter of public policy, and whether it's race-based or not, if you give your tax cuts to the rich and hope everything works out all right, and poverty goes up, and it disproportionately affects black and brown people, that's a consequence of the action made. That's what they did in the '80s; that's what they've done in this decade.

As much as you want to blame Bill Clinton......don't forget who held the reins for the last 8 years......who let them run amuck? Why was nothing done?

Check out the mortgage failures.
Tell me which failed more, prime or subprime
Tell me what is the rate of failures under the CRA or even Bush's ADDI (which i attack alll the time)
Once again, REALITY AND THE DATA doesn't fit ya'lls claims.

Basically what happened was.. we reformed bankruptcy laws.. so that people who ran into dire straights could not restructure.

We packaged the loans into commodity derivatives. These are sorta mirror bets on the loans. Sorta..as the same loan will be sold many times in many derivative packages.. that's why the housing derivatives are worth more than all the real estate in the US. Derivatives are actually not that bad.. when a market is stable and only has to deal with natural forces. The housing market was bubbled.. partially due to low interest rates that encouraged everyone to buy, even the rich, and partially due to the CRA and the ADDI.. which did add customers to the market (helping form the bubble was the extent the CRA and the ADDI had in this mess)

All it took was a few failures to pop the bubble..and make real estate prices drop,. and mind you, it was mainly prime loans (READ not loans given to poor people and not loans under the CRA) that failed. The derivative market.,.which like I said, is really mirrors of the same loans.. cause the defaults to explode with ten times the ferocity, because one loan could effect the price of dozens of derivatives.

Really the poor and even irresponsible people .. simply did not have the economic ability to cause this mess. Pool all their money together and waste it on hookers.. it would have zero effect without help from the rich elites and their magnifying packaged derivatives.

THE CRA and ADDI both had stricter requirements than loans you got from normal banks.. both required income data.. where many prime loans did not.. they also greatly limited you on how much home you could purchase..whereas private banks did not care if you tried to buy something you could not afford.
Don't believe me?.. Look in the phone book.. call your own housing authority - you can get a loan for 106% the purchase price of a home even today.. if you're poor enough.

Ask to hear the red tape and hoops you must go through.. Heck, it is probably easier to just get a real job and earn real money than go through the FHA.

Remember this from back in June??? There were several more after this one, also, requesting libs stick to libs board and cons stick to cons board. What part don't you understand?

You surely are an idiot and you lie. Stay off the board and slink back to your pack of liars.

How about we suggest a no-lying board. Oh yes, there is one already. It's called the liberal board.

This page is for the use of Conservatives. Please do not bash their posts. There are other boards

where you can post your views. For example, if you are Liberal, post on the Liberals board, etc.

The only folks on the CON board who were noted to be acting like kids/teenagers were the CONS.

Truth is welcomed here. Please take any untruths back to the CON board or better yet, keep them yourself. It's only fair and right, correct?

8. �My plan unlocks the door to the middle class of millions of hard-working Americans.�

7. �This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research.�

6. �We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September the 11th.�

5. �[We are] taking every possible step to protect our country from danger.�

3. �Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.� And, �[Saddam Hussein is] a threat because he is dealing with AL Qaeda.�

This is a great post. I agree with gourdpainter. A lot of people ask me why I am not voting for McCain and I tell them because he lies. People always say to me that all politicians lie. I then inform them that Obama is different than most politicians and he isn't a liar. They laugh but when I ask them to name something he has lied about, they can't think of anything. Remember in the debate when McCain said Obama was seeking a $3 million earmark for an overhead projector? That wasn't just any overhead projector - it was for the Adler Planetarium. Imagine all the education children receive from that planetarium too. It amazes me when some of you try to make Obama out to be so sinister.

...and have you noticed how she's parsing her words ala Bill Clinton? Depends on the meanings of 'used,' 'would be used,' 'may be used,' 'has not been used' are.

Typical politician prevarication. They never expect to be caught and when they are they backpedal to beat the band. Does she really think we're stupid enough to believe she was briefed on waterboarding as an example of a practice we would not be using? Would she like us to believe she was so stupid she did not understand the importance of what she was shown? Either way, not a ringing endorsement of Ms. Pelosi. God knows the power mad creature has made few friends in either party over the years. Wonder of her party will use this as a way to disgrace her and get the reins out of her hands. Can't wait to see how this plays out.

I was able to get the link to work. You were not. So something is wrong with me.

DAYTON, Ohio - Escalating its efforts to portray Senator Barack Obama as a candidate whose values fall outside the mainstream, the campaign of Senator John McCain on Tuesday unveiled a new television advertisement claiming that Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee, favors �comprehensive sex education� for kindergarten students.

�Learning about sex before learning to read?� the narrator asks in the 30-second advertisement, which the campaign says will be shown in battleground states and on national cable. The commercial also asserts that a sex-education bill introduced in Illinois, which Mr. Obama did not sponsor and which never became law, is his �one accomplishment� in the field of education.

can be verified. People who want to know the truth should do their own research and not just believe what some people on this board would like them to believe.

I come (used to come) to this board to hear about the candidates. Instead all I'm reading lately is posters attacking others for posting their viewpoints. Someone posts something about Obama and the O supporters attack them "lies" they call them. They don't defend Obama but instead insult and attack the poster. Then they come out and say "oh poor me, you just hate Obama, your so insulting" while at the same time calling them every name in the book. What I'm hearing is the republicans are trying to shed some light on what Obama is but some of the democrats don't want to hear it and already exclaim that Obama has won. They are condescending towards anyone who has a different viewpoint than theirs. They won't read anything that has negative things to say about Obama and they won't read anything that has anything positive to say about McCain. It's just hate-filled spew that comes out. You'll cite polls if they favor Obama, and if they favor McCain you ignore them. You won't even admit that the race is too close to call. In your minds Obama has already won the election. You'll support cheating if it favors Obama and condemn it if it favors McCain. You'd rather live your lives having government regulate your lives, tell you what you can and cannot do, and take all your money to give a check to the people who are able to work but won't because why should they since they are receiving a check from government, while you are being told its your patriotic duty to give to these poor fellow Americans. You'd rather have an inexperienced radical person running the country than someone who has experience and has shown by his voting record that he fights for the American people. Yet not giving any reason (being older is not a reason). I have not yet read any posts that are positive reasons for Obama being president, just hate-filled garbage against Palin. Also makes me wonder why people are trying to keep Biden out of the spotlight. Makes me want to find out more about what he's done in the past.

So I have decided to give the board a rest for awhile and will be back to vist after the election is over. I'm no longer getting any valuable information here. We have not had an election yet. The polls are too close to call and even then you can't rely on the polls to give you accurate information (after all these polls are incuding all the dead people, pets, Santa Claus, Mary Poppins, Rama Dama Ding Dong, and all the other fictitious people, not to mention the people who registered 13 and 14 times or more as a democrat) in their polls. I remember back in 2000 everyone was claiming Gore had won the election and it was very very close and look what happened. He lost.

I will also continue to listen to all stations, and read all articles so I can at least get a fair and balance opinion of what is going on.

So have at it y'all. You seem to love attacking people for no reason and when I read these posts I can really feel the negativity and hatred oozing. So maybe I'll just stick to the Gab board - I need some more positive vibes.

P.S. - Just one more note. Whoever wins will win, and whether it is democrat or republican we will deal with it. When a democrat has won in the past there were no riots, republicans continued to try to work with the democrats, but we all know what happened the last two times a republican won. As for the threats of "if Obama doesn't win there's going to be rioting in the streets". Well if that does happen that goes to show you how many biggots wanted him in just because he's black - all the things they claim don't matter will come out.