Specter: No talk of impeachment b/c Bush is "making a good-faith effort."

[expatriot]

Oh my god. Just when you think Republicans can't lower the bar any further on their expectations for a President.

Specter, speaking in general terms, noted that impeachment and criminal prosecution are possibilities in the event a president acted unconstitutionally.

But Specter added: "I don't see any talk about impeachment here. I don't think anyone doubts the president is making a good-faith effort. He's acting in a way that he feels he must."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060115/ap_on_go_co/domestic_spying

[pinkpops]

1. somebody remind me - how did this highly principled senator

vote on the Clinton impeachment?
Didn't Clinton ask as he felt he should?
Is it all based on how the president views his own actions?

[Kahuna]

2. Not only did he vote for impeachment but wanted to impeach Clinton AGAIN..

after he was out of office for the Mark Rich pardon.

[hopein08]

16. Actually, he voted NOT GUILTY on Clinton's impeachment...

please refer to the tally here: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.vote/

Specter voted "not guilty" on both counts. As I remember it, Specter wanted to vote "present" but Rehnquist said a "present" vote would count as "guilty" so Specter went with "not guilty."

I don't know anything about the Mark Rich thing.

[wakeme2008]

3. Then lets see the names the secret Court turned down

for wipetaps....

If Bush has nothing to hide, then why did he go around the secret Court.

[Turbineguy]

4. Hmmm.........

I always thought that was spelled "Spectre". Am I confused or what?

[pinkpops]

5. Spectre is haunting Europe

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. Actually, these days it's spelled "Sphincter."

[Jeffersons Ghost]

9. Actually...

In context to the American voter, the term "sphincter" is now used very loosely. We can expect the trend to continue as long as a tyrant runs the country.

[Benhurst]

7. "He's acting in a way that he feels he must."

So was Hitler.

[thefool_wa]

8. WTF!

Wow, so you make a "good faith effort" in breaking the law and its ok. The last time I checked they didn't ask crack dealers if they were selling drugs to feed their families. If they were, would that be ok? F*ck no it wouldn't.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and we have laws that govern our government for a reason. To trample on those laws, in the name of any cause is still a criminal offense to which GW can, should, and will be held accountable.

If the Congress will not hold him accountable, then they are obviously so corrupt as to be irrelevant and in need of replacing. You figure out how.

[leesa]

10. To what? Destroy the planet?

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. My God. Our country has been taken over. We don't have a democray.

We have the Truman show.

[paineinthearse]

12. Bullshit. Specter is obviously not reading Conyers

Conyers' piece on impeachment was posted at
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5713341

...but it has been deleted.

:shrug:

[chapel hill dem]

13. The hearings are designed to immunize Bush. They will "find" that Bush

probably should have gone through the courts but, in time of "war" (whatever that is...), the President's hands should not be tied.

The result will be a "no harm - no foul" non-binding conclusion (with a "don't do it again" message) that will diffuse any significant impeachment momentum.

The above is my bet in the office pool.

[tsuki]

14. Bubbleboy has been convinced by the cabal that no matter what

he does now, his legacy will be that of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR. His good faith effort is only to insure his "supposed" legacy. Arlen, I thought a close brush with death would open your eyes as it did mine. You're the same POS that you were during the Thomas hearings.

[NativeTexan]

15. And lying about oral sex.....

...WAS???? This idea that there is ONE set of rules for GREAT PRESIDENTS, and ANOTHER set of rules for BUSH.....I am actually understanding why the Founding Fathers felt it necessary to take up arms against THEIR crooked King!!

[gulliver]

17. It's exactly what I expected. Spygate will be a loser for the Dems...

... unless they manage to focus on their strengths:

1) What has Bush's spying accomplished? Bush practically says it's more important to the human species than oxygen. Well, let's find out whether he's full of sh*t or not by making him prove something worthwhile has come of it. I think he's bluffing. I think he kept this from Congress and the courts and got nothing out of it, then built it up into a big deal for PR purposes.

2) Was the law broken?

3) Were any of Bush's political opponents tapped? How about Fitzpatrick? If these people's communications were tapped, however incidentally, Bush is toast. No one will buy the nuanced explanations.

Otherwise, we are looking at Constitutional Armageddon: A population that simply accepts the Presidents claimed right to break the law without any oversight from the other branches.

On the bright side, the NSA leakers obviously think that Bush was breaking the law, and they were in a position to know whether Bush did so gratuitously. Also, the NYT did not buy Bush's claim that the taps were vital to national security and legal. Given the NYT's life lately, I have to think they checked it with some serious money.