I received another chance to sign a petition to subpeona the Vice President and if he fails to respond, to impeach him.
If there is anything this administration needs, its a nice trimming of the fourth branch to help the tree of state regain its health.
But when there is an attack on this administration, they circle the wagons and make it hard to do anything else but fight their parries and ploys.
Justice grinds slowly. I'm more inclined to want the Congress to try to undo the many things their predcessors and the administration have done the past six and a half years. There are too many matters being ignored that continue to benefit the powerful interests that got their way.
Like Barac Obama, I would leave impeachment for something so heinous that it could not be spun. Our experience watching the time and energy wasted during the Clinton impeachment nonsense should teach us to use that tool sparingly. There are better things to do.
On the other hand, I can see this administration pushing to attack Iran in order to protect Israel, even if Iran does not attack us.
This talk about Iran supplying insurgents is so unbalanced I could scream. Who is supplying the Al Quaeda and Sunni insurgency? Why isn't the press reminding everyone that there is that side (not long ago pegged as causing over 90 percent of our casualties) of the problem?
I figure it would take nearly two years to carry forward an impeachment proceeding. During that time, this administration could go ahead with bombing Iran anytime it wanted to.
So I won't sign the petition to impeach the Vice President. Hopefully, wise heads will do all they can to prevent the cataclism called for by the neocons and Joe Lieberman.
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Monday, June 4, 2007
Rep. Jefferson and U. S. Attorneys
Anyone watching the news over the past two years has a clear impression that the frozen packages of dollars in Louisiana Representative William Jefferson's freezer is prima facie evidence he's guilty.
The news media seems to accept that and report any new information with a presumption of guilt.
Before we get caught up in the laundry list handed out by the U. S. Attorney pursuing the case, we better be careful not to be trapped into becoming a public jury who has already convicted Representative Jefferson.
In my experience as an advocate for pastors in trouble, I discovered how easy it was to believe the first reading of the complaint. That's natural, unfortunately. But even what appears to be decisive evidence has not been tested in court before a real jury who watch as evidence is brought and cross examination occurs in the search for truth.
Prosecutors try to poison the well of public opinion (too readily supported by some media) and to influence prospective jurors. The defense is put in a position of having to mount a media defense before they even have all the information the prosecution has. If you were the accused, you'd be rather put out by these realities.
But what makes the Jefferson case so difficult for us is that the Attorney General's office and U. S. Attorneys in particular have been so compromised by politicization that we must be especially careful of all their public statements. That loss of credibility will be a barrier the prosecution will have to overcome down the road in court, if indeed it can.
Now is their best chance to manipulate the news. Representative Jefferson will be so buried by the publicity that even if the court finds him not guilty, who will believe the jury?
Today comes the Republican Minority Leader calling on the Democrats to hold an ethics hearing within 30 days to rule on the Representative's seat in the house.
That sounds so reasonable. Why shouldn't the Democrats face up to one of their own being guilty of corruption? The Dems made ending corruption a high priority in the 2006 elections.
What if the ethics committee does meet and makes a decision before the court meets?
If the ethics committee exonerates Jefferson, the Repubs can scream favoritism because "they protected their own," NO MATTER WHAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE.
If the ethics committee comes out against Jefferson, a tempting option given how much public opinion has been stacked against him, then the Repubs will be able to claim some kind of high ground while at the same time prejudicing the court with the ethics committee's "mini-conviction."
Most institutions have some form of suspension which in itself appears prejudicial. The suspension usually lasts until the court deals with the case. As slowly as justice grinds, that's a long time. A suspension is in order if the accused face charges that were directly related to their job performance.
Because not all accusations are relevant to the job, suspension may not be appropriate.
Tell that to a hostile public.
If the ethics committee does not meet, they will look like they are unwilling to face the problem.
Almost no matter what the ethics committee does, the decision would be treated politically. Representative Jefferson will not come out looking good or be helped in his defense.
The credibilty problem caused by the current administration makes everything they do questionable. What a shame.
I lived in Louisiana for years and heard many of the stories of corruption amongst the dominant Democratic Party (many of whom became Republican after Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Bill). The tradition for any Louisiana politician to use office creatively for personal benefit is very real and a problem for all Pelican State politicians.
Some politicians do things because they have the chance by virtue of their elected office. They are not just from one party. Greed is not Republican or Democratic.
But neither should justice be!
The news media seems to accept that and report any new information with a presumption of guilt.
Before we get caught up in the laundry list handed out by the U. S. Attorney pursuing the case, we better be careful not to be trapped into becoming a public jury who has already convicted Representative Jefferson.
In my experience as an advocate for pastors in trouble, I discovered how easy it was to believe the first reading of the complaint. That's natural, unfortunately. But even what appears to be decisive evidence has not been tested in court before a real jury who watch as evidence is brought and cross examination occurs in the search for truth.
Prosecutors try to poison the well of public opinion (too readily supported by some media) and to influence prospective jurors. The defense is put in a position of having to mount a media defense before they even have all the information the prosecution has. If you were the accused, you'd be rather put out by these realities.
But what makes the Jefferson case so difficult for us is that the Attorney General's office and U. S. Attorneys in particular have been so compromised by politicization that we must be especially careful of all their public statements. That loss of credibility will be a barrier the prosecution will have to overcome down the road in court, if indeed it can.
Now is their best chance to manipulate the news. Representative Jefferson will be so buried by the publicity that even if the court finds him not guilty, who will believe the jury?
Today comes the Republican Minority Leader calling on the Democrats to hold an ethics hearing within 30 days to rule on the Representative's seat in the house.
That sounds so reasonable. Why shouldn't the Democrats face up to one of their own being guilty of corruption? The Dems made ending corruption a high priority in the 2006 elections.
What if the ethics committee does meet and makes a decision before the court meets?
If the ethics committee exonerates Jefferson, the Repubs can scream favoritism because "they protected their own," NO MATTER WHAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE.
If the ethics committee comes out against Jefferson, a tempting option given how much public opinion has been stacked against him, then the Repubs will be able to claim some kind of high ground while at the same time prejudicing the court with the ethics committee's "mini-conviction."
Most institutions have some form of suspension which in itself appears prejudicial. The suspension usually lasts until the court deals with the case. As slowly as justice grinds, that's a long time. A suspension is in order if the accused face charges that were directly related to their job performance.
Because not all accusations are relevant to the job, suspension may not be appropriate.
Tell that to a hostile public.
If the ethics committee does not meet, they will look like they are unwilling to face the problem.
Almost no matter what the ethics committee does, the decision would be treated politically. Representative Jefferson will not come out looking good or be helped in his defense.
The credibilty problem caused by the current administration makes everything they do questionable. What a shame.
I lived in Louisiana for years and heard many of the stories of corruption amongst the dominant Democratic Party (many of whom became Republican after Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Bill). The tradition for any Louisiana politician to use office creatively for personal benefit is very real and a problem for all Pelican State politicians.
Some politicians do things because they have the chance by virtue of their elected office. They are not just from one party. Greed is not Republican or Democratic.
But neither should justice be!
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Congress and Defunding the Iraq Occupation
We all have such short memories.
To get out of Viet Nam, Congress passed a series of defunding bills. They cut funding for the huge land force. They funded only bombing from Guam. They funded "Vietnamization," that is, requiring the build up of security capability by the South Vietnamese. Then they finally pulled the plug.
I believe many of the Democrats who voted for the Iraq military funding bill last week, despite loud voices from the left, did so because President Bush acquiesced on short term funding, on funding care for veterans, and not vetoing the minumum wage add-on. Imagine, the President actually bent! That's the big story of this recent funding bill.
President Bush wants time to be the winner of that war. I would bet that he has been talking to his staff about leaving Iraq on a high note where there is relative peace in Baghdad and where the parliament has voted some kind of sharing arrangement for oil revenues. Then he can say we won. Why should Democrats get the credit for ending the war!
There is a chance the insurgency will cause so much havoc that even General Patraeus can't make it sound like a success. There is a chance the Iraqi parliament will not want any major decision to be made while the occupation is in full effect.
And do not doubt the President will face a bi-partisan Congress that will pass a veto-proof defunding bill in September.
The myth is that such a vote fails to support the troops. Even some big-name Democrats who know better played along with that myth in order to justify their vote for the current bill.
Maybe they couldn't say publicly that any defunding bill would have funding for safe withdrawal and deployments that make sense given how depleted our military resources are becoming.
They better start saying it soon or the Republicans will continue to call the Dems "cut and runners" and eventually blame the Democrats for "losing" the "war" in Iraq.
To get out of Viet Nam, Congress passed a series of defunding bills. They cut funding for the huge land force. They funded only bombing from Guam. They funded "Vietnamization," that is, requiring the build up of security capability by the South Vietnamese. Then they finally pulled the plug.
I believe many of the Democrats who voted for the Iraq military funding bill last week, despite loud voices from the left, did so because President Bush acquiesced on short term funding, on funding care for veterans, and not vetoing the minumum wage add-on. Imagine, the President actually bent! That's the big story of this recent funding bill.
President Bush wants time to be the winner of that war. I would bet that he has been talking to his staff about leaving Iraq on a high note where there is relative peace in Baghdad and where the parliament has voted some kind of sharing arrangement for oil revenues. Then he can say we won. Why should Democrats get the credit for ending the war!
There is a chance the insurgency will cause so much havoc that even General Patraeus can't make it sound like a success. There is a chance the Iraqi parliament will not want any major decision to be made while the occupation is in full effect.
And do not doubt the President will face a bi-partisan Congress that will pass a veto-proof defunding bill in September.
The myth is that such a vote fails to support the troops. Even some big-name Democrats who know better played along with that myth in order to justify their vote for the current bill.
Maybe they couldn't say publicly that any defunding bill would have funding for safe withdrawal and deployments that make sense given how depleted our military resources are becoming.
They better start saying it soon or the Republicans will continue to call the Dems "cut and runners" and eventually blame the Democrats for "losing" the "war" in Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)