Comments on: Meet the Bloggers and SendKarlRoveToJail.com

By: rincewind

rincewind — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:26:30 +0000

LOL! — I’m just bitter and jealous that I’m stuck at home working.

If Conyers is really going to hold a hearing next Friday, this coming week looks like a great time to thrash through some of these points.

By: JohnLopresti

JohnLopresti — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:16:42 +0000

re(2): the OT business about law sausage, when I worked with the state legislature legislators themselves had access to ‘mark-ups’ of draft legislation in a timely way simply by asking the sergeant-at-arms for a copy fresh off the press. Renditions like govtrack provides for neoFISA assume the reader has a standardized reference version of the original code; working from materials like the linked govtrack item makes lucid blogging discussing time consuming and in places impossible when references are missing. The entire process congress is doing needs to be more html savvy and open to the public, so our evaluations can be timely.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:04:12 +0000

Excellent point. I am a moron. You are really going to make me go read this crap aren’t you? Jeebus, I am going to have to so I don’t made an idiot of myself again. I knew that. Crikey. See what too many margaritas do to you?

By: JohnLopresti

JohnLopresti — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:43:20 +0000

I wish Aftergood would develop a new archive for olc materials, as fas has accomplished for several categories of CRS studies. Like the CRS papers, some olc opinions are well written and documented, like finding a good thesis, or excellent website. Ew’s video reminded me of this again, kind of like the way it seems reassuring that the US system of government places civilians in control of the pentagon. I studied several years with a civilian who earlier had worked in intell there in a military capacity. The link to the Nixon materials I put @35 above provides an interesting glimpse of the way Nixon was attempting to radicalize Scotus with his selection of olc’s Rehnquist with Mitchell’s help.

re the OT mention of the old and new FISA schematic, those diagrams tend toward 2-dimension interpretation and fail to account for the specifics of minimization. I have been looking for a readable version of the one congress passed or a rewritten 50 USC 1805; the version wais downloads dates to last revision in 1999. Timothy Lee wrote a nice summary of neoFisa for arsTechnica two weeks ago.

By: rincewind

rincewind — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:21:19 +0000

(Thanks to both of you for checking back — I’m glad I’m not just talking to myself ;> )

I don’t see how a “two-step” impeachment could work; Sec 4 is blunt and unambiguous:

The President, Vice-President and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of [….]

There’s no leeway in there for a “partial” impeachment (just as, in my opinion, there’s no leeway in the Constitution for “partial” restriction of executive powers). I think it’s all-or-nothing.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:17:53 +0000

I am leaning to thinking that the remedy could be as we are discussing, and Marcy suggests, but that it can only be procedurally implemented via an actual vote of impeachment for that initial pardon offense. Sort of having a quickie impeachment trial on that offense, convicting on that alone, and entering that suspension or restriction as a term/condition of sentence while the greater case is considered.

By: rincewind

rincewind — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:50:36 +0000

Totally flogging a very dead horse (and I know you’re in Austin, hope you’re having a blast!), maybe we can tear into this next week and get the lawyers’ contributions?

I just don’t find any reason to believe that there’s anything in the Constitution or the law to suspend or restrict the executive pardon power. As long as he’s the President, he has it. I agree that to USE it in that case would be an impeachable offense, and most likely prosecutable obstruction of justice — but those actions would necessarily come after the pardon was granted, and IMVHO, that’s as it should be. Wouldn’t it be the equivalent of “prior restraint” if you try to stop someone from doing a legal thing that you suspect might have a criminal consequence?

A murkier question, in my mind, is whether the pardon — legal when granted — would be nullified by a subsequent impeachment/conviction and/or prosecution based on that pardon being an obstruction of justice? (which brings us full circle to Ford’s pre-emptive blanket pardon….)

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:27:25 +0000

Actually, I take that back–not even a MOnica pardon would be apt. The point is that with Libby he abused a fundamental authority of the presidency. And that if you were investigating him specifically about that, then he could not then continue to abuse that authority.

I think you can make the case. The larger one you’re arguing against–that the president loses pardon ability if he is impeached (with no mention of why) I agree with you, he retains his authority to pardon.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:03:40 +0000

Yup

FWIW, I don’t think the Clinton thing is apt here–Had Clinton pardoned Monica, it might be.
I agree that there would be an argument about it. But I do think that, in the very narrow case of when you were impeaching someone for misuse of pardon power, then he couldn’t then pardon more people to try to avoid impeachment.

By: obsessed

obsessed — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 07:22:03 +0000

Great job EW – you’re getting smoother and more confident with each appearance.