Bizarre, Congress, Constitutional Law, Media, Politics

Hearing Or Elephant? Washington Post Portrays Republicans At Presidential Abuse Hearing As Impeachment Obsessed

220px-Republicanlogo.svg220px-Washington_Post_buildingThe Washington Post has a controversial take on yesterday’s hearing in its coverage by Dana Milbank. The hearing raised the serious question of a pattern of allegedly unconstitutional actions by President Obama in either barring enforcement of federal law or directly violating those laws. However, the Washington Post only reported on the fact that impeachment was raised in the hearing in the discussion of the constitutional means left to Congress to address presidential abuse. Republicans object that the Post piece misses 99 percent of the hearing detailing the rise of an imperial presidency under Obama and four hours of discussion of the dangerous shift of power in the tripartite system. Impeachment or presidential abuse. It seems that two hearings occurred simultaneously. Both sides appear to be claiming the other is blinded by bias. The Milbank and Republican accounts appear a modern version of the parable of the elephant and the six blind men.


Now, I was the lead witness but I was testifying through the haze of a raging flu. So I went back and checked. Impeachment was mentioned in passing but it was quickly discounted. Indeed, I specifically testified that, as someone who testified at the Clinton impeachment, I did not view such a measure as warranted given the ambiguity of past decisions. Indeed, the references to impeachment were made in the context of the loss of meaningful options for Congress to respond to such encroachments when the President reserved the right to suspend portions of laws and fought access to the courts in challenging such decisions. Yet, the Post simply reported that the word impeachment came up (not surprisingly) in a discussion of the options given by Framers to Congress in dealing with unlawful presidential conduct.

During the hearing, not only did I discount impeachment as an option, but a Democratic member specifically asked the panel about the references to impeachment. No one could remember how it came up but it was clear that no one thought it was a substantial issue — or significant part of the hearing.

It is certainly true that House members have raised impeachment issues previously (just as some Democrats raised impeachment during the Bush Administration).  However, it actually came up little in the hearing which was 99 percent focused on the separation of powers and the rise of an uber-presidency under Bush and Obama.

In a discussion of checks on the presidency, impeachment is one of the enumerated options given to Congress. Notably, past judicial opinions involving such separation of powers controversies have also discussed impeachment with the power of the purse as devices given to the Congress. In discussing impeachment with these other powers, courts were not advocating impeachment or suggesting that it was a viable solution in that given case.

I understand that Milbank tries to offer humorous takes on hearings and this is an editorial. I often enjoy his wit. However, it left a rather distortive impression of the hearing that tossed aside hours of substantive discussion of the real problem faced by Congress. Notably, Republicans at the hearing criticized both Bush and Obama for this trend, which I thought was noteworthy.

What was also curious was Milbank’s quote of my testimony. He stated “[t]he majority’s witnesses added to the accusations. George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley said Obama had ‘claimed the right of the king to essentially stand above the law.'” What is missing is that I was discussing the controversy involving James I and expressly said that I was not suggesting that Obama was acting as a King. Rather, I was discussing the so-called “royal prerogative” to stand above the law and how that general controversy motivated the Framers some 150 years later to include the “Take Care” clause. This was later referred to as a “dispensing power” in the context of presidential excesses. This was also part of my written testimony posted earlier. In fairness of Milbank, I was indeed arguing that President Obama had violated the Take Care Clause and was placing himself above the law in these instances. However, in the midst of the impeachment focus of the piece, it seemed to suggest that I was calling for impeachment.

But back to the main thrust of the hearing. The focus in the Post on impeachment (rather than alleged abuses by Obama) left the impression that Republicans are simply all about impeachment. Republicans often complain that it is the Post that is blinded by its own view of Republicans. It bring us to the ancient story of the six blind men and the elephant.

300px-Blind

Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a village. One day the villagers told them, “Hey, there is an elephant in the village today.” They had no idea what an elephant is. They decided, “Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway.” All of them went where the elephant was. Everyone of them touched the elephant.

“Hey, the elephant is a pillar,” said the first man who touched his leg.

“Oh, no! it is like a rope,” said the second man who touched the tail.

“Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree,” said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant.

“It is like a big hand fan” said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.

“It is like a huge wall,” said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant.

“It is like a solid pipe,” Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.

They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, “What is the matter?” They said, “We cannot agree to what the elephant is like.” Each one of them told what he thought the elephant was like. The wise man calmly explained to them, “All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said.”

“Oh!” everyone said. There was no more fight. They felt happy that they were all right.

Obviously, the best way to appreciate the elephant is to see it as a whole.

You can watch for yourself and judge for yourself what the hearing was about in the Judiciary Committee.

171 thoughts on “Hearing Or Elephant? Washington Post Portrays Republicans At Presidential Abuse Hearing As Impeachment Obsessed”

  1. Professor Turley’s advocacy on behalf of the ludicrous Bill Clintion fellatio impeachment — which made an international laughing stock of our country — discredited (then) and descredits (now) his opinions about impeachment generally. Elevating the tawdry Paula Jones perjury trap civil suit into a constitutional crisis soiled the reputations of everyone who championed those prurient proceedings. Impeachment would pose a much more potent check on presidential and judicial abuse of power today had not the rabid Republican party — and Professor Turley — so tarnished the process that few self-respecting persons want anything to do with it anymore, associating it as they do with nothing more than “lying about sex.” Too bad for the quaint “checks and balances” doctrine. Let those who so abused impeachment as to render it impotent own up to — and apologize for — their own role in trivializing an important constitutional protection against real and significant abuses of power by political officials.

    In my view, the Congress should have impeached President Clinton for bombing Serbia without a declaration of war in violation of the War Powers Act. By the same token, Congress should have impeached President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for their scurrilous mendacity in lying our country into two wars against countries that had nothing to do with 9/11/2001. Congress should have also impeached President Obama for his escalation and perpetuation of the absurd undeclared “wars” on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, along with his violation of the War Powers Act in bombing — and thus dismembering Libya. But impeachment in America now means nothing more than “lying about sex,” or “what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” Thanks for nothing, Republican Party and Professor Turley. You broke impeachment, so you own its irrelevance.

  2. Blouse, Committee Chair Goodlatte also prosecuted Clinton appointee, Judge Porteus, who as you remember did get impeached. Lots of history…. a hearing can rarely be viewed as an isolated event.

  6. WaPo propaganda works! Dana has helped to reframe the issue– Republicans don’t like Obama.

    Well of course they don’t like him (at least not publicly). Honestly, I’m not sure why any person would like a man who commits torture, drones kills civilians and locks people up without trial for the indefinite future. Other than murder groupies, these actions would seem to rule out “liking” Obama.

    Still the important point of executive overreach is lost in all the castigation of the tea party. We don’t discuss presidential overreach, we discuss why people don’t “like” Obama. That is what propaganda accomplishes, and accomplishes well.

    This hearing was a discussion of presidential overreach. Even if one hates the tea party, and that hatred is anyone’s right, the issue remains– is there executive overreach happening in this nation. The answer is yes.

    Is this overreach a danger to the rule of law? Yes it is.

    Does it need to be spoken about? Yes, it does.

    Do we need remedies to this situation? Yes, we do.

    It is imperative to understand what is happening truthfully and to present it in a truthful matter. Propaganda is powerful, effective and it will destroy our ability to stand up for our nation. Part of standing up is standing against executive overreach even if that means not “liking” the president.

  7. Blouise,

    I have often said I was one of the few that voted for Nader….. And this last time Jill…. We need better options ….

  8. Professor Turley,

    Re: Congressional Standing before the Courts.

    I’m still looking back over the hearings as time permits.

    Last night listening I was wondering back to some historical comments I seen on Thomas Jefferson in regards to whether or not congress/govt even needed supreme court/courts?

    I just don’t recall that history exactly.

    Part of the reason I come here is that the fine details matter & I/others need to become better at finding the fine relevant details.

    Maybe it rings a bell with you or others here?

    OT: What/where were the founders drinking/smoking?

    I’ve seen a small bit on the topic.

    IE: Lazarus, Simon III – Senior Counsel, he & a few others appeared that they needed a cig/blunt & some Jack Daniels & water. No ice though, the way he was shaking ice would have made way to much noise! 🙂

  10. Mr. Turley,
    I have found many Liberal wed blogs do the same.

    It’s the Liberal dog whistle…
    “GOP wishes to impeach Obama”
    … And they all go drool.

    I will say that the GOP doesn’t have a clue, though, as to what is impeachable. Neither do Democrats. BOTH seem to think that when their team spies, tortures, delays justice for years, incarcerating people without due process and of course, acts of aggressive war are NEVER impeachable when their team captain does it. It is classic partisan loyalties.

    You’re fighting the good fight. Keep it up.

  13. Blouise,

    I didn’t care for bush nor do I care for Obama…didn’t vote for them…. Even if I did I can still have the opinion that they are political hypocrits… Or is that an oxymoron …. I had meant to comment on Bill H’s post and it had not gone through…. So I resent it…. Timing is everything…..

  14. AY,

    Hell man, comment all you want but look behind you for the telltale slip slip. Don’t be the only one who doesn’t see it.

  15. davidbluefish,

    Dennis was Dennis … for years his yard signs didn’t even have his last name on them. Kaptur handily beat him in the Primary (after the gerrymandered redistricting combined their districts) because, well, basically, this is blue collar country, or tech collar country, or artsy-fartsy country and Dennis didn’t stay home much tending the fields and the folks here figured they weren’t paying him to be a star. No one thought he was crooked or dishonest but neither is Kaptur and she tends the fields.

  16. “Obviously, the best way to appreciate the elephant is to see it as a whole.” -JT

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/25/us-usa-security-doomsday-idUSBRE9AO0Y120131125

    Excerpt:

    U.S. officials and other sources said only a small proportion of the classified material Snowden downloaded during stints as a contract systems administrator for NSA has been made public. Some Obama Administration officials have said privately that Snowden downloaded enough material to fuel two more years of news stories.

    “The worst is yet to come,” said one former U.S. official who follows the investigation closely.

  18. Blouise, Dennis K was a weird wind, but he blew true, fresh, and untamed. He raised many valid uncomfortable “things” I think the dems were just as happy to get rid of him as the repubs.

    PS. after all his time in office he did not leave a rich man. I believe he was honest. …. this is my “far away” not local opinion, what is yours?

  19. What’s this blouise….. Oh yeah… I see…. Thanks…. Sure am glad you don’t reveal identies or locations of folks…. I hear that’s a sure way to get banned from here….

  20. Congress at this time may not be able to get impeachment through the Senate, but they could continue to hold many more public hearings on the matter.

    Hell, they could roll in Alex Jones strapped to a dolly with a silence of the lambs Hannibal Lecter mask on just to liven things up a bit. 🙂

Comments are closed.