The 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.
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.
Well, no matter how brave and incorruptable Mr. Turley was in his testimony, he probably allowed himself to be used as a political pawn by a right wing that will use any means to make this President (and perhaps any non-Republican President from now on) illegitimate up to and including impeachment. While the Republicans in the hearing room may have been “reasonable” during the hearing they and their Tea Party colleagues and surrogates will use the testimony of respected moderates and progressives to fuel the impeachment furor until they can get rid of any opposition or completely nueter it. These types will howl at any percieved minor Constitutional breach, yet support the “Unitary Executive” when their party is in charge. You can see it in all their actions where it is OK for a Republican to do just about anything, but it is “evel”, “crimminal”, “stupidity” or “treason” when any Democrat does exactly the same, even a a much lesser degree.
@Mike Spindell – “Here’s the way I see it. The country is run (always has been) by a wealthy elite. The “elite” isn’t homogeneous in its beliefs about how to treat us: the unwashed masses of people.”
Of course our country is run by an elite. The Revolution was run by our elite and the Constitution was written by and for our elite. The main thing they were revolting against was a HEREDITARY elite and that the elite was not them and stupid. The magic is that anyone can become part of that “elite” given the right gifts and chance. Conversely, anyone or any family can fairly quickly fall out of that elite and even fall on hard times financially. It IS a curiousity that the word “equality’ snuck in there somewhere, but it was either a mistake (for not seeing how it could be used in the future) or a subtle subversion by that radical Jefferson.
‘The magic is that anyone can become part of that “elite” given the right gifts and chance.”
NotSurprised,
The “magic” doesn’t happen all that often. Secondly, who says we don’t have a hereditary elite? The Koch boys, the Mars Family, Mellon/Scaife’s, Walton Family, Rockefeller’s, Trump, and the Romney’s for instance, to name a few.
indigojungle
1, December 5, 2013 at 8:39 am
Of course… Bush did it first!
“…rise of an imperial presidency under Obama…”
Huh?
Man, some people have short memories. It was Cheney and Rove who wanted the President to have more power, their so-called “Unitary Executive” idea. Face it: they just want Republican presidents to have unlimited power, and Democratic one to have none.
An observation:
Many of those who post on this site follow the same path as the article under discussion.
The practice:
Manipulate the discussion back to the despised bush-n-cheney.
Rally the gang mode.
Facts do not matter when one is skilled at deflection.
Such is the problem of climbing into bed with dogs.
Bottom line… Duopolies hate third party competition.
The prefer to treat other’s like the Borg do…
Become one with the collective.
If anyone is confused as to my reference to liberal sites that ignore greater truths just so they can drool at the sound of a dog whistle, I give you the following.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/bachmann-president-obama-has-rewritten
It was posted the very moment the hearing began.
Not one author ever discussed the hearing yesterday or today and probably will never bring it up. However, when Sarah Palin brings it up, well, it opens a free for all smear campaign of anti-Palin hate. No discussion on the merits of what she’s saying. Read the comments. Sad… Blind fools.
I can do the same types of examples from Conservative web sites.
Dog whistles… Drooling Pavlovian dogs. ‘cept it’s targeting Democrats without discussing the merits of their targeted Democrats. Just open hate.
BOTH PARTIES ENDORSE THIS BEHAVIOR!
How else are they supposed to sway voters?
p.s.
obloodyhell,
This is the very reason Republicans refuse to prosecute A Democratic President, on the relevant issues.. Cover your back, you cover ours. Prisoners put into Gitmo under a Republican, refused due process, are covered by Democrats so that when a Democratic President keeps them there, it’s O.K. by all…
Please explain this.
I’m all ears.
obloodyhell
1, December 4, 2013 at 3:38 pm
I see BOTH parties being complicit in the erosion of our Rights.
Please note that I never lay blame at any singular party, or side shoot parties, i.s Tea Party. You may attempt to paint “liberals” as your cause de jour… it would be incorrect.
Liberals like Nancy Pelosi who decided impeaching a president wasn’t worth HER and the Democratic Party’s time. There was an election to win…
… Yep, it took Democrats, to cover for Republican Administration illegalities.
And yes, I do know that rendition was also practiced by BOTH parties.
It isn’t a tough pill to swallow. It just takes the ability to separate the propaganda from the realities… And in many cases, i.e. TORTURE, both parties have been involved, NO?
http://youtu.be/EjO6URpFC7M
Mike S
the tea party is bought and paid for, but the rank and file are true believers.
it’s their idea of a future that’s scary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjO6URpFC7M
Pete,
OMG, Doomsday Castle? Perhaps those funding the “Tea Party” should be careful what they wish for. What “libertarians” like the Koch boys don’t get is that in their ideal society at some point those defending the Koch’s Castle will come to the realization that they have the guns and that the Koch Castle can be their own. The Roman Senate was the all-powerful elite of the Roman Empire, until Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon. They made have killed him on the “Ides”, but those other Generals out there realized they held the power and turned the “elite” Senate into their fawning courtiers.
** Mike Spindell 1, December 4, 2013 at 11:43 pm
“So I don’t agree with you that Tea Partyers will excuse abuse by a president who happens to have an “R” on his jersey. They want a government that lives within the confines of the Constitution – regardless of party affiliation.”
Groty,
Here’s what I know regarding the Tea Party:
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/08/02/tea-party-and-the-myth-of-a-grassroots-movement/
And this:
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/16/tea-party-a-phony-movement-mantled-as-legitimate/
They are as phony as a three dollar bill and are merely corporate shills posing as populists.
**
MikeS,
I’m only just becoming aware of just how much useful/great info has already been posted on this msg bb over the years.
But I’m overwhelmed by the floods of great info now coming on line from every quarter.
The really cool part I seen again today is Americans, (groups of Americans), are getting off their arses & giving a sheeet again. Ya, cool, they see the battle and they’ve have engaged it. (Better late then never)
I wish to read every post on those links you posted if only I can find the time.
I would say though that there were many well meaning Americans that supported Obama & the Demos only to have everything they stood for betrayed.
Yes, the same people/aholes who Phk’d GW/ Obama supporters are no doubt attempting to work over the supporters of the Thomas Jefferson/Madison Liberal/Libertarians.
But for tonight:
1 qt Peroxide, 1/4 cup of Baking soda, 2 tsp dawn dish washing shop.
That’s the recipe for getting skunk odor off a dog.
Yes, my dog was skunked tonight so I also got skunked tonight by having to bathe it. So I’m done 4 now. 🙂
Gnite
“Yes, the same people/aholes who Phk’d GW/ Obama supporters are no doubt attempting to work over the supporters of the Thomas Jefferson/Madison Liberal/Libertarians.”
Oky1,
Here’s the way I see it. The country is run (always has been) by a wealthy elite. The “elite” isn’t homogeneous in its beliefs about how to treat us: the unwashed masses of people. Some feel that We are lucky that we can exist to serve them and should be grateful for the scraps falling from the table. Others feel it is good business to give some thought to assuring that we won’t revolt and take away their wealth by keeping us pacified. Still others of the “elite” feel that a happy flock of sheep, is a well-fed one and produces better wool for the shearing. Until the sheep like us finally get the message that there are far more of us then them our best chances lay with aiding the “elite” who will do the least harm to us, but if we are smart we must also understand that even the most seemingly benevolent of the “elite” are in the end more interested in protecting their prerogatives than in doing the right thing.
I haven’t had faith in a political candidate since RFK. Having seen his brother murdered under suspicious circumstances I felt that he was motivated to actually avenge JFK’s death and in the process do some good things for the rest of us. Then they murdered MLK and RFK and I knew the game was rotten. I voted Democratic for years, not because I was unaware of their flaws, but because the Republicans consistently represented the part of the “elite” believing that the “scraps from their table” was all the rest of us deserved.
So I voted twice for Jimmy Carter because the alternatives were: an unelected President, who developed the “magic bullet” theory and pardoned a crook; and a “B” movie actor who was sponsored by GE and attacked the weakest among us, while pretending to be more than the puppet he was. I voted for Dukakis because his opponent was an Ex-CIA head, whose father helped the NAZI’s. I voted for Clinton for the same reason. Politically Clinton was in truth a moderate conservative and many of his policies were bad for most of us. Gore was no better but his opponent was GW, who was his father’s son. Then came 2008 and my choice was Hilary who would no doubt politically be just like Bill. Obama, who seemed opposed to the stupid wars and finally was presumed to be for restoring Constitutional government was opposed by a man whose claim to fame was being a POW and seemed hell bent on increasing war around the world. Obama proved not to be who he said he was and really was yet another Bill Clinton without the sex. Romney though was a stupidly spoiled rich kid whose main experience with need was that he had to live off of his stock portfolio going to college. When he graduated Daddy gave him $10 million to go into business and this superficially lame egoist thought he was a self-made man and that almost half of us were burdens on society.
The problem is that I was involved with very radical people in the 60’s and early 70’s. Most of those leaders I met certainly wanted to change things, but they were the type of sociopathic personality that would become what the claimed to hate if ever they got power. The problem is not about the particular political beliefs of those who gain power, but in the fact that most who seek power, despite what they preach, are really in it for themselves and not for the rest of us.
Which returns us to the topic of this thread. Obama has hardly been the dictator he is made out to be, were he that he would have accomplished much more. I really don’t think that the President himself (any President nowadays) has much power. However, those behind the scenes with the real power derive that power by acting in the President’s name. The real power is the power of the gun held by the most powerful military establishment in history and I think our President’s are helpless to control them. Part of the problem is that we have elected Presidents with no military experience and the military/intelligence “experts” cow them by threats. JFK knew that the military/intelligence people are far from being a well-oiled machine and saw it first hand at the Bay of Pigs. Curtis LeMay wanted to nuke cuba when the missiles were there and JFK worked it out without bloodshed. Shortly after he was dead. Dick Nixon had experience in WWII as a Navy officer and he was a smart enough man to understand that both the Military and CIA were not to be trusted, he was forced out and for the first time in our history we had an unelected President. Jimmy Carter’s background came from the military and since he was part of the establishment he was acceptable. Reagan was a puppet to GE, the largest military contractor and he was forced to take GHW Bush a lifelong CIA operative. And so it goes.
We are now openly killing our “enemies”, seemingly at the President’s directive. We are spying on the world’s “E” mail and phone conversations also apparently at the President’s directive. Our civil liberties and Constitution have been shredded and that seems to be a bi-partisan effort.
Jonathan is brave in his defense of our Constitution, but in the end it is all a show played for us sheep and those with the guns keep running the show as proxies for those with the money. Were I among the “elite” seemingly running this show I would be quite worried. At some point the Generals running things for the Roman “elite” realized that they could have the power, the glory and the money. Thus came Julius Caesar and the rest is history.
** For the First Time In 50 Years, a Majority of Americans Think the U.S. Should “Mind Its Own Business”
Posted by : George Washington
Post date: 12/04/2013 – 20:11
The American public finally catches up to Ron Paul … and the Founding Fathers **
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-12-04/first-time-50-years-majority-americans-think-us-should-%E2%80%9Cmind-its-own-business
Why NSA Can’t Count How Many Americans’ Cell Location They Collect
December 4, 2013 by emptywheel
http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/12/04/why-nsa-cant-count-how-many-americans-cell-location-they-collect/
Excerpt:
One thing the NSA has learned through experience with John Bates and FISC is that if you claim you don’t know you’ve collected US person data, a judge will not declare it legal. But if you admit you’ve collected US person data, then that same judge may threaten you with sanctions or force you to purge your data.
So there’s a very good reason why it’s “awkward” for NSA “to try to provide any specific numbers.” Doing so would probably make the collection illegal.
That is sutch blatent BS . I saw the one Dem who showed up at the end (I think it was Schumer)trying his damndest to get someone to admit they wanted to impeach, none did. They also seem intent with painting all Obama critics as racist. I voted for him first time but now I am a racist because I don’t like him wiping his ass with the constitution. Awesome job Mr Turley
P.S.
I encourage you to read Millbank’s op-ed. Turley get’s two sentences. Turley may not have liked those two sentences, but he (Turley) is asking a lot out of an op-ed piece if he expects a nuanced explanation of Turley as quoted. Such is journalism today.
But of course, I enjoyed the rather lengthy list (much better than mine) of Republicans who have called for, or stated a veiled threat of impeachment to Obama or members of his administration. Turley may not count someone who uses the chickensh*t phrase “i word” but it unlies amost everything that comes out of these barbarians mouths.
And I wonder if Turley has noticed the erosion of a small little matter of voting rights and is he as upset over those losses? And where does he stand with Corporations Are People? Or Personhood laws? Turley has done post after post of the Obama administration failures, but I read little from Turley on what the Right is imposing (or would like to impose) on this country.
Anyone –
Was there such a hearing during GWB’s administration?
Was there a Dem Rep comparable to the incomparable Darryl Issa during the GWB administration?
Were there dollars spent on faith charities by the GWB administration? Did Turley condemn such expenditures?
Were there 47 thousand votes in the House to kill the Patriot Act?
Was there great willingness to spend millions on Ken Starr’s inqusition?
Were there any hearings after V. Plame was outed?
Were there any hearings after the Abu Grarib photos were published?
I would be greatly interested in some back up that Dems were calling for GWB’s impeachment. I’ll give you some – but NOTHING like these Teapublicans. And no Democrat stood up in the well of the Senate or the House twenty minutes after GWB’s inauguration and called for the failure of his presidency. No Dem has shouted “You Lie” at any SOTU.
The Republicans are the thugs. And while Turley is most certainly NOT a thug, he has a definite POV and it is most assuredly NOT in favor of Democrats or Obama. And it shows all the time.
There will be some good, perhaps much if the barbarians are unsuccessful in killing Obamacare, to come out of Obama’s administration. I can’t think of a single good thing to come out of the GWB admin.
P.S. Thanks to the five or so sane ones who comment on this blog.
Even if we have ten circuses in the one party government (the anti-we-the-people party, the one business party, the one whatever party) it does not matter what we do in terms of results.
That is because the government is subject to the epigovernment that is not altered by votes or protests or logic.
Do you think our forefathers, our brothers in the struggle for freedom, were dreaming or imagining monsters or hallucinating when they developed a constitution which still, to this very day over two centuries later, still reads:
(New Hampshire Constitution).
No one deserves this govt. IMO. We deserve the govt. of the Constitution. We deserve justice. It really should not have to come to the point of risking one’s life or job or anything else dear to get a decent government. I agree it has come to that point but I’m not willing to let the oligarchy get a pass on their propaganda and terrorizing of our population. It is the fault of people who will not see the truth, let alone speak it. But it is also the fault of powerful people who understand quite well how to obfuscate and turn people away from justice, or should they seek it, punish them.
Jill, I just always think of the Vietnam war. I think people protested then because they had a son or knew someone with a son, or had a nephew etc who would, was, in the war or would most probably be. Now people do not have a personal relationship with the reasons we need to be out in the street protesting. Yes. people get caught in government web but when we do nothing we deserve what we get: a government that sees the people don’t care so they can get away with all the crap they have been doing.