Well in point of fact [CLINTON] did use [EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE]. AND he lost emails and pleaded ignorance, etc. etc.

So tell us, Anonymouse, how did you feel about Clinton when he did that? Did you think "how dare he??" Or did you think "it's good to be the king?"

Clearly, regarding Bush's lawbreaking, you believe the latter. But something tells me back when the lawbreaker had a D after his name, you thought the former. I invite you to prove me wrong. (And simply saying "you're wrong" won't cut it.)

Really? I don't recall crying bloody murder about any republican facing consequences...unlike your ascertion that Burger got sufficient punishment and Libby did too...even though BOTH are guility of treason.

You're not crying bloody murder, because that would be too blatant exposure for your double-standard. So, instead you express the same sentiment by running blocker when a Republican is accused of breaking the law, by wheeling out the old "Clinton did it too" excuse. If you really believed that the rule of law should apply equally to whomever breaks the law, then you would realize that Sandy Berger has nothing to do with whether or not Rove and Bolten should be prosecuted for contempt.

Also, I never said that Berger's punishment was sufficient. In fact, what I said was "That judgment against Berger sounds pretty small, and it was..." Can you understand the distinction?

Let the record show: I think Berger got off way too easy, just like Libby. Just like all the criminals in BushCo. I believe that politicians must obey the law, regardless whether their name is followed by an R or a D. If someone is accused of a crime, and their name is followed by a D, I will not come on discussion boards saying "Well, someone with an R after their name did it too."

See how that works? You can have integrity too!

Anonymouse, it appears that you support the impeachment of Bush:

Indeed [CONGRESS] can [BEGIN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS], because an offer of that sort (SELLING CALIFORNIA TO FRANCE FOR $50) is NOT within the powers of the executive, hence it would be an abuse of powers and would be an unconstitutional act.

(Emphasis mine)

So, according to you, if a president does something not within the powers of the executive, then it's an abuse of powers and an unconstitutional act, and that president can be impeached. Right?

So, how about the NSA spying program? In fact, unlike the selling-California-for-$50 scenario, spying without a warrant on US citizens is explicitly illegal, prohibited in actual legal language.

By your own standard, you're saying Bush should be impeached. Surely you didn't mean to say that, right? Impeachment: it's only for Democrats. Right?

With all the weighty and incredibly important things at stake in this campaign, this is what you're all on about?

Right. Similarly, with all the weighty and incredibly important things going on, I assume you have no time to discuss anything else, right? No groceries in your fridge, no gas in your car, no job, etc., as you focus on all those important issues.

Or could it be that you're able to discuss more than a single thing at once?

My sentiment is that if you break the law, you should be punished and that everyone should be punished equally under the law. I have NO problem with Rove and Bolten being prosecuted for contempt

Then I misunderstood you. Sorry.

Understand that most people who find Sandy Berger's crime relevant to the crimes of BushCo are trying to shelter the Bush criminals by pointing to Berger as a precedent. I'm glad to see that's not you.

A good topic for an entire debate, in each party: If elected do you plan to reinstate the Constitution of the United States of America as the law of the land - or will you continue the Bush Administration's policies of appeasing the terrorists by removing those freedoms for which "they hate us"?

Yes, that is a great question. I've already heard Hillary's answer: she says she will roll back many of Bush's abuses, and return the country to the rule of law.

That's what she said.

The question is, will she? For the past 7 years, and well before that, we've seen plenty of examples of politicians that talk a mean game while doing the exact opposite. Hillary says that, if she becomes president, she'll convert the job role from monarch/dictator back to elected servant of the people. Now, I ask you, how many supreme leaders have been known to do that?

I've called and written to Feinstein many times about this issue, asking her repeatedly not to give the telecoms immunity. I've finally received a response today.

The Intelligence Committee's report on the bill includes declassified text stating that the Executive branch provided letters to electronic communication service providers at regular intervals. These letters all directed or requested assistance and noted that the assistance was authorized by the President and was legal.

So there you go. A report says that Bush wrote letters to the telecoms directing them to spy on us. That makes it legal, according to Feinstein.

However, I do recall Glenn laying out an argument a month or two ago, about how such "authorization" from the president would not make warrantless spying legal for the telecoms to engage in. He pointed out that the telecoms are bound under a separate law, which they have broken, and that to grant immunity, we would need to void that law.

Does anyone remember better details on this?