Letters to the Editor
farbie
Published Letters: 171 Editor's Choice: 2
-
KEEP HAMMERING OBAMA ON HIS FISA REVERSAL
[Read the article: Political harmony v. the rule of law: an easy choice for the political establishment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While I intend to vote for Obama, I will not donate one cent to his campaign, until he shows that he will back the impeachment of George Bush prior to his term's expiration. Otherwise, I fully expect Bush to pardon not only himself, but the whole slew of criminals in his administration, from Cheney on down. Here's my post to the "GetItRight" group that was spawned from the Obama campaign's largest online group, the "SenatorObamaPleaseVoteAgainstFISA" group:
The problem, as I see it, stems from the long history of the Right Wing Noise Machine (RWNM) that has effectively shut down Mainstream Media (MSM) political discourse in this country. The RWNM, starting with Spiro Agnew, has railed against the “liberal media” since the early 1970s. Coupled with the shrinkage of news departments caused by the Reagan Revolution, and the corporate consolidation caused by the Media Consolidation Act (not the real name) of 1996, the MSM has been reduced to a “he-said she-said” type of analysis, which is not analysis at all. The RWNM does not represent the majority view in this nation, and never has. Yet, it has disproportionate influence over what appears as “news” in the MSM. It has only been the last few years that the center and the left have had any influence at all over what appears in the MSM, which has been very slow to respond.
The media problem, in turn, promotes the “Harold Ford” type of pseudo-“Democrats,” who are only beholden to the corporate hand that feeds them and their campaigns.
The long-term solution is public financing of all campaigns, or, at minimum, all federal campaigns. Obama says he supports it, but, unless we get a huge Democratic majority in the fall elections, it’s not going to happen. With public financing, politicians no longer have to hold themselves out to the highest bidders, the AT&T’s of this world, who were behind the FISA cave-in.
Only if Obama reverses course, or, at least, keeps course with what Keith Olbermann said a couple of weeks ago, that Obama intends to criminally prosecute the Bush Administration for the blatant disregard of our constitutional right of privacy, will I resume making donations to the Obama campaign. I fully expect George Bush to issue pardons to anyone and everyone who was involved in the multiple lawless activities of his administration. The only way to stop that is to begin impeachment proceedings against him. They do not have to complete the impeachment proceedings, only begin them, in order to put a stop to his attempt to pardon himself and others. If Bush, following the beginning of impeachment proceedings, were to attempt to pardon himself and others, the next Congress could continue the impeachment proceedings, even after he is out of office, to prevent his pardons from taking effect.
The Constitution clearly prevents a President from pardoning himself and others “in the event of impeachment.”
-
IMPEACHMENT TO PREVENT BUSH ISSUING PRE-EMPTIVE PARDON
[Read the article: The honorable centrist Joe Lieberman]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn, your article, coupled with the segment of ‘Democracy Now!’ that was linked to your article, gives me concern about Obama and the people that are apparently advising him, such as Cass Sunstein. Sunstein demonstrates a powerful persuasiveness, yet fails to address the issue of Bush’s pre-emptive pardons. He states that he would like an independent, bi-partisan commission or some other Congressionally-authorized entity to look into the crimes of the Bush Administration, yet he downplays the real possibility that Bush will pre-emptively pardon all those involved.
The ONLY way that Bush will be prevented from executing a pre-emptive pardon is impeachment. I don’t believe that Bush actually has to be removed from office prior to issuing the pardon. I think that Congress simply has to begin the impeachment process against him, to prevent him from issuing a pre-emptive pardon. If Bush were to nevertheless issue such a pardon, Congress could then continue the impeachment process, AFTER his term expires, to give full effect to the pardon-preventing language in the Constitution. (No power to issue pardons in “cases of impeachment.”)
I would appreciate your thoughts on the above. If you believe that my view of the Constitution is NOT correct, let me know.
-
THE ISSUE IS STOPPING BUSH FROM PARDONING HIMSELF AND HIS CRONIES
[Read the article: The honorable centrist Joe Lieberman]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The reason I raised impeachment as a subject is: we need an answer (from GG or other constitutional expert) as to whether beginning impeachment proceedings is enough to prevent Bush from pardoning himself and others. We need to separate the remedy ordinarily afforded by impeachment, removal from office, from the other “remedy” afforded by impeachment of the President: nullification of his authority to pardon himself and others for “impeachable offenses.” In my humble opinion, if the President is impeached by a majority vote in the House of Representatives for one or more of his unlawful acts, then he will be unable to pardon himself and others for those unlawful acts. I don’t believe that the President must be “convicted” by the Senate to suffer loss of the ability to pardon himself and others. That is why it is absolutely critical that this Congress, spineless as it has been, grow a spine in the waning weeks and take up the numerous Articles of Impeachment that Dennis Kucinich has already filed. We need to get an e-mail trail going, NOW, to the House members, on this subject. I will e-mail my Congressperson shortly, and will copy it to GG’s blog.