don't you? I'll be interested to see how 'objective' you are when there is a Democrat in the White House. I'm sure your objectivity will take on an added degree of clarity, yes?

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

You love making excuses for the Republicans don't you?

I did no such thing. I cited a relevant primary source to what the thinking was when the system was created that allowed this event to occur and I pointed out that, if there is enough backlash against the commutation of sentence, it is, in and of itself, grounds for impeachment.

You have me confused with someone else.

I do happen to believe Bush made a good decision there but I didn't argue for that or in any way excuse his choice.

This is an example of why it's largely (but not always) so hard to try to talk to "y'all" because you seem to too often mistake anything that doesn't quite fit the narrative du jour you're pimping as some kind of subversive (to the blog) spamming with Republican propoganda. One of the points of the exercise of this blog is to contribute to international understanding, right? Does that work both ways?

-t

make is in some way an excuse for the behavior of the ruling party. Also you wrote: One of the points of the exercise of this blog is to contribute to international understanding, right? Does that work both ways?

Yes, it works both ways. You're free to keep making excuses, too. ;-)

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

the Democrats. I do it often. :-)

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

And I'm not sure the question of excuses is anywhere nearly as interesting and important as the question of accurate explanations.

-t

written before the Constitution was ratified. After all, Madison wrote in a Federalist paper that the improper use of these powers would be grounds for impeachment, but dear Tom isn't exactly advertising that, is he?

improper use of these powers would be grounds for impeachment, but dear Tom isn't exactly advertising that, is he?

Gee, I thought it initially obvious that I was so advertising ("balls on the line") and I was quite explicit about it with Sean-Paul above.

There is apparently a linguistic barrier between us. Is it accidental?

-t

of Madison's paper? I must compliment you on your succintness! Especially when it, say we say, rather out of character with your previous posts, or even your exerpts from Mr. Hamilton.

May I surmise that you once said "shit happens" and must therefor be forgiven for any subsequent statements capable of 'misunderstanding'?

BTW, Agonist stamps datetime when you open to reply, not when you submit. Your reply to Sean-Paul was not "above" when I replied.

I'd just like to suggest, at this point, that people read Federalist paper 74 (by Hamilton, I believe).

It speaks specifically to the presidential power to commute (or pardon). It has the lovely, dense, rich english language usage typical of Hamilton and makes good reading in that sense. It also makes a fascinating, game-theoretical argument in favor of concentrating the power in the presidency (with the exception of matters of impeachment).

The principle founders were sophisticated politicians, even by today's standards. It is interesting, whatever your view of Bush, to try to understand today's events through their eyes.

-t

Interesting.

Where I come from, saying that so and so "has balls" to have done something is to say something deliberately ambiguous. It means, roughly (and recursively): "very brave, or very stupid, or possibly both (but, in any event, ballsy)." And, the phrase "has balls" is applied equally to male and female.

You fear that hubris motivate the President's action. I don't think you are right, for lots of "technical" reasons, but that doesn't matter here. Hubris definitely would fall in the "brave or stupid or both" spectrum.

"Balls," in other words, doesn't connote (where I come from) either good or bad. It does refer, indirectly, to testosterone but it isn't a particularly gender-specific term.

-t

"miscellaneous" also gives me problems. I think the pricip<mumble/> problem is somewhere pretty deep in how my brain happens to structure reading and writing. Sorry. As web interfaces mature and automated "checkers" become more common I'll catch more of those problems. Meanwhile, I generally don't either ask a third person to edit nor do I do my own, hours-long check-each-word-twice kind of editting for blog comments. Don't mean to be rude. I'm fairly articulate and well reasoned, really -- but, no, I can't spell for shit. Go figure.

Sometimes it leads to accidental, pretty funny, puns.

-t

...writing style was closely related to that of Victorian porn. Alas, the object of his fascination appealed not to my prurient imagination.

I was first going to say just the subject line and then EOM but maybe it is worth pointing out to would be adversaries of the Bush administration that there is kind of a relevant general principle at work here.

You can look at things like judicial appointments or churn in attorney's or the application of habeas in the context of international affairs, and on and on....

The administration is very strict, literal, and essentially adversarial in its interpretation and application of executive power. That "adversarial" bit sure pisses a lot of people off but that "strict" part helps to explain why impeachment is not forthcoming -- by in large (and mostly in small) they haven't violated the contitutional "contract" by a long stretch.

They're called "realists" for a good reason and they stand in contrast to populist politicians. Both groups pander, certainly. One of them pays a lot more attention to the Constitution than the other in their rhetoric and actions.

-t

"by and large", missing a relevant Suskind quote (re "creating our own reality"), ignoring a "piece of paper" quote, and generally incorrect in every facet and measure. Even in misinterpreting Mauberly, who is perfectly capable of being dually contrarian.

You should really be off talking to "the base", because there's really no other audience left for this idiocy.

Olbermann has exhaled the breath. The only problem for me in the effect of his message is that we'd have Pelosi for Prez. But maybe she can hit a golf ball as well as Ford. Who knows?

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

Pelosi's a funny bird. (I don't mean that in the british slang sense but, rather, the new england slang sense.)

She represents me in congress so I subscribe to her mail feed. She helps to work on a lot of interesting bills, some quite good. I suspect that anyone can subscribe (via her web site) to her mail feed and it's not high volume at all so I would recommend it to people following federal politics, given her position. If you trace out why she's working the CA-related issues that she is, you can also learn a lot about what's going in CA politics (which sounds tautological but my point is that, in her mail feed, there's that convenient rosetta stone glimpse into the issues).

No small part of the conversational problem, in forums like this, is that a lot of people seem to have problems picking up on the nuances of discourse among the highest placed pols, like Pelosi.

-t

Why, Gordon, do you use so many words to say so little more than "I happen to disagree?" Could they not be better spent? You strike me as a political tool -- a member of different "base" than that to which you refer yet no less of note for its irrational influence on public political discourse.

If this were the "insult comic" trade-craft blog I'd take your point but, since it isn't, all your ad hominems do is further persuade me that are on the verge of mob-backed facism at a point where reasoned discourse is called for.

-t

Surely someone who can get "if there is enough backlash against the commutation of sentence, it is, in and of itself, grounds for impeachment." from "sensible to the apprehension of suspicion or censure for an injudicious or affected clemency" (which says nothing of impeachment), is capable of getting more than "I happen to disagree" from what I said?

OK: "they haven't violated the contitutional "contract" by a long stretch". Unitary executive? Checks and balances? A 4th branch of government? Please.

"They're called "realists" for a good reason...".

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

Now: "all your ad hominems do is further persuade me that are on the verge of mob-backed facism at a point where reasoned discourse is called for".

Wow. Just. Wow.

Surely someone who can get "if there is enough backlash against the commutation of sentence, it is, in and of itself, grounds for impeachment." from "sensible to the apprehension of suspicion or censure for an injudicious or affected clemency" (which says nothing of impeachment),

You misread. The relevance of impeachment is not found per se in "sensible to the apprehension...." It is close at hand in the rest of 74 and is referred to there indirectly. Why would an executive, whose powers of reprieve or pardon specifically do not include impeachment, and who is himself vulnerable to impeachment, be "sensible to the apprehension of suspicion or censure"? That "sensible" there isn't just about an executive's concern over his approval ratings. Read the whole damn thing (patiently)!

OK: "they haven't violated the contitutional "contract" by a long stretch". Unitary executive? Checks and balances? A 4th branch of government? Please.

Interestingly, the greatest support (outside of the constitution) for the unitary executive is found, perhaps, in other federalist papers by Hamilton. As you may recall, prior to the Union there was the confederacy. Among the many limits placed on the confederacy, it was not given unitary authority in matters of national security and, by the time of the drafting, this was widely recognized to have almost lost the colonies the war. Part of the reason Washington became such a hero is that he brought some order to chaos in the prosecution of the war -- his example making an empirical case for the presidential powers, enshrined in the constitution, today called "the unitary executive," and explicitly argued for by the founders.

Now: "all your ad hominems do is further persuade me that are on the verge of mob-backed facism at a point where reasoned discourse is called for".

Wow. Just. Wow.

Well, really. I mean it. You're flying around on this sea of bogus suppositions and deep disregard for our founding texts. You use language without much care, mostly to emphasize by repetition political enmities and alliances. You consistency polarize politics along lines of personality and clique membership. You speak from a presumption of (at least vicarious) victemhood. You very much help to form the negative space, on the canvas of populism, against which suitably placed charasmatic types can go to town. Meanwhile, on the stage of US politics, you are being pandered to.

If you want to work from "within," check at least some of your passion at the door. The discipline of more dispassionate argumentation will both help clarify your thinking and make your writings more usefully approachable. The indiscipline of passionate, logically careless advocacy is, per our shared cultural memories, one of the greatest, most dangerous mistakes you can make -- intollerable in proportion to its influence.

-t

I find no evidence to support your position. You stretch his words beyond recognition.

Unitary executive. Yes Hamilton wanted a strong executive. He was an outlier in that, and lost most of his arguments.

As for what you imagine I think about our founding texts, my use of language, my supposed "victemhood", my logical carelessness, you obviously cannot see past your own prejudices activated by anyone taking a position contrary to yours. You have repeatedly accused those who disagree with you of somehow being against reasoned discourse, yet it seems to elude you that there's more to it than adopting a pedantic and patronizing tone.

You have, I understand, great respect for the documents etc.

To make sure we are on the same page, what do you think 68 and 74 have to say about impeachment? And, in 74, in the passage we've talked about, does "censure" include impeachment, in your view?

-t

You're putting words in my mouth, again.

Neither 68 nor 74 mention impeachment. Censure currently is very different from impeachment. You'll need more than handwaving to claim that in 1788 censure included impeachment. Especially since Hamilton was pretty dismissive of the idea that someone would ever be selected who was not up to the task.

There is nothing in current case law that would indicate that an improper use of pardon power is an impeachable offense, despite Madison's comments. Pursuing it in court would be a grand way to run out the clock. The flagrant, direct and willful violations of FISA clearly are impeachable, and if it happens, it's likely to come from that. Though Bush is obviously terrified of what Scooter might say, so giving him immunity and questioning him is another possibility. Scooter is no Ollie North.

There are a lot of other investigations which might bear fruit, but all of them require fighting through claims of executive privelege before finding the evidence of criminality. Not so the warrantless wiretapping. They know that, thus the Angler series in the WaPo was careful to paint that as a Cheney adventure.

Neither 68 nor 74 mention impeachment.

Note that the quote from 74, given above, includes such mention. And, yes, I was off by one -- I meant 69, not 68.

You'll need more than handwaving to claim that in 1788 censure included impeachment.

I apologize for the confusion. Please do see #69.

Especially since Hamilton was pretty dismissive of the idea that someone would ever be selected who was not up to the task.

69 and 74 are evidence to the contrary.

There is nothing in current case law that would indicate that an improper use of pardon power is an impeachable offense,

You do understand, don't you, that impeachment does not admit judicial review. Chief Justice presides but doesn't decide, nor does SCOTUS have jurisdiction in the matter. In modern parlance: the senate vote alone is normative; the description "high crimes and misdemeanors" is informative. In particular, common law and precedent do not apply except indirectly as they may happen to inform debate in the senate.

The flagrant, direct and willful violations of FISA

From my perspective, you refer to the uncharged and certainly unproven violations of FISA that few echo chambers happen to assume occured.

The administration has gotten some beat back from SCOTUS on a few issues but, beyond that, stands unimpugned outside of the pages of yellow journalism.

There are a lot of other investigations which might bear fruit,

Yes, that's been the main refrain for quite a few years now. Its credibility begins to wear thin after a while.

-t

...Pres can pardon except in cases of impeachment. Vastly different from can be impeached for misuse of pardon.

69 does not speak to the misuse of pardons.

68 quite clearly says that Hamilton thinks Presidents will always be good enough. 69 & 74 are not "to the contrary". Hamilton had gotten what he wanted in the drafting. Now he wanted it ratified. Despite not getting "President for life", as he wanted.

Actually it's the House that has to decide what the grounds are. The Senate vote is just up or down.

Read FISA. It's quite plain. I guess I don't find your favorite echo chambers credible enough. The administration has admitted it; even arguing that to revise FISA would be to admit that FISA applies when they have assumed monarchical powers. The language of FISA is quite unambiguous. Popular political pundits to the contrary. "Yellow journalism"? No! Murdoch's on your side!

"Yes, that's been the main refrain for quite a few years now. Its credibility begins to wear thin after a while." Really, Tom? How assiduously were your Republican friends in Congress pursuing these investigations for the few years minus 6 months they were in power? How about the descisions from the largely conservative Republican courts striking down many of your hero's absurd legal positions?

It took 40 years for the Right to build themselves to the orgiastic peak of influence they now experience. Alas, they never had training in the Tantric arts, so it will all be nought but some very tiresome, messy cleanup soon. Sooner than you think. Like CNN, you're joining the party way too late.