« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Yoo: Impeach Bush? Why Not?
Esquire has posted the transcript of its wide ranging interview with former Justice Department official John Yoo. While Yoo is best known for his time at the Justice Department crafting jaw-dropping legal opinions authorizing torture, the interview shows that he harbors some unexpected opinions. For instance, who knew that the guy who gave the legal green light to the administration to pursue their most controversial policies takes a broad view of impeachment and Congressional oversight?
This is from the interview, where Yoo is speaking about his time as the general counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee under Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) during the late 1990s:
Certainly there was this whole industry of people outside the Congress, all these Clinton-haters, who were making a career out of attacking Clinton, but I thought it was a legitimate subject for investigation. The president and his advisors were trying to cover up financial misconduct or sexual harassment. I think Congress is allowed to ask about that. For example, I think Congress is fully allowed to ask about interrogation procedures. That's one of their roles. They should have oversight. It can be crippling, obviously, to the executive if Congress goes forward guns blazing in its oversight powers, but I don't think there's anything unconstitutional about it.Certainly for Hatch it wasn't vindictive. I can't speak for everyone who worked in the Senate. Hatch thought there were things that could be wrong here.
Clinton certainly didn't make it easy. Same as the Bush administration. Knowing what you know now about what they had done, if they had been much more open and forthcoming coming out of the gate, it would have been better for everybody.
But I will say this: I wasn't in favor of impeachment. I don't think what Clinton did rose to the level of what impeachment is really for. I think if people in Congress wanted to impeach President Bush they could, not because he committed a crime but because they think he's a bad president.
That was the phrase ["high crimes and misdemeanors"] that came from Britain, and the British used to, under that phrase, remove people just because they screwed up a war.
There are great examples. Allegedly these were the same standards of impeachments when they impeached a minister because the British suffered a setback in the war with the Dutch. It wasn't a crime, but you were a bad leader. But it has to be something of significance to the state. Clinton, what he did didn't seem to rise to that level.
Josh
Zachary
Slippery is as slippery does.
May 13, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Putting aside the (in theory) separately functioning branches, f everyone "knows" Obama is going to win, there's no risk the DNC will lose the White House. Why isn't the House impeaching given the secure-victory; and what's stopping the Senate from discussing the war crimes? Nothing but an illusion.
May 13, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing shouldn't have anything to do with the other. Regardless of anyone's conjecture about November, a significant part of Congress' role is oversight. In an ideal world, that oversight would take place regardless of who controlled Congress or the White House. And in an ideal world, decisions about impeachment would be made based upon the simple standards that even Yoo recognized and addressed: High crimes and misdemeanors. Simply put, if, in the course of conducting routine oversight, Congress believes the President has violated that simple threshold, they should proceed accordingly. Oversight is meant as a check on the entire executive branch. The rules were crafted the way they were crafted for a reason. If Bush broke the law, he should be punished for it. If Obama is elected and breaks the law, he should be punished for it.
May 13, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, the day I dream of is this prick having his day in court - at The Hague!
This administration has changed the face of America to that of Amerika. The Congress is letting this go and it will forever change our country for the worst!
All of them should be recalled. If they don't act, they are as treasonous as the people in this administration.
IMPEACH NOW!
o/t: Did you know that many in the Bush Administration have been charged with war crimes? Read it here!
May 13, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The loyalty President Bush inspires is, um, not exactly inspiring.
May 13, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
He knows who's going to win this fall, and it's not his current masters. Time to suck up to the new bosses. Besides, impeachment is a moot point with this president, but I'm sure the GOP is already hatching plans to cook up an impeachment against Obama.
May 13, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had the pleasure of working for Congress as an attorney in the Library of Congress before, during and after the Nixon Impeachment and Watergate. I have always thought that the signing statements which Bush uses to indicate which parts of the bill he is signing into law he will abide by is an impeachable action. The President's oath of office has him swearing to protect and defend the Constitution of the U.S. and all laws enacted there under or words to that effect. If the President signs a bill into law and at the same time indicates that he will not recognize the bill he just enacted into law by signing, it seems relatively clear that he is blatantly violating his oath of office, certainly an impeachable offense.
May 13, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I was a law prof, I was involved in an organized debate over whether Clinton (him) should be impeached. Yoo has pretty succinctly summed up my rambling argument-namely that impeachment is about crimes against the State, arising from the Founder's fear that the President would be "influenced" to take action that would be adverse to the Country's interests. Clearly Clinton's actions didn't approach that, but the Republican House Leaders also recognized that a PR element (and a nausea factor) existed (wrongfully) in the impeachment calculation. They mistakenly based their case solely on the PR and nausea
May 14, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
For Bush-you have quite a bit that could be impeachable, but the PR factor goes the other way-he's almost done with his term, so why put the Country through the Constitutional stress of impeachment, even though his lot could still do a lot of damage in their remaining time (say, in Iran)? Just my two cents...
May 14, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why call the police on the guy robbing your house? He's going to be done robbing it soon, and then he'll leave. Let somebody else deal with it. Not our problem, m i rite!?!?
May 14, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Little Georgie and The Big Dick are not finished with their nefarious business. There is frighteningly too much damage that they still could, and given what they've done & said in the past, will do.
ITMFA -- Let Impeachment Hearings begin November 5!
May 14, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like, who cares.
May 14, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ms. Pelosi has said the impeachment thing is suspended, so forgetabout another Constitutional Congressional DUTY laid out to preserve and protect.
Why impeach?
For the same reason Nixon should have been impeached by two-shoes Gerald Ford, to curb executive power. Ford's pragmatism begot Dick Cheney, monarchist, which presents this holy mess.
Bush et al's shameful record established a precedent of unbridled executive powers under the guise of an all war all the time commander-in-chief. Their co-conspirators should be fully investigated as well and tried, if necessary.
It doesn't matter who is in the White House, unless checked, executive power has been established as the top of the pyramid of power. The question for McCain and Obama is, "how much executive power established by Bush will you give up?" I know Hillary won't. Presidents don't give up power willingly.
Which is why impeach. To continually use the tools of power balancing laid out by the framers who knew a president would try to accumulate as much power as possible AT THE CITIZEN'S EXPENSE.
I've had my representative Anna Eshoo lecture me about how damaging Clinton's impeachment was to Congressional business [read: the needs of the American people] because it was so distracting and unpleasant. Well, I reiterate to Ms. Eshoo and Ms. Pelosi, the business of America will wait - read Nixon's '73 State of the Union: energy independence, health care for all, privacy; the business of the Congress is to preserve and protect the Constitution. It doesn't say to let it slide because it might be unpleasant.
Barring some horrific national emergency wherein Bush somehow manages to fully flesh out his coup d'etat beyond election day, we plan to say 'good riddance' to this lot in January.
The majority of people who think 'we're on the wrong track,' may think this transition will be enough. And as I said, it will be Ford's end of another American nightmare, which we can countdown to on the calendar. But without the mandatory cleansing of impeachment, there's this ultra powerful executive office with a line item veto on legislation, constantly at war and answerable to no one.
Impeachment is off the table, indeed. The chickens have practically filled the coop already on Ms. Pelosi's dismissal of her duty.
May 14, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh how magnanimous the War Criminal is when discussing they hypotheticals of impeaching the Clenis.
Yoo is still evil. Continuing to put forth the banality of his bleatings while he, and the administration which he enabled, is still free and in power, is obscene.
With regard to impeaching Bush... Hearing should commence November 5, 2008. After the elections, there are NO excuses.
ITMFA
May 14, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
If for no other reason, it needs to be clear that the destruction of any records in the white house or naval observatory would be felonies. There needs to be an active investigation to give serious teeth to this.
They will shred everything anyway, because destruction of records beats war crimes by a mile, but lets just tie up all these loose ends shall we?
May 14, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You WILL hear these words under a Democratic presidency:
"We must move on as a nation."
There will be no impeachment. There will be no war crimes tribunals. There will probably be pardons to just close the book on all the issues.
I guarantee this. There will be no accountability. Obama will not pursue it. He'll call it divisive. Hilary won't touch it either.
The reason Nancy isn't pursuing this stuff is because she and Harry Reid, as well as the Democratic members of both Congressional intelligence committees, were briefed on what the CIA was doing, and they didn't protest.
If Bush hangs, so do they.
The only reason I can look past my utter disgust to be bothered to vote in November is that I know McCain will just be four more years of Bush.
We might not have accountability for Bush's actions under a Democrat, but at least it will be over.
My biggest fear is Bush dropping some bombs in Iran and leaving that for the next president. If he does that, I can tell you exactly who we must hold accountable for abdication of DUTY: Nancy "impeachment is off the table" Pelosi.
May 14, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason Georgw W. Bush & Richard Cheney should both be impeached is to re-establish the rule of law in this country. This administration has exercised rights and powers that set precedents for future presidents to assume. Whether it's Obama or McCain or Hillary, or any other future president, Congress's failure to curb presidential power by impeaching Bush means we will continue to be at the mercy of an all-powerful monarch, and our system of checks and balances can never be restored.
Each succeeding congress, for the past 8 years has refused to perform their duty to protect & defend the Constitution. Not only have they not held anyone accountable for the High Crimes and outright FELONIES of the executive branch, they have acutally passed legislation to legalize this administration's transgressions. For this, every member of Congress should also be impeached.
May 14, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is useless to even hold a hearing since we did not elect enough people to get the job done. Impeachment is a very serious situation and to make the charge stick, the Democrats need far more Democratic Senators. If we wanted impeachment we should have made certain that we had enough Senators to do the job. The house may be able to bring Articles of Impeachment of GW by a simple majority but the perp could not be convicted without a two-thirds majority. If you counted up the number of Democrats in the Senate, they have 49 with Sanders and Lieberman caucusing with the Democrats making 51. But I doubt Lieberman would vote for impeachment even though he caucuses with the Democrats but is the conjoined twin of McCain in McCain's run for the Presidency.. Waste of time to impeach under these circumstances. We are at war, the House and Senate need to get busy with real problems they can do something about. You know GI benefits, war funding, the environment and the mess in our economy. Bush surely deserves a bill of Impeachment and a conviction. Sorry, but Republicans are going to cover for him, even if they KNOW he is a crook.
May 14, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Article I, Section 2
Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Article I, Section 3
Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party, (defendant), convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
The playbook approach to a trial may be determined by voir dire in which a jury is selected to convict or acquit based on lawyers' best sense of profiling jury members. Accordingly, it may make strategic sense to guess Senator's votes.
On the other hand, neither of these instances preclude or even determine the necessity of pursuing articles of impeachment and a trial.
If we guess the president won't be found guilty, and, therefore, choose not to act, we carry the ammunition he will use to dispatch us, and fail in Franklin's challenge [this is]"a republic, if you can keep it."
The true tragedy is this was foreseen by the framers wherein the people were provided protections against the tyrannical accumulation of power by the president; taking both legislative and judicial functions - and everyone seems to be watching American Idol while a legacy preference C student from Yale runs off with the spoons.
May 15, 2008 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
At this point, the real purpose of Impeachment hearings, votes and trial is to occupy Bush & Cheney enough to keep them from bombing Iran and other heinous acts of stupidity.
Every minute they hold power is a minute we are all in danger of losing our Lives, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
May 15, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
This story has been laying in the back of my mind . . . Festering.
Yoo exhibits a sense of casual amorality that is almost sociopathic. Yoo is emotionlessly detached and hyper-rational.
What sort of mind could perform the task constructing the mental gymnastics required to violate all human decency AND be trite about the potential but not probable punishment the jack-booted thug that commanded him to write the evil piece of shit?
May 15, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...If for no other reason, it needs to be clear that the destruction of any records in the white house or naval observatory would be felonies. There needs to be an active investigation to give serious teeth to this."....
my comment on above post:
CHENEY MADE SURE THAT THE NSA 902ND COUNTERINTEL GROUP somehow managed to burn down their own building while protected by video cameras and computer ID passport security.
CHENEY also had a fire at his Old Executive Office Building suite?
The BUSH FAMILY HOME IN MIDLAND, TX...stored stome archives...and...yup...had a mysterious arson fire?
CHENEY'S lesson from Nixon's Watergate is:
IF THE SMOKING GUN EMAILS, TAPES, PHONE LOGS, etc....are burned, gone...nonretrievable...then WE CANNOT COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS and "...it's our word versus unsupported suspicion".
THE KEY IS AND ALWAYS WAS....ROBERT SWAN MUELLER, III AT FBI HQ. THIS GUY...IS A COCONSPIRATOR WHOSE JOB IS COVERING THE GESTAPO'S POLITICAL CRIMES while joining the conspiracies to commit PATRIOT ACT MURDERS OF THREE OF MY KNOWN ASSOCIATES including SD US SEN TOM DASCHLE'S EX CHIEF OF STAFF RICHARD GORDON (killed with a brain tumor proximately caused by DOD DARPA weapon called DEW (Directed Energy Weapon using microwave radiation to TORTURE any political target).
MUELLER AND MINNEAPOLIS FBI AND FORMER US ATTY FOR MINNESOTA THOMAS HEFFLEFINGER knows about an FBI cooperating witness named DR. MARK GORDON getting fried in his own home across the street from the St. Paul Fed Building where Mark (a friend of mine for 25 years) was forced to live, after FBI DESTROYED HIS MEDICAL CARREER IN YANKTON, SD, SIOUX FALLS, SD, AND AUSTIN, TX.).
That's a story...that LEAHY, BIDEN, WAXMAN, CONYERS, PELOSIWHORE, REID....have all conveniently ignored?
May 15, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
O U! I.O.U.
May 15, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink