{news} Fw: CNN's Impeachment "Reality Check" Needs Fact Check

[Robert Vogel]

CNN doesn't think Bush has done anything wrong, so he cannot be impeached.

Here are some of the reasons: http://www.seconnecticut.com/impeach.htm

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "FAIR" <fair at fair.org>
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 5:45 PM
Subject: CNN's Impeachment "Reality Check" Needs Fact Check


> Action Alert
> 
> CNN's Impeachment "Reality Check" Needs Fact Check
> 
> 3/30/07
> 
> On March 26, CNN's Situation Room program presented a "reality check" of
> discussions of impeaching George W. Bush. Reporter Carol Costello concluded,
> "To sum it up, the only way President Bush can be impeached is if he violates
> the law." But that summary is misleading.
> 
> The CNN report took up the issue primarily in response to Republican Sen.
> Chuck Hagel's recent comments about impeachment. Anchor Wolf Blitzer
> introduced the idea this way: "They used to be just whispers, quiet
> conversations about impeaching the president, but now as we just saw, they're
> getting a little bit louder." As an example, CNN played a clip from Hagel's
> interview on ABC's This Week (3/25/07), where he said, "Any president who says
> I don't care or I will not respond to what the people of this country are
> saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I
> am going to proceed, if a president really believes that, then...there are
> ways to deal with that."
> 
> In response, Costello disputed such talk: "But decisions people may disagree
> with doesn't make a president impeachable. Reality check." Costello then
> quoted George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who claimed
> that "the Framers did not want a president impeached because he simply is a
> bad president or he does bad things or stupid things. But once the president
> starts to violate federal law, then he gets into a realm of impeachable
> offenses." Costello then introduced what was presented as another example of
> loose talk about impeachmenta quote from Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh.), who
> criticized a potential an attack on Iran because it is "illegal to threaten
> aggressive war against another nation."
> 
> While that comment doesn't necessarily relate to impeachmentpresumably
> Kucinich is accurately referring to provisions of the United Nations charter
> forbidding aggressive warit nonetheless earned a "reality check," with
> Costello insisting: "The Constitution makes it clear, you can dislike a
> president all you want, but the only way a president can be impeached is if he
> is found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors."
> 
> There are several problems with Costello's formulation. "High crimes and
> misdemeanors" does not necessarily refer to a president breaking a statutory
> law. As many commentators have noted (e.g., Center for Constitutional Rights,
> "Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush"; Elizabeth Holtzman in the
> Nation, 1/12/06), the framers (specifically George Mason and Alexander
> Hamilton) crafted that language deliberately to allow for political
> deliberations over what might constitute an impeachable offense. The move to
> impeach Richard Nixon, for example, was marked by a serious debate over the
> question of whether impeachment should solely address violations of federal
> law, or take a broader view, in line with the debate that took place among the
> framers of the Constitution. The three articles of impeachment that were
> before the House at the time of Nixon's resignation included one based on
> indictable offenses, one based on political abuses, and one that was a mixture
> of the two.
> 
> As the American Bar Association explains on its website, "What precisely
> constitutes 'high crimes and misdemeanors' is... uncertain because the courts
> have not specifically defined or interpreted the term, unlike other
> constitutional clauses." The ABA adds that "many experts agree that there are
> different standards for impeachable and criminal conduct."
> 
> Right after Costello's "reality check," Blitzer interviewed former Defense
> Secretary William Cohen, who contradicted what Costello had just presented as
> "reality," arguing: "I would only take issue with the notion that a president
> could only be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. We went through
> this. It doesn't necessarily mean a crime as we define a felonious crime, but
> rather it could be an abuse of power." Cohen then undermined the idea that
> Bush might meet such a standard, saying that "the notion that you're talking
> about impeachment at this point for political differences, I think, is off the
> base." So on the question of what exactly constitutes a "high crime," should
> CNN viewers believe the network's journalist, or another guest?
> 
> If CNN accepts its own reporter's view that only a narrow definition of "high
> crimes and misdemeanors" applies, it is worth mentioning that Bush's
> warrantless domestic wiretapping plan violated the Federal Intelligence
> Surveillance Act (FISA). Ironically, the very legal expert CNN tapped to
> analyze the impeachment debate is on the record elsewhere arguing that Bush's
> FISA violation could very well be an impeachable offense. As Salon.com
> reported (12/20/05), "According to Turley, there's little question Bush
> committed a federal crime by violating the 1978 Foreign Intelligence
> Surveillance Act." So even by that narrow standard, Bush arguably met it by
> violating FISA law. As Salon quoted Turley: "The fact is, the federal law is
> perfectly clear.... At the heart of this operation was a federal crime. The
> president has already conceded that he personally ordered that crime and
> renewed that order at least 30 times. This would clearly satisfy the standard
> of high crimes and misdemeanors for the purpose of an impeachment."
> 
> As was clear during the Clinton administration, impeachment is a political
> decision made by Congress. When CNN tells viewers that "high crimes and
> misdemeanors" only refers to violations of federal statutes, it is taking an
> arguable legal position and turning it into a fact. In doing so, CNN is
> treating an issue endorsed by millions of Americansthe impeachment of George
> W. Bushas a fringe issue in conflict with the Constitution.
> 
> ACTION: Tell CNN's Situation Room to clarify its "reality check" on the nature
> of impeachable offenses, and to add more voices to its discussion of
> impeachmentincluding experts who argue that Bush could be guilty of "high
> crimes and misdemeanors."
> 
> CONTACT:
> CNN
> Situation Room
> Comment page:
> http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?65
> 
> 
> Your donation to FAIR goes a long way.  Help us hold mainstream media
> accountable.  Make a difference -- support FAIR today!
> http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=103
> 
> If you would prefer to receive these messages in HTML format, please visit our
> website to change your Email Preferences. Go to:
> http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/fair/signUp.jsp?key=708.
> 
> SUBSCRIBE TO EXTRA! AND GET FAIR FOUNDER JEFF COHEN'S NEW BOOK FOR FREE:
> Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media
> http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=106
> 
> FAIR SHIRTS: Get your "Don't Trust the Corporate Media" shirt today at FAIR's
> online store: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=110
> 
> FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130 stations in
> the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you, visit
> http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=115
> 
> FAIR
> (212) 633-6700
> http://www.fair.org/
> E-mail: fair at fair.org
> 
> /*Your email ID. <diaEmailID='312885266' thread=5678/>--*/ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20070401/beda0f01/attachment.html>