Clinton gets impeached but Bush gets a pass...

[Labrocca]

Since a thread I was discussing in was about the Senate I decided to post a new thread about the House.

http://encarta.msn.com/media_701500271/Partisan_Breakdown_of_Seats_in_the_House_of_Repres entatives.html

So basically the House has a BIGGER margin today than it did in 1998. So why can't the House of Representatives impeach Bush???

Does anyone have an answer to why Bush can't be impeached by the Democrats?

[jafar00]

It's not a question of can't impeach. It's a question of won't impeach.

[Marley]

You've done it now!

"Facts to a toe tag liberal is like kryptonite to Superman."

[ViolaLee]

Since a thread I was discussing in was about the Senate I decided to post a new thread about the House.

http://encarta.msn.com/media_701500271/Partisan_Breakdown_of_Seats_in_the_House_of_Repres entatives.html

So basically the House has a BIGGER margin today than it did in 1998. So why can't the House of Representatives impeach Bush???

Does anyone have an answer to why Bush can't be impeached by the Democrats?
Would 219 House members vote to impeach?

Would anyone really want Cheney to be President?

[AnnEsthesia]

They would if they thought it would help get them re/elected.

[ViolaLee]

But there aren't 67 votes in the senate to remove him from office, so what's the point of impeaching him? Maybe the dems don't think it's wise to waste hundreds of millions of tax dollars on it like the republicans did with Clinton.

[Tyler7940]

I'm afraid I have to agree with Viola (Amazing!!). Plus, The presidential elections are coming up in about a year so what would be the point of impeaching him now?

[ViolaLee]

If we could actually remove the bastard, I'd be all for it.

[Marley]

How can anyone claim to know the vote in the Senate just by party affiliation?

If the House PROVES high crimes and misdomeanors, isn't it ALL Senator's duty to impeach?

Or are you admitting the Democrats had no sense of duty to the country when they jury nullified the House in 1998?

Impeachment isn't a partisan matter, moreover when it becomes a purely partisan matter, the whole country is f**ked.

Was impeachment in 1998 a pure party-line vote? I don't believe so.

Eventually, you rabid frothing leftists will have to have FACTS that conform to the rules.

Either the facts exist, or they don't.

If they exist, every politician has a duty to impeach, if they don't they don't.

What a dangerous bunch these leftists are today.

[Labrocca]

... so what's the point of impeaching him?

Ugh...what changed your mind from this post?

Now we have a President and VP and AG who actually deserve impeachment.

I thought the Dems were elected on a platform of "accountability".

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/12/an_open_house.php


One of the goals of Speaker-designee Pelosi is to restore accountability, honesty and openness at all levels of government.


I keep hearing about the President not being "above the law" and the Dems asking for "accountability" but I don't see much action going on. I guess justice has a price...

Maybe the dems don't think it's wise to waste hundreds of millions of tax dollars on it like the republicans did with Clinton.

I wouldn't consider justice for ALL the American people to have a price tag. I keep calling for Bush to be impeached but the Dems keep making excuses. You can't call a man corrupt and the worst president ever and then make excuses for your party about why they won't make him accountable.

[April15]

How can anyone claim to know the vote in the Senate just by party affiliation?

If the House PROVES high crimes and misdomeanors, isn't it ALL Senator's duty to impeach?

You would sure think so, but that isn't politics!

Or are you admitting the Democrats had no sense of duty to the country when they jury nullified the House in 1998?

The facts didn't meet requirements.

Impeachment isn't a partisan matter, moreover when it becomes a purely partisan matter, the whole country is f**ked.

Welcome to the brave new world of Rove tactics.

Was impeachment in 1998 a pure party-line vote? I don't believe so.

Eventually, you rabid frothing leftists will have to have FACTS that conform to the rules.

Either the facts exist, or they don't.

If they exist, every politician has a duty to impeach, if they don't they don't.

What a dangerous bunch these leftists are today.

The group of fascists that tried to impeach William Jefferson Clinton for trying to keep the honor of a woman is not a high crime or a question that should have been asked! What national security did it breach? Or was Ken Starr that obsessed with finding anything, even a zit on Clinton?
Pelosi has said that there is to much that needs to be done to correct the errors of this administration to be tying up the congress with impeachment of a Bonsai.

[quiet man]

Since a thread I was discussing in was about the Senate I decided to post a new thread about the House.

http://encarta.msn.com/media_701500271/Partisan_Breakdown_of_Seats_in_the_House_of_Repres entatives.html

So basically the House has a BIGGER margin today than it did in 1998. So why can't the House of Representatives impeach Bush???

Does anyone have an answer to why Bush can't be impeached by the Democrats?

sounds like it's time for a return to American Government class!
the duty of the house of representatives is to investigate and prosecute the president. the senate sits as jury and hears the evidence. the supreme court supplies the judge with the chief justice presiding. the 67 votes someone was referring to is the number required for overriding a veto. does that help at all?????????????
:peace: :peace: :thumbsup: :grrrr: :grrrr:[hr]the impeachment of Clinton was based on jealousy and telling the truth. if Clinton had come clean and told all , would we be talking about his impeachment now?

[Labrocca]

And....???

I don't get your point. I would think that if the House went after Bush and exposed all his crimes and lies to the American people that he would lose much of his support in the Senate. We all saw Clinton exposed and dragged into the open. Why doesn't the Democratic party do this to Bush? Every day I have to read posts bitching and whining and complaining about how terrible, corrupt, criminal, and incompetent he is. Yet when there is a chance to call him on it...DEAD SILENCE...oh blah blah..we can't...blah blah...the republicans...blah blah...veto power....blah blah...sorry but that's just a lot of poor excuses.

the duty of the house of representatives is to investigate and prosecute the president.

SO DO IT! They have control. My point is made. The GOP had house control and went after Clinton. Now the Dems have control and they leave Bush alone? What gives...if this man is so corrupt and doing all these unconstitutional actions shouldn't he be investigated by the House? I mean..before the election that was the general outcry wasn't it by the liberal base? Isn't it part of why Sheehan has left the left?

I quoted directly from the Democratic site.

Let me repeat it..

One of the goals of Speaker-designee Pelosi is to restore accountability, honesty and openness at all levels of government.

So...Nancy Pelosi as house speaker has done what to ensure these goals? Oh that's right...NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. At least when the GOP makes a promise to fuck shit up...they do it! Lip service government is the worst type of government imaginable and that's what the Dems are doing right now.

Are they afraid they won't find the corruption and look silly? Isn't Bush an unconstitutional war criminal??? Why aren't the liberals marching in the street protesting. Oddly there was a LOT of protests before the election but suddenly that has calmed down quite a bit. Rather unusual if you ask me.

[Josepha]

Two words - Dick Cheney. 40 million to put him in office - why impeach a figurehead?:sick:


And....???

I don't get your point. I would think that if the House went after Bush and exposed all his crimes and lies to the American people that he would lose much of his support in the Senate. We all saw Clinton exposed and dragged into the open. Why doesn't the Democratic party do this to Bush? Every day I have to read posts bitching and whining and complaining about how terrible, corrupt, criminal, and incompetent he is. Yet when there is a chance to call him on it...DEAD SILENCE...oh blah blah..we can't...blah blah...the republicans...blah blah...veto power....blah blah...sorry but that's just a lot of poor excuses.

the duty of the house of representatives is to investigate and prosecute the president.

SO DO IT! They have control. My point is made. The GOP had house control and went after Clinton. Now the Dems have control and they leave Bush alone? What gives...if this man is so corrupt and doing all these unconstitutional actions shouldn't he be investigated by the House? I mean..before the election that was the general outcry wasn't it by the liberal base? Isn't it part of why Sheehan has left the left?

I quoted directly from the Democratic site.

Let me repeat it..

One of the goals of Speaker-designee Pelosi is to restore accountability, honesty and openness at all levels of government.

So...Nancy Pelosi as house speaker has done what to ensure these goals? Oh that's right...NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. At least when the GOP makes a promise to fuck shit up...they do it! Lip service government is the worst type of government imaginable and that's what the Dems are doing right now.

Are they afraid they won't find the corruption and look silly? Isn't Bush an unconstitutional war criminal??? Why aren't the liberals marching in the street protesting. Oddly there was a LOT of protests before the election but suddenly that has calmed down quite a bit. Rather unusual if you ask me.

[lily]

So...Nancy Pelosi as house speaker has done what to ensure these goals? Oh that's right...NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. At least when the GOP makes a promise to fuck shit up...they do it!

I think I may be one of the few liberals that post here that hasn't wanted Bush or Cheney impeached so I think I can ask this question.......so the Republicans make a promise to fuck things up, that's a reason the Democrats should do the same?

Pelosi clearly stated that impeachment was off the table......so you want her to go back on her word?

[Stoner]

Does anyone have an answer to why Bush can't be impeached by the Democrats?


I got this, Lab. Let me handle it.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING WRONG IN ORDER TO BE IMPEACHED!!!!!

That is all.

[ViolaLee]

Labrocca Wrote:
Does anyone have an answer to why Bush can't be impeached by the Democrats? It's not that he can't. It's that they've decided to do other things, like end the war, investigate the Justice dept corruption, raise the minimum wage etc...

[AnnEsthesia]

Of course, it is hard to impeach anyone when they place anything even hinting at a problem under secrecy and start removing parts of government from oversight, start making claims that executive privilege covers everything they do down to their sneezes, etc. Too bad Bubba had not been slimey enough to claim that his blowjobs were covered by 'executive privilege', since they took place in the Oval Office.

But then again, what do you expect from a president who has, iirc, placed his FATHER's papers under secrecy as well. Gee, wonder why?

Bush's Veil Over History
by Kitty Kelley


WASHINGTON - SECRECY has been perhaps the most consistent trait of the George W. Bush presidency. Whether it involves refusing to provide the names of oil executives who advised Vice President Dick Cheney on energy policy, prohibiting photographs of flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq, or forbidding the release of files pertaining to Chief Justice John Roberts's tenure in the Justice Department, President Bush seems determined to control what the public is permitted to know. And he has been spectacularly effective, making Richard Nixon look almost transparent.

But perhaps the most egregious example occurred on Nov. 1, 2001, when President Bush signed Executive Order 13233, under which a former president's private papers can be released only with the approval of both that former president (or his heirs) and the current one.

Before that executive order, the National Archives had controlled the release of documents under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, which stipulated that all papers, except those pertaining to national security, had to be made available 12 years after a president left office.

Now, however, Mr. Bush can prevent the public from knowing not only what he did in office, but what Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan did in the name of democracy. (Although Mr. Reagan's term ended more than 12 years before the executive order, the Bush administration had filed paperwork in early 2001 to stop the clock, and thus his papers fall under it.)

Bill Clinton publicly objected to the executive order, saying he wanted all his papers open. Yet the Bush administration has nonetheless denied access to documents surrounding the 177 pardons President Clinton granted in the last days of his presidency. Coming without explanation, this action raised questions and fueled conspiracy theories: Is there something to hide? Is there more to know about the controversial pardon of the fugitive financier Marc Rich? Is there a quid pro quo between Bill Clinton and the Bushes? Is the current president laying a secrecy precedent for pardons he intends to grant?

The administration's effort to grandfather the Reagan papers under the act also raised a red flag. President Bush's signature stopped the National Archives from a planned release of documents from the Reagan era, some of which might have shed light on the Iran-contra scandal and illuminated the role played by the vice president at the time, George H. W. Bush.

What can be done to bring this information to light? Because executive orders are not acts of Congress, they can be overturned by future commanders in chief. But this is a lot to ask of presidents given the free pass handed them by Mr. Bush. (And it could put a President Hillary Clinton in a bind when it came to her own husband's papers.)

Other efforts to rectify the situation are equally problematic. Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, has repeatedly introduced legislation to overturn Mr. Bush's executive order, but the chances of a Republican Congress defying a Republican president are slim.

There is also a lawsuit by the American Historical Association and other academic and archival groups before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. A successful verdict could force the National Archives to ignore the executive order and begin making public records from the Reagan and elder Bush administrations.

Unless one of these efforts succeeds, George W. Bush and his father can see to it that their administrations pass into history without examination. Their rationales for waging wars in the Middle East will go unchallenged. There will be no chance to weigh the arguments that led the administration to condone torture by our armed forces. The problems of federal agencies entrusted with public welfare during times of national disaster - 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina - will be unaddressed. Details on no-bid contracts awarded to politically connected corporations like Halliburton will escape scrutiny, as will the president's role in Environmental Protection Agency's policies on water and air polluters.

This is about much more than the desires of historians and biographers - the best interests of the nation are at stake. As the American Political Science Association, one plaintiff in the federal lawsuit, put it: "The only way we can improve the operation of government, enhance the accountability of decision-makers and ultimately help maintain public trust in government is for people to understand how it worked in the past."

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1010-20.htm

[Marley]

Hillary's papers are being kept "secret" in the Clinton Liebrary while she is running for election.

I want to see 100% of Hillary's papers from 1992 - 2000 before I entertain a sinlge word from any Democrat on the matter.

[AnnEsthesia]

I would love to see Bill Clinton's papers too. But Bush has made it impossible to see them, even with Bubba's permission, unless HE also agrees. You do not see an issue with that? Really?

[April15]

I would love to see Bill Clinton's papers too. But Bush has made it impossible to see them, even with Bubba's permission, unless HE also agrees. You do not see an issue with that? Really?
Bush is a great con man. He sweet talked his way onto the hearts of the religofascist and then took them for the suckers they are.

[bobbylien]

Every day I have to read posts bitching and whining and complaining about how terrible, corrupt, criminal, and incompetent he is. Yet when there is a chance to call him on it...DEAD SILENCE...oh blah blah..we can't...blah blah...the republicans...blah blah...veto power....blah blah...sorry but that's just a lot of poor excuses.
Its quite simple, the democrats are trying to put whats best for the country ahead of politics. Maybe the republicans should watch and maybe learn something. The reality is that even impeaching Bush and Cheney wouldn't be worth the trouble and the damage it would do to the presidency and the political process would be irreversible. The only thing impeaching him will do is raise their approval rating(quite drastically i believe) and appease the radical left's lust for revenge. The high road is to let him serve out the rest of his miserable term and try to fix the mess when they get massive gains in 2008, including Hillary/Obama in the white house.

[Marley]

I'd like to know what you're talking about Ann.

Flesh that last assertion out for me some please.

I'll google around, just give me some specific search terms, thanks.

[AnnEsthesia]

Bush has made it so that if anyone wants to see the papers of any president starting with Reagan on, not only do they need permission of the president (or their family if they are dead), they also need the permission of the sitting president.

[Deadshot]

Does anyone have an answer to why Bush can't be impeached by the Democrats?


I got this, Lab. Let me handle it.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING WRONG IN ORDER TO BE IMPEACHED!!!!!

That is all.


It's not about "right and wrong" it's about politics. Don't you think the Democrats learned from the debacle and failed impeachment of Clinton?

During and after the impeachment, up until the moment he left office, Clinton's numbers were high. Clinton POTUS Job approval (http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton-.htm) Clinton was impeached on 19 December 1998, look at the link and his approval rating that came out on that day, 72%!!! Now look at March '99 AFTER his aquittal, 66%. He doesn't go below 58% from 12-97 until he leave's office with a 61%.

So why impeach Bush? You've already got Rummy gone, AG's gone, Rove left leaving only Cheney and Bush. At each stage of the game, criminal activities have played second fiddle to things like Executive Privledge and what could be talked about. The latest polls, including the latest from FAUX, puts Bush at 31% approval Bush POTUS Job approval (http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm) so why screw with that?

Even if you started today you couldn't get through the red tape to Impeach Bush, he'd put up road blocks at every turn and Dem's don't have veto-Majority control of either branch of government. Also, as I alluded to above, you have the Clinton effect, where an impeachment could bolster a POTUS.

So let Bush go off and die hard. He's lost so much in the 18 months. No Republican POTUS candidate wants Bush to stump for them. The GOP lost because of Bush and the War. So why expend energy in destorying an enemy that is destroying himself. You guys need to read a little more Sun Tzu

[Labrocca]

Well I am very glad we had this discussion. Hopefully those here having officially stated that Impeachment is a waste of time won't bring it up in other threads then. I seriously don't want to read a single word about Bush corruptions, unconstitionalities, or lies because unless you are willing to support impeachment and justice then you are just playing politics and making disingenuous remarks.

failed impeachment of Clinton

A failure? Hardly..it was a big reason Bush got elected in the first place. Certainly the smear campaign of draggin Clinton through the mud was a success. Remember why Gore lost? It was because he didn't want to enlist Clinton to help campaign for him. That was because of the impeachment and nothing more.

[AnnEsthesia]

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13233

FURTHER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures implementing section 2204 of title 44 of the United States Code with respect to constitutionally based privileges, including those that apply to Presidential records reflecting military, diplomatic, or national security secrets, Presidential communications, legal advice, legal work, or the deliberative processes of the President and the President's advisors, and to do so in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), and other cases, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Definitions.

For purposes of this order:

(a) "Archivist" refers to the Archivist of the United States or his designee.

(b) "Presidential records" refers to those documentary materials maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207.

(c) "Former President" refers to the former President during whose term or terms of office particular Presidential records were created.

Sec. 2. Constitutional and Legal Background.

(a) For a period not to exceed 12 years after the conclusion of a Presidency, the Archivist administers records in accordance with the limitations on access imposed by section 2204 of title 44. After expiration of that period, section 2204(c) of title 44 directs that the Archivist administer Presidential records in accordance with section 552 of title 5, the Freedom of Information Act, including by withholding, as appropriate, records subject to exemptions (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(8), and (b)(9) of section 552. Section 2204(c)(1) of title 44 provides that exemption (b)(5) of section 552 is not available to the Archivist as a basis for withholding records, but section 2204(c)(2) recognizes that the former President or the incumbent President may assert any constitutionally based privileges, including those ordinarily encompassed within exemption (b)(5) of section 552. The President's constitutionally based privileges subsume privileges for records that reflect: military, diplomatic, or national security secrets (the state secrets privilege); communications of the President or his advisors (the presidential communications privilege); legal advice or legal work (the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges); and the deliberative processes of the President or his advisors (the deliberative process privilege).

(b) In Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, the Supreme Court set forth the constitutional basis for the President's privileges for confidential communications: "Unless [the President] can give his advisers some assurance of confidentiality, a President could not expect to receive the full and frank submissions of facts and opinions upon which effective discharge of his duties depends." 433 U.S. at 448-49. The Court cited the precedent of the Constitutional Convention, the records of which were "sealed for more than 30 years after the Convention." Id. at 447 n.11. Based on those precedents and principles, the Court ruled that constitutionally based privileges available to a President "survive[] the individual President's tenure." Id. at 449. The Court also held that a former President, although no longer a Government official, may assert constitutionally based privileges with respect to his Administration's Presidential records, and expressly rejected the argument that "only an incumbent President can assert the privilege of the Presidency." Id. at 448.

(c) The Supreme Court has held that a party seeking to overcome the constitutionally based privileges that apply to Presidential records must establish at least a "demonstrated, specific need" for particular records, a standard that turns on the nature of the proceeding and the importance of the information to that proceeding. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 713 (1974). Notwithstanding the constitutionally based privileges that apply to Presidential records, many former Presidents have authorized access, after what they considered an appropriate period of repose, to those records or categories of records (including otherwise privileged records) to which the former Presidents or their representatives in their discretion decided to authorize access. See Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. at 450-51.

Sec. 3. Procedure for Administering Privileged Presidential Records.

Consistent with the requirements of the Constitution and the Presidential Records Act, the Archivist shall administer Presidential records under section 2204(c) of title 44 in the following manner:

(a) At an appropriate time after the Archivist receives a request for access to Presidential records under section 2204(c)(1), the Archivist shall provide notice to the former President and the incumbent President and, as soon as practicable, shall provide the former President and the incumbent President copies of any records that the former President and the incumbent President request to review.

(b) After receiving the records he requests, the former President shall review those records as expeditiously as possible, and for no longer than 90 days for requests that are not unduly burdensome. The Archivist shall not permit access to the records by a requester during this period of review or when requested by the former President to extend the time for review.

(c) After review of the records in question, or of any other potentially privileged records reviewed by the former President, the former President shall indicate to the Archivist whether the former President requests withholding of or authorizes access to any privileged records.

(d) Concurrent with or after the former President's review of the records, the incumbent President or his designee may also review the records in question, or may utilize whatever other procedures the incumbent President deems appropriate to decide whether to concur in the former President's decision to request withholding of or authorize access to the records.

(1) When the former President has requested withholding of the records:

(i) If under the standard set forth in section 4 below, the incumbent President concurs in the former President's decision to request withholding of records as privileged, the incumbent President shall so inform the former President and the Archivist. The Archivist shall not permit access to those records by a requester unless and until the incumbent President advises the Archivist that the former President and the incumbent President agree to authorize access to the records or until so ordered by a final and nonappealable court order.

(ii) If under the standard set forth in section 4 below, the incumbent President does not concur in the former President's decision to request withholding of the records as privileged, the incumbent President shall so inform the former President and the Archivist. Because the former President independently retains the right to assert constitutionally based privileges, the Archivist shall not permit access to the records by a requester unless and until the incumbent President advises the Archivist that the former President and the incumbent President agree to authorize access to the records or until so ordered by a final and nonappealable court order.

(2) When the former President has authorized access to the records:

(i) If under the standard set forth in section 4 below, the incumbent President concurs in the former President's decision to authorize access to the records, the Archivist shall permit access to the records by the requester.

(ii) If under the standard set forth in section 4 below, the incumbent President does not concur in the former President's decision to authorize access to the records, the incumbent President may independently order the Archivist to withhold privileged records. In that instance, the Archivist shall not permit access to the records by a requester unless and until the incumbent President advises the Archivist that the former President and the incumbent President agree to authorize access to the records or until so ordered by a final and nonappealable court order.

Sec. 4. Concurrence by Incumbent President.

Absent compelling circumstances, the incumbent President will concur in the privilege decision of the former President in response to a request for access under section 2204(c)(1). When the incumbent President concurs in the decision of the former President to request withholding of records within the scope of a constitutionally based privilege, the incumbent President will support that privilege claim in any forum in which the privilege claim is challenged.

Sec. 5. Incumbent President's Right to Obtain Access.

This order does not expand or limit the incumbent President's right to obtain access to the records of a former President pursuant to section 2205(2)(B).

Sec. 6. Right of Congress and Courts to Obtain Access.

This order does not expand or limit the rights of a court, House of Congress, or authorized committee or subcommittee of Congress to obtain access to the records of a former President pursuant to section 2205(2)(A) or section 2205(2)(C). With respect to such requests, the former President shall review the records in question and, within 21 days of receiving notice from the Archivist, indicate to the Archivist his decision with respect to any privilege. The incumbent President shall indicate his decision with respect to any privilege within 21 days after the former President has indicated his decision. Those periods may be extended by the former President or the incumbent President for requests that are burdensome. The Archivist shall not permit access to the records unless and until the incumbent President advises the Archivist that the former President and the incumbent President agree to authorize access to the records or until so ordered by a final and nonappealable court order.

Sec. 7. No Effect on Right to Withhold Records.

This order does not limit the former President's or the incumbent President's right to withhold records on any ground supplied by the Constitution, statute, or regulation.

Sec. 8. Withholding of Privileged Records During 12-Year Period.

In the period not to exceed 12 years after the conclusion of a Presidency during which section 2204(a) and section 2204(b) of title 44 apply, a former President or the incumbent President may request withholding of any privileged records not already protected from disclosure under section 2204. If the former President or the incumbent President so requests, the Archivist shall not permit access to any such privileged records unless and until the incumbent President advises the Archivist that the former President and the incumbent President agree to authorize access to the records or until so ordered by a final and nonappealable court order.

Sec. 9. Establishment of Procedures.

This order is not intended to indicate whether and under what circumstances a former President should assert or waive any privilege. The order is intended to establish procedures for former and incumbent Presidents to make privilege determinations.

Sec. 10. Designation of Representative.

The former President may designate a representative (or series or group of alternative representatives, as the former President in his discretion may determine) to act on his behalf for purposes of the Presidential Records Act and this order. Upon the death or disability of a former President, the former President's designated representative shall act on his behalf for purposes of the Act and this order, including with respect to the assertion of constitutionally based privileges. In the absence of any designated representative after the former President's death or disability, the family of the former President may designate a representative (or series or group of alternative representatives, as they in their discretion may determine) to act on the former President's behalf for purposes of the Act and this order, including with respect to the assertion of constitutionally based privileges.

Sec. 11. Vice Presidential Records.

(a) Pursuant to section 2207 of title 44 of the United States Code, the Presidential Records Act applies to the executive records of the Vice President. Subject to subsections (b) and (c), this order shall also apply with respect to any such records that are subject to any constitutionally based privilege that the former Vice President may be entitled to invoke, but in the administration of this order with respect to such records, references in this order to a former President shall be deemed also to be references to the relevant former Vice President.

(b) Subsection (a) shall not be deemed to authorize a Vice President or former Vice President to invoke any constitutional privilege of a President or former President except as authorized by that President or former President.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant, limit, or otherwise affect any privilege of a President, Vice President, former President, or former Vice President.

Sec. 12. Judicial Review.

This order is intended to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party, other than a former President or his designated representative, against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.

Sec. 13. Revocation.

Executive Order 12667 of January 18, 1989, is revoked.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,
November 1, 2001.



http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/11/eo-pra.html

[Marley]

Thanks Ann. Now, no good deed goes unpunished.

I understand the rules as you've provided, so how has the procedure played out?

Are you asserting that Sect 3(2)(ii) has occurred?

And how does this play out with the Constitution?

Hillary was never president, nor (check me here) was she ever on the government payroll at all.

So how can Hillary have it both ways here?

The woman is running for office while keeping secret what she's already done in the White House.

[Deadshot]

failed impeachment of Clinton

A failure? Hardly..it was a big reason Bush got elected in the first place. Certainly the smear campaign of draggin Clinton through the mud was a success. Remember why Gore lost? It was because he didn't want to enlist Clinton to help campaign for him. That was because of the impeachment and nothing more.


Do you really want to debate Gore's loss? C'mon, he wasn't crushed and it took the Supreme Court to decide the winner.

Here's a glimpse from Wiki, 2000 results (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Presidential_Election#The_General_Election_ca mpaign)

Presidential Candidate..... Party..... Popular Vote........ Electoral Vote
George W. Bush.......... Republican. 50,460,110 47.9% ........271
Al Gore .....................Democratic . 51,003,926 48.4% ........266
Ralph Nader .................Green ........2,883,105 2.7% ............0

So if you want to argue, lets do it. Because the majority of Americans didn't want Bush and the majority of Americans voted towards the LEFT, not the Right.

But that's not even the biggest debacle that came from the failed impeachment. It's failed because Clinton wasn't impeached! You don't play to win by default and the Supreme Court like Bush did. The biggest debacle was that the Republicans gave Clinton a free pass because he wasn't impeached. Don't you see that a Clinton impeached means that there's NO HILLARY!!!!

So you got your 8 years in power, but at what cost? Without Hillary in the race the Democratic party is as fractured as the Republican party. With no Bill out there to raise the hopes of those Democrats out there. Even if Hillary FUBAR's and doesn't get the nomination she's led the party and kept us all together, and unfractured, since '07. Jeez the Republicans are BEGGING Thompson to come in because they can't decide on a front runner.

The Republicans gave us ours. The wife of the POTUS who wasn't impeached, and who is the most popular democratic POTUS since Truman.

Thanx.:clapper:...all because of a failed impeachment.

[Labrocca]

But without the Impeachment would the race have been that close? I really believe if it wasn't for the impeachment that Gore would have won by a landslide. How can you disagree with that? At this point I wish Gore would have won and I don't even like Gore all that much but certainly he is a bright enough guy to keep America out of trouble. We are hated way too much worldwide.

The failed impeachment was also planned from day one. They knew he wasn't gonna get booted out of office. It was clearly a smear campaign. The same smear campaign the Dems are using by putting person after person in a public hearing. There is no evidence of wrongdoing but the impression of impropriety is enough and it encircles the President in such a manner as to implicate him. It's guilt by association.

I don't agree with a lot of your assessment. Hillary could certainly have run for President now if Gore had won. OR she should could have run for VP with Gore in 2004. A reverse Gore/Clinton ticket would have won her VP role which imho would have suited her better. Then in 2008 she would have gotten the nod for Presidential nominee. HOWEVER...the Impeachment has blocked the easy road. She has had to fight for her position. Gore is rendered useless and Bill hasn't imho gained back his full credibility yet and might never.

To say that impeachment didn't effect the 2000 race is really incomprehensible. To this day it's brought up in debates. While YOU might be a solid Dem supporter..there was a lot of middle ground that the Dems lost. Those middle ground people went GOP. And the furor over the Clinton impropriety made the religious right come out in droves. How old are you btw? Were you paying attention to politics 6-9 years ago?

[Marley]

Sorry, no "smear campaign."

The prosecutor appointed by Janet Reno referred charges to the congress.

Clinton was dirty and he got caught.

Once he was caught he CONTINUED to be dirty and committed crimes covering up.

Clinton did Clinton in.

And Gore, obviously, sucked because Democrats wouldn't allow him to execute his constitutional duty and step up to president. Instead they ignored the crimes Clinton committed and put politics over law costing them the past six years in the White House.

[Labrocca]

Oh...it's not that I think Clinton was innocent but let's face it. The whole BJ thing in the oval office was a witch hunt. Something meant to discredit more than anything else. The same is happening now by the Democrats. It's a proven to work tactic and Clinton was a prime example. The Dems are now using it with a twist...

[Deadshot]

But without the Impeachment would the race have been that close? I really believe if it wasn't for the impeachment that Gore would have won by a landslide. How can you disagree with that? At this point I wish Gore would have won and I don't even like Gore all that much but certainly he is a bright enough guy to keep America out of trouble. We are hated way too much worldwide.

I don't know, I think that without the failed Impeachment the Republicans could have picked apart Clinton, like the Dems' are doing to Bush now. So I believe that no impeachment would have meant a Bush landslide.

The failed impeachment was also planned from day one. They knew he wasn't gonna get booted out of office. It was clearly a smear campaign. The same smear campaign the Dems are using by putting person after person in a public hearing. There is no evidence of wrongdoing but the impression of impropriety is enough and it encircles the President in such a manner as to implicate him. It's guilt by association.

Then the Republicans failed miserably, because the shit didn't stick to Clinton. It is sticking to Bush though. As to a planeed failure, I disagree. First a few posts ago you said it wasn't a failure. Second it failed by one vote, a "planned" failure doesn't leave that much to chance. Finally, IF you're right then the Republican party is as coniving and evil as the FAR, FAR Left say they are. I simply don't believe that they are.

I don't agree with a lot of your assessment. Hillary could certainly have run for President now if Gore had won. OR she should could have run for VP with Gore in 2004. A reverse Gore/Clinton ticket would have won her VP role which imho would have suited her better. Then in 2008 she would have gotten the nod for Presidential nominee. HOWEVER...the Impeachment has blocked the easy road. She has had to fight for her position. Gore is rendered useless and Bill hasn't imho gained back his full credibility yet and might never.

Really?!? That's how you see it? If the impeachment had succeeded Hillary could not run with the only POTUS in the USA's history that had been kicked out of office as her husband. Talk about being painted with a brush of guilt, she'd be crucified with the guilt.

As to the impeachment hindering her, hardly. For her it's a "Red Badge of Courage" against a Republican onslaught. Seriously Bubba was being Impeached for lying about telling people about an extra-marital affair. How could the scorned woman come out as anything but a clean slate? Especially after "standing by her man" and not destroying him when she could have.

As to fighting for her position, every politician has had to do that.

To say that impeachment didn't effect the 2000 race is really incomprehensible. To this day it's brought up in debates. While YOU might be a solid Dem supporter..there was a lot of middle ground that the Dems lost. Those middle ground people went GOP. And the furor over the Clinton impropriety made the religious right come out in droves. How old are you btw? Were you paying attention to politics 6-9 years ago?


I'm 37, remember you wished me a happy birthday not to long ago...I was paying attention to politics. Were you paying attention to the world?

Bush barely won, not because of the Republican party but because of the split in the DEMOCRATIC party. Please re-read the stats on the 2000 election, it was Nader who made the difference. ALL of those who voted for Nader would have voted Gore before Bush. That wasn't about the impeachment as it was a statement about Gore. I think you need to look at that race as a historical example because the Dems' in '00 were in the same situation that the Republicans are now. NO CLEAR FRONT RUNNER!

It wasn't about impeachment but direction after 8 years of control...kinda like now.

[Marley]

"The whole BJ thing in the oval office was a witch hunt."

"witch hunts" are conducted by the opposition.

JANET RENO referred the Paula Jones to Judge Starr.

Are you claiming that Clinton's AG, Janet Reno, was motivated to "discredit" her boss?

Sorry, the plain facts do not support your position, at all.[hr]January 16, 1998: Attorney General Reno secretly petitions the Special Division of the U.S. Court of Appeals for an expansion of Mr. Starr's jurisdiction into the Lewinsky affair, citing possible witness tampering and obstruction of justice.


True or false?

[ViolaLee]

Oh...it's not that I think Clinton was innocent but let's face it. The whole BJ thing in the oval office was a witch hunt. Something meant to discredit more than anything else. The same is happening now by the Democrats. It's a proven to work tactic and Clinton was a prime example. The Dems are now using it with a twist...
And the twist is that the allegations actually have something to do with the government policies and the Justice Department being used as a political tool, while the Clinton witch hunt was all about his private life, and having nothing to do with the governmental policies.

[AnnEsthesia]

I am not certain as this is the first I have heard of any bitching about her papers, but if they are in the library and I looked up other first ladies and theirs are in their respective libraries as well, it is not that unusual where her papers touch on policy and the like for them to be kept back. If you look at some of the other first ladies, you will see that their papers are also closely guarded and have been slow in being released. But don't quote me, since I really do not know. However, in this day and age, how can you tell why something is not released? After all, the President and Vice President are no longer part of the Executive Branch, right? :)

[Marley]

Again, the FACTS:

January 16, 1998: Attorney General Reno secretly petitions the Special Division of the U.S. Court of Appeals for an expansion of Mr. Starr's jurisdiction into the Lewinsky affair, citing possible witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

No "witch hunt" no "private life."

Only Clinton's AG seeing that crimes were investigated and resolved.






Ann:

This "First Lady" is running for President.
She's keeping secrets from the VOTERS.

[AnnEsthesia]

Again, the FACTS:

January 16, 1998: Attorney General Reno secretly petitions the Special Division of the U.S. Court of Appeals for an expansion of Mr. Starr's jurisdiction into the Lewinsky affair, citing possible witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

No "witch hunt" no "private life."

Only Clinton's AG seeing that crimes were investigated and resolved.




Ann:

This "First Lady" is running for President.
She's keeping secrets from the VOTERS.


Well, when all the other candidates hand over every last document they have ever generated to the public, we will talk. Every candidate has things they have not made public.

[Labrocca]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_(controversy)

You can google and look up a LOT of sources about Whitewater but there is the wiki page to get you started. I expect if Hillary gets the nomination Whitewater will be brought up extensively but she has had some years to cover her tracks on this.

[Marley]

Ann:

I'm all for every presidential candidate to make public their documents created IN THE WHITE HOUSE!

Gee, wouldn't those documents be a clear unimpeachable source of evidence for how that candidate would perform their job IN THE WHITE HOUSE?


LMAO

Lambrocca you scamp! Referring Viola to Wikipedia!!!

too funny

[AnnEsthesia]

emale, and yet, the current resident of the white house does not even allow those charged with oversight of him to see *his* papers, his VP's papers.. hell, I am sure by now he has classified his dog's papers.

So I guess considering how the white house is being run, if Clinton has anything not released, it just makes her more ready for the job. :)

[Marley]

"charged with oversight?"

Funny stuff.

Notice nothing has been sent over to the remaining branch -- judicial -- for resolution?

Madison v. Maulberry established the "oversight" by the judicial of the other two dear, so far they have been invited into this matter, have they?

Why?

[April15]

I would think a 40 million dollar investigation could find more than a BJ to justify the expense. Now if Bonsai would openup it should only take about 1 buck to find the first offense.

The again he could have his bases covered like Al Capone.

[AnnEsthesia]

emale, you have been following the news, right? You did read all about Cheney stating how his office, and other offices, are not actually part of the Executive Branch and therefore do not have to turn over required info, right?

[Marley]

I understand Cheney's assertion is soundly based.

So sue him!

That's what the courts are for!

We'll see if it's soundly based or not, right?

Simple stuff Ann.

You need to keep your head up and your eyes open and ponder why all there is a bunch of noise whipping you up and no resolution of legal matters with the courts still there open for business.

[April15]

I understand Cheney's assertion is soundly based.

So sue him!

That's what the courts are for!

We'll see if it's soundly based or not, right?

Simple stuff Ann.

You need to keep your head up and your eyes open and ponder why all there is a bunch of noise whipping you up and no resolution of legal matters with the courts still there open for business.
In a way it is funny this cheney assertion. I think congress should request a reimbersment from him for all the monies spent by or for him.

[Labrocca]

Two wrongs don't make a right and I don't see ANYONE here defending Bush or Cheney in that regard. Emale has stated that ALL presidential candidates to make all their documents public. I would think you could agree on that? Again this seems like more hypocrisy from the left. First it's about accountability now it's about secrecy.

I will go on record that the secrecy of the white house has imho seriously damaged it's credibility. I believe it's wrong and probably unconstitutional or illegal. For this reason I think Bush and Cheney need to be investigated. Dems get elected...all this accountability and open government has gone out the window despite Nancy Pelosi promising both.

We should ALL be expecting better from our government. We should be placing partisanship aside for these issues. Without a transparent honest government we are all fucked.

[AnnEsthesia]

Well, talk to Bush. He has made it so that he has final say in whether items in the presidential library are released. hehehe (Note that it is the things that have been deemed by the archivists as to having to do with policy that have not been released. I would bet you have to get permission from Bush to release them, anyway... and he is not big on releasing secrets. :) )[hr]oh, and emale, please show me how the VP's office is not actually part of the Executive branch. How is that factually sound?