So when are we going to have hearings on the NSA scandal?

[slash196]

I remember when the story broke, both parties were promising to hold hearings on the matter as soon as Congress was back in session. Have there been any plans since they returned to set up these hearings, or are they hoping we just forgot about it?

 

[conjur]

I believe they start in February.

 

[BDawg]

Holding hearings would wthe war on terrah.

 

[Darkhawk28]

We're more likely to find out who the whistleblower was than finding out about the illegal act itself.

Oral Snatch err Orrin Hatch was on C-Span and he said that he was most disturbed about the illegal act over revealing classified information than what the President did.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
We're more likely to find out who the whistleblower was than finding out about the illegal act itself.

Oral Snatch err Orrin Hatch was on C-Span and he said that he was most disturbed about the illegal act over revealing classified information than what the President did.

Well, I think we know now
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1773494&enterthread=y

 

[piasabird]

Technically if it is illegal for a president to authorize the wire tapping then it is also illegal for the NSA to allow the wiretapping happen. So Either someone at the NSA will have to resign or be fired or it will have to be ruled ok.

I just wonder how hard people want to push this.

Think of this scenario. Congress asks the attorney general to skip impeachment and bring Federa Charges agains George Bush. Bush Resigns and the Vice president becomes president and then dies from or has to resign due to failing Health. I am guessing the Vice President as president gets to appoint a vice president if he has the chance. If not I think it falls to what Speaker of the House?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Technically if it is illegal for a president to authorize the wire tapping then it is also illegal for the NSA to allow the wiretapping happen. So Either someone at the NSA will have to resign or be fired or it will have to be ruled ok.

How about we go for the "trifecta" and fire the President, the President's aides who pushed it and the folks at the NSA would carried out the order?

 

[piasabird]

It is very hard to fire a president unless he quits willingly. You would be hard pressed to get rid of Cheney. The President probably can still appoint a new vice president before he leaves office or Dick will do it the very first day he assumes the job. I am guessing Congress would have to approve his appointment.

Remember you have to impeach a president. No charges have ever been filed against a sitting president. It would make things very difficult and you would expect a Grand Jury to be convened first. Congress cant fire a president. They would have to impeach a president with 2/3 majority. Then they have to have a trial and prove it is an offense worth dismissing a president. This would take a long time to bring about. People are up for election and this might not sit well with the voters.

Congress may not have the guts to go through with this again. However, I say bring it on and make the leading democrats show their true political agenda. It will just make them look like the fools that they are. Their true hate will come out during a proceeding like this. The public deserves to see them for the people that they are.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: piasabird
It is very hard to fire a president unless he quits willingly. You would be hard pressed to get rid of Cheney. The President probably can still appoint a new vice president before he leaves office.

Remember you have to impeach a president. No charges have ever been filed against a sitting president. It would make things very difficult and you would expect a Grand Jury to be convened first. Congress cant fire a president. They would have to impeach a president with 2/3 majority. Then they have to have a trial and prove it is an offense worth dismissing a president. This would take a long time to bring about. People are up for election and this might not sit well with the voters.

The likelihood of impeaching the President and whether he SHOULD be impeached and summarily convicted by the Senate are two seperate arguments.

But one this is for certainly, I don't like this situation one bit. It taints everything and needs a full bi-partisan investigation.

 

[shira]

Hearings investigating potential wrongdoing of a Republican President by a Republican-majority congress CANNOT be impartial.

The most meaningful way of addressing the NSA scandal would be to appoint an independent prosecutor. The Justice department is involved in this scandal up to its eyebrows, so if this isn't THE classic scenario where an independent prosecutor is warranted, none exists.

And this wouldn't be one of those independent prosecutor investigations that would drag on and on: There is no dispute of the facts, at least those we know of. So a decision on the legality of George W. Bush's actions would be extremely easy to make. And if the President (and his confederates) are determined to have broken the law, charges could be filed in short order. At that point, Congress would have very little choice but to impeach.

 

[techs]

I addressed this in an earlier post where I said I think the hearings will happen soon so they can be over as early as possible before the november elections. The last thing the Republicans want is a Democratic House or Senate controlled hearing that the Republicans can't control. Plus they would not want a Democratic House which could vote an act of impeachment.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Democrats can't call it to the floor - they're the minority party.
Republicans won't call it to the floor as the Majoprity party, because it will expose them.

So, slide it to the right . . . maybe the American People will forget in another 15 minutes.

 

[Lemon law]

Bush is somewhat clueless on the letter and spirit of the constitution and sees only the lure of limitless power.
And surrounds himself with advisors who keep saying your doing a heck of a job Bushie. But that entire NSA
spying is something he not only admits but is proud of.-----basing part of these new powers on the congressional resolution authorizing the President to use his powers to conduct the war on terrorism.-----which now suddenly calls for a supreme court to do its bit to define powers----with the Republicans in control of all three branches of government.

The conventional wisdom in our nations history has been that the President does not expand Presidential powes while under fire-------watergate being a prime example-----But this time GWB has firmly placed the noose around his own neck
by admitting the spying-----But given current Republican control GWB will prevail in his blatent power grab.

UNLESS GWB becomes a big Republican liability.

Which could easily happen for three main reasons (1) Iraq spins out of control and we need allies quick----then only a dramatic act like chucking Bush and Cheney overboard could bring them back aboard-----after all, Bush is not exactly
the kind of leadership you need when delicate diplomacy is required. (2) The entire set of current scandals--Abramoff,
Delay, Libby, CIA doctored intelligence about the war, and Cheneys secret energy task force somewhat combine forces
and all the hound dogs start barking up the tree by Bush's bedroom.--add in a few whistle blowers jumping ship with credable documentation.-----and with no hope for the President to say " I am not a crook"--- I can see the congressional Republican leadership saying impeach and convict that millstone around our neck quick-------hopefully before the November/06 elections. (3) China and Japan call in our notes----rampant inflation and economic collaspe follow-----and the blame falls on the borrower in chief.------again the GOP congressional majority will be looking for a scapegoat and let George do it will be tempting.----especially if some cooked books are found and Japan and China hinge renewed credit to a dramatic demonstration of fiscal sanity.

Bush was supposed to be on a roll in 05 after another sucessful election.---all that political capital to spend-----and instead 05 was a terrible year.----------Bush may be betting his life in 06-------and if he flops big----there is now that ready made noose to pull on.----If Bush does go by impeachment, unlike Nixon, it will not be a long drawn out process where various government branches act in concert building slowly to a final conclusion.

If the public demands it, it will come at the speed of a foot squashing a hated cockroach.

Probably won't happen-----but it could happen.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Democrats can't call it to the floor - they're the minority party.
Republicans won't call it to the floor as the Majoprity party, because it will expose them.

So, slide it to the right . . . maybe the American People will forget in another 15 minutes.

Forget what? :laugh:

 

[DealMonkey]

Thus far, we've only heard from Bush and his lawyers, who of course believe that authorizing the NSA to spy on us is legal. What I'd like (at minimum) is a few more legal opinions. I almost forgot, we heard from the investigative arm of Congress who believe the action was on "shaky legal ground." What I really want is a definitive opinion one way or the other. That means Congress holds a hearing and/or the USSC issues a decision. I'd also like to hear from the FISA court who were supposed to be meeting w/ the administration in order to understand their legal basis for doing an end-run around the FISA court. Their frustration must be palpable considering many of the legitimate FISA warrants were probably tainted by unwarranted spying.