By the way, I haven’t forgot your excellent suggestion on numbering comments – just haven’t had time yet to look into that piece of code…

You and I see issues from two different perspectives. You are on the left and I am on the right. We both use our unique perspectives to support and defend. You do this for Clinton and I partake in the same actions for Bush.

I feel Mr. Bush has done a good decent respectable job as President. The war in Iraq while not perfect has gone much better than most and in the end, I feel it has been worth the price we as citizens are paying. Mr. Bush has appointed many judges that I feel will make decision based on the Constitutions instead of some obtuse foreign law. Mr. Bush does not deserve the “hate” that some people have for him.

I doubt I will ever feel Clinton was a good president. To me he will go down in history as an average president and will probably be known better for his impeachment trial and his sexual antics more any other issue within his presidency. He also does not deserve the “hate” directed at him.

Clinton or any other president or vice president cannot face an outside trial for criminal actions while in office. They can face a civil trial as Clinton proved and which he lost. From my understanding Hillary paid the $750,000 from her blind trust when he lost the civil suit to Paula Jones. Cheney can be sued civilly for his actions during his recent hunting accident if the other lawyer wishes to sue him for damages.

They are protected by the Constitution which states that the only people that put them in office can take them out of office through Impeachment and Conviction. Read Section 4, Article II, the last paragraph of Section 2, Article I, and the last two paragraphs of Section 3, Article I. Nixon was going to be charged criminally after he resigned from office but Ford pardoned him.

Clinton could have face a trial for perjury after he left the Presidency in January of 2001 but he had already been indicted and tried and found innocent while in office through the actions of Congress. He did however lose his New York law license for 5 years due his actions. He recently just got it back.

I think “gave deceptive answers” is a more accurate description than “perjured.” Much of what Clinton said was technically true (but deceptive), and other things he said did not meet the legal definition of perjury. I doubt that either of us wishes to rehash this sorry episode, but a fuller argument that there was no perjury can be found at:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonperjury.html

I don’t think Clinton should have been impeached, although I think censure was more than appropriate. My point remains: I don’t think it is possible to have a consistent position which claims that Clinton should have been impeached, yet Bush should not be impeached (or, at minimum, censured) for offenses which, in my opinion, are far worse.

I think “gave deceptive answers” is a more accurate description than “perjured,” as much of what he said was technically true (but deceptive), and other things he said did not meet the legal definition of perjury. I doubt you want to rehash this sorry episode, but a fuller argument showing why perjury was not an open and shut case can be found at:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonperjury.html

I don’t think that Clinton should have been impeached (although I think a censure would have been more than appropriate). However, I don’t think that it is possible to maintain a consistent position that Clinton should have been impeached and Bush should not be impeached (or at minimum, censured) for what I believe to be far more serious offenses.

Can motive be a mitigating factor? Of course, as noted above, in the 4:17 post. Mitigating, but not necessarily exculpatory. The guy driving at 80 mph is still liable for a speeding ticket, even if he is driving his wife to the hospital. He may be helped by prosecutorial discretion, or maybe not. To use a different example: some have argued on this site that the New York Times reporters who broke the NSA story should be indicted for printing confidential government information. However, they acted out of principle: at great personal risk, they brought the story of government illegality to public attention. Judy Miller and Tom Cooper are similar situations. If these reporters broke the law by reporting these stories (a big if), should they go free because what they did served the public interest?

Can I distinguish between a President who lied to a grand jury in a civil case and one who willfully violates the FISA law? Of course. The one who violates the FISA requirements — which were established precisely to prevent the things which happened — is much worse. Clinton was dragged into a civil case which was funded by his partisan enemies, and he gave deceptive answers. This is wrong — no doubt about it — but trashing the Fourth Amendment is far worse. Even worse than that is misleading Congress and the American people into war.

I can also distinguish between censure and impeachment. Clinton should have been censured, but certainly not impeached. I don’t think that Bush should be impeached, but I believe that he should definitely be censured.

The last sentence in Tom’s post is just plain wrong. What advice did Bush get from the DoJ?

“On one day in the spring of 2004, White House chief of staff Andy Card and the then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales made a bedside visit to John Ashcroft, attorney general at the time, who was stricken with a rare and painful pancreatic disease, to try—without success—to get him to reverse his deputy, Acting Attorney General James Comey, who was balking at the warrantless eavesdropping.”

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10663996/site/newsweek/

If John Ashcroft and James Comey were against the warrantless wiretaps, then you know you have a problem. Alberto Gonzales is, quite obviously, a lapdog and will rubber stamp whatever his boss asks him to. John Mitchell advised Nixon that using the FBI to spy on an enemies list. Legal approval by the AG is not an exculpatory defense. Going back to those bygone days of Watergate, and stealing a line from Sam Ervin: I know that Bush broke the law because it’s there in plain English. How do I know this? English is my mother tounge.

As for briefing Congressional leaders: according to the Congressmen — most notably Rockefeller — the briefings were incomplete, and Congressional resistance to the plan (at least Rockefeller’s) was ignored.