And speaking of being paranoid, you may fall into that category on the subject of impeachment. The Dems are not going to impeach commander koocoobananas, they are going to ride that pony right up to Nov. 08.

p.s. I’m sure you will, in you commentary, be as deferential to President Hillary when she has the secret wire-tapping program at her disposal. You will not accuse her of any improper use until you have proof positive. Right?

BTW–Comey’s 1st name is James, not Robert.

*********************
Thanks. I changed it.

THERE IS NOT ONE IOTA OF PROOF - NOT ONE ANYWHERE - THAT THIS PROGRAM WAS USED FOR ANY BUT ITS INTENDED PURPOSE. NOT ONe.

And rick hasn’t even a tiny lil itty bitty bit of proof that it was.

If he tells us he does, he’d have to kill us.

I don’t think you are asking the right question. Impeachment is always political, in part because there will always be gray areas of the law — any president acting in good faith could take actions that are in that gray area and that can be determined after the fact to be illegal. The political element comes after the acts are determined to be illegal: Congress has prosecutorial discretion to decline to impeach.

We can use the Johnson and Clinton impeachments as examples. Johnson directly violated the law, as he considered the law in question to be unconstitutional. Since Johnson was later proven right, Congress was right to refuse to convict him. Clinton certainly violated the law, but I would question as to whether the impeachment was wise considering the de minimus nature of the offense.

Congress is prosecutor and the jury - it can choose to not prosecute, it can jury nullify by failing to convict even when the law is broken. Both decisions are appropriately entirely political. Not necessarily partisan politics, but political nonetheless.

If Congress concludes that Bush has operated in good faith, they ought not impeach, and if they do impeach, they ought not convict.

I have seen very little evidence of Bush and Cheney EVER acting in good faith.

One rarely has proof of a crime before the investigation starts. Yes, yhere is no proof of improper behavior by the WH but it
(1) is consistent with previous behavior, such as
(2) is consistent with their ideology regarding presidental authority during “wartime” and their rhetoric about how their political critics assist the enemy.
(3) is consistent with their stonewalling refusal to do anything to allay such suspicions other than tell us they did nothing wrong.

Of course, I thought Saddam had WMDs for the same reason, so who knows.

You are not really a nonconservative commenter here until Rick Moran slaps you silly a time or two. My first time getting nailed was quite a shock, but Rick Moran continues to be open and respectful between slapdowns ;-). Don’t get your panties in a bunch, its just part of the fun. Rick Moran continues to be one of the most thoughtful and analytical conservatives writing anywhere. Don’t throw that valuable voice out just because he pitches a little red meat to the righties once in a while at a commenter’s expense. Your comments are usually valuable and I for one would like to see them continue in the future.

Even in corporate America, incompetent managers blame underlings for their own actions. Asking for extra-legal tools can be a useful excercise, but in this case, the tools were already sufficient; just not utilized.

Additionaly, the only legal scholars I’ve read who find the NSA and POTUS on firm legal grounds are those, like Yoo, who believe in the ‘Unitary Executive’, a theory I’m pretty sure Jefferson and even Madison might find troubling. Certainly the staunchest conservative in my memory, Goldwater, would call it bullshit.

The left’s often valid complaints about the excesses and illegalities of this administration are often dismissed by saying: I know they have a point but they are just so mean about it, I avoid conceeding their point just out of principle.

Are you predicting that Congressional hearings are going to continue down their inevitable partisan path? How far are the democrats willing to go? If Representative Pelosi’s latest tactics in the house are any indication… we’re in for a long ride…

You are exactly right that I have no proof they used the program for nothing other than getting terrorists. You would be exactly right that anyone who thinks otherwise is just being paranoid - if this operation didn’t sit in a backdrop of everything else that surrounds this administration. I would very much like to believe our president and his intentions. I don’t anymore. And the manner in which they tried to continue this operation does not fill me with any confidence. That does not make me an “idiot” or “paranoid”. It means I no longer trust him. No more and no less.

This is your blog after all. I was under the impression that we were allowed to comment and I don’t think I was “trolling” so I will avoid further comment.