Decision ‘08

Clift Diving

Ah, the joys of Eleanor! In the midst of a mostly correct piece on the foolhardiness of the Feingold censure move, there are several vintage Cliftian observations:

Just when the momentum was going against the president, Feingold pops up to toss the GOP a life raft.

It’s brilliant strategy for him, a dark horse presidential candidate carving out a niche to the left of Hillary Clinton. The junior senator from New York is under attack for being too soft on Bush and the war, and most of the non-Hillarys are to her right. There is a vacuum in the heart of the party’s base that Feingold fills, but at what cost? His censure proposal looks like a stunt, “the equivalent of calling for a filibuster from Davos,” says Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow with the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. To win in ’06, he says, “Democrats need to take the Hippocratic Oath: first, do no harm.”

Oooohhh, that’s going cost the DLC support among the Nutroots®! (long pause for punchline to sink in, then a double-take in sync with the drummer’s rim shot) - Thank you very much! Good night!…

Okay, where was I? Oh, yeah - well, that’s true enough, and well-observed by Eleanor, but then she gets a little off-track:

With everything souring for the Republicans, the only thing that can rescue them is a foil, and Feingold’s call for censure offered that, at least for now. Conservative radio hosts were raising the specter of impeachment should the Democrats take over the House in November, a call to arms for the otherwise demoralized GOP base.

It’s more than conservative radio hosts making that connection - I think it’s quite fair to assume that impeachment proceedings would follow from Democratic control of Congress. The odds are at least 50-50. Continuing:

Congressional insiders say if the election were held today, the Democrats would capture 18 to 23 seats in the House. They need 15 to regain the majority. Things could get better by November, or worse, depending on your perspective.

There is talk of a possible October surprise to revive the GOP’s standing, and the fact that the biggest military air assault in Iraq since the war began came the day after Bush sank to 33 percent in a Pew poll had some Democrats suspicious. “Is it an attempt to prop up his numbers?” asks the Democratic strategist. “It’s probably not fair to think that, but it shows where we are in this presidency.”

This is the kind of unattributed garbage that makes people so rightly wary of the major media. Someone whom Eleanor knows tells her something, and it makes it into print. Congressional insiders? I’ve seen no analyst of substance make such a rash prediction. An October surprise? Who’s making that accusation? Is it ‘the Democratic strategist’?

Not a bad outing for Eleanor, really, but then, I’m probably biased since it largely reflects my own view. Things are grim enough for Republicans right now, though, that one need not add the little embellishments. When the facts are so bad, why bother with the fiction?

UPDATE 2:48 p.m.For daring to criticize his hero Feingold, Clift is described as a tool of Karl Rove (!!!!!!) by Glenn Greenwald. Nicely done, Glenn - glad you’re keeping your head on straight…

27 Responses to “Clift Diving”

1 peter Says:
March 18th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Instead of looking at Feingold’s proposal for censure from a strictly partisan perspective — is it a “brilliant strategy for him” or not — let’s look at the rightness or wrongness of censure.

Feingold has a letter to the editor in today’s Times which starts as follows:

“The President broke the law, and Congress must hold the President accountable.” Presumably, no argument there: this is exactly the same thing we heard when the Republicans impeached Clinton.

Now, you may feel that Bush did not violate the law, and that would certainly be debated in the event that a censure bill comes to the Senate floor. There is certainly enough evidence to suggest that Bush did violate the law: the FISA bill says one thing in plain English, and Bush admitted to acting entirely differently. But if there is a case to be made that he did not violate FISA, it would certainly have lots of opportunity to be raised if Congress were ever to seriously look into what happened.

In reality, Congressional Republicans have blocked any investigation into the NSA program and are in the process of retroactively exculpating the Bush administration.

The obvious question: why is it that the Republican Congress — which brought the nation’s business to a halt so they could impeach Clinton — when faced with palpable evidence of Presidential illegality act to give Bush a free pass?

And the follow-up question: if the GOP was justified in impeaching Clinton for violating the law — a far more serious consequence than censure — why isn’t Feingold justified in his call for censure.

On a completely different note: today’s Journal notes that the key to happieness is having an income of $100K plus, being a Republican, and regularly going to religious services. Who knew?
2 Muffin the Cat Says:
March 18th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Peter,

What Feingold is doing is convicting Bush without a trial. He is trying to be the jury and judge for this issue. He is asking other senators to do the same. What happened to the “Innocent until proven guilty” principle that is held in high esteem by the left wing in this country? All of a sudden this principle does not apply. Since you feel that there is overwhelming evidence to convict Bush, contact you representative and request that the House proceed with Articles of Impeachment. If the evidence is so overwhelming against Bush, then the House should have no problem with impeachment and then the Senate can decide if Bush is guilty. As far as the constitutionality of Bush’s actions, no court has yet to rule and may never rule.

Feingold and the other two senators that have co-signed the censure measure are out of line here and they need to be censured, not Bush. Bush is innocent until proven guilty.
3 Mark Says:
March 18th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
peter, if you feel Bush broke the law, and you obviously do, it’s your right to support censure or impeachment. I don’t think the case has been proven, and I don’t think the public will be amused.

I have always said that there is a good case that can be made that Bush broke the law with the NSA eavesdropping - however, I’ve always followed that with the caveat that I don’t think it’s gonna fly to impeach or censure a president whose transgressions were to err on the aggressive side in protecting the public.

If the Democrats win back the House, we shall find out…
4 peter Says:
March 18th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
The answer to both of your posts would be the same: saying that Feingold “is convicting Bush without a trial” is tantamount to saying that Bob Barr convicted Clinton without a trial. Bringing a bill to the Senate floor means that the Senate would “convict” or not convict — not Feingold alone.

Feingold believes that there is a prima facie case that Bush broke the law (as Bob Barr did about Clinton — and Bush too, for that matter). When Feingold and Barr agitated for censure/impeachment, all they did was bring a bill to the floor — the processes of “trial” and “conviction” would be handled by the full Congress.

(Put another way: of course Bush is entitled to the presumption of innocence, but a finding of innocence or guilt would be by the full Congress. Feingold’s bill in analogous to an indictment, not a conviction).

Let’s turn the sentence around. Let’s assume — as Mark concedes — that there is sufficient reason to argue that Bush broke the law. If you believe that introducing a bill to censure the President is convicting Bush without a trial, then what would the remedy be if not censure or impeachment?

And the question remains: do you believe that the Congress was justified in impeaching Clinton but not censuring Bush — and if so, why?
5 Mark Says:
March 18th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
peter, I absolutely believe that Congress was justified in impeaching ~~Bush~~ Clinton - he lied to a grand jury, and that’s not disputed. That’s a big deal, and worse, he did it for personal gain and slandered many innocent women because he couldn’t keep his zipper up.

The difference, as I’ve tried to make clear, is that Bush made his decisions to protect the country - and he did it on assurances from Justice and the NSA that his actions were legal, whether they were or not…
6 Aaron Says:
March 18th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
The losers in the impeachment of Bill Clinton were congressional Republicans. It is true that whenever someone breaks the law, they should be held accountable, but we don’t live in a perfect world and what should happen isn’t always what does happen. Impeachments are inherently different from a regular trial because there are so many political implications. If there is not a feeling among most people that the president has done something inherently wrong (legal or otherwise), then impeachment or censure will only hurt those who bring the charges. This is what happened in 1998, and if the Democrats attempt to impeach Bush next year, it will happen to them as well. (The polls I have seen report that about 50-60% of Americans either don’t mind or support the wiretapping.)

Republicans shot themselves in the foot in 1998. If Democrats want to do the same in 2006, why not mock them?
7 peter Says:
March 18th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Someone who is guilty of a crime will be convicted, regardless of whether he thought his actions were justified. If the judge also thought the acts were justified, they would be mitigating circumstances, but they are not relevant to the question of guilt or innocence.

The question is whether or not Bush violated the law. The question of whether the putative violation is justified is secondary — and can’t be resolved until the first issue is decided. The GOP will not allow the Congress to debate this fundamental issue. I think this is a shameful dereliction of duty.
8 Muffin the Cat Says:
March 18th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Feingold’s bill in analogous to an indictment, not a conviction

It is not up to the Senate to indict, it is up to the House to indict. Bob Barr was a member of the House of Representatives which would give him the ability to sponsor Articles of Impeachment or Censure. Feingold is in the Senate. Again, Feingold is out of line. He is acting unconstitutionally. Let the House take up the issue if they wish. Maybe you can get Pelosi to introduce a bill for censuring. If they feel there is enough evidence to indict or censure, then let the trial begin.

I will ask one other question. Does the Constitution allow for censuring the President or Vice-President? Could it be in their Rules? Don’t know the answer. Has a President ever been censured before?
9 Muffin the Cat Says:
March 18th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
I did finally find this information.

While some members of Congress in 1998 have questioned the constitutionality of a resolution censuring Clinton, a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report shows that four other presidents have faced similar resolutions in Congress: Andrew Jackson, the best known; John Tyler, whose censure was contained in a committee report approved by the House; James Buchanan, censured once with his Navy secretary for corrupt awarding of contracts and again after he was out of office for failure to halt Confederate secession; and Richard Nixon, who was hit with two censure resolutions in 1973 and 1974, both of which were overtaken by moves to impeach.

Jack Maskell, author of the CRS report, lays out the legal framework for these debates, noting that although there is “no express constitutional provision regarding censure . . . there is also no express constitutional impediment” for Congress or either chamber to adopt a resolution expressing censure or other opinion of a president.

Maybe the Senate does have the ability to censure.

Go to this web site:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/censure111998.htm
10 Mark Says:
March 18th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Very interesting…thanks for the info…
11 Muffin the Cat Says:
March 18th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
Some more information I found.

From:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/11/impeachment.censure/

Has any president ever been censured? Yes, there was one: Andrew Jackson, in 1834. The Senate censured Jackson for defying its will by removing government deposits from the Bank of the United States.
Jackson ignored the censure. He charged the Senate was violating the Constitution because the censure charged him with an impeachable offense, and only the House could bring impeachment charges against the president. Jackson’s censure was expunged from the Senate record three years later.

More:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/censure.htm

Another site:

Andrew Jackson
In 1834 the Senate voted to censure the president for assuming upon himself unconstitutional powers. In 1837 the censure was declared illegal because Jackson did not have the benefit of a trial.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_5_15/ai_53744895
12 Gulf Coast Bandit Says:
March 18th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
I almost do hope the Democrats take back the House, just so they can be ridiculous for 2 years, and thus guarantee the demise of their party and a (relatively) conservative Congress for awhile.
13 Mark Says:
March 18th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Muffin, very interesting - particularly the bit about Jackson going on the counterattack…
14 Sean P Says:
March 18th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
It seems to me the entire argument for censuring/ impeaching Bush is identical to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. Johnson was impeached for dismissing a member of his cabinet, in violation of a statute (passed over his veto) which expressly prohibited the President from dismissing a cabinet member without consent of congress.

There was absolutely no dispute whatsoever that Johnson acted in violation of that statute, and yet historians have been unanimous in condemning the congress that impeached Johnson. And its pretty easy to see why. If this is the standard for impeachment, damn near every President we have ever had has committed an impeachable offense. How many Presidents have not arguably violated the War Powers Act since its inception? Didn’t Jefferson impinge on Congress’s spending power by committing the US to the Louisiana Purchase? Didn’t Lincoln suspend Habeus Corpus? Acting in contravention of a non-criminal statute is not a crime. And its not impeachable. Period.
15 Tom Maguire Says:
March 18th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
Someone who is guilty of a crime will be convicted, regardless of whether he thought his actions were justified.

That may be the funniest thing I have read today. But this was close:

The question is whether or not Bush violated the law. The question of whether the putative violation is justified is secondary — and can’t be resolved until the first issue is decided.

Let’s just note that censure/impeachment is a *POLITICAL* process, not one carried out by passionless logic machines. And here on Planet Earth, Senators and Congressman will very carefuly assess motive, intention and consequences before they decide if an act even needs to be investigated. Or, as Arlen Specter said in Bush’s defense, “He acted in good faith”.

If the emotion of political puzzles is too overpowering (cf Greenwald, who apparently thinks that Elenor Clift, the NY Times, The New Republic, and Kevin Drum are all Rovian outlets), try this Judge Judy example:

David is busted for going 80 in a 55 zone while driving his in-labor wife to the hospital; John is busted for going 80 in a 55 zone because (he said) he was late to meet his bookie.

Do you (a) think David and John will face the same punishment;

(b) think they deserve the same punishment?

Hint - if your answer to (a) is “Yes”, you have a limited future as a political consultant; if your answer to (b) is “Yes”, you have a limited future as a politician.

But if you think “no” is the answer, then you should have no trouble differentiating between (a) a President who lied to a grand jury to impede a civil sexual harassment suit, and (b) a president who may or may not have broken the law after receiving legal advice from the DoJ and briefing Congressional leaders about his intention to move aggesssively to defend the nation.
16 Mark Says:
March 18th, 2006 at 11:46 pm
Well put, Tom - that’s why you’re making the big bucks…
17 Muffin the Cat Says:
March 19th, 2006 at 12:12 am
From what I have read, Andrew Jackson was a firecracker. One of the issues that I give Bush and “F” on is his lack of fighting back against all the negative information that has been published against the administration. His lack of action may tarnish his long term reputation on his presidency. Time will tell.
18 peter Says:
March 19th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Is censure or impeachment a political judgment? Of course it is. Regrettably, they are the only remedies which Congress can take against a sitting President who violates the law. The fact that they are political do not mean that they are necessarily wrong. Clinton’s impeachment was overtly political. In your opinion, does that mean that it is also wrong?

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.
19 peter Says:
March 19th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Well, for starters, Clinton was never convicted of perjury, as he was acquitted in the impeachment trial. (Of course, Libby hasn’t been convicted of anything either.)

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.
20 peter Says:
March 19th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Well, for starters, Clinton was never convicted of perjury, as he was acquitted in the impeachment trial. (Of course, Libby has not been convicted of anything either, and has the presumption of innocence).

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.
21 Muffin the Cat Says:
March 19th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Mark,

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.
22 peter Says:
March 19th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
pretty weird — I saw Mark’s post (time stamped at 2:47), responded to it (time stamped at 2:19, 28 minutes earlier), did not see the response on the site, reposted (at 2:23), and then saw both posts including Mark’s, which was moved further down the thread — as we say in New York, go figure –
23 Muffin the Cat Says:
March 19th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Peter,

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.
24 Mark Says:
March 19th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
peter, Clinton was dragged into his problems, all right, but it was an appendage of his doing the dragging. ‘Gave Deceptive Answers’ is, of couse, a nice way of saying perjured himself before a grand jury - do you support the Lewis Libby investigation? If you do, should Clinton not have faced jail time himself?….After all, their crime is the same (and don’t tell me any nonsense about exposing a covert agent - Libby is not charged with that crime…
25 peter Says:
March 19th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Well, we may disagree about politics and politicians, but we’re aligned insofar as you are absolutely right that there is too much hate in politics — one of the reasons the roster of candidates for 2008 is so weak (on both sides) is that it’s hard to imagine why anyone would want to give up a good career in anything else to be in politics and walk into the propeller every day –
26 Mark Says:
March 19th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
peter, I may be responsible for that time stamp weirdness - I noticed my blog was keeping time in the Eastern Time Zone, and I live in the Central, so I changed it just this afternoon.

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…
27 Nadia Hassan Says:
April 5th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Your analysis negates the substance of the issue–Clift said it looks like it’s extremist: well, 42% of the country supports it. That’s more than for George W. Bush’s social security privatization plan.
What about the substance of the issue? I think Peter Beinart is the one who’s correct on the issue in his op-ed/column, “Big Russ.”