CNBC ran an interesting discussion via Kudlow and Co. tonight on the possibility of impeachment regarding President Bush and his actions which many (including myself) feel violated the law and overstepped his boundaries both as commander-in-chief and also based on those authorities granted him by Congress.

So what about. Clinton was impeached for committing perjury. OK... he broke the law... fine. He was acquitted on the perjury itself but a judge stripped him of his law license.

So what happens to Bush iff the deeds he did are found to be criminal? Should he be impeached. It'll take both parties to do it most certainly. So... is there enough evidence to convict him? It's a good question. There is some debate over the legality. An appeals court ruling nearly 30 years ago could let them off the hook. But does it? Some argue the case back then and the case now are apples and oranges. Once must consider that Clinton took the same stance Bush did in some less publicized cases.

Then there's the issue of the leak. Some feel this leak of the whole thing to the NYT is classic treason. Some are suggesting if we go after the Plame leaker, we should go after the leaker in this case. There are a lot of issues to work out in this. I think a full investigation needs to be done by Congress. Senator Specter (R-PA) has already suggested an investigation could be underway. I'd say an independent counsel myself but we'll have to see what we get.

posted by Stithmeister @ 10:03 PM
 
0 Comments:


Post a Comment

<< Home