Lindsey Bozo Graham
If you ever though Lindsey Graham was a reasonably good guy, just watch him make an utter fool of himself at yesterday's hearings on the Feingold censure proposal:
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002633.htm
Update: A bit more on this from Anonymous Liberal at Glenn Greenwald's site:
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002633.htm
Update: A bit more on this from Anonymous Liberal at Glenn Greenwald's site:
In its article covering Friday's censure hearing, the New York Times reports:
Several Republicans argued that whatever the legal status of the spying program, it did not deserve punishment because, unlike Nixon, Mr. Bush had acted in good faith.
"This is apples and oranges," Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, told Mr. Dean. "Anybody who believes that Richard Nixon was relying on some inherent-authority argument is recreating history."
Oh really. Here's a passage from the same 1969 TIME Magazine article Glenn highlighted yesterday:
If anything, the Nixon Administration has been less than apologetic about the practice. Last month, in a memorandum filed during the Chicago trial of eight men charged with conspiring to incite acts of violence during the Democratic National Convention, the Justice Department claimed the inherent right to bug or wiretap-without court orders-any time it felt that the "national security" was in jeopardy.
As authority for this broad power, the Government cited the President's oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" from domestic subversion as well as foreign enemies. Contending that every President since Franklin Roosevelt had permitted such wiretaps, the Government went on to imply that they were even more important now because of the growing violence and rioting in the nation's cities and on its campuses.
Not only did Nixon rely on an inherent authority argument, but he had an infinitely stronger case because Congress had not yet passed FISA. Nice try, though, Senator Graham.
2 Comments:
This is the same Lindsey Graham who said this in pressing the impeachment of President Clinton, right?
I just want you to know as you look back and look at these tapes and find out what we're doing, there's one member of Congress, there's a lot of us here, believe the president has lied to us to this very day, that we can't reconcile ourself with that, that it was in a lawsuit with an average, everyday citizen's legal rights at stake.
I thought that the Feingold censure resolution is about lying "to this very day" and the "everyday citizen's legal rights" that FISA is supposed to reflect.
He also said there:
I still believe that every president of the United States, regardless of the matter they called to testify about before a grand jury should testify truthfully and if they don't they should be subject to losing their job. I believe that about Bill Clinton and I'll believe that about the next president. If it had been a Republican, I would have still believed that and I would hope that if a Republican person had done all this that some of us would've went (sic) over and told him, You need to leave office.
Not "sworn testimony" (just "testimony" to the entrire American public and deceit toward Congress), but not "impeachment", either.
Bozo and partisan hypocrite.
To the update:
At least John Dean made that point (about the bogus national security justification) in the hearing.
(A great post & good links, thanks!)
Post a Comment
<< Home