“From his very first term, Bush shocked many by reaching who had either been convicted or pleaded guilty to crimes during the Reagan and Bush administrations’ and others who many felt should have been indicted.“ “You have a very long list of people and what emerged through the two terms was that people who seemed to be accused of violating the law had a rapid accent in this administration.“ “Now, instead of investigating that, the congress actually gave the president a standing ovation during the State of the Union speech when he promised to continue to violate that law.“ “…this president’s theory of his power is now I think, is so extreme it is unprecedented. He believes that he has the inherent authority to violate federal law. He has
Topics:
Daniel Becker considers the following as important: Civil Liberty, constitutional law, Donald Trump, Featured Stories, George W. Bush, Jonathan Turley, Keith Olbermann, law, politics
This could be interesting, too:
Angry Bear writes Planned Tariffs, An Economy Argument with Political Implications
Joel Eissenberg writes Will DOGE be an exercise in futility?
Bill Haskell writes The spider’s web called Healthcare Insurance
Bill Haskell writes Funding Public Goods Problematic??? Blame the Tax-Dodging Billionaire
“From his very first term, Bush shocked many by reaching who had either been convicted or pleaded guilty to crimes during the Reagan and Bush administrations’ and others who many felt should have been indicted.“
“You have a very long list of people and what emerged through the two terms was that people who seemed to be accused of violating the law had a rapid accent in this administration.“
“Now, instead of investigating that, the congress actually gave the president a standing ovation during the State of the Union speech when he promised to continue to violate that law.“
“…this president’s theory of his power is now I think, is so extreme it is unprecedented. He believes that he has the inherent authority to violate federal law. He has said that.“
“…it was stated that he could in some circumstances order federal officials to violate federal law. And this is consistent across the board with this president. Frankly, I’m not too sure what he thought he was swearing to when he took the oath of office to uphold the Constitution and our laws?“
I stumbled upon this this discussion Keith Olbermann had with Jonathan Turley sometime around May 6, 2006. Besides the obvious change in thought Mr. Turley has had, since becoming a Fox News analyst, is that this clearly shows the Trump era is far from unique. Did the 8 years of having President Obama and some Democratic Party control of Congress wash away our memory of the Bush era so completely that we ended up here today? I guess it did.
It’s prophetic, this discussion. Has Trump really made us recently numb to the idea that a party which lies profusely to ultimately implement singular control of our government is the normal course of our politics? The answer is no! Trump did not do this. This has been worked by the Republican party and it’s money for decades. They don’t quit. They decided on a strategy, implemented the plan back around the Nixon time with the Powell memo and have been relentless. Any set back is just a moment to rethink the plan but not the strategy to their goal.
The goal has been knowable for decades if one cared to see beyond the immediate moments and media framing. This discussion by Keith and Jonathan makes that clear. Does Jonathan still believe his statement: I’ve never seen a president who’s so uncomfortable in his constitution skin.
There are many directions and thoughts to take this post in, but I’ll leave it up to you in the comments except for this: I have mentioned it many times. The book, Why Nations Fail and their theory of inclusive vs exclusive governance. Societies move between the two. It appears easier to go from an inclusive society to exclusive government than the other way around. Thus, the title from Keith question: …does the pendulum swing back? Can it? Will it?
Below is the video and transcript.
Keith: ….from the point of the view of the Constitution, the point of the view of the law of the land, what are you seeing here?
Jonathan: Well this is a pretty impressive rogues gallery. From his very first term, Bush shocked many by reaching who had either been convicted or pleaded guilty to crimes during the Reagan and Bush administration’s and others who many felt should have been indicted. They included people like Elliot Abrams, who pleaded guilty to 3 crimes. They where misdemeanors. Ah, John Poindexter who was convicted of 3 crimes. Those were thrown out on a mere technicality later. You had Otto Rice who was accused of a domestic surveillance, um- propaganda program. You have a very long list of people and what emerged through the two terms was that people who seemed to be accused of violating the law had a rapid accent in this administration. And one has to wonder whether this is suddenly a criteria that the president likes people who are willing to go to the edge of the law and beyond it to achieve what he believes is a worthy purpose.
Keith: If it’s personnel decisions or its a president signing a, a statement relating to a law that basically says I’m not going to obey this law if I don’t feel like it, or it it’s something larger, more aggressive domestic surveillance or any of these other things; where are the constitutional checks? Is that machinery still present, is it still working? Is it rusted or is it not working at all?
Jonathan: Well, it’s not working very well. Many federal judges have in fact really brought the Bush administration I, um, up to the bar of the court and they have in fact rejected many of the arguments, including the Supreme Court of the United States. But, the real check and balance for this type of thing I believe rest with congress and congress has done nothing. Do you realize that congress has not even held a substantive investigation of the NSA operation. An operation that most of us believe was criminal, that the federal law defines quite clearly as a Federal crime. Now, instead of investigating that, the congress actually gave the president a standing ovation during the State of the Union speech when he promised to continue to violate that law. When he continued, he said he would continue this program. And the people who were responsible for passing the law he was violating gave him a standing ovation, it was the most bizarre thing I’ve ever seen in my life. But, now we have the architect of that program who’s been nominated to head the CIA. Now, that was not a natural choice. Because, if you look at his record it was actually fairly mixed. You were talking about General Hayden and General Hayden is accused of wasting as much as 2 billion dollars when he was at the NSA on a program called Trailblazer. Almost 2 billion dollars. Normally that would be an impediment to advancement!
Keith: I’m surprised he didn’t get Secretary of the Treasury. The, the wartime argument that always comes back in these, in these kinds of debates about presidential powers, what’s the history on that in terms of the Constitution and the presidents, have presidents who have seen, seem to have stretched the Constitution, have they been investigated in wartime even under the much stricter definitions we used to have?
Jonathan: Well first of all, this presidents theory of his power is now I think, is so extreme it is unprecedented. He believes that he has the inherent authority to violate federal law. He has said that. Not just in signing statements. In the infamous torture memo that Alberto Gonzalez signed, it was stated that he could in some circumstances order federal officials to violate federal law. And this is consistent across the board with this president. Frankly, I’m not too sure what he thought he was swearing to when he took the oath of office to uphold the Constitution and our laws? I’ve never seen a president who’s so uncomfortable in his constitution skin.
Keith: All of this Jonathan, has been likened to the swing of a pendulum. That, that this is Vice President Cheney, defense Secretary Rumsfeld harkening back to their days as rookies in the, in the Ford administration watching the fallout of presidential powers being cut back after the abuses of Richard Nixon. If that’s true, if it is a pendulum, does the pendulum swing back? Can it? Will it?
Jonathan: Well unfortunately civil liberties don’t swing back like other issues. Civil liberties is a very precious commodity. When you loose them, it tends to run out of your hand like sand and it’s hard to get it back. And that’s one of the dangers here. That presidents, when they acquire power rarely return it to the people. And so, we have to be very concerned. This country is changing in a very significant way and it’s, it’s something that citizens have to think about. Because, if there is a war on terror, and I believe that we must fight terror obviously. But, we are trying to defend that Constitution and we’re really at a point where the president is arguing about his own presidential power in ways that are the antithesis of that Constitution and the values that it contains.
Keith: Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley. As always, please sir thanks for your time thanks for joining us.
Jonathan: Thanks Keith.