Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Friday, March 09, 2007

Error of Failing to Investigate Breaches of Constitution

ref Read the drivel going around: The GOP is desperate to avoid fact finding and reviews. All the more reason to do it.

Backlashes occur against those who do something rash, not against those who prudently apply the rule of law. The real backlash is likely to be against those who refuse to assert their oath, but make excuses to do nothing about grave breaches of the Constitution.

Inaction means "they are refusing to act on their oaths of office."Ref

Ref The world can gather evidence: Who is or is not fully asserting their oath to gather facts, oversee war crimes, and fully enforce the Geneva convnetions.

It cannot be said that only certain results will come with attempts to hold others accountable; while the uncertainty goes in the President’s favor despite this brazen refusal to be accountable. That is absurd and not a serious debate.

What You Can Do Pass this list of New Mexico DNC legislators: Ask your friends to politely contact them, and ask them for their reasons for not supporting fact finding. We the People need to know what "thinking" is behind the decision not to make informed decisions.

* * *

Ref The siren song of excuses is long. Without facts, how can someone say, "We should not find facts?" Absurd.

If, as some argue, finding facts will "play into" the President' hand, why isn't the GOP pushing for impeachment: This "obvious backfiring" for the DNC would mean the Republicans should be pushing for something that would "obviously" be something that causes a "bad problem for the DNC." Small problem: Despite claims that impeachment would "play into" the President' hand, the GOP isn't pushing for something they can blame on the DNC. They’re doing the opposite: Blocking something they say would be good for the President. How stupid is that.

Regardless what the charges are, it is appropriate to investigate. We cannot use the "lack of in formation" to justify inaction on finding information. That is circular.

The frames intended "high crimes" to mean grave breaches.

If the GOP Senate refuses to find guilt, then the GOP Senate may be lawfully destroyed through the election process.

Whether someone is or is not conservative is meaningless on the rule of law. We either will enforce the law against all or we do not have the rule of law. It is not appropriate to fix the idea of "conservative" in the mind of any reader, and then pretend that word is a barrier to action. No, the action comes after the investigation.

It is not appropriate to associate those who want facts with "revolution." No, the GOP has engaged in rebellion against the rule of law.

The way forward is to gather facts. Let the Senate decide whether the President is or is not guilty.

We do not have to wait for more "NO, we aren't going to do anything." We can find new leaders in 2007 and prepare for the 2008 elections.

Comparisons with Watergate, especially without fact finding, are premature. There may be many smoking guns, piles of evidence. It is unreasonable to say that the Senate is "unlikely" to do anything. Let them decide what action to take after impeachment. If the Senate refuses to convict for something that House says the President should be charged with, then let the public hold the Senators to account.

Talk of the benefits of doing nothing are fleeting. Pretending there is a game going on is a delaying tactic by the GOP to pretend that they are debating, but only stalling.

* * *

Surely if the GOP cold point to any possibility that impeachment would backfire on their opponents, the GOP would push for impeachment. They do not because impeachment will only hold the GOP to account, nobody else.

Nixon only resigned because there was pressure, fact finding, and a decision to hold him accountable.

Talking about whether there may or may not be smoking guns when there has been no investigation is meaningless. Each impeachment relies on different facts.

Refusing to start what may fail is not reason to not start what is required: Fact finding.

Let the Senators decide to stand and support war crimes. If that is the legacy of the Senate, then let the public decide if they want to vote war criminals into office. They cannot be sure of victory.

What may or may not happen in the future is meaningless as to what is required today to assert one's oath. Talking about possible adverse outcomes is meaningless, especially when the adverse outcome may be required.

* * *

This much drivel to dissuade action on impeachment means there are many in the GOP hoping for a miracle.

Surely, if Bush's popularity would rise in an impeachment, the GOP should be calling for impeachment. But they are silent. Why does the GOP talk about the "benefits" of impeachment, but they are not working to bring this result about? No answer for the goons in the GOP using nonsense.

We the People choose to put the rule of law to the throat of this tyrant. The Republicans have been defeated. The question is whether the leadership will or will not fully assert their oath.

It is absurd to pretend that a reasonable assertion of power to check a tyrant will backfire. Again, where is the GOP in taking advantage of this "obvious" backfire that will occur? The GOP is silent when they should be supporting things that would supposedly destroy the DNC.

It is fitting that the President's illegal activity be confronted. The Framers wanted factions to clash.

The author believes that the reckless approach the GOP took with Clinton would compel the DNC to be reckless with Bush. where is the evidence the GOP and DNC are one and will be consistently reckless? There is none. Surely, f the GOP was aware of this possibly for recklessness, the GOP would be silent, and let the DNC do reckless things, not "Help" them by blocking impeachment.

* * *

It is meaningless to talk about impeachment being "bad". Regardless the weaknesses of the GOP, the issue before us in the rule of law.

Notice the language of the authority: "native view" and "conservative instincts." This is prattle talk.

It is absurd to argue that a needed confrontation with the President will be "good" for the GOP to "really": Where is the GOP in calling for impeachment? They are silent, not wanting to "exploit" this thing.

The argument for inaction presupposes the possibly of guilt; but pretends that impeachment will distract attention from this guilt. How absurd.

* * *

The words you're reading about what may or may not happen in the Senate have no bearing on whether the public will or will not hold the GOP Senators to account.

If the impeachment effort is a "weapon" for the GOP, then why isn't the GOP pushing hard for impeachment to take advantage of this "weapon"? The answer is: The GOP opposes the real weapon of impeachment when it is applied to their illegal rebellion.

* * *

The calls for Americans to "rally" to the Committee chairman are a ruse from the real rally needed: To hold the President to account.

There are many frauds; but the issues of the military are a symptom of a failed leader who has engaged in war crimes.

There is no requirement to find a "smoking gun" when the evidence has been burned, and this Presidents' weapons are to toadies in the DNC who assent to illegal warfare. They have been induced to go along with what is illegal because, they fear, doing what is right might be wrong. How absurd.

The piece is utter prattle, the only things the GOP has to avoid needed action on the issues of impeachment, high crimes, and Geneva violations.

Surely if the Momentum is on the side of the GOP, why do they spend so much time convincing the DNC to avoid doing what the will "Benefit" the GOP? Yet, where is the GOP action to bring about this result? None, the GOP is silent.

* * *

Do not for a moment believe this ruse of, "We share common goals." No, this buffoon writing this piece is using non-sense, manipulation, and sophistry. There is no basis for the author to justify why the results will backfire; or if they would, why the GOP is not pushing for the things that would benefit for the GOP.

Their goal is to slow roll.

To suggest the issue of impeachment will be "academic" pretends that the result is known before the facts are known. This is sophistry. That is absurd.

If Bush could be vindicated, the GOP should be pushing for impeachment to discredit the DNC. They are silent.

The author is merely spreading words of desperation. There is reason to be hopeful: Americans are waking up to the possibility that there is evidence, the DOJ is in retreat, and the White House is trapped.

The way forward, regardless the defeatists, is to use all lawful options to protect the Constitution. Find facts, compel answers, and review the evidence under the law.

Once the GOP Senators refuse to assert their oath, the Voters will have their chance to decide whether America’s leaders can or cannot be trusted with power.