Posted on 01/16/2006 5:03:36 AM PST by Kaslin
A top US Republican senator for the first time mentioned impeachment in connection with President George W. Bush's authorization of electronic surveillance inside the United States without a court warrant.
Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, cautioned it was too early to draw any conclusions as his committee prepares to hold open hearings into the growing controversy early next month.
But in his appearance on ABC's "This Week" program, Specter insisted the Senate was not going to give the president what he called "a blank check."
When asked what could happen if Congress finds Bush in violation of the law, Specter answered: "Impeachment is a remedy. After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution, but the principal remedy ... under our society is to pay a political price."
He made it a point to clarify, however, that he was speaking theoretically and was "not suggesting remotely that there's any basis" for a presidential impeachment at this moment.
The controversy erupted last month after the New York Times reported that Bush had repeatedly authorized the National Security Agency to monitor overseas telephone calls and e-mail traffic to and from people living in the United States without requisite permission from a secret court.
Under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the government can conduct such surveillance only for 72 hours as it seeks a warrant for continued monitoring.
Bush has blasted the disclosure as harmful to national security and vowed to continue the wiretaps, arguing he had the right to authorize them under his constitutional war powers as well as a resolution passed by Congress in the wake in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The measure adopted three days after the strikes allows the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force" against those involved in them, but contains no specific language on surveillance.
Since when did Arlen Specter become a Republican?
In the meantime, some leftists are trying to say that shouting at someone is terrorism. I get what you are trying to say. These terrorist-huggers make me sick. FRegards....
he may be getting a bad rap here. And I hate rap! ;)
Ditto on both counts!
Words escape me. Spector has no sense of time and place. He is an idiot.
He was set up by Steffy and the media went with the snip-it, as they always do.
the media does not include the snip-it where the question is asked and the comments by spector right before the word impeachment.
Yes, think Specter said twice, "not in this case" but was answering in general terms. He was sandbagged.
No surprise to me an article like this appears today. the following are my comments from yesterday about George Stephanopolis' interview with Arlen Spector. It was clear yesterday George Steph was intent on giving credence to the notion of impeaching George Bush.
______________________________________
"Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 15 January 2006 ^
Posted by YaYa123 to Bahbah
On News/Activism ^ 01/15/2006 8:54:01 AM PST · 476 of 1,119 ^
Mark Warner = "shallow as a puddle" LOL !
But one thing..he's smart enough not to fall into George Steph's atttempted trap on impeaching George Bush.
George Steph grilled Spector and now Warner on whether or not they don't think Bush should be impeached for taking us to war without fully consulting the congress.
Spector said he wasn't going to provide a soundbite on the subject but then he did exactly that when Steph kept pressing. "What remedy if Bush did commit crime?", Steph asked. "Well what remedy?" Spector did mention impeachment just as Steph wanted him to do"
__________________________________________
Spector did a surprisingly fine job of chairing the Alito Hearing, but yesterday he reverted back to norm, being useful idiot to the left.
Yeah, Republican. My rear-end.
I'm sure Pres. Bush and Sen. Santorum must be proud that they saved Sen. Sphincter's bacon in the Republican primary in '04. And all the political geniuses on FR who thought this was a smart political move must be equally thrilled with his performance. Oh yes, and those Republican senators who made him chairman of the Judiciary Com., when any sane person could see that he would only screw things up for Pres. Bush, can take a bow, too. All the PA Democrats who voted for Snarlin' Arlen are pleased as punch that they have such stupid Republicans as opponents.
It is not journalism in my eyes
You would think he's got enough experience at this game by now to know the result of answering such a question.
totally misreported (surprise!). Specter made it clear that there wouldn't be any impeachment. That being said, he clearly doesn't like Bush, jealousy perhaps?
Please disregard this blatant lie by AFP. Specter was set up, and his answer was the same that you or me would give to a theoretical question.
Unforuntately. . .all too easy to believe when it comes to Specter. . .
. . .and given that we should always consider the source first. . .
. . just WHO is Breitbart.Com?
Not only that, but nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Ssenate must hear the articles of impeachment, just as nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Senate must give an up or down vote relating to a nomination.
So, even if the House impeaches the President of a judge, the Senate can refuse to conduct the trial.
Of course it's not. And Arlen's aware of that. Which is why I can easily believe he was party to Snuffleupagus' little set-up.
. just WHO is Breitbart.Com?
All I have to see is AFP and I know enough to beware!
I know what you mean. But Specter should be smart enough to know he was being manipulated into saying "impeachment," and that the MSM would tout the story as "Specter mentions impeachment." I would have prefered he say "well, that's a hypothetical, and not reflective of the facts we have" and deflected the question. Again, he clearly could have forseen that he was being manipulated; apparently he didn't mind all that much.
I wonder what Durbin, Kennedy, Murtha, etc. would say to a loaded, leading hypothetical question that tried to get them to mention the idea of sedition or treason prosecutions for some of the most extreme opponents of of Bush, the war, and the US effort.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.