Skip to comments.Krauthammer: Not just criminalization of policy, but declaration of war [between Dems & Repubs]
Posted on 07/14/2009 3:46:38 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Krauthammer's take from last night's All-Stars Panel on Special Report with Bret Baier:
On Eric Holder possibly appointing a prosecutor to investigate Bush-era interrogation techniques:
If he does this, it is a terrible mistake. What we heard today, that [the special prosecutor] will only be for rogue interrogators who went outside the lawpresumably, you know, [for] sadists who wanted to have a good time out of the rubric of interrogation. I'm not sure there are a lot of those.
What will happen is once you appoint a prosecutor, as we know from past history, he's out of control. There are no limits on what he or she can do. And that means it will not stop with the rogue interrogator. It will go all the way to lawyers. It will go up to politicians.
And what this would be would be a criminalization of policy differences with a previous administration in the middle of two warsin a way that will create open warfare (a) with the CIA, and (b) between Democrats and Republicans. This is a declaration of war if it...does actually come to pass.
Is it any wonder we have leaders with no balls? They simply reflect their constituents.
Three words: LOCK and LOAD!
The evil political offspring of Slick and The Beast are with us today. Emmanuel, Begala, Stephy, Carville for starters and surely dozens of others I have blessedly forgotten at this moment.
That nails this issue right there.
These fools are playing with fire. They’ve been doing it since 2000, when the Dems were intentionally disenfranchising military votes. Now if I’m military and my vote doesn’t count, maybe I’m more likely to create a situation where it does . . .
Fools. Playing with fire in multiple ways.
When the blood begins to flow, you will have to pick a side.
There quite possibly is coming a time soon when everyone who has taken that oath will have to reveal their true character. If it comes to that, God help us.
I stand with the Constitution and those who hold It first.
The Constitutional Convention of the late 1700s placed the Speech or Debate Clause into Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution. The clause protects members of Congress from prosecution for their activities related to the legislative process. Legislative activities within the Senate or House that may not be part of a prosecution against a member include speeches and debates, preparing committee reports, voting, conducting committee hearings, and any other task required by the nature and execution of the office.
Legislators are even protected from prosecution when accused of violating another individual's constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has held, "Legislators are immune from deterrents to the uninhibited discharge of the legislative duty . . . for the public good." The protection, although not absolute, extends to congressional aides if their duties involve legislative activities a member of Congress would perform.
Since protection is limited only to conduct which is part of the legislative process, legislators' remarks published in newsletters, made in press releases, or on television are not immune from prosecution. Taking a bribe to influence legislation also falls outside the immunity. In striking a balance, the clause can not be interpreted so broadly as to allow erosion of the legislature's integrity.
If they don’t reveal themselves as supportive of the Constitution, they will be swept away in the flood.
First of all, if you have enough votes in the House and Senate you can “expel” members ~ whereupon whatever traitorous statements they make become quite punishable.
Yeah, I’m not sure how effective the tea parties turned out to be. Most of the media certainly wasn’t paying attention and if they were it was only to scoff. So I’d question whether or not legislators were paying attention. And Gibbs basically said the POTUS didn’t care.
I’ll repeat my previous statement: Most conservatives arent prone to violence and wouldnt know where to begin even if they were angry enough to take action.
It seems to me that tea parties (peaceful protests) are a starting point for conservative action. What’s next?
In way of indirectly answering your question, one of the best Tea Party signs I've seen reads: PAY ATTENTION. THIS IS US BEING NICE.
I agree. The point I was trying to make was that the media will stop at nothing to help Zero and his administration make the case against any official they decide to bring up on charges. The Lewinsky affair was a primer for the networks and their spin machine.
I certainly don’t want things to come to violence, but I’m convinced that phone calls, petitions, withheld campaign contributions, and abstained votes haven’t worked.
I, personally, am at a loss as to how to make the Democrats realize they’ve gone too far and how to make the Republicans realize that they need to stop playing a gentleman’s game. And I don’t see any prominent Republicans with viable solutions either.
Certainly taking back the majorities in the House and Senate in 2010 is absolutely necessary, but how is that going to reverse the damage that the Democrats have inflicted? How is it going to convince Republicans to man up? The only sure consequence of taking back the majority is that it will embolden the Democrats to employ even nastier tactics in 2012.
What Flood?....I see no flood.
I see a nation of cats....
Hopefully viking kitties ...
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.