What do you call a political party that thinks postage for a Presidential cat's fan club requires a full-on Congressional investigation, but a President who admits on national television to breaking Federal law, repeatedly, merits some committee "oversight," and spotty oversight at that?
Jane Hamsher I had also forgotten the Clinton era "Socks-gate." Naturally, like all the Clinton related 'gates', the claim was without merit.
Hmmmm...let's see: misrepresent intelligence to Congress and the American public to get us into the Iraq war; out a CIA NOC for political payback; misrepresent war costs once we are there, so that Congress has to continually appropriate millions billions; spy on the American public without warrants, violating the Fourth Amendment and the Presidential requirements of Article II of the Constitution requiring the President to faithfully follow all laws and the FISA laws as established by Congress; and...well, there's more, but we all know that.
Clearly that cat fanclub thing was way more important than actual, publicly admitted lawbreaking.
The President has seized power through legal machinations, but it was not his for the taking -- and his breach of his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States should no go unpunished. No matter what his intentions, breaking the law is a serious matter -- for the ordinary citizen and for the President. The law makes no distinction, and neither should any of the rest of us.
Post a Comment