• Dr. Joyce Brothers, dead at 85.

• Dr. Kermit Gosnell found guilty on three counts of homicide.

• Jamelle Bouie wonders: Is impeachment just a matter of time?

• Minnesota becomes the 12th state to legalize marriage equality.

• Voters trust Hillary Clinton over GOP on Benghazi.

• Rand Paul assures evangelicals he doesn't support drug legalization.

DOWNLOADS: (114)

PLAYS: (708)

Embed

Fox’s Judge Andrew Napolitano upped the ante on his impeachment talk this morning during today’s visit to Fox & Friends. Last week, he accused “President Panic” of commiting “almost an impeachable offense” for (in Napolitano’s view) deliberately sabotaging the budget in order to score sequester political points. Today, in a Fox News twofer, Napolitano dropped the “almost” and went full out for impeachment – this time, adding one of Fox’s scare-quester tactics: the supervised release of some ICE detainees.

In case you missed it, Fox has been fear mongering that ICE’s supervised release of undocumented immigrants means that a vicious killer is on his or her way to your neighborhood.

Even though the New York Times reports they are “noncriminals and other low-risk offenders who do not have serious criminal histories.” The Times also noted, “Under supervised release, defendants in immigration cases have to adhere to a strict reporting schedule that might include attending appointments at a regional immigration office as well as wearing electronic monitoring bracelets, officials said.” Furthermore, as Media Matters pointed out, “(T)here is nothing unusual or illegal about supervised releases. This policy has been a regular part of Department of Homeland Security enforcement procedures since at least 2002.”

None of that information was brought up in this discussion. Instead, Steve Doocy actually prodded Napolitano into talking impeachment:

NAPOLITANO: This is really a new low for the government. …(Obama’s) micromanaging the government in a way consistent with his message of pain, not consistent with his Constitutional obligation to enforce the laws whether he agrees with them or not.

DOOCY: Ask a question: Is what he’s doing Constitutional?

NAPOLITANO: It’s within his power to do it. But it is so offensive, it’s impeachable.

DOOCY (feigning surprise): Oh-Kay. Judge Andrew Napolitano. There’s the impeachment word.

Napolitano is not the first person on Fox to talk impeachment. Sean Hannity has been salivating at the thought for years. Even Neil Cavuto has brought it up, and there's every reason to believe it will continue through Obama’s second term.

At the end of the segment with Napolitano, Doocy teased an upcoming guest: a woman whose “brother was killed by an illegal alien… and she’s not buying the sequester excuse, either.” The message was clear: Your brother could be next.

So while Fox is shrieking about the Obama administration deliberately causing pain, it’s “willfully” doing the same thing to its viewers for political gain. If only THAT were an impeachable offense!

DOWNLOADS: (129)

PLAYS: (826)

Embed

Judge Andrew Napolitano has now added “impeachment” to the list of usual Republican attacks on President Obama over the looming sequester cuts. During a visit to Fox & Friends, he and Steve Doocy went through some familiar right-wing myths about the sequester – that it’s just a small reduction in future spending and therefore no biggie – and went on to accuse “President Panic” of deliberately sabotaging the budget – i.e. making the cuts as damaging as possible in order to punish Republicans.

DOOCY: As Commander-in-Chief, he should be making any future reductions in future spending as easy as possible. But instead he and his cabinet are out there and they’re scaring the living daylights out of people. …He’s become President Panic.

NAPOLITANO: …This is almost an impeachable offense. If the President is deciding how to spend money in order to hurt us, rather than in order to provide us with the services for which we have paid, and for which we have hired him, he is doing the opposite of doing of what he has taken an oath to do. He has taken an oath “faithfully,” I underscore the word… to uphold the laws. That means make the government work. Don’t make it painful. Find a way to make it work on 2% less.

…Instead, he wants to cut in a way that’s gonna make us stand on line for five hours at the airport, quote, to teach the Republicans a lesson.

While the Foxies were busy maligning the president, they didn’t have time left to consider how the sequester might affect everyday people not earning television-pundit salaries and not with a partisan agenda: Teaching jobs and education funding are at risk; unemployment insurance benefits and aid for Hurricane Sandy victims are also subject to sequester. The Bipartisan Policy Center reported the following:

(T)he immediate and across the board nature of the cuts, along with their magnitude concentrated in a seven-month period, will impair economic growth as the year progresses. At BPC, we estimated last year that the sequester would reduce 2013 gross domestic product (GDP) growth by half a percentage point, and would cost the economy approximately one million jobs over the next two years. More recent estimates released by the CBO and Macroeconomic Advisors have roughly confirmed these projections.

I couldn’t find anything in their report that said these would only happen if President Obama deliberately jiggered the cuts.

Oh, and while they were salivating at the thought of impeachment (and never mind THAT cost!), nobody mentioned that President Obama has already put forth a plan to replace the sequester that includes over $930 billion in spending cuts and $580 billion in new tax revenue.

Here is a story of Teapublicans who love the Constitution and liberty...until they don't. In my copy of the Constitution, impeachment of a President is a grave and solemn act of Congress which is used in situations where there have been high crimes and misdemeanors.

However, a couple of years ago Floyd Brown, former director of Citizens United and now just an Obama-hater at large, went on Alan Colmes' radio show, and I called in. I was fortunate (?) enough to discover exactly how Teapublicans view impeachment:

So, I asked him. His answer was remarkable. With condescending patience, he explained that impeachment is a political, not legal action. He justifies his position by interpreting the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” as “bad behavior." He further defends his allegation of “bad behavior” by claiming that President Obama has badmouthed the US in foreign countries, and acts in a way that “we don’t approve of." When I pointed out to him in my mom voice that not only did the majority in this country approve of our President, he explained to me that he and his group did not.

Remarkably, he went on to explain that in California where I live, recalls are the equivalent of a Federal impeachment (I could go on about his connection to the evil Howard Kaloogian, architect of the Gray Davis coup/installation of the Schwarzenegger puppet government, but the relationship map above explains it…look for Howard Jarvis).

Alan Colmes summed it up pretty well when he shot this retort back at Brown: “So basically, you want to impeach him because you don’t like him. No other reason.”

This is why it came as no surprise to me when I saw what Rep. Michael Burgess said in a town hall meeting with TeaPublicans in his district:

However, Burgess vowed not to support another increase in the debt limit, and when a constituent suggested impeaching Obama to stop his agenda, Burgess said, "It needs to happen, and I agree with you it would tie things up. No question about that."

The newspaper said when Burgess was later asked about his comments, the congressman couldn't specify what violations the Democratic president had allegedly committed to warrant impeachment but didn't rule out pursuing his removal from office.

Of course, Burgess comes at this conclusion from the premise that impeachment is just a tool in Teapublicans' political toolbox to further their policy goals, not any reality-based premise. And more importantly, it came after he voted yes on the "deal," which ticked off his Teapublican winger contingent. It doesn't have anything at all to do with the Constitution or framers' intent. This is because they only care about those things when it benefits them, like making corporations into persons and things like that.

To me, tossing around threats of impeachment like they do is a little like threatening divorce when the spouse leaves dirty dishes in the sink. After awhile, there's no weight to the threat, and it just floats around like unicorn farts in the wind. They look pretty, but stink to high heaven.

But let me end this on a positive note. At least one newspaper took issue with the insanity that is Rep. Michael Burgess and his merry men. This Star-Telegram editorial takes him to task:

Contacted Tuesday by a member of the Star-Telegram Editorial Board, Burgess would not back away from using the impeachment process against Obama to "tie things up."

He said the House should have held hearings and protested more strongly earlier this year when Obama involved U.S. forces in military action against Libya. Hearings and protests may be part of politics; impeachment must not.

Burgess acknowledged that the time to act against Obama on Libya has passed. When pressed, he had no other "high crimes and misdemeanors" to cite.

The last thing this country needs is another crisis. Wars, worldwide economic calamity and severe drought add enough to the current deep political divide. A member of the House should know better than to indulge talk of adding a frivolous use of the Constitution's solemn power.

But you see, for Burgess, power is what it's all about. He and his compatriots want it all, and will stop at nothing to get it.

Perhaps you're familiar with Clarence Thomas, the Long-Dong-Silver-loving US Supreme Court Justice. With a new term recently beginning on The Court, he passed the five-year mark for not only saying nothing of value while hearing cases, but nothing at all.

Yes, you read that correctly--while no US Supreme Court Justice in over two centuries has gone even a single term without speaking from the bench during arguments, Thomas has managed to do it for five in a row.

To quote Stephen Colbert, "the man is a rock...in that he could be replaced by a rock and I'm not sure anyone would notice."

Sadly, it shouldn't really come as much of a surprise that if someone were going to set this record, it would be Justice Thomas. He certainly never even approached being "the most qualified" person in the land to sit on the Supreme Court, as President George H.W. Bush, who nominated him to the High Court, said after offering his name.

I'm quite sure that Bush didn't even believe that himself, unless he was limiting the field of competition to Thomas, then-vice president Dan Quayle, and his namesake offspring. But if he was clearly unworthy then--and he was--he is now about as appropriate a judge as Newt Gingrich is a marriage counselor.

While he doesn't seem to even want to participate in his day job, Thomas certainly does engage in the kind of partisan politicking that is not only unseemly, but sets a terrible precedent in a democracy. And at least in theory, the judiciary is supposed to be impartial, and therefore above politics.

Yet, in only the past few weeks, a number of embarrassing episodes have not only turned this legal tracheotomy into a punch line for late night comics, but have quite honestly raised questions about whether any fully-functioning democracy would allow him to continue rendering judgments so important in deciding not only the law, but values of our society.

First, there was the fact that Thomas, whose wife has earned almost $700,000 for--as far as I can tell--being his wife, finds government disclosure forms so difficult to fill out that he accidentally put $0 where $700,000 was supposed to be under "spousal income."

Continue reading »

Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) speaks aloud what we all know: the tea party is the Republican Party and vice versa. After his primary defeat, he gave an interview to Mother Jones' David Corn where he spoke some plain truths. While there may be nothing in that interview we didn't really know on some level, it's pretty remarkable to have Inglis be the voice of reason.

By all measures, Inglis is a conservative's conservative. He was one of the most vocal and persistent voices in Bill Clinton's impeachment, and can be relied upon to vote against anything that supports abortion choice, or funding for government programs. A classic fiscal and issue conservative.

Yet, the tea party begs to differ.

Continue reading »

I want to congratulate d-day, the Courage Campaign, John Podesta and everyone who signed all the many petitions put there because the California Democratic Party heard you loud and clear. (C&L joined with the Courage Campaign.)

d-day explains:

Thanks again to all of you who signed petitions and made phone calls and helped push the resolution to open a Congressional inquiry into Torture Judge Jay Bybee, which the California Democratic Party adopted at its convention yesterday. I have been told by the authors of the resolution that the pressure from the outside really aided their efforts.

The passage of the resolution was a beginning, not an ending. I view the impeachment of Jay Bybee from the 9th Circuit Court as a moral and legal imperative, but also an entryway into the larger fight for justice and accountability for those who authorized and directed torture in our name.

UPDATE: Ryan Grim of The Huffington Post has the full story of the passage of the resolution at the convention.

So what do we do next? Keep the heat on.

So what do we do now? Members of the California Democratic Party include 34 members of Congress, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and six men and women who sit on the House Judiciary Committee, where an impeachment inquiry would be remanded. They need to hear that their party just recommended that they open an immediate Congressional inquiry into Judge Bybee, with all appropriate remedies and punishments available. In fact, the entire House Judiciary Committee needs to hear this.

You can contact all the members through d-days site, the tools were provided for by Jane, and you can call you can call your members of Congress and tell them that they must support an immediate inquiry into the actions of Jay Bybee, federal judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Congressional switchboard at 1-866-220-0044 can connect you to your member of Congress as well.

Something about this just feels so right.

Wapo:

Laura Bush asked members of Congress to pick local painters to decorate ornaments for this year's 20-foot Fraser fir in the Blue Room. The globes (to be unveiled by the first lady tomorrow) are supposed to showcase something special about each congressional district. Washington state's Rep. Jim McDermott contacted a local arts organization, which asked Lawrence, a collage artist, to create the local entry.

"I was at first nauseated, then realized it was an opportunity," said Lawrence, 55, who frequently combines politics and satire in her work and saw this as the perfect way "to highlight Jim McDermott because he's a hero of mine."

The nine-inch ball is covered with swirly red and white stripes -- and, in tiny glued-on text, salutes the Democratic congressman's support for a resolution to impeach President Bush. (Also showcased: Washington state's 1919 labor strike, its suffrage movement and the violent anti-World Trade Organization riots of 1999.) Lawrence sent it off to D.C. in September and was very surprised it was accepted for the tree -- and that she was invited to this afternoon's White House reception for the artists, which she flew to D.C. to attend.

"Apparently, they didn't read it -- or Laura Bush is more progressive than I believed," Lawrence told us.

UPDATE: Looks like The Washington Post ruined all the fun.

It hung on the tree along with ornaments featuring lovingly painted state seals and state scenery till the Washington Post pointed out that it differed substantially from its fellows.

AP followed, and Lawrence's ornment was plucked from its branch, on orders from Laura Bush.

President Musharraf of Pakistan has announced his resignation this morning, in an address to his nation in advance of impeachment charges which were expected to be filed tomorrow.

In a one-hour long televised address, Musharraf defended his nearly nine-year rule and rejected accusations against him, but said he was leaving office.

"After consultations with legal advisers and close political supporters and on their advice, I'm taking the decision of resigning," a somber Musharraf said.

"My resignation will go to the speaker of the National Assembly today."

His resignation had been rumored for weeks and speculation peaked yesterday, with the new civilian government in particular pushing it as an alternative to messy court proceedings, although until today Musharraf had insisted he would stay to fight the charges. There's little doubt that his Western allies have pressured him to accept a deal, seeking to keep Pakistan a little more stable at a time when it seems in danger of falling apart at the seams.

I was highly sceptical that he would step down as it implied a level of complicity by the military and ISI intelligence that I believed was more touted than real. It seems I was wrong. It remains to be seen whether the new government's further claims that it has complete control over the military and intelligence agencies now are also real following some very embarrassing setbacks - and whether it will curb the ISI from using Islamist terror groups as foreign policy proxies against its traditional bugbear India.

The other interesting question is "what will Mushie do next?" Exile seems likeliest and there have been rumors that the US, which has long backed the former dictator, would offer him asylum. But it appears that the Saudis have stepped in, as major mediators of the resignation deal, and so Musharraf will probably retire there. Which is ironic, in that it will put the man who was ultimately in charge of the intelligence agency that was pulling Al Qaeda's strings prior to (and post) 9/11 in the country that furnished most of the hijackers - and both Musharraf and the Saudi rulers are staunch Bush allies.

CQPolitics: You don't forget that your mother sued your ex-wife--unless your mind is going.

uggabugga: WaPo B.S.

GOPnot4me: Nebraska rethugs follow the playbook.

American Torture: Physicians, Psychologists and "The Dark Side"

The Opinion Mill's Sunday Bookchat asks: Will the credibility of a major publishing house be the last casualty of the Bush administration? Will a list of books make you a better citizen? Will Hanif Kureishi finally get the recognition he deserves? Will Ron Suskind be the reporter who finally gets the impeachment ball rolling?

OFF THE BEATEN PATH: moose & squirrel, one good move, Walled-In Pond, The Whole American Hog