Cafferty: BUSH VIOLATED HIS OATH OF OFFICE!

[kpete]

when he swore to uphold the constitution

He has been lying to us about the program since it started

A 75 year old judge has done the job that congress is supposed to do


Wow, just now on CNN 1:20 p.m. PST

[skooooo]

1. a BLACK FEMALE judge...

Interesting that he stressed that. Way to go Jack!

[arcane1]

5. Jack is just asking for a phone-tapping, isn't he?

I can't WAIT to see a clip of this!!!

[warrens]

29. Bundled onto an Air Force supply plane in a jumpsuit

With a black bag over his head, more likely. Next stop, Gitmo.

[flordehinojos]

42. a phone-tapping? sounds more like he is asking for a wellstone treatment.

courtesy of poppy bush and the bush family.

[berni_mccoy]

17. APPOINTED BY CARTER NO LESS!!! Thanks to the Repukes for noticing that!

[napi21]

2. YEP! Don't ya just love Jack!

I've said it before, HE'S the ONLY reason I watch the Sit Room!

[spanone]

Man, he unloaded on bush*. Fucking fantastic.

Can't wait till that gets up on the web. Go Jack!

[ewagner]

3. I wonder

where Cafferty is going to be working next week?

Maybe he's going to get an all expense-paid vacation to Gitmo?

[Oceansaway]

4. WTG Jack !!...n/t

[whistle]

6. Does the judge have a name and is there a link?

[blogslut]

13. Here you go

http://www.micourthistory.org/resources/women-and-law/taylor.php

[seafan]

24. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor reminds me of Coretta Scott King.

Hats off to this courageous, honorable judge.

http://www.micourthistory.org/resources/women-and-law/taylor.php

[Comicstripper]

7. Someone get that on YouTube

Reminded me or Edward R. Murrow

[kpete]

36. crooks and liars has it now

http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/08/17/cafferty-on-the-nsa-ruling-bush-is-breaking-the-law/

[tridim]

8. Just caught that as I was flipping channels

Needless to say I stopped and listened. Scathing!

Wolf probably threw a tantrum during the commercial break.

[Imagevision]

9. Bush said he would protect and uphold the constitution!!

dereliction of duties, kick this incompetant out

[chaumont58]

32. Obso-god-damn-lutely

So far as I know, the President is the only official that takes an oath 'to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.' Simply put, that means to obey the Constitution. I think chimpie is worse than Nixon.

[lfairban]

43. Why should he start now?

He is half way through his second term.

[BOSSHOG]

10. Just like he did when he deserted to avoid a drug test

FUCK THE CONSTITUTION - The GOP Slogan

[Avalux]

11. IMPEACH!!!!!!

Violated his oath of office. End of story.

[kpete]

16. I have been anxiously awaiting the end of this

story since 2000

IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMPEACH

You got my vote!

[focusfan]

56. anyone with a brain would see he is a crook

i guess some of the repukes are brainwashed or stupid

[focusfan]

58. i missed it does anyone have a link to what Jack said

about Bush my hubby would love to see it

[patricia92243]

12. Dying to see what Lou Dobbs has to say. n/t

[ThomWV]

14. CNN Is Acting Like It Never Happend Now

A 10-second mention, right between a dead white girl and something about viagra.

[koopie57]

15. cavuto has coulter on nt

[karlrschneider]

18. I played it back on the TIVO and typed it out. Here:

My transcript:

Wolf, it seems like we're having this discussion about this judge's ruling sort of in the abstract, as if there's no precedent for what the judge decided. The judge in effect upheld the ruling of the FISA court which says if you want to wiretap phones, you need a warrant to do so.

The court was created by congress in 1978, I think it was, and the law of the land says Get a Warrant. The actions of the administration have ignored the law of the land in that regard so it's not a discussion in the abstract, it's not hypothetical there are laws on the books against what the administration is doing. And it's about time somebody said it out loud - This federal district judge ruled today, President Bush is breaking the law by
spying on people in this country without a warrant. The judge said the president is violating the First amendment, the Fourth amendment and the FISA passed by congress specifically to prevent this kind of abuse of power. It was being done before; that is why
the FISA court was created in the first place. So what does this mean? It means president Bush violated his oath of office when he swore to support the Constitution of the United States! It means he's been lying to us about the program since it started when he said there was nothing illegal about what he's been doing; the court says it IS illegal.

It means a 75 year old black female judge in Michigan has finally stepped up to do the job that Congress is supposed to do, namely oversight of the Executive branch of government.

But the congress is controlled by the Republicans and they are controlled by the president and they've done nothing in the way of oversight. I hope it means the arrogant inner circle of 1600 Penn avenue may finally have to start answering to the people who OWN that address...that would be US...about how they conduct our country's affairs.

Here's the question, What does the federal judge's ruling that the NSA spying program is
illegal mean for Bush?

[e-mail]

[kpete]

19. karlrschneider

you are hired - great job!!!

[me b zola]

22. Thanks Karl!

:yourock:

[babylonsister]

23. Thank you, karlrschneider! I hadn't seen it, so am grateful. nt

[brer cat]

41. Thanks SO MUCH. Those of us who chose not to have TV

sometimes are totally lost on threads having to do with televised reports. I have no regrets at no TV, but love to understand the threads. Thanks again!

[Melissa G]

61. thank you Karl!

[Imagevision]

20. Bush must stop changing and/or breaking laws he was hired to uphold!!

[izzie]

21. This should be interesting. I think Bush has broke the laws

He is to be first the protector of the Constitutions and not some man on a white horse. It is his oath and after that he is C. in Chief. He forgets he is not top gun the Constitution is.

[fooj]

25. VIOLATING OATH OF OFFICE=IMPEACHMENT

[lonestarnot]

46. Damn fucking straight it does!

[mwooldri]

49. But in that house of Congress, the ruling parties don't have the balls.

And that goes for the men as well as the women.

I know that Rep. Conyers guy would and there's others that would but they're on our side of the fence - the powerless side. That means nothing can happen until they get empowered.

/Mark.

[many a good man]

26. John Dean said bush** is the first president ever to admit to

an impeachable offense.

Its amazing that stating the obvious nowadays requires an act of extraordinary courage....

[MrCoffee]

27. Um, not to burst your bubble...but he didn't.

It's not unconstitutional until the court says it is. Why do you think we have courts in the first place? Presidents and Congress do shit. People sue them because they think "Hey, isn't there something in the pesky bill of rights that says Congress or the Pres can't do that shit?" Court says "President, Congress, Fed Agency, knock that shit off, it's unconstitutional."

It's not a constitutional violation. It's making (Article I) and enforcing (Article II) the laws.

[blogslut]

28. Yes, but

We have a court that just said it was unconstitutional...guess it has to go all the way to the SCOTUS before it's officially unconstitutional?

[MrCoffee]

33. Yes...SCOTUS gets the final say.

[WinkyDink]

30. I think not. If the Constitution states clearly that no one can be forced

to testify against himself, e.g. Bush's acting in contravention wouldn't need any further adjudication; it would be by definition UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

[MrCoffee]

34. but it doesn't clearly say that. What's testify?

Is it a signed confession? Is it a statement to the cops? What about a statement to a reporter?

That's why we have courts.

[karlrschneider]

31. A federal court can determine when the Bill of Rights has been violated

and that's precisely what happened here. I guess I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Is it that (for example) the Fourth Amendment has to be reaffirmed every time it is perceived to be
violated? If that were the case, there wouldn't be any need (or use) for it in the first place!
:eyes:

[MrCoffee]

35. The 4th IS reaffirmed every time a perceived violation occurs.

Of course that's what happens. The framers couldn't have imagined making a phone call to England to see what anti-George III efforts were afoot in London. So they said "No unreasonable searches and seizures". Ok fine. What's a search? What's a seizure? And the big one...What's reasonable?

What the court did today was to say "Congress defined how you can place a wiretap on a call between a citizen of the US and a foreign national without violating the Fourth Amendment. The Govt didn't follow the rules in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, so the Govt. violated the 4th." Courts do that all the time.

[w4rma]

53. You're debating yourself in circles, MrCoffee. (nt)

[MrCoffee]

57. I spin me right round baby like a record.

[vickitulsa]

59. Hey, I like that! Think I'll "borrow" it for my own fair use!

:hi:

I do enjoy hearing your legal explanations. I was an executive secretary for 33 years and for several of them worked for attorneys. My fave was a real estate atty for Michaels Stores, Inc., who was responsible for leases the company needed in shopping centers across the country.

I learned while working for this guy as we designed these complicated leases over four legal pages long that "legalese" has more reasons for existing than I had previously understood. I used to think it was purely so that regular folk like me could NOT understand what the legal types were saying. After that job for Michaels, I decided that there was simply a need for all parties concerned in contracts to nail down every little detail of the agreement to a fine-toothed point so there could be no wiggle room for later interpretations.

So tell me, am I anywhere close to right about this notion?

I did catch the Cafferty Rant live, btw, and enjoyed it immensely. I think Jack may be someone who was a longstanding conservative type until this criminal administration caused his blood to boil so many times he's finally seen the virtue in the liberal view. He certainly is singing the right song now, at least, and that's very rewarding to hear! We Dems need a lot more converts, and I think that if Bu$h remains in office for his full eight years, behaving the way he has without yielding to popular pressure to cut out his criminal activities, we'll be gettin' 'em.

I happen also to be a singer/songwriter and musician, and I've written and performed many anti-war songs ever since Vietnam. Recently wrote one about Iraq, and I'm working on one about this pResidency. Still I don't think I could ever sing a song better than Jack's that I saw yesterday!

Mr. Schneider gave us the transcript -- something very like what I used to do on my keyboard, and thank you, Karl. Now I'm wondering if I could just extract the best key phrases from Jack's Rant and put them to a catchy tune....

I love the way he captured so much of our outrage in that one rant; and even though it was obvious he was mad as hell, he still articulated the bitter truth very capably. Covered a lot of ground, too!

Rave on, Jack, rave on! :) People really ARE listening!

[Subdivisions]

39. So, I guess FISA is a farce? eom

[stepnw1f]

44. FISA...Ooooooops

[BuyingThyme]

37. Thanks, Jack.

[pat_k]

38. Emailed this thank you

To: [e-mail]
Subject: Finally, the TRUTH. Thank You Jack!!
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:28:18 +0000

Thank you for saying what should be obvious to all. Bush has nuked our
Constitution with his claims to unrestrained power. Spying on us without a
warrant is intolerable, but it is his claim to unitary authoritarian power to
commit that crime (and others) with impunity that is truly devastating to our
system of government.

Given the gravity and urgency of the threat to our constitutional democracy,
members of Congress have a sworn duty to take immediate action to defend the
nation. To date, only a handful have responded to Sen. Feingold's or Rep. Conyers'
call to action.

Fear of political consequences cannot excuse those who are sitting on their
hands. We expect members of our armed services to risk life and limb to support
and defend. Why should we expect less from members of Congress?

Hearing a public figure tell the truth about the criminal surveillance program
should not be a momentous event. Tragically, these days, it is.

Dare I hope you do not remain a lone voice at CNN?

Cheers,

Patty Keeshan
A fellow party to our common contract (the Constitution)
Westfield, NJ

[Patsy Stone]

40. That made me very happy

Thanks!

[stepnw1f]

45. Shakalakalakadingdong!

[Independent_Liberal]

47. K&R!

:bounce:

[rodeodance]

48. I heard him ealier and wish it would flash across all cable stations over

and over.

[grannylib]

50. Of course he did. Repeatedly. Deliberately. Maliciously. Early and often.

It's REPUBLICANS who hate our freedoms. Terrorists just hate our arrogance and greed.

[upi402]

52. and add *currently* as well! n/t

[orleans]

51. k&r n/t

[deacon]

54. wow- finally someone with guts- k&r

[Disturbed]

55. Even if the SC declares that Busholini violated the

Constitution over 30 times nothing will happen to Busholini or anyone else involved.

[vickitulsa]

60. And that thought is the most disturbing of all....

Seriously, how many times does this administration have to be caught in blatantly illegal activities before there are any real consequences?!

If the same practice of excusing criminal actions and allowing them to continue unhindered were followed with everyone else, we'd have to open the doors on our many prisons and jails and let over two million inmates go free! People are always saying that "the President is not above the law," and yet it seems to me THIS sorry excuse for a President is most definitely just that. ABOVE THE LAW. Not a good thing for our democratic republic!