The Washington Stakeout

For recent background on this issue, see: Dave Lindorff’s “Huge Win for Impeachment in Vermont.”

Note that on March 25, Leahy avoided the question of impeachment from Washington Stakeout.

Also see “Democrats Take Cover from Impeachment by Focusing on Gonzales” at husseini.org.

Transcript

Sam Husseini: The Vermont State Senate just voted overwhelmingly for an impeachment resolution against Bush and Cheney. You put out a statement basically opposing that. Why are you in effect defending —

Senator Patrick Leahy: That’s not what I said.

SH: — why are you —

PL: Let me finish. That’s not what I said.

SH: Sure.

PL: Read that statement and the press have it if you have other questions.

SH: What was the statement?

PL: I think one of the things —

SH: — describe your position —

PL: — I think one of the things we’re gonna find with the Attorney General — he has lost the confidence of many in the Senate. Both Republicans and Democrats, as well as in the House. As well as the American people. But if he is to be replaced, he has to be replaced with somebody who says that they’ll be independent. The reason we have the problems we now have is that the White House was allowed, for the first time in the history of the Department of Justice, first time, they were allowed to go in and interfere with ongoing prosecutions, allowed to interfere with the justice system. And as a result, we have had people hurt in law enforcement, from the cop on the beat all the way up through. If there is another attorney general, it has to be somebody who is willing to swear that they will never allow the White House to do this. Now, I would hope whoever the next president is realizes that the criminal justice system in this country is something we all need, and need to have as independent with total integrity. We can never allow, never allow, this sort of interference with our prosecutors of the criminal justice system again.

SH: Senator, I’m not asking — I’m asking about the impeachment proceedings. Why are you defending the President from impeachment? Senator —

… [Leahy turns to field another question about gun control] …

PL: I was a prosecutor for eight years. I could never imagine having the governor of our state, for example, telling me who I could prosecute and who I can’t and how I should do it. Basically, they allowed in the federal system, for the president to do that and that’s wrong.

SH: Senator, why are you in effect shielding the President? You have an impeachment movement that got the State Senate in your own state and you’re in effect shielding —

PL: I think that anybody who looks at the investigations that I’ve had, what I’ve had done, nobody in their right mind would say I’m shielding the President.

[Leahy walks away]

SH: From the impeachment effort. You didn’t answer my que —

Click To Play

Senator Hagel was questioned about recent reports of Kurdish militias receiving U.S. support and operating out of Iraq to launch attacks into Iran. The Senator said he had no knowledge of these reports. Sam Husseini also questioned Hagel about his vote to give the President the authorization to use force and the lead-up to the Iraq war. When Husseini pressed that some public information existed at the time that could cause one to doubt the President’s claims before the war, Hagel insisted that “the entire intelligence community of this government, all 16 agencies,” and our allies were all convinced of the existence of weapons of mass destruction, although Hagel also admitted regretting his vote.

Continue reading for a transcript of the exchange.

(more…)

Click To Play

Sam Husseini asked Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont about investigating the White House in regards to impeachment proceedings. The Senator spoke about other investigations under way, but did not address the issue of impeachment. This exchange took place on March 25, 2007.

Sam Husseini: Senator, townspeople all over your state of Vermont have recently voted for impeachment. Do you think that the facts and the constitution, not the politics, but the facts on the Constitution merit at least investigating Bush and Cheney for impeachment?

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT): We have a great deal of investigation going on and you’ll see Kyle Samp son, the Assistant to the Attorney General appear before my committee under oath on Thursday this week and I’ve already go the authority for subpoenas for many others. There’s not going to be a lack of asking questions. Thank you.

Click To Play

After her March 18 appearance on CBS’s Face The Nation, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), spoke with the press gaggle outside the studio. Sam Husseini, with The Washington Stakeout, asked her about stalled cluster bomb legislation she has proposed and then about the Iraqi oil law that the Bush administration has backed — she did not answer the latter question as she was being called away by an aide and said nothing again when asked as to why she couldn’t or wouldn’t comment on it.

Also outside the studios, activists with the group Code Pink gathered in opposition to funding of the war. They chanted under the banner of “Don’t buy Bush’s war.”

Continue reading for a transcript of the exchange.

(more…)

Click To Play

On Sunday, March 18, Sam Husseini spoke with Senatory John Cornyn (R-TX), outside of the studios of ABC News. Cornyn, who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee among his other assignments, expressed the opinion that Iran represents “a very real threat” but that he did not anticipate the US to attack Iran unless something “no one of us expects happens.” On whether Bush should seek another authorization of force, Cornyn said “I think that would be the proper order of things.” When later asked about Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons in the region and how that might play into the dynamic that may fuel Iran alleged pursuit of the same, Cornyn refused to acknowledge Israel’s weapons and stated that “no comparison” could be drawn between Israel and Iran in part because Israel is a US ally.

Sam Husseini also inquired about the Republicans threat of a filibuster on legislation regulating the funding of the Iraq war in contrast to the Republicans decrying the possibility of Democrats filibustering Bush administration nominees. The Senator said he saw a difference between filibustering legislation and, as he saw it, unconstitutionally hindering a President’s nominations.

Appended is a transcript of the exchange.

(more…)

Coming out of the studios of Meet The Press today, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) said he expected President Bush to “describe a different Iraq than … most Americans understand and recognize” in Tuesday’s upcoming State of the Union address. He also said “the American people are entitled to require the President to come to Congress to get an authorization….”

Kennedy noted that the previous authorization of force was predicated on allegations of Hussein’s government violating UN resolutions, the alleged Iraqi possession of “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” and alleged links with Al Qaeda. The latter points being conditions now widely acknowledged not to have existed (although the Senator did not acknowledge that directly).

The Senator’s view that the lack of these conditions requires more congressional oversight of the war partly echoes the opinion of legal scholar Francis Boyle, who believes that the addition of inexcess of 20,000 troops to the approximately 140,000 alrady in Iraq constitutes substantially enlarging the force.

Boyle says this triggers the War Powers Act and quotes it: “In the absence of a declaration of war [which we do not have for Iraq], in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced … (3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation….”

Boyle goes further to assert that continuing the escalation beyond a 60 day limit without an authorization from Congress would be an impeachable offense. Kennedy’s view does not seem to go this far, as the Senator has not spoken of impeachment and introduced a new bill to require authorization, which the War Powers Act already seems to do.

After his comments, Senator Kennedy was asked by Sam Husseini (video of just this) on the latest developments of proposed Iraqi oil legislation, which seems to nominally keep control in the hands of the US-supported Iraqi government, but makes large profitable concessions to U.S. oil companies. In response, Kennedy asserted that “the objective for the oil distribution is … to be fair to different regions of the country,” and did not speak to the point about the role of US corporations.

(more…)

These questions took place outside of the studios of NBC News in Washington, D.C. on January 7, 2007.

(more…)