Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:58 PM
farmbo (2,797 posts)
28. Major differences: No Special Prosecutor Act, no Senate majority
In 1997-9 the Special Prosecutor Act loomed over the Presidency. Under that federal law (since expired), the DC Circuit Court appointed an "independent" investigator with unlimited budget, no limitations on staff, and virtually unlimited subpoena powers to go after the Clinton's.
Even though the first Special Prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh, found no probable cause for impeachment, the DC Circuit Court-- in an extra-judicial meeting over lunch-- decided to appoint a second one; the infamous Kenneth Starr.
The Special Prosecutor Act was an abomination against democracy and a mockery of our constitutional separation of powers. It died a quiet but deserved death at the end of the Clinton Administration.
Also, the GOP controlled the US Senate during the Clinton impeachment. Ergo, we Americans were inflicted with the spectacle of watching segregationist Strom Thurmond sitting in judgment against an popular young president. The Big Dog's numbers started ratcheting up as soon as the impeachment silliness began and were in the stratosphere by the time his term ended.
Thankfully, the American people voted to increase the Democratic majority in the senate last week.
Will the majority in the US House attempt to institute a Stalinist-style show trial to embarrass the Obama Administration during the next few years? Seems likely.
Will it backfire without the added heft of a Special Prosecutor and a Senate majority?
Cannot reply in locked threads
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
|Zen Democrat||Nov 2012||#10|
|BlueMan Votes||Nov 2012||#14|
|Wellstone ruled||Nov 2012||#15|
|rhett o rick||Nov 2012||#29|
Major differences: No Special Prosecutor Act, no Senate majority
Please login to view edit histories.