MSM Dana Milbank on CNN: 'Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy' Trying to Stop Hillary

Martin

Deceased
Dana Milbank on CNN: 'Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy' Trying to Stop Hillary
By Matthew Balan
Created 2008-12-03 13:35



During his regular “Political Daily Briefing’ feature on CNN’s “No Bias, No Bull” program on Tuesday evening, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post used Hillary Clinton’s famous descriptive about her conservative opponents in describing one group’s latest effort against the outgoing New York senator: “A group called Judicial Watch, charter members of the vast right-wing conspiracy -- they were on to Hillary back during the commodity trading days -- now, they say because of Article One in the Constitution says you cannot serve in the position where you got a -- voted for a pay raise while you were in Congress, they’re saying she is constitutionally ineligible.” He then opined that “the only thing for Hillary to do is just give her $191,000 salary as Secretary of State to Judicial Watch for their extraordinary creativity -- just save everybody the court costs.”

Milbank is correct in pointing out the historical opposition that Judicial Watch has towards the Clintons. However, the organization has been a bit “bipartisan” in its lawsuits, since it also sued Vice President Cheney [1] over the apparent lack of transparency surrounding his energy task force.

Host Campbell Brown brought up this development by asking Milbank about “some very strange rumblings about Hillary Clinton. Some conservatives saying she might not be able to serve as Secretary of State because of a clause in the Constitution.” After Milbank gave his initial analysis/commentary, Brown turned to CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who, before concluding that this “does appear to be a problem,” admitted that despite reading the Constitution “many times,” that he had “never noticed this clause before.”

Earlier, Toobin described some of the history behind this clause: “There is actually this clause, and presidents have to had to deal with it in the past. When President Ford nominated William Saxby, who is the senator from Ohio to be attorney general, this issue came up.....t’s called the Emoluments Clause, and there will have to be some way to address it.”

The full transcript of the segment, which began 39 minutes into the 8 pm Eastern hour of Tuesday’s “No Bias, No Bull” program:

CAMPBELL BROWN: Finally -- finally, we are hearing some very strange rumblings about Hillary Clinton. Some conservatives saying she might not be able to serve as Secretary of State because of a clause in the Constitution. What is going on?

DANA MILBANK: You got to love this. A group called Judicial Watch, charter members of the vast right-wing conspiracy -- they were on to Hillary back during the commodity trading days -- now, they say because of Article One in the Constitution says you cannot serve in the position where you got a -- voted for a pay raise while you were in Congress, they’re saying she is constitutionally ineligible. I think the only thing for Hillary to do is just give her $191,000 salary as Secretary of State to Judicial Watch for their extraordinary creativity -- just save everybody the court costs.

BROWN: In all seriousness, Dana, stand by for a second because we had to bring Jeff Toobin in for this one. I couldn’t believe it when I saw the press release today. But I mean, give us a reality check. Should she be in full-on panic mode here?

JEFFREY TOOBIN: Well, no. There is actually this clause, and presidents have to had to deal with it in the past. When President Ford nominated William Saxby, who is the senator from Ohio to be attorney general, this issue came up.

BROWN: Uh-huh.

TOOBIN: What they have done is they have arranged for Congress to pass a law reducing the salary, so that there would not be a raise. I mean, they would just do it by a few hundred dollars.

BROWN: Right.

TOOBIN: That’s one way of doing it. Another way of dealing with the problem is simply for Hillary Clinton to take less money. Another way is simply to ignore Judicial Watch, because it’s pretty clear that Judicial Watch doesn’t have the right -- doesn’t have standing to file the lawsuit. But there is this clause in the Constitution -- it’s called the Emoluments Clause, and there will have to be some way to address it. But I think Hillary Clinton is safe -- she is going to be secretary.

BROWN: I mean, this is fascinating because we are -- the Constitution is not something you necessarily want to muck around with.

TOOBIN: Well, you know, and I have read the Constitution many times. This is something I consider my field. I had never noticed this clause before. It’s Article One, Section Six. It’s there. It does appear to be a problem, but you put lawyers to work and there are ways around it.

And this guy claims to be a lawyer:screw:


BROWN: And you would know -- spoken like a true legal scholar. Jeff Toobin for us and Dana Milbank, as always, with the ‘PDB.’ Thanks a lot, guys.



Source URL:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthe...ast-right-wing-conspiracy-trying-stop-hillary
 

Grantbo

Inactive
TOOBIN: Well, you know, and I have read the Constitution many times. This is something I consider my field. I had never noticed this clause before. It’s Article One, Section Six. It’s there. It does appear to be a problem, but you put lawyers to work and there are ways around it.


That pretty much sums it up. Ignore the constittution, and if that fails get some lawyers to subvert it. These dirty liberals don't seem to believe in the rule of law that we all must live by.
 

FREEBIRD

Has No Life - Lives on TB
"It does appear to be a problem, but you put lawyers to work and there are ways around it.

And this guy claims to be a lawyer..."

Of course he does. That's what lawyers are for, to get around the plain text of the law, or in this case, the Constitution.
 

sssarawolf

We're just plugging along.
TOOBIN: Well, you know, and I have read the Constitution many times. This is something I consider my field. I had never noticed this clause before. It’s Article One, Section Six. It’s there. It does appear to be a problem, but you put lawyers to work and there are ways around it.


That pretty much sums it up. Ignore the constittution, and if that fails get some lawyers to subvert it. These dirty liberals don't seem to believe in the rule of law that we all must live by.

Oh they wouldn't want to do that Grantbo eee gads live by the rules and have to abide the laws we have to. Your so right.
 

SassyinAZ

Inactive
Interesting that Constitutional requirements are all conspiracies.

No worries though, President Bush raised the salaries by EO, just continue to blame him, should make eveyone happy!

BO dismissed the provision (yeah, what else is new) and others previously just legislate around the requirement.

Gotta love that un-Constitutional two-step!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/03/clintons-confirmation-spark-constitutional-battle/

Clinton's Confirmation May Spark Constitutional Battle

A provision in the Constitution technically bars Sen. Hillary Clinton from becoming President-elect Barack Obama's secretary of state.

By Stephen Clark
FOXNews.com

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Nov. 21, 2008: Hillary Clinton, speaking during a memorial ceremony in Harrisburg, Pa., has accepted President-elect Obama's offer of the job of secretary of state. (AP)

The biggest obstacle facing Hillary Clinton's Senate confirmation as President-elect Barack Obama's top diplomat may not be her husband's wheeling and dealing abroad for his foundation, as many suspected.

Instead, it could be the U.S. Constitution.


According to an emolument clause in the Constitution, no lawmaker can be appointed to any civil position that was created or received a wage increase during the lawmaker's time in office.

President Bush ordered Cabinet salaries raised to $191,300 from $186,600 by executive order early this year, while Clinton was senator.

"My understanding is that does prohibit her unless they can find some way around it and I gather that they have in the past," former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger told FOX News.

"This isn't the first time this has come up," he said, referring to appointees of other presidents. "Maybe she has to renounce the salary increase but I'm sure they'll find a way around it."

The Obama transition team did not respond to a request for comment.

Some constitutional lawyers don't foresee the provision derailing Clinton's nomination.

"I don't believe it presents a serious issue because the legislative fix which has been done in the past is perfectly constitutional," said Adam Bonin, an attorney at the Philadelphia law firm of Cozen O'Connor.

The legislation that Bonin referred to is the "Saxbe fix" that allowed President Richard Nixon to name Ohio Sen. William Saxbe his Attorney General.

The attorney general's salary was raised during Saxbe's term in 1969 but Nixon convinced Congress to lower Saxbe's salary to what it was before 1969.

The most recent case involved Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, who was nominated to be President-elect Bill Clinton's treasury secretary in 1993. To avoid conflict, Congress passed legislation lowering the salary of that position to its 1989 level.

Bonin believes Congress should pass similar legislation for Clinton.

"I think that's the safe move to make," he said, adding that he believes Clinton could be confirmed without a legislative fix because Congress didn't vote for Bush's pay raise.

Daniel Dreisdach, a professor of law at American University, said it would be difficult for anyone to use the provision to challenge Clinton's confirmation.

"In this respect, it's a bit analogous to this question of whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen," he said, referring to a lawsuit, dismissed last month, seeking to obtain a copy of Obama's Hawaii birth certificate.

"Then it becomes who has legal standing to challenge his credentials as president or Hillary Clinton's assumption of the office," he said.


Dreisdach said as long as Democrats control the Senate, the Obama transition team won't worry about this provision in the Constitution.

"The Obama team is well aware of it and they have dismissed it," Dreisdach said. "I find it hard to believe that a Democratic majority will take a different view."

Love that last bit, as long as the Demos control the Senate, no need to worry about Constitutional provisions, oy!
 

BlueNewton

Membership Revoked
I don't remember the details of this clause in the Constitution but I thought one was barred for a cabinet position is one had VOTED for a cabinet position raise as a senator. I don't see how dropping her salary to the level it was before the vote makes any difference to that, if my recollection is correct.
 

truthseeker

Inactive
I don't remember the details of this clause in the Constitution but I thought one was barred for a cabinet position is one had VOTED for a cabinet position raise as a senator. I don't see how dropping her salary to the level it was before the vote makes any difference to that, if my recollection is correct.


Hillary is home free. The clause says you cannot vote for a raise and then take that position. Congress didnt vote for the raise, The raise was done by executive order. There is no conflict of intrest as she didnt vote her perspective office a raise.
 
Top