|
Edited on Wed Jul-29-09 10:43 AM by GivePeaceAchance
CM: We begin wiht a formal act of congress to tell the President to apologize to the US Cambridge police. Congressman Patius McConner R-MI, the member who introduced the bill. Mr McConner this bill had to go to legislative council, it has clauses in it, it's quite a formal document. It ends with a call upon the President to retract his inital remarks and apologize to the Cambridge police. Why od you think it's necessary to go to all these lengths. Even though we've got this beer party set up for Thursday night.
PM: Well on I think you over estimate the time it took for me to write this bill in my garage. To get the house council to slap on the word 'resolution', it took me little time. Certainly a lot less time than this administration has spent on this in the last several days. It's very imortant the principals stay in place, as teh President highlighted: he had a friend involved that he was biased to, he didn't have complete grasp of the facts. Nevertheless he prejudged a private citizen. Officer Crowley's actions as inappropriate. THen he reaffirmed it 2 days later. I don't think a President should have that kind of power to do that. It's unfair to the private citizen.
CM: What would you like to see the Congress do? You've introduced the resolution, you've got a couple of co-sponsors. What step would you like your fellow members of congress to follow next.
PM: Well I think the Key thing is...
CM: No, what do you want congress to do. You've introduced a resolution into the congress...
PM: I'm aware what I've done.
CM: ... it's gone to committee, it's been referred to committee what steps whould you like them to take now?
PM: Well, for them to take it up, but the question is whether the President will take it upon himself to admit, that in prejudging him from a biased basis was wrong. It's not a precedent that should be set by the most powerful person in the world. Have him admit that he was hasty in his statement and then move on from there, but if not I would hope that it reaffirms this principal.
CM: I am going to ask you seriously congressman do you want the congress to take this up in committee, mark it up, report on it and vote on it on the house floor. Is that what you want?
PM: Well what I would think is what you're asking then, is should the most powerful person in the world be protected by individuals like yourself. Who think that his actions were absolutely appropriate and good precedent. What I'm waiting for is to see whether you agree with my proposition or or not.
CM: You don't know what I think, but let me ask you this...
PM: But a seperate but equal branch...
CM: If you ever watch the show you know what I think. If you don't watch the show, you don't know what I think. But let me ask you this, do you think that the congress of the US, should do what you want it to do. Mark it up in committee, have hearings, mark it up, report on it and vote on it on the house floor.
PM: Yes, as a seperate and co-equal branch of government. We have to be a check upon the overuse on the power of the president. And the president the most powerful person in the world, should not of put Officer Crowley in this situtaion. After admitting bias, and showing a lack of facts and prejudging this incident. As a professional check and balance on the government I think it's necessary of the government doesn't do it himself.
CM: What meaing does an apology have if it's forced upon and he's forced to do it, does it have real meaning?
PM: I think it's important that the principal remain and the precedent not be set. I think that's what is at stake here. The President has before admitted he's made mistakes. You should be able to make that admission now. So that it does not effect negatively, on the rights in any potential legal proceedings Sgt. Crowley may face.
CM: OK, let me ask you about the resolution and what is the precedent for congress to ask the President to apologize for something.. ?
PM: Any sense of congress, to focus on what we want it to focus as an expression of congress. Obviously, it would be non-binding. we can't force the President to do it, but it would give a sense that the congress feels that the principal would be important enough to protect and the precedent shouldn't be.. set.
CM: OK, we're going to look at what the President said. Here's what he said late Friday...
*clip starts*
President Obama: Number 1 any of us would be pretty angry number 2 that the Cambridge police acted 'stupidly' in arresting someone when there was already proff that they were in their own home. *clip moves to a later response*
I want to make clear that in my choice of words, I think that I unfortuantely gave the impression that I was maligning the Cambridge police department or Sgt. Crowley specifically. And I could of calibarated those words differently.*end of clip*
CM: Well it seems that the President has got to the point of sitting down with this Police Officer, this Sgt. the official. With the gentleman who feels himself the victim here. The Prof. from Harvard. And they are all getting together for this beer party, whatever it's going to be called, a happy hour and pinic table will be laid out for this. This theater is not enough for you, you want more theater apparently. Did you know that they were going to go to this extent, before you offered your resolution?
PM: First of all it's not about the theater of the picnic. It's about the bias, he acted without the complete knowledge of the facts and he has consistently said the officer in a prejudicial decision has acted improperly. That has not changed throughout the course of this. And we don't know if by Thursday this will change or not. That is the crux of the matter here, not how in the styling one says something, but the substance of the decision made by the POTUS. That is the crux of the matter.
CM: But in saying that both gentlemen both overreacted. That's not enough.
PM: He didn't say both gentlemen had overreacted. What he said is that he believed the Officer had overreacted...
CM: By making the arrest, yeah.
PM: Yeah, that he still believes the officer overreacted and that he had acted stupidly. He's expanded this now in that he believes Prof. Gates may of reacted improperly!, probably overreacted as well. *getting a shade animated* This determinatation should be made at a local level, with appropriate authorities with due process. Then the President can weigh in. The President can always weigh in with a general discussion about any issue at large. But to place cuplabliity on one party or the other I think is inappropriate and not a precedent that should be set.
CM: Right, let's be fair let's see what the President had to say Friday.
*clip*
President Obama: I continue to believe based on what I have heard. That there was an overreaction in pulling Prof. Gates out of hs home, and taking him to the station. Based on what I've heard Prof. Gates probably overreacted as well. My sense is you've got 2 good people in circumstance in which neither of them were able to resolve the incident. In a way that it should of been resolved in a way neither would of liked them for it to be resolved.*end of clip*
CM: So here is the President in reflection saying both gentlemen probalby overreacted. He's saying they're both good people. He made a phone call to the Sgt., he made a call to Prof. Gates, and you still want America's US house of representatives. To go to committee, go to reporting a bill out, passing a resolution demanding he does this other thing. Are you sticking to your guns on this one congressman?? You really want the congress to do all this ?
PM: To defend the rights of a private citizen from the over-reach of the President absolutely. Listen very carefully what the President said. He continues to say officer Crowley acted inappropriately. Officer crowley continues to say that he did not and so he should be given his fair and due process by the local authorities. None of these people maybe standing up for him of for anyone else this may happen to, if the precedent is allowed to be set. I still feel that is within this system to assert to protect private individuals.
CM: So you want a vote by the house?
PM: If the President doesn't voluntarily come forward and reconize his mistake. And again Chris the President is a lawyer. He understands legal rammifications to this and professional rammificaitons, to the individuals involved. And for him to insert himself. Strikes me as completely the opposite. What I'm trying to give him is honest advice,is to retract, to wait to see what happens at a local level with the appropriate authorities and due process.
CM: OK have you got any word for the leadership about when they are going to take up your resolution, if they are going to take up your resolution. Which committee's go it?
PM: I'm not sure which committee it was referred to at the present time. I don't expect it to passed by the congress, I expect it to stand a testiment to the principle, if this doesn't happen and the precedent stands. At the end of the day the principle has to be put forward. To even start to assert protecting it.
CM: should people call up their congressmen in support of this?
PM: I think people should make their own determination. In asking whether or not this precedent should stand or the principle be preserved.
CM: OK, I'm sure this is on your website is that how people can get a look at it?
PM: Yep.
CM: OK thank COngressman Patius McConner of MI.
PM: Thank you.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(576 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
