I. The first several paragraphs of this lengthy disquisition, providing some etymology and colonial American background on high crimes and misdemeanors, argue that the Founders left the phrase grave but broad intentionally. The phrase was intended to be a real check on the powers of the Executive, without being so elastic as to give Congress a parliamentary ability to remove a president at any time for narrow political motives. This general characterization is valid as far as it goes.

Note, however, that this article, written with William J. Clinton in mind, emphasizes offenses besides treason or bribery, since the GOP Congress was not accusing him of those. George W. Bush may not be limited to the purview of the high crimes and misdemeanors phrase. Taking the least of the offenses first

Here, young readers, are the first few grafs of a Washington Post article that ran on December 2, 2003. Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont was making rapid headway toward the Democratic presidential nomination:

It is sad to reflect that if slavery were by some hideous quirk made legal again, undoubtedly a certain number of individuals in the U.S. would be willing to sell themselves into it. This morning, the Senate Banking Committee held a hearing on regulating what in the world of finance is known as hedge funds.

To start with, there is more than one definition of hedge funds. Broadly, however, they are gigantically capitalized entities for high-risk investment. They are in some ways the riskiest form of investment, and they don’t deal in small amounts of money. And as Sen. Richard Shelby, head of the Banking Committee, and Christopher Cox, head of the SEC, both stated, hedge fund growth in this country (which, with Great Britain, is home to most hedge funds) has been enormous and startling over the past few years. Cox testified that the amount of capital under management in hedge funds has grown to approximately $1.2 TRILLION. Cox also stated that hedge funds account for “about 30% of all U.S. equity trading volume.”

Shelby pointed out that “wealthy investors and large institutions” attracted by hedge funds include “pension funds and universities.” There is room for concern here, especially since a U.S. Appeals Court recently struck down some federal attempts to bring hedge funds somewhat more under SEC regulation.

Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland), excellent and lucid as usual, raised three concerns: 1) whether the standards for an “accredited investor” (currently anyone with over a million, including your house) are too low; 2) potential conflicts of interest in managers of hedge funds and mutual funds; and 3) the impact on financial markets of hedge fund strategies on a large scale, including short-selling.

Sarbanes also brought up a concern voiced by the AFL-CIO, about worker pension funds. There seems to be a move currently to allow more pension funds in hedge funds, a scary prospect for millions of workers counting on pensions to support them in retirement.

Sarbanes also asked about what might happen in a market shock — a “run on the bank,” in which large numbers of hedge fund investors withdrew from their hedge fund at the same time. Basically, to the question, “what would you do?” the answer was — something along the lines of, we’re looking at that.

Three witnesses appeared before the Committee — the head of the SEC; the head of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Reuben Jeffery III; and the head of — No, not the head of Treasury but an undersecretary in Treasury named Randal K. Quarles. Quarles’ answers were not reassuring.

Nobody mentioned that one sizeable hedge fund is operated by the president’s youngest brother, Marvin P. Bush. But then, nobody needed to mention it.

Quarles, BTW, is one of the new breed of Bush appointees, much like an undersecretary from State, John Hillen, whom I heard “testify” to Congress last week, on the administration’s support for a new sale of F-16s to Pakistan. Yes, that’s right, little friends. Just at the juncture when the Pakistanis are bringing out new developments along the nuclear line, the White House wants them to get more F-16s. Hillen and Quarles struck this viewer much as less senior, white male versions of Condoleezza Rice, except perhaps a tad less philosophical and independent — future First Family employees, basically.

Back to the top: one question is why the federal government, or some of the most august names on Wall Street, should be aggrandizing hedge funds in the first place. Just because some people want high-risk opportunities, does that mean the rest of us have to provide them — and pay to regulate them, and provide the courts in which they try to avoid regulation, and pay Congress to try to control them?

You’d think that people so eager for a good risk would be particularly able to stomach NOT getting what they want. Shd be a real shot in the arm, one would think.

I read years ago that a “risk” is one thing; a “gamble” another. But it seems to be BushCo’s broad strategy to maximize gambling rather than genuine risk. Perhaps that’s just another way of saying that they tend to privatize gain (for the few) while socializing penalty/payment (for the overwhelming majority).

Excerpt from second of two letters sent home, after Katrina, by alumni from the small Mississippi where I once taught:

Almost five years after September 11, 2001, the book titled Aviation Insecurity, by security analyst Andrew Thomas, published by Prometheus Books in 2003, is only becoming more timely.

Some books do not wear well over time, but this one does. Virtually every passing month further corroborates the discussion and analysis by Thomas of U.S. lack of aviation security before September 11 and now.

Reading successive chapters about the culture of compromise at the FAA, the actions of the White House and Congress to bail out the airlines immediately after September 11, and the creation of new layers of bureaucracy under the guise of security is like watching time lapse photography in motion. Especially now, while we watch the Middle East go up in flames and even commentators chastise the president for  supposedly not knowing it would happen, we see with the clarity of hindsight how thoroughly the airlines influenced governmental processes that were supposed to work for the public interest. The result is that our federal agencies, in spite of the courageous work of many lower personnel, are tainted and compromised by the aviation industry they were supposed to monitor and regulate. As one commentator said succinctly,