You know that feeling you have when you've survived a seemingly doomed plane ride? Heavy turbulence, lightning, rain, fog, delays, hydraulic problems, circling and waiting for landing clearance. You emerge through the exit doors longing for solid ground to throw yourself down on and kiss. The end of Bush's presidency will certainly bring about similar feelings in millions of citizens.

I'd hope you comment on his post directly in his comments, he unlike many others at TPM, responds and interacts in his comments section.

Kevin, Kevin, Kevin.

We're not (believe it or not) talking impeachment as revenge, but impeachment as the ultimate congressional check over the Executive.

When executive privilege is used to keep someone from testifying about ANY discussions within the executive branch (not just discussions with the President), impeachment is left as the ONLY tool of congressional oversight.

I personally prefer to impeach Gonzales rather than Bush or Cheney, but to put impeachment OFF the TABLE is to give up the power of the legislative branch and to leave us to the mercy of the president.

Actually, a serious impeachment of Bush would restore impeachment to what it was supposed to be: a constitutional check on unconstitutional executive power.

This might be the worst argument in favor of impeachment of all time.

It might be, but then, its also not the argument made in the piece you quote. This (emphasis added):

Accordingly, impeachment proceedings are essentially the best means of getting information to the public which is otherwise unavailable.

Is not fairly characterized as this:

Impeachment should become a routine tool for getting public attention whenever we disagree with a president of the opposite party?

But more fairly as this:

Impeachment should always be available as a lever of last resort if the President obstructs and frustrates the Constitutional oversight role of the Congress.

Now, its true that such obstruction has become routine, such that impeachment would need to be pulled out in situations which are currently frequently encountered. But such obstruction is routine precisely because there is no consequence to it.

Really, its very simple, Congress has a choice. It can allow the US to continue to rapidly become an executive dictatorship with vestigial democratic legislative organs, like Rome from the very end of the Republican Period through the Empire, or it can draw a line an demonstate that it will zealously defend against Executive abuses. Those are the only two options available; failure to do the latter will mean the former.

Can we all please get a grip here? Remember: revenge is a dish best served cold.

This isn't about revenge, its about protecting the Constitutional order of government and the rule of law.

Your exhortion in the end is quite baffling. Mr. Rosenberg is not suggesting impeachment as a vehicle for revenge.

The British have finally managed to get rid of Blair - snd Blair, for all his faults, was far less objectionable than Bush.

So, Kevin, what is your remedy? One that has teeth. Or does the Shrub just get to smirk his way off into the sunset? Bipartisanship and all that.

And if Bush cannot be impeached for what he has already done, what exactly, would any President have to do to merit it?

On what grounds are you going to impeach the President? He is leading us in a congress-approved war against a ruthless enemy.

Clinton, on the other hand, lied under oath about a sordid sexual affair. The only reason he wasn't thrown out of office was because of the partisan support of liberal senators.

Impeach Bush? Go for it Kevin! You libs won't win, and Bush's popularity will go up the roof! This is a dream come true! *snicker*

Bush lied us into war and has declared that impeachment is the only bar between the Executive Branch and monarchy. Impeachment is not only called for, it's necessary.

No Al, he was acquitted on a bipartisan Senate vote, and in the fallout, a couple of Republican philanderers were forced out of office too. Nice head-fake on that strawman tho.

I want to see an impeachment if for no other reason than to prevent future Presidents from having a similar disregard for checks-and-balances.

It would seem like intellectually honest Republicans (are there any?) would want the same thing, before a Democrat takes the Presidency...

Kevin - Certainly it is appropriate to use caution when considering such a drastic measure as impeachment. But please tell me a better example of any president AND vice president, past or present, who qualifies for such drastic measures. Their arrogant thumbing of their noses at anything and everything related to the constitution makes impeachment the only means of correcting a significantly our of control course.

Al, you're even more delusional than usual. Clinton's popularity rose because he was (and remains) a popular guy who was being railroaded by a transparent version of the badger game. Bush's situation more closely resembles Nixon's whose popularity fell during the Watergate hearings because he was an unpopular guy trying to assert terrible power.

What cmdicely said. Every last word of it.

As far as I'm concerned, impeachment should happen whenever congress doesn't approve of the President. The House is the only democratic part of government, and the Senate as a whole isn't democratic, but each member has to win an election popularly.

The presidency has become far too powerful, regardless of party. Congress needs to govern more.

Bush can't wait for the boost a failed impeachment might provide to rescue what remains of his presidency. He needs to arrange for another pile of rubble to stand atop, bellowing into a bullhorn about evildoers.

In the deep South, in the Civil Rights era, failure to prosecute, because no conviction could be got, was seen as cowardice at best, and connivance at worst, with a [profoundly corrupt regime.

Just sayin'...

Really, its very simple, Congress has a choice. It can allow the US to continue to rapidly become an executive dictatorship with vestigial democratic legislative organs, like Rome from the very end of the Republican Period through the Empire, or it can draw a line an demonstate that it will zealously defend against Executive abuses. Those are the only two options available; failure to do the latter will mean the former.

But the idea that because there aren't enough votes (and never will be), that we should dispense with impeachment as an option, I find truly cynical and discouraging.

actually this is wrong Clinton's impeachment did the opposite -- it innoculated Bush from the threat of impeachment -- the only arguments I have heard about not impeaching Bush is that it is revenge for clinton and we dont' want to drag the nation thru this LIKE clinton -- in other words instead of judging the merits of Bush Impeachment on their own we have to look thru clinton tinted glasses.

Look, impeachment in our current circumstances isn't a question of revenge, it's a question of accountability.

The rightwing is now arguing, along with Bush, that executive privilege should apply essentially to everything that the President declares is so protected. Indeed if you look at the document the Bush WH offers up for its stand on executive privilege, namely a memo issued in the Reagan administration, we find this:

The President, through a United States Attorney, need not, indeed may not, prosecute criminally a subordinate for asserting on his behalf a claim of executive privilege. Nor could the Legislative Branch or the courts require or implement the prosecution of such an individual.

Now it's in no way obvious what this all would imply with regard to inherent contempt. Could the executive branch act to prevent, even by force, the Sergeant at Arms of the Congress from taking custody of persons in contempt of Congress? If the President need not bow to the demands of the Supreme Court, as suggested by this memo, why imagine he must allow the Sergeant at Arms of the Congress to do as the Congress has bidden him?

The point here is this. The Bush WH is effectively trying to reduce the modes of Presidential accountability to two things, at most: the vote for the President every four years, and impeachment.

That is, they themselves have reduced the threshold for considering impeachment. It is the only method they will allow for accountability between elections.

Now our democracy has certainly evolved to a point that much less radical checks and balances have been introduced over time, precisely so that the extreme and disruptive measure of impeachment would only have been invoked in truly extraordinary cases. Yet the Bush WH has basically made it clear that it must be invoked in much less extreme situations because it's all they will make available for getting to the bottom of any kind of wrongdoing that may go on in the WH.

The Bush WH in effect is simply daring the Congress to use impeachment, smug in the expectation that they will never choose to use it.

But in the end Congress and the American people demand accountability from the WH. If it is only impeachment that will make that possible under the Bush WH, then so be it.

cmdicely - very well put. The intractable problem is that the GOP used impeachment as a partisan political tool against Clinton; and they will prevent it from being an effective remedy against Bush until January of 2009. The GOP caucus is so profoundly, deeply allied with the Bush Admin, it's hard to imagine what more Bush, Cheney, or even Gonzales could do at this point that would cause enough of them to peel away and say, "okay, NOW I support impeachment."

The process of hearings and preliminary votes before you even get into the Senate trial and a vote on conviction, though, is a great way to get information out, drive home what is that the those hold-outs are defending, and make it politically costly to do so. Until you apply that kind of pressure, there is no cost for many members to stick with Bush.

But if no one is making members of Congress take a stand one way or the other, if the sanction of the administration is off the table completely, there is less for the electorate to respond to: there is frustration, but no clear line drawn on which to turn that frustration into voting behavior.

Clinton's impeachment did the opposite -- it innoculated Bush from the threat of impeachment --

It has been my contention for years that the GOP Senators went through the motions on the Clinton trial, knowing it would be a disaster for the GOP-led house, precisely for this reason.

They weren't going to get Clinton -- hell, that would have been lagniappe at best, and at worst, present them with an incumbent President Gore for 2000.

Instead, the long game was to make impeachment itself look vaguely silly, or tacky.

And they had good reason to want to blunt the impeachment weapon -- it had at that point only been a real threat in modern times to Republican presidents. It drove Nixon from office, it could have, hell, should have, gotten Reagan, and Bush père as well.

What odds the next President confronted with it would also be a Republican.

So the farce went forward with impeachment itself, not Clinton, as a target.

And so we got to where we are today.

Kevin, I would have tended to agree with you until I watched Bill Moyers interview Bruce Fein and John Nichols (transcript at http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/transcript2.html). Have you seen it?

Kevin,

This may be the most mendacious post of yours ever:

But at least your creds are good for TV appearances.

BTW, Josh is advocating Impeachment...what you didn't get the memo?

Remember, when you thought Iraq was a grand idea? Always late, always wrong...yep you're TV material.

This isn't about revenge, Kevin. If this president, vice president and attorney general aren't deserving of impeachment, when is it ever going to be appropriate?

Three words - DOWNING STREET MEMO.

Democrats should have held hearings on that information the day they took the majority. That is the smoking gun...

This isn't about revenge, it's about protecting the Constitutional order of government and the rule of law.

No kidding. I don't understand why you can't see this, Kevin. The potential for fatal precedent here is massive; the damage to our Constitution and the concept of co-equal branches would be permanent and devastating.

"But the idea that because there aren't enough votes (and never will be), that we should dispense with impeachment as an option, I find truly cynical and discouraging."
Posted by: Ish

I've been accused of being cynical, here, and at other blogs, but I would fully support the use of impeachment for many members of the Bush administration, whether or not, there will be votes to sustain the impeachment. These Constitutional Thugs have to go.

Cynics for Impeachment!

Al: "This is a dream come true! *snicker*"

Great. Glad it's working out so well for you. You are truly a fine American. I'm sure we can find some dead soldiers for you to fuck, too. Break out the champagne!

Remember: revenge is a dish best served cold.

Just echoing what's already been better said. This is not about revenge, this is about our last chance to check an out-of-control executive. Impeachment shouldn't be on the table it should be pounding at the White House door.

I would have to agree with cmdicely and Cal Gal...Congress must reassert its authority over the executive branch, and impeachment seems to be the only tool they have left to try to do it. If the debate is framed in this manner (i.e. we are impeaching because they refuse to answer legitimate congressional questions) and if they go after Gonzalez (who has been the most obstructionist) first, the political fallout will be negligible.

"This isn't about revenge, its about protecting the Constitutional order of government and the rule of law." cmdicely

I agree with cmdicely whole-heartedly. I would only add that Gonzales, Cheney, and Bush all need impeaching because IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO! When did we become a people who will not do what is the best thing for the country? It is a sad commentary on what used to be a great country.

Davis: It has been my contention for years that the GOP Senators went through the motions on the Clinton trial, knowing it would be a disaster for the GOP-led house, precisely for this reason.

They weren't going to get Clinton -- hell, that would have been lagniappe at best, and at worst, present them with an incumbent President Gore for 2000.

Instead, the long game was to make impeachment itself look vaguely silly, or tacky.

Excellently put! Exactly my own thinking for all these years, but more eloquently stated. And, as you say, it's working. We have an openly criminal president who spits at the Constitution and laughs at the concept of executive accountability--and a Democratic Congress afraid to impeach him lest they look vengeful and petty.

And, hell, we have Kevin buying that line, too.

"This isn't about revenge, its about protecting the Constitutional order of government and the rule of law." cmdicely
I agree with cmdicely whole-heartedly. I would only add that Gonzales, Cheney, and Bush all need impeaching because IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO! When did we become a people who will not do what is the best thing for the country? It is a sad commentary on what used to be a great country.
Posted by: Mazurka

I got here just in time to say I agree wholeheartedly with Mazurka and cmdicely. That saves me some typing.

I don't agree with Rosenberg's reasoning as presented here, but if Kevin Drum and others can't see that this administration contempt for and abuse of the most basic principles of our Constitutional architecture (separation of powers, checks and balances) and the political abuse of the justice department for partisan, electoral gain (little hint Kevin: Alberto Gonzales is not really the Attorney General, Karl Rove is. Gonzo is a stooge with a law degree who carries out Mr PermanentMajority's orders. There's the whole USattyGate in a nutshell for ya).... if Kevin, Josh Marshall and others can't see that impeachment is called for here (maybe even essential...look at the fall out from Nixon's pardon thirty years later) I tremble for our democracy.

Impeachment isn't just a Constitutional remedy, it's a remedy the Constitution itself needs.

Another quote from Rosenberg's article:

Failing to consider impeachment over grave constitutional issues, when it was utilized just seven years ago over a sexual act, validates the Republican use of it as a political tool rather than a Constitutional remedy.

The ultimate value and utility of impeachment will be set not by the actions of its responsible, thoughful advocates; but rather it will be determined by its cynical, thoroughly partisan detractors.

Here's what I would do, if I were running the Democrats in Congress.

I would issue contempt citations for Meiers and Bolten. If the WH indicated it would not prosecute them through the US Attorney, I would proceed to implement inherent contempt against them.

If the WH in any way interfered with the action of the Sergeant at Arms of the Congress or the implementation of the inherent contempt, I would proceed immediately to an impeachment vote, and use that interference itself as the grounds for the impeachment.

Let Bush come before the American people in an impeachment procedure and argue that he can hold himself and his minions as above the law and accountability.

This is a Constitutional showdown that should, indeed must, ensue if the Bush WH truly wants to push this radical concept of a unitary executive. It's an argument the American people should engage.

So if it is a co-equal branch of goverment why do they need the Exutive branch.Why can't Peolsi and Reid just say they can no longer pass bills on to the Exutive branch because of Corruption and Incompetence.The American people no longer trust this President to do what is right for the people.We must wait for the next President to get back to the what people voted us in to do.

Maybe they need a warm-up impeachment: Gonzales.

To impeach or not to impeach is a duty...not a political calculation. The Democrats who won't impeach for fear it could "backfire" are just as guilty as the Republicans who impeached Clinton for purely political motives. Their is no difference, both those who abuse, or do not use impeachment, are treating the constitution as toliet paper.

It's not about revenge. Trivializing the motives of those who believe impeachment is called for against President Bush is not cool.

Many substantive, thoughtful arguments have been made on why impeachment is the correct course. Revenge might be providing some psychic push I suppose but there is no shortage of well-reasoned arguments laying out why impeaching Bush would be the best course to safeguard our republic.

We don't have the Senate votes, and we don't have any way to circumvent the Roberts Supreme Court.

The Dems lost this fight when they allowed Bush to stack the courts; when they didn't even TRY to block his appointments. They didn't even fight him. Look at the vote counts.

And hypothetically, if they COULD get around those obstacles (and they can't, because the partisan dead-enders will never stop backing him) and impeach him, impeachment only gets rid of THIS problem.

It does not prevent the NEXT problem. When the next Republican president hires the same group of nixon-era, and iran-contra thugs, and does the same damn thing.

We need a constitutional amendment that limits executive orders, signing statements, and executive privilege. I'd say that in this day in age, even the war powers act is quaint, and only the congress should be able to declare war; period. Stuff's gotta change.

Obviously, the no-confidence approach in parliamentary systems is far more practicable. Other democratically elected governments rise and fall all the time, not always requiring the "stomach" of the people, nor inflicting terrible trauma on the body politic.

Meanwhile, impeachment is the only remedy we're given, and if any regime ever gives us more reason to use it -- well, it won't even be allowed by then, will it?

cmdicely is pointing out what is at stake. George Bush’s assertion of executive privilege, and executive exception, and exception from constitutional constraints because of the state of emergency is not unique.

The fascist state in Germany was not one where Hitler and his henchmen acted as totalitarian dictators managing every aspect of public and private life. Instead of destroying the normal workings of the state, such as the independent judiciary, they simply set up a prerogative executive under the pretext of an emergency. The state had its normal laws and functions (which increasingly became Nazified) and the actions of the executive, which were as good as law. Dick Cheney and his fellow conservatives have found their way back to this kind of authoritarian dual state. The struggle of liberal democracy is against the lawlessness of the prerogative executive in favor of parliamentary government.

The problem with authoritarians, who are always with us, is that they always want the glory and protection of a dictator more than the messy, morally confused rule of a Republic. It is something they tend toward in all ages.

That said, the 18th century American Constitution created a relatively autonomous executive (the model was the 18th century British monarchy after all). After the 20th century few in Europe would put such power in a single office (with the exception of France and the particular circumstances of the Fourth Republic). The American president is relatively unaccountable, which is no problem if you have a good president. But if the presidency is occupied by a criminal cult with private intentions than the entire Republic will be subject to their dictates. Bush acts as he does because the political structures make it hard to call him to account and be responsible.

What does revenge is a dish best served cold mean, anyway?

Just for the record, I suggest starting with Cheney.

Here is my letter of Monday, July 09, 2007:

----- Original Message -----
From: S Brennan
To: maria_cantwell@cantwell.senate.gov ; patty_murray@murray.gov ; sf.nancy@mail.house.gov ; senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov ; John.Conyers@mail.house.gov
Cc: inspector.general@usdoj.gov ; AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 2:03 PM
Subject: I've thought about last weeks events with regard to Lewis Libby and I'm compelled to ask the experts

Appropriate Salutations to All,

I've thought about last weeks events with regard to Lewis Libby and I'm compelled to ask the experts,

The way I understand it, Lewis Libby's presidential reprieve involves a case where the Vice-President's office was involved in revealing a covert CIA agent, which would seem to fit the bill of a "high crimes" which could subject the Vice-President to Impeachment should congress so will. The grand jury did make a finding that a crime had occurred and Lewis Libby was charged in connection to that crime and he was subsequently convicted for perjury regarding that crime that took place while employed by the Vice President. It would seem that this would be a case where Impeachment of the Vice-President would be a likely remedy, one which is so plausible that the American public favor such a remedy by 54%.

The constitution's wording does not specify what officer in regard to impeachment they are referring to in Section 2. - Article II - U.S. Constitution(please see below). Unless one believes the framers were naives, it is fair to assume they meant what they said...the US President can not pardon his way out of an impeachment...regardless of which officer is being impeached (please see below).

I believe, Patrick Fitzgerald and others have made a legal error in saying that the Libby commutation was legally permissible under the US Constitution. Impeachment is the only legal remedy available for removing "civil officers of the United States" reprieves are not permissible per section 2 article II of the US Constitution in cases of impeachment. Whether acted upon or not, this is a demonstrable case of impeachment.

[1] - Could you please explain to me why the US Constitution does not speak directly in contravention to this case?

[2] - Can Representative Pelosi's decree that Impeachment "is off the table" become a legally binding declaration, by which the US President is free to Pardon even in cases where impeachment would be involved because that possibility had been removed through fiat?

[3] - If [2] is true, can the house leadership effectively abrogate Section 2 & 4. - Article II of the U.S. Constitution at will?

I believe these are legitimate questions that deserve answers.

Thank you in Advance,

Best Regards,

S[deleted] Brennan - US Citizen/Taxpayer
e-mail: deleted

"...and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Section 2. - Article. II - U.S. Constitution

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Section 4. - Article II - U.S. Constitution

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/constitution.html

Can we all please get a grip here? Remember: revenge is a dish best served cold.

Many others have pointed out that the main goal of impeachment is not revenge at all, and it cheapens the idea to call it that. But, fine, there's pretty obviously some slight element of it in there, and you probably didn't mean this literally and so on. Even so, there's a very basic logical flaw with this part of the post: revenge may be better served cold than hot, but it's much better served hot than not at all, please.

Davis X. really gets it, and states it best, above. The tool of Impeachment itself, was the target, in 1998.

I'm not saying that Congressional Dems should not pursue it.

I'm just saying that they should pursue it, and count on it NOT succeeding. The best they can hope for is to use it as a political stunt. That's the extent of their power right now.

That is why we need the Constitutional Amendment. They need to pursue both routes. Before the clock runs out. I can't believe it took them a whole effing week to decide to VOTE on whether to cite Miers with contempt. What a farce.

It's not about revenge and it shouldn't be about the war - too polarizing and not clear enough. The articles of impeachment need to be drawn fairly narrowly but there's a lot to choose from - the TSP, telling Meyers not to appear, executive orders, and more.

Are there the votes? Today? No but we aren't voting today. If you watched the Senate Gonzales hearings a couple of days ago, I think there are big cracks possible in the Senate. Bush has no respect for Congress and they know it and Senators really don't like that.

osama_been_forgotten,

If you think a guilty verdict in an impeachment trial is a long shot and therefore a "stunt"...you should have a look up the record constitution amendment since 1940...impeachment by comparison is a "slam dunk"

Normally you write some good stuff, today you are repeating yourself...and sounding a bit out of it.

Before you reply look it up.

So, Kevin, you glad you brought this subject up?

Actually, for some time I've held more or less Kevin's position. For some in the Dem enclave, impeachment has been a bit of revenge -- a slap back at all the horrors since the theft of 2000. And I, like Kevin, have thought, we can have better: we can reduce the Pubs to an ineffective minority after the '08 election.

But it's becoming more and more difficult to imagine getting that far without serious damage to the country. Bush and Cheney and Snow and Gonzales are sneering at us daily for expecting the US to function like the liberal democracy it's always been. And the press -- the right-wing version directly, the mainsteam segment by brushing off any revulsion as hysterical -- suggests we have no alternative but to sit there and take it...and by the way, what about that Hillary/Obama cat-fight, and aren't Giuiliani and Thompson manly?

There comes a point where, merely to assert one's belief in a country's principles, it's necessary to take bold steps that are not in keeping with a powder-dry/wait for the next election strategy. Alot us who began the year in a more patient mode are being drive further toward this point than we ever imagined.

We don't have the Senate votes

Neither did Nixon's impeachment before the House got started on it. If the Senate votes were there alrady, Bush would have already resigned to avoid being impeached and removed, just like Nixon did.

Yeah, there is a risk in starting the process. But what's the point of leaders in Congress if they won't lead when it is necessary?

and we don't have any way to circumvent the Roberts Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has no substantive role regarding impeachment.

And hypothetically, if they COULD get around those obstacles (and they can't, because the partisan dead-enders will never stop backing him) and impeach him, impeachment only gets rid of THIS problem.

Showing a willingness to stand up to executive abuses should have a deterrent effect. It may take more than one iteration for that to be clear, though, true.

It does not prevent the NEXT problem. When the next Republican president hires the same group of nixon-era, and iran-contra thugs, and does the same damn thing.

Nixon-era and Iran-Contra thugs are something of a non-renewable resource. Of course, a more robust process of impeachment which included more than just the President and Vice President could further hinder that process by making more of those people ineligible for positions of trust under the US government.

We need a constitutional amendment that limits executive orders, signing statements, and executive privilege.

If the Congress is unwilling to stand up for the existing Constitutional boundaries of the Executive, creating new boundaries won't help, as they will be as purely decorative as the existing ones without enforcement by the Congress (and, ultimately, the people).

It has all been said before. Cmdicely's posts should be moved to the front page. They are dead on.

Impeachment is the best way to check a President who refuses oversight, is excessively secret and claims powers not found in the Constitution.

Kevin, I'll go one step further. In the current environment, with a president claiming he is above the law, and that he and his minions can ignore congressional oversight, impeachment might be the only means available to preserve and protect the Constitution.

Impeaching Bush is like handing an overdose of pills to someone who keeps slitting his wrists.

Bush needs no help in destroying himself and his presidency.

Gonzo and Cheney on the other hand are fair game.

I'll take Rosenberg's point a step further - impeachment as a congressional tool is vastly underused. So much press has been expended about the "national trauma" of the Nixon impeachment hearings, that Congress has been horse-whipped into thinking it is only to be used for the most dire of circumstances. What that has led to is the "imperial presidency" that has only gotten stronger with each President since Reagan (aand, yes, including Clinton).

Modern presidents feel they have little to fear by skirting the law, and why shouldn't they? If this current regime has no fear of impeachment, I shudder to think of the circumstances that would lead Congress to actually level impeachment proceedings (excluding oral sex, of course!). I'm not arguing that impeachment should be the republic's answer to the parliamentary "no confidence" procedure, but there is absolutely no evidence to support the theory that the nation would be crippled by an actual impeachment.

cmdicely,

In the case of Nixon, what was it that caused the votes to shift in the Senate? Was it the weight of the evidence, and the fact that the Senators in question were acting responsibly?

Or did they see the writing on the wall, and fear the electoral repercussions?

I admit this is a leading question... I doubt the core of Bush defenders/enablers will vote based on the evidence. I think they will respond to electoral pressure. But: can that be brought to bear?

Anon,

The issue isn't whether Bush/Cheney policies will be seen as a failure, that's a "slam dunk". No, the issue is whether we want to have Bush/Cheney Republicans drag the Republic down with them.

In the case of Nixon, what was it that caused the votes to shift in the Senate? Was it the weight of the evidence, and the fact that the Senators in question were acting responsibly?

Or did they see the writing on the wall, and fear the electoral repercussions?

I don't think it matters that much: in the first case, it was the weight of the evidence moving the Senators directly, in the others it was the weight of evidence crystallizing public opinion and outrage around the drive to impose consequences which moved the Senators. In either case, it was, really, the weight of the evidence that did the work.

I admit this is a leading question... I doubt the core of Bush defenders/enablers will vote based on the evidence. I think they will respond to electoral pressure. But: can that be brought to bear?

I would think that the polls suggest a fertile environment for that.

Ish,

Would you want to have your legs wrapped around Cheney during an election cycle...at any time?

Even his wife seems to have found other interests.

I'm late to the party, so: I second what cmdicely, thers and shortstop said.

S Brennan: No, the issue is whether we want to have Bush/Cheney Republicans drag the Republic down with them.

With only 18 months left in office, Bush can hardly do more damage than already exists after 6 years, especially with the Dems in control of Congress and likely to expand that control in November and due to public pressure on members of the GOP in a number of areas, as well as (finally) some media attention to the rotting corpse of this presidency.

Any impeachment proceedings against Bush alone would leave Cheney in charge and would likely take months, again resulting in no more than a few months without Bush as president out of the entire 8 years.

If you try to impeach both at the same time, you just aren't perceiving the uproar such an unprecedented move would cause, particularly with the prosecuting party's leader (Pelosi) set to become president upon their removal. It would be seen as a coupe, an attempt to undo the election, and an attempt to put the presidency in the hands of the Democrats through extraordinary means, regardless of whether that is the intent or not.

If you try to impeach Cheney and then Bush, you'd likely leave Condi or some other smuck in charge, not to mention you simply don't have the time for two consecutive impeachments.

On the other hand, Cheney's ratings are so low and he is so universally disliked (probably the same applies to Gonzales), that the Dems could make a statement of principle and the rule of law in a fashion that doesn't threaten the stability of the government (yes, in a time of war, no matter how much we might wish it otherwise), doesn't look like a coupe attempt, and removes the most dangerous actor in the Bush administration next to Rove.

Gonzo alone is a piece of cake, a gift from heaven, and his impeachment for perjury (if it can be proven) would probably fly without any great negative impact on Democrats, without interfering with the war or the running of the country (the DOJ is so disfunctional and Gonzales so inept and out-of-touch that being without an AG is no different than having Gonzo remain in charge), and without distracting the public from the greater issues of a withdrawal from Iraq.

Impeaching Bush is a no-win situation. It accomplishes nothing that cannot be accomplished (a statement of principle against tyrannical rule) by impeaching one or more of his subordinates.

If it was 2004 or 2005 all over again, then maybe there would be time, but it isn't.

It is the Summer of 2007 and an impeachment of the president no matter how justified is a losing proposition on all counts.

cmdicely - thanks. One can hope...

S Brennan - I wouldn't want to be connected to Bush or Cheney in any way, for any reason at all. But then, I'm not John Cornyn, or James Inhofe, or Jon Kyl.

And also? Ew. Just ew.

I agree with you, Kevin, except for that inane last sentence. This isn't about revenge. It's about accountability. It's about doing what we can to restore constitutional order and say that the president is not a king.

Anon,

Your arguments are incorrect for a number reasons please read through the entire thread and read what I have written, then make arguments based on what I said...or didn't.

I submit that a major difference between GWB's impeachment and Nixon's was that in 1973-74, we had a Justice Department that was not nearly as tainted by ideology as the current one. It was led by principled men whose integrity made it impossible to stop the justice machine from churning, although Nixon tried (Sat. nite massacre). Because people actually feared criminal prosecution and prison, they not only talked, they actually respected the oaths they took before taking the witness stand. This bunch -- the "adults" who came to D.C. to replace the Clinton "adolescents" -- embrace integrity only when it serves to advance their ideology. They're all a bunch of empty suits.

But also, a major difference between this impeachment and the Clinton impeachment is that Clinton was a highly popular president through the process and after. Bush, not so. Just as there was partisan wrangling in 1974's House impeachment hearings, so there will be partisan wrangling this time. But just as then, the GOPpers can read the numbers and see that Americans are no longer deceived by the lies of Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez and the rest of this slimy crew.

If you try to impeach both at the same time, you just aren't perceiving the uproar such an unprecedented move would cause, particularly with the prosecuting party's leader (Pelosi) set to become president upon their removal. It would be seen as a coup, an attempt to undo the election, and an attempt to put the presidency in the hands of the Democrats through extraordinary means, regardless of whether that is the intent or not.

Certainly, the Republicans would try to spin it that way, but with polls showing, without impeachment even on the table or any impeachment hearings, majority support for impeaching Cheney and a strong minority for impeaching Bush, I don't think with hearings ongoing and drawing attention, that kind of sales effort will be successful.

Impeaching Bush is a no-win situation. It accomplishes nothing that cannot be accomplished (a statement of principle against tyrannical rule) by impeaching one or more of his subordinates.

Impeaching a subordinate does not provide a deterrent to future Presidents attempting to engage in the same kind of abuses, it just encouragse them to use subordinates who are the least clearly within the scope of the impeachment power to carry them out.

You could try to moderate this effect by impeaching a subordinate that is only questionably within the scope of the impeachment power, but that provides political cover for the members to not cooperate with the impeachment for reasons aside from the seriousness of the wrongdoing involved.

BTW, Anon, it would not leave Condi in charge. Constitutionally, if both GWB and DC were removed from office, Nancy Pelosi would assume the presidency through succession.

S Brennan: Your arguments are incorrect for a number reasons . . .

You are free to point them out and to your opinion.

But your claim that Josh Marshal is in favor of impeachment ("Josh is advocating Impeachment") means you didn't read his post carefully, which kinda means I'm taking your critcism with a grain of salt:

Josh:

"As regular readers of this site know, I've always been against the movement to impeach President Bush."

"On balance, this is still my position."

"Whether because of prudence and pragmatism or mere intellectual inertia, I still have the same opinion on the big question: impeachment."

Wondering whether the calculus regarding impeachment may have changed is a far cry from actually advocating it.

The aim of the Clinton impeachment was not to remove him from office; the Republicans knew that that was never going to happen. The goals were to immobilize the administration and to set up the attacks during the 2000 election. Stated simply, the goal was to acquire power.

Clinton's popularity is not the means by which to gauge the effectiveness of the Clinton impeachment. The near absolute rule of the Bush/Cheney Junta is evidence that it worked beautifully for the Republicans.

BTW, Anon, it would not leave Condi in charge. Constitutionally, if both GWB and DC were removed from office, Nancy Pelosi would assume the presidency through succession.

I think he is assuming a gap between the two convictions in which a new VP is appointed and confirmed in that scenario. I don't see Condi making the cut, there, though, I can more easily see a Republican outside of the administration who is perceived as a moderate and not currently running for President, like maybe Arlen Specter, getting in that way. It takes a majority in both houses to confirm an appointed VP, and there is no way with one of Bush and Cheney convicted and removed from office and impeachment of the other in process someone like Condi gets confirmed as VP.

We have, as a nation, been in a constitutional crisis from the moment the Republican Party hacks decided to transform impeachment from a tool for righting serious wrongs into a political weapon used by a majority party against a President not of their party.

Things have only gone downhill from that moment. The USSC deciding 2000 election in a "one time only" decision saying that equal protection means counting votes differently based on where they live? Crisis. The failure to take any steps to prevent 9/11? Crisis. The unprovoked assault on a sovereign nation? Crisis. The use of DHS as a political tool to help Bush's in 2004? Crisis. The use of the rest of the Executive Branch as a wing of the RNC? Crisis. The use of the USA's offices as a partisan toolchest? Crisis.

All of these things have been an assault on our system of governance. They have been an ongoing and outrageous attack on our very Constitution. Failure to impeach given these events that define "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is yet another crisis. As everyone of any substance has already pointed out, this isn't about revenge. This is about ensuring that our system can survive radical criminals like Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales.

Shorter me: Impeachment isn't a Constitutional Crisis, it is the result of, and solution for, one.

BTW, Anon, it would not leave Condi in charge. Constitutionally, if both GWB and DC were removed from office, Nancy Pelosi would assume the presidency through succession.

Actually, Pelosi is not eligible to serve as President. She was born in Baltimore.

cmdicely: Certainly, the Republicans would try to spin it that way, but with polls showing, without impeachment even on the table or any impeachment hearings, majority support for impeaching Cheney and a strong minority for impeaching Bush, I don't think with hearings ongoing and drawing attention, that kind of sales effort will be successful.

Got any polls concerning impeaching them both at the same time?

It's a different calculus; I suspect you can't just add the two together.

Impeaching a subordinate does not provide a deterrent to future Presidents attempting to engage in the same kind of abuses . . .

It does provide a deterrent to subordinates, the people who actually carry out the illegal or improper activities.

A major drug dealer without customers, mules, or street dealers is deterred; maybe not as much as if the major drug dealer himself (or herself) were prosecuted, but it cannot be claimed that there is no deterrent effect at all from the prosecution of subordinate members of the drug abuse chain.

The same is true with presidents.

Actually, Pelosi is not eligible to serve as President. She was born in Baltimore.Posted by: Norman Rogers

Rogers's ignorant-about-geography personality has now assumed command...

With only 18 months left in office, Bush can hardly do more damage than already exists after 6 years….anonymous at 2:49 PM

Actually, Pelosi is not eligible …. Norman Rogers at 3:38 PM

The same is true with presidents. anonymous at 3:44 PM

Right, convicting those possessing drugs has been a marvelously effective strategy in the War On Drugs. Thank god that stuff is all over now that the drug lords are all sufficiently chastened by the prisons overflowing with low level offenders.

Obviously, that's just stupid. And let's be honest, there hasn't been a Republican candidate for President willing to put the national interest above his own since Eisenhower. Decapitating the snake that is our current Executive Branch will only be a good thing.

While the Republicans may whine that this overturns the election, there is plenty of evidence of just how corrupt this President is that has only come out since then. The facts make it clear that the only person less capable of doing the job of President in line with the rule of law than the President is the Vice-President. That this will hand the Executive Branch over to a different party is, in part, the point. Hastert wasn't going to respect the Rule of Law. He ignored his Constitutional duty to impeach Bush and Cheney in the first place.

The American people spoke in 2006 and said they were tired of corruption. Lancing the boil of corruption is the only way to give the people what they want.

The offenses of Bush/Cheney/Gonzales are so extraordinarily egregious - the lies, the cover-ups, the destruction of evidence, the violations of the fourth, fifth, sixth amendments, the very rights of every American; that the Congress cannot just ignore it.

Whether they have the votes or not, it will force the Republicans to defend the heinous actions of this gang. The msm that cares more about Lindsay Lohans doping and drinking than they do about truth will be forced to talk about the Constitution and what has been going on.

Whether they begin with Feingold's censure or impeachment the Dems need to finally stand up instead of acting like the proverbial 98 lb weakling who keeps getting sand kicked in their eyes and says "next time I'm gonna get really mad".

Funny, Norman. How's that pardon coming, by the way? Is W gonna wipe your slate clean?

Indeed. As Confucius said, “Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.�

On the other hand, Hitchcock said "Revenge is sweet, but not fattening."

In the case of Nixon, what was it that caused the votes to shift in the Senate? Was it the weight of the evidence, and the fact that the Senators in question were acting responsibly? Or did they see the writing on the wall, and fear the electoral repercussions?

One thing that's awfully striking in literature about that period--I'm thinking particularly of Elizabeth Drew's book describing covering the White House in 1973-74, as well as many other books on Watergate and the news coverage of that time--is the extent to which Republican representatives and senators shared their Democratic colleagues' genuine outrage at the Nixon administration's actions.

Reading what Republican members of Congress told journalists off the record, listening to their public statements, hearing the questions they asked Nixon staffers who were testifying, it's amazing how many of these people came to believe it was something of a sacred duty to take this man out of office. Even taking into account a good deal of self-serving sophistry and the usual ass-covering theatrics, it's clear that most Congressional Republicans in 1974 very clearly recognized the dangers to the union in allowing a presidency to declare itself above the law and not subject to the constitution.

They were genuinely horrified at what Nixon had done and literally saw no choice but to remove him. And many of them spoke quite eloquently about the trust their constituents had placed in them and their sincere desire not to abuse that trust by failing to protect the constitution, the rule of law, and the system of checks and balances.

The difference between the 1974 Congress and today's version: As the evidence against Nixon mounted, the weight of opinion shifted against him. The last holdouts were the ones who thought he could have been a little more prudent in his use of power, but defended him because they still didn't believe he'd been directly involved in obstructing justice. But after the "smoking gun" tape surfaced a few days before Nixon's resignation, the holdouts virtually disappeared. In the 1974 Senate, knowing that the president had participated in a coverup meant that he had to go. Period.

Contrast that with today's GOP. The attorney general subverts the justice system and Congressional Republicans call investigations into his behavior "fishing expeditions." Miers flouts a Congressional subpoena (!) and every Republican on House Judiciary votes against a contempt citation. Every one. Scooter Libby is convicted of perjury and obstruction after compromising national security as political payback, and Republican congressman cheer the president for commuting his sentence.

Where is the fucking shame?

There seems to be absolutely no dishonor Bush can bring to the presidency that would inspire today's GOP to do the right thing. Absolutely none.

It's appalling and terrifying that we've come to this.

From an Anomous poster who defends congressional inaction

"...your claim that Josh Marshal is in favor of impeachment ("Josh is advocating Impeachment") means you didn't read his post carefully, which kinda means I'm taking your critcism with a grain of salt:

"And I'm less sure now under these circumstances that operating by rules of 'normal politics' is justifiable or acquits us of our duty to our country." --Josh Marshall

I read from this line, that Josh Marshall...just as he did with Iraq, is changing his mind from his pre-conceived notions, to the correct course of actions.

Anon posters, by their own words are posers, usually water bearers and you certainly have a jugful.

Anon, there's a lot after:

"BTW, Josh is advocating Impeachment...what you didn't get the memo?"

I appreciate your parsing, now, please try to correct your other errors

Dan: BTW, Anon, it would not leave Condi in charge. Constitutionally, if both GWB and DC were removed from office, Nancy Pelosi would assume the presidency through succession.

Since I specifically refer to Pelosi becoming president if Bush and Cheney were to be simultaneously impeached (and of course convicted) and specifically state "[i]f you try to impeach [and convict] Cheney and then Bush," this is a pretty tortured reading of my comment.

cmdicely: . . . there is no way with one of Bush and Cheney convicted and removed from office and impeachment of the other in process someone like Condi gets confirmed as VP.

It seems very unlikely that Arlen Specter would be a choice that Bush could live with, even if it would save him from being impeached (assuming congressional Democrats promised such in return for such an appointment and I see no reason why they would - Specter hasn't been entirely consistent in his opposition to administration activities, just enough to make him anathema to Bush, Cheney, and the GOP in general, but not enough to make him palatable to Democrats who he has let down many times).

Public perception of Condi and her high profile jobs in the administration argues against ruling her out, not to mention that the GOP loves to play the race card when they want to ensure someone's succession to power.

If an administration critic would be acceptable to Bush, then a more believeable alternative (than Specter) to replace Cheney would be Warner, Hagel, Shelby, or Lugar.

With only 18 months left in office, Bush can hardly do more damage than already exists after 6 years, especially with the Dems in control of Congress and likely to expand that control in November and due to public pressure on members of the GOP in a number of areas, as well as (finally) some media attention to the rotting corpse of this presidency.

Right. Because Bush is paying so much heed to the powers of Congress and to public opinion. And he has such an excellent track record of changing his behavior in the face of criticism.

As for the amount of damage he can do--Iran, anyone?

Congress has to act swiftly and decisively on impeachment for this reason: we are all endangered by the administration. They are going to lash out like wounded animals at the American people much like any other dictatorship in crisis. The executive order of 17 July would make even Kevin's blog a crime against Iraqi stability. We are in the eye of a perfect storm of incompetence, economic collapse, military over extension, and overtly failed leadership. There is nothing left to do but hunker down and ride out impeachment. Seems better than waiting for the next suspicious attack. The news of Prescott Bush's planned 1933 coup should send chills down everyone's spine. This is no longer q partisan issue. Conservative values have been completely undermined. Impeachment is the last best hope. They already undermined free and fair elections. Why wait for a complete police state?
Chilling. Nobody said being a Congressman did not require courage.

All these thoughts and suggestions profered here seem to be well reasoned and I think very logical. The only problem I have is that the right people (Congress) are probably not reading these posts .. therefore don't really know how the great 'unwashed' electorate feels about these issues. Is it known for a fact that any Congresspeople or their aides, actually read these type of blogs?

S Brennan: From an Anomous poster who defends congressional inaction

At best, this is disingenuous, at worst dishonest.

I have not defended congressional inaction, but simply posed alternative actions against different individuals.

I appreciate your parsing, now, please try to correct your other errors . . .

I appreciate your lame attempt to excuse your misstatement of what Marshall wrote, just not in a positive way.

Regardless, an opinion is not an "error."

If you can point to a statement of fact that is actually "in error," please do so.

I will gladly admit to a mistake of error if shown to be so, as I seek the truth.

Anon posters, by their own words are posers . . .

Interesting that you consider the authors of the Federalist Papers (Madison, Jay, and Hamilton) to be posers.

Anon, there's a lot after . . .

A lot of sh*t often follows a p*ss.

So, I don't get your point.

Erika,

Probably not, but you could do what I did and post something like this to your reps, feel free to copy, many bloggers do.

Here is my letter of Monday, July 09, 2007:

----- Original Message -----
From: S Brennan
To: maria_cantwell@cantwell.senate.gov ; patty_murray@murray.gov ; sf.nancy@mail.house.gov ; senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov ; John.Conyers@mail.house.gov
Cc: inspector.general@usdoj.gov ; AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 2:03 PM
Subject: I've thought about last weeks events with regard to Lewis Libby and I'm compelled to ask the experts

Appropriate Salutations to All,

I've thought about last weeks events with regard to Lewis Libby and I'm compelled to ask the experts,

The way I understand it, Lewis Libby's presidential reprieve involves a case where the Vice-President's office was involved in revealing a covert CIA agent, which would seem to fit the bill of a "high crimes" which could subject the Vice-President to Impeachment should congress so will. The grand jury did make a finding that a crime had occurred and Lewis Libby was charged in connection to that crime and he was subsequently convicted for perjury regarding that crime that took place while employed by the Vice President. It would seem that this would be a case where Impeachment of the Vice-President would be a likely remedy, one which is so plausible that the American public favor such a remedy by 54%.

The constitution's wording does not specify what officer in regard to impeachment they are referring to in Section 2. - Article II - U.S. Constitution(please see below). Unless one believes the framers were naives, it is fair to assume they meant what they said...the US President can not pardon his way out of an impeachment...regardless of which officer is being impeached (please see below).

I believe, Patrick Fitzgerald and others have made a legal error in saying that the Libby commutation was legally permissible under the US Constitution. Impeachment is the only legal remedy available for removing "civil officers of the United States" reprieves are not permissible per section 2 article II of the US Constitution in cases of impeachment. Whether acted upon or not, this is a demonstrable case of impeachment.

[1] - Could you please explain to me why the US Constitution does not speak directly in contravention to this case?

[2] - Can Representative Pelosi's decree that Impeachment "is off the table" become a legally binding declaration, by which the US President is free to Pardon even in cases where impeachment would be involved because that possibility had been removed through fiat?

[3] - If [2] is true, can the house leadership effectively abrogate Section 2 & 4. - Article II of the U.S. Constitution at will?

I believe these are legitimate questions that deserve answers.

Thank you in Advance,

Best Regards,

S[deleted] Brennan - US Citizen/Taxpayer
e-mail: deleted

"...and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Section 2. - Article. II - U.S. Constitution

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Section 4. - Article II - U.S. Constitution

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/constitution.html

[Had originally posted this on the wrong thread]

Just to explain my post above regarding my recommendations for the Democrats to pursue the executive privilege issue.

There is an important point to the graduated approach (first, to insist that the Bush WH allow the US Attorney to prosecute contempt against Meiers and Bolten, then to move to inherent contempt if the Bush WH indicates it will refuse to allow the US Attorney to prosecute, then to impeachment if the Bush WH interferes with inherent contempt). Upping the stakes gradually allows the Bush WH to acknowledge that executive privilege does NOT trump all other concerns without taking more extreme measures. That acknowledgment is, of course, the precise issue most fundamentally at stake here.

On the other hand, if the Bush WH refuses at every step to cave in, then the impeachment proceeding will be fully justified from a Constitutional and political point of view. They will have been given every opportunity to acknowledge the legitimacy of Congressional oversight at a lower level, yet will have chosen to push it to the extreme of impeachment proceedings for resolution. The burden for that grave step will land entirely on them.

BTW, one thing I would insist on if I were the Congressional Dems: if they indeed choose to take the contempt charge to court rather than pursue inherent contempt, I would absolutely demand that the Bush WH acknowledge upfront that they will abide by the rulings of the court. If the Bush WH instead fails to make a firm commitment on this point I would proceed immediately to inherent contempt.

Of course, the Dems might be well advised anyway to go to inherent contempt, simply on the grounds that they don't want the clock to run out on accountability.

"Bush lied us into war...."
_________________________

Better try one of the other alleged reasons to impeach President Bush. Mr. Rosenberg says that President Clinton was impeached over, "essentially, nothing." Maybe so, but it was the lying under oath bit that gave impeachment whatever validity it had. If lying under oath is nothing, then allegedly lying while not under oath isn't much to go on.

Thank you S Brennan .. very interesting. It looks like you have already sent these to my Senators (WA) so now onto the House Reps
I feel the impeachment proceedings should at least be started, in spite of the fact that time would probably run out.
It is more important to get the information out to the public than actually going thru the entire process. Some people won't pay attention to any political activity unless its in all the papera & TV channels. Many people stay ignorant by choice.

By the beginning of the 1990’s the radical ‘conservatives’ had pushed the last of the independent Republicans out of the party and had made those left beholden to the party leadership. This consolidation of power and the radical rejection of bipartisanship undermined the ethos of establishment government, and relative political independence, that had been in place since the Civil War. The new hegemony paradigm is based in the angry and desperate drive to undermine the liberalizations and perceived socialism of the mid-20th century from the New Deal to desegregation. This is a revolt for orthodoxy in taxation, in property, in religion, in politics and in social life. The common thread that runs from the Clinton impeachment to Bush’s untouchable sovereignty to stonewalling in the Senate is not a desire for some institutional relationship, by which I mean this is not just Cheney’s dream of an American President-King. It is the righteous rejection of consensus in the name of orthodox domination (and irreverent money-making). Problem is that the people are not behind the movement’s goals which the informed know must be forced upon the American people.

In their attempt to establish a new dominant order against the ethos of democracy they have resorted to unprecedented, and coordinated, lawlessness. It is a movement of the fearful and angry led by low and artless thugs.

shortstop: As for the amount of damage he can do--Iran, anyone?

With what army?

Never going to happen.

Haven't seen that rhetoric in weeks, have you?

No, it's all been about meeting with Iran, no matter how the admin tries to spin it.

Bush has lost support of sufficient key Senators that attacking Iran is off the table.

Bush is trying to dance on the head of a pin in order to save what is left of his sorry ass; it's all about posturing now. He's basically toothless - he knows it and the GOP knows it.

Paranoia doesn't suit you, shortstop; stop and smell the roses - much has been accomplished (Dems lead on 10/10 top issues in Rasmussen, Bush is steady at under 40% approval, GOP candidates have shot off most of their toes).

Don't ruin it by flying too close to the sun in wings made of wax.

It is by chips and drips that this administration will be brought to its knees; we shouldn't resort to the nuclear option so favored by those we oppose.

Sorry Trashcan, you apparently can't tell the difference between an impeachable lie and one that isn't. Here's a quick primer - when the lie results in the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands, that's impeachable. When the "lie" involves where a President placed his dick, that's not. It's really quite simple.

Clinton's "lie" was a personal matter. Bush's lie involved using the government as a propaganda mouthpiece to incite violence against a sovereign nation. Bush's lie is, quite obviously, an abuse of power.

When the Republicans speak of 'family values' is that a euphanism for going back to before the civil war where only White male landowners had any political power? And where everyone else was property?

I find myself in rare total agreement with cmdicely. The bounds on the executive branch's power must the defined and defended by the House and Senate.

I don't think there will be any impeachment's during the remainder of this administration, but the threat to do so should not be tabled entirely if the adminstration is attempting to expand the scope of privilege, which appears to be the case.

As for impeachment becoming a too common tool, I don't fear that either since the voters themselves can constrain the power of Congress, and get to do so every two years.

frankly0: I would absolutely demand that the Bush WH acknowledge upfront that they will abide by the rulings of the court. If the Bush WH instead fails to make a firm commitment on this point I would proceed immediately to inherent contempt.

I think this unnecessary.

If Bush refused to obey the order of a court controlled by conservatives, no one but Orin Hatch (has there ever been a more sleezy senator?) would be able to stand against the wave of revolt in the public and Congress.

But in any event I doubt seriously that Bush would ignore such an order and making him promise to do so would be viewed as unseemly and petty by most of the public.

There have been plenty of court rulings against the administration and while they have connived and enlisted the GOP Congress to find ways around the rulings in many instances, they have not flat out disobeyed any court ruling and there is no reason to think they would not.

There is quite a difference between thumbing your nose at a Congress controlled by the opposing party and disobeying a ruling by a Supreme Court controlled by executive-loving conservatives.

Either the court will rule in Bush's favor or he will obey an order rejecting the privilege.

anonymous,

Are you still carrying water for the same CW dolts that got us in this mess.

"...Don't ruin it by flying too close to the sun in wings made of wax."

History will mock Democrats, it is they that will be blamed, they were given all the tools, yet were too busy primping for a presidential run to perform their duty. If we have lost the power to impeach for treasonous activity, then we have lost the power to impeach, which means now and forevermore if the executive branches dissolve the government there are no means short of bloodshed to restore the republic.

The Democratic leadership has been forced to make successful moves, they have not led, they have been led. But if they keep being weak-kneed as you recomend, they will depress voter turnout which will destroy any chance of reform. Which is exactly what you and your posts are about.

Better try one of the other alleged reasons to impeach President Bush. Mr. Rosenberg says that President Clinton was impeached over, "essentially, nothing." Maybe so, but it was the lying under oath bit that gave impeachment whatever validity it had. If lying under oath is nothing, then allegedly lying while not under oath isn't much to go on.

Lying in the official performance of duties in a way which interferes with Congress performance of its Constitutional duties is certainly more the kind of thing impeachment was designed for than perjury in a lawsuit in which one is a defendant in one's personal capacity.

The major flaw in the Constitution regarding impeachment is that incompetence is not listed as an impeachable offense.

If Bush refused to obey the order of a court controlled by conservatives, no one but Orin Hatch (has there ever been a more sleezy senator?) would be able to stand against the wave of revolt in the public and Congress.

I direct your attention to the memo from the Reagan years that the WH has pointed to as justification, which I linked to upthread (my bolding):

The President, through a United States Attorney, need not, indeed may not, prosecute criminally a subordinate for asserting on his behalf a claim of executive privilege. Nor could the Legislative Branch or the courts require or implement the prosecution of such an individual.

You seem to trust the Bush WH would do the right thing. Truly, I can't imagine why.

I missed something at the beginning of this discussion. Who exactly took the possibility of impeachment off the table? I've heard some comments that the issue isn't ripe but no statement that it could not be considered in the future. Is this whole discussion premised on a straw man?

Goodness, anonymous; writing recklessly under the influence of that many forced metaphors is illegal in most states. Maybe even the state in which you find yourself?

But then, you were probably trying to be funny. Mmm. Probably.

Without quoting what's-her-name about deeply resenting this administration turning her into a conspiracy theorist, I shall point out that expecting this administration to make large, horribly ill-advised moves intended to distract the electorate is not particularly paranoid. It's a reasonable assumption solidly based on past and continuing events, however much we may diverge in our speculation of what those moves are likely to be.

On the other hand, your expectation that Bush, against all history and all evidence, to suddenly sit up and take notice of Congressional oversight, public disapprobation and the occasional media criticism--well, now, rose isn't really your color, and Lenscrafters is having a big sale this weekend.

S Brennan: If we have lost the power to impeach for treasonous activity . . .

Treason is clearly defined in the Constitution and Bush has not committed treason.

Many other crimes, likely, but it is inane to argue that he has committed treason in the legal sense which is what would be needed to support a case for impeachment and conviction.

But please rant on oh great wise one.

But if they keep being weak-kneed as you recomend . . .

Impeaching Gonzales and/or Cheney would hardly be classified as "weak-kneed" by any but the most obtuse.

Neither would continuing to bear down on investigations into the US Attorney firings, politicization of agencies in violation of the Hatch Act, and other congressional activities that have forced a number of resignations and adjustments in administration policy and which have revealed much corruption to the voting public, all of which I favor and have supported.

Neither is urging Congress to go to court if necessary to test the limits of executive privilege which I have also favored and urged at TPM in verbal battle with the despicable JakeD.

You are blinded by your own theocratic demand for ideological purity, the same demand for purity we see from the jihadists, Bushistas, and neocons.

We hated Saddam, but it was neither practical nor moral to invade to depose him, though he was deserving of capture and execution (although I don't believe in capital punishment in actuality).

Just as their were more practical and better ways to deal with Saddam than the mess we've now created, there are better and more practical ways to deal with this administration.

And while I may think that Congress has not gone far enough in some areas (such as getting our troops home), they are hardly as weak-kneed and inactive as you imagine in combatting this administration.

Regardless, it is by their efforts that anything will be accomplished and if you think that tossing them out and trying to replace them ideological purists is going to be a successful strategy, you will likely suffer the same fate as the Gingrich gang and the Bush gang - the public will tire of your strident demands for radical and improvident action.

Which is exactly what you and your posts are about.

Then again, you thought Marshall's post was about advocating impeachment and we all know how that interpretation went down.

It's appalling and terrifying that we've come to this.

In a history of well thought out (if not snarky) posts, this may be your best. Well said.

cmdicely: Lying in the official performance of duties in a way which interferes with Congress performance of its Constitutional duties is certainly more the kind of thing impeachment was designed for than perjury in a lawsuit in which one is a defendant in one's personal capacity.

Or in any way that endangers the nation, undermines the proper functioning of the government under constitutional principles, or seeks to make the office of the president and executive branch offices coextensive with partisan party leadership.

Anon,

For your edification:

As seen above:

"The way I understand it, Lewis Libby's presidential reprieve involves a case where the Vice-President's office was involved in revealing a covert CIA agent, which would seem to fit the bill of a "high crimes" which could subject the Vice-President to Impeachment should congress so will. The grand jury did make a finding that a crime had occurred and Lewis Libby was charged in connection to that crime and he was subsequently convicted for perjury regarding that crime that took place while employed by the Vice President. It would seem that this would be a case where Impeachment of the Vice-President would be a likely remedy, one which is so plausible that the American public favor such a remedy by 54%"

Del Capslock: The major flaw in the Constitution regarding impeachment is that incompetence is not listed as an impeachable offense.

This is not necessarily true.

I have read some commmentary that "high crimes and misdemeanors" as original understood would include gross incompetence, at least for lower officials.

Anon,

Your comments have traced an arc from ludicrous to obscene and back again.

BTW, Icarus's flight envelope looks pretty reasonable compared to your trajectory...oh and hey, the reality is...not that you are a reality based guy, it's colder at higher altitudes.

Don't hand out flight advice, you don't know what you are talking about...even metaphorically.

Also, try to carry your water with a little more dignity.

Undermining our national security for personal gain is the essence of treason. To argue otherwise is nonsense. The War On Iraq was the result of an abuse of power and unless you have a convincing rationale that unifies the shifting rationalizations that came from the Bush team better than personal and political (which was also personal) gain, then yes, Bush and Cheney are guilty of treason.

DOWNING STREET MEMO

Bushco knew there were no WMDs and attacked a sovereign country anyway. If taking the U.S. to war under false pretenses isn't a "high crime", I don't know what is. It is certainly more serious than lying about your sex life, whether you are under oath or not.

Not to mention that launching a "war of aggression" is what caused many of the Nazi leaders to be led to the gallows at the Nuremburg trials.

S Brennan: For your edification:

Since I have advocated for Cheney's impeachment, I fail to see how I can be further edified by this quotation or how it relates to the impeachment of Bush, who is the president not the vice president, or my belief that impeaching Bush would not be a wise decision, at least at this time.

Perhaps you were simply so blinded by ideological rage that you could not clearly see the text in my posts.

Feel free to go back and show where I advocated against impeaching Cheney and maybe your quotation will have some meaning.

Otherwise, I suggest you read more carefully, both my comments and Marshall's.

shortstop: On the other hand, your expectation that Bush, against all history and all evidence, to suddenly sit up and take notice of Congressional oversight, public disapprobation and the occasional media criticism--well, now, rose isn't really your color, and Lenscrafters is having a big sale this weekend.

I have no such expectations nor have I expressed the same here or anywhere else.

I shall point out that expecting this administration to make large, horribly ill-advised moves intended to distract the electorate is not particularly paranoid.

Well, heck, why not propose that they will try to nuke Russia to distract the public, then?

They shot their wad trying to make a case for invading or attacking Iran and they got rebuffed by both the public and their military leaders who know we simply don't have the military resources to back up such a threat - which is why they are at the negotiating table instead of still engaging in provocative rhetoric on Iran's nuclear program which has suddenly eseentially disappeared from the front page or even the second page of the news as compared to a few months ago.

The calculus has changed.

Be sure to alert me, however, the minute Bush attacks Iran, so I can look for pigs in the sky.

The major flaw in the Constitution regarding impeachment is that incompetence is not listed as an impeachable offense.

Its not really a major flaw except to ahistorical readings of the Constitution; as I recall, the Constitution adopted the language of previous American, and earlier British, provisions on impeachment, under which misfeasance and nonfeasance0 whether incompetence or merely inadequate devotion, as well as malfeasances that would otherwise be criminally actionable, were recognized as within the scope of the power.

I don't think its really a major defect that an 18th Century legal document used legal terms in the same sense that they were used at the time and had been used for generations.

Its perhaps a failure in the 20th and 21st century educational systems in the US that people don't understand the context of the Constitution and the meaning of its provisions.

"revenge is a dish best served cold."

The 2000 election was a long time ago, Kevin. How long do we wait?

Anon,

i pointed out above you didn't read the thread above you...that how you came to be a blathering idiot and still you persist in compounding your error all the while giving advice to others:

Shut,

Read,

Learn,

"Your comments have traced an arc from ludicrous to obscene and back again."

S Brennan: Also, try to carry your water with a little more dignity.

This from someone who misstates what Marshall wrote and then lamely tries to dissemble about it?

. . . it's colder at higher altitudes.

It's a constant temperature where your head is buried!

Roughly 98.6 degrees I would say.

heavy: Undermining our national security for personal gain is the essence of treason. To argue otherwise is nonsense.

Well, I've never thought of the Constitution as nonsense, but I'm open to new concepts.

Here it is . . .

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Make your case.

Citations to relevant case law or philosophical treatises by, say, a Founding Father or constitutional scholar of your choice (please avoid Dershowitz, though, as I do not accept his opinions on this administration as credible).

frankly0: While you seem to think that ignoring the courts is not a serious prospect, I think it is very important that the WH explicitly disavow that possibility upfront if the Congress is to pursue the contempt charge in the courts. You seem to trust the Bush WH would do the right thing.

It has nothing to do with trust, but a keen observation of politics, human nature, history, current events, and the changing of political fortunes.

Bush would not defy the order of a court led by two justices he nominated as constitutional strict constructionists who were confirmed by GOP members who insisted they were strict constructionists and who have been very deferrential to presidential powers; he could not do so and not be impeached. The overwhelming majority of the public just would not find credible a Bush assertion that he can ignore the Supreme Court when it is controlled by his own party and the most deferrential (to the president) of justices. No GOP senator (again with the exception of Hatch) could possibly back Bush without gutting his support among his own backers.

Of course, there is a slight possibility that Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia would all be on the dissenting side of a court ruling against the president which might make disobeying it palatable, but even those justices would take a dim view of a president that didn't abide by the court's ruling no matter how wrong they think it is. To do otherwise would be to invite future Democratic presidents to ignore the Supreme Court and no conservative senator and no conservative justice is going to stand for that.

Bush will have no choice but to comply with such a finding.

It is far more likely that Congress will simply lose the court battle or it will drag on until Bush is out of office and it becomes moot.

But Bush disobey a direct finding of the SCt that the privilege doesn't apply?

No. Chance. In. Hell.

S Brennan: . . . i pointed out above you didn't read the thread above you . . .

Pointing out something that is not true is unhelpful, to me or to you.

Please, though, rant on, rant on.

"BTW, Josh is advocating Impeachment...what you didn't get the memo?"

Josh is not advocating impeachment. There is no memo to get. No matter how you spin it.

Anon,

You are an idiot,

Your statements are confident, boastful and wrong.

And this:

"Please, though, rant on, rant on." - Anon

is really a topper

Treason is clearly defined in the Constitution and Bush has not committed treason.

Many other crimes, likely, but it is inane to argue that he has committed treason in the legal sense which is what would be needed to support a case for impeachment and conviction.

No, "treason in the legal sense" is not what would be required to support a case for impeachment and conviction. An impeachment need not be for any offense cognizable before a regular criminal court, and even if it is entitled as such, need not apply the law that would be binding on such a court. Treason in a fuzzy moral sense, as the prior poster described it, rather than the strict Constitutional sense would be quite well within the historic boundaries of the concept of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" for impeachment, and even if it were not, Congress is not bound by the historic boundaries of the concept.

You don't think providing a recruiting ground for terrorists intent on attacking the United States counts as "giving them Aid and Comfort?" In fact, attacking nations that are no threat to our national security is hardly different from simply attacking our soldiers directly. Either way, you have chosen to kill our forces for your personal and political gain. Which, again, is the essence of treason.

Treason, and murder. Mass murder. Perhaps our only consolation is that history will forever link Bush and bin Laden.

"Clinton's "lie" was a personal matter."

Wasn't there a big fuss recently about the importance of not lying to investigating officers and so forth? Clinton's sworn deposition is what it is, regardless whether the Senate elected to indulge in jury nullification.

If we had a chief executive who was provably and blatantly breaking the law, but we did not have the votes to impeach, should we try impeachment anyway?

I think that's the issue here. Rosenberg is arguing that impeachment is just the right thing to do in these situations, whether it has a chance of success or not.

Personally...I don't know. Part of me wants to be pragmatic, part of me wants to see justice work as advertised.

If impeachment is the right thing to do because wrong things have been done, then impeachment should be pursued as a matter of law and justice, not as revenge. Enough commentors above should have made this point beyond dispute by now.

But don't lose sight of the practical politics:

1) The proceedings will distract the time and attention of the legislators (not that they've been doing much to capture admiration and approval lately).

2) The proceedings will distract the attention of the public. The media circus will provide cover for other ongoing issues. This is not necessarily an advantage for "your" particular ideological grouping, whatever it might be.

3) Savvy operators can turn crisis into profit. Is there a Rep advantage in a Dem-engineered opportunity (ie. "they started it, not us") to renounce and sever the Bush administration and its baggage before the next set of elections? (Not in your minds, which are unlikely to change, but in the minds of all the people who don't share your beliefs. The conceit that one is part of a majority is a risky one.)

4) Even if enough Rep support can be garnered to convict in Senate, what is the likelihood of a twofer (Bush & Cheney) given that some Dem senators might not relish the prospect of incumbent President Pelosi at election time, and might therefore find excuses to acquit?

Is there a Rep advantage in a Dem-engineered opportunity (ie. "they started it, not us") to renounce and sever the Bush administration and its baggage before the next set of elections?

Probably, but I don't care. If changing course and doing what needs to be done for the good of the country minimizes the harm to the Republican Party, good on them for doing it. The electoral system in the US guarantees that there will tend to be two parties roughly balanced in powers barring brief momentary distortions; really durable change is made by shifting the center of ideas not injuring one of the institutional parties. Putting partisanship ahead of ideals is counterproductive.

Even if enough Rep support can be garnered to convict in Senate, what is the likelihood of a twofer (Bush & Cheney) given that some Dem senators might not relish the prospect of incumbent President Pelosi at election time, and might therefore find excuses to acquit?

There are ways of avoiding Pelosi becoming President if that's a political barrier, and they might be necessary to get Republicans on board at the end anyway. OTOH, I don't see why Democrats would see it as a problem presuming Pelosi didn't decide to run to keep the job, and one would imagine that she'd almost have to announce that she had no intention of doing that as impeachment went forward, in any case.

The Republican impeachment of Democrat Clinton was a partisan maneuver that inflated a private and trivial matter that made no difference to the country and how it was run.

The Republican recall of former California Governor Gray Davis (impeachment by rabble) was another maneuver that was purely politically motivated, and not based on criminal behavior. (In fact, Davis was barely doing anything against the Cheney-sanctioned energy companies, so the case could be made that the Republicans perceived him as weak and vulnerable, and thus made a move for an early election that he could not resist.)

The case against Bush though, is entirely different. In fact, it is a case against Bush, Cheney and Gonzales, and is backed by their recognition of their commission of high crimes and misdemeanors. These crimes are sufficient to warrant impeachment and trial.

The case against Bush and Cheney are fundamentally different for that reason, and the Constitutional provision for impeachment is in that document for exactly the reasons now manifest.

You can call it a politically motivated move, but by definition it is political because it is in that arena. However, when a significant number of politically prominent Republicans agree with or call for impeachment, then it is not a partisan political move.

Furthermore, the political motivations behind the 1998 impeachment and the 2002 recall were to further the consolidation of Republican power. An impeachment of Bush in 2007 would not be for a consolidation of Democratic power. (Isn't that an oxymoron, after all?) This impeachment would be like trying a criminal gang for their serial crimes. It is in the nature of law - and in this case Constitutional law.

The political fallout for the country's internal politics would be significant, but probably no more than the continuing political war between the criminal Republican class and everybody else, including party-affiliate Democrats and, well everybody else too. But more importantly for the country, the implications for foreign policy would be that the world would see that we have rewalized the error of our 2000 and 2004 elections, and we have chosen to prosecute the gang for its crimes. The rest of the world would begin to forgive the US for its actions of the past five years, and we would begin to recover some of our moral authority. Whoever is elected President in 2008 would have a much better foundation on which to conduct foreign policy, and we could begin to repair relations individually with countries and regions all around the world.

I don't think its really a major defect that an 18th Century legal document used legal terms in the same sense that they were used at the time and had been used for generations.

I think you are much more concerned with sounding pompous and condescending than the average citizen's understanding of the context of the COnsitution.

Wasn't there a big fuss recently about the importance of not lying to investigating officers and so forth? Clinton's sworn deposition is what it is, regardless whether the Senate elected to indulge in jury nullification.

Two problems with this red-herring. First, I was distinguishing between matters that concern the Presidency. The "lie" told wasn't a political lie, the levers of governance weren't moved to support this "lie." Second, there was insufficient evidence that what Clinton said was a lie given the convoluted definition of sex used in the case. So, the reason why several Senators crossed party lines to vote to acquit wasn't "jury nullification," but as Senator Specter said in casting his vote the case wasn't proved.

The votes to convict Clinton were strictly partisan, the votes to acquit were bipartisan.

Bush would not defy the order of a court led by two justices he nominated as constitutional strict constructionists who were confirmed by GOP members who insisted they were strict constructionists and who have been very deferrential to presidential powers; he could not do so and not be impeached. The overwhelming majority of the public just would not find credible a Bush assertion that he can ignore the Supreme Court when it is controlled by his own party and the most deferrential (to the president) of justices. No GOP senator (again with the exception of Hatch) could possibly back Bush without gutting his support among his own backers.

This all mostly assumes that Bush cares in the smallest bit about political fallout per se. I think we can safely say that he simply doesn't anymore.

Yes, it would look very, very bad for Bush politically if he refused to comply with the orders of a Supreme Court so much to his liking. But even if he wants only strict constructionists on the SC, it does not entail that he believes that the SC has any say in the matter of executive privilege.

Look again at the document the Bush WH has pointed to as supporting its take on executive privilege. It explicitly mentions the courts as not having a say on the matter of whether someone can be prosecuted for contempt when executive privilege applies to them.

Now you are simply choosing not to take that assertion seriously. But certainly someone took that seriously when they wrote it, and someone took it seriously when they used the document as justification. The assertion has not been explicitly disavowed by the Bush WH to date. Given the view at the Bush WH on the concept of a unitary executive, it is fully consistent that they would believe that the executive branch does not have to answer to any other branch on such a matter. From their point of view, the powers of the unitary executive may truly trump all other considerations in cases like this.

But the Democrats have an opportunity to force Bush's hand on this issue. Doing so would indeed clarify for all time certain limits on the concept of the unitary executive. They can require that Bush say explicitly, upfront, that he would abide by the rulings on the SC on matters of executive privilege. If he says he would, then the true limit of that power starts to get defined. If he refuses to say so, then Democrats must take it to the next step, either by using inherent contempt or commencing impeachment proceedings.

But the battle must be engaged.

"There is the secret plans for martial law, and Bush's Executive Order crimalizing anti-war activities. Plus he can still launch another war."
______________________

Which plan might that be? And what's the number of that Executive Order? He's probably also got us all on double secret probation.

"Freedom is not free." It will take some real risk for members of the House to begin this impeachment process. The future of Congress as a fully equal co-branch of government is at stake. and thereby our Constitutional system of check and balances. Men have always volunteered to fight for their country. Many have lost their lives or health in the process. It's time for these elected men and women of Congress to step up and do their duty: impeach.

But the cynic in me says they'll never have the courage because the same money system that put Bush in office has put both Republicans and Democrats in office too. We don't have a two party system, we have a one party system. Only impeachment will prove me wrong. Only impeachment will end this Constitutional crises and preserve our most basic freedoms.

Go for it, guys. Impeach away. Have fun, barrels of fun. Release all your frustration and anger in one glorious blow out. It'll be just like a two-week bender on Southern Comfort, a blast while it lasts. Really, I'm looking forward to it.

Yes DBL, you are looking forward to it. Just as the Nixon administration looked forward to getting all the facts out so that the people would understand that their President was not a crook.

As to your drinking problem, perhaps you should seek professional assistance. Given your mindless water carrying for the corrupt Republicans I doubt you will get much aid from this board.

S Brennan: Your statements are confident, boastful and wrong.

Well, that is certainly the bowl calling the basin white.

frankly0: Yes, it would look very, very bad for Bush politically . . .

Uh, no, it would result in his impeachment, overwhelmingly.

It won't really matter what Bush feels towards his political legacy or public opinion; he won't want to be the first president impeached AND convicted.

There are limits to the GOP intransigence on Bush, as several GOP senators have recently demonstrated on the war in Iraq.

Look again at the document the Bush WH has pointed to as supporting its take on executive privilege. It explicitly mentions the courts as not having a say on the matter of whether someone can be prosecuted for contempt when executive privilege applies to them.

You are simply not recognizing the difference between a belief that the courts cannot order a prosecution, hardly an outrageous claim and one that every credible legal scholar would agree with, versus the court's authority to declare executive privilege inapplicable in this instance.

That the courts cannot enforce that ruling, as they are unable to enforce any other ruling without support of the executive, is neither surprising nor alarming, since as noted above impeachment is the remedy.

But you are, as always free to believe what you believe as am I.

The notion that the USSC will uphold the law is more than a little suspect. It now has two jurists who were appointed by Bush and who have demonstrated that they were more than a little comfortable lying about their judicial philosophies in order to attain their seats.

Bush has already claimed that the rule of law does not apply to him or anyone in his administration.

This is why impeachment is the only remaining recourse - right now. Waiting for all of this to go to be decided by another corrupt bunch of Republicans only allows Bush to run out the clock.

Which plan might that be? And what's the number of that Executive Order trashhauler at 8:55 PM

The Executive Order is posted on the White House web site:
…I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:
Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense…

This is in clear violation of the Due Process clause, in case you didn't know it. Have any more dumb questions?

cmdicely: An impeachment need not be for any offense cognizable before a regular criminal court, and even if it is entitled as such, need not apply the law that would be binding on such a court. Treason in a fuzzy moral sense, as the prior poster described it, rather than the strict Constitutional sense would be quite well within the historic boundaries of the concept of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" for impeachment, and even if it were not, Congress is not bound by the historic boundaries of the concept.

I agree, but it would not fly with the public when a definition of treason exists in the Constitution; appeals to an ephemeral meaning of treason ain't gonna cut it and that would never be supported by a sufficient number of Republicans and probably not by most Democrats.

heavy: You don't think providing a recruiting ground for terrorists intent on attacking the United States counts as "giving them Aid and Comfort?

It is a matter of intent.

You are truly deranged if you think Bush intended to create more terrorists.

You can call him negligent, grossly negligent, criminally negligent, or even criminally liable under some theory similar to felony murder and make a case for "high crimes and misdemeanors" as that phrase was originally understood, but even a fuzzy moral definition of treason would require intent. Negligent treason? Not buying it. Neither will the public. Neither will the GOP. Neither will most Democrats that count.

-------------

As far as you, S Brennan, your reasoning is no different than Bush's on Saddam: we have the power, he's a bad man, it's the morally right thing to do, it's the principle that he shouldn't be allowed to thumb his nose at the law, and all practical considerations or negative consequences are to be put aside in the pursuit of goals assigned the name "justice," including making up ephemeral definitions (of, say, "treason") that suit one's pure ideological vision of what is "right."

heavy: Waiting for all of this to go to be decided by another corrupt bunch of Republicans only allows Bush to run out the clock.

Life's a bitch and you always run out of clock.

You are truly deranged if you think Bush intended to create more terrorists…..anonymous at 10:36 PM

Bush's own intelligence community has concluded that the war in Iraq has helped rather than hurt al-Qaeda.
If he didn't intend the results of his actions, he has certainly be the first to take advantage of them.

Are there any conservatives who still support Bush, and why? The Pat Tillman cover-up, the invocation of dictatorial powers, the undermining of the economy? The 2nd Amendment is not an obstacle to them either. The counter bloggers are altogether neither conservative nor Libertarian. They are soul-less whores. At least Brosz had the good sense to leave.

Impeach.

>Two problems with this red-herring.

I agree it's not a supporting argument against impeachment now (it is an irrelevant distraction), for the simple reason that each case has to be decided on its own merits. However, it does illustrate some human weaknesses that most interested parties are having difficulty overcoming. To that end...

>First, I was distinguishing between matters that concern the Presidency. The "lie" told wasn't a political lie,

What did Clinton fear from acknowledging what he had done if not his political stature?

>the levers of governance weren't moved to support this "lie."

That's irrelevant to the duty to give statements, testimony, dispositions etc truthfully.

>Second, there was insufficient evidence that what Clinton said was a lie given the convoluted definition of sex used in the case.

A conveniently fabricated technicality (what's a reasonable person's definition of sexual activity?) which as collateral damage wrote down "progressive" notions of sexual harassment in the workplace and the propriety of relationships in view of employer-employed imbalances of power, and in any event provided the facade for...

>Senator Specter said in casting his vote the case wasn't proved.

So we wait until the next prominent Dem or Dem supporter is in a federal investigator's cross hairs on some trivial or unprovable matter and is stupid or shady enough to try to obfuscate or stall. I think everyone's principles will go all slippery again but in swapped positions: righties sanctimoniously demanding the letter of the law, lefties whitewashing the matter as being peripheral or insufficiently important.

Tangentially, "progressives" missed an excellent opportunity (courtesy Scooter and Fitz) to develop bipartisan support for reforming sentencing and incarceration of non-violent, white-collar criminals - proportionality, rehabilitation, necessity for incarceration during appeal, some elementary rights to security of the person even in prison and all that good stuff - in favour of revenge. It's like one of those experiments in which people pass up an opportunity to have more in order to make someone else have less. Oh well.

I agree with your critique of the Rosenberg argument.

That said, it's obvious to everyone who isn't either a cowering fool or a Republican thug that impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney should be started tomorrow. Thier crimes dwarf the (relatively, only) petty misdemeanors of Nixon.

If impeachment isn't justified now, I can imagine no circumstances in which it would ever be justified.

As I put it earlier, LarryM, if we will ever need it more than we do right now, it will no longer be "on the table" as an option. How does one picture a regime worse (for America) than Bush's, anyway?

No VRWC, you fucking moron, Clinton's "lie" had nothing to do with his position. Assume that he told the court what you wanted to hear. Does this mean he is no longer President? No. It means that he is embarrassed and has to face his wife. In fact, it doesn't even mean he loses the Jones suit (the judge, in dismissing that dog of a case, said the Lewinsky matter was irrelevant). No matter how you stretch it you can't pretend that his job was on the line. So that's one bullshit argument out of the way.

Next you want to use a "commonsense" definition of sex, but then imagine that what the RNC propaganda machine insisted was the only definition is the truth. Trust me on this, there are plenty of virgins out there who have more experience than was ever described by Ken Starr's pornographic report. The legal definition was the only one that mattered. So long as his statements were in line with the legal definition all you have is "intent to mislead."

Which is, of course exactly what you are doing here. You want to conflate a lie supported by the entire Executive Branch with the intent of using the United States Military as an election tool with some trivial misdirection about a blow job.

The truth is, in neither case has the right ever supported the "Rule of Law." The "Rule of Law" requires penalties that are in line with the offense. A stiff fine and loss of his law license were more than adequate punishment for Clinton's misdeeds. Removal from office would be rather like nuking Washington D.C. for George Bush's crimes against the state.

As to Bush's commutation for a criminal whose acts were committed in service of his administration, there is no comparable obstruction of justice by any President (except, of course, Bush's father) in the past 4 decades. The only lesson to be learned from Bush's corrupt act is that the act in question needs to be an article of impeachment.

My principles have remained the same. I need to make no adjustments for Clinton and Bush. Clinton committed personally reckless and stupid acts. Bush has defiled our nation at every turn with criminal acts against the Constitution.

Then there's the little matter of murdering thousand of innocent civilians -- when not busy torturing them. And turning our children into cannon fodder in order to line the Vice Resident's pockets.

I am supporting every effort to call the administration to task in open hearings before Congress to determine the truth about the planning of the Iraq War, the manipulation of Justice Department, the use of torture and the restriction of human rights of prisoners of war, and the dangerous and counter-productive revelation of the names of our secret agents in charge of the search for weapons of mass destruction.

Any of these acts, committed by a totalitarian dictator would be universally condemned.

I ask you to reconsider the use of the Articles of Impeachment to allow the Administration to explain their actions, under oath, to determine the extent to which the War in Iraq and the subsequent "security measures" were by their nature, an act of conspiracy to deceive the American public for ulterior reasons.

The willful and repeated revelation of the name of one of our secret agents in charge of a large team of those quietly trying to police the world for weapons of mass destruction by the inner circle of this Administration should be considered an impeachable offense. At least four members of the White House contacted many members of the press to reveal and disrupt the real search for Weapons of Mass Destruction. This leads me to believe that the White House knew that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of importance, yet claimed the opposite to start a war for ulterior reasons.

Certainly, these are impeachable offenses.

54% of the American Public wants Cheney Impeached.

Keep it up, guys. I hope you are all contributing to Cindy Sheehan's campaign against that war-mongering Pelosi, too.

Geez, you make the Black Helicopter people look rational.

You must watch the Moyers show with a conservative and liberal sitting side by side talking passionately and persuasively about the need for impeachment. It is not about George Bush. It is about the constitution and the way the system will work in the future. The balance has to be restored and simply electing a new president will not do that.

People don't give up tools they've been handed by the people who had the job before.

Did anyone see Bill Moyers Journal with Bruce Fein (conservative) and John Nichols (liberal)? They are both Constitutional scholars. The program was fascinating.

The Bush Administration has run roughshod over the Constitution. This Imperial PResidency, which the Founding Fathers feared, MUST be addressed by impeachment. It is the duty of Congress.

Impeachment is not a punishment. It is not a Constitutional Crisis. In fact, it is the SOLUTION to a Constitutional Crisis.

That you have an Executive which refuses to answer questions, that acts only in secrecy, that wages continual war, this is precisely when impeachment MUST be used or, well, there goes Democracy.

It is not a personal attack on Bush and Cheney. It needs to be used so that the next president, whomever it is, does not inherit powers above the law and the right to act however it wishes, defeating checks and balances.

I'm afraid there *won't* be impeachment, not that there will. If there is, we know the Constitution is being upheld. If not, well, Democracy was always an experiment, and will prove to be a losing one.

Mike: If he didn't intend the results of his actions, he has certainly be the first to take advantage of them.

Then you admit that he didn't intend the results, but has merely taken advantage of them.

Bush has failed miserably and has likely committed crimes, crimes related to his duties as president, crimes which have harmed this country's security, but this is not evidence or proof of an intent to harm this country.

Stupidity, incompetence, and allowing others to dictate one's actions instead of responsibly evaluating policy onseelf, are not the equivalent of intent to do harm and not sufficient to invoke the charge of treason.

There are certainly many people on the left who suffer as much from Bush Derangement Syndrome, just as there are on the Right who suffer from Bush Infatuation Syndrome.

And there are people on the left who demand ideological purity, loyalty and obeisance to the same extent as Bush is demanding it from conservatives.

Which is why ranting right-wing fanatics like DBL get to rant about left-wing fanatics like "heavy" and S Brennan and why most of America mistrusts both.

Strident fanaticism is not conducive to electoral or political success in America, or haven't the fates of Goldwater, Dean, Nader, and similar political loudmouths convinced you?

I agree, but it would not fly with the public when a definition of treason exists in the Constitution

If you mean "impeachment worded, in the bill of impeachment, as being for treason under any but the legal definition wouldn't fly", you may be right, but that's a matter of the wording of the bill of impeachment, not the substance.

Then you admit that he didn't intend the results, but has merely taken advantage of them.

I think you need to review the definition of the word "if".

anonymous, once again you prove you have no clue as to what you are talking about. The only thing I have shown any fanaticism about is the Constitution. What you are arguing is that Bush committed treason, by accident. That his actions give aid and comfort to the enemy, but he didn't mean to do so. Well, as a legal matter there is generally a requirement for intent, but the construction in the Constitution doesn't make that explicit. In other words, you have agreed that Bush's actions meet the Constitutional standard.

There may be some people who have been deranged by Bush, but you haven't made a case for any person on this board being so afflicted. The Bush administration and the Republican Party didn't just become corrupt overnight. The genesis goes all the way back to Nixon - witness the number of criminals from the Reagan Administration and those whose criminal mindset (Cheney, Rumsfeld) began under Nixon.

BDS is like premature anti-fascism. It is merely namecalling to denigrate those who recognized the problems early.

cmdicely: I think you need to review the definition of the word "if".

Given the preceding text in his post, with the absence of any assertion or evidence of intent presented, I took the "if" as rhetorical.

You are welcome to your own interpretation.

heavy: The only thing I have shown any fanaticism about is the Constitution.

Gee, extremely similar to Goldwater:

". . . extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

We all know how well that worked for him.

heavy: It is merely namecalling to denigrate those who recognized the problems early.

Since I was focusing on remedies, not recognition of the problems, which I have readily acknowledged and was as early to recognize as anyone, I think this more than amply demonstrates you suffer from derangement, since you can't seem to distinguish between a disagreement on remedy and agreement on the problem in your blind rage to insist that everyone march to your proposed remedy or be characterized (as S Brennan has done) as an administration apologist and an enabler of a so-called do-nothing Democratic Congress.

What you are arguing is that Bush committed treason, by accident.

This is also deranged, or an ineptness at comprehension.

Treason cannot be committed by accident under any of the definitions or standards I have described, since treason as I have described it requires intent as a necessary element.

Thus, in my view, amply described above, an action isn't treasonable if the consequences were the result of accident or mistake.

Feel free to disagree with my understanding of treason, but please don't put words or ideas into my comments that aren't there.

cmdicely: If you mean "impeachment worded, in the bill of impeachment, as being for treason under any but the legal definition wouldn't fly", you may be right, but that's a matter of the wording of the bill of impeachment, not the substance.

Bush has likely put the nation at risk due to the abuse of his office, the commission of crimes (of unknown nature at this time), and because of being ineffectual or incompetent.

If you wish to argue that Bush has committed "treason" in some generic sense (as in "a betrayal of trust"), I certainly understand, but while I do agree that such a betrayal of trust would be considered a high crime or misdemeanor by the Founding Fathers, I disagree that they would have considered it "treason."

In any event, it is readily apparent to me that the public would not buy into a charge of "treason" based on some philosophical and historical argument that the term generically encompasses what Bush has done.

Particularly when the Constitution specifically includes "treason" in the list of impeachable offenses along with "high crimes and misdemeanors," it is a poor argument that "high crimes and misdemeanors" includes some generic version of "treason" in addition to the specific definition of "treason" in the Constitution and an argument that will baffle the public at large and undermine the credibility of any charges.

My question, then, is why can't those promoting impeachment be satisfied with calling Bush's actions "high crimes and misdemeanors" due to their undermining of the nation's security and constitutional integrity, without resorting to a word that is not defensible as a practical matter?

It appears to me that it is rage at Bush (no matter how justified) that is solely driving this demand to so characterize his action, not any intellectual integrity and that lack of intellectual integrity will ultimately weaken a very strong case under "high crimes and misdemeanors" based on that phrase's historical meaning.

(Not that I think the case formally should be made with regard to Bush himself, due to certain circumstances and factors, apparently an opinion currently shared by Josh Marshall, despite S Brennan's assertion to the contrary.)

Then you admit that he didn't intend the results….Bush … has likely committed crimes, crimes related to his duties as president, crimes which have harmed this country's security, but this is not evidence or proof of an intent to harm this country…. anonymous at 10:35 AM

You have to make a better case for your assertion that there is a demand for ideological purity in the Democratic Party. It ranges from the DLC Blue Dogs to Kennedy; but, contrary to Republicans, does not demand an item-by-item test and absolute party loyalty. Care to cite some names of Party officials that meet your criteria?

You claim that poor actions and actions that are counter productive to the country's interests are not proof of intent to harm the country, but many would say that the failure to correct those obviously bad policies does in fact prove the intent is to continue actions that harm the country and are, therefore, treasonous.

Crimes committed by the executive, as for example deliberately violating the Hatch Act, domestic spying outside the FISA Court and others are High Crimes and grounds for impeachment as listed in the Constitution. Intent is not the issue here, actions are.

Lastly, no, I do not admit that Bush didn't intend the results of his actions, merely that I cannot say with certainly at this time because all documentation is secret. I have strong suspicions that this administration did not ignore all warning about 9-11 out of mere incompetence, especially since the PNAC signed by some high administration officials stated that a major catastrophe would be requited in order to obtain public support for an attack on Iraq. There was testimony that immediately after 9-11, Bush was demanding Tenet and others to find an Iraq connection. There is also evidence that various officials warned of possible deleterious outcomes of an invasion and they were also ignored.

heavy: Well, as a legal matter there is generally a requirement for intent, but the construction in the Constitution doesn't make that explicit. In other words, you have agreed that Bush's actions meet the Constitutional standard.

I have agreed, and never denied, even promoted, the idea that Bush has met the constitutional standard for impeachment, you ninny.

Pay attention.

He has committed high crimes and misdemeanors through incompetence, ineffectuality, and most probably criminal acts that have undermined our constitutional form of government and the founding principles of this country, that have made this country less safe, that have subverted the checks and balances system in a way that calls into question the fairness and integrity of our executive branch, and that have opened the nation up to the ravages of rampant corruption, greed, deceit, and dishonor.

But he hasn't committed treason.

Not in the legal sense.

Not in the constitutional sense.

Not in the extra-constitutional sense.

MAYBE in the most generic sense possible, "a betrayal of trust," which in my opinion is not actionable as "treason" (as that term would be understood by most of the public and our Founding Fathers, in my opinion) in articles of impeachment, but only as a high crime or misdemeanor as those terms were understood by those who drafted them.

If you want to obsess about imposing the term "treason" on Bush, by all means do so, but don't expect a lot of public support for it and do expect that people will take you less seriously when you propose by far better arguments under the "high crimes and misdemeanor" provisions of the Constitution.

All I'm saying is stop obsessing and focus on those proposals and arguments that have the better legal, moral, and constitutional foundations, if you are going to demand impeachment, and stop kicking in the teeth those who agree Bush has behaved illegally, outrageously, and immorally in office simply because they insist on a more tempered approach to combatting these offenses.

Extremism in the defense of anything is a vice, because it clouds the intellect and dismisses less ideologically pure (in your view) allies as enemies.

anonymous, your insistence on name-calling and misrepresenting the facts does you no credit, and the comparison to Goldwater may be cute, but compared to the fanatics that make up the Bush/Cheney administration Goldwater was a flaming moderate.

While you may imagine that you have scored some point on your laughable argument about treason, the fact remains that you have conceded that Bush's actions amount to "Aid and Comfort." Read the Constitution again. Does it say anything in there about intent? No? Then I have met the burden originally set out in this post. If you want to move the goalposts, please announce this in advance. Moving them after you've lost the point is bad form.

I'm afraid you are becoming increasingly unhinged in your attempts to spin my desire that the President be held to his oath of office as "extreme."

Mike: Crimes committed by the executive, as for example deliberately violating the Hatch Act, domestic spying outside the FISA Court and others are High Crimes and grounds for impeachment as listed in the Constitution. Intent is not the issue here, actions are.

Nor have I argued otherwise.

I have related "intent" only to the issue of whether Bush has committed "treason" in any way that term might be understood with respect to a country and apart from the most generic meaning of "a betrayal of trust."

"Treason" has one meaning for constitutional purposes, including impeachment, and one meaning only and that meaning is "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

It is simply my understanding (you are free to disagree) that you cannot "adhere" to an enemy as that term would be understood by the drafters of the Constitution except intentionally and you cannot "levy war" against the USA except intentionally for such acts to qualify as "treason." Thus, you cannot commit treason except by intent.

Quit reading more into my argument than is there.

anonymous at 12:30 PM…I took the "if" as rhetorical.
Nope, it expressed a lack of factual data on which one could base a definitive decision.

….extremely similar to Goldwater:". . . extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
A desire to keep the rule of law in the US against presidential power grabbing is hardly Goldwater's meaning in that quote. Goldwater was speaking of Communism and saying that extreme measures were necessary to protect Americans from it

…Thus, in my view, amply described above, an action isn't treasonable if the consequences were the result of accident or mistake.
Intent is only a partial excuse before the law. Saying I didn't intend the consequence still leaves one open to the charge, but in reduced circumstances. It's irrelevant here because the result of presidential actions have become clear, yet there is a refusal to modify those policies. Therefore, the clear intent is to continue to harm.

…. any event, it is readily apparent to me that the public would not buy into a charge of "treason" based on some philosophical and historical argument….
Discussion, evidence, arguments, and persuasion would have to come out of impeachment hearings. Any hearing would have to make the case to the American people in a clear and convincing manner. One would expect there to be multiple charges.

Mike: Both have nothing in common with Goldwater who would probably be appalled at the authoritarianism of the current Republican Party.

Stridency is not limited to authoritarians.

You have to make a better case for your assertion that there is a demand for ideological purity in the Democratic Party.

I have made no such assertion.

I have made the assertion that certain posters and certain liberal activists (such as many Nader supporters) do demand ideological purity.

This is not the same thing.

Again, quit reading more into my comments that is there.

I'm quite sure I never wrote that the Democratic Party demands ideological purity.

Dean is not co-extensive with the party and neither are the commenters here that were included.

Obviously Nader is not a member of the Democratic Party, so I'm more than mystified where you came up with this so-called claim of mine.

heavy: . . . the fact remains that you have conceded that Bush's actions amount to "Aid and Comfort."

Sorry, wrong again.

If you can't read my comments correctly, don't bother responding to them.

The grammar of the constitutional phrase clearly makes "aid and comfort" a qualifier of "adhere to", not an independent standard for treason.

Else US citizens who inadvertently assist terrorists by funding seemingly unconnected charitable activities would also be treason under your interpretation and this would justify Bush's detention, as well as the conviction, of these individuals.

Remember, if you choose to define "treason" so broadly as to encompass unintentional aid and comfort of the enemy, it applies to EVERYBODY, not just Bush.

Mike: I have strong suspicions that this administration did not ignore all warning about 9-11 out of mere incompetence, especially since the PNAC signed by some high administration officials stated that a major catastrophe would be requited in order to obtain public support for an attack on Iraq. There was testimony that immediately after 9-11, Bush was demanding Tenet and others to find an Iraq connection. There is also evidence that various officials warned of possible deleterious outcomes of an invasion and they were also ignored.

None of which is evidence or even raises a suspicion of an intent to adhere to America's enemies or wage war on this country.

It may be evidence of incompetence, dishonesty, ulterior motives, criminal malfeasance, and putting self before country, but it isn't "treason."

Not everything that is harmful to the nation qualifies as "treason," as a political and legal term.

You want to go to the dictionary and find some generic definition you can spin just so you can feel good about calling Bush a traitor, feel free, but I see little difference between that and the shameful tactics of the Right in declaring anyone who questions the president or the war or reports matters that expose the nation's boils a traitor.

heavy: I'm afraid you are becoming increasingly unhinged in your attempts to spin my desire that the President be held to his oath of office as "extreme."

Since I have not done this, your comment is inane.

Your "extemity" arises from your insistence on torturing the word "treason" into something to can pin on Bush and insisting that impeachment is the only viable course and that anyone who disagrees and proffers a more tempered approach, for the time being, is an administration apologist.

If that isn't extreme or a demand for ideological purity, then you are not playing with a standard dictionary, but your own special one, similar to the special dictionary conservative extremists use to justify their rants against liberals.

Mike: Nope, it expressed a lack of factual data on which one could base a definitive decision.

Then, my mistake.

I'll wait breathlessly while you provide evidence that Bush intended to fail in Iraq, that Bush intended to make al Qaeda stronger, and that Bush intended to make the US less safe.

LOL.

Saying I didn't intend the consequence still leaves one open to the charge, but in reduced circumstances.

Right. Not "treason," but "high crimes and misdemeanors."

What part of my position are you failing to understand?

Don't interject yourself into my dispute with "heavy" if your are not going to pay attention to what the dispute is actually about.

It's irrelevant here because the result of presidential actions have become clear, yet there is a refusal to modify those policies. Therefore, the clear intent is to continue to harm.

Uh, no, not if the person is deluded in believing that harm in the present translates to security in the future, no matter how wrong that might be.

All wars cause harm and all presidents the minute the first American is killed know that harm is occurring.

Are you saying that they must then halt the war after the first casualty or they intend the deaths of additional American soldiers?

Again, LOL with that argument.

Bush is wrong on the war, perhaps even "unhinged." But I see no evidence he intends that our country be harmed in the long run and you have presented none.

Claiming that there may be secret evidence that would prove Bush WANTS and INTENDS America to lose the war or be exposed to a greater threat of terror attacks is obtuse in my opinion.

Discussion, evidence, arguments, and persuasion would have to come out of impeachment hearings.

You have to have charges before you can have impeachment hearings.

You have to have evidence before you can have charges.

You have to have preliminary hearings on the subjects of the potential charges to generate the evidence.

Which is exactly what the Democrats are doing.

Impeachment hearing are premature.

Libby himself testified under oath in court that he was instructed to leak Plame's identity by his superior, Bush through Cheney. They leaked a classified document to Judith Miller.

Court documents describe Plame's covert job description with the CIA.

If you want to protect this nation from attack from nuclear or biological terrorists, you don't reveal the names of your team leader of secret agents in charge of finding the WMDs to the press.

The leakers were Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Richard Armitage, and former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. Many reporters were contacted.

Looks like an all out conspiracy to me.

I think it is treason.

However, if you don't believe the weapons exist and you want to cook the books to go to war and discredit a knowledgeable critic of that effort, then you leak away.

Leads me to think the Administration knew there were no weapons to begin with. I think that is criminal, also.

>No VRWC, you fucking moron,

Clinton's joy-juice was on Lewinsky's dress, which certain parties gravely agree for the sake of legal definition must be just something that might happen to friends in non-sexual relationships. And you think I'm a moron. Try seeing the world through non-partisan lenses.

I dunno. The Democrats, instead of starting with their ultimate weapon against the Executive, might start with cutting off funds for some of Bush/Cheney's more outrageous activities. I mean, you have control of Congress for all of six months, you can't even manage to cut off funding for a seethingly unpopular war, but you're supposed to proceed directly to impeachment?

If you can use the phrase "joy juice," in a sentence, you just might be a moron. If you think that there is no difference between a legal definition of something and your understanding of that thing, you just might be a moron. If you think that understanding these points is too much work or makes one a partisan, you just might be a moron.

Speaking of the moron parade. We have yet another clueless clown who thinks that Democrats control "all of Congress," as if the idiots his party haven't moved heaven and earth to ensure that nothing can be done except naming potholes after Ronald Wilson Reagan.

anonymous at 1:30 PM
I'll wait breathlessly while you provide evidence that Bush intended to fail in Iraq, that Bush intended to make al Qaeda stronger, and that Bush intended to make the US less safe….
Straw men march on. However, it is now clear that al Qaeda is stronger and the number of terrorist attacks has increased drastically in the world. Since the policy hasn't changed, one can only assume that these are acceptable results to Bush. In fact he is claiming that increasing terrorism is a political plus because it shows that we need to continue his policies that increase terrorism. Save your breathlessness for more sensual occasions.

…. not if the person is deluded in believing that harm in the present translates to security in the future....
Delusion may work for an insanity defense, but not a political one.

…Impeachment hearing are premature.
Charges are simple enough to find unless one is living in a Bushbubble:
· Bush lied to Congress and the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq per the Downing Street memos
· Bush conducted illegal wiretaps of American citizens.
· Bush violated the Geneva Convention by torturing prisoners of war.
· Bush violated International Law by invading a sovereign country for illegal purposes.
· Bush held prisoners without formal charges and without legal representation.
· Bush illegally used government funds for domestic political propaganda related to the administration's Medicare package, paying commentator Armstrong Williams, etc.
· Bush used uniformed military personnel for Republican party political purposes.
. Bush has deliberately violated the Hatch Act, imposed a partisan agenda on U.S. Attorneys, and ordered subordinates to commit contempt of congress.

You can beat your gums over and over, but you're not saying anything.

anonymous I admire your ability to spin, but the fact remains: you asked how Bush's actions could be treason, you gave the Constitutional definition, and then when it was pointed out that the War on Iraq fit that definition by "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy you agreed but created a new standard demanding that there be intent. A word not mentioned in your quote. You asked how it could be treason. I've fulfilled my part. Your unhinged remarks attacking me as an extremist are unwarranted and mark you as yet another unserious apologist for the treasonous Bush team.

And let's be honest. If everyone tells you the sky is blue and you seek out someone who will tell you that it is instead a brilliant shade of topaz with flecks of feldspar, quarts, and mica which you can cut out and sell at the local flea market in jewelry then you don't have any excuse for believing them. Only those who wanted to use the military as an extension of the RNC were "unaware" that this would help bin Laden. Deliberate cluelessness is not a defense (although in your case it is an explanation).