The question is if the resolution is so useless, why did Nadler bother? The various impeachment lobby organizations are split. Some even say that his goal was to split his opposition, i.e., the impeachment proponents and activists who have been hounding him since he took over the chairmanship in 2006. One camp is still pushing for impeachment; others are focusing on prosecution after Bush leaves office; and most of the public, including some former activists, have given up entirely, hoping that the new Congress will do better.
Maybe they will (it would be hard to do worse), but the panelists agreed that precedents for extended executive powers have been set and unless they are not allowed to stand, legally they will remain with us forever. Simply stated, their effects will change our democratic government as we know it. The fix, however, is not so simple. Impeachment is the clearest push-back for a President who thinks he is above the law, as was shown with Nixon and confirmed indisputably by the newly released tapes of some of his conversations.
In spite of loud protests, petitions, letters from a large contingent of citizens, however, impeachment has remained off the table, and for that the blame lies with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership (sic). What political machinations were responsible for this, we may never really know. What we do know is that at this point, crafting a piece of real legislation that is constitutional and does not exploit impeachment turned out to be an impossible task. Sources say that Nadler's staff was in touch with Constitutional scholars when they were drafting HR 1531, and the resultant resolution is the best they could come up with given the hand they were dealt.
Some say that Nadler is using this to take cover by going on record. Perhaps, but it's hard to see how this would satisfy those constituents who have been upset with his lack of action anyway. People will still be mad at Nadler (or whomever) and can continue to speak out.
The ongoing investigations at the Dept. of Justice will be continued in the new Administration. The current Inspector General, Glenn Fine, is actually a Clinton holdover who has managed to retain in his position. Whether or not Obama will keep him remains to be seen, but even under Bush he has managed to continue to probe the terrorist surveillance program and the FBI eavesdropping program. The other ongoing investigation is that of John Durham who is charged with looking into the destruction of legal documents - the videotapes of the CIA waterboarding interrogations.
Whether or not Bush issues a nuclear pardon, the panelists agreed that legal avenues for pursuit can and must be taken to prevent legal precedents and a major shift in the balance of powers. One possibility mentioned was that a pardon used to cover up a crime could in itself be an impeachable offense, and apparently there is some foundation for impeachment after leaving office. But the truth is we are in new legal territory when attempting to prosecute a former president and his minions for crimes committed during their tenure in office. These are possible avenues of legal pursuit, not slam dunks.
Prize-winning journalist/reporter Seymour Hersh said that once Bush is out of office, whistleblowers will start to come out of the woodwork. "You cannot believe how many people have told me to call them on January 20," he told Rachel Cooke of the Guardian (UK) in October. Undoubtedly, Hersh will record their stories and protect his sources as needed, and his work will help expose the truth, but it still doesn't answer the question of accountability. For that, Hersh is not optimistic. "They've got away with it, categorically; anyone who talks about prosecuting Bush and Cheney [for war crimes] is kidding themselves."
Whatever new evidence comes from whistleblowers after January 20, squaring the law with accountability will take the best legal minds as well as wide public support. In the days before his own inauguration, Bush talked a lot about accountability and how he wanted to restore confidence in the White House. He pledged to "uphold the laws of the land ... and uphold the honor and the dignity of the office [of the president]." It's also hard to square Bush's words with his deeds. It is absence of accountability and the big shift in executive power that is the real Bush legacy.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
