A lot of people are angry with Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers because they say impeachment is not on the table. I say "thank goodness."
You see, I'm in a hurry. I want to see the big cleanup in Washington happen much faster-- including showing Cheney and Bush the door, and maybe, the prison yard. Pelosi and Conyers are doing things exactly right and they have a better chance of my goal-- removal of Bush and Cheney from office-- than if they were going the impeachment route.
Pelosi has already stated that it is her constitutional responsibility to investigate. I am certain that within days of the opening of the new congress, Conyers, Waxman and others will begin holding hearings. They will begin investigating some of the most obvious problems and questions and they will happily go where those investigations lead them.
They will be using prosecutors on their investigative teams. One of the most effective ways prosecutors work is to interrogate and "nail" smaller, lower level perpetrators who then "roll over" to inform on higher ups. This is what will be happening all over Washington.
The sweet thing about congressional hearings is that there are no lawyer-client confidentiality priveleges. Yep. The lawyers have to squeal like stuck pigs or face contempt of congress charges-- which they are not very likely to do.
The rolling over will quickly reach the upper echelons of power. The evidence and testimony will build.
First, Cheney will be in the targets. Like Spiro Agnew, Nixon's vice president, Cheney will resign rather than face serious prison charges.
At that point, Bush will submit his appointment of a vice president replacement for both houses of congress to approve. The Democratic majority in congress must delay approving anyone as vice president until Bush is dealt with. It is interesting to speculate who Bush might appoint-- Joe Lieberman? Olympia Snowe? Or will he act consist with his past obliviousness to reality and appoint Gonzalez or Rice?
Immediately after Cheney resigns. Bush becomes the target. By then, plenty of evidence and testimony will have been accumulated, but the Dems will have been saving the worst, behind closed doors. At this point, some of it will be leaked. It will hurt at least one Republican member of congress. It will make the Republicans look even worse.
At this point, the Republicans, about fifteen or sixteen of those in the senate, particularly ones up for re-election in 2008, will take a walk-- not a phone call, not e-mail-- a walk, to the oval office. They will inform the president that he must resign to save the Republican party from implosive destruction. They will tell him that to save the Republican party they are willing to join with the Democrats to impeach him out of office. They will instruct him to do the right thing for the country and save it the trauma, mostly at the expense of the Republicans, of a horrible impeachment, which is inevitable, since the most revelations about testimony and evidence on Bush has brought his ratings down to less than 20% approval rating.
Bush will, in his attempt to negotiate, ask for either no criminal sentence or a minimal one. The Dems should not let him off scott free. Bush should do time in jail and he should be fined Billions. That's right. Billions. Not only that, he should be banned from profitting from his presidency and includes making any speeches or consulting as a lobbyist. Send him to his ranch to clear brush.
This is not a wild, crazy scenario. It is very realistic, very possible and could play itself out by November. Then we get to play with some fun questions.
Who will become vice president?
Will President Nancy Pelosi run for re-election?
Which Bush appointees will be the best at rolling over on their boss, providing the most devastating testimony?
Which Bush appointees will be the first to be indicted, charged and incarcerated? I Vote for his two Attorneys general.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com and is a columnist with Northstarwriters.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
The premise of your piece is, in my opinion, quite wrong. As are your facts regarding succession to office...remember Spiro Agnew? Bush appoints a successor to the office of the Veep, and should this scenario arise, the appointed one will be in a great position to run for the Presidency in'08. But why should Cheney resign, especially after the Democratic leadership has guarranteed him that he is not a target?
Holding investigations after promising that impeachment is off the table will lead those investigations to a point short of the top, and not to it as you surmise. Either you accuse Pelosi and Conyers of lying or you put your loyalties beyond your common sense. If they state that impeachment is off the table then obviously any investigations conducted are done so to catch the bureaucrats and not those who issued the orders, dontcha think?
I believe that Pelosi issued that statement in good faith, in an attempt to show that the new Democratic majority was not a vindictive one, that it would work with the GOP to effect change. I further believe that such a statement, in the light of all that has gone before, with the purposive leaving of all those spending bills for the dems to deal with, thus setting them up for the coming election in '08 is pretty sad. These last six years have seen a power mad and rubber stamping Congress trample all over the minority party, with their own complicity of course, yet Pelosi still thinks to work with such as these.....incredible.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Monday, December 25, 2006 at 11:13:20 AM
I'm not sure either, but some I've talked with in the past seem to think in would be Rice. Rice however will tumble down with Bush and Chenney should they fall.
by
Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments)
on Monday, December 25, 2006 at 12:09:25 PM
You need to excuse Rob Kall I sense some lust towards Nancy Pelosi, if you don't believe me read it again and reflect back on him placing her on a silver plater.
Gotcha, Bob !!!
by
Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments)
on Monday, December 25, 2006 at 2:33:47 PM
I was just gonna bring up the Spiro Agnew bit myself.
Also notice how, after the election, the Repigs want to be 'bipartisan'? Where has this desire for bipartisanship been the last 6 years?
No, we MUST investigate and then impeach. I think the investigations are important and must be VERY public (at least now the Dems won't be banished to the basement to hold 'unoffical' meetings; these will be HEARINGS).
by
Putnik (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 30 comments)
on Monday, December 25, 2006 at 10:44:04 PM
was promise #1 in an email from Howard Dean, on behalf of the Democratic Party, circa 24 hours before the Nov. 7 election:
We will end the Republican culture of corruption and restore a government as good as the people it serves, starting with real ethics reform.
[Translated: Impeachment is off the table, the Iraq war gets more funding.]
The Democratic Party is committed to real ethics reform and meaningful campaign finance reform that protects our rights and ensures that elected officials act ethically -- not just within the law, but within the spirit of the law. Democrats offer an aggressive reform package to reverse Republican excesses and restore the public trust.
[I'm still trying to figure what "law" and "spirit of the law" mean in this context--I think he's referring to the golden rule: Those with the gold, rule.]
We are committed to immediate change to lead our country in a new direction, to put an end to Republican business as usual, and to make certain our nation's leaders serve the people's interests, not special interests. For us, this commitment spans our lifetime, as we were elected to represent the people, not the powerful.
[This evidently refers to the people hiding behind coorporations and living in gated communities. The "special interests" refer to you and me.]
Our goal is to restore accountability, honesty and openness at all levels of government. To do so, we will create and enforce rules that demand the highest ethics from every public servant, sever unethical ties between lawmakers and lobbyists, and establish clear standards that prevent the trading of official business for gifts.
[The accountability will start at the lowest levels, probably with already over-stressed teachers, who even now are accountable to instill insanity at an early age. Time will tell if the effort goes any further. Well, I hope I've got things all wrong, but I'm sure not holding my breath.]
by
Daniel Geery (26 articles, 74 quicklinks, 123 diaries, 750 comments)
on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 at 9:20:31 AM
I often wondered if they were laying back on impeachment for similar reasons. The elements of surprise to keep catch his cohort's off guard was what I thought was going down. Its obvious you have a broader understanding on the outcome. I also felt it would be keep low profile to keep the media from blowing there investigations into Bush's Administration. The day it happens will be that of a long day coming. From my own circus ring however, Id like to see eminent domain seize all of Bush's assets to beautify America. We could put up dollar store where his properties our and don't forget trailer parks for the Neddie and Elderly. Oh and take his money for health care expenses for those that have been beaten out of it.
by
Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments)
on Monday, December 25, 2006 at 12:03:28 PM
Pelosi and Conyers and everyone else have constitutional responsibilities. They have no right to take their constitutional responsibilities off the table. Every day that they ignore the fact that members of the administration are criminals and/or traitors, they compromise their own integrity. They also teach our children not to believe in the Constitution and the rule of law. And they take away our faith in ourselves. They justify and rationalize our lack of courage. The criminals believe that the ends justify the means and now Pelosi and Conyers are adhering to the same philosophy. We need the hearings, we need the truth to become part of the national dialog. We need leaders who are not afraid of the truth, not afraid to live up to their sacred responsibilities, not afraid to fight for what is right.
by
Mark A. Goldman (81 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 243 comments)
on Monday, December 25, 2006 at 12:17:56 PM
My patients have wore down, before we jump conclusions they won't take office until the new year. Once they do and have there agenda active we can see what goes on. Believe this from what I've been reading there is far to many angry people wanting the Bush Administration punished for it to be sweep under a rug by Pelosi or anyone else G.W.Bush's day is coming soon.
by
Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments)
on Monday, December 25, 2006 at 12:27:53 PM
The one hope that seems to make sense to me is that to state that an agenda of seeking impeachment would show that any investigating committee has prejudged the outcome of its investigations. Evidence needs to be gathered and statments need to be under oath before findings can be legitimate. We need findings in order to impeach. That makes sense to me, but I admit that my faith has worn thin. The president appoints the VP. I don't remember the confirmation of Ford, but I'm sure that the Senate must need to confirm the appointment.
by
Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 276 comments)
on Monday, December 25, 2006 at 1:03:45 PM
there is a major difference between an expectation of impeachment and a tabling of the process in advance of investigations. It is this that I object to so very strongly.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 at 7:13:43 AM
Remember how Ollie got rid of so much evidence to protect 41 and many other of the same ilke. It was so convenient to claim that he was "Out of the Loop".
If the intention is announced before potential evidence is seized then we end up with more crap under the carpet. The carpet doesn't even begin to cover the crap that has been swept there now, but it would be nice to get some juicy stuff to really help drive the stakes deep into the Hearts of these vampires.
by
Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 276 comments)
on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 at 1:14:42 PM
Even the Republicans had an unfulfilled constitutional obligation to move toward impeachment in reaction to Bush's usurpation of power. How much more so do the Democrats as the loyal opposition (more loyal than opposition) have that same responsibility?
What's really galling is that we owe them one for free for their Bonfire of the Vanities with Bill and Monica, yet we can't seem to find the will to impeach when it is not only justified, but an essential first step to restoring the primacy and the power of the Constitution.
It's amazing how optimistic American liberals remain even in the face of apparent abdication by their political representatives, that some of us can even find reason to be optimistic about the Democrats' announcement that they had already pardoned all of the White House's criminality even as we were voting for them in November to put a stop to it. Some of us consider that a betrayal. I don't see how that makes them different from the Republicans that they have displaced.
You've got to be looking through some pretty rosy specs, Rob, to see all of this in an optimistic light. I hope you're right and I'm wrong, and I'm just as hungry as everybody else is for a crumb of good news, but I just can't find any reason to be encouraged yet. And I don't have much need for or regard for false hope, which would be all that I could muster anyway in the absence of any solid indication that the Democrats even disapprove of the Republicans, let alone intend to fight for my interests.
There is no positive spin possible in my mind to the history books showing that Clinton was impeached but Bush was not when he needed to be. Saying that the Democrats have taken impeachment off of the table so as not to appear vindictive is ridiculous. It reads like pardoning Manson before his trial so as not to appear vindictive. We don't want to appear vindictive, so we vindicate.
by
Yaybob (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 174 comments)
on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 at 8:51:04 PM
Rob,
Let me also add that Pelosi has not only taken impeachment off the table for herself, but has put herself in the position, given her leadership role, of standing in the way of, and against other representatives, who are trying to fulfill their own constitutional responsibilities and is therefore obstructing justice, which might very well be a criminal act in and of itself. She has compromised her office and disqualified herself as someone who is fit to hold high office.
by
Mark A. Goldman (81 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 243 comments)
on Monday, December 25, 2006 at 12:35:06 PM
In response to a comment that Pelosi is blocking impeachment and therefore guilty of obstruction of justice...
It is time for the anti-war people to get off the impeachment pitch.
Bush is not the issue: whether or not the public can direct American foreign policy toward honorable and humane ends is the issue.
Impeachment continues to hold Bush at the center and makes him rather than policies the object of debate.
Bush's policies are wrong.
At this time America faces a threat from foreign terrorist who are intent on killing and terrorizing pre-Western politicians, businessmen and academics in the Islamic countries.
This threat is real and serious, but does not have the global reach or the dimensions of menace attributed to it by the American Right.
The GOP has found ot politically expedient to exagerate the terrorist threat and claims that we are engaged in a multi-generational, world-wide struggle bordering on the Goetterdaemerung.
The terrorist threat is real and the Bush Administration's two wars, the one in Afghanistan as well as the one in Iraq have been feeble, sluggish and eminently defeatable distractions from an effective effort against terrorism.
In 04, Bush stated that the Democrats view the struggle against terror as a police action.
Bush's statement was a deliberate oversimplification, but the fact is the Democrats were right in 04.
Effective action against international Islamist suicide bombing requires actions more similar to international diplomacy and police work than to military operations.
The failure of the Bush Administration's policies is their inability to recognize the true nature of the terrorist threat.
The political rewards from their obstinacy in pursuing ineffective and unsustainable policies against terrorism have been irresistable.
The failure of their policies is seen in recrudesence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and a bloody stalemate in Iraq.
The continued overreliance on military will soon destabilize Iraq past the point the effective US action is possible.
We have a very short time to withdraw from Iraq in a manner consistent with our security needs in that region.
It is vital that the left not fall prey to the temptation to place partisan political objectives above our national interest.
The Democrats have been successful electorally because they questioned Bush's war.
Now it is incumbent on the left to offer a strategy to withdraw safely from an Iraq and Afghanistan.
We must meet the following eight principles in withdrawing:
1. Iraq is sovereign country
2. Iraq will be allowed to conduct its affairs without the presence of foreign troops in its territory
3. Iraq's territorial integrity,ie, its boundaries will remain fixed and be respected
4. The solutions for Iraq's internal arrangements will come from Iraqis without the influence or presence of foreign military formations
5. The other nations in the region have vital interests in Iraq's military posture and will work in a regional diplomatic and economic framework to integrate Iraq into the region's commercial and diplomatic network.
6. Iraq will be free to develop, exploit and market her resources without outside interference and without the presence of foreign armies on her soil
7. Iraq will prioritize regional diplomacy and seek stable diplomatic and commercial relationships with the other nations in the region
8. All negotiations and agreements between the regional and other powers regarding Iraq will be based on reciprocity, equality of sovereignty and respect for international law.
The American left needs to get over the Potomac fever currently gripping it and start thinking of how to make the US a humane and honorable player in the family of nations.
Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY
by
Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments)
on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 at 12:46:18 PM
1. Iraq is sovereign country
...and was when Bush used manufactured evidence and outright lies to coerce Congress into allowing his damnable war. An impeachable action.
2. Iraq will be allowed to conduct its affairs without the presence of foreign troops in its territory
....this will be a bloodbath you may understand, I doubt that this is what you advocate.
3. Iraq's territorial integrity,ie, its boundaries will remain fixed and be respected
.....As a manufactured nation in the first place I seriously doubt that Iraq will remain intact. More likely is three provinces with perhaps an overseeing body of some sort. That is the best we can hope for..
4. The solutions for Iraq's internal arrangements will come from Iraqis without the influence or presence of foreign military formations
......This is a sort of redux of #2 and is unlikely, especially considering all that oil that everyone wants andf needs.
5. The other nations in the region have vital interests in Iraq's military posture and will work in a regional diplomatic and economic framework to integrate Iraq into the region's commercial and diplomatic network.
...Saudi, being Sunni supports that faction, Iran being Shia supports its own there as well. Turkey is afraid of the Kurdish influences on its borders, what neighbors being helpful do you refer to?
6. Iraq will be free to develop, exploit and market her resources without outside interference and without the presence of foreign armies on her soil
.......you mean in the same way South America has been free to follow its economic future? Thus far, in our world history this just doesnt happen.
7. Iraq will prioritize regional diplomacy and seek stable diplomatic and commercial relationships with the other nations in the region
...see #5
8. All negotiations and agreements between the regional and other powers regarding Iraq will be based on reciprocity, equality of sovereignty and respect for international law.
......and if wishes were candy bars dentists would be zillionares.
The American left needs to get over the Potomac fever currently gripping it and start thinking of how to make the US a humane and honorable player in the family of nations.
...I do not see impeachment as the exclusive province of the left, in fact more conservatives and far right folks are muttering that word of late.
The law is what it is, Mr. Chapman, and if a seated President ignores, breaks and distorts the law, upsets the balance of power, lies, cheats and steals he deserves the full measure of that law, or why have laws to begin with?
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 at 3:13:30 PM
There are a variety of reasons why a person should or might obey the law:
(1) There may be a fine or imprisonment if you don't and are caught, as with embezzlement.
(2) You may be injured, as with running a red light.
(3) You may injure somebody else, as with selling illicit drugs.
(4) It may benefit somebody else, as with carrying auto insurance.
(5) Because it is just, as with paying your fair share of taxes.
(6) Because it sets a good example for kids and other adults and promotes lawful behavior.
(7) It may benefit society specifically, as with registering for the draft.
(8) It benefits society in general by promoting constructive attitudes, a sense of solidarity and a sense of belonging to a community with a common culture.
--- --- --- --- --- ---
In a nutshell, then, it is smarter and safer for one to obey the law, and it is just and promotes community, culture and tradition.
We are repeatedly asked to consider the message that certain behavior sends, such as when a Democratic president has extramarital sex and lies about it under oath, or when war protesters openly dissent. Here is the message that glossing over the administration's crimes sends to me (and I'll bet to others as well):
If the American people through their elected representatives don't insist on justice, there is no higher reason to obey their laws apart from the selfish ones: the potential cost to me.
* They are telling me that justice isn't very important to them, and that if I am treated unjustly, they probably won't object or stand up for me; that they don't have sufficient regard for the rule of law or the Constitution.
* They are telling me that there really is no reason to obey a law that I would benefit by breaking and which I felt I could break without penalty because they are telling me that our tacit agreement to play by the rules doesn't apply to everyone, maybe not to me either.
* They are telling me that playing by the rules when it is possible to evade them is for suckers.
* They are telling me that the fabric of this society is still unraveling and I had should expect things to get a lot worse before they improve. What is my incentive to stick around for that if America's standards are so low?
If America can't or won't protect us from terrorist attacks, injustice from its government, lying media, a falling standard of living and further erosion of my freedom and privacy; and if I don't feel a sense of tradition or history or community or belonging, there is no reason to remain behind and fight for America, especially when half of the country hates the other half.
by
Yaybob (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 174 comments)
on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 at 7:26:11 AM
The Presidential Succession Act of 1947, which is also later clarified in the 25th amendment of 1967, lays out the succession of both the President and the Vice-President. The last time the U.S. had to "replace" a sitting vice-president was Spiro Agnew in 1973, who resigned after he was charged with the crime of tax evasion. The only other sitting Vice-President was John C. Calhoun, who resigned to take a seat in the Senate in 1832.
When the vice-presidency becomes vacant, the sitting president nominates a person to that position. That person must then be confirmed by the House and Senate(1). This was the case with Spiro Agnew, who was replaced by Gerald Ford and then after Nixon resigned, with Ford nominee Nelson Rockefeller, to replace Ford.
----------------
(1) Section 2 of the 25th Amendment provides that "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."
by
Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments)
on Monday, December 25, 2006 at 12:58:04 PM
So, the Dem congress refuses to confirm a VP, while the investigations into Bush continue. When Bush takes his turn at resigning, Pelosi, next in the succession line, takes the helm.
by
Rob Kall (869 articles, 4016 quicklinks, 345 diaries, 1847 comments)
on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 at 11:23:25 AM
