This is a bit like 6., but with more detail.

And, guess what... WHO CARES?

Clinton's impeachment WAS partisan and it was for really pathetic reasons, and showed the Rethuglicans to be partisan hacks.  They impeached a President who had 60+% approval.

The Democrats would be leading a DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTION and THE RULE OF LAW as it applies to things that really MATTER, like whether or not the President can break international treaties our country has signed or order companies to break laws or violate or ignore the laws of congress, or lie to the Country to achieve ends, rather than the "rule of law" as it applies to whether or not the President can lie in a deposition in a civil lawsuit related to private sexual activity.

I think there's "the rule of law" and there's "THE RULE OF LAW" and if the Democrats can't make the difference clear as they proceed with impeachment investigations, impeachment and trial, then they don't deserve to hold power.

And, one reason absolutely to DEFINITELY impeach, convict and remove Bush/Cheney from office is PARDONS.  Whomever is approved to replace Bush MUST be asked repeatedly during confirmations: "Will you now give this committee and the American people your word under oath that you will NOT issue ANY Presidential pardons upon leaving office?"  The only acceptible response must be "I can promise this committee and the American people that I will not issue any Presidential pardons at all during my tenure as President or upon leaving office."  And any other response must be immediately followed by: "Then I can not support your nomination and I urge my collegues to refuse to support any candidate who can not make that solumn promise to the American People that they will let the RULE OF LAW stand for anybody who has committed criminal acts while acting in their capacity in the United States Government.

PARDONS is going to be the most fun show you ever saw.  January 20, 2009 is going to be a fun day.

by Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 747 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 11:13:34 AM

  (0+)

Bill Clinton's 60% approval rating should not have been a shield against impeachment any more than Dubya's subcellar ratings should be a reason to impeach (as if another reason were needed).

Everything else that you stated is sterling. 

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1793 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 8, 2007 at 8:11:18 AM

  (0+)

everyone should fax this article to their "representatives", and call their offices with these talking points, so they're clear that we know they're full of it when they argue against impeachment, and that their job will be in jeopardy next time they're up for re-election- unless they do their job and honor their oath to defend the Constitution

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 11:15:50 AM

  (0+)

I've contacted my Rep, who offered one of the above excuses. It was far from impressive, and seeing how tied in he is to local corporations, it's easy to see why he won't rock the boat.

But something left out of the discussion is the cascade of scandals that would likely follow impeachment investigations.

I think another dynamic of the "understanding" Dems have with the White House not to impeach has to do with coercion or even blackmail.

The tens of thousands of illegal wiretaps reportedly carried out without any oversight may well have helped Karl Rove create dossiers on every politician in DC. Surely they've created such "insurance policies" knowing that they've been committing so many anti-Constitutional acts.

Any impeachment hearing therefore would likely result in a slew of leaks and scandals aimed at Dems at all levels.

I would love nothing more then to see DC cleared out of all corruption, jettisoning politicians on both sides on the aisle. But it could be quite a chaotic scene.

by Gustav Wynn (77 articles, 65 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 421 comments [34 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 11:59:19 AM

  (0+)

Even before the 2006 Mid-terms I believed that Bush and Cheney have followed the model of J. Edgar Hoover, who had info on all of his political opponents and used it quite well to blackmail them into silence. When we consider there is now evidence that the wiretapping began in earnest the second month Bush was in office, and not after the 911 attacks is a fact that lends credence to that theory.

I believe many people are dumbfounded that the Democrats won the majority in 2006, and then soon after getting settled in, they began enabling the Bush administration - something that brought Congress's approval rating down below the President himself. I have always stated there has to be a reason why good people seem to go bad, and as easy as it is to pin it all on money, logic tells me it's much deeper than that but it may be decades until we finally find out the truth - if ever.

William Cormier

by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 419 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 8, 2007 at 8:32:37 AM

  (0+)

' Beware of the clever cowardice. It is worse than stupidity. It is  a sin against the Holy Spirit'

Gen. Charles De Gaulle

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 12:16:31 PM

  (0+)

It brings to mind the imagery of cockroaches scrambling for the baseboard. What wonderful things can be done by simply shining a light.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1793 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 8, 2007 at 8:15:29 AM

  (0+)

Failing to begin investigations would be telling future administrations that  usurping the Rules of Law and the Constitution have no consequences. Wire tap whoever you want, and tortue whoever you feel the need to torture and it will all be OK. It you commit crimes in the name of some ideology that is OK. Eternal war is the answer .It is OK to negate everything Congress does. The Executive Branch has all the power and  privilege and the legislative and judicial branches better get used to it. It is OK to rob the treasury and give the money to big business and your freinds The Constitution is null and void and the only laws are the ones the President decides. Executive Privilege trumps human rights and justice. Ms Pelosi I do not know what information they have on you, and what your misdeeds might be ,but blackmail is the only reason I can see you do not help unmask this blight on the Country. You took an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic . So did the rest of Congress. Talk about feet of clay! The only way to  prevent future unlimited Executive power is to make it clear for the rest of the world and the country that this lawless administration must pay for its calumny and greed. Silence is Approval

by cluelessfl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 188 comments) on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 1:51:55 PM

  (0+)

It goes far betond approval.  It is nothing short of complicity.  At this point it is just an exercise in futlity to even talk about impeachment.  This congress has made it patently clear that they will do nothing to hold this adminstration accountable for their crimes - NOTHING.  So it would seem Speaker Pelosi has created a self-fulfilling prophecy when she claims impeachment is just a waste of time.  I don't know why they even bother with all of their little "investigations".  If any results ever come from them, it will not be acted upon and will be destined to fade into history.

by Southpaw (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 6:42:31 PM

  (0+)

A ham fisted stab put this reply one comment below where it belongs.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1793 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 8, 2007 at 8:18:36 AM

  (0+)

Mostly what's been offered is very cursory answers, not all of them satisfactory. I agree that "high crimes and misdemeanors" have been committed. But I remain unconvinced that it makes sense to put energy into impeachment.

My main concern is that energy put into impeachment is energy that could be put to more productive use in other ways. How much can the progressive movement accomplish effectively at one time? For example, the question of whether to concentrate on cutting off all funding for the iraq War or on impeachment is a no-brainer in my view.

The process would need to be to impeach Cheney and then Bush. Not going to happen, but even if it did Bush will have first had the opportunity to select a new Vice President, one likely somewhat sympathetic to him. Even saying impeaching them both could happen, which seems virtualy impossible, it wouldn't necessarily result in much improvement.

There is the question of focus on personalities rather than policies. Is the real problem the two men in the White House? Or is it more pervasive views and political environment that goes far beyond those two men, and encompasses the attitudes of most politicians of both parties? My view is the latter. And from this perspective, working on impeachment is definitely a waste of energy and a major distraction from what really needs to be done.

While some say impeachment is too radical an option, I say it is too conservative a one. At best (and even this result is extremely unlikely) it would change the faces. It would not change the system. And the system is the problem.

And there is really no way to combat the fact that we are almost within one year of the end of the Administration anyway. 

by Bill Samuel (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 445 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 5:12:36 PM

  (0+)

Better than me

by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 5:37:47 PM

  (0+)

As a non-American and former pro American I recognize that the American system is the gold standard for empowering individual citizen voters. It gives them a Bill of Rights with the SCOTUS as an independent judge. It gives them free speech. It gives them the right to bear arms against the possibility that someday the government of the people might cease to be of the people and the people might decide to overthrow it.

No the problem is not the system. The system although not perfect is excellent. The problem is that there simply are not enough good enough Americans to counter the dead weigh of the vast majority plus the active scoundrelling of a small majority of 'bad' Americans.

Democracy is a great way to weigh the character of a democracies citizenry. 

It is perfectly possible for a foolish citizenry to wipe it outself out with collective poor judgement and shortsightedness and greed.

Easter Island seems to be a case in point.

Another thing to bear in mind that does point to a limitation but not a flaw in the American system is that it is a national system with a potential for being applied internationally BUT, and this is important, only if the separation of powers is carefully watched. Too strong an executive - too strong a President and the President will go rogue. Too weak a President and the President as commander in cheif will start fires using the powers of the office that he doesn't understand. The Senate especially (but also Congress as the elected representatives of the people) is supposed to check the President on international matters and on the most fundamental contract between all Americans which is the United States Constitution.

Infinite compromise isn't virtue. The US Constitution must be regarded as fundamental. Likewise the oath taken by elected representatives to the people that elect them must be upheld or else oathtaking itself becomes a matter that is regarded cynically by the people and future representatives.

It is as clear as a bell to me that there is a hierarchy of ideas about how to build good societies and free societies and that the US has been one of the very best to date but it must be maintained by its people or fall into disrepair.

It would be very possible for the United States to become a plutocracy and then self destruct over time because the people, the citizens were not up to the challenge which the American system leaves them. It is not mere words but hard reality that Americans are getting the government that they deserve. They are not giving non-Americans the governments that we deserve to dealt with though.

Back in 1945, when the Senate was about to ratify the United Nations Charter, Senator Arthur Vandenberg said that "we Americans have a habit of keeping our nations word and that that is a habit that needs to become contagious".  Unfortunately not only is it not contagious but Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House has taken impeachment off the table.

The Constitution says the President shall be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. Shall be. And the Constitution says that representatives shall swear oaths to support and protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Make absolutely no mistake about this. The Bush administration has been IN EFFECT if not always in malicious design THE ENEMY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 

It is only that the American people for large part have become insulated from what their government does in their name and because it is very hard to organise effective resistance across a population of so many voters that are so spread out geographically and educationally that the errors of this adminstration don't stand out so clearly from close up to enough. They stand out very clearly to a few. But not nearly clearly enough to enough.

The boat has been holed by an iceberg and it will go down sooner or later unless the hole is first acknowledged and then repaired. Impeachment would be acknowledgement and would allow the nation to then look on to making repairs.

American espoused values are shared values with many other peoples. And other peoples will welcome back America when Americans start to walk their talk.  

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 10:37:47 PM

  (0+)

These are largely what Dave put in his  earlier essay.

As I said then or should have none of these rebuttle options are absolute, meaning that they are at best superficial or incompletely thought through. eg The GOP would never allow a Dem to take the reigns in a Republican term. And yes the divide Could get a lot worse. The fracture lines already exist  'the Mason Dixon line'?(Sthn Red states Don't underestimate the resentment in the Sth it still has sensitive scar tissue from the Civil War and its aftermath. There is still passion there 150 years later!)

Instead of  States being intragient and obstructive impeachment may provoke States actively defying the Fed what would the Fed do send in the troops?  Far fetched? perhaps but take a trip south and get the locals talking,  you might be surprised. 

The last thing the nation needs is for 'sectional elements to win the battle but lose the war by creating such angst to ensure  Republican win(S) well into the future. Each win would become more ideologically Right than the previous (Bush/Cheney on steroids) and then God help us all.

There is a big difference between what a segment (progressives?) of the population think should happen and what can/should really happen in the interest of the nation.

If you ask a member of the religious right if they country should adopt the Bible as law they would/could give you at face value equally compelling arguments why this would be in the interests of the nation.

Neither I or Pelosi is saying that Bush shouldn't or may not yet be impeached (there is no such a term as never in politics...simply read not now).

She has simply made a judgement call that impeachment at this stage is not worth the political or national carnage that she thinks would follow if she did try it NOW.

Remember too that the House of reps decides if a crime is impeachable or not. Again it is a pragmatic judgement call by The Dems under their mandate to do what they feel is best for the nation. Again yours is not a representative democracy. America voted them in to make decisions as they see them in the interests of the nation. (all systems are double sided swords , perhaps this is the otherside of yours).

Neither am I saying that you shouldn't try to convince her otherwise. I simply say that personal abuse and name calling is counter productive in that no one (politician) listens to someone who has incomplete arguments and covers the gaps with the above.  Remember politics like revenge is a dish best served cold.

Politically speaking an argument needs to be either overwhelmingly logical and persuasive or it is in the interests of the member, party, government to listen. At this stage your side hasn't put up a sufficiently cogent and convincing argument to warrent re assesment.

The above is intended as pragmatic obsevation that politics and people (human nature) are the same world wide.

by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 5:35:00 PM

  (0+)

perhaps a majority, believe as one commentor wrote, "And there is really no way to combat the fact that we are almost within one year of the end of the Administration anyway."

Anyway is not a cure for high crimes. No one would agree that a bank president embezzling funds should be given a pass because his employment contract is about to expire.

Yet we hear this. The only reason behind any punishment is the message it leaves for future criminals. Are we to cross our fingers we don't get another president who rules by signing statement and stonewall?

As to November or January, federal officers can be impeached even after their terms have expired. 

by Jim Freeman (108 articles, 53 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 386 comments) on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 6:10:06 PM

  (0+)

The Ulster County NY,Legislature passed Resolution 932 calling for  congressional support for the impeachment of the president and vice-president. Speakers supporting the resolution made the case for accountability for an administration that has shown contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law. They called upon the legislators to uphold their oath of office to  defend the Constitution and the will of their constituents. The point was made that our representatives in Washington, including Representative Hinchey, have been unwilling to hold this administration accountable. Our representatives need to hear the voice of the people demanding that they stop playing politics and start upholding their same oath of office. Stop being big D Democratic party hacks, and start being small d democrats who act on principles. The point was made that we need to put a stop to the concept of an Unitarian Executive who is above the law as this precedent will effect future presidents who will hold the office.
There is much work that needs to be done to reverse the damages done to our constitutional form of government, our diplomatic credibility, our military, our economy, and the global ecology.

by Ramon Puga (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments) on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 6:38:00 PM

  (0+)

Hello folks

Since I was the one who wrote an article quoting Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) saying that "impeachment would suck air out of the room while getting nothing accomplished", based on which Rob quoted Lynn Woolsey here again and stated that the Constitution must be upheld, let me hereby correct the record.

First, be it hereby known that Lynn Woolsey has indeed signed on as co-sponsor of HR 799, to impeach Cheney. She did so despite her sentiment which was to express discouragement, not anti-impeachment sentiment. The reason why I know this was her sentiment and state it as a fact, not as speculation, is because:

A) Her voting record consistently and unlike most Congressmembers in office, reflects the will of the people

B) She voted for the impeachment resolution in spite of her feelings, because that is what her constituents here in Marin and Sonoma Counties in California want. She also consistently acts true to her word, which was to say on radio interview that where compromising with Congress is concerned, "first of all, let's consider the moral thing: To honor the will of the people" IE, she wont' compromise. That was what she was saying. And that is exactly what she did. Again! And as usual! Thank you Lynn!

C) Lynn Woolsey voted courageously against  the Patriot Act at a time when (according to the ACLU) anthrax was circulating around Congress and at the moment that Bush strong-armed the votes for the Patriot Act by threatening to dub any voters against it as "Soft on terror". All this just weeks after the 9-11 events. ANd Lynn Woolsey still had the spine/courage to "just say no".

She also voted against the torture bill, co-signed the Restore the Constitution Act which would restore habeas corpus and "nix" the immunity for war crime status granted the PResident in the torture bill, etc....

Lynn Woolsey is one of the golden few who we can always count on and who is truly of ethic and spine. And she walks where her mouth talks, always upholding the Constitution at all costs, even to her own discouragement. And as evidenced by her voting record, she never compromises with "the other side". We have to be so grateful to her and I would hate to think I had contributed to smearing her, by also accurately quoting her as above. And which Rob in turn quoted in repeat. Again, this I am quite sure was Lynn Woolsey's expression of discouragement, not an intention to hold back impeachment. Not at all.

It would be "cool" to send her a post card thanking her for her spine and ethic, and begging her never to leave office out of sheer discouragement. It must be so hard to hang in with all that is going on, and my bet is that such public encouragement is what would give our genuinely good politicians the hope/strength they need to "carry on". 

 Thank you all.

by Kathryn Smith (110 articles, 2 quicklinks, 43 diaries, 542 comments [23 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 11:55:48 PM

  (0+)

Let's face it. Impeachment would require congressional action on a bipartisan bases.  In an election year, that just ain't gonna happen.

Dear Mr. Venturelli: 

I'm sure many of you have received similar responses from your representatives/senators.  

The issue revolves around the not-to-be-admitted fact that once that door is opened, it makes each of them vulnerable to the same scrutiny and the same accountability as the people are willing to foist on the executive branch.

Now that's not a bad thing - unless you don't want to lose that sweet pension!

If this administration walks out of the White House without facing criminal prosecution, our standing in the world community, as poor as it is today, will rightfully plummet.

Get it out of congress and into the courts. 

by Angelo (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 209 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 8, 2007 at 9:41:14 AM

  (0+)

The invasion of Iraq was the President and the commander in chiefs call.

Congress had authorised the President with an option to use force subject to some very reasonable constraints which really amounted to not breaking other important (fundamentally important for security and credibility in the world) US laws. And much to the surprise of many Americans who probably hadn't had real cause to think or learn about it before the UN Charter as a Senate ratified treaty IS part of US supreme law.

Congress authorised the President to use force to ENFORCE but not BREAK UN resolutions and yet by invading against the terms of resolution 1441 that (breaking a valid resolution affording Iraq a final opportunity which it was the Security Councils perogative alone to terminate under the terms of the UN Charter) was exactly what Bush as commander in chief did. And as commander in chief the buck rightfully stops with him for making that military directive ILLEGALLY and against his constitutional duty to see that the laws of the US (including the laws on treaties) were faithfully executed.

Congress certainly can logically separate itself from Bush on the circumstances in which Bush invaded Iraq because it was very possible that if Bush had been in good faith and well informed and had he played the diplomatic game with the UN better that he could have either not invaded until he could do so lawfully (perhaps by rescinding the UN charter) or he could have gotten the UN permanent members to agree.

Of course the fact that no WMDs were there to be found made it very hard for Saddam (however unsavory he was) to give them up. It is impossible to prove a negative and that was what was being demanded substantially by the Bush administration. Saddam prove your innocence or we (I the Presudent) will assume your guilt.  And Bush's talk with respect to Iran is of a similar vein.

I wonder if it is coincidence that Rove and Cheney have been trying to involve Congress in the push for war recently suggesting at least in the case of Rove that the Congress was actively urging. Rove is probably smart enough to know the President as commander in chief is politicially vulnerable to high crimes on the matter of breaking the UN treaty and causing massive loss of life, vulnerable that is, IF there was a determination to make that case by those wanting to impeach the President. So Rove would want to fudge the distinctions between what Congress authorised and what Bush did so that Congress could not hang Iraq on Bush.

But Iraq is Bush's. As Colin Powell said - you break it you own it. He broke it. And he broke US supreme law and committed a high crime in breaking it.

I don't see how you can hold that prosecution trumps impeachment when the President retains presidential pardon power and impeachment is the only way to separate the man from the powers of the office.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Saturday, Dec 8, 2007 at 8:55:00 PM

  (0+)

Thanks for giving us a clear, concise list of arguments to use when discussing impeachment (or, at least, investigations) with those who are crying "We can't do that, because ... (fill in the blanks.)

by Beth Grimes (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments) on Saturday, Dec 8, 2007 at 5:00:37 PM

  (0+)

WHEN CONGRESS PASSED HJR 114 AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILLITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ, WHAT CONGRESS DID WAS NOT A DECLARATION OF WAR. THEY BASICALLY SAID TO THE PRESIDENT YOU DECIDE WHEN WE SHOULD GO TO WAR, AND LET US KNOW LATER. THEY VOTED TO GIVE BUSH HIS VERY OWN WAR DECLARING POWER, THEY ARE GUILITY OF VIOLATING HIS/HERS OATH TO UP HOLD THE CONSTITUTION, ALSO GUILITY OF VIOLATING 18 USC 241- CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CITIZEN- RIGHTS OF U.S. SOLDIERS TO BE SENT TO WAR "ONLY" ON EXPRESSED ORDER OF CONGRESS.

NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS ANY BRANCH EXCEPT CONGRESS GIVEN THE POWER TO DECLARE WAR.

CONGRESS HAS COMMITTED THESE CRIMES, AND THERE IS NO WAY THEY WILL START IMPEACHMENT OF ANYBODY, WITH OUT THEIR COMPLICITY BEING EXPOSED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE WORLD, IF THEY WERE TO IMPEACH THEY WOULD BE BASICALLY BE IMPEACHING THEM SELF'S.

by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Sunday, Dec 9, 2007 at 5:26:52 AM

  (0+)