Keeping the Crimes Straight

Having trouble keeping the infinite crimes of the Smitky/Darth maladministration straight? Confused about what and who warrants prosecution, impeachment, pardoning?

Slate to the rescue, with a clickable Venn Diagram that covers all the major players, all their crimes and how they all interact in a single, easy-to-use graphic.

Also in Slate, Dahlia Lithwick explains why both pardoners and impeachers should agree to investigate first.

It says much about the cartoonish ways in which we talk about law and politics that the conversation about accountability for the Bush administration's lawbreaking takes place chiefly at the extremes. The choice, it would seem, is between Nuremberg-style war crime tribunals, broadcast live at primetime in January of 2009, or blanket immunity for everyone, in advance of knowing what they did or why. The men and women responsible for our descent into torture and eavesdropping in the last seven years are cast as either Nazi war criminals, in the manner of Judgment at Nuremberg, or valiant American heroes, in the model of Fox television's Jack Bauer.

(SNIP)
... the question for most of us now is not whether laws were broken, but what to do about it. The War Crimes Act of 1996 makes it a federal crime for any American—military or civilian—to cause a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions' ban on inhumane treatment for prisoners. U.S. interrogators have been inhumane. Some of them have not only tortured but, in at least 100 cases, killed prisoners. A smattering of relatively low-ranking soldiers have been prosecuted, but in most instances there has been little or no accountability and none whatsoever at the top.

Will a sorting and allocating of responsibility for torture and other acts of lawlessness tear the country apart, or is it a necessary step toward repairing our image in the world? Is punishing wrongdoers a partisan witch hunt? Or is the failure to punish its own kind of lawlessness?

(SNIP)

I am not arguing for instant war crimes prosecutions or for criminal indictments. The vital lesson of the past seven years is that hasty legal judgments are often bad ones and that criminal cases are difficult to build for a reason; questions of intent and knowledge really do matter more than conclusory labels. So this time, let's allow those legal processes to work.

On the other hand, we need careful investigation before we take the possibility of criminal prosecution off the table. To immunize or pardon everyone from John Yoo to David Addington to Monica Goodling, before we've seen critical classified memos or heard the conclusions on several fronts of the Department of Justice inspector general, is to remedy the reckless and dangerous decisions of the past with more dangerous recklessness. Criminal investigations aren't just about revenge, whatever Mukasey may think. They are a means of obtaining information and ultimately truth.

I also want to suggest that the wrong way to talk about legal accountability for the Bush administration is to cast it as something America owes the rest of the world. Sure, it's critically important to show our allies and enemies alike that the rule of law still means something here. But it is far more important to have this legal reckoning for America. Not because of some deranged liberal bloodlust, but because we need to understand that there just aren't two sets of law in America, one of which—like the good linen—we keep for special occasions. There isn't one set of laws for when we're panicky and reckless and another for tranquil times. There isn't one set of laws to punish the soldiers in the field and another for the commanders at the top. It's not just the president who seems to have forgotten this lesson in the last seven years. Most of us have. Worse yet, we've forgotten why it matters. We owe it to ourselves to begin to remember.

Read the whole thing.

Cross-posted at Blue in the Bluegrass.

There's more: "Keeping the Crimes Straight" >>

Growing Right-Wing Chorus Backs Impeachment. When Will Pelosi?

When Lou Dobbs recently called for the impeachment of George W. Bush, he became only the latest in a growing number of Right-Wingers who are harshly criticizing the White House these days. Dobbs joined Conservatives like Pat Buchanan and Chuck Hagel in slamming Bush and raising the prospect of impeachment.

In fact, when Rep. Dennis Kucinich recently introduced articles of impeachment against Bush, no less than 24 Republicans joined Democrats in voting for an impeachment inquiry to begin.

And on June 21, no less a Conservative figure than Paul Craig Roberts, the "Father of Reaganomics," bitterly blasted the Bush Administration, calling it one of the most "lawless regimes" of the 21st Century. Last year, Roberts (who in 2006 called Bush supporters "Brownshirts") urged the immediate impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

Note that we're not talking about Noam Chomsky or Ward Churchill here. We're talking about Roberts (a man who served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration).

These days, the growing chorus of Right-Wingers calling for Bush's impeachment range from articulate writers like Roberts all the way over to Right-Wing radio hate spewers like Michael Savage.

With all these Conservatives raising the issue of impeachment, it's all the more baffling as to why Nancy Pelosi continues to insist that "impeachment is off the table."

Not only that, but the Democrats continue to be bullied by a deeply unpopular president who has approval ratings that are in the toilet. Just in the past week, the Dems meekly caved in on FISA, as well as the massive, no-strings war-funding bill.

When former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan recently added his voice to the anti-Bush chorus, the White House quickly sought to portray him as a lone disgruntled employee, with an ax to grind.

What they didn't address, though, was why so many Right-Wingers are now criticizing Bush in the harshest possible language these days. One thing that is certain, though, is that if the shoe was on the other foot, does anyone think that GOP would hesitate one second in launching impeachment proceedings?

There's more: "Growing Right-Wing Chorus Backs Impeachment. When Will Pelosi?" >>

Impeach Cheney ad buy

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) of wexlerwantshearings.com just sent out an appeal to contribute to blog advertising (see example at the left) and a Google ad buy for folks who search for Dick Cheney. He has already invested in advertising with the objective of expanding the effort over the next two weeks.

In his email update, he states:

It is time to reach beyond those that are regular readers of the political blogs, and expand the number of people mobilized to help push for impeachment hearings. The truth is that the number of Americans who support our efforts is immense and we need to do everything possible to reach out to them and maximize our strength.

When Congress reconvenes on January 15th I will deliver the hundreds of thousands of names we have collected to my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee and I will do everything I can do to convince them to support immediate impeachment hearings. I will also be entering all of the collected names into the Congressional Record and present them to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

The mainstream media has not done enough to cover this effort but with your help we will force the issue into the national dialogue.

I can't argue with his reasoning especially the Google ad buy, which would "reach beyond" the Netroots. He has collected nearly 180,000 signatures at the time of this posting with a goal of 250,000 with less than two weeks left.

How many of us will contribute to Wexler's advertising push? I dunno. But if you're so inclined, click this link.

If you haven't signed the letter in support of Cheney impeachment hearings, sign here. And spread the word.

[That's all. No more after the jump.]

There's more: "Impeach Cheney ad buy" >>

Calls to impeach Cheney attract media

An update from Robert Wexler of wexlerwantshearings.com...

This morning, The Philadelphia Inquirer published the complete editorial written by U.S. Reps. Robert Wexler (D-FL.), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) calling to Impeach Cheney now. Previously the NYTimes, Washington Post, LA Times, USA Today, and Boston Globe had rejected the op/ed. But, with more than 140,000 people having signed the petition for impeachment hearings, a few mainstream media outlets have begun to awaken to public demand to hold Cheney accountable. The opening grafs of the editorial:

Last month, the House of Representatives voted to send a resolution of impeachment of Vice President Cheney to the Judiciary Committee. As members of the House Judiciary Committee, we strongly believe these important hearings should begin.

The issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that, if proven, may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under the Constitution. The allegations against Cheney relate to his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens.

On Tuesday, Dec. 25, the Miami Herald ran an article, Wexler calls for Cheney impeachment, that was picked up in syndication by several other newspapers -- Detroit Free Press, Philadelphia Inquirer, Fort Worth Telegram, Contra Costa Times, Sacramento Bee, Houston Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, NC News & Observer, and more. A Miami Herald broadcast partner, CBS4-TV, also spread the news. A snip from the Miami Herald:

Wexler, who now calls his 2002 vote to authorize Bush to attack Iraq a ''mistake,'' told listeners of Florida Progressive Radio last week that Congress "is way behind the rest of the country on the [impeachment] issue.''

But he suggested that he had to be convinced.

ISSUE IN DISTRICT

''When I first heard about the effort I did not fully appreciate that the beliefs being expressed were not simply beliefs of people on the fringe,'' he said. "But the last two times talking to people in my district, I was convinced that this, in fact, is a mainstream issue.''

His 19th congressional district, which is heavily Democratic, stretches along the South Florida coast and includes parts of Palm Beach and Broward counties.

OMG! You mean a member of Congress finally, finally listened to his constituency? And they're in line with the DFHs of the blogosphere, imagine that! Maybe a ''huge uphill battle" for Wexler and his colleagues to buck the party leadership, but what if this democracy thing finally caught on? I won't hold my breath but I will voice my support for Wexler's efforts.

If you haven't signed the letter, click here. The goal is 250,000 signatures by January. Wexler plans to present the signatures to the House Judiciary Committee and ask them to lend their support and sign, too.

Are you listening Steny Hoyer and Madam Speaker? How much longer will you continue to ignore the will of the people?

Put impeachment. Back! On. The. Table!

[That's all. No more after the jump.]

There's more: "Calls to impeach Cheney attract media" >>

Virtual townhall meeting on Cheney impeachment hearings

Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL), who has called for Cheney impeachment hearings, will hold a virtual townhall meeting this evening. Information from his email alert:

Join Me Thursday Night on Blog Radio to Discuss Our Next Steps
On this Thursday at 9:00 p.m. (EST) and 6:00 (PST), please join me as I appear on live on the Internet to discuss my efforts to convince Congress to hold impeachment hearing. Congressman Wexler Live on Blog Radio:

WHEN: Thursday, December 20, 9:00 pm (EST)/6:00 pm (PST)

WHERE: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/fpc (a link will be posted at www.wexlerwantshearings.com and www.wexlerforcongress.com )

WHO: Rep. Wexler will appear live on Florida Progressive Radio with host Kenneth Quinnell of the Florida Netroots Caucus, Bob Fertick of Democrats.com, as well as Dave Lindorf, author of "The Case for Impeachment," and David Swanson with AfterDowningStreet.org.

The call-in telephone number is (646) 716-7543.

If you haven't already signed Wexler's petition, here's the link.

After The New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, USA Today, and Boston Globe rejected an op/ed authored by Wexler, Gutierrez (D-IL), and Baldwin (D-WI -- who are representatives and members of the House Judiciary Committee -- Wexler got the word out to the Netroots. Within five days, 100,000 people had signed the petition urging impeachment hearings of Dick Cheney.

At the time of this posting, more than 109,000 have added their names to the petition. The goal is 250,000 signatures by the year's end. So spread the word.

[That's all. No more after the jump.]

There's more: "Virtual townhall meeting on Cheney impeachment hearings" >>

First Iraq and now Iran

I'll never forget watching U.S. weapons inspector David Kay testify that his team had found no WMDs in Iraq.

The latest NIE on Iran's lack of nuclear capability reminded me of Kay's poignant admission, "It turns out that we were all wrong." Thankfully, adults with conscience from 16 agencies dared to contradict the wrong-headed warmongering of the WH with their NIE findings about Iran.

And, once again, the IAEA and its director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, were right.

Rewind to Aug. 23, 2006, when the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) then chaired by loyal Bushie Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) issued a report, Recognizing Iran as a Strategic Threat: An Intelligence Challenge for the United States [PDF].

[Keep reading...]

Responding to the House committee brief, U.N. inspectors denounced portions of the report as "outrageous and dishonest." The Washington Post, Sept. 14, 2006:

Officials of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency said in a letter that the report contained some "erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated statements." The letter, signed by a senior director at the agency, was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, which issued the report. A copy was hand-delivered to Gregory L. Schulte, the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA in Vienna.

The IAEA openly clashed with the Bush administration on pre-war assessments of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Relations all but collapsed when the agency revealed that the White House had based some allegations about an Iraqi nuclear program on forged documents.

You remember the Niger yellow cake uranium forgeries that led to the 16 words in Bush's 2003 SOTU, right? We still don't know who forged those docs and for what reason... although one can speculate that a nuclear threat would thwart opposition to preemptive military action against Iraq. Sound familiar?

After no such weapons were found in Iraq, the IAEA came under additional criticism for taking a cautious approach on Iran, which the White House says is trying to build nuclear weapons in secret. At one point, the administration orchestrated a campaign to remove the IAEA's director general, Mohamed ElBaradei. It failed, and he won the Nobel Peace Prize last year.

Yesterday's letter, a copy of which was provided to The Washington Post, was the first time the IAEA has publicly disputed U.S. allegations about its Iran investigation. The agency noted five major errors in the committee's 29-page report, which said Iran's nuclear capabilities are more advanced than either the IAEA or U.S. intelligence has shown.

Among the committee's assertions is that Iran is producing weapons-grade uranium at its facility in the town of Natanz. The IAEA called that "incorrect," noting that weapons-grade uranium is enriched to a level of 90 percent or more. Iran has enriched uranium to 3.5 percent under IAEA monitoring.

When the congressional report was released last month, Hoekstra said his intent was "to help increase the American public's understanding of Iran as a threat." Spokesman Jamal Ware said yesterday that Hoekstra will respond to the IAEA letter.

Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.), a committee member, said the report was "clearly not prepared in a manner that we can rely on." He agreed to send it to the full committee for review, but the Republicans decided to make it public before then, he said in an interview.

The report was never voted on or discussed by the full committee. Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the vice chairman, told Democratic colleagues in a private e-mail that the report "took a number of analytical shortcuts that present the Iran threat as more dire -- and the Intelligence Community's assessments as more certain -- than they are."

Privately, several intelligence officials said the committee report included at least a dozen claims that were either demonstrably wrong or impossible to substantiate. Hoekstra's office said the report was reviewed by the office of John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence.

Negroponte's spokesman, John Callahan, said in a statement that his office "reviewed the report and provided its response to the committee on July 24, '06." He did not say whether it had approved or challenged any of the claims about Iran's capabilities.

"This is like prewar Iraq all over again," said David Albright, a former nuclear inspector who is president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security. "You have an Iranian nuclear threat that is spun up, using bad information that's cherry-picked and a report that trashes the inspectors."

The committee report, written by a single Republican staffer with a hard-line position on Iran, chastised the CIA and other agencies for not providing evidence to back assertions that Iran is building nuclear weapons.

What? How dare our intel agencies refuse to fabricate a slam dunk on Iran for the preznut and the veep. They will never get a Presidential Medal of Freedom with that attitude.

It concluded that the lack of intelligence made it impossible to support talks with Tehran. Democrats on the committee saw it as an attempt from within conservative Republican circles to undermine Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has agreed to talk with the Iranians under certain conditions.

The report's author, Fredrick Fleitz, is a onetime CIA officer and special assistant to John R. Bolton, the administration's former point man on Iran at the State Department. Bolton, who is now ambassador to the United Nations, had been highly influential during President Bush's first term in drawing up a tough policy that rejected talks with Tehran.

Among the allegations in Fleitz's Iran report is that ElBaradei removed a senior inspector from the Iran investigation because he raised "concerns about Iranian deception regarding its nuclear program." The agency said the inspector has not been removed.

A suggestion that ElBaradei had an "unstated" policy that prevented inspectors from telling the truth about Iran's program was particularly "outrageous and dishonest," according to the IAEA letter, which was signed by Vilmos Cserveny, the IAEA's director for external affairs and a former Hungarian ambassador.

A copy of the 2006 IAEA letter as a PDF is here.

To describe the 2006 committee report as flawed would be a gross understatement. The trumped-up handiwork of the Administration's neocon handmaidens served to bolster the WH case to use military force against another member of the "axis of evil." Cheney had already boasted about Iran's "fairly robust new nuclear program" on Imus in the Morning just hours before Bush's inaugural in January 2005. And we know how Bushies work -- the WH claims thus, and then magically... Presto! Documents (and media reports) appear to lend credence to their pronouncements. Before Democrats won majority control over congressional committees, Hoekstra in the House and Pat Roberts (R-KS) in the Senate "vetted" intel for WH lies assertions like the strategic threat that Iran posed to U.S. interests.

What's available to remedy the damage done to U.S. foreign affairs and get back on track? Unfortunately, our rotting press corpse has to cooperate. Today, John Bolton appeared as CNN's NIE contrarian spreading his wacky neocon scaremongering throughout the afternoon. Laughing John Bolton out of D.C. and never permitting him access to a government job or official would be a good step, but don't hold your breath against the neocon revolving door. Impeaching Cheney would be a giant leap for mankind, but too many door-stoppers would halt a Senate indictment or trial if H.R. 799 miraculously revived and passed. Michigan and Kansas voters ought to kick servile Hoekstra and coverup Roberts out on their asses in '08 -- a possibility for Roberts; Hoestra, I dunno. Fleitz can flip burgers; he knows how to take orders. Negroponte, now deputy secretary at State, has already been contained via lecondel. And Iran? Bush remains... undaunted by the NIE to put it politely.

Our best remedy is electing a Democratic president who knows how to use diplomacy, sending a positive signal to Tehran in persuading Iranians to relinquish development of nuclear weapons. You don't think Mitt, Rudy, Huck or Fred can do that, do you?

Repubs have proven they know nuthin' about diplomacy. Or conducting war, which Iraq has revealed so miserably. The neocon dream articulated in the Bush Doctrine has shattered American foreign policy -- our goodwill, blood, and treasure spent. When have the neocons been right?

It's a very useful rule of thumb in foreign affairs to simply assume that the neocons are wrong no matter what, because they are always wrong about everything. That is not to say that all conservatives are wrong about everything, and neocons merge with the more traditional hard line hawk faction just often enough that it gets confusing.

I suspect we will hearing a lot more confusing rhetoric about the worth of the NIE. What's clear to me is Bush's and Cheney's bellicosity towards Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons program has been, to refrain David Kay, all wrong.

And for goodness sake, when the ElBaradei speaks, dammit, listen! He was right about Iraq and he's right about Iran. Bush, Cheney and their loyal rubber-stamp Repubs... Not so much.

There's more: "First Iraq and now Iran" >>

MSNBC says ITMFA

Still open at the time of this posting, MSNBC is offering a poll (unscientific, of course) to gauge interest in impeachment of the Worst President Evah!!!™. Current support for impeachment? 89%! Clickety-click-click, my brethren.

There's more: "MSNBC says ITMFA" >>

v2Impeach -- National Impeachment Day

When I got home this evening I felt an uncontrollable urge to eat a peach. I didn't know why. Then I watched v2impeach and I realized I had engaged in an act of civil disobedience. Sort of like sitting in the deans office. Before you watch todays funny, go to your refrigerator and grab a peach.

My peach was really good.



I know what you are thinking. Why didn't he post this yesterday so would could wear our peach colored ribbon while we ate our peach at work? Well, this generation of revolutionaries isn't very good with a calendar. This video was posted to YouTube today, August 21, 2007, by magnetmixerhands. Back in the 1960s we would have planned ahead. Kids today. What are you going to do?

There's more: "v2Impeach -- National Impeachment Day" >>

Impeachment Lies

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), a 26-year veteran of Capitol Hill and the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, shared some concerns about the Attorney General. (via BooMan and Steve Benen)

One audience member wanted to know if Specter might vote to impeach Gonzales…. Specter described himself as on a “one-man crusade” against Gonzales, but an impeachment, he said, would tie up both houses of Congress and be “a big distraction.

“I think we have ways of getting rid of (Gonzales) otherwise,” he said.

One audience member pressed the Republican senator about opening investigations into whether the government played a role in staging the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks or allowed them to happen.

Specter said he had seen the FBI reports and believes the U.S. government played no role in the attacks, but added, “I don’t question the reason for your skepticism. Government does a lot of things.” And, he added, “Alberto Gonzales does a lot of things.”

Spectre will back off; he always does. There is no reason that opening an impeachment investigation of Gonzales would tie up both houses of Congress. This is complete BS. House committee makes a simple vote to open an investigation, House floor makes a simple majority vote. If they can eviscerate the Fourth Amendment in about one full day’s worth of business, there is no reason this should take any longer. After that, you have staff counsel and members, plus some people brought in to assist, run the investigation until a report is ready to be voted on. In the meantime, the House conducts it’s business, and the Senate is not even involved until the House votes out Articles of Impeachment after receipt of the impeachment report and a determination that Articles are warranted. This is the same BS argument the Democratic leaders are hiding behind and it is a flat out lie.

There's more: "Impeachment Lies" >>

Ben Chandler dips a toe in the Impeachment Pond

Rats. Looks like Ben Chandler, Kentucky's Sixth District Congressman, is not the utter coward I took him for.

From MediaCzech at BlueGrassRoots and DitchMitch:

"Tomorrow (Tuesday) at 2:00, six Congressmen, all former prosecutors, are holding a press conference to announce their resolution for the Judiciary Committee to investigate whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should be impeached.

The resolution is sponsored by Jay Inslee (D-WA) and co-sponsored by Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Michael A. Arcuri (D-NY), Dennis Moore (D-KS) and Bruce Braley (D-IA) and, I'm proud to say, our own Rep. Ben Chandler.

It's good to see Ben stand up for the rule of law and against the mockery that the Bush administration has made of our Justice Department."

There's more: "Ben Chandler dips a toe in the Impeachment Pond" >>

Better Late Than Never

Josh Marshall, Founder of the Talking Points Memo Empire, and one of the most eloquent progressive skeptics on impeachment, appears to finally be coming around.

"Without going into all the specifics, I think we are now moving into a situation where the White House, on various fronts, is openly ignoring the constitution, acting as though not just the law but the constitution itself, which is the fundamental law from which all the statutes gain their force and legitimacy, doesn't apply to them.

If that is allowed to continue, the defiance will congeal into precedent. And the whole structure of our system of government will be permanently changed.

Whether because of prudence and pragmatism or mere intellectual inertia, I still have the same opinion on the big question: impeachment. But I think we're moving on to dangerous ground right now, more so than some of us realize. 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."

I've been a loyal TPM fan since 2001, when it was a one-man, bare-bones blog, just a few months old. TPM Cafe, Election Central, Horse's Mouth, Muckraker, TPMTv and the staff that keep TPM at the top of the blogging game were not even gleams in Josh's eye.

Yeah, he's always been a little too fond of the DLC line for my taste, but I was thrilled by the reporter's sensibility he brought to his posts - a sensibility now grown into the major-story-breaking hard news of TPMMuckraker.

And for all his DLC apologia, liberals and progressives owe Josh Marshall a permanent debt of gratitude for putting a stop, virtually single-handedly, to The Usurper's 2005 attempt to destroy Social Security.

I thought Josh was wrong when he expressed doubts about the wisdom of impeaching Bush and Cheney, but I respected his logic.

I respect him even more for his ability to consider changing his mind based on new evidence and circumstances.

Nevertheless, I think he's missing one of the strongest arguments in favor of impeachment: Nixon.

Josh is 38, which means he was in kindergarten during Watergate. I was only in high school, but I remember the extreme shock felt by people of all political persuasions when the full extent of Nixon's crimes was laid bare.

I remember the heart-swelling pride in the strength of our political system when Congressional Republicans and Democrats banded together to expose those crimes and demand the president be held accountable.

I remember my father - a third-generation Republican - and my mother, a sixth-generation Democrat - both emphasizing to me that the true lesson of Watergate was that the U.S. Constitution was stronger than any politican, stronger than any president, stronger than any crime perpetrated against it.

And I remember how all that shock, all that pride, all that faith in the Constitution was swept away by Gerald Ford's pardon.

Nixon skated. The man shat on the Constitution, came within a whisker of establishing a police state that put the East German Stasi to shame, and he skated.

The precedent for The Usurper's treason was established.

Reagan and Bush I used it to escape punishment for Iran-Contra (Presidents are above the law.) And the republican freakazoids of the '90s turned it inside-out to impeach Clinton for telling a lie told by thousands of married people every single day (Impeachment isn't a serious Constitutional mechanism; it's a political tool.)

If Nixon had been impeached, or indicted and convicted for his crimes after his resignation, it would have been much harder for Reagan and Bush I to resist Congressional investigation through secrecy and perjury. It would have been much harder for '90s republicans to justify using the Constitutional majesty of impeachment for a fib about sex.

And it would have been damn-near impossible for George W. Bush and Richard Cheney to continue to trample the Constitution for more than five years after a pre-Nixon Congress would have kicked their asses into the dustbin of history.

If Congress doesn't impeach Bush and Cheney - or given the time constraints, indict and convict them after they leave office - it won't matter who's elected president in 2008. It won't matter if Democrats take the Senate and House with 80-percent majorities. It won't matter if the republican party is shut out of every national, state and local election for the next three generations.

If Bush and Cheney skate, an even more dangerous precedent than Nixon's will be set in stone:

The president is King; Congress is a debating club; the judiciary is a joke; the Constitution is as dead as Ozymandias, and The American Experiment is a historical fluke that failed.

There's more: "Better Late Than Never" >>

Fredo's Impeachment (Thank you Jay Inslee)

About time. (from Think Progress):

Inslee (D-WA) is introducing legislation that would require the House Judiciary
Committee and the House of Representatives to begin an impeachment investigation into Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in the wake of his damaging testimony last week.

While these aren't articles of impeachment or anything, they would require the House to pursue an investigation as to whether or not they are necessary. Ol' Fredo seems pretty deserving.

The fact that Gonzales has survived this long is pretty pathetic. It's about time Congress started flexing some serious muscle.

However...

When it comes to impeaching Bush or Cheney, I think I am of like mind with Josh Marshall.

I've always been against the movement to impeach President Bush. I take this
position not because he hasn't done plenty to merit it. My reasons are
practical. Minor reasons are that it's late in the president's term and that I
think impeachment itself is toxic to our political system -- though it can be
less toxic than the high officials thrown from office. My key reason, though, is
that Congress at present can't even get to the relatively low threshold of votes
required to force the president's hand on Iraq. So to use an analogy which for
whatever reason springs readily to my mind at this point in my life, coming out
for impeachment under present circumstances is like being so frustrated that you
can't crawl that you come out for walking. In various ways it seems to elevate
psychic satisfactions above progress on changing a series of policies that are
doing daily and almost vast damage to our country. Find me seventeen Republican
senators who are going to convict President Bush in a senate trial.

I know it's important to stick to one's convictions, but I don't think a Bush/Cheney impeachment is practical, and unless the House moves forward with 67 Senators in support, it will be viewed as a partisan move and will, I think, hurt Democrats in the long run. More importantly, though, as Marshall points out, impeachments are toxic and the reasons for drafting such articles had better be pretty damn explicit, otherwise it's just another partisan move which does nothing to strengthen Congressional institutions (which is, I believe, the point of impeachment proceedings). When it comes to Gonzales, though, I think the case is much stronger, and support in the Senate looks as though it might follow through. Also, it's just damn prudent; Gonzales has lost the confidence of the Senate, and the public more generally, and it looks like he's perjured himself and crippled the efficacy of the Justice Department. It seems to me, then, that impeachment in his case has strong legal and normative backing.

There's more: "Fredo's Impeachment (Thank you Jay Inslee)" >>

Lame, Lamer, Lamest

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote to both of Kentucky's U.S. Senators (Mitch McConnell and Jim Bunning, both republicans) and two of its six Representatives (republican Ron Lewis and Democrat Ben Chandler) and demanded that they support impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney.

I received the following email response from one of them. See if you can guess who it is.

(SNIP)
Though I fully support our troops in their efforts to aid Iraq in its transition from Saddam Hussein's regime, I continue to have serious reservations about the extent of our nation's involvement in Iraq. I was not a Member of Congress when it agreed to a resolution authorizing the President to use force in Iraq, but I believe that Congress, who alone has the authority to declare war, was presented questionable evidence regarding weapons of mass destruction and related matters.

However, now that we find ourselves in this situation, we must look forward and devise a plan to stabilize Iraq, ease the strain on our troops and improve the capacity of our intelligence agencies. Rest assured I will keep your thoughts in mind if the congressional leadership calls for an investigation into the President's reasons for going to war.
(SNIP)

Yep, that's our BennyBoy, DINO extraordinaire. And rotten office manager. His staff sent me the autoresponse for Iraq (which I did not mention in my impeachment demand, which focused on violations of the Constitution), not the one for impeachment. Maybe Benny doesn't have an impeachment auto-response prepared yet.

Nothing from the RWAs, but that's no surprise. McConnell's waaaaay too important to stoop to responding to the likes of a lowly voter (and obvious Democrat/traitor - my name's probably being purged from the voter rolls as I write), Bunning's senile and Lewis is a sniveling weasel.

I'm currently trying to borrow a residential address in Louisville, district of Proud Liberal Democrat and Northup-Slayer John Yarmuth, so I can get past the stupid House email verification system to make the same request.

We'll see if Yarmuth, whose outspoken liberal courage has been making Benny look bad all year, can get it up for impeachment.

There's more: "Lame, Lamer, Lamest" >>

I’m getting a little steamed at my Congressman

Every week, I call my Congressman and express my support for him to sign on to H.R. 333, and every week he sends me the same non-answer form-letter reply:

Thank you for contacting me regarding House Resolution 333, a bill calling for the impeachment of the Vice President. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

As you may know, H.Res. 333 is a resolution that calls for impeachment of the Vice President for high crimes and misdemeanors. The measure sets forth articles of impeachment charging that the Vice President has purposely: manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, to justify the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq in a manner damaging to U.S. national security interests; has openly threatened aggression against Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and has done so with the U.S. proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining U.S. national security.

Article II Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states, "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." The power to impeach the President rests with the House of Representatives. While I certainly have very clear and deep policy and philosophical differences with the Vice President and the Administration, I believe that the Congress must focus its efforts on addressing the challenges facing us abroad and here at home. In there remain eighteen months of this Administration, my colleagues and I will be working to address the Iraq War, the War on Terrorism, and issues such as the lack of affordable healthcare, an under-funded educational system and the rise in mortgage foreclosures, to name a few.

H.Res. 333 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee for further consideration. History will impeach this Administration. It will be incumbent upon this new 110^th Congress to move forward in an effective manner so as to provide real solutions to the real problems confronting our nation. You can rest assured that I am closely monitoring the Executive Branch and will keep your concerns in mind as we learn more details about the Administration's activities that may have exceeded its statutory or Constitutional authority.

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I may be of further assistance. Also, I encourage you to visit my website at http://www.house.gov/cleaver, where you can sign up for my electronic newsletter and receive updates on my latest activities as your Representative.

Sincerely

Emanuel Cleaver, II

Member of Congress

Congressman, I know perfectly well what H.R. 333 entails.

What I want is a damned ANSWER. Either stand up and sign on or EXPLAIN TO ME WHY YOU WILL NOT!!!

I chose you, I am watching, and I am not blindly partisan. So make with an answer already, and stop insulting me with the same freakin’ form letter, over and over and over.

There's more: "I’m getting a little steamed at my Congressman" >>

Bush tells Congress ‘shove it’ on any idea of contempt charges

Will House Judiciary move beyond contempt charges against Bush staff to actually start looking at impeachment?

The president has officially folded, spindled, and mutilated executive privilege.

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege. ....

Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."

“That’s a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers,” Rozell said. “What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all.”

Impeachment is the only ultimate answer to this. And, it’s got clearer grounds, even, than anything war-related.

There's more: "Bush tells Congress ‘shove it’ on any idea of contempt charges" >>

And, what Bush has done already ISN’T grave?

I simply do not get Barak Obama’s justification for opposing Bush or Cheney impeachment Last week, he said:

“I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority,”

And illegal wiretaps, lying the country into war, possible obstruction of justice with Libby’s commutation, and blatantly politicized district attorney firings aren’t “grave, grave breaches”?

Cross-posted at Socratic Gadfly.

There's more: "And, what Bush has done already ISN’T grave?" >>

Aerial Banner to Display Impeachment Message Before The All Star Game

How cool is this? Nick Juliano of RawStory is reporting

Online activists raised enough money in two hours Monday afternoon to fly a banner encouraging the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over AT&T Park in San Francisco before Tuesday's baseball All Star Game.

A facebook.com group called The Nationwide Movement to Impeach Cheney and Bush has, with the help of AfterDowningStreet.org, raised the money necessary to hire a plane to fly the banner calling for the impeachment of both the President and Vice President. Because of security regulations instituted after 9/11, they will not be able to fly over during the game, but folks arriving an hour before the first pitch will know that there are others who want to impeach the President and his imperial VP.

San Francisco, hmmmm, I wonder if Nancy will attend the game?

It looks like the impeachment movement is picking up steam regardless of the tender sensibilities of either the media or Congressional Democrats.

There's more: "Aerial Banner to Display Impeachment Message Before The All Star Game" >>

Morning Joe Interviews Dennis Kucinich About Impeachment

Yesterday I complained that the media is ignoring the impeachment story. Well this morning, Joe Scarborough interviewed Dennis Kucinich about his resolution to impeach Vice President Cheney and mentioned the poll showing that impeachment is favored by a majority of Americans. Who would have thought we would be applauding Joe Scarborough for talking seriously about something 54% of Americans want.

Kucinich did a solid job of explaining the first article of the impeachment resolution. He clearly wants to reign in the imperial vice presidency Cheney has been trying to establish.

Baby steps, baby steps.

The video can be found at RawStory.

There's more: "Morning Joe Interviews Dennis Kucinich About Impeachment" >>

George Stephanopoulis Shocked To Hear Conyers Use "I" Word

This morning on ABC’s This Week, Chairman John Conyers suggested that the White House has very little room to stonewall, since a very significant minority of the American people (46%) want to see President Bush impeached and a growing majority of the American people favor the impeachment of Vice President Cheney (54%--although Conyers said 58% leading me to wonder if he has seen a new poll.) George Sephanopoulis almost had a cow, “I’m surprised you put impeachment on the table there. Are you open to pursuing that?” The question seemed to remind Conyers that he wasn't supposed to use the "I" word on television. Conyers said he was not putting it “on the table,” merely pointing out the views of the American people. Watching Conyers back up all over himself was pretty sad.

Maybe I just missed it, but why don't Stephanopoulis and the rest of America's pundit class want talk about the views of the American people on impeachment? As near as I can tell among the Washington elite, the topic isn't fit for polite conversation.

I would appreciate a real discussion on this topic. Comments please.

ThinkProgress has the video. I am sure it will be out on YouTube soon.

I would like to echo the sentiments of at least one commenter at ThinkProgress. Maybe we should all send Nancy Pelosi tables of all shapes and sizes. She might be able to find one to put impeachment on.

There's more: "George Stephanopoulis Shocked To Hear Conyers Use "I" Word" >>

Impeach Dick Cheney Resolution Most Viewed

According to OpenCongress' Congress Gossip Blog the resolution entitled H.Res.333,, Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors "has been extremely popular on OpenCongress. It became the most-viewed bill in April and has held that position ever since with 10,332 all-time views currently." As of this posting the count is 10,408.

H.Res. 333 was introduced April 24, 2007 and is sponsored by Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and co-sponsored by 9 others: Rep Yvette Clarke [D-NY]; Rep Wm. Lacy Clay [D-MO]; Rep Keith Ellison [D- MN]; Rep Henry C. "Hank," Jr. Johnson [D GA]; Rep Barbara Lee [D-CA]; Rep Janice D. Schakowsky [D-IL]; Rep Waters, Maxine [D-CA]; Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D-CA]; and Rep. Albert Russell Wynn [D-MD].

According to the Scoop come Monday morning the official count of cosponsors could rise to 14 as Rep. Jim McDermott [D-WA], Rep. Bob Filner [D-CA], Jim Moran [D-VA] and Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. [D-IL] sign on or introduce their own articles of impeachment. With 54% of Americans favoring impeachment don't be surprised if other members of Congress also sign on as co-sponsors.

If you want to read more on impeachment here is a partial list of blog posts and a page filled with links to news coverage.

The momentum to impeach the Vice President appears to be building among Democrats. One wonders if Nancy Pelosi can keep the resolution off the table much longer.

There's more: "Impeach Dick Cheney Resolution Most Viewed" >>