spin it however you want, but it is undeniable that impeachment is in the constitution. It is in there for one purpose and one purpose only – to protect the country from a criminal executive. It matters not at all that republicans have abused impeachment for political purposes rather than implement it according to its intended purpose.

Nor does the origin of impeachment in the Constitution matter one wit – all of the articles of the Constitution come from a vareity of sources and backgrounds. It is not up to Congress to implement the Constitution according to the origin of the Article. It is up to Congress to faithfully execute the Constitution.

It is also not up to this, or any Congress to ignore the admitted and known criminal acts of the bush admninistration. Ignoring admitted and known criminal acts of the executive is the political act. By not initiating impeachment the Congress is committing the political act.
.

is at best a received notion, and that it is taught and repeated does not lend it credence. Though it is certainly too convenient.

The Legislature is required to take on quasi-judicial and quasi-administrative roles. That every last shred of politics is not left outside the chamber does not indicate the process itself is political.

SIGNIFICANTLY, you say “the available evidence (Nixon and Clinton) shows that the electorate views it so.”

They DO, do they? Since when did “the views of the electorate” determine either political responsiveness or the definition of a legal concept/requirement/process?

Public opinion has no bearing on the legally defined process of impeachment, and is irrelevant to it. Which is certainly underscored by the unresponsiveness of current elected officials to Bush’s poll numbers.

In any case, one responsible process (Nixon) and one deeply-flawed process displaying gross abuse of power and violating the clear LEGAl definitions of impeachment (Clinton) cannot be lumped together by any reasonable mind, regardless of the hurt feelings of bloody-minded partisans on either side.

Of course it’s necessary to hold hearings prior to demanding impeachment. Get the evidence on the record. That in no way supports the “impeachment is political” view.

But it is EVEN MORE necessary not to succumb to the siren-song of deeply flawed, but self-serving political memes designed to bankrupt THE major avenue for redress of grievances reserved for times of greatest national crises.

Not everything they teach in law school is valid. Nor is every pleasing meme batted around by avid shapers and followers of current events even approximately viable, its self-satisfying role aside.

Sometimes straightforward responsibility is the best bet, from all viewpoints. Clinton’s impeachment served many purposes, and it’s clear that one of them was to destroy the validity and utility of impeachment as a legal process. But ANY logician willknow that degrading and abusing the recourse of impeachment in the case of Clinton does not in any way degrade or call into question the PROCESS or principle of impeachment in general.

Impeachment requires legislators to stand up and alter their roles, and it is presumed they will do so in good faith, for the good of the country, in order to fulfill that process. Those who fail to and refuse to meet that obligation (Reps re Clinton & Dems re Bush) SERVE NO American with ANY VALID precedent.

To resort to excuses and flinch rather than face such basic principles is the easy way out. And it’s a basic failure of any legal or political mind to hold the PRACTICE of the legal process to the legal process that every American knows is the only thing that’ll hold our glorious leaders accountable.

And accountability before the law is the thing, isn’t it? Even with impeachment, that’s the thing.

Of course, he is still very much in the running for being the most incompetent President in our history. He is closing fast on Pierce.

Interesting that Dubya is himself a descendent of Pierce, through Mummy. I guess acorns don’t fall far from the oak.

BC.

“impeachment is first and foremost a political act”

WRONG.

republicans may have given the perception of impeachment being politcal both in impeaching Clinton and NOT impeaching bush, but that does not make it an iherently political activity. It is in the constitution. It is part of Congress’ duty to protect the people against a criminal executive. To not inquire into impeachable offenses when there is clear evidence of the likelihood of impeachable offenses is for Congress to not uphold a Constritutional duty.

That said, it would seem that any true investigations by Congress will make avoiding impeachment proceedings impossible due to the extensive criminal activities of the bush regime.
.

I’m very sorry, but impeachment is first and foremost a political act. It is an extrajudicial and quasi-judicial proceeding, but the act itself is political. See Olshansky and Lindorff, The Case for Impeachment. Olshansky and Lindorff look into the history of impeachment: it’s an idea the framers borrowed from England.

The American electorate appears to understand this somewhat instinctively, even if they (like you) want to deny the reality. The short version: impeachments based in politics fail (Johnson, Clinton), impeachments based on political wrong-doing succeed (Nixon). Let’s succeed with this one.

BC

karnak12 @ 87

Wigwam @
5

Impeachment at this stage would be bad politics in general. Impeachment is indictment by the House, after there is a trial in the Senate that requires a two-thirds majority for conviction. After that fails, which it inevitably does, everybody moves on to other news.

An investigation however is like the death of a thousand cuts. A new detail revealed each day. Constantly in the news. Sam Ervin understood. Nixon cut and ran without being impeached.

Well said. Long, slow, relentless, never-ending, – once this juggernaut starts moving, it will roll on of it’s own volition with very little help needed from the sidelines.

It would make for high drama though…

Speaking as someone who “wallowed in Watergate,” it was the finest TV I’ve ever watched.

I want to emphasize that there is no way in hell to get the 2/3 majority in the Senate needed to oust a president. So, why impeach, which would throw things into the Senate and thereby bring them to a close? I know of only one reason: someone under impeachment cannot be pardoned. At that point, Bush and Cheney couldn’t do the Nixon-Ford shuffle.

PS Christy:

It’s good ta see one of rw’s nice, concise illuminations used to generate intelligent discussion.

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, THEY WON’T GO WITHOUT A FIGHT!!

Citizen Hardin Smith and the Firepup Patriots:

Thnax for the wonderful post on “the question”…I think that we should begin to think forward enough to anticipate the moments and actions which may well trigger the impeachment mechanism. In my opinion, the Bushchaney government will oppose ANY subpoenas of executive officials or executive documents from the get-go. That’s the last stand with a packed supreme court at their backs. It will happen early, at the beginnin’ of the session before the end of January. The fascist strategy behind the Constitutional crisis-firestorm which this action ignites is for the issue to be settled in favor of the executive by the nazified court. If the court quashes the subpoenas then the only action left to the Congress is impeachment and the documentation and testimony necessary to prove the impeachable actions will be sealed or protected by the court.

This scenario, or something very similar, is what Chaney has wanted to create since gaining the majority on the court with Alito. Chaney has felt ever since Nixon that if the court had upheld Nixon’s right to the tapes we wouldn’t have all these nasty inefficiencies of democratic government and we’d all be makin’ pilgrimages ta La Habra, CA every year to celebrate the first American emperor.

I think we’re gunna find out that the endgame here has been planned for some time and after we get rid of this executive we’re gunnas hafta go after cleanin’ the Nazis outta the court.

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION…WE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH HANDS FOR POPCORN!!

Clusterfuck is out “reassuring” allies that he ain’t gonna crab walk out of Iraq…probably important cause if they think he might- they’re out in a New York minute…

Doesn’t- of course- mean that he ain’t gonna crab walk out of there-

Those of us who have come to know him recognize that what comes out of his mouth has nothin at all to do with his actions.