It’s not even, technically, a statement of criminality…merely a political act, since “high crimes and misdemeanors” isn’t legally defined, and the penalties are limited to that of removal from office and any emoulements (benefits) that may be related to that.

Yes, it IS a crime, a political one at that:

High Misdemeanor is an archaic term in English Law for a number of positive misprisions, neglects and contempts. The most important example being that of maladministration in high office. [emphais added]

[…]

Maladministration is a political term which describes the actions of a government body which can be seen as causing an injustice … and can include:

* Delay
* Incorrect action or failure to take any action
* Failure to follow procedures or the law
* Failure to provide information
* Inadequate record-keeping
* Failure to investigate
* Failure to reply
* Misleading or inaccurate statements
* Inadequate liaison
* Inadequate consultation
* Broken promises

No, really.
…

fahrender @ 105

the times they are a changin’ …..

has anything ever happened that you didn’t see coming ?

Yes – but those things have generally been led by Republicans.

We don’t have the votes to impeach. Therefore, this will be a three day story that will go nowhere, IMO.

Kucinich is the first Congressman to try to put this into action. Others have mentioned it including Chuck Hagel (in regards to Bush). This time it may last only three days but the gesture has been made. We know that several state legislatures have started the ball rolling (Vermont, New Mexico and Wisconsin that I can recall immediately). There are a number of Republican legislators who are nervous, angry or both about the Bush Administration. It is certain that many more revelations as to the corruptness and criminality of the Bush Administration are forthcoming. These revelations are happening weekly and sometimes daily. You might describe it as an avalanche. At some point, perhaps sooner than you think, the tipping point will occur and many who have not as yet done so will start saying the word impeach. What I have just described is not a fantasy. It is not fevered speculation. It is right now, almost, a reality. And I will quote Dylan one more time:

“The times, they are a changin’ ” …….

GabrielOak @ 296
Would the proposal have more ligitamacy if Tester or Webb were touting it?
Someone has to be first. It takes balls.

Are Tester or Webb touting it? Is any Democrat touting it other than Kucinich? If not, is the explanation a lack of balls, or a cold calculation that impeachment at this time would distract and weaken Democrats just when we have an opportunity to govern for the first time in years? I readily admit that the idea of impeachment is legally and constitutionally legitimate, legally and constitutionally justified. But politically? Don’t you think there would be a backlash unless additional groundwork is laid first? Why not reserve action on impeachment, at least for now, while Congressional committees like Judiciary and others aggressively investigate the wrongdoing? Democratic minds, not balls, are controlling this issue.

I’m heartened.

Gnome de Plume @ 134

If Cheney were to be removed from office, I believe that the Senate would have to approve Bush’s new pick, yes?

Following Spiro Agnew’s resignation, President Richard Nixon nominated long-time Michigan congressman Gerald Ford to succeed Agnew as Vice President on October 12, 1973.

The United States Senate voted 92 to 3 to confirm Ford on November 27, and on December 6 the House confirmed him 387 to 35. Ford was sworn in later that day at the United States Capitol.

This was an aberrant situation. Confirmation was one of the most rapid in history!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…..ion_length

Ford’s replacement of Nixon with Rockefeller took 152 days.

But unless the appointment is quite widely accepted by BOTH parties the confirmation could drag out for more than a year. And might require two or three candidates.

If Cheney were to be removed from office, I believe that the Senate would have to approve Bush’s new pick, yes?

And the relatively quick process of confirming Ford was a real exception to the process. In some cases it took so long that no VP ever was appointed. At least twice in US history there were 12 year stretches where a VP was seated for only two of theose years! The average confirmation time in the 20th century is something like 2 years.

realworld @ 21

I do love Dennis. One of the few with COMPLETE integrity.

OT EPU but this post is closer. Waxman is getting quite upset about lax WH security practices is seems.
realworld @
10 BTW: Here is the original link to Waxmans letter

Only Administrative Sanctions for Andy Card and the others? How about Treason charges for knowingly walking around with devices that could be hacked out the air? They do not mention encryption?

OOOOH! But those conversations were only supposed to be about political issues…with the NRC! No talking about covert agents who work on WMD’s, or their cover firms; no discussions about personnel issues of government employees (US Atty’s), etc.

So no secrets were being divulged to reporters or politicians in the Republican Party HQ’s who didn’t have a smidgen of a security clearance.