(Photo of a well pump via DanaWall.)
I have been really slammed at work trying to prep a trial and so have been mostly confining my FDL time to reading the front pages and trying to catch up on the comments late at night. Consequently I have not been able to be an active participant in the threads lately.
But I have seen many, many comments expression frustration about why impeachment is not front and center in the discussions on Capital Hill. Many of you believe that more than enough evidence exists to convict Cheney and maybe Bush as well. Let me give you a couple things to think about and I suspect that Christy may back me up here.
When you are going to bring a case to trial you have two standards to think about:
The first is, do I have a prima facia case? That is, do I have at least one piece of admissable evidence to support each and every element on which I bear the burden of proof?
The second is: Do I have a case that can win before the jury I expect to be before?
Here in NY, Bronx juries are legendary for giving out huge verdict awards in personal injury cases where the defendant is a big corporation or anyone who appears to be any kind of fat cat. So, if you are defense attorney in a personal injury case in the Bronx, you know that you really have to go very far above and beyond what the law requires if you want the jury to find in favor of you client.
Now let's think about the jury that we KNOW will be hearing any impeachment case that might come in the next 2 years. Unlike your average jury trial situation where you may have some ideas about the generic makeup of your jury pool, but no idea until after jury selection about your actual individual jurors; in the case of impeachment, we already know exactly which individuals will be sitting on the jury PLUS we already know (or can find out with minimal research skills) a great deal about what they believe and think and what motivates them. In short, it is not hard to figure out where their "buttons" are.
So, if you want to start a virtual think tank effort to put together an indictment in the form of Articles of Impeachment that can persuade THIS JURY, what would you put in it? What admissable evidence is there? How much of that admissable evidence and how persuasive is it? In what order and through what testimony or exhibits would you introduce it?
This is known as setting your "order of proof." In my firm is done as a written plan.
Next, you want to prime the pump. Unlike a regular jury where it is unethical and illegal to try to influence a juror, in this instance it is entirely proper to do so in a transparent way.
If you live in a state with a republican senator, it is entirely lawful and proper for you and as many of your fellow constituents as you can muster, to write to, telephone, email, telegram or in person lobby your elected representative to the US Senate and to express you opinion that that you believe the following acts (whichever ones you choose) violate the following laws (the virtual think tank can be a big help here). Aso, that you believe that this constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors and that you believe it is the duty of that Senator to reflect the wishes of the people that Senator has been elected to represent should that Senator be called upon to vote on the issue.
Believe you me, if they are flooded with constituent demands (this is not a one day effort, think in terms of weeks or months) you will see them at least soften up, and maybe outright start talking impeachment friendly talk. Among other things you will have given them a ton of political cover enabling them to vote the way you want.
Seeing that, our Representatives in the House will know that the time has come to start building that prosecutable case from the fruits of the now open ended investigations.
Further, we know that DC watches what we do, so the virtual think tank can provide a road map to building that case and selecting the strongest and most effective charges. You want Congress (both houses) to impeach and convict, you gotta give them some help and guidance, and some political cover.
This is what you call participatory democracy. Roll your sleeves up and start priming that pump.
Related posts:
- Priming the Pump: While Wars for Oil Gobble More Oil, Military Forced to Eye Alternative Fuels
- Isikoff Pops the Question: Newsweek Reporter asks Holder About Torture
- Yoo’s Nightmare: A Trial Showing Torture was Unnecessary
- Mikva Spins Fitzgerald’s Spinning Lincoln Right Back
- Senator Bond, Whatever Happened to “Show Me”?
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Zed again!
Well, this gives us with Brownback and Roberts a specific task. Thanks for the long view, also, that it will take months, without a sympathetic response. I’ll take the analogy of water and wind, but remember the Grand Canyon as a result.
LHP!!!! I have been wondering what you’ve been up to lately!
Great post. As I watch Conyers and Leahy doggedly work to expose the malfeasance of the Bush admin, it has occurred to me that they are following a strategy right out of the Fitz playbook. They are following evidence very carefully and thoroughly. And when they do find something (and they will), then there will be good evidence for impeachment.
It will take time, but the results will be worth it. It is also worth remembering that the real prize will be the 2008 elections. And as the Republicans begin to really “get” this (and I am sure many like Specter already have) they will begin to turn on this admin in an attempt to save their own seats.
This is what you call participatory demoracy.
Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has a description of Iraq that should promptly be adopted by the Democratic Party and its presidential candidates. In brief, with some elaboration, we didn’t “lose” the war. We won it. Hands down. That was in early 2003.
The Iraqi occupation has been a miserable failure because its premises were false. We started the war on cooked intelligence, there were no WMD’s, there was no al Qaeda connection and no imminent threat to US security.
Iraqis didn’t and could not have welcomed us long term as liberators because we weren’t. We didn’t topple a govt, maintain security, arrange int’l peacekeeping pending establishment of an interim govt, and leave. We stayed. We occupied. We wanted the oil and permanent military bases. We did not want Iraqis able to choose the govt they wanted. We wanted a compliant regime that would serve our own interests.
We didn’t establish security or give Iraqis reliable food, water or power. We can’t even give them their own oil. We didn’t arrange int’l peacekeeping. It was a patently US operation, w/ Brits in the South, away from the main action in Baghdad. We botched govt transition efforts. No surprise, since we schizophrenically threw out years of detailed planning about how to do them and expected success to just happen. When you do that, it’s only the shit that happens.
All of our efforts since 2003 have been to deny the foregoing. To deny the arrogance, miscalculations, and lies. Everything lost since then has been to stay in that state of denial, like a drunk who can’t put the keys in the ignition, but insists he can drive home. Josh’s analogy is that Shrub keeps walking into a paper bag of denial, when he could easily walk out again. Not easily fix the many problems or regain the lives lost, but end the denial.
We need to reframe the debate. It’s not about winning or losing a war. It’s not fighting “them” over there so they don’t come over here. Richard Clarke calls that a surreal “puppy dog” version of terrorism, describing an international conspiracy as if it could attack an enemy only where its enemy chooses.
Like trying to stop drinking, we can’t begin to deal with Iraq until we admit our false premises and ask for help. This President is famous for never doing that, lest his mandhood and the magnitude of his failings come to light. Democrats are not so handicapped, and should stop acting as if they are.
Democrats need to start acting responsibly and reframe the problem because the President can’t, and start proposing solutions. That includes making clear to Americans whom Mr. Bush has kept in a state of denial along with him, that they won’t come easy, won’t come cheap, and won’t necessarily work. I think everybody might breath a collective sigh of relief, and begin to see light at the end of a tunnel, rather than the dark end of a paper bag.
NZ Expat, now in KS @
2
Don’t be surprised if you could get Brownback. He’s an asshole, but he’s his own asshole.
Roberts, on the other hand, is just out on loan from BushCo’s stable of assholes.
Lawyer’s nitpick: it’s “prima facie,” not “prima facia.”
Woodhall Hollow @ 3
Yep, Conyers, Leahy< waxman they all get it. First you have to uncover the facts, then you have to see which laws fit your facts, then you evalutate the strength of your case to pursuade your jury</p>
Drip, drip, drip baby!
They have only scratched the surface so far wrt investigating this pack of backscuttlers.
The more the merrier when they hit paydirt.
A cat in every tree!
Arminius @ 7
Wow two typos in only 7 comments. I really wish I could type
Excellent post, LHP, long time no see…, please refresh my memory; isn’t it a simple majority in the House to draw up and pass articles of impeachment, but a super-majority in (60 1) the Senate to convict?
“Next, you want to prime the pump. Unlike a regular jury where it is unethical and illegal to try to influence a juror, in this instance it is entirely proper to do so in a transparent way.”
Yes. And when one takes this step make sure the facts are cautious, very relevant and iron clad. And non-emotional. I try do this. Sometimes I fail and disappoint myself.
Compliments on this post. ;0)
Yeay! Homework!!!
Kathryn in MA @ 13
Real Homework!!!!
earlofhuntingdon–
This is what grinds me. All Bush has to do is declare victory and begin an orderly withdrawal.
Simple, huh? Nope. Either too greedy for the oil (I’ve noticed a GOP talking point this week is once again whining about the oil “profit-sharing” law still not being passed) or too stubborn (stupid) to buy a clue.
Or both.
Does this mean I have to stop hitting refresh?
FireDogCrack is a killer.
sighhh – i have nothing to add cuz this is legal chat – as usual i’ll lurk and learn something…….
I think that it will require ONE Republican Senator to be placed in legal jeopardy by something out of the Atty Scandal or other item from the Rovian Blackberry Treasure Trove.
Once that happens they will no longer have even the dream of blocking investigations. The tipping point will be reached, and in order to avoid looking as if they are themselves complicit in a cover up there will be a general acquiescence to the events unfolding.
BTW Can other Senators challenge those that may be under a cloud regarding their direct involvement in the charges? Jurors usually can be challenged on such grounds, and Senators have to step away from conflict of interest situations.
If a Senator is sitting in judgement of a President that they, themselves, have been linked in a scandal, that would seem mandatory grounds for a recusal.
Urban Pirate @ 16
I know. I’ve now got twenty minutes to write a weeks worth of invoices. And what am I doing? Reading and typing FDL. Gah!
I don’t think I gotta do too much locally. D Rep plus Teddy and Kerry in MA.
I am pushing against the ‘impossible’ meme from regular citizens elsewhere on the web. It is only impossible if you make it impossible. Easier now that events are proving anything is possible; don’t assume facts not in evidence.
1st chance i’ve had to sit back and catch up on the lake today….ahhhhh
Lying to the people’s branch as regards Iraq, and all attendant acts of deception, breaches of national security and illegal treatment of prisoners should provide all they need. The other civil liberties stuff is probably (sadly) too “political” to gain traction in impeachment.
I believe focusing on these crimes would best serve the long-shot rehabilitation of the country’s image abroad.
Ha! Slacker.
Lol.
I just finished my paperwork and am getting ready to go have a cocktail while the rest of you good Firepups keep saving our Democracy.
lhp – sorry, another typo :-(
Capitol Hill, rather than Capital Hill
marksb @ 15
That would mean accepting the title of Worst. President. Ever.
Once it was realized that they lied re: WMD their plan of escalating and burning down Lebanon and Syria have been impossible to sell, and their PNAC plan has been stalled.
Now it’s all about salvaging the brand.
LHP -
Correct me if I’m wrong, but do you really think we will be able to win this in the Senate without some major issue that makes the Republicants fear their own reelection if they don’t vote for impeachment, i.e., some smoking gun (please forgive, considering the “mushroom cloud”, but I’m not willing to surrender our language to these thugs) that forces their hand? I don’t see anything currently that gives me hope for a conviction.
Oh, and as for Cheney, unless a fireball comes up behind Kuchinich and lights a flame to those Articles, I think he’s wasted an opportunity. I do not want that stuff deciding his fate.
I prefer his non-reporting of classification activity of OVP for years – a violation of statute. Not sure, but Gonzo plays some role…according to what I read.
But – with Libby already done in by ‘classified’ case…his boss playing fast and loose and HIS ‘boss’ delegating the magic wand about the time we launched shock/awe…it would be a nice tidy case.
ymmv.
cinnamonape @ 18
Good question!!! I believe it would require some sort of action done, to nullify their vote, i.e. Grand Jury indictment, etc…. Not sure only a Paralegal!!!
What do you do if you live in Connecticut? Does Chris Dodd figure?
CTuttle @ 11
I believe you are correct. I know you are correct about the super majority in the Seante.
So, back to the priming the pump idea we need to stiffen the spines of the Dems and start converting the Reps.
I can tell you that among former DOJ/USA people I have been speaking to, the outrage from Reps far outstrips the Dems. I think that is because the Dems never had any illusions about what sort of folks were in the WH and what they were doing.
For Reps, seeing the lipstick wiped off the pigs and realizing you have been french kissing the porcine, is just a moment of horror.
This could be a good climate for appealing to whatever shreds of idealism your Rep senators may have left inside themselves (or want to believe they have left inside themselves)
looseheadprop @
10
LHP, spotting your typos is a sincere form of flattery. Your analysis is generally spot-on, and likely to be read and forwarded and linked to . . . and we want you to look your best!
It’s also proof that what you say is being read very, very attentively.
*g*
You keep up the analysis and commentary, and leave the proofreading to the crowd of paralegals you’ve got hanging around here.
CTuttle @ 11
It takes 2/3 to convict in the Senate, that’s why I don’t think we have a snowball’s chance in hell (at this point).
So sorry! That is LIVE in CT and DODD FIGURE?
New multifocal contact lenses, not so much.
[Mod: fixed]
I refuse to buy Mr. Tenet’s book. I do not believe Mr. Tenet to be a person of principle. Else why didn’t he resign and make his suspicions public way back when? When it counted.
SAN FRANCISCO – The CIA warned the Bush White House seven months before the 2003 Iraq invasion that the U.S. could face a thicket of bad consequences, starting with “anarchy and the territorial breakup” of the country, former CIA Director George Tenet writes in a new book.
What a great post! Excellent. Here there are two juries…there’s the Congressionals that hear the case and there’s the US public. Sizeable portions of both of these bodies have, until recently at least, been whacked out on KoolAid, Rove/Ailes poison in the ear.
Those that are snapping out of it are often pissed. The “pissed-offedness of the betrayed.” Trust and faith have been shattered for these people. Still, though, I don’t know if the public is -yet- keyed into the scandals. I think it may be background noise that rumbled loudly in 2006 elections but I don’t know whether people are paying attention to the USAgate scandals…or the Abramoff scandals.
To me, the Congressionals are methodically priming the pump. Building a case that may eventually result in the Abramoff scandal and the USAgate scandal converging like two rivers. At the same time, the public is being exposed to the drip, drip, drip of the abu Gonzo debacle AND the missing e-mails/stonewalling. But the Congress is new and I feel like the public and this Congress are just getting to know each other…sniff each out.
We’re at the beginning of what Leahy, Waxman and Conyers will be revealing. I can feel it. I think they want to build the prima facie case, however, so that it is very clear in the public’s mind. Particularly with 2008 looming large.
MayDaze @ 26
Give it a week, I think we’ve sighted that ‘Mushroom Cloud’! The DoJ implosion!!!!!
juslin @ 17
Yes you do have something to add. Participatory democracy requires EVERYONE to participate.
So, what facts do you think are most important in evaluating whether or not a crime has been committed?
What scandal[s] (there are so many to chose from!) do you think are most likely to resonate with our jury of senators?
OT, sorry. I’m just curious about OKLAHOMAKIDDO’S reaction to last night’s debate.
OKK, every time Hillary’s name is mentioned , I think of you!
looseheadprop @ 30
The GOP folks I know feel much the same. The kicker to this whole deal is that most of them would slit their throats before handing the presidency to Nancy Pelosi. If things move down this road, the best (and perhaps only) way to strengthen the spines of the GOP senators would be to impeach Cheney first, allow Bush to nominate and the Congress confirm a new VP, then impeach Bush.
Of course, if we get to some additional proof of absolutely staggering malfeasance, then all bets are off.
CTuttle @ 36
Sorry, and I sincerely hope you are correct, but it’s going to take a lot more and a lot longer…
cinnamonape @ 18
You know, that’s a really good point. I think we would have to start with researching the Senate ethics rules.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 34
Ah, but this one is true. It’s in the October 2002 NIE, the one Bush and Cheney claim gave them all their WMD claims.
I just think Tenet’s book won’t have a lot of new news.
MayDaze @
26
That’s kind of what I think. These Republicans have proven themselves to be the most corrupt kind of power grabbers. They have no incentive at all to convict Bush, and every incentive not to. They’ve sat on every investigation that’s come up and rolled over on every piece of bullshit legislation that Bush throws at them, even if it means diminishing their power.
The upside is, they’re not going to last through the next election if they keep it up with this war.
Thanks for the head food, LHP. I don’t suppose you’re suggesting that we don’t lobby our Democratic Senators as well. Everyone can stand some softening, or stiffening, as it were.
And the typos? Terrific analysis that helps clarify for the rest of us gives you a lifetime pass on spelling errors.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 34
Shit, I’m a dope and that’s what I was worried about. Everyone who had concerns had those exact concerns.
Not GWB though. He was like a dot-com CEO. All dreamy eyed, with no business plan.
The super majority is a difficult hurdle. But win or lose, having impeachment hearings can’t hurt is the view here. It’s felt the court of public opinion is the most important variable.
looseheadprop @ 41
There’s no such thing as a mandatory recusal from ANYTHING for a senator. If they are sufficiently under the cloud of scandal, they might voluntarily sit back and say nothing, but the only way to force them away from voting would be to expel them from the Senate.
Georgesimian @ 43
Thanks. I think you’re right about the war, but they may “bear with” Bush for a few more months, the electorate has a short-term memory…
Are we not forcing the process to some exent, by calling for answers by way of Congressional investigations? Or are we pushing when we should begin pulling? Both?
Just a hypothetical of sorts. I understand your points LHP, but hadn’t thought that way before. Was perhaps taking the more passive Nixonian approach, whereas pressure from behind forces the outcome.
OT: Waxman wants Tillman files. All of them.
The Repugs are fed up with Bush too, but like you guys said, they don’t want Pelosi. They definitely don’t want Clinton. They’ve been force fed six years of anti-democratic bullshit about how the world is going to end if a Democrat gets elected and how awful everything was when Clinton was President. It’s going to take some time to deprogram them.
Peterr @ 39
Yeah, but in that case, we all agree that John Warner should be VP to Pres, Kaine names a new Dem Senator, and then Warner retires. Even the GOP is not going to want an incumbent President. So we get one who will be acceptable to both sides (and I think Warner would), and then start fresh in 08 with Presidnet Gore.
I’d like to add another pump-primer: let’s press TradMed to poll on impeachment, of both and each separately.
Just because my Congresswoman sez her Speaker’s table is set without it is no reason not to find out what folks think of impeaching one, the other or both evil-doers at the same time.
Petro @ 22
So, you think the most persuasive case comes from pointing out that all the hogwash churned out by the Office of Legal Counsel was crappy lawyering?
How do we avoid the “It’s all John Yoo’s fault” defense?
I’m not attacking you. This is how you hash out the analysis.
Who’s got an answer to that defense?
If I am non lawyer President and I want to know what I can and cannot do and I go to the legal advice arm and ask them “what am I allowed to do with respect to X?” and then I follow the advice they give me,
Do I have a “due diligence” defense?
looseheadprop @
30
Remembering both Nixon and Clinton it is simple majority in House but I believe it is 2/3 in Senate, i.e., 67 votes.
LoudounLib @ 24
You know the sad part? I ran spell check!
Loo Hoo @ 38
My reaction was somewhat muffled. I will vote for Senator Clinton if the Senator is the nominee of my party. ;0)!
looseheadprop @ 55
;-) And I should have said in my original comment that this is a stellar post!
LHP – Like you I’ve been off in the weeds… I just started a new job and it’s been all I can do just to read the front pages, plus keep up with Josh, Glenn, Marcy, etc.
I’ve been having the impeachment conversation quite a bit with a progressive friend who is opposed to the idea. My two cents is that impeachment will come, under the sheer weight of the scandals that the new oversight regime will uncover.
It just won’t (can’t, really – for a lot of reasons) come from the Democrats. Sooner or later, someone at the RNC is going to wake up to the stinking albatross hanging around their necks and do something that they think will save their sorry asses.
I think it’s going to come, and it’s not going to do them any good.
to all I say – patience. I think it’s coming.
OT- why is Roger Simon cackling on my tv?
He’s a gross little man. See his duplicity re: Edwards and religion? Its a doozy.
Politico is a right-wing rag – Drudge sans fedora.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com…..-just.html
Which scandals?
WMD deceptions
Tillman/Lynch spinning of the war
Katrina
Plame affair
USAtty firings
RNC email server mess
and more . . .
I think right now, the USA firings combined with the apparent skirting of the Presidential Records act to cover up any number of messes is the biggest guns that can be brought to bear. Depending on what spills out of those RNC servers . . . could be the tip of a very large iceberg.
But the calls now are important. Put it on their radar, and keep it there as more unfolds.
looseheadprop @ 55
That’s the hell of spellcheck – doesn’t catch that kind of thing.
Maydaze@40, Ahh, Ye of little Faith…, I think Henry will not fail, and, Comey’s forthcoming testimony shall dispel all reservations!!!!
emptywheel @ 51
I second the motion of the Gentlelady from Michigan. All those in favor? . . .
Urban Pirate @
25
You said it. But you forgot one point: Iran. They’re trying to extend the “brand,” if you will, to another “axis of evil.” Only problem: the Army is broken. Can barely survive the extended and repeated deployments required by Shrubby’s failed policy in Iraq. Even Petraeus, in his counterinsurgency manual (see today’s NYTimes) calls for at least 120,000 soldiers IN BAGHDAD ALONE to quell the civil war. Something on the order of — Gen. Shinseki, anyone? — 300,000 for the nation.
And Shrubya wants to start a NEW war?
Well, I say, fine and good. As long as he and his whole family enlist. Let THEM be terrorist-fodder for a change. They started the war; let ‘em finish it themselves.
Help! I want to participate in priming the pump, but here in Hawaii, I’m at work for another 3 hours, and by the time I get home, this thread will be dead.
Can FDL set this post as a “never die” thread until impeachment is done? How about, in fact, FOUR never-die impeachment threads, accessible on the side-bars, for
* Cheney
* Gonzales
* Rove
* Bush
Each thread to stay alive until that person is impeached and articles of impeachment are approved by the House of Reps!!!
There are about 6 books already published calling for the impeachment of Bush & Cheney, so we’ve got a whole lot to chew on right there. Each “thread” could have sub-threads as Articles of Impeachment are proposed, refined, and re-defined.
This could be done in Wikipedia fashion, with an FDL maven in charge of each impeachment page as editor in chief. The Wikipedia portion would be the top portion of each Article of Impeachment, with a looser bottom portion for discussion and comments.
This could be a really great project!!!
I’d put money on it. But not for another 3 hours. . . . . A-A-a-a-a-r-r-r-r-g-h-h-h!!!
Bob in HI
Looseheadprop,
Thanks for the brain food. Unfortunately, I believve both of my senators here in Texas are on loan so probably not much good will come of contacting them, although I have tried.
Peterr,
I believe you are correct on expulsion being the only way a senator does not vote on this, if I remember reading correctly from the presidency classes low those years ago.
Larry Johnson on KO NOW
TeddySanFran @ 52
Yes. hmmm…start with a question to WaPo chat, perhaps?
looseheadprop @ 55
Both are legal spellings, just depends on usage. That’s why spell check is only good for so much.
MayDaze @ 26
That’s why we have to lobby them. One at a time, patiently, painstakingly raising their consciousness about these scandals.
Did you read EW’s last post right below? They don’t know half aas much (OK maybe anything at all) about this stuff as we do. You have to make it loom as large in their minds as it does in ours.
Really, the people here are so much better informed than just about anybody in DC. We have to educate these folks!
Calicocat7 @ 33
How do those work for you? I would love to get some. Or maybe use one lens that’s for myopia and the other lens for farsightedness.
CTuttle @ 62
Like I said, CT, nothing would make he happier! I just don’t see the Republicants being convinced to vote for impeachment. Maybe something “dreadful enough” will come out, but until it does, I’m not convinced.
emptywheel @ 51
Plausible Marcy, yet, unlikely!(at least the Gore part)
mayan @ 35
I agree. There is one very small thing that can be done to nudge this along: Talk to your friends. Email them. In a very tiny way, one by one, I am having an effect by keeping friends informed. Especially friends who are neither news junkies nor necessarily Dems. Just keep your apolitical friends apprised of all the scandals, and the progress therein. You’d be surprised what a difference it can make.
Bush has gotten a lot of saying that it’s OK if he breaks the law because he’s doing it to protect America. I would guess that these would be the hardest to get through the Repug Senate, no matter what the evidence.
So that would take out torture, Gitmo, wiretapping and most of Iraq. I think that the American people who fell for the Iraq story don’t want to think about the fact that they were duped. It makes you feel stupid, so they want to just forget about the reasons we went in and deal with it (or not). I hate that, but I think that’s how most Repugs tie into this.
So the best bets are probably with these new charges about using Government offices to advance Repugs. But what would the Repugs gain from impeaching Bush on this? He was doing it for them. So no matter how many times you say, this is Watergate X 10, they’re not going to put themselves in jail.
Peterr @ 60
Agreed. But it is the ongoing investigations from Waxman, Leahy/Schumer, and Conyers that are going to be the shovels necessary to dig out all the cr*p.
For myself, as painful as it is, the investigations spotlight is the most critical and ongoing aspect of everything, even if there is no impeachment. And the Republics will continue to be embarrassed by the actions of the reps & sens who have interfered with on-going investigations into corruption. A lot of red seats will be empty in ‘08.
egregious @ 67
Good stuff.
Blank Kludge @ 27
YMMV=?
I don’t know that one.
I like your choice of charges. The OVP not keep declassification records is a hummer for me. It seems pretty straight forward.
I think Big Hank has his sights set on the Plame outing and he might make his case yet, who knows?
1,497 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen looseheadprop and the Firepup Patriots:
Thank you again for your lucid legal analysis…I hope if I ever get jammed up in the legal system that you are on my side. However, I caution that we might be looking at impeachment too closely thru an exclusively legal lens.
Impeachment is an interesting process because it is really quasi-judicial and overtly political. So the real dynamics of bringing a successful case are not anywhere close to those of a criminal or civil case in the courts. First, those bringing the charges may, like the Clinton impeachment, only want to bring the charges – they don’t need a guilty verdict. In this instance all you need is the political numbers in the House of Representatives and several “scandals” or charges that have legs in the corporate press. The process goes something like this: get the charges to the Senate, eat up time and money, poison the administration and the administration’s party and candidates for the next election cycle.
For the serious impeachment case, like the Nixon example, the burden of facts and evidence is still less heavy than in a normal criminal or civil case. In the serious impeachment where the goal is a guilty verdict, the numbers rule and the only number that matters is 67 votes in the Senate.
It is my contention that the Democrats would bring impeachment charges in the House in a hearbeat if they were anywhere close to 67 votes in the Senate. At this time, it is probably better to ignite the investigation fires and keep the focus of the political press on the uncovering of evidence and occupy the administration with building siege defenses. The longer the investigations run, the weaker the President’s party and at some point we end with either resignations of both Cheney and Bush or a 2008 election carried out in the bright afterglow of hundreds of criminal trials and verdicts.
This might sound too cold hearted and of course in the meantime Iraq and the whole Middle East are burning and thousands are dying…but this is what we are faced with in the political choices in front of us. It is my opinion that the Democrats will NOT bring impeachment charges in the House of Representatives until the investigations uncover enough shit that the Republicans up for re-election in the Senate hand over 17 votes…I don’t think that’s gunna happen anytime soon. I think it’s more likely that this is gunna end with the resignation of the executive in the summer of 2008.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, THESE FOLKS AREN’T GOIN’ AWAY UNLESS WE GIVE ‘EM A KICK!!
looseheadprop @
53
IANAL, so you’ve got the last word on this. I am not necessarily focused on the most persuasive, just the most consequential. I’m frankly not interested in impeachment if the act doesn’t have a substantial impact rehabilitating the fascist drift.
As to the “due diligence” defense, these emails, document dumps, etc. seem to be showing that “advice” to this administration in all areas was consciously cherry-picked and the only “experts” allowed were the ones who adhered to foregone conclusions.
If that’s a sufficient legal firewall then I don’t think we have a chance at transparency in government anymore…
Bob Schacht @ 65
Bob, any thread will do for this conversation. See ya later. We aren’t going anywhere.
looseheadprop @ 70
LHP – I get what you’re saying, but I live in one of the reddest states in the Union, and I can’t imagine either of my Senators voting for impeachment unless there is a real groundswell of suport for it – out here. That’s not happening yet.
I’m all for giving Waxman, Leahy and others time to gather their evidence – hell, that’s really my argument – but it ain’t soup yet!
Bob Schacht @ 65
Awesome point! From one Kamaaina to another, I don’t think we have to worry about our delegation!!! Especially, since Mazie took over Steve’s seat, I was severely disappointed by his votes!!!!
Margot @ 71
When I got my first pair of bi-focals almost twenty years ago, I got progressive lens and love ‘em. I think if you started with the line, it is more difficult than if you start bis with the progressive. My $.02
Margot @ 71
Oops disregard previous. Just realized you’re asking about contact lens which I have no clue about. as Emily said “Never Mind.”
Look what this asshole Cheney said today…
Olbermann is asking the right questions. Re: going into Iraq and Tenet and CYA. And making the appropriate comments. Of course this is not news.
lhp
After Imus, I do not use ‘imho’ anymore.
‘Your Mileage May Vary’ is close enough for gov’t woik.
but, ymmv.
Gunga Djinn @ 49
We have the right and opportunity to work both ends. Push and pull.
Moreover, we can raise the profile of these scandals in the eyes of our Senators ( and Congressmen too)
OT ~ Quick question:
Can a MISSION be ACCOMPLISHED and still cost 124 BILLION?
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/…..ished-day/
Oklahoma kiddo @ 87
I’ve said it many times before but it is a distressing window onto the news when, of the three best news programs on the air today, two are on Comedy Central and the other is anchored by a recovering sportscaster, who still dabbles occasionally.
dakine01 @ 84
Good point! I did not like the responses to Kucinich’s impeachment articles during yesterday’s debate, maybe a harbinger????
TeddySanFran @ 52
WooHoo! Yes, Teddy!
I trust we are now getting to those people who quietly resigned as USA’s?
I think there is enough proof for impeachment, although they are still digging and there is much more to come out. Tons more. The problem is that the votes are not there. Period. The repubs have voted as a block the last 6 years, and they aren’t about to go against that and let Dick and George go down, at least not yet. So in the meantime, Sen. Reid is forcing the minority to tie their fortunes to the success or failure of Iraq, knowing full well that it will fail. And when it does, these people will be some of the fall guys. What Reid is banking on is a large majority in the Senate when they get turned out of office. Meanwhile, the investigations continue, the truth comes out, and it isn’t good for the repubs. It looks to me that it comes down to a race against time. Will Bushco run out the clock and leave office, or will things get so bad that enough repubs come on board for impeachment? The Dems, I believe, are looking down the road at the big picture and knowing it will take not only a Dem. President, but also healthy majorities in both houses of Congress to undo, or even begin to undo the damage done by Butcher Bush.
For me, what I want is the truth more than impeachment. I want the cover torn off and all the squiggling worms exposed.
First you build public outrage.
Only then do you move to impeach.
Expose
Expose
Expose
Build a massive public outcry and even the staunchest GOP reps will reconsider their position.
The same will be true for cutting off funds for the war. We are now at the stage where public pressure should be brought to bear so the veto can be over ridden.
It’s how I would do it.
dakine01 @ 91
Make sure you watch Moyers tonight. 9pm in NYC.
egregious @
94
I hope so. I believe I asked about this earlier, wondering how many of the twenty some interim/acting USAs in place due to the odious Patriot Act provision were placed because the USA jumped before being pushed.
eCAHNomics @ 97
It will be on out here in San Antone at 9CDT and will be watching.
Georgesimian @ 86
Is Cheney that stupid or just lying?
Who in their right mind thinks that Al Qaeda is treating Iraq as the central front?
They are treating it like a golden goose, as it’s been their best investment ever.
MayDaze @
26
Seems to me that if they give a rip about re-election they would jump ship.
lhp@93, I agree, Go, Teddy, Go!!!
Heads up…Tonight’s Bill Moyers:
Jon Stewart http://www.pbs.org/moyers/jour…..ofile.html
and
Josh Marshall http://www.pbs.org/moyers/jour…..file2.html
noen @ 96
Exactly.
Urban Pirate @ 100
Cheney and Bush should be getting medals. From Al Qaeda. As the architects of the greatest Al Qaeda recruiting campaign ever.
Bob Schacht @ 65
ACtually, I had a similar idea. Sort of like the “virtual think tank” idea I have kicked around before.
If we think there is enough interst, I could asks the goddesses if we could find a regular, usually low volume, slot and do a weekly investigation meeting. Leave the thread open all week and let folks add i hwat they have found.
For each new week, I would summarize what we have found, what ideas we have about the charges that relate to it and so forth.
After a while, we have a big wicki kinda thead and put together our “order of proof”
The weekly work, gives you all data to use when priming the pump
“Hello, Sena tor X, did you know that these week abc event occured that may be a violation of this staute over here and this is why I think the facts bear that out”
Imagine being able to make a weekly phone call with frsh input, then multiply that by how many folks we reach and you will see some movement.
Not only that, but we know that MSM read us and some of the more clued in folks on the Hill.
This way the drip drip drip gets amplified until it sounds deafening
dakine07,
Thanks, I do the Emily Latella thing too. ;)
Urban Pirate @ 100
Cheney is telling the truth, just not all of it. He is right that Iraq has now become the central point of conflict between the west and Al Qaeda.
But Cheney never tells the whole truth, only enough to convince his opponents to go along with him so that he can achieve his real objectives. Which are never stated and always hidden.
lhp@106, that would be awesome!!!
dakine01 @ 98
That has been gnawing here too. Thanks for jumping in so I can agree. I have paranioa about seeming paranoid.
:->
ps–>> those mysterious coincidental deaths (TX-MO) within months around the healthcare suit are worth a look too. Cummins III moonlighted a bit in MO, supposedly wrt corruption recusals, but…
ymmv
Daily kos has a wiki.
I am sure there are people who could build one for FDL
Margot @
107
Methinks we show our age. ;})
I LOVE your post looseheadprop
you had me thinking you were going to defend the strategy of not impeaching because the jury is rigged and I had composed in my head and was about to post;
“it doesn’t matter if we expect republicans to find against removal from office, the trial will bring criminals to the bar of justice, the proof will be presented and the public will know with no doubt that this president has committed crimes against America and he will become a pox in the marble stone of recored history
one of the GREAT travesties about the Nixon resignation was the fact that the public never got a chance to bare witness to the depravity of men corrupted by power
had this nation seen how the awesome power of the presidency was able to corrupt our elected politicians they would have been far more weary, they would have been far more vigil and it would have been far more difficult for future administrations to be able to abuse the office of our land
I don’t want this president to resign, I want him impeached and I want the evidence presented and preserved for the public, for the republic, for our constitution, and for our children and posterity”
then you got to your point, we need to prime the pump because in the end, impeachment alone is not enough, though it is plenty worth the effort we will want more
conviction and removal is what we really need
but the more inprotant point, the trial is what we need…I don’t care if the jury is rigged
remember the scopes trial?
the jury was rigged but the trial served the purpose
Senator Clinton. I want out of Iraq. I want no more unprovoked attacks by my country. I want a total revamping of Middle East policy.
CTuttle @ 109
Hugh’s huge list could be a sorta ‘preamble’ maybe. I’d like it ‘up’ in plain sight. Folks could use it to start making calls NOW, I’d venture. Pick one and run…
dakine01 @ 112
youtube 707
Lou Costello @ 116
Thanks! LOL! I needed that.
Lou Costello @ 116
I’ve wondered Lou, where’s Bud? Rather, I should say, “Who’s on first?”
(It ain’t age, it’s a historical repository.)
:->
“Stragic Interests”: Your oil is my oil. And I’ll kill to get it.
dakine01 @ 117
You started it. I just luvs my Google Toolbar.
Petro @ 80
Then maybe that’s the next place to look, inside the Office of Legal Counsel. Normally, I would say that this would implicate all kinds of executive Privlege and Attorney Client privledge issues, but there have been substantial leaks out of there.
I have to go find it, but in an earlier thread today, somebody linked to an old Newsweek article describing inner working there.
LHP@37
i think for 1 – when bushco had facts fixed to go into iraq taking the focus off afghanistan – then saying OBL wasn’t on his list -that should be something – then shredding parts of the bill of rights – not following geneva convention guidelines paving the way for torture in guantanamo bay – secret renditions – lying boldly to americans – poor treatment of soldiers in harms way – i know i’m leaving a whole lot unsaid but its just so numerous….
LHP@106 – Yep. Wonderful idea. I would also be happy to help in/on the work end of it as well. I will note, however, that one of the things that I think made the mainstream coverage and opinion of the FDL Libby project so positive was the fact that, irrespective of the left leanings of the commenters (including me), the FDL reporting was fairly straight up. In that regard, coming up with a neutral sounding moniker for the effort would be helpful. “Governmental Truth and Justice Project” or something a little short of “Impeach the Pricks NOW” which is what we all feel.
Bush’s political capital is shown to be counterfeit. Newsday readers won’t even take BusChen scrip as coin of the realm anymore.
Americans hate the toxic cynicism spoon fed by Dame Perino-dogchow to the obedient press corpse. Who won’t feel the pain of the housing recession that puts the lie to the so-called unemployment numbers. (Hmmm…can’t get a job?! Why you’re not unemployed — you’re not even a statistic!)
The lack of MSM distractions is proving inconvenient as the Administration disgorges its slimey bile of spent crony juice. Where’s Peiter?! cries Baron Rove. [It is by will alone I set my mind in motion…]
The tide has changed. Our fight is overwhelming them; Do you think these headlines are crazy…
“Justice Department takes Fifth!”
“Bush’s Buddies Blindsided by Blocked Blogs.” (h/t Mutant Poodle last thread)
Deploy the Fremen! The Spice is ours!
While the sun shines… and from every corner of the country… WE WANT FITZ! WE WANT FITZ!!
Who could resist that? And boy what a case he’d make!
We can make the sale to the American people. Escrow closes in 45 days.
Obviously that should be ’strategic’. I give up. I just cannot chew gum and tipe at the same time. Sea what I meen?
Blank Kludge @ 118
“Hey AaaaaaaaaBaaaaaaaat!” youtube
Interesting post. I never would have considered contacting Coleman (R-MN) for anything other than asking him to resign, but he is concerned about his job right now. It might be a good time to ask him, as a former prosecutor, how he would have handled blatant corruption by a state executive branch official.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 125
Try typing around a 13 lb feline deciding to share the chair with you and the laptop, licking both you and himself. :})
dakine01 @ 128
I absolutely love cats!
John Boehner is WPITW for saying we want to walk out on Iraq just like we did in Somalia. Which he voted to get us out of. Nothing like trying to revise a little history with selective memory. But o yeah, IOKWYAR
bmaz @ 123
Remember, if we haven’t learned anything from the Rethugs, it would be how we Frame it! or label it….
Comments on a given thread usually stay open for 24 hours, I think. I also believe that leaving a thread open all week would present problems for the mods, as they would have to keep an eye on multiple threads for trolls and such — and a thread like you envision would be prime troll bait.
OTOH, I love the idea of a weekly thread at a regular time. Folks could pass ideas along (or stock them up) during the week, to be pulled together in that post. Obviously, it’s up to the powers that be, but my humble suggestion for an ideal slot would be a Saturday afternoon or evening, to chew on what’s happened during the prior week and prepare the way for some Monday morning faxes, phone calls, and personal visits. Hit them first thing at the start of the workweek, and let them think about everything else that happens from that point forward through those lenses.
Dropping by one of the “home office” locations of senators and representatives can be a very, very productive thing. To a staffer in a political office, nothing says “I care about this” like face to face contact.
mickster @ 127
Coleman has been drinking the Kool-aid lately. He has been especially aggressive in his speeches. I think the borg implants are starting to chafe.
I believe Colman is beyond help any more. But his heart was never in it and beside, I think he is a made man. Talking will never reach him.
dakine01 @ 128
Been there, Done that!!! However, Meow-Meow doesn’t weigh 13 lbs., Yet!!!
Oklahoma kiddo @ 129 says:
So do I! I adopted Dan’l four years ago when I was in Albany, NY. My previous companion had died a year before at eighteen. She’d been with me 13 1/2 years after my sister had raised her for the first 4 1/2 years. Both of mine have been anti-social for other cats and the last one didn’t like much of anyone but me. Dan’l at leasst likes to visit other humans.
Here is the Newsweek article about infighting within the Counsel’s office
Peterr @ 60
I take your point but if you want scandals try my list:
http://www.netrootsmass.net/Hugh/Bush_list.html
The point of mentioning is not to blogwhore but simply to point out that this truly is the worst President in our history and if he isn’t impeached then there really is no point to having impeachment as an option in the Constitution.
This is what always amazes me about those who think that impeachment is some kind of taboo. If not now, when? And if not Bush, then whom?
CTuttle @ 134
I adopted Dan’l when he was about “two-ish” as the shelter put it so he had adult weight. Made a purposeful decision to get adult as they are harder to place sometimes.
We don’t have the numbers to impeach unless we get some Republicans on board. So either we target Republicans running for reelection by ussing their probush votes to tie them to Bush’s sinking poll numbers. Or we should go after the money a graduated war tax on oil company profits that would go up as oil company profits go up would be extremely profitable and popular. If the oil companies start playing games with the price of gas then we up the ante. We target executive compensation stocks awards, private jets, salary everything gets taxed at a special rate for all executives! Presure the money because it is what Republicans care about the most.
Bill Moyers on now, PBS – NY13
MayDaze @ 82
You know, I agree it isn’t soup yet. That’s why we have to do the prep work (priming the pump) so that when the soup is ready it will be served to the most receptive audience we can manage for it.
Coleman is at the heart of the Palouse scandal in Minnesota. Cheney called rising star Gov. Pawlenty to tell him not to run against Wellstone for the Senate because the Admin was backing Coleman. Lately, he has been angling for a job with the UN. He is a shill, but not stupid. I think he sees the writing on the wall. His next Minnesota run will be tough.
Settling in to watch Moyers :-)
Just taking a quick peek at Friday’s docudump c/o the Committee on the Judiciary, and set 4 (OAG1238-1281.pdf) pages 9-12 cover some quite amusing talking points, eg:
“In every single case, it is a goal of the Bush Administration to have a U.S. Attorney that is confirmed by the Senate. Use of the AG’s appointment authority is in no way an attempt to circumvent the confirmation process. To the contrary, when a United States Attorney submits his or her resignation, the Administration has an obligation to ensure that someone is able to carry out the important function of leading a U.S. Attorney’s office during the period when there is not a presidentially-nominated, senate-confirmed (PAS) U.S. Attorney. Whenever a U.S. Attorney vacancy arises, we consult with the home-state Senators about candidates for nomination.”
(Pay no attention to Alaska, where Murkowski’s choice was ignored)
“Our record since the AG-appointment authority was amended demonstrates we are committed to working with the Senate to nominate candidates for U.S. Attorney positions. Every single time that a United States Attorney vacancy has arisen, the President has either made a nomination or the Administration is working, in consultation with the home-State Senators, to select candidates for nomination.”
and concludes with
“Because the Administration is committed to having a Senate-confirmed United States Attorney in all distrcits, changing the law to restore the limitations on the Attorney General’s appointment authority is unnecessary.”
IMHO, the thing is to demonstrate (iron clad) that the actions of the potential impeachee(s), are a real, present-danger threat to the future of the Republican Party (as they have known it). In other words, demonstrate that Neocons are NOT Republican. Demonstrate that the Republicans themselves have been deceived and are being destroyed by an entity that has an agenda that flies in the face of their voters (Black = White). That the actions of those that implement the Neocon policies are not in sync with the goals of Republicans, and that they are designed to be detrimental to the ideals of the Republican Party. Their actions are destroying the very platform the Party was built on. Cite the differences between the goals and actions of the Neocons vs. Republican. Cite the criminal actions they have endorsed (Abu Gharaib for example)…etc., then let ‘er rip.
Peterr – how about a sister site. Could have a prominent link on FDL. could be read by anyone, but comments limited to registered contributors. The whole lot of the “usual suspects” here at FDL could be grandfathered in and anyone else wishing to contribute submitting to a troll elimination registration process. A summary of the projects work for each week could then be posted on the Saturday slot, or whenever, on the FDL mainpage with open comments. Just thinking…..
Lou – that baseball bit is just like any givin Admin ‘testimony’.
I’ll look for another exemplar in a sec.
lhp – I bookmarked this ’cause it pisses me off so.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/n…../27fbi.htm
The lede is about 9.11, of course, isn’t everything? BUt includes this phrase, which I detest:
Ya got Goodlingish and FedSoc playing hopscotch.
Eli’s got a new thread upstairs.
looseheadprop @ 141
OK, LHP, I appreciate the response and I’ll give it one more shot -
Have you ever tried to feed soup (to carry the analogy) to a baby that wasn’t hungry – and get the soup spit all over you?
That’s where we are at right now. The Republicant babies aren’t hungry yet. And we can’t make them hungry – only their constituents can.
We need to create a groundswell of support – with more revelations – to make those babies hungry (create a demand for justice in the electorate) before we start spoonfeeding.
Politics is like comedy – timing is everything.
I’m so disgusted by this administration (and frightened) that I just want them gone.
I keep replaying (in my head) a re-write of Lethal Weapon 2 where mel gibson confronts the criminal w/ diplomatic immunity.
My version goes like this:
We will not send you to Gitmo. We will not torture you. We will not even arrest you. Just get out of my government. I want never to see you again. You have destroyed my country. But we will allow you to walk away as long as you NEVER, EVER have anything to do with government or politics again.
This goes to
Bush
Cheney
Rumsfeld
Feith
Wolfowitz
Rove
Rice
Gonzalez
the 150 Regent U grads
Goodling
Sampson
All the foxes guarding the henhouses
Chertoff
Delay
K.harris
Jeb
.
.
.
.
.
That would mean accepting the title of Worst. President. Ever.
Oh, but that’s just the past. This fellow wants to nail down the future as well.
dakine01 @ 98
What makes you think none of them were pushed?
Hugh@137, as perris@113 had pointed out, it was a travesty that Tricky Dick had resigned, same as it was a travesty, when they impeached Clinton over a cum stained dress! This Maladministation’s criminality is lightyears beyond Nixon’s actions, granted, Americans died on Dick’s watch, but he inherited it, Shrubco cherry-picked us into needless slaughter!!!
bmaz @ 123
I thought something even more neutral, like
“weekly fact and law review”
mickster @ 127
Yup
Peterr @ 132
So, I’ll ask the goddesses and we can et started
Porsupah @ 144
I reviewed set 5 of the dump, In which Schumer was grilling McNaulty, and McNaulty tripped up, by saying all USA’s were released for performance-related reasons, then started back-tracking when Chuck asked about Cummins and Griffen as his replacement!!!! It would be great comedy if it wasn’t so deadly serious!!!!
After a perfunctory review of the Nixon/Agnew’s Machiavellian constructs that lead to Agnew’s resignation and plead nolo contendere to a tax charge (hand in the cookie jar) and agreed to a suspended sentence and fine. Then the Agnew buffer was removed. Congress proceeded to the Nixon articles of impeachment, which dealt directly with the Watergate break-in, false statements, engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens . . . and impairing the due and proper administration of justice . . ., willfully disobeyed the subpoenas of and failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and information for the House Judiciary Committee . . . assuming to himself the functions and judgments given to the House of Representatives by the Constitution.
http://www.landmarkcases.org/nixon/nixon.html
http://www.senate.gov/artandhi….._agnew.pdf
Nixon did not like Agnew and Agnew was not a Nixon Team Player. I am wondering about Cheney and Bush’s relationship and who’s on top in the marital bed and whether there are fissures and what lubricants are applied that we’re unaware of. Anyway, Cheney doesn’t strike me as a kneepad kinda guy. However, Cheney would have to walk the plank first, possibly caught up in the Plame affair (snark!),or Energy task force menagerie, or maybe the gagged and bound Sybil Edmonds could be rescued and unbounded and sing some of Cheney’s favorite Hastert seranades about Turkish harems(I crack myself up). However, I really think that Papa Bush shoved down junior’s deep throat, some hefty bones that he can’t quit (resign)and/or be impeached and besmirch the Bush family name because Papa’s most beloved, adored unsullied christ child, Jeb, will run for president in 2012. And undoubtedly Papa has paid zillions in services rendered to the GOP slimey senators, and quickie congressmen. It’s such a sordid affair but we all agree that it’s way past time to change the sheets. Whadya think?
lhp
The corrective of impeachment and many other of our sovereign rights has never existed in an environment where exists the heinous Military Commissions Act,The Defense Authorization Act of 2006,and other acts and provisions which give unchecked power to the President to declare martial law. Your thoughts?
CTuttle @ 157
If I believed in an afterlife, I think I could be assured this bunch of chuckleheads would be in for a very long stand-up engagement in one of the.. hotter venues.
dakine01 @ 76
Agreed. I just don’t think impeachment will happen without wide public support, which would require a SIMPLE, CLEAR and OBVIOUS criminal act that every average person would understand (like authorizing a break-in). We don’t have that. Unless something very earth-shattering emerges from current investigations, I don’t see it happening.
But Bush will run out the clock with continual investigations and resignations. His administration will have a legacy of shame. And he will give us a Democratic majority in 2008.
LHP@154 – See. I like yours even better. My point was simply that, unfortunately, semantics matter; especially when the point is to affect those not necessarily amenable. I think, if done properly, this is a project that could have immense impact. It could, below the radar, be a valuable resource for the MSM journalists. They could even access and participate anonymously. It would be critical to have it be a sober and intellectually honest forum; I wonder if that would affect the creativity and aggressiveness of our lot? All random thoughts for whatever they are worth. I also submit my thought at 146 above in relation to format. Not saying that is the answer, but a single time – especially on a Saturday night – doesn’t sound right. those that are going to be actively involved need to get thoughts and contributions out of their heads and into the mix in an active flowing format. That is one of the features I really appreciate about Marcy’s TNH site. There are a limited number of generally very bright, and articulate, commenters constantly working through things.
CTuttle @ 102
Write, call, and chat up your local and national outlets whenever the opportunity presents itself:
“When’s the last time you guys polled on impeachment?”
“Have you ever polled a Cheney impeachment?”
“Would you consider polling on a double impeachment?”
The more they are asked thse questions by their readers, the more likely they will poll on it eventually.
And — if they say that it’s “off the table” and “there’s little appetite on Capitol Hill for impeachment” (as they have answered and will continue to answer) — you may respond:
I am not asking for a poll of Capitol Hill. I am asking you to poll the people.
Follow the money/oil?
Why did we go to Iraq when there were no weapons of mass destruction, only slingshots? That an oil man, and a Haliburton man made these choices and appointed these poeple?
That might lead to places that noone witll touch (Carlyle group, Saudi Gov, Bin Ladden/Bush connection). I have no idea. I would think the AGonzales scheme will crack wide enough, with secret email accounts, seeming to be an obvious obstruction of ustice scheme.
It is sad that most Americans don’t understand the difference between “impeachment” and removing from office.
Remember Clinton’s impeachment? (Many Americans actually don’t.) Was he impeached? Yes. Was he removed from office? No. So — impeachment means nothing.
Cheney AND Bush need to be impeached and then REMOVED FROM OFFICE. But in addition to all the legal things, that are stated here, it is political, too. Can it stand up in the Senate? (I don’t remember if you need 51% or 3/4, but there are a lot of GOPers to thwart it.)
ThinkProgress has some more on the Tobias resignation.
LoudounLib @
24
Well, actually, for the last *mumble* years it’s been Kapital Hill.
It’s also real handy if yer pump has a spout to direct the water somewhere.
Great to hear from you again LHP. I really enjoy your writing, and the contents too.
emptywheel @ 51
EW — I’ve been lurking frequently since the first days of the Libby trial (actually contributed to the DC housing kitty) and wanted many times to throw in my two cents worth. IANAL, etc. — not even a paralegal — so I just read and learn. But this last suggestion…can you move to Virginia and let Tim nominate you for the Senate? I know he’d probably give it to Mark Warner, but still what a phenomenal scenario. Think we could sell Big Al on it? I’d open up the credit card big time for this one.
LHP says:
Just thinking out loud here, and I am not a lawyer:
It seems one still has to do “due diligence” even for a lawyer’s advice. For example, in an extreme case, if a shoddy lawyer told me it was okay to embezzle from my company, I still have responsibility. In a non-extreme case, like depending on Yoo and others for constitutional advice, it gets more tricky. However, the VERY FACT that Bush went to Yoo to see if he was “allowed to do with respect to X” can show that he knew he may be on shaky legal ground.
Also, surrounding oneself purposely with “yes men” (and women) could show that any legal advice he gets is whatever he wants to hear.
follow the money
My Dad is in his eighties, a life long Republican, retired from his own successful business, social conservative and very honest. He does not have high expectations of honesty from politicians (or lawyers, sorry LHP) as he does himself. So the dishonesty that has been dripping out in the news every day, day after day doesn’t rattle that much. And he finds a way to say something about the pesky Democrats trying to smear the president, repeating the last pundit he has listened to.
But, months ago when the “surge” was being debated on the news shows, we had a discussion. He did not support the surge, but did support the president. It was a change for him to not give the president the benifit of the doubt on his decisions.
I talked about all the Americans that were in Iraq and mentioned that we knew from the news that week that there were at least 100,000 contracters there. His mouth dropped open in shock and said “well, that is about money”.
He has been saying a lot of new things lately (which I am enjoying). But to get those like my Dad to voice outrage at this president, it would take a clean simple narrative through the money trail.
Congressman Murtha did something like this last week when he compared a contractor’s pay in Iraq $80,000 to a US soldier $25,000. I think it was a comparable job. And then he went on to say all the things the soldiers are lacking such as equipment, training, benifits, etc. I realize this is not an impeachment path, but I thought Murtha did a great narrative-speech.
dakine01 @ 91
I’d like to add these two:
Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now!
Bill Moyer’s Bill Moyers Journal
Bill Moyers Journal looks really promising. I especially like the fact that I can catch them on-line if I miss the show on TV. Here are the links:
http://www.democracynow.org/index.pl
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html
looseheadprop @
30
A Grand disservice to pigs everywhere.
Live or cooked in any numbers of ways, The Porcine are godlike and should be respected.
Hell, they had good sense to walk away from that slouch in the gutter:
“‘Twas an evening in October, I’ll confess I wasn’t sober,
I was carting home a load with manly pride,
When my feet began to stutter and I fell into the gutter,
And a pig came up and lay down by my side.
Then I lay there in the gutter and my heart was all a-flutter,
Till a lady, passing by, did chance to say:
“You can tell a man that boozes by the company he chooses,”
Then the pig got up and slowly walked away.”
Course, like Judge Roy Bean, I SOMETIMES favor a quick trial, conviction, and hanging so’s it don’t interfere with drinking, cigar smoking and our poker playing.
looseheadprop @
30
A dishonor to The Porcine Everywhere.
Whether Living, Or Cooked, Pigs Got Class.
“‘Twas an evening in October, I’ll confess I wasn’t sober,
I was carting home a load with manly pride,
When my feet began to stutter and I fell into the gutter,
And a pig came up and lay down by my side.
Then I lay there in the gutter and my heart was all a-flutter,
Till a lady, passing by, did chance to say:
“You can tell a man that boozes by the company he chooses,”
Then the pig got up and slowly walked away.”
I Favor Judge Roy Bean Sometimes:
Quick trial.
Quick conviction.
Quick hanging.
Bring Back The Constitution.
Peterr @ 39
Of course, if we get to some additional proof of absolutely staggering malfeasance, then all bets are off.
INAL but I see us drowning in endless seas of malfeasance on virtually every front of this administration’s sickening destruction of what we believe should be and thought must surely have been as we rage about what we know has been lost.
I used to do civil rights enforcement and dealt with “evidence” in that context, but to deal at the level of building a case as LHP is describing, along with the pump priming, is way beyond me. But I think that the FDL folks and lots of other blog folks have great wisdom to share in building all kinds of cases
and I salute LHP for throwing out the challenge/invitation/encouragement to put in our two cents.
Thanks for an excellent post, LHP!
peace
TeddySanFran @ 52
Thanks TeddySanFran!
Peace
Hugh @ 137
looseheadprop @
106
LHP, thanks for your encouragement, as well as lolo @81, and others @83, 95,96, and 156. I like the idea of the Kos wiki, too.
Strategically, I see the task as having several parts:
(1) Drawing up draft articles of impeachment, for each of our bete noirs, that are solidly grounded in law and for which bullet-proof evidence is available. Technically, we don’t need that level of evidence (Congress could impeach Cheney for sneering at Democrats if they wanted to), but it will help get the job done if we do. But it will help to have precise citations of Laws from the U.S. Code, applicable regulations from the CFR, or Presidential Executive Orders, etc. And then we will need our legal beagles to sharpen up the arguments, identifying weak points so that we can strengthen them.
(2)Laying out the evidence. This means citing relevant documents in the public record. Again, we will need to vet this evidence so it is as ironclad as possible.
(3) Identifying appropriate venues for congressional oversight where public hearings can put the evidence before the American people. The best laws and the best evidence will not be supported by our congresspeople unless they feel they have the public support.
Let’s begin priming the pump.
The People vs. Vice President Richard Cheney
Let us begin with the Articles of Impeachment proposed by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, namely:
Article One: that he manipulated the intelligence process by fabricating the
threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the war in Iraq;
Article Two: that he deceived citizens and Congress about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda to justify the war; and
Article Three: that he has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran, absent any real threat to the United States, and has done so with the United States’ proven capability to carry out such threats.
For details of each of these Articles, and the supporting documents, I refer to Rep. Kucinich’s website
Bob in HI
E-Mailing my Senator would be useless, he’s the Repub. Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, tool of Bush & Big Tobacco. Also, the Democrats are fools if they continue to have Harry Reid as the face of the party on TV News shows! He comes across like some lost old grandpa who’s wandered away from Happy Trails Nursing Home!
Okay, admittedly this is not a legal argument but…as a teenager (quite the number of ‘moons’ ago)I attempted or actually did stop a racist attack. Yes the redneck knocked me unconscious. I think the ‘victim’ got away by the skin of his neck.
Should I have waited until I had more people with me? Should I have lined up allies? Or should I have simply done what my gut (and young idealistic self) told me to do?
Anyway- I have to say I am impressed as hell with Kuchinich’s motives, determination and principles.
His desire to impeach also seems to go hand in hand with his desire not to bomb Iran to smithereens.
It’s going to be very, very hard to get enough authoritarian senators to vote to impeach Bush and Cheney. Video of them shooting their wives probably wouldn’t be enough.
Torture? Cool stuff. Waging unjustified agressive war? Yeehaa!
Here’s the only thing that would do it. The populace has to get so angry at Bush/Cheney that the authoritarian senators would vote for impeachment out of fear for their own safety.
What revelation would cause the population to do that?
Would suddenly learning that they’ve faked on the OBL videos, and that OBL died in Oct 2001, cause the population to get angry enough?
Probably not — we’re unfortunately a pretty content bunch of reality-show watchers. Our middle-of-the-roaders would only get annoyed.
No, you’ve got to show that Bush/Cheney knew about 9/11 in advance.
I think impeachment is a waste of time. It will roil the county, provoke these guys to something heinous.
Why can’t we chip away at the corrupt representatives in the House and then Nancy Pelosi can have a veto-proof voting block? Reasonable republicans who would be terrified of another impeachment, would be more willing to support legislation on a bill by bill basis…
How many do we need for a veto proof majority?
Renzi, Lewis, Doolittle, and others are corrupt to the core and should be prosecuted. Republicans are not going to be as recalcitrant about corruption and they might be about impeachment.
even if he has only a day left in office, impeachment would still be necessary. Dems will win the next election. The tide is with us. But for this country to put down a bedrock moral foundation, these characters must be impeached. Remember Nixon and his crew got to slip out the back door and then, a few years later, they were all marching in the front, led by ronnie raygun. We must establish a minimum level of honesty for the pres and his vice. The will never be a better example of bald faced lies leading to disastrous results.
Kucinich is ahead on this, just like he was on the war. But impeachment is bigger than Kucinich’s run at the Whitehouse. It is the only way we, the citizens, have to establish what we will not tolerate, being lied into war.
Impeach. below are some sites that deal w/ impeachment.
afterdowningstreet
impeachbushcoalition
impeachbush.org
And by the way, I see a lot of comments about how hard it would be to impeach and how the cards are stacked against it and.. well, boohoo. If Washington and company had sat around and said “Gee boys, it would be nice to run our own country, but Ol’ King George has the press and money and all those guns… nah, better leave it for later, let the people suffer more tyranny, then, when they come begging we will act.” Carpe Diem, folks. Now IS the time.
Impeach!
Sitting here in Alaska there is a limit to how much original research I can do on the several high crimes and misdemeanors that King George the Incompetent is guilty of. However, I can suggest fruitful lines of inquiry. So here goes:
For the reasons I stated on my blog, “What we know so far …” the scandal involving the use of the GSA to help Republican candidates may be a fruitful area of inquiry.
Please visit the Schapira blog …
“… and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!”