zunoed?

LHP!

looseheadprop!

Let’s hear it for impeachment inquiry!!!

Amen.

Little F thingies!

Thank you, LooseHeadProp, for the primer! This helps me no end. For me, a healthcare type, I am lost, confused, and very worried at this juncture. This post give me a ready reference when I get in over my head (which can occur in a puddle). Thanks again! *g*

Let’s do the inquiry. I am thinking we might have a better chance of an inquiry leading to ‘articles’ if we were to go after the VP.

looseheadprop, thank you so much for your thoughts and instruction. It’s always appreciated.

I have learned so much from you!
-S

Thanks LHP.
Easier to understand than the offside rule

Correction in Whitman paragraph of section I– change ’should’ to ’showed’

Well I am up for all 3.

thanks LHP

Helpful post

Thanks LHP.
It’s nice to see how things are supposed to work. Unfortunately, with this bunch, nothing seems to work the way it should.

Too bad we can’t just skip to the last part,you know he would try if it were the other way around.

Thanks Head Prop! That is very helpful. It seems that a lot of people don’t really know what the process is, and are calling for a type of action that is not really allowed by the constitution.

nomolos @ 9

Thanks LHP.
Easier to understand than the offside rule

Especailly when you get into all that drivel about the 10 metre circle around the kick reciver!

I do not, for the life of me, see how replacing Cheney with Lieberman solves much of anything. And replacing Bush with Cheney? I suspect that the reality is that we have to suffer 1.5 more years of this disaster in the Executive/Non-Executive Branch and spend our time fighting battle after battle in the Legislative Branch, and ultimately in the Nov. 2008 Election. Impeachment is, I fear, a distraction.

Meanwhile, among the other things we have to worry about . . . .

Y’all have probably not noticed this from the AP, right?

HARRISONBURG, Va. — More than 50,000 turkeys on a farm west of Mount Jackson tested positive for avian flu antibodies, prompting additional testing and surveillance at area poultry farms, officials said.

The infected birds will be killed and composted on site, said Hobey Bauhan, president of the Virginia Poultry Federation.

But not to worry, because it’s supposedly a “low-pathogenic” virus and the turkey’s aren’t even sneezing — according to the chicken-and-turkey producers.

The chicken-turkey guy simply repeated the talking points of the state Veteranian in the state Ag department:

This is NOT the severe, highly-pathogenic strain that has caused widespread flock destruction and some human cases in countries outside of the United States. Rather, this is almost certainly one of the many milder strains of avian flu that are not uncommon in poultry and that cause only minor sickness or no noticeable symptoms in birds.

(emphasis added)

Actually, the tests haven’t come back from the USDA in Ames, Iowa, yet, but that doesn’t keep the ag people from making assertions. However, the real concern is that this kind of thing — or the next one, or the next — could mutate into a human avian flu pandemic.

Although the subtype of avian flu found in the turkeys poses no risk to human health, federal and state officials are concerned that the strain can change into a more pathogenic form that causes higher mortality in birds, according to a press release.

In April, a low-pathogen strain of avian flu was found on a farm in Pendleton County, W.Va. Tests on commercial flocks within six miles were conducted and the flock was destroyed to prevent the strain from mutating into a higher pathogen.

Signs Of Avian Flu Found In Valley

Meanwhile, the already lethal strain of avian flu (H5N1) is again spreading across Europe (not in people at this point, however).

France found three wild swans that died this week had avian flu, suggesting the lethal H5N1 virus is spreading again across Europe.

At least five other European nations have reported avian influenza outbreaks this year, according to the Paris-based World Organization for Animal Health.

French, German Bird Flu Outbreaks May Signal More

So what is our government doing? Well, most county health authorities are doing exactly nothing.

Bought a 3-month supply of food, water, and other essentials for your home yet?

Oklahoma kiddo @ 7

Let’s do the inquiry. I am thinking we might have a better chance of an inquiry leading to ‘articles’ if we were to go after the VP.

I’d favor going after AG Gonzalez first. Bet that inquiry would produce enough to continue up the chain…

lhp,
Thanks for the legal explanations.

My only concern for launching an Impeachment Inquiry at this time is that the only word people would hear at all is Impeachment and I fear that it would prematurely push people into hardened positions that are still persuadable about the rightness of Impeachment.

If there is some way (which I think is proably happening with the Waxman and Leahy committees – more than with Conyers et al) to have the investigations, get the information out to the public and then raise impeachment, we will be better off. My $.02

Any idea on time frames?
Does the House vote require a simple majority?
Let’s play Vegas… what are the odds, 50/50
or less?
TIME is of the essence, Iran could break out…
Signed,

The impatient one

looseheadprop @ 15

nomolos @ 9

Thanks LHP.
Easier to understand than the offside rule

Especailly when you get into all that drivel about the 10 metre circle around the kick reciver!

Really OT, but all the chat about rugby here made me look brilliant to my husband’s Austrlian boss’ rugby playing teenage son. He was amazed I even knew any of the terminology…

-S

I’m not sure if Impeachment would be a good thing. I am sure, however, that signs placed by citizens going up around the nation calling for impeachment, would definitely be a good thing. Here are the ones I put up yesterday:

http://freewayblogger.blogspot…..today.html

some greast pictures there. please note that all signs are placed in direct sight of major freeways.

Bill E. @ 14

Thanks Head Prop! That is very helpful. It seems that a lot of people don’t really know what the process is, and are calling for a type of action that is not really allowed by the constitution.

I know Pelosi said “Impeachment is off the table”, but you really cannot know the outcome of an investigation before you have done the investigation, that would be corrupt i and of itself and I am sure Speaker Pelosi would not want to have committed a corrupt act.

Further, the concern aout having the votes to convict in the Senate really puts the cart before the horse.

John Dean can probably do this from memeory, but the votes in the Seante during the Watergate Impeachment Inquiry developed over time as the case became more and more apparent and as the American people became more educated about the facts of the case.

The same is likely to happen in this case.

LHP– Outstanding! I wonder what the rules are for witholding evidence in the inquiry stage; does exec privilege apply? Thanks for your good work.

Thank you LHP.

Boring? NEVER.

Your posts are always “must-reads”.

With all the chaff the administration tosses into the wind, and all the coctail weeniebits being tossed out by the MSM, posts like yours are pure platinum ;->

Yeah, what the hell are we waiting for? Madame Pelosi? Can any member of congress initiate it or refer it to the Judiciary Commitee?

Off with their heads!

Prof @ 16:

Who says it would automatically be Lieberman to replace Cheney? HoJo is far more valuable to The Chimpenfuhrer as a nominal D in the Senate than as his VP. Plus, if Cheney is out of office, the replacement has to be confirmed by a majority of BOTH houses of Congress. I do not se a majority of both the House and Senate showing HoJo more comity than he has been showing them. And the Rs running for President would not offer him a leg up as heir apparent anymore than they would for hounddog Fred.

Brisingamen @ 17

Oklahoma kiddo @ 7

Let’s do the inquiry. I am thinking we might have a better chance of an inquiry leading to ‘articles’ if we were to go after the VP.

I’d favor going after AG Gonzalez first. Bet that inquiry would produce enough to continue up the chain…

Actually, I was thinking about just opening an investigation and following the facts where they may lead, Bush, Cheney, Gonzo, whomever.

Actually, I was thinking about just opening an investigation and following the facts where they may lead, Bush, Cheney, Gonzo, whomever.

Rove.

At the end of the day, commencment of an inquiry requires political will.

Anyone who has ever enjoyed Thanksgiving dinner knows damn well that even if something is off the table, it can eventually be put on the table once people make some room.

“Just Desserts” definitely belong on the table.

dakine01 @ 18

lhp,
Thanks for the legal explanations.

My only concern for launching an Impeachment Inquiry at this time is that the only word people would hear at all is Impeachment and I fear that it would prematurely push people into hardened positions that are still persuadable about the rightness of Impeachment.

If there is some way (which I think is proably happening with the Waxman and Leahy committees – more than with Conyers et al) to have the investigations, get the information out to the public and then raise impeachment, we will be better off. My $.02

Legally, an Impeachment Inquiry can get at stuff that regular Congressional oversight hearings cannot. For example, an Impaechment Inquiry is a suitable repository for unsealed Grand Jury material.

Also, most “executive privledge” claims go out he window if the executive is the target of an Impeachment Inquiry.

It would cut through a lot of stonewalling and move things along swimmingly.

lhp – four corrections:

If conducted like a professional investigation, the outcome would NOT be foreordained, but rather would follow the facts and the law tand and could as easily prove that Articles of Impeachment are not warranted as the converse.

However, it is REALLY REALLY important to note that the acts indicted in Articles of Impeachment do NOT have to be crimes in themselves AND the mere fact that the President may have committed an criminal act, does not in and of itself constitute grounds for imapechment impeachment. Is you your head spinning yet? It’s not as crazy at as it sounds at first blush.

Just what’s been needed, lhp. Thanks so much. Part of that ‘impeachment inquiry’ process could be, if Congress so wishes, an examination of the Fitzgerald grand jury material, once ordered by a judge upon request by the House Impeachment Committee. That evidence could be examined for abuse of power, reckless dereliction of duty, and the like, by Bush and Cheney, with regard to the betrayal of a rare and valuable WMD spy working for their own government. In other words, as lhp says, not just for the crimes Fitzgerald was limited to prosecuting. [So to Bay State from the previous thread: this ‘pot of gold’ is right in front of Congress for the taking - no waiting of any significance required (only a simple majority vote in the House is required). And that grand jury evidence could and would then be supplemented by further testimony to Congress by key leak case players. In my opinion, such hearings could blow the roof off this administration, in short order. No waiting required; I’d really like to see the Senate try to acquit after that process had played out (never mind after any parallel investigations on the myriad other subjects available including the ones lhp lists)…]

Peech the Veep!

Well….. this is all very nice and all but how do we get impeachment back on the table? Will Pelosi obstruct efforts to put it back on? Will she allow anything like the above to go forward?

I am sort of doubtful that she will.

Everyday on the way to work in the NYC financial district, I walk past Fraunces Tavern and plead that justice might be served in the name of those who gathered at this tavern some 200 years ago, including George Washington, to plan the overthrow of another King George. I often get the chills when I walk by this ordinary tavern knowing that such great men with such courage planned our revolution from here. Here’s some history from Wiki:
The original Fraunces Tavern was built as a house in 1719 for Etienne DeLancey, a member of the prominent Delancey family that contended with the Livingstons for leadership in colonial New York. Etienne’s heirs sold the house to Samuel Fraunces in 1762, who turned it into one of the most popular taverns of the day. Though it is best known as the site where Washington bade farewell to the officers of the Continental Army in 1783, the tavern also played a significant role in pre-Revolutionary activities. Much of the Revolutionary history of New York revolved around Fraunces Tavern. It was one of the meeting places of the Sons of Liberty in the pre-war years.

During the tea crisis of 1765, a British captain who tried to bring tea into New York was forced to give an apology to the public at Fraunces Tavern. The patriots, dressed as Indians (as had the participants in the Boston Tea Party) then dumped his tea into the harbor.

In August of 1775, Americans took possession of cannons from the Battery at the tip of Manhattan and exchanged fire with a boatload of British soldiers. They retaliated by firing a 32-gun broadside on the city, sending a cannon ball through the roof of Fraunces Tavern.

When the war was won and the Americans had re-occupied the city, it was at Fraunces Tavern that hosted Washington and his officers in a victory banquet. On Dec. 4, 1783, Washington was again at Fraunces Tavern to say farewell to his officers in the Long Room. Saving America from the fate of many republics that turned quickly to military dictatorship, Washington resigned his post and returned to civilian life until chosen first President of the United States.

Adie @ 24

Thank you LHP.

Boring? NEVER.

Your posts are always “must-reads”.

With all the chaff the administration tosses into the wind, and all the coctail weeniebits being tossed out by the MSM, posts like yours are pure platinum ;->

The only thing that is boring is waiting for Congress to act . . . zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The votes are more important than the rules- if you have the votes- you make the rules.

OT, but I wanted to get this out there. Need some advice from FDLers. Which member of Congress would be most receptive and capable of introducing what I’m proposing? and What to you guys think about this idea? The proposal is this. We need to introduce a law that states (not necessarily in these words): If at anytime the United States is involved in a declared war, military conflict or action, as authorized by Congress or upon order of the President, and such war, conflict, or action exceeds sixty days, any and all military and defense contractors and/or suppliers shall operate on a direct cost reimbursement only schedule until such conflict shall cease.

If something like this passes no more war, ever.

Rick DeVille @ 30

Anyone who has ever enjoyed Thanksgiving dinner knows damn well that even if something is off the table, it can eventually be put on the table once people make some room.

“Just Desserts” definitely belong on the table.

707!

Brisingamen @ 17

Oklahoma kiddo @ 7

Let’s do the inquiry. I am thinking we might have a better chance of an inquiry leading to ‘articles’ if we were to go after the VP.

I’d favor going after AG Gonzalez first. Bet that inquiry would produce enough to continue up the chain…

Bad idea to guess ’bout stuff when ya don’t know from $%*&ola, but here i go yet again, where angels fear to tread….

Watching both of them in action in the past, it’s just really hard for me to imagine gonzo NOT leaving a little nervous-puppy-puddle under the chair, if the Hon. Sen. Leahy were to SLAP him upside duh head real real HARD!

dakine01 @ 26

Prof @ 16:

Who says it would automatically be Lieberman to replace Cheney? HoJo is far more valuable to The Chimpenfuhrer as a nominal D in the Senate than as his VP. Plus, if Cheney is out of office, the replacement has to be confirmed by a majority of BOTH houses of Congress. I do not se a majority of both the House and Senate showing HoJo more comity than he has been showing them. And the Rs running for President would not offer him a leg up as heir apparent anymore than they would for hounddog Fred.

I hhave a later post planned on why we can do both at once. Movie trailer tease :James Madison said that under very special circumstances (which just happened to have occurred recently) the President and Vice President could be suspened from office during the pendency of an Impeachment Inquiry and Congress gets to appoint an interim someone to sit in the Oval Office.

THAT is gonna be a fun post to hit “publish” on.

This was a great post.

It is also worth noting that there is a strong argument to be made that someone who has been impeached can not be pardoned for any of the crimes for which they are impeached. An in this case there are lots of crimes.

Article 2 Section 2.1

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

There has never been a definitive test of this but there is a strong argument that an impeachment and conviction would block any pardon of a criminal conviction for the related offenses.

Hi LHP,

Thank you for this excellent background.

I’d suggest and would much appreciate another on pardons, especially on the clause “except in cases of impeachment.” But there are many other things that are most confusing, e.g., this from John Dean at FindLaw http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20001208.html :

While no president has ever pardoned himself, the law supports
the president’s authority to do so.
[…]
The president’s pardon power is set forth in the
constitution. Article II, section 2 grants the president “Power
to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United
States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” The text of the
constitution, its history, and the placement of the pardon power
within the structure of the constitution, all show that there
are no limits on this power, other than the exception that
prevents the president from pardoning “impeachments.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court has described this presidential
power as “plenary.” As one recent commentator summed it up,
short of a constitutional amendment, there is absolutely nothing
“to prevent any president from pardoning himself.”

It seems to me that, if the president can pardon himself/herself, then he/she is above the law and is thus an emperor, not a chief executive.

rwcole @ 37

The votes are more important than the rules- if you have the votes- you make the rules.

Pelosi is in charge and if committee heads get out of line and say… start impeachment hearings without her say so she can and most likely would remove them. Period, end of story.

It looks like at 1:30 p.m. Eastern, on C-Span2 (right about now) Harry Reid and Jim Webb will be holding a news conference to discuss the FY 2008 Defense Authorization Bill – and the “Democratic Agenda for Iraq” – up for debate in the Senate this week.

Prof @ 16

Meanwhile, among the other things we have to worry about . . . .

So what is our government doing? Well, most county health authorities are doing exactly nothing.

Bought a 3-month supply of food, water, and other essentials for your home yet?

What our “government” did via Michael Leavitt and HHS was to host a five week long faux blog about Pandemic Flu Leadership. On this faux blog, run by contracted PR firm Ogilvy, several disparate healthcare leaders and a couple of HHS flacks posted mostly marketing talking point blurbs. Commenters were mostly well-informed grassroots and community activisits. Noone from the HHS responded in any way, shape or form to any of the commenters. Emptywheel’s blogging partner on the Next Hurrah, DemFromCT, was an invited panelist for his role in establishing the FluWiki and his day job as a pediatric pulmonologist and pandemic flu physician expert. Dem ran all through the blog posts, responding to commenters and giving feedback to the HHS and other invited panelists.

The upshot? HHS reneged on its 3 month of stockpiling and sheltering in place advice and left the time frame up in the air.

Flu Wiki and the grassroots folks are carrying the full weight of national pandemic flu planning on their shoulders. HHS pulled a Michael Brown Katrina. In other words – you are all on your own, but visit the bloggers to find the help.

Excellent reading. Thank you!

sandflea @ 36

Adie @ 24

Thank you LHP.

Boring? NEVER.

Your posts are always “must-reads”.

With all the chaff the administration tosses into the wind, and all the coctail weeniebits being tossed out by the MSM, posts like yours are pure platinum ;->

The only thing that is boring is waiting for Congress to act . . . zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

y’re goin’ nuts with that too, eh? *sigh*

looseheadprop @ 31

dakine01 @ 18

lhp,
Thanks for the legal explanations.

My only concern for launching an Impeachment Inquiry at this time is that the only word people would hear at all is Impeachment and I fear that it would prematurely push people into hardened positions that are still persuadable about the rightness of Impeachment.

If there is some way (which I think is proably happening with the Waxman and Leahy committees – more than with Conyers et al) to have the investigations, get the information out to the public and then raise impeachment, we will be better off. My $.02

Legally, an Impeachment Inquiry can get at stuff that regular Congressional oversight hearings cannot. For example, an Impaechment Inquiry is a suitable repository for unsealed Grand Jury material.

Also, most “executive privledge” claims go out he window if the executive is the target of an Impeachment Inquiry.

It would cut through a lot of stonewalling and move things along swimmingly.

There is, moreover, this comment from Christy posted in the immediately preceding thread:

Ralph at 28 — Then his counsel has to haul his behind to Congress to answer the contempt citation, and either justify the assertion of privilege or produce the witnesses requested. And, if they do not — it fast tracks the judicial oversight because of the potential for a jail penalty being imposed for contempt.
In other words, it speeds the process from the slow crawl we are in presently to a sprint.

And the WH stall is no longer operative…

Interesting- but it ain’t gonna happen.

pow wow @ 34

Just what’s been needed, lhp. Thanks so much. Part of that ‘impeachment inquiry’ process could be, if Congress so wishes, an examination of the Fitzgerald grand jury material, once ordered by a judge upon request by the House Impeachment Committee. That evidence could be examined for abuse of power, reckless dereliction of duty, and the like, by Bush and Cheney, with regard to the betrayal of a rare and valuable WMD spy working for their own government. In other words, as lhp says, not just for the crimes Fitzgerald was limited to prosecuting. [So to Bay State from the previous thread: this ‘pot of gold’ is right in front of Congress for the taking - no waiting of any significance required (only a simple majority vote in the House is required). And that grand jury evidence could and would then be supplemented by further testimony to Congress by key leak case players. In my opinion, such hearings could blow the roof off this administration, in short order. No waiting required; I’d really like to see the Senate try to acquit after that process had played out (never mind after any parallel investigations on the myriad other subjects available including the ones lhp lists)…]

I’m with you… let’s push hard for
that alternative…
If all Dems vote in the House for it, it will
carry the day…

noen @ 35

Well….. this is all very nice and all but how do we get impeachment back on the table? Will Pelosi obstruct efforts to put it back on? Will she allow anything like the above to go forward?

I am sort of doubtful that she will.

It is really not clear it has ever, really, been off the table.

looseheadprop @ 41

dakine01 @ 26

Prof @ 16:

Who says it would automatically be Lieberman to replace Cheney? HoJo is far more valuable to The Chimpenfuhrer as a nominal D in the Senate than as his VP. Plus, if Cheney is out of office, the replacement has to be confirmed by a majority of BOTH houses of Congress. I do not se a majority of both the House and Senate showing HoJo more comity than he has been showing them. And the Rs running for President would not offer him a leg up as heir apparent anymore than they would for hounddog Fred.

I hhave a later post planned on why we can do both at once. Movie trailer tease :James Madison said that under very special circumstances (which just happened to have occurred recently) the President and Vice President could be suspened from office during the pendency of an Impeachment Inquiry and Congress gets to appoint an interim someone to sit in the Oval Office.

THAT is gonna be a fun post to hit “publish” on.

OMG! you keep this up, & i’m gonna have to head for the fainting couch. *g*

Prof @ 16

I do not, for the life of me, see how replacing Cheney with Lieberman solves much of anything. And replacing Bush with Cheney?

The joint session of Congress does not need to approve the presidents nominee (e.g., Liebermann). At that point the vice-presidency is open. If and when the president gets impeached and convicted, the Speaker of the House becomes president.

looseheadprop @ 41

dakine01 @ 26

Prof @ 16:

Who says it would automatically be Lieberman to replace Cheney? HoJo is far more valuable to The Chimpenfuhrer as a nominal D in the Senate than as his VP. Plus, if Cheney is out of office, the replacement has to be confirmed by a majority of BOTH houses of Congress. I do not se a majority of both the House and Senate showing HoJo more comity than he has been showing them. And the Rs running for President would not offer him a leg up as heir apparent anymore than they would for hounddog Fred.

I hhave a later post planned on why we can do both at once. Movie trailer tease :James Madison said that under very special circumstances (which just happened to have occurred recently) the President and Vice President could be suspened from office during the pendency of an Impeachment Inquiry and Congress gets to appoint an interim someone to sit in the Oval Office.

THAT is gonna be a fun post to hit “publish” on.

It will be more fun to see it come true!

a question on impeachment inquiry – can the house judiciary committee hire some prosecutors to do the questioning? i have not been impressed by the hearings i’ve watched so far.

I think the bypassing of the FISA courts is the best bet. You forgot about the torture memoes, I think.

Anyway, great reading.

WTF are they waiting for?

pow wow @ 45

It looks like at 1:30 p.m. Eastern, on C-Span2 (right about now) Harry Reid and Jim Webb will be holding a news conference to discuss the FY 2008 Defense Authorization Bill – and the “Democratic Agenda for Iraq” – up for debate in the Senate this week.

Just went to the CSPAN home page and my eyes were assaulted by a picture of Fred Kagan’s jowly red mug! Yeerrghh!

But thanks for the heads-up! Waiting through this Hillary thing.

Pedantic = good, from my point of view. It means that (with luck) we are learning.

In other words, thank you.

Let’s start a movement. How about ordering Peach colored wristbands with the message:

IMPEACH

FDL – are you interested in doing this? I’d order 3, one for Bush, Cheney and Gonzales.

http://www.wristbands-with-a-message.com

pow wow @ 34

Just what’s been needed, lhp. Thanks so much. Part of that ‘impeachment inquiry’ process could be, if Congress so wishes, an examination of the Fitzgerald grand jury material, once ordered by a judge upon request by the House Impeachment Committee. That evidence could be examined for abuse of power, reckless dereliction of duty, and the like, by Bush and Cheney, with regard to the betrayal of a rare and valuable WMD spy working for their own government. In other words, as lhp says, not just for the crimes Fitzgerald was limited to prosecuting. [So to Bay State from the previous thread: this ‘pot of gold’ is right in front of Congress for the taking - no waiting of any significance required (only a simple majority vote in the House is required). And that grand jury evidence could and would then be supplemented by further testimony to Congress by key leak case players. In my opinion, such hearings could blow the roof off this administration, in short order. No waiting required; I’d really like to see the Senate try to acquit after that process had played out (never mind after any parallel investigations on the myriad other subjects available including the ones lhp lists)…]

My point exactly. You just said it more clearly than I.

selise @ 57

a question on impeachment inquiry – can the house judiciary committee hire some prosecutors to do the questioning? i have not been impressed by the hearings i’ve watched so far.

They could and should.

selise @ 56

a question on impeachment inquiry – can the house judiciary committee hire some prosecutors to do the questioning? i have not been impressed by the hearings i’ve watched so far.

Indeed. Too bad Henry Clay and Daniel Webster
are not around for the proceedings…

realworld @ 52

noen @ 35

Well….. this is all very nice and all but how do we get impeachment back on the table? Will Pelosi obstruct efforts to put it back on? Will she allow anything like the above to go forward?

I am sort of doubtful that she will.

It is really not clear it has ever, really, been off the table.

Really??? How so? Do you have any actual evidence for this or is this just wishful thinking?

Speaker Pelosi has said that impeachment is off the table. You see a lot of people advocating for it but do you see any movement by the speaker AT ALL?

I don’t and I don’t believe there will be any. Impeachment is dead in the water. Period.

I would add other areas of inquiry: the politicization of government through systemic Hatch Act violations, negligence in rendering timely aid to the people of New Orleans both in the short and long term, the un-Constitutional establishment of a prison at Guantanamo in an attempt to place it outside the purview of US courts, failure to define torture as required by even the reprehensible Military Commissions Act, and failure to secure Afghanistan before engaging in a war based on lies and deception in Iraq.

noen @ 35

Well….. this is all very nice and all but how do we get impeachment back on the table? Will Pelosi obstruct efforts to put it back on? Will she allow anything like the above to go forward?

I am sort of doubtful that she will.

I think we have to flood her office with calls and emails explaining that determining the outcome of an investigation BEFORE you conduct the investigation is itself a form of corruption (she will not like that talking point) and that the INQUIRY itself opens up lots of legal avenues not currently available.

realworld @ 55

looseheadprop @ 41

I hhave a later post planned on why we can do both at once. Movie trailer tease :James Madison said that under very special circumstances (which just happened to have occurred recently) the President and Vice President could be suspened from office during the pendency of an Impeachment Inquiry and Congress gets to appoint an interim someone to sit in the Oval Office.

THAT is gonna be a fun post to hit “publish” on.

It will be more fun to see it come true!

I wish this were true, but it’s not. There is no Constitutional basis for suspension.

realworld @ 42

This was a great post.

It is also worth noting that there is a strong argument to be made that someone who has been impeached can not be pardoned for any of the crimes for which they are impeached. An in this case there are lots of crimes.

Article 2 Section 2.1

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

There has never been a definitive test of this but there is a strong argument that an impeachment and conviction would block any pardon of a criminal conviction for the related offenses.

CitizenSpook has a interesting article on that: http://citizenspook.blogspot.c…..chive.html

See this passage, everyone?

However, it is REALLY REALLY important to note that the acts indicted in Articles of Impeachment do NOT have to be crimes in themselves AND the mere fact that the President may have committed an criminal act, does not in and of itself constitute grounds for imapechment. Is you head spinning yet? It’s not as crazy at it sounds at first blush.

As Alexander Hamilton pointed out in Federalist Paper #65, the jurisdiction of a Court of Impeachment would not be the same as that of a criminal court.

This is how the Republicans were able to go after Clinton for something that would have been laughed out of any actual court of law.

This is also how Ken Starr and his OIC goons — many of whom (like Hickman Ewing) had been punished in the past for gross prosecutorial misconduct — could operate the way that they did.

Remember, they went after Clinton for perjury. Except that as they all knew, the statements Clinton made under oath were in response to questions not material to the matter at hand (the soon-to-be-dismissed nuisance suit brought by Paula Jones and her then-husband, Arkansas GOP operative Stephen Jones). If the question that elicits a particular statement is not material to the matter at hand, it doesn’t matter if it’s true or false: It’s not perjury. Period.

Also, it’s been admitted that the WH used the RNC accounts, which is against the law. Nobody seems to care about that, but when Al Gore made phone calls from his residence, the Repugs went apeshit and Bush used it in the debates when he said he was going to clean up Gov’t.

Turley on KO (last week, I think) said he thought the warrantless wiretapping was the best shot, because it is on its face illegal (the FISA law is quite clear). That avoids having to establish something (say the DoJ firings) was illegal.

So today we’ll doubtless be discussing this: Bush Denies Congress Access to Aides

According to the conventional wisdom from reporters who only know about court enforcement:

The latest refusal to comply with the subpoenas ratchets up the tensions in an already tense legislative-executive clash, and heightens the likelihood that the two sides will wind up in court.

(emphasis added)

It ain’t necessarily so. There is another route: “inherent contempt.”

For a primer on that, take a look at this Daily Kos diary: Dusting off “Inherent Contempt”

For a review of this little-known power of Congress, take a look at the Congressional Research Service’s “Congressional Oversight Manual” Here’s the money quote:

Under the inherent contempt power, the individual is brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned.

No prosecutorial decision needed by the US Attorney. Cool, huh?

Hasn’t been used for a while, but these are special times:

Between 1795 and 1934 the House and Senate utilized the inherent contempt power over 85 times, in most instances to obtain (successfully) testimony and/or documents. The inherent contempt power has not been exercised by either House in over 70 years. This appears to be because it has been considered too cumbersome and time-consuming to hold contempt trials at the bar of the offended chamber.

When I asked a member of the investigative staff of one of the Congressional oversight committees if they were knowledgeable about this little-known power that sidesteps Bush’s politically appointed US Attorneys, the staff member replied simply and succinctly in an e-mail to me:

Yep. We know about it. Thanks.

Congress should begin looking into articles of impeachment immediately. While the press will want to bring up Clinton (BJs are more fun to talk about)a truer comparison would be Nixon’s impeachment hearings and the abuses of his administration.
To check executive power grabs and abuses is one of the primary roles of the congress and they should not continue to shy away from their responsibility.
They owe it to our country and our future.

Thank you looseheadprop!
I’m looking forward to more.

Rereading Ron Susskind’s piece, Oct 2004, “Faith, Certainty & the Presidency of G W Bush”, I fume again about so many repubs experiencing the obstructionism of the wh but remaining enablers. Susskind says Whitman told him the day in May 03 when she resigned from EPA: “In meetings, I’d ask if there were any facts to support our case. And for that I was accused of disloyalty!” Susskind goes on to say that ‘Whitman, whose faith in Bush has since been renewed, denies making these remarks & is now a leader of the president’s re-election effort in New Jersey’.
There are just so many examples of other republicans since the pillagers took control trying to have it both ways. They can’t.

LizH @ 60

Let’s start a movement. How about ordering Peach colored wristbands with the message:

IMPEACH

Not peach; too wimpy. How about red (as a power color, non-partisan)?

old gold @ 62

selise @ 57

a question on impeachment inquiry – can the house judiciary committee hire some prosecutors to do the questioning? i have not been impressed by the hearings i’ve watched so far.

They could and should.

They cannot. Committee chairs cannot act without approval from the Speaker. Not with regards to impeachment that is for sure.

Pelosi holds all the power here. What she says goes. What she says does not go, will not happen. What part of “NO” is everyone having trouble with?

spurious @ 76

LizH @ 60

Let’s start a movement. How about ordering Peach colored wristbands with the message:

IMPEACH

Not peach; too wimpy. How about red (as a power color, non-partisan)?

And not just wristbands. You can also get some nice ‘impeach’ tee-shirts at cafepress.com.

looseheadprop @ 66

noen @ 35

Well….. this is all very nice and all but how do we get impeachment back on the table? Will Pelosi obstruct efforts to put it back on? Will she allow anything like the above to go forward?

I am sort of doubtful that she will.

I think we have to flood her office with calls and emails explaining that determining the outcome of an investigation BEFORE you conduct the investigation is itself a form of corruption (she will not like that talking point) and that the INQUIRY itself opens up lots of legal avenues not currently available.

I strongly agree with you. Everyone needs to do this as it is the only avenue open to us. I am sort of skeptical that it will have any effect, but it is certainly worth a try.

boxer @ 68

realworld @ 55

It will be more fun to see it come true!

I wish this were true, but it’s not. There is no Constitutional basis for suspension.

There is no basis for executive privilege either.

I, for one, love the pedantic posts.

It is the Congress’s constitutional duty to impeach. I don’t care if there aren’t enough votes, or there isn’t enough time left in W’s term, or any of that other defeatist claptrap. Congress should do it because it is their duty.

looseheadprop @ 41

dakine01 @ 26

Prof @ 16:

Who says it would automatically be Lieberman to replace Cheney? HoJo is far more valuable to The Chimpenfuhrer as a nominal D in the Senate than as his VP. Plus, if Cheney is out of office, the replacement has to be confirmed by a majority of BOTH houses of Congress. I do not se a majority of both the House and Senate showing HoJo more comity than he has been showing them. And the Rs running for President would not offer him a leg up as heir apparent anymore than they would for hounddog Fred.

I hhave a later post planned on why we can do both at once. Movie trailer tease: James Madison said that under very special circumstances (which just happened to have occurred recently) the President and Vice President could be suspened from office during the pendency of an Impeachment Inquiry and Congress gets to appoint an interim someone to sit in the Oval Office.

THAT is gonna be a fun post to hit “publish” on.

I’m looking forward to your post. As we await it, I’m wondering about the historical context of James Madison’s comments which you mentioned. Did he make those comments during deliberations concerning drafting of the Constitution? To what extent did the Constitution, constitutional amendments, and enabling legislation nullify or supersede his comments?

Great summary, lhp.

And nice to see more facebook icons popping up!

selise @ 56

a question on impeachment inquiry – can the house judiciary committee hire some prosecutors to do the questioning? i have not been impressed by the hearings i’ve watched so far.

I believe they can. During the Iran Contra Hearings they hired former AUSA SDNY Neil Eggleston (yep the same guy who is representing Taylor) and they would allocate some of their time to him.

I recall watching the hearings and thought he did a credible job. He was a good solid prosecutor when at SDNY and I thought he brough a lot of organization a focus to the work of the Committee.

I would like to see that happen again.

- whether the continuation of the NSA spying program during the period dating from Comey/Ashcroft’s refusal to re-certify the program until the date when the program had been modified in such a way that DOJ was willing to certify it anew was a gross and unremediated violation of the civil liberties of all Americans, and

Nicely done. I would just quibble about a small point, spying on Americans is a FISA violation, a felony, more than just a “gross violation…” of civil liberties.

*xyz @ 79

And not just wristbands. You can also get some nice ‘impeach’ tee-shirts at cafepress.com.

Mahablog started selling “Pelosi in 07″ T shirts in January.

noen @ 78

old gold @ 62

They could and should.

They cannot. Committee chairs cannot act without approval from the Speaker. Not with regards to impeachment that is for sure.

Pelosi holds all the power here. What she says goes. What she says does not go, will not happen. What part of “NO” is everyone having trouble with?

please cure my ignorance. what is the basis for requiring pelosi’s ok? why can’t conyers act to start an inquiry? thanks!

Balrog @ 5

Little F thingies!

Balrog, you took the plunge!

Great photo.

Hugh @ 65

I would add other areas of inquiry: the politicization of government through systemic Hatch Act violations, negligence in rendering timely aid to the people of New Orleans both in the short and long term, the un-Constitutional establishment of a prison at Guantanamo in an attempt to place it outside the purview of US courts, failure to define torture as required by even the reprehensible Military Commissions Act, and failure to secure Afghanistan before engaging in a war based on lies and deception in Iraq.

Hugh,
If I ever get a chance to offer my views directly to the relevant Committeemembers, BELIEVE YOU ME, I will refer them to your encyclopedic list. That is such a treasure.

OT but of longer term interest especially if she bring the Bluedogs into line.

LINK

Edging Away From Inner Circle, Pelosi Asserts Authority

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 9, 2007; Page A01

In February, only a month after becoming speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi settled weeks of threats from Rep. John D. Dingell, her blustery Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, by putting in writing her assent to one of his big demands — Pelosi’s new Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming would not infringe on his power to write legislation as he saw fit.

Four months later, Dingell (D-Mich.) appeared in the speaker’s conference room to walk through a bill that would override California’s attempts to combat global warming by raising fuel efficiency standards, strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases and promote a controversial effort to turn coal into liquid fuel.

This time, Pelosi was in no mood to mollify Dingell. The bill he was sponsoring, she said, was unacceptable. The environmental costs would be too severe, the political costs for the Democratic caucus too high, she said.

The two episodes with Dingell illustrate Pelosi’s evolution from a somewhat tentative political figure reliant on a small circle of advisers to the undisputed leader of the House’s fractious Democratic majority.

“Nancy now represents the majority of this caucus, overwhelmingly,” said Barney Frank (Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

…

Noen, The question was whether attorneys with prosecutorial experience could be hired to question the witnesses.
I answered that this could and should occur.
I did not mean to indicate that an impeachment inquiry could and should be initiated. On that questtion I remain undecided.

boxer @ 67

realworld @ 55

It will be more fun to see it come true!

I wish this were true, but it’s not. There is no Constitutional basis for suspension.

Wait for the post. As I told Jane and Christy:

I have citations!!!

wigwam @ 55

Prof @ 16

I do not, for the life of me, see how replacing Cheney with Lieberman solves much of anything. And replacing Bush with Cheney?

The joint session of Congress does not need to approve the presidents nominee (e.g., Liebermann). At that point the vice-presidency is open. If and when the president gets impeached and convicted, the Speaker of the House becomes president.

In the real world of Congress, comity goes a long way. Lieberman would get majority approval in a heartbeat. Sadly.

And we would have handed the R’s exactly what they need for 2008: an “issue” that the MSM would love: “It’s all politics.” “Those Democrats aren’t willing to wait for a new election.” “They are being undemocratic.” The R’s don’t have to be correct in order to make charges stick with some independents. And then we lose Nov. 2008.

Death from a thousand cuts is much better than the Big I. We need to have a long-term view, and that means electing a solid Blue Congress and Presidency just a short 16 months from now. The Big I is not a magic bullet. It is not a shortcut past the hard work of winning an election. But sure, it’s fun for lawyers and activists to talk about it, as long as they don’t take is as a substitute for real political and electoral actions.

Prof @72
Yep. We know about it. Thanks.

Yes, but are they going to USE it? It’s time for Congress to start dusting off all the obscure weapons in it’s arsenal. Past time.

GordonM @ 85

*xyz @ 79

And not just wristbands. You can also get some nice ‘impeach’ tee-shirts at cafepress.com.

Mahablog started selling “Pelosi in 07″ T shirts in January.

Why in God’s name would you want Pelosi re-elected? She has and will in my opinion continue to obstruct any and all efforts to impeach or even to conduct a serious investigation. She is a part of the corporate government. She does not represent you or your interests. Why would you want her to remain in power then? Because she is a woman? Is that all?

looseheadprop,

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

Where does commuting a sentence fall within the Constitutional Powers of the President?

Has anyone here ever gone to Federal Hall in Wall Street. This was where Washington was inaugerated. Great place.

From the Eyewitness to history website:
Taking the Oath of Office

Washington remained at his New York residence for a week while the House and the Senate ironed out their differences over how the formal inauguration should be conducted. Finally, on April 30, Washington was escorted to Federal Hall on Wall Street and into the Senate Chamber. Washington, Vice President John Adams, the Senators and Representatives stepped out of the chamber onto a balcony overlooking the street filled with a cheering crowd. As there were as yet no Supreme Court Justices, the Oath of Office was administered by Chancellor Robert R. Livingstone – New York’s highest ranking judge. After taking the oath, Washington and the others returned to the Senate Chamber where the new President gave a short speech.

Mike Isikoff does some work:

Fielding, anticipating the Libby issue would be on his plate, had been gathering material for some time, including key trial transcripts. Uncharacteristically, Bush himself delved into the details. He was especially keen to know if there was compelling evidence that might contradict the jury’s verdict that Libby had lied to a federal grand jury about when—and from whom—he learned the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson, wife of Iraq War critic Joe Wilson. But Fielding, one of the advisers tells NEWSWEEK, reluctantly concluded that the jury had reached a reasonable verdict: the evidence was strong that Libby testified falsely about his role in the leak.

looseheadprop @ 84

selise @ 56

a question on impeachment inquiry – can the house judiciary committee hire some prosecutors to do the questioning? i have not been impressed by the hearings i’ve watched so far.

I believe they can. During the Iran Contra Hearings they hired former AUSA SDNY Neil Eggleston (yep the same guy who is representing Taylor) and they would allocate some of their time to him.

I recall watching the hearings and thought he did a credible job. He was a good solid prosecutor when at SDNY and I thought he brough a lot of organization a focus to the work of the Committee.

I would like to see that happen again.

Not only are professional prosecutors more likely to do a competent job, they are also less susceptible than politicians to being falsely smeared as partisan hacks.

Hiring professional prosecutors allows Democrats in Congress to pursue impeachment as aggressively as possible, without themselves being definitively framed as the “bad cops”.

I only say this because I know some Democrats in Congress are irrationally afraid of “backlash” against impeachment and would prefer that there be some degree of distance between themselves and the impeachment proceedings themselves. Career prosecutors running the show would fulfill this goal by serving as a partial buffer for Democrats.

For the record, however, let me state that impeachment, in addition to being the right thing to do, would actually benefit Democrats politically and accordingly they have nothing to fear from being involved in the proceedings themselves. But for those Democrats who don’t want to take my word for it, they can always let a career prosecutor handle the public heavy lifting…

I am so totally addicted to this site, I may need to find an FDL Anonymous group to learn how to handle it.

LHP, thank you, thank you.

Questions:

1.) Can impeachments happen simultaneously (e.g., Bush, Cheney, Gonzales) or must they be sequential? (Apologies if this repeats.)

2.) Who exactly does the initial inquiry? The House Committee as a whole or ???

3.) Who exactly becomes empowered/charged with writing up articles of impeachment?

4.) Who would select attorneys to do the asking thing?

Thanks!

I just called Pelosi’s office to suggest that we ought to consider impeachment. The woman who answered the phone said they had received lots of calls on the issue today. I hope that is a good sign for forward progress.

Thanks for the tutorial, LHP!

looseheadprop @ 42

I hhave a later post planned on why we can do both at once. Movie trailer tease :James Madison said that under very special circumstances (which just happened to have occurred recently) the President and Vice President could be suspened from office during the pendency of an Impeachment Inquiry and Congress gets to appoint an interim someone to sit in the Oval Office.

THAT is gonna be a fun post to hit “publish” on.

Hmmmm. Seems like this is where you are going?
In the [Constitutional] convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to “pardon crimes which were advised by himself” or, before indictment or conviction, “to stop inquiry and prevent detection.” James Madison responded:

f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty…

Madison went on to [say] contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected.

Y’all came into the facebook age while I was away. COOL!!!!

I know this will generate a lot of emotional response, but I think we should be more realistic.
First, it is a faulty assumption to think that the Demo leaders do not have the backbone to impeach. Were the Demo. leaders at the time of Watergate so much braver? Remember we were coming up on around 50,000 casualties at this time, and they still hadn’t gotten us out of the last unjust war.
Second, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid know much better than anyone here with regard to whether or not the Senate will convict, and will move when the time is right.
Third, impeachment without conviction is a win for Bush. I’ve already said this before but I’ll say it again: If this happens he will be declared NOT GUILTY and therefore completely exonerated. Tony Snow will say the evidence was reviewed and the President was found by Congress to be not guilty.”NOT GUILTY” will be the headline in every newspaper, and subsequent history book.
Lastly, if sufficient direct evidence were to come to light, so that its introduction might actually lead to impeachment and conviction, the President will resign and live out his days comfortably in Crawford, TX. You will never see justice served on President Bush. I’m sorry, but it’s true. Go after Cheney and Gonzo.

barbara @ 101

You mean this isn’t an FDL Anonymous group? [/mock-horrified expression]

The impeachment procedures are apparently fleshed out fairly clearly- goopers picked “managers” to handle the impeachment. Happily, most of em got voted out of office.

barbara @ 101

I am so totally addicted to this site, I may need to find an FDL Anonymous group to learn how to handle it.

LHP, thank you, thank you.

Questions:

1.) Can impeachments happen simultaneously (e.g., Bush, Cheney, Gonzales) or must they be sequential? (Apologies if this repeats.)

2.) Who exactly does the initial inquiry? The House Committee as a whole or ???

3.) Who exactly becomes empowered/charged with writing up articles of impeachment?

4.) Who would select attorneys to do the asking thing?

Thanks!

Cool questions. Some of the stuff from the top I remember from 8th grade US history, but these are all new.

From The Gavel: LINK

Chairman Conyers Asks President Bush to Waive Executive Privilege Regarding Libby Commutation

July 9th, 2007 by Jesse Lee

Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers sent a letter to President Bush today inviting him to waive Executive Privilege and allow his aides to provide information to the Committee and the public regarding the President’s controversial decision to commute Scooter Libby’s prison sentence. The Chairman’s request is well supported by precedent, including former President Clinton’s decision to waive privilege so his closest aides could testify about the Marc Rich pardon, and President Ford’s appearance before the Committee to address his pardon of Richard Nixon. The Committee has scheduled a hearing on the use and misuse of Presidential clemency power for Wednesday, July 11, 2007 at noon

…

Prof @ 16

I do not, for the life of me, see how replacing Cheney with Lieberman solves much of anything. And replacing Bush with Cheney? I suspect that the reality is that we have to suffer 1.5 more years of this disaster in the Executive/Non-Executive Branch and spend our time fighting battle after battle in the Legislative Branch, and ultimately in the Nov. 2008 Election. Impeachment is, I fear, a distraction.

Meanwhile, among the other things we have to worry about . . . .

Y’all have probably not noticed this from the AP, right?

HARRISONBURG, Va. — More than 50,000 turkeys on a farm west of Mount Jackson tested positive for avian flu antibodies, prompting additional testing and surveillance at area poultry farms, officials said.

The infected birds will be killed and composted on site, said Hobey Bauhan, president of the Virginia Poultry Federation.

But not to worry, because it’s supposedly a “low-pathogenic” virus and the turkey’s aren’t even sneezing — according to the chicken-and-turkey producers.

The chicken-turkey guy simply repeated the talking points of the state Veteranian in the state Ag department:

This is NOT the severe, highly-pathogenic strain that has caused widespread flock destruction and some human cases in countries outside of the United States. Rather, this is almost certainly one of the many milder strains of avian flu that are not uncommon in poultry and that cause only minor sickness or no noticeable symptoms in birds.

(emphasis added)

Actually, the tests haven’t come back from the USDA in Ames, Iowa, yet, but that doesn’t keep the ag people from making assertions. However, the real concern is that this kind of thing — or the next one, or the next — could mutate into a human avian flu pandemic.

Although the subtype of avian flu found in the turkeys poses no risk to human health, federal and state officials are concerned that the strain can change into a more pathogenic form that causes higher mortality in birds, according to a press release.

In April, a low-pathogen strain of avian flu was found on a farm in Pendleton County, W.Va. Tests on commercial flocks within six miles were conducted and the flock was destroyed to prevent the strain from mutating into a higher pathogen.

Signs Of Avian Flu Found In Valley

Meanwhile, the already lethal strain of avian flu (H5N1) is again spreading across Europe (not in people at this point, however).

France found three wild swans that died this week had avian flu, suggesting the lethal H5N1 virus is spreading again across Europe.

At least five other European nations have reported avian influenza outbreaks this year, according to the Paris-based World Organization for Animal Health.

French, German Bird Flu Outbreaks May Signal More

So what is our government doing? Well, most county health authorities are doing exactly nothing.

Bought a 3-month supply of food, water, and other essentials for your home yet?

There have been previous outbreaks of avian flu on the east coast, in PA and Delaware involving hundreds of thousands of birds.

This is the pretense these people are going to use in 2008 to f*** with the election and bring everything they’ve been doing in plain sight together into one cohesive operation.

They are acting with the arrogance of people who do not intend to relinquish power and face the music.

I put nothing past them, especially here in NY with Ray Kelly and David Cohen running the NYPD and its Intelligence Division respectively.

Jane Hamsher @ 89

Balrog @ 5

Little F thingies!

Balrog, you took the plunge!

Great photo.

Thanks Jane.

It seems that Pressed Rat and Warthog are closing their shop.

Oh, It has me as Snarky and not SnarKassandra. Hmmmmmmm. Be right back!

selise @ 86

please cure my ignorance. what is the basis for requiring pelosi’s ok? why can’t conyers act to start an inquiry? thanks!

It is my understanding that the speaker is “the decider”. She decides what legislation gets to the floor. And she keeps party members in line. She has the power to remove them from their committee if they disobey her and she has made is clear that impeachment is off the table. She is the boss, what she says goes.

That’s my understanding. If I’m wrong I’d love to be corrected.

mods. would appreciate your deleting my 108, which has been. thanks…

[Mod Note; It has been removed but let’s not make a habit of this. Thanks.]

Rick DeVille @ 30

Anyone who has ever enjoyed Thanksgiving dinner knows damn well that even if something is off the table, it can eventually be put on the table once people make some room.

“Just Desserts” definitely belong on the table.

Sweet!

Prof @ 93

In the real world of Congress, comity goes a long way. Lieberman would get majority approval in a heartbeat. Sadly.

And we would have handed the R’s exactly what they need for 2008: an “issue” that the MSM would love: “It’s all politics.” “Those Democrats aren’t willing to wait for a new election.” “They are being undemocratic.” The R’s don’t have to be correct in order to make charges stick with some independents. And then we lose Nov. 2008.

Death from a thousand cuts is much better than the Big I. We need to have a long-term view, and that means electing a solid Blue Congress and Presidency just a short 16 months from now. The Big I is not a magic bullet. It is not a shortcut past the hard work of winning an election. But sure, it’s fun for lawyers and activists to talk about it, as long as they don’t take is as a substitute for real political and electoral actions.

well, i just don’t see those “real political and electoral actions” happening – like ending the iraq occupation, preventing war with iran, trade policies…

and if the congressional dems don’t stand up to bush on anything substantive… they are just asking for a pissed off base and a possible third party challenge in 2008 – not smart electoral politics.

nomolos @ 102

looseheadprop @ 42

I hhave a later post planned on why we can do both at once. Movie trailer tease :James Madison said that under very special circumstances (which just happened to have occurred recently) the President and Vice President could be suspened from office during the pendency of an Impeachment Inquiry and Congress gets to appoint an interim someone to sit in the Oval Office.

THAT is gonna be a fun post to hit “publish” on.

Hmmmm. Seems like this is where you are going?
In the [Constitutional] convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to “pardon crimes which were advised by himself” or, before indictment or conviction, “to stop inquiry and prevent detection.” James Madison responded:

f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty…

Madison went on to [say] contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected.

Would any and all fellow attorneys reading this site comment on this. I know the intentions are good, but it is a bit irresponsible to dangle things in front of people. The Constitutional Convention has no force of law.

Why bother with the Dog and Pony show of ‘political offenses’.

FISA violations are a felony and Bush and Gonzo admitted on national TV that they were doing it.

5 years in prison and up to $10,000 for each count. Enough to impeach, indict, convict and imprison forever.

I’m in Facebook. How do I get the f thing to show up when I post?

noen @ 95

GordonM @ 85

Mahablog started selling “Pelosi in 07″ T shirts in January.

Why in God’s name would you want Pelosi re-elected? She has and will in my opinion continue to obstruct any and all efforts to impeach or even to conduct a serious investigation. She is a part of the corporate government. She does not represent you or your interests. Why would you want her to remain in power then? Because she is a woman? Is that all?

You entirely miss the point of the T shirt. There are no elections in 07.

And, while I wish she were more progressive, I also think she’s the best speaker since Tip O’Neill. It took the right 40 years to create the mess we are now in. The Constitution is designed to make fast changes nearly impossible (for which you should be glad, otherwise a significant portion of the population would probably now be in relocation camps). I’m afraid this is one of those cases where the hurrier you go, the behinder you get. Steady, unrelenting pressure, but civil and polite, otherwise the DFH argument starts working.

When twelve gooper senators stand up and speak in favor of impeachment- then it’s a go- until then- it’s a fantasy.

It COULD happen- but it will have to happen soon- once we start the election year- it’s not gonna happen…it would only happen if one of the investigations hits paydirt so HOT that even goopers can’t defend it.

I put the odds at one in a hundred- but it could happen.

rwcole @ 124

When twelve gooper senators stand up and speak in favor of impeachment- then it’s a go- until then- it’s a fantasy.

It COULD happen- but it will have to happen soon- once we start the election year- it’s not gonna happen…it would only happen if one of the investigations hits paydirt so HOT that even goopers can’t defend it.

I put the odds at one in a hundred- but it could happen.

You just have to wonder how bad it would have to get for this to happen. Flying monkeys thru the WH windows?

Thanks, lhp, I always enjoy your posts.

rwcole @ 122

When twelve gooper senators stand up and speak in favor of impeachment- then it’s a go- until then- it’s a fantasy.

It COULD happen- but it will have to happen soon- once we start the election year- it’s not gonna happen…it would only happen if one of the investigations hits paydirt so HOT that even goopers can’t defend it.

I put the odds at one in a hundred- but it could happen.

rwcole is right.
I know this will generate a lot of emotional response, but I think we should be more realistic.
First, it is a faulty assumption to think that the Demo leaders do not have the backbone to impeach. Were the Demo. leaders at the time of Watergate so much braver? Remember we were coming up on around 50,000 casualties at this time, and they still hadn’t gotten us out of the last unjust war.
Second, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid know much better than anyone here with regard to whether or not the Senate will convict, and will move when the time is right.
Third, impeachment without conviction is a win for Bush. I’ve already said this before but I’ll say it again: If this happens he will be declared NOT GUILTY and therefore completely exonerated. Tony Snow will say the evidence was reviewed and the President was found by Congress to be not guilty.”NOT GUILTY” will be the headline in every newspaper, and subsequent history book.
Lastly, if sufficient direct evidence were to come to light, so that its introduction might actually lead to impeachment and conviction, the President will resign and live out his days comfortably in Crawford, TX. You will never see justice served on President Bush. I’m sorry, but it’s true. Go after Cheney and Gonzo.

barbara @ 101

I am so totally addicted to this site, I may need to find an FDL Anonymous group to learn how to handle it.

Wouldn’t that would have to be a [24/7/365or6] – step program.

oh I am such a geek. I just love it when lhp puts her Professor Prop hat on!

cc

It would have to be in the “Photo with a young boy in bed” territory—I probably exaggerated the odds.

From AP:

Filed at 1:33 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers exhorted President Bush Monday to allow top aides to explain to Congress why Bush commuted I. Lewis ”Scooter” Libby’s prison sentence.

In a letter to Bush on Monday, Conyers said the commutation was troubling and could eliminate Libby’s incentive to provide information about the administration’s role in leaking the identity of former CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson.

Please delete #130
Thanks
Sorry

[Mod Note; It has been removed but let’s not make a habit of this. Thanks.]

This place is getting all f’ed up.

Adie @ 128

barbara @ 101

I am so totally addicted to this site, I may need to find an FDL Anonymous group to learn how to handle it.

Wouldn’t that would have to be a [24/7/365or6] – step program.

I need it too. I had to talk myself out of bringing the laptop ONTO the beach when I went on vacation.

OT question about Sara Taylor… Assuming she and her attorneys are not being disengenuous and that she DOES want to testify, (that’s a big assumption) what happens if she just goes on up to the Hill and does exactly that?

What, is Bush going to arrest her? I think this must be hogwash because there’s no way he can hurt her. Is there?

And who has been out in front on this? H. or O. or E.? Nope. Kucinich. Like all the other issues he has been right, first. All the others wait for events to make the obvious, obvious. That is what they call ‘leadership’. When the American death toll in Iraq tops 4K and tinpot refuses to change direction, when he continues to give congress the finger and Supreme Courts says, “That’s politics – not our problem!”, when tinpot and chainy have poll numbers south of Nixon’s, when Repub presidential candidates can’t recall the last time they spoke to ‘THIS President’, when blowhards like Obey and snakes like Emanuel and lazy turds like all those faceless, nameless dem congress people who see the job as a paycheck and stepping stone to the real money see a primary challenge from people monumentally fed up w/ dem timidity and unwillingness to actually accomplish something ‘liberal’, after all that, maybe, maybe, dem leaders and candidates will remember the ‘I’ word. When they finally remember don’t you think it would be a good idea to listen to the guy who never forgot? Kucinich. Law and Order Kucinich. Out of Iraq Kucinich. Health Care Kucinich. Trade Policy Kucinich. Cut the Military budget 15% Kucinich. Oh, but he is short. And his voice, it sounds so blue-collar city and he has no charm. He doesn’t seem to care much if he looks a little ridiculous zooming around like a kid playing airplane, singing, “There are no strings on me!” But it is true. He is nobody’s puppet. His dignity is deeper than appearances and his courage isn’t limited by others expectations. EX repub, ex Cia, internet opportunist/ entrepreneur, shorty kos, hates Kucinich for not being a ‘star’, someone he can salivate over like he did over ray gun. Ugh. Even those who will admit Kucinich is better on the issues than Any other candidate, whine that if only Three Chins Al would get in the race… (don’t hold your breath)
Kucinich is already there. His impeachment bill has been ignored by all the frontrunners and will be until reality kick them in the ass so hard their eyes pop open. Maybe the same will have to happen to their followers before they can see the little guy with the big ideas, Kucinich.

boxer @ 104

I know this will generate a lot of emotional response, but I think we should be more realistic.
First, it is a faulty assumption to think that the Demo leaders do not have the backbone to impeach. Were the Demo. leaders at the time of Watergate so much braver? Remember we were coming up on around 50,000 casualties at this time, and they still hadn’t gotten us out of the last unjust war.
Second, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid know much better than anyone here with regard to whether or not the Senate will convict, and will move when the time is right.
Third, impeachment without conviction is a win for Bush. I’ve already said this before but I’ll say it again: If this happens he will be declared NOT GUILTY and therefore completely exonerated. Tony Snow will say the evidence was reviewed and the President was found by Congress to be not guilty.”NOT GUILTY” will be the headline in every newspaper, and subsequent history book.
Lastly, if sufficient direct evidence were to come to light, so that its introduction might actually lead to impeachment and conviction, the President will resign and live out his days comfortably in Crawford, TX. You will never see justice served on President Bush. I’m sorry, but it’s true. Go after Cheney and Gonzo.

I kind of agree with much of what you’re saying. I would like to see Bush tried on criminal charges first, then impeached. I think that would actually work.

looseheadprop @ 31

dakine01 @ 18

lhp,
Thanks for the legal explanations.

My only concern for launching an Impeachment Inquiry at this time is that the only word people would hear at all is Impeachment and I fear that it would prematurely push people into hardened positions that are still persuadable about the rightness of Impeachment.

If there is some way (which I think is proably happening with the Waxman and Leahy committees – more than with Conyers et al) to have the investigations, get the information out to the public and then raise impeachment, we will be better off. My $.02

Legally, an Impeachment Inquiry can get at stuff that regular Congressional oversight hearings cannot. For example, an Impaechment Inquiry is a suitable repository for unsealed Grand Jury material.

Also, most “executive privledge” claims go out he window if the executive is the target of an Impeachment Inquiry.

It would cut through a lot of stonewalling and move things along swimmingly.

LHP, wouldn’t this be reason enough to open impeachment hearings? Instead of saying we want impeachment hearings to remove Bush/Cheney from office, the Dems could say they want impeachment to get the documents and testimony that Bush/Cheney won’t give.

But how does this process work. For example, if the impeachment process were started and Congress wanted documents for the impeachment and the president still refused, what would happen next?

Jenny from the Blog @ 136

OT question about Sara Taylor… Assuming she and her attorneys are not being disengenuous and that she DOES want to testify, (that’s a big assumption) what happens if she just goes on up to the Hill and does exactly that?

What, is Bush going to arrest her? I think this must be hogwash because there’s no way he can hurt her. Is there?

I thought that Rove can hurt anybody. Right?

Adie @ 128

barbara @ 101

I am so totally addicted to this site, I may need to find an FDL Anonymous group to learn how to handle it.

Wouldn’t that would have to be a [24/7/365or6] – step program.

My name is Barbara and I . . . oh, sorry, don’t have time to finish . . . have to check FDL.

GordonM @ 72

Turley on KO (last week, I think) said he thought the warrantless wiretapping was the best shot, because it is on its face illegal (the FISA law is quite clear). That avoids having to establish something (say the DoJ firings) was illegal.

DUring the Nixon Impeachment inquiry thay had several different Articles. Similar to a multi count Indictment.

Nothing restricts the House Judicary Committee to looking at only a single act or a single actor.

In fact, it may well be that the totality of the bad acts is what makes conviction by the Seante a possibilty

Yeah. That’s what I had in mind. This will be helpful as I try to distinguish between an Inquiry and Acts of Impeachment.

Thanks, LHP.

GordonM @ 72

Turley on KO (last week, I think) said he thought the warrantless wiretapping was the best shot, because it is on its face illegal (the FISA law is quite clear). That avoids having to establish something (say the DoJ firings) was illegal.

DUring the Nixon Impeachment inquiry thay had several different Articles. Similar to a multi count Indictment.

Nothing restricts the House Judicary Committee to looking at only a single act or a single actor.

In fact, it may well be that the totality of the bad acts is what makes conviction by the Seante a possibiltysammy1 @ 73

Congress should begin looking into articles of impeachment immediately. While the press will want to bring up Clinton (BJs are more fun to talk about)a truer comparison would be Nixon’s impeachment hearings and the abuses of his administration.
To check executive power grabs and abuses is one of the primary roles of the congress and they should not continue to shy away from their responsibility.
They owe it to our country and our future.

Ya can’t try Bush on criminal charges until he’s out of the White House.

Jenny from the Blog @ 136

OT question about Sara Taylor… Assuming she and her attorneys are not being disengenuous and that she DOES want to testify, (that’s a big assumption) what happens if she just goes on up to the Hill and does exactly that?

What, is Bush going to arrest her? I think this must be hogwash because there’s no way he can hurt her. Is there?

She will have to stay away from small airplanes

james @ 112

There have been previous outbreaks of avian flu on the east coast, in PA and Delaware involving hundreds of thousands of birds.

This is the pretense these people are going to use in 2008 to f*** with the election and bring everything they’ve been doing in plain sight together into one cohesive operation.

They are acting with the arrogance of people who do not intend to relinquish power and face the music.

I put nothing past them, especially here in NY with Ray Kelly and David Cohen running the NYPD and its Intelligence Division respectively.

I seem to recall that right after the 04 election, Bush was pushing to be able to use the military to effect quarantine in the case of pandemic. It got lousy public reception, but I don’t know if he snuck anything through. Taking direct control of the National Guards (without having to ask permission from the governors) was bad enough.

Bay State Librul @ 19

Any idea on time frames?
Does the House vote require a simple majority?
Let’s play Vegas… what are the odds, 50/50
or less?
TIME is of the essence, Iran could break out…
Signed,

The impatient one

Back these snakes into a corner and they will strike. Iran! Stovepiping again………..

“NSCTEO”

greenwarrior @ 122

I’m in Facebook. How do I get the f thing to show up when I post?

You have first register using the link in the box with Meta on it on the right hand side of the page.

A password will be e-mailed to you, then you Login using your username and password, a profile page comes up and you scroll down, on the left hand side there is a feild that you paste in your Web address of your Facebook profile.

Update your profile, and the icon should be in your next post.

Above the comment box you should see a line that says Logged in as (username). Logout

boxer @ 120

nomolos @ 102

Hmmmm. Seems like this is where you are going?
In the [Constitutional] convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to “pardon crimes which were advised by himself” or, before indictment or conviction, “to stop inquiry and prevent detection.” James Madison responded:

f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty…

Madison went on to [say] contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected.

Would any and all fellow attorneys reading this site comment on this. I know the intentions are good, but it is a bit irresponsible to dangle things in front of people. The Constitutional Convention has no force of law.

Since looseheadprop is an attorney in NYC, why don’t you ask her?

Interesting. From AP:

Filed at 11:17 a.m. ET

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) — Cindy Sheehan, the slain soldier’s mother whose attacks on President Bush made her a darling of the anti-war movement, has a new target: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Sheehan, who announced in late May that she was departing the peace movement, said she decided to run against Pelosi unless the congresswoman moves to oust Bush in the next two weeks.

boxer @ 105

Third, impeachment without conviction is a win for Bush. I’ve already said this before but I’ll say it again: If this happens he will be declared NOT GUILTY and therefore completely exonerated. Tony Snow will say the evidence was reviewed and the President was found by Congress to be not guilty.”NOT GUILTY” will be the headline in every newspaper, and subsequent history book.

I disagree. Impeachment hearings would probably continue throughout most of the remainder of Bush’s presidency, and would result in the production of any additional evidence needed. And Tony Snow would have long since sunk into well-deserved oblivion.

sammy1 @ 73

Congress should begin looking into articles of impeachment immediately. While the press will want to bring up Clinton (BJs are more fun to talk about)a truer comparison would be Nixon’s impeachment hearings and the abuses of his administration.
To check executive power grabs and abuses is one of the primary roles of the congress and they should not continue to shy away from their responsibility.
They owe it to our country and our future.

That’s why I used the photo of the marked up Nixon Articles. I took the final verson of the Nxon Impaechment Articles and started my own mark up. It was astounding to me how few words I needed to change to make them fit the current situtation.

Obviously I had to substitute the Plamegate for watergate, and NSA spying for IRS?CIA domestic spying, but the rest stayed pretty much the same

Ha ha all you snarksters. I know they can hurt anyone they want. But Taylor will be under the spotlight and technically I’m wondering what the *overt* threat would be.

(not the crushed glass in her eggs post-testimony possibility…)

:)

Liz H @61: I believe a bumper sticker such as the one you described already exists. Check with Cafepress.com. I know I’ve seen it.

SnarKassandra @ 135

Adie @ 128

Wouldn’t that would have to be a [24/7/365or6] – step program.

I need it too. I had to talk myself out of bringing the laptop ONTO the beach when I went on vacation.

You missed a fun little picnic yesterday even it was mainly us older folks…

lhp, your posts are never too long. here’s one of my favorite posts on impeaching a certain Vice President: Twenty Questions The first:

1. Q: How long would it take to eject a vice president from office by impeachment?

A: Theoretically it could be done in a day. In the morning a member of the House of Representatives could propose one or more Articles of Impeachment and then a vote could be called. A simple majority (50% plus one vote) is all that is needed to impeach. In the afternoon the Senate could try the case. A two-thirds vote is needed in the Senate to convict.

I really think that Pelosi is not creating a roadblock. It is much more likely that she just sees much more mileage in being reluctantly dragged into this by the awful and undeniable weight of the evidence and the seriousness of the charges. Much smarter to seem that she is not anxious for this then to seem like a shrill power hungry bitch. BTW: Perhaps this was the motivation behind WaPo’s subtle hit job on her this morning talking about how “nice Nancy” has turned into a power control freak even her friends don’t know any more.

Balrog @ 113

Jane Hamsher @ 89

Balrog, you took the plunge!

Great photo.

Thanks Jane.

It seems that Pressed Rat and Warthog are closing their shop.

Did you see this brief ThinkProgress post? Crawford tourism plummets with Bush’s unpopularity

okay. i’ll ask again. i’m in facebook. how do i get the little f thing to post next to my name when i post here?

Pachacutec @ 133

This place is getting all f’ed up.

just for you, from Late Nite last night:

TeddySanFran @ 124:
Pachacutec showed up this morning with a very cute icon next to his name, and said he got it by clicking “register” up on the upper right. There’s some Facebook involvement as well.

Suzanne @ 125:
It is still in development and being beta tested if the little birdy told me correctly. Not ready for primetime yet.

punaise @ 133:
so, it’s in line: Patch-a-queue-tech

Prof @ 16

IAP, right?

HARRISONBURG, Va. — More than 50,000 turkeys on a farm west of Mount Jackson tested positive for avian flu antibodies, prompting additional testing and surveillance at area poultry farms, officials said.

The infected birds will be killed and composted on site, said Hobey Bauhan, president of the Virginia Poultry Federation.

But not to worry, because it’s supposedly a “low-pathogenic” virus and the turkey’s aren’t even sneezing — according to the chicken-and-turkey producers.

The chicken-turkey guy simply repeated the talking points of the state Veteranian in the state Ag department:

This is NOT the severe, highly-pathogenic strain that has caused widespread flock destruction and some human cases in countries outside of the United States. Rather, this is almost certainly one of the many milder strains of avian flu that are not uncommon in poultry and that cause only minor sickness or no noticeable symptoms in birds.

(emphasis added)

Actually, the tests haven’t come back from the USDA in Ames, Iowa, yet, but that doesn’t keep the ag people from making assertions. However, the real concern is that this kind of thing — or the next one, or the next — could mutate into a human avian flu pandemic.

Although the subtype of avian flu found in the turkeys poses no risk to human health, federal and state officials are concerned that the strain can change into a more pathogenic form that causes higher mortality in birds, according to a press release.

In April, a low-pathogen strain of avian flu was found on a farm in Pendleton County, W.Va. Tests on commercial flocks within six miles were conducted and the flock was destroyed to prevent the strain from mutating into a higher pathogen.

Signs Of Avian Flu Found In Valley

Meanwhile, the already lethal strain of avian flu (H5N1) is again spreading across Europe (not in people at this point, however).

France found three wild swans that died this week had avian flu, suggesting the lethal H5N1 virus is spreading again across Europe.

At least five other European nations have reported avian influenza outbreaks this year, according to the Paris-based World Organization for Animal Health.

French, German Bird Flu Outbreaks May Signal More

So what is our government doing? Well, most county health authorities are doing exactly nothing.

Bought a 3-month supply of food, water, and other essentials for your home yet?

Great the birds have been crapping on my herbs. Should I be worried?
At any rate bird crap sums up how I feel about HoJoe. The Avian flu has been brewing in Asia for years. I’m told it entered the food chain probably when migratory bird carrying the virus mixed and crapped with domestic birdy
in Canton. It’s too bad that we have an incompetent pro-market fundamentalist Xtian
preznitcy to deal with anything medical or science related.

dakine01 @ 156

SnarKassandra @ 135

I need it too. I had to talk myself out of bringing the laptop ONTO the beach when I went on vacation.

You missed a fun little picnic yesterday even it was mainly us older folks…

Yeah, I heard. We stopped like 6 times on the way back from Corpus. Had a lot of fun and saw some cool stuff and ate a lot of ice cream, but didn’t pass NB until almost 6:30.

Firstly, thank you LHP for all this. It was huge in helping me understand how we can go about this.

Next, I’m inclined to send excerpts from this directly to my Representative, particularly the parts that LHP outlines possible reasons for the inquiry in the first place.

I mean, how many Reps have to co-sponsor this? HOw do we, as regular citizens, get our Reps to understand and listen to us and get this ball rolling?

Anyone?

dakine01 @ 149

boxer @ 120

Would any and all fellow attorneys reading this site comment on this. I know the intentions are good, but it is a bit irresponsible to dangle things in front of people. The Constitutional Convention has no force of law.

Since looseheadprop is an attorney in NYC, why don’t you ask her?

Okay, looseheadprop, does the Constitutional Convention carry the force of law? Has anyone ever been charged in violation of the Constitutional Convention?

boxer @ 105

I know this will generate a lot of emotional response, but I think we should be more realistic.
First, it is a faulty assumption to think that the Demo leaders do not have the backbone to impeach. Were the Demo. leaders at the time of Watergate so much braver? Remember we were coming up on around 50,000 casualties at this time, and they still hadn’t gotten us out of the last unjust war.
Second, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid know much better than anyone here with regard to whether or not the Senate will convict, and will move when the time is right.
Third, impeachment without conviction is a win for Bush. I’ve already said this before but I’ll say it again: If this happens he will be declared NOT GUILTY and therefore completely exonerated. Tony Snow will say the evidence was reviewed and the President was found by Congress to be not guilty.”NOT GUILTY” will be the headline in every newspaper, and subsequent history book.
Lastly, if sufficient direct evidence were to come to light, so that its introduction might actually lead to impeachment and conviction, the President will resign and live out his days comfortably in Crawford, TX. You will never see justice served on President Bush. I’m sorry, but it’s true. Go after Cheney and Gonzo.

Re your first point, the Democrats exhibited an absence of backbone during the first 6 years of the Bush Presidency. Even in the majority they did not push the supplemental spending bill fight anywhere near as far as they might have.

Re the second point, there is no indication the either Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid will act unless given a good push by us.

Re your third point, there is a huge distance between not being convicted and being exonerated. Impeachment leaves a lasting stain on any Presidency.

Re your last point, the point of impeachment is removal from office. If Bush does so to avoid conviction, it is an admission in the court of history if not the Senate of his guilt. And he is still gone, out of the Presidency which was the object of the exercise.

cleter @ 81

I, for one, love the pedantic posts.

It is the Congress’s constitutional duty to impeach. I don’t care if there aren’t enough votes, or there isn’t enough time left in W’s term, or any of that other defeatist claptrap. Congress should do it because it is their duty.

Actually, I have a citation that seems to suggest that (again under specailized circumstances)

I spent 4th of July re-reading the federalist Papers and debates from the Constitutitonal COnventions–it seemed like an appropriate, if nerdy, thing to do.

I found so much good stuff in them!!

ooh, ooh, when are you gonna cover “all civil officers” Professor? and how even the SCOTUS can’t mess with impeachments? I don’t want to be out that day!

i’m still asking nicely. dakine, snarkassandra, anyone: how do i get the facebook f thing to post next to my name when i post here. i am a member of facebook.

greenwarrior @ 160

okay. i’ll ask again. i’m in facebook. how do i get the little f thing to post next to my name when i post here?

See 149

looseheadprop @ 144

DUring the Nixon Impeachment inquiry thay had several different Articles. Similar to a multi count Indictment.

Nothing restricts the House Judicary Committee to looking at only a single act or a single actor.

In fact, it may well be that the totality of the bad acts is what makes conviction by the Seante a possibilty

I agree, absolutely. And there’s more than one reason to investigate everything (for one thing, we need stuff on record for the time when they start claiming it was all a media plot and little Georgie never really did anything wrong).

I bring up warrantless wiretapping because it seems to get the least amount of attention and it seems to be the lowest hanging fruit.

james @ 112

This is the pretense these people are going to use in 2008 to f*** with the election and bring everything they’ve been doing in plain sight together into one cohesive operation.

They are acting with the arrogance of people who do not intend to relinquish power and face the music.

This is what worries me. Why would they be building up the theory of the unitary executive, if they ever accepted that the next president might be a democrat?

greenwarrior @ 169

i’m still asking nicely. dakine, snarkassandra, anyone: how do i get the facebook f thing to post next to my name when i post here. i am a member of facebook.

I followed the instructions from this morning. But I don’t remember the link anymore. There’s lots of instructions from Christy.

Boxer

Are you an attorney?

Seems to me that when there is a question of the MEANING of the constitution- notes and other written material by framers has been used to clarify the intent..but I am NOT an attorney.

Millineryman @ 168

greenwarrior @ 160

okay. i’ll ask again. i’m in facebook. how do i get the little f thing to post next to my name when i post here?

See 149

it’s a comment from biudun about cindy sheehan.

?????

vieravisionary @ 95

looseheadprop,

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

Where does commuting a sentence fall within the Constitutional Powers of the President?

At common law, commutation, reprieve, and similar devices where considered a subset of pardon.

GordonM @ 121

Yes, I did miss that. Sure, she is the best in a long time but the GOP put that bar right on the ground. Anyone with a pulse would have been better.

By all means lets be civil and polite while New Orleans sinks further into decay. Civil and polite while goods made with child labor and slave labor flood our market. Civil and polite while the globe inches further towards a tipping point that will turn the Earth into another Venus. Civil and polite while our treasury is looted to the tune of trillions.

Civil and polite is fine for ordinary times. I do not believe these are such times.

Brisingamen @ 17

Oklahoma kiddo @ 7

Let’s do the inquiry. I am thinking we might have a better chance of an inquiry leading to ‘articles’ if we were to go after the VP.

I’d favor going after AG Gonzalez first. Bet that inquiry would produce enough to continue up the chain…

then Rove. then Cheney. or vice versa. as long as it’s Cheney before Bush.

incoming…?

greenwarrior @ 175

Millineryman @ 168

See 149

it’s a comment from biudun about cindy sheehan.

?????

It shows up as what I had typed on my screen.

greenwarrior @ 122

I’m in Facebook. How do I get the f thing to show up when I post?

You have first register using the link in the box with Meta on it on the right hand side of the page.

A password will be e-mailed to you, then you Login using your username and password, a profile page comes up and you scroll down, on the left hand side there is a feild that you paste in your Web address of your Facebook profile.

Update your profile, and the icon should be in your next post.

Above the comment box you should see a line that says Logged in as (username). Logout

punaise @ 178

incoming…?

yup

boxer @ 119

nomolos @ 102

Hmmmm. Seems like this is where you are going?
In the [Constitutional] convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to “pardon crimes which were advised by himself” or, before indictment or conviction, “to stop inquiry and prevent detection.” James Madison responded:

f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty…

Madison went on to [say] contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected.

Would any and all fellow attorneys reading this site comment on this. I know the intentions are good, but it is a bit irresponsible to dangle things in front of people. The Constitutional Convention has no force of law.

boxer, LHP is indeed one of those attorneys of which you are speaking. When the post she refers to comes up, then have at it if you disagree.

The constitutional convention has no force of law, but — strictly speaking — neither does anything else when you are talking about impeachment. The constitution says high crimes and misdemeanors, and that’s it. It says little about process, other than the house shall investigate and vote, and the case shall be tried in the Senate.

So much about impeachment is about politics and precedent. Thus, appeals to the founders, the constitutional convention debates, the Federalist papers, and all the rest are important, even if not “legally binding.” Especially when we’re talking about the GOP and those who appeal to “original intent” and such.

I’ve got an idea of where LHP is going, but I’ll wait until she puts it out there before tossing out my questions and trying to poke holes in it.

john in california @ 136 –

kucinich was also the only dem to vote against h.con.r.21 – and he was the only one to understand that it was based on propaganda… the rest of the house acted stupidly and dangerously.

There is no reason to be civil and polite if being uncivil and impolite would better accomplish goals- BUT this relies on facts not in evidence.

TiredFed @ 128

oh I am such a geek. I just love it when lhp puts her Professor Prop hat on!

Me too. LHP!!!

Bay State Librul @ 19

Any idea on time frames?
Does the House vote require a simple majority?
Let’s play Vegas… what are the odds, 50/50
or less?
TIME is of the essence, Iran could break out…
Signed,

The impatient one

vote in House is simple majority of those members present.

looseheadprop @ 175

vieravisionary @ 95

looseheadprop,

Where does commuting a sentence fall within the Constitutional Powers of the President?

At common law, commutation, reprieve, and similar devices where considered a subset of pardon.

Thanks for the clarification.

greenwarrior @ 167

i’m still asking nicely. dakine, snarkassandra, anyone: how do i get the facebook f thing to post next to my name when i post here. i am a member of facebook.

See the little “register” link in the meta box on the right? Follow that. You’ll get an email with a password. Login to FDL (right next to “register”), then fill in your profile (need the URL of your facebook profile). You’ll be all f’ed up like us :-).

barbara @ 98

I am so totally addicted to this site, I may need to find an FDL Anonymous group to learn how to handle it.

LHP, thank you, thank you.

Questions:

1.) Can impeachments happen simultaneously (e.g., Bush, Cheney, Gonzales) or must they be sequential? (Apologies if this repeats.)

I cannot think of ay reason why they could not be simultaneous, but admitt I have done no research on this exact point

2.) Who exactly does the initial inquiry? The House Committee as a whole or ???

The House Judiciary Committee or a subcommitte or ad hoc committee to which it delgates this task

3.) Who exactly becomes empowered/charged with writing up articles of impeachment?

See answer to #2

4.) Who would select attorneys to do the asking thing?

Presumably the chair of the Committee (Conyers) or the chair of the relevant sub or ad hoc committee
Thanks!

GordonM @ 142

james @ 112

There have been previous outbreaks of avian flu on the east coast, in PA and Delaware involving hundreds of thousands of birds.

This is the pretense these people are going to use in 2008 to f*** with the election and bring everything they’ve been doing in plain sight together into one cohesive operation.

They are acting with the arrogance of people who do not intend to relinquish power and face the music.

I put nothing past them, especially here in NY with Ray Kelly and David Cohen running the NYPD and its Intelligence Division respectively.

I seem to recall that right after the 04 election, Bush was pushing to be able to use the military to effect quarantine in the case of pandemic. It got lousy public reception, but I don’t know if he snuck anything through. Taking direct control of the National Guards (without having to ask permission from the governors) was bad enough.

He has that authority. Leahy is on it but he’d need a veto proof majority to get it reveresed.

greenwarrior @ 174:

See comment @ 148.

Looseheadprop -> To what degree do claims of executive privilege, etc. hold up in the light of either an impeachment inquiry?

In other words, could Congress choose to convene an impeachment inquiry as a way to circumvent Federal court on issues concerning the “pound sand” approach to Congressional subpoenas?

rwcole @ 174

Boxer

Are you an attorney?

Seems to me that when there is a question of the MEANING of the constitution- notes and other written material by framers has been used to clarify the intent..but I am NOT an attorney.

that’s absolutely correct. Most notably, iirc, the Federalist Papers.

TiredFed @ 166

ooh, ooh, when are you gonna cover “all civil officers” Professor? and how even the SCOTUS can’t mess with impeachments? I don’t want to be out that day!

Don’t you mean you DO want to be out that day?

*ring, ring*

Hi Boss. Sorry, but *cough* I can’t make it in today. *cough, cough* Wouldn’t want to pass it around the office. *snort* *hack* OK, maybe I’ll see you tomorrow. *cough* Bye.

*click*

Now, grab my coffee and off to Prof Prop’s seminar!

noen @ 135

I kind of agree with much of what you’re saying. I would like to see Bush tried on criminal charges first, then impeached. I think that would actually work.

You can’t try a sitting president. You have to impeach him first.

I’d say the odds that an impeachment posse would find high crimes and misdemenaors is about a million to one that we would find WMDs in Iraq.

boxer @ 104

I know this will generate a lot of emotional response, but I think we should be more realistic.
First, it is a faulty assumption to think that the Demo leaders do not have the backbone to impeach. Were the Demo. leaders at the time of Watergate so much braver? Remember we were coming up on around 50,000 casualties at this time, and they still hadn’t gotten us out of the last unjust war.
Second, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid know much better than anyone here with regard to whether or not the Senate will convict, and will move when the time is right.
Third, impeachment without conviction is a win for Bush. I’ve already said this before but I’ll say it again: If this happens he will be declared NOT GUILTY and therefore completely exonerated. Tony Snow will say the evidence was reviewed and the President was found by Congress to be not guilty.”NOT GUILTY” will be the headline in every newspaper, and subsequent history book.
Lastly, if sufficient direct evidence were to come to light, so that its introduction might actually lead to impeachment and conviction, the President will resign and live out his days comfortably in Crawford, TX. You will never see justice served on President Bush. I’m sorry, but it’s true. Go after Cheney and Gonzo.

The Impeachment Inquiry itself is a win for the truth. It may even drag on until Bush leaves office. It’s getting the truth out in a coherent way that gives an understandable narrative to the American people that is important.

That was why the Libby trial was important. Think of how much information we now have about how the WH has assaulted the Constitution! That would not have happened but for this “little unimportant” perjury case. PatFitz is right “TRUTH is the engine…” not just of our crimainl justice system, but of our constitutional sytem as well

I’m learning a LOT today. Great discussions, all.

Hugh @ 164

boxer @ 105

I know this will generate a lot of emotional response, but I think we should be more realistic.
First, it is a faulty assumption to think that the Demo leaders do not have the backbone to impeach. Were the Demo. leaders at the time of Watergate so much braver? Remember we were coming up on around 50,000 casualties at this time, and they still hadn’t gotten us out of the last unjust war.
Second, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid know much better than anyone here with regard to whether or not the Senate will convict, and will move when the time is right.
Third, impeachment without conviction is a win for Bush. I’ve already said this before but I’ll say it again: If this happens he will be declared NOT GUILTY and therefore completely exonerated. Tony Snow will say the evidence was reviewed and the President was found by Congress to be not guilty.”NOT GUILTY” will be the headline in every newspaper, and subsequent history book.
Lastly, if sufficient direct evidence were to come to light, so that its introduction might actually lead to impeachment and conviction, the President will resign and live out his days comfortably in Crawford, TX. You will never see justice served on President Bush. I’m sorry, but it’s true. Go after Cheney and Gonzo.

Re your first point, the Democrats exhibited an absence of backbone during the first 6 years of the Bush Presidency. Even in the majority they did not push the supplemental spending bill fight anywhere near as far as they might have.

Re the second point, there is no indication the either Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid will act unless given a good push by us.

Re your third point, there is a huge distance between not being convicted and being exonerated. Impeachment leaves a lasting stain on any Presidency.

Re your last point, the point of impeachment is removal from office. If Bush does so to avoid conviction, it is an admission in the court of history if not the Senate of his guilt. And he is still gone, out of the Presidency which was the object of the exercise.

Re you first counter point, it’s easy to be a Monday morning quarterback.
Re your second counter point, your conclusion is factually and logically wrong.
Re your third counter point, your emotion has the best of you, Rove would love impeachment without conviction, and the only poll numbers that will go down will be Congress’
Lastly, my last point was not about whether or not it was good if Bush is ultimately resigns (I think it would be good), my point was he will never be prosecuted and convicted. He will not see justice.Peterr @ 181

boxer @ 119

Would any and all fellow attorneys reading this site comment on this. I know the intentions are good, but it is a bit irresponsible to dangle things in front of people. The Constitutional Convention has no force of law.

boxer, LHP is indeed one of those attorneys of which you are speaking. When the post she refers to comes up, then have at it if you disagree.

The constitutional convention has no force of law, but — strictly speaking — neither does anything else when you are talking about impeachment. The constitution says high crimes and misdemeanors, and that’s it. It says little about process, other than the house shall investigate and vote, and the case shall be tried in the Senate.

So much about impeachment is about politics and precedent. Thus, appeals to the founders, the constitutional convention debates, the Federalist papers, and all the rest are important, even if not “legally binding.” Especially when we’re talking about the GOP and those who appeal to “original intent” and such.

I’ve got an idea of where LHP is going, but I’ll wait until she puts it out there before tossing out my questions and trying to poke holes in it.

Fair enough, I shouldn’t have jumped so quickly. But, I’m a bit tired of seeing people getting worked-up about something that sounds good, but is not realistic.

“However, if any of his conduct is ALSO a violation of criminal statutes, he can be subsequently prosecuted in a criminal court. This latter fact is also true once President Bush leaves office upon the expiration of his term, providing the applicable Statute of Limitations has not expired.”

Would evidence used in an impeachment and/or trial be usable in court for criminal prosecution?

looseheadprop @ 42

dakine01 @ 26

Prof @ 16:

Who says it would automatically be Lieberman to replace Cheney? HoJo is far more valuable to The Chimpenfuhrer as a nominal D in the Senate than as his VP. Plus, if Cheney is out of office, the replacement has to be confirmed by a majority of BOTH houses of Congress. I do not se a majority of both the House and Senate showing HoJo more comity than he has been showing them. And the Rs running for President would not offer him a leg up as heir apparent anymore than they would for hounddog Fred.

I hhave a later post planned on why we can do both at once. Movie trailer tease :James Madison said that under very special circumstances (which just happened to have occurred recently) the President and Vice President could be suspened from office during the pendency of an Impeachment Inquiry and Congress gets to appoint an interim someone to sit in the Oval Office.

THAT is gonna be a fun post to hit “publish” on.

ok, I’m swooning now.

Dailykos Diary:
WH Opinion Letter Entered in USA v Libby Case

rwcole @ 122

When twelve gooper senators stand up and speak in favor of impeachment- then it’s a go- until then- it’s a fantasy.

Twelve gooper senators don’t have to do anything, only a majority of the house.

oddmommy @ 192

rwcole @ 174

Boxer

Are you an attorney?

Seems to me that when there is a question of the MEANING of the constitution- notes and other written material by framers has been used to clarify the intent..but I am NOT an attorney.

that’s absolutely correct. Most notably, iirc, the Federalist Papers.

Yes, I am a law grad and yes any relevant outside source may be consulted to interpret the law. However, such source does not in itself contain the force of law (unless you’re Scalia).

looseheadprop @ 197

The Impeachment Inquiry itself is a win for the truth. It may even drag on until Bush leaves office. It’s getting the truth out in a coherent way that gives an understandable narrative to the American people that is important.

That was why the Libby trial was important. Think of how much information we now have about how the WH has assaulted the Constitution! That would not have happened but for this “little unimportant” perjury case. PatFitz is right “TRUTH is the engine…” not just of our crimainl justice system, but of our constitutional sytem as well

Can criminal charges be brought against B, C, G (or anyone else in the cabal) after they have left office if the truth comes to light during an impeachment hearing or does everything come to a screeching halt wit the end of the administration?

greenwarrior @ 172

Millineryman @ 168

See 149

it’s a comment from biudun about cindy sheehan.

?????

greenwarrior – I hope this suggestion I received will be helpful:

Greenwarrior, Begin your registration process on Firedoglake, right-hand column, Meta block.

spurious @ 201

rwcole @ 122

When twelve gooper senators stand up and speak in favor of impeachment- then it’s a go- until then- it’s a fantasy.

Twelve gooper senators don’t have to do anything, only a majority of the house.

If there’s going to be a conviction on any articles of impeachment, then you absolutely need to reach those GOP senators.

Of course, that’s part of what the impeachment inquiry can do. If it uncovers and makes plain conduct that is in such contempt of the constitution, the GOP senators will big problems if they want to ignore that conduct.

selise @ 57

a question on impeachment inquiry – can the house judiciary committee hire some prosecutors to do the questioning? i have not been impressed by the hearings i’ve watched so far.

there are some truly talented former U.S. Attorneys who might be free.

boxer @ 194
and related posts :-)

I think it is a mistake to think that we can predict what the Senate would do with an impeachment referral if and when one actually comes to them. The impeachment hearing and process would dredge up so much easy to understand, ugly truth about this admin that there will be tremendous pressure on the Senate coming out of it. We will never know if this will be enough pressure or not unless the process runs it’s course.

noen @ 175

Yes, I did miss that. Sure, she is the best in a long time but the GOP put that bar right on the ground. Anyone with a pulse would have been better.

By all means lets be civil and polite while New Orleans sinks further into decay. Civil and polite while goods made with child labor and slave labor flood our market. Civil and polite while the globe inches further towards a tipping point that will turn the Earth into another Venus. Civil and polite while our treasury is looted to the tune of trillions.

Civil and polite is fine for ordinary times. I do not believe these are such times.

Of those issues, the only one that is new is global warming. Before FDR, all times were such times, or worse. For 40 years, the Right has been plotting furiously to roll back FDR. It is not going to change overnight.

I encourage you to hold your congresscritter’s feet to the fire. I emphasize that it is slow because I don’t want anybody giving up.

IMPEACHMENT? Forget the Leadership. Convince the Judiciary Committee.

Not Pelosi. She’s made her position clear. Not Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. These 23 21 folks. Every one of them a Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee. Twenty-three who are essential to making impeachment happen. They can vote to hold impeachment hearings.

w/photos and contact info/links

I doubt if many votes have ever been turned during an impeachment investigation by the facts that are overturned- by the public reaction to those fact perhaps.

Hugh @ 66

I would add other areas of inquiry: the politicization of government through systemic Hatch Act violations, negligence in rendering timely aid to the people of New Orleans both in the short and long term, the un-Constitutional establishment of a prison at Guantanamo in an attempt to place it outside the purview of US courts, failure to define torture as required by even the reprehensible Military Commissions Act, and failure to secure Afghanistan before engaging in a war based on lies and deception in Iraq.

keep going Hugh. we know you have a list somewhere ;)

btw, have you ever gone back to David Corn’s book on Bush lies to crossreference?

coming up on EPU time, but this might be wroth reading:
Hearts over minds, he tells Democrats
A brain researcher says the party needs to connect with voters’ emotions to win.
By Robin Abcarian, Times Staff Writer
July 9, 2007

WASHINGTON — Drew Westen, a genial 48-year-old psychologist and brain researcher, was talking to a rapt liberal audience about the role of emotion in politics, how to talk back aggressively to Republicans, and why going negative is not to be feared.

It was Day 2 of the progressive “Take Back America” confab, and those who had crowded into a meeting room of the Washington Hilton were about to discover why Westen, a psychology professor at Atlanta’s Emory University and former associate professor at Harvard Medical School, had quietly become the great rumpled hope of Democrats who believe their candidates should have won the last two presidential elections.

[snip]

I would add to the impeachment list – Torture – Rendition – Secret CIA prisons.

boxer @ 201

oddmommy @ 192

that’s absolutely correct. Most notably, iirc, the Federalist Papers.

Yes, I am a law grad and yes any relevant outside source may be consulted to interpret the law. However, such source does not in itself contain the force of law (unless you’re Scalia).

You are a law grad. Does that mean you have passed the bar exam and are licensed to practice? Besides looseheadprop, I’m pretty sure that oddmommy, Christy Hardin Smith, jayt and various other posters and commenters are all experienced atorneys in various areas of the law, including prior experience as federal and state prosecutors and defense attorneys both.

Most of us who are not attorneys will acknowledge that fact but it does not mean we are idiots who do not understand legal issues after having them explained to us by a credible professional.

me @ 211

should be worth reading. But the typo is apt.

looseheadprop @ 90

Hugh @ 65

I would add other areas of inquiry: the politicization of government through systemic Hatch Act violations, negligence in rendering timely aid to the people of New Orleans both in the short and long term, the un-Constitutional establishment of a prison at Guantanamo in an attempt to place it outside the purview of US courts, failure to define torture as required by even the reprehensible Military Commissions Act, and failure to secure Afghanistan before engaging in a war based on lies and deception in Iraq.

Signing statements encouraging (directing?) federal agencies and officials to disregard, subvert, or otherwise act in contradiction to laws enacted by Congress.

Fresh thread.

looseheadprop @ 186

barbara @ 98

I cannot think of ay reason why they could not be simultaneous, but admitt I have done no research on this exact point

The House Judiciary Committee or a subcommitte or ad hoc committee to which it delgates this task

Who would select attorneys to do the asking thing?

Presumably the chair of the Committee (Conyers) or the chair of the relevant sub or ad hoc committee

Many thanks!

Not boring!!!! Need to Know!!! Thank you!!!!

GordonM @ 207

Of those issues, the only one that is new is global warming. Before FDR, all times were such times, or worse. For 40 years, the Right has been plotting furiously to roll back FDR. It is not going to change overnight.

I encourage you to hold your congresscritter’s feet to the fire. I emphasize that it is slow because I don’t want anybody giving up.

Ok, yeah, you are right about that. It just gets really hard knowing all the crap that is going on.

boxer @ 196

Re you first counter point, it’s easy to be a Monday morning quarterback.
Re your second counter point, your conclusion is factually and logically wrong.
Re your third counter point, your emotion has the best of you, Rove would love impeachment without conviction, and the only poll numbers that will go down will be Congress’
Lastly, my last point was not about whether or not it was good if Bush is ultimately resigns (I think it would be good), my point was he will never be prosecuted and convicted. He will not see justice

6 years of history is not Monday mornining quaterbacking. It is 6 years of history. If track records mean nothing then much of what we and the internet do serving as an institutional memory has not point.

And if you think that Pelosi and Reid are going to inherently act in our best interests without any input from us, you are being simply naive.

You have said again and again that impeachment without conviction is good for the Republicans. This is certainly a talking point the Republicans would like to push but what evidence do you have for it? Especially since you are against any recourse to the lessons of history.

I get that you don’t like impeachment. But unless you provide evidence or a persuasive argument, I will continue to disagree. We are all entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts.

An impeachment inquiry is not substantially different than a House Judiciary Committee investigation, other than the fact that it makes specific its POLITICAL intention.

The HJC’s investigations are otherwise in regard to CRIMINAL evidence, and can be pursued as such.

• Removal of AG Gonzales and USA Taylor (2nd Circuit) are worthy goals to pursue, and even an impeachment inquiry may eventually be necessary (if they cannot be convinced to resign after the evidence of their complicity in obstruction of justice is adduced).

The Democrats cannot start an impeachment, and an impeachment inquiry is STATED in political terms, which just makes the inability of Dems to start one explicit.

Therefore, it is quite clear that Chairman Conyers can accomplish EXACTLY what an impeachment inquiry can accomplish, WITHOUT setting off the political firestorm, bolstering R claims of partisanship, and turning over the agenda to a long process of allowing the R factions to gas about impeachment in a time of war, etc.

So, no, I don’t agree that an impeachment inquiry is the crucial next step. The next step is working further to remove Gonzales, and to put the screws to Taylor, on the way to getting independent prosecutors on each of the matters you list, which are crimes, and not just political crimes.

TiredFed @ 205

selise @ 57

a question on impeachment inquiry – can the house judiciary committee hire some prosecutors to do the questioning? i have not been impressed by the hearings i’ve watched so far.

there are some truly talented former U.S. Attorneys who might be free.

and they’re even republicans, so no one could say conyers was being unduely partisan. *g*

looseheadprop @ 195

The Impeachment Inquiry itself is a win for the truth. It may even drag on until Bush leaves office. It’s getting the truth out in a coherent way that gives an understandable narrative to the American people that is important.

That was why the Libby trial was important. Think of how much information we now have about how the WH has assaulted the Constitution! That would not have happened but for this “little unimportant” perjury case. PatFitz is right “TRUTH is the engine…” not just of our crimainl justice system, but of our constitutional sytem as well

Amen.

barbara @ 101

I am so totally addicted to this site, I may need to find an FDL Anonymous group to learn how to handle it.

LHP, thank you, thank you.

Questions:

1.) Can impeachments happen simultaneously (e.g., Bush, Cheney, Gonzales) or must they be sequential? (Apologies if this repeats.)

2.) Who exactly does the initial inquiry? The House Committee as a whole or ???

3.) Who exactly becomes empowered/charged with writing up articles of impeachment?

4.) Who would select attorneys to do the asking thing?

Thanks!

The FDL Anonymous group meets at a place called gabbly (lol)

GordonM @ 185

greenwarrior @ 167

i’m still asking nicely. dakine, snarkassandra, anyone: how do i get the facebook f thing to post next to my name when i post here. i am a member of facebook.

See the little “register” link in the meta box on the right? Follow that. You’ll get an email with a password. Login to FDL (right next to “register”), then fill in your profile (need the URL of your facebook profile). You’ll be all f’ed up like us :-).

Is the register link in the meta box on the FDL site or the Facebook site? Cause I don’t see register anywhere on the right of this page. Sometimes I can’t find my dinner in front of me either.

dakine01 @ 213

boxer @ 201

Yes, I am a law grad and yes any relevant outside source may be consulted to interpret the law. However, such source does not in itself contain the force of law (unless you’re Scalia).

You are a law grad. Does that mean you have passed the bar exam and are licensed to practice? Besides looseheadprop, I’m pretty sure that oddmommy, Christy Hardin Smith, jayt and various other posters and commenters are all experienced atorneys in various areas of the law, including prior experience as federal and state prosecutors and defense attorneys both.

Most of us who are not attorneys will acknowledge that fact but it does not mean we are idiots who do not understand legal issues after having them explained to us by a credible professional.

Yes and my credibility would only be at issue if I were wrong when I said that the Constitutional Convention doesn’t carry the force of law. Judges interpret law on its face, by precedent, and lastly be looking to outside sources for clarification. Be careful what you wish for. One of the main arguments this administration makes is that in times of crisis the President has “extra constitutional authority”; i.e., he is above the Constitution. And, they most certainly can find materials outside the Constitution to support this view. But thankfully, that’s not the law.

boxer @ 117

nomolos @ 102

Hmmmm. Seems like this is where you are going?
In the [Constitutional] convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to “pardon crimes which were advised by himself” or, before indictment or conviction, “to stop inquiry and prevent detection.” James Madison responded:

f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty…

Madison went on to [say] contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected.

Would any and all fellow attorneys reading this site comment on this. I know the intentions are good, but it is a bit irresponsible to dangle things in front of people. The Constitutional Convention has no force of law.

WHAT! Are you kidding me? They may not be “binding precedent” but courts have traditionally accorded them enormous weight.

boxer @ 106

I know this will generate a lot of emotional response, but I think we should be more realistic.
First, it is a faulty assumption to think that the Demo leaders do not have the backbone to impeach. Were the Demo. leaders at the time of Watergate so much braver? Remember we were coming up on around 50,000 casualties at this time, and they still hadn’t gotten us out of the last unjust war.
Second, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid know much better than anyone here with regard to whether or not the Senate will convict, and will move when the time is right.
Third, impeachment without conviction is a win for Bush. I’ve already said this before but I’ll say it again: If this happens he will be declared NOT GUILTY and therefore completely exonerated. Tony Snow will say the evidence was reviewed and the President was found by Congress to be not guilty.”NOT GUILTY” will be the headline in every newspaper, and subsequent history book.
Lastly, if sufficient direct evidence were to come to light, so that its introduction might actually lead to impeachment and conviction, the President will resign and live out his days comfortably in Crawford, TX. You will never see justice served on President Bush. I’m sorry, but it’s true. Go after Cheney and Gonzo.

I don’t want this to sound like an ad hominem attack, but this is the kind of reasoning that got us to the 50,000 causalties in Vietnam.

I don’t wanna burst your bubble, but Pelosi and Reid don’t know jack shit about the groundswell of public support for impeachment to begin. If they did, there would already be announcements of an inquiry.

The Democratic “leadership” also contains Hoyer and Emanuel and neither of these men can be trusted to do what’s right for the country as opposed to what’s right for their agenda,

An impeachment that forces the MSM to broadcast everything that this administration has done goes beyond Tucker, Tweety, Wolfie, and the other organs that these people use to keep America disinformed. An impeachemtn would force the senators who have been mindlessly defending these criminals to stand up in front of the cameras and consciously betray their country for their constiuents to see. There will be video that can be used against them in future election campaigns, assuming there will be future election campaigns.

Because, believe me, if these criminals are not brought to the bar to answer for their crimes and their disregard for the constitution and our institutions our future elections will be shams, like the elections to the Politburo in Stalin’s Soviet Union.

And no amount of “the leadership knows better than anyone here” will exonerate us for our cowardice in the face of a blatant attempt to subvert out system of government and turn it to one party rule.

Hello??? Why are SO MANY people “afraid” to impeach??? No WONDER we are in this mess!!!
Listen up, PELOSI is 3rd in LINE – DUH!
HR 333

Mary McCurnin @ 225

GordonM @ 185

See the little “register” link in the meta box on the right? Follow that. You’ll get an email with a password. Login to FDL (right next to “register”), then fill in your profile (need the URL of your facebook profile). You’ll be all f’ed up like us :-).

Is the register link in the meta box on the FDL site or the Facebook site? Cause I don’t see register anywhere on the right of this page. Sometimes I can’t find my dinner in front of me either.

This page, far right, bottom of the column (about opposite comment #9 in my browser).

rwcole @ 122

When twelve gooper senators stand up and speak in favor of impeachment- then it’s a go- until then- it’s a fantasy.

It COULD happen- but it will have to happen soon- once we start the election year- it’s not gonna happen…it would only happen if one of the investigations hits paydirt so HOT that even goopers can’t defend it.

I put the odds at one in a hundred- but it could happen.

I completely agree it will be too late once the election is in full swing. I figure that’s October at the latest.

Peterr @ 204

spurious @ 201

Twelve gooper senators don’t have to do anything, only a majority of the house.

If there’s going to be a conviction on any articles of impeachment, then you absolutely need to reach those GOP senators.

Of course, that’s part of what the impeachment inquiry can do. If it uncovers and makes plain conduct that is in such contempt of the constitution, the GOP senators will big problems if they want to ignore that conduct.

Peterr, that’s my point; the first order of business is to begin impeachment proceedings, so that the evidence to convince those 12 senators can be gotten out.

chris @ 135

looseheadprop @ 31

Legally, an Impeachment Inquiry can get at stuff that regular Congressional oversight hearings cannot. For example, an Impaechment Inquiry is a suitable repository for unsealed Grand Jury material.

Also, most “executive privledge” claims go out he window if the executive is the target of an Impeachment Inquiry.

It would cut through a lot of stonewalling and move things along swimmingly.

LHP, wouldn’t this be reason enough to open impeachment hearings? Instead of saying we want impeachment hearings to remove Bush/Cheney from office, the Dems could say they want impeachment to get the documents and testimony that Bush/Cheney won’t give.

But how does this process work. For example, if the impeachment process were started and Congress wanted documents for the impeachment and the president still refused, what would happen next?

Nixon tried that and the courts found that executive privledge cannot be used by the president to hide his own wrongdoing.

And YES, the point I am trying to make is that Impeachment inquiry itself is a GOOD thing

GordonM @ 144

james @ 112

There have been previous outbreaks of avian flu on the east coast, in PA and Delaware involving hundreds of thousands of birds.

This is the pretense these people are going to use in 2008 to f*** with the election and bring everything they’ve been doing in plain sight together into one cohesive operation.

They are acting with the arrogance of people who do not intend to relinquish power and face the music.

I put nothing past them, especially here in NY with Ray Kelly and David Cohen running the NYPD and its Intelligence Division respectively.

I seem to recall that right after the 04 election, Bush was pushing to be able to use the military to effect quarantine in the case of pandemic. It got lousy public reception, but I don’t know if he snuck anything through. Taking direct control of the National Guards (without having to ask permission from the governors) was bad enough.

He issued two directives in May of this year. I’ll look for the links.

Here’s one:

http://www.legitgov.org/DoD_to…..n_law.html

james @ 228

And no amount of “the leadership knows better than anyone here” will exonerate us for our cowardice in the face of a blatant attempt to subvert out system of government and turn it to one party rule.

amen. well said.

rwcole @ 209

I doubt if many votes have ever been turned during an impeachment investigation by the facts that are overturned- by the public reaction to those fact perhaps.

I don’t know. At the begining, the impeachment of Nixon was a loony lefty pipe-dream, and by the end it was something even Goldwater was willing to vote for. In the begining it was a foolhardy long-shot attempt to besmirch a president who had just won a landslide. In the end there were votes to spare. There probably weren’t a dozen senators who wouldn’t vote to convict Nixon.

I’m not “worked-up,” boxer @ 196, I’m furious. If you don’t want to get “worked-up” about defending our “unrealistic” Constitution and the critical inherent powers of our federal legislature against egregious abuses of power by the leadership of the Executive Branch, I guess that’s your prerogative, seeing as you’re not a Member of Congress.

For those who are Members of Congress, however, and have sworn an oath, upon taking public office on our behalf, that they will do just that – defend our Constitution – well, case closed. Their sworn duty is to proceed with all deliberate haste to determine whether or not the apparently-obvious egregious abuses of power by those in high executive office stand up to, expand upon, or disappear upon closer scrutiny.

I demand that my power be exercised by those to whom I loaned it in our legislature. And I demand that at least minimal standards of integrity and good faith behavior in public office, and in the execution of public duties, be expected and enforced, by the use of our Legislative Branch’s inherent power if need be, from and for those in whom we have entrusted the operations of our Executive Branch of government.

pow wow @ 237

I’m not “worked-up,” boxer @ 196, I’m furious. If you don’t want to get “worked-up” about defending our “unrealistic” Constitution and the critical inherent powers of our federal legislature against egregious abuses of power by the leadership of the Executive Branch, I guess that’s your prerogative, seeing as you’re not a Member of Congress.

For those who are Members of Congress, however, and have sworn an oath, upon taking public office on our behalf, that they will do just that – defend our Constitution – well, case closed. Their sworn duty is to proceed with all deliberate haste to determine whether or not the apparently-obvious egregious abuses of power by those in high executive office stand up to, expand upon, or disappear upon closer scrutiny.

I demand that my power be exercised by those to whom I loaned it in our legislature. And I demand that at least minimal standards of integrity and good faith behavior in public office, and in the execution of public duties, be expected and enforced, by the use of our Legislative Branch’s inherent power if need be, from and for those in whom we have entrusted the operations of our Executive Branch of government.

pow wow @ 237 – You just articulated how I have been feeling for SO long. Here, Here!! and THANK YOU!!

lhp,

Thanks for explaining this to us legal newbies, hope you will come back with more.

TiredFed @ 153

lhp, your posts are never too long. here’s one of my favorite posts on impeaching a certain Vice President: Twenty Questions The first:

1. Q: How long would it take to eject a vice president from office by impeachment?

A: Theoretically it could be done in a day. In the morning a member of the House of Representatives could propose one or more Articles of Impeachment and then a vote could be called. A simple majority (50% plus one vote) is all that is needed to impeach. In the afternoon the Senate could try the case. A two-thirds vote is needed in the Senate to convict.

Though in all honesty, I would hate, hate, hate to see anything as important as the removal of the President being handled that cavalerly. This is a seroius, solem process, with serious purpose and serious consequences.

pow wow @ 237 –
Thank you so much for that!

“I don’t wanna burst your bubble, but Pelosi and Reid don’t know jack shit about the groundswell of public support for impeachment to begin.”

Great! If there is such a groundswell, then the REPUBLICANS can start the impeachment of THEIR MESS any time they want, right?

What is the difference between an ‘impeachment inquiry,’ and the function of the House Judiciary Committee TO BEGIN WITH?

• Under Chairman Conyers, absolutely NOTHING. The very work he is doing is the work that an impeachment inquiry would attempt. Do you have ANY idea how much POLITICAL BULLSHIT would be involved in doing these investigations under the cloud of impeachment?

Impeachment is a POLITICAL act, and it does NOT work. It can be a useful tactic, but we need INDEPENDENT PROSECUTORS to investigate these issues.

And to get those, we have to knock down AG Gonzales and USA Taylor (2nd circuit crony). That’s a much more pressing issue, and no amount of whining about the political act of impeachment will make it a bipartisan act that can succeed, until it is.

More investigation, more pressure to remove Gonzales, get PROSECUTORS, not Senators, to do the heavy digging and finding guilty. These are, after all, CRIMES, not merely political malfeasance.

mayan @ 188

Looseheadprop -> To what degree do claims of executive privilege, etc. hold up in the light of either an impeachment inquiry?

In other words, could Congress choose to convene an impeachment inquiry as a way to circumvent Federal court on issues concerning the “pound sand” approach to Congressional subpoenas?

They can avoid the court by using “inherent contempt” as well.

GordonM @ 230

This page, far right, bottom of the column (about opposite comment #9 in my browser).

Thanks!!!! I think I did it. Now back to the impeachment at hand.

spurious @ 169

james @ 112

This is the pretense these people are going to use in 2008 to f*** with the election and bring everything they’ve been doing in plain sight together into one cohesive operation.

They are acting with the arrogance of people who do not intend to relinquish power and face the music.

This is what worries me. Why would they be building up the theory of the unitary executive, if they ever accepted that the next president might be a democrat?

Maybe it’s the things I’ve been reading lately, from Gibbons to Trotsky to Richard Evans to Glenn’s book, but everything these people are doing is laying the groundwork for a dictatorship. They have mercs employed by the State Department working in Iraq answerable to no one. They brought these very same mercs to NOLA and deputized them as federal marshals. These yahoos were walking around with machine guns and as far as a lot of these guys are concerned, brown people are brown people and insurgents are insurgents, the country of origin makes no difference to them.

Paul in LA @ 242

“I don’t wanna burst your bubble, but Pelosi and Reid don’t know jack shit about the groundswell of public support for impeachment to begin.”

Great! If there is such a groundswell, then the REPUBLICANS can start the impeachment of THEIR MESS any time they want, right?

What is the difference between an ‘impeachment inquiry,’ and the function of the House Judiciary Committee TO BEGIN WITH?

• Under Chairman Conyers, absolutely NOTHING. The very work he is doing is the work that an impeachment inquiry would attempt. Do you have ANY idea how much POLITICAL BULLSHIT would be involved in doing these investigations under the cloud of impeachment?

Impeachment is a POLITICAL act, and it does NOT work. It can be a useful tactic, but we need INDEPENDENT PROSECUTORS to investigate these issues.

And to get those, we have to knock down AG Gonzales and USA Taylor (2nd circuit crony). That’s a much more pressing issue, and no amount of whining about the political act of impeachment will make it a bipartisan act that can succeed, until it is.

More investigation, more pressure to remove Gonzales, get PROSECUTORS, not Senators, to do the heavy digging and finding guilty. These are, after all, CRIMES, not merely political malfeasance.

Thanks for the reality check. This site has drifted way too much toward group think. Disagreement upsets people here, instead of encouraging them to formulate better arguments. Where should I go?

Thanks for the tip, I’m about to research Nixon’s articles of impeachment.

And regarding some of the other comments in the negative…Sometimes we just have to do what is right for rights sake and let the political chips fall where they may…Just ask a few of our country’s founders.
looseheadprop @ 150

sammy1 @ 73

Congress should begin looking into articles of impeachment immediately. While the press will want to bring up Clinton (BJs are more fun to talk about)a truer comparison would be Nixon’s impeachment hearings and the abuses of his administration.
To check executive power grabs and abuses is one of the primary roles of the congress and they should not continue to shy away from their responsibility.
They owe it to our country and our future.

That’s why I used the photo of the marked up Nixon Articles. I took the final verson of the Nxon Impaechment Articles and started my own mark up. It was astounding to me how few words I needed to change to make them fit the current situtation.

Obviously I had to substitute the Plamegate for watergate, and NSA spying for IRS?CIA domestic spying, but the rest stayed pretty much the same

Steve-AR @ 197

“However, if any of his conduct is ALSO a violation of criminal statutes, he can be subsequently prosecuted in a criminal court. This latter fact is also true once President Bush leaves office upon the expiration of his term, providing the applicable Statute of Limitations has not expired.”

If the evidence was gathered in a way that did not render it inadmissable AND if Congress does not throw around immunity deals too freely

Would evidence used in an impeachment and/or trial be usable in court for criminal prosecution?

“A: Theoretically it could be done in a day.”

Theoretically, this whole COUP never happened.

Theoretically it is still August 9th, 1912.

Theoretically, it would be better to have a factual basis.

FACTUALLY, it would take at least six months to remove Cheney, and the effort would be a major impediment to the work of Congress.

Theoretically, it would be better to have an Independent prosecutor find Cheney guilty of major felonies and treason.

TiredFed @ 205

selise @ 57

a question on impeachment inquiry – can the house judiciary committee hire some prosecutors to do the questioning? i have not been impressed by the hearings i’ve watched so far.

there are some truly talented former U.S. Attorneys who might be free.

Yeah, but you shouldn’t be a lawyer in a cse where you are also a witness.

rwcole @ 209

I doubt if many votes have ever been turned during an impeachment investigation by the facts that are overturned- by the public reaction to those fact perhaps.

My reading of history says that is exactlywhat happened during the Watergate investigation. Until it began playing out night after night on the TV news, most Americans thought it was just about some goofy burglary.

As the populace became educated about what was really at stake, the mood in the country shiftd dramatically, and with it–the Senate.

US House Resolution 333 (From Wikipedia)

US House Resolution 333House Resolution 333 is the number given to a resolution submitted to the House of Representatives during the 110th United States Congress that impeaches Vice President Dick Cheney on three articles.

Contents [hide]
1 Summary and Sponsors
2 History
3 Current status
4 See also
5 References
6 External links

[edit] Summary and Sponsors
A summary of the resolution charges that Vice President Cheney:

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; and
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. [1]
The resolution was authored and submitted by Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a representative of Ohio. Congressman Kucinich has made available more than 45 documents supporting the articles of impeachment at his Congressional website, including at least 15 for each article. [2]

Aside from Kucinich, the resolution has nine co-sponsors:

Congressman William Lacy Clay, Jr., a representative of Missouri
Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, a representative of Illinois
Congressman Albert Wynn, a representative of Maryland
Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, a representative of New York
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, a representative of California
Congresswoman Barbara Lee, a representative of California
Congresswoman Maxine Waters, a representative of California
Congressman Keith Ellison, a representative of Minnesota
Congressman Hank Johnson, a representative of Georgia
In addition, Congressman Jim McDermott, a representative of Washington, and Congressman Bob Filner, a representative of California, have stated their intentions to become co-sponsors. [3][4]

[edit] History
Wikinews has news related to:
Democrat submits resolution to impeach CheneyThe resolution was introduced by Congressman Dennis Kucinich on April 24, 2007. Upon introduction, this resolution — like almost all bills and resolutions — was automatically referred to a Committee. In this case, Resolution 333 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

During his press conference announcing the resolution, Kucinich stated that he had not informed his party’s leadership of the resolution and had not spoken about the resolution with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi or Congressman John Conyers, the Chairman of the committee to which his resolution was referred.

In an interview with The Raw Story on the day of H.Res. 333’s introduction, Pelosi is reported to have said that impeachment proceedings would be a distraction from passing Democratic policies. During the campaign for the 2006 midterm election, Pelosi stated that impeachment was “off the table.” Furthermore, Kucinich is reported to have said he would not attempt to persuade other Members of Congress from supporting the resolution. [5]

On CNN’s Situation Room, Kucinich stated, “I’m not promoting [the resolution]… Members of Congress will have to search their own conscience, take counsel with their constituents, and make the decision independently.” [6]

Congressman Clay signed on as a co-sponsor to the Resolution on May 1, 2007, supporting his decision by stating: “I believe that Mr. Cheney deliberately manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the Congress of the United States and the American people. The arrogant abuse of power and the complete disregard for the truth needs to stop.” [7]

Congresswoman Schakowsky signed on as a cosponsor the same day, but did not issue an immediate statement regarding her decision. [8]

On May 10, 2007, Congressman Albert Wynn also signed on as a co-sponsor, indicating that he believes Cheney is “the architect of the Administration’s deception about the war” and that the Vice President “should be held accountable for purposely misleading the American people.”[9]

Congresswoman Yvette Clarke became a co-sponsor on June 6, 2007, stating: “When the American people voted on November 7th, they asked for a change in direction by electing the Democratic party in the House and Senate. I have heard the loud cries of my constituents, and they want accountability. My support of HRes 333 reflects the voices of the residents of central Brooklyn.”[10]

Congresswomen Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee both signed on as co-sponsors on June 7, 2007.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters signed on as a co-sponsor on June 12, 2007.[11] Maxine Waters is a member of the House Judiciary Committee to which the resolution has been referred.

Congressmen Keith Ellison and Hank Johnson joined the list of sponsors on June 28, 2007. They are the second and third members of the House Judiciary Committee to endorse the resolution. Johnson later explained his decision, saying: “I wanted to send a clear and distinct message that I’m sick and tired of the incompetence, arrogance, secrecy and lawlessness in the Executive Branch and I think it’s appropriate for me to direct my ire to Cheney through the impeachment resolution.”[12]

Also on June 28, Congressman Jim McDermott made remarks confirming his intention to join the effort, stating: “I have seen the Vice President repeatedly drive our nation into increasingly dire situations, in Iraq, in Iran, and within our own country as he tramples over the Constitution like it is a doormat… the Vice President holds himself above the law. And, it is time for the Congress to enforce the law. I believe the evidence is overwhelming and articles of impeachment against the Vice President should be drawn up.” [3]

On July 2nd, Congressman Jesse Jackson Junior of Illinois announced “With the president’s decision to once again subvert the legal process and the will of the American people by commuting the sentence of convicted felon Lewis Scooter’ Libby, I call on House Democrats to reconsider impeachment proceedings.” [13]

[edit] Current status
The resolution has been referred to the Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, chaired by Congressman Jerrold Nadler.

The Judiciary Committee has not yet scheduled a hearing on the resolution. Absent a positive referral from the Judiciary Committee, the only way the resolution could reach the floor of the House is with the approval of the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Failure of the Judiciary Committee and Speaker Pelosi to act favorably would result in the resolution remaining in committee indefinitely, where it would never receive a vote.

[edit] See also
Impeachment
Impeachment in the United States

looseheadprop @ 251

rwcole @ 209

I doubt if many votes have ever been turned during an impeachment investigation by the facts that are overturned- by the public reaction to those fact perhaps.

My reading of history says that is exactlywhat happened during the Watergate investigation. Until it began playing out night after night on the TV news, most Americans thought it was just about some goofy burglary.

As the populace became educated about what was really at stake, the mood in the country shiftd dramatically, and with it–the Senate.

Exactly where I was trying to go @228 supra.

Thx for this post, LHP

Impeachment Inquiry – how effective can this be when the President yells “Executive Privilege” or “Classified” every time information is requested. What is to keep him from continuing to stonewall the House?

“Would evidence used in an impeachment and/or trial be usable in court for criminal prosecution?”

Of course.

• A key point to understand is that newspaper (or blog) reports of events are HEARSAY.

What is written as evidence in Congressional committees is FACT, usable by any court in the world.

Bushco’s acts of conspiracy, fraud, and the rest of the criminal abuse have statute of limitations — but the major warcrimes, and the treason, do not.

It would set an interesting precedent if congress were to impeach a prez- or VP for that matter- for lyin in a build up to war….Can anyone think of a pres who went to war and DIDN’T lie?

james @ 245

Maybe it’s the things I’ve been reading lately, from Gibbons to Trotsky to Richard Evans to Glenn’s book, but everything these people are doing is laying the groundwork for a dictatorship. They have mercs employed by the State Department working in Iraq answerable to no one. They brought these very same mercs to NOLA and deputized them as federal marshals. These yahoos were walking around with machine guns and as far as a lot of these guys are concerned, brown people are brown people and insurgents are insurgents, the country of origin makes no difference to them.

Actually I’m less worried about this than I was a year or 3 ago. I think the Angler series in the WaPo was the first sign that Cheney is being thrown under the bus (they’ll try to blame him for everything, like that series of articles does). And Bush is too much of a chicken to do it by himself. Heck, he’s now accepting help from Poppy (why the meetings with Putin took place in Kennebunkport). Still evil of course, but with a lower case “e”.

If the facts come out eventually about how criminally incompetent this president is- it’s goin to scare the bejesus out of that small portion of the american public who reads.

I see the answer in 31 . Thanks.

House need to start Inquiry. Tomorrow!

“My reading of history says that is exactlywhat happened during the Watergate investigation. Until it began playing out night after night on the TV news, most Americans thought it was just about some goofy burglary. As the populace became educated about what was really at stake, the mood in the country shiftd dramatically, and with it–the Senate.”

No, that’s false. Look at the timeline.

The impeachment began in April, and continued for several months, to considerable coverage, and nothing happened. Nixon thought he could survive.

• The release of the ’smoking gun tape’ in early August changed that.

He resigned FOUR DAYS later.

It was EVIDENCE, not public opinion, which forced Nixon from power.

LHP @ 42:

I hhave a later post planned on why we can do both at once. Movie trailer tease :James Madison said that under very special circumstances (which just happened to have occurred recently) the President and Vice President could be suspened from office during the pendency of an Impeachment Inquiry and Congress gets to appoint an interim someone to sit in the Oval Office.

THAT is gonna be a fun post to hit “publish” on.

I can’t wait to see it! The whole business of impeaching equally culpable Peep and VPeep has been intriguing me for months.

rwcole @ 256

It would set an interesting precedent if congress were to impeach a prez- or VP for that matter- for lyin in a build up to war….Can anyone think of a pres who went to war and DIDN’T lie?

This is a riff on the old saw that All politicians are crooks and liars. But it is a specious moral equivalence. Not all wars are the same, not all lies are the same. Iraq represents an extreme, a pointless war fought for the phoniest of reasons.

Paul in LA @ 260

“My reading of history says that is exactlywhat happened during the Watergate investigation. Until it began playing out night after night on the TV news, most Americans thought it was just about some goofy burglary. As the populace became educated about what was really at stake, the mood in the country shiftd dramatically, and with it–the Senate.”

No, that’s false. Look at the timeline.

The impeachment began in April, and continued for several months, to considerable coverage, and nothing happened. Nixon thought he could survive.

• The release of the ’smoking gun tape’ in early August changed that.

He resigned FOUR DAYS later.

It was EVIDENCE, not public opinion, which forced Nixon from power.

Again, Paul, I concur. I argued this same point last week. Everyone is caught up in the emotion of impeachment and are choosing to ignore whether or not it would be effective. People are failing to distingush between direct evidence, the President’s voice on tape, and hearsay. This Senate, as it is currently comprised, will not convict on hearsay.

You must have leverage to FORCE that evidence to be released into the public’s view. That’s what the Inquiry is designed to do.

Paul in LA @ 260

It was EVIDENCE, not public opinion, which forced Nixon from power.

It was the process coupled with the evidence bolstered by public opinion and political opposition that forced Nixon from power.

Hugh:

Well there are some pretty incredible justifications out there—remember the Maine? How bout the Gulf of Tonkin…and it took a crowbar to get us into WW1—What was the argument for the war to steal the southwest from Mexico? They were all pretty bad.

“rwcole says
July 9th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
It would set an interesting precedent if congress were to impeach a prez- or VP for that matter- for lyin in a build up to war….Can anyone think of a pres who went to war and DIDN’T lie?”

Lincoln. Or Madison.

Hugh @ 265

Paul in LA @ 260

It was EVIDENCE, not public opinion, which forced Nixon from power.

It was the process coupled with the evidence bolstered by public opinion and political opposition that forced Nixon from power.

Given the fact that the OVP has admitted to destroying records that are supposed to be preserved by statute in accordance with the Presidential Reocrd Act, do you really believe there will be any incontrovertible evidence when these people are finished?

I’m sure the archives that relate to the JFK, MLK, and RFK assassinations have been scrubbed and whatever records Bushie Boy was in a hurry to cover-up with his Executive Order that virtually sealed presidential records from public disclosure are probably ashes by now.

People need to see that the president is being abetted in his criminal behavior by a coterie of partisans who have captured part of the legislative branch.

Not to mention hijacked the judicial branch.

Via @ 264

You must have leverage to FORCE that evidence to be released into the public’s view. That’s what the Inquiry is designed to do.

The House Judiciary Committee ALREADY moves evidence into the public’s view, were there a legal and fair media to do so.

An ‘inquiry of impeachment’ is a feel good obstruction to Conyers’ (and Waxman, et al.) WORK.

No amount of putting a title on it will make it any more probative, or will move the process.

• REPUBLICANS are the only ones who can start the impeachment process.

Because it is a PARTISAN process that has NEVER worked. In 225 years, no convictions, and the reason is that a PARTISAN group of Senators cannot be expected to rule on facts in a non-partisan way that gores their own ox.

The Founders didn’t like political parties for this very same reason (and others). They did not have political parties in their original thinking about impeachment. It’s a false power; the far more real power is the INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR.

We need to get some of those; we do NOT need to spend the rest of these two years looking into the crystal ball of the Founders’ delusions about what would be possible 225 years later.

rwcole @ 266

Hugh:

Well there are some pretty incredible justifications out there—remember the Maine? How bout the Gulf of Tonkin…and it took a crowbar to get us into WW1—What was the argument for the war to steal the southwest from Mexico? They were all pretty bad.

I accept your point. The Powell Doctrine of which I am a great proponent was formulated in part to address these stumbles and lunges into war based on half truths and fullblown lies. Bush’s conduct has been especially egregious in this regard because he did not violate some but all of its tenets.

“Given the fact that the OVP has admitted to destroying records that are supposed to be preserved by statute in accordance with the Presidential Reocrd Act, do you really believe there will be any incontrovertible evidence when these people are finished?”

Oh, WITHOUT A DOUBT.

Chairman Conyers has published a book with incontrovertible evidence of something like 25 federal crimes by the Executive. I wonder how many have read it?

http://tinyurl.com/2f98w8

But we just caught the OFFICE OF DAN QUAYLE in a major series of felonies, last week, when they claimed that they were the fourth branch, and therefore outside the Executive classification procedures. That argument collapsed in four days.

Without that argument, Cheney has declassified a long string of documents (for giving to his corporations, no doubt), and those declassifications cannot be fully secured from prying investigators. These are hard to find breadcrumbs, perhaps, but they DO lead to the witch’s house.

I just sent the following email to Nancy Pelosi:

“Madam Speaker:

Please put the impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney back on the table. This is a matter of utmost important to our nation, in order to preserve our honor at home and in the international community.

The high crimes and misdemeanors of the current administration must be answered with official action by the representatives of the people. We must make a stand to say that we as a nation do not accept the Cheney/Bush actions and lies. To fail in this regard is to tacitly give permission to future administrations to commit crimes equal to, or even worse than, what has been done in the last seven years.

Arguments have been made that the Senate lacks the votes to convict, that impeachment would distract from other important work that needs to be done, that it would be politically imprudent to attempt to remove these thugs from office. In my view, all these arguments are lame, false, bogus and just plain wrong. There is no more important work to be done then to uphold our Constitution, there can be no more prudent action than to oppose and deny the legitimacy of Cheney/Bush, and the real danger politically lies in passivity and complicity. Use your power! Please stand up for us! You can be a patriot of historic proportions, a true American hero!

Thank you.”

Paul in LA @ 269

Via @ 264

You must have leverage to FORCE that evidence to be released into the public’s view. That’s what the Inquiry is designed to do.

The House Judiciary Committee ALREADY moves evidence into the public’s view, were there a legal and fair media to do so.

An ‘inquiry of impeachment’ is a feel good obstruction to Conyers’ (and Waxman, et al.) WORK.

No amount of putting a title on it will make it any more probative, or will move the process.

• REPUBLICANS are the only ones who can start the impeachment process.

Because it is a PARTISAN process that has NEVER worked. In 225 years, no convictions, and the reason is that a PARTISAN group of Senators cannot be expected to rule on facts in a non-partisan way that gores their own ox.

The Founders didn’t like political parties for this very same reason (and others). They did not have political parties in their original thinking about impeachment. It’s a false power; the far more real power is the INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR.

We need to get some of those; we do NOT need to spend the rest of these two years looking into the crystal ball of the Founders’ delusions about what would be possible 225 years later.

Yes, this would be effective. We should stop wasting time trying to invent or find some obscure method of removing Bush (not gonna happen) and stop screaming impeachment (not gonna happen w/respect to Bush). Why don’t people want to devote themselves to the hard work that might actually accomplish something, rather than clinging to fairy tales?

Hugh @ 265

Paul in LA @ 260

It was EVIDENCE, not public opinion, which forced Nixon from power.

It was the process coupled with the evidence bolstered by public opinion and political opposition that forced Nixon from power.

No, it was his own damn voice, on that tape, discussing the coverup. PERIOD. His house of cards collapsed in days.

Tyutumi @ 272

I just sent the following email to Nancy Pelosi:

“Madam Speaker:

Please put the impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney back on the table. This is a matter of utmost important to our nation, in order to preserve our honor at home and in the international community.

The high crimes and misdemeanors of the current administration must be answered with official action by the representatives of the people. We must make a stand to say that we as a nation do not accept the Cheney/Bush actions and lies. To fail in this regard is to tacitly give permission to future administrations to commit crimes equal to, or even worse than, what has been done in the last seven years.

Arguments have been made that the Senate lacks the votes to convict, that impeachment would distract from other important work that needs to be done, that it would be politically imprudent to attempt to remove these thugs from office. In my view, all these arguments are lame, false, bogus and just plain wrong. There is no more important work to be done then to uphold our Constitution, there can be no more prudent action than to oppose and deny the legitimacy of Cheney/Bush, and the real danger politically lies in passivity and complicity. Use your power! Please stand up for us! You can be a patriot of historic proportions, a true American hero!

Thank you.”

Excellent letter.

Hugh–Yeah this one was pretty bad—it is perhaps most notable for the transparency of it’s cynicism. When Card said “Well ya don’t start a new marketing campaign in August” it was clear that they thought of their job as bullshit spreading- and Wolfie’s proud speech afterwards when he said “And it just so happens that there’s a lot of oil in the deal too” (laughing his ass off) was pretty intolerable…

These guys are dirt-pondscum- no doubt about it- I just find it interesting that we know it takes lies and bullshit to get americans to go to war- and then are shocked when we discover someone did it.

Human nature at war with itself.

boxer and Paul in LA

So you’re arguing that because the Senate can’t convict now, that the House shouldn’t even start investigating?

That’s ridiculous.

Start investigating, and find out how many more trees have cats up them. Start, as several people here and elsewhere have suggested, wiith that surveillance program that Comey refused to authorize until it was changed. Start with the ‘fourth branch’ claims that Cheney made. Start with the ‘illegal enemy combatant’ and ‘Geneva Convenetions are quaint’ stuff – that’s criminal conduct.

Just don’t say ‘we can’t win, so we’re not even going to try.’

(It also helps if you don’t mistake disagreement with your views for prejudice against your views.)

Tyutumi. you do understand, don’t you, that Speaker Pelosi would be the person to become President if the Executive is removed?

• Then HOW do you expect her to consent to a Democratic impeachment initiation?

We cannot initiate impeachment, or else the Republicans will have a ‘partisan crime’ pitch which they will repeat until you and everyone else are VOMITING in disgust. And it will have a basis.

THEY have to start the impeachment. All we can do, and that’s a lot, is to out the evidence. We don’t need an “impeachment inquiry” to do that — the HJC (and other committees) does that all day long.

P J Evans @ 277

boxer and Paul in LA

So you’re arguing that because the Senate can’t convict now, that the House shouldn’t even start investigating?

That’s ridiculous.

Start investigating, and find out how many more trees have cats up them. Start, as several people here and elsewhere have suggested, wiith that surveillance program that Comey refused to authorize until it was changed. Start with the ‘fourth branch’ claims that Cheney made. Start with the ‘illegal enemy combatant’ and ‘Geneva Convenetions are quaint’ stuff – that’s criminal conduct.

Just don’t say ‘we can’t win, so we’re not even going to try.’

(It also helps if you don’t mistake disagreement with your views for prejudice against your views.)

Bush to Democrats: “so your saying we can’t win in Iraq, so we shouldn’t try?”

PJ, what the hell do you mean ’start’ the investigations?

READ CONYERS’ BOOK.

The investigation has been going on for seven years. Now that we have the Chairmanships, it’s been going forward at a clip.

LABELING the process is just a feel good manuever that puts Speaker Pelosi and the Dem party into an impossible situation.

Agree with Paul. The current investigations need to go forward. The war between congress and the prez on executive privelege needs to happen – and quickly…It’s possible that something will come out of all this that will galvanize the people (and therefore congress) to act- but it better happen quickly.

We’ve got three weeks- then a recess

Then we’ve got a couple of months before the country is totally consumed with the primaries next winter.

The clock may already have run out.

The window for any impeachment discussions totally overlaps the window for the war funding debate…does anyone think congress can handle both at the same time in September?

boxer @ 279

P J Evans @ 277

boxer and Paul in LA

So you’re arguing that because the Senate can’t convict now, that the House shouldn’t even start investigating?

That’s ridiculous.

Start investigating, and find out how many more trees have cats up them. Start, as several people here and elsewhere have suggested, wiith that surveillance program that Comey refused to authorize until it was changed. Start with the ‘fourth branch’ claims that Cheney made. Start with the ‘illegal enemy combatant’ and ‘Geneva Convenetions are quaint’ stuff – that’s criminal conduct.

Just don’t say ‘we can’t win, so we’re not even going to try.’

(It also helps if you don’t mistake disagreement with your views for prejudice against your views.)

Bush to Democrats: “so your saying we can’t win in Iraq, so we shouldn’t try?”

Picking your battles is called wisdom.

looseheadprop @ 248

Steve-AR @ 197

“However, if any of his conduct is ALSO a violation of criminal statutes, he can be subsequently prosecuted in a criminal court. This latter fact is also true once President Bush leaves office upon the expiration of his term, providing the applicable Statute of Limitations has not expired.”

If the evidence was gathered in a way that did not render it inadmissable AND if Congress does not throw around immunity deals too freely

Would evidence used in an impeachment and/or trial be usable in court for criminal prosecution?

After watching the House Judiciary Cmte, I am afraid they would make criminal proceedings very difficult.

Paul in LA @ 274

Hugh @ 265

It was the process coupled with the evidence bolstered by public opinion and political opposition that forced Nixon from power.

No, it was his own damn voice, on that tape, discussing the coverup. PERIOD. His house of cards collapsed in days.

This reminds me of Republicans saying that Armitage was the first to out Plame and he wasn’t prosecuted. In fact, no one was prosecuted for the underlying crime because there was no underlyig crime. It is essentially a construction of a narrative and then a steadfast refusal to let facts get in the way of it.

You construct a similar narrative. It was the tapes and only the tapes. So you overlook that the existence of the tapes would never have come to light if the pre-impeachment process had not occurred. You ignore that it was only the Republican deputation that told Nixon that the jig was up that kept Nixon from trying to weather the appearance of the tapes.

Simplistic black and white narratives are not supposed to be part of our side of the blogosphere. We should not indulge in them.

There were certainly a lot of “tipping points” in the Nixon story..

I can’t reconstruct it all- but Dean’s testimony was a biggie- as was the “18 missing minutes” bullshit- the firing of Cox- and of course the release of the tapes….

One power punch after the other. Nixon was losing support daily.

rwcole @ 281

The clock may already have run out.

The clock for a REPUBLICAN LED impeachment doesn’t run out until Jan 09.

The indictment clock is STILL running, and I believe very strongly that Bush and Cheney will NOT reach their golden parachutes.

Smoking gun tape = resignation 4 days later.

Evidence in evidence, and the rest is history. We need Independent Prosecutors to amplify the baying of the hounds so they can hear them behind the plate glass windows of their Shitehouse of Shame.

WHAT??? YOU’VE GOT TO BE KIDDING: “We should stop wasting time trying to invent or find some obscure method of removing Bush (not gonna happen) and stop screaming impeachment (not gonna happen w/respect to Bush). Why don’t people want to devote themselves to the hard work that might actually accomplish something, rather than clinging to fairy tales?”

Impeachment:To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal.

Fairy Tale: A fanciful tale of legendary deeds and creatures, usually intended for children.

Paul in LA @ 278

. All we can do, and that’s a lot, is to out the evidence. We don’t need an “impeachment inquiry” to do that — the HJC (and other committees) does that all day long.

We DO need an Impeachment Inquiry. Otherwise they continue to stonewall and/or we go to a court who has already been conveniently stacked by Bush. The Inquiry forces Bush to hand over the information and avoids the peril of a court finding in his favor.

Tracey @ 288

WHAT??? YOU’VE GOT TO BE KIDDING: “We should stop wasting time trying to invent or find some obscure method of removing Bush (not gonna happen) and stop screaming impeachment (not gonna happen w/respect to Bush). Why don’t people want to devote themselves to the hard work that might actually accomplish something, rather than clinging to fairy tales?”

Impeachment:To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal.

Fairy Tale: A fanciful tale of legendary deeds and creatures, usually intended for children.

Impeachment without direct evidence equals fairy tale.

vieravisionary @ 97

looseheadprop,

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

Where does commuting a sentence fall within the Constitutional Powers of the President?

LHP:
My question or comment deals with the phrase, “in cases of impeachment.” Is it possible to interpret that phrase broadly to include not only the person receiving the commutation but also other parties who may be subject to impeachment. Particularly, where the actions of the parties may be inter-related. Were it not for the action of the party convicted of ‘obstruction of justice’ others parties may have already been impeached and convicted. Here, since Congressman Kuccinch has already filed a bill, the actions of the President could be viewed as ‘preemptive strike’ against the possibility of him or his Vice-President facing impeachment charges themselves. Also there are polls indicating that many American believe Cheney should be impeached. Second question. Could/Should Judge Walton consider potential impeachment charges against Cheney/Bush as a way to invalidate Bush’s commutation of Libby since the commutation would be a case where impeachment is involved? Bush would not have the authority under the Constitution. Perhaps, this is why Libby was anxious to pay the fine and scoot away. Thanks.

In late August 2001, a Los Angeles Times article exposed the connections between Cheney’s Task Force and Bush’s campaign contributors. The article described how the final report adopted verbatim a global warming policy suggested by the U.S. Energy Association (an energy industry group), how language was altered to favor Halliburton, and how a company called Peabody Coal and its affiliates gave more than $900,000 to the Bush campaign and “gained extraordinary access” to the Task Force. (See http://www.commondreams.org/he…..826-02.htm for a copy of the article.)

As Enron collapsed, Cheney continued to refuse access to the documents of the Task Force. In February 22, 2002, the GAO filed suit to obtain the documents, some of which have since been turned over. But large questions about the circumstances under which the Bush Administration’s energy policy was formed remain. The evidence indicates that the final product was a gift for the energy industry from Cheney, their former colleague.

Can members of Congress, in collusion with the Executive Branch, be held in contempt, or themselves impeached/indicted, for providing cover for the Executive Branch?

It seems like pretty scary territory to embark on, but the way in which the Republic Party has grabbed power seems criminal – it is all tied together, all three branches were essentially taken over, in some cases I would portend illegally.

boxer @ 290

Impeachment without direct evidence equals fairy tale.

Yes, I believe the name of that fairy tale is the Emperor’s New Clothes. This argument involves a Catch 22. You can’t conduct an inquiry without direct evidence but you can’t cut through the stonewalling to get direct evidence without one.

Oh, and Nancy Pelosi can’t do her duty as speaker of the House because both Bush and Cheney are crooks. I guess the Founders forgot to put that one in the Constitution, that the line of succession works except in cases of impeachment.

Via @ 289

We DO need an Impeachment Inquiry. Otherwise they continue to stonewall and/or we go to a court who has already been conveniently stacked by Bush. The Inquiry forces Bush to hand over the information and avoids the peril of a court finding in his favor.

The inquiry does NOTHING of the kind.

Check out the membership of the Supreme Court some time. Do you think you can get a ruling from those five cronies, during a war they helped foment?

We MUST remove the cronies in the way, and work through the federal bench, not the SCOTUS. The investigation of these crimes is not improved by labeling the process in political terms (that’s what the R are already trying to do, and Chairman Conyers is too clever to fall into the trap well-meaning progressives are trying to launch him into).

The Independent Prosecutor, the Fitzgerald, this is our saviour.

boxer, we were never going to ‘win’ in Iraq. Remember, it’s based on a lie, a lie by Bush and Cheney, and that in itself is impeachable. Also a war of aggression – that’s what it was, it’s now an occupation – is a war crime, which is a capital offense under the Geneva Conventions.

I want Bush and Cheney impeached and out of office by whatever means possible. And I want them, and all those underlings they’re so busy claiming privilege on, barred from office for the rest of their lives.

BTW, I watched the Watergate hearings. I was plenty old enough then to recognize BS when I heard it from a President. Even though I don’t think he would have been convicted, impeachment was still the right thing to do. (It is, in fact, a political remedy for a political problem. If you want criminal proceedings, you can file criminal charges. Have fun.)

Also, do you think the Dems are trying to run out the clock themselves? If the Democratic Party beats the Republic Party in the coming elections, and we impeach BushCo – he can go ahead and pardon anyone he wants, and if not himself, then a Republic Party stooge can. If however, the Democrats wait until his Executive Authority runs out, and they discover crimes under the SOL, wouldn’t it be even better to take everyone out with criminal convictions in the long run?

Hugh @ 294

boxer @ 290

Impeachment without direct evidence equals fairy tale.

Yes, I believe the name of that fairy tale is the Emperor’s New Clothes. This argument involves a Catch 22. You can’t conduct an inquiry without direct evidence but you can’t cut through the stonewalling to get direct evidence without one.

Oh, and Nancy Pelosi can’t do her duty as speaker of the House because both Bush and Cheney are crooks. I guess the Founders forgot to put that one in the Constitution, that the line of succession works except in cases of impeachment.

Your putting words in my mouth, I never said you couldn’t conduct an inquiry. However, I’m in agreement with Paul in LA, on how best to get the facts needed.

Chuffy @ 293

Can members of Congress, in collusion with the Executive Branch, be held in contempt, or themselves impeached/indicted, for providing cover for the Executive Branch?

It seems like pretty scary territory to embark on, but the way in which the Republic Party has grabbed power seems criminal – it is all tied together, all three branches were essentially taken over, in some cases I would portend illegally.

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.

So ask yourself, can one party find the other party guilty? NO, IT CANNOT.

But an Independent Prosecutor can find the RNC guilty of crimes, can indict and (with a grand jury) convict R politicians, and can certainly hunt down some Quail-shooting ‘Dan Quayle,’ cowering behind his lawyers.

I have come to the position that even though I believe it is quite clear that Bush has committed impeachable offenses, it is doubly so for Cheney, so I favor going after the lowest-hanging fruit of them all: Cheney.

I foresee it going like this:

Impeachment proceedings are initiated against Cheney. The public favors this as it is by 54% before details of crimes have even been given light of day. This is EASY. Not even the GOP likes the bastard anymore. In any case, impeachment of Cheney commences. Meanwhile Cheney goes under the knife for repairs to his dead, cold robotic heart. As it appears that impeachment WILL succeed, he takes this opportunity to resign for “health reasons”. Bush, also realizing that impeachment was going to succeed and that Cheney (and himself) were in legal danger to boot, gives Cheney a pre-emptive pardon as a parting gift. The public and political outrage for this on top of the Libby bullshit leads the public to support impeaching Bush by numbers even higher than the current Cheney numbers.

From here, Congress can let it slide, the important work of repudiating everything Cheney/Bush have done and stood for (including the “unitary executive”) accomplished…or they can move against Bush now that their fingers are all loosened up. In any case, if not, they offer up Lieberman as a compromise candidate to fill in for Cheney. This takes Lieberman out of the senate and destroys his political career from that point on. He cannot finangle the VP slot into a viable run for Prez…he’s just done. The votes in the senate don’t change because Lieberman was a GOPer where it mattered anyway.

Go after Cheney and you take out the heart and “soul” of the “unitary executive”, the “dark side”, all the actions in the ME, all the actions with regards to Gitmo, black sites, disappearances, etc. Take out Cheney and the Bush Administration goes all panicky and loses any and all spirit and strength. Leaks start popping up all over bejesus, people start resigning in droves, Gonzales gets all sweaty and wet-his-pants scared. Bush goes despondent and goes on a bender for the rest of his term (assuming no impeachment of him).

The GOPers lose big time in 2008 and with them the neocons go back into the underworld from whence they spewed forth.

Chuffy @ 293

Can members of Congress, in collusion with the Executive Branch, be held in contempt, or themselves impeached/indicted, for providing cover for the Executive Branch?

Congress can impeach and remove pretty much anyone in the Executive Branch, except perhaps uniformed military personnel. It also has the power to impeach judges. Each House has the power to deal with its own members: censure, expulsion, etc.

Yes, I do understand that. Let the chips fall where they may. I do no fear reality. The great failing of the Democratic party has been that they wimp out or fail to act, out of fear of the political fallout. Results? Nothing happens, the crooks and liars get a free pass.

It’s time to stop enabling the thugs. Just say no.

Paul in LA @ 278

Tyutumi. you do understand, don’t you, that Speaker Pelosi would be the person to become President if the Executive is removed?

• Then HOW do you expect her to consent to a Democratic impeachment initiation?

We cannot initiate impeachment, or else the Republicans will have a ‘partisan crime’ pitch which they will repeat until you and everyone else are VOMITING in disgust. And it will have a basis.

THEY have to start the impeachment. All we can do, and that’s a lot, is to out the evidence. We don’t need an “impeachment inquiry” to do that — the HJC (and other committees) does that all day long.

Paul in La

Why do you think impeachment is useless and we should have a special prosecutor? (No independent prosecutors; that law has been off the books for several years.)

(Impeachment is the Constitutional remedy for the situation we’re in. Criminal charges are another story, and then we can have a special prosecutor. We’ve been through this argument here before.)

“Congress can impeach and remove pretty much anyone in the Executive Branch”

That’s not correct.

boxer @ 298

Your putting words in my mouth, I never said you couldn’t conduct an inquiry. However, I’m in agreement with Paul in LA, on how best to get the facts needed.

An impeachment inquiry cuts through the stonewall of executive privilege. We already are seeing that with regular hearings the Executive will drag them out as long as they can invoking precisely executive privilege.

One of the better debates here- passionate while remaining civil…I like it.

I can’t see articles of impeachment getting voted out–just ain’t gonna happen in my opinion. If the dem leaders in congress reach the conclusion that impeachment is a proper course- well then I’ll support em- but I don’t think they will- and they’re in a better position than I am to weigh the politics of it- and it’s ALL politics.

Oh, Jesus no, not Lieberman. Never Lieberman.

boxer @ 304

“Congress can impeach and remove pretty much anyone in the Executive Branch”

That’s not correct.

Article II, Section 4.

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.

Civil officer applies to any employee of the federal government, including judges, excluding those in the military and legislators. From The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation 2002 edition, the annotated text put out by our government:

During the debate in the First Congress on the “removal” controversy, it was contended by some members that impeachment was the exclusive way to remove any officer of the Government from his post, but Madison and others contended that this position was destructive of sound governmental practice, and the view did not prevail. Impeachment, said Madison, was to be used to reach a bad officer sheltered by the President and to remove him “even against the will of the President; so that the declaration in the Constitution was intended as a supplementary security for the good behavior of the public officers.” While the language of section 4 covers any “civil officer” in the executive branch, and covers judges as well, it excludes military officers, and the precedent was early established that it does not apply to members of Congress.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/const…..02/012.pdf (p.608)

Whatever. This has long since ceased to be a conversation based on anything remotely like facts. I’m moving on.

Paul in LA @ 295

Via @ 289

We DO need an Impeachment Inquiry. Otherwise they continue to stonewall and/or we go to a court who has already been conveniently stacked by Bush. The Inquiry forces Bush to hand over the information and avoids the peril of a court finding in his favor.

The inquiry does NOTHING of the kind.

Check out the membership of the Supreme Court some time. Do you think you can get a ruling from those five cronies, during a war they helped foment?

We MUST remove the cronies in the way, and work through the federal bench, not the SCOTUS. blockquote>

Paul, maybe I misunderstood what the Inquiry does. I understood it to give us a way to avoid SCOTUS. Right now Bush is forcing us to court by refusing to obey the subpoenas. He cannot refuse if he is the subject of investigation during an Inquiry.

dems get blasted daily for cowardice..

What is meant usually is POLITICAL cowardice- meaning putting their desire to gain political power through elections a higher priority than some things we’d like to see- like impeachment…

It’s their JOB to gain and hold onto political power- and they’ve done pretty well recently.. Wining the senate was a near miracle- and the house victory was deeper and broader than most imagined possible…

The next job is:

1) Keep Clusterfuck from appointing any more supreme court justices

2) Get us on the way out of Iraq.

3) Win the White House

4) Enlarge the majority in congress..

Anything beyond that is gravy. If impeachment helps with these four goals- fine- if it doesn’t- put it aside.

Sorry, I goofed above. Here is my response to Paul:

Paul, maybe I misunderstood what the Inquiry does. I understood it to give us a way to avoid SCOTUS. Right now Bush is forcing us to court by refusing to obey the subpoenas. He cannot refuse if he is the subject of investigation during an Inquiry.

Tyutumi @ 272

I just sent the following email to Nancy Pelosi:

“Madam Speaker:

Please put the impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney back on the table. This is a matter of utmost important to our nation, in order to preserve our honor at home and in the international community.

The high crimes and misdemeanors of the current administration must be answered with official action by the representatives of the people. We must make a stand to say that we as a nation do not accept the Cheney/Bush actions and lies. To fail in this regard is to tacitly give permission to future administrations to commit crimes equal to, or even worse than, what has been done in the last seven years.

Arguments have been made that the Senate lacks the votes to convict, that impeachment would distract from other important work that needs to be done, that it would be politically imprudent to attempt to remove these thugs from office. In my view, all these arguments are lame, false, bogus and just plain wrong. There is no more important work to be done then to uphold our Constitution, there can be no more prudent action than to oppose and deny the legitimacy of Cheney/Bush, and the real danger politically lies in passivity and complicity. Use your power! Please stand up for us! You can be a patriot of historic proportions, a true American hero!

Thank you.”

This is GREAT!

Tyutumi @ 302

Yes, I do understand that. Let the chips fall where they may. I do no fear reality.

Then you don’t understand politics sufficiently.

“Let the chips fall where they may” is the language of fools.

Never ask a question you don’t know the answer to.

There are a significant number of people who express their panic in the form of a willingness to take a stab at Caesar, without figuring out first what will happen SECOND.

You may be a patriot, but I’m glad you’re not running the Dem caucus. And as for Dems being ‘weak,’ democracy is weak. Blaming the Dems for the success of a rightwing coup that stole elections, involving one whole party and five members of the Supreme Court, wired the corporate media to help foment a war breaking every law of warfare on the books — this is not a ‘let the chips fall where they may’ situation.

We, democracy, may not be able to punish the criminals. I’ve been working on that conundrum all my life. THESE crimes are unbelievably far more evidenced than almost any in history. I do not think they will get away, but I also don’t think we need to see Speaker Pelosi appear to try to elevate herself by turning the new (and still cronified) Congress into a prosecutorial body.

Independent Prosecutors, as soon as we can force the DoJ and 2nd Circuit bench to assign them. Then let the Grand Jury fall where it may.

rwcole @ 310

dems get blasted daily for cowardice..

What is meant usually is POLITICAL cowardice- meaning putting their desire to gain political power through elections a higher priority than some things we’d like to see- like impeachment…

It’s their JOB to gain and hold onto political power- and they’ve done pretty well recently..

No. Their JOB is to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic…and that they do this without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.

They are cowards because the ONLY thing they do is evade their responsibilities to the Constitution as per their oath. Their OATH is the end all be all of their existence.

Everything else follows from this.

And how the hell are we going to force the DOJ appendage of Bush to appoint a prosecutor?

Via @ 311

Sorry, I goofed above. Here is my response to Paul:

Paul, maybe I misunderstood what the Inquiry does. I understood it to give us a way to avoid SCOTUS. Right now Bush is forcing us to court by refusing to obey the subpoenas. He cannot refuse if he is the subject of investigation during an Inquiry.

I am not a lawyer. My understanding is that the SCOTUS can interfere with our rights all the way down the road, and the Congress cannot expect rulings in their favor from them. The circuit courts (via DoJ) generate the Independent Prosecutors, as i understand it, and that route is below the SCOTUS, and allows us to skate from balance of power (SCOTUS) issues.

Praedor

Attorneys take an oath too I suppose- but the oath is not their job- their job is advocacy- which means WINNING…

Politicians who do not win a majority are powerless and pitiful advocates–begging for table scraps…

In order to do their job politicians must win elections- everything flows from that.

Via @ 315

And how the hell are we going to force the DOJ appendage of Bush to appoint a prosecutor?

That, rather than writing poignant letters to Pelosi, is the challenge.

Clearly we have to force Gonzales to resign.

Funny how Chairman Conyers has been working on that all year.

That is what is so horribly wrong with this entire Still Life of Administration. We can’t go to SCOTUS because of Alito and Roberts; we can’t get a Special Prosecutor because of Gonzales; we can’t get votes to impeach in the Senate because they are Bush zombies…..this is NOT what the founders had in mind.

Praedor Atrebates @ 314

No. Their JOB is to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

In this circumstance, a coup, their job is to hold onto political power, elect a new Executive, and then weed out the cronies and false laws (and secret EOs) put in place.

• There is NO WAY to protect the Constitution without getting a new Executive from our side.

LHP (if still attending),
I get the non-criminal political offense idea, but I’m having trouble with the criminal non-impeachable one.

rwcole @ 317

Praedor

Attorneys take an oath too I suppose- but the oath is not their job- their job is advocacy- which means WINNING…

Politicians who do not win a majority are powerless and pitiful advocates–begging for table scraps…

In order to do their job politicians must win elections- everything flows from that.

I took an oath when I joined the military. I take that oath DEAD serious. It means I am to lay down my very life, if need be, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. NOT the borders, not political parties, not Disney Land. Not corporations. Not anything BUT the Constitution and what it means and what it provides. NOTHING matters beyond it because nothing exists beyond it.

I hold those in the House, Senate, and Executive to the very same standard that I hold fellow soldiers. There is NO option but to protect and defend the Constitution. Period. There is no shirking this. There is no turn-tail and run on this. It matters not at all whether or not you can, in the end, succeed in defending the Constitution (it IS a “suicide pact” in fact or else everyone who has fought and died to protect and defend it for the last 230 years is an idiot and fool for letting themselves die for an optional and dispensible “piece of paper”.

No. Not optional. No options but to uphold and defend it. That first, anything else comes second.

You do NOT “win” by tossing the Constitution in the trash for expedience. It either IS the absolute, inviolate law of the land beyond which NONE may pass or it is shit.

Which is it?

Perhaps I don’t understand politics sufficiently, but this is bigger than politics. It’s not about defeating your enemies, it’s about upholding principles. Am I naive in clinging to principles? If so, let the chips fall where they may….

Paul in LA @ 313

Tyutumi @ 302

Yes, I do understand that. Let the chips fall where they may. I do no fear reality.

Then you don’t understand politics sufficiently.

“Let the chips fall where they may” is the language of fools.

Never ask a question you don’t know the answer to.

There are a significant number of people who express their panic in the form of a willingness to take a stab at Caesar, without figuring out first what will happen SECOND.

You may be a patriot, but I’m glad you’re not running the Dem caucus. And as for Dems being ‘weak,’ democracy is weak. Blaming the Dems for the success of a rightwing coup that stole elections, involving one whole party and five members of the Supreme Court, wired the corporate media to help foment a war breaking every law of warfare on the books — this is not a ‘let the chips fall where they may’ situation.

We, democracy, may not be able to punish the criminals. I’ve been working on that conundrum all my life. THESE crimes are unbelievably far more evidenced than almost any in history. I do not think they will get away, but I also don’t think we need to see Speaker Pelosi appear to try to elevate herself by turning the new (and still cronified) Congress into a prosecutorial body.

Independent Prosecutors, as soon as we can force the DoJ and 2nd Circuit bench to assign them. Then let the Grand Jury fall where it may.

Very well said, Praedor Atrebates. I am moved, and I thank you for your service.

In late August 2001, a Los Angeles Times article exposed the connections between Cheney’s Task Force and Bush’s campaign contributors. The article described how the final report adopted verbatim a global warming policy suggested by the U.S. Energy Association (an energy industry group), how language was altered to favor Halliburton, and how a company called Peabody Coal and its affiliates gave more than $900,000 to the Bush campaign and “gained extraordinary access” to the Task Force. (See http://www.commondreams.org/he…..826-02.htm for a copy of the article.)

As Enron collapsed, Cheney continued to refuse access to the documents of the Task Force. In February 22, 2002, the GAO filed suit to obtain the documents, some of which have since been turned over. But large questions about the circumstances under which the Bush Administration’s energy policy was formed remain. The evidence indicates that the final product was a gift for the energy industry from Cheney, their former colleague.

Paul in LA @ 316

I am not a lawyer. My understanding is that the SCOTUS can interfere with our rights all the way down the road, and the Congress cannot expect rulings in their favor from them. The circuit courts (via DoJ) generate the Independent Prosecutors, as i understand it, and that route is below the SCOTUS, and allows us to skate from balance of power (SCOTUS) issues.

Paul, it may haved escaped your notice, but the Independent Prosecutor provision was allowed to sunset several years ago.

Fitzgerald is a Special Prosecutor, and his purview is the Plame/CIA case. He can’t look into the other areas that need examining, like warrantless wiretapping and the politization of the DOJ. Do you really think AG Gonzales will be willing to appoint another Special Prosecutor?

So, the only avenue left is an Impeachment Inquiry, as the Executive Branch is not allowed to withhold evidence in these proceduings as it has been doing to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees’ hearings.

FWIW.

Thanks, j.cro @ 312 and Hugh @ 275.

More emails might make more room at the table…. ;-)

j.cro @ 312

Tyutumi @ 272

I just sent the following email to Nancy Pelosi:

“Madam Speaker:

Please put the impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney back on the table. This is a matter of utmost important to our nation, in order to preserve our honor at home and in the international community.

The high crimes and misdemeanors of the current administration must be answered with official action by the representatives of the people. We must make a stand to say that we as a nation do not accept the Cheney/Bush actions and lies. To fail in this regard is to tacitly give permission to future administrations to commit crimes equal to, or even worse than, what has been done in the last seven years.

Arguments have been made that the Senate lacks the votes to convict, that impeachment would distract from other important work that needs to be done, that it would be politically imprudent to attempt to remove these thugs from office. In my view, all these arguments are lame, false, bogus and just plain wrong. There is no more important work to be done then to uphold our Constitution, there can be no more prudent action than to oppose and deny the legitimacy of Cheney/Bush, and the real danger politically lies in passivity and complicity. Use your power! Please stand up for us! You can be a patriot of historic proportions, a true American hero!

Thank you.”

This is GREAT!

Chuck Taylor @ 291

vieravisionary @ 97

looseheadprop,

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

Where does commuting a sentence fall within the Constitutional Powers of the President?

LHP:
My question or comment deals with the phrase, “in cases of impeachment.” Is it possible to interpret that phrase broadly to include not only the person receiving the commutation but also other parties who may be subject to impeachment. Particularly, where the actions of the parties may be inter-related. Were it not for the action of the party convicted of ‘obstruction of justice’ others parties may have already been impeached and convicted. Here, since Congressman Kuccinch has already filed a bill, the actions of the President could be viewed as ‘preemptive strike’ against the possibility of him or his Vice-President facing impeachment charges themselves. Also there are polls indicating that many American believe Cheney should be impeached. Second question. Could/Should Judge Walton consider potential impeachment charges against Cheney/Bush as a way to invalidate Bush’s commutation of Libby since the commutation would be a case where impeachment is involved? Bush would not have the authority under the Constitution. Perhaps, this is why Libby was anxious to pay the fine and scoot away. Thanks.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe any of your scenarios would come into play without and open Impeachmen Inquiry.

The Inquiry itself opens all kinds of possibilities and enables a host of legal arguments.

Is the House Judiciary Committee discussing the merits of the Impeachment Inquiry? It seems like a no-brainer, after our primer here today.

Paul in LA @ 295

Via @ 289

We DO need an Impeachment Inquiry. Otherwise they continue to stonewall and/or we go to a court who has already been conveniently stacked by Bush. The Inquiry forces Bush to hand over the information and avoids the peril of a court finding in his favor.

The inquiry does NOTHING of the kind.

Check out the membership of the Supreme Court some time. Do you think you can get a ruling from those five cronies, during a war they helped foment?

We MUST remove the cronies in the way, and work through the federal bench, not the SCOTUS. The investigation of these crimes is not improved by labeling the process in political terms (that’s what the R are already trying to do, and Chairman Conyers is too clever to fall into the trap well-meaning progressives are trying to launch him into).

The Independent Prosecutor, the Fitzgerald, this is our saviour.

There is no greater admirer of Pat Fitzgerald than I (I am willing to risk life and limb to challenge Jim Comey to an arm wrestle t=for the title of “president for life of the Pat Fitzgerald fan club”)

But Pat Fitz is not the answer. he does not have the jurisdiction necessary to go after the Commuter, only Congress can do that.

Chuffy @ 297

Also, do you think the Dems are trying to run out the clock themselves? If the Democratic Party beats the Republic Party in the coming elections, and we impeach BushCo – he can go ahead and pardon anyone he wants, and if not himself, then a Republic Party stooge can. If however, the Democrats wait until his Executive Authority runs out, and they discover crimes under the SOL, wouldn’t it be even better to take everyone out with criminal convictions in the long run?

Impeachment does not prevent a later criminal prosecution. In fact, it hastenes the availablity of criminal process

Brisingamen @ 326

Paul, it may haved escaped your notice, but the Independent Prosecutor provision was allowed to sunset several years ago.

I’m aware of that. Special Prosecutors are what we need, several of them, and no, Gonzales has to be replaced to get them (and also the 2nd circuit crony Taylor).

We do need an Independent Prosecutor statute restored, because the impeachment process DOES NOT WORK.

It — might — work in some cases (never has), but it will certainly not work when the leaders of one party in Congress are co-conspirators.

A lot of people want to pretend that impeachment works. They fall into two classes, both present here.

Praedor Atrebates, who apparently believes that his military oath is somehow sacrosanct — nevermind that 160,000 soldiers currently fighting this ILLEGAL war are violating their oaths on a daily basis.

Tyutumi, who wants to just throw the flour and water up in the air, and have pizza dough when they come down, maybe.

And then, of course, are all the Dem-bashers who wish to put their testicles (and ovaries, somehow) on the scale, and blame them for our situation. It’s all about balls — no pain no gain — one Tillman with a machine gun and a squad, off to fight the Corporatofascists.

As a regular street protester, I sympathize with all these fine Americans. ANYONE who believes idealistically in our system of gov’t should be supported in their faith. But that doesn’t mean by short-sheeting the Speaker. The REPUBLICANS can be forced to impeach their own bastard — with the right evidence, the right smoking gun tape. If they start it, we’ll finish it, in a heartbeat.

Until then, Go Conyers!

Paul in LA @ 313

Tyutumi @ 302

Yes, I do understand that. Let the chips fall where they may. I do no fear reality.

Then you don’t understand politics sufficiently.

“Let the chips fall where they may” is the language of fools.

Never ask a question you don’t know the answer to.

There are a significant number of people who express their panic in the form of a willingness to take a stab at Caesar, without figuring out first what will happen SECOND.

You may be a patriot, but I’m glad you’re not running the Dem caucus. And as for Dems being ‘weak,’ democracy is weak. Blaming the Dems for the success of a rightwing coup that stole elections, involving one whole party and five members of the Supreme Court, wired the corporate media to help foment a war breaking every law of warfare on the books — this is not a ‘let the chips fall where they may’ situation.

We, democracy, may not be able to punish the criminals. I’ve been working on that conundrum all my life. THESE crimes are unbelievably far more evidenced than almost any in history. I do not think they will get away, but I also don’t think we need to see Speaker Pelosi appear to try to elevate herself by turning the new (and still cronified) Congress into a prosecutorial body.

Independent Prosecutors, as soon as we can force the DoJ and 2nd Circuit bench to assign them. Then let the Grand Jury fall where it may.

Paul, just to pick a nit:

Why do you think he 2nd Circuit (which covers NY, Conn and Vt, would have anything at all to do with appointing a SPecial Prosecutor to investigate the White House??

Are you thinking of the DC circuit?

Paul in LA @ 318

That, rather than writing poignant letters to Pelosi, is the challenge.

You think our letters are ‘poignant’? Mine are more like a polite version of ‘WTF are you waiting for? Here’s what you need to do; here’s where you find information; now get up and do it!’
I’ve been writing my congresspeople (all three of them, all of them busy), I’ve been writing others in Congress, I’ve called (politely) my congresscritter’s local office a couple of times … short of pitchforks-and-torches, there’s not a lot mroe I can do. And I have a pitchfork.

Paul in LA @ 316

Via @ 311

Sorry, I goofed above. Here is my response to Paul:

Paul, maybe I misunderstood what the Inquiry does. I understood it to give us a way to avoid SCOTUS. Right now Bush is forcing us to court by refusing to obey the subpoenas. He cannot refuse if he is the subject of investigation during an Inquiry.

I am not a lawyer. My understanding is that the SCOTUS can interfere with our rights all the way down the road, and the Congress cannot expect rulings in their favor from them. The circuit courts (via DoJ) generate the Independent Prosecutors, as i understand it, and that route is below the SCOTUS, and allows us to skate from balance of power (SCOTUS) issues.

Paul you are mistaken about Special Prosecutors. Under the now expired “Independant Counsel” Act (which gave us Ray, DiGenova, and Starr–for examples) a panel of judges from the DC circuit appointed the counsel after the Attorney General certified that the triggering criteria had been met.

That statute no longer exists and there will be no more Independant Counsels to be had from that source.

Pat Fitz was not and Independant Counsel. He was a Special Counsel, a DOJ employee given a particularized task. It’s not as novel at it seems. But his task was very circumscribed which is how he did NOT run afoul of the the Appointments Clause and remained an “inferior officer”.

There is no help for hyou from that source either

looseheadprop @ 333

Why do you think he 2nd Circuit (which covers NY, Conn and Vt, would have anything at all to do with appointing a SPecial Prosecutor to investigate the White House??

Are you thinking of the DC circuit?

Oh, oops, you’re of course right. I think the crony involved is named Taylor, but the actual details are still unclear to me.

I don’t feel so bad. Apparently most of the commenters are unable to realize that Speaker Pelosi can’t start an impeachment that she would profit from. Impeaching Cheney PRETENDS not to involve that, but we all know that the entire Executive is bunko from top to bottom.

Paul in LA

Now that you’ve demonstrated that you don’t want to listen to anyone here who has a clue about the process and disagrees with you … would you like to rephrase your demands?

P J Evans @ 337

Paul in LA

Now that you’ve demonstrated that you don’t want to listen to anyone here who has a clue about the process and disagrees with you … would you like to rephrase your demands?

Am I holding you hostage? Now that you have characterized my comments, what ransom do you require?

I’m going to admit to not reading the comments yet, but I just read the article. Again, I’m new here but I just cannot tell you how enlightening this information is, to help us understand what is Truth, what is possible, and what we can do.
I don’t usually like to post without reading other people’s posts, but I imagine I’m not the only one here saying a big, fat, “Thanks!”

Jan @ 339

I’m going to admit to not reading the comments yet, but I just read the article. Again, I’m new here but I just cannot tell you how enlightening this information is, to help us understand what is Truth, what is possible, and what we can do.
I don’t usually like to post without reading other people’s posts, but I imagine I’m not the only one here saying a big, fat, “Thanks!”

Welcome Jan. You just jump right in at will..Oh and clean towels are always on the left. *s*

Praedor Atrebates, who apparently believes that his military oath is somehow sacrosanct — nevermind that 160,000 soldiers currently fighting this ILLEGAL war are violating their oaths on a daily basis.

I assure you I am under no illusion about this. I am well aware that the Iraq war is illegal and that has always been my position (It is also the reason I will not get promoted to LtCol – because I have thus far refused to have ANYTHING to do with that debacle. I will also refuse to have anything to do with an attack on Iran). I have been THIS close to simply hanging it up because as far as I’m concerned the oath IS sacrosanct. There is NO room for f*cking around with personal whims of Presidents…though it is difficult at times to clearly discern what is, or is not, misuse of the military.

ANY violation of the oath, however, any failure to protect and defend the Constitution such as taking part in ANY violations of Posse Comitatus (which cannot help but violate the Constitution up one side and down the other) or violation of ANY treaty that the US is a signatory to is a clear violation of the Constitution, federal statute, the UCMJ, and plain, simple honor. You KNOW what I am referring to.

I harbor no illusions about various past military excursions that were Constitutionally “questionable” in various ways, but nevertheless, the Constitution is the end-all, be-all of the country. No Constitution, no country. No Constitution, no military. No Constitution, NO AUTHORITY. Uphold it or NO number of feel-good laws passed for electoral gain mean diddly. It is bribery, plain and simple, not unlike Roman Emperors throwing ever more elaborate celebrations and underwriting ever more extravagant “games” at the Coliseum. Spitting on the Republic with virtually all actions on one hand while throwing dust into the faces of the people with games on the other for distraction.

R.H. Green @ 321

LHP (if still attending),
I get the non-criminal political offense idea, but I’m having trouble with the criminal non-impeachable one.

many things are crimes, but would not be an assault on the constitutional sceme warranting Impeachment.

For example, the HJC considered, but rejected an Article of Impeachment against Nixon for false tax returns. Though a crime, it was not a crime that had anything to do with the presidency

Paul, while in an ideal world we would have impeachment AND conviction, I don’t believe that will happen. My main point is that we lose if we don’t at least initiate the impeachment process. Failure to do so is tatamount to official surrender of the entire Constitution. That document, our national charter, provides the appropriate means for dealing with the problem.

That fact that Pelosi would become President in the event that Junior and Deadeye were convicted is incidental and immaterial. Impeachment proceedings, upon the recommendation of the HJC, remain as her prerogative and her duty as Speaker.

Similarly, my letters to elected officials, and those of all passionate citizens, poignant or otherwise, remain as my prerogative. At this point the expression of our will is one of the few rights we still have.

Praedor Atrebates @ 341

I harbor no illusions about various past military excursions that were Constitutionally “questionable” in various ways, but nevertheless, the Constitution is the end-all, be-all of the country.

The impeachment power is not equivalent to the Constitution. It’s a failed piece of Founder logic that has never worked.

Having said that, I have protested long and hard in front of our national cemetary here in LA, for the honor of those soldiers who do their best to fight under the UCMJ. What Bushco has done to OUR troops is utterly disgusting treason, and the employment of mercenaries next to our troops makes me very upset. I’m also pretty upset about the million dead Iraqis. But I honor your pledge.

I just don’t draw the conclusion that after 225 years a parchment barrier which has never worked somehow will; nor do I buy the idea of hanging that failure around the neck of the Democrats. It’s fatally flawed, and that’s why I think there is no choice but to bring back the Independent Prosecutor.

Tyutumi @ 343

That fact that Pelosi would become President in the event that Junior and Deadeye were convicted is incidental and immaterial.

So you would like to damage democracy in order to uphold the ADMITTED ILLUSION of labeling the work of the House outing the crimes as an impeachment, because that will save the Constitution?

The Constitution does not live or die on the impeachment process in it, a power that BOTH time it has been used were POLITICAL CONGRESSIONAL CRIMES. It is up to us, post this crisis, to establish some sort of independent authority for prosecuting high crimes (not political misdemeanors as with the Congressional history).

I fought for impeachment for two full years, daily — between 2002 and 2004, until Ranking Member Conyers said it was over (because of the 2004 elections). It is still a worthwhile tactic when we are in the minority, but it is no better than a filibuster in terms of its ability to turn a partisan body into some kind of HONEST kangaroo court. And we were entirely unable to start that process over OBVIOUS CRIMES. So the politics were there the whole time, and the myth of non-partisan partisans was proven a lie once again.

In this case, we have the committees and can do the investigation, and are, with or without the label. The label would only block that progress — the main reason, I would hazard, that Chairman Conyers agrees that impeachment labeling (or ‘process’) is off the table.

I have a beautiful 1954 Chevy out in the garage. It doesn’t run, but I like to imagine