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.

But I doubt that Pelosi would remove members of the Judiciary Committee from their positions if they forwarded to her Articles of Impeachment.

BTW This whole argument about Pelosi having a conflict of interest” is bogus.

Speaker Carl Levin was DIRECTLY next in line for the Presidency after Agnew’s resignation and he didn’t squelch the Watergate hearings. If Agnew hadn’t resigned he clearly WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED…and that would have meant that parallel impeachments could have been going on while Levin was Speaker.

Pelosi should be thinking about her Constitutional obligations rather than whether this will put her in a position of becoming President. That way she avoids any conflict of interest”. In addition, she could simply step aside of decisions relating to such issues…allowing her Reps to vote their consciences and the desires of their constituents.

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 agree with going after Cheney and Gonzo FIRST…but the ONLY WAY that your last statement regarding EVIDENCE COMING TO LIGHT will be via AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY! The DOJ is tainted and no AUSA will investigate a criminal endeavor now that Gonzo is heading that Department.

I’d also disagree with you view that an failed impeachment is a victory for Bush. The facts of the case of criminal activity may be so compelling that it will be obvious to the public that Bush is being “protected” politically by a small class of recalcitrant Republican Senators. Thus these Senators would face the ire of the voters when they come up for election.

Lastly, I’d imagine that the clock for an impeachment trial for Bush during this term has largely run out. But does that mean that a trial would be useless?

I’d point out that an impeachment, though commonly thought to be only to remove someone from office, can also be used to taint the service of the officeholder. There is no reason an impeachment could not occur or continue AFTER an officeholder leaves office. It would prevent that individual from running for any FUTURE office or receiving the benefits (”emoulements of office”).

Thus Bush could be CONVICTED after the 2008 elections…in 2009…when a conviction, while symbolic, would still indicate that Congress will act to impugn the unConstitutional actions of an ex-President. Bush would have to live with the taint of being the only President Convicted of “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

While such a belated impeachment trial (probably delayed by the very Republican Senators that would lose their jobs) would be largely moot and symbolic…it would be a recognition that symbolism is important.

The Constitution is a “symbolic document”…only gaining power by those that accept the importance of the symbolism within.

Sometimes symbolic acts ARE IMPORTANT. To state clearly rthat Bush’s actions were Unconstitutional and despicable is important. I wonder how many Republicans would state that impeaching Bush after his office is irrelevant? If so then the trial could be finished in a matter of days and business as usual returned to quickly. But of course, they would virulently oppose such a “symbolic” tainting of their “Little Boots”! They would never accept such a blemish in the History Books.

Bush THINKS that he can run out the clock”…and WE WIN by removing the clock…and saying that in this game condemning those that denigrate and violate the Constitution there is no “clock”.

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.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu…..2_5s7.html

But according to the above this issue WAS debated and a vote was held on the issue of Suspension at the Constitutional Convention. The Amendment allowing for suspension was voted down 8-3. Madison’s view was a CHANGE of position from his earlier one at the Convention.

However the 25th Amendment Article 4 may have opened the door for a suspension of the President by a body of Congress.

To quote Bush, “the Constitution is a goddamned piece of paper.”

Seizing on these supposed powers of a Congress in the time of national emergency is just another cudgel for attacking our good Democrats some more.

‘Why didn’t they try Catch 22? They have no nards!’

And it includes Karl Rove and conspirators at the RNC, who conspired to steal the 2004 election (and succeeded through an act of corruption so broadbased that the implicated persons at the top of the other party should be serving 30 year terms, along with the crooked SecStates).

Since the media is also complicit, they have tried to slow popular anger at THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. I think that time is coming to an end, and the landslide victory of the ‘Independent’ Republican party (hello, Joe) is going to force a change of incumbent political affections. And then the political aspect of impeachment (which is most of it) will become neutral.

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.

Wrong The 25th Amendment Article 4 specically authorizes involuntary suspension. What’s more it can be done by a Congressional Committee.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.

Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Thus Congress, which has the power to create committees and rules to undertake its Constitutional functions without Presidential approval, can involuntarily suspend a President.

If the VP becomes Acting-President he can be suspended using the same Congressional powers. If there is NO sitting Vice-President (due to impeachment, resignation or death), the Speaker of the House becomes Acting President.

Now such a suspension can only be succesful for a maximum of 27 days unless a vote of 2/3rd’s of both Houses votes to maintain the suspension. Thus a continuous suspension is actually more difficult than an IMPEACHMENT CONVICTION in terms of the voting requirement, but might be easier to acquire the votes IF the Congressional Representatives are convinced that some act will occur during that period that might obstruct justice or the operation of the Constitution.

Congressional members of the Presidents own party might even PREFER such a suspension throughout the Presidents final few weeks in office as it would remove the taint of an impeachment conviction, while preventing some further taint on their party by a desperate President. It might even be used as a negotiation tool…”well drop impeachment if you support “suspension” until the term ends”.

It does raise the bar on the gravity of the situation, or at least it did until the Clenis was impeached.

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.

Agree with the above. I remember thinking (with a sinking feeling in my stomach) the same thought when Bush was taped instructing “others” about Avian bird flu. ‘Bird bird human is not dangerous, but bird human human… That’s bad.’

The fact that Bush had obviously paid attention and learned the lesson correctly I find worrisome. Wherefore the motivation on his part?