Impeachment: I give you 'The Earl of Strafford'
Good Old Strafford teaches us about impeachment and its valuable role in preserving our democracy against Cheney's push for executive privilege.
The Earl of Strafford’s case provides a perfect example. His conduct subverted the constitutional prerogatives of parliament in the name of the king. This was the paradigm case for impeachment. And it was recognized by the earliest American commentators, such as Justice Story, who said that impeachment “is not so much designed to punish as to secure the state against gross official misdemeanors.” It is prophylactic, designed to remove an unfit officer from office, rather than punitive. But most important, it is designed to protect the constitutional order from efforts to transform it...read on
Scott Horton does a wonderful job of dissecting BushCo's reign of power grabbing:
It can and should be used to draw a line in the sand about the arbitrary use of executive power, making clear that Bush’s abuses cannot be taken as precedent by future presidents. Indeed, failure to use impeachment has its consequences: it means acceptance of Bush’s transformation of the constitutional order. It means that the careful balance between legislature, executive and judiciary created by the Framers has been undone, and the executive has triumphed as the paramount power. Impeachment may be a painful process, of course, but Americans should consider whether their Constitution is worth saving.
It is only valuable if it is used
GB @ 1:
And Nancy still says it's off the table.
That is an excellent argument for impeachment.
I don't know what pisses me off more, that they grabbed so much power, or that they were so incompetent in wielding it.
Were I a republican I would be scared shitless that a democratic president might take what bush has done and use it to the advantage of the left.
I would love for the whole crooked gang to be impeached but that should have started last year. At this point I think it would just muddy the hell out of the water and even if it were carried out, bush would sign a signing statement and make the impeachment null and void.
"It is prophylactic"
Sounds like it should be used on a Dick.
Filthy Harry @ 4:
It was (is!) their incompetence at government that necessitated their power grab. Shub can't tell his hiney from the proverbial hole in the ground. Cheney is just evil, with no idea of how a democracy should to be run.
I'm sure if a Democrat wins the election the Republicans and neo-cons will be more than happy to reign in executive power. And the pussy Dems in Congress will go along with it.
The thing is, you can make the case for prophylactic, non-puniitve impeachment for just about every, if not every, president since Eisenhower. They all sucked, some more than others, in their own way.
The problem to be solved -- which is not being solved this time around -- is, how does the U.S. get the best D and the best R candidates?
Good candidates are needed in each party to keep the other party on its toes.
Ozguy @ 6:
So we slip a condom on around the Pretzelnit or the country?
How can you impeach a man who is thought of as God by 23% of the country. There are three types of people: evil, easily manipulated, and the rest of humanity. Sadly, the two previous run this country.
I say shut your mouth about the power grabbing of BushCo. Quit complaining. Leave it alone. If a Dem takes the White House they will need all the Executive Power and Priviledge to put these dogs down to rest. If McRomney gets it, then work on removing it.
Nancy is just another voice of the politburo. She is about the party not the nation - not different really from any of them.
The offenses committed by this administration are party based not individual. This dates back easily to Nixon on the house unamerican activities committee.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hiss/hissnixontapes.html
Party's rule this nation - not the people via representation. To save the nation requires the end of the parties not just the decapitation of the other party.
Who among them - those loyal party members of all stripes who control the government - would murder their party for the sake of the nation?
None.
IT'S NOT INCOMPETENCE - IT'S A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
when ya gonna wake up??
You watch.
In the nanosecond following the swearing in of President Obama, the right-wingers and their media poodles will rediscover the Constitution, checks and balances, and accountability.
One day later, they will discover that Iraq is a colossal fuckup -- and all Obama's fault.
You watch.
Filthy Harry @ 4:
Yeah, no kidding.
And if to add insult to injury, since pelosi took impeachment off the table, it's like they aren't even trying to hide their illegal activities anymore. Take a look at the FISA bill for example. bush will hamstring his own personal war in order to protect the telecommunications corporations from prosecution.
Every single day I read the news, I feel like I got punched in the gut.
MountainMan23 @ 14:
Ya, we know that. I think everyone here supports impeachment, and criminal charges both domestic and international. The power grab was criminal, what they did with it was criminal. Nonetheless, incompetence held sway over all.
Ozguy @ 15:
Obviously a man who is paying attention...there's ya winna!!
I keep demanding impeachment from my congressman but he won't even respond to my letter about impeachment. I do get a response if I say "vote for schip!"
John -
Why do you torture yourself (and us) by even mentioning impeachment. It ain't gunna happen.
There's a tiny little chance of getting Waxman to keep his word and bring in Edmonds for testimony, but I wouldn't hold your breath on that, either.
They are going to finish their term. They are not going to change their behavior.
Stop torturing yourself.
Liberal AND Proud @ 18:
The only thing I would add to that is that the same people who have deflected blame from bush with the simple phrase, "but, Bill Clinton...." will suddenly start talking about looking to the future instead of at the past.
In a European-style parliamentary democracy the government is formed from within the parliament (the congress).
If one party holds a majority, they elect a Prime Minister, who stays in power so long as that party maintains its majority.
More frequently no one party holds a majority, so several parties form a majority coalition and elect a Prime Minister, who stays in power so long as the coalition holds together.
If that coalition is splintered, the government falls. New elections may be held, or the President might ask the various parties to form a new government.
Thus there is no need for impeachment, because if a majority of the parliament fails to back the Prime Minister, he or she is out of power.
In the US, with a President who fulfills both the role of President and of Prime Minister, and who is elected for 4 years - THE ONLY CHECK ON HIS POWER IS IMPEACHMENT.
Otherwise we're stuck with him or her for the entire 4 years.
Impeach Pelosi and Ried for failing to protect the Constitution. Maybe if we can get that on the table they might consider doing their job.
Filthy Harry @ 17:
I don't buy that. The "incompetence" is a smoke screen, allowing billions in $100 bills to disappear in Iraq, fraud after Katrina, etc, etc.
Uh... I don't think anything is going to happen in this regard. Sorry. Though the hope is great.
all i hear is talk shut the f up you bloggers do you ever leave your couch lolololol
handyallen@yahoo.com @ 26:
Only to get more hot pockets.
Nancy Pelosi needs to be replaced.
"it means acceptance of Bush’s transformation of the constitutional order."
No, it doesn't. After a coup, restoration is usually possible.
"It means that the careful balance between legislature, executive and judiciary created by the Framers has been undone, and the executive has triumphed as the paramount power."
Yes, it has. Where have you been?
Bush the Liar @ 28:
She's not your problem. Your problem is that you have 25 votes for conviction in the Senate, and THAT AIN'T ENOUGH.
You come up with FORTY votes in the Senate, you can have a successful removal. Otherwise, it's just a refusal to accept the obvious.
MountainMan23 @ 24:
You are both right. Criminals can be incompetent. The Iraq mess is because they staffed the reconstruction with ideologues that declared allegiance to Bush, nothing else mattered. And the result is a well documented disaster, covered in a dozen excellent books.
The criminal is also documented but not as well. The standards for impeachment are more than met. The need for impeachment is essential. The onus is on the republican party to reclaim the constitution and join the dems to exorcise Bush from the presidency.
bobbie @ 23:
Not only do you have no case, you would be punishing the wrong people AND STILL not have 40 votes in the Senate.
Anybody care to speculate how long it will be before the right-wingers start a movement to impeach Obama?
Six months?
One year?
"Americans should consider whether their Constitution is worth saving."
As per their elected representatives in Congress, the answer is no. I seems, according to their observable behavior, that petty party line and politic calculations are much more worthwhile than this piece of paper written some centuries ago.
When a Democrat is elected President, the republicans won't be able to stop him or her to use exactly the same tools to undo everything the neocons have achieved thus far. Sure, they'll squeal like pigs being slaughtered, but unless they hold a big majority in Congress, they'll get a payback with their own medicine.
Among the potential moves a future Dem president could do:
1) Expand the Supreme Court number of Justices to 16, (with 7 very liberal candidates) invoking their ever increasing workload. Use the same intimidation tactics to ram the nominations through Congress.
2) Close all the tax loopholes exposed in the books "Perfectly Legal" and "Free Lunch". This could go a looong way to narrow the ever growing income disparity in the USA.
3) Nullify the Supreme Court lift on lending rates and the universal default clauses so that credit cards corporations eat some crow for a change.
4) Give shareholders a REAL say in how corporations are run. Through 401k, IRA and pension plans, a big majority of us ARE shareholders. Right now, corporate management is laughing in our collective face.
5) It goes without saying that Bush's tax cuts would be trashed away.
6) Implement the solutions (or a modified one) suggested in Laurence Kotlikof book for universal health care. Convert the insurance companies into disease management companies. They have the resources, they can acquire the expertise, and still make a decent and honorable profit.
I'm sure there are other items but that'd be a good agenda to jump start a change, the word every candidate is throwing around these days.
moondancer @ 31:
That's not why. It is PLANNED disaster, disaster capitalism.
"There is NO MORE IRAQ. There will be three territories." -- Kissinger, early 2004, briefing his Saudi clients.
Dismantling a country to leave a U.S. airbase network in order to attack surrounding countries is the VERY DEFINITION OF FASCISM.
This has not been a drill. It is NOT incompetence. It is genocide.
The sad fact is that while we have the potential still to impeach Cheney THIS YEAR, the fact is that Rep. Kucinich is going to file on Bush himself, and that will be the bell at the end of the exercise.
bobbie @ 23:
I couldn't agree more! Before we can impeach Bushco we have to impeach those two for obstruction.
That's a mighty fine table there Nancy, now don't go shitting it up
John A. , glad to see you finally mention the 'I' word. Now, if you are really of a mind, how about using your blog and influence to get the lefty blogosphere behind an effort to put a million signups on Wexler's petition. Impeachment can happen if everyone who despises what this regime has done will make their voice heard. I remember not so long ago a big effort to support Dodd on FISA and it made a difference. Of course, once Dodd gave up his preznit bid, he started looking for a face-saving compromise. I hope lefty bloggers learned a lesson. Put your faith in policies and acts, not politicians. Impeachment is even more necessary now, before the next election. Let all the evidence of lies and corruption be laid out and make everyone running for office take a stand. It is the best way to judge the next round of reps, senators and the next pres. If we will stand up and be counted now, they will have to do the same before next November.
I'll settle for impeachment lite with a democratic congress and president next year. A serving of Thomas and Scalia for desert for conflict of interest in bush 2000 because they both had family members employed by bush election machine and leave it at 9 justices. That would be mighty tasty.
And guess what the wimpy butthole conyers promised the country he would look into impeachment. I suppose tho he is so suck up with obama he doesn't have time to do his job....
And how about all those investigations. What happened to them, the subpoenas he was suppose to issue. HE HASN'T DONE ONE DAMN THING EXCEPT SIMPER AND POSE WITH HIS HEAD UP OBAMA'S BUTT. AND WE KNOW WHY--- THEY BOTH BELONG TO THE SAME GROUP....
Marge @ 41:
Chairman Conyers is a far harder worker than you have ever been.
tjb @ 40:
Absolutely right. And don't forget, Kennedy too.
It does seem the Americans are on the verge of doing the same epically stupid move that many others in history have done, namely let power be concentrated into the hands of one person.
May you be wise enough to see this has never gone well in history, but I fear this may be the way human societies go, planned or no.
Unwillingness to Impeach the incompetent criminals and plenty of willingness to fund an illegal war, rob the working people and do any of buscos other bidding is why Rethugs masquerading as Democrats like Peter Welch MUST be thrown out in November!
Tim in Japan @ 16:
Same here Tim!
And Paul in LA, please, We all know you mean well in your never ending defense of Pelosi and Reid and how nothing can come of anything because of those darn 40 votes. But believe it or not Paul, those of us that think impeachment is imperative can also count. We know removal is a steep hill to climb but we also know that whether he stays or goes depends a lot on the ability of McCain (the presumptive repubs candidate) to make a creditable bid with cheney hanging around his neck (cheney‘s approval rating being somewhere in the teens and a majority of people thinking he should be impeached). If all the evidence is laid out, their will be a strong contingent of repubs pleaders who will go to tinpot and say “Rummy, Meirs, Gonzy… just give us one more to stuff in the broken dike and we will be able to hold on ‘till the fall.” And cheney will resign. And even if that doesn’t happen, at least the dems will start to look like a separate party with its own backbone and sense of right and wrong.
The problem with this post is that Strafford was never actually impeached by Parliament -- the movement failed, and he ended up being attainted.
Much like Filthy Harry and others, this pisses me off too... Not because it's wrong.. I fully agree with all of it... The thing is, and I'm not sure which annoys me more... The fact that it's all true, has always been true and is something I, with only my HS education, some tech training, and life lessons managed to figure out years ago, Something that is spelled out much better in this thread leadin than I can/have ranted about it, ad nuseum for these last four years... Or the fact that our elected representatives know damn well everything I know and more of the sordid details of why it's needed.. Yet totally ignore it and its' logic in defference to some kind of phony expediancy and a seeming pathological desire not to face this awful truth.. That this president of the United States and his administration have engaged in numourous instances of mass criminality in our names. The kinds of crimes that make Watergate look like a freekin picnic in the park....
Paul in L.A. is always reminding us that Nancy (impeachment off the table) Pelosi can't muster the votes to make this thing go... Sadly he is right, and I'm pissed at her for not trying harder, That is absoulutely true.. But, the reality is, I'm MORE pissed at all those unnamed pricks who refuse to vote aye if the subject of impeachment were even brought up. In the face of all we know about all Bush/Cheney's bullshit, these fine statesmen would rather turn away and stick their goddamned heads in the sand, despite the obvious ramifications regarding precident this refusal to do their damned jobs imply for the future...all our futures and the nations!!! Just what the fuck is up with THAT!!!
THAT part ain't Nancy's fault and I can't lay it on her. These pols are all grown up, they can see perfectly well what the rest of us see and know... I can only surmise they are ALL fucking cowards....all of them! And the nation will suffer in the future because of it under some future tinpot Bush wannabe....A pox on them all dammit!!!! JD
Paul in LA @ 30:
The HOUSE is were impeachment starts place NOT the Senate. IF the House and that nasty useless Pelosi would do their CONSTITUTIONAL JOB the Senate would get in line. Paul you Republican infilitrators are SO lame with your spin it's sickening.
john in california @ 47:
Damn right I mean well. Speaker Pelosi might very well allow a Cheney impeachment to go forward, but attacking her and deriding her reasons for withholding the bill without understanding why is counterproductive.
I would be fighting harder for the Cheney impeachment effort -- which I support -- were it not for the fact that Kucinich is about to close the door, by filing on Bush. This whole argument will be over in two weeks or so, whenever he decides to trash the effort.
jack damage @ 49:
That is not correct. We DO HAVE the votes in the House if we want them. That's not the problem. (Actually, six months ago my Rep. Diane Watson said we were 30 votes shy in the House, which is not insurmountable). We only need a few votes in the HJC to get the Cheney bill to the floor. That's all attainable, and the House might very well like to send Cheney's impeachment forward like a hot potato.
But not if someone (cough) files on Bush. That ends it.
Terrible @ 50:
Your confidence in the Republican Senators lack of partisanship- in the face of about 28 years of history that shows just how partisan(the answer is extremely, btw) they are- is baffling.
Yellow Elephant Safari @ 2:
that's because nancy pelosi is an enemy combattant against the United States
Constitution. she is not interested in preserving the law and order of the
constitution, just the corporate power of the lobbyists.
it is definitely the time when the sanctity of the Constitution be restored.
IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY for perverting the balance of power.
pissed off patricia @ 5:
and with this kind of lame thinking by the masses is just why we have been screwed
by bush and cheney. they knew that the American public is just a bunch
of fucking wimps. this opinion is not directed toward you but the general "you".
Paul in L.A.;
This impeachment dance has been going on for longer than Pelosi has been the speaker... And Seemingly it's always something holding it up... If it's not one thing it's another... Frankly someone needs to just say the hell with argueing over the finer points and just freeking do it! File impeachment papers, there's enough evidence in the public domain to at least elicit a real look... I personally want to see Cheney and Bush both tarred with impeachment, win, lose or draw.. IF Kucinich wants to file on Bush, more power to him.. I can't see why what he does regarding Bush has any bearing on what others might be planning as regards Cheney.. What's the problem with that Paul??? Can't these pols walk and chew gum at the same time???
If it was a vote to end funding for child care for working mothers and a vote to back some earmarks somewhere they would damned well manage to do that and somehow or other finesse the obvious hypocrisy inherent in that picture.. I don't want to accuse you or anyone else on this forum of making excuses about it... But the facts are, lots of people talk about impeachment, lots of evidence to support impeachment are in the public domain.. Lots of people talk about the strategizing to do this impeachment thing... But at the end of the day? Not a damned thing of substance is happening? That ain't your fault, ain't my fault, ain't even Pelosi's fault really given the evident limitations to her ability to armtwist, but that does seem to be the way it is...JD
jack damage @ 49:
i totally empathize with every word here. i'm so frustrated with the out-and-out power grabbing on one side and the sickening glad-handing on the other side. there are in fact a multitude of thoughts and emotions running through me whenever i consider the catastrophe of the past 7-point-whatever years.
my only solice - and perhaps there's a little bit of polly anna in it - is the interweb. the series of tubes seem to me like the underground railroad for truth and ideas, but there will be an emancipation coming before long, but only if we proud few continue to bitch and moan and kick and scream and keep our eyes open and our heads above water. terrible metaphors aside - i'm a loyal c&l reader and spread the news every chance i get.
one semi-concrete bit of evidence that suggests we will prevail in the end: a few years ago - at least here in sunny california - it was fucking taboo in most circles to actually discuss politics. but now, it's the people who DON'T want to talk politics who have to take a back seat. yipee! being a political junkie is finally starting to pay off!
PEACE!
=ck
HELL with IMPEACHING BUSH AND CHENNEY
bush will jist pardon chenney
and
chenney will just pardon bush
like the worm did for libby
I WANT HILLARY and OBAMA to JAIL bush chenney rumsfailure
for WAR CRIMES, wire taps, and CONTRACT FRAUD
ALSO TREASON - val plame
and fucking the ECONOMY UP saudi Exxon gas gouge
then they CANT PARDON EACH OTHER
but go to jail in NUREMBURG WORLD COURT
Fact
jack damage @ 56:
As a practical political fact, such a filing will signal the WEAKNESS that will close out the whole subject.
Were were to focus on Cheney, we --might-- be able to move it to the Senate. But if you put the actual sitting President in the hopper, it's over. So it really depends on whether you want to do what can be done, or do you really only want to throw the baby bottle into the crib and go to bed? If you want to feed the child, you have to sit there and hold the bottle. If you want to go to bed satisfied with your efforts, then, sure, file on Bush and go to bed.
impeachbush @ 58:
You know that you can't use a pardon to prevent impeachment, right?
impeachbush @ 58:
1. Libby has NOT been pardoned.
2. Pardon power does NOT extend to treason (if that is charged).
The Democrats.
Don't want.
To impeach.
Because.
Their complicity.
Will be.
Revealed.
jack damage @ 56:
She has recorded record support in the caucus on votes. She armtwists just fine.
The problem is NOT in the House.
JasonS @ 62:
That's slanderous nonsense.
Paul in LA @ 64:
Then what's your explanation for things like Waxman breaking his promise to have Edmonds testify?
And how sure are you that no Democratic senator knew about the wiretaps and torture and did nothing?
anon @ 13:
Pelosi is a bona fide progressive member of the House of Representatives. Although I have come to disagree with her about impeachment, I don't believe it invalidates her entire political record or stances.
Not sure what that means. If the president commits high crimes or high misdemeanors, s/he should be impeached, Republican, Democrat or other.
Parties are not inherently evil. In fact, organization into political parties is not only inevitable in a democratic republic, it's beneficial. A vote for a party is a vote for ideas, and if your representative in that party does work for the party platform, you know what you're getting.
The problem in the U.S. is that two parties, one largely centrist and center-right, and the other increasingly wacko-right, have a lock on the system. Their duopoly is solidified by our electoral system.
We should be working for electoral reform. We need to change the very mechanisms by which we elect every official in our country so that multiple parties are viable, and so that the people may oust parties with which they are dissatisfied.
~~~
As for impeachment, I realize that conviction in the current U.S. Senate is a virtual impossibility. But perhaps we can do what Al Franken suggested a couple years ago: Wait for the new Congress to be inaugurated in early January 2009, and then impeach the bastards. If we have better control of the Senate, we might get the convictions. Why bother? First, because Bush and Cheney (and everyone else in their regime) deserve it. Secondly, we need to show the world that we have indeed taken our government back, that we acknowledge the crimes our country has committed, and that we will do what we can to hold the perpetrators accountable.
As for the case for impeachment, look no further than the Declaration of Independence. It lists the numerous high crimes of King George III, and King George the W has committed many of them.
Ok....off to submit my ballot, for whatever it's worth.
Look repkues
after you LOOSE AGAIN 2008 like you did 2006
and even worse for
STAYING THE CORPSE
Mcain war plan..................
h ah ah ah ha a ha h ah hah a ahhaha
JTM @ 65:
Waxman schedules his Committee as he wishes. That has zero to do with 'complicity' -- not all commitments are possible of immediate fulfillment. Probably he discussed it with the leadership, and they nixed it. Maybe they are waiting until after the main primaries. Maybe they will never allow it. There is no way to know, but presuming complicity is slanderous.
Democratic Senator? There are 25 disloyal Dem Senators. If one or two of those (or all 25) are privy to crimes, so fucking what? This is a coup. Even if it were not a coup, Senators are not free to expose actions by the Executive which the AG has defined as legal.
Karen @ 66:
We stand to pick up FIVE Senate seats this year. That won't be enough to change the Senate vote on conviction, and anyhow, after the fact impeachment doesn't exist.
The real issue is establishing a commission to investigate the crimes and special prosecutors to go after these criminals in grand juries.
What is the statute of limitations on these crimes?
Vote-fraud, such as committed by SS K. Blackwell of Ohio, ten years (Ohio). We have until 2013 to put him on trial for his crimes.
Treason? No statute of limitations. Warcrimes? No statute of limitations. Conspiracy, racketeering, corruption? At least seven years.
Etc. While impeachment convictions ONLY remove from office, actual criminal court cases put in prison.
handyallen@yahoo.com @ 26:
Its not our monies evaporating in the great Republican stock and share swindle.
People who blog generally are free thinkers and adaptable, so a recession / depression happens, big deal, life goes on for most people.
Its the Republican middle classes (the 24%) that are going to be the ones most effected, bankrupted, and left feeling betrayed by their party.
ckukahiko @ 57:
wikipedia on US Government and politics
Its a crying shame that here in the US that people discussing politics is considered taboo in most places,
doesnt that point to something rotten going on! for at least the last sixty years or more.
Karen @ 66:
...perhaps we can do what Al Franken suggested a couple years ago: Wait for the new Congress to be inaugurated in early January 2009, and then impeach the bastards.
WORD.
The investigations will have to get fired up well before that though.
Horton infers rightly that the longer time goes by, the less partisan it looks. I'd say that arguably the impeachment inquiry is needed to shake loose the evidence for the subsequent criminal trials. It's all one continuum of accountability. The executive and state secrets privileges are a firewall and the House Dems are not breaking it. Impeachment, as Horton demonstrates, takes it to the next level in the constitutional hierarchy and trumps executive privilege. Impeachment is the key to unraveling the knot because it has special powers no other action has.
I have but one question:
When is the last opportunity for charges of impeachment can be brought?
Paul in LA @ 68:
You crack me up. Thought crimes? Presuming complicity is slanderous. GMFB.
So why doesn't the brave Waxman return Edmonds' calls. Did the leadership order him not to? (Or is asking questions another example of slander?)
Paul in LA @ 68:
So, it sounds like you believe that some Democrats are complicit. Besides the slander issue, does this not help explain to you why impeachment isn't happening?
JTM @ 74 "So why doesn't the brave Waxman return Edmonds' calls. Did the leadership order him not to?"
Have you asked him? PRESUMING complicity has a much higher bar for a rational person than just a failure to do something. Complicity is a lot bigger of a word than you seem to understand.
"So, it sounds like you believe that some Democrats are complicit."
I do agree with that. Some Dems vote with Bushco, namely the DINOs in the Senate (25 or so) and the Blue Dogs in the House.
"Besides the slander issue, does this not help explain to you why impeachment isn't happening?"
Not at all. The House side of the project is blocked because the Senate votes are not there to complete the process. That blockage is not a result of complicity, since the Blue Dogs are not the reason it isn't going forward. Speaker Pelosi is not complicit -- she is protecting the Constitutional gov't itself, from a coup.
Her 'putting off the table' of impeachment was a lot more important a year ago than it is now. I believe that a Cheney impeachment could indeed reach the Senate. But not if K. files on Bush. That will crash the issue entirely.
Bryan @ 73:
Some time before Jan. 20 next year. Last year, Speaker Pelosi empaneled the Congress on Jan. 3, which is unusual. In many Congresses historically, they haven't sat until after the inauguration. In some Congresses, no business takes place until early February.
Paul in LA @ 75:
Yes. And unlike when I write about impeachment, he didn't reply. But, on the bright side, I also didn't get a new wave of requests for money, which is what I get whenever I write about impeachment.
Paul in LA @ 76:
Just out of curiosity, how does Congress certify the presidential election without "sitting"?
JTM @ 78:
There is a joint pro-forma (no bills are scheduled) session, usually in early January, to receive the tallies and ratify the election. An impeachment bill would be out of order.
JTM @ 77:
I presume he is being blocked by the leadership. But there are many different reasons why this hasn't happened.
My point is simply that 'complicity' requires a higher standard of evidence than failure to do something THAT HE SAID HE WANTS TO DO.
Rep. Waxman is no pal of the administration. A claim of 'complicity' takes quite a bit more evidence than the failure to hold the Sibel Edmonds hearing yet.
Ripple @ 72:
WORD.
The investigations will have to get fired up well before that though.
Indeed. And sadly, it's still a virtual impossibility.
The whole thing would have to take place prior to the inauguration of the next president. They'd only have a couple weeks to conduct a Senate trial, and they'd really have to wheel and deal like crazy to get anywhere near the 66 votes needed to convict.
But it's worth a shot. :)
Paul in LA @ 79:
"Out of order" in a technical sense (a la Robert's Rules) or merely highly unusual?
JTM @ 82:
Ruled out of order and refused the floor.
Paul in LA @ 80:
The leadership determines which emails he answers??? Cool. Can they order me to stop replying to my students? I'd pay for that.
At to the definition of "complicity": I have no idea why you're so worked up about this. I doubt that I used it, since it's not in my everyday vocabulary.
Paul in LA @ 83:
It's a joint session. A bill to either House would be ruled from the chair as out of order and no vote would be authorized (allowed).
Got it. And they stand the whole time. Cool.
Just dotting them eyes.
JTM @ 84:
Are you in his district? Because if you aren't, he doesn't owe you a response in particular.
"At to the definition of “complicity”: I have no idea why you’re so worked up about this."
Because you quoted my reply rebutting that slander in your first response (in #65).
Conyers claims he determines whether impeachment goes forward. I wonder if Paul will defend Conyers as vehemently as he does Pelosi.
Karen @ 81:
Sixty-seven votes to convict, and there are 25. Wheeling-dealing will not make the difference.
There will be no January impeachment trial, though it is possible that the bill would be filed and passed in the House, in order to block some of Bush's pardons.
Spin spin spin. Who cares where I'm from?
He'll answer within hours when it's about impeachment.
He won't answer at all when it's about Edmonds.
And please note that he didn't say that he "wanted" to call her to testify; he promised to call her and then didn't and now won't return her calls.
But, of course, she isn't from his district, so none of this counts. You can play games and lie to anyone outside your district.
(Oh, and I quoted your post about slander since the issue at hand wasn't even close to slander and I was teasing you about it.)
anon @ 88:
Absolutely. Chairman Conyers is a hero.
As Chairman of the HJC, he does oversee such bills. But if there were enough votes in the Committee, the bill would reach the floor -- he's not blocking it. And I don't think the Speaker would stop a Cheney impeachment bill with sufficient public demand attached to it (reaching the Representatives on BOTH sides).
JTM @ 90:
That's just the facts of our system.
As for Sibel Edmonds, it is a pretty sure bet that she is being blocked by the leadership (esp. the minority leader). That doesn't mean it won't take place.
Chiding about my use of the word slander is absurd. I was not making an argument, I was referencing an argument because I'm tired of arguing it. It's an intellectual standard for rational views, which many commenters don't consider their problem.
Paul in LA @ 92:
So, even though Waxman will bitch to high heaven when he doesn't get his way on impeachment, he'll remain silent (thereby be quite rude to a person to whom he made promises) when he doesn't get his way on another?
Is there a website that I can go to to look up which issues he'll publicly complain about and on which he'll remain silent? Or is there some subtle rule that you could tell me about so that I could understand the pattern? Because, right now, the only pattern I see doesn't place him in a very good light.
Paul in LA @ 79:
but oh so funny, imagine Chimpy impeached mere days from leaving office :)
How ironic that Bush assumed the presidency because of a Supreme Court ruling that cannot be taken as precedent by future presidents.
So, let's take this from another angle.
Leaving all conspiracy theory aside, the issue seems to be that impeachment will certainly fail to reach conviction.
If the votes existed in both Senate to convict, can we all agree that we'd support articles of impeachment?
If so, we are saying that the president and/or vice president deserve to be removed from office, not because we don't like the cut of the jib or the color of their man-sized safes, but because they have in our view potentially committed high crimes against their office.
The debate becomes whether impeachment is a pointless exercise without securing a conviction. I happen to think it's not. The public record demands an investigation and trial, even if we don't win. Others say it is pointless. Why go through this exercise if you're not going to get your goal?
Okay, leave that aside. Assume for sake of argument that we decide not to impeach.
What SHOULD we do about an administration that, in our consensus view, is manifestly criminal? Won't a failure to at least investigate impeachment indemnify future presidents?
What happens if we have another Bush with a thin anti-impeachment majority. Will that majority be shored up by the "precedent" of letting Bush off the hook?
"Why prosecute President Cruise for declaring war on Xenu? You never impeached Bush!"
Won't future credibility depend on doing SOMETHING to hold this administration to the light of history?
And I'm very open to suggestions beyond impeachment.
ferrofluid @ 94:
Probably the Congress will be empaneled in early January again. The Joint Session wouldn't allow a bill of impeachment, but if the House is in session, there would be plenty of time, were there the will, to pass such a bill.
But only if an impeachment of Bush isn't filed.
JasonS @ 96:
I agree with you JasonS. I have long known that getting the 67 votes in the Senate to convict is a virtual impossibility with the current Republican Party. Because of this basic fact, in 2006, I advocated not immediately impeaching, but holding impeachment over the heads of the administration to get them to agree to many of our demands.
Despite how worthy of impeachment the administration is, if the continued threat of impeachment would mean that we could actually pass the platform Pelosi promised (much of which was indeed passed in the House), then I would be all for making the country better than simply doling out justice to Bush.
But it is clear that Bush does whatever he wants. Period. And in the Senate, the Republicans filibuster everything. EVERYTHING. We can't get anything done.
At this point, though it is a sure loser in the corrupt Senate, impeachment is the right thing to do.
Okay, leave that aside. Assume for sake of argument that we decide not to impeach.
What SHOULD we do about an administration that, in our consensus view, is manifestly criminal? Won't a failure to at least investigate impeachment indemnify future presidents?
Paul in LA mentioned standard criminal investigations and arrests. I have no problem with that either.
(And in case anyone's wondering, I resolved a while back not to directly engage Paul in LA myself. I think he makes many great points, but when we disagree, it has never been a pleasant experience. So I avoid it.)
JTM @ 93:
You have a lovely view of how catered the US gov't should be. It has never been that way, and no, there is no full disclosure of a Chairman's plans for the year. They make those decisions, though input is accepted, and Waxman is certainly not an unapproachable figure. You would have to abstain from accusing him of complicity and other interaction-stopping leaps to conclusion.
JasonS @ 96:
That's quite correct. We do need to do A LOT to restore a legal gov't.
See #69.
Karen @ 98:
I agree, as regard Cheney. We can impeach him if we can organize more successfully (and with less of the alienation tactic). Provided K can be persuaded to abstain from filing his second bill (against Bush, which will ruin the entire effort).
A year ago, the Congress was as flimsy as toilet paper, and Bushco wanted the division an impeachment would have strengthened. By refusing to play into that strategy, Speaker Pelosi gave the Congress time to rebalance, and in spite of the many failures, it is far more normal now. And R candidates (all of the R House) are feeling the heat, so there is less willingness to support the Decider and his 5-4 Supremes and his crooked media operation, etc.
Cheney impeachment has two main parts -- one, convince the HJC that the time has come. Two, convince Rep. Kucinich to hold off on filing on the actual sitting President, so we can hang the Cheney carrion crow around the R necks, and maybe send him to trial in the Senate (during which the Bush impeachment may suddenly become possible, instead of a deal-breaker like it is now).
I think Kucinich is too much of a BAD politician to hold off on his bill. We need to change that, and too many people are not thinking it through. At the least, anyone close to him/his campaign ought to ask him to paddle the boat he has in the water, instead of trying to row two boats, and sending both to the bottom.
Huge "Impeach Bush" rallies must be held across the land. Force congress to protect the constitution. Let's get it together, peoples! March on DC!
Thanks to Pelosi, Bush and Cheney will never have to be worried about being held accountable.
bobbie @ 23:
I'll second that motion!
Americans should consider whether their Constitution is worth saving.
If Americans cared about saving the Constitution, they would vote for Ron Paul.
They haven't, ergo...
Mark N. @ 105:
H'yeah, because when the Constitution says that TREATIES are the highest law in the land, and L Ron Paul opposes the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions, that's no contradiction.
Just wants to rollback all that nasty warcrimes law as soon as possible -- you know, because he's against war.
Paul @ 103:
With 25 votes for conviction in the Senate, that was already the case, as you well know. But you need a scapegoat.
Comments are closed on this entry