The I-word is not really an issue by itself, since we are a long way from knowing what might be involved regarding charges. That is what the current hearings are building, whether presented as such or not; we're developing the foundation for an indictment by getting all this stuff on public record.

Impeachment is political, but only because at root all power is political, and there is no higher court to confirm or overturn an impeachment. So one could say it would be political to defend the Constitution.

There's good fishing, and great fishing. The privilege flap is good fishing, so far, and Gonzales was great. Don't you love it when the audience laughs at the AG?

We never heard in public from Rove, or Cheney. I'd like them to swear they didn't intend to confuse and mislead Fitzgerald. Fitz had to quit when he knew he was up against privilege. Now it's Congress' ball. Enjoy the game, it's going to be better (worse) than Nixon.

Fitz had to quit when he knew he was up against privilege.

I remember when people kept saying the same thing about Starr and Clinton-- he was always just one witness away from proving that Willie was a rapist (or something) and that was going to bring the whole house down. Yet somehow they never did find that witness.

Let's start by realistically accepting that if a special prosecutor, with all the time and resources in the world, can't bring more than a once-removed perjury charge, there's no case there and there's never likely to be one. You can even believe whatever, in your heart of hearts, but there's no case that anyone's going to find evidence to support. It's over.

What's next?

FItz had a different brief than Starr. Starr had more political power, because Congress was behind him. You'll remember that Congress was not exactly behind Fitz.

It ain't over; it's just beginning.

Just one witness away from bringing the whole house of cards down. I know, I know.

What'll be just beginning is Rudy's first term.

public opinion turned decisively against the impeachment effort once it became obvious the Senate wasn't going to convict him

I can't think how this could be misstated any more clearly.

I'm not sure public opinion ever supported impeachment in the first place. In the second place, if it did, it turned on the realization that Clinton did nothing worth impeaching - he committed perjury trying to hide his sins from his wife, exactly as everyone else would have done, and that's why they forgave Clinton.

So let's look at this another way:

1. Bush didn't cheat on his wife, he cheated the entire country, lied us into war, obstructed justice, and politicized the department of justice. No one is going to sympathize with that.

2. The public was so disgusted by the Republicans' impeachment proceedings that they promptly voted BUSH into office and gave him a compliant Republican Congress. Boy, we sure wouldn't want that to happen to Democrats, would we?

I think the answer is to impeach Cheney. You don't need to impeach Bush. Cheney is the real power behind the throne. You have a much better chance of getting a majority of Senators to convict because he is so toxic. And his destruction will tear down any remaining power to do harm that Bush might try to exert. He just won't have the will. He is, at heart, a coward, and with Cheney in the dock, Bush will run home to his mommies.

Impeach Cheney, and leave Bush swinging in the wind. After he's out of office, then we can bring war crime charges against him.

Every day there are more compelling reasons to begin the impeachment process: Gonzalez lying to Senate Judiciary Committee, Harriet Miers refusal to respond to a congressional supoena, Josh Bolten's refusal to respond to a congressional supoena, and let us not forget, lying to get us into Iraq, outing an undercover CIA agent and all those other gems.

Bill Moyers devoted an hour of his show on this topic recently. His guests were a reporter for the Nation and a very conservative think tank fellow. I was most impressed with the realization that the conservative was doing all the ranting about why impeachment is critical to the future of our country.

The reporter from the Nation reminded us that impeachment proceedings do not create a constitutional crisis--impeachment proceedings resolve a constitutional crisis. The Bush administration has created the most severe constitutional crisis to date. Action must be taken. It must be taken now.

Bill Moyers devoted an hour of his show on this topic recently.

On-line video of that show is available here.

Chancellor:

No offense, but I have to say that yours is the sort of approach I was specifically warning about in my post: making this a matter of "courage" or "timidity" rather than what it will actually produce politically. Your point about the Nixon impeachment is completely relevant, but not dispositive, given Nixon's self-destructive determination to play into his enemies' every tactic. Maybe Bush would do the same thing, but I don't think we can count on it. And we need to talk about such questions very specifically, and not reduce it all to a measurement of partisan machismo. Believe me, if the party does in a unified way decide to pursue impeachment, I won't be timid about supporting it.

BTW, since you brought it up, I have never once, ever, in my whole life tried to "convince" Democrats to be "afraid" of running on national security, or suggested they concede the issue, or any other issue, to Republicans. Au contraire, as a matter of fact. The only beef I've had with Democrats in terms of attacking Bush on Iraq is that they sometimes forget there are plenty of other issues on which his record is dreadful. Which is why, of course, we're in the position of even thinking about impeachment.

Ed Kilgore

So the fundamental question remains whether Democrats want to take up the "I-word" as a political exercise. And other questions quickly follow.

No, Mr. Kilgore. The fundamental question is whether Congress is going to allow the constitution to be shredded without a fight.

We are dealing with fundamental questions here --- the kind of questions that the American people can understand.

Right now, various polls show support for impeachment between 36-45% --- but those number reflect a level of ignorance regarding the actions of this administration because of the failure of the mainstream media (and the cowardice of the DLC types that you represent). Impeaching Bush (and Cheney) will make those facts unavoidable --- and the 70% of Americans who disapprove of the way he is doing his job with turn into 70% support for impeaching the criminals who are running this nation into the ground.

There is one other reason for impeachment -- by beginning impeachment procedings immediately, Bush's dubious claims to executive privilege become MUCH weaker.

Gee thanks Ed for advocating that a serious assault on the Constitution can be dismissed because you feel that the public would equate the Clinton and Bush impeachments.

You say that the public abandoned support of impeachment when it became obvious that Clinton wouldn’t be convicted. I don’t have polling data in front of me and confess that I can only cite anecdotal evidence, but, as I recall people recognized that the Clinton impeachment was frivolous before it was obvious that there would be an acquittal. I do recall that as the impeachment hearings in the House moved along Clinton’s job approval rating continued to rise.

Inasmuch as the charges are concerned the public will recognize that an impeachment of Bush is anything but trivial. You said it yourself. In a presidency that’s this bad charges are easy to come by. Already 45% of voters want Bush impeached. That may only represent the people who have been paying at least some attention. What happens to that percentage when the full litany of charges is presented and even casual observers are shocked at the perfidious nature of the Bush reign? I believe that a significant majority will demand conviction.

And if there is no conviction? What will an enraged public think of those who failed to convict.

Finally, it should be remembered that impeachment is meant to protect the Constitution. Never has any president so abused his power, neglected his oath of office and so brazenly sought to subvert the Constitution. Any cynical calculation that condones abandonment of the responsibility to protect the rule of law is itself subversion.

It's absurd to even be arguing this. OF COURSE Bush and Cheney should be impeached. If they're not, as Bruce Fein has said, it will be like leaving loaded guns all around the house. The long term future of our country is at stake. The precedents Bush has set can not be allowed to stand. If the Democrats set this aside because they think it might help them win an election, it WILL come back to haunt them and they'll damn well deserve it.

Impeachment is not a task anyone wants to take on. But it's a responsibility that has fallen on the Democrats. The Constitution is far more important than any short term gains the Democrats might hope to achieve. OF COURSE we MUST impeach.

I assure you I am quite serious, if you cannot see my points you are not thinking it through.

An investigation without serious direction from the grownups at the head of the party will bring out every kook theory and attention whore from Ramsey Clark to the LaRouchies to whatever popped up on Daily Khaos that day.

Meanwhile, the media (who have hours and hours to fill) and the Republicans (who see a chance to hoist the other side by their own petard) will take every opportunity to talk about how this impeachment is or is not like the Clinton one. I promise you, the last thing Hillary wants leading into the election is 24-hour retrospective coverage of Monica and Whitewater. Doesn't matter that Clinton mostly got off (so to speak). She doesn't want it brought up at all.

It is precisely because the bigshots fear what could happen if that red meat is thrown to those of you in the base that they will resist throwing it at all. They will conduct hearings to the day Bush leaves, they will have great sport with hapless Albert and other small fish, but impeachment isn't off the table, it's never been anywhere near the table.

I don't object; and I fully expect investigations, hearings, etc.

But as I say below, the powers that be won't let them go anywhere near becoming impeachment hearings. They absolutely will not. No matter how much internet sites whine and seethe.

It is not considered impeachment in other governments. It is merely a "no confidence vote" and it happens.

Americans seem to think this (question of impeachment) is a sign of death to the country if it happens.

Is it arrogance that your country MUST believe you are better or fear that you are not? Is there any situation that Americans would consider impeachment?

I am astounded that what you say you believe in free speach, association, right to own property etc) can be so ignored to protect one man and expel ghosts.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I disagree with you that we should be looking at "what it will actually produce politically." IMHO, impeachment should never be a political process. The Constitution never mentions Democrats, Republicans, Whigs or whatever, to the best of my knowledge, in considering grounds for impeachment. My primary concern in moving for impeachment before Bush and Cheney are out of office is that if Congress refuses to act, a legal precedent could be set which would actually have the effect of endorsing these activities through inaction.

I totally agree with you that impeachment cannot be seen as partisan. Dems must be forceful in reiterating that the same actions would be taken against a lawless Democratic administration. They should also try to corral the Republicans such as Bruce Fein into an Iraq-Study-Group-type of document, arguing for impeachment as the only recourse when confronted by a President and Vice President who have lost all respect for our laws. However, trying to draft new laws to prevent executive abuses is a pointless exercise when you have people like Bush and Cheney who believe that they are above the law.

Here is what the "Constitutional Grounds for Impeachment of the President" Report said in 1974:

Impeachment is a constitutional remedy addressed to serious offenses against the system of government. The purpose of impeachment under the Constitution is indicated by the limited scope of the remedy (removal from office and possible disqualification from future office) and by the stated grounds for impeachment (treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors). It is not controlling whether treason and bribery are criminal. More important, they are constitutional wrongs that subvert the structure of government, or undermine the integrity of office and even the Constitution itself, and thus are "high" offenses in the sense that word was used in English impeachments. The framers of our Constitutional conspicuously adopted a particular phrase from the English practice to help define the consitutional grounds for removal. The content of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" for the framers is to be related to what the framers knew, on the whole, about the English practice-- the broad sweep of English constitutional history and the vital role impeachment had played in the limitation of royal prerogative and the control of abuses of ministerial and judicial power.

Impeachment was not a remote subject for the framers. . . . The framers understood quite clearly that the constitutional system they were creating must include some ultimate check on the conduct of the executive, particularly as they came to reject the suggested plural executive. While insistent that balance between the executive and legislative branches be maintained so that the executive would not become the creature of the legislature, dismissible at its will, the framers also recognized that some means would be needed to deal with excesses by the executive. Impeachment was familiar to them. They understood its essential constitutional functions and perceived its adaptability to the American contest.

While it may be argued that some articles of impeachment have charged conduct that constituted crime and thus that criminality is an essential ingredient, or that some have charged conduct that was not criminal and thus that criminality is not essential, the fact remains that in the English practice and in several of the American impeachments the criminality issue was not raised at all. The emphasis has been on the significant effects of the conduct-- undermining the integrity of office, disregard of constitutional duties and oath of office, arrogation of power, abuse of the governmental process, adverse impact on the system of government. Clearly, these effects can be brought about in ways not anticipated by the criminal law. [Emphasis added.]

Essentially, this is the message that conservative scholar Bruce Fein has delivered on the Bill Moyers program, Countdown with Keith Olbermann and other public and television appearances.

There is little doubt that Bush and Cheney have committed these attacks on the Constitution, the sovereign act of the people to establish and limit a government to act in their best interests.

The time is long past for Bush and Cheney to be held accountable for these transgressions and to be impeached, tried and removed from office.

And that brings me to the issue that most troubles me about this debate: its effect on Democratic unity going into 2008.

Good point. The impeachment of Clinton so much destroyed the Republicans that they won the presidency and kept both Houses of Congress in the next election. That taught them!

I suppose other people have jumped on this, but let me throw my hat in:

From the Clinton experience, we know that public opinion turned decisively against the impeachment effort once it became obvious the Senate wasn't going to convict him (which wasn't entirely obvious at the beginning of the saga), for the simple reason that the whole thing looked like a waste of time.

What utter shiite! The reason that public opinion turned decisively against the impeachment effort wasn't the public's conclusion that it wasn't going to work.

The reason was that the President was being impeached over a consensual blow job, while his persecutors included a man who had a son out of wedlock, another man who as a card carrying racist had fathered an interracial daughter, a man who had dropped divorce papers on a wife fighting cancer in the hospital and who had philandered on her with the woman who became his second wife who he was currently philandering on with the woman who became his second wife.

In short, it was a spectacular put up job. It was a witch hunt. It was hypocrisy from start to finish.

The public turned against the Clinton impeachment because it was such an obvious sham. Because it was a disgusting and discreditable display.

Now, if someone isn't going to be honest about something so basic... why should I take the rest of their discussion seriously?

Ed - I've suggested a focus on out-years impeachment of subordinates as a paradoxically faster-acting cure for and curb on abuse of executive authority.

OK, perhaps it's been discussed already, but there was an op-ed in today's WaPo explaining in no uncertain terms that the executive order on CIA interrogation techniques is basically unlawful (as in: war crimes). So just on principles, in an ideal world (and tactical considerations notwithstanding) I think impeachment is not just legitimate but necessary.
Obviously, we don't live in that world.

One has to wonder what persons and policies you think you are trying to protect? The case for an impeachment and conviction of Bush and Cheney is a slam-dunk if investigations of what is already know by the better informed commences. There is no fishing necessary though the stench from some detailed fishing would be overpowering. Following the impeachments we can then have some criminal and treason trials some of the Neo-Cons who falsified intelligence and profited from the messes they started.

...Or perhaps you'd like to see this same sort of undemocratic crap attempted under a Democrat administration and try to live through a very nasty revolution and purge?

I think you just provided a fine example of mgmax's point.

Violence including random kidnapping, rape, torture, bombing and shooting of people that we ostensibly liberated from a vicious dictator is rather a new twist, don't you think?

I'm with LeeNYC on this, but practically I'm sort of with Crust. Here's why.

First AG.AG has pretty obviously perjured himself and, even if not convicted, the evidence pulled to bring him to trial will include improper and illegal use/non-use of FISA and White House interference in US Attorney appointments, and the use of the AG's office to protect White House illegal behavior and prevent proper oversight. The whole sccaffold of lies will teeter.

Continuing revelations will make Bush Co. and previous Rerpublican house non-oversight a continuing news story into the elections.

The next Democratic president can lift the veil on previously "secret" papers. A full inquiry into the reasons for going into war against Iraq initiated.

Finally, rather than impeachment, Cheney and his aider-abettor can be tried criminally for high crimes and misdemeanors, starting a war illegally, even treason, perhaps.

Then jail, not some comfortable retirement.

Oh, and JPF311, what war crimes? Starting a war illegally; extraordinary rendition, torture? Wouldn't that have been enough to convict Saddam?

Even the UK Attorney General declared the war illegal until sent back for a rewrite.

Yes, think how much information came to light during the Nixon impeachment hearings.

FDR went after far-right nuts like William Dudley Pelley and Gerald Winrod through what can only be called gross misuse of the Justice Dept. The whole Lend-Lease program and other aid he gave to England before the war was wildly in violation of Congress. Talk about executive privilege-- imagine Bush trying something like the Supreme Court packing scheme. But historical perspective is obviously not the strong suit here, a lot of people seem to have a lot invested emotionally in believing, self-dramatizingly, that we live in the scariest worstest most dangerous time in American history (and look how brave I am standing up to Bushitler and his Gonzalez-stapo!)

Sorry, kiddies. No impeachment, Bush leaves office on 1-20-09 and he won't send in the tanks nor will the tanks come for him, and hate to say it, but there's at least a 45% chance that he'll have a Republican successor. Life goes on, much as it ever does.

Aiding and abetting Israel's War in Lebanon, surely an accessory and supporter of war crimes. Regime change efforts against Iran, including funding terrorist operations.

Hey, that's what the Democratic party really needs to do to win both impeachment and the next election-- come out on the Syrian-Iranian side in all this stuff!

Bush's whole enemy combatant scheme was found to violate the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act in Hamdi and Hamden. This included illegal rendition, denial of habeas and "interrogation" provisions. Now, seeing how people, including U.S. citizens and innocent victims, have been swept up, and in dozens of cases, have been killed under this torture, I would say that war crimes were committed.

It is frustrating, but amusing that so many people, including Democrats, refuse to acknowledge the war crimes of Bush, which certainly meet any definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors", plus the signing statements where Bush states that he won't follow the very law he just signed, clearly a violation of the constitution, again a high crime and misdemeanor. Then we have the obstruction of justice by commuting a sentence of a convicted felon to keep him from spilling the details of other crimes committed in the White House. Congress really is obligated by the Constitution to impeach Bush, because the Constitution does not say Congress may, if they wish to do so, use impeachment for criminal presidents.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Ann in AZ

The main problem with your theory (and the same goes for "the powers that be") is that in order to follow your line one has to swallow hard and hold your nose for another year and a half while the current administration holds court and gives banquets for their cronies. What I'm saying is that we have a rogue President who is becoming more and more of a monarch by the day. He has taken our laws, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our Freedom, and used it all for cannon fodder that he shoots at the Middle East, while at the same time he and his administration enrich their pals with war profiteering, like Halliburton overcharges and Custer Battles $10M fraud that the DOJ has not bothered to prosecute. Our reputation is lower than dirt to rest of the world, our army is broken and military equipment is getting scarce. Yet, you are suggesting turning our back on all of these things, and much more (the offenses are too numerous to mention, but I know a guy who has a list of about 200) to show party loyalty and how smart we are? Oh, yeah, sounds like a bunch of people I want to waste time voting for. Real principled sorts.

Don't bet anything you can't afford to lose.

hoppycalif2, I guess my judgement is that he CAN'T be removed "quickly".

If the prosecution arises from another prosecution where it clearly exposes laws broken, surely there is no choice under an even-handed system than to follow the course of justice.

Hardly a bad precedent. And I can't see that prosecuting any politician -- president or other -- who has broken the law can be bad. Part of the problem here is that too many people put the president on some kind of special pedestal.

If only we had a weekly presidential question time. Hardly an undemocratic idea!

Similarly, if an Iraq investigation exposes deliberate lies to mislead Congress into an unjustified and illegal war, follow the law. Undeserving people have made fortunes out of this. People, many of them, have died; many more have had their lives changed forever.

This administration has avoided all legal restraints both domestically and abroad. The International Court of The Hague is not recognized by the US.

Boo on the whole bunch of them. Let them die by the blind-eyed sword of justice.

This summarizes my feeling pretty clearly with a few points as this conversation on impeachment grows.

There is a false notion that someone has to argue this is an impeachment, and Clinton was impeached and Andrew Johnson was impeached...must be the same.

False

Distinctions matter.

The distaste for the Clinton impeachment in the 90s could have easily been from the combination of the bullshit moral outrage from the moral right, to the more genuine outrage from people who felt, 'oh come on...get real...for a blowjob?' and that it was obstruction.

This is a matter very different from Johnson who fired the Secretary of War and had congress jump his ass, to Bush who stuck with a war criminal Secretary of Defense and has a whole staff that he has refused to fire even when they leak the name of a CIA agent to a journalagent in attacking a critic of your criminal deception.

Johnson was vindicated by the Supreme Court in Myers v. US which said the Pres has the right to fire officials in the Executive Branch from the postmaster general to high secretaries. The Tenure Act was repealed.

The irony of Johnson's history and Bush's history thus fire is thick.

BushCheneyCo LLP. have committed many crimes and if you can't even let the grand jury survey the evidence, then you are committing obstruction of justice. This watering down of the process with political convenience for either party is disgusting. We've created new kings and queens, lords and ladies.

I accept the theory that government is a sad consequence of our vices as a people. If we are to say, 'due to the election cycle, if you have committed crimes, we favor political potentials to accountability'.

The political preachy types who are saying, 'look, forgetta bout it, we got Hillary to elect, so shaddap', are playing the game that used to be played during the writing of the Constitution of the US.

"the people are too stupid to understand this stuff. we know what's best for them. we'll decide."

so, cscs thanks for reminding us that the context of Clinton's impeachment counts and that people can understand the difference.

political expediency be damned.

This is much more like Nixon in the sense that it was all based on narrow minded politically partisan hacks who put party and ambition above the world security, the national security, and the Constitution of the United States. Funny how the faces of his administration are still running the game.

Ann in AZ

And the Conservative participant was Bruce Fein.

Even if the fates provide us (post election) with a Democratic administration, all emphasis will be placed, by them (and DLC advisors like Mr Kilgore), on the glorious future. But by necessity, they will also be busy defending themselves against spurious charges of malfeasance, coming from “guess where".

Once the immediacy of the dangerous Bush precedents is past there will be little motivation for future officials to correct them. Little, that is, until they once again become a invoked. By that time it will most likely be too late.

Lastly, perhaps persons who see themselves as the next occupant of the oval office lust after these newly developing presidential powers. Perhaps they imagine themselves with the ability to simply blow off Congressional inquries.

Kevin Russell Cook

Or perhaps to Argentina.

In the MSM the are two kinds of organs: partisan ones, like FOX, and those that take a secretarial approach, refraining from even the most obvious conclusions while reporting, "A" said; "B" said.

The latter may arouse your contempt, but they are better than no press at all, which could be our future.

Look at the polls. Give the public some credit. Look at what they've learned in spite of a lame press!

Impeachment can, with just a little good lawyering, prevail with the public in spite of the handicaps Democrats would labor under.

Kevin Russell Cook

Sorry, but this is a terrible anaysis by Mr Kilgore. It almost seems like concern trolling.

- Was the public behind the Clinton impeachment until it became clear that he wasn't going to be convicted? No. Would they have been behind it if he had been? No, and for good reason. This part of Ed's argument is so obtuse - apples and oranges - that I wonder if even he believes it (maybe so!).

- Who is generally horrified by the idea of Impeachment? The political class/people in DC. The 'American People'? Not so much. Impeachment of Bush and especially Cheney would probably be quite popular. They are hated - esp. Cheney. DC in general is hated, too, because that 'town' is so horribly self-involved that it doesn't do its job serving the public interest very well. Its job right now is to impeach a rogue president. If either Bush or Cheney isn't convicted, so be it - you will have Senators on record voting to convict or aquit, and some of them will be running for reelection, and a formal record of at least some of this administration's crimes.

Rosenberg is right. Kilgore (and Drum) don't quite get it: impeachment isn't about 'revenge', in this case, and it needn't be 'catastrophic' and almost never used. If you never use a tool, you lose it. The founders put it there for a reason. If you don't impeach these guys, who do you?

The overriding reason to impeach is to reassert the Consitutionally-mandated role of Congress vis a vis the president. It shouldn't be about punishing Cheney/Bush for bad policy and worse execution. It shouldn't be about the war or new orleans. It should be about stopping our headlong drift into dictatorship. It's about Bush arrogating Congress's right to declare war. It's about Bush violating treaty obligations to endorse torture, the eavesdropping. It's bout Bush ignoring the intention of Congress through signing statements, It's about the blanket assertions of privilege. The Cheney/Bush doctrine on the powers of the presidency is a legacy that must not be allowed to stand unchallenged.

The impeachment of Clinton was only about his dick. The impeachment of Bush isn't about his Dick. It's about saving the constitution.

EXCELLENT!

I can only assume from your post that your singling out of these two items means that you agree that the rest of the enumerated items constitute War Crimes by the President of the United States which, according to the Nuremberg precedents, justify public hanging.

Your right wing buddies will be so pleased.