I don't think we need worry, with JEFFREY A. Taylor,US Attorney for the District of Columbia on the job.

His office includes the Fraud & Public Corruption Section, John Roth, Chief.

"This section prosecutes misconduct by officials of both federal and local governments for violations of the public trust, including improper use of office and improper personal enrichment. It also has responsibility to prosecute private individuals for aiding and abetting government officials in their unlawful conduct, and handles allegations of false statements to government agencies, obstruction of justice, and perjury."

Relax. The American justice system is at work. These are the freedoms that they hate us for, right? You go, Jeff and John.

"The politics are much more difficult."

Well, yes.

Interestingly, National Review of all places has one of the best sum-ups of the Democratic field in 2008 so far. You may disagree with all of its underlying premises, but the basic message is, it seems to me, inarguable: Hillary is by far the best organized candidate, she's armor-plated when it comes to taking hits without ducking yet not going down with them (no explaining away haircuts), and at this point, little short of a meteor is going to keep her from getting the Democratic nomination.

http://tinyurl.com/39dcs5

What, you ask, does that have to do with impeachment? Simple. It's the last thing she wants. And she gets what she wants (or, in this case, she stops cold what she doesn't want).

How about starting by impeaching Gonzales? That seems easy enough to get through Congress (the Republicans won't come to his defense) and it's kind of a warning shot across Bush's bow. Simultaneously, I'd start cutting funding for executive branch offices. If Bush still fails to cooperate, then I'd start threatening impeachment.

So who do you think kept it out?

Washington really does need an extensive Spring-Summer-Fall & Winter cleaning. The problems however are (ready for a flashback buzz word?) systemic and I think encompass far more than the President and VP.

Granted this President and a large number of his administration rightly deserve impeachment. I'd even go so far as to say some require more than that...but our entire system has become so corroded that it itself at least has a role in how things have gotten to such a dreadful state. If the Congress were not such a corrupt and lethargic institution then I don't know if we'd necessarily be on this run-away train that we now find ourselves. Modern partisan politics is a factor in this and should be a contemptible term in all circles. If our politicians had an ounce of integrity they would not participate in it. By practicing it a politician does a great disservice to not only the people of this country but also to his office and to our constitution because he now acts (or doesn't act) for the "party" and not for his constituents or this nation.

I think impeachment at this point is a tiger with no teeth...maybe a stuffed tiger with no teeth and missing one of it's button eyes. There are simply too few politicians left that are willing to put truth, integrity and the Constitution above party and personal interests. At least that's my own pessimistic take but I would be delighted to be proven wrong on this!

The Interstate Commerce Commission?

International Criminal Court - Bill Clinton did away with the Interstate Commerce Commission - but you knew that.

Tom

National Review.

The same magazine that in 2005 wrote:

It is time to say it unequivocally: We are winning in Iraq.

Hmmm.

Probably not the best judges of, you know, stuff.

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

This is one of the most inane arguments routinely made on these sites. I implicitly pointed out that the virtue of this comment was that it was from the perspective of the other side and thus arrived at its conclusions outside of the groupthink bubble prevalent here (but from its own, different bubble, no doubt).

And so you find an alleged quote, on a completely different topic, probably by a different writer, and that is supposed to invalidate everything ever published in the magazine? Should I find a stupid thing said here and post it to prove that everything ever said or ever to be said here is wrong? That's just foolish, c'mon, think about it.

She creates her own reality. And this is the reality she wants.

Good or bad is irrelevant.

Arlen has been disingenuous for a long time - see the single bullet theory, his treatment of Anita Hill, and his strange vote during Clinton's impeachment trial.

Tom

This does bring up another repercussion of impeachment that I think is important. Under Bush's oblivious power-mongering throughout the world, we have become purveyors of imperialism and repression, the opposite of what we have stood for to the rest of the world since our founding.

I remember millions of people around the world that came out after 9/11 to show their solidarity with America. Those same people now come out to protest our policies. The world would be laughing at America if it weren't so sad and our actions so damaging to it.

I think impeachment and its refutation of the imperial PNAC Neocon policies will go a long way towards restoring our standing in the world (which BTW, would have a positive impact on our security). Of course, this is a secondary issue, but I believe that most people care about how we are viewed in the world, and the "freedom fries," with-us-or-against-us, bring-it-on, cowboy mentality does not represent America.

I imagine the White House would allow the "prosecution" to proceed at a snail's pace, for the sake of being unable to comment on an ongoing investigation.

So long as the defendants are Loyalists, they'd simply file one stalling motion after another until they run out the clock and receive the Scooter treatment.

Their defense will be pro bono. Their fines will be quietly taken care of. By 2009, they'll be on Fox News, or perhaps the Wall St. Journal, shilling for wealthy, wingnut whackjobs.

Held accountable by the effete elites of the Benelux countries?

Yes, I'm glad that our presidents are not subject to the fashions and sense of moral superiority prevalent in a place we rescued from the Germans twice, and whose wealth is built on the rape of the Congo.

When are Bush supporters going to realize that the thousands of Americans sent to their deaths in Iraq by Bush were sent for his own political purposes and not to defend this nation. That is not drama or entertainment, that is a crime.

Reset to 2007, which 'morally superior' country is 'raping' a country today?

It's time to ignore Mgmax forever.

Tom

I cannot agree with those persons who have argued against impeachment. Those arguments largely focus on the political which is the very reason we find ourselves in this dilemma. We must absolutley turn our attention to the actions of this administration and evaluate how they have altered the structural elements of governance in these United States. The multiple instances of this administration claiming an authority to do such-and-such is particularly problematic because no president has ever sought to expand executive power in the way this president has.

As I see it, the nation needs to back away, very demonstrably, from the proposals of executive power authored by the administration. It just isn't possible for our system of governance to remain intact without addressing this most uncomfortable issue. Not doing so assures that we will have occasion to find ourselves in this very same position at some future date with the same questions before us but with a precedent having been set relative to the conduct of this administration. We need to appreciate the implications that the political will to address this is very much in the forefront of the evaluation being made. We must recognize that as an impediment to honoring the constitution and our laws.

You cannot make a rational argument that recognizes a political entity which in any way supercedes the constitution. This is what is being done and it's just plain wrong.

Delete.

Tom

The first time Gonzales was up before the Senate committee, chaired by Arlen at that time, some on the committee wanted him sworn in and Arlen refused. His argument - which of course held given his position - defied any manner of interpretation let alone any substance.

Some kind of red flag when the Attorney-General of the US is exempted from having to speak the truth before a congressional committee of the US. (Gonzales feigned disinterest in whether he was sworn in or not, but I smelled a pre-determined collusion between Arlen and him.)

Well, I don't entirely agree with all of this (National Review also has a lot of different brands of conservatism under their tent which frequently spar), but I respect it for taking the issues seriously and not screeching at the horror of being forced to face the existence of alternate viewpoints. Couple of thoughts:

One reason the media may expect/want a Hill-Rudy matchup is that they always build up New York candidates-- we were always going to have President Cuomo, President Pataki (gad), President Lindsay, President Rockefeller, President Dewey, not to mention the most recent boomlet for President Bloomberg... this time they might actually be right, though.

Another rightie (sorta) with new respect for the Hill: http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/296218.html

I'm not so sure the establishment-right sees Clinton-Giuliani as their hope for a GOP prez any more-- but they're trying very hard to see her as a Dem they can stomach...

You're joking, right?  The neo-cons finding ANY  Clinton palatable?  Give me a break!  They hate the very name Clinton viscerally.  The only reason they could stomach her for an election is that they KNOW they can beat her by scaring their base -- yes that same base whose children, husbands and wives are dying for NOTHING Halliburton and their many executives who are raking it in in Iraq.  All they have to do is say:

"BOO!!!!  It's  HILLARY!" and their drones will vote for whatever knuckle-dragger they prop up as the Publican candidate. 

PS ..... Don't fall for MgMax's BS!)

And BTW, i just had this discussion with my daughter today:  She said Hillary voted for the war because she represents New York and so she had extra pressure from consituents because of 9-11.

I told her that as a Senator Hillary had the obligation to explain to her constituents that the rhetoric was faulty and that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11.  But as I was explaining this I realized (not for the first time) why Hillary voted for the war.  She voted for it because she knew that if she didn't, and it was a success (as the first Gulf War is perceived as being) she could never run for President.  (This is the same reason Kerry voted for it, but he is not running now)

That is it in a nutshell.  Hillary knew that if she voted "no" she would be labeled "antiwar,"  "afraid of the war on terror," "a woman (therefore a peace-nik)," we can all supply the words, but Hillary's vote was calculated because she knew that if this war was a success and she voted "no" her presidential career was lost.  That is why she voted for it, and that is why she won't repudiate it to this day.  Surely everyone with a brain knows this is true.

Is that what we want in a leader?  I don't.  I also think she kinda likes this "unitary executive thingy" that the Bush regime has nearly codified.  Of course, I know without any doubt that the repubs have the fix in, because they would not have amassed all of this illigitimate power just to hand it over.  That is the crux of the scandal at Justice. 

That is why we must impeach: 

Gonzales, Bush, and Cheney.  Win or lose:  Americans must have the chance to see what has gone on here.  We must do this. 

 Jan

Jan, your analysis explains why Mgmax is right and why the neocons are starting to warm up to Hillary. They know that Hillary will cave to their pressure on the war issues because they know how much she thinks she needs to appear tough. Obama and Edwards don't feel the same need and therefore won't necessarily succumb to neocon accusations of weakness. Hillary, however, will buckle. Bill Kristol and his PNAC gang understand that--they watch Hillary pander to AIPAC and talk about how she won't negotiate with Iran and Syria and they start to smile. Hmmm . . . they say, this is maybe someone we can work with. Sure they prefer a Republican. But if a Democrat is inevitable in the current climate, then Hillary is their choice. They know exactly what you know--that Hillary will vote yes to war because she's scared of the political consequences of voting no. That, they figure, is something they can live with if they're forced, as seems likely, to live with a Democrat.

we should think more about Cheney as President

um, no....we should think seriously about impeaching Cheney right along with Bush. We should, in fact, impeach Cheney first.

I was Cheney-first until I though about it more.

What charges would you bring? Cheney's authority is Bush, so it's a little weird to hold Cheney responsible, even if something is his idea, for Bush's violations of the Constitution. And the complications of dual impeachment ask for trouble, I think.

So to be opposed to Bush and want him held accountable is to be in favor of Bismarck, Hitler, and King Leopold? I think not. How have you survived with this type of illogic guiding you? Goodbye forever!

Tom

...the neocons are starting to warm up to Hillary.

I've been having some suspicions of this, because it really seems to me that Wolf Blitzer (neocon belweather) has been giving Hilary a lot of positive coverage, and more or less treating her as the primary winner already.

As for impeachment, it seemed to me a good idea for a while, but the political problems, as mentioned upthread, are considerable. Although it seems like a good idea at first, assuming there was some constitutional way of Pelosi and all other Dems stepping aside in favor of a Republican to finish out the Bush/Cheney term, that might ultimately backfire. Condi would surely appoint one of the Republican candidates as the new VP, who would then have the bully pulpit to interfere with Dem chances in '08. I want Bush/Cheney held responsible, but not if it means another Republican administration that might follow in their footsteps anyway.

"Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals..." ~~ Iraq Study Group

Tom, Just posted Impeachment Watch, August 5th. 

Check in when you can,

Tish