Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Impeachment: Lugar Shows GOP Opposes President
GOP Senator Lugar made some revealing comments about the GOP's finite patience with this President. In saying the President does not have infinite time to possibly get things right in Iraq, the Republicans signaled they are open to information in challenging this President.
Senator Lugar demonstrates when the Congress forces the President to publicly account with open information, the GOP will see the President is not meeting reasonable deadlines. Senator Lugar demonstrates the GOP's patience with this President's conduct is finite, reviewable, and subjected to needed Congressional challenge. The GOP will not blindly follow the President, and supports Congressional hearings that puts the Constitution and American national interests before party and President.
Congress needs to do the same with the President's impeachable offenses: Set a deadline for the President to meet specific goals. When the President refuses to comply with these reasonable deadlines, the GOP, as it has done with Iraq, would see the President is not making progress.
Congressional leadership is required. As with the Russian hold on Eastern Europe, it took leadership to decide the status quo was not an acceptable, and must be challenged with a coherent policy to compel change. Similarly, Congress must decide this President's continued reckless assaults on the Constitution are unacceptable, and must change. As with Iraq, the GOP is ready to hear more about this President's impeachable offenses, and challenge the President in public. Congress must set a deadline for this President to fully comply with his Constitutional obligations. That deadline is in the form of an impeachment trial before the Senate.
Comments (14)
Mukasy left many options open for DoD to ignore the 4th Amendment. Congress needs to be lawfully challenged to confront the President and AG. Based on this, and if we reconsider Lugar's comments, I'm not convinced the GOP has taken an impeachment inquiry off the table. Congress, when it gets access to information, isn't happy about Iraq. There's no reason Congress should be happy about this President's legal compliance.
We need a deadline in the form of a Senate impeachment trial. Time for the public to use Mukasey's responses today to Feinstein as evidence the President has impermissibly create excuses for DoD to conduct war crimes against American civilians, and press the State AGs to challenge Members of Congress and the President. If the State AGs and Members of Congress refuse to listen, then the public now needs to discuss openly discuss a new system of oversight which will not give the President, Congress, or State Officials leeway. This crew has been unresponsive to the Constitution and laws of war. This needs to end now, and not left to endanger us or future generations.
April 10, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Impeachment is initiated in the House, and once Impeached, a Presiden or other official is tried in the Senate.
April 10, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, I was not clear. A Senate trial is the final step after the House concludes it's investigation. The deadline is for a Senate Trial.
April 10, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the Senate trial, the Senators will have the information to answer, "Has this President reformed, or does he still refuse to meet his obligations, and should he be removed." After a House impeachment, the Senators would decide whether the President has or hasn't met their requirements to stay in office.
Lugar is signaling the GOP's Senate patience with this Senate is not assured, and finite. The decision on cases of removal/conviction, is up to the Senate. The President, before the trial phase, may reform, and satisfy the Senate. Lugar's sentiments on Iraq suggest this President would want more time to reform, even after the wakeup call and deadline of a Senate trial.
One way to change course in Iraq is to change the leadership, now before the election. If Cheney were prosecuted/removed frist, and Bush the same, then the Speaker would become President. if the GOP would like a different President to replace Bush, they need to start an effort to remove Pelosi as Speaker, and, as a condition of supporting a House impeachment investigation, demand a Speaker to the GOP's liking.
25% of the DNC is willing to oppose either Obama or Clinton. This means 25% of the DNC are willing to vote for McCain, block an impeachment investigation and war crimes trial. The DNC needs to decide whether it is serious about governing or making excuses. Lugar well demonstrates the GOP is serious about challenging the President on Iraq. Time for the House to challenge him as well.
April 10, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here are Senator Lugar's comments.
April 10, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
can anyone play out the scenario if Bush and Cheney were impeached at this point in time?
Given that there are only 7 months left, Is there a case to be made for the urgency of impeachment?
April 10, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
This asks that despite the real possibility they could be impeached or removed, that we should celebrate inaction, nor not now examine the evidence:
If Cheney were removed first, and the Senate refuses to confirm a replacement, then Bush were removed, Pelosi, if she is still Speaker, would be President.
However, the issue isn't whether we know or can forecast the scenario, but, barring action, why we can argue we've used all lawful options to defend the Constitution. Possible defeat is not a defense, but an excuse to absurdly accept defeat despite the law requiring the opposite: A full defense against domestic enemies. Laziness and inaction is hardly a defense, but capitulation.
Thurgood Marshall knew the Supreme Court might not go his way on desegregation, but that uncertainty did not credibly justify inaction, but confrontation with that unacceptable injustice, then and now.
Speculative DNC Control of DOJ: 25% of DNC Plan To Block War Crimes Investigations
There is only now. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes. Congress cannot explain why it has not put this issue first, now. Talking about how much time is left in this Article II President's term is unrelated to the Article I duty to enforce now the Constitution from this President. Elections are designed to inspire action, not be used as an illusory excuse to celebrate inaction.
What is the DNC arguing for when it says, "When we control the White House and DOJ . . ." 25% of the DNC have committed to rejecting either Obama or Clinton, and vote for McCain. It's hardly a shoe-in the DNC will control DOJ. Again, with that uncertainty, it makes sense for the House to get on with what they can, and get the war crimes evidence together.
Information To Challenge Presidential Candiates' Plans To Change Lead Law Enforcement
Let's get this going now. Assert all lawful options. Compel the State and Local officials to explain their inaction now. That information will help voters make informed decisions, and challenge the officials during this election cycle. Without this debate and information, no Presidential candidate from either party can credibly argue they are about change.
An impeachment investigation, and war crimes investigation now would give the Senator-candidates the information they need to credibly argue what they know is wrong, what needs to change, and what plan they as President would embrace. However, all three Senators -- Clinton, McCain, and Obama -- have hardly led a credible plan in the Senate, a separate chamber from the House, to put on the table the war crimes evidence. There's no reason to believe they, as failed Senators on the war crimes investigation, will adequately charge the "new" DOJ AG to do the same. If McCain wins because the 25% of the DNC vote GOP, then McCain could likely keep Mukasey as DoJ AG. As it stands, 25% of the DNC plan to vote to block a war crimes investigation, and support McCain. Start the effort in the House and Senate now; then we'll have a discussion whether those 25% in the DNC should or shouldn't support McCain and Mukasey.
The Burden To Justify Inaction Belongs With The Congress
The DNC does not (yet) control Congress. No one explain why we should wait, and not confront the President and Congress now? The longer the DNC waits, into 2009 to act, the longer the GOP will have to destroy evidence. The oath of office doesn't say, "Later, when we feel like it,". The oath of office requires action now. Before the DNC drank the KoolAid and gave excuses to do nothing, there were 24 months "left". No one can make a case for "let's wait until we feel like it", but more evidence the DNC -- as DOJ OLC is doing -- is creating excuses not to do what needs to be done.
The Congress has given excuses to do nothing about conducting war crimes investigations within the House. Why should we believe they're going to change their tune in DOJ? The same excuses for inaction in the House -- that confrontation will be divisive -- could likely be invoked against the DOJ in re war crimes.
New Leadership, No Change
The factors driving this inaction and legal laziness are not confined to the GOP, but extend into both parties. It cannot be argued the same party, which does nothing in the Congress, will suddenly do something in the Executive Branch. Both Parties appear to be making excuses to do nothing now, and going forward forever. The DNC and GOP have had their chance to "change course" in Iraq, but not change.
This celebration about Mukasey cleaning up the mess was premised that a new leader would bring change. We've got new leadership in the Congress, and no change; a new AG and no change. There's no reason to believe the same DNC, which will not do its job in the House, will suddenly do its job in the Executive Branch. If they want us to believe they're serious about change, they can hardly look at their record since 2006 in re Iraq, or the President. If the DNC House immediately were to start an impeachment investigation and challenge this President's war crimes, perhaps we might have a discussion about considering whether a DNC-controlled DoJ might or might not lead an effort to conduct a war crimes investigation.
Unaddressed Concerns Stifling DNC Action
The same (hidden) factors preventing DNC from taking action in Congress would also dissuade action in DoJ. Perhaps the DNC is well aware the President and Congress are jointly complicity with DoD-led war crimes against American civilians, in violation of Geneva. It can hardly be argued, with those stakes, the DNC would reverse course and lead an investigation that would implicate members of Congress in that war crimes investigation. It might happen, but we heard that "might happen" argument before 2006. We need action and a plan now, not a promise about what might happen after 2009. Now.
DNC Refuses To Use the Power They Have; No Reason To Believe They Might Use Power Later
We have known-alleged political manipulation of DOJ under this President, and the DNC in Congress has the power in Congress to challenge this manipulation, but they refuse. There's no reason to believe they would not continue that manipulation, and shut down DOJ investigations into their peers in Members of Congress. If Members of Congress' hands were clean on these war crimes issues against American civilians, they would not be reluctant to immediately put the war crimes evidence on the table in Congress. There's no reason to believe, absent a GOP-DNC open agreement to prevent DOJ from being politicized, to imagine the DNC would not attempt to continue the same manipulation: Insulate Members of Congress, not take action on war crimes, and continue the abuse of DOJ for political objectives.
April 10, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congress needs to confront the war crimes now, not maybe later if the DNC Controls the justice Department.
April 10, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're dreaming. This government moves at a snail's pace as it is. Waxman and Reid and Pelosi talk and talk and talk but nothing happens. And even if there was anything like movement, the DoJ remains compromised and stall anything that looks like actual law enforcement.
The only viable alternative I see at this point (and I have no idea how feasible but I do hope it is) is to see the lot of them tried as criminals after leaving office.
April 10, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
A credible threat of prosecution for inaction on issues of war crimes can awaken members of Congress to their oath of office.
The Public Can Inspire Congress To Move Quickly
Dreams can inspire others to act. Now. If lawfully confronted, there is no guarantee that Pelosi or Reid would remain leaders. Given a credible challenge, the Congress would realize a confrontation is needed. It moves at a snail's pace because there are no legal consequences for moving slowly. We've seen Congress will, after 9-11, react quickly. It's not that the Congress refuses or is unable, but they are not willing, and not interested despite promising otherwise with their oath. "Not time for impeachment," but plenty of time for excuses. Deference to that excuse for inaction, and defiance of their oath to now defend the Constitution, needs to end.
This smacks of dreaming that someone in the DNC might do what they refuse to do their job:
They'll give more excuses to do nothing. It's only going to be with relentless public pressure, now, before the election, to demand this be confronted, and compel the candidates now to explain their inaction. Otherwise, without information about what went wrong, none of the candidates can credibly argue they are about leadership or change: They have no information now to justify public support. Their plan for change, from what has failed, must be linked with knowledge of what failed. Yet, without a war crimes investigation now, nor a review of what went wrong, the candidates in both parties are promising leadership without any specifics. This is more of what we've seen with Iraq. "Rushing to do nothing" is the recipe for more of the same, not leadership nor indictments. Lugar says we've given the President enough time. Time for the public to say similarly to Congress, "Just like the President, Congress has run out of time."
April 10, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lugar's comments on Iraq show the voters the GOP is not immovable. Yet, the candidates advocate change without knowing what they need to change. Without an impeachment investigation now, nor a war crimes confrontation now, none of the candidates can justify support for their plans. Their plans, now, are not linked with an undersatnding of what went wrong, or what options need to be considered. As with post-Watergate, this public review in Congress is inherent to the Power of Congress.
Now Removing Senators' (Next President) Excuse To Defer To Congress
The Senators with power in the Senate now to demonstrate leadership. As with 2006, they promise "maybe later" but without specifics. The candidates, now must explain their inaction on these offenses, demonstrate some leadership in the Senate, show us they can use the power they have, and demonstrate their plan to change is linked with something they can control. Otherwise, when one of them becomes President, they'll look to the Senate and say, "I'm still waiting for their plan." Now is the time to ask each of them: What are they now, as Senators, doing to support the information, plans, and vision they will need from the Congress to help them lead as President. None of them have an answer because they point to the idea of change, without being confronted over the specifics which must be reviewed and publicly discussed now.
Which Senator Puts Their Name on A Credible Senate Plan?
The Senators need to now lead in the Senate, and lead the way to discover what went wrong, and show the voters their plan as President to finish the work they started in the Senate. The Senators must commit now to a plan. That commitment cannot be a promise, but must be measured by real work, investigations, and measurable information the public can examine: How successful has each Senator and candidate been in using their power as a Senator and elected official to lead an effort to understand what went wrong, and implement in the Senate a plan to remedy these defects.
Until their name is on that Senate plan, there is no reason they as the President will support that Senate plan. As a candidate, they must be forced to commit to account to investigate, demonstrate a plan, and put their name on that plan before the election, otherwise its the same meaningless posturing. They don't need more time. They need to make a decision whether they are serious about demanding continued public support. Their recklessness to date suggests they are not serious candidates. There is no reason to wait until 2009 to be disappointed again. These candidates need to be confronted now for what they have failed to do, and have no credible plan to start or finish. We need actions and results now, not more promises for later.
Senator Lugar called the President to account. No more time. Time for the public to do the same to the candidates: Lead now while you have power, or prepare to defend yourselves at a war crimes tribunal.
April 10, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lugar challenged the President after examining the information. He concluded we no longer have time to go down this road with this President. If the DNC were serious about enforcing the laws of war and Constitution, they would use all lawful options to find information, and decide what the proper assessment would be. Lugar shows us there is nothing Congress has to fear in confronting the truth: The problem is in the Oval Office, and extends to Congress in refusing to say "Enough."
Lugar shows us that information can change the equation, and make it obvious the leadership cannot demand more time. The Congressional excuses not to impeach will be recast as excuses not to prosecute. Rather, despite the power to pressure DOJ to prosecute, the DNC refuses. The DNC cannot explain their inaction on impeachment and prosecution.
Unless Corrupted, Grand Juries Don't Wait For Elections or Party
This blustering of whether there should or should not be an impeachment, prosecution, or an investigation is a smokescreen. Congress is not beholden to the President, it could impeach; and the President's conduct is not one which only the Attorney General can investigate and prosecute. Missing from the equation, and unrelated to any election, are the grand juries.
Conyers well documented many alleged war crimes. This information is available to the grand juries. Yet, we've heard nothing. The reasonable inferences, as with the FISA issues, is the President and Congress, in secret, have agreed to not permit full, independent legal reviews. Under FISA, they agreed to exclude the Court. On impeachable offenses, they have agreed to exclude the Grand Juries. This President needs to explain in public which exceptions to the DOJ IG rules he invoked to block US Attys from empanelling grand juries. It makes no sense to debate narrowly on whether there is or isn't enough time to impeach or prosecute, but there's no discussion on why -- now -- the grand juries have not been empaneled to review this evidence.
Where is the Congressional public calls for the US Attorneys to empanel a grand jury, and review evidence of this President's illegal activity? Silence means there is either no grand jury, or Members of Congress agree with the President's secret decision to block US attorneys from fully enforcing the law. It's the job of Congress, as was done with Iraq, to find out who has ordered the US Attorneys not to conduct grand jury reviews of this war crimes evidence. Nothing is in the way of the grand juries, unless the Congress and President have secretly agreed to do not do anything about the decision not to empanel these grand juries. Members of Congress and the President now need to be confronted over what agreement they have to not fully support grand jury reviews of this evidence.
April 10, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
All, please beware that the individual who posted this blog posting and all comments,known as TESTING, is known to post unsubstantiated accusations such as this blog posting. He is little better than a spammer and his blog postings are spam at its worst.
While there may be some truth in the posting, it is only surely a result of pure accident on his part if there is so. Testing simply posts things he does not know about and then says because no one has stopped to explain the topic to him and the ins and outs, there must be a conspiracy.
He is no better than ChickenLittle....THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING.
April 14, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
All beware the poster of this blog is a known spammer on TPM that throws unsubstantiated crap on the news blogs that link to his unsubstantiated rants.
April 15, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment