Nobody has completed any study like this reviewing any data to justify thwarting an impeachment investigation.

Muckrakers need data to rake. Muckrakers can only do their job when the House starts a public impeachment investigation, and gives muckrakers facts and data to evaluate.

There is no data, nor has there been any study
demonstrating "an investigation will cause a backlash." The genesis of
this urban myth is worthy of a separate comment thread.

Immediate Requirement For House To Investigate This President's Geneva Convention Violations



The legal duty under the laws of war is for the House to conduct an
investigation. Once there is an investigation, the House can discuss
how to proceed. Nuremberg establishes that when prosecutions have not occurred, the leadership must use impeachment, otherwise that country is not civilized:

"Under any civilized judicial system he could have been impeached and removed from office or convicted of malfeasance"

MajGen Antonio M. Taguba said,

"There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current Administration has committed war crimes."

Teguba's assertion requires the voters to consider why any American
should treat this government as civilized. It is not. It is arrogant,
it defies reason, and it refuses to fully enforce its Geneva
obligations to enforce the laws of war.

These myths are unrelated to the Member of Congress legal obligations:

The myth is that the Senate might not convict as a pretext to not start an investigation. The myth is the start
of an investigation "will" cause a problem. The myth is that what did
or didn't happen with the Clinton impeachment is a template for what will happen after a Bush-Cheney impeachment investigation.

Legal Duties Distinguished From Polls

Our
opinion on impeachment is unrelated to the House duty to investigate
war crimes. Even if voter opinion were relevant to the House legal duties (which it is not), we need information to provide
an informed opinion on an impeachment. 

The polls on impeachment
cannot credibly expect anyone to answer, "In the absence of
information, do you think the best action is (a) inaction; (b) no
investigation; or (c) something else."  We need an investigation. 

The evidence will provide the information the House needs to justify their decision, rather than their inaction. There is no reliable polling data showing the voters "will" retaliate against anyone for finding facts. That defies reason, and would ask that American voters are mobilized mob, not an informed citizenry.


It defies reason for anyone to continue to argue -- without having an investigation -- that there "will" be a backlash. The only way to know whether we should or should not start an investigation is to look at the oath of office, the legal obligations, and the duties of Members of Congress. 

Lesson of Iraq WMD Mythology

The mythology behind the Iraq WMD was simple: Someone has invented something for partisan gain to justify inaction, floated it as a fact, and the myth has not been challenged.  Like the Iraq WMD claims, there is no data, merely the assertion without any evidence.

Arguably, this mythmaking is GOP Propaganda. The myth is designed to induce the DNC to fear finding facts. It defies reason to argue without an investigation the consequences of an investigation "will be" bad or undesirable. The absurdity is the claim that only bad things will happen to the Democrarts. No, the Republicans benefit by avoiding an investigaiton, and thwarting their base from challenging the Republican leadership.

McClellan discussed similar calculations in What Happened. He disclosed how the President and GOP would focus on national issues that would unite the GOP base. An impeachment investigation, by implication, would provide the Republican voters with adverse information, fracturing the GOP base. That's not a threat to the country, but a threat to the GOP's agenda: Immunity from voter accountability.

Some have argued that an investigation and impeachment will divide the country. That assertion is not based on any data, evidence, or reality. Without an investigation, nobody can say prospectively that inaction is the best course of action; or that ignorance would strengthen the country. Ignorance binds us with an unsubstantiated national agenda. We'll only know the best course of action after we confront the myth: That a President is above a House confrontation. No President is.

Some argue that an investigation should not start because the Senate might not convict. That is irrelevant. The legal duty is to find facts and make an informed decision. This Congress, appealing to ignorance, would immunize the Senate from considering the evidence.

The role of the voters is to watch how the House and Senate do or do not wrestle with these issues. Suppose the House were to find evidence of war crimes. The voter's job is to evaluate whether the Senate, after the trial, did or didn't do the right thing. Yet, without conducting an investigation, the House is denying the voters any chance to see whether the Senators will or will not do the right thing.

Suppose there is overwhelming evidence consistent with MajGen Teguba's conclusion: The President directed war crimes and has violated the Geneva Conventions. The job of the Senators, despite this overwhelming evidence will be to explain why they should not be prosecuted for failing to enforce the laws of war.

The Senators will have another obligation to explain their inaction -- despite this war crimes evidence -- to the voters. Forever, the voters will know the Senators refused to perform their legal obligations under the Geneva conventions. That does not divide the country, but unites the voters is seeing the domestic threat is in the Congress and White House.

This data shows only part of the picture. There is no data on the undecided voters, approximately 50% of the eligible voters. The Congress fails to discuss how an investigation "will" cause already disgusted voters to change their position with a backlash. The Congress fails to provide any data showing the independent voters will backlash against the House. They've already left. A "backlash" would require a change, not the status quo: Inaction, no investigation, and a refusal to provide leadership through fact finding.

The Congress misses the important benefit of an investigation: More of the already disgusted GOP base  will see the facts, continue to depart the GOP, and align with the independents or Democrts. To argue the GOP will forever remain blind to facts defies reason: Given overwhelming evidence of war crimes, and a GOP decision not to confront their President would make the Republicans self-evidently complicit with those war crimes. Let the Republicans justify their inaction at a war crimes trial and to the voters. Don't give the Republicans an easy way to avoid accountability.

This leadership would demand that we not let the voters consider the merits of the Congressional action against the President on war crimes. Out of ignorance, the Congressional leaders are saying -- without an investigation -- that they know better than the voters. That is arrogant, defies reason, and is absurd.  The Congressional leadership, self-evidently without an investigation, have no claim on superior information or wisdom than the voters. Like the Iraq WMD myth, the Congress is loyal to a myth not their legal obligations under the laws of war: To find facts and confront war crimes.

This House leadership would ask, without having any impeachment
investigation, trust their decision not to investigate. They point to
nothing to justify confidence that that decision is reasonable. The
voters can only evaluate whether subsequent impeachment proceedings
-- after the investigation -- are or are not reasonable is if there is an
investigation. Until there is an investigation, the American
government's leadership is appealing to ignorance to justify inaction,
and deny the voters the chance to evaluate the evidence, and the
reasonableness of the Senators reaction.

Blocking an investigation is arguably a subsequent war crime, which Congressional legal counsel should well know under the Nuremberg precedents. Despite this risk of prosecution -- with the real threat of adjudication with complicity with war crimes, and a credible threat of the death penalty --  we still have no investigation. We need no more serious discussion that the Congress is in collusion with the President: They are jointly uncivilized.

The American public must demand a clear statement from the Congress and United States government their basis to decide -- without any evidence, facts or data about this case -- why their decision to block an investigation is reasonable. The public must demand that the Congressional leadership explain in detail why it should not be prosecuted for collusion, complicity, and cooperating with war crimes.

The right action is to put this myth of "there will be a backlash against someone because of an investigation" on the waste heap of history with the delusions about Iraq WMD. The way forward is to start an investigation, gather facts, and evaluate whether this government should or should not be supported for their decisions based on those facts. Inaction on these war crimes and a refusal to start an investigation demands the public openly discuss new systems of oversight for this failed, uncivilized system.