I Believe IMPEACHMENT Is Now Inevitable

[ThomWV]

Bush said no to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees subpoenas for documents relating to the US Attorney firings. Recalling Nixon's attempt to withhold the White House tapes it occurred to me that when the court found unanimously that he had to turn the tapes over it was because a criminal matter was being investigated. It was not a question of executive branch privilege with Nixon and it won't be for Bush either.

Once a charge is made in order to get materials the stage changes because the President will not be accused of misusing or misunderstanding his powers as President but because a law had been; specifically that the Attorney General had obstructed justice with his perjured testimony before the Judiciary Committees of both houses - on the record, in front of the cameras.

So that's one thing. Then there is the domestic spying program. Same logic. This too will turn into a criminal matter, and one much closer to home in the sense that its more like the Nixon case. The key here will be documents indicating Ashcroft's review, evaluation, and final judgment that the program was illegal; everything that led up to the night he would not sign off on it in the hospital room. What can be said of a President who approved a program his Attorney General had indicated was illegal? Another one of those pesky high crimes and misdemeanors.

And so in the end the Committees will have to charge criminal behavior to get the documents and those charges of themselves will demand impeachment.

[chelsea0011]

1. I wish you were right but there a few Dems in an election year

who will take up this fight.

[youngdem]

2. Repukes and Lieberman will never let their man fall

Jan 09 is when we are done with the Chimp and Darth, I'm afraid.

Repukes will NEVER vote for impeachment, even if Bush is found humping the Christ child himself while eating a baby. Morals and the rule of law is solely the burden of the Left in this country.

[Independent_Liberal]

32. That's what people kept saying in 1974.

Nobody ever thought the Repukes would turn against Nixon. Nobody ever thought anything would come of the hearings. Nobody ever thought Nixon would resign. But then, almost over night, it occurred. Never say never my friend.

[Faryn Balyncd]

36. That's the beauty of impeachment. They want to RUN from BushCheney. Being forced to DEFEND.......

Bush-Cheney in an election year is the LAST thing the GOP, the RNC, and Frank Luntz wants.

Their hope is that Cheney will just sulk away quietly, following "Doctor's orders" when his batteries need replacement in a few months.

If impeachment fails because of GOP/Lieberman.......SO WHAT!

LET them vote to ACQUIT.

FORCE them to CHOOSE, and IDENTIFY with the most unpopular administration in recent times.

What the GOP/Rabid Right wants is to paint the Administration as soft on "lib-ral-ism", and dissassociate themselves from Bush and Cheney.

To LET the GOP do this, would be almost as bad, maybe even worse, than letting this criminal administration get away with their lawlessness.

[shadowknows69]

3. I like your world Thom

taking new tenants? 100% hope that you're right.

[BlooInBloo]

4. That would be wonderful, but I wouldn't bet *my* money on it.

[whopis01]

5. If congress would muster enough courage, it would be.

[BlackHawk706867]

6. I agree it definately should happen, but theres also a time element..

to actually IMPEACHMENT before 2009!

ww

[ThomWV]

8. I Think It Will Happen Very Quickly - Here's Why

Because the full Congress won't be in charge here. This will happen at the Committee level.

Look at it this way, what can the Chairmen do now that Bush has said no? Tuck their tails between their legs and go home? The only thing they can do and save any face at all is take away any mention of questions of privilege and simply call this a criminal investigation. That's what got Nixon.

Now, you've got something the Court has precedence for - Nixon's tapes. So the documents get turned over and what do they show - that will be open and available for the world to see? Clear evidence of criminal behavior uncovered by the Committee. How can that not force impeachment in the House?

[BlackHawk706867]

9. I sure hope your correct! ww eom

[maxsolomon]

7. if he's impeached & convicted on Jan 19th, 2009

it will have been worth it.

i'll feel proud to be a member of this party. for once.

[Disturbed]

10. TURLEY: WH Stonwalling May Force Congress To Charge BUSH

WITH IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES

Edited on Wed Jun-27-07 07:41 PM by kpete
Legal expert: White House stonewalling may force Congress to charge president with criminal offenses
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Wednesday June 27, 2007

Keith Olbermann announced on Wednesday's Countdown that the White House is refusing on grounds of executive privilege to honor Senate subpoenas and release documents relating to its warrantless wiretapping. In addition, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, David Addington, has sent a letter to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) saying Cheney's office will not comply with oversight by the National Archives because it is not "an agency."

Olbermann then turned to law professor Joanathan Turley, who agreed tentatively that the administration might move slowly enough to "run out the clock" on its time in office. "But there is one thing that might concern them about the court," Turley said, "and that is, you know, for many years, since we first found out about this program, some of us have said that this was a clearly criminal act that the president called for. ... If we're right, not only did he order that crime, but it would be, in fact, an impeachable offense."

"Both sides, both Democrats and Republicans, have avoided this sort of pig in the parlor," Turley continued. "They don't want to recognize that this president may have ordered criminal offenses. But they may now be on the road to do that, because the way Congress can get around the executive privilege in court is to say, we're investigating a potential crime."

.....................

"This administration, I have to say, has a certain contempt for the law," said Turley. "They treat it like some of my criminal defendents used to treat it. ... They come up with any argument that might work. ... It's a sort of shocking development. ... But at the end of the day, they will lose, and they're making the situation worse."


The following video is from MSNBC's Countdown, broadcast on June 27.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Law_Scholar_Wiretap_subpo...

[RufusTFirefly]

11. My backroom impeachment compromise

I believe I've posted this on another board but not on this one.

The only way to make impeachment a success is obviously to get the Rethugs on board and convince them it will benefit them as well as the Dems, not to mention the country as a whole.

Here's the compromise I'd suggest.

1. Get Cheney to resign "for health reasons."
2. Agree to quickly confirm his replacement, preferably one of the current Republican candidates for President.
3. Impeach and convict Bush, enabling the newly confirmed Veep to get some lead time in the Oval Office before Jan. 2009.
4. Hold the Presidential election in Nov. 2008 as usual.

It may be possible to convince the Rethugs that the few months the new President spends in the White House prior to the election will be a boon to his campaign, providing him with valuable on-the-job experience and some additional gravitas that will give him an edge during the general election. Then again, it might not. Most Presidents typically have a "honeymoon period" and it probably wouldn't hurt the Rethug candidate to be enjoying his honeymoon as he's still running for President.

The advantages of this unusual proposal are, of course, that it provides an incentive for both Dems and Rethugs to impeach Bush. And, more importantly, it pulls those dangerous men away from the reins of power. And, of course, from a Democratic standpoint, one would hope that the Rethugs will have such a pall cast over them that even if the replacement president does a passable job during his brief time in office that he will be soundly defeated by a Democrat in the generals.

[Buck Rabbit]

13. You have hit needed compromise on the head.

That is the only way to successfully pull off an impeachment but is it worth it? If the Republicans come to you with hat offer in 2008 do you take it?

[RufusTFirefly]

14. The alternative is Kucinich's approach

Go after Cheney. Now.

Smart, savvy Republicans (assuming there are some) will realize that Cheney is an utterly unsympathetic character and that an effort to impeach him will drag the entire already sullied Republican Party through the mud, particularly those few who actually try to come to the sneering bastard's defense.

Given that scenario, they may conclude that my compromise is more to their advantage.

[Buck Rabbit]

22. Right, but what I am wondering is, if it is the Republicans

that want this to preserve their control over us until at least 2012 do we want to give it to them?

Would it be worth impeaching a lame duck with less than a year to go by the time the process was finished with a Double Guantanamo Romney or Batshit Crazy Surge Loving McCain? Bush already faces the legacy of going down as the worst President in history, is impeachment that much worse.

If the Republicans offered Lieberman as a compromise if the Dems wouldn't allow a running candidate to take over, would it be worth it still?

It is also important to realize that whoever the Republicans picked as the interim resident, he would pull a Ford and pardon Bush and Cheney immediately preventing any future criminal charges.

[cascadiance]

26. As part of the agreement to do an impeachment in two parts...

... which wouldn't have a "President Pelosi", I'd also like to see if we can talk them into doing a non-vetoable constitutional ammendment that would restrict pardons so that a sitting president couldn't pardon any of those that are on their staff or of their appointments (which would include U.S. Attorneys, too) or a previous administration's staff (which would prevent a Ford style pardon too).

They would have to go through a trial if guilty of wrondoing like anyone else, and have the same rights/responsibilities of anyone else in facing the music instead of relying on a "get out of jail free" card, which I think many if not most in Bush's administration are counting on before he leaves.

[Independent_Liberal]

35. Something else I wanted to mention calipendence...

I think this is another good way to counter the "we don't have the votes" argument. I posted this on another thread:

All the Republicans in the House and Senate who are under investigation in the Abramoff and Cunningham/Wilkes/MZM/Hookergate scandals. The Dems having the oversight and investigative power in all the oversight committees (and the ethics committees of the House and Senate) means we not only have the power to find many guilty parties in the White House and other levels of the executive branch, but ALSO many guilty parties in the House, Senate and maybe the judicial branch as well. Means we can find who was covering up for who, who all was complicit in which crime, who was involved in which shady dealings or bribery, etc. Once that information becomes public and it's shown how it was the Republican Senators who kept constantly obstructing any oversight of the crimes while they were in power (we may even also uncover those secret GOP/CIA drug running networks with serious ties to the Military Industrial Complex, the oil industry, mobsters, and middle eastern terrorists), people can threaten their Reps and Senators with civil RICO (Racketeering) suits. Once it becomes imminent to the Repubs that their careers are on the line and they could possibly be facing criminal charges, they'll want to go ahead and vote with the Dems on impeachment as sort of a plea bargain.

I think this is something people need to think about.

That thing you brought up about the SCOTUS is another good point. It's possible that one of the conservatives may side with the liberals on the subpoenaed documents issue. They'll realize that they could also be a target of an investigation that could possibly lead to them facing impeachment. They'll want to do all they can to avoid that.

[Theduckno2]

37. Do Sen. Lugar's recent Iraq war statements indicate movement in that direction?

It would seem that one of the biggest rallying points for Bush is that he is <cough> a wartime President.

If I were trying to frame the issue favorably for the Bush Administration, I would insinuate that these are politically motivated subpoenas that only divert the attention of an administration hard at work fighting the <cough> "Global War On Terror".

By saying that Bush is on the wrong course in Iraq, Sen. Lugar negates most of the wartime President defense.

After all, Bush has precious little to show for his Presidency; He tried to revamp Social Security and got nowhere, he pushed for immigration reform and got nowhere, he operates Guantanamo, he declares secret all those "enhanced interrogation techniques", etcetera, but he did save the lives of many <cough-cough>stem cells.

I think I need a lozenge.

I hope that your compromise does come to pass. I hope that the Republicans see it as an opportunity to repair some damage before 2008, to position themselves for a chance at a 2010 midterm turnaround and, most importantly, to do the right thing.

[Buck Rabbit]

12. As someone who has argued against impeachment until you have

enough votes to at least pass the articles in the house. I agree that a turf war pissing match between Bush and the Congress is what the eventual trigger will be if it happens at all.

Impeachment has never been off the table in private. You know the outcome of impeachment proceedings before you begin by caucus polling and staff meetings. To publicly say you're pursuing impeachment and failing in the House is tantamount to vindication. Just like criminal prosecutors don't go to trial with cases they can't win regardless of how privately sure they might be that the suspect is guilty; you don't vote on impeachment of the president in the house until you already have the votes in your back pocket. Failure to Convict in the Senate you can live with. Failure to impeach in the House is vindication against the charges in the indictment. This is why every single congressperson including Kucinich has declined to file impeachment charges or even publicly call for impeachment of Bush. That doesn't mean they don't test the waters in private.

[Horse with no Name]

15. I'll have some of what you are drinking

We keep being told it is off the table.
I believe them.

[Independent_Liberal]

34. No, I believe public pressure can make them turn around.

It won't happen until literally millions of people are in the streets screaming their heads off for it and camping out on the steps of the Capitol building.

[Horse with no Name]

38. Then YOU need some of what I am drinking

:silly:

[kestrel91316]

16. The courts are stacked. How will they find in our favor???

[Disturbed]

17. In order to Impeach anyone an ironclad case must exist.

So far, there is no legal proof of crimes that Bush &/or Cheney have commited. Congress will not move forward until proof exists.

[RufusTFirefly]

20. Not really. Impeachment is a political remedy, not a criminal indictment n/t

[tom_paine]

23. Disagree. Gonzales repeatedly perjured himself on TV.

The Libby Evidence points directly to the WH. Not 100% red-handed concrete proof, but at the very least enough to impeach Gonzales without delay.

And the Libby Evidence which implicates the WH and Cheney specifically, does not appear to be being acted upon, which is frightening in it's implications.

[RufusTFirefly]

18. I agree. We will lose any confrontation kicked up to the SCOTUS

That's why impeachment, which only involves the Supreme Court ceremonially, is actually a safer bet.

[cascadiance]

27. Which is why I think we should be questioning SCOTUS's current actions NOW!!!

If we make it clear to the congress that perhaps they should INVESTIGATE current SCOTUS members for incidents of impropriety with all of their recent rulings, that would send a message back that we won't put up with SCOTUS helping this administration escape accountability.

My gut feeling is that this latest spate of controversial rulings is in effect a set of trial balloons they are floating out there now to see how much we'll kick and scream from them doing it. If we provide NO resistance in what they are doing now, perhaps they'll interpret that they can get away with letting off the president on executive privilege requests where the SCOTUS from Nixon's time didn't allow him that privilege.

If it is clear that them giving him executive privilege to cover up or escape scrutiny for criminal and impeachable offenses, is also grounds for impeachment of SCOTUS judges and that we WILL pursue such actions if those rulings happen, then perhaps they'll think twice about ruling in Bush's favor.

[Swamp Rat]

19. IMPEACH!! CONVICT!! IMPRISON!!

[Disturbed]

21. "Impeachment is a political remedy, not a criminal indictment."

I agree. In the present situation, though, Congress will not move forward unless absolute proof of a crime &/or crimes are at hand. Dems feel that they cannot afford a not guilty verdict from the Senate.

[Swamp Rat]

24. "Dems feel that they cannot afford a not guilty verdict from the Senate." - Then they lose my vote.

If the Dems do not get off their asses and at least try to impeach, they will lose a lot of seats in the next election.

[Nothing Without Hope]

25. Difference: this time the SCOTUS will side with the White House, supporting

an imperial presidency. I wish I could agree with you, but I believe the Supreme Court will betray this country again, as it did in the 2000 election. Rule of law? No, rule of thugs and their enablers.

That said, we cannot give up, we have to keep pushing for the Constitution. A patriot can do no less, no matter how hopeless it seems. It's seemed hopeless before.

[cascadiance]

28. Then make sure SCOTUS knows that THEY THEMSELVES WILL BE IMPEACHED!

In my book, allowing a president to get off the hook for impeachable offenses is to be a part of and enabling those offenses as a conspiracy, and is impeachable in and of itself! I'm guessing that is where it will turn if SCOTUS tries to play those cards!

[GreenPartyVoter]

30. SCOTUS does not deal with the impeachment. I think it is tried in

the Senate with Roberts presiding??

[Nothing Without Hope]

31. SCOTUS does not run the impeachment, but it can rule that evidence

cannot be produced. The WH refuses to respond to subpoenas, it goes through the courts, and it lands in the SCOTUS. It may be difficult to get necessary proof of the primary impeachable offenses without that evidence. Cheney's shredding machines are working full time.

Again, we have to keep pushing, no matter how the odds seem stacked against.

[GreenPartyVoter]

40. Thank you for the clarification. I see this is definitely cause for alarm.

[chknltl]

29. I hope so

For the sake of humanity on this planet I hope so! Not that humanity is as important to some...or even some here who would risk our humanity by not risking impeachment. It's the old "Don't attempt to rescue the world unless you know for sure you can rescue it regardless of overwhelming evidence that it needs rescuing routine!" ... tick..... tick.... tick.... tick.... tick....

[proud patriot]

33. It is in the Stars

Buckle Up !

[Rex]

39. Well ya know, there is a reason you put somethings off the table.

Under the table.