Yes, we certainly are coming to the point where there may be no other recourse other than to impeach

[bigtree]

That doesn't mean we're there yet, but it should be obvious what the result will be of an exhaustion of the due process that congressional investigators have followed so diligently as they've sought accountability for the administration's reported crimes and abuses.

The Bush administration has put up their rhetorical barriers to accountability from Congress, dismissing subpoenas and claiming made-up privileges as they refuse to give up the documents Congress wants and refuse to allow their minions to testify. But, it hasn't been a useless effort by Congress as they've exercised their investigative authority to bring us to this point.

Most of the recent outrages that have heightened the calls for impeachment have been in response to, either, revelations coming from one of the several Democratic-led investigative committees or from the White House response to those constitutional levers of accountability. You wouldn't know that from all of the charges of cowardice or complicity that have come from folks who advocate an immediate rush to some nebulous, omnibus impeachment.

What is developing is a clear obstruction of justice from the White House against the constitutional efforts of congressional investigators to uncover the facts behind administration malfeasance in the Justice Dept. and in the White House surrounding the attorney firings. The charges could range from perjury to outright obstruction from the White House and the Justice Dept. in their attempts to deflect responsibility for the political replacements.

As most already know from watching scandals in Washington, it's one thing to be under a cloud of accusations from outside of the political process, or even for one party to be prosecuted by the opposition party; but it's usually the dishonest responses to those charges which trigger effective prosecutions and cause the political defenders surrounding the target to crumble and defect.

I think that's what were coming to now, thanks for the most part to Democrats in Congress who hit the ground running with their respective committees when we achieved the majority. There's really no need to form a special committee like the Whitewater or Watergate Committees which preceded those impeachment efforts.

We have a congressional process already in place and developing as we speak which has presented enough of a constitutional challenge with their investigations and subpoenas to force the only response a guilty White House can manage; stonewalling and obstruction. If and when the White House exhausts the congressional entreaties of due process, which are so necessary in our democracy in ensuring sound convictions, the only recourse to Congress will be the extraordinary remedy of impeachment.

I'm still not convinced that the White House will push their obstruction to that point where all of Congress' standard legal options are exhausted. I think they'll fold on these subpoenas. They will likely think it's better for them to put it all out there with their best spin than to have it all unravel in a courtroom somewhere.

The WH will push their stonewall as far as they can, perhaps to the exhaustion of the patience of everyone looking on expecting for Congress to jump. But, we should recognize that the most effective prosecution will likely only come from one of these congressional efforts which are being so flagrantly resisted by the administration. It will come from the one offense which has galvanized both parties in past Congresses to move to a unified impeachment: Obstruction.

It looks to me like that impeachment train is pulling in to the Capitol station and is ready for boarding, as expected, thanks to the diligent efforts of our (often) unfairly maligned Democrats. All aboard?

[ThomWV]

With Yesterday's Assertion That They Will Not Enforce Law Upon Themselves

IMPEACHMENT

They have put out their bid to take the country. This puts them completely above the law; in their role as enforcers they will not enforce the law against themselves.

Unitary Executive, my ass. IMPEACH!

[Virginia Dare]

1. Agreed, it will come to that eventually..

we are headed straight into the pit of a constitutional crisis.

[ThomWV]

9. I think we are past that point

I really do think we are past the point of constitutional crisis. I say that because a true Constitutional crisis could and would be resolved, one way or the other, by the Supreme Court. Now, with yesterday's revelation that the Unitary Executive will not hold itself accountable, I don't think anything will ever get to the Court. This will be a fight between the Congress and the Executive and the Congress only has two weapons. The Congress has impeachment and the purse. Toss them out or starve them out, that's it.

Of course I have to add the usual disclaimer - I could be dead wrong.

[Virginia Dare]

10. Nope, I think you are dead on...

it will come down to does the Republican party want to keep covering up for Bush's crimes and thus destroy themselves in the process, or do they want to face up to the fact that he's gone way over the line, has been for a while and he needs to go?

It's frustrating to watch, but I think the Democrats are doing the right thing right now by letting him hang himself. In the end, people will realize it's not a political fight, it's a fight for our constitution and our government itself.

Of course this all relates back to Clinton. The Republicans tainted, demeaned and degraded the impeachment process, probably intentionally by their past actions.

[immoderate]

31. The way I heard it, we are IN a Constitutional crisis.

And the remedy is impeachment. BTW, when you think about it, it's brilliant!

--IMM

[mmonk]

2. However long it takes,

I'll be holding the door open. At some point, our legal and political structure needs to take hold.

[AndyA]

3. In my opinion, impeachment should have already been well under way.

And it may be; the investigations are key to opening the door to impeachment, but I'm afraid Congress is going to have to assert much more of its power in order to obtain the information they need to get some answers.

I think it becomes more clear to most people that once impeachment is officially underway, the White House's claims of executive privilege then become more questionable, as it is likely an attempt to cover up criminal acts. But until we get to that point, the public will always question if there's a valid issue there.

[Dawgs]

4. WE have nothing to do with it.

WE could have 100% of the country behind us and we still couldn't impeach.

Why do you ignore this problem?

[bigtree]

5. I never underestimate the power of 'WE'

never

[mmonk]

6. We need only the democrats in the House.

Impeachment will then happen.

[mmonk]

7. Remember, everything is in doubt at this point in the process.

There are no guarantees in life. At some point, challenges have to be met.

[Virginia Dare]

11. Agreed, and I think they will be...

the tide is turning, and it's been turning since last November. Watergate didn't happen overnight, people forget that.

[Poiuyt]

33. Did you see this thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1391231

[MasonJar]

8. Get on the phone! Call! I just called my rep and one senator and Pelosi.

[pat_k]

12. Impeachment has been the ONLY recourse for YEARS.

Impeachment is not inevitable. The leadership has proven that by their failure to impeach for the intolerable crimes against our constitutional democracy that Bush and Cheney have been committing http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/22">in plain sight. The 50+ Congressional investigations, maneuvering, stunts, and gamesmanship have added NOTHING to the simple, indefensible case for impeachment that we have had for YEARS.

Impeachment has always been the only solution to "rule by signing statement." Impeachment has always been the only thing that unequivocally rejects torture.

With every act short of impeachment, the folks on the Hill bang their heads against the brick wall of reality. Unfortunately, they've proven that they have pretty thick heads. It's hard to imagine that hitting the wall a couple more times wouldn't "inevitably" wake them up, but it has also been hard to imagine how they've managed to stay in denial for as long as they have.

If we want to make impeachment a reality (and want to save them from making fools of themselves again and again), we need to keep knocking them in the heads with the biggest clueticks we can find. (And that includes "maligning" when they sound like idiots. Such "maligning" is simply desperately needed "tough love.")

[bigtree]

13. I don't like the broad brush attacks on the party just because they haven't arrived at impeachment

And I don't view their efforts so far as some sort of passivity. The course of their investigations resembles most prosecutions that I've seen. With about seven months on the job, I think Congress has progressed as far and as fast in these investigations as any political prosecution ever has.

I think that if impeachment happens, it will be the result of the deliberate efforts of these committees (Waxman, Leahy, Conyers), not a result of anyone's wishful thinking or even the protests. It just doesn't square with the work these Democrats have done to assume they're just sitting around waiting for someone's foot up their ass to do anything. Hell, Conyers has his own articles of impeachment. Credit where credit is due.

[pat_k]

14. Actively rejecting impeachment is certainly NOT "passivity.

You are right; the Congressional leadership has certainly NOT been passive. They have been very actively suppressing the will to impeach. They don't argue that Bush and Cheney haven't openly committed intolerable offenses (in fact the opposite, it is practically axiomatic on the Hill that Bush and Cheney are waging open war on the Constitution). Rather, the leadership has taken, and stubbornly held to, the position that impeachment http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=494469&mesg_id=494934">can't, won't, or shouldn't happen. They have been relentlessly pushing http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/14">false memes to rationalize that position.

Since the war crimes were already proven by the public record in 2003, and confirmed by SCOTUS with the Hamdan ruling in 2004, their seven month odyssey has been a completely unnecessary "prequel" to impeachment -- and in fact constitutes a dereliction of duty. There are http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=612170&mesg_id=613045">at least a half-dozen charges that could have been brought the day that the 110th Congress convened. Each case is VERY straightforward. They just need ONE to impeach.

When the Constitution is under attack, their oath to "support and defend" demands that they act to remove the threat ASAP. They are duty-bound make the case as soon as the threat is clear. The threat has been crystal clear for years.

[bigtree]

15. I haven't seen anyone who is actively suppressing the will to impeach

some legislators have just been stating the obvious that there isn't enough support in this Congress to impeach yet. That should change as their legislative options fall.

But even the Speaker, who has been unfairly characterized as some sort of obstacle to an impeachment, has said that, for such a prosecution to be successful, Congress has to 'build' on the investigative efforts to build enough support.

BTW, I've seen plenty of 'crystal clear' cases fall from lack of evidence. This seven month effort by our Democratic-led committees should be recognized as the driving force to accountability they have been so far and should be supported as they press for the very accountability folks say they want.

[pat_k]

16. Your kidding, right?

Every time a Member of Congress is confronted with some version of the question "Why aren't you impeaching them?" they pull out some http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/14">false meme.

And "don't have enough votes" tops the list of illegitimate excuses. "Can't win; won't fight" (pre-emptive surrender) is perhaps the surest way to alienate the public and suppress the will to act by sowing hopelessness.

[bigtree]

20. I love the way that folks argue that everything opposite from their own point of view

is a 'false meme' or some talking point.

[pat_k]

34. A conclusion backed by factual, moral, and logical analysis is not a "point of view". . .

. . . unless it can be demonstrated that the opposing "point of view" is equally legitimate.

Contradictory "points of view" can only co-exist in the world of opinion. When a case for a "point of view" has been made is up to those who hold the contradictory view to challenge the elements of the case and present the case for the contradictory view they hold. Through direct confrontation it soon becomes clear whether or not we're are dealing in the realm of opinion.

Factual, moral, and logical analyses and conclusions have been presented that expose the falseness of the memes. For example, in the http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/14">false memes journal entry already cited and in countless other discussions among various DUers like http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3146696">this exchange in March between you and me.

The "prosecution" of the memes rests. It is now up to those who believe the memes to be valid to defend those memes. Your remark "I love the way. . ." doesn't constitute a challenge to any element of the "prosecution's" case.

At the conclusion of the March exchange, you had this to say:

. . .I'm just going to conclude that you are wrong. . .
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3146696&mesg_id=3150858"> Mar 20, 2007 post

This is a conclusion you apparently hold to, but until you challenge the specific points and answer the questions posed, just concluding "you are wrong" can only be viewed as a "faith-based" conclusion.

[bigtree]

35. you want to believe your 'facts' are beyond dispute, go ahead

the link you provided has plenty of 'facts' from me in support of my argument. You disagree. I can live with that.

[pat_k]

36. If you believe the conclusions aren't, then dispute them.

Facts are by definition beyond dispute.

Conclusions are not "facts" until demonstrated to be beyond dispute. The only way to demonstrate a conclusion is NOT beyond dispute is to challenge elements key to the conclusion, or to demonstrate that the conclusion does not actually follow from the elements.

The case that leads to the conclusion that a given meme is false is based on facts, logic, and moral principles that you have not even attempted to refuse. As long as you refuse to challenge the elements of the case, and simply reject the conclusions with statments like "I'm just going to conclude you are wrong", you actually strengthen the conclusion that the false memes are NOT legitimate excuses for refusing to impeach right NOW.

[pat_k]

17. Re "lack of evidence." What's lacking from cases put forward to date?

I've outlined a couple cases http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=612170&mesg_id=613045">here.

We had plenty before January, but since then the EU TDIP committee findings and the Italian criminal prosecution of CIA agents for kidnapping and torture have strengthened the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney for violating Title 18, Sec 2441 (War Crimes) of U.S. Code with their program of kidnapping, indefinitely holding, and torturing people in CIA dungeons overseas.

There are of course additional cases that have been argued by various public figures (Bruce Fein and John Nichols just to name two).

Some have presented cases that are more legalistic and complex than necessary and are therefore probably not the most powerful (e.g., the Center for Constitutional Rights and Liz Holtzman), but they are nevertheless valid and would need to be considered.

If you are claiming that the charges and cases put forward to date aren't sufficient to make the necessity for removal crystal clear to a substantial majority of the American electorate, then you need to describe the evidence you believe to be missing and why the public would require it. (Ultimately, the American people are the ONLY real stakeholders. It is OUR sovereignty that is at stake. We gave Congress the power to impeach on our behalf.)

[bigtree]

18. Evidence is being gathered in Congress now

they can't just cut and paste these tings out of the newspaper or from an internet post. There's testimony to be obtained, and documents to be released and entered into evidence. I know of several such processes going on right now in Congress. I've NEVER seen a political case put together which wasn't preceded by a lengthy congressional investigation. Look at the Watergate Committee's efforts before they eventually drew up articles of impeachment; and that was AFTER the convictions of the burglars.

It's fine to push these folks, but there are processes going on which have the potential to achieve the accountability we all want if we support the investigative process like we would the ultimate end product.

[pat_k]

19. You can't justify the need for it if you. . .

. . .can't describe why the cases already put forward by our fellow Americans, and the evidence that they have cited, is not enough.

[bigtree]

23. because it's like any prosecution

there is a process of law that is there to ensure a conviction. There is absolutely no possible way that Congress can take on each and every one of the cases that are being raised; and you know everyone has one, just like Conyers and his articles. But, it's a fantasy that all of these cases that are floating around can be used in an impeachment effort. Prosecutions from Congress just don't materialize, they come out of the type of committee hearings and investigative efforts that are already underway. Just because they don't have your specific case in the docket doesn't mean that they aren't effectively challenging the administration. And, just having a case on paper doesn't mean that it would prevail, even to an indictment, much less to a conviction.

[pat_k]

37. impeachment is not a criminal prosecution.

Those who are "prosecuting" our Congressional leaders for refusing to impeach long before now make a case that supports three key conclusions:

1. For years we have had a compelling and complete case for impeaching Bush and Cheney.
2. Members of Congress do not have a legitimate reason for refusing to present the case through public statements or in impeachment hearings.
3. The Congressional oath, the gravity of the charges, and the devastating consequences of leaving the massive power of the American presidency, unchallenged, in the hands of war criminals, made immediate impeachment a moral imperative years ago.

Unless the case for conclusion #1 is refuted, the notion that "they are pulling together what they need now" is not a valid defense.

Here's a review of some of the arguments that support the three conclusions and a point-by-point response to the defense that has been offered. The points are numbered to make it easier to cite them when responding.

A. Specific charges and solid cases for impeachment have been conveyed to the Congressional leadership by many of our fellow Americans over the past few years. A sampling of the cases are cited in the posts above.

NO member of the Democratic leadership has asserted that public's accusations are not warranted or that the cases have no merit. They have done the OPPOSITE. Many tell us that Bush and Cheney are torturing and committing other grave violations of the Constitution. They tell us that Bush and Cheney are attacking the Constitution, but they tell us that they can't/won't/shouldn't impeach now. They invoke one or more of the false memes to rationalize the violation of their oath to defend the Constitution.

B. The assertion that the Congressional leadership is putting together some other case for impeachment cannot be validated To date, no Member of Congress has actually told the public that the ARE putting together a case. (Kucinich may be considered an exception, but only targeting Cheney cannot be logically justified because Bush and Cheney are partners in crime.) No member has told us that it is time to initiate impeachment hearings to make the case to remove both Bush and Cheney.

C. If they are pursing a case "behind the scenes," in absence of reasons for refusing to make one or more of the existing cases, that pursuit can only be viewed as unnecessary delay. The cost to the nation and the world of leaving the massive power of the American presidency in the hands of war criminals, unchallenged, grows every day they delay. If they already have all the ammunition they need, the delay is therefore an immoral violation of their oath.

D. The claim that they are refusing to impeach because they must "ensure conviction" is not a valid defense for the following reasons :

1. No Congressional leader has told the public why they believe the cases they have had in hand are any less compelling than the case they may or may not be putting together.


2. We the People "hired" Members of Congress to represent Us. As our hirelings, they have a responsibility to put the case made by the public -- the only REAL stakeholders -- to the Senate for judgment.


3. There is no need to delay until they have put together a case that guarantees conviction because impeachment is not a "one shot" deal, and therefore there is no reason not to make a case that may or may not lead to removal. If Bush and Cheney are not removed by the Senate (or resign to escape a Senate trial), there is absolutely nothing to stop the House from reformulating the case and voting out another set of Articles.


4. In the next election, the people cannot stand in judgment of their Senators on the matter if the Senators are not forced to declare themselves.


5. Even if they believe there are simply too many fascist minions in the Senate to secure removal, they nevertheless have an obligation to put our case before the Senate and force the Senators to "choose sides" to enable the electorate to stand in judgment.

E. Making the case for impeachment is NOT just a matter of Congressional maneuvering, "hearings," and "process." ANY Member of the House or Senate can stand up RIGHT NOW and make the case to the public through public statements. As has been pointed out by many here on DU and elsewhere, they ALL have mouths. They are public figures with Big Megaphones. Since January, NO member of the leadership has done so. Americans are rightfully expressing their anger about the failure.

F. The analogy to a prosecution doesn't hold up because impeachment is not a legal process. It is a political process. There is nothing about impeachment that necessitates a lengthy process. Impeachment may have the trappings of a judicial/criminal/legal proceeding, but it has NONE of the hallmarks of a judicial/criminal/legal proceeding. There is

1. no objective definition of "impeachable offense;"
2. no objective standard of proof;^NOTE
3. no voir dire or right to an impartial jury;
4. no standard rules of evidence;
5. no binding authority outside the rules of the House or Senate to appeal to;
6. no appeal of the verdict;
7. no restriction on the number of times the House can send the same charges to the Senate for trial, and
8. no effort to free the process from the influence of public opinion.
   (The opposite in fact. Engaging the public is paramount).

G. The failure to impeach is a dereliction of duty. Their are a number of arguments that support this conclusion (e.g., http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2007/072107.html">the latest from Robert Parry). One variation of the case can be summarized as follows:

1. The key charges against Bush and Cheney are well known to the public.


2. A growing number of citizens are becoming increasingly horrified at the intolerable violations Bush and Cheney are committing against the bedrock principles embodied in our Constitution-- that no one is above the law; that legitimate government power can only be derived from the consent of the governed; and that all human beings are endowed with certain inalienable rights.


3. Citizens have made cases for impeachment backed by facts in the public record, logic, and Constitutional principle.


4. We gave Congress the power to impeach to enable them to fulfill their oath when government officials abuse the power of office to subvert the Constitution or betray the public trust.


5. Whether or not a Member has concluded that Bush and Cheney are subverting the Constitution, the widespread assumption that they are is destroying the integrity of our constitutional democracy.


6. To fulfill their oath to defend the Constitution, Members of Congress must do one of the following:
   
   (i) If they believe the acts do not threaten the Constitution, they must seek to restore public confidence and protect the integrity of our constitutional democracy by telling the public why they believe the cases for impeachment have no merit.
   (ii) If they believe the one or more of the cases have merit, but do not believe the record provides sufficient grounds to require defensive action, they must justify the position by describing, specifically, what they believe to be missing.
   (iii) If they think one or more of the cases have merit and are sufficient, they must fulfill their oath by doing whatever they can to engage the electorate and their fellow Members in the effort to impeach and remove the violators from office.

H. Recap.

The Congressional leadership's refusal to impeach to date is an untenable position for the following reasons (and this is by no means an exhaustive list).

1. Specific charges and solid cases for impeachment have been conveyed to the Congressional leadership by many our fellow Americans.


2. With the exception of Kucinich and co-sponsors, since gaining control of Congress, they have refused to make ANY case for impeaching Bush and Cheney on ANY grounds to the public.


3. They have not told us what, if anything, they would require to "complete" a case for impeachment over and above that which they already have at hand.


4. They have been holding, and still hold, the public position that impeachment can't, won't, or shouldn't impeach Bush and Cheney happen now.


5. They publicly invoke false memes to rationalize their refusal to pick one of the existing cases and impeach Bush and Cheney.


6. Some in the leadership have made public statements that Bush and Cheney are violating the Constitution, torturing, and invoking unconstitutional powers. They make these accusations, but refuse for formalize them by demanding impeachment hearings to present the case.


7. Their refusal to impeach to defend the Constitution when they claim to know the Constitution is under attack is a dereliction of duty.

As I have said before, I am not singling you out. You are not alone in promoting defending the "off the table" position. But defending that position requires requires direct and specific challenge to the elements of the case that "off the table" is an intolerable failure. To date, I have seen no defense that has stood up to counter-argument. Counter-arguments are welcomed because responding to them allows us to strengthen the "prosecution's" case.
_________________________________________________
NOTE: Each Member applies the threshold they deem appropriate, but given the necessity to protect the sanctity of the Constitution, that threshold should be VERY low. Mere "suspicion" is sufficient according to Madison. ("{I}f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty….")

[lies and propaganda]

21. Weve been there since NOLA was DROWNED.

The fucking outrage that should have swept this nation. They watched people drown on fucking Faux News and pretended they never knew and no one even lost their job.

[The Stranger]

22. PAGING NANCY PELOSI, FIRST FEMALE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE IN HISTORY, WE NEED TO PUT IMPEACHMENT BACK

ON THE TABLE.

Please, if there is a god, make her brain work.

[bigtree]

24. It doesn't have to be on her table

It probably shouldn't be. It belongs on the table of the appropriate investigative committees, which she has encouraged to "build" their cases to get the support needed for Congress to get behind any unified effort of accountability; including an impeachment.

Any impeachment effort which gains support from enough members to advance it will benefit from the Speaker's repeated impartiality, especially if it's the type of partisan effort so many are pressing for.

[The Stranger]

26. I'm not sure what more of a case has to be "built."

At this point, the high crimes and misdemeanors cannot even be counted.

Fuck the "partisan effort" lies. This is about keeping The Republic and a criminal conspiracy to violate the Constitution preventing impeachment. "Partisanship" ceased to be a concern years ago.

You are whistling past the graveyard, and so is Nancy Pelosi.

[Karenina]

25. FORGET THE TABLE! PUT IT ON THE FLOOR!!! NOW!!!

[lonestarnot]

27. Station #9! Present and accounted for sir!

[blues90]

28. I am from the opinion that we are far past the point of impeachment

I don't care how anyone feels the Dems are doing their job or how much they love Pelosi or Reid or how much faith they put in political process .

I feel the very first thing they should have done once the 110th was seated was investigate and impeach .

I don't know whether avoiding impeachment is a game or a scare tactic , no one knows other than these very Dems . They could at the very least let us in on their plans if they have some grand scheme going .

I am from the opinion that nothing will stick that they are doing now if the bush admin is still allowed to continue further destruction as all know they are very well doing right now , at this moment .

Bush / cheney will not let this occupation go or the oil and may very well attack another country , this is then the end if this bears out to be true and it certainly looks like this is the game plan .

I liken it to a cancer untreated , it will continue to spread if not cut out , no bandaid will stop this eating away of america and tens of thousands of lives let alone all the other damage this cancer has caused along with it's massive growth .

[Warren Stupidity]

29. We reached that point several times in the past.

Most recently: the obstruction of justice engaged in with the quid pro quo commutation of Libby's sentence.

Behind which is the entire Plame affair and cover up.

Behind which is the fraudulent and successful effort to take this nation into a war of aggression against the state of Iraq.

We have needed an impeachment since 2002. We have had the opportunity to proceed with an impeachment investigation since January.

"I'm still not convinced that the White House will push their obstruction to that point where all of Congress' standard legal options are exhausted. I think they'll fold on these subpoenas. They will likely think it's better for them to put it all out there with their best spin than to have it all unravel in a courtroom somewhere."

You are going to be wrong about that. The courtroom this ultimately ends up in, our side capitulated on the selection of stooges loyal to the Bush administration for that court quite some time ago. That court will almost surely support the administration by a 5-4 decision.

We long ago witnessed outrageous crimes by this administration. Our hopes that our Congressional victory last November would bring this administration to account for those crimes already committed were dismissed offhand by our leaders, who it seems were interested mainly in new offices, not in the responsible exercise of the authority that came with those offices. Now nearly 8 months into this year, with barely 16 months remaining, with 1/3 of this term already gone, with Congress confronted by a astounding, breathtaking, assertion of executive power beyond any oversight, with new evidence of incredible corruption and arrogant incompetence revealed daily, with obstruction at all levels openly displayed, with the hideous disastrous criminal war escalated rather than ended, now we might be nearly at the point where impeachment is the right course?

[On the Road]

30. I've Supported Pursuing the Hearings

and not jumping on impeachment right now. But the refusal of the subpoenas is changing that. Impeachment now seems to be the only way to preserve the rule of law.

[bvar22]

32. OTOH, the Democratic Party leadership...

may be entirely content to let bush* Run Out The Clock, and then just step in for their turn running the Money Machine.

EasyPeasy. Let all the bush* criminals off in a "Spirit of National Healing" and protect the system for their own exploitation.
It looks like BIG MONEY is going to get their pet Democratic president, so why should they take any chances? Impeachment is messy, and could lead to popular demands to FIX THE DAMNED SYSTEM!!!

Better to just run out the clock and tell voters that "Everything is all better now".
There are Corporate Owned Democrats who would enjoy the powers of a Unitary Executive...Hell, they helped Bush* build it!

*The War in Iraq rolls on but is given a different name.

*The Iraqis are FORCED at gunpoint to pass the "Oil Law Benchmark" before the now Democratic lead forces withdraw (oh my bad...redeploy) to their permanent bases to ensure the continued privatization of Iraqi resources.

*No significant lobbying reform

*No significant Election Integrity Reform

*No major system changes at all


Of course, some theater is necessary to make it look like the Democrats are doing something, but it is possible to string this out for another 6 months or so...AND THEN, ITS ELECTION SEASON, and everybody knows, Nothing gets done during Election Season.

Yeah, my money is on Running Out the Clock.