Impeachment: Facts vs Fiction

[H2O Man]

There has been some discussion about the topic of impeachment, and some attempts to compare Nancy Pelosi's position with Barack Obama's. I thought that it would of worthwhile to point out a few facts, which are of a bit more significance than some of the fiction I've read on DU.

The US Constitution provides that one house of Congress has the power to impeach either officials in the executive branch or judges in the judicial branch of the federal government. That is the House of Representatives. Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House. Barack Obama is a US Senator, who is running for the presidency. Hence, one cannot make a serious case that their positions are such that their positions on impeachment are somehow "equal."

Second, as Speaker, Nancy Pelosi has actively discouraged both democratic representatives who favor the impeachment of President Bush and/or VP Cheney, and those who believe that impeachment may be warrented. As a result, the country has been denied a fair and open hearing on the issues at hand. I have spoken with people who are in high positions in two Congressmen's offices, and both have told me about Nancy Pelosi's efforts, and how they have kept the topic from such a hearing. Neither mentioned Barack Obama as playing any role whatsoever in this. There is no evidence that has been put forth that suggests that Pelosi and Obama play equal roles in this. None.

Those who have attempted to make a case that the positions of Pelosi and Obama are somehow equal have also resorted to the weak stance that impeachment would "hurt" democrats in the up-coming elections. This is utter nonsense. First, it is without any historical foundation: John Nichols' book, "The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism" documents the actual history of how efforts to impeach have impacted US elections. Second, the book includes polls that document that the majority of the American public believes that if Bush has committed impeachable offenses -- those "high crimes and misdemeanors" that the Constitution speaks of -- that they would support impeachment. "High crimes and misdemeanors" include both criminal activities and non-criminal abuses of the power of office.

People are entitled to their own opinion on issues such as impeachment, as well as if George Bush and/or Dick Cheney have either committed criminal potential criminal offenses or abuses of the power of their offices. Those who believe that the pair are guilty of both criminal offenses and abuses of the power of their offices should lobby their elected officials in Congress for impeachment. Those who do not believe that Bush or Cheney have committed crimes or abused the power of their offices should also contact their elected Representatives. And both groups should be calling Speaker Pelosi's office.

I think that both Bush and Cheney are guilty as sin, and are prime examples of the type of officials the Founders intended that the House should impeach.

[sellitman]

1. I have lobbied and will do so again.

I have also met Dennis Kucinich and believe he will not stop doing his job no matter what Pelosi thinks.

Kicked & Rec'd

[grantcart]

2. I supported impeachment when evidence first surfaced that efforts were made

to specifically mislead the American people. It would have also been appropriate to restart it immediately after Libby was found guilty of obstruction of justice. Obviously if he was successful in obstructing justice then it would have been appropriate for Congress to investigate what else was there that had been 'obstructed'.


To bring up impeachment now 3 1/2 months before the GE, however, will strike the vast majority of Americans as a simple political trick. It seems far better to wait until we have access to files and civil servant testimony, impanel a grand jury and start building a case from the bottom up, just like any other criminal investigation and get the people to plead out and turn on their supperiors and build a case from the bottom up.

It has the added advantage of taking place at a time when they will not be able to pardon themselves.

[H2O Man]

3. Those are interesting points.

One area of concern would be the possibility -- indeed, the likelihood -- that President Bush will consider granting some type of blanket pardon in his final days in office. Other presidents have been known to pardon some of the most lowly of criminals for purposes that derail any possibility of justice.

That can be prevented by one, and only one, method: a president cannot pardon people who are being impeached. The democrats in Congress were fully aware of this, but failed to take that step in the Libby case. (Even though he "only" commuted Libby's prison sentence, it was considered improper by numerous legal scholars. Of course, he will probably pardon Libby before he leaves office. If the Congress were impeaching VP Cheney, this would stop Bush from pardoning Libby.)

A large number of people probably would question the timing now. And that is certainly something that Nancy Pelosi has a degree of responsibility in. Justice delayed is indeed justice denied.

Still, I favor Congress upholding their oath of office. And I think that if the public were exposed to the fact in the case, for example, of VP Cheney, that their concerns over timing would be replaced with a desire for justice.

[JeanGrey]

5. Impeachment isn't going to happen. The GE will happen,

Obama will win; and Bush will fade away as an ex president. Nothing else will happen.

[H2O Man]

17. True.

There will not be any impeachment, and Obama will be elected.

[JeanGrey]

23. So much time is spent talking about something that will

never happen.

[H2O Man]

24. I enjoy

talking about the US Constitution and politics. I think it is a worthwhile topic. More, I think that the time spent lobbying democrats in Congress is a good investment of time and effort. But I have no problem with people who hold different beliefs and values on this issue.

[elocs]

12. I think you are correct in assessing that a good many Americans would view it as

a political trick. Let's face it, it would appear to be that if we viewed it open mindedly rather than simply with a burning passion for retribution. They would certainly question if impeachment was so important, then why was it not done last summer, last fall, or even last winter?

A question would be whether Bush can preemptively pardon himself and others or to what extent he may do so? If Bush was impeached and then acquitted (let's be real--that is very, very likely) it would be sickening to see the smirk strut he would be doing.

[H2O Man]

16. There is indeed

a question of if a president can pardon himself, but it only applies to before any impeachment proceedings begin. If such hearings begin, there is no question that he cannot pardon himself, or any other potential target of impeachment hearings.

[EFerrari]

4. The disheartening part is when good Democrats say

"Of course he's committed war crimes and he will be prosecuted for that" -- as if they have nothing to do with that process.

In one swoop, they distance themselves from impeachment and yet seem to be relying, in imagination at least, on some other power to hold Bush et al accountable.

This is very troubling especially when I hear it from people like Mr. Conyers and Mr. Nadler.

[ClassWarrior]

7. Mr. Conyers and Mr. Nadler are Bush** Democrats.

NGU.

[EFerrari]

8. There's no one we can rely on that I can see.

And, I don't say that lightly or happily.

We have to go to the International Criminal Court. Go around them all, show them we're not just malcontents.

It's pretty straighfoward, too. As much as it may pain some of us to go there, we have to. There have to be consequences for 9/11, for IRAQ, for Katrina, for torture. For a lot of things the Court doesn't do. But I don't see another clear way to move forward.

I can't rely on the very people who have enabled this crime to redress this crime. :shrug:

[H2O Man]

10. There is really

no chance that the world court will prosecute Bush et al. There is a slight chance that some prosecutor will follow through on what Vincent Bugliosi advocates in his new book.

[EFerrari]

11. Tell me why you think the ICC won't go there, please.

I need to know because I'm preparing a package for them right now. I'm not a lawyer, much less one with experience in international law.

What do you see as the obstacle? Thank you, my friend.

[H2O Man]

15. That is an important question.

My father used to tell me that when someone, or some group, failed to do what I thought they should, that I needed to think about the vast differences betwenn "can't" and "won't." And that is what the difference between the ICC and our Congress is.

Rather than me trying to explain why the ICC "can't" -- and, indeed, they cannot, even if they wanted to -- I will refer you to an accurate and important explanation provided in Vincent Bugliosi's new book, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder." As with all of his books, it is necessary to read the footnotes (in this case, listed as "chapter notes") to fully appreciate the thought that goes into his writings. In this instance, in chapter 4, pages 85-86, he says that it is impossible for the ICC to prosecute Bush. Then, in the notes on pages 269-271, he tells why. It is too long for me to copy for posting on DU, because it is six paragraphs. And rather than highlight parts of it, I think it is extremely important that people read the book .... including that part of it. If you can either buy it, borrow it from a friend, or get it from the library, you will find the answer. (In your case, if you can't get it now, please let me know, and we will take care of it, because it is something I want you to have access to.)

The Congress can uphold their oath of office, but "won't." There are a number of reasons why they might be refusing to do so, including one that I have pointed to that is found in Senator Byrd's book, "Losing America." Also, as Mr. Bugliosi points out, "fear" is a very real factor in everything that is taking place in America today.

The possibility that a state's attorney or local DA will pursue the course that Mr. Bugliosi advocates has a small chance. But those small doors sometimes open into large rooms. In the 1960s, a prosecutor named Jim Garrison attempted entry into a larger room. Perhaps there is another prosecutor who will be of similar mind, but with characteristics more in the way of Mr. Bugliosi.

[EFerrari]

18. I agree entirely about "won't" but don't at this time have access to Bugliosi.

When I read the ICC website, it seems to say that in addition to State Parties and the UN Security council, individuals can petition the Prosecutor to open an investigation. It does not say that those individuals themselves have to be the victims of, in this case, war crimes.

It also says that the ICC will not intervene if there are on going investigations unless those investigations are not genuine. Given that Nancy Pelosi has said she will not allow impeachment, it would seem that a case can be made that Mr. Conyers' investigations are not working toward the objective of bringing criminals to justice.

I haven't yet read anything that would preclude US Citizens from petitioning the Prosecutor to open a case. But, I'm not a lawyer.

[H2O Man]

20. It is not

a matter of if a person can petition the ICC. Anyone can, without question. It is only a matter of what they have jurisdiction over. That is where Mr. Bugliosi and others, who are absolutely dedicated to holding Bush responsible for his crimes, point out the "can't" lies in regard to the ICC.

[EFerrari]

21. The ICC just issued allegations against the leader of Sudan

who also is not a member state.

It's hard to see how a different standard could now be applied to the United States.



ICC accuses Sudan President for genocide
Monday, 14 July 2008

Sudan: Sudan's president has been accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo told judges at The Hague that Omar al-Bashir bore criminal responsibility for alleged atrocities committed over the past five years.

The three-judge panel must now decide whether there are reasonable grounds for an arrest warrant to be issued.

Sudan's government responded by saying any indictment would be meaningless.

http://www.africa2000.com/content/view/373/503/

Even if we got that far, it would be significant, imho.

[ClassWarrior]

13. We can rely on ourselves. And I refuse to give up on IMPEACHMENT.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

6. Yup. Nancy and her fellow Bush** Democrats who refuse to IMPEACH are in the House.

The Senate is another story entirely, but we'll deal with them when it gets to them.

NGU.

[midnight]

9. I agree both Bush and Cheney are guilty of horrible crimes.

The spying,killing, and destruction of our family's is good enough reasons to impeach. Let's Roll....

[Me.]

31. From Jane Mayer's Book

"After reflecting on major breakdowns of law that occurred in prior administrations, including the Watergate disaster, Mr. Schlesinger told Ms. Mayer: “No position taken has done more damage to the American reputation in the world — ever.”

[depakid]

14. "prime examples of the type of officials the Founders intended that the House should impeach."

Historically and legally, there's never been a clearer case....

[kentuck]

19. if not for 9/11, Bush would have been impeached.

9/11 gave him cover for all his crimes. He had actually started his crime spree before 9/11 but that has all been lost in the shuffle.

[GeorgeGist]

22. The fact is ... the US Constitution is fiction.

The Founders knew it and reality proves it.

[Me.]

25. I've Read That A President Can Be Impeached After he Leaves Office

They could've impeached Nixon, and if they had done so I believe we wouldn't be in the mess we are now. I don't believe he will be either before or after he leaves office. However should the sky fall, impeachmemt would lead to criminal charges and I 'm wondering if the Libby pardon could be undone. A criminal conspiracy.

For the taking of impeachment off the table, Nancy should lose her position. She took ownership pf something which didn't belong to her and had no right to do so. She betrayed her oath and us all, as well as her country when she did that. And too bad to anybody who thinks those words are too strong. She unlawfully spit on the constitution and her act has far reaching implications and ramifications.

[H2O Man]

26. True.

The Congress can do that.

In Nixon's case, it would not have mattered: he was not going to run for office ever again. What would have been important was a criminal trial, and Ford had pardoned him.

If impeachment proceedings were begun, for example, against VP Cheney for the abuses of the power of his office (and possible criminal offenses) in the Plame scandal, then Bush could not pardon Libby, because his convictions are closely related to Cheney's actions. If they had done so earlier, Bush could not have commuted the incarceration from his sentence.

[Me.]

27. I'm Wondering If The Pardon Could Be Undone Retroactively

If it was determined, at some point in the future, that to pardon I Liar, was a criminal conspiracy? Just speculating here mind you, but would so love it if I Liar had to go to jail. It's the old if wished were dollars, or in this case, jail sentences served.

[H2O Man]

28. No.

Bush commuted Libby's prison sentence, as opposed to pardoning him. However, if the Congress refuses to uphold their oath of office, it is likely he will grant Libby a Christmas pardon (or a January pardon). There is no possibility of them being reversed.

[Me.]

30. To Me I Guess That Commuted Sentence Was As Good As A Pardon

But you are correct in that I Liar has not rec'd a pardon, yet. I wonder if *, in the spirit of the way he treats most people, will just say screw Libby and not grant the pardon.

[Major Hogwash]

32. Eggs-actly!!

Right on the money, as usual!!

[BuyingThyme]

29. Interesting to note that Barack Obama now supports the wiretapping crimes

for which both Nixon and Bush should have been impeached.

Worse yet, he voted to give himself the power to get away with similar crimes.