When Once a Republic Is Corrupted

[Time for change]

When once a republic is corrupted there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil – Thomas Jefferson on the necessity of the impeachment provisions to our Constitution


The debate on DU and elsewhere over whether or not Democrats should proceed with the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney shortly after taking over Congress primarily involves those who favor impeachment on one side, versus those who favor “investigations first” (followed by impeachment only if the evidence points that way) on the other side. But since the impeachment process necessarily entails investigations into the accusations that could lead to impeachment prior to impeachment itself, that dichotomy is a semantic illusion. Impeachment without investigations first is not possible. So let’s take “impeachment without investigations” off the table.

Thus, the real issue, for those of us who believe that George Bush and Dick Cheney need to be impeached, is not between those who favor impeachment first without investigations versus those who favor investigations first. The real issue for us is when and how much evidence should be required before the investigations into the many crimes of the Bush/Cheney administration are specifically referred to as being impeachment oriented (for example, by using the term “impeachment hearings”).

Those who emphasize that Congress should proceed with investigations for an unspecified amount of time prior to officially mentioning the “I” word or before putting it “back on the table” do so for one of two reasons, as far as a can tell: Either they believe that there is currently not enough evidence available for Congress to formally proceed with impeachment investigations, or they believe that not enough Americans are yet ready for impeachment investigations to make them politically feasible (i.e., without doing political damage to those who initiate or push for them). So, let’s consider each of those issues by looking at some recent history:


Consideration of the potential political consequences of proceeding with “impeachment” investigations or hearings

The attempted impeachment and resignation of Richard Nixon
In February of 1973 the U.S. Senate established a Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities to investigate events surrounding the break-in at the Watergate Hotel and other abuses of Presidential power by Richard Nixon. As a result of evidence obtained from those hearings, House Democrats initiated impeachment hearings against Nixon in October 1973. As impeachment hearings progressed and as more and more evidence of impeachable offenses accumulated, U.S. public opinion turned against Nixon, and eventually his own Republican Party turned against him, thus forcing him to resign in August 1974. In the 1974 mid-term elections Democrats gained 48 seats in the House and 5 seats in the Senate. In order to “heal our nation’s wounds”, our new President, Gerald Ford, appointed by Nixon as Vice President shortly prior to Nixon’s resignation, preemptively pardoned Nixon for any crimes he may have committed that were related to the impeachment charges against him. Many believe that that pardon was a major factor in Ford’s defeat in the 1976 Presidential election.

The non-impeachment of Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan’s Presidency was also marked by a scandal that suggested a high likelihood that he and his Vice President, George H. W. Bush, had committed impeachable offenses. The Iran-Contra scandal involved illegal selling of arms to Iran, with diversion of the funds from those arms to the Nicaraguan Contras, which had been expressly prohibited by Congress. Congressional investigations into the scandal resulted in the convictions of high level Reagan administration officials, but the investigations petered out before directly implicating the President and Vice President. No impeachment hearings were ever initiated. Perhaps Democrats were reluctant to take the political risk of trying to impeach a President who seemed highly popular at the time. Whatever the reason, their caution produced no political benefit. Vice President George H. W. Bush, who appeared to be enmeshed in the center of the scandal, escaped largely unscathed and was elected President in 1988 by a comfortable margin. And worse than that, his incompetent and worthless son later became President of the United States, with disastrous results for our country.

The impeachment of Bill Clinton
Some point to the impeachment of Bill Clinton, which was followed by disappointing results for Republicans in the 1998 mid-term elections (especially for Republicans intimately involved in the impeachment process) as evidence that our country is in no mood to countenance an attempted impeachment of a President. But the case for the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the case for the impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are as different as night and day. To say that we shouldn’t proceed with the latter because the former was a failure is like saying we should no longer prosecute murderers because of a failed attempt to prosecute an innocent man for murder. The one has nothing to do with the other. And most Americans are intelligent and knowledgeable enough to realize that. Bill Clinton had high approval ratings even during the height of the impeachment effort against him.

The political climate for impeachment in the United States today
A 2005 Zogby poll indicated that 53% of Americans agree that “If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment”. And that is at a point in time when there is little support from our Democratic leaders for impeachment. Just think what will happen to those numbers as impeachment hearings are held and more and more information becomes available to the American people.

Nancy Pelosi taking “impeachment off the table”
It is true, on the other hand, that Nancy Pelosi’s taking impeachment “off the table” could pose a big political barrier to attempts by Democrats to put it back on the table too soon. In response to a hopeful LTTE to The Nation that expressed elation at the possibility that Nancy Pelosi could become President if Bush and Cheney are both impeached, William Greider responded that that is exactly why she can’t advocate impeachment hearings. Ok, fine. But I see no reason why she can’t remove herself from the process by rightfully claiming a conflict of interest, while others pursue impeachment. Would Democrats be bitterly accused of partisanship or even treason for trying to impeach a President during “time of war”? You bet they would. But I think that we have gone way past the point where Democrats ought to refrain from taking actions that our country needs for fear that Republicans and our corporate media will castigate them for it.

Summary assessment of the current political climate for impeachment of a President and Vice President
I believe it’s fair to say that the history of the Nixon impeachment effort showed that the American public will enthusiastically support the impeachment of a President when the need for it is well grounded and documented; the history of the failure of Democrats to attempt the impeachment of Ronald Reagan shows that misguided caution is not without its own risks; and the history of the impeachment of Bill Clinton shows that impeachment can have adverse political effects for a Party that attempts it for purely partisan political motives.


Does enough evidence currently exist to proceed with investigations officially aimed at “impeachment”?

Numerous organizations and groups have drawn up articles of impeachment or a case for impeachment against George Bush. I’ll briefly discuss two here:

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) has drawn up four articles of impeachment, which they have detailed in their book, “Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush”. I’ll briefly quote from them here, followed by a brief assessment of the currently available evidence that supports them.

Article 1 – unauthorized spying on American citizens

.... authorizing the National Security Agency and various other agencies within the intelligence community to conduct electronic surveillance outside of the statutes Congress has prescribed as the exclusive means for such surveillance, and to use such information for purposes unknown but unrelated to any lawful function of his office; he has also concealed the existence of this unlawful program of electronic surveillance from Congress, the press, and the public…

Bush has actually publicly admitted to this crime and violation of our Constitution numerous times. But he claims a good reason for doing it. Bush’s excuse for this unlawful activity has been that he needs to bypass the request for a warrant in his efforts to spy on American citizens, in order that he can act quickly enough to catch terrorists. However, given that the current law allows the warrant to be requested retroactively, it is very difficult to understand how bypassing the warrant request will allow him to act any quicker – since nothing is quicker than retroactive. Therefore, the only plausible conclusion is that the purpose of much of his spying activities is so unrelated to a legitimate function of government that even the conservative FISA judges wouldn’t approve them.

Article 2 – unlawfully taking our nation to war against Iraq

.... George W. Bush has subverted the Constitution, its guarantee of a republican form of government, and the constitutional separation of powers by undermining the rightful authority of Congress to declare war, oversee foreign affairs, and make appropriations. He did so by justifying the war with false and misleading statements and deceived the people of the United States as well as Congress. He denied the electorate the right to make an informed choice and thereby undermined democracy. George W. Bush also committed fraud against the United States by lying to and intentionally misleading Congress about the reasons for the Iraq war….

There can be little or no question that the oft-repeated “misinformation” that the Bush administration fed Congress and the U.S. public on its reasons for the Iraq war constituted purposeful lying. His own intelligence network repeatedly told him the truth about Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and Bush repeatedly ignored those warnings. Consider the following, related to the oft-repeated Bush/Cheney claim that Iraq presented a nuclear threat to our country, based on Iraq’s alleged attempt to purchase yellow cake (natural uranium) from Africa and their possession of aluminum tubes alleged for use in the construction of a nuclear weapon:

3-5-02: Joe Wilson tells the CIA that there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to buy yellowcake from Niger.

9-7-02: Bush claims a new International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report states Iraq is 6 months from developing a nuclear weapon – though no such report existed.

9-23-02: Institute for Science and International Security releases a report calling the aluminum tube intelligence ambiguous and warning that “U.S. nuclear experts who dissent from the Administration’s position are expected to remain silent…”

October 2002: National Intelligence Estimate report states “claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are highly dubious.”

1-24-03: IAEA to Washington Post: “It may be technically possible that the tubes could be used to enrich uranium, but you’d have to believe that Iraq…”

3-3-03: IAEA tells U.S. that the Niger uranium documents were forgeries.

3-7-03: IAEA reports “We have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq.”

Yet despite all that evidence, and much more, that the alleged nuclear weapons threat was bogus, Bush stated in his 1-28-03 State of the Union speech that “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”… “Saddam has tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production….” And he also convinced Congress to approve his “Iraq War Resolution” by misleading them about Iraq’s nuclear and other equally bogus threats to our country, while withholding from them any information that would cast doubt on those threats.

The Downing Street Memos, which strongly suggest that George Bush intended to go to war against Iraq long before he publicly admitted it and that therefore “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”, have been described by some as a “smoking gun” for proving that Bush and Cheney lied about their motives for going to war. Well, that can be debated. But when added to all the other evidence, the probability that the Bush administration lied to Congress and the American people about the justification for the Iraq War appears to rise beyond a reasonable doubt.

I suppose that Bush and Cheney could argue that they were unaware of all the above noted official reports. But even if anyone were to buy that preposterous claim, the level of negligence required for a President to be unaware of those things while leading his country into a preemptive war would be so great as to clearly constitute grounds for impeachment and conviction by itself.

Article 3 – unlawful treatment of prisoners of war, in violation of established law

.... violating the constitutional and international rights of citizens and non-citizens by arbitrarily detaining them indefinitely inside and outside of the United States, without due process, without charges, and with limited – if any – access to counsel or courts….

allowing his administration to condone torture, failing to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for torture, and officially refusing to accept the binding nature of a statutory ban on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment….

That these gross violations of international law, U.S. law, the U.S. Constitution, and common decency are widespread is abundantly documented by such groups as Amnesty International, the International Red Cross, and Human Rights Watch, among others. That they are sanctioned by George Bush and Dick Cheney is abundantly clear from their repeated public defenses of these actions, such as described in a February 2002 Bush administration memo stating that U.S. personnel are exempt from bans against torture.

Not only are these actions illegal and immoral, but they produce no value to our country, while destroying our international reputation. Out of the thousands of prisoners that we hold throughout the world for so-called terrorism related reasons, only 8% are members of al Qaeda, and only 10 (No, not 10%, just 10) had been charged with a crime after several years imprisonment.

Article 4 – Failure to execute the laws of the United States

.... in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has arrogated excessive power to the executive branch in violation of basic constitutional principles of the separation of powers.

… He has formally declared his intent to violate the laws enacted by Congress by appending a “signing statement” to legislation that asserts his right to carve out exceptions to legislation as he sees fit, thereby arrogating to himself legislative powers reserved solely to Congress.

As of July 2006, George Bush had signed over 800 “signing statement”, far more than all former U.S. Presidents combined. The American Bar Association has said that these signing statements undermine the separation of powers provided in the U.S. Constitution.


The other source that I’ll briefly mention here is Representative John Conyers’ report, “The Constitution in Crisis – The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Cover-ups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance”. This report, which is 345 pages long and contains 1401 references, does not actually contain articles of impeachment. However, it does describe in detail and thoroughly document numerous impeachable offenses. Several of them fall into categories described in Articles 1 through 3, above. And in addition, Conyers documents numerous instances of the Bush administration seeking retribution against its political enemies. I have summarized Conyers’ report in an earlier post, and here is how he summarized the report when it was released:

The report finds there is substantial evidence the President, the Vice President and other high ranking members of the Bush Administration misled Congress and the American people … The Report concludes that a number of these actions amount to prima facie evidence that federal criminal laws have been violated… The Report also concludes that these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable conduct.

Thus, a substantial amount of publicly available solid evidence currently exists to support several different articles of impeachment. And there are also several other offenses, not discussed by the above noted sources, which probably constitute impeachable offenses of the Bush administration, including: the failure to take any action to provide emergency assistance to the victims of hurricane Katrina, even after Bush clearly knew that the levees had been breached; the billions of dollars worth of fraud perpetrated by the recipients of Bush administration no-bid contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq; giving corporations unprecedented privilege to write legislation in secret meetings with Bush administration officials; and, the utter failure of the Bush administration to even attempt to deal with global warming.


Reasons for openly proceeding with impeachment sooner than later

Given the near certainty, based on currently available evidence, that Bush and Cheney are guilty of impeachable offenses, and given that the current mood of our country would make their impeachment and conviction more than politically feasible, I see the following advantages of openly proceeding with impeachment, and labeling the relevant investigations as such, sooner rather than later:

Time
It seems to me that if investigations into the Bush/Cheney crimes are not openly labeled as such, the process of removing Bush and Cheney from office will be substantially delayed, since an extra formal step will thereby be added to the process.

I don’t believe that our country can afford that time. Every day that the Iraq War continues our country goes another $300 million in debt, more U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians are killed or their lives destroyed, and more anti-American terrorists are created. Worse still, George Bush wants to perpetrate a nuclear attack on Iran, which would be an unmitigated catastrophe of monumental proportions.

Likelihood of success
Many of us who are desperately eager to see George Bush and Dick Cheney impeached are very worried about talk by our Democratic leaders to the effect that impeachment is “off the table” or a waste of time. Specifically, we worry that the process will fizzle out for lack of political will, as it did with the investigations into the very serious scandals of the Reagan administration.

I believe that fear is justified. Stating publicly that Congress is “investigating” the Bush/Cheney administration, without publicly connecting those investigations to impeachment, gives the impression that abundant evidence of impeachable offenses is not currently available. Given that, what will happen if the “investigations” fail to uncover substantial additional evidence of impeachable offenses? I fear that in that circumstance the lack of additional evidence could be used as an excuse to curtail the whole process.

Education of the American public
Due largely to an incompetent and venal corporate national news media, the American public knows only a small fraction of what they need to know about the crimes of the Bush/Cheney administration. An informed public is essential to the continuation of democracy. I fear that investigations that are not labeled as pertaining to impeachment will fail to be adequately covered by our corporate news media, just as they have failed to cover so many other issues of vital importance to the American people, such as the lack of adequate justification for the Iraq War.


Final thought

As if in answer to Thomas Jefferson’s quote on the importance of impeachment with which I began this post, George Bush has frequently asserted, though not in these exact words, that “If the President does it, it’s not illegal”. I believe it’s fair to say that that attitude summarizes George Bush’s opinion of our Constitution. And therein lies an issue that is central to the question of impeachment.

As important as it is to remove from office the most dangerous Presidential administration that has ever disgraced our country, that is probably not the most important reason for proceeding with impeachment.

More important still is that to fail to do so would set a very dangerous precedent. The crimes of the Bush/Cheney administration are not simply crimes. Many of those crimes represent an attack upon and show utter contempt for our Constitution, and therefore strike that the very foundations of our country. Failure to hold the Bush administration fully accountable for those crimes by removing them from office would signal that such crimes are acceptable behavior for a President and Vice President of the United States. And that could very well lead to the permanent loss of democracy and the rule of law in the United States, regardless of who becomes our next President.

[mod mom]

1. Excellent post TFC, and Happy New Year. A question:

Can both the Prez & VP be impeached at the same time? I thought I read it very unlikely that Pelosi could be made president because they couldn't. ( ie if bu$h impeached cheney would move up and select a new VP, or if Cheney was impeached first, bu$h would select a new VP and when he was impeached, h=then the newly selected individual would move up.) Am I incorrect? This is why I thought Pelosi said it was off the table-they didn't want any third person given an advantage to move up.

[Time for change]

3. Thank you mod mom -- I can't precisely answer that question

And I'm not sure that anyone can, as there hasn't been any previous experience with it. But I'll do my best to tell you what I know about it.

I can think of two examples that suggest that the scenario of Bush and Cheney being impeached at the same time is at least a possibility.

First, as I noted in the OP, William Greider responded to an LTTE in The Nation by saying that the scenario of both being impeached at the same time, with Nancy Pelosi becoming President is the reason why she can't advocate for their impeachment -- it could appear to be a major power grab on her part. William Greider is a regular contributor to The Nation, he has been around a long time, and I have great respect for him. One of his books, "Who Will Tell the People", is one of the best books I have ever read. So, if he thinks it is a possibility, then it must be IMO.

Secondly, I attended an "Impeachment Teach In" several months ago, sponsored by the Center for Constitutional Rights. There were some very knowledgeable people sponsoring that teach in, as you can see from this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1705842

One of the first things that CCR brought up at the teach in was that many people are worried about impeachment Bush because Cheney would be worse. But they assured their audience that there was nothing whatsoever to worry about in that regard, because if Bush was impeached and convicted, Cheney would be too, for much the same crimes and offenses. I don't recall that they said that it would necessarily happen simultaneously, but they did put our minds at ease on that score.

I don't think that anyone can predict with certainty how that will play out. It may be that if impeachment hearings get going, Americans will be so outraged about the findings that they will demand that whoever takes the place of Bush and Cheney should not be of their own choosing.

I must admit that I believe the possibility of Nancy Pelosi becoming President over this is somewhat remote. But I do not feel that that should in any way be a reason not to go forward with impeachment. In my opinion, it simply must be done in order to send a message which will give future Presidents cause to think about possible consequences of actions such as those perpetrated on the American people and the world by Bush and Cheney. I don't care if it happens the last day of their administration, as long as it happens (though of course I would much rather that it happen sooner than later).

[mod mom]

24. Good news Thank you!

[neoblues]

2. Failure to Impeach an Executive Pervaded by such Corruption...

and disregard for the Constitution (and more), would indeed set a disasterous precedent for the future; one we cannot afford to allow to stand.

[WiseButAngrySara]

4. knr and bookmarked for later read. Just skimming, this is a

good read.

[puebloknot]

5. Wonderfully concise summation of the impeachment scenario.

I hope that this will put an end to all the "impeachment without investigtions" nonsense.

You've covered all the angles except one (although you may consider it inherent in what you wrote). I refer to the matter of a state invoking the Jefferson protocol to compel the House to proceed with impeachment proceedings post haste.

Here is a link to an article about that at OpEdNews.com. DUer Kadie just posted something about this today, but I think it bears repetition. Being uncertain of whether such an act on the part of a state legislature could simply be brushed aside by Pelosi, et al., I wrote to Stuart Hutchison who is spearheading this effort in New Jersey. His reponse to my letter is below his article at this link:

http://www.opednews.com /articles/opedne_stuart_h_061229_new_jersey_impeach_t .htm

He says that if a state demands impeachment under Jefferson's protocol, the House is forced to put other things aside to proceed with impeachment -- no two ways about it. If you have conflicting information, I would like to hear it.

This seems like a very good way to get the ball rolling, if one or more state legislature will actually do it. I suppose there is still the concern of using the "I" word too soon, but I agree with the premise of your article that we need to get things moving, with seriousness, now! I have been saying all along that if we let them get away with just holding hearings, allegedly to find impeachable offenses that they say they don't have now, it will turn into just an exercise to run out the clock, with an eye firmly focused on the 2008 election.

I want my country and my life back now. I don't want the next two years to simply be sacrificed to a desperate attempt to stay in power by playing small and nice. I think that is exactly a formula that will lead to defeat for the Dems.

Great and timely article! Thanks for the work you put into it.

[troubleinwinter]

13. Fixed your link... WELL worth reading,

particularly the comments/responses. Link: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_stuart_h_061229_new_jersey_impeach_t.htm
Thank you, Puebloknot!

[puebloknot]

33. Thanks! I welcome all the help I can get! :) nt

[Time for change]

17. Thanks for calling our attention to Jefferson's manual

I first learned about that when I attended an impeachment teach-in sponsored by the Center for Constitutional Rights:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1705842

However, I don't know a great deal about it, and I don't know to what extent a state can force the hand of our House of Representatives on this issue. You note that they can force them to proceed with impeachment. That sounds like a great start, but of course a state can't determine how the House will vote on the issue. But as you say, it could be a great way to get the ball rolling.

[puebloknot]

34. Several people, including DUers Kadie and AutoRank...

...have posted about the Jefferson protocol, so I'm just a voice come lately. But thanks for the thanks! :)

I'll look up the section that Stu at OpEdNews posted, and see what it says. He was pretty emphatic about what the House *must* do if a state legislature passes a bill to impeach and send it on. However, we could spend the rest of 2007 discussing how current reality strays from what's on paper.

The more that people become aware of this, however, the more pressure we can put on the PTB to do their jobs.

You know what I think would be a good idea? First, we get our ducks in a row so that we *thoroughly* understand this thing, and then we do teleseminars (online teach-ins that could also be webinars, where the participants can see the presenter's computer screen), and stir the waters that way. I do that kind of thing with my own business, and it's easy. It gets people to know each other a bit, too. Voices, instead of just words on a page, as in e-mail.

For $100 a month, you can do an unlimited number of webinars for several thousand people at once. So money isn't an issue. It's just getting the ball rolling. We could get guest speakers, like Stu in New Jersey....

ANd...it's possible to use audio postcards to send audio messages through e-mail, and keep the attention going that way.

I haven't eaten yet today; maybe I'm sounding as light-headed as I feel. Most of all, I say that We the People need to TAKE ACTION!

More later. Feedback on my ideas is *always* welcome.

Fun talking. More later!

Judy

[malaise]

6. You won't hear this in the Ford eulogy today

Brilliant post.

[earlybelle]

7. "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary..."

[Karenina]

8. It's necessary. NOW.

K&R!!!

[tom_paine]

9. K & R for a well written piece

[Peace Patriot]

10. Excellent post! EVERYWHERE YOU LOOK, there are a "high crimes and mis-

demeanors." There is not a single policy of this junta that is not impeachable. I was thinking of the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame and of the entire WMD counter-proliferation network that she headed, putting all of our covert agents/contacts around the world at risk of getting killed and disabling all counter-proliferation projects--an act that is right up there with the Iraq War as to putting our national security at great risk. At a time when the illicit possession, movement and use of WMDs poses maximum risk to our country and to other countries, they destroy the very network devoted to detection and prevention of such proliferation. The recent Russian spy case indicates just how dangerous such proliferation is--someone leaving a trail of Polonium 210 all across Europe, apparently in an effort to kill one man, and inadvertently killing and sickening others. The Fitzgerald filings have placed Cheney at the center of these Plame outings--an act that violated specific federal laws protecting the identity of covert CIA agents. I tend to think that Rumsfeld was the mastermind of it, and that that is why Rumsfeld was ousted. I also think that the Plame outings are a Pandora's box of Bush Junta crimes--with only a few of those crimes currently visible. But the Rumsfeld ouster could also be related to 9/11 and the standdown of NORAD and/or other acts of negligence or complicity, involving Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others.

Then there is the attempted sale of our ports to corrupt sultans of the UAE. I consider that amazingly treasonable. But actually I was also thinking of policies that don't get much notice in the context of impeachment, such as funding rightwing religious programs and favoring rightwing Christian sects--an egregious violation by the president and his regime of the most fundamental plank of the Constitution: The First Amendment. Another such impeachable offense is the HIDING of federal expenditures--the refusal to divulge them to Congress. Of course, Congress itself is culpable for having ever given George Bush any of our money, but still, the secrecy of this Junta holds many an impeachable offense, in my view--including monumental mismanagement of funds, theft, bribery and corruption of every kind.

The trouble with the Iraq War as an impeachable offense is that Congress voted to give their power over war away, and Congress itself deserves impeachment for that, as well as the liars and war criminals in the White House and the Pentagon. We don't have an impeachment remedy against Congress. Our impeachment remedy is elections. But then Congress voted to make our elections non-transparent, with the $3.9 billion boondoggle funding of electronic voting systems, run on TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by Bushite corporations--the infamous "Help America Vote For War Act" of 2002. So our only remedy, vis a vis Congress, was seriously compromised, by Congress. Consequently, we have no way of knowing if George Bush was re-elected or not--with all evidence pointing to not--and we furthermore have reason to believe that the Diebold I Congress (just retired) was not elected legitimately, and that the current Congress also contains many people who are beholden to Diebold/ES&S and not to the voters.

I believe that Congress' complicity in the Iraq War and in fast-tracking non-transparent voting systems is a very big complication in the political aspects of impeachment. Senators and House members who voted for Bush's war on the basis of Bush's word on WMDs will have to sit up there in hearings and LIE that they didn't know. And Senators and House members who themselves were not legitimately elected, and who helped to put in place an illegitimate election system, have to pretend that Bush and Cheney hold power legitimately, when they very clearly do not. Non-transparent elections are not elections. They are tyranny. It's as simple as that. In the recent midterms, the people outvoted the machine programming, and gave the Democrats a much bigger win than was planned. So there are elements in Congress that are quite legitimate, and there are elements that are not. When you look at the peoples' opinion of the war, 70% opposition to it across the board in all polls, you can pretty much figure out who was really elected and who wasn't, on the basis of their views on the Iraq War--and if they are lying about that now (which some are--Biden and Dodd come to mind)--you can figure it out on the basis of their war funding votes and/ or their slimy manipulations to continue a war that they are publicly saying should now be halted (or--the quintessential War Democrat position--should be better managed).

However, you could impeach Bush and Cheney without ever mentioning the Iraq War, which the OP fulsomely points out--and which these other impeachable offenses (that I've listed) confirm. Truly, there are "high crimes and misdemeanors" everywhere you look. In this respect, I am reminded of the investigations of the Watergate scandal, which many felt were emotionally related to the Vietnam War. Nixon promised "peace with honor" and then slaughtered about a million more people in Southeast Asia, before the US forces were routed by the Vietnamese. Nixon's impeachment was likely underpinned by hatred of the war. The Watergate scandal was connected to Vietnam, as to motivation. The Watergate burglars were trying to prevent anti-war Democrat, George McGovern, from being elected. Also, their burglary of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office was directly connected to his release of the Pentagon Papers, which exposed the false basis of that war. But Nixon was not impeached for the war. He was impeached for complicity in funding the Watergate burglars and for attempting to cover up their connections to the Nixon White House.

In previous decades and centuries of this Republic, the funding of religious programs, and the infusion of specific sectarian religious beliefs into public policy, would have been a great scandal and is certainly impeachable. It is a frontal assault on the Constitution. Also, simply giving a no-bid military contract--in fact many contracts--to the vice president's corporation, a corporation that is still paying him $100,000 to one million dollars a year in "golden parachute" benefits, tied to the corporation's milking of the taxpayers, should have LONG AGO ousted Cheney. Can you imagine that happening under ANY previous administration--even the worst of them--Reagan, Bush I, Nixon, LBJ? Previous administration's at least observed the proprieties on outright bribery--even if they were corrupt in other ways. I remember the ouster of an Eisenhower official--a close confidante of Eisenhower's--merely for accepting a vicuna coat. He was out in an instant! Ike considered such corruption to be intolerable and unforgivable. A vicuna coat! That was a huge scandal in the 1950s! There was also Democrat Jim Wright and his book deals--which the rightwing made much of at the time--but which amounted to mere chump change compared to Bushite thievery. And here Cheney has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in profit from contracts that his regime approved--and, more than likely, that he personally approved and arranged. It is OUTRAGEOUS. Bush doesn't care, of course. He probably thinks it's funny. But Congress should have cared, and should care now. It is clearly an impeachable offense. You don't have to go any further than that to oust Cheney--but if you add in his complicity in the Plame outings--direct violation of federal law, and arguably treason--he is very removable, and likely merits jail time and confiscation of all war profits and taxpayer-paid salaries.

I like Will Pitt's final argument very much: That failure to impeach is an ENDORSEMENT of massive crime on the part of the Executive Branch. These people MUST be held to account--and not indirectly, by backroom deals (which I suspect have occurred), but directly, with conscious intention of REMOVING THESE TERRIBLE PRECEDENTS. On Bush, the "signing statements" alone are grounds for impeachment. Never in the history of this country has there been such an egregious abuse of power by a President. THAT ALONE merits removal from office. That precedent MUST be removed! It must! It is the end of Constitutional government if it is allowed to remain standing.

I think the American people would greatly appreciate removal of Bush and Cheney. We tried, ourselves, to do it in 2004, but were prevented by the non-transparent, Bushite controlled voting machines and massive violations of the Voting Rights Act. We have only partially overcome those handicaps in getting our will, as a people, implemented--in the '06 midterms. And, although the war is the issue for us--as it was in Nixon's removal--we would be just as glad to see Cheney go down for his thousand and one vicuna coats, and Bush for his "signing statement" tyranny, as for anything else. If Congress can't bring itself to indict this war--and there are huge political obstacles to that indictment (including two thirds of the Senate being holdovers--and many of them of Lieberman's stripe, basically traitor Democrats who like Bush's war)--then, for God's sake, they can AT LEAST RESTORE CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, and their own rights as an institution and as an equal branch of government. These precedents--use of power for massive corruption, and for defying laws passed by Congress--are critically important to preventing the next decades of abuse of the American people and others, and abuse of the US military. Simply electing a Democrat in '08 is not sufficient. That goal is far too political for the circumstances. This is NOT a normal political matter--although it is infused with politics, as was Watergate. It is a Constitutional crisis of the first magnitude. It requires a HIGHER POWER to kick in--that is, members of Congress as CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS, sworn to an oath--not as Democrats or Republicans or Independents, but as Americans and as representatives of the best interests of the people as a whole. Bush and Cheney's lawlessnes are unprecedented. They must be brought to account on at least SOME of their long list of egregious "high crimes and misdemeanors." Take your pick!

[Time for change]

18. Thank you Peace Patriot -- I agree with you that impeachable offenses

cover this administration everywhere you look. There are so many of them that we have become almost desensatized to spotting them -- and that applies even to myself, as much as I care about the issue.

I do believe though that the war is one important piece that ought to be pursued. Yes, it's true that Congress was complicit, and many knew more than they let on. But they were lied to, and there is no excuse for that. Lying to Congress on such an important matter is clearly an impeachable offense, and the evidence for it is massive and compelling and requires little further investigation.

[KoKo]

20. You say: "simply electing a Democrat in '08 is not sufficient"......

Exactly the problem, "Peace Patriot" and it worries me also, that Congress allowed this and that many in that Congress were not properly elected either because of Gerrymandering or Election Machine Fraud. This Congress and in particular the Senate (where some were planning on running for President in '04) aided and abetted the Bush Crimes. Even when we held the Senate because of Jeffords switching, every Bush appointee...no matter what was in their background was passed through. Thereby giving a Bush a mandate that he did not deserve given the corruption of Selection 2000.

I worry that neither the House nor Senate will work to clean this up...being to involved in it all to have the will...fearing that much will be revealed about themselves if they do.

Impeachment must come from the States. It's our only hope that perhaps a state like Vermont will come forward and stand to take back our Constitution. But, we need to work on it in our own states to create enough agitation that whatever investigations are begun in the House will be followed through with NO COVERUPS!

Quote from your post:
Simply electing a Democrat in '08 is not sufficient. That goal is far too political for the circumstances. This is NOT a normal political matter--although it is infused with politics, as was Watergate. It is a Constitutional crisis of the first magnitude. It requires a HIGHER POWER to kick in--that is, members of Congress as CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS, sworn to an oath--not as Democrats or Republicans or Independents, but as Americans and as representatives of the best interests of the people as a whole. Bush and Cheney's lawlessnes are unprecedented. They must be brought to account on at least SOME of their long list of egregious "high crimes and misdemeanors." Take your pick!

[Independent_Liberal]

28. Peace Patriot!

I love it when you get riled up like this! Excellent!

:D

[Demeter]

11. The Corruption Started With Nixon, and Grew With Ford

By subverting the purgative political process with a preemptory pardon, Gerry Ford, trying to do a decent, honorable, and healing thing, merely allowed an infection in the GOP to proceed and get the upper hand, driving away the "moderate" Republicans, corrupting the rest, and creating the rabid Right, which led to Carter's imprisonment by hostage-taking in the Rose Garden and Ronald Reagan's Iran/Contra and South American escapades. With the pardons granted all over that little problem and stuffing the issue under the rug, Bush and Clinton continued the laisse-faire that became Dumbya.

The GOP became the party of the Undead--vampires sucking democracy from our body politic.

It's time for the wooden stake. This nation must take apart the GOP, RICO it out of existence, so that no possibility of the evil GOP that brought us to this point in history can ever do it again. Let the bastards start from scratch, if they must fight for fascism! Let them be forced to recreate themselves, with a less-politically acceptable (but perhaps more accurate) name.

[Time for change]

35. I thought at the time that the pardon was a bad idea

The Presidential pardon should be reserved for special reasons, and certainly not used pre-emptively. I felt at the time that it could set a bad example. And judging by what came afterwards, that would certainly appear to be the case.

I think you're right that the GOP needs to start from scratch. It's filled to the brim with corruption, and their philosophy makes sense only when one realizes that winning elections for them depends on the support of a small minority of the population, that small minority who benefits from their policies.

[emmadoggy]

12. BRAVO!!

Fantastic post!! I am in wholehearted agreement.

K & R!!!

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[troubleinwinter]

14. K&R for this excellent piece.

[Peace Patriot]

15. See this post on Jefferson's Rules that state houses can move impeachment.

Efforts are being made in New Jersey, Vermont, Illinois (the first), Minnesota, New Mexico and California, to pass bills of impeachment of Bush and Cheney in state legislatures, which, according the Jefferson's official rules, if submitted to Congress by even one state legislature, take precedence over all other business, and must be addressed. It would be best to see several or many state resolutions of impeachment submitted to Congress simultaneously, but only one is needed, to get it going. For one thing, this would help Nancy Pelosi out of her political dilemma that her open advocacy of impeachment of both Bush and Cheney would open the way for her to become President, since she is third in the line of succession. Personally, I'd go with that. Throw these SOBs out and put her in! The country and the world would weep for joy! But I can see what her constraints are. She needs a big bump from outside the institution of Congress--and all of the above states submitting articles of impeachment that she is compelled to considered would be a BIG bump, or even just one state doing so would help spur investigations and get the ball rolling. After that, her role could simply be procedural matters. She doesn't have to be directly involved. Presuming she wants to see them impeached (which I'm not sure of), her problem is that she cannot initiate it, and she doesn't want to be seen as supporting such efforts within Congress. But if it came from the outside? Even if she's against it, SOMETHING will have to be done. (The main prob is the Senate, I think--lots of war hawks still ensconced.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3019559

[mmonk]

16. Thanks for the post.

Without impeachment, I can't say I'll remain political through political party but through constitutional groups and organizations instead. Can't say I'll ever be confident in this country, it's people, or it's institutions without action on this matter. A confident America going forward can only be possible if it's constitution with all it's remedies and checks and balances remain intact (put back together).

[MGKrebs]

19. It may be semantics, but I am going to differ with your premise.

Personally, the reason I prefer the "investigation" instead of "impeachment" terminology is because by calling for impeachment without the investigation it seems to pre-suppose guilt.

While I understand that technically "impeachment" does not mean "guilty", I feel the two words are used interchangbly a lot, even here on DU, and even in your piece. You advocate calling for "impeachmnent" and you state "the investigations into the many crimes of the Bush/Cheney administration". To me it is counter-productive and antithetical to the process to consider the outcome a foregone conclusion. If one believes that those crimes occurred, then an investigation, conducted objectively and within the rule of law, should result in a just conclusion.

At the very least, there are so many possible areas to investigate, we have the opportunity to take the high road and be as objective as possible and still get the result so many believe is warranted. The other path- calling for "impeachment" first- devolves into partisan bickering and opens the door to "witch hunt" claims. It is just uneccessary.

Yes, it is semantics. But words matter. Ask John Kerry, or Scooter Libby, or Howard Dean (well OK, that wasn't really a word, per se :-)) or anybody else whose words have caused trouble.

Having said all that, I think there is a place for the calls for impeachment. Somebody has to do it just to plant the seeds. But those who do may relegate themselves to "fringe" status to some degree or another in a lot of peoples minds.

Thoughtful and worthwhile piece. Thanks.

[Time for change]

31. I understand your point, and I believe it has validity

However, I am not in any way advocating that investigations not be objective.

A major point that I am making is that the current evidence on impeachable offenses is overwhelming. Acknowleding that does not necessarily make one non-objective. If someone was to say, let's consider this evidence (that clearly points towards guilt) and evaluate it with the idea of proceeding towards impeachment I don't believe that that shows non-objectivity. It is true, I agree, that some people may see it that way, and we have to be careful about that.

[understandinglife]

21. Bookmarked, Recommended, and ...

....

[mnhtnbb]

22. Excellent post.

[seesdifferent]

23. This is not "your father's" impeachment

This is a constitutional crisis which has been developing for some time. The Congress has to forget about the Clinton impeachment. This is a whole new ballgame. See this: http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2007/01/02/this-is-not-your-fathers-impeachment/

[GOTV]

38. Then it should be easy to find 67 Senators to convict. Name them.

Otherwise, this IS your father's impeachment - that is, a failing impeachment resulting in a acquitted, even exonerated president.

[bleever]

25. This pResident has repeatedly said that his job is to protect the American people.

No. It is not.

The oath that he swore was to preserve, protect and defend the American Constitution.

He has failed to uphold his oath, going so far as to say that the Constitution is an impediment to his "real" duty of "protecting" the American people.


Thank you for this excellent synopsis, Time for change. Your contributions are invaluable.

[GOTV]

26. Investigations are NOT required by impeachment.

According to the very article you linked to, here are the steps as listed:

* Resolution
* Committee Vote
* House Vote
* Hearing
* Report
* House Vote
* Senate Trial
* Senate Vote

None of those steps preclude an investigation but still, none of those steps are, or requires, further investigations. Each step can proceed working only off the resolution if the members desire it.

Your premise is false, and the rest of the article built on that premise is flawed.

Impeachment without investigation may not be taken off the table.

Also your "The political climate for impeachment in the United States today" point is very poor since it's based on a poll containing a conditional. We know what people said they'd support if they believed the conditional true, but we don't know how many people believed the conditional at the time.

The poll is also very old now.

[Time for change]

30. I don't see how you come to that conclusion

The 4th step listed is hearings. Hearings necessarily include investigations. Here is a definition of hearings:

A hearing is a meeting or session of a Senate, House, Joint, or Special Committee of Congress, usually open to the public, to obtain information and opinions on proposed legislation, conduct an investigation...

Provided at this link:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/chearings/index.html

As far as the poll containing a conditional, that is a reasonable point you bring up. However, the possibility that Bush did not lie about his reasons for going to war in Iraq is very remote, and that should be evident to the American people as the hearings or other investigations get underway and become educated about the situation. And as far as the poll being old, it was the most recent one I could find on that topic, but the anti-Bush attitude in this country has only become more pronounced since that time.

[GOTV]

36. Hearings are not investigations

Hearings CAN include investigations but do not REQUIRE investigation. The definition you posted makes that clear. Quite often a hearing is only a public airing of data that its already known - in order to sway public opinion. Consider the hearings some time ago on the abuses of the IRS when the congress was trying to get public support for tax cuts and weakening the IRS. That was no investigation. The people running the hearing knew exactly what each person would say. The witnesses were not some random sampling of people having run-ins with the IRS.

The important investigative work precedes a hearing. You collect info to know who will testify and what will be presented. That's what we need first - before talking impeachment - to make sure our impeachment is successful, that is, removes Bush and Cheney from office.

We could go through the impeachment process now but I think we'd fail. We just got subpoena power and there's so much we don't know. We should find out that stuff first. Let's go into impeachment with the public thinking it was their idea.

> the possibility that Bush did not lie about his reasons for going to war in Iraq is very remote

Of course I agree with you but it doesn't matter if Bush actually lied or not when you are talking public opinion. The only important thing is public perception. The general public is not as convinced of Bush's crimes as we are here at DU. The poll says that, in 2005, people felt that lying to start a war was sufficient grounds for impeachment. That's it. It seems obvious to me and I'm surprised that the support for that wasn't higher.

The poll we need is the poll that asks, "Should Bush be impeached?" There have been other polls about impeachment and many show only a minority support for it.

http://pollingreport.com/bush.htm

Much more recent CNN Poll from Aug 2006 "Based on what you have read or heard, do you believe that President Bush should be impeached and removed from office, or don't you feel that way?"

30% Yes, 69% No

So, the polls are far from agreement here.

[Time for change]

39. I disagree

Look at the definition of hearing provided above. Phrases are used like "obtain information and opinions", "conduct an investigation", "providing testimony and data", "evaluate". All of those things imply an investigation by any common usage of the English language. Furthermore, if you look at the word hearing in my original link, step 4 says "possibly broadening the inquiry into other subjects", thus implying that there has been an ongoing "inquiry". Would you say that inquiry doesn't imply investigation. And in any event, I can't conceive of a hearing that doesn't involve investigation of some sort. There are all kinds of investigations. The word doesn't apply to just one rigid formula. And anyhow, if the process enumerated above was not meant to imply an investigation, it may as well skip everything else and go right to the vote on impeachment.

With regard to the poll you cited above, that applies to impeachment AND conviction. 30% of respondents believe that Bush should be impeached AND removed from office. That is far different that believing that impeachment hearings ought to be held to consider impeaching him, which is the equivalent of what the poll I cited said. If 30% feel that he ought to be convicted, I would think that the percent who feel that impeachment hearings ought to be held to consider the evidence against him would be far higher than that.

[GOTV]

40. Look at the definition again

Here is the whole thing

"A hearing is a meeting or session of a Senate, House, Joint, or Special Committee of Congress, usually open to the public, to obtain information and opinions on proposed legislation, conduct an investigation, or evaluate/oversee the activities of a government department or the implementation of a Federal law. In addition, hearings may also be purely exploratory in nature, providing testimony and data about topics of current interest."

I don't want to get into a debate that sounds like a 2nd amendment debate, but, to me, and my understanding of the english language, this definition contains a list of items that are normal, but not required aspects of a hearing. The construction "That, that or the other thing" does not mean "this AND that AND the other thing". You'll note all the ORs above.

Look at the first clause "A hearing is a meeting or session of a Senate, House, Joint, or Special Committee of Congress". Does that mean to you that a hearing must involve a meeting AND a session of the Senate AND the house AND a joint committee of congress AND a special committee of congress? Of course not. It may be any of those things. Likewise, as stated further on the purpose of a hearing may be:

* to obtain information and opinions on proposed legislation
* conduct an investigation
* evaluate/oversee the activities of a government department or the implementation of a Federal law

any of those things

You say that an investigation is required - do you also think that a hearing MUST be related to "proposed legislation". It's in the definition and given equal weight with the "investigation" phrase. If an investigation is REQUIRED then it must also be REQUIRED that the hearing must be related to "proposed legislation". What would be the proposed legislation in a impeachment hearing? None. An impeachment hearing is not related to proposed legislation and that's fine. The definition does not require it any more than it requires an investigation. These are only possible reasons for a hearing.

Put it another way. Suppose when they got to the hearing, there was no investigation. They just went through the articles of impeachment as presented? What mechanism is there that would stop them and force the investigation? There is none. If an investigation were to happen it's because someone decided to have an investigation.

YOU may want an investigation, THEY may want an investigation and an investigation MAY happen after the wheels of impeachment are set in motion but there is no requirement to have one.

> I can't conceive of a hearing that doesn't involve investigation of some sort.

You MUST have seen hearings that were involved no investigation. Come on. The hearings into IRS abuse was just a stream of testimony of carefully selected witnesses. Any investigation occurred BEFORE the hearing.

Where were the investigations during the Clinton impeachment? There weren't any. The investigation was done by Kenneth Starr far before. All the information presented was all the information that was had at the beginning. It was information the public already had and didn't care about. And it failed - as will ours if we don't do our homework BEFORE we take the test.

> With regard to the poll you cited above,

Did you look at the rest of the page? And do you really thing the public, the general poll answering public, considers the difference between impeachment and conviction?

Well, even if you do, there's another poll on that page, still more recent than the poll you cited and does NOT mention removal from office:

"Regardless of how you plan to vote, if the Democrats win this year's congressional elections do you think it would be right for them to try to impeach President Bush over the Iraq war and weapons of mass destruction, or not?"

Would Be Right 30% Would not be right 62%

Here's another, also more recent

"Democratic Congressman John Conyers has called for creation of a committee to look into impeaching Bush and removing him from office. Do you think Congress should or should not impeach Bush and remove him from office?"

Should 33% Should not 66%

So, now I've given you 3 polls, from different sources (but on that page I gave you) with different wording, ALL more recent than the poll you cite and ALL giving approximately the same ratio of 2 to 1 against impeachment.

I understand that you might be able to find some way of rationalizing that all these polls are less accurate and your poll of more than a year ago, based on a conditional, is really a truer picture of the American attitude of impeachment today, but I think you would find it hard to convince anyone else who had access to all this polling data that you were right.

Can you not admit that the true support for impeachment is PROBABLY closer to 33% than 52% based on a larger view of the polling? Even if we split the difference, it would only be minority support of about 42%

Can you not further admit that your reading of that definition is probably flawed?

[ProudDad]

42. You say potato

I say potato....

[GOTV]

41. Another one from that page

Again, from 2006, more recent than your poll

"Do you think Congress should take action to impeach President Bush and consider removing him from office, or not?"

Should 26% Should not 69%

This one says explicitly "CONSIDER removing him from office"

Almost 70% in this poll, from 2006, said that congress should not take action to impeach President Bush and consider removing him from office.

I don't see how you can possibly, without more recent polling, base an argument on majority support for impeachment. You can appeal to a gut feeling, but I don't see it in the data.

[MGKrebs]

32. Just because they are not required doesn't mean you shouldn't have them.

Of course, there are times when an investigation isn't even necessary. Let's say, for example, that the Vice President were to shoot someone in the head... oh wait, bad example. Um, how about this; let's say there was video documentation of the President being shocked into incapacitation at the time of great crisis... dang, another bad example. OK, seriously, the President loses his mind and drives his pickup right through the middle of Camp Casey, and 17 people have the video. No real investigation needed (I hope). But just about anything short of that is going to take a little kissing and hugging before the knife is produced. It just creates the opportunity to not miss the target.

Many people think Saddam got railroaded, and they even had the semblance of an investigation.

[GOTV]

37. I think you and I agree.

The OP was saying that there's no real difference between those that say "investigations first" and those that say "impeachment now" in relationship to investigations because impeachment requires investigations.

I tried to say that the OP's own sources show that an investigative step is not necessary.

I think we need investigations first to get as large a percentage of public support as we can to force Senators to vote for conviction. - because I don't believe that enough of the Senators will vote based on teh evidence.

So I'm definitely for investigations.

[Independent_Liberal]

27. K&R!

[Kurovski]

29. Impeachment is sometimes a duty.

This is one of those times.