Why Don't They Just IMPEACH Bush on Obstruction of Justice Charges?

[The Cleaner]

Or will Bush's Executive Privilege argument hold water? It just seems to me his arrogance and defiance is so blatantly unconstitutional they'd be seriously looking at impeachment at this point.

Your thoughts?

"If the President does it, then it's legal" - Richard M. Nixon

[npincus]

1. Executive privilege may not apply

the WH is on record (Tony Snow) as saying that B*sh was not aware of the decision to fire the US attorneys, that he did not participate in the decision to fire them. That it was done by advisors. SO... if they were not in an advisory role in this matter, if they acted independently of the Chief Executive's knowedge or input, how are they protected by "Executive Privilege"?

It may not apply here.

[TahitiNut]

6. Under any definition of 'reasonable' and 'logical,' I agree.

(1) As you say, they've stated that Chimpy McCodpiece wasn't invilved in the discussions, and
(2) They've volunteered to disclose 'everything relevant' in meetings with Congress, but

... they refuse to make such disclosures under oath. In other words, they want to lie and not be held to account for lying.

There are no 'communications' between advisors and the pResident to which a 'privilege' applies and it takes a truly sick mind to believe there's any Constitutional protection for lying to Congress and the People.

[jobycom]

7. Tony Snow wasn't under oath, though, as far as I know.

Bush could claim Snow was just speaking off the top of his head, or that he misunerstood the situation, or even that he was deliberately misleading the public because the real answer was classified. I don't think Snow's comments have any legal bearing, except as pieces of evidence. Snow is just the PR dude for the White House. Nobody believes PR dudes, anyway. Well, except Freepers, but I was referring to sentient beings.

Could be wrong, of course. Just my thoughts.

[Kelly Rupert]

2. Because they don't have the votes. n/t

[pat_k]

13. They have more than enough votes to impeach.

And since voting to impeach (House members) and voting to remove (Senator) is the only way to break the bonds of complicity with the War Criminals in the WH, Members of the Democratic caucus better do it and do it soon for their own sake, for the sake of the Party, and for the sake of the nation. If they don't, they are likely to find themselves being blamed for WWIII just as the Dems are currently being blamed for failing to oppose the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF).

I don't mean to single you out. "Don't have the votes" is a pervasive rationalization for their immoral and politically insane "off the table" edict, but I find it mystifying to hear reasonable people invoking this rationalization. Standing and fighting for principle, win or lose, ALWAYS benefits those who do so, not just morally, but politically.

The "losers" -- the 133 Representatives and 23 Senators -- who opposed the Authorization to Use Military Force have reaped, and continue to reap, political benefits. (They undoubtedly cite that vote daily, as Obey did in his "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAlkfYczY4c">caught on tape" "dust up" with Tina Richards).

If it's a "waste of time" to vote against something likely to pass, or to vote for something unlikely to pass, why do our so-called leaders spend so much time touting such votes?

The REAL "waste of time" is refusing to do the ONLY thing capable of stopping Bush and Cheney, and instead, doing things that are incapable of making them even blink.

Those who voted for the AUMF surrendered their power to declare war. They abdicated their duty to serve as the voice of the people in the most grave decision a nation can make: whether or not to go to war. ("It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war," Woodrow Wilson) They became complicit in the War Crimes Bush committed with the power they surrendered to him.

When Pelosi surrendered the ONLY weapon capable of defending the Constitution against attack, she abdicated her first duty -- the duty to support and defend the Constition against all enemies, foriegn and domestic. She became an "after the fact" accomplice by giving Bush and Cheney cover for their attacks on our Constitution. ("We aren't abusing power or subverting the Constitution. If we were, Congress, sworn to defend the Constitution, would impeach. If there were any doubt, Pelosi wouldn't have taken impeachment off the table.)

Perhaps if the leadership had gone all out to oppose the AUMF, they could have stopped Bush from waging his war. If the burden of committing the nation to that "fearful thing" had been theirs, perhaps more of them would have heeded the warnings of manufactured "evidence." Perhaps they would have realized that the threat of "mushroom clouds over our cities in 45 minutes" was the most colossal bomb threat in our history. Or maybe they still would have "lost." Perhaps Bush, Cheney, et al., would have successfully terrorized our representatives into declaring war.

We will never know how events would have unfolded. But we do know that the moral burden of complicity in the War has stained and dragged down the entire Democratic Party. The Party cannot escape that stain. It is done.

There is still time for Pelosi and the Democrats to save themselves. Pelosi can redeem herself at any time by saying "I was wrong" and leading the fight to impeach. Any Member can break their bonds of complicity by introducing articles of impeachment, co-sponsoring the resolution, making the case for impeachment, and voting for it when the time comes.

Just as we cannot know how events would have unfolded if the leadership had fought the AUMF, we cannot know how impeachment would unfold until the events are behind us. When they get serious about impeachment, Bush and Cheney could be out stunningly fast. It may never go to the Senate. When charges are on the table, Bush and Cheney may find that few Republicans are willing to defend them -- and that many are pressuring them to resign "for the good of the Party" and to keep the WH in Republican hands. If articles of impeachment do get voted down in the Senate, the House can just vote out another set of charges. Unlike the AUMF, impeachment is not a one-shot deal. They have enough for at least a half-dozen impeachments. While we cannot know the outcome, we do know that those who fight for impeachment will no longer be accomplices. The impeachers will be on the right side of history, a place I'm sure they all hope to be.

[rwenos]

3. It's About the Evidence

Moving forward with an impeachment vote now, or very shortly, would be to move forward without the whole picture. Moreover, moving forward without slam-dunk evidence would be reckless -- if one thinks of the House as the grand jury, and the Senate as the trial jury, it is logical to let the House do its investigative work first. Bush and his minions can twist in the wind for months, while the House investigators do their work. If you recall 1974, you will remember how the Nixon Administration was on the defensive on a broad front, for many months before the articles of impeachment came to a vote in the House Judiciary Committee.

In short, a quick indictment and unsuccessful trial, without an adequate paper trail developed by a THOROUGH House investigation, leading to an early acquittal in the Senate could backfire. Big time.

Moreover, are you in a hurry to make Dick Cheney President?

Patience is a virtue.

[leftofthedial]

4. none of this has an iota to do with law or justice or right and wrong

this is 100% politics.

We, in the public, are outraged because of the blatant illegality, injustice, wrongdoing and amorality of the repuke bush cabal.

None of that matters in the slightest anymore in "our government."

[Bitwit1234]

5. They know we don't have the votes and they are flaunting it.

That's why bush and his henchmen are doing anything they want. They know the senators in office who rubber stamped any thing he did, will not cave and vote for impeachment.

Example. Hagel-his rhetoic about bush this and bush that and get out of Iraq. The first vote they take he votes against it. And he was one of the two who voted not to take the AG power to appoint attorneys away.

[AndyA]

8. It's my understanding that Executive Privilege only covers conversations between the President

and another person. It does not extend to his staff, unless those conversations are directly with the President.

So, if Karl Rove and Harriet Miers met with Bush, Executive Privilege would apply. But if Harriet and Karl later discussed their conversation with the President without his presence, that is no longer covered by Executive Privilege.

The best example is this: if a person hires an attorney, and meets with the attorney, that conversation is privileged. If other members of the law firm are at the meeting, it is covered. But if the client brings 2 friends or relatives to the meeting, it is no longer privileged because of the others in attendance.

So, if Bush truly knew nothing about the USA issue, there is no Executive Privilege because he wasn't a participant in the conversations.

[jobycom]

9. He'd have to be guilty of them first, and obstruction isn't necesarily impeachable.

The Constitution only allows impeachment of the President for treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors (which has a clear legal meaning--despite the Republicans' misuse of it under Clinton--of distinctly political crimes meant to harm the state). Obstruction CAN be a high crime, but it has to rise to the level of an attack on the US government. The Republicans, who ignored that fact under Clinton, would likely get educated really fast once Bush is impeached.

On top of that, Bush hasn't committed, as far as we've proven, obstruction, so far. He can claim executive priviledge on a number of grounds to block subpoenas. Then it would be up to us to prove he can't apply executive priviledge in that case, and ultimately it would go to SCOTUS. IF they rule that he must answer the subpoenas, and he still refuses, then he could be impeached, and we'd probably have the votes to remove him.

If we catch him destroying evidence, that could be obstruction. If we catch him coordinating his story with other witnesses or threatening witnesses or any number of things, that could be obstruction. If we can prove it.

But so far his saying he won't honor subpoenas isn't obstruction, especially since they haven't even been issued, so we don't know how he will really react when they are.

[pat_k]

11. The wide-spread, but flat wrong, legalistic view of impeachment. . .

. . .is perhaps our biggest barrier to making impeachment a reality.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=482506&mesg_id=486063

[jobycom]

12. That's just flat wrong. There is no "vague guidance," there is concrete criteria.

Treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors are very specific crimes, and treason is even further spelled out in the Constitution. Further, the Constitution is explicit. The president is "tried" by Congress. It is not a political proceeding, it is a legal proceeding, even presided over by the Chief Justice.

Much of the reason Bill Clinton wasn't removed after he was impeached was because even some Republicans realized that the crimes were not impeachable. If it had been a simple question of guilt or innocence on the charges, more would have voted him guilty. Only the understanding that the Constitution was being violated saved Clinton's job.

Even if the Senate had voted to remove, Clinton could have appealed to SCOTUS on the Constitutionality of the ruling. We have not reached that stage as a nation, so we do not yet know what will happen when we do, but you can be sure Bush will take us there if they vote to remove him. Then what?

What you are arguing is essentially that Congress can impeach and remove a president for littering or wearing plaid if they want to. If the Founders had wanted that, they would not have included strict legal charges for impeachment, they would have left it deliberately vague. They did not leave it vague. It was not meant to be vague. If it is ever ruled to be as vague as you want it to be, we will never have a Democratic president preside a full term again.

I don't know if you wrote the linked post, or were citing someone else, or if you are a scholar of the subject yourself, but in any case, you are flat wrong. The Constitution calls impeachment a trial, and it appoints the Chief Justice to serve as judge, and it lays out indisputable limits on what crimes are impeachable. Any other interpretation is just wrong, and frankly, nullifies the Constitution far worse than anything Bush has done so far. I'd rather have Bush for two more years and have a somewhat intact Constitution than have Cheney for two more years and have no further limits on partisan bullshit in Congress.

[pat_k]

14. Sure, if members could muster the political will, they could impeach for littering. . .

. . .They'd probably not be able to do so, but if an individual Member was firmly convinced that littering posed a threat to the Constitution or was otherwise an intolerable abuse of power, that Member would be morally-obligated by their oath to protect the Constitution to introduce articles of impeachment for littering. Their "litter" articles probably wouldn't get far, and the member would hopefully be voted out for such silliness, but that would be up to the Member's constituents.

The term "high crimes and misdemeanors" is vague. Intentionally so.

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. While it may not be your intention, claims that legal standards apply to impeachment are typically associated with attempts to trump the will of the people by telling them they "don't understand" and must bow to authority because it is all so "complex" when the reality is staring us in the face.

The reality that is staring us in the face right now is that it is lunacy to think the Constitution for the United States of America gives (or even might give) give any official of our government the unitary authoritarian power to flagrantly violate our laws. You do not need an expert to weigh in. You don't need a law degree, or even a high school degree, to know that such absolute power is NEVER freely given to a leader; it is only taken by deception or force.

Too many Americans have been deceived into believing that they are helpless in the face of legal authority. Even when we are in complete agreement that the intent of our law is is being overruled by claims of "legal technicality" or "complexity" we have submitted to claims that some authority must "know better."

Like the story of the Emporer's New Clothes, sometimes the "authorities" and "sophisticated" are taken in far more easily than the naive. If we are to preserve our constitutional democracy, ordinary Americans must trust their own judgment and demand the actions those judgments require.

[jobycom]

16. You're just still way wrong.

Here's the Constitution: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Notice a few words in there. First, "try." As in a legal trial. Second, "preside." The Chief Justice presides, he doesn't observe, he's not an innocent bystander. He presides. Third, "convicted." These are legal terms. Not political terms. This is a legal trial. It is the role of the Supreme Court to determine whether federal laws were followed, thus, the Supreme Court absolutely has a say in whether a conviction is valid, and the fact that the Chief Justice "presides--" not observes--proves that the Founders meant the laws to be followed in this case.

And once again, "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not vague in any sense. It has a very specific legal meaning--distinctly political crimes meant to harm the state. In other words, the Founders clearly laid out that the only way a president could be removed from office is if it could be proven in a trial that he or she had deliberately tried to bring about harm to the state. The issue of whether a president could be removed for simply doing a bad job that incidentally brought about harm to the state was discussed, and rejected. There was much sentiment to not allow a president to be impeached for any reason. Remember what time frame we are talking about here. The only real equivalent to a president most of our Founders could imagine was a king, and a king served for life. The Founders believed that a four year term was too short a time to screw things up, and that it would do more harm than good to allow Congress to remove a president, because Congress would have too much power and would act on political motivations. Thus, the Founders put very rigid legal requirements for impeachment into the Constitution. It is not deliberately vague, it is deliberately firm. They wanted impeachment to be difficult, and to only apply to cases of a clear enemy of the state in the White House. Otherwise they would have put in an allowance for other serious crimes.

Some of what Bush is accused of could be considered "high crimes and misdemeanors," no doubt. Lying to get us into war, fixing evidence, subverting the functions of government for his own personal (or political) gain--all of that could arguably be considered crimes meant to damage the state. But to prove it, we need evidence, and we need evidence of intention.

As for calling me a fascist... It's fascist to believe that Congress can ignore the Constitution and force their will on the country for political reasons. It's not fascist to require all branches of government to obey the law.

[pat_k]

18. {edited 11:40 ET} The U.S. Code that deifines "high crimes and misdemeanors" ??

Perhaps you can find it.

With no Federal statute defining it, it is vague guidance. It is up to each Member of Congress to judge the meaning for themselves, just as it is up to each citizen to judge.

Each Member decides for themselves the basis on which they make that judgment. Some may invoke some 'theory" advanced by some authority. Others may reject the same "theories." Some may look to impeachments of the past. Some may go to their constituents. Some may look only into their own hearts and apply the principles and values they believe define a True America, regardless of what their constituents say about it. Some may decide that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required; others may believe that, when it comes to defending the Constitution against subversion, probable cause is enough. A Members thinking could be transformed at any time in response to arguments from citizens or colleagues.

They would all be "right" as long as they realize that the judgment is theirs to make -- that while they may look to external authorities, there is no external authority that trumps their personal understanding of their duty, their oath, the Constitution, and the intent of our law (not its letter). I do not think the Republicans were making such a judgment when they voted out articles of impeachment against Clinton, but I cannot know their minds or hearts.

Whatever a Member bases their judgment on, if the public rejects their case, you can bet they'll make it known, as they did in the case of Clinton's impeachment. The fact that impeachment is subject to pressure from the electorate makes it a political process. We go to great pains to keep public opinion out of our judicial processes. We do the opposite with impeachment and the making of our laws -- pressure from the electorate is central.

The trappings of a legal process do not a legal process make. Words like "trial" do not make a process a judicial process. Law schools hold mock "trials" that have all the trappings of a judicial process too, but that does not make them a judicial process. In that case, the purpose is educational.

The purpose of impeachment is to withdraw our consent by removing an official from power. We gave the power to Congress. Members of Congress are our representatives in the creation of our law. Their actions precede all Federal law. Unlike the changes they make to U.S. Code, impeachment is not subject to judicial review. Impeachment is intended to be a direct expression of our will at a given moment; an expression of our will that cannot be trumped U.S. Code, the courts, or external legal authority. As I have already pointed out, if we intended it to be a legal process, we would have given the power to the courts. We did not.

It is really quite simple.

I have called you no names. I will repeat, I am not singling you out. Being a victim of fascist propaganda does not make a person a fascist. You echo the pervasive view that impeachment is a judicial/legal process, when it is in fact a Congressional/political process. I challenge this incredibly destructive view when I encounter it because it is a view that allows fascists to gain power by claiming things are just "too legally complex" for us ordinary mortals.

[pat_k]

15. And, BTW, the role of chief justice is to run things as dictated by the Senate . . .

. . as a body. (i.e., Senate rules and specific processes negotiated and agreed upon under those rules).

Once again, political processes of Congress, not judicial processes, govern.

The Chief Justice has no independent role in enforcing any law outside that which the Senate applies to itself in the process.

There is NO appeal on impeachment. Clinton could not have appealed to SCOTUS. If Members of SCOTUS tried to cook up some fantasy power to put an official Congress had impeached and removed back into office, Congress could impeach and remove the offending Justices.

Contrary to what the fascists would have us believe, the branches do NOT share power equally. We put a big fat thumb on the scales when we gave Congress the power to impeach. As the body closest to the people and responsible for codifying our will in the laws and resolutions they pass, that is as it should be.

Your point that members concluded that, in their judgment, the articles of impeachment against Clinton did not constitute impeachable offenses is true. Each member had to make the judgment for themselves. As I pointed out:

Members of Congress must make a personal judgment grounded in moral principle and the intent of the law. There are no legalisms or complex 'technicalities' that can trump reality. They must be guided by their oath and their conscience.

Members of the House must decide for themselves what constitutes an impeachable offense. The House as a body defines the what steps are necessary or unnecessary to impeach. Senators decide for themselves whether articles of impeachment transmitted from the House merit impeachment, and what standard of proof to apply.

[pat_k]

10. They have more powerful cases, but of course Members could impeach. . .

. . .for obstruction of justice. WH claims that conversations on things Bush says he wasn't even party to are somehow covered by "executive priveledge" are absurd. Just as intelligent design must be rejected from the realm of science, such fascist fantasies must be rejected from the realm of reality. But, even if their fantasies had any basis in reality, there's enough in the public record to make a half-dozen far simpler cases for impeachment (and we just need one).

Perhaps the biggest barrier to impeachment is the wide-spread, but flat wrong, legalistic view of it. People talk about having "insufficient proof" -- mistakenly limiting themselves to violations of law and applying the same threshold of proof that would apply in a court of law. Cases to impeach Bush and Cheney could meet the highest standards, but we don't need to even get into whether or not we meet judicial standards because they don't apply in the first place.

If We the People wanted impeachment to be a legal process, we would wouldn't have delegated it the courts, not Congress. We empowered Congress -- our Voice -- for a reason. Impeachment is the means by which we withdraw our consent from our government officials for whatever reason we may dictate. (Not that Bush and Cheney ever obtained our consent in a legitimate election in the first place, but that is another topic)

If Members of the House can't face up to the reality the Bush and Cheney have turned the USA into a War Criminal nation that spies on it's citizens, they could impeach them for being incapable of defending the nation. They cried "wolf" too many times with manufactured "evidence" (or incompetent "mistakes"). They've rendered them incapable of mobilizing effective response to a real threat because any "evidence" from them is suspect.

Congress could even impeach and remove Bush and Cheney for exhibiting a level of irrationality that poses a threat to the integrity of our constitutional democracy.

From http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/20

. . .

• Impeachment is bound only by the intentionally vague guidance provided by our Constitution; judicial processes are bound by our substantial body of written law and precedent.
  
  Members of Congress must make a personal judgment grounded in moral principle and the intent of the law. There are no legalisms or complex 'technicalities' that can trump reality. They must be guided by their oath and their conscience.
  
  Members of the House must decide for themselves what constitutes an impeachable offense. The House as a body defines the what steps are necessary or unnecessary to impeach. Senators decide for themselves whether articles of impeachment transmitted from the House merit impeachment, and what standard of proof to apply.


• The interests that an impeachment seeks to balance are very different from the interests that a criminal prosecution seeks to balance.
  
  
  • In a criminal trial, the standard of proof seeks to strike a balance between mistakenly:
    1. depriving a citizen of their rights
    2. releasing a guilty individual
    
    When balanced against the sanctity of our civil rights, the risk of releasing a guilty person loses.
    
    To tip the scales in favor of protecting civil rights, a very high standard of proof is applied (beyond reasonable doubt).
  
  
  • In an impeachment, the standard of proof seeks to strike a balance between mistakenly
    1. depriving an official of the privilege of power
    2. leaving power in the hands of an official who is subverting the Constitution or otherwise abusing that power
    
    Each Senator must decide for themselves what standard to apply, but when balanced against the sanctity of our Constitution, the risk of mistakenly depriving an official of the privilege of power should lose, particularly when you consider that power is granted to elected officials; it is not a basic civil right.
    
    To tip the scales in favor of protecting the Constitution, a lower standard of proof is required (e.g., probable cause, preponderance of the evidence). When Members of Congress, opinion leaders, or fellow citizens assert that a higher standard applies, we should challenge them whenever possible.
  
  In the case of Bush and Cheney, we have proofs that meet a standard much higher than impeachment calls for.
  . . .

[Venus Dog]

17. Because then we'd be left with Cheney

They must go after Cheney first!

I say, let this play out, let the evidence pile sky high, expose every pus-filled pimple, every criminal aspect (including their MSM lackeys), drive them off one by one in scandal and shame and let the cheese stand alone. No more protection!

Then, at the end of this nightmare, before lord pissypants can give his gang pardons as he flies off to Paraguay on Jan 21 2009 - start impeachment proceedings in the last months - say around the time of the election.

I can dream can't I? :kick:

[Time for change]

19. I agree -- but they ought to add numerous other charges and go after Cheney at the same time

Here's something I just posted on that:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x488139