Login Here 
(Photo of a well pump via DanaWall.)
I have been really slammed at work trying to prep a trial and so have been mostly confining my FDL time to reading the front pages and trying to catch up on the comments late at night. Consequently I have not been able to be an active participant in the threads lately.
But I have seen many, many comments expression frustration about why impeachment is not front and center in the discussions on Capital Hill. Many of you believe that more than enough evidence exists to convict Cheney and maybe Bush as well. Let me give you a couple things to think about and I suspect that Christy may back me up here.
When you are going to bring a case to trial you have two standards to think about:
The first is, do I have a prima facia case? That is, do I have at least one piece of admissable evidence to support each and every element on which I bear the burden of proof?
The second is: Do I have a case that can win before the jury I expect to be before?
Here in NY, Bronx juries are legendary for giving out huge verdict awards in personal injury cases where the defendant is a big corporation or anyone who appears to be any kind of fat cat. So, if you are defense attorney in a personal injury case in the Bronx, you know that you really have to go very far above and beyond what the law requires if you want the jury to find in favor of you client.
Now let's think about the jury that we KNOW will be hearing any impeachment case that might come in the next 2 years. Unlike your average jury trial situation where you may have some ideas about the generic makeup of your jury pool, but no idea until after jury selection about your actual individual jurors; in the case of impeachment, we already know exactly which individuals will be sitting on the jury PLUS we already know (or can find out with minimal research skills) a great deal about what they believe and think and what motivates them. In short, it is not hard to figure out where their "buttons" are.
So, if you want to start a virtual think tank effort to put together an indictment in the form of Articles of Impeachment that can persuade THIS JURY, what would you put in it? What admissable evidence is there? How much of that admissable evidence and how persuasive is it? In what order and through what testimony or exhibits would you introduce it?
This is known as setting your "order of proof." In my firm is done as a written plan.
Next, you want to prime the pump. Unlike a regular jury where it is unethical and illegal to try to influence a juror, in this instance it is entirely proper to do so in a transparent way.
If you live in a state with a republican senator, it is entirely lawful and proper for you and as many of your fellow constituents as you can muster, to write to, telephone, email, telegram or in person lobby your elected representative to the US Senate and to express you opinion that that you believe the following acts (whichever ones you choose) violate the following laws (the virtual think tank can be a big help here). Aso, that you believe that this constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors and that you believe it is the duty of that Senator to reflect the wishes of the people that Senator has been elected to represent should that Senator be called upon to vote on the issue.
Believe you me, if they are flooded with constituent demands (this is not a one day effort, think in terms of weeks or months) you will see them at least soften up, and maybe outright start talking impeachment friendly talk. Among other things you will have given them a ton of political cover enabling them to vote the way you want.
Seeing that, our Representatives in the House will know that the time has come to start building that prosecutable case from the fruits of the now open ended investigations.
Further, we know that DC watches what we do, so the virtual think tank can provide a road map to building that case and selecting the strongest and most effective charges. You want Congress (both houses) to impeach and convict, you gotta give them some help and guidance, and some political cover.
This is what you call participatory democracy. Roll your sleeves up and start priming that pump.
Share This 
Spotlight
Zed again!
Well, this gives us with Brownback and Roberts a specific task. Thanks for the long view, also, that it will take months, without a sympathetic response. I’ll take the analogy of water and wind, but remember the Grand Canyon as a result.
LHP!!!! I have been wondering what you’ve been up to lately!
Great post. As I watch Conyers and Leahy doggedly work to expose the malfeasance of the Bush admin, it has occurred to me that they are following a strategy right out of the Fitz playbook. They are following evidence very carefully and thoroughly. And when they do find something (and they will), then there will be good evidence for impeachment.
It will take time, but the results will be worth it. It is also worth remembering that the real prize will be the 2008 elections. And as the Republicans begin to really “get” this (and I am sure many like Specter already have) they will begin to turn on this admin in an attempt to save their own seats.
This is what you call participatory demoracy.
Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has a description of Iraq that should promptly be adopted by the Democratic Party and its presidential candidates. In brief, with some elaboration, we didn’t “lose” the war. We won it. Hands down. That was in early 2003.
The Iraqi occupation has been a miserable failure because its premises were false. We started the war on cooked intelligence, there were no WMD’s, there was no al Qaeda connection and no imminent threat to US security.
Iraqis didn’t and could not have welcomed us long term as liberators because we weren’t. We didn’t topple a govt, maintain security, arrange int’l peacekeeping pending establishment of an interim govt, and leave. We stayed. We occupied. We wanted the oil and permanent military bases. We did not want Iraqis able to choose the govt they wanted. We wanted a compliant regime that would serve our own interests.
We didn’t establish security or give Iraqis reliable food, water or power. We can’t even give them their own oil. We didn’t arrange int’l peacekeeping. It was a patently US operation, w/ Brits in the South, away from the main action in Baghdad. We botched govt transition efforts. No surprise, since we schizophrenically threw out years of detailed planning about how to do them and expected success to just happen. When you do that, it’s only the shit that happens.
All of our efforts since 2003 have been to deny the foregoing. To deny the arrogance, miscalculations, and lies. Everything lost since then has been to stay in that state of denial, like a drunk who can’t put the keys in the ignition, but insists he can drive home. Josh’s analogy is that Shrub keeps walking into a paper bag of denial, when he could easily walk out again. Not easily fix the many problems or regain the lives lost, but end the denial.
We need to reframe the debate. It’s not about winning or losing a war. It’s not fighting “them” over there so they don’t come over here. Richard Clarke calls that a surreal “puppy dog” version of terrorism, describing an international conspiracy as if it could attack an enemy only where its enemy chooses.
Like trying to stop drinking, we can’t begin to deal with Iraq until we admit our false premises and ask for help. This President is famous for never doing that, lest his mandhood and the magnitude of his failings come to light. Democrats are not so handicapped, and should stop acting as if they are.
Democrats need to start acting responsibly and reframe the problem because the President can’t, and start proposing solutions. That includes making clear to Americans whom Mr. Bush has kept in a state of denial along with him, that they won’t come easy, won’t come cheap, and won’t necessarily work. I think everybody might breath a collective sigh of relief, and begin to see light at the end of a tunnel, rather than the dark end of a paper bag.
NZ Expat, now in KS @
2
Don’t be surprised if you could get Brownback. He’s an asshole, but he’s his own asshole.
Roberts, on the other hand, is just out on loan from BushCo’s stable of assholes.
Lawyer’s nitpick: it’s “prima facie,” not “prima facia.”
Woodhall Hollow @ 3
Yep, Conyers, Leahy< waxman they all get it. First you have to uncover the facts, then you have to see which laws fit your facts, then you evalutate the strength of your case to pursuade your jury</p>
Drip, drip, drip baby!
They have only scratched the surface so far wrt investigating this pack of backscuttlers.
The more the merrier when they hit paydirt.
A cat in every tree!
Arminius @ 7
Wow two typos in only 7 comments. I really wish I could type
Excellent post, LHP, long time no see…, please refresh my memory; isn’t it a simple majority in the House to draw up and pass articles of impeachment, but a super-majority in (60 1) the Senate to convict?
“Next, you want to prime the pump. Unlike a regular jury where it is unethical and illegal to try to influence a juror, in this instance it is entirely proper to do so in a transparent way.”
Yes. And when one takes this step make sure the facts are cautious, very relevant and iron clad. And non-emotional. I try do this. Sometimes I fail and disappoint myself.
Compliments on this post. ;0)
Yeay! Homework!!!
Kathryn in MA @ 13
Real Homework!!!!
earlofhuntingdon–
This is what grinds me. All Bush has to do is declare victory and begin an orderly withdrawal.
Simple, huh? Nope. Either too greedy for the oil (I’ve noticed a GOP talking point this week is once again whining about the oil “profit-sharing” law still not being passed) or too stubborn (stupid) to buy a clue.
Or both.
Does this mean I have to stop hitting refresh?
FireDogCrack is a killer.
sighhh - i have nothing to add cuz this is legal chat - as usual i’ll lurk and learn something…….
I think that it will require ONE Republican Senator to be placed in legal jeopardy by something out of the Atty Scandal or other item from the Rovian Blackberry Treasure Trove.
Once that happens they will no longer have even the dream of blocking investigations. The tipping point will be reached, and in order to avoid looking as if they are themselves complicit in a cover up there will be a general acquiescence to the events unfolding.
BTW Can other Senators challenge those that may be under a cloud regarding their direct involvement in the charges? Jurors usually can be challenged on such grounds, and Senators have to step away from conflict of interest situations.
If a Senator is sitting in judgement of a President that they, themselves, have been linked in a scandal, that would seem mandatory grounds for a recusal.
Urban Pirate @ 16
I know. I’ve now got twenty minutes to write a weeks worth of invoices. And what am I doing? Reading and typing FDL. Gah!
I don’t think I gotta do too much locally. D Rep plus Teddy and Kerry in MA.
I am pushing against the ‘impossible’ meme from regular citizens elsewhere on the web. It is only impossible if you make it impossible. Easier now that events are proving anything is possible; don’t assume facts not in evidence.
1st chance i’ve had to sit back and catch up on the lake today….ahhhhh
Lying to the people’s branch as regards Iraq, and all attendant acts of deception, breaches of national security and illegal treatment of prisoners should provide all they need. The other civil liberties stuff is probably (sadly) too “political” to gain traction in impeachment.
I believe focusing on these crimes would best serve the long-shot rehabilitation of the country’s image abroad.
Ha! Slacker.
Lol.
I just finished my paperwork and am getting ready to go have a cocktail while the rest of you good Firepups keep saving our Democracy.
lhp - sorry, another typo :-(
Capitol Hill, rather than Capital Hill
marksb @ 15
That would mean accepting the title of Worst. President. Ever.
Once it was realized that they lied re: WMD their plan of escalating and burning down Lebanon and Syria have been impossible to sell, and their PNAC plan has been stalled.
Now it’s all about salvaging the brand.
LHP -
Correct me if I’m wrong, but do you really think we will be able to win this in the Senate without some major issue that makes the Republicants fear their own reelection if they don’t vote for impeachment, i.e., some smoking gun (please forgive, considering the “mushroom cloud”, but I’m not willing to surrender our language to these thugs) that forces their hand? I don’t see anything currently that gives me hope for a conviction.
Oh, and as for Cheney, unless a fireball comes up behind Kuchinich and lights a flame to those Articles, I think he’s wasted an opportunity. I do not want that stuff deciding his fate.
I prefer his non-reporting of classification activity of OVP for years - a violation of statute. Not sure, but Gonzo plays some role…according to what I read.
But - with Libby already done in by ‘classified’ case…his boss playing fast and loose and HIS ‘boss’ delegating the magic wand about the time we launched shock/awe…it would be a nice tidy case.
ymmv.
cinnamonape @ 18
Good question!!! I believe it would require some sort of action done, to nullify their vote, i.e. Grand Jury indictment, etc…. Not sure only a Paralegal!!!
What do you do if you live in Connecticut? Does Chris Dodd figure?
CTuttle @ 11
I believe you are correct. I know you are correct about the super majority in the Seante.
So, back to the priming the pump idea we need to stiffen the spines of the Dems and start converting the Reps.
I can tell you that among former DOJ/USA people I have been speaking to, the outrage from Reps far outstrips the Dems. I think that is because the Dems never had any illusions about what sort of folks were in the WH and what they were doing.
For Reps, seeing the lipstick wiped off the pigs and realizing you have been french kissing the porcine, is just a moment of horror.
This could be a good climate for appealing to whatever shreds of idealism your Rep senators may have left inside themselves (or want to believe they have left inside themselves)
looseheadprop @
10
LHP, spotting your typos is a sincere form of flattery. Your analysis is generally spot-on, and likely to be read and forwarded and linked to . . . and we want you to look your best!
It’s also proof that what you say is being read very, very attentively.
*g*
You keep up the analysis and commentary, and leave the proofreading to the crowd of paralegals you’ve got hanging around here.
CTuttle @ 11
It takes 2/3 to convict in the Senate, that’s why I don’t think we have a snowball’s chance in hell (at this point).
So sorry! That is LIVE in CT and DODD FIGURE?
New multifocal contact lenses, not so much.
[Mod: fixed]
I refuse to buy Mr. Tenet’s book. I do not believe Mr. Tenet to be a person of principle. Else why didn’t he resign and make his suspicions public way back when? When it counted.
SAN FRANCISCO - The CIA warned the Bush White House seven months before the 2003 Iraq invasion that the U.S. could face a thicket of bad consequences, starting with “anarchy and the territorial breakup” of the country, former CIA Director George Tenet writes in a new book.
What a great post! Excellent. Here there are two juries…there’s the Congressionals that hear the case and there’s the US public. Sizeable portions of both of these bodies have, until recently at least, been whacked out on KoolAid, Rove/Ailes poison in the ear.
Those that are snapping out of it are often pissed. The “pissed-offedness of the betrayed.” Trust and faith have been shattered for these people. Still, though, I don’t know if the public is -yet- keyed into the scandals. I think it may be background noise that rumbled loudly in 2006 elections but I don’t know whether people are paying attention to the USAgate scandals…or the Abramoff scandals.
To me, the Congressionals are methodically priming the pump. Building a case that may eventually result in the Abramoff scandal and the USAgate scandal converging like two rivers. At the same time, the public is being exposed to the drip, drip, drip of the abu Gonzo debacle AND the missing e-mails/stonewalling. But the Congress is new and I feel like the public and this Congress are just getting to know each other…sniff each out.
We’re at the beginning of what Leahy, Waxman and Conyers will be revealing. I can feel it. I think they want to build the prima facie case, however, so that it is very clear in the public’s mind. Particularly with 2008 looming large.
MayDaze @ 26
Give it a week, I think we’ve sighted that ‘Mushroom Cloud’! The DoJ implosion!!!!!
juslin @ 17
Yes you do have something to add. Participatory democracy requires EVERYONE to participate.
So, what facts do you think are most important in evaluating whether or not a crime has been committed?
What scandal[s] (there are so many to chose from!) do you think are most likely to resonate with our jury of senators?
OT, sorry. I’m just curious about OKLAHOMAKIDDO’S reaction to last night’s debate.
OKK, every time Hillary’s name is mentioned , I think of you!
looseheadprop @ 30
The GOP folks I know feel much the same. The kicker to this whole deal is that most of them would slit their throats before handing the presidency to Nancy Pelosi. If things move down this road, the best (and perhaps only) way to strengthen the spines of the GOP senators would be to impeach Cheney first, allow Bush to nominate and the Congress confirm a new VP, then impeach Bush.
Of course, if we get to some additional proof of absolutely staggering malfeasance, then all bets are off.
CTuttle @ 36
Sorry, and I sincerely hope you are correct, but it’s going to take a lot more and a lot longer…
cinnamonape @ 18
You know, that’s a really good point. I think we would have to start with researching the Senate ethics rules.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 34
Ah, but this one is true. It’s in the October 2002 NIE, the one Bush and Cheney claim gave them all their WMD claims.
I just think Tenet’s book won’t have a lot of new news.
MayDaze @
26
That’s kind of what I think. These Republicans have proven themselves to be the most corrupt kind of power grabbers. They have no incentive at all to convict Bush, and every incentive not to. They’ve sat on every investigation that’s come up and rolled over on every piece of bullshit legislation that Bush throws at them, even if it means diminishing their power.
The upside is, they’re not going to last through the next election if they keep it up with this war.
Thanks for the head food, LHP. I don’t suppose you’re suggesting that we don’t lobby our Democratic Senators as well. Everyone can stand some softening, or stiffening, as it were.
And the typos? Terrific analysis that helps clarify for the rest of us gives you a lifetime pass on spelling errors.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 34
Shit, I’m a dope and that’s what I was worried about. Everyone who had concerns had those exact concerns.
Not GWB though. He was like a dot-com CEO. All dreamy eyed, with no business plan.
The super majority is a difficult hurdle. But win or lose, having impeachment hearings can’t hurt is the view here. It’s felt the court of public opinion is the most important variable.
looseheadprop @ 41
There’s no such thing as a mandatory recusal from ANYTHING for a senator. If they are sufficiently under the cloud of scandal, they might voluntarily sit back and say nothing, but the only way to force them away from voting would be to expel them from the Senate.
Georgesimian @ 43
Thanks. I think you’re right about the war, but they may “bear with” Bush for a few more months, the electorate has a short-term memory…
Are we not forcing the process to some exent, by calling for answers by way of Congressional investigations? Or are we pushing when we should begin pulling? Both?
Just a hypothetical of sorts. I understand your points LHP, but hadn’t thought that way before. Was perhaps taking the more passive Nixonian approach, whereas pressure from behind forces the outcome.
OT: Waxman wants Tillman files. All of them.
The Repugs are fed up with Bush too, but like you guys said, they don’t want Pelosi. They definitely don’t want Clinton. They’ve been force fed six years of anti-democratic bullshit about how the world is going to end if a Democrat gets elected and how awful everything was when Clinton was President. It’s going to take some time to deprogram them.
Peterr @ 39
Yeah, but in that case, we all agree that John Warner should be VP to Pres, Kaine names a new Dem Senator, and then Warner retires. Even the GOP is not going to want an incumbent President. So we get one who will be acceptable to both sides (and I think Warner would), and then start fresh in 08 with Presidnet Gore.
I’d like to add another pump-primer: let’s press TradMed to poll on impeachment, of both and each separately.
Just because my Congresswoman sez her Speaker’s table is set without it is no reason not to find out what folks think of impeaching one, the other or both evil-doers at the same time.
Petro @ 22
So, you think the most persuasive case comes from pointing out that all the hogwash churned out by the Office of Legal Counsel was crappy lawyering?
How do we avoid the “It’s all John Yoo’s fault” defense?
I’m not attacking you. This is how you hash out the analysis.
Who’s got an answer to that defense?
If I am non lawyer President and I want to know what I can and cannot do and I go to the legal advice arm and ask them “what am I allowed to do with respect to X?” and then I follow the advice they give me,
Do I have a “due diligence” defense?
looseheadprop @
30
Remembering both Nixon and Clinton it is simple majority in House but I believe it is 2/3 in Senate, i.e., 67 votes.
LoudounLib @ 24
You know the sad part? I ran spell check!
Loo Hoo @ 38
My reaction was somewhat muffled. I will vote for Senator Clinton if the Senator is the nominee of my party. ;0)!
looseheadprop @ 55
;-) And I should have said in my original comment that this is a stellar post!
LHP - Like you I’ve been off in the weeds… I just started a new job and it’s been all I can do just to read the front pages, plus keep up with Josh, Glenn, Marcy, etc.
I’ve been having the impeachment conversation quite a bit with a progressive friend who is opposed to the idea. My two cents is that impeachment will come, under the sheer weight of the scandals that the new oversight regime will uncover.
It just won’t (can’t, really - for a lot of reasons) come from the Democrats. Sooner or later, someone at the RNC is going to wake up to the stinking albatross hanging around their necks and do something that they think will save their sorry asses.
I think it’s going to come, and it’s not going to do them any good.
to all I say - patience. I think it’s coming.
OT- why is Roger Simon cackling on my tv?
He’s a gross little man. See his duplicity re: Edwards and religion? Its a doozy.
Politico is a right-wing rag - Drudge sans fedora.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com.....-just.html
Which scandals?
WMD deceptions
Tillman/Lynch spinning of the war
Katrina
Plame affair
USAtty firings
RNC email server mess
and more . . .
I think right now, the USA firings combined with the apparent skirting of the Presidential Records act to cover up any number of messes is the biggest guns that can be brought to bear. Depending on what spills out of those RNC servers . . . could be the tip of a very large iceberg.
But the calls now are important. Put it on their radar, and keep it there as more unfolds.
looseheadprop @ 55
That’s the hell of spellcheck - doesn’t catch that kind of thing.
Maydaze@40, Ahh, Ye of little Faith…, I think Henry will not fail, and, Comey’s forthcoming testimony shall dispel all reservations!!!!
emptywheel @ 51
I second the motion of the Gentlelady from Michigan. All those in favor? . . .
Urban Pirate @
25
You said it. But you forgot one point: Iran. They’re trying to extend the “brand,” if you will, to another “axis of evil.” Only problem: the Army is broken. Can barely survive the extended and repeated deployments required by Shrubby’s failed policy in Iraq. Even Petraeus, in his counterinsurgency manual (see today’s NYTimes) calls for at least 120,000 soldiers IN BAGHDAD ALONE to quell the civil war. Something on the order of — Gen. Shinseki, anyone? — 300,000 for the nation.
And Shrubya wants to start a NEW war?
Well, I say, fine and good. As long as he and his whole family enlist. Let THEM be terrorist-fodder for a change. They started the war; let ‘em finish it themselves.
Help! I want to participate in priming the pump, but here in Hawaii, I’m at work for another 3 hours, and by the time I get home, this thread will be dead.
Can FDL set this post as a “never die” thread until impeachment is done? How about, in fact, FOUR never-die impeachment threads, accessible on the side-bars, for
* Cheney
* Gonzales
* Rove
* Bush
Each thread to stay alive until that person is impeached and articles of impeachment are approved by the House of Reps!!!
There are about 6 books already published calling for the impeachment of Bush & Cheney, so we’ve got a whole lot to chew on right there. Each “thread” could have sub-threads as Articles of Impeachment are proposed, refined, and re-defined.
This could be done in Wikipedia fashion, with an FDL maven in charge of each impeachment page as editor in chief. The Wikipedia portion would be the top portion of each Article of Impeachment, with a looser bottom portion for discussion and comments.
This could be a really great project!!!
I’d put money on it. But not for another 3 hours. . . . . A-A-a-a-a-r-r-r-r-g-h-h-h!!!
Bob in HI
Looseheadprop,
Thanks for the brain food. Unfortunately, I believve both of my senators here in Texas are on loan so probably not much good will come of contacting them, although I have tried.
Peterr,
I believe you are correct on expulsion being the only way a senator does not vote on this, if I remember reading correctly from the presidency classes low those years ago.
Larry Johnson on KO NOW
TeddySanFran @ 52
Yes. hmmm…start with a question to WaPo chat, perhaps?
looseheadprop @ 55
Both are legal spellings, just depends on usage. That’s why spell check is only good for so much.
MayDaze @ 26
That’s why we have to lobby them. One at a time, patiently, painstakingly raising their consciousness about these scandals.
Did you read EW’s last post right below? They don’t know half aas much (OK maybe anything at all) about this stuff as we do. You have to make it loom as large in their minds as it does in ours.
Really, the people here are so much better informed than just about anybody in DC. We have to educate these folks!
Calicocat7 @ 33
How do those work for you? I would love to get some. Or maybe use one lens that’s for myopia and the other lens for farsightedness.
CTuttle @ 62
Like I said, CT, nothing would make he happier! I just don’t see the Republicants being convinced to vote for impeachment. Maybe something “dreadful enough” will come out, but until it does, I’m not convinced.
emptywheel @ 51
Plausible Marcy, yet, unlikely!(at least the Gore part)
mayan @ 35
I agree. There is one very small thing that can be done to nudge this along: Talk to your friends. Email them. In a very tiny way, one by one, I am having an effect by keeping friends informed. Especially friends who are neither news junkies nor necessarily Dems. Just keep your apolitical friends apprised of all the scandals, and the progress therein. You’d be surprised what a difference it can make.
Bush has gotten a lot of saying that it’s OK if he breaks the law because he’s doing it to protect America. I would guess that these would be the hardest to get through the Repug Senate, no matter what the evidence.
So that would take out torture, Gitmo, wiretapping and most of Iraq. I think that the American people who fell for the Iraq story don’t want to think about the fact that they were duped. It makes you feel stupid, so they want to just forget about the reasons we went in and deal with it (or not). I hate that, but I think that’s how most Repugs tie into this.
So the best bets are probably with these new charges about using Government offices to advance Repugs. But what would the Repugs gain from impeaching Bush on this? He was doing it for them. So no matter how many times you say, this is Watergate X 10, they’re not going to put themselves in jail.
Peterr @ 60
Agreed. But it is the ongoing investigations from Waxman, Leahy/Schumer, and Conyers that are going to be the shovels necessary to dig out all the cr*p.
For myself, as painful as it is, the investigations spotlight is the most critical and ongoing aspect of everything, even if there is no impeachment. And the Republics will continue to be embarrassed by the actions of the reps & sens who have interfered with on-going investigations into corruption. A lot of red seats will be empty in ‘08.
egregious @ 67
Good stuff.
Blank Kludge @ 27
YMMV=?
I don’t know that one.
I like your choice of charges. The OVP not keep declassification records is a hummer for me. It seems pretty straight forward.
I think Big Hank has his sights set on the Plame outing and he might make his case yet, who knows?
1,497 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen looseheadprop and the Firepup Patriots:
Thank you again for your lucid legal analysis…I hope if I ever get jammed up in the legal system that you are on my side. However, I caution that we might be looking at impeachment too closely thru an exclusively legal lens.
Impeachment is an interesting process because it is really quasi-judicial and overtly political. So the real dynamics of bringing a successful case are not anywhere close to those of a criminal or civil case in the courts. First, those bringing the charges may, like the Clinton impeachment, only want to bring the charges - they don’t need a guilty verdict. In this instance all you need is the political numbers in the House of Representatives and several “scandals” or charges that have legs in the corporate press. The process goes something like this: get the charges to the Senate, eat up time and money, poison the administration and the administration’s party and candidates for the next election cycle.
For the serious impeachment case, like the Nixon example, the burden of facts and evidence is still less heavy than in a normal criminal or civil case. In the serious impeachment where the goal is a guilty verdict, the numbers rule and the only number that matters is 67 votes in the Senate.
It is my contention that the Democrats would bring impeachment charges in the House in a hearbeat if they were anywhere close to 67 votes in the Senate. At this time, it is probably better to ignite the investigation fires and keep the focus of the political press on the uncovering of evidence and occupy the administration with building siege defenses. The longer the investigations run, the weaker the President’s party and at some point we end with either resignations of both Cheney and Bush or a 2008 election carried out in the bright afterglow of hundreds of criminal trials and verdicts.
This might sound too cold hearted and of course in the meantime Iraq and the whole Middle East are burning and thousands are dying…but this is what we are faced with in the political choices in front of us. It is my opinion that the Democrats will NOT bring impeachment charges in the House of Representatives until the investigations uncover enough shit that the Republicans up for re-election in the Senate hand over 17 votes…I don’t think that’s gunna happen anytime soon. I think it’s more likely that this is gunna end with the resignation of the executive in the summer of 2008.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, THESE FOLKS AREN’T GOIN’ AWAY UNLESS WE GIVE ‘EM A KICK!!
looseheadprop @
53
IANAL, so you’ve got the last word on this. I am not necessarily focused on the most persuasive, just the most consequential. I’m frankly not interested in impeachment if the act doesn’t have a substantial impact rehabilitating the fascist drift.
As to the “due diligence” defense, these emails, document dumps, etc. seem to be showing that “advice” to this administration in all areas was consciously cherry-picked and the only “experts” allowed were the ones who adhered to foregone conclusions.
If that’s a sufficient legal firewall then I don’t think we have a chance at transparency in government anymore…
Bob Schacht @ 65
Bob, any thread will do for this conversation. See ya later. We aren’t going anywhere.
looseheadprop @ 70
LHP - I get what you’re saying, but I live in one of the reddest states in the Union, and I can’t imagine either of my Senators voting for impeachment unless there is a real groundswell of suport for it - out here. That’s not happening yet.
I’m all for giving Waxman, Leahy and others time to gather their evidence - hell, that’s really my argument - but it ain’t soup yet!
Bob Schacht @ 65
Awesome point! From one Kamaaina to another, I don’t think we have to worry about our delegation!!! Especially, since Mazie took over Steve’s seat, I was severely disappointed by his votes!!!!
Margot @ 71
When I got my first pair of bi-focals almost twenty years ago, I got progressive lens and love ‘em. I think if you started with the line, it is more difficult than if you start bis with the progressive. My $.02
Margot @ 71
Oops disregard previous. Just realized you’re asking about contact lens which I have no clue about. as Emily said “Never Mind.”
Look what this asshole Cheney said today…