How can you say "impeachment" which would deny the President of a pardon, is a "waste"? Once subject to impeachment proceedings, regardless the outcome of the trial, the President cannot be pardoned.

Why does the DNC want to take impeachment "off" the table; but keep the President's option for a pardon "on" the table? Denying the President a chance at a pardon isn't a waste, it's raw assertion of power.

Let's give Bush his day in court before we hang him

We already did that: He ignored the FISA Court. Why are we going to give him a second, third, and fourth chance . . .?

The DOJ AG says he won't prosecute. Impeachment is a legislative tool for the Congress to enforce the law when the President and/or his prosecutors/agents are not removed from the political landscape.

Who wants to give this President, who has ignored the FISA court, a chance to re-defend himself? His FBI agents have already lied to the FISA court. Want more DOJ lies before the courts? Enough of that. Impeach the man.

How do you, not privy to the classified briefings, know this:

Because any uncertainty about its legality comes not from the facts of the case, but from interpretation of the law.

- How do you know that the issues are only related to "interpretations" and are not based on evidence, facts, or other factors?

- How do you know that "any uncertainty" is real?

- How do you know that "any uncertainty about its legality" is a credible assertion of Congress who would prosecute this in the Senate during an impeachment?

- How do you know that "uncertainty about the legality" is unrelated to undisclosed evidence showing there were war crimes, FISA violations, and POW abuse within a common nexus: Illegally captured information used to abuse POWs; information gleaned from illegal POW abuse used to expand absurd NSA surveillance of innocents?

If, as you suggest, "uncertainty" is related to interpretation, then why not eliminate that uncertainty by throwing this issue into the chamber that would do just that: The Senate?

A judicial-branch trial is one thing; but the judicial branch action or inaction on these alleged war crimes/FISA violations does not bind the Congress to wait. Independent branches of government means Congress cannot remain independent while it "waits for" the other two branches to continue do more of what they're doing: Nothing. The third prong of government remains on the table: A legislative track, moving on its own schedule, independent of the Executive and Judicial trains. To argue, "Wait for the court" means, "Wait for the President to continue doing what he's been doing: Not responding to the court." That's not a plan. That's capitulation. Enough!

Let's get it on the table in the Senate: Are the GOP Members of the Senate willing to say that the evidence does not warrant conviction?

- If the evidence is overwhelming, and the GOP refuses to convict, why not make them go on the record with that inaction?

- Why is there a fear within the DNC about how the GOP will wrestle with this?

A decision of the house to start an investigation in re impeachment does not bind the House to bring charges; nor does it bind the House to present evidence to the Senate.

- What's the fear of the DNC in the House to merely examining the facts, and letting them go where they may?

- Why is the DNC so quick to make the GOP's arguments for them?

- Why not make the GOP Members of the SEnate, despite the overwhelming evidence, explain their decision not to convict?

If it's the position that, even with overwhelming evidence of POW abuse, war crimes, and other Geneva violations, that the GOP will not enforce the laws of war, then why bother believing any Member of Congress will assert its oath to enforce the Constitution? Saying, "Oh, we know the outcome of the trial," smacks of counting the votes before the facts are examined, much less the votes are cast.

What this tell us, getting back to Spitzer, is that someone like Hitler could get away with the Holocaust because he, like Bush, and "popular support" for war crimes. That's irrelevant. It's still illegal activity. Spitzer was threatened with impeachment because he was not popluar. This President's war crimes appear to be popular. That doesn't matter. if the US government will not enforce the laws of war, then we, as a nation, are not sovereign: We are not regulating ourselves.

Nuremberg concluded that the leadership must either be prosecuted or impeached. When both options are not asserted, and the leadership is neither impeached or prosecuted, that nation cannot be called civilized. Then let the GOP say, "We do not want to be civilized." Make the GOP say that. Don't say it for them. We don't need a GOP opposition when the DNC is willing to make the GOP's arguments for them, and justify inaction against the GOP. These are war crimes. Very serious business.

Make the GOP go on the record: Are they for or against enforcing the laws of war. There is no reason to make excuses to not make the GOP go on the record on this.

If it was a "waste" of time, then the GOP would say nothing, and "let" the DNC "waste" time.

- Why is the DNC taking "political advice" from the GOP?

That makes no sense. Of course impeachment takes time, but that's irrelevant. The fact that the GOP is spending time arguing, "It's a waste" shows us they're spending time on something they would have us believe is "no big deal". Then the GOP should be silent.

But they're screaming, "It's a waste." No, it's valuable.

More vague speculation and absurdly shifts the subject from FISA violations by the President to woether or not the Congress rubber stamps immunity for that illegal activity:

If the Democrats prove complicit or incapable of preventing immunity for illegal spying on Americans, they may well lose the Independent votes that could help them win the oval office in 2008.

- Why are you defining success in terms of which crimes are ignored?

- Is it your intention to draw attention to the DNC's inaction, and ignore the GOPs original illegal coduct?

This speculation is a nice distraction from the GOP-led war crimes, prisoner abuse, evidence desruction, and recklessness within the WH counsel's office:

They might also expect the number of Independent voters to grow by leaps in the future. So if they are looking to undermine their own power, screwing this up may be one good way to do it.

- How's that White House email retention going?

- How's that Iraq reconstruction going?

- How's that "can't lose"-battle in Afghanistan going?

- How's that budget deficit going?

- How's that retirement fund going?

This incorrectly presumes that "immunity," unless it were rubber stamped, is a failure. No, it's a setback for the telecoms and Administration. Congress is not obliged to give what, if the activity were legal, would not be needed:

A "failure" on the immunity front will surely take a big chip out of any undue faith that there's a meaningful, substantive difference between Democrats and Republicans on such key issues.

- Whose failures are we talking about?

- How many reckless legal failures of the White House are needed to justify impeachment?

Indeed, the GOP and DNC have a bad habit of "not stopping" the other party:

Voters might

Indeed, the GOP would detest if the past were raised on issues of civil rights, prisoner abuse, and war crimes:

How many will hold a preference for Democrats based on who they want them to be or what the Democratic party stood for at some time in the past?

This is a good standard which applies to the President in re Iraq, legal complicance, Geneva, and Afghanistan:

Results matter, and outcome frequently reveals true intent.

It appears OVP legal counsel itended to violate Geneva; and outside counsel have been complicit with the legal strutures used to commit war crimes.