Comments (82)

mayan wrote on June 29, 2007 10:07 AM:

Actually, I see stonewalling to be a legal necessity due to the pandora's box of criminal conspiracy that CANNOT see the light of day until the Conspirator in Chief is safely ensconced in Paraguay and protected from extradition.

Should even a chink appear in the defenses, the whole house of cards would come down. They can't let it happen. No way.

SamD wrote on June 29, 2007 10:08 AM:

Maybe it's time to escalate the conflict on terms congress dictates.

Begin the impeachment hearings. Use that as a bargaining chip.

kentuck wrote on June 29, 2007 10:11 AM:

Subpoena the records. If refused, declare them in contempt of Congress and appoint a Special Prosecutor. Better yet, extend the mandate of Patrick Fitzgerald to let him complete his job.

ggersten wrote on June 29, 2007 10:12 AM:

Why does everyone assume that once Bush leaves office that the Democrats will stop the investigations of what Bush did? I, for one, hope the investigations continue and, if there be criminal actions revealed, well, then let the process proceed.

davis13 wrote on June 29, 2007 10:12 AM:

The law and order party? Riiiiight.

Morals and values my ass. These are opportunistic corporate whores with buildings full of lawyers to do their bidding.

Billy Pilgrim wrote on June 29, 2007 10:16 AM:

Someone on the SJC should politely ask Sen. Stealth Specter to STFU.

Crust wrote on June 29, 2007 10:22 AM:

Ah, but you missed Congress' ultimate card: the possibility of impeachment. What is stopping Congress from impeaching, say, Gonzales? Or Cheney? The case against them is strong, it's really just elite opinion that prevents it. If the press demanded impeachment of Gonzales or Cheney, it would happen. And stonewalling on the altar of "no transcript" risks awakening the slumbering press.

Mark F. wrote on June 29, 2007 10:25 AM:

It's vitally important the Congress aggressively pursues this. Even if it means going beyond the current administration, we have more than a constitutional crisis on our hands. We have criminals in the White House, and if they aren't brought to justice, it will set the stage for more of the same in the future. From where I sit, our entire government is in crisis. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have tested every crack and broken open every law they felt they could break without getting caught. They have betrayed their office and our trust and they must be held accountable.

Mark F. wrote on June 29, 2007 10:25 AM:

It's vitally important the Congress aggressively pursues this. Even if it means going beyond the current administration, we have more than a constitutional crisis on our hands. We have criminals in the White House, and if they aren't brought to justice, it will set the stage for more of the same in the future. From where I sit, our entire government is in crisis. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have tested every crack and broken every law they felt they could break without getting caught. They have betrayed their office and our trust and they must be held accountable.

Anonymous wrote on June 29, 2007 10:27 AM:

Will some progressive Democrat in Pennyslvania step up and make this Specter's last stand?

Crust wrote on June 29, 2007 10:28 AM:

SamD:

"Maybe it's time to escalate the conflict on terms congress dictates.

Begin the impeachment hearings. Use that as a bargaining chip."

Exactly. Though that does raise the question. Impeachment hearings for who? Gonzales? Cheney? Bush?

jeffgee wrote on June 29, 2007 10:32 AM:

The cornered wounded animal is the most dangerous.

Hank Gillette wrote on June 29, 2007 10:32 AM:

"Why does everyone assume that once Bush leaves office that the Democrats will stop the investigations of what Bush did?"

January 18, 2009: Bush pardons everyone in his administration for any and all criminal acts that they may have committed.

January 19, 2009: Bush resigns.

January 20, 2009: In his last and only act as president, Dick Cheney pardons George W. Bush.

TheraP wrote on June 29, 2007 10:32 AM:

Classic passive aggressive behavior.

.

Word is "school" (we can only wish - he would learn)

johnnydoughey wrote on June 29, 2007 10:34 AM:

There will be no impeachments, no prosecutions, no penalties for this administration. There will also be no law changes to insure these travesties will not happen again. The beauracrats and politicians are poising to be in charge as our democracy devolves. The democrat leadership has already told us that its goal is NOT to protect and defend our country and constitution... to punish those who make a mockery of 250 years of history... but to put its effort insuring THEY are in charge next term. This is what mob bosses do, not law abiding citizens. None of this infighting between the two parties is actually benefitting the rest of us out here in the real world (IMHO). It is just a human way of doing what many animal species do... kick up alot of dust, make a lot of noise, threaten the other guy. The rest of the herd or pack watches the big show and in the end, return to eating the grass.

More and more folks are being hired with police powers, not to protect the common citizens, but to protect the beaurocrats.

If spending over $400 billion on defense spending isn't a clue as to where we're heading, we all need white canes.

Allen wrote on June 29, 2007 10:34 AM:

Obviously, the Bushies have something to hide. However, there is light at the end of the tunnel. The next president can hand over every single document of the Dubya administration to the Congress for investigation and the DOJ for prosecution. The questions we must ask the Democratic presidential candidates: Will you pursue criminal charges against BushCo after 1/20/09 if the evidence so warrants? Will you refrain from granting any pardons to BushCo players? While the country would benefit greatly from prosecutions now, the country will equally benefit from prosecutions after Dubya leaves office. The prosecutions are necessary to re-establish the rule of law in this country.

Crust wrote on June 29, 2007 10:37 AM:

Hank Gillette: Smart thinking, I hadn't thought about that last step to pardon Bush. And that would all be perfect legal and therefore proper (since under the new Gonzales-era rules "improper=illegal", that is, when you're talking about Republicans).

Billy Pilgrim wrote on June 29, 2007 10:39 AM:

anonymous

The challenge is accepted.

ned wrote on June 29, 2007 10:43 AM:

Does Bush think he will have hidden his criminality well enough that when the Dems take power in 2008 they won't find anything? He can't "pre-pardon" himself and his cronies can he? Maybe he'd be better taking his lumps now and pardoning everyone, including himself.

adyacent wrote on June 29, 2007 10:43 AM:

In this whole debate about the lenghty process, about that this is convinient for the Bush administration because they can run out the clock, it is assumed that everything would be over once Bush leaves the Presidency in January 2009. But I think some of the issues are way too serious to just leave it like that. Issues like torture, running of secret prisons, the issue that now it is emerging about the children of prisoners, are things for which the members of this administration should be accountable even when they are no longer in office. So, I would say, patience, if it takes longer, it takes longer, but Congress should gather all the necessary evidence by whatever means necessary, and then proceed.

dhs wrote on June 29, 2007 10:44 AM:

The country has really been in a constituional crisis since the Supreme Court overstepped its authority in 2000 to name Bush as President. Everything that happened since then has been essentially putting off the confrontation. The Democrats need to keep on this.

JASBO wrote on June 29, 2007 10:44 AM:

October 2008,

a fire in the record storage facility for the executive branch, destroyed key documents, just moments before they were to be turned over to congressional investigators.
eyewitnesses say they saw a truck with Texas license plates earlier piling dry brush outside the facility.

chimpeach wrote on June 29, 2007 10:45 AM:

Impeach Cheney.

1. It's the strongest case they've got right now.
2. They can't argue that it's interfering with the president during a time of war. Cheney may be telling Bush what to do, but they're not about to admit that he's running the show. Officially, he's expendable.
3. The investigation will crack open that Pandora's box and nobody in the White House will be able to cover his or her ass.

victoria wrote on June 29, 2007 10:49 AM:

Read this diary and then call the Speaker's Office and tell her that you want the dinner table to be set with all of the fine crystal and the sterling silver... the impeachment table needs to be set and readied for a ROYAL FEAST with Mr. Dick Cheney.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/29/2520/90791

Tommy wrote on June 29, 2007 10:50 AM:

I believe there is a constitutional limit on the types of crimes for which a president can issue a pardon. Murder, I believe, cannot be pardoned. Is this true? If so, I would imagine that war crimes and the like would fall under the same category.

cbr wrote on June 29, 2007 10:51 AM:

This may be the tinfoil but...I would be that some of the Dems are enjoying this fight to see what they will be able to "get-away-with" in the future. Let us not forget that these are all politicians and they want to set their own agenda's which likely do not include an accurate and ethical accounting of theirs and others actions. Synical, yes. Truthful?

Finally, it is summer that means that congress is checking out so any real movement will only be talkingpoints on the Sunday shows and by the time we get to fall we are back to Iraq and waiting for the September report that will never come. So unless impeachment proceedings are begun on Monday the Dems are behind and won't catch-up.

Code word: bell - ask not for whom the bell tolls...

litigatormom wrote on June 29, 2007 10:52 AM:

1. Bush is betting that Congress won't vote to impeach him, Cheney or Abu G. Congress has to call his bluff.

2. Who is going to appoint a special prosecutor? Paul Clements, the senior DoJ official since Abu G and McNumnuts are recused? No way, since Clements signed the "legal opinion" attached to Fred Fieldings FU letter. At the very least, he's conflicted now too. And there is no Independent Counsel statute, and the Goopers will undoubtedly filibuster any such bill now.

3. Bush cannot pre-pardon himself, but he can pre-pardon his cronies. See, e.g., Nixon, Richard. See also, various Reagan cronies pardoned by Bush I re Iran-Contra. However, if Dubya were to pardon them now, they could still be impeached. Presidents can grant pardons as to criminal charges that have not yet been brought, but they cannot pardon a federal official from impeachment.

4. Bottom line: IMPEACH NOW. Somebody, anybody. Ahora mismo (right now).

4.

litigatormom wrote on June 29, 2007 10:52 AM:

1. Bush is betting that Congress won't vote to impeach him, Cheney or Abu G. Congress has to call his bluff.

2. Who is going to appoint a special prosecutor? Paul Clements, the senior DoJ official since Abu G and McNumnuts are recused? No way, since Clements signed the "legal opinion" attached to Fred Fieldings FU letter. At the very least, he's conflicted now too. And there is no Independent Counsel statute, and the Goopers will undoubtedly filibuster any such bill now.

3. Bush cannot pre-pardon himself, but he can pre-pardon his cronies. See, e.g., Nixon, Richard. See also, various Reagan cronies pardoned by Bush I re Iran-Contra. However, if Dubya were to pardon them now, they could still be impeached. Presidents can grant pardons as to criminal charges that have not yet been brought, but they cannot pardon a federal official from impeachment.

4. Bottom line: IMPEACH NOW. Somebody, anybody. Ahora mismo (right now).

4.

Travis Jefferson wrote on June 29, 2007 10:53 AM:

Screw holding hearings. Time to bring criminal charges. High crimes is the shortest route to impeachment.

Dennis wrote on June 29, 2007 10:56 AM:

Arlen Specter is doing his usual cover for the Bush administration. His method would only eat up more time, and he knows it.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

TheraP wrote on June 29, 2007 10:58 AM:

Would a US pardon affect the International Court?

I doubt it.

But IANAL.

litigatormom wrote on June 29, 2007 10:59 AM:

My first post got lost in the ether.

1. Bush cannot pardon himself. He can pardon Cheney and Abu G, protecting them from criminal prosecution. But he cannot pardon them so as to prevent impeachment. If they are pardoned, they can be impeached, and should be.

2.A Republican President elected in 2008 could pardon Bush from criminal prosecution.

3. A last minute Bush resignation, empowering Cheney (already pardoned) to pardon Bush, as Gillette suggests, is so fiendishly clever that if I didn't know better, I would think that Gillette is actually Karl Rove. This possibility makes the impeachment of Dick Cheney all the more imperative.

4. There will be no special prosecutor. Who is going to appoint one? Abu G and McNumnuts are too conflicted to do so, and now Paul Clements, the Solicitor General, is conflicted by virtue of his "legal opinion" attached to Fred Fielding's FU letter.

5. There is no independent counsel statute, and the Rethugs would filibuster one from being passed now.

6. Bottom line: impeach Cheney AHORA MISMO (right now)!!!!!

frankly0 wrote on June 29, 2007 11:00 AM:

It's worthwhile to remember that in the end this is all about long term political consequences. In particular, it is about the example the Bush Presidency and term emblazons in the memories of the American people.

So if the Bush WH chooses to stonewall, and succeeds, that is not necessarily a bad result. It is only a bad result if Democrats cannot turn it into a further unforgettable instance of Bush's inability to deal honestly with the American people and of his contemptuous treatment of the rule of the law.

Bush is already as low in credibility and popularity as any President ever tracked. He is already pretty well confirmed in people's minds as the worst President in memory, if not in history. He will simply not be believed if he stonewalls on the "principle" of executive privilege; people will almost uniformly believe that he is instead stonewalling to prevent a legitimate inquiry into wrongdoing. Democrats must go at that case as strongly as they can, and be unyielding in their negative characterization of it.

Bush may be able to stop a full inquiry into this corruption, but he can't stop the stench of corruption from attaching to him.

Voltairine de Cleyre wrote on June 29, 2007 11:04 AM:

"... so long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrranize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men."
Code Word: sleep

litigatormom wrote on June 29, 2007 11:04 AM:

TheraP: Bush can only pardon people from prosecution or punishment under U.S. law. However, if the underlying crime that was being prosecuted by the International Court is a violation of the Geneva Convention, there would be an argument that this too is precluded, because the pardonees were only bound by the Geneva Convention because, having been ratified by Congress, the Geneva Convention has the status of U.S. law. I'm not an international law specialist, so I don't know if this potential argument has merit, but that wouldn't stop the pardonees from asserting it. I think the International Court would have to hear charges based on "the law of nations" -- something that binds everyone regardless of treaty.

Kurt wrote on June 29, 2007 11:06 AM:

We had a great progressive candidate in 2004 with Joe Hoeffel, but unfortunately the radical right in PA couldn't quite push Pat Toomey across the finish line in the R primary (another week or two and Specter might have gone down). Of course, Snarlin' Arlen tacked back to the center after veering right for the primary, and apparently snookered enough of the folks who voted for Kerry and (in other elections) Rendell and Casey. Too bad - Hoeffel and Casey would have been a great combo in DC for Pennsylvania.

JamesRobert wrote on June 29, 2007 11:07 AM:

Once Bush is out of office, we have too many urgent issues -- including the clean up of the mess he's leaving behind -- to concern ourselves with prosecuting him. Not that it wouldn't serve as a wonderful warning to future presidents, but I seriously wonder if we can muster the energy post-Bush. What does work is impeachment NOW!

litigatormom wrote on June 29, 2007 11:09 AM:

The site is very slow today. I apologize if this results in another double post, but it's been a while since I posted and its not shown up.
********************************************

TheraP: Bush can only pardon people from prosecution or punishment under U.S. law. However, if the underlying crime that was being prosecuted by the International Court is a violation of the Geneva Convention, there would be an argument that this too is precluded, because the pardonees were only bound by the Geneva Convention because, having been ratified by Congress, the Geneva Convention has the status of U.S. law. I'm not an international law specialist, so I don't know if this potential argument has merit, but that wouldn't stop the pardonees from asserting it. I think the International Court would have to hear charges based on "the law of nations" -- something that binds everyone regardless of treaty.

Ed Randall wrote on June 29, 2007 11:13 AM:

The US has, since I have been an adult and
interested in politics and international affairs,
been led - until Bush came into office - proclaimed that it is a nation under laws not a nation where the whim of individual men counted most. In current circumstances that begs the question: How much capacity does the United States have left to mount and pursue independent prosecutorial actions against usurpers of its constitution and its laws?

Since your President and Vice-President have so much to hide it is deeply disturbing to hear that: "The Democrat leadership has already told us that its goal is NOT to protect and defend our country and constitution...to punish those who make a mockery of 250 years of history... but to put its effort insuring THEY are in charge next term."

In Britain an effort to sweep the stables clean may be about to begin. Surely there are members of your Senate and House of Representatives who can see beyond the torrid business of party advantage.

Orwell's Intuition wrote on June 29, 2007 11:16 AM:

I know what I'm going to say to Repubs who think this is all a bunch of hoo-ha. Since the GOP mantra is "Clinton did it," and since Clinton responded to a barrage of subpoenas issued in the GOP witch hunt against him, well, it's time for the GOP to take the medicine they dish out to others.

I'm also going to say the bush administration is filled with the most cowardly group of individuals to ever hold our government hostage.

Code word: sheep, and that one needs no comment

al75 wrote on June 29, 2007 11:18 AM:

The legal scholarship is relevant, but I agree with other posters: the RUTHLESSNESS of the Bush administration, and the contempt of its members for both the constitution and the democratic process, cannot be underestimated.

Quarrels about the meaning of law are for those who believe law means something. The Bush admin, on the other hand, is more akin to the Bolshevicks of old, willing to use any legal device or bargaining process when this can advance their aims; or naked use of power and violence when these are called for.

Remember, we still don't know why Ashcroft/Mueller, two Bush patsies at best, were ready to resign.

Don't underestimate what they're hiding.

P J Evans wrote on June 29, 2007 11:24 AM:

To get impeachment of Cheney (or Bush) going, first you have to get Gonzo out. That makes it possible to get a special prosecuter in (not easy, just possible). Impeaching Gonzo should produce useful evidence to nail others with.

Bootstrap the impeachments, use each one to build the next. At some point, criminal trials may become possible, too.

And for Ghu's sake, ban further government employment for all of them. Not banning further employment is how some of these guys snuck back in after Watergate and Inran-Contra.

Mike Valentine wrote on June 29, 2007 11:34 AM:

Bush is free to dig the biggest political shit hole in history, he's not up for reelection, but the whole congress and a bunch of republican senators are.

Will this election up coming be about impeachment?

If the Republican senators and congressfolk up for re-election do not join what will become a national cry for impeachment then they will become the party that used to be.

714Day wrote on June 29, 2007 11:44 AM:

johnnydoughey, I hope you're wrong, but I think you may be right as rain on this, so all of the debates become moot.
Like I say, I hope you're wrong.

Tentakles wrote on June 29, 2007 11:50 AM:

This is a constitutional crisis. Act like it. The norms of behavior that applied in the past have been repeatedly violated by the Republicans. We need to crank up the legal machinery and establish legal precedents.

Bush may think he doesn't have anything to lose but he does. More importantly, those around him do. He can become such a liability to the Republican Party that they have to impeach. Nixon didn't have anything to lose either.

Putting this administration in full defense mode will help limit the mischief that Mr. Nothing to Lose can get up to.

The recent 5 - 4 decisions are eroding my confidence that the Roberts court will do the right thing, however.

-- Tentakles

TheraP wrote on June 29, 2007 12:01 PM:

Thank you litigatormom.

Let's hear it for the law of nations!

Seems to me that when leaders of a powerful nation put the whole world at risk, the world should step in and prosecute.

So, even if bush pardons cheney and then resigns and cheney pardons him, then the World Court could potentially take jurisdiction.

I urge them to do so - regardless!

My personal view here is that the whole world has suffered under the bush regime. And the whole world is already upset and angry. I feel more a citizen of the world right now - due to the shame brought upon us by cheney/bush. And I would love to see redress from a higher authority.

I admit, as I have before, that I am naive. But sometimes hope is all there is. Juan Cole this morning says he doesn't know whether to weep with grief or tear his hair out in frustration. And yes, I share his feelings.

One more point. At the beginning of this posse bush gathered, and I'm not sure whether it preceded Afghanistan or Iraq, they got the UN to agree that international law would not apply to the US for war crimes. (maybe someone recalls this and has further info regarding the time line etc.) But that worried me at the time. Sounded like they knew they were going ahead in ways that could be viewed as war crimes (and how!!!) and wanted absolution ahead of time.

How might that play into this mix? Honestly, and maybe naively, I want to see justice served here!

Hank Gillette wrote on June 29, 2007 12:07 PM:

"A last minute Bush resignation, empowering Cheney (already pardoned) to pardon Bush, as Gillette suggests, is so fiendishly clever that if I didn't know better, I would think that Gillette is actually Karl Rove."

Please. Name calling is one thing, but this is beyond the pale. If this were 150 years ago, my second would be calling on your second .

moondancer wrote on June 29, 2007 12:12 PM:

Yes, I unfortunately agree w/al75. These people are fighting for their lives, they are not going to resign, comply, cooperate in any way. They have no regard for rule of law, they consider those who do as chumps. They will try to run out the clock. What scares me is how far they'll go to avoid "sunlight" or prosecutions for their crimes.

Legalize wrote on June 29, 2007 12:18 PM:

I'm not concerned about the legal process. It will take time, and that's fine with me. The criminal enterprise that has been passing itself off as an administration since 2001, has behaved so egregiously and extra-judicially during that period of time, and they have severely injured and humiliated our constitutional system. They have undermined our nation and our presence in the world, all to justify their grip on power.

I would be happy to see a public airing of all of this over a period of years - how ever long it takes because I think the public really needs to be better educated about due process, habeas corpus, etc. and how very FUNDAMENTAL these concepts are to our lives.

At this point in our history, all we need is transparency and accountability - badly. If both happen, the evil done to our constitution can be remedied - that's the beauty of our system; there is always a remedy if the issues and facts are honestly considered. If this does not happen, then we are simply fucked. It will go on and future administrations will behave just like Bush Co.

Meanwhile, the world will increasingly grow to despise our incompetence and hypocricy and it will move on without us. It already is.

Anonymous wrote on June 29, 2007 12:26 PM:

Here's an alternate timeline, a la Hank Gillette:

January 18, 2009: Bush pardons everyone in his administration for any and all criminal acts that they may have committed.

January 19, 2009: Bush resigns, Dick Cheney assumes the Presidency.

January 20, 2009: Cheney has a heart attack and dies in office before he pardons Bush; Nancy Pelosi assumes the Presidency until noon.

January 20, 2009: Hillary Clinton assumes the Presidency, proceeds to mop up the floor with Bush's ass.

KY3 Democrat: "Harry Turtledove couldn't have done it better."

moondancer wrote on June 29, 2007 12:31 PM:

Prediction: Fielding will resign within a year to "spend more time with his family".

I think he'll be unable to stomach what they've been doing.

Scorpio13 wrote on June 29, 2007 12:36 PM:

johnnydoughey:
I too fervently pray that you are wrong. Unfortunately this has been my gut feeling for more years than I care to remember. I am certain also that we have lots of company. I say let the games begin....IMPEACH

feckless wrote on June 29, 2007 12:46 PM:

Why is Bush the only one who gets to be "unprecidented"?

Fight fire with fire, throw out "convention" and "tradition" stick to the naked law and PUSH THIS THING THROUGH YESTERDAY.

Forget about New Orleans, Immigration, Health Care, pistachio farmers, gang bangers. With Cheney in charge nothing will ever pass, its a waste of time to work for vetos. Investigating and Impeaching these bastards should be the only cause of our lawmakers, the first thing they do, SWEAR TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.

IMPEACH NOW.

Anonymous wrote on June 29, 2007 12:46 PM:

In my view the Hank Gillette scenario is entirely plausible -- indeed, may be probable, given the past and current behavior of these thugs.
And, if they might face criminal charges in 09, then why wouldn't they take those options available to them to live out their lives unprosecuted and unpunished for their deeds.
Yep, if they're not getting away with murder, then it'll be something damned close to it.

Sisyphus

Uncle Don wrote on June 29, 2007 1:30 PM:

On C-SPAN this morning, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions delivered an impassioned defense of Bush's assertion of "executive privilege."

Sessions claimed that there is no evidence that any criminal act has occurred and, therefore, Democrats are merely conducting a fishing expedition in an attempt to embarrass "this good man who is working for the good of our country."

So help me God, that's what Sessions said.

Of course, if Congress cannot gather evidence, then it cannot be proved tht criminal acts have occurred.

It seems to me that the House of Representatives should take up Representative Kucinich's bill to impeach Dick Cheney. Even though conviction by 67 votes in the Senate is impossible at the present time, the House Judiciary Committee's hearing would educate the American electorate about the crimes this administration has committed and the incredible destruction of the Constitution which it has wrought.

Brantley wrote on June 29, 2007 1:35 PM:

Bush anin't no "lame duck," he's a dead duck!

the exile wrote on June 29, 2007 1:41 PM:

As much as I'd like to see Cheney impeached (and he is the key: all the others, Bush included, are minor players), the votes aren't there to convict. Still, impeachment means high-profile hearings, and that would bring a lot to light. The final objective is to get 2/3 majority in the senate in 08, and at that moment to impeach Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas for their corrupt and lawless votes in Bush v. Gore.

Dee Loralei wrote on June 29, 2007 1:44 PM:

IANAL, but I remember reading somewhere that a Presidentit cannot pardon during impeachment . Nancy said yesterday that impeachment is still off the table, even in light of the WaPo series. She's working for a dem in 08. Methinks Dems need to quit working for the party and start effing working for the country and Constitution! The party will sweeo in 08, if the dems do the right thing and uphold the rule of law! They also took an oath to protect and defend the constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. Impeach Gonzo, then Cheney, those hearings will open up everything and impeaching Bush will be a cake walk. Who cares if they don't have the Senate votes yet? You think watching this on tv everyday that every sentient, non-neo-con citizen of this country will be screaming at the hesitant Republican Senators to vote yes? Heck yea. Before the Nixon hearings it was doubtful that it would work, and the citizenry demanded the only remedy we had. And he was going down, before he resigned. Bush/Cheney is much more egregious. We citizens have to lead, because our so-called leaders are sheeple and only want power for powers sake.
And Nancy dear, prosecutors don't only pursue cases they know a jury will convict on, the pursue cases because laws were broken and they hope juries will agree.
I think if the Dems don't pursue this, while they may win and win big in 08 and maybe even in10, eventually as more info trickles out, the Dems are going to be held in as much contempt as the culpable and complicit Repugs are. History will not be kind to any leader who chooses not to lead in this very dangerous time for our Constitutional form of government.
We also need to remember a cornered animal is most dangerous. And W and Dick still have much power and still want to attack Iran.
My bumpersticker, " impeachment Hearings today, war crimes tribunals tomorrow!"

sam king wrote on June 29, 2007 1:51 PM:

While your talking about impeaching both the Prez and V.P., howcome no one is talking about the money Rudy and his N.Y. cabinet boys made in Iraq.

sam king wrote on June 29, 2007 1:54 PM:

While your talking about impeaching both the Prez and V.P., howcome no one is talking about the
money Rudy and his N.Y. cabinet boys made in Iraq.

Austin Cooper wrote on June 29, 2007 1:56 PM:

My personal opinion is that this 'administration' has been operated as nothing more or less than a criminal enterprise -- an *ongoing* criminal enterprise.

Similar kleptocratic, bordering-on-dictatorial governments have risen time and time again -- However, one of the pillars of our beliefs about America has always been that Our Story, Our Government, is a break from the follies of the Old World -- that the same pathetic stories of greed and fear which marked other governments and nations just can't happen here. Because we're different.

Only, we're not. Every time we're struck with a serious governmental scandal, it's shocking - the Insurance scandals of the 1880's; Teapot Dome; Watergate; Iran-Contra, and now -- the entire Bush administration.

There aren't many parallels between what Bush / Cheney have done to America, and the pre-Watergate scandals. They were primarily about greed and money. The legacy of Richard Nixon is that he used the office of the President, the Executive Branch, as part of a criminal conspiracy.

But Nixon's actual undoing was to attempt to circumvent the separation and balance of powers as set down in law -- the Constitution. The belief that as President, 'Le Etat C'est moi"; this was his legacy. What's been done by Bush / Cheney is exponentially worse because it's more extensive and pervasive.

Rather than simply use Executive power as a tool to protect themselves from exposure and punishment (as Nixon did), Bush and Cheney have used the Executive to advance a radical conservative agenda -- and to ensure one-party dominance by packing a Federal bureaucracy, the courts, and selective enforcement of voting and civil rights law to bring about a new Jim Crow.

They couldn't achieve their goals in daylight, through an honest and open political process -- because they knew they were in the minority. The majority of Americans simply don't believe in their 'vision'. But they would take what they could through stealth, in the dark, like criminals -- and the cover of the 'War On Terror' was a perfect opportunity.

What Bush and Cheney are responsible for ursurps the Constitution and Bill of Rights on so many levels -- and it boils down to is that they manufactured -- lied -- about the need for a "war" against Iraq to increase the power of the Executive branch -- and use that power as a cover to advance goals held for decades by the Republican, neocon, and religious right's prime movers -- the DeLays, the Roves, the Gingriches and Abramoffs; the Perles and Feiths and Krystols; the Reeds and Dobsons and Wildmons.

And, there's been so much money to be raked in. From Ken Lay and Haliburton and Wal-Mart, to Blackwater and defense/intelligence subcontractors, to Republican lobbyists... it's been a long, Fat season.

And plenty of Republican lawmakers have lined up at the trough to take their cut. One thing is clear -- they're responsible for an unprescedented, corrosive political culture of corruption... and people wonder why there's so much incivility, domestic abuse, *crime* in American society? When "leaders" consistently lie, are corrupt, or tolerate other national leaders who are, then that sets the example for ther rest of the country.

The National Debt -- $8,807,893 -- is rarely mentioned. No one knows how we're going to reduce or deal with it. Over *half* of this has been incurred in the past five years. You can't cut taxes for a wealthy elite and run one-and-a-half wars without creating debt. Anyone with a checkbook knows this, but then we don't own the printing presses at the Federal Mint.

Finally, Bush / Cheney have effectively destroyed most of the good will held by the United States in the eyes of the rest of the world. It will take decades and billions of dollars to rebuild it. Much of the rest of the world is simply enduring the U.S. at this point -- their perspective being that history's tides have brought them so many other arrogant, violent and greedy empires: Now, America is just one more to endure.

I'd like to demand that in our country, where this 'administration' has violated the law, that the perps should be indicted, tried, and punished if convicted. However, I know that (except in some limited examples, like Cunningham, and lil' Scooter) there isn't going to be an idealized triumph of justice. We're not going to see a series of perp walks from the White House, the Justice Department, and the EOB.

The best result we can hope for is for as public and far-reaching an investigation of this 'administration' as is possible. Not as an exercise in revenge, or to increase the power of the Democratic Party -- but to recognize what it's done to the United States, to the world -- and make it less likely to happen again soon.

Sadly, there are many in the Beltway, and in private business, who have a vested interest in making sure that a full airing of the crimes of the 'administration' does not occur -- to save their own necks; to keep the circus going and their own pockets lined as long as possible.

But we need to try.

Mooser wrote on June 29, 2007 2:51 PM:

What is stopping Congress from impeaching, say, Gonzales? Or Cheney?

Why should the Dems solve the Repubs biggest problems for them? So Bush Cheney and Gonzo can be martyrs, and give Americans the oppurtunity for a Kool-Aid flashback.

When American's greed for "tax cuts" is finally overshadowed by their fear for their children's future, they might vote Dem in the sufficient 2 or 3 to one ratio which makes shifting the results impossible.

On the other hand, having your kids drafted does get them out of the house, and not at their parents expense. If you're lucky they'll be killed and not wounded, and then they're out of your hair permanent.

So it's a toss-up.

Anonymous wrote on June 29, 2007 2:51 PM:

Be nice to see the power of the purse flexed a bit.

Sara wrote on June 29, 2007 2:57 PM:

I think Democrats should consider dividing what I would call Economic Crimes from Constitutional Crimes, and make clear that once able, they will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and if possible sue for full recovery on the economic crimes. (I am thinking in terms of the outlandish no-bid procurement contracts such as the ones we read about yesterday from DHS.) I think this would cause a serious break in what is left of Bush's coalition. In fact, it might even be possible to get the country sufficiently worked up about this that it could be a very serious election issue, that even Republican Candidates would have to address.

I would remind that Watergate turned serious in the sense that significant parts of the Republican Coalition turned against Nixon, only when some of the relatively minor Nixon economic violations -- back dating his VP papers deed for tax purposes, for instance -- emerged. That made people who didn't see the constitutional issues turn against him. In Bush's case I seriously doubt that many in his "Christian Right" segment of his coalition have benefited at all from much in the no-bid contract spree -- and making the case to them that "they been screwed" could break what's left of the coalition. People generally comprehend waste, fraud and abuse even if they don't totally understand the legal and constitutional matters.

Robin wrote on June 29, 2007 3:41 PM:

What is worrying is that Bush is getting to a point he has nothing left to lose. People in that position tend to make some very rash moves. While he might be considered a lame duck in print, it is very doubtful he sees himself that way.

For a person that needs to 'click' reality on and off at will, I have to ask what will be the consequences of taking away his remote?

Henry wrote on June 29, 2007 3:47 PM:

For Congress it does look a though major domestic issues are going to have to wait till '09, and the war will be dealt with in some bi-partisan way before the election, so impeachment does seem to be a useful way for them spend their time. If Bush and his gang are going to get any taste of justice it will have to be in the next eighteen months. It's naive to expect history to do the job -- since the bushies seem impervious to its effects -- and their party will simply blare out their own version (see, e.g. Reagan).

If a Democratic President is elected then s/he and Congress will have enough distractions once the Republican noise machine revs up.

Davol wrote on June 29, 2007 3:47 PM:

There has never been a more criminally negligent Impeachable President in my lifetime, which would include Nixon. I've never seen so much criminal activity, and new legislation granting the Executive powers they instantly turn around to abuse. Guantanomo, secret prisons, torture, and pre-emptive invasions of other countries would have been the last straw in a real country of Americans. This Impeachment should have happened long ago. Unfortunately our aiding and abetting Congress is also arguably worthy of across the board Impeachment. Voters managed to Impeach a bunch of them last November, but we won't be able to deliver justice to the rest of them till the election of 2008. Knowing these worthless politicians we will also still have a Bush at that time to boo out of office. I can't wait till Progressives are finished taking over this country. That fleeting neocon coup was a drag.

pstamler wrote on June 29, 2007 3:57 PM:

As to what Dems could do with the presidential documents after they won in 2008, the answer is...nothing. Because they won't have the presidential records. One of the first things Bush did upon taking office is to change the rules for presidential records, by executive order, allowing a president or former preaident to seal records. It was his Father's Day present, but he'll use it too.

Of course, that assumes we're allowed to have an election in 2008.

Peace,
Paul

borussky wrote on June 29, 2007 4:12 PM:

What evidence is there that the Democrats want to win? Anything?

Is the role of the Democratic Party to offer token resistance and then roll over?

Bo

JD wrote on June 29, 2007 4:19 PM:

Yawn to all the 'impeach' rhetoric. Seriously. Neither Bush nor Cheney will be impeached. Silly people think just because they say it over and over and over adnauseum. Pressure on the Democratically controlled congress to take the bully pulpit and rather hold the MSM accountable for telling the American public the truth.

Word.

Hank Gillette wrote on June 29, 2007 5:13 PM:

"As to what Dems could do with the presidential documents after they won in 2008, the answer is...nothing. Because they won't have the presidential records. One of the first things Bush did upon taking office is to change the rules for presidential records, by executive order, allowing a president or former preaident to seal records. It was his Father's Day present, but he'll use it too."

There's nothing to stop the next President from reversing that executive order, is there?

David M. Anderson wrote on June 29, 2007 5:30 PM:

A quick correction to the explanation from USA Today: According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_congress, there have indeed been ten contempt of Congress citations since 1975, but they weren't all settled: in nine cases the administration eventually complied, at least substantially. In the tenth case, Rita Lavelle, Reagan's Superfund mismanager, served three months in prison and paid a $10,000 fine for lying to Congress. (She was also convicted of other criminal acts.)

RickD wrote on June 29, 2007 5:39 PM:

Interesting that the lede is that the Bush stonewalling is similar to other stonewalling done in the past 30 years, and _not_ that such stonewalling has never been upheld by any court.

Until a Court upholds the fiction of Executive Privilege, these arguments should be dismissed as nonsensical. I know that Clinton tried to claim privilege on a lot of matters and was shot down every time. And Clinton's administration wasn't engaged in systematically violating the law.

There is no way to read the Constitution to say that executive privilege trumps any investigation of lawbreaking by the executive branch. End of story.

moondancer wrote on June 29, 2007 5:55 PM:

JD's right, no heroic leadership from MSM, none will be forhtcoming from dems. They arent going to do ANYTHING without 24hr blaring support for it.

I dont see any of the prob candidates looking for any more than their turn at the trough. For god's sake Hilary had fund raiser from Murdock. It will take some heretofore unknown entity to rise up and lead this nation out of its coma...

Iamspartacus wrote on June 29, 2007 6:01 PM:

In 1974 the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that Nixon had to comply with Congressional subpoena and turn over the tapes. Within weeks, he was gone.

Bush likes his chances because the current gang of papal puppets bears no relation to the Burger Court. It appointed him and it will shelter him from the law.

Still proud you voted for Nader?

moondancer wrote on June 29, 2007 6:03 PM:

"There is no way to read the Constitution to say that executive privilege trumps any investigation of lawbreaking by the executive branch. End of story."

True... If you have an independent DOJ and judges who are not party hacks

JD wrote on June 29, 2007 6:16 PM:

The first Democrat who calls a Republicon a liar to his face will get my vote. Otherwise I'm staying home.

Word.

time is short wrote on June 29, 2007 7:09 PM:

Right now, this is not a Legislature Branch vs. Executive Branch battle. It's GOP Congressional and Executive Branch vs. Small majority of Congressional Democrats battle. Because of that reality-- it's unwinnable for democrats as it stands.

Leahy must help turn this into a Legislative Branch vs. Executive Branch battle in a hurry. Resolve and focus is key here. Leahy bares an extrodinary burden of proof to convince GOPers to take a stand against the executive branch usurping legislative power.

First, he must uncover enough evidence to force GOPers to acknowledge the dirty truth. After that, he has to dig up more evidence to force GOPers to join Democrats to make this a Legislative branch vs. the Executive Branch battle.

This is an uphill battle. GOPers can't policially handle another Nixon affair and they seem to be going all out to prevent and ignore all wrongdoing to prevent Democrats from building the case for Gopers to join Democrats in a stand against the Executive Branch.

Specter is but one example of GOPers undercutting these strategy. His recent statement calling for Leahy to accept the take it leave it offer can be seen as dopey or an effort to help the WH run out the clock.

Will acepting the WH's offer timely resolve the matter to anyone's satifaction or will it frustrate the process sending Leahy on a wild goose chase?

The former prosecutor's logic in the matter runs something like this - Let's accept the lame offer to get somewhere in the matter faster and let's completely ignore the fact that stonewalling is the real reason for our own lack of progress because we can call witnesses back if we're not satified which won't be a huge waste of time or lead to more stonewalling.

Specter wants Leahy to accept the offer for one reason - he knows acceptance of the offer will neither resolve the matter in full nor in a timely fashion. It will stall any effort to unite the Congress to take a stand GOPers know will hurt them politically for decades.

It's a trap to suggest calling witnesses back if they're not satisfied is reasonable when there's good reason to believe Leahy will be forced to call witness back a second time after the WH fails to fully comply in Good faith.

If Leahy slips, the WH will shift the focus from their own stonewalling to the narrative that Leahy and the Dems are simply not satisfied because they're trying to influence the 08' elections by embarrassing the outgoing President for partisan reasons.

It's also a trap for Leahy to accept some kind of deal limiting witnesses called or scope of testimony. The sooner the court battle, the sooner key witnesses are forced to testify. Any deal ensures one thing - delays. The argument that a "long court battle" would ensue is simply not a reasonable rational for lying down. Is it really crystal clear it would take years to resolve these issues? How long did it take to settle Bush v. Gore in 2000? Weeks, not years.

If Leahy allows the process to stall Democrats won't be able to handle the MSM blitz by the WH and GOP trotting out the partison withhunt claims. Once the MSM takes that stance, the burden of proof required to force Gopers into a battle between the Legislative Branch vs. Executive Branch becomes just about impossible without multiple deep throats coming out of the wood works.

How strong is Leahy?

moondancer wrote on June 29, 2007 8:25 PM:

Leahy needs to muzzle that 2 faced whore that is senior senator from my home state. You are correct in my opinion, that without sustained MSM outrage or a hero whistleblower, bush and co are going to run out the clock. Im rooting for Leahy but I wouldnt bet any money on his chances.

Anonymous wrote on June 30, 2007 5:47 PM:

Bush appears to believe he can wait this out.

Non-sense. Time to prosecute him outside impachment, and throw the book at him with adverse inferences.

JNagarya wrote on July 2, 2007 3:03 PM:

"JD's right, no heroic leadership from MSM, none will be forhtcoming from dems. They arent going to do ANYTHING without 24hr blaring support for it."

Horseshit. You and your fellow pro-Bushit trolls have been gratuitously bashing the Democrats for about as long as they've had control of Congress -- and they have and are conducting aggressive investigations, and have issued subpoenas _despite_ that _lack_ of support.

"I dont see any of the prob candidates looking for any more than their turn at the trough. For god's sake Hilary had fund raiser from Murdock. It will take some heretofore unknown entity to rise up and lead this nation out of its coma..."

And it won't be smear-mongers such as you who prefers his fashionably cyncical "they're all corrupt" BS to the actual reality in front of your stupid face: despite all the bashing from the peabrained, such as you, the Democrats have investigated and issued subpoenas _ANYWAY_.

"Posted by: moondancer
Date: June 29, 2007 5:55 PM"

And be careful when you consider attacking with the term "hack," else you be an obvious hypocrite.

JNagarya wrote on July 2, 2007 3:11 PM:

Until a Court upholds the fiction of Executive Privilege, these arguments should be dismissed as nonsensical. I know that Clinton tried to claim privilege on a lot of matters and was shot down every time. And Clinton's administration wasn't engaged in systematically violating the law.

There is no way to read the Constitution to say that executive privilege trumps any investigation of lawbreaking by the executive branch. End of story.

Posted by: RickD
Date: June 29, 2007 5:39 PM

Make up your mind: is Executive Privilege a "fiction"? Or is it a fact, but trumped by investigation of criminal violations of law?

No, it isn't a fiction. And, yes, it has been upheld by the courts, even when only holding that it is narrower than the claim being made for it.

Being fashionably cynical, and endeavoring to bullying the opposing argument into submission is the exact same sort of bullshit we get from Republicans.