"Nightmare" scenario: If the Dems start an investigation and fail to impeach.

[Cronopio]

1. Then the investigation will have produced evidence for American public and the world that they wouldn't otherwise have known about.

2. Then our government will have proven that it is willing to function in the way the Founding Fathers intended and defended the rule of law by investigating evidence of illegal activity.

3. The illegal acts of the Bush administration will at least be addressed, which is at least a salvageable game. Foreign investors will at least have hope that there are elements within the U.S. government that will defend their investments in the American economic system. Rational voters will have reason to hope that the informally anointed next President - Hillary Clinton - may do what her husband did and begin to reduce government spending.


Super-nightmare scenario: If the Dems don't hold hearings within the next 12 months:

1. Then an administration that has openly admitted to breaking the law will have gotten away with illegal actions for the first time in the history of the United States.

2. Rational people around the world will conclude that the American government exempts itself from every law that it makes. This will be the permanent new standard of American politics. A rising tide of anarchy is possible, as well as civil war.

3. Investors around the world will have no rational basis to assume that the American government won't stop spending itself into debt (since that is ostensibly capped by law), and will accelerate their divestment of the American economy. This will happen regardless of the party affiliation of future Presidents - confidence in both of the major political parties will be irreparably damaged, and justifiably so.

4. Russia and China will be given political capital beyond their wildest dreams. With the loss of America's standing the world, military and political struggles to fill the power void will take place for many years, and with often bloody results.


In either case:

1. Dennis Kucinich and those who support his efforts will enjoy permanent political capital for doing what they could do to defend the rule of law in America.


Any halfway calm and competent Republican politician would welcome staged impeachment proceedings as an opportunity to create the illusion that the system is functioning as advertized and that charges of illegal behavior weren't borne out in an investigation. If they were as good as they think they are they wouldn't have just supported the idea, they would have championed it, once they figured out how to make the investigations go the way they intend. If they can cherrypick CIA investigations, they can cherrypick evidence placed before an impeachment investigation committee.

Maybe they aren't as "in control" as they pretend to be.

Dems are in a no-lose situation with impeachment proceedings. The Democratic President would gain immense political capital by being a part of a party that started the tide turning in the right direction, or at least pretended to. They could effectively marginalize Kucinich and the entire progressive caucus by stealing their populist thunder and channeling it to their corporatist interests.

In any case, one thing is clear - it's a good thing the current crop of Dems and Repubs don't play football, because they would lose *every single game*. Waiting until a path is completely cleared to the end zone before deciding to throw the ball will never be the way to salvage a game, much less win one. Even lousy quarterbacks know that sometimes a Hail Mary pass is called for.

[Kota]

1. My nightmare, Cheney resigns, Jeb steps in.

Congress moves on and lets it go.Jeb runs for president, steals it.

[MissWaverly]

2. not going to happen

if cheney goes, bush will be looking for someone to pull a Jerry Ford pardon, get tapes of his eulogy last year for Ford, if you
have any doubts.

[Cronopio]

5. I don't believe that a Cheney indictment will necessarily mean a Bush indictment.

It doesn't have to. It's the power network that needs to be discredited, and even more importantly, the rule of American law that must be defended. An investigation would be the minimum effort, but it would succeed in putting certain power brokers on notice.

If the Dems had started this process 3 years ago, Bush could have gotten bagged as well, but nailing Cheney with an investigation is enough to salvage the game.

[leveymg]

8. After Watergate, the Bush wing of the CIA was funded by the Saudis.

With a virtually unlimited budget for covert operations, and a willingness to employ political dirty tricks that had been previously reserved for CIA foreign operations, the GOP managed to subvert the Carter Administration, and forever prevent effective oversight of intelligence. See, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/280; also, see, BCCI and the Stephens funding conduit for CIA domestic ops, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=763077&mesg_id=764507

Bush's rogue operators withheld and distorted intelligence about Iran, worked with their agents to undermine official U.S. diplomacy, sabotaged military rescue operations, and destabilized the American economy.

By 1980, the American people -- kept in the dark by a naive Democratic leadership and a compliant media, and suffering a phony oil shortage, double-digit inflation and unemloyment, witness to the unopposed subversion and controlled destruction of their government -- surrendered the White House back to the Republicans.

The fact is, Carter could have ordered the FBI to pursue these rogue operators and their corporate confederates -- particularly oil industry executives driving up prices and withholding supply - and, that law enforcement option was considered, but rejected, upon the recommendation of James Schlessinger, a carryover from the Ford Administration, and other Carter aides.

The Reagan-Bush era that followed was the result of this GOP domestic intelligence operation and the Democratic failure of nerve and imagination. If Carter had employed counter-intelligence methods to identify and neutralize that operation, America might have been spared the debacle of Bush 43.

[MissWaverly]

16. Yes, my thoughts as well

and I would like real accountability at last and a good house cleaning and let the whistle blowers toot their horn and get the
rascals off the gravy train with no excuses, and no pardons from friends in high places.

[MissWaverly]

15. I believe the Republicans would love to turn the page

esp. with a squeaky clean front man, remember Pres. Ford got them off the griddle w/o much scrutiny for the Watergate fiasco.

[Cronopio]

3. An inept fascist is better for the country than a talented one.

Jeb doesn't have the connections that Cheney has, couldn't create them quickly enough to be of use within a year, and is as dogshit stupid as his brothers.

Bush is a replaceable commodity, but Cheney isn't in this regime. You get rid of Cheney, you seriously damage a seasoned power network that has been in the making since the Nixon administration. I guarantee you that will put the fear into more than a few Beltway power brokers.

They would sooner appoint the likes of James Baker is an interim V.P. than Jebbie. But Baker, being part of the same power network, will carry much of the same baggage as the rest of the Bush administration, and won't be able to go up against the Dem juggernaut in 2008.

[Demeter]

4. If the Democrats Don't Relent, This Michigander Is Voting Kucinich

I would like John Edwards, but he withdrew from the ballot. So I wouldn't be surprised if Kucinich ran away with Michigan!

[autorank]

6. Nightmare scenario: French resistance opposes occupation but fails to win.

Little different when you say it that way... The French Resistance resisted because they had strong moral and political objections to the occupiers. What if they'd said, oh, heck, we can't win (which would have been accurate) so why start since it will hurt the cause?

Impeachment is about morality, national honor and the truth. Torturers must not serve in the White House.

[ShortnFiery]

7. "Impeachment is about morality, national honor and the truth."

Amen! :thumbsup:

[autorank]

20. Yep

This one's easy. :thumbsup: to you too!

[pberq]

11. great analogy!

[autorank]

19. Thanks!

:hi:

[flashl]

9. What happen to using Section 603 of Jefferson manual

May 1, 2006-Vermonters deliver impeachment resolutions to Congress

An effort that began in March culminated Monday when three vermont communities delivered a message to House Speaker Dennis Hastert: Start the process to impeach Pres. George Bush.

Six vermont towns passed resolutions on Town Meeting Day calling for Bush’s impeachment. On Monday, Ellen Tenney, a bookstore owner from Rockingham, hand delivered petitions to Hastert, an Illinois Republican.

After meeting with Hastert’s staff, Tenney delivered copies of the resolutions to Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, and Rep. John Conyers, D-MI, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, where an impeachment probe must originate in Congress.

...

Correctly worded impeachment resolutions must be passed from the speaker to the Judiciary Committee. If only one member of the House brings one of these resolutions to the floor, the House must debate it. Thanks to Jefferson we have the power to force this conversation. The time for a constitutional People’s Revolution is at hand.

I guess the operating words here are "correctly worded impeachment resolution" for a state's resolution to invoke Section 603 of the Jefferson manual.

Others have suggested that since DK's efforts that a resolution should be put forward everyday until Congress acts on an impeachment resolution. If states have the power to bring the impeachment issue before Congress and "halt" all of its business because the people spoke, why isn't using Section 603 seen as a viable option?

[Truth2Tell]

10. gotten away with illegal actions for the first time?

You could make a strong case that in both Watergate and Iran-Contra a whole lotta folks "got away" with illegal actions. Hell, Elliot Abrams is still pulling strings in the ME like a zombie that won't die.

So maybe the better argument would be that we would be once again allowing the law breakers to go free. So let's not do it again this time for christsakes!

And great post BTW, K & R :)

[Cronopio]

12. There were a couple of distinctions in that statement.

When Bush openly admitted to ignoring the FISA law and a congressional investigation wasn't called, for the first time a Presidential administration that openly admitted to breaking the law got away with it - for the moment, at least.

With Watergate, an investigation was started and the nation could see in real time that our system of government could defend itself against a renegade President.

With Iran-Contra, Ollie North was part of a renegade government within a government and Reagan's Alzheimer's-addled memory was a firewall between their actions and the operations of the Presidency. I personally believe that Reagan lied, but he did have Alzheimer's so the explanation is plausible. An investigation was called, the specifics of North's operation were brought into the open and admitted to, so one could say that the system did work, albeit imperfectly and not as well as it should have.

This Congress has 12 months to ensure that the administation's temporary reprieve is not a permanent statement about the unwillingness of our system of government to *even try to* defend the laws it makes.

And thanks for the K&R! :hi:

[Truth2Tell]

13. I missed the "openly addmitted " distinction.

So yer right - that would make my Watergate example a poor one. With Iran-Contra, the law breaking was openly and shamelessly admitted after the fact, as you say. But it was still allowed to largely stand unpunished - even then.

"Sometimes you have to go above the written law" - Fawn Hall :)

[mzmolly]

14. It could be that he will be impeached and not removed causing even more

international anger. If he's not removed it could further embolden this criminal cabal ie. "what have they got left to nails us with now? Let's go for broke ..." Or, he could be removed and a Giuliani VP could be nicely set up for a win in 2008.

I support impeachment, I feel we are obligated, but let's give weight to valid concerns please.

[Cronopio]

17. The international anger isn't a problem, or even the main issue as I see it.

It's the international faith in the American system of law.

This isn't just a moral or legal concept with only moral or legal ramifications. The drop in the value of the U.S. dollar is a direct result of the Bush administration running up astronomical levels of national debt and the resulting loss of confidence from investors around the world. That isn't anger, that's just an impartial collective business decision. There are more important things to worry about than how personally angry people are with America as a nation.

"If he's not removed it could further embolden this criminal cabal ..."

What could embolden the criminal cabal more than not even being investigated? An investigation, at the very least, will compromise the appearance of untouchability and unaccountability the Bush administration now enjoys, and will permanently benefit from if they are allowed to leave office without even being questioned. I'm not saying it's the entire ballgame, and we should be fighting for even more, but there is a crucial line that is crossed when even a compromised investigation is conducted. The rule of law depends upon the faith of the public, and that faith is the real "Thin Blue Line" that separates our society from anarchy or totalitarianism.

Even the appearance of accountability is a salvagable scenario. It's when even the pretense of accountability disappears that anarchy and totalitarianism begins.

"Or, he could be removed and a Giuliani VP could be nicely set up for a win in 2008."

If Giuliani acts like Giuliani as VP, I don't believe that will help him in his bid for President. GWB can't pilot the ship alone (he can't pilot the ship period), so an experienced and relatively unknown consigliere type like James Baker would be a more likely replacement than a Republican candidate with a compromised public record. But 12 months is too short a time for even James Baker to get anything serious going. Beyond Cheney's Iran ambitions (and I do believe Hersh in this matter that it is largely his baby), the Bush administration is acting like they're just basically running the clock out.

"I support impeachment, I feel we are obligated, but let's give weight to valid concerns please."

I think these are very valid concerns, even more valid than what is going to get the Democratic Party in the Oval Office in 2008. These concerns are about permanent changes to our society, not just election cycle tactics.

[mzmolly]

18. What kind of faith would be restored with a failed attempt at removal?

Re: the dollar - The U.S. dollar will not recover if we hold impeachment hearings.

"What could embolden the criminal cabal more than not even being investigated? An investigation, at the very least, will compromise the appearance of untouchability and unaccountability the Bush administration now enjoys, and will permanently benefit from if they are allowed to leave office without even being questioned. I'm not saying it's the entire ballgame, and we should be fighting for even more, but there is a crucial line that is crossed when even a compromised investigation is conducted. The rule of law depends upon the faith of the public, and that faith is the real "Thin Blue Line" that separates our society from anarchy or totalitarianism."

We have the ability to investigate at any time, at least now we have them over a barrel.

"If Giuliani acts like Giuliani as VP, I don't believe that will help him in his bid for President. GWB can't pilot the ship alone (he can't pilot the ship period), so an experienced and relatively unknown consigliere type like James Baker would be a more likely replacement than a Republican candidate with a compromised public record. But 12 months is too short a time for even James Baker to get anything serious going. Beyond Cheney's Iran ambitions (and I do believe Hersh in this matter that it is largely his baby), the Bush administration is acting like they're just basically running the clock out."

Rudy is already a contender in the eyes of Americans, I remain concerned that he could be a candidate for an open VP slot.

"I think these are very valid concerns, even more valid than what is going to get the Democratic Party in the Oval Office in 2008. These concerns are about permanent changes to our society, not just election cycle tactics."

Sorry, if we don't get the Presidency back in 2008, I don't see us maintaining a Democracy. That concern goes beyond mere election cycle tactics.

[Cronopio]

23. Faith in that an attempt would be made to investigate a tyrant.

You don't get to the point of ousting a tyrant in a democracy until you investigate him. In the case of Bush, he has already admitted to the crime, so the investigation shouldn't be a problem.

Again, if he leaves office without being investigated, the entire system of so-called justice in America is permanently indicted, not Bush.

"The U.S. dollar will not recover if we hold impeachment hearings."

Cheney is personally accountable for the invasion of Iraq that is causing the national debt to skyrocket, even more so than Bush. How could indicting the person who is causing the debt that is causing the crash in the value of the U.S. dollar *not* help? Your dogmatic response makes no sense.

"We have the ability to investigate at any time, at least now we have them over a barrel."

Then why isn't that happening? Just having the ability isn't good enough in dealing with tyrants.

And if they can break the law without being investigated or indicted, how are they "over a barrel"? Cheney would laugh at you for making such an assertion, and he'd be right.

"Sorry, if we don't get the Presidency back in 2008, I don't see us maintaining a Democracy. That concern goes beyond mere election cycle tactics."

The DLC controlled the Oval Office (to be accurate, "we" don't get the Presidency, the President does) for 8 years, and also had control of the Congress for the first 2. During those 2 years we got a centrist domestic policy (with NAFTA being ramrodded through Congress even with strong Dem opposition) and a contination of Bush I's foreign policy, with triangulation every step of the way. And the Dems lost control of Congress as a result.

Sorry, but the Clinton era taught me that just getting a Dem in the Oval Office is good, but not good enough. Getting the right Dem (one that isn't a corporatist triangulator against democracy themselves) is even more necessary now than in '92.

[MADem]

21. Gotten away with illegal actions 'for the first time in history?' I don't think so. NT

[Cronopio]

24. "... for the first time in the history of the United States." nt

[MADem]

26. I meant the United States when I said "I don't think so."

President Lincoln's abrogation of the Constitution was shown to be unconstitutional. And that was over a century ago.

[Cronopio]

27. You aren't specific about your example, but if it's Lincoln's handling of habeas corpus ...

... during the Civil War, that was a temporary suspension of the law, not technically an infringement. Bush broke the FISA law while it was in force. He didn't even attempt to suspend it, he just said it doesn't apply to him while the nation is at war.

[MADem]

28. Lincoln;s actions were found to be unconstitutional.

FISA isn't a Constitutional element or amendment. It's a piece of legislation that deals with surveillance. There's a bit of a diff, and the Supremes haven't weighed in yet on what BushCo did--just as well, given the current makeup of the court.

None of it's good, but my point was, simply, it ain't the first time.

And Bush has been a bad boy on the habeus corpus front as well, certainly: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/habeuscorpus.htm

President Bush suspended writs of habeas corpus through his support and signing into law of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The bill grants the President of the United States almost unlimited authority in establishing and conducting military commissions to try persons held by the U.S., and considered to be "unlawful enemy combatants" in the Global War on Terrorism. In addition, the Act suspends the right of "unlawful enemy combatants" to present, or to have presented in their behalf, writs of habeas corpus.

Specifically, the Act states, "No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."

Importantly, the Military Commissions Act does not affect the hundreds of writs for habeas corpus already filed in federal civilian courts on behalf of persons held by the U.S.as unlawful enemy combatants. The Act only suspends the accused person's right to present writs of habeas corpus until after their trial before the military commission has been completed. As explained in a White House Fact Sheet on the Act, "... our courts should not be misused to hear all manner of other challenges by terrorists lawfully held as enemy combatants in wartime."

Lincoln's Suspension of Habeas Corpus
Along with a declaring martial law, President Abraham Lincoln ordered the suspension of the constitutionally protected right to writs of habeas corpus in 1861, shortly after the start of the American Civil War. At the time, the suspension applied only in Maryland and parts of the Midwestern states.

In response to the arrest of Maryland secessionist John Merryman by Union troops, then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roger B. Taney defied Lincoln 's order and issued a writ of habeas corpus demanding that the U.S. Military bring Merryman before the Supreme Court. When Lincoln and the military refused to honor the writ, Chief Justice Taney in Ex-parte MERRYMAN declared Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional. Lincoln and the military ignored Taney's ruling.

[Cronopio]

29. There's a caveat in the writ of habeas corpus that Lincoln and Bush have claimed in their actions.

From wikipedia, "habeas corpus" article:

"The United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in the Suspension Clause, located in Article One, Section 9. It states: 'The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.'"

Lincoln claimed the rebellion caveat when the South tried to secede. Bush has claimed the invasion caveat when referring to 9/11 and the manufactured terrorist threat. And again, Lincoln didn't *break* the law, he suspended it.

How honest or applicable or constitutional Lincoln's and Bush's claims to these caveats can be debated, but that's the point - they are debatable points. Bush has no such plausible protection in his breaking of the FISA law.

From wikipedia, "FISA" article:

"The Bush administration, while conceding that it does not follow FISA, asserts that the warrantless surveillance program is nonetheless legal on the grounds that FISA is an unconstitutional infringement of executive power and/or FISA was implicitly amended or abrogated by the Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution passed by Congress. Opponents argue that only a later amendment to the Constitution can supersede the Fourth Amendment, and that in any case, some form of warrant conforming to the Fourth Amendment is required."

There is no provision in the Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution that Bush claims. The Bush administration has no authority to claim that FISA is unconstitutional, the Constitution only gives the Judicial Branch the authority to interpret the Constitution, and there is no finding of any court that supports Bush's claim.

The Bush administration admits that they broke the FISA law. Lincoln never claimed the authority to infringe upon habeas corpus, only to suspend it in accordance with the provisions of the writ itself. That's the difference.

[MADem]

30. I realize that, but the law found against Lincoln. The Supreme Court ruled.

They ruled that Lincoln HAD broken the law. Lincoln ignored the court, but that doesn't make what he did right.

With Bush and FISA, even though Bush said "Aw, shucks, yeah, I did it, heh heh, but it's OK, because ah'm the DECIDER, and thatsa crummy law anyway" no one has yet gotten out the Supreme ruler and slapped him across the knuckles for his conduct. There's no ruling from the Roberts court that says Bush was a bad boy. It hasn't been decided, the Decider notwithstanding. And that is the difference between Lincoln and Bush.

Now, either we're a nation that follows 'rule of law' or we aren't. The President isn't above the law--Nixon was an example of that. My point remains, that this isn't the first time.

[Cronopio]

32. A very activist Supreme Court, led by the secessionist Justice Taney.

The same one that claimed that any opposition to slavery was an act of "northern aggression." It's obvious what his motive was in this case, and it wasn't strictly interpreting the law. But Taney's decision did have a judicial precedent in Chief Justice John Marshall's claim that only Congress can suspend the writ of habeas corpus in Ex parte Bollman.

The problem with Taney's and Marshall's claim is that Marshall didn't base his assertion on anything in the Constitution, and didn't even attempt to argue the point in his decision. He just declared it to be the case, in one of the first textbook examples of "legislating from the bench."

The fact is, the Constitution, being the hastily cobbled together compromise that it is, didn't specify who had the ability to suspend habeas corpus and who didn't. It didn't even state that the Supreme Court had the authority of judicial review - John Marshall just claimed it because the Constitution didn't explicitly say he couldn't. John Marshall's decision on habeas corpus stands only because no one in the other branches at the time opposed it.

So Taney's assertion that Lincoln was acting outside the bounds of the Constitution was itself strictly unconstitutional. John Marshall was an influential Chief Justice, but he wasn't the Constitution.

"Lincoln ignored the court, but that doesn't make what he did right."

I'm not making a statement of whether it was right or wrong. I personally think that it was a military decision made under extraordinary circumstances (far more extraordinary than 9/11), and that if Lincoln hadn't made that decision, there was a excellent chance that the South would have seceded, the United States would have ceased to exist, and the Civil War would have been a conflict spanning generations. The fact that he made that decision set a bad legal example and weakened the legal system. Both options could be could be considered "right" or "wrong" based on your priorities. Lincoln clearly disagreed with Marshall's reading. If you want to place blame, blame it on the Founders for not dotting every "i" and setting up of the branches of government as checks upon each other.

All of this adds up to my reasons for stating that Lincoln's actions are validly debatable, and still are validly debated, unlike Bush's actions. Bush's violating the FISA law is not just a violation of FISA, but also a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and it has absolutely no, zilch, nada Constitutional precedent and absolutely no possibility of Constitutional justification. I firmly believe this is the reason that the Roberts court hasn't ruled on this. If there was *any* judicial precedent or reading of the Constitution that could gave Bush's actions legal cover, they would have presented it by now.

Lincoln's actions can be debated, and you've presented the solid classic argument against them. But Bush's transgression of the FISA law was blatant and its unconstitutionality cannot be debated.

"Now, either we're a nation that follows 'rule of law' or we aren't."

True on principle, but if it were always that clear cut, we wouldn't need a court system. Any student of civil law knows that the legal application of the habeas corpus writ has interpretated and re-interpreted by various Supreme Courts throughout U.S. history. Having said that, I do believe that the Bush admin has gone over the line in its reinterpretation of habeas corpus as well as FISA and the Fourth Amendment.

[MADem]

33. Well, my point, as I reiterated, really, was that the "first time in history" claim was inaccurate.

I don't argue with your interpretation of events. There should have been a second bite at the apple WRT Taney's assertions at some point, but there never was.

[Cronopio]

34. If I knew we would be splitting hairs on this, I would have written "undebatably illegal".

But the OP (and this thread) is wordy enough as it is. B-)

On rethinking this, you're might be right about Lincoln. Even though Marshall didn't have the constitutional authority to declare that only Congress could suspend habeas corpus, Lincoln didn't have the constitutional authority to assert that right for himself. The writ could only be amended to by amending the Constitution, which can only be done by the Legislative Branch.

The fact that Lincoln temporarily suspended it to save the Union, and not to attack the Constitution (as is the case with Bush), is still a crucial distinction in my opinion.

[RainDog]

22. the "game" is over

the democrats, or at least 6 of them, voted to confirm Mukasy, or however his name is typed. I would find it hard to believe that those six did not have the blessings of the DLC.

anyway, with this confirmation, the democrats have now crossed the boundary into openly enabling torture. Naomi Klein is so very articulate on this issue in the three-part video in the political vids forum. the democrats are now willing accessories to torture, a war crime and a crime against humanity.

makes me feel great to be an american....

[Cronopio]

25. Agreed about the Mukasey confirmation ...

... which is why just getting a Democrat into the Oval Office is better, but not good enough.

[Voltaire99]

31. Outcome never in doubt.

Alas, not with these worms.