Question: Is impeachment heading to too limited a scope?

[Festivito]

Pardons have allowed Bush to consider himself king, above the law, able to torture, omit laws with signing statement, et. al. After all, he can pardon any and all such acts. That is, as long as...

Impeachment is off the table.

(That line will be used to say that it was alright to destroy documents, since there was no ... <employ your favorite grouping of legal jargon here> ... so it was all under the rule of law.)

Back on the table, once impeachment starts, only then is he allowed no pardons on that specified charge or charges.

As we move past subpoenaing about the crime of firing prosecutors for political gain, into contempt, then,

QUESTION: Would a small impeachment limited to the fired prosecutors leave Bush his ability to condone torture and de-signing bills and whatever other illegality he engages in other areas?

I say that we must shoot for the whole range of high crimes and misdemeanors.

[rwheeler31]

1. Trying to find a republican with some humanity has not worked.

[Festivito]

2. They seem to have their own sense of humanity.

It doesn't work for me.

[AndyA]

3. I believe at a very minimum, we must impeach Bush, Cheney, and Gonzalez.

A slew of others will be caught in the process.

And we must not pardon them, they must be punished for their actions against America.

[Festivito]

4. Problem is that "we" don't pardon, the president pardons.

His ability to pardon MUST stop where he might pardon those involved with his own power. Leave such pardons to another president.