On Tuesday, a northern Virginia Democrat decided to add his support to a growing movement in the House of Representatives to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney.Meanwhile, this from a U.S. Senator:
Barbara Boxer: "Impeachment should be on the table" - Ed Schultz Show 7/11/07One gets the sense the Obstruction/Impeachment brake-pads are giving way, especially now that Harriet Miers and Fredo Gonzalez have once again thumbed their noses at Congress, and in a most ostentatious manner. Repo Senators cannot stop a bill to Impeach arriving from the House. Although, whether a trial in the Senate can be filibustered remains to be seen. I suspect this site's attorney-at-large will have something on that shortly.
Naahm?
2 comments:
No time to go into impeachment and whether I think there are any High Crimes and misdemeanors (I believe you have already offered High Treason, which is clearly impeachable).
Potential contempt is a separate issue, and one that will be determined in the same vein as the Veep's issues from some years back. W/R/T Miers, I wonder if atty-client privilege may also be raised, although if memory serves, that issue had been addressed before.
Believe it or not, I do consider this the high road. So much easier to say "I don't recall." They apparently do want a showdown with Congress on this.
I humorously note that here in NJ, the Gov is no longer using email because the GOP wants to subpoena emails regarding alleged preferential treatment given to organizations to which his girlfriend was affiliated. His claim for refusing to turn over the emails?
Executive Privilege!!!
(and no, I am not making this up).
Procedurally, I don't think any senators can stop the house from issuing a charge of impeachment.
Nor do I think that Senate impeachment proceedings can be filibustered. I may be wrong on that but it is a trial and may not be subject to the free and open debate rule.
Even it it could be filibustered, you would not see that--No senator would want to look as though they were "obstructing" justice, and at the end of the day, not enough Dems will vote to convict a president that had run affairs of state badly, and pushed the envelope in doing so, but had not committed any crimes (except the Hague's vague variety). It would set the bar so low that the next alignment of events would see similar treatment. Under the standard for impeachment that the Democrats are pursuing, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter all could have been impeached, because all did things that were later determined to be illegal or alleged to be violations of their oath of office. I do not believe that they want to go down that road.
Which makes me wonder if the Prez is not actually goading them to sh1t or get off the pot, since movement on this now, with exoneration for the president, makes it look political--the dems did a good job of this with Clinton, and I would suspect a similar backlash. Face it, the dems do have some downside risk here, and a bilious impeachment proceeding that achieves nothing but to make the democrats look as if they are on a political vendetta, and willing to sacrifice National Security in doing so, is a risk they dare not take. Further, it kicks out one of their 2008 campaign props. So no, I still see that going nowhere.
Commander Guy Deux
Post a Comment