Slashdot posted the articles of Impeachment on Thursday April 26, @09:40AM. I read them this morning.
I have had a least a dozen arguments with friends about whether or not we (the Dems) should be trying to Impeach. I think it is a diversion from investigations into what these guys are really doing, like voter suppression, corruption and the thousand other attacks on our country. They reply "but these guys are guilty."
My argument is basically a tactical one, that impeachment is at the bottom a political decision and the various legitimate investigations going on will build that case for the country as a whole and more importantly, for the Republicans trying to save some small portion of their fat asses in 08. With that in mind, I decided to see just what kind of a case Kucinich made and if that changed my mind.
More after a word from our sponsors ----
I started by reading and then summarizing the three Articles as I WMD, II Saddam and 911, and III Iran. To quote the specifics:
Article I "deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" (page 2)
Article II "to deceive the citizens of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" (page 8)
Article III "openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, (page 13)
I then did a search on Dailykos for Kucinich and Cheney within the last two days and read a representative sample. The following are light hearted (possibly snarky) summaries. They are meant to give you an idea of the diary, not to judge them. neroden lists the reps on the committees and asks us to push them. LiberalWithBalls gives a rant rahrah speech with pictures ending with Cheney in a suicide bomb vest. GoMommyGo strongly supports Kucinich with a stand by your man posting. CoolAqua does an interesting analysis. The articles quote Cheney public statements to back up the claims he lied so he looks at the venue where Cheney lied, reaching the conclusion that GE should be impeached. Robert Naiman talks about Dana Millbrooks reaction and how we have to continue pushing.
So where does that leave us. Well the articles are pretty straight forward. The charges are followed by specification of public statements Cheney made and references to documents that show Cheney knew he was lying. IANAL but I think there are several arguments that don't work and one slimy one that could be argued. I end with the posting with the argument being used now. First the ones that don't work.
- He didn't say what he is saying on the tape. (AKA Who are you going to Believe me or your lying eyes.)
- No big thing (doesn't rise to impeachable offense level) with at least two forks:
a) it's not like he was getting a blow job
b) hey, it's only a little war
- People lie all the time. (Segue into Clinton argument)
- There are super secret reasons which we couldn't tell the country why we had to so it and Cheney was just telling a cover story
- Look how evil Saddam was (and Iran)
The slimy one that could be argued is to take apart his statements and try to lawerly argue that they didn't cross the line into lying but perhaps gave the wrong impression, sorry about that shit.
But after reading the articles, I am back to my original argument. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. These guys may be due, but it will not be by due process.
We have had three impeachments in our history. Johnson and Clinton were cleary political affairs but I want to argue that Nixon was a political affair also. What happened with Nixon was that he saw the handwriting on the wall and resigned. Yes, he would have been convicted but what happened was that key Republicans went to him and told him he had to resign. That's why he said in his resignation speech, that he had lost the political support to govern effectively. At bottom he believed that it didn't matter what he had done, that only the political facts counted.
What I think will happen is that as the actions of the Bush/Cheney cabal get publicized, as Condi has to appear under oath, as the voter suppression, the obstruction of corruption investigations, as the treatment of the troops and all the other things get under congressional scrutiny, under oath, the Republicans are going to get more and more scared. Eventually they will have to do something. Keep in mind that at any point, there may be a smoking gun,like clear proof that Bush told Gonzo to hold up a case, that Rove told Monica (The Christianist one) to screen for political views, that the Hatch act was violated, etc. Once a clear smoking gun emerges, the Republicans will have cover (I'm shocked to find out that there is gambling going on) and Cheney will have another clot and Bush will go back his cult home and falling off his bike.
Judges and lawyers in court have very prescribed paths. A judge will not make a decision that will result in a clear overturn on appeal. Representatives and Senators have a great deal more latitude and in the end are guided by their political future. We just have to make it as painful as possible for the Republicans. That is what Waxman, Leahy and the others are doing.
Right now the winning defense argument seems to be "La La La La La, I can't hear you."