Washington Will SOON Encounter Facts That COMMAND IMPEACHMENT! (Harpers)

[kpete]

The Case for Impeachment
DEPARTMENT No Comment
BY Scott Horton
PUBLISHED February 3, 2008

...................

I predict that before Bush leaves office, the case for his impeachment will and should be given a more careful hearing. It must not be pursued as a partisan remedy to force a transfer of power. Rather it should be used as an institutional remedy. Polling now shows that a large majority of Americans believe that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have committed serious transgressions against the Constitution which would merit consideration of the impeachment process. Impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney for their attempts to hijack the Constitution would make a clear statement about abuse of power. It would also serve to put reasonable constraints on the conduct of their successors–who are likely to be Democrats. This is a step which genuine Conservatives and Republicans who adhere to their party’s former understanding of a government with an executive of carefully limited and checked powers should welcome and embrace.

But more importantly, the political stage in Washington will soon encounter facts that command the consideration of impeachment. Let me posit a scenario which I believe likely to appear before the end of this summer. The Justice Department’s Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility have concluded their joint investigation into the “Gonzales Eight,” namely the eight U.S. attorneys who were fired by Alberto Gonzales on December 7, 2006. The legal standard governing these terminations can probably be summarized this way: the U.S. attorneys could be fired for no reason, or for any reason, but not for an improper reason. But the inquiry has concluded, as I think it invariably must, that in several cases the firing occurred for an improper reason, to-wit: in order to corruptly influence a criminal investigation. In one case, relating to New Mexico U.S. attorney David Iglesias, the facts establishing an improper purpose lie right at the surface, and they implicate Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove and George Bush. The Justice Department’s internal investigation will not address the White House’s involvement in the illegality—surely not President Bush’s and probably not even Karl Rove’s. But it will make a series of adverse conclusions concerning Alberto Gonzales and it will note that Karl Rove and George W. Bush were intimately involved in the whole process. This is because the jurisdictional remit of the investigation is limited–it can only deal with employees and former employees of the Justice Department, so Rove and the president are off bounds. But among the charges it is likely to lay at Gonzales’s doorstep is that he failed to apprise the White House of the fact that their meddling with the U.S. attorneys for purposes of influencing criminal investigations connected to elections was a crime–which it surely was. Gonzales recently engaged savvy criminal law counsel. He needs them. But the facts will point to more systematic and potentially deeper culpability within the White House than the Justice Department itself.

If things unfold this way, it will be incumbent on the Congressional oversight organs, and particularly the House Judiciary Committee, to pick up where the Justice Department’s investigation left off: it will need to scrutinize the role that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove and potentially others played in the whole affair, and generally in the corrupt influencing of criminal proceedings. It’s well settled at this point that if a criminal prosecution is manipulated for purposes of creating some partisan political benefit, that is a “corrupt influencing” under federal criminal law—a felony, and in the language of the Constitution, a “high crime and misdemeanor.” It’s very rarely charged because, of course, prosecutors make the decisions to bring charges, and prosecutors very rarely charge themselves. The key question of supervision of misbehaving prosecutors is rising to the top in Washington right now in a way it never has before in America’s history.

.............................

The use of impeachment as a device to undo the electorate’s will and install the legislature’s choice as president is a temptation inherent in democratic structures and in recent years we have seen impeachment misused or threatened this way not just in the United States, but also in other societies (Korea and Taiwan being two). The proper use of impeachment is as a constitutional restorative, just as Berger argues. And following this argument, as Bush’s term of office comes to an end, the use of the impeachment remedy becomes more, not less compelling. It can and should be used to draw a line in the sand about the arbitrary use of executive power, making clear that Bush’s abuses cannot be taken as precedent by future presidents. Indeed, failure to use impeachment has its consequences: it means acceptance of Bush’s transformation of the constitutional order. It means that the careful balance between legislature, executive and judiciary created by the Framers has been undone, and the executive has triumphed as the paramount power. Impeachment may be a painful process, of course, but http://harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002302b]

more at:
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002302

[mac2]

1. Impeachment for crimes against the state

A military coup occurred under Bush\Cheney. They've been making our military smaller and less effective since Clinton. As Grover Norquist stated, the goal is to drown the govenment in a bath tub so it is no longer effective. Is that not treason?

X-President Bush gets his World Order Government sooner than you think. We lost many of our most experienced military leaders.

You still think it's important as a Democrat to elect the first Jewish VP, Afro-American or woman President? Is that a good goal not the survival of our nation and democracy? That's about the only goal we will accomplished because the elite few make all the decisions for our President and people anyway (G8, Bilderberg Group, etc.). They are no longer in power and many not even Americans (but European royals).

Why has our media not been outraged? They want it. They are globalists and care little about democracy or free speech today. The goal is to win.

How about electing a President of the people? One Congress that would impeach a illegal, corrupt President and VP who destroyed our country in just eight years to its knees? It's not politics as usual nor is it as it has always been...but Fascism.

[randr]

2. What will the candidates say?

This is a question of most importance. Whether or not Hillary or Obama call for a reversal of *s criminal attack on our Constitution is central to how they will rule and affect the nation.
If either turns away from impeachment and the resulting prosecution they are in fact condoning the actions of the criminals in our White House, just as the congress is in contempt for not pursuing impeachment at this time.

[RuleOfNah]

63. Nothing meaningful?

I'm leaning toward a K vote tomorrow because K understood this issue (and is being attacked by his own party).

[me b zola]

3. K&R for Harpers

They've come through with some great political articles, and this is one of them.

[VP505]

4. The sad truth is

regardless of what may or may not come to light before the end of the Bu$h regime there is NO will on the part of the House and Senate to SEE or HEAR any of the compelling reasons to impeach. They have simply closed their eyes and plugged their ears in the interest of business as usual. Why, who knows for sure but one thing is clear it ain't gonna happen with the current opposition party leadership.

[pokercat999]

46. I think you are 100% correct.

[Echo In Light]

48. "Oppositional" being the operative term, used quite loosely here

[JackRiddler]

68. The sad truth is that the Iraq war lies are already an open and shut case

Among many others. And no move was made toward impeachment.

[angrycarpenter]

5. They should at least hold hearings on the role of VP

and what branch they belong to. When Dick said he was a branch unto himself they should have immediately jumped on the problem and settled it. That was a direct attack on checks and balances and they just took it.

[Selatius]

6. I'm willing to bet good money on the proposition that the Dems will not impeach at all.

There is no political will, no fortitude. I fear that they'll take the easy road out and simply let the evidence sit on the shelf collecting dust.

[klyon]

22. I agree

but I do think it would be great theater if the first thing the new Democratic President did after taking the oath of office is to turn to security and say " Arrest that man" and point to George W. Bush.

Bob

[orleans]

34. democratic congress will save their energy for the time when the

republiks in congress want to impeach a democratic president.

THEN us dems will be ready for another impeachment!

[formercia]

7. Connections to the Clinton Impeachment

There are numerous reasons that the GOP planned the Clinton Impeachment as part of a long-term strategy.

1. Junior was the planned successor to Poppy and his role to create a constitutional crisis was conceived long before the charges were brought against Bill Clinton.
The electorate had to be turned off to the idea of Al Gore becoming President and that the stolen election would be accepted as a done deal. Junior had to finish the job that Poppy had planned for his second term; the takeover of the federal government and the implementation of the New World Order.

2. Any attempt by Congress to impeach Junior would be portrayed as a revenge attack for the Clinton impeachment.

3. Congress had to be cowed into feeling that Impeachment was a distraction and an improper use of the law except in the most serious of cases.

4. The Special Prosecutor was rightfully demonized, as it was the intention of the GOP so that the statutes that allowed a Special prosecutor were not renewed, thus creating a severe impediment to the investigation of crimes that would lead to and air tight case for Impeachment.

I'm sure this has all been stated in the past, but it shows that all of what is happening today was planned long ago and was part of a long-term strategy to overthrow the Constitution of the United States.

[Helga Scow Stern]

21. Thanks. Makes perfect sense.

Kinda makes you wonder what the current manipulation of the Democratic party has to do with this trajectory.

:think::shrug:

[formercia]

41. The financial Meltdown

the current financial crisis that we are in right now began in 1996 when the M3 (money in circulation) began to go through the roof. All of this funny money that the Fed began to flood the market with led to the boom in cheap mortgages and massive speculation in the markets. It's a major reason that there was a surplus during the Clinton administration. It was like a sugar or alcohol high is to the body. You pay for it later.
Rubin (ala Wall Street) was the Sec. of the Treasury who began this little financial Ponzi scheme. I think the Clintons want to get back in power so they can be sure to cover their tracks as to who started all of this mess.

[rucognizant]

45. Fact is...........

It began in 1971 when NIXON, took the country off the gold standard! Then poor Carter was blamed for the subsequent recession!
They have been tweaking & pushing it ever since! In the 80's the "little guy" was seduced into the stock market. It played right into the Boomer's "live forever, retire early desires"......... they took the bait hook line & sinker. I doubled my money in a Money Market account...( 1985-6) then was forced out by not having the minimum $5,000. in the account to play the game!
The CLintons were a part of it but certainly not ALL of it!

[formercia]

47. You make a good point.

The boys have been working the market schemes for a long time.

Look up the historical M3 charts and you will see why I used 1996 as a time of change. It's a very dramatic change in rate of supply and I don't think it had anything to do with the economy at the time but was a plan to flood the market with cheap money.

It's always easier to take financial risks when it's someone else's money.

Perhaps there was no intent to create a situation for fraud and decisions may have been made based on worthy arguments but crooks, being who they are, always take advantage of an easy situation.

[lonestarnot]

8. Holding my breath for justice.

[librechik]

9. Republicans would NOT ALLOW inpeachment to be non-partisan. Not in an election year.

Prepare to run impeachment hearings with a) no Republicans present at the hearings and b) a deafening 24/7 chorus of how partisan and self-serving the dems are for doing this during an election year.

NOTHING will make Pelosi do impeachment. For example, we know there are many instances of CHILD RAPE in our secret prisons, even pictures/videos from Abu Ghraib--all acts that can be traced directly to the Whitehouse. THAT was not enough for Pelosi to put impeachment on the table.

What on earth could ever move her, if the shrieks of children being raped will not move this loving grandmother?

Hypothetically, though maybe it could be done quietly in early 09, after the transfer. Then they couldn't accuse us of trying to influence the election.

But would enough of our Pelosi-like reps actually do such a thing? They'll be too busy sighing with relief that they managed to get through the campaign without having to do anything controversial, and by god, this is no time to poison our first year with controversy. Spineless freaks don't realize that this will get worse and worse if they do nothing until there will be a point where we CAN'T do anything.

[AntiFascist]

25. K&R, is not Pelosi one of the Elite who want the New World Order...

to come into being? If this is in fact the case, then we also need to look into the underlying goals of the DLC, and the Clintons who aided the transition from Bush I to Bush II. I agree, this should not be a partisan issue.

[JustDavid]

52. Maybe

you should present those videos and pictures to the media. Or better yet post them here (not like that, I don't want to see that) but let the internet do its thing. The media will have to pick up on it sooner or later.
Have you seen them?

[RaleighNCDUer]

53. Your hypothetical is nonsense. Impeachment only removes from

office (if successful). In early 09, Bush/Cheney will be out of office, barring an outright coup. Therefore, no impeachment.

They're running out the clock, and Pelosi is allowing it.

[librechik]

56. I agree about that clock. But if my hypothetical is nonsense, it''s still possible and discussed

here
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardonop3.htm

here
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2005/12/publius_shouts.html

here
http://www.proteinwisdom.com/?p=10013

here
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/link.php?id=49700

and most importantly perhaps here
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=8E89C3C417906927D03B57F63D585DF3.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=8527

among other places. But mostly in relation to the impeachment of Bill Clinton, which the Republicans would have zealously pursued after 2000 if he had not been acquitted.

[RaleighNCDUer]

58. Wow. I withdraw my 'nonsense'. I was unaware that there was so

much potential, and even a precedent with Belknap, for late impeachment.

Thank you.

[librechik]

65. glad to let you know!

:hug:

(tell others!)

[malaise]

10. Rethugs know Dems are winning in November

They will support any reining in of the Executive just before Bush's term is over. Watch and see.

[acmavm]

11. Yeah, the firings are a serious offense. But we have bigger and better

ground to impeach the son of a bitch (literally AND figuratively) than that. How about lying us into a war??? How about the signing statements???? How about a continual conspiracy to defraud the US Treasury? How about complicity in outing an agency that was tracking the spread of REAL WMDs? How about spying on the American people illegally?

I'm just getting started but you can see where I'm going.

[L. Coyote]

12. We do not often reflect on what is yet to be revealed. I think Horton knows something

thanks to having some very good informants. Also, this is a well-informed and authoritative legal scholar writing a blog, not just another journalist writing an article for news!

"facts establishing an improper purpose lie right at the surface, and they implicate Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove and George Bush."

[mod mom]

13. They've lied us into war, subverted the constitution, have billions of $ missing

after handing out no bid contracts to cronies, politicized the DoJ -doesn't this COMMAND IMPEACHMENT?

[Recursion]

14. They might punt

The House could delay until right after the election and pass an impeachment motion, the Senate would then delay a trial until after the inauguration, at which point they would say they no longer had jurisdiction.

[goforit]

15. Impeachment??? NOT!!! Congress the whimpiest group ever!!!

[rucognizant]

49. Whimpy NOT!

Some are some are corrupt..............some in Congress are jumping up & down with frustration at the slow pace of dealing with this. Instyead of blaming the inaction of the Democrats, we need to organize the removal of the obstructionists, like Mich McCOnnell, Sen Kyle, etc......... Hopefully we will be able to vote Collins out of office here in Maine, and install Tom Allen, a liberal Democrat & COngressman. It's NOT easy! Collins is VERY helpful & sympathetic to her constituant's problems. ( They who think our financial problems are the fault of the lazy welfare Mothers, popping out babies for the Govt. to support.) If you rarely step across the state border, and listen to Rush on the radio, it's really hard to see the BIG picture! Especially if your family have been Eisenhower Repuplicans. Don't ask questions, just follow your parents traditions.
WHen you can't declare bankruptcy due to a medical crisis................few are going to risk ostracism, to tell you that it's because your "so helpful" Repug Senators voted to change those laws!
We had a lovely town party yesterday for a retiring employee........I was trying to get a consensus for the caucus next week from the KNOWN Democrats. Without exception, they quickly found reasons, "oh so politely", to drift on to other conversations.
Very frustrating...........like COngressman Waxman I am jumping up & down with frustration!

[bvar22]

16. There will be NO impeachment.

The DLC Democrats helped BUILD the Unitary Executive.
The DLC Democrats helped seat AntiLABOR/ Pro-Unitary Executive judges on the Supreme Court.
(SEE: Gang of 14)

The PowerBrokers who OWN the Republicans also OWN the DLC.
They also OWN Hillary AND Obama.

There will be NO impeachment.
The Unitary Executive will NOT be disassembled.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[never_get_over_it]

18. AMEN

could not agree with you more....

the final stake through the heart of the progressive wing of this party happened on Wednesday January 30, 2008 in New Orleans....

only good news is that John Edwards' plane didn't go down....

[Lugnut]

36. Yep.

K&R.

[vanboggie]

43. Exactly n/t

[earth mom]

73. Stake through the heart...yep that about sums it up.

I HATE THE DLC! :puke:

[Psyop Samurai]

19. Word. I've come to regard nearly all prognostication as disinfo...

...the fear peddling AND the hope. Both serve to distract from what has ALREADY OCCURRED, and the obvious implications and responsibilities that follow therefrom.

On edit:
I'm sure Mr. Horton is an honorable person (or not - I don't have 72 hours in a day to keep track), but here's what my brain registered as my eyes perused this article: "blah, blah, blah, bl-blah blah blah". I'm sure the article is well-reasoned, researched, and sourced. Nonetheless, "Blah, blah, blah, bl-blah blah blah". So much for punditry - even "our own".

[troubleinwinter]

20. The peddling is for the sake of money donations. Moneymoneymoney. Donatenow.

[tomp]

35. $100 says the dems will not impeach. nt

[MelissaB]

42. OT: I love your sig line and photo.

It says it all. :hi:

[ThomWV]

17. The road to Impeachment could also pass through Ashcroft's hospital room

And we know who was in the room, including Ashcroft's wife, a person for whom no thought of executive privilege might be considered.

[timtom]

23. Don't flipping bet on it.

I'm afraid we've moved beyond that, now.

[L. Coyote]

24. More details leak out every day. K & R

[puebloknot]

26. The problem with all this is a "Let him/her who is without sin cast the first stone" paradigm.

Once the lid is lifted, out will fly Democratic complicity so extensive that impeachment will become a joke. Except that it won't, because the PTB in Washington, on both sides of the aisle, will never allow it to happen.

Sorry to throw cold water on the enthusiasm expressed here. I've been an ardent supporter of impeachment since the Supremes appointed Bushco. I've been amazed at Democrats who are willing to sweep everything under the rug, in service of bipartisan harmony and *moving on*. Who will speak for those have died? Impeachment would at least show that America still has some shred of moral authority in the world.

[Senator]

27. K&R & Impeach To ReUnite Us Again

Yes, I said reunite the nation (and the Dem party) through impeachment.

The beltway "conventional wisdumb" of "No! It's too divisive! (squawk)" is -- as usual -- the opposite of reality.

----

[Phred42]

28. Impeachment is the only way to PROVE that We still have a Democracy.

Impeachment is also the only way to validate the Rule of Law both to ourselves, and the World.

Congress was WRONG to let Nixon off the hook.

Clinton was Wrong to let Reagan/Bush off the hook

Congress is Wrong once again to let Bush/Cheney off the hook

And Obama/Clinton will be wrong to let the Bush Crime Family off the hook - but they will.

The Oligarchy protects it's own.

Without Impeachment we prove that Democracy is finished in this country.

[Jackpine Radical]

30. There will be no impeachment.

Democracy is finished in this country.

Don't believe it? Watch.

NOTHING is gonna happen.

[FlyingSquirrel]

29. GREAT. So NOW THAT IT'S TOO LATE, the Repugs will

vote for impeachment to prevent a possible Democratic president from using the same powers Bush has used?

JUST FUCKING WONDERFUL.

At this point I'm starting to be AGAINST impeachment. And I have the word IMPEACH in large letters on the back of my pickup truck too.

Because, WHY IMPEACH when it's too late to make a difference for the person you're impeaching?

There's no guarantee that the next President will commit the same offenses that this one has.

I strongly believe that impeachment should be used as a remedy against CURRENT holders of the office, not as a PREVENTION technique against the future holder of the office.

But if it starts to look like we're gonna have a Democratic president (and that's far from certain at this point) ... I'm sure you'll see a lot more Repugs supporting impeachment.

Did I already say "GREAT"?

:sarcasm:

[Jackpine Radical]

31. Hey, I don't want the Dems to have that power either.

Impeach and be damned to them all.

But, like I said above, ain't gonna happen.

Too many red hands in Wahsington. Both parties.

[Jackpine Radical]

32. Facts can't command anything.

Only people can. In this case, Democratic Congressional leaders. And they will sit on their complicity-reddened hands.

[stillrockin]

33. We cannot stop speaking out.

Thank you, Harpers.

[VotesForWomen]

37. LOL. too little, too late, and nobody cares. nt

[Mithreal]

38. Interesting to read DU'rs say it's not gonna happen.

Too many give reasons why we should just leave it be.

I expect a lil more fight out of anyone who comes.

But that's just me.

[Independent_Liberal]

69. The problem is they keep acting like they know for certain it isn't.

What do we know? Don't they ever think for a moment that they could be wrong? So that's why when/if it does happen, I can blow everything they said back in their faces and laugh my ass off. Ha! :)

[earth mom]

74. FYI-Many DUers have been demanding Impeachment since before Pelosi took office.

We've had many heated discussions on this board about it.

People still care, we just know that unless we get a real progressive as president, it ain't gonna happen, because too many on both sides of the aisle are equally guilty with blood on their hands.

[BeHereNow]

75. Blood on their hands and corporate cash stuffing their piggy pockets

Each side clamoring a little harder to get MORE corporate cash
while spewing crap out of both sides of their piggy snouts
about representing "we, the people."

There's a special room in hell for these fuckers.
Each and every one.

BHN

[earth mom]

76. Ain't that the truth!

Can you believe that after all we've seen transpire these long miserable years that people on DU are lapping up the lies like there's no tomorrow?!

Yep, that special room in hell will be bursting at the seams.

[BeHereNow]

77. I'm particularly disgusted with Waxman on the Sibel Edmunds case.

Fuck him too, at this point.
There are people in our government offices who
could bring this burning sack of shit down with ONE
hearing.
What do they do?
NOTHING.
Just MORE Kabuki theater in C-span.

BHN

[Mithreal]

78. I can understand that but you can't know the future

At the very least any DU'er who says it isn't gonna happen should be demanding hearings to investigate whether crimes have been committed by the executives.

Why would you rather everyone accept that it isn't going to happen? Is it because you gave up and have moved on so I should as well?

No offense, I do appreciate the conversation, really, I am just trying to understand.

Maybe we should all be rethinking the impeachment and pushing for hearings on whether crimes have been committed by the President and VP in hopes that that will explode into a full blown impeachment or similar.

I like conversation but I do not need a counselor to help me move along in my grieving process. This kind of government requires activism not acceptance and just because the battle may not be an easy one doesn't mean we need to surrender or run away from it.

Anyway, don't mean to sound so aggressive to a fellow DU'er but I think I have a fire in my belly and I mean to use it plus I need to work on strengthening my arguments, this is good practice sometimes.

[santamargarita]

39. Don't Forget The "War Criminal" Part

K&R = vote

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Broadslidin]

44. With an embryonic 11 posts, could these words be simply an immature whimsical delusion?

Maybe.

[Echo In Light]

50. Why is it that when someone espouses a view contrary to the majority, they're "delusional?"

I mean, agree or disagree, fine. I'm just sayin' that one finds a great deal of this level of knee jerk reaction name calling when long standing, cherished beliefs are questioned/challenged.

[Broadslidin]

64. Howdy Echo in Light,

Twas only a knee jerk response to a forgotten remark,
since removed.

[paparush]

51. That's all too complex for Joe Six Pack

We need video of Shrub and Cheney dining on freshly grilled babies...just my modest proposal.

Or that they rigged the Super Bowl.

THEN you'll see a mass of rage outpouring from the bowels of Amurika.

[burgundy floppy hat]

54. Constitutional crimes, but Bush is just a blip,

You're right, Bush committed egregious offenses against the Constitution.

But in the end, Bush is just a blip on the screen, he and Cheney the most incompetent of American Presidents, laughable.

And he should be impeached, and tried, as should the rest of them, personally, I will make that case until justice is served, including justice for the people of Iraq.

But you know, don't give a little man like Bush, like the neocons, more power than they have -- they're really stupid, let's be honest, they're not more special, or better than you, or me, they're not kings, despite their delusions of grandeur.

Do you think Obama will restore the Constitution as the founding fathers intended it, btw?

(If your an Obama supporter, that is) -- I'm curious to hear how Obama supporters think their candidate will address the Bush/Cheney crimes.

[peacetalksforall]

55. Every day, everything I read tells me the same thing = the DLC is Republican.

We are living an illusion delusion.

Bravo to Harpers! It will now be banned.

[L. Coyote]

57. Does that mouse in your pocket have a name? LOL

Count me out of that "we" as I know your mouse there and you do not define the Dems, but mostly because I'm not living an illusion delusion.

In the real world, the Dems define themselves democratically as a party. Are you a member and will you be attending local, state, or national platform meetings to participate in the process this cycle?

[The Stranger]

59. But the Nancy Disaster will not let the People's Will be done.

[LynnTheDem]

60. What the rightwingnuts didn't think about; why should the Dems impeach, when all that stolen POWER

will be THEIRS when they're in office!

THANKS, rightwingnuts! Didja really think Dems would just hand back all the power bush stole for the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT??!

Stupid MFers.


Good luck ever getting our powers back, Americans. Rightwingnuts sold us all down the fucking river.

[flashl]

61. Great post. nt

[flashl]

62. Dupe.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. will believe it when I see it

but I can almost guarantee to you that it will NOT happen

After all, we already have impeachable offenses and her madame speaker and the Judiciary Committee Chairman will not allow it to go forth.

So forget it... this republic died on December 12, 2001... done deal

[L. Coyote]

67. This is the LINK that works.

One does and one does not in the OP

http://harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002302

[defendandprotect]

70. Signing Statements alone --- bankrupting the Treasury -- wiretapping . . .

how many reasons do we need ---

MOVE ON IMPEACHMENT!!!!

[HCE SuiGeneris]

71. I have to pay greater attention to the Greatest page.

late night kick...

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. hate to say it, but cannot excited bout this anymore

anybody care to wager how long will it take for them to start hearings?

My bet is never.