are there minor candidates for Senate who have called for it?--and what makes Merkley "major" comparatively?

Hooray for Jeff. I wish that Wyden had pushed this when the impeach Bush crowd went after him. While most Blue Oregon readers would like Bush and Cheney impeached, there is clearly a split on the practical politics of that action. However, Gonzales is another story.

Impeaching Gonzales would have both national support as well as the support of some Republicans. It will also put those like Smith? who might not get on the impeachment bandwagon in a tight spot. They would be seen as both defending all of Bush's illegal acts and defending Gonzales, who is the ultimate in government sleeze and corruption.

Just as important, getting rid of Gonzales is the first step in opening up all of the White House secrets. His replacement would not be able to be someone who will protect Bush the way Gonzales has and the impeachment process will allow the discovery of documents that are now hidden by the White House.

John, whenever Gonzalez came up at the Portland meeting with Wyden, people were calling for his impeachment, too.

How many votes do you think you could get? We've spent the last week hearing from people saying that there aren't enough votes to impeach Bush or Cheney. Are there enough to impeach Gonzales? Or would you have to have a hearing first to try to sway some more votes?

And what would you impeach him for? He could say he was just following orders. If George Bush didn't do anything wrong by telling Alberto Gonzalez to to it, then how could Bert have done anything wrong himself? He doesn't even remember what he did.

I await the usual "Merkley is a stooge for the DSCC" comments with interest.

are there minor candidates for Senate who have called for it?--and what makes Merkley "major" comparatively?

OK, that's my line. I've been looking, and haven't found any other U.S. Senate candidates that have done so. The "major" is a cop-out, just in case Pavel Goberman or some other crank somewhere said something to someone once.

darrelplant

Adam Cohen had an oped in the NY Times yesterday.

An excerpt:

"Impeachment of Mr. Gonzales would fit comfortably into the founders’ framework. No one could charge this Congress with believing that executive branch members serve at the “pleasure of the Senate” or the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indicated that impeachment of President Bush is “off the table,” and there has been little talk of impeaching Vice President Dick Cheney or others in the administration.

If the House began an impeachment inquiry, Mr. Gonzales would most likely resign rather than risk the unpleasantness of the hearings, and the ignominy of being removed. Congress should think of it as a constitutional tap on the shoulder, to let the attorney general know that the time has truly come for him to go. If Mr. Gonzales did resign, this Congress would most likely be more gracious than the one in 1876, which ignored Mr. Belknap’s hurried resignation and impeached him anyway.

If I followed the instructions on linking, the article can be found at:

this is NYTimes

Thanks, John.

This isn't exactly radical talk.

The New York Times editorialized for Gonzales' removal from office on Sunday, July 29.

Unfortunately, that editorial requires a subscription. Here's the punch line:

Democratic lawmakers are asking for a special prosecutor to look into Mr. Gonzales's words and deeds. Solicitor General Paul Clement has a last chance to show that the Justice Department is still minimally functional by fulfilling that request.

If that does not happen, Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales.

An op-ed in the Times as early as May 3 by Frank Bowman, a law professor from the University of Missouri-Columbia, called for the same outcome. Unfortunately, that article is also restricted to subscribers. Here's the money shot from that one:

Even if perjury were not a felony, lying to Congress has always been understood to be an impeachable offense. As James Iredell, later a Supreme Court justice, said in 1788 during the debate over the impeachment clause, ''The president must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate.'' The same is true of the president's appointees.

The president may yet yield and send Mr. Gonzales packing. If not, Democrats may decide that to impeach Alberto Gonzales would be politically unwise. But before dismissing the possibility of impeachment, Congress should recognize that the issue here goes deeper than the misbehavior of one man. The real question is whether Republicans and Democrats are prepared to defend the constitutional authority of Congress against the implicit claim of an administration that it can do what it pleases and, when called to account, send an attorney general of the United States to Capitol Hill to commit amnesia on its behalf.

It's very nice that Merkley is taking this position, but it's hardly a profiles-in-courage moment.

John, I think you rather missed the point. You said that Wyden should have "pushed" a Gonzalez impeachment "when the impeach Bush crowd went after him". The crowd was already supporting a Gonzalez impeachment. They were already pushing the idea at Wyden.

I think my other point still stands, though. Unless you think Gonzalez was acting on his own, either in the firing of USAs or lying to Congress, the White House was involved. If you think Gonzalez is guilty of something impeachable, I have to wonder why you wouldn't think Bush and Cheney are impeachable as say, part of a conspiracy to prevent Congress from finding out the truth about the USA firings.

I don't think if you put it up for a vote today that you would be able to convict Gonzalez. A case needs to be made against him, before he can be impeached, tried, and possibly convicted. That process should begin. But so should the process of making a case against Bush and Cheney. That's been the point of people who suggested the Democrats should have started putting their ducks in a row a couple of years back and preparing for a potential fight. You know, just in case.

darrelplant How many votes do you think you could get?

That's a good question. Judging by the reception that Mr. Gonzalez has been getting recently from Republicans, I'm sure that some would be scared enough to do the right thing.

It's telling that when FOX news sent a call to the Republicans to defend the A.G. in their sycophantic setting, they couldn't find a single one to go on record defending him.

Impeaching Gonzalez would force Republicans between implicitly declaring Bush incompetent for nominating and sticking by his A.G., and defending a man who has indisputably committed perjury by its full legal definition (lying, under oath, about issues that are material to an investigation). Better, it is far more likely to be backed by the U.S. public, and not backfire on progressives.

Backfire? Yes. You'd be a fool to discount the possibility. The American public views impeachment of elected officials - and specifically the President - as a usurpation of their right to decide collectively, who will lead the country. They have no such attachment to appointed underlings, especially the Attorney General, who is supposed to be beyond reproach.

I would argue forcefully that impeaching Gonzalez is a no-brainer. Since Senate Republicans have decided to be obstructionist anyway (with a record number of filibusters), there is no particular need to engage in Senate comity. They're playing hardball. So should we.

Darrel,

My view is similar to Mr. Maurer's. Go after the easier target first, not the harder one. Gonzales is a much easier target than Bush or Cheney. If it works, it just may help the case with the public and the Congress to complete the job and go after Bush. In any case it will expose both Bush and the Republicans that defend him without causing collateral damage to the Dems.

John, who's suggesting going after Bush and Cheney first? That's an end result.

People who want Bush and Cheney gone want their lackys gone, too. Nobody was advocating that Nancy Pelosi assume the presidency with Gonzales as her AG or that karl Rove should have stayed on as her political advisor.

East Bank Thom wrote, I'd also like to see Oregon's congressional delegation as well as anybody stepping up to join this club get in step with their constituents

Um, Thom, time to start paying attention.

All four Democratic members of Oregon's congressional delegation were original co-sponsors of the Inslee resolution to impeach Gonzales.

Yup, we can be proud of our members of the House on this one.

Stehanie V wrote... It's very nice that Merkley is taking this position, but it's hardly a profiles-in-courage moment.

Well, yes, it's not the most radical political position that anyone has ever taken -- he's not suggesting launching Dick Cheney into orbit around Jupiter...

But it's worth noting that there's not a single U.S. Senator that has called for the impeachment of Gonzales. Not Russ Feingold, not Chris Dodd, not Bernie Sanders, etc.

I don't know if it qualifies as a "profile in courage" - after all, Gonzales is pretty unpopular. But here's the important point -- Jeff Merkley is showing leadership. By staking this claim, he's daring Gordon Smith to follow him -- and frankly, the rest of the U.S. Senate.

This is exactly what we want from our U.S. Senators, and by proxy, our Senate candidates.

Full disclosure: I built Jeff Merkley's campaign website, but I speak only for myself.

Of course no sitting Senator (and most likely no other Senate candidate) will call for impeachment. Why?

Because it is unethical to do so.

While I am 100% for impeachment of Gonzales (not to mention Cheney and Bush) I am also not a sitting Senator nor am I running to be a Senator,m and that is the problematic aspect of a Senator (or candidate for same) to call for impeachment directly.

It is something a Senator (or in this case a Senatorial candidate) needs to be very careful (or more precisely something he or she should not do at all) in calling for "impeachment" since as a Senator, a Senator would be expected to sit as a juror in the trial of Gonzales in the Senate if articles of impeachment where to be passed by the House. This is like a prospective juror saying "they should arrest that guy so I can vote him guilty".

Granted that if Merkely were elected to the Senate, he would be serving in a Congress when the Bush administration (and Gonzales) would no longer be in office, but it is worth remembering that outright calling for removal from office by a Senator is problematic because of the Constitutional process involved. This is why you get "tea leaf" style statements and calls for someone to step-down from Senators.

EBT -- Aha. I get it. I misread your sentence construction and thought you were calling on our House members to join the "Impeach Gonzales" club. Got it. Sorry 'bout that.

FYI, I've posted a couple of updates to blogs talking about this...

MCR, I am well aware what the process is. Which is exactly why I pointed out why you won't get direct calls for removal from office via impeachment from Senators. It is analgious to a jurist calling for arrest and conviction before trial. Read Merkley's statement. While I petsonally agree wiyh it, a Senator needs to be more circumspect.

He can fire them for any reason he wants. We can all agree that firing them for political purposes is wrong, awful, damaging to our judicial system, etc. But it's a legitimate power that this and every president has, to be used for good or evil.

I don't believe this is actually true. Firing whistleblowers is illegal. Firing someone at DOJ because they won't engage in criminal activity (which is what prosecuting someone when you know you have exculpatory evidence) is illegal.

As Steven Maurer mentioned above, there is a big difference between removing a Senate-confirmed political appointee and removing a democratically-elected president.

If you view the process as partisan-driven, then sure, there's a difference politically. If you view the process as Constitutionally-driven, then there is no difference because the exact same portions of the Constitution govern the impeachment of all federal officials, be they AGs or Presidents. They can all be impeached for the same breaches of public trust.

Miles, you're wrong about the USA firings. You cannot fire people who will not carry out your orders to subvert the political process as president. You can fire them for no reason, or because you don't like their ties, but if you've given them orders to use their powers in an illegal manner, you cannot punish them for failing to do so or for poking into things you have ordered them not to poke into for political reasons. I mean, you can, but it's frowned upon.

Does the name Archibald Cox ring a bell?

This same discussion is going on now at dailykos.

What's the discussion? It should have started months ago.

Darrel, I'm not exactly sure what kind of point you're trying to make about "partisan-driven" and "constitutionally-driven" processes. The U.S. Constitution is itself a political document. It formulates rules for mediating political disagreements. To claim that there is no partisan motive behind impeachment is, quite frankly, not in the least bit believable.

And even if you can, through sheer mental effort, make yourself believe that impeachment is a completely apolitical process, guided with not even a whiff of self-interest of the political players involved, but purely by the loftiest principals of our esteemed and venerated Constitution, I guarantee you that the majority of the American public won't see it that way. And they will be looking at anything our representatives do with a jaundiced eye.

In that sort of situation, clear irrefutable evidence of a lesser criminal act, such as perjury, is far more likely to have a positive result than bringing charges based on broad partisan judgments (e.g. "Bush lied us into war"), no matter how trivial the former is compared to the latter.

In other words, when you're a head of state, it's easier to get away with mass murder than it is to be caught driving drunk. I wish this weren't true. But it is.

I think we're again veering into the area of allegations rather than fact. I haven't heard any of the fired US attorneys claim they were asked to do something illegal and refused. Did I miss a story?

I believe so. USA McKay was asked to prosecute voter fraud in Washington. When he told them there was no case, and that even Dino Rossi's lawyer told them there was no case, he was fired. USA Iglesias was asked to indict a Democratic official prior to the elections and refused--and was then fired. USA Biagi was pressured to end investigations of Gov. Ehrlich. He refused and was fired. And those are just the ones where the lawyers involved have spoken up.

"Granted that if Merkely were elected to the Senate, he would be serving in a Congress when the Bush administration (and Gonzales) would no longer be in office, but it is worth remembering that outright calling for removal from office by a Senator is problematic because of the Constitutional process involved."

Just a correction, the US Senate would start their session in the first week of Jan 2009 would it not? Bush's term doesn't expire until Jan 20th, 2009, therefore unless Bush and/or Gonzales were impeached or resigned, Merkley (if elected) would be a sitting US Senator while Gonzales was in offic.

"Partisan" doesn't mean the same thing as "political". It's why there's a qualifier like "political" along with the word "party" in the phrases "party politics" and "political party". If they meant the same thing, they'd be redundant.

"Partisan-driven" is something impelled by the dictates of party politics, i.e. where you decide whether to carry out an action based on whether it's the best thing for your party's political success or not. Hence the same Latin root for the word "partisan" and "party".

A "Constitutionally-driven" action is dictated by an adherence to the underlying document of the US government. Sometimes that requires putting aside considerations of the party to do what's best for the government. Call it "bi-partisanship" or "multi-partisanship" if you prefer.

As an example, it might be great for your party to use all of the power of the presidential office to screw your political opponents, but since your political opponents have the threat of this thing called impeachment to hold you in check (supposedly) maybe you wouldn't want to do that. On the other hand, if your political opponents are too stupid to use it properly or forget that it's there, then you can just stomp all over them.

My (Oregon content!) historical excerpt for the day. This is from TIME, just after the "Friday Night Massacre" in the fall of 1973, nearly seven months before Nixon's impeachment hearings began:

The first shocked reactions of Congressmen and Senators indicated that the pressure would be considerable and perhaps irresistible. Republicans were among Nixon's severest critics. Senator Mark Hatfield observed that a move to impeach could come "like a flash flood sweeping down over the pasture land." Senator Robert Packwood argued that there was "no justification" for Nixon's action. "The office of the President does not carry with it a license to destroy justice in America. His deeds are dishonorable." Predicted Freshman Congressman William H. Hudnut of Indiana: "If Nixon gives the impression he is above the law, he is going to have an impeachment problem on his hands of considerable magnitude." Democrats, too, talked ominously of impeachment. Senator Edmund Muskie urged the House to begin the painful proceedings. Senator Edward Kennedy decried the firing of Cox as "a reckless act of desperation by a President who is afraid of the Supreme Court, who has no respect for law and no regard for men of conscience. The burden is now on Congress to nullify this historic insult to the rule of law and to the nation's system of justice." Argued West Virginia Congressman Ken Hechler: "Impeachment proceedings must be initiated at the earliest possible moment." California Congressman Don Edwards urged Nixon to admit that he had made "a terrible mistake" and resign.

Just to be clear, my Constitution doesn't say anything about breaching the public trust.

Miles, just to be clear, your Constitution doesn't have to. The House has the sole authority of determining what falls into the category of 'Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". If they can come up with language that passes the House and can gain a conviction in the Senate, there's no appeal process for an officer removed from their position. They can say anything they want in the Senate trial or the House hearings, but if they get the right number of votes, they're gone. That's in the Constitution.

Nixon's articles of impeachment included several charges of abuse of power, dereliction of duty, and failure to respond to subpoenaes. Those words aren't in the Constitution, either, but they're impeachable offenses.

Preamble of Article 2:

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.

A "Constitutionally-driven" action is dictated by an adherence to the underlying document of the US government. Sometimes that requires putting aside considerations of the party to do what's best for the government. Call it "bi-partisanship" or "multi-partisanship" if you prefer.

And do you see any hint of "bi-" or "multi-" partisanship from the U.S.'s current crop of Republicans? In mean in 2007, not 1973. Because, quite frankly, I don't.

Also, arguing that impeachment should be Constitutionally driven isn't helpful in the current situation. The reason why a super majority is needed for impeachment to drive a man out of the presidency is because our founding fathers specifically wanted to prevent what most impeachment advocates are now arguing for: it's use as a glorified vote of confidence.

Impeachment was never conceived as a tool to toss out a President who angers his political opponents. It's there to end a Presidency of someone who scares and/or disgusts a significant percentage of his own political friends.

We're not there yet with Bush. We may never be before his time runs out. But Gonzales is an entirely different matter.

Impeachment was never conceived as a tool to toss out a President who angers his political opponents.

That's your interpretation of why people want Bush out of office, Steven. It's also why I said that a push for impeachment shouldn't be based on partisanship.

If you'd been following the discussions preceings this on impeachment, you might have noticed that the primary reason I've advocated for impeachment is that I would like to see an end to the Iraq war come sooner than later. I think there's zero opportunity for Congress to begin winding down the war while Bush is in office. I think there's a good possibility he might widen the war into Iran (or possibly Syria) sometime in the seventeen months between now and Inaguration Day.

So long as he feels no threat from potentially being removed from office, as Commander in Chief he can ignore any restraints put on him by Congress in his conduct of war, foreign policy, and espionage. Nixon did. Carter did. Reagan did.

April 1973

Last week Attorney General Richard Kleindienst expanded even further the President's already unprecedented claim for Executive privilege. Testifying before an unusual joint hearing by three House and Senate subcommittees, Kleindienst asserted that Congress has no power to hear from any one of the 2,500,000 federal employees if it subpoenas him and the President tells him not to appear. The Attorney General insisted that the doctrine involved "an enduring constitutional value" extending almost back to the Constitution's birth. But as Maine Democrat Edmund Muskie, keeping his short temper carefully in check, asked for legal precedents and a more precise history of the doctrine, Kleindienst turned vague and sarcastic, referring to Muskie's "piercing questions." Asked the incredulous Muskie: "The Congress has no power at all to command testimony from the Executive departments?" Replied Kleindienst: "If the President of the United States so directs." Muskie: "Do we have the right to command you to testify against the will of the President?" Kleindienst: "If the President directs me not to appear, I am not going to appear." Muskie: "Does that apply to every appointee of the Executive Branch?" Kleindienst: "I'd have to say that is correct." If Congress does not like that situation, Kleindienst added, it can always "cut off our funds, abolish most of what we can do or impeach the President." But, asked North Carolina Democrat Sam Ervin, how could the President be impeached if no one in the Executive Branch could be compelled to testify or supply evidence in the impeachment proceedings? Answered Kleindienst, in an amazing interpretation of proper legal procedure: "You don't need facts to impeach a President." Some Senators were outraged. "I've never heard anybody talk like that before," fumed Arkansas Democrat J.W. Fulbright. "He seemed to be taunting us. He implied that we are a bunch of boobs." Muskie termed Kleindienst's theory "an unprecedented and frightening claim of the scope of the President's power." A House Republican leader took the unusual step of appearing before the Senate subcommittees to assail Kleindienst's testimony. Illinois' John B. Anderson, chairman of the House Republican Conference, charged that Kleindienst was "provocative and contemptuous of Congress" and that his views "border on contempt for the established law of the land." Pennsylvania's Democratic Congressman William Moorehead testified, too, calling Klein dienst "amazingly arrogant" and his views "monarchical or totalitarian."

Sound familiar? But technically, Kleindienst was correct.

I've seen just as much evidence of a Democratic plan for forcing Bush to get out of Iraq as I've see for an administration plan to bring peace to the region. Zilch. If there is one, they need to get on the stick

Personally, I think the plan is the same as the Republican plan on the war, to ride it out to the 2008 elections and hope that things get a lot better without them actually having to do anything about it.

Just added another update above - a link to Beaver Boundary's take.

Posted by: David English | Aug 20, 2007 2:49:19 PM Just a correction, the US Senate would start their session in the first week of Jan 2009 would it not? Bush's term doesn't expire until Jan 20th, 2009, therefore unless Bush and/or Gonzales were impeached or resigned, Merkley (if elected) would be a sitting US Senator while Gonzales was in offic.

Point taken.

It's not leadership when somebody has to take the voter's temperature before speaking out. And it sure looks to me Merkley didn't speak out until he started courting a new set of (state wide) voters.

Seriously? The guy is 19 days into a campaign for the U.S. Senate. You expected him to spend his time at the state legislature talking about Alberto Gonzales? He was kinda busy with some other stuff.

Thanks, Vera. I've now posted that in an update above.

darrelplant That's your interpretation of why people want Bush out of office, Steven. It's also why I said that a push for impeachment shouldn't be based on partisanship.

Fine. Then if it isn't based on partisanship, we should all just shut up about it until a Republican senator brings up the subject as something that he might favor.

There. Does that make you happy?

DSCC supports Blue Oregon? check. Blue Oregon supports Merkley? check.

Um, you're wrong here.

The DSCC supports BlueOregon just about as much as the Novick campaign supports BlueOregon. They've both bought advertising.

BlueOregon doesn't support anyone. As we've said many times before, "BlueOregon doesn't even go out for donuts." After all, how the hell could it? It's a bunch of files on a server.

I support Jeff Merkley. But I'm not BlueOregon. I'm just one person. To pick another one off our contributor list, Pat Ryan supports Steve Novick (I'm pretty sure). He's welcome to write about that anytime he'd like.

For that matter, Steve Novick was a contributor here until he removed himself from our roster (and as we typically do, when people become candidates.)

We have over 30 contributors. I don't have any clue who they're each supporting - and I don't particularly care. They've all got a password, and can write anytime they want.

You can imagine conspiracy theories all day long. But if you're doing it in service of Steve Novick, I suggest you ask him. This venue is wide open to him.

Well, anony and EBT, I'll just leave you to it. If you don't think BlueOregon is a credible venue for news and opinion, then go away. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read it.

I'll let my words stand on their own. I've always fully disclosed all of my interests. Until the day comes when local bloggers can make a living at it, we're all going to have day jobs.

And for the record, Jeff Alworth - one of our co-founders - is not under contract or employed by any political campaign or party. I don't believe he has ever been, actually.

Constructive criticism? What's constructive about this? What do you want me to do? Shut down BlueOregon? Sorry, ain't gonna happen... Shut the hell up? That ain't gonna happen either... Shutter my business and get a job at Starbucks? Nope.

For the record, BlueOregon is not - not even close - to the "biggest blog in Oregon". What I said, or at least meant to say, if I'd had my coffee, is that we have the most readers of any political blog in Oregon.

Seriously, you've got your own blog. Build audience over there. Then, people can accuse you of all kinds of intricate conspiracies, too.

One more time: I have a business that provides web services to political campaigns. I work for many political campaigns and nonprofit organizations. I also am just one of the many people that run BlueOregon for your (free) reading pleasure. I am not unbiased. In fact, I am very biased. I've never pretended to be otherwise. I always (always!) disclose my affiliations, unlike many (many!) of the anonymous commenters here (and yes, I know who many of you are. Your day is coming, Smith staffers.) You may feel free to disagree with me in a full-throated way. Doesn't hurt my feelings one bit. You may do so here in the comments at BlueO - or you may do so on your own blog. I don't edit the comments here, unless they're wild-ass off-topic, violent, racist, or spam.

I'm done now with this meta-chatter. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Darrel, your response confirms my fears about why some of you are pushing for impeachment. It's to re-fight the election of 2004. You're saying that the House can impeach for any reason, so long as they have the votes.

This is just plain lying, Miles. And not even informed lying.

The Constitution leaves the decision of grounds for impeachment to the House because nobody passes specific laws to restrict the powers of a president, vice president, or other federal officials. They are expected to carry out their oaths of office. Impeachment is the remedy for when they violate their oaths of office. A majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate need to eventually agree that the officer has violated their oath in order to ereemove them from their position. The bar is lower in the House to enable the process to get under way, but it's high in the Senate to prevent a simple partisan grab at power.

If you think that what Bush and Cheney have done is good, then just say so. If you think getting into a war on false intelligence, killing hundreds of thousands of people and spending a trillion dollars of the public monies to do it is a partisan issue, then just say it was actually a good thing.

I think the president used his position to make a false case for war. He was either sincere in his belief that there were WMDs in Iraq -- in which case once that was obviously false he should have realized that all the people who told him there was no threat from Iraq were right, gotten the hell out and told the Iraqis "sorry" -- or he abused the power of his position to promulgate a false threat from Saddam Hussein. Incompetence or abuse of power. Either one is a non-partisan reason for impeachment.

"But it's also possible that the USA firings were a politically motivated (but legal) attempt to clear some space for future GOP candidates to get some experience."

No, it's really not. And I think the disconnect appears here:

"Why would they attack the Administration for giving false reasons for firing them, but not also mention that they were asked to do something illegal and refused?"

Did you miss the documentation, or just not read it? THEY DID MENTION THOSE THINGS.

Oh man, Kari!

You got rid of the Republican trolls by encouraging donations in their honor to various Democratic candidates: "Another troll, another donation!"

But what do we do with all these Green/Socialist trolls? Donate to the DLC?

I... I... ahem.. Look, I know the DLC's part of the Democratic Party... but... I don't think I can bring myself to do it. I have standards, you know.

Insofar as all the whining about you deleting off-topic conversations is concerned, quite frankly I don't think you do it enough. You've NEVER deleted any comment that is actually FOR a Democrat - especially someone like Steve Novick, who does Democrats proud. It's just all this off-topic whining by people who aren't Democrats and/or think that fixing problems is someone else's job.

Miles, it's in this very thread--linked AND detailed.

Miles, you're the one being obtuse. It was the White House/DOJ who FIRED him, based on complaints that he was not prosecuting a fraud case that did not exist. The same is true of Iglesias. They can provide no rationale for replacing them, and plenty of evidence exists indicating the true rationale. Why you think Congressional hearings represent imaginary evidence, I'm not sure. You know why they were fired, I know why they were fired--and impeachment hearings would quite obviously establish why they were fired.

And your response on Biagi? Lam?

I think what Miles is getting at is that there is a difference between, "The prosecution is pretty damned sure he's guilty", and "The prosecution has incontrovertible proof that he's guilty".

Be it the D.A. or Congress, don't waste people's time unless your case looks more like the latter.

It's especially true when dealing with Presidential Impeachment, which isn't a criminal procedure at all, but a way to fire someone from a position the American people elected them to perform.

Clinton, for example, defended his impeachment not on defending the perjury charge, but merely noting that, even if true, it didn't rise to the level required for his dismissal. It was a point he won running away as far as the voting public was concerned. Plenty of Americans have had the experience of getting in a bar fight (or other legal trouble), and then being terrified they'd lose their jobs because of it.

"I think what Miles is getting at is that there is a difference between, "The prosecution is pretty damned sure he's guilty", and "The prosecution has incontrovertible proof that he's guilty"."

The prosecution in Nixon's case didn't have incontrovertible proof, either until Butterfield spilled the beans on taping. What they did have was serious evidence of guilt, which investigative hearings (and a useful media) subsequently unearthed.

Aren't you glad they didn't wait for Nixon's smoking gun before proceeding?

torrid, this is kind of embarrassing. Nixon was never even impeached, much less went to trial, OK?

What happened is that Congress started investigating him to decide whether to impeach him. Once that investigation was complete, they had incontrovertible proof of his malfeasance in office, and had lost the faith of enough Republicans in the House and Senate that it was clear that he was going to be kicked out. So then he resigned.

In short, they did wait for Nixon's smoking gun before proceeding.

I'm sure it IS kind of embarrassing, isn't it--you trying to lecture me on Watergate, which I'm well familiar with?

You are repeating exactly what I said. There was not support or incontrovertible evidence for impeachment, UNTIL hearings began and the tapes were revealed. And, as you say, "once that investigation was complete, they had incontrovertible proof of his malfeasance in office, and had lost the faith of enough Republicans in the House and Senate that it was clear that he was going to be kicked out. So then he resigned."

Which is why the bar of incontrovertible evidence before even beginning impeachment proceedings that Miles suggests, strikes me absurd. If we'd waited for the silver hammer to hit Nixon before investigating some pretty damning evidence already, he'd have never left.

There's plenty that is valid to go on regarding Gonzales--including perjuring himself before Congress--and impeachment proceedings would create the hard factual case against him.

Well if all you're advocating is just investigating whether or not impeachment of President Bush may or may not be warranted, as opposed to ramming articles through on a party line vote, then I really don't disagree. I'm proud that Congressman Wu has called for just such an investigation.

But let's be honest here, OK? Ramming articles through on a party line vote is exactly what pro-impeachment partisans want. In fact, most of them pretend to themselves that anyone who disagrees with with that idea (on moral or political grounds) are effectively as bad as Republicans. You see it right here.

Further, whether it's expressly called an "Impeachment Investigation" or not, the Democratic party is already holding hearings into many of these issues. And in the unlikely circumstance that Conyers finds a smoking gun bad enough to shake some Republicans loose, those articles can be drafted quickly enough, just as what started to happen with Nixon before he abruptly resigned.

Finally, insofar as hearings were concerned for Nixon, they were not called "Impeachment Hearings". They were called the "Watergate Hearings". They were not held to get the President, but to investigate the political ramifications of a crime. And I'm somewhat disenchanted with the dishonesty of some people in pretending that their wish for impeachment is not politically motivated, when it's plainly clear that it is.

"Well if all you're advocating is just investigating whether or not impeachment of President Bush may or may not be warranted, as opposed to ramming articles through on a party line vote, then I really don't disagree."

That's great--except we're talking about Gonzales.

On Bush, I maintain that a party line vote would not be necessary once evidence is brought to light in specific hearings.

I have no idea what you're trying to tell me about the Watergate hearings. The IMPEACHMENT hearings were conducted by Peter Rodino of New York, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, from May to July of 74. If you're implying that the heavy lifting was done by the preceeding year's hearings, I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But the salient point I was trying to make was that the truth will out, and when it does the rats scurry for cover, to save themselves.

Meanwhile, nothing is stopping us from moving forward on the Gonzalez perjury charges, which we seem to have proof of. It's like we've been dealt a full house, but we're SURE that we can get four of kind if we just draw one more time. With reckless partisans pushing Dems to irresponsible actions, Republicans have all the friends they need.

How do you reconcile these two statements? In the first part you're saying there IS proof to impeach Gonzales; in the second you call impeaching him irresponsible. ??

High up in this thread I called for the impeachment of Gonzalez. We have him dead to rights. Even Republicans won't defend him anymore.

To which the question was raised by advocates of impeaching Bush on a partisan vote, why not impeach Bush too?

To reconcile the two statements, realize that the first is about impeaching Gonzalez. The second is about impeaching Bush before we have our irrefutable smoking gun.

He already has. David Wu: co-sponsor of House resolution 589.

Do you want to live in a country where we impeach presidents when they make bad decisions?

Yeah, if the decision is bad enough and you think that they will continue making bad decisions. Why do you think impeachment's for? It's to keep people untrustworthy people from using the power the people have entrusted to them. Whether they make the decision out of malice or stupidity, if there is sufficient reason to assume that they will continue to make bad decisions, then you take their hands off the wheel.

"Green/Socialist trolls"? Wow, that's witty. Since you're drumming people out, can I have the $600 I donated last fall to the DNC and the Progressive Patriots Fund back? I could use it by the first of the month.

Which wins nobody a medal when they finally get in line on this issue [impeaching Gonzales].

How many U.S. Senators can you name that have "gotten in line" on impeaching Gonzales? How many U.S. Senate candidates?

You may not be in the mood for giving away medals, but if this is an important issue for you - ya gotta score one point for Jeff Merkley.

I think Mitch's point is a good one--maybe no Senators or candidates have declared they want Gonzales impeached, because they might have to judge the trial conducted on such charges. Many may feel it prejudices their impartiality to say specifically that charges should be brought, as Merkley has.

Another reasonable point is that as jurors, they are powerless to enact impeachment proceedings themselves--thus it is business usually left to the House, and Senators don't even address it. They certainly address their confidence in Gonzo (none) and desire for more information and oversight (strong).

I'd actually like it clarified if Merkley believes Gonzales should be brought on charges, or merely that he supports the Inslee resolution to being "investigating." He used the sentence "If the President won't fire him, then the Congress should impeach him." Is that just badly phrased, or does he mean that he's convinced a high crime was committed that should be prosecuted by the House? If that were the case, why should it matter if the President will or won't fire him? Work on impeachment until he quits or is fired, or until you convict him. The point is that coming out specifically for impeachment itself (that is, an indictment) sounds awkwardly like you don't believe in due process. Lord knows I want my Senators to speak out and I'll let them know if they're not, but this is something where circumspection is more the norm. I think saying you are deeply troubled by the revelations, and that you've lost confidence in the AG and support any oversight or investigation necessary to establish the truth about the AG's performance, is more than adequate.

EBT... on HR 589, DeFazio is on there, too. #9. Also on 7/31.