Impeachment Again

"Obviously there's no chance of 2/3 of the Senate voting to convict anyone," writes Scott Lemieux, and "it's hard to see how serious impeachment proceedings (as opposed to stepping up use of Congress' oversight powers in general) would strengthen the Democrats' political position." I don't really disagree with that.

That said, when you conduct a congressional investigation into allegations of serious presidential wrongdoing, it doesn't make sense -- logically speaking -- to rule out impeachment as the outcome. In the real world, the votes aren't there, the political benefits are all in doing the investigating, and there's not even enough time left in the Bush administration to complete major investigations in the face of White House foot-dragging. But still, one has to say that insofar as congressional investigators manage to secure real proof -- and it'd have to be real legal proof, not journalistic proof or convincing-to-me proof -- of serious wrongdoing, that people could get themselves impeached.

Comments

IIRC, impeachment can occur after a president leaves office.

Posted by cleek | July 9, 2007 12:45 PM

The threat of impeachment could also be used productively to get the WH to turn over documents. I'm actually not particularly in favor of impeachment (to the extent I am, I'd prefer Cheney over Bush), but I was very upset with the Dems for taking it totally off the table, since that amounted to unilateral disarmament.

Posted by beckya57 | July 9, 2007 1:00 PM

'it doesn't make sense -- logically speaking -- to rule out impeachment as the outcome.'

Just as wingnuts are right (more like masters of the obvious) when they say you can't take the military option off the table when negotiating with Iran.

Posted by jg | July 9, 2007 1:11 PM

If this President was named Clinton not Bush, he and his vice president would not only be impeached but removed by an overwhelming bipartisan margin. It's sad that partisan loyalty has become so entrenched that today you can't even conceive of anything Bush could do that would get Republicans to back impeachment. They would find some way even to tolerate the proverbial eating a baby on live TV.

The impeachment clause of the Constitution is dead when it comes to Presidents. We need a recall or no confidence mechanism to replace it that doesn't require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a high crime but rather mere extreme unpopularity. It's absurd for America to be forced to endure a corrupt, law breaking chief executive with popularity at or below 35% nationally for the final 3 years of his Presidency due to partisan loyalty.

Posted by Ron | July 9, 2007 1:29 PM

The political calculation is only part of it. Impeachment proceedings have a useful effect on future presidents by lowering the bar for serious investigation of the executive, which is an absolute necessity if we are to roll back the Unitary Executive theories of Cheney et al. There's also the simple fact that wrongdoing shouldn't go unpunished just because the political benefits are small or even negative.

Posted by togolosh | July 9, 2007 1:42 PM

If Executive Branch accountability means nothing to you and all you hear is the blathering punditocracy on the teevee or David Broder's hypocritical handwringing, then I can see how impeachment would seem like a purposeless option. But in these heady days of the unitary executive, when President Cheney actively seeks to consolidate all meaningful power into one branch of government, I think there's a utility (even if it's just a political one) in impeachment that goes beyond whether or not the proceedings successfully remove these usurpers.

It needs to be made abundantly clear just what all the shenanigans have been these past 6 years, and what better theater for it than an impeachment? As a citizen who's not a member or even a financial supporter of the Democratic Party I demand it. And as someone who is often sympathetic to them, if only as a buttress against the excesses of the Republicans, I crave it. Recent polling should be plenty clear that I am not alone.

Posted by Ferruge | July 9, 2007 1:43 PM

The impeachment clause of the Constitution is dead when it comes to Republican Presidents.

Fixed.

Posted by KCinDC | July 9, 2007 1:45 PM

What has political strength got to do with it? It's a matter of morality, not opposing self-interests.

Posted by Garuda | July 9, 2007 2:14 PM

Impeachment does not have to be for a specifically *legal* reason. Impeachment is removal from office (and disbarment from future office) for not only illegal acts, but abuse of power or incompetence (or whatever else is voted as a misdemeanor).

If the President is proven to be sitting in front of the tube watching ESPN, drinking beer and eating Cheetos all day, I'd have no problem with impeaching him, though his actions wouldn't be illegal.

There are plenty of potential legal accusations, of course. Violation of FISA (willful), tossing the Geneva Convention aside (to which the US is a signatory) without Congressional approval, the institution of torture (violation of international treaties), establishment of secret prisons and ghost detainees (human rights violations), issuing signing statements intending to ignore the law when conventient (and not faithfully executing them)...let alone politicizing the Department of Justice and leaking the name of a CIA operative, jeopardizing National Security.

You could impeach on the Libby commutation alone, if it were clear -- enough -- that it was done to prevent testimony that might affect the President.

And the President has pretty much declared that nobody has to obey a Congressional subpoena, and if subpoenaed, can lie to Congress. Anyone accused of Contempt of Congress, Perjury or Obstruction may or may not be charged by the US Attorney...and anyone convicted even after being tried would have their defense paid for and their sentence commuted (not to mention a *possible* pardon, wink, wink, and a job at the Heritage Foundation or Pepperdine University waiting for them).

Why *aren't* we impeaching him?

Posted by zmulls | July 9, 2007 3:02 PM

You'd think, simply as a matter of form, that claiming monarchy the way Bush and Cheney do would be automatic grounds for impeachment. That afternoon. Don't clean out your desk. Check his pockets, officer, and count the spoons.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 9, 2007 4:03 PM

zmulls,
Exactly. I always interpreted the "high crimes" wording to be purposefully vague. Obviously, the President (as well as other offices that can be impeached) is capable of doing a lot of nefarious things that aren't illegal, because you can't explicitly cover every possible angle of potential corruption or dereliction of duty. Yes, it is legal for the president to fire US Attorneys and pardon Scooter Libby, but if these acts reveal a deep-seated corruption then we shouldn't be bound by legal technicalities, especially since the Constitution allows for much greater leeway than simply legal vs. illegal.

The problem is that Republicans disagree (out of convenince rather than principle). Not only will they say Bush can't be impeached if he hasn't broken the law (since that is the best standard they can defend him by), they also alleged a very minor and inconsequential -- but explicitly illegal -- act and used it as the basis for impeachment. Of course, the argument along these lines was that it wasn't the sex it was the lying, but if you believe that the president's primary job is to be a moral leader (which fortunately most of us don't), then I would say cheating on your wife with a intern half your age would be more of a high crime than lying about it at a civil deposition on a completely unrelated matter.

Posted by ibid | July 9, 2007 4:42 PM

i dont recall the Republicans counting noses when they were going after Clinton on laughably lesser grounds. it's not that the Democrats have decided they dont have the necessary 2/3s. it's that they're scared to death of Bush and Cheney and talk radio and the Republicans. the Democrats dont have the necessary balls.

Posted by scorpio | July 9, 2007 4:45 PM

Taking the issue of whether its right or not out of this, what about the political fallout? Might the American public be angry at Dems for continuing what may be perceived a partisan witchhunts instead of focusing on perceived problems? I don't think the impeachment of Clinton helped Republicans at all.

This, more than anything is why Dems aren't talking impeachment.

Posted by Max | July 9, 2007 5:56 PM

Regardless of whether it is a good idea to seriously pursue impeachment of either Cheney or Bush, I think it is important to aggressively make the case that they have done things that the founders explicitly laid out as potential grounds for impeachment.

The attempt to remove Clinton seriously damaged the role of impeachment in US government. As things stand I think it would be easier for another controversial Democratic president to get impeached for some proposed, suppossed, and vaguely construed crime possibly committed that was totally unrelated to his official duties, than for a Republican one to get removed for attempting a coup (which we may be seeing now).

Reactionaries have made a lot of political gains by agressively promoting rancid and absurd and vicious ideas and propositions just to "get them out there" as respectable propositions for public discussion.

There is no reason why non-Reactionaries should not aggressively promote true reasonable and valid propositions simply because they are not currently politically feasible. It is almost a kind of cowardly bad faith not to do so if those ideas are important ones -such as the founders; intentions regarding Congressional power of impeachment and removal from office.

So enough with the worrying about short run partisan political tactics. It is irrespoonsible, wrong and loser's game. It's thinking like a corporate Democratic political consultant.

Posted by anon | July 9, 2007 6:12 PM

I don't really understand the, on the one hand you can impeach, and on the other hand, you can make policy divide this is nicely slotting into. Surely you impeach to make policy - you roll back the odious provisions of the Patriot act at the same time you start preliminary hearings on Cheneyesque abuse, you create funding bills and mandates for withdrawing - in exemplary fashion, over a year, getting out all the troops - from Iraq while you check out the huge amounts of fraud that have eaten up tax dollars in the so called reconstruction, etc. The condition for putting through legislation has to be weakening the opposition to it, and - even if one doesn't in the end impeach - investigation sound bite should go hand in hand with legislation, no? Also, blackening Cheney produces a good folkdevil to rouse the populace - this is, after all, what the right has done year after year with Kennedy, so that now they just shorthand things and say that Kennedy supports such and such, which means the devil wants to sodomize you. Cheney is a perfect devil - partly cause he is the Lord of the Flies.

Posted by roger | July 9, 2007 6:25 PM

Re: We need a recall or no confidence mechanism to replace it that doesn't require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a high crime

Does it say anywhere that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is required? I donkt think so. The reason we don't impreach presidents is similar to the reason we don't use nukes: it's just too damn much to do, and both sides fear retaliation. The GOP of course violated this rule in 1999, but the Dems at least are fearful rather than vindictive that a Democratic preisdent would be vulnerable again. I mean, who wants to have regular impeachments every time one side or the other gets PO'ed at a president?

Re: Impeachment is removal from office

Technically, no. Impeachment is a finding that there may be reason for this and the remanding of the impeached to the Senate for a trial. It's the equivalent of charges being filed, not of a conviction.

Re: they also alleged a very minor and inconsequential -- but explicitly illegal -- act and used it as the basis for impeachment.

Technically (again) Clinton did not even commit a formal crime: he was never prosecuted for perjury in the Jones case, because the lien of questioning which produced his lies was ruled immaterial.

Posted by JonF | July 9, 2007 6:52 PM

"Taking the issue of whether its right or not out of this, what about the political fallout? Might the American public be angry at Dems for continuing what may be perceived a partisan witchhunts instead of focusing on perceived problems? I don't think the impeachment of Clinton helped Republicans at all."

Bush still did pretty well in the 2000 election (even if he did lose the popular vote) even though it was pretty clear by that time he was an idiot.

Posted by Reality Man | July 10, 2007 8:21 AM

Matthew: you need to make up your mind one way or the other about what you think about impeachment.

You can't both 1)agree with Scott Lemieux that we'll never get the votes and there are no political benefits, AND 2)say that there are political benefits in doing the investigating and that people could get themselves impeached.

But at least you're trying to have it both ways now, which is a step forward from a few days ago when you dismissed impeachment summarily.

Perhaps, as with the Iraq War, you will eventually come around to the right position once it is utterly and completely safe to do so.

Posted by Junius Brutus | July 10, 2007 7:25 PM