Talking Points Media me

My impeachment post is up at TPM Cafe.

I have a somewhat serious question for anybody--liberal or conservative, impeachment advocate or opponent--who's been closely following the last two weeks' events. Here it is: If Jeffery Taylor, in a fit of good conscience, chooses to adjudicate the contempt citations against Harriet Miers and John Bolten and anybody else who may soon be cited, will the president allow the case to move forward, or will he, driven by pique, dismiss the Constitution, like the Geneva Conventions, as quaint and fire his tenth U.S. Attorney?

My guess is it will never get that far. My guess is that Taylor will announce, as Bush expects him to, that he honors the president's wishes and refuses to hear the case at all. When that happens--and only then--should Congressional Democrats begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush and the vice president.

It's a tough argument, but I believe there's a strong case to be made that obstructiveness of such magnitude--that brazenly pivots past the Constitution--is of a different category than the seemingly more heinous crimes--fabricated intelligence, warrantless wiretapping, torture, ending habeas, the U.S. Attorney firings themselves--that this president has committed. It's subtle, but those scandals can each, in their own tragic ways, be excused by the sorts of dubious legal arguments that could plausibly sway even non-partisans and skeptics.

Contempt is different. What the president is threatening now is more than just to recklessly claim executive privilege. He's threatening to prevent, by diktat, any court in the country from ever evaluating the legitimacy of those claims, however legally thin they are widely agreed to be. That is, to my knowledge, a coup unprecedented in American History. And it implies that the president can do basically what he pleases (with the Treasury, the Armed Service, the Justice Department) as long as he thinks he'll escape impeachment. The rationale for impeachment, then, will be as much to penalize George Bush for violating the Constitution as it will be to prevent more egregious abuses in his last 16 months in office.

Those are the legal and moral rationales. The politics are much more difficult. I can't say how it is that Democrats can best assure they don't lose this fight--either in the Senate or with the public. What I do suggest is that the Congress should attempt to impeach both the president and the vice president simultaneously, with the stipulation that no Democrat in the chain of command (Nancy Pelosi and Robert Byrd) will accept the presidency if both Bush and Cheney are removed from office. That course of action would advance, yes, Condoleezza Rice to the White House--an unhappy thought but probably necessary to avoid any public perception that this move is intended only to secure power for Democrats. I can also say, precisely because this will be a political fight, that perceptions matter. In Iraq we've seen that a hopeless situation can't possibly be salvaged by sheer dint of will power. Impeachment is different--its success will hinge largely on how confidently and clearly the president's political opponents present their case and how sure they seem that they can win it.

Comments

[JimPortlandOR]

two words: election 2008.

The Dems are not going to bring impeachment actions on either Bush or Cheney (or both) if they can't win a vote in the Senate of 2/3rds majority.

It would take yet another major outrageous act of presidential authoritarianism (beyond forbidding a criminal contempt proceeding by the DoJ) to get anywhere near 2/3rds in the Senate.

It could be argued that just initiating an impeachment in the House (only 50% needed to pass impeachment by the full House), might be cleansing to the Republic, but unless a big majority of voters (>70%) were supportive in polls there is too much electoral risk. The Clinton impeachment failed to gain support of the public, and it made the Repubs look foolishly partisan. Dems won't repeat that.

[Brian]

I almost wrote that Dems should try inherent contempt first and get turned away at the White House. I think the image of Bush turning away agents of law enforcement might cinch it. But a lot of what happens really scares me, and I think once the Jeffrey Taylor refuses to hear the case, then we can't waste any more time.