Dennis Kuicnich just said that he is considering introducing a "privileged resolution" for impeachment on the floor of the House. He was on the Ed Schultz Show.So sayeth Afterdowningstreet; I did not hear the whole of Schultz' program and thus am in the dark as to whether this resolution targets Cheney or Bush. I will presume that Dennis is menacing Dick.
Special rules govern a privileged resolution:
Once having submitted an impeachment resolution against a civil officer, then that member's high privilege has expired. Id. at pp. 769-70 (Section 469). This rule apparently does not apply if the member files an amended impeachment resolution containing new charges or other new matters. Id. at 767-69 (Section 468).So even if the thing dies, it may live anew. Cheney has more sins on his head than Kucinich has mentioned. And that, it turns out, is a good thing.
So what will happen? Here's a roadmap. You won't read it, but here it is anyways:
Even when an impeachment resolution does not contain within it a referral to a committee for inquiry or investigation, it appears to be the normal procedure for such a resolution to be referred to an appropriate committee -- even when the resolution clearly has absolutely no support in the full House. IMPEACHMENT: Selected Materials pp. 769-70 (Section 469).What does this mean on a practical level? My prediction: Pelosi, like her Watergate-era predecessor Carl Allen, will pass. There will be no immediate vote. Cue the Progressive Purists:
According to Jerome Zeifman, however, it is possible that such a resolution could be called up for an immediate vote; but that option appears to be within the control of the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader. See Zeifman, Without Honor: The Impeachment of Richard Nixon and the Crimes of Camelot pp. 46-47 (1995). Hence, Congressman Robert Drinan's Resolution impeaching Richard Nixon -- filed on July 31, 1973 when there was absolutely no sentiment for impeachment was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Later, on October 23 and 24, 1973, when 84 such resolutions were introduced, all were referred to the Judiciary Committee.
"Pelosi has sold us out! Form a new party! Don't give one dime to Democrats! They're all in it together! Something something Bush and Kerry something something Skull and Bones!"
Yes, the responses will be all very predictable -- even though Pelosi will have done precisely what Allen did.
But: The matter will go to the Judiciary Committee -- and that is when the real work begins. Investigations, witnesses, reports... Watergate redux.
One presumes, or hopes, that we will then get the sorts of revelations that can actually change minds, both within Congress and within the population as a whole.
Yes, I know all about that July poll by the American Research Group, which had a 54% majority favoring the impeachment of Dick Cheney (with a three percent margin of error). However, that figure is almost certainly wrong. A more recent September poll by Zogby places support for Cheney's impeachment at 32%, roughly consistent with earlier findings. That number is not too distant from the percentage favoring the impeachment of Clinton back in 1998 -- an effort which failed to remove him from office.
(These poll numbers puncture the Purist hallucination that the rest of the country shares their purity. Check out the "progressive" idiot who posted response 12, here: "most folks support impeachment - by huge margins..." And he's talking about the impeachment of W, who is more popular than Cheney!)
Obviously, support needs to be shored up, and that is a task best done by the Judiciary Committee.
Only one factor can louse up the scenario I have just outlined: The Progressive Purists -- who, as always, can be counted on to act in the Republican Party's best interests.
Firebrands will demand that Pelosi call for an immediate floor vote on Kucinich's privileged resolution. Such a vote will fail. The support for impeachment simply is not there. A majority of the folks back home, God help us, still want Darth Cheney in command of the Death Star.
Here, we encounter a paradox: The Purists who scream loudest for impeachment -- and who mistakenly think that theirs is the majority position -- may pressure the Speaker to try the one tactic which will doom the effort.
The wisest thing Pelosi can do is to mutter something along the lines of "Impeachment is still off the table" -- mere words, mere meaningless words -- and then refer the matter to Conyers. But the firebrands will never forgive her if she does that.
I'd love to play chess against one of those ninnies. They have a chronic inability to see more than one move ahead.
As I said before, I support the idea of impeachment -- and removal. Hell, I would love to see George and Dick tried at the Hague. But I do not support the impeachment movement, which has become an anti-Democratic party movement.
(And why do I have the creepy premonition that those who hate me will respond to what they think I have said, not what I have actually said?)
6 comments:
"Obviously, support needs to be shored up, and that is a task best done by the Judiciary Committee.
Only one factor can louse up the scenario I have just outlined:"
If I'm not mistaken, there's at least one other "factor that can louse up the scenario"- the resolution can simply die in committee. (This would require the votes of at least 4 Democrats on the Committee, I believe.)
Also- if I've read your link accurately, the Committee isn't even compelled to investigate on behalf of the resolution. It has the option of declining to do so, effectively pulling the plug:
"...Once an impeachment resolution has been introduced or "charges suggesting impeachment have been made by memorial," the House may order an investigation at once or refer the charges to a Committee for examination and, if the Committee deems it appropriate for an investigation...."
I'll be paying attention. Maybe I'll learn something.
Joe, you wouldn't fare well against me even if my first move was P-QR3. Do you really think Cheney would stay? He'd resign to spend more time with his cardiologist. Besides, the Nixon impeachment resolution relied on criminal trials and Judge Sirrica's blackrobemail against the CREEP lawyers, plus the smelly guns on the Oval Office tapes -- demonstrably criminal stuff. Overweening pride, executive dirty pool, arrogance, lying on TV, consorting with prostitutes, bad language and worse breath won't be enough material to impeach Cheney or convince the Senate to remove him. Though it's irrelevant here, Speaker Pelosi might recall that Speaker Albert later 'retired' after being accused of taking bribes. Some officials have blood under their fingernails, many have dirt there, and all of them have enemies with ambitious lawyers. Which reminds me: the SCOTUS would nullify the attempt at final removal, saying their 'decision' is binding but not a 'precedent' haha. The White House fianchettoed very early, and then forked the House and Senate with the Libby commutation. Impeachment is silly now. We have reached the "point in time" of our democratic republic when frustration is our only friend, something Mr. Justice Scalia can't ever tell us to get over. Let's not forget (haha) that Speaker Albert, a Democrat, said he would not serve as president since the republic had elected a Republican.
"Those who cannot remember the lessons of history are condemned to listen to history teachers" -- Carlos Santana, 'Incident at Neshuba'.
rdr:
"Also- if I've read your link accurately, the Committee isn't even compelled to investigate on behalf of the resolution. It has the option of declining to do so, effectively pulling the plug:"
True enough. The person responsible for this would be Conyers, not Pelosi. If such a thing were to happen, though, I know which one would get the blame...
But it is true that Conyers has a pretty full plate, and he might not want to commit scant resources to a crusade that he cannot win. See below.
aitchd: Your comment was really weird.
Truth is, I am a pretty bad chess player. Too prone to play defense. And I think the challenge of capturing the Queen without sacrificing my own is more interesting than winning the game.
"Do you really think Cheney would stay?"
Hell if I know. The question is not relevant to the point I was making.
Your basic point is that the "goods" on Nixon were much better than the goods on Cheney. I can agree. But try explaining that to the Purists! Not only do the ninnies hallucinate that "vast majorities" support impeachment, they also think that the case is a slam dunk. And it isn't.
Your points about Carl Allen are indeed irrelevant.
Joe, I note that you're already anticipating inaction as the response to Kucinich's resolution, and speculating on who might "get the blame" as a result.
Nothing beat a failure but a try. And that's the problem with today's Democratic Party leadership- they don't try. They spend more time and energy with their hands out, explaining why they don't, than they do in trying to move the ball.
Polls are just polls, not binding referendums. People are there to be persuaded. If a strong case is presented, persuasion is possible.
It's also worth mentioning that lack of public support for a given action in the polls doesn't necessarily translate into a political liability.
Consider the Republican attempt to impeach Bill Clinton: during all the time that impeachment was being pursued- basically the last two years of the administration- the polls indicated that Clinton continued to be personally popular with the public, by large majorities. The impeachment resolution ultimately failed, strictly speaking. But the Republicans suffered no lasting negative political fallout as a result.
I think that the Democrats have much stronger grounds for impeachment of Cheney and Bush than the Republicans had against Bill Clinton (although Clinton panicked and fell into their trap, getting caught on camera with a craven lie.) It isn't high on my priorities list for them to do. At this point, I think it's awfully late in the game for them to be objecting so forcefully.
But my main point isn't about impeachment. It's about the tendencies of the Democratic Party leadership to punt on first down; to fail to exploit the yawning gaps in the line of the opposition before they're reinforced; to be poll-driven instead of guided by principle; to continually complain of internal weakness instead of getting a game face on and pushing. And these flaws have a way of afflicting their acolytes, which is a disheartening thing to witness. The Democrats are direly in need of strategists and tacticians. Imagine being so ass-out that you have to hire David Gergen or Dick Morris, like Bill Clinton did...that's pathetic. Who stands for principle, steadfastness, and aggressive pursuit of clearly outlined alternative policy initiatives among Democratic campaign advisors- Bob Shrum? Paul Bigalla? Terry McAulliffe? Mark Penn?
"Nothing beat a failure but a try. And that's the problem with today's Democratic Party leadership- they don't try. They spend more time and energy with their hands out, explaining why they don't, than they do in trying to move the ball."
This is simply not true.
Example: The troops would start to head home this very day if a senate bill backed by the Democrats had overcome the filibuster. If memory serves, it achieved a 53 vote majority.
But a filibuster exists, a veto exists, and the progressive faithful now believe that no such bill ever existed. The purists would rather repeat the line "Democrats have done nothing to end the war" than to acknowledge the facts.
Same thing with the move to restore habeus corpus. It passed in the Senate -- ALL dems voted for it -- but not by enough votes to stave off a filibuster. And now you can see all sorts of ninnies on DU screaming that "The Democrats did nothing to restore habeus corpus! We need a third party!"
The progressie purists of today are acting just like the right-wing activists of 2001-2004 -- they act on the basis of what they WANT to believe.
Your point about the Clinton impeachment is one that I have made myself. I would say that the failed impeachment nevertheless succeeded in bringing out the W presidency -- even some of Clinton's supporters started to feel "Clinton fatigue" and Gore was seen as a continuation of Clinton.
But there is one factor you are overlooking: The conservatives media advantage remains formidable, as does their ability to control the message.
The filibuster exists- well, make them use it, on the habeus corpus issue.
You made the suggestion yourself- lets see the Republicans go into speech marathon mode on this issue. Their success in filibustering is by no means a foregone conclusion. Anyway, so what if they're able to sustain it? It's a victory simply to force them to do it.
Meantime, as the filibuster becomes a top story for the news media, all other Republican initiatives will grind to a halt as the Democrats obtain a high-profile forum to explain exactly WHY they''ve driven the Republicans to filibuster. Provided that the Dems are up to articulating their positions in terms of both principle and practicality, of course.
I could do it- can they?
The Republicans would offer their own self-serving explanations, of course- hopefully at exhaustive, exhausted length in full-on Senator Claghorn Foghorn Leghorn mode...ALL of which any self-respecting adversary with its ducks in a row should be able to counter with a good deal more brevity.
And that's understating the case. It would in fact comprise a grand opportunity to unmask the Bush Republicans as opportunists, hysterics, and reckless demagogues willing to dismantle a legacy of 700 years of civil liberties protections in order to obtain a spurious advantage against a threat that's been inflated with hyperbole and conjured speculations.
But there's the rub..."self-respecting adversary." Thus far, the leadership of the Democratic Party doesn't seem to know how to demonstrate fortitude or courage- "the most important of the virtues, because it's the one upon which all the others depend", in the words of Winston Churchill.
Post a Comment