Two hundred and twenty one years ago in the morning, fifty seven Americans came together to resist the monarchical tyranny of King George:
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
There are many ways for tyranny to creep over the land. It may do so in the fits and bursts of an insane ruler; or it may do so slowly and methodically as the limits of tolerance are tested. In the latter case--which (Republican-appointed) Justice Sandra Day O'Conner has warned us about in our own time--the people and their representatives may still resist, may still demonstrate the limits, without risking their lives, their fortunes, or their sacred honor.
Although it does not come as a real surprise, we are now faced with outright lawlessness in the Executive: an unembarrassed use of the old monarchical power of pardon to prevent accountability for crimes the President's Men commit. Are there now any limits?
I myself have long opposed impeachment as a waste of time, believing that seventeen Republicans would never abandon this President. (Indeed, as recently as yesterday I was trading testy comments with impeachment supporters.) But reading a bit of the details of the Watergate impeachment, I find myself a little more convinced of its necessity. As pointed out here, the Senate was 58-42 Dem in 1973--and it was widely believed that nine GOP Senators would never be found to vote for conviction. From Wikipedia's description of the Watergate timeline:
Nixon's position was becoming increasingly precarious, and the House of Representatives began formal investigations into the possible impeachment of the President. The committee's opening speeches included one by Texas Representative Barbara Jordan that catapulted her to instant nationwide fame. The House Judiciary Committee voted 27 to 11 on July 27, 1974 to recommend the first article of impeachment against the President: obstruction of justice. The second (abuse of power) and third (contempt of Congress) articles were passed on July 29, 1974 and July 30, 1974 respectively.
In August, the previously unknown tape from June 23, 1972 was released. Recorded only a few days after the break-in, it documented Nixon and Haldeman formulating a plan to block investigations by having the CIA falsely claim to the FBI that national security was involved. The tape was referred to as a "smoking gun." With few exceptions, Nixon's remaining supporters deserted him. The ten congressmen who had voted against all three articles of impeachment in the committee announced that they would all support impeachment when the vote was taken in the full House. It was now almost certain that Nixon would be impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate.
Impeachment was voted out of the House before the smoking tapes appeared! And in particular, before there was any hope of finding votes for conviction. The "smoking gun tape" which forced GOP Senators to favor impeachment came out precisely because of the judicial and impeachment processes.
This reminds me of a post from Glenn Greenwald last year:
But the discovery process almost always uncovers critical, hidden facts that reveal what really happened, and it is virtually always the case that there are documents or testimony even more incriminating than can be predicted.
I've seen complaints that there's no smoking gun on Bush or Cheney, that Libby's testimony is needed to put them away, that the scandal is too complicated. But Greenwald's point is key: it is very likely all such complaints would be swept away by the discovery process.
Great leaders recognize when opportunities present themselves. They do not wait for certainty, but they know when the field favors them, and they seize it. Speaker Pelosi needs to recognize that the grounds now favor her--even though there is no guarantee of success.
This is the picture I took of
the memorial statue at the North Bridge in Concord, where the "shot heard round the world" was fired. It's a statue of one of the Minutemen. This guy doesn't have a statue because he was a great general, or because he killed a hundred Redcoats. He has a statue because he recognized what was happening, realized the chance to do something about it, and bore the risk to start the process that ended with the birth of the Republic.
The risks now for Congressional Democrats are a lot lower than they were for the Minutemen--but they are real. If there's no smoking gun, it could be very bad for Congressional Democrats or even the '08 Democratic Presidential candidate. There may not be any smoking gun in the Bush White House. But there probably is.
Are you ready to lead us now, Madame Speaker? Roll the dice.