Ohhh, NOW I get it . . .
It wasn't until I was reading through the comment thread to Hunter's story today that it finally clicked for me.
As rabidly as I have wanted impeachment for the demifascists in this administration, I have long realized that, in spite of their egregious violations of law and human decency, it was extremely unlikely that those violations per se would be what would open them up to Article II, Section 4 proceedings:
But come, let us reason together. Let's look at a realistic scenario. I have no doubt - especially given Bush's surge of insanity in the past couple of weeks or so - that the standard tools of governmental oversight - congressional subpoenas - will be ignored by the BushCheney cabal. It may well be that BushCo's political calculus is very limited. Once the investigations start, the choices probably will narrow to two: (1) Do they fight the congressional subpoenas (a la Nixon), and in so doing risk bringing down the wrath of Congress (a la Nixon), and be charged with obstruction of justice and contempt of congress (a la Nixon)?; or (2) Do they go ahead and turn over evidence, and risk opening up the full catalog of unspeakable transgressions, the almost incomprehensible, breathtakingly arrogant perversions of government perpetrated by this gang of criminals over the past six years, and hope that the public will stand by them as they try to use the "unitary executive" chimera to defend their otherwise indefensible actions?
I'm guessing this group of arrogant pricks goes with Door No. 1. At which time, Congress's choice of weapons will be narrowed to one.
I didn't get it at first. I watched in increasing frustration as the parade of corruption was trotted out before various Congressional committees. It was not easy.
It was bad enough that Alberto Gonzales couldn't remember whether he put his underwear on the inside or the outside. Kyle Sampson was annoying, creepy and pitiful all at the same time. Monica Goodling showed that in this great country even a ditzy, devout blonde can grow up to become White House liaison to the attorney general, and Sara Taylor took sullen, dismissive teenage hair-flipping to new heights of arrogance.
And then Harriet Miers - excuse me: former Bush Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers - decides she's got better things to do than respond to a Congressional subpoena.
Oops. Someone just jumped the shark.
That much was clear.
But it was Alias Mister Smith's comment on Hunter's article thread today that suddenly crystallized it for me:
Pelosi and Reid have enabled this situation (5+ / 0-)
By taking impeachment off the table as an option for either Cheney or Bush.
In other words, the leaders of the Democrats in the House and the Senate sent a clear and unmistakable message to the thugs who occupy the executive branch: "We will not pursue the Constitutional penalty for your high crimes and misdemeanors."
[snip]
That's why you now see Bush toadies like Harriet Miers defying a Congressional committee subpoena . . .
Eureka!
I get it now.
Pelosi - ooooh, is she sharp, or what?
Madam Speaker laid a trap.
She lulled the arrogant pricks into hubristic complacency.
They figured they could do whatever they wanted. By, quote, "removing impeachment from the table" - heh, heh - she tricked 'em.
Like the 6-month-olds they basically are, the criminals in the Bush administration figured, Since I can't see it, it must not exist.
Pelosi and Co. lured the White House right into the trap.
I wonder if this is how it went:
See, Pelosi and the other members of the Democratic leadership knew that they could never muster enough support to nail the BushCheney crime family for any of the multitudinous affronts to the Constitution and the U.S. Code that they had committed, no matter how egregious those affronts might have been. They knew that the White House and the Right-Wing Noise Machine would always find an excuse for virtually any atrocity the Rethugs had perpetrated - mostly because most of the crimes had occurred behind closed doors, or in dark cellars, or in cold, isolated cells, or in dimly lit, windowless rooms, or in areas or to people about which or whom no members of the Republic base would care.
Katrina? Kathleen Blanco and Ray Nagin's fault. 9/11? Bill Clinton's fault. Torture, warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, Abu Ghraib, Iraq, huge no-bid contracts? NINE-ELEVENISLAMOFASCISTTERRORISTS!!! Niger yellowcake lies? Bad intelligence. U.S. Attorneys? "Pleasure of the President."
But the Democrats knew that if they pursued investigations into all of these dark corners, sooner or later the threads would lead back to the White House, and sooner or later the pressure on the White House would be too great - the administration would have no choice but to reveal the truth, or refuse to testify.
And, given that Nancy Pelosi had said that impeachment was off the table, why, the Rethugs had nothing to worry about. They got cocky. Well, cockier.
"Dose Demicrats want I should testify? Huh. Like hell I'm'unna testify. Subpoena dis, Conyuhs!"
So when John Conyers was left staring at an empty chair with Harriet Miers' nameplate over it, there was no abstruse legal explanation needed - everybody got it: Somebody was defying a subpoena.
In an investigation into the White House.
That is as blatant and graphic a display of obstruction of justice as I can think of.
And thus it was that the Rethugs were lured into committing an absolutely indefensible crime against the Constitution, right out in front of God and everybody, on national television, defiantly and unapologetically. It was, as my good friend Major Danby likes to call it, a procedural justification for impeachment.
There's an old saw in Washington: It's not the crime, it's the coverup. It's what got Nixon, and it looks like it's gonna be what gets the current gang of criminals.
Well played, Madam Speaker, well played.