Over the past two days Randi Rhodes has interviewed several constitutional scholars, lawyers and/or people with extensive knowledge of the constitution; Edwin Chermerinsky, Jonathan Turley, Bruce Fein, and John Dean.
Chermerinsky says that impeaching Cheney right now is bad politics because it will rally the moderate Republicans (say what?) around Bush. Saying that, he also says that it is the right thing to do legally. Politics and law conflict for him.
Jonathan Turley is appalled at how the Democrats, namely Schumer and Feinstein, have allowed Bush et al off the hook by supporting bills, measures or laws that would say that "going forward" waterboarding will be considered torture. This allows Bush et al to argue that when they approved it, it was NOT considered torture.
Bruce Fein says that the Democrats (and Republicans) in Congress have very little understanding of the constitution at all and don't know what Congress's powers really are in the face of the over-reaching executive. The Democrats are licking their lips in anticipation of inheriting the Executive Branch as currently empowered. They don't care about the rule of law, they only care about power.
John Dean says that while the impeachment of Cheney is right and just, it is more savvy to go after Cheney's underlings first. Executive privilege will not apply in the case of impeachment and those underlings impeached and convicted can not be pardoned by the President. He suggested going after Addington, Cheney's Chief of Staff and former legal counsel and Addington's underlings.
Going after Addington is something I think the weak-kneed Democratic "leadership" could actually see themselves doing. It would allow the important questions to be asked without giving the appearance that the Democrats are trying to over-reach. God forbid that the Democrats should actually try to exercise their power, but in this day and age, this is what it's come down to.