Precedent: Why Impeachment Matters

One the biggest concerns about the legacy of the Bush presidency is that its criminal activities set dangerous precedent, one which will provide political (and legal) cover for some future, power-mad GOP authoritarian (is there any other kind, these day?).

This is not an irrational fear, as Duncan highlighted yesterday:

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

[. . .]

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.

Granted, this particular argument has never been resolved, as the article says, so we would normally be able to take such a pronouncement from the administration with a grain of salt; after all, the American judicial system would -- in the past, anyway -- sort out such a claim in a fair and impartial manner: it would bitch-slap this, or any other, administration into next week for making such an idiotic argument. But as we've seen, the courts are no longer as reliable as they used to be, especially when you look at the gang of mental midgets and misanthropes the GOP has appointed over the last several decades.

My feeling is, it's only a matter of time before they find a court willing to grant them what they really want: dictatorial power.

And you've got to hand it to these folks; they have systematically undermined the Congress and the courts with a single-minded zeal. Their determination, if not their goals, is commendable.  

So, those of you still opposed to impeachment (I'm talkin' to you, Russ), please think about the tragic, criminal legacy of this administration, and the poisonous effect it will have on future administrations that also may be inclined to disregard the law.

•  Tips, if any (n/t)

  by Tod Westlake on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:43:18 AM PDT

•  Impeachment is our only chance of reclaiming our

  country.

  Iraq Moratorium

  by One Pissed Off Liberal on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:47:09 AM PDT

•  Sure, it'll go to the D.C. Circuit Court

  Just ask Joe and Valerie Wilson how thye feel about that...

  Impeach 'em all and let God sort 'em out...

  by Ken in MN on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:48:42 AM PDT

•  What precedent does losing on removal set?

  If the senate fails to remove, which is more than likely, what precedent is then set?

  by Inland on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:52:01 AM PDT

  •  So we should never impeach

    Unless the result is predetermined.

    Got it.

    by Tod Westlake on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:53:32 AM PDT

    •  I asked a question on your topic.

      But you don't want to answer it.  I think that's all I need to know.  Got it.

      by Inland on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 06:59:50 AM PDT

      •  Okay, I'll bite

        Your argument is patently idiotic, but here goes: if someone commits a murder, we should ensure we have all the evidence to convict before we go to trial.

        This is what you are arguing.

        Also, WHO THE FUCK CARES if we fail to remove him. Impeachment is the right thing to do. There was a time when doing the right thing was all that mattered. Obviously you and I from different generations on that.

        by Tod Westlake on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 07:05:36 AM PDT

        •  No improvement here.

          Evading the question with an insult attached to it isn't an improvement over simply evading the question.  You could have put "who the fuck cares" at the beginning.  Update your diary so everyone knows.

          by Inland on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 07:13:08 AM PDT

          •  I disagree with your facile argument

            Which you haven't even given. All you've given is a vague assertion that impeachment, without removal from office, is somehow more dangerous than sitting back and letting them get away with murder.

            What precedent will impeachment set? One that will make the next gang of GOP thugs realize that Democrats have the stones to stand up for what's right -- even if we fail to remove Bush from office.

            Ya happy now?

            So why not answer my question: if we continue to allow the GOP to violate the law while in office, how much longer will we have a republic?

            by Tod Westlake on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 07:20:38 AM PDT

  •  simple

    Even if conviction is not achieved, if a majority in the Senate, which is very possible, even likely, votes against him it still shows that a majority of Congress opposed these new powers. It at the very least leaves the door open for future congresses to act in simillar situations. If they sit silent, then those powers become defacto permanent.

    by fat old man on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 07:02:40 AM PDT

    •  Hardly.

      I don't accept that everyting except impeachment is "sitting silent".  If the failure to impeach is argued as ratification, then so could the failure to remove. Both arguments are silly.

      A majority of congress is against the powers now.  There are, in fact, laws that set forth exactly what is supposed to be done.  How much more "precedent" does one need than the plain language of statutes?

      The only means to show that the country Bush's actions aren't acceptable is to elect a different president and a non-compliant congress that exposes everything he did and stops doing them.  Impeachment wihtout removal is neither here nor there.

      by Inland on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 07:09:24 AM PDT

      •  accepting his defiance = silence

        Yes Congress has passed laws and the president has defied them. By not holding him accountable they are accepting his authority.
        Impeachment without removal still demonstrates that the Congress opposed the president with a majority. Not impeaching says quite plainly that they didn't feel it was worth opposing. Yes, the argument can, and most certainly would be made that a failure to convict equaled ratification, but it is tougher argument to make if there is a majority opposing him. An argument doesn't even have to be made if the Congress doesn't impeach, they will have stated by their inaction that they are ratifying his actions.
        This goes so far beyond just wanting Bush out. There is a dangerous precedent being set for all future presidents if these powers remain unchallenged. If you haven't seen the recent Bill Moyers program on impeachment I highly reccomend it.
        I'd like to stay and argue this with you further but I have to go.

        by fat old man on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 07:37:07 AM PDT

        •  Well said

          What I find hard to swallow is that intelligent people can't seem to wrap their minds around the fact that doing nothing is tacit approval of the administration's illegal activities. Congress being on the record as having opposed the administration is more important than the nay-sayers realize.

          by Tod Westlake on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 07:43:05 AM PDT

        •  That's another false equation

          that it's either impeachment or being accepting or remaining unchallenged.

          If that were true, then failure to remove would be accepting, too, despite all the action that had been taken.  

          There's already a majority opposing Bush on his actions.  Declaring that it doesn't count unless there's a majority to remove him is a non sequitur.  The only precedent is to make a victory for bush and a chance to claim ratification where none exits now.

          by Inland on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 08:36:56 AM PDT

  •  It sets the precedent that

    the people tried and we had a corrupt Senate.

    If no one tries, then no one tried.

    by LithiumCola on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 07:42:31 AM PDT

    •  That's a precedent?

      No, that's a spin.  Everyone can spin it the way they like if there's a failure to remove.  Is the lesson of the Clinton impeachment that we had a corrupt senate?  

      by Inland on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 08:39:27 AM PDT

  •  It sets...

    the same precedent doing nothing sets. Only doing removes the doubt ahead of time.

    by Kagro X on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 08:03:05 AM PDT

    •  "doing nothing".

      I'm not a big fan of the false dichotomy.  I didn't like it when Bush said that our choices were invading Iraq or "doing nothing" and I'm not a big fan of it now.

      Clearly, there's a lot to do and a lot being done, all directly demonstrating the disapproval of Bush's policies, the biggest being a nation that's going to select a president that's going to take us in another direction.  Impeachment that fails to remove is just a bunch of people in the House voting another sort of non-binding resolution and  seems irrelevant in comparison.

      by Inland on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 08:42:46 AM PDT

      •  But selecting a new president...

        doesn't set precedent.

        Neither does investigating.

        They're both two terrific things, and I'm thrilled to death with everyone's effort on those fronts. But in terms of their ability to set precedent -- which was the crux of the question -- they do, well, nothing.

        Or do they? Do you know of something they do, in terms of setting precedent? That was the question, right? What precedent it sets?

        by Kagro X on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 09:01:40 AM PDT

        •  I'm not sure, then,

          how impeachment sets a "precedent".

          "Precedent" in a legal sense means an act that should be repeated for no other reason than  it occurred before.  That's not what's happening. Who says, for example, that the impeachment of Clinton set a standard that must be followed, regretably? Doesn't everyone instead regret the impeachment in the first place?  

          Of course, impeachment doesn't set a precedent in that sense, and even if it did, so would the failure to remove.  You can't argue that future generations would set impeachment as precedent and yet not set not removing as precedent.

          I think that the meaning you have isn't "precedent", but "ratification", that is, doing nothing ratifies what Bush has done.  But if you'd rather, let's just say that the precedent is set that a president who violates the law secretly and is a terrible president gets humiliated with low approval ratings and a repudiation at the polls.  That sures as hell beats the precedent of such a president suffering through a non-binding resolution of an institution he despises led by the opposition party.  (Isnt' that basically the suffering Clinton has today?  How's he holding up?)  

          Clearly, the best action is repudiation by the nation, not congress, and of the policies, not Bush individually, and focusing on stopping the overreaching presidency, instead of focusing on the const. requirements for removal of Bush AND Cheney.  I bet there's not a republican senator that wouldn't want the subject changed from Iraq policy to impeachment, because it's such a wonderful non-sequitur and a waste of time, for one, and more defensible for them, for two.  

          by Inland on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 09:17:24 AM PDT

          •  All valid.

            It's just that I was rolling with the term you -- and not coincidentally, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. -- went with when posing the question.

            by Kagro X on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 09:22:32 AM PDT

•  Impeachment will cost DEMS the election in 08

  Trust me, congress is not worried about your vote. No matter what happens your going to vote DEM. They are only interested in the CENTER voting block and the firm beleif is that the center will never stand for and attack on the president.

  by West8124 on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 07:06:23 AM PDT

  •  I live in NY

    Where Democrats have been winning in landslides, lately. So I can afford to waste my vote.

    Though I'm a registered Dem, I often vote for third party candidates (voted for Spitzer, did not vote for Clinton).

    So, there's at least on Dem who isn't in their hip pocket, as you suggest.

    by Tod Westlake on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 07:12:19 AM PDT

    •  NY does not matter

      NY does not matter to DC. It's solid BLUE. It will stay blue for the forseeable future. Move to VA and everything changes

      by West8124 on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:43:08 PM PDT

  •  Upon what do you base the assertion

    that bringing articles of impeachment will cost democrats the election in 08?

    by LithiumCola on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 07:46:09 AM PDT

    •  I agree, what evidence?

      The reason why the public is upset with Congress isn't because they oppose the administration, it's because they are not doing so forcefully enough. Impeachment could have a "galvanizing effect," to borrow a PNAC term, when it comes to inspiring voters.

      The best way to demonstrate that they're not "all a bunch of crooks" is not to act like it.

      by Tod Westlake on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 07:55:04 AM PDT

      •  The Center Voting Block

        Right or wrong it is believed by virtualy everyone in DC that the center voter will not stand for an impeachment

        by West8124 on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:20:50 PM PDT

    •  On the fact that the center

      voting block will not stand for it.

      by West8124 on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:43:43 PM PDT

  •  Not doing it...

    costs Dems the Congress in 07.

    by Kagro X on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 08:04:19 AM PDT

    •  The center voting block

      does not want impeachment

      by West8124 on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:39:46 PM PDT

•  we must impeach

  if only because Bush claims we do not have the power to do so.

  by indefinitelee on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 07:48:20 AM PDT