Obviously, there is a lot of fast-moving revelation about the president's eavesdropping order. And myths pushed by the Right are being de-bunked on a daily basis, leading to the consensus view that a new line has been crossed here. The thrust of it is that George Bush feels that he is above the law, evidenced by the justice department brief on his "inherent power" to trump Congress.
But even so, I would advise people to not think like a mob on impeachment, because it's a power unto itself that's capable of being abused (as we well know from the recent past).
Therefore, I'm advocating a reasoned discussion about the option.
And to me, the best starting position is to lay today's events side by side with Richard Nixon's abuses of power -- to see where we have similarities and contrasts, and whether they matter here...Again, I'm not trying to quash any legitimate recourse; I just want to be smart and thoughtful about it...
So let me throw out a baseline to get started:
1. Richard Nixon crossed a very meaningful line in his tirades: he abused unique and exclusive presidential power for PERSONAL gain...
Has W done something similar? ... Or does faithful intent in the name of national security make a difference? I don't know the answer -- I'm just asking...
2. Richard Nixon lost in the courts on executive privilege. The big one was a unanimous ruling against him by the Supreme Court. So his arguments on legal authority were found to be flawed by an independent tribunal...
Is it fair to talk about impeachment today before the courts even rule on Bush's action? Again, I'm just asking...
3. Nixon pursued his ambition by using federal agencies -- like the IRS -- to dig into the records of his PERSONAL enemies...He also worked to disrupt the trial of an American citizen (Ellsberg) by corrupting the discovery process...
Does it matter that W wasn't going after personal enemies? Does an executive order facially invoked for national security purposes offer cover Nixon didn't have? ...
4. Nixon fired prosecutors when they got too close to him, an effort to save his presidency via the abuse of powers unique to his office.
Has Bush done anything similar? Does it even matter?
5. Nixon's actions had no legal basis whatsoever -- it was very clear that the law doesn't allow the president to use his power to attack personal enemies...
Even though we know it's a bullshit argument generally, from an impeachment standpoint, does the Congressional use of force resolution handicap the case, to the point where it would top out below the high bar set for impeachment?
Again, I'm not pushing it one way or another...I'm looking for the best arguments...
Have at it!