Cross-posted at bmdlog
It's widely agreed that one of the biggest failures of the Bush adminstration has been that of imagination. They never imagined what Bin Laden was truly capable of, despite the infamous August PDB. They never imagined that Iraq would become the pool of chaotic violence that it eventually did even after we declared "Mission Accomplished". The list goes on and on.
I say that if we don't try to fully envision what the process of impeachment may yield, then we are guilty of the same dangerous lack of imagination. In my imagination, impeachment has a pretty strong possibility of destroying the Bush Administration and the Republican elite, whether it successfully unseats the president or not.
In part one, I'd like to explore the events leading up to a House vote on bringing forth impeachment charges and the immediate political aftermath.
DISCLAIMER:
This diary should be initially viewed as an exercise in political fiction, as my knowledge of the legal specifics is quite limited. I encourage readers to point out any and all technical inaccuracies and legal misinterpretations.
In the months following the disclosure of Bush's illegal domestic surveillance operations, the White House's actions become more and more indefensible. Following congressional investigations in early 2006, public opinion turns sharply against Bush, so much so that the media speculates the possiblity of Bush's approval numbers dipping into single digits.
This downturn is also due in part to Democrats' successful framing of the issue. Instead of allowing the "Bush was protecting America by circumventing the bureaucracy" line to take hold, the Democratic leadership was able to keep the media focused on the actual issue of how "Bush was needlessly breaking the law". Then when it comes out that Bush was largely targeting non-terrorism related individuals, this line will easily be made more compelling by adding on "in order to use vital intelligence resources to attack his political enemies".
This is essential. They are already trying to gloss over the fact that what Bush did was unnecessary, as Josh Marshall pointed out last night:
From perusing a few headlines it seems the White House and some editors are taking to arguing that surveillance or domestic wiretapping is necessary for national security, that it saves lives.
...
The only issue here is why the president decided to go around the normal rules that govern such surveillance, why he chose to make himself above the law.
It is at this point that the Democrats must begin to call for impeachment proceedings. I'd like to point to Christian Dem in NC's draft as an excellent example of what the articles of impeachment should read as.
Republicans will find themselves in a difficult quandary. Will they stand behind a president with no significant public support? I'm willing to bet that the dems could find enough republican house members who are willing to cross over either out of desperation in trying to distance themselves from Bush's sinking ship, or because of a genuine crisis of conscience. The rest of the republicans who stand behind Bush will have demonstrated to the American people where their true loyalties lie, not with the country, but to their party.
That concludes part one. Hopefully this will spur some good discussions about the likelihood of this scenario and its possible outcomes, following which I will move on to part two: the senate trial.
Kudos to SantaFeNM for pointing me in the direction of a helpful impeachment primer.