Elizabeth Holtzman: "Breathing the 'I' Word"

[marmar]

Published on Friday, November 10, 2006 by the San Francisco Chronicle
Breathing the 'I' Word
by Elizabeth Holzman

Though Democrats' gains on Tuesday were hard fought, they still pulled one big punch during the campaign. Party leaders chose to refrain from publicly uttering any "i" words -- investigation, immunity, and above all, impeachment -- and to dismiss those who did, for fear of somehow galvanizing disaffected GOP voters.

But whether they admit it or not, with a Democratic Party-led Congress, President Bush could well become the target of congressional investigations, challenges to presidential immunity and eventual impeachment inquiries. Big legislative changes are probably not in the cards, but willingness to use subpoena power and pursue investigations into controversial Bush administration actions and inactions are among the main things that will change under Democratic leadership of Congress.

Even if impeachment is "off the table," according to Democratic leaders such as Nancy Pelosi (who as the new Speaker of the House will be next in line for the presidency after Vice President Dick Cheney), recent national polls and impeachment-ballot initiatives in San Francisco, Berkeley, and two townships in Champaign-Urbana, Ill., and elsewhere, show it is on Americans' table. Leaving aside partisan "gotcha" tactics, such as the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, which fail because they lack public support or constitutional basis, Congress has been historically reluctant to undertake impeachment, including during Watergate. But it has done so when public sentiment reaches a boiling point and demands holding a president accountable, as it did in 1973 after President Richard Nixon fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox.

Today we may be closer to reaching that boiling point again than some may think. The Chronicle's online poll question this week surveyed readers, 77 percent of whom to date thought impeaching President Bush may be constitutionally required if the president were found to have abused the power of his office. A recent Newsweek national poll showed 53 percent of Americans thought impeachment should be on the agenda (either as a "top" or "lower" priority), with 44 percent opposing impeachment outright. Compare these numbers to 1998 polls, where an average of only 26 percent of Americans were open to or favored impeaching Clinton, while an average of 63 percent opposed it outright.

Public sentiment for impeachment is strong, and stands to grow stronger given a thoughtful discussion of constitutional standards and a full and fair inquiry, one that allows the president to explain and defend his conduct fully.

But beyond public opinion, there are legal and constitutional considerations that make impeachment a live concern now. High crimes and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment and removal from office, may well apply to President Bush's systemic abuses of power and failures to uphold the law. These include directing illegal domestic wiretapping and surveillance, detainee abuse and torture, indifference to human life in responding to Hurricane Katrina, ill-equipping U.S. soldiers and failing to plan for the Iraq occupation, deceiving Congress and Americans about reasons for the war in Iraq and possibly seeking to cover up those deceptions by leaking misleading classified information. These actions have disturbing parallels with offenses for which Nixon was impeached.

The rest of the article is at: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1110-25.htm

[pooja]

1. I think pelosi is wrong in taking it off the table.

Once these investigations start breaking, we don't know what will come out. And we already know that the little sniveling snot is breaking the constitution that he has sworn to uphold. I say it is wrong to make a blanket statement. How much support will the pretzle have when the country turns away from him with more shock and horror?

[MadMaddie]

2. I think once all of the peripheral investigations have occurred

War profiteering, Halliburton, Katrina contracts, FEMA it will eventually lead to the * cabal...they won't have a choice....and the very American public that voted them in will want "Impeachment"!

[SaneInSC]

3. yeah

I sure do hope so. The country needs it, even if they all don't realize it.

[longship]

4. This is good news.

And you are absolutely correct. The sole metric for impeachment, other than that high crimes and misdimeanors against the state were committed, is public support for the action. That's the magic combination that gave Watergate its power.

You are also completely correct that before Saturday, October 20, 1973 the American public was not ready to impeach Nixon. But that day Nixon took an action that turned the public forever against him. As John Chancellor broke the story on NBC his words reverberated across the nation:

Good evening. The country tonight is in the midst of what may be the most serious Constitutional crisis in its history. The President has fired the special Watergate prosecutor, Archibald Cox. Because of the President's action, the attorney general has resigned. Elliott Richardson has quit, saying he cannot carry out Mr. Nixon's instructions. Richardson's deputy, William Ruckelshaus, has been fired.

Ruckelshaus refused, in a moment of Constitutional drama, to obey a presidential order to fire the special Watergate prosecutor. And half an hour after the special Watergate prosecutor had been fired, agents of the FBI, acting at the direction of the White House, sealed off the offices of the special prosecutor, the offices of the attorney general and the offices of the deputy attorney general.

All of this adds up to a totally unprecedented situation, a grave and profound crisis in which the President has set himself against his own attorney general and the Department of Justice.

Nothing like this has ever happened before.

More than 50,000 telegrams poured in on Capitol Hill today, so many, Western Union was swamped. Most of them demanded impeaching Mr. Nixon.

John Chancellor finished his report that night with an astounding confession, "In my career as a correspondent, I never thought I'd be reporting these things."

There it is. One unthinking act by a first executive who thinks he is above the law can turn the corner for an entire nation. Within two months, the calls for impeachment were sufficient that the House was forced to act. The Judiciary Committee under Peter Rodino from New York convened. Six months later it had adopted three articles of impeachment. By then, public support for Nixon had utterly crumbled. Before he could be impeached, Nixon resigned.

Thanks for your good post.

[BlueStorm]

5. I wonder if Pelosi meant that impeachment is off the table for

now? Maybe it'll be brought up after investigations reveal how cold this adminstration has been.

Blue

[Stuckinthebush]

6. Is there really any time left for impeachment?

First, investigations. That takes months.

Then months to gear up and impeach.

Then, if the house impeaches, the Senate must have a trial.

Do this for both Bush and Cheney and we are talking months and months here. Would it be better to have the investigations (which there should be many) and continue to hit home how corrupt this administration has been up to the 2008 election?

I do know one thing...it will be interesting to watch what the Dems do for the next two years. I've got my popcorn!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. Investigate and make sure the information is out in the open

and being shouted from the rooftops by October 2008. :-)