"The Bush administration is bracing for impeachment hearings in Congress"

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

Impeachment hearings: The White House prepares for the worst

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/impeachment.htm

The Bush administration is bracing for impeachment hearings in Congress. "A coalition in Congress is being formed to support impeachment," an administration source said.

Sources said a prelude to the impeachment process could begin with hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee in February. They said the hearings would focus on the secret electronic surveillance program and whether Mr. Bush violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Administration sources said the charges are expected to include false reports to Congress as well as Mr. Bush's authorization of the National Security Agency to engage in electronic surveillance inside the United States without a court warrant. This included the monitoring of overseas telephone calls and e-mail traffic to and from people living in the United States without requisite permission from a secret court.

Sources said the probe to determine whether the president violated the law will include Republicans, but that they may not be aware they could be helping to lay the groundwork for a Democratic impeachment campaign against Mr. Bush. "Our arithmetic shows that a majority of the committee could vote against the president," the source said. "If we work hard, there could be a tie."

[quiet.american]

1. Very, very interesting. Very, very promising. n/t

[Champion Jack]

2. "If we work hard, there could be a tie."

"If we work hard, there could be a tie."
Translation: "If we threaten to brutally beat, rape and kill their children right in front of them, we think that they'll come around..."

[MrBenchley]

3. Sounds like the Reverend Moon is panicking....

[gratuitous]

4. If this is the case . . .

Okay, I'm willing to suspend all disbelief that any of this article is true, and accept it on its face. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Senate Judiciary Committee really is gearing up for hearings next month to investigate the circumstances surrounding what looks like a violation of the law and the Constitution by the president.

If that is true, then why is this same committee going forward with voting on that same president's nominee to the Supreme Court? Surely this will lead inevitably to the appearance of a conflict of interest: Both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito (should he be confirmed, an action that I by no means regard as a slam dunk) would almost surely have to recuse themselves from consideration of any legal issues that come before the Supreme Court arising from next month's proposed investigation, wouldn't they? Or would this be another case of IOKIYAR -- it's okay if you're a Republican to have your hand-picked judges rule on your legal issues?

If the Senate Judiciary Committee is truly going to hold hearings next month on this issue, the result could very well be charges of high crimes and misdemeanors brought against the president. The Committee should therefore hold in abeyance any further hearings, and certainly any vote, on any judicial nominee who might have to hear a case arising out of these hearings. You don't let the accused pick the judge.