Did that say.... impeach? Again!
The echoes of the Nixon administration are back again. Only this time it isn't domestic malfeasance, but something involving the military. Molly Ivans had a column in which the details of the torture justifications are brought forward again.
What stuck me is that we are indeed just shy of an election. This has a similar parallel with 1972 in which Nixon was waging a re-election campaign and managed to win. My previous rant about impeachment made the case that since we are going to have national elections real soon now, it is not reasonable to expect impeachment proceedings to start.
But if Bush does manage to win in November, we may just see that. We still need to have some form of smoking guns come out into daylight in order to get the super-majority needed in Congress to start the impeachment ball rolling. Bush has as much as said that Rumsfeld is going to stay on a head of DoD, and if the torture issues flare up high enough that a Chief of Staff head needs to role... he will be useful to have.
Control of Congress also has to be figured in. Which party controls the House has a lot of impact on any impeachment articles that may get passed, and the GOP still maintains a good margin there. The November elections may adjust the ratio one way or the other, but I suspect that the GOP will still have control. The Senate is another thing, and the Democrats may just get control. But, the Senate only gets involved in impeachment proceedings once the House has voted for it.
Constitutionally, it all works out. But to have two presidents in a row face impeachment proceedings sets a worrying precedent. For a while there it seemed like the first thing to do with a new president was to assign a special prosecutor to investigate him for any bad things. Since Bush came to office with his party in control of Congress, this neo-tradition was not continued.
With the GOP in control of the House, it would take a smoking gun with clear fingerprints in order to get any Articles of Impeachment through. Lets just hope the voters do the job first.
What stuck me is that we are indeed just shy of an election. This has a similar parallel with 1972 in which Nixon was waging a re-election campaign and managed to win. My previous rant about impeachment made the case that since we are going to have national elections real soon now, it is not reasonable to expect impeachment proceedings to start.
But if Bush does manage to win in November, we may just see that. We still need to have some form of smoking guns come out into daylight in order to get the super-majority needed in Congress to start the impeachment ball rolling. Bush has as much as said that Rumsfeld is going to stay on a head of DoD, and if the torture issues flare up high enough that a Chief of Staff head needs to role... he will be useful to have.
Control of Congress also has to be figured in. Which party controls the House has a lot of impact on any impeachment articles that may get passed, and the GOP still maintains a good margin there. The November elections may adjust the ratio one way or the other, but I suspect that the GOP will still have control. The Senate is another thing, and the Democrats may just get control. But, the Senate only gets involved in impeachment proceedings once the House has voted for it.
Constitutionally, it all works out. But to have two presidents in a row face impeachment proceedings sets a worrying precedent. For a while there it seemed like the first thing to do with a new president was to assign a special prosecutor to investigate him for any bad things. Since Bush came to office with his party in control of Congress, this neo-tradition was not continued.
With the GOP in control of the House, it would take a smoking gun with clear fingerprints in order to get any Articles of Impeachment through. Lets just hope the voters do the job first.
posted by Corwin at 12:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home