Impeachment
The Constitution states in Article II, Section 4 that "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
There is no specific clarification for what constitutes "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," and the three times we've been faced with impeachment or the specter thereof, it's fallen within this definition. Andrew Johnson's impeachment trial in 1868 was at its heart a conflict between a Republican Congress intent on implementing Reconstruction and re-shaping the nation and a rather unpopular Democratic President. The impetus was Johnson's firing of Edwin M. Stanton as Secretary of War; Congress stated Johnson had no right to do so, while Johnson insisted he retained control of his Cabinet, not by Congress' will. Nothing about treason or bribery here; it fell within "high crimes and misdemeanors."
In 1974, Nixon was faced with almost certain impeachment for his gross abuses during the Watergate scandal. The misuse of government agencies, money laundering, political dirty tricks, lies, and coverups that all converged within what was described at the time as a "third-rate burglary." Again, no treason here, while bribery was indeed possible, but at its heart, this was another case of "high crimes and misdemeanors." The essential heart of Watergate was the fact that the President deceived the nation. It's pretty hard to allow someone to lead you when they've been caught lying on such a grand scale.
Just a few years back, as I'm sure all of you recall, Clinton was impeached, solely for the "crime" of having an affair with Monica Lewinsky, and then lying about it in a deposition. Getting a blowjob in the Oval Office and its environs definitely doesn't constitute an act of treason, and it certainly wasn't a case of bribery. Again, it was, as in Johnson's case, a political vendetta between a President belonging to one party and a Congress of another. La Affaire Lewinsky wasn't even the original impetus; it was Whitewater, a bungled real-estate deal that the Clintons lost money on. The big deal here, as Congress liked to stress, was that the President lied. Once again, "high crimes and misdemeanors."
No doubt you're familiar with all this, as all the newspapers, magazines, and various other forms of communications detailed the history and procedures of impeachment in our history when Clinton went on trial. Some of you may have felt it was justified; others might perceive it as a witch-hunt. Recently, retiring Congressman Henry Hyde (he of the "youthful indiscretion"; although it's pretty hard to imagine someone in their 40s carrying on a five-year affair that ruined a marriage merely guilty of a "youthful indiscretion") remarked in an interview with a local TV station that the Clinton impeachment was in part retaliation for the looming impeachment of Nixon during Watergate. Naturally, the story was edited after a day or so, and softened; otherwise I'd have linked to it. To me, if that's true, that's extremely juvenile and irresponsible of the Republicans to play games with such a serious consequence outlined in our Constitution (not to mention wasting our taxypayer money on such investigations and trials).
Today, there is news coming from London that makes me think it's time to call for impeachment yet again. This time, it's not a "misdemeanor" of the type that nearly doomed Johnson or Clinton, but something approaching and exceeding the "high crimes" that did in Nixon. It appears that our gummint, under Smirk and Scowl, deliberately planned for war and had in fact decided on war long before Smirk, Scowl, and their gummint officials went before Congress, the U.N., and the American people to press a case for the invasion of Iraq. The "secret Downing Street Memo" outlines that our "leaders" had already established possible attack plans, were determined to ignore the U.N., and were aware that the case for going into Iraq was weak. Additionally, it's strongly suggested that the evidence for promoting war fever was going to have be manufactured from individual, unconnected bits and pieces.
Knowing our press, they'll probably ignore this, but this is truly explosive and definitely merits a serious, impartial, non-partisan, TRUTHFUL investigation, if not outright impeachment. Not only did Smirk, Scowl & Co. run roughshod over dissenters, they superseded Congress, which is the only authority that rightfully can declare war (see the Constitution, once again: Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to... declare war..."). Most importantly, they apparently lied to their underlings, Congress, the U.N., the so-called "coalition of the willing" (with the obvious exception of Blair and his government!), and not least of all, us-- the American people. This lie was worse than Watergate (massive corruption, political chicanery) or Clinton's affair (simple adultery-- generally a matter dealt with by the offender, the spouse, and the Other Woman; not 260 million people who were grossed out by unnecessary details (I mean, did we *really* need to know about that cigar??)); this lie directly caused the deployment of thousands of our soldiers and the National Guard. These lies contributed directly to the deaths of thousands, from our armed forces to the politicians and police officers of Iraq, and countless thousands of civilians-- men, women, and children. The mistruths told led assisted in the depletion of our federal treasury (the tax cuts for the wealthy helped too, I know, but the war is costing millions upon millions of dollars).
I have mixed feelings about Afghanistan, but I was definitely against going into Iraq from the very start. I still am, and what I have learned since 2003 just makes me angrier and angrier, sadder and sadder, and far more cynical. But this is the final straw. I'm outraged. If we as a people can't recognize what a vast deception has occurred should this memo be completely true (and given the misleading information we've gotten, such as the so-called "yellowcake" evidence, among other things, it probably is 100% true; there's no reason for the British to lie when this reflects badly on them, not to mention Blair), then we're in far deeper trouble than I even thought. This isn't something to be shrugged off; it's far more serious than Watergate, and Smirk, Scowl, and their minions need to be removed from office and brought to justice for putting in harm's way thousands of people for no good reason.
There is no specific clarification for what constitutes "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," and the three times we've been faced with impeachment or the specter thereof, it's fallen within this definition. Andrew Johnson's impeachment trial in 1868 was at its heart a conflict between a Republican Congress intent on implementing Reconstruction and re-shaping the nation and a rather unpopular Democratic President. The impetus was Johnson's firing of Edwin M. Stanton as Secretary of War; Congress stated Johnson had no right to do so, while Johnson insisted he retained control of his Cabinet, not by Congress' will. Nothing about treason or bribery here; it fell within "high crimes and misdemeanors."
In 1974, Nixon was faced with almost certain impeachment for his gross abuses during the Watergate scandal. The misuse of government agencies, money laundering, political dirty tricks, lies, and coverups that all converged within what was described at the time as a "third-rate burglary." Again, no treason here, while bribery was indeed possible, but at its heart, this was another case of "high crimes and misdemeanors." The essential heart of Watergate was the fact that the President deceived the nation. It's pretty hard to allow someone to lead you when they've been caught lying on such a grand scale.
Just a few years back, as I'm sure all of you recall, Clinton was impeached, solely for the "crime" of having an affair with Monica Lewinsky, and then lying about it in a deposition. Getting a blowjob in the Oval Office and its environs definitely doesn't constitute an act of treason, and it certainly wasn't a case of bribery. Again, it was, as in Johnson's case, a political vendetta between a President belonging to one party and a Congress of another. La Affaire Lewinsky wasn't even the original impetus; it was Whitewater, a bungled real-estate deal that the Clintons lost money on. The big deal here, as Congress liked to stress, was that the President lied. Once again, "high crimes and misdemeanors."
No doubt you're familiar with all this, as all the newspapers, magazines, and various other forms of communications detailed the history and procedures of impeachment in our history when Clinton went on trial. Some of you may have felt it was justified; others might perceive it as a witch-hunt. Recently, retiring Congressman Henry Hyde (he of the "youthful indiscretion"; although it's pretty hard to imagine someone in their 40s carrying on a five-year affair that ruined a marriage merely guilty of a "youthful indiscretion") remarked in an interview with a local TV station that the Clinton impeachment was in part retaliation for the looming impeachment of Nixon during Watergate. Naturally, the story was edited after a day or so, and softened; otherwise I'd have linked to it. To me, if that's true, that's extremely juvenile and irresponsible of the Republicans to play games with such a serious consequence outlined in our Constitution (not to mention wasting our taxypayer money on such investigations and trials).
Today, there is news coming from London that makes me think it's time to call for impeachment yet again. This time, it's not a "misdemeanor" of the type that nearly doomed Johnson or Clinton, but something approaching and exceeding the "high crimes" that did in Nixon. It appears that our gummint, under Smirk and Scowl, deliberately planned for war and had in fact decided on war long before Smirk, Scowl, and their gummint officials went before Congress, the U.N., and the American people to press a case for the invasion of Iraq. The "secret Downing Street Memo" outlines that our "leaders" had already established possible attack plans, were determined to ignore the U.N., and were aware that the case for going into Iraq was weak. Additionally, it's strongly suggested that the evidence for promoting war fever was going to have be manufactured from individual, unconnected bits and pieces.
Knowing our press, they'll probably ignore this, but this is truly explosive and definitely merits a serious, impartial, non-partisan, TRUTHFUL investigation, if not outright impeachment. Not only did Smirk, Scowl & Co. run roughshod over dissenters, they superseded Congress, which is the only authority that rightfully can declare war (see the Constitution, once again: Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to... declare war..."). Most importantly, they apparently lied to their underlings, Congress, the U.N., the so-called "coalition of the willing" (with the obvious exception of Blair and his government!), and not least of all, us-- the American people. This lie was worse than Watergate (massive corruption, political chicanery) or Clinton's affair (simple adultery-- generally a matter dealt with by the offender, the spouse, and the Other Woman; not 260 million people who were grossed out by unnecessary details (I mean, did we *really* need to know about that cigar??)); this lie directly caused the deployment of thousands of our soldiers and the National Guard. These lies contributed directly to the deaths of thousands, from our armed forces to the politicians and police officers of Iraq, and countless thousands of civilians-- men, women, and children. The mistruths told led assisted in the depletion of our federal treasury (the tax cuts for the wealthy helped too, I know, but the war is costing millions upon millions of dollars).
I have mixed feelings about Afghanistan, but I was definitely against going into Iraq from the very start. I still am, and what I have learned since 2003 just makes me angrier and angrier, sadder and sadder, and far more cynical. But this is the final straw. I'm outraged. If we as a people can't recognize what a vast deception has occurred should this memo be completely true (and given the misleading information we've gotten, such as the so-called "yellowcake" evidence, among other things, it probably is 100% true; there's no reason for the British to lie when this reflects badly on them, not to mention Blair), then we're in far deeper trouble than I even thought. This isn't something to be shrugged off; it's far more serious than Watergate, and Smirk, Scowl, and their minions need to be removed from office and brought to justice for putting in harm's way thousands of people for no good reason.
posted by Mr. Sandman | 4:42 PM
<< Home