The House of Representatives voted to refer Kucinich's Motion to impeach the president.

Wow, I thought it would go nowhere.

Members of the Judiciary Committee

The significance of this is that an impeached President cannot issue pardons, amongst other things.

I wonder if this:

“I go through airports, and people have buttons as if they knew I was coming,” Pelosi said with a smile, mimicking a protester pointing to an “Impeach” button on their chest.
But the California Democrat said she is sticking to her position that trying to remove Bush or Cheney would be divisive, and she added, most likely unsuccessful.

is at all related to this?

Pelosi, who is married to investor Paul Pelosi, has amassed a large portfolio of jointly owned real estate, including three properties in the Napa Valley. They sold an 8-acre vineyard on Skellenger Lane in Rutherford last year for $1 million to $5 million, according to her disclosure form.

 Read more…

Many have pointed out the acts of President George W. Bush and his cabal as being "criminal." Take, for example, the words of Keith Olbermann:

It is a fact startling in its cynical simplicity and it requires cynical and simple words to be properly expressed: The presidency of George W. Bush has now devolved into a criminal conspiracy to cover the ass of George W. Bush.

…

Now if that's what this is all about, you tortured not because you're so stupid you think torture produces confession but you tortured because you're smart enough to know it produces really authentic-sounding fiction - well, then, you're going to need all the lawyers you can find … because that crime wouldn't just mean impeachment, would it?

That crime would mean George W. Bush is going to prison.

I so admire the glibness of Mr. Olbermann, the sharpness of his language and most of all, his passion.

However, under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, President George W. Bush, and all those he chooses to include in pardons, will never be prosecuted for crimes committed against the United States absent impeachment.   Read more…

what's off the table, mommy
what has fallen to the floor?
what never even made it
what proves less is more?

when you carve your blessed beast
when your knife is painted red
will you smile for the cameras
with a tear to shed
just one tear to shed

(chorus)
cascading showers
rivulets of rain
rising waters in america
drowning once again
cascading showers
dropping from the clouds
cascading showers
no one can hear the screams
no one can hear the screams
among the silent crowds

Good Lord, no! Bush would never stroke his walter out on the fescue, would he? And yet, with thousands of American soldiers dead, maimed or mentally destroyed who knows what he might do. Tens upon tens of thousands of Iraqis dying, dead and done. A treasury that looks like a hooker at four a.m. on a two dollar Tuesday...not to forget we have a Department of Justice that breaks into a wide smirk every time it spreads its fat cheeks a tantalizing two feet above the Constitution, just before it makes a mound of Texas chili where the Bill of Rights used to encamp.

What else? Emergency response agencies that have boldy gone past having one thumb up their asses to two and are making room for all other available digits. For the past eight years Americans have been treated to a well-funded, concerted and coördinated effort at gross manipulation of Tinker Bell Americans and their fervent wish for their Loving Creator God to ride out of the clouds like a Gooney Bird on crack and burn to death everyone who doesn't drive a fat fucking SUV to the Church of the Maniacal Savior--mmm, and the continuing saga of the normalization of iniquitous profits--profits manifested by raising the hammer of Free Enterprise and banging it on the anvil of Beaten Natives, a saga so foul with karmic vomit they cannot be cleansed but must instead be put into Chinese Toys...shall I go on? Shall I? Go. On?

In the spirit of helping out new friends, I am following the marching orders from The General, and directing you French Surrender wine swillers who cannot be there in person, to the VR version of the convention. I confess I know nothing about this sort of technology, but the people I've been talking to seem really enthusiastic for it. It takes a little while to set up the software, but it's free, and the hosts of the Impeachment Ball are giving away freebies (VR freebies, go ahead and unpack that) for those who stop by for the first time tonight.

Case closed, I'd say. Barbara Jordan on impeachment (via the Bra'ed One). It's a case study for today's Democrats on how to talk about the issue, so go read the whole, wonderful thing. I'm going to pull out quotes on the legal rationale:

[BARBARA JORDAN]:We know the nature of impeachment. We've been talking about it awhile now. It is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to "bridle" the executive if he engages in excesses. "It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men."

Justice Story: "Impeachment" is attended -- "is intended for occasional and extraordinary cases where a superior power acting for the whole people is put into operation to protect their rights and rescue their liberties from violations."

The Carolina ratification convention impeachment criteria: those are impeachable "who behave amiss or betray their public trust."

James Madison again at the Constitutional Convention: "A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution."

And she concludes:

Excellent:

The new Democratic-led Congress has been hit with approval ratings of less than 25 percent largely because of its failure to deliver on a campaign vow to withdraw troops from Iraq.

Reuters states the obvious, which is not obvious to the most of the Beltway Press.

Sheehan was among more than two dozen protesters led away in plastic handcuffs after they refused to heed repeated calls by U.S. Capitol Police to depart the office of Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

That's one. Hey, if Bruce Fein, Reagan Republican, is for impeachment, he ought to be thanking Cindy right now for taking the body, eh?

And two? That's the good part:

(Image one day late for Bastille Day.)

Just got finished watching Bill Moyers talk with John Nichols and Bruce Fein.

John Nichols was great, but Bruce Fein sounded pretty Shrill, didn't he?

I know I should not write on politics, but this hits me where I live. I was talking with a friend about his affair with a married woman whose husband is assigned away from the US. It is a sad story, and it is one I have heard mirrored many times. It is one with all the other stories that, like mad cats drawn from the same sack, scratch and claw at us. So forgive me being weak, and writing on a topic that should be forbidden to anyone who must by profession be faceless, blank and without core or surface soul. Forgive me for saying this.

Come home America, come home.

AP:

Nearly half of the US public wants President George W. Bush to face impeachment, and even more favor that fate for Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a poll out Friday.

This isn't a fucking blowjob we're talking about here. It's saving Constitutional government.

The survey by the American Research Group found that 45 percent support the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Bush, with 46 percent opposed, and a 54-40 split in favor when it comes to Cheney.

But Democratic leaders appear unlikely to pursue such a course.

(Funny, that word "leaders," isn't it? It's a particularly vicious and pernicious little authoritarian meme that, like herpes, sneaks in everywhere. It's used to mean, kinda sorta, "person holding high office," but because the offices are no longer named, the institution that the offices are part of fall gradually into disrepair and disrepute, and we're left with fuhrerprinzip, which, in the Bush White House, is the lust that dares not speak its name.)

Anyhow, the question before this house is: Should Bush and/or Cheney be impeached?

Emptywheel sounds the warning:

How appropriate that Robert Bork would weigh in on the Libby conviction to assert that Fitzgerald's appointment might not be constitutional. Over thirty years later and he's still trying to fire the guy investigating the Republican Administration.

Mind you, Bork is not alone. Vikram Amar, Randy Barnett, Alan Dershowitz, Viet Dinh, Douglas Kmiec, Gary Lawson, Earl Maltz, Thomas Merrill, Robert Nagel, Richard Parker, and Robert Pushaw. Some interesting in names in that list, from a fwe good liberals, to architects of unitary executive, to Dershowitz, who served as such a nice liberal voice justifying torture.

The worst of the worst. Read the whole post for the legal arguments, which are beyond my ability to summarize. But here's the bottom line:

Bork is not just trying to get Fitzgerald fired. He's trying to get the next Special Counsel--the one investigating BushCo constitutional violations--fired.

Bingo. No doubt the Libby slush, er, defense fund will help them with their funding, eh?

Great, great little piece in NYT today, which interestingly enough they chose not to hide behind the evil Paywall. The author: Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Not a big name, not a politician. Very nice writer though, and his logic (as well as politcal savvy) seems quite impeccable.

His topic: Should Congress impeach the Attorney General? That they can is unquestionable:

A cabinet officer, like a judge or a president, may be impeached only for commission of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” But as the Nixon and Clinton impeachment debates reminded us, that constitutional phrase embraces not only indictable crimes but “conduct ... grossly incompatible with the office held and subversive of that office and of our constitutional system of government.”

Emphasis added, because as we've said on possibly a time or two before, this is the heart of the matter.

AP:

More than 30 Vermont towns passed resolutions on Tuesday seeking to impeach Bush.

 Read more…

Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi has handed his resignation to the country's president after losing a crucial foreign policy vote in the Senate.

So a popular topic in the ether now that we've got a Democratic congress: should Bush be impeached? I'm going to a discussion on Sunday led by various progressive groups (Code Pink, AfterDowningStreet, etc) on the topic, and I wonder what strategy people will end up advocating. Your thoughts?

To me, it seems like there are several options, and a lot depends on Bush's behavior for the next two years. On the surface, it makes little sense to make the first priority of Congress impeaching Bush; despite the satisfaction we'd feel, too many Americans aren't as informed/angry as they need to be to make it stick. But...and it's a big but, isn't it?

-Signing statements. How should Pelosi and Reid act when Bush decides that some law they pass doesn't apply to him? To me, this is a top Constitutional question that must be answered. Elections don't matter if the Executive is unitary.

Priceless. Foley shares his feelings in The Saint Petersburg Times:

"It's vile," said Rep. Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach. "It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."

Vile, huh?

Heh. Indeedy. Yeah, thank The God of Your Choice the Adults are in charge.