Newspaper logo  
 
 
Local News & Opinion

Ref. : Local Newsbriefs

Travel
Films, Arts & Education
Letters

Ref. : Letters to the editor

Open Letters:

06.24 Mr. Holder, You Must Hold Torturers Accountable

Health & Environment

06.29 Thinking about Climate

06.26 False Health-Scare Ad on CNN

06.25 Louella Learns the Limits of Medicare

06.23 The Simple Answer to America’s Health Care Crisis: Medicare for All

06.23 Tell ABC: Include Single-Payer in Healthcare Debate

06.23 Serving the Medical-Industrial Complex

06.22 Thinking about Recoveries

06.20 Obama's Health Care Waterloo

06.15 Obama, Like Clinton Before Him, is Blowing the Chance for Real Health Care Reform

06.11 Two Key Health-Care Numbers

06.10 Big Breakthroughs for Single Payer Health Care

06.10 Readying Americans for Dangerous, Mandatory Vaccinations

Media Watching

06.29 WP's Connolly Back, on Health Reform

06.17 Hypocrisy and Hope: Western Coverage, Iranian Courage

06.15 Excusing Outrages of the Right

06.11 Tying Obama to Bush's Budget Mess

US Politics, Policy & Culture

06.30 Obama's Torture Hypocrisy

06.30 Court Circular: Annals of Imperial Continuity

06.29 Obama, They Want You to Fail

06.26 Who to Trust on a Truth Commission?

06.26 Tarnished Shields: The Morally Bankrupt 'Family Values' Republican Leadership

06.25 America's "Bases of Empire"

06.24 Twelve Angry White People: Jury Nullification in a Pennsylvania Coal Town

06.24 Touring Empire's Ruins

06.23 Employers are Undermining the Economic Stimulus Program

06.19 Criminalizing Dissent: Obama Pot Calls Iranian Kettle Black

06.17 Afghanistan's Operation Phoenix

06.16 Are You Ready for War with a Demonized Iran?

06.13 Where's the Anger as the Wheels Come Off Obama's and the Democrats' Recovery Program?

06.10 Waiving the Rules for Old Glory

06.10 Obama's Era of Openness Is Closed

“High Crimes?”

07.03 Reviewing Marjorie Cohn and Kathleen Gilberd's "Rules of Disengagement"

07.01 Iraq: A Bitter Strategic Failure

06.25 It's All Good, Again: 'Uptick' in the American-Made Tides of Violence in Iraq

06.22 Obama Opposes Plame-gate Release

06.21 Dexter's Legions: The "Good" Killers of the "Good" War

06.18 Extending the Tradition: Proudly Taking American Torture Into the Future

06.15 New UN Report Denounces America's Human Rights Record

06.14 Fear Rules

Economics & Business Non/Mis/Malfeasance

07.01 Michael Hudson's "Super Imperialism:" The Economic Strategy of Imperial America

06.23 Obama's Financial Reform Proposal - A Stealth Scheme for Global Monetary Control

06.10 Cyberscares About Cyberwars Equal Cybermoney

International

07.01 Pirates of the Mediterranean

06.29 Color Revolutions, Old and New

06.25 Iran Divided & the 'October Suprise'

06.23 Astringent Corrective: AbuKhalil on Iran's Turmoil

06.22 Reviewing F. William Engdahl's "Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order:" Part I

06.20 Are the Iranian Protests Another US Orchestrated “Color Revolution?”

06.20 Through a Glass Darkly: Sifting Myth and Fact on Iran

06.19 Iran's Election and US - Iranian Elections

06.16 The Ir-Af-Pak War: Obama Looses the Manhunters

06.12 Israeli War Crimes Against Children During Operation Cast Lead

We are a non-profit Internet-only newspaper publication founded in 1973. Your donation is essential to our survival.
Google
This site Web
  Why Impeachment, Sadly, Is a Non-Starter
Newspaper logo

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Why Impeachment, Sadly, Is a Non-Starter

by SHELDON H. LASKIN
The most compelling reason why double impeachment of Bush and Cheney is not realistic lies in the fact that, given the order of Presidential succession, it would be perceived—and spun—as a Democratic attempt to seize the White House without an election.
With the election over, many progressives are vigorously pressing for Bush and Cheney to be impeached. I have a great deal of empathy for this position; certainly, if anyone deserved to be impeached and removed from office, it is Bush and Cheney. But, on reflection, I think impeachment of both a President and Vice President who are members of one party, while the Congress is controlled by the opposite party, is a non-starter.

Elizabeth Holtzman was on “Democracy Now” the other day. She is an eloquent advocate of impeachment. But in answering one of Amy Goodman's questions, Holtzman ironically gave the most convincing argument against impeachment. Amy asked her about the possibility of impeaching Cheney as well as Bush. Holtzman replied that that would be much more difficult, because as Vice President, Cheney has in all probability created little or no paper trail of having committed an impeachable offense. After all, it was Bush that signed the wiretap order, the torture statute, etc.

If Holtzman is correct, what is the point of impeaching Bush if we wind up with Cheney? At the very least, it would likely take longer to paper a case against Cheney than it would Bush. And that brings me to the second point why impeachment is probably not doable--there are only two years left to this Administration. As 2008 is a Presidential election year, realistically there is only one year for the impeachment process to work itself through; nothing controversial happens in Congress in a Presidential election year. It took over two years from the Watergate break-in to Nixon's resignation at a time when the Democrats (and more than a few Republicans) were open to the possibility of impeachment. Now, we'd be starting from scratch in convincing a reluctant Congress to act.

But the most compelling reason why double impeachment is not realistic lies in the fact that, given the order of Presidential succession, an attempt at a double impeachment would be perceived--and spun--as a Democratic attempt to seize the White House without an election. I find myself particularly sensitive to Nancy Pelosi’s dilemma. Because she is next in line for the Presidency after Cheney, Pelosi really cannot lead, or even be seen to support, a movement to impeach Bush and Cheney. It has been twelve years since the Democrats controlled the Congress and Pelosi will be the first female Speaker ever; all eyes are on her as to how she will act. The moment she signs on to an impeachment drive, her credibility takes a big hit because of her perceived naked self-interest. This will become the issue instead of Bush's crimes. She will not risk her political reputation and Democratic gains after so many years of being in the political wilderness for an impeachment drive that would be over politically the moment she signed on to it.

Granted, Pelosi could take the issue off the table by renouncing any interest in the Presidency. But Robert Byrd, as President Pro Tempore of the Senate, is next in line. Given his position in the Democratic leadership and his passionate opposition to Bush, he is open to much the same charge of political grandstanding as is Pelosi. And his advanced age alone would make a few Congressmen and Senators reluctant to vote to impeach when Bush will be gone in no more than two years. And what if Byrd also renounces any interest in the Presidency? Under the Constitution, Condoleeza Rice is next in line; hardly a satisfactory candidate to correct the multiple constitutional abuses of the Bush Administration in which she personally participated.

The fundamental problem is that impeachment doesn't work well if the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of State (all of whom are in the line of presidential succession) are all guilty of impeachable offenses and the Congress is controlled by the other party.
The fundamental problem is that impeachment doesn't work well if the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of State (all of whom are in the line of presidential succession) are all guilty of impeachable offenses and the Congress is controlled by the other party. Impeachment is really designed to remove one bad apple and otherwise leave the status quo unchanged, pending the next election. In 1974, Republican Ford replaced Republican Nixon. In all other respects, the Watergate-purged Nixon Cabinet stayed in place. Even the Republican moral police in 1999 acted with the understanding that Gore would replace Clinton if Clinton were removed from office.

This time, just replacing Bush with Cheney accomplishes nothing. But seeking to replace both opens the Democrats up to charges that they would be attempting a coup d’état. We will have to look elsewhere for justice, such as the criminal case just filed in Germany by the Center for Constitutional Rights. And the judgment of history.
Sheldon Laskin is a Baltimore attorney.

A petition of support to the German prosecutor may be signed here.


Copyright © 2006 The Baltimore Chronicle. All rights reserved.

Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.

This story was published on November 15, 2006.
 

Public Service Ads:
Verifiable Voting in Maryland