Impeachment
Josh Marshall revisits the I-word and discusses the evolution of his own thinking on the issue. I mostly agree, but it isn't clear if his assessment that "impeachment itself is toxic to our political system" is one that he still holds or has changed his thinking on. Impeachment becomes toxic when it is without merit, as in the late-90s Clinton witch hunt. Yes, Clinton committed perjury. And there should be consequences for that. But there are no specific requirements for removal from office, other than "high crimes and misdemeanors." Obviously that vague language is open to interpretation, but my position is that Clinton's crime was hardly serious enough to warrant impeachment; censure would have sufficed. The public was willing to censure, and it is worth recalling that that supposed far-left radical organization, MoveOn.org, was created specifically to censure Clinton so the country could, well, move on.
That being said, George Walker Bush has clearly committed impeachable offenses. Marshall doesn't deny that. And by that standard, impeachment is hardly toxic at all but an ointment. What is toxic is allowing such offenses to go unpunished. Marshall notes, as myself and others have, that
Without going into all the specifics, I think we are now moving into a situation where the White House, on various fronts, is openly ignoring the constitution, acting as though not just the law but the constitution itself, which is the fundamental law from which all the statutes gain their force and legitimacy, doesn't apply to them.If that is allowed to continue, the defiance will congeal into precedent. And the whole structure of our system of government will be permanently changed.
Impeachment was designed, I would argue, specifically to deal with would-be tyrants. But rather than disposing of them like Caesar, which creates a succession problem, impeachment allows the constitutional fabric to be preserved and affirmed: We are a nation of laws, not men. That is the principle at stake here. And without condemning Bush, we risk tyranny on behalf of future presidents, regardless of party. Impeachment unambiguously asserts that this behavior will not be tolerated and carries severe penalties.
That's the principle. In the real world, impeachment can't happen because there will never be enough Republican senators willing to convict the Commander Guy. I wish I was wrong, but I see nothing but fealty to the leader on behalf of the Senate GOP. It would take, by my estimation, an act by the president so blatantly criminal that it stuns, to convince enough Republicans to boot Bush from office. Like, say, bombing Iran. But security issues are precisely how we got into this mess in the first place. It is always how tyrants take power, in the name of protecting us. That leaves the accumulation of lesser crimes stemming from the US Attorney firings, claims of executive privilege, the politicization of federal agencies and the various other malfeasances committed toward the end of creating a one-party state. But for all of that to snowball into something that suggests impeachment takes time. It takes hearings. It takes political pressure. And I feel there is simply not enough time remaining in Bush's term to accomplish all of that. Which is to say, we're fucked. Bush will likely get a pass for all of his crimes.
That leaves lesser figures. Impeaching Alberto Gonzales, for instance, does not seem impossible. Starting with the low-hanging fruit and working your way up might just be enough to send a message that the executive is not the law. Of course, this won't do anything to Bush himself, but it at least sets the precedent that future abuses of power will have consequences, if not for the president himself, then for his subordinates. And that might be the best we can hope for, given the obstructionism of the GOP. Removing that rot will take even longer.