Texas Progressives say: Her name is Kate Cox

On behalf of Kate Cox, fuck the Texas Supreme Court.

With more, Off the Kuff writes about the emergency lawsuit that would have allowed a Dallas woman to get an abortion before Ken Paxton stuck his nose in.

 

==

Austin City Council votes to allow denser housing in single-family residential zoning. But, "votes to allow" doesn't mean it will actually happen. There's a whole raft of issues behind this one, nationally. That said, the two opponents and the constituents they represent aren't necessarily "right."

The Texas Historical Commission seems to be following the Texas State Historical Association in having problems with wingnuts.

Kenny Boy and DPS head Steve McCraw continue to hate on Uvalde families.

 

DosCentavos offers up another Thoughts on Viernes. This one is about the latest on COVID and DPS absolving itself.

Fort Worth Diocese Bishop Michael Olson fighting an order of nuns? And Amon G. Carter's granddaughter? Bring it on! I was broadly familiar already with the front story, and also with Bishop Olson's reputation. And, per the story, will Francis the Talking Pope move him on at some point? As of now, hurdling Catholic bureaucracy seems to be an issue.

SocraticGadfly notes how the vaunted Texas economic miracle still really isn't.

 

Genocide Joe's really desperate if the Clintons are going to become a bigger part of his campaign. 

 

And, with a Biden impeachment inquiry started, will BlueAnon like Adam Schiff stop lying about Trump's first impeachment not being political when it clearly was?

Democrat State Sen. Nathan Johnson gets primaried. Good; we need more ConservaDems to face the music.

Neil at the Houston Democracy Project said that the Houston Police Officer's Union each day has the opportunity to side with candidates and elected officials who fully support democracy. 

 Evil MoPac mourns a tragic day in Austin.

The Dallas Observer talks to abortion supporters about the battles ahead. 

The TSTA Blog closes the door on a wasted year at the Capitol.

And, sorry, Kuff, but this outpost of Texas Progressives doesn't worship at the cult of Fuck You the Beaver. Nor do we run religiously based reflections on Hanukkah that are as much mythical as would be the typical religious leader's reflection on Christmas, especially given the Israel-Hamas war.

Impeachment failed: Why, and a retrospective

First, of course it failed in the narrow sense because Republicans control the Senate.

But, it failed for broader reasons, too.

First, why the Ukraine issue?

An ethically stronger issue, in my opinion, was Emoluments Clause violations. Given that an appellate court recently reinstated, and remanded back to district court to resume proceedings, on an Emoluments Clause lawsuits by several state attorneys general, House Democrats already had a roadmap. And, members of Congress filed their own suit, though the DC appeals court just bounced it today. (I agree on the grounds for that ruling; individual members, or a group of members acting individually, don't have standing.)

Politically stronger, IMO, was good old "misprision of funds" over the border wall. And, given injunctions filed over that, House Dems could have learned legal strategies, etc.

Each would have been easy to explain by analogy to the general public.

Emoluments Clause? You tell the average American this is no different from putting the logo of whatever company they work at on personal products they sell on Amazon or eBay.

Misprision? You tell them this is like a spouse or other relationship partner raiding the family budget, for families that do an actual budget.

Plus, misprision of funds or the functional equivalent of or similar? Congress can't do that. It passes a budget and that's that. Only the executive can do that.

Emoluments Clause? Members of Congress CAN violate that, or their version of that, though; that's why old friend Greg AtLast wondered if many national Dems were worried about bits of their own dirty laundry airing. Or, given that the lawsuit mentioned in the first link was more than 40 Democratic Housecritters and 15 Senatecritters short of the plenum joining the suit, maybe support for impeachment on this grounds was that weak.

No matter.

Still less likely than Joe Biden family laundry coming out on Ukraine.

That's why I have to agree with Peter Beinart that, beyond the impeachment process benefiting Trump, it actually hurt Biden. It kept Hunter's name in the news, Biden looked weak in response and more.

I'm not sure I agree with Beinart that Biden was the best Dem candidate against Trump a year ago. At the same time, I don't necessarily agree with Berners that, then at least, Bernie was either.

So, why?

I don't consider this a conspiracy theory; I don't think it can really be proven or disproven.

I think some national Dems wanted to boost Biden, were worried about Hunter Biden coming up anyway, and sought to "insulate" Joe.

Anyway, after almost three years of doing nothing in general, ignoring calls for impeachment by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Al Green and others, it's pretty "amazing" that Ukraine was decided on as being impeachable, and the relative speed with which things happened. Not a conspiracy theory, but empirical facts.

And it backfired. Blew up in their faces, even.

Other national Dems, like John Bolton, actually planted their flag on the semi-coup at the Maidan, and everything else Russophobic. This by no means was the hill to die on, especially since the Trump-Putin collusion claims were untrue and the Mueller Report petered out like Bob Mueller was two Viagras short of shooting a real wad.

Biden has now imploded in Iowa, as has the state Democratic party over the caucuses, with Trump running out a triumphalist State of the Union on the heels of all of this.

So, no, certain Twitterers, whether Joe, Bernie, or Liz is your candidate, it won't be easy to beat Trump.

Also empirical fact? An impeachment case on either the Emoluments Clause or misprision could have been started much earlier than Ukraine, and thus, for better or for worse, been out of the way before the Iowa caucuses. You also wouldn't have had the same problem of new information of importance popping up after the impeachment vote in the House but before the Senate trial.

(Howie Hawkins, in his piece on his campaign website rejecting Chomskyites' call for the Green Party to run a "safe states" strategy, lists campaign financing and other impeachable matters besides the ones above. I don't think everything Howie lists is impeachable, but some of it certainly is.)

A few other bits and pieces.

Of COURSE Rick Scott wants to raise the threshold for impeachment. Whether the grifting is financial or non-monetary, he's never missed a grifting angle within the wingnut world.

Second, the Salt Lake Trib may call Mittens Romney a hero, and within the circumscribed moral world of today's GOP and also of politics in general, he may be. But, 1868 Kansas Sen. Edmund G. Ross is not, contra its analogy. There's pretty good evidence that all of the "sinful seven," speaking of grifting, got some patronage type payola from Andy Johnson. Spoons/Beast Ben Butler argued that patronage had been spread for Johnson's acquittal. There's good evidence Ross took patronage and some evidence he took a direct bribe. See here.

Meanwhile, the animosity, and the issues on both halves of the duopoly caucus, continued into that SOTU address. And, it's percolating down.

At the start of local candidates forum hosted by county GOP women (no Dems running in any primary in a local race), organization members  talked about the State of the Union address and about Speaker Nancy Pelosi tearing up a copy of Trump's address. Hey, wingers, it was neither illegal nor unethical.

Is this a constitutional issue? So they claimed. It isn't that, either.

But? Pelosi fired the first snub gunshot, arguably, not using traditional SOTU language to introduce Trump.

Greg AtLast is back on impeachment, 25thAmendment and Aaron Paté, Matt Snidely and other OTB stenos

Yes, he's back. Greg AtLast, still doing his best black hat work:



Per what friend Greg has said, here's my take on the 25th Amendment vis-a-vis Trump.

Here's one of my takes on the alleged outside the box stenos. And another.

And here's my take on Putin being too smart to collude with Trump.

As for the Trump Train riders who claim every previous impeachment has been on criminal charges?

Not even close. The Tenure of Office Act was entirely civil. So was every other "not doing your job" (the way we want you to) charge brought against Andrew Johnson.

Of course, what friend Greg didn't mention is that this is really yet another argument for moving at least closer to parliamentary government.

Also beyond Greg, there are other items that are more solid impeachment grounds than Ukraine. Such as spending money without Congressional appropriation for his wall.

Alternative history: Andrew Johnson convicted in impeachment

Could Radical Republicans have convicted Andrew Johnson in the Senate, versus his actual acquittal at the denouement of his impeachment?

I say yes, and prevent a counterfactual history. Unlike most of my writings on this field, this particular counterfactual history requires multiple elements to be changed, not just one. But, the elements are all of a piece, and they'd all be by the same group — the Radical Republicans in Congress.

So, in outline form, here's what needed to be different.

First, a more comprehensive planning strategy should have been started earlier, even before it looked like impeachment had a shot.

Second, when that shot appeared possible, getting Senate Republicans to hold a new vote and elect somebody besides Ben Wade as president pro tem.

Third, grab the bull by the horns. In light of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Johnson's non-actions, rather than try him over the Tenure of Office Act, more bluntly try him over his failure to uphold his oath of office.

Fourth, if this weren't enough to have changed the minds of any of the "sinful seven" (actually 10 Republican senators in all) who early on decided to acquit, given the actual play-out, lean harder on Sen. Edmund Ross, who reportedly told Gov. Crawford that he would resign if the governor wanted him to vote to convict. (How true the veracity of that tale is, I'm not sure.)

Fesseden or Grimes surely could have been swayed. And non-Radicals who stayed stubborn would have been put on notice about possible state legislature opposition when their terms ended.

Spoons/Beast Ben Butler argued that patronage had been spread for Johnson's acquittal. There's good evidence Ross took patronage and some evidence he took a direct bribe. See here. Some of the Sinful Seven claimed that Butler's presentation of the charges as House manager was one-sided. See also Brenda Wineapple's book.

I disagree. It was somewhat inept. But, it was otherwise prosecutorial. That's what House impeachment managers are supposed to be. They're not judges in an impeachment; the Supreme Court serves as that. They're prosecutors.

So, it seems clear that Trumbull, among others, was hell-bent on acquittal.

Had Johnson been convicted, we have two alt-history paths. One is where Wade accepts he's unpopular and the Senate holds a new election for a president pro tem after he steps aside. A moderate but not conservative consensus candidate, like Wade's fellow Ohioan John Sherman or , is elected to replace him.

The other is that Wade is stubborn and despite this handicap, Johnson is still convicted.

A Sherman presidency would have been relatively smooth. All of Johnson's Cabinet likely would have remained.

For Wade, on the other hand, most of the Cabinet outside of Stanton might have quit. Seward might have stayed on for Alaska negotiations, depending on the exact date of Johnson's conviction, then left after that.

Impeach the president? Why not?

Earlier this week, Ross Douthat, in claiming to be nonpartisan, but actually being quite partisan and perhaps firing a shot across the bow at Al Franken, said that, in hindsight, impeaching Bill Clinton was justifiable.

Well, for sexual peccadillos or for other reasons, I can find a bunch of presidents of both major parties who should have been impeached.

In any case, as Bob Somersby takes Douthat down a notch, nobody accused Clinton of sexually harassing or assaulting either Gennifer Flowers or Monica Lewinsky.  On the other hand, while it was pre-presidential, Bob sullies his own narrative by not mentioning Juanita Broaddrick.

And, to frost old Ross and hoist him on his own petard, the first such president would have been a Republican in today's political economy — John Adams.

Portions of the Alien and Sedition Acts clearly violated the First Amendment. Adams had pushed for them and signed them into law. Impeach him!

Second? Thomas Jefferson. Slavery was legal, but the extortionate nature of his twilight-world relationship with Sally Hemings was arguably impeachable.

Andrew Jackson? Violated federal laws and the Supreme Court, complete with infamous retort to John Marshall, during Indian removal.

James K. Polk? First of several presidents to lie us into war. And per an Illinois Congressman who got the moniker of "Spotty" Lincoln, Mexico still didn't accept the Rio Grande as Texas' border. Yes, Santa Anna signed a treaty to that effect after San Jacinto, but, under international law, treaties signed under duress are never binding, and besides, the Mexican Legislature never approved it.

James Buchanan? Arguably, not just an aider and abetter of treason, but by not immediately firing, and trying in court, treasonous cabinet members like John Floyd, a committer of treason himself.

Andrew Johnson? The Tenure in Office Act was unconstitutional. He could have been impeached for something like deliberately undercutting the Freedmen's Bureau.

Ulysses S. Grant? Arguably for obstruction of justice in the Babcock investigation.

Teddy Roosevelt? Violation of the portion of his oath of office as commander in chief of the armed forces, over the Brownsville dishonorable discharges.

Woodrow Wilson didn't quite lie us into war, but he did certainly connive us into war. And, like Adams, a clear violator of the First Amendment.

Warren Harding? More idiotic than Grant, and no clear indication he came close to obstructing justice.

Franklin D. Roosevelt? Did not lie us into war. Race-based application of many New Deal programs, though, seem to be a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Harry S. Truman? Probably not.

Ike? Covert war vis-a-vis both Mossadegh and Arbenz, and matters related.

JFK?

LBJ? Lied us into Vietnam. And plans to expand our presence there existed months before Tonkin Gulf.

Nixon? Besides Watergate, his Logan Act violations in the 1968 campaign, even if pre-election, were an arguable cause for impeachment. The Cambodia bombing certainly so.

Jerry Ford? The pardon for Nixon, if it was some sort of quid pro quo, certainly runs afoul of the Emoluments Clause.

Ronald Reagan? Iran-Contra.

George H.W. Bush? If any of his gropes and mistressing involved preferments? Impeachable. Lies about Kuwait for the Gulf War — both the PR-paid lies about Kuwaiti incubator babies, and whatever April Glaspie told Saddam Hussein — lied us into war.

Bill Clinton? Sure, Ross, you can have him.

George W. Bush? Lied us into war.

That's 18 presidents. Nine of them Republican or proto-Republican. Or, 19 and 10, assuming Trump's already racked up Emoluments Clause violations.

You playing, Rosty? What about you, Ken Starr?

See, Rusty, this is what happens when you combine being a political hack with being a dumb fuck.

In reality, this shows yet another failure of our Founding Fathers.

They assumed members of Congress would be disinterested civil servants, rather than politicians. They assumed that political parties similar to the type already existing in Britain, and to some degree the US (Tories and Patriots, or the Federalists and anti-Federalists even before the Constitution was approved didn't come from nowhere), wouldn't be part of the US body politic.

And, despite the evidence in front of their faces that they were wrong, they persisted.

And, a side note undercutting American exceptionalism? Nineteen of 45 presidents. More than 40 percent.

Chickenshit Boehner gets House GOP to pass pseudo-impeachment lawsuit

Cry me a river, Mr. Backbone of Chocolate Eclair

Let's be honest, that's what Speaker of the House John Boehner's plan to Barack Obama is, now that the House has OKed it. (And, with just five House Republicans in opposition, anybody who ever, again talks to me about "moderate Republicans" at the national level gets kicked in the nads.)

After the Clinton debacle, Republicans know they cannot win a politically-driven impeachment conviction, especially with any "charges" against Obama having even less substance than those against Slick Willie.

So, sue instead.

Isn't it funny how the GOP always talks about tort reform — except when it would hurt them?

And, gets hypocritical:

"What price do you place on the continuation of our system of checks and balances? What price do you put on the Constitution of the United States?" said Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich. "My answer to each is 'priceless.'"

Checks and balances are already in place. Democrats who control the Senate won't pass your idiocy, so you boo-hoo and sue.

So, Speaker Boo-Boo (he's got Yogi's voice but Boo-Boo's face), or RedFace, as I also call him, is suing Obama for "being the President."

Let's let RedFace speak for himself:

"This is not about impeachment -- it's about him faithfully executing the laws of this country," Boehner said.

The speaker alleged that the president not only has ignored the law but "brags about it," decrying what he described as "arrogance and incompetence."

Boehner had been weighing such a lawsuit in recent days, over concerns that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority with executive actions.

Now, let's translate. On paragraph No. 3? This is another It's OK If You're A Republican, of course, because RedFace never talked about suing Shrub Bush, who wrote more executive orders than Obama ever did. 

Paragraph No. 1?

Failure in "faithfully executing the laws of this country" would certainly be considered a high crime or misdemeanor, as it would be violating his oath of office. Therefore, per Article I, Section 2:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

You're that Speaker guy, you idiot.

So, you're chickenshit because you know you'll lose an impeachment, but you, like many a GOPer, has no problem with barratry, and with waste of taxpayer money, when it suits your own ends.

So, will Senate Democrats please sue Boehner for being Speaker of the House? C'mon, Harry Reid, do it!

#Boehner says that he will sue Obama ...

He'll sue him for "being the President."

That's not Washington RedFace's quote (hey, Danny Boy Snyder, there's another new name and mascot for the team I will call the Washington Hymies when your name is in the same sentence and not give a mascot to otherwise), but, it's the reality of what he's saying.

This is another It's OK If You're A Republican, of course, because RedFace never talked about suing Shrub Bush, who wrote more executive orders than Obama ever did.

But, let's let RedFace speak for himself:

"This is not about impeachment -- it's about him faithfully executing the laws of this country," Boehner said.

The speaker alleged that the president not only has ignored the law but "brags about it," decrying what he described as "arrogance and incompetence."

Boehner had been weighing such a lawsuit in recent days, over concerns that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority with executive actions.

Now, let's translate. I've already addressed paragraph No. 3.

This isn't about impeachment, because RedFace remembers 1998 and the Clinton impeachment #fail.

"Brags about it?"

While Obama is insufferable at times, what president had "Mission Accomplished" on an aircraft carrier, even though it wasn't then, never has been and never will be? Years later, when he finally realized that about Iraq, what president then said, "Bring it on"?

I'll take "George Wingnut Bush" for $1,000, Alex!

Now, let's translate more.

After Eric Cantor's upset loss earlier this month, and Thad Cochran nearly losing his Mississippi Senate seat in a primary runoff last night, after pandering for black Democrat voters, RedFace is running scared of the Tea Party. So, anybody who says the teabaggers are losing steam, think again. Well, at least the fear of them inside the GOP isn't losing steam.

Here's the details:

The decision to sue still would have to be formally approved by a group of House leaders. Presuming that step is cleared, the suit is expected to be filed in a few weeks.

See, RedFace butters up new Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy et al.

As for the chances of such a suit? If Nino Scalia, Clarence "Uncle" Thom(as) and others really are originalists or strict constructionalists, they'll tell RedFace that the Constitution prescribes impeachment as their political route, and dismiss the suit, with prejudice.

Failure in "faithfully executing the laws of this country" would certainly be considered a high crime or misdemeanor, as it would be violating his oath of office. Therefore, per Article I, Section 2:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

You're that Speaker guy, you idiot.

It's a big day for news, even if news of teh stupidz.

Meanwhile, since turnabout is fair play, I've tweeted Rep. Alan Greyson and asked him to sue Boehner for benig Speaker of the House.

Bailout fallout — Boehner a titty baby, Pelosi a hypocritical idiot

After the now-dead bailout (roll call vote is here), we have now the red-hot spin battle.

So, you shouldn’t have been expecting more from Democrats in the first place. (That’s why I’ll be voting Green again this year, as in 2004.)

House Minority Leader John Boehner accused Speaker Nancy Pelosi of well-poisoning within the House when he’s really mad she couldn’t deliver enough Democratic votes to cover for the massive GOP opposition.

Here’s the “well-poisoning” speech by Pelosi.

I do think Boehner was pouting.

At the same time, I do think Pelosi’s comments were inappropriate, especially when used to start the speech, rather than in the middle, or near but not quite at the end.

Also, given that Dems have had control of both houses of Congress for more than 18 months now, and haven’t pushed a single piece of financial oversight legislation of any major nature, Pelosi might want to read Matthew 5 about eyeballs, specks of dust and wood logs.

Beyond that, where was THIS Nancy Pelosi when Dennis Kucinich was pushing impeachment? Or on the FISA amendment legislation?

She was being political with her silence, just like she was being political with her noisemaking today.

Are you shocked?

Also, given the events of the weekend, for her to believe that, even without that face-slap at the start of her speech, Boehner was going to deliver 80 Republicans indicates a pretty high level of either naivete or self-delusion.

Finally, a SECOND vote? Not a snowball's chance, in my opinion. Repubs won't budget. Dems in iffy districts won't change their votes without more GOP cover. In fact, Dem no votes might go up.

I'll have a more detailed wrap tonight; Monday is normally my busiest work day in the weekly newspaper world.

Passive Pelosi™ whines in self-defense, says flat NO to impeachment

Her statement came during a protest-interrupted speech at American University of Judaism in Los Angeles.

Among other things, she defended her, and Congressional Democrats’, pitiful performance the last 18 months:

“Whether it’s the deficit or the challenges to the constitution we have to dig our way out,” Pelosi said, adding “this election is like death for life on this planet as we know it today.”

No, life and death was the FISA vote, and civil liberties died.

So, Peter Thottam, founder of the LA Impeachment Center, challenged her to “do her job”:

“Who gave you the right to take the constitution and shove it down the toilet? Who gave you the right to take impeachment off the table? Nobody told them to do this,” Thottam shouted at Pelosi moments before Secret Service agents removed him from the packed auditorium and turned him over to officers with the Los Angeles Police Department. “One million Iraqis are dead. Five thousand Americans are dead. You have destroyed the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments.”

After the speech, during book signing, she refused to mention the idea of inherent contempt against Karl Rove or others, and passed the buck on “ordinary” contempt charges to House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers.

Run, Cindy, Run!

Sham impeachment hearing – final thoughts

Thursday, I called Friday’s House Judiciary impeachment hearing a sham, above all for the reason that no impeachment vote were actually to be allowed, but for the number of people banned from the witness list.

Friday, I noted how the hearings turned out to be even more of a sham, from the self-censorship of chair John Conyers (and Dennis Kucinich, too!) on not using the word “impeachment,” to protestors getting the boot for protesting the shamness of it all.

“Have you no sham, Nancy Pelosi?”

Then, Friday night, I toured might be considered the four top liberal blogs — TPM, Washington Monthly, Atrios and the Orange Monster.

Any wrap-up at all, by them? Any blogging, as opposed to straight news on TPM, lead-in? Nope.

Guess it was either too embarrassing, or they too are non-idealistic enough to treat it as small beer.

Sham impeachment hearing update

Yesterday, I called today’s House Judiciary impeachment hearing a sham, above all for the reason that no impeachment vote will actually be allowed, but for the number of people banned from the witness list.

Well, the actual hearing has become even MORE of a sham, with Cindy Sheehan and other activists evicted from the gallery. Their crime?

Applauding too loud when witness Vincent Bugliosi said President Bush should be indicted for first-degree murder for lying us into Iraq.

But, THAT’s not all.

A person in fatigues, claiming to be a veteran, was barred for wearing an anti-war pin. And, John Conyers was OK with this:

Conyers instructed committee staff and Capitol police officers to “ask anyone with such signs to either remove them or leave the hearing room from this point on.”

This request kicked off more than three minutes of disruption and commotion as blue-clad police officers entered the crowd to escort out a man wearing camouflage fatigues and an button with an anti-war button.

“You’re hassling a veteran for wearing a pin? That’s an outrage!” another spectator shouted, before escorting himself from the hearing room.

But, THAT’s not all. More of Conyers in the tank.

A committee aide tells RAW STORY that members were cautioned to abide by the Rules of the House, which prohibit lawmakers from “impugning” the president’s character during official debate. Some apparently took this to mean they could not explicitly call for Bush' impeachment. None of this would stop Republicans from accusing the committee's majority of seeking just that.

And, just what does “impugn” mean? Wearing a button?

And, Conyers wouldn’t even USE the “I-word”:

The prepared text of Chairman John Conyers opening remarks referred to Congress’s “power to impeach.” When he spoke before the committee, Conyers modified that line to the “power to remove through the constitutional process” officials who abused their powers.

With Democrats like this, who needs Republicans, eh?

Turley – Pelosi has already found Bush ‘not guilty’

Constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley still refuses to let top Democrats off the hook on President Bush’s war and civil liberties illegalities.

Turley says Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, aka Passive Pelosi™, needs a meaningful impeachment proceeding, but that, given the stance she’s already taken on the issue, it’s going to be a “fancy dress ball.”

Kucinich focuses on one article of impeachment

Congressman Dennis Kucinich figures that if his 35 original articles of impeachment are a no-go, then maybe one article about the war will work.

Color me skeptical, still, of any chance of success. Remember that nearly 45 percent of House Dems voted for the FISA bill. They don’t want to challenge Bush, it’s that simple.

Kucinich ups impeachment ante on House Dem leadership

Were 35 articles of impeachment not enough? Dennis Kucinich promises 60 more unless the House Judiciary Committee, Chairman John Conyers (and the ultimate puppetmaster, Speaker Nancy Pelosi), get cracking.

Kucinich, in comments originally reported at a WaPost blog, gives Conyers 30 days to act.

“The minute the leadership said ‘this is dead on arrival’ I said that I hope they believe in life after death; because I’m coming back with it,” Kucinich vowed in an interview with the Sleuth this week. “It’s not gonna die. Because I'll come back with more articles. Not 35, but perhaps 60 articles.”

Sounds generous to me, actually.
I don’t know whether Kucinich is being generous, or he’s trying link his pressure to the status of FISA renewal and specifically the issue of telecom immunity.

Twenty-four GOPers have either a conscience or tough elections ahead

Twenty-four is the number of House Republicans that joined a unanimous Democratic caucus to vote to send Dennis Kucinich’s 35 articles of impeachment to the House Judiciary Committee.

Video of Kucinich presenting his articles of impeachment, with partial text transcription, is here. PDF of the full articles is here.

Passive Pelosi on impeachment – I charge protectionism

Dennis Kucinich’s articles of impeachment, cosponsored by Robert Wexler, aren’t getting Democratic leadership traction, and constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley says America’s founding fathers:

“would have been astonished by the absolute passivity, if not the collusion, of the Democrats in protecting President Bush from impeachment.”

Not just passivity, but collusion — that’s pretty strong. And, there’s real stuff here, Turley says:

Despite noting that not all of the articles Kucinich presented were “impeachable offenses” in a strict sense, Turley says “there are pleny of crimes there — this is a target-rich environment.”

So, why no push by Pelosi?

Well, although Pelosi herself opposed the war vote, of course, many Democrats didn’t. If Iraq war intelligence lies were to be pushed as the basis of an article or two of impeachment, Bush’s White House lawyers would subpoena Members of Congress as part of House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings.

So, behind Pelosi’s claims that “it’s too late” (yeah, because you’ve stalled for 18 months, and took it off the table before the 2006 election), or that “Cheney would still be there,” there’s some CYA at bottom line.

Hell, next thing you know, Pelosi will riff on Jerry Ford and talk about “national healing.”

Arrest Bush since Pelosi nixes impeachment

That’s Ted Rall’s bottom line on the Bush White House discussing details of torture inside the White House:

The Supreme Court has never resolved the question of whether a sitting president can be arrested by civilian authorities. Even if he were charged and convicted, many legal experts say he could issue himself a pardon.

However, leaving the presidency in the hands of an self-admitted torture killer is unacceptable. Congress could ask a U.S. Marshal to arrest Bush as part of impeachment charges. But the ultimate outcome — removing him from office a few months before the end of his term — seems woefully inadequate given the nature of the charges. In any case, Democrats have already said that impeachment is “off the table.”

And, the silence is deafening with the sound of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi putting impeachment back on the table in the last week.

Rall suggests other possibilities

Bush could be extradited to one of the countries where the torture and murders were committed — such as Afghanistan or Cuba. But he could claim immunity as a head of state.

This wouldn’t even work after his second term ends, not even if Clinton or Obama defeat McCain.

Rall doesn’t project the future out on this issue, but you know that both of them would fight extradition, and not just to Afghanistan or Cuba. Despite tweaking and tightening, it’s arguable that Belgium’s war crimes law might still allow Bush to be indicted there.

Anyway, that leaves Rall offering one other option.

There is, however, a person who could begin holding Bush and the others accountable for their crimes.

She is Cathy L. Lanier, the 39-year-old chief of D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department. Chief Lanier, take note: you have probable cause to arrest a self-confessed serial torturer and mass murderer within the borders of the District of Columbia. He resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Go get him.

History is calling, Chief Lanier. Your city, and your country, needs you.

Of course, Pelosi would probably have the House zero out the Metro PD budget if Lanier actually tried that.

Bush tells Congress ‘shove it’ on any idea of contempt charges

Will House Judiciary move beyond contempt charges against Bush staff to actually start looking at impeachment?

The president has officially folded, spindled, and mutilated executive privilege.

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege. ....

Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."

“That’s a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers,” Rozell said. “What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all.”

Impeachment is the only ultimate answer to this. And, it’s got clearer grounds, even, than anything war-related.

And, what Bush has done already ISN’T grave?

I simply do not get Barack Obama’s justification for opposing Bush or Cheney impeachment Last week, he said:

“I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority,”

And illegal wiretaps, lying the country into war, possible obstruction of justice with Libby’s commutation, and blatantly politicized district attorney firings aren’t “grave, grave breaches”?

Conservative says: Impeach Cheney, but takes a glaring pass on Bush

That’s the (years-belated) demand by Bruce FeinHis nut grafs, in reviewing Cheney’s “excesses”:

The vice president asserted presidential power to create military commissions, which combine the functions of judge, jury, and prosecutor in the trial of war crimes. The Supreme Court rebuked Cheney in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Mr. Cheney claimed authority to detain American citizens as enemy combatants indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay on the president's say-so alone, a frightening power indistinguishable from King Louis XVI's execrated lettres de cachet that occasioned the storming of the Bastille. The Supreme Court repudiated Cheney in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

The vice president initiated kidnappings, secret detentions, and torture in Eastern European prisons of suspected international terrorists. This lawlessness has been answered in Germany and Italy with criminal charges against CIA operatives or agents. The legal precedent set by Cheney would justify a decision by Russian President Vladimir Putin to kidnap American tourists in Paris and to dispatch them to dungeons in Belarus if they were suspected of Chechen sympathies.

I call it ‘years-belated” because renditions in this administration are four-five years old (and were also done, though with less frequency, in the Clinton Administration). Abu Ghraib’s public whitewashinvestigation are three years old.

But, something is better than nothing, right?

However, Fein then goes from a good, straightforward bill of claims against Dick Cheney to giving George W. Bush a “get out of jail free” card on grounds of innocence, naivete, or something:

The Constitution does not expressly forbid the president from abandoning his chief powers to the vice president. But President Bush's tacit delegation to Cheney and Cheney's eager acceptance tortures the Constitution's provision for an acting president. The presidency and vice presidency are discrete constitutional offices. The 12th Amendment provides for their separate elections. The sole constitutionally enumerated function of the vice president is to serve as president of the Senate without a vote except to break ties. …

In the end, President Bush regularly is unable to explain or defend the policies of his own administration, and that is because the heavy intellectual labor has been performed in the office of the vice president. Cheney is impeachable for his overweening power and his sneering contempt of the Constitution and the rule of law.

Bush made his choice in the summer of 2000, when he accepted at face value — at least for public consumption — Cheney’s story that he, as head of the vice presidential search committee, couldn’t find a better vice presidential nominee than Dick Cheney.

To allow “The Decider” a free pass, on grounds of stupidity, or whatever, as “The Unwitting Abdicator” just doesn’t wash.

To hark back to 1776, it would be to give King George III a pass and blame all of London’s mistakes on Bute or another advisor.