before he does a fire sale on some of the governmental agencies.  EPA is being trashed, along with the GSA.  We already know HSA is bunk!

Grandma Jo

I am referencing an article / interview from "Mother Jones". I read a great article, quoted in part here, about the case for charging Bush / Cheney with fraud:

Elizabeth de la Vega has a book- Going After the Con-man-der in Chief- that gives the case for charging Bush with defrauding the US. According to her, this was done in Watergate.

From the article:
"There were many, but the main one is conspiracy to defraud the United States. That is Title 18, United States Code section 371. It's a very old statute. The statue itself is really very simple: It says it's against the law to conspire to defraud the United States. There are several very old cases where they define what that means. The statute is used a lot against defense contractors who present false information to get overpayments on their contracts. But it was also used against some defendants in Watergate and Iran-Contra. It seems kind of like a vague statute, but it's actually very simple--it means using deceit of any kind in order to impair the function of a government agency. In this case, the deceit was the broad pattern of deception that the administration directed towards the public and Congress."

May be easier and certainly a lot more straightforward than impeachment

"It is the constitutional way to deal with a President and Vice-President that have an 'Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office[s]."
Then after getting someone to discharge those duties, we get to the criminal aspects of why [Inability to discharge] & proceed with the rule of law. Like you say, Mr.Booman, there are two distinct levels and,on which, I believe this country MUST proceed. One is constitutional & one is legal, albeit intertwined, to a point, in this case.

The difference between theists and atheists is that the atheists don't set the theists on fire for refusing to agree with them.

One where I am this spouse who is mad as hell bent like a pretzel, and this other perspective that didn't vote for any of this and can't help but be a fascinated observer because I am forever intrigued by human behavior and how much of it can be habitual in spite of immense destruction caused by it in the past.  George W has run everything he has ever led into the ground and I'm watching it again only on a global scale and I almost can't believe my eyes.  When your daddy calls James Baker in he's called the big guns in.  When you are dismissive of James Baker and friends and don't know what is left for you in the Republican Party, I haven't a clue who your friends could be from this point forward.  In a way I almost fear for his life because he is running his party literally into the ground and holy shit, even LBJ had the balls not to do that utterly completely!  This isn't a running aground that your trust fund can save you from!  I think his dad cried the other day knowing that Jeb the Bush hero child will never be president and old Bush feels like he deserved it but W ruined it.  I don't think another Bush will ever be president of the United States ever again either.

PMS Purchase More Shoes

Impeachment may also be the only way to stop these people from driving all of us off a very deep cliff, if it hasn't already happened. If it has, we need all the time we can get to commence emergency aid.

howieinseattle

INDICT!

With thanks to the late Johnny Cochrane for the basics of the phrase, it is only logical that if Bush does get impeached for high crimes, then he must also be indicted afterward because impeachment is not really justice for crimes committed.  Furthermore as likely discussed previously, even if Bush is not impeached for whatever reasons (no political will or lack of time), he still should be indicted for any provable crimes that can be brought against him after he is out of office!

I stand right with you, Boo, on this one and admire your strong public stand.  I literally had chills running down my spine watching Bush's reaction to the ISG report. The risk we take, not only for our own country, but for the rest of the world, by NOT acting decisively and soon, is more than I care to imagine.

ONward!

The "Decider" is beginning to remind me of a former Ruler-of-the-World wannabee who spent his final days pushing nonexistent armies across maps while holed up in his bunker dreaming of victory.

On the one hand, I'm glad McKinney did this. If nothing else it was a big, black middle finger to His Nibs and to everyone who marginalized her while she was in office.

On the other hand, as Matt Pascarella points out in the article that Pagan Science Monitor cites in his (her? their?) recommended article today, the prospects of anything happening with this are rather gloomy, because she has been marginalized and because she is leaving office. But, if this gets the ball rolling on a discussion of high crimes and misdemeanors, that might be something at least.

Personally I think that if anything is going to happen with regard to impeachment, the people of this country are going to have to stand up and say "Off the table? Like hell it is!" and that is going to involve a good, solid, air-tight case as to why the President needs to be impeached. 40% of the country will be true believers who think somehow everyone else is out to "get" Bush. Hell, there are still people who think Nixon was framed. The job is going to convince the remaining 60% that he has to go.

The sooner we can do this, the better.

I for one welcome our new Twitter overlords. @Omir55

I would LOVE to see him impeached, it would just warm the cockles of my heart, it would make my day..week..month..year...
However, the downside is just too big.
First, because it means totally tying up our new House and Senate with this one project. Nothing else will get any attention in congress or in the press, all the possibilities for good, necessary, needed legislation will be swallowed up as various forces circle the wagons to defend their boy. As a lawyer, I am always amazed by the amount of effort it always take to do something which is so obviously right.
Second, you'll get President Cheney.

Let Nancy and Harry work the House and Senate, and we can have a total Democratic administration in 2 years, and there is a lot they can do to restrain him until then.  

Kudos to you BooMan, for sticking to your guns.  I don't take the site motto lightly, either.

I know I'm repeating myself in thread after thread, but the argument that the congress can't chew gum and walk at the same time is totally without merit and without historical precedent.  AND the political advantage has ALWAYS accrued to the party that does the impeaching, whether a conviction is obtained or not.  This holds true in all cases of impeachment ever brought.

Impeachment would be good for the long term progressive agenda, because it would likely lead to greater majorities of Dems in both houses and lead to a Dem President.  NO truly progressive legislation can be passed while the margin in the Senate is so slim and Boosto has the veto pen (or pocket, as the case may be).

It is delusional thinking to get all giddy about the prospects of restoring America within two years by passing legislation that is subject to Boosto's veto.  The Re-pub-lick Party needs to be kicked while it is down, kicked hard, so as to give the Dems enough power to really change things.

Boosto and Darth should be impeached simultaneously, as co-conspirators.  Make Boosto veto Medicare D improvements and a Social Security lockbox and Anti-torture bills and anything else we can get through WHILE he is being impeached...  Anyone who doesn't think the corporate media would cover that is too far gone into conspiracy theories even for me.  And I'm known for wearing a tin-foil hat on a regular basis....

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -Margaret Mead