Impeachable offenses?

Okay, I know that, unfortunately, Bush is not going back Crawford for good until January 2009.  Nonetheless, I think we've reached a level where he is probably nearly as impeachable as Nixon was, and certainly much more so than the ridiculous charade of impeaching Clinton for trying to hide a personal sexual impropriety.  The testimony of former Deputy Attorney General James Comey this week has been incredibly damning.  As always, Slate's Dahlia Lithwick is right on top of things and writes a column that really lays out the issues at stake.  In short:

Glenn Greenwald contends that “the President consciously and
deliberately violated the law and committed multiple felonies by
eavesdropping on Americans.” The Wall Street Journal insists
that no law was broken because the surveillance program put the
president above the law. Greenwald believes in an immutable legal
architecture that binds even the president. The White House contends
the president answers to nobody. There is no midpoint between these two
arguments. The president is either above the law or he isn't.  [emphasis mine]

Think about that.  I don't know about you, but terrorists, wars, whatever, I do not want to live in a country (nor I think do most Americans) where our president is above the law.  Its that simple.  Only the most pathetic Republican sycophants and cowards completely cowed by the threat of radical Islamists could possibly support this position (this would include Bush, Cheney, and Gonzalez).  From Kevin Drum:

Marty Lederman points out today that this team ? John Ashcroft, Jack
Goldsmith, and James Comey ? was no bunch of weak-kneed liberals. They
were, under every other circumstance, hardnosed conservatives dedicated
to an expansive view of executive power in wartime. What's more, the
NSA program was one the administration considered critical to the war
on terror; repudiating a previous finding is highly unusual; their
actions undermined a key legal tenet of the president's wartime powers;
and they knew that both the president and vice president would be furious at what they had done.

And yet not only would Ashcroft, et al., not budge ? they were prepared to resign their offices if the President allowed this program of vital importance to go forward in the teeth of their legal objections.

In light of all these considerations, just try to imagine
how legally dubious the Yoo justification must have been that John
Ashcroft was so profoundly committed to its repudiation.
staggering, really ? almost unimaginable that anything such as this
could have happened, especially where the stakes were so high.

The Post has an editorial today calling Bush to task for evading this issue, but there is no front page coverage in either the Post or the Times.  Still, its time for the media to get a lot more aggressive in calling a spade a spade and pointing out the level of lawlessness, venality, corruption, and incomparable hubris in this administration. 

%d bloggers like this: