The Impeachment Clock

None of the Republican members of the House of Representatives that I have contacted have taken the time to inform me why they refuse to do their duty as elected officials and Impeach the President of the United States for his admitted violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Many arguments have been put forth by people who are paid to defend the President, but I had not heard one word from the only people in this Republic tasked with and capable of holding Bush accountable for violating the laws of the land. Until today.

The rationale for dereliction of duty can be found in Chabot: Impeach talk a joke by Michael Collins which appeared in today's Cincinnati Post.

The last time there was a move to impeach the president, [Steve] Chabot was on the front lines. The Cincinnati Republican was one of 13 House managers in charge of presenting to the Senate the case for the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton.

Chabot may have been one of the lead players in the Clinton impeachment, but he finds all of this talk about impeaching Bush rather disturbing. No, make that downright ridiculous.

For starters, he said, no one has determined that Bush actually broke the law. Even legal scholars disagree on whether Bush's domestic spying program was illegal.

This is the Primary Lie put forward by the defenders of Presidential criminality. FISA is clear on its face, and Bush has just as clearly admitted to violating FISA. What "legal scholars" are disagreeing about is any possible defense that might be presented (in the Senate) after Bush is charged (impeached by the House) with violating FISA.

Attempting to remove a president from office is a serious matter that should never be politically motivated, Chabot said.

There is, in fact, a huge difference between Clinton's misdeeds and what Bush is accused of, Chabot said.

"The difference," Chabot said, "is this: You had President Clinton who lied under oath, who perjured himself, who clearly committed a crime. We had a definite breaking of the law, and I feel that nobody should be above the law.

This is the Secondary Lie presented by the defenders of Presidential criminality which they use to prop up the first. These liars know how to make something sound strong (definite breaking of the law) when they play prosecutor but soft (alleged perjury and alleged obstruction of justice) when they play defense. Chabot knows that no one has to prove that Bush violated FISA before he can be impeached, they only have to allege it. Despite all his bluster, that's all Chabot did to Clinton back in '98:

On December 19, 1998, voting essentially on party lines, the House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment: Article I, which alleged perjury before the grand jury, passed by a vote of 228 to 206 and Article III, which alleged obstruction of justice, passed by a vote of 221 to 212.
(from Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton)

In summation, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if violation of 18 USC 1623 is a crime, then violation of 50 USC 1809 is a crime; if a Republican controlled House of Representatives can impeach William J. Clinton for a crime (alleged) then they can also impeach George W. Bush for a crime (alleged). I rest my case.