Impeachment, hey? Moyers has finally gotten around to Ramsey Clark's view four years ago:
``WASHINGTON (FinalCall.com)The U.S. invasion of Iraq was the most serious act of aggression in the country's history and it was in clear violation of the most important provisions of international law, according to former Attorney General Ramsey Clark.
The "crimes" committed by President George W. Bush and others in his administration warrant the severest response from an alarmed citizenry: impeachment, Mr. Clark told a luncheon audience at the National Press Club May 12.''
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_784.shtml
Whatever Clark has done to discredit himself, he sure got that one right. And this was waay back 2003 when it might have helped.
There are a couple of practical problems with impeachment. The first is what to charge. I think the democratic leadership in the house has to put together a general prosecution plan in several areas of crimes that prosecution lawyers agree on a good likelihood of pushing discovery in order to unearth concrete evidence.
The other problem if you look at recent polling on Gonzales and the related Scooter Libby affair you will see only a third of the public followed these investigations, and about half were not convinced or thought there was no crime there.
In other words, what I certainly see as a vast sea of criminal conduct and abuse of power, isn't a view shared by enough of the public to move the House to any action.
The media and the public are not particularly interested in what seem to be mere legal technicalities. Basically most people just don't understand or know what government is, how it is supposed to work, and what is bad conduct amounting to criminal conduct in public office. They understand bribery. They understand lying. They understand hiding evidence or cover-ups. They understand stealing. But that is about all they understand as bad enough to get a public official out of office.
So I would argue the best direction, the one with the most public appeal would be to develop a prosecution plan around the lies, cover-ups, abuses of power, and outright corruption (no bid contracts), going to war in Iraq, and continuing to this day. I would argue if the war is the public centerpiece, then the public will pay attention and might support enough of the Congress to get something started.
Under this general plan centered on the war, you can open four separate lines of investigation to develop. The first centered on the White House itself. The next line following a variety of national defence agencies, NSC, CIA, FBI, HS---and whatever super secret groups the WH has created ad hoc. The remaining two lines should focus on DOJ and DOD, justice and defense. These were the cabinet level power lines that were established and coordinated together to fabricate The War on Terror and then get us into war on Iraq.
Within these broad categories that follow the executive branch lines, I would establish a sub-focus around abuses of power that show violations of the separation of powers---deep and serious encroachments on both the legislative branch and judicial branch. The ad hoc establishment of secret surveillance, secret courts, secret prisons, secret police, then secret decrees or executive orders labeled secret to cover up these extraordinary abuses. Within this sub-category on DOJ, then we can get into the Gonzales contempt, WH aide contempt, and of course the former AG, Ashcroft who did exactly the same thing. And then there are the old Iran-Contra team that Cheney re-assembled with Elliot Abrams.
At a complete guess, I would start nosing around Abrams, expecting to find all sorts of back channel goings on with Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, etc. with usual money for hostages, oil for guns, guns for hostages, hostages for oil, oil money for hostages with guns whatever. This guy is now Deputy Assistant to the President, and Deputy National Security Advisor:
``Elliott Abrams was appointed February 2, 2005, as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy. [1]
In this capacity, Abrams will assist Stephen J. Hadley "in work on the promotion of democracy and human rights, and will provide oversight" to the National Security Council's directorate of Democracy, Human Rights, and International Organization Affairs and its directorate of Near East and North African Affairs. Abrams will work with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Hadley, and "will maintain his involvement in Israeli/Palestinian affairs," the White House said.''
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Elliott_Abrams
We (I) want these motherfuckers broken down, and we (I) want their entire concept of executive governance, which has been a tyranny, to go down with them, hard.
Of course I don't know the slightest thing about prosecuting and developing areas of discovery. There are enough lawyers on this list to figure out how to develop a good prosecution plan. So, let's hear it. I am embarrassing myself out here.