Jackson: Impeachment Is the Right Response

posted by John Nichols on 07/03/2007 @ 08:08am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (39)

Subscribe Now

Illinois Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., a member of the House of Representatives so Constitutionally-minded that he wrote a book on the subject, responded as a founding father would have to the news that President Bush had commuted the 30-month prison sentence of former White House insider I. "Scooter" Libby.

How so? By calling for consideration of the impeachment of the president for abusing the pardoning – and the related commutation of sentences -- privileges of his office.

"In her first weeks as leader of the Congress, Speaker Nancy Pelosi withdrew the notion of impeachment proceedings against either President Bush or Vice President Cheney," announced Jackson. "With the president's decision to once again subvert the legal process and the will of the American people by commuting the sentence of convicted felon Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, I call on House Democrats to reconsider impeachment proceedings. Lewis Libby was convicted of lying under oath to cover up the outing of active, undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame. It is beyond unthinkable that the president would undermine the legal process to protect a man who engaged in treason against the United States government, threatening the security of the American people. In November's election, voters put Democrats in charge of Congress because they believed our pledge of oversight and accountability. Now it's time for us to honor that pledge. The Executive Branch should be held responsible for its illegalities. Our democratic system is grounded in the principle of checks and balances. When the Executive Branch disregards the will of the people, our lawmakers must not be silent. Today's actions, coupled with the president's unwillingness to comply with Senate and House inquiries, leave Democrats with no other option than to consider impeachment so that we can gather the information needed to achieve justice for all Americans."

The founders were exceptionally clear on the question of what should be done if a president abuses his privilege to pardon an associate, or by extension to commute the sentence of an aide.

James Madison, who is rightly referred to as "the father of the Constitution," wrote extensively about the times in which impeachment would be necessary. "[If] the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty," observed the man whose notes provide the essential outline of the deliberations of the Constitutional convention.

Madison's Virginia compatriot, George Mason, who was an even more ardent advocate of impeachment, was similarly concerned about abuses of the power of the president to keep the law from touching his associates. The man now remembered as "the father of the Bill of Rights" feared that a future president might attempt to shield himself by preventing the prosecution or jailing of an aide who could testify to the president's involvement in a high crime or misdemeanor.

Mason suggested that impeachment would surely be in order were a president to attempt "to stop inquiry and prevent detection" of wrongdoing within his administration -- as the Bush White House is currently doing with its use of executive privilege to undermine congressional investigations of the politicization of federal prosecutions. Equally, the thoughtful founder suggested, impeachment would be in order were a president might to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" -- as Bush has essentially done with the commutation of the sentence of his own former counselor and the chief of staff of his vice president.

The prosecution of Libby brought out the details of Cheney's deep involvement in the scheming to discredit a critic of the administration, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, whose wife, Valerie Plame, was outed as a CIA operative. And it is impossible to imagine that Bush was unaware of the manipulations in which Cheney and Libby engaged. Unfortunately, the precise nature of the president's involvement would only have become clear had Libby chosen to testify openly and honestly in court or before the Congress -- a prospect dramatically reduced by Bush's commutation of the sentence.

Mason said at the time of the Constitutional convention, in a summer 220 years ago, that: "No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued."

His point was that, if a president could not be impeached, he could not be held to account. To neglect the demand of that accountability, especially in moments when abuses became clear, Madison suggested "might be fatal to the Republic."

Congressman Jackson, who has studied more seriously than most the call of the founders, has responded as they intended. In demanding that impeachment be put back on the table, he is not attacking Bush, Cheney or Libby. Rather, he is defending the Republic in precisely the manner that Mason, Madison and their contemporaries intended.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (39)

It is beyond unthinkable that the president would undermine the legal process to protect a man who engaged in treason against the United States government

"Beyond unthinkable"--so, thinkable? If we want to really impeach Bush, we need to be wary of making these kinds of statements. This statement will undoubtedly be played over and over on nutjob-radio as evidence of the allegedly wild-eyed, irrational hatred that exists "on the Left." Libby is guilty of obstructing justice in a leak case, not treason. It is deeply troubling to me that Bush chose to commute the sentence of a person found guilty of lying in an investigation of Bush's own administration, but it is not yet time to start throwing the word "treason" around.

Posted by BlueSpark at 07/03/2007 @ 10:24am
NICHOLS: ....what should be done if a president abuses his privilege to pardon an associate, or by extension to commute the sentence of an aide....

.....impeachment would be in order were a president might to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" -- as Bush has essentially done with the commutation

....it is impossible to imagine that Bush was unaware of the manipulations in which Cheney and Libby engaged....

------------------------------------------

My lord, is this the best NICHOLS can do to help build the case to Impeach!!!!!!!!!!

Somebody, please tell me NICHOLS did NOT write a book on impeachment!!!!!!!

On the other hand, you have my total blessing to pursue an Impeachment.....Ahoy, full speed ahead....damn the cliffs!!

Posted by Happy at 07/03/2007 @ 10:39am
What is most amazing is that Bush never found any of the death sentences in Texas to be too harsh. Only when it involved crimes within his administration, did he find the will to commute a sentence. It proves once again that our legal system is based on "different strokes for different folks". I am not wealthy and I am not a corporate fascist. Which, of course, means I would have rotted in prison for the same crime. Libby did not commit Treason…Bush has...against the American system of justice. Clinton was guilty, Ford was guilty and Bush 1 was very guilty. That was another case of forgiving crimes that were committed on his watch.

When will the idiot right realize that most of them are in the poor or middle class, just like me, and if convicted would share a cell adjacent to mine?

Posted by salmojs at 07/03/2007 @ 11:35am
Agreed, impeachment hearings should be the next step for the House..

Posted by jkrogman at 07/03/2007 @ 11:51am
If only....we'd all be better off -

Posted by ZERO 07/03/2007 @ 11:55am

Amen!

BTW, that's all you've got to say? Cat got your tongue?

Posted by Happy at 07/03/2007 @ 11:58am
Maybe the Vice President can now be impeached, but I don't think we have enough evidence "yet" that the president has committed a high crime or misdemeanor.

Posted by Metteyya at 07/03/2007 @ 12:49pm
Bush the "compassionate conservative"...ha!! He's protecting himself, Cheney and Rove, what an evil little trio they are. Meanwhile two border patrol agents are incarcerated for doing their jobs and shooting at a drug dealer.

Posted by Hernova at 07/03/2007 @ 12:57pm
Maybe the Vice President can now be impeached, but I don't think we have enough evidence "yet" that the president has committed a high crime or misdemeanor.

Posted by METTEYYA 07/03/2007 @ 12:49pm | ignore this person

Bush has admitted violations of FISA. Each violation is a felony. A high crime, as it were. Bush has abrogated treaties to which the United States is signatory (you remember the Geneva Conventions, presumably). Article VI of the Constitution includes such treaties among the components of "the supreme law of the land". To the contrary, there is far too much evidence to delay proceeding in this matter.

Posted by jmusolino at 07/03/2007 @ 1:01pm
Meanwhile two border patrol agents are incarcerated for doing their jobs and shooting at a drug dealer.

Posted by HERNOVA 07/03/2007 @ 12:57pm | ignore this person

my heart just bleeds for those trigger happy cops. let them rot.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2007 @ 1:06pm
Bush has admitted violations of FISA. Each violation is a felony. A high crime, as it were. Bush has abrogated treaties to which the United States is signatory (you remember the Geneva Conventions, presumably). Article VI of the Constitution includes such treaties among the components of "the supreme law of the land". To the contrary, there is far too much evidence to delay proceeding in this matter.

The FISA violations would be sufficient if it is discovered that he used the warrantless wiretaps to spy on political enemies, but we don't have that evidence "yet".

The strongest case against Bush (and even stronger against Cheney) is that he knowingly used forged documents (the Niger thing) to mislead the public into going to war in Iraq. There would be "broad" public support for impeachment on these grounds, but the evidence (to date) only proves that Libby and Cheney knew about the forged documents and passed them to the president despite knowing that it was false evidence.

I personally believe the president (and Karl Rove) also knew the evidence was false, but trying to prove this will be tough.

Posted by Metteyya at 07/03/2007 @ 1:12pm
The strongest case against Bush (and even stronger against Cheney) is that he knowingly used forged documents (the Niger thing) to mislead the public into going to war in Iraq. There would be "broad" public support for impeachment on these grounds, but the evidence (to date) only proves that Libby and Cheney knew about the forged documents and passed them to the president despite knowing that it was false evidence.

I personally believe the president (and Karl Rove) also knew the evidence was false, but trying to prove this will be tough.

Posted by METTEYYA 07/03/2007 @ 1:12pm

You are guilty of using leftwing talking points about the Niger documents rather than the facts. Bush never used nor referred to the Niger documents in the so-called infamous 16 words. He accurately used and subsequently was vindicated by using the correct statement that "British Intelligence has learned".

I provide the substantiation of this on the Fred Thompson's Rule of Lawlessness thread-"Posted by ANTILIBERAL 07/03/2007 @ 1:10pm"

Thompson thread [tinyurl.com]

Posted by antiliberal at 07/03/2007 @ 1:36pm
He accurately used and subsequently was vindicated by using the correct statement that "British Intelligence has learned".

If you "know" the British intelligence is based on forged Niger documents, referring to British intelligence in your speech to the public as "supporting evidence" in your case for war in Iraq still constitutes "knowingly using false evidence" to go to war.

Lying to the public to the tune of $500 billion dollars in US tax payers' money is one of the most egregious offenses that one can make against this nation. Think about how much good could have been accomplished with that money?

The only reason America gave you our money to spend in Iraq is because you lied to us with your phony intelligence, that you "knew" was false, so impeachment in this area will have the broadest support among the American public!

Posted by Metteyya at 07/03/2007 @ 1:58pm
I hate to say this, but I don't think that this whole impeachment thing has been thought out completely.

Don't get me wrong. I am in no way a fan of Bush. I think that the president that will do as much damage as he's done to the country hasn't been born yet, and hopefully won't get elected once he is.

But let's be honest with ourselves here. If he does get impeached, who do we get? Dick Cheney. Do you really think that Congress has the cojones to impeach them both? I don't.

So unless there's some sure fire way to see that things don't get worse (although I admit that letting Bush finish out his term opens us up to that anyway), it doesn't make sense to go after him.

The prospect of seeing Dick Cheney doing the perp walk though.....that could be interesting.

Posted by edwriter at 07/03/2007 @ 2:12pm
He accurately used and subsequently was vindicated by using the correct statement that "British Intelligence has learned".

If you "know" the British intelligence is based on forged Niger documents, referring to British intelligence in your speech to the public as "supporting evidence" in your case for war in Iraq still constitutes "knowingly using false evidence" to go to war.

Lying to the public to the tune of $500 billion dollars in US tax payers' money is one of the most egregious offenses that one can make against this nation. Think about how much good could have been accomplished with that money?

The only reason America gave you our money to spend in Iraq is because you lied to us with your phony intelligence, that you "knew" was false, so impeachment in this area will have the broadest support among the American public!

Posted by METTEYYA 07/03/2007 @ 1:58pm

The British intelligence had no relationship to the forged Niger documents. That intel came from separate sources and was validated by the British investigation (Butler Report). Further as noted in my thread link, Wilson himself in his report to the CIA noted and confirmed rather than disputed the facts.

Posted by antiliberal at 07/03/2007 @ 2:14pm
AIPAC operatives were able to fool the British, but the CIA told Libby that the Niger documents were forged! So why did Libby pass them on to Cheney, and why did Cheney then pass them on to Bush, if they "knew" they were forged?

Posted by Metteyya at 07/03/2007 @ 2:19pm
From Professor Juan Cole:

But journalist Matthew Yglesias has already tipped us to a key piece of information. The Niger forgeries also try to implicate Iran. Indeed, the idea of a joint Iraq/Iran nuclear plot was so far-fetched that it is what initially made the Intelligence and Research division of the U.S. State Department suspicious of the forgeries, even before the discrepancies of dates and officials in Niger were noticed. Yglesias quotes from the Senate report on the alleged Iraqi attempt to buy uranium from Niger:

"The INR [that's State Department intelligence] nuclear analyst told the Committee staff that the thing that stood out immediately about the [forged] documents was that a companion document – a document included with the Niger documents that did not relate to uranium – mentioned some type of military campaign against major world powers. The members of the alleged military campaign included both Iraq and Iran and was, according to the documents, being orchestrated through the Nigerien [note: that's not the same as Nigerian] Embassy in Rome, which all struck the analyst as 'completely implausible.' Because the stamp on this document matched the stamp on the uranium document [the stamp was supposed to establish the documents bona fides], the analyst thought that all of the documents were likely suspect. The analyst was unaware at the time of any formatting problems with the documents or inconsistencies with the names or dates."

Journalist Eric Margolis notes of SISMI:

"SISMI has long been notorious for far right, even neo-fascist, leanings. According to Italian judicial investigators, SISMI was deeply involved in numerous plots against Italy's democratic government, including the 1980 Bologna train station terrorist bombing that left 85 dead and 200 injured. Senior SISMI officers were in cahoots with celebrated swindler Roberto Calvi, the neo-fascist P2 Masonic Lodge, other extreme rightist groups trying to destabilize Italy, the Washington neocon operative, Michael Ledeen, and the Iran-Contra conspirators. SISMI works hand in glove with U.S., British and Israeli intelligence. In the 1960s and 70s, SISMI reportedly carried out numerous operations for CIA, including bugging the Vatican, the Italian president's palace, and foreign embassies. Italy's civilian intelligence service, SISDE, associated with Italy's political center-left, has long been a bitter rival of SISMI. After CIA rejected the Niger file, it was eagerly snapped up by VP Dick Cheney and his chief of staff, Lewis Libby, who were urgently seeking any reason, no matter how specious, to invade Iraq. Cheney passed the phony data to Bush, who used it in his January 2003 address to the nation in spite of warnings from CIA. . . ."

So Franklin, Ledeen, and Rhode, all of them pro-Likud operatives, just happen to be meeting with SISMI (the proto-fascist purveyor of the false Niger uranium story about Iraq and the alleged Iran-Iraq plot against the rest of the world) and corrupt Iranian businessman and would-be revolutionary Ghorbanifar in Europe. The most reasonable conclusion is that they were conspiring together about the Next Campaign after Iraq, which they had already begun setting in train, which is to get Iran.

Posted by Metteyya at 07/03/2007 @ 2:39pm
When it says Libby's, Libby's, Libby's on the label, label, label, you will like it, like it, like it on your table, table, table. ...

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/03/2007 @ 3:33pm
my heart just bleeds for those trigger happy cops. let them rot.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/03/2007 @ 1:06pm

How do you feel about the dug dealers? I have some friends from Douglas, AZ(my sister ijn law lives there) you should speak to, and you might find you opinions change...its is really something on the border, and apparently we do not get the story...all we hear is poor Jaun who just wants to work...there is so much more..

Posted by john maasch at 07/03/2007 @ 4:22pm
I, for on, would like for somebody to investigate Con. Jackson and his father, once and for all....the left never fails to endorse the worst clowns to back an investigation into someone else.

Posted by john maasch at 07/03/2007 @ 4:23pm
" the founders would agree?". The founders would have locked up and executed the entire staff at The Nation on charges of sedition!!! Give me a break!

Posted by barry25 at 07/03/2007 @ 4:49pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH

Why would anyone want to talk to a woman stupid enough to marry into your family? I'm sure you could have more object, informative, intelligent conversations with a schnauzer.

Posted by mtspence05 at 07/03/2007 @ 5:50pm
So now we know what junior poverty pimps do when they grow up...they become democratic congressmen...

as for Nichols, He has an unhealthy fixation on impeachment, and he needs to know that the first step in getting help is admitting he has a problem......

Posted by davebarlett at 07/03/2007 @ 6:02pm
And, while we're at it, EmptySpence05 has an unhealthy fixation on Maaschy...see comments above.....

Posted by davebarlett at 07/03/2007 @ 6:04pm
my feeling about drug dealers is simple. I do not believe in the criminalization of drug use and sale. period and end of story.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2007 @ 6:22pm
JR, how about drug trafficing? Is it ok to bring large quantities across the border?

Posted by davebarlett at 07/03/2007 @ 6:24pm
as for Nichols, He has an unhealthy fixation on impeachment, and he needs to know that the first step in getting help is admitting he has a problem......

Posted by DAVEBARLETT 07/03/2007 @ 6:02pm | ignore this person

I don't wish for Bush to be impeached. I want him as defendant in a war crimes trial, and imprisoned, like Rudolf Hess. is that clear enough?

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2007 @ 6:24pm
JR, don't hold your breath.....Spandau Prison is history, razed after Hess died, as you might recall....And, rejoice, you'll live to see Dubya's legacy unfold with every new supreme court ruling (heh,heh)

Posted by davebarlett at 07/03/2007 @ 6:40pm
JR, how about drug trafficing? Is it ok to bring large quantities across the border?

Posted by DAVEBARLETT 07/03/2007 @ 6:24pm | ignore this person

fine with me. people got to get their drugs. I will not demonize users or sellers. Remember prohibition. Those rum runners were OK by me, and most of america too.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2007 @ 6:45pm
with every new supreme court ruling

this indeed unfortunate.

for now.

next pres, who will not be a repub, will have his own justices to appoint, and the pendulum will swing the other way.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2007 @ 6:47pm
Dave, you are a retarded adolescent who sees everything as a sports metaphor. grow up.

or not.

in any case we've got your number.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2007 @ 6:49pm
And, JR, you are a crotchity, self righteous old former wannabee radical...And as for the next prez being a dem, that remains to be seen, doesn't it? and, don't forget, Its entirely possible that one or two old, ill liberals (not unlike yourself) might croak or resign from the supreme court any time in the next 18 months (heh,heh)

Posted by davebarlett at 07/03/2007 @ 7:54pm
And as for the next prez being a dem, that remains to be seen, doesn't it?

wanna bet?

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2007 @ 8:02pm
JR, It ain't gonna be Barry OH!, John Boy or Hillbillary....I'll bet you that much......

Posted by davebarlett at 07/03/2007 @ 8:29pm
And, it damn sure ain't gonna be Dennis the menace................

Posted by davebarlett at 07/03/2007 @ 8:30pm
So, Who's your money on, JR?????

Posted by davebarlett at 07/03/2007 @ 8:31pm
You know, when the framers come out against a president abusing his power by helping an aide to escape justice, it kind of gets that strict constructionist blood all a boiling doesn't it?

Posted by Will C. at 07/03/2007 @ 10:04pm
and makes the evangelic conservative republicans (or hamsters as we lovingly know them) stand out even more as the lying, low life, sack of shit un-Americans that they truly are and probably always will be

Posted by Will C. at 07/03/2007 @ 10:06pm
So, Who's your money on, JR?????

Posted by DAVEBARLETT 07/03/2007 @ 8:31pm | ignore this person

it's going to be a democrat.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2007 @ 10:23pm
Here's an interesting perspective on Chimpy's actions. It seems that the Founders were worried about someone of Dub-yak's ...er... caliber assuming the mantle of the presidency way back then:

Obstruction of Justice, Continued

By Dan Froomkin Special to washingtonpost.com Tuesday, July 3, 2007; 3:22 PM

The Framers, ever sensitive to the need for checks and balances, recognized the potential for abuse of the pardon power. According to a Judiciary Committee report drafted in the aftermath of the Watergate crisis: "In the [Constitutional] convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to 'pardon crimes which were advised by himself' or, before indictment or conviction, 'to stop inquiry and prevent detection.' James Madison responded:

"[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty. . . .

"Madison went on to [say] contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected."

The case against Chimpy and his leash holder Darth is circumstantial, yes, but in commuting Scooter Pie's sentence, himself has not only created the appearance of impropriety in that action, but sharpened the focus on what these bastards were really up to in outing Plame.

In a way, pardoning the felon Libby would be the best thing that could happen - then there would be no more 5th for him to plead (one certainly cannot incriminate oneself for a crime of which you have been absolved in perpetuity) - then Scooter Pie Hole's testimony could be compelled by the prosecuter. He would either have to perjure and obstruct (again) or come clean about Dicky and Chimpy.

Posted by skeletonman at 07/04/2007 @ 08:07am