Washblog

The line you highlight from Dave is very telling. Even a rubber-stamp like him he must be feeling uneasy about getting a smooch from W, and hoping some emergency comes up to require his urgent attention elsewhere next Monday.

IS ANYONE GOING TO BELLEVUE TO PROTEST W's PRESENCE STINKING UP OUR FAIR STATE?

I sure would like to participate in that, but it's quite a distance from West Seattle. Anyone wants to give me a ride, I will make a sign for you!

by dinazina on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 07:12:29 AM PST

---

I love this first-person citizen reporting. Good job.

The bit about the competing signs is funny. Wish I could have seen it.

by zappini on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 11:40:52 AM PST

---

I won't forget my video camera next time! :-)

by BryceM on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:50:25 AM PST

---

The pathetic thing is that Reichert clearly does not understand the very Constitution he swore to uphold.  Impeachment does NOT require that the President break any laws -- the "high crimes" referred to is an 18th c. rhetorical fluorish that means extraordinary political wrong-doing, including defying the will of Congress or acting against the US national interest.  One does not need to be a lawyer to make this assessment -- otherwise the Constitution would require that a J.D. be a requirement to be a member of Congress!  It is Congress who votes on impeachment, not lawyers. Reichert's "answer" was a non sequiter.

Reichert spent 80% of his time talking about being Sheriff, in what was allegedly a talk about Iraq.  Perhaps his fixation on his own past blinds him to understanding the present.  "High crimes" is a political judgement -- e.g., Lindorff and Olshansky argue that Bush's "biggest crime is a deliberate campaign of inaction and active obstruction in the face of a clear need for the United States to act decisively to stop or slow catastrophic climate change" (in The Case for Impeachment).  That's not a legal question.  

When the US Constitution was being ratified, impeachment was promoted (at state ratification conventions) as a tool for Congress to rein in any officeholder who "dares to abuse the power vested in him by the people." This is not a legal question.  It is a political judgment.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice James Iredell, appointed by none other than George Washington, stated that "giving false information to the Senate" was the sort of act "of great injury to the community" that warranted impeachment.  This is not a legal question.  

James Madison, the very father of the Constitution, made clear to the first Congress that "wanton removal of meritorious officers" [as in the Attorneys General who were fired for not being partisan enough?] would subject an official to impeachment.  This is not a legal question.  

Bruce Fein, the Republican who wrote the articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton, recently said:  "Bush's crimes are [...] more worrisome than Clinton's [...] because he is seeking more institutionally to cripple checks and balances and the authority of Congress and the judiciary to superintend his assertions of power. He has claimed the authority to tell Congress they don't have any right to know what he's doing with relation to spying on American citizens, using that information in any way that he wants in contradiction to a federal statute called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He's claimed authority to say he can kidnap people, throw them into dungeons abroad, dump them out into Siberia without any political or legal accountability. These are standards that are totally anathema to a democratic society devoted to the rule of law."  Again, these are political judgments, not legal ones.

Reichert doesn't need a lawyer to tell him that Bush should be impeached.  He needs to understand his own job.  

by Bystander on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 04:42:35 PM PST

---