 Share
|
« Previous Politics | Next Politics » |
Email
Print
|
Impeachment Again
By
"Obviously there's no chance of 2/3 of the Senate voting to convict anyone," writes Scott Lemieux, and "it's hard to see how serious impeachment proceedings (as opposed to stepping up use of Congress' oversight powers in general) would strengthen the Democrats' political position." I don't really disagree with that.
That said, when you conduct a congressional investigation into allegations of serious presidential wrongdoing, it doesn't make sense -- logically speaking -- to rule out impeachment as the outcome. In the real world, the votes aren't there, the political benefits are all in doing the investigating, and there's not even enough time left in the Bush administration to complete major investigations in the face of White House foot-dragging. But still, one has to say that insofar as congressional investigators manage to secure real proof -- and it'd have to be real legal proof, not journalistic proof or convincing-to-me proof -- of serious wrongdoing, that people could get themselves impeached.
That said, when you conduct a congressional investigation into allegations of serious presidential wrongdoing, it doesn't make sense -- logically speaking -- to rule out impeachment as the outcome. In the real world, the votes aren't there, the political benefits are all in doing the investigating, and there's not even enough time left in the Bush administration to complete major investigations in the face of White House foot-dragging. But still, one has to say that insofar as congressional investigators manage to secure real proof -- and it'd have to be real legal proof, not journalistic proof or convincing-to-me proof -- of serious wrongdoing, that people could get themselves impeached.
Join the Discussion
After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register. blog comments powered by Disqus