Reply #60: There is no legalistic test for high crime.

[pat_k]

At no point did the Impeachment of President Clinton reflect the will of the electorate. That was the problem.

There was never a widespread demand to investigate. A small cadre tried to push trumped up charges down our throats. To do it, they invoked a fascist view of the law, where the letter of the law can trump the will of the people. They were rebuffed. The will of the people won out.

Had the public as a whole been as hung up on controlling the private behavior of public figures as a tiny segment of that public is, it could have succeeded, even if no written law had been violated.

It's all about political will. And political will is driven by citizen action. It is up to us.

An Impeachment has stages and other aspects that are akin to a prosecution, but the crimes charged need not be found in any law book. What constitutes an Impeachable offense is defined by We the People, and expressed through our representatives. (The charging phase is given to the house because that is the body closest to the people).

If the public demanded Impeachment for "negligent, stupid, mismanagement of a war", then Bush and Cheney could be charged with that “high crime” in the Articles of Impeachment.

Our representatives can look to existing law for guidance, but they are not limited by the letter of the law. They can look to past Impeachments, but they are not bound by precedence. No "technical' interpretation of the law can trump the will of the people.

Demanding Impeachment is a short hand for demanding (1) Impeachment Inquiry - investigation of the crimes and abuses of power suspected (2) Articles of Impeachment (charges) dictated by the outcome of a comprehensive investigation, (3) Trial in the Senate, to serve as a test of the evidence, (4) Vote on each "charge"...

The threshold for opening an Impeachment Inquiry of Bush and Cheney was passed a couple years ago. We have long had reason to suspect innumerable crimes.

Bush and Cheney have done things that are prohibited by law (malum prohibitum). For example, violating our laws against torture and laws against warrantless domestic spying. They have also committed offenses that are wrong on their face (malum in se). For example, "Lying a nation into war," “making boom threats” and "terrorizing the American people with threats of a mushroom cloud in 45 minutes.”

We have much to choose from.

We decide whether or not we have cause to move forward. There is no external test.

At least 30% of this country has no doubt that we have sufficient casue to move forward, even we look no farther than the information already in the public domain (e.g. see Hoodwinked). The job for the 30% who know is to make the case. Soon it will be 40, then 50... I wouldn't be surprised if numbers went over 75%.