Reply #28: Well, I agree with your point. They aren't rubbing their hands together, plotting, at all.

[MADem]

They aren't sneaking ahead, with a convoluted plan all worked out that is twelve moves ahead of the Monkey, springing their AH HA! trap like a James Bond nemesis, nothing like that. I don't agree with your "revolution" argument, but I do agree with you on that "no boom lowering" point.

What they are doing, though, is taking everything one step at a time, and THINKING about those downstream issues--if this, then what?--as they address each new piece of information that comes to the fore.

I am not a fan of impeachment without investigations. I'm just not. I'm also not a fan of impeachments without concrete proof or credible testimony of wrongdoing (even if we "know" that it has occurred). I know I am in the minority here, but I'd like to see investigations turn something up (and not "illegal war" because Congress approved that, and not "Lying to Congress" because he hasn't done that UNDER OATH, ever--yet). Congress needs a smoking gun. A memo, some emails, maybe testimony, proving conspiracies, coverups, and malicious intent to deceive. Anyone can make a mistake, but when you set out to subvert, that's a different story--but you have to prove it. Investigations may turn one of those smoking guns up.

Hell, look at John Dean's testimony during Nixon. That tumbled the house of cards, didn't it? We need testimony from someone who can put the CRIME in the WH. So far, though--his crew is tight, they don't talk much. They've got to find someone who will. They can't just make shit up and throw it in a bunch of Articles of Impeachment--that might get them a trial, but it won't get them a conviction. And if he's not convicted, the whole exercise goes down as a partisan, political exercise.

They need to find someone inside BushCo who is offended by the crimes and wants to tell the truth. Or someone who lies, gets caught, and flips to save their own ass.