As kestrel9000 outlined the other day, Vermont’s own Pat Leahy stand at the point in the fight against the latest outrage in the six-year continuing saga of Bush power-grabbing.

The White House has pretty much been caught red-handed in an effort to corrupt and contaminate the actual administration of justice in the United States, by overtly hiring and firing U.S. Attorneys around the country on the basis of their partisan and personal loyalty not to the law, but to George W. Bush. Pat Leahy, righteously indignant at the implications for the future of our country, wants answers, and says he’ll subpoena top White House officials to get them.

George W. Bush says he’ll order his advisors to defy Leahy’s subpoenas.

The Vermont Democratic Party and the Vermont State Legislature are poised to lay down for Bush, leaving Leahy twisting in the wind.

How is that possible?

Allow me to explain:

[L]et’s look at the mechanics of subpoena power. In its investigative capacity, Congress has adopted for itself the use of a subpoena power that’s roughly analogous to that more commonly seen in the judicial and law enforcement system, in which government prosecutors (employees of the executive branch) leverage the power of the judicial branch (in the form of its ability to sentence those brought before it for contempt, should they defy the subpoenas) to ensure compliance with the demands made.

But Congress is not the executive branch. Nor is it the judicial. Its independent enforcement powers are limited to only the most obscure and archaic procedure — “inherent contempt” — which hasn’t been exercised since 1935, and with good reason: this procedure itself requires a trial before Congress. Not a particularly helpful substitute when you’re trying to avoid a trial before Congress [read: impeachment] in the first place.

Instead, Congress depends for its enforcement powers on the executive branch. If you defy a Congressional subpoena, you face the possibility of charges of contempt of Congress, pursuant to the adoption of articles by whichever house is charging you. But those charges are not self-executing. In other words, they’re a request that charges be brought. In order to be effective, those charges still have to be prosecuted in court, and that’s up to the discretion of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. He’s an employee of the “unitary executive,” of course, and reports to the Attorney General.

So if you’re conducting oversight of, say, the NSA spying program, and you want answers from Gonzales regarding the program’s legality, and you subpoena him and he tells you to take a flying leap, what do you do?

You could try going to court, but not only will that pretty much run out the clock, but the courts are quite likely to tell you, “What are you crying to us for? You have your remedy. If you’re too chicken to use it, that’s your problem.” They may well hand it right back to Congress as a “political question,” and refuse to resolve it. After all, tied up in that question is yet another: should the legislative branch be able to leverage the judicial in order to force the executive to submit to its will?

Long story short: This is not an issue that can be resolved on moral, ethical, legal, or political grounds alone. It can be ignored for any or all of those reasons, but not resolved.

So what’s Leahy to do here? Enforcement of his subpoenas depend on the contempt power, and the contempt power falls ultimately to the U.S. Attorneys — the political strong-arming and contamination of which brought us to this crisis in the first place.

Clever of them, no? Heck, you’d almost think they… planned it.

[W]hen it comes to deploying its Executive power, which is dear to Bush’s understanding of the presidency, the President’s team has been planning for what one strategist describes as “a cataclysmic fight to the death” over the balance between Congress and the White House if confronted with congressional subpoenas it deems inappropriate. The strategist says the Bush team is “going to assert that power, and they’re going to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court on every issue, every time, no compromise, no discussion, no negotiation.”

Realize that the resolution of this stand-off will determine the extent to which the Congress is able to investigate everything that’s still on their plate. If they lose this showdown, they lose their leverage in investigating NSA spying, the DeLay/Abramoff-financed Texas redistricting, Cheney’s Energy Task Force, the political manipulation of science, the Plame outing… everything.

That’s the cost of leaving Leahy standing alone, with nothing but his rejected subpoenas in his hand.

Only one Constitutional power gives Leahy the leverage it needs to make the cost of executive noncompliance so high that the president has no choice but to submit, or be removed.

And yet it is that very power the Vermont Democratic Party and Vermont state legislature are poised to deny him, beginning at the state committee meeting tomorrow.

In very short order, Patrick Leahy will need to be able to lean on the threat of the impeachment power in order to restore and preserve the rule of law in the United States of America. Activists all over Vermont and all over the country have been working tirelessly for over a year to prepare for this moment, so that when brave statesmen like Leahy are finally forced to take a stand on the brink, the people they represent will have spoken clearly and said that they stand with them.

Senator Leahy doubtless has the courage and tenacity it will require to take this challenge on. But Vermont has a rare and perfectly-timed opportunity to steel his resolve, beginning on Saturday.

I would urge you to seize it.

Here’s a little something I threw together with the help of some friends:

Whereas, approximately 2,300 Vermont National Guard troops have served in Iraq since March of 2003, and

Whereas, Vermont has had the highest number of soldiers per capita who have paid the ultimate sacrifice and lost their lives in this war, and

Whereas, approximately 80 Vermont National Guard troops are now deployed in Iraq, and more could be deployed in the coming months if the Bush Administration policies continue in the current direction, and

Whereas, at the time the Iraq conflict started in March 2003, the American public was told that the primary reason for this incursion was to eliminate weapons of mass destruction that the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, had allegedly stockpiled, and it has been since documented that no weapons of mass destruction were stockpiled in Iraq at the time the American military forces entered that country, and

Whereas, it is now apparent that the U.S. Department of Defense did not develop an exit strategy prior to the invasion, falsely assuming that the Iraqi people would welcome United States forces with open arms, and that withdrawal would not be a difficult problem, and

Whereas, the continuing and daily onslaught of sectarian violence and indications of ethnic cleansing in some areas of the nation have proven disruptive to nearly all aspects of Iraqi society, and

Whereas, over 3,000 American military personnel have died since March 2003, and

Whereas, many Vermont veterans have returned home from Iraq and the region with significant unmet physical and mental health care needs, and

Whereas, the cost of this war according to the Congressional Research Service is at least $379 billion, and

Whereas, based on the state’s population, Vermont’s share of the cost exceeds $750 million, and

Whereas, these costs will have a significant impact on Vermont households and the Vermont state budget process for years to come, and

Whereas, the Bush Administration recently called for and has started to implement an escalation in the number of American military troops actively engaged in Iraq, now therefore be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives that:

“[W]e should be focusing this energy on the next election cycle.”

Imagine if the logic Gaye Symington applied to Vermont’s impeachment resolution were applied consistently.

Imagine what would have happened to the recently-passed anti-escalation resolution, if Gaye Symington’s complaint that, “The Legislature has a very short amount of time to do its work and needs to focus its work on the issues most affecting Vermonters – property taxes, health care, and our energy future,” were applied across the board.

“But wait,” you say. “Gaye had a fuller explanation than that.”

Indeed she did: “We have a very limited amount of time dealing with national issues. The Iraq War has a direct impact on Vermonters in terms of the lives lost and the budget pressure that gets pushed onto the property taxes when we’re cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and special education reimbursements.”

She’s right, you know. The Iraq War does have a direct impact on Vermonters, in precisely those terms. But given that the U.S. Congress is already debating a non-binding resolution calling for exactly the same end (if not with so many flourishes of outrage before coming to the point), what exactly made this resolution such an efficient use of the legislature’s “very limited amount of time” for such things?

After all, Vermont is one of more than twenty states at various stages of taking up such a resolution. And it’s great to be in such good company, I’m sure. But consider what’s actually happening here: Vermont and its sister states are building consensus for… something that’s already under consideration in Congress. Might not the “very limited time” be better spent encouraging Congress to do what it has thus far been afraid to do, for lack of an organized show of support like the one undertaken in Montpelier on Tuesday? After all, aren’t we all agreed that as fine as it was to offer the resolution on the war, that ball is already rolling and gathering steam in Congress?

Of course, it must also be noted that in all likelihood, President Bush will not be moved by Congressional action. Certainly not by a non-binding resolution. Congressional leaders are already well aware that the non-binding resolution is but the first of a number of steps that will be necessary to isolate the president politically, as he hangs onto his insane claims of absolute power as “Commander in Chief.” They’re already preparing attempts to limit Bush’s ability to deploy troops not fully combat ready, to cap the number of tours our troops can be forced to serve in Iraq, and perhaps eventually to use the “power of the purse” to limit federal defense expenditures expressly and exclusively to redeployment.

The problem, though, is that the Bush “administration” doesn’t recognize any warmaking power other than its own. Congress, the courts, the states, all are ultimately just so many distractions. The Constitution, Bush and his advisers believe, vests all military decision making in the president, a concept rightly identified as the “Nixon/Bush Doctrine.”

As a result, you can expect to see no action in response to the non-binding resolution. This much you’ve probably already anticipated. But you can also expect to see signing statements attached to bills purporting to restrict the president’s ability to deploy troops, and the “reprogramming” of Defense Department funds (as they did when they diverted funds for Afghanistan to prepare for the then still secret Iraq war planning) or even funds from elsewhere in the government to pay for operations otherwise forbidden by Congress.

At that point, we’ll be looking at a genuine constitutional crisis, and the Congress will likely be at a loss for what to do.

And the Vermont legislature, if Gaye Symington gets her way, will have offered them only the now-stale advice: pretty please, stop the escalation.

When the Congress stands at the brink of constitutional crisis and stares into the abyss, wondering whether the American people have the fortitude to undertake the reclamation of our very system of government, Vermont, Gaye Symington says, should be AWOL.

Focus, she says, on the next election cycle.

There’s still a chance, though, for Symington to both do the right thing and keep her logic consistent.

Take up the impeachment resolution. Take a day to deal with the coming crisis for our country and our Constitution, just as you took a day to deal with its present one.

Take the reins. Put Vermont out front, and be the first to declare your readiness to support and defend the Constitution, so that you’re there when the Congress needs you, not rushing to bring up the rear.

The people are way ahead of the Congress on this, and they’re going to show you that in no uncertain terms, right there in Vermont on Town Meeting day.

Most of the rest of America just doesn’t have the  incredible opportunity Vermonters have to be heard by their government. (Of course, some town Select Boards have decided they just don’t want to hear them anymore.) The message, though, should be loud and clear to Symington: Vermonters want to look ahead and be prepared, and they expect that if their state government feels it has a role to play in federal affairs, that it approach that role with the intention of making a real impact.

Congress surely benefits from the wisdom of Vermont and her sister states on the war. But if they’re going to find the resolve to back these first steps up with real muscle, we’re going to have to show them we’re with them.

Vermont, for all the reasons Speaker Symington approved of in passing the anti-escalation resolution, should take the lead in assuring Congress that we’ll have their backs when they actually need to do something about it.

I’ve just been on a conference call sponsored by the “Progressive States Network,” aimed at generating support for opposition to the Bush/McCain escalation of the war in Iraq. Joining the call was Senator Ted Kennedy, there to promote his bill requiring separate authorization for any such escalation, and most particularly for the funding of any such escalation.

But the main thrust of the call was to inform state level actors of their right and responsibility to speak out on this issue, even though it might be considered purely a matter of federal policy. State legislatures, we were reminded, can have a profound impact on Washington, and most especially on their representation in Congress. And it’s not as if such issues haven’t been addressed at the state level in the past. The PATRIOT Act, Social Security privatization, the genocide in Darfur, CAFTA and other trade agreements — all have been addressed in the recent past by state legislatures.

All fascinating, of course. And to no one’s surprise, there was no mention of impeachment, a subject about which four state legislatures have already seen resolutions introduced — almost all greeted with the same objection, often from both sides of the aisle, that it was “a federal issue.”

Well, next week — on the day President Bush delivers his State of the Union address, actually — New Mexico will become the fifth.

The resolution will be introduced by State Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino (D-Albuquerque), along with cosponsor John Grubesic (D-Santa Fe). Democrats control both houses of the legislature: 24-18 in the Senate; 41-28 in the House. The signature of the Governor of New Mexico, Democrat Bill Richardson, is not required. Richardson is a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008.

Text of the draft resolution follows:

  A JOINT RESOLUTION

  PETITIONING CONGRESS TO COMMENCE THE INVESTIGATION OF AND IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH AND VICE PRESIDENT RICHARD B. CHENEY.

  WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney conspired with others to defraud the United States of America by intentionally misleading congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371; and

  WHEREAS, George W. Bush has admitted to ordering the national security agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants from the foreign intelligence surveillance court of review, duly constituted by congress in 1978, in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805; and

  WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney conspired to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Chapter 113C, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Geneva Conventions, which under Article VI of the United States constitution are part of the “supreme Law of the Land”; and

  WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney acted to strip American citizens of their constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention without access to legal counsel, without charge and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the president of a United States citizen as an “enemy combatant”, all in subversion of
  law; and

  WHEREAS, in all of this, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have acted in a manner contrary to their trust as president and vice president, subverting constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of New Mexico and of the United States of America; and

  WHEREAS, petitions from the country at large may be presented by the speaker of the United States house of representatives, according to Clause 3 of House Rule XII; and

  WHEREAS, Section 603 of Thomas Jefferson’s Manual on Parliamentary Practice and of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives states that impeachment may be set in motion by charges transmitted from the legislature of a state;

  NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrant impeachment and trial and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States; and

  BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the New Mexico congressional delegation be requested to cause to be instituted in the congress of the United States proper proceedings for the investigation of the activities of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, to the end that they may be impeached and removed from their offices; and

  BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the secretary of state be instructed to certify and transmit to the speaker of the United States house of representatives and the clerk of the United States house of representatives, under the great seal of the state of New Mexico, a copy of this resolution and its adoption by the legislature of the state of New Mexico. The copies shall be marked with the word “Petition” at the top of the document and contain the original authorizing signature of the secretary of state.

State legislators in Vermont considering such a resolution already know that they’re not alone, having seen similar resolutions introduced last year in Illinois,  California, and Minnesota.

This year, not only will New Mexico be joining the ranks, but a major drive will be on for state legislatures all over the country to do for the war exactly what you may have been told you had no right to do on impeachment.

And if you’re interested in challenging that notion with respect to the war, too, you’ll find a model resolution at the Progressive States Network site, here.

On his way out the door as governor of Iowa, Democratic presidential candidate (and DLC Chairman!) Tom Vilsack delivered a surprise package in his last address to the state legislature:

Departing Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack used his final Condition of the State speech Tuesday to condemn the Bush administration’s plan to send as many as 20,000 additional troops to Iraq.

“Now the president and the Congress are poised to make a big mistake even bigger,” the Democrat seeking the 2008 presidential nomination told a joint session of the Iowa Legislature. “Understand that escalation will come at the expense of families and communities here in Iowa and across the nation.”

Vilsack also urged the Legislature, with new Democratic majorities in both houses, to pass resolutions condemning Bush’s plan.

An interesting approach, don’t you think? And it reminds me of a little something we saw up in Vermont last year:

A formal resolution introduced late Tuesday in the state Legislature calling on Congress to draft articles of impeachment against Pres. George W. Bush has been sent to the House Judiciary Committee for review.

Rep. Dave Zuckerman, P-Burlington, the lead sponsor of the measure, was joined by 23 of his colleagues, all Progressives and Democrats except for one independent.

There were, of course, all kinds of gripes about that. It came too late in the session. The legislature was too busy with health care. It was a federal issue, not a state one.

Of course, anyone who remembers the Vermont legislature’s action on the USA PATRIOT Act knows that the last one’s simply a canard.

But even better, we now have a very moderate, Mid-western presidential candidate calling for yet more state legislative involvement in federal policy. It’s not just for Crazy Hippies(TM) anymore!

And what’s more, Vilsack validates even more of the Vermont agenda:

Vilsack called on communities across America to pass a resolution opposing the troop increase. Bush’s plan, he said, “will make his big Iraq mistake even bigger.”

As we all know, Dan DeWalt made headlines literally around the world last year with his resolution at the Newfane Town Meeting. This year, he’s leading the charge again. And he’s bringing back-up:

DeWalt, a member of the Newfane Selectboard, kicked off a statewide chain reaction last March when he successfully urged passage of a town meeting resolution supporting Bush’s impeachment on the claim he mislead the country into war.

Inspired by Newfane’s lead, five other Vermont towns followed suit the same day. And now up to 40 towns in the state will likely face a similar question at town meeting in 2007 if a grassroots effort organized by DeWalt is successful.

Are you collecting signatures? Are you facing resistance? Are you being told that your town “has no business” meddling in federal affairs?

Point the doubters to Tom Vilsack. And send them to his presidential campaign’s web site, where he’s got an online toolkit for people to take his issue to their local governments, all across America.

If he can do it, why can’t you?

Breaking News from ABC:

Troop Surge Already Under Way
90 Advance Troops from 82nd Airborne Arrive in Baghdad

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 10, 2007- – President Bush’s speech may be scheduled for tonight, but the troop surge in Iraq is already under way.

ABC News has learned that the “surge” President Bush is expected to announce in a primetime speech tonight has already begun. Ninety advance troops from the 82nd Airborne division arrived in Baghdad today.

Sitting here at Blogapalooza on the Hill, and this dude walked in, so I flipped open the camera phone.

Anybody know this guy? Looks familiar.

Oopsie-daisy! Reality sneaks in (followed by a chuckle and a hasty retreat) as Newsweek Senior editor Michael Hirsh is interviewed on the Air America Radio program, The Young Turks.

Co-host Cenk Ugyur posed the following question to Hirsh, asking about Bush’s plans to escalate the war in Iraq with the addition of some 30,000+ troops:

What happens at the endgame here? We’re talking to Michael Hirsh of Newsweek. Bush says, “Alright, I’m gonna put more troops in.” He does. He doesn’t have a plan for what they’re supposed to accomplish, which is what [sic] it appears. There is no political equilibrium that we have reached. There is no unity government that is a a real partner for peace with us. This thing gets worse and worse, and I guarantee you it will, and Bush never changes course.

[…]

Do we get to a point where people have to pull him aside and say, “You can’t do this anymore?” And who would that be, and how would that work? I mean, how do we get a President that won’t listen to reason under control?

Hirsh’s response?

Impeachment. [Then he laughs, sheepishly.]

I mean, there aren’t many means, you know? This is the great flaw in the American system. We often say of ourselves how lucky we’ve been to have leaders who have stood up in times of crisis, but, you know, we haven’t considered what happens when we get very, very unlucky, and I think you have a leader who is a complete mismatch for the moment in history that we face here. And we kind of have to grit our teeth, hold our nose, and wait out the next couple of years. There’s nothing else to do.

Now, maybe it’s unfair to make Michael Hirsh into an impeachment advocate. He’s clearly uncomfortable with the subject. But boil down the exchange, and you can see just what kind of trouble we’re in here.

If Hirsh’s chuckle is meant as a dismissal of the idea of impeachment, what are we left with?

Q: How do we get a President that won’t listen to reason under control?

A: We kind of have to grit our teeth, hold our nose, and wait out the next couple of years. There’s nothing else to do.

The day when it becomes incontrovertible that Bush “won’t listen to reason” is coming sooner than Hirsh or anyone else in the media thinks. Those additional troops, it seems, are going to Iraq. And they’re going with no mission in mind, contrary to the warnings of Jim Baker, Lee Hamilton, several Republican Senators, and now even Gerald Ford, not to mention a staggering 89% of public opinion.

Vermont, followed by people all over the country, has another chance to show the mainstream media that they needn’t chuckle to deflect their discomfort any longer. But the folks in the media are going to have to be a bit braver than this if we’re to get through this intact.

Here’s hoping you’ll lend them your courage.

( – promoted by odum)

Cross-posted at The Next Hurrah and Daily Kos. Which I tell you, because I was told people cared.

So, Democrats have won back the Congress. Impeachment is “off the table,” but Pelosi apparently stands by her assertion that the most valuable part of the victory will be "subpoena power." We’re going to have investigations. And the environment is "target rich" enough, it seems, so that Rep. Henry Waxman, the presumptive chair of the Government Operations Reform and Oversight committee (the Republicans changed the name from Operations to Reform and Oversight in the wake of their 1994 victory, perhaps preemptively overcompensating for their later intention not to conduct any) says, “The most difficult thing will be to pick and choose.”

But as we’ve discussed in the past, (albeit at other blogs) it’s entirely possible that the "administration" may simply refuse to comply with Congressional subpoenas (or may comply only very selectively), whether by invoking the power of the "unitary executive" to block the service of those subpoenas and/or the prosecution of charges of contempt of Congress (the presumptive penalty for non-compliance), or by engaging in a delay-and-litigation strategy aimed at running out the clock before the issues are settled in court — if they can be settled there at all.

Recall that Congressional subponeas are served by the U.S. Marshals Service, and contempt is prosecuted at the discretion of the U.S. Attorney, both under the control of the "unitary executive." And that Cheney has said he will not testify, even if subponaed. And that the "administration" is apparently promising to resist any effort to curtail executive power with "a cataclysmic fight to the death" that will  include a program "to assert that power, and they’re going to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court on every issue, every time, no compromise, no discussion, no negotiation."

Now, some would describe the "cataclysmic fight to the death" as the nightmare scenario. But that scenario at least has a likely ending that’s capable of settling the question: impeachment. The nightmare scenario for me — and likely for emptywheel, as well — goes like this:

Investigations proceed (whether necessary or not). Subpoenas are issued. Assuming their proper service, the "administration," depending on who gets the first subpoenas, perhaps asserts the "tradition" argument. As Cheney put it to George Stephanopoulos:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You’ve talked a lot about the consequences of the Democrats taking over congress in the last week. Nancy Pelosi said this: “we win, speaking of the  Democrats, we get subpoena power.” If you’re subpoenaed by the Democrats, would you go?
CHENEY: I have no idea that I’m going to be subpoenaed. Obviously, we’d sit down and look at it at the time. But probably not in the sense at that Vice President and President and constitutional officers don’t appear before the Congress.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s your view of executive power? You?re not going to go up and testify.
CHENEY: I think that’s been the tradition. I can’t  remember the last time a President did appear before the Congress. Or a Vice President.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Gerald Ford, I think.
CHENEY: That’s right. But not on a subpoena, he did it on his own.

Failing that, the next fallback position is litigation, with a particular eye toward running out the clock. What to litigate? Well, litigators themselves know that you can sue over just about anything. And those who’ve watched this "administration’s" litigators know that they’ll go to court with cases that a few short years ago would’ve had you pissing your pants with laughter. So why should this one be any different? They’ll be claiming that for Congress to compel testimony from the executive — and particularly from certain high-ranking officials on matters bearing on "national security" — is… a violation of the Constitutional separation of powers.

And, if you’ve picked your jaw up off the floor and are ready to move on: they’ll be right.

Or at least, they’ll have a colorable claim. Because there really is some truth to that. For the legislative branch to be try to compel some particular action from the executive does raise exactly that issue. Now, it’s true that the legislative branch orders the executive to perform particular actions all the time: furnish thus and such information, prepare a report on this or that by some date certain, etc. Or at least, that used to be the case. But those who’ve followed the story of Bush’s record-shattering numbers of signing statements know that the "theory" this president most often relies on in issuing them is his "inherent power" to act as the nation’s sole authority in matters of "national security" (and maybe others, or any), unconstrained and unconstrainable by either the Congress or the courts.

The intent, of course, is to run out the clock until January 2009, and then moot the whole thing, leaving the Nixon/Reagan/Bush doctrine locked in place by this "ratchet" system, waiting to be pushed forward by the next Republican elected to the White House.

But along the way, Democrats who had counted on taking impeachment "off the table" and depending instead on their plan to expose the wrongdoing of the Bush "administration" will find that they’re once again stuck defending the "nuanced" position, against a White House brazenly claiming the mantle of True Defenders of the Constitution, as always, in defiance of all logic. We’ll be stuck in the position of seeking to violate the separation of powers in order to nail the "administration" for violating the separation of powers — a doctrine we were for, before we were against, I guess. And at the end of the rainbow? A pretty good chance the courts will say, "This is a political problem. You know what your remedy is."

Then, the clock strikes noon, a successor is sworn in, and so it is that this panoply of impeachable crimes joins those unpunished in the wake of Iran-Contra.