Grotesque Malevolent Koala

The source of this myth isn't exactly clear to me, but I've seen it on a regular basis. Fortunately, it is extremely simple to dispel, because impeachment convictions are specifically exempted from the pardon power by the Constitution.

Check it yourself. Article 2 Section 2 states:

"The President ... shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

As you can see, the Founding Fathers were thinking ahead.

There are some recent cases in history that may have contributed to the birth of this misconception. Among them:

• the "pardoning" of Richard Nixon by Gerald Ford -- Members of House Judiciary Committee (including John Conyers) had finished approval of the first three articles of impeachment against Nixon, conclusive evidence had emerged that Nixon was abusing his powers of office, and it was clear to all that the full House would vote to impeach soon. Conviction in the Senate seemed unavoidable. Republican leaders of Congress went to the White House to discuss things with Nixon, who was convinced to resign. New replacement President Gerald Ford issued a pardon about a month later for "all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974."
  
  This so-called "pre-emptive pardon" had a questionable legal basis, as it was completely novel. Hindsight makes clear some of its lingering effects. People were not happy: Ford's polling numbers dropped sharply once it was issued.
  
  The very reasonable argument was put forth that, although the President does have the Constitutional right to issue pardons, a pardon cannot be properly issued until after a conviction has occurred. Since there were never any criminal charges filed against Nixon, the validity of this argument was never tried in court. However, the legality of a "pre-emptive pardon" is hardly set in stone, and it would take a ruling in a court case to see if the idea passes judicial muster.
  
  The important part of all this is that Nixon's "pardon" was not for his impeachment. Nixon resigned before the article of impeachment against him even passed out of the House of Representatives. Also, the decision not to pursue criminal charges was optional. The legitimacy of the "pardon" issued by Ford could have been challenged.
  
  
• the commutation of "Scooter" Libby's sentence by President Bush -- After "Scotter" Libby's conviction for his role in obstructing the investigation into the Valerie Plame affair, President Bush decided to commute Libby's 30-month sentence, ensuring that he would serve no jail time for his crime. As many observed, this also ensured that he would not testify about the role Vice President Cheney (Libby's boss) played in the scandal. Many people were displeased; as noted earlier, polling immediately afterward showed 54% of the public in support of beginning impeachment hearings against Cheney.
  
  Please note: Libby was not pardoned for his crime, and the conviction remains on his record... for now. Many believe that a full pardon will be issued at the end of Bush's term, especially in light of Bush's refusal to rule this out.

It is important to reiterate that impeachment does not work like a criminal case. There is no chance of an appeal. There is no punishment other than immediate removal from office and the imposition of a ban on holding government office in the future.

Does this mean that if H Res 333 is successful, Cheney is immune from prosecution? Not at all. It means that he would be stripped of office, stripped of the dubious "executive privilege" defense, and be able to face criminal charges in a court of law as a private citizen.

While it is possible that the President would try to issue a "pre-emptive pardon" (as in the Nixon case), this could be challenged. Arguably, honorable Republicans would oppose this move in order to prevent further destruction of their party's public image.


SUMMARY:

• This myth is pure fantasy: The Constitution prevents the issuance of pardons to reverse an impeachment conviction.
• Impeachment opens the way for criminal charges.
• Don't forget: "Pre-emptive" pardons are not necessarily legitimate.
  

Way back at the start of the "Ending Impeachment Myths" series, in which much of the data available six months ago is collected, I noted:

It seems reasonable to assume that support for impeachment has increased since last October, but it will take more scientific polling to confirm this. The question is: Who will be brave enough to find out?

In the wake of Dennis Kucinich's move to bypass Pelosi's "off the table" policy on the House floor, recent polls by Rasmussen Reports and the American Research Group have finally shed some new light on what Americans are thinking.

The ARG poll shows a stunning indictment by the public:

• a large majority thinks Bush and/or Cheney have abused their power as members of the executive branch
• in both cases, majorities believe Bush and Cheney have committed impeachable offenses

In addition, the Rasmussen poll shows more people believe that Cheney violated his oath of office than believe he did not. (The numbers are close, but not within the margin of error.)

However, there is less agreement concerning opinion on what should be done about the situation:

• According to ARG, 43% believe Cheney should be removed from office
• According to Rasmussen, 31% believe Cheney should be impeached and removed from office, while 40% believe he should not.

Public interest in the issue is large, but not overwhelming. Rasmussen data shows that:

• the news on H Res 799 was followed either "very closely" or "somewhat closely" by 48%
  
• 37% followed it, but "not very closely"
• 14% report that they followed it "not at all"
  

Rasmussen also showed that the public is skeptical that impeachment of Cheney will occur, with 75% calling it "not very likely" or "not at all likely". Given the stance of the Democratic leadership on this issue, this result is not surprising.

Perhaps most surprising, the Rasmussen poll found that respondents asked "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate who actively works to have Vice-President Cheney impeached?" had a greater chance of saying "less likely" (36%) than "more likely" (25%). It is possible that the wording here had some effect on the end results, if some respondents interpreted the question as being about their likelihood of voting for Kucinich -- the only candidate visibly associated with the matter in the news.

Both polls were taken in the days immediately following Kucinich's introduction of H Res 799, with the ARG poll coming after the Rasmussen survey. Do the differences in support for a Cheney impeachment reflect rapidly-changing opinion, or just differences in methodology?

Back in July (immediately following the commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence), a groundbreaking ARG poll found that 54% of the public favored "beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney". Has the overall trend of support for impeachment gone down?

Maybe, and maybe not. The new ARG data finds that 27% of the public believes Cheney abused his power, but that either that the abuse is not serious enough to warrant impeachment or that impeachment should not happen even though the abuse warrants it. It is my firm belief that the start of hearings would both increase the level of public interest and start changing the minds of some of that 27%.

I look forward to more data.

The re-introduction of articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney on Tuesday didn't accomplish anything new... yet. Although the use of the "question of privilege" rules to introduce the resolution (H Res 799) made sure that it would receive at least an hour's worth of attention on the House floor, the end result was that the resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee, where its twin brother, H Res 333, has been languishing for over six months.

The net effect on overall progress towards impeachment remains to be seen -- at least one member of the House Judiciary Committee who previously had little to say about the matter (Robert Wexler, whose chief claim to fame is saying "cocaine is fun" on the Colbert Report as a joke) has now openly called for hearings to begin.

There are, however, two things that the legislative upheaval most certainly accomplished:

1. The test has shown the limits of Pelosi's "off the table" policy regarding impeachment. Any member of Congress can interrupt normal House business as often as desired to ensure that any evidence they want to present at least makes it out on C-SPAN (with postings on YouTube sure to follow).
   
   
2. It has definitively revealed the fault line between real Democrats (i.e. the ones that adhere to the same values that people think of when they think of an "unnamed Democrat" in a theoretical matchup in poll questions) and the pseudo-Democrats (i.e. the ones that seem to hold power in the party and that never do as well as the unnamed Democrat in those polls since they don't adhere to those values).

Following is a chart that shows the position of "people of interest" on the impeachment question right now. (I apologize for it being tiny. Blogger keeps shrinking it.)



Each member of Congress is labelled as follows:

• "Judiciary?" -- Is the representative on the House Judiciary Committee? Orange means yes, grey means no.
  
  
• "333 Co?" -- Has the representative co-sponsored H Res 333? Green means yes, yellow means no.
  
  
• "Table?" -- Did the representative vote to "table" (i.e. kill) the resolution introduced on Tuesday? Yellow means yes, green means no, grey means did not vote.
  
  
• "Committee?" -- Did the representative vote to refer the resolution to the Judiciary on Tuesday? Yellow means yes, green means no, grey means did not vote.
  

Now, each representative's individual action may not mean anything, but I think the pattern as a whole is telling. There are four distinct groups.

• "True believers" -- Representatives Bob Filner (CA), Edolphus Towns (NY), and Maxine Waters (CA) have all shown a consistent pattern of support. Not only have they signed on as co-sponsors to H Res 333, they voted in favor of immediate action.
  
  If you live in the district of one of these representatives, be sure to call them up and express your support for their unwavering courage.
  
  
• "Cautious supporters" -- Several representatives have gone so far as to sign on as co-sponsors to H Res 333, voted not to table H Res 799, but also voted to delay action by sending it to the Judiciary. If you want to look at this charitably, that means they wantt to take action but didn't feel they could lay out a proper case in the one-hour debate window provided for by the rules for questions of privilege. If you want to look at this cynically, that means they sent it to die in Committee while trying to pander a bit to pro-impeachment constituents. Most are probably somewhere in between. This group consists of Tammy Baldwin (WI), Yvette Clarke (NY), William Lacy Clay Jr. (MO), Steve Cohen (TN), Danny Davis (IL), Keith Ellison (MN), Sam Farr (CA), Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX), Hank Johnson (GA), Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI), Barbara Lee (CA), Jim McDermott (WA), James Moran (VA), Jan Schakowsky (IL), Diane Watson (CA), Lynn Woolsey (CA), and Albert Wynn (MD).
  
  If you live in the district of one of these representatives, you might consider calling them and telling them you support the immediate start of hearings on the matter in the Judiciary Committee.
  
  
• "On-the-fencers" -- Seven representatives, all of whom are on the Judiciary Committee, have not signed on as co-sponsors of H Res 333 but also voted against tabling H Res 799 on Tuesday. This is a very important bloc of voters on that committee, and it includes the chairman, John Conyers. (History tip for the younger kids: Conyers was instrumental in the impeachment hearings against Nixon; he also created a resolution in support of impeachment hearings last year that did not make it out of committee.)
  
  I can't say I fathom the motives of these voters, since these people have had the ability to act on H Res 333 for six months and have not. Cynically, it's purely a case of political double-speak: They can say they supported "moving the resolution forward" and then continue to ignore. As mentioned above, at least one member of this group (Wexler) has come out in favor of hearings, so from a hopeful perspective this may mean they simply want to do things right by starting investigations. Time will tell. This group includes: John Conyers (MI), Luis Gutierrez (IL), Robert Scott (VA), Brad Sherman (CA), Melvin Watt (NC), Anthony Weiner (NY), and Robert Wexler (FL).
  
  If you live in the district of one of these representatives, you should probably call them and tell them that you would like them to co-sponsor either H Res 333 or H Res 799, and that you support Wexler's call for the immediate start of hearings on the matter of impeaching Cheney.
  
  
• "Loyal lapdogs" -- Nine Democratic representatives on the Judiciary Committee have consistently demonstrated hostility to the idea of impeachment. They haven't signed on to H Res 333. They voted to table H Res 799. When that failed, they voted to send it to the Judiciary, where they presumably have no intention of acting on it. In other words, they've shown lock-step support for Pelosi's policy. They are: Howard Berman (CA), Rick BoucherArtur Davis (AL), Bill Delahunt (MA), Zoe Lofgren (CA), Jerrold Nadler (NY), Linda Sanchez (CA), Adam Schiff (CA), and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL).
  
  If you live in the district of one of these representatives, you might want to call them and tell them you won't be voting for them next election as a result of their failure to represent you on Tuesday. Even better, you may wish to express that same thought at this site, where you can opt to have your comments sent to your Senators and local newspapers, as well. At the very least, you may want to call them and ask them to explain the rationale behind their votes. You may even wish to compare their responses to the common impeachment myths outlined in earlier posts here.
  

Both Robert Brady (PA) and David Payne (NJ) have signed on as co-sponsors of H Res 333, but they didn't vote in either of the motions on Tuesday. I am not sure what this means -- either they were absent when the votes were taken or they abstained. I hope it's the former.

[Note: I threw in Ron Paul just because I found his vote to table surprising. I very much respect Mr. Paul's integrity and would be interested to see his reasoning on the matter.]

[UPDATE: It seems that Ron Paul clarified his intent on his vote to table. His reasoning is legitimate, and his support for hearings is clear. Hopefully, this means we'll see him bring more attention to this issue.]

This myth is based on the observed net increase in President Clinton's popularity after his own impeachment challenge. President Clinton emerged more popular after his acquittal than he was at the start of the impeachment.

The problem with this idea is that, although it is rooted in an observation of association, the association is mistakenly being seen as a causation.

Let us assume that the person employing this myth genuinely believes it to be true. The obvious logic is that an impeachment automatically causes an increase in popularity. If this logic is true, wouldn't it be reasonable for Republicans to initiate impeachment in order to increase President Bush's popularity?

The absurdity of the proposal illustrates the absurdity of the underlying causal argument.

Why, then, did President Clinton's popularity go up? The prevailing opinion is that, after massive exposure to the televised proceedings, the majority of the public came to believe that the impeachment attempt was little more than a politically-motivated smear-job. The key accusation, after all, was that Clinton was lying about what can reasonably be construed as a personal and private matter with no direct implications regarding his duties as President of the nation.*

Would the same thing happen with respect to President Bush? I don't think so.

The Clinton impeachment was essentially a top-down affair. The newly-dominant Republican majority launched an unfocused investigation based on vague allegations of misconduct in a real estate involving the Clintons ("Whitewater"). The Lewinsky affair turned up after tens of millions of public tax dollars had been spent investigating Whitewater with no substantive results. Evidence of the affair was broadcast widely to the public, who suddenly took intense interest in the proceedings.

The movement to impeach Bush is essentially a bottom-up affair. Many grassroots groups across the nation have been arguing for years that impeachment is deserved for a variety of substantive reasons -- all of which are intimately tied up with the official conduct of members of the executive branch. Several accusations revolve around a failure to uphold the oath of office, which is a much more serious charge than any leveled against Clinton.

It is possible that an impeachment effort would fail. In this worst-case scenario, it is even possible that Bush would emerge vindicated in the mind of the public. I, personally, view this outcome as highly unlikely.

Notably, public demand for impeachment has been growing steadily, despite a relative lack of coverage of the topic in the major media. People are being convinced by evidence that is already readily available online -- it will not require a prolonged and expensive investigation to find a cause, only short and focused efforts to obtain relevant evidence for existing accusations.


SUMMARY:

• It is absurd to believe that the impeachment itself caused the increase in Clinton's popularity. Would Republicans impeach Bush to increase his popularity?
  
• The Clinton impeachment was organized in a top-down manner. The Bush impeachment movement is organized in a bottom-up manner. The current effort is people-driven, not politics-driven.
• An impeachment of Bush requires only narrow investigations into well-defined accusations of wrongdoing, not a wide-spread and costly "fishing expedition" as was seen with Clinton.
  

*As stated elsewhere, while I agree with the sentiment that Clinton's affair was a private matter, I do not agree that lying about it to the public was a legitimate response to the investigation. I supported the effort to impeach Clinton.

Once again, we have an argument that sidesteps the question of whether impeachment is justifiable. It is often used in conjunction with the "more important business" argument discussed in part VI.

First, this argument pre-supposes that an impeachment trial will be a lengthy and drawn-out process. If we look at the history of the Nixon administration's last days, we can see that it is in no way certain that an actual trial would ensue. Nixon, at the urging of Republican leadership, promptly resigned when it became clear that articles of impeachment would pass in the House. If a trial did occur in this case, it would likely be as short as it could reasonably be. It would be in the interests of both Democrats and Republicans to settle the matter as quickly as possible.

Second, this argument hints that a successful impeachment would simply not be worth the time and effort to achieve. I find this stance to be frankly unbelievable. I have difficulty appreciating the mindset that allows one to look at it in this way. Does someone who thinks this way view impeachment as only a means to the end of removing Bush from office? If so, then the idea that it would take longer to impeach than to simply "wait it out" is understandable.

However, I vehemently disagree that impeachment is solely about this administration. As discussed in other posts in this series, there are greater Constitutional issues at stake. Quite simply, the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches has shown a dangerous erosion for some time, but has reached a critical tipping point in recent years. We cannot allow the example of the Bush administration's behavior to become the established precedent for future executives.

Such an established precedent should frighten Americans of any political orientation.

SUMMARY:

• An impeachment trial should not take long, and may not even be necessary.
  
• Impeachment is not merely a means to the end of removing the current administration. There are fundamental Constitutional concerns about the eroded checks-and-balance of a weakening legislative branch.
• Allowing the current administration's example to become established precedent should frighten Americans of any party.
  

This myth is most frequently employed as a softer, gentler version of the argument discussed in part V. Like several other arguments, the user implicitly agrees that impeachment is deserved. The disagreement is the relative priority of pursuing impeachment versus other legislative agendas (e.g. ending the war, healthcare, restoring civil liberties, etc.).

This disagreement over "priority" sneaks in the false choice at the center of this myth. The speaker presumes that it is impossible to pursue any of the other worthy and important goals listed if impeachment is taken up. This is absolutely not true.

First, anyone pursuing these other goals must surely recognize that the current administration will do everything in its power to oppose any progress. Many of these goals stem from problems created by the current leadership! It is silly to expect that any progress can be made towards these other goals while the Bush administration remains in power.

Second, Congress routinely works on many tasks at the same time. Although an impeachment effort might occupy most of the time that key Democratic leaders have in a day, there are many other capable legislators in the Democratic majority that can be organized to tackle these secondary problems.

I do not label such serious problems as "secondary" lightly. As grave as they are, they pale in comparison to the Constitutional crisis currently going on. We plainly have an executive branch that the Founding Fathers would consider to be edging towards tyranny. Many of the same complaints found in the Declaration of Independence are being echoed today in more modern language.

Impeachment is the "safety valve" of our checks and balances, designed to legally and peacefully reign in an executive who refuses to acknowledge the co-equality of the legislative and judiciary branches. We have such an executive now, as evidenced by the frequent use of "signing statements" to undermine passed legislation, claims of "executive privilege" used to deny the information needed by Congress to do its job, and many other infractions.

Put more simply: If the precedent of the Bush administration is allowed to stand -- if the executive branch is allowed to build on this administration's legacy, the power of Congress will have been weakened to the point where it effectively no longer exists. At that point, there is little chance of progress on any other "more important" goals.

SUMMARY:

• The "more important business than impeachment" argument is based on a false choice.
• It seems reasonable to predict that progress cannot be made on other important matters while the current administration holds office.
  
• For our government of the people, by the people, and for the people, there can be no more important business than protecting the Constitution.
  

Of all of the common arguments against impeachment that I've examined so far, this one is by far the one with the least merit.

I've seen and heard it phrased many different ways:

• "Why take away the rope they're using to hang themselves?"
• "Look how well 2006 went for us, 2008 will be even better at this rate!"
• "There's no upside for Democrats in impeachment."

If confronted with this argument, I encourage you to drive straight to the heart of the matter: Any such partisan viewpoint on the matter is exactly the kind of "party before country" mentality that Democrats have been accusing the Republicans of for years. Such accusations have been quite accurate. For a Democrat to adopt such an attitude now is the height of rank hypocrisy, and, as such, should be strongly challenged.

The implications of impeachment go far beyond the immediate concerns of the 2008 election. Arguably, the future of our democracy is at stake.

Does the previous statement seem far-fetched? Then consider this little-known fact about impeachment: Upon successful conviction, the guilty party is not only removed from office, but is barred from ever again holding political office in the future. As it is laid out in our Constitution:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party, (defendant), convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Bearing that in mind, let's review a little history.

• In 1974, President Nixon resigned when it became clear that a successful impeachment was forthcoming. At the time, Cheney was Nixon's Deputy Assistant to the President.
• Under Gerald Ford, Cheney worked as Assistant to the President and later became Ford's Chief of Staff.
  
• During the Reagan administration, Cheney (then a Congressman) was the ranking minority member on the congressional committee to investigate the Iran-Contra scandal.
• Under the current President, Cheney (as Vice President) created the Office of Special Plans in order to bypass the normal intelligence-assessment process, build the case for the Iraq War, and promote it to the American public through official channels.
  

There are two things that are important to note in this brief tour of history:

• First, the seriousness of the transgressions against our Constitution have become increasingly worse over the last few decades.
• Second, Vice President Cheney has had a long career in government. There is every reason to expect that he will continue to be involved in government for as long as he is able to.
  

Clearly, impeachment matters in the long run even more than the short run. If we are going to halt this steady race to the bottom in terms of Presidential behavior, there is no alternative but to place future executives -- regardless of the party they represent -- on notice that such behavior will not be tolerated. A successful impeachment not only stops the problem now, it helps prevent problems like it in the future.


SUMMARY:

• A Democrat who avoids impeachment on partisan grounds is just as guilty as the Republicans when it comes to putting "party before country".
  
• Impeachment is even more important in the long term than in the short term.
• Impeachment not only removes the guilty party from office, it also prevents that party from ever holding office again.
• The trend over the last few decades suggests that impeachment is the only option for putting a stop to increasingly egregious executive branch abuses.
  

This is another pernicious myth often employed to cut the debate on impeachment short. The implication: Yes, impeachment is richly deserved, but it's just not politically possible to pull off.

This argument implicitly makes the assumption that only party line votes against impeachment can be expected, no matter what charges are brought and no matter what the evidence submitted is. Such a deeply cynical view should be directly an unapologetically challenged.

The results of last November's election have given serious pause to many long-time Republican members of the House and Senate. Bush's popularity has recently reached record lows, and party officials are anxious to avoid a repeat of 2006, where not a single Republican candidate won a seat held by a Democrat. It seems reasonable to believe that moderate Republicans would be willing to break party ranks -- if not out of their sworn obligation to uphold the Constitution, then simply to save their own political skins!

Indeed, assuming that the evidence is as easy to obtain as impeachment proponents believe it will be, the case for impeachment should be incontrovertible to anyone regarding the situation rationally. A failure to impeach in the face of appropriate evidence would be ample evidence of bad faith in the execution of a senator's duties.

The real question that must be asked is: Are there not at least 17 honorable Republican senators in office right now? I think it's safe to assume that there are. Remember, as discussed in part II and part III, there is a path to impeachment that is both Constitutional and precedented, and that would keep the White House under Republican control.

If there are not at least 17 honorable Republican senators, the public needs to see this with its own eyes, so that it can vote appropriately in 2008.

SUMMARY:

• This argument pre-supposes that Republican senators will act dishonorably.
• It is by no means certain that party line votes are to be expected.
• Even if the Senate fails to convict, impeachment would provide valuable information for voters in 2008.