Because an impeachment of any kind draws attention, and people will wonder why their senator is protecting a liar.
Sure, if the media reports it that way. The problem is that’s just not how things are working right now. People won’t think to wonder “why is my senator protecting Fredo” when the media doesn’t point that out.
I LOL’d. I need to go back and rewatch that show.
I don’t think TV stations will retain viewers with weak coverage of a Senate impeachment proceeding.
I wouldn’t think they’d retain viewers with their weak coverage over politics in general over the past six years, but they have. :(
(notice my cynicism?)
I notice, but I think there’s a threshold effect when people think something really serious is going on. Suddenly everyone is actually looking, and it’s harder to hide.
Also, Senators are historically pretty strong on the issue of Senate power. I really don’t think they will be happy trying to defend someone who tried to sidestep it.
I lol’d. But I was really crying on the inside.
It would be an interesting exercise. Assume most of the GOP senators who voted against their party’s iraq filibuster (Smith, Snow et al) would be joined by those who are not going to stand up for a corrupt and incompetent AG who is actively trying to piss all over congressional oversight (Spector). Plus the Dems would have Liberman on this one.
This could be an impeachment trial of Bush by proxy. And it would be sweet.
Any impeachment trial of an executive branch official would have discovery implications that could spiral into a total catastrophe for Bush. I think his good lawyers (if he has any he hasn’t fired yet) are telling him to moot the process by firing Gonzales before Congress starts something he can’t stop.
He’ll play the Executive Privilege card on every bit of discovery he doesn’t like, then gamble that either a) the courts will side with him or b) by the time they get a definitive ruling the next guy’s in office.
Not if he has good lawyers left. The courts would rule against him in a summary judgment if he tried that in an impeachment proceeding.
He’s doing that already. Impeaching Fredo is one of the few options the Congress has.
Hate to see this end up at this Supreme Court though.
I’d be surprised. I think the Federal Circuit would lay the smack on Bush, and USSC wouldn’t grant cert. Nixon had a better case.
Photoshop of Gonzales onto Elijah Wood “This burden is MINE to bear!”
…from your typewriter to Jebus’ shell like ears
I was thinking more like “Don’t Go Fishing with Cheney!”
Nixon didn’t have a court that’s very friendly to the idea of expanding presidential power.
Expanding executive power is one thing, gutting Congress’ most fundamental power of oversight is another. If the President can invoke privelege in an impeachment proceeding, then he truly is above the law. I don’t believe that any justice but Thomas would seriously consider allowing it.
http://www.slate.com/id/2171072/fr/flyout
I had a different, pop-cultural, flash, to E.B. Farnum, the default mayor on the HBO series Deadwood, put in office to be the tool of those who actually run things. He’s the master of cringe and grandiosity. He tries to hatch “schemes and swindles” for his betters, but they always go wrong. He can’t get anyone “to take him seriously.”
The trial conducted in the Senate cannot be filibustered.
As I recall Senators do not even take the floor during the trial, since they are serving as jurors and not advocates. Their statements during closed-door deliberations can be published later, though.