I'm glad to see that even shooter is onboard with impeachment:

Here's a suggestion.....You got a problem? See you in court.

This is in response to Glenn's question "So now what?" to which shooter (for once, astutely) replies "If you have to ask that question, you've got bupkis," and continues that the obvious next step is to take it to court.

The only problem is that impeachment is not a legal process (despite the trappings) but is a political one. And politics is not the art of the obvious, but rather the art of the possible.

As then Representative Gerald Ford observed in 1970,

An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.

So it doesn't really matter what the crimes are, it is a question of whether a majority of the House of Representatives will vote to impeach. And impeachment is just the first step. It is like an indictment handed up by a grand jury. After the House impeaches, the Senate has to convict before removal can take place. And while it takes a simple majority for the House to impeach, it takes a two-thirds majority for the Senate to convict.

So if there is sufficient discipline in the Democratic-controlled House, impeachment could be voted at any time. But without 67 votes (actually, it is two thirds of the members present, so the number needed for conviction could be lower) in the Senate to convict, it is a pointless gesture (unless the purpose is to bring the government to a standstill as the Republicans did in 1998-99).

In addition, voting impeachment simply because they can is not a good move on the part of House Democrats because the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 USC § 19) makes the Speaker of the House second in line for the presidency. Since impeachment proceedings have to begin in the House, any move by the Speaker to call for impeachment, especially, as is necessary in this case, of both the President and the Vice-President, would immediately be slimed as an attempted coup d'état. This is why Pelosi cannot be seen to call for impeachment. It is a conflict of interest that seems to be built into the succession act. The drive for impeachment has to come from elsewhere than the Speaker of the House, preferably from public outcry or from a state legislature.

For the time being, the best course is to continue oversight hearings, with the appointment of special prosecutors as fresh abuses come to light (as they surely will), until the public insistence on impeachment becomes irresistible.

Boy, you been help up by your ears so many times, its affecting your brain. It only takes a bare majority to impeach. So let's just defend the Constitution and forget your self-defeating strategery.

Yes, it only takes a bare majority of the House to impeach, but that is only part of the process. In the Senate it takes "the concurrence of two thirds of the members present" to convict. Without that two-thirds majority, impeachment is an empty gesture that can do more harm than good. Impeachment is like a grand jury indictment. Good prosecutors normally don't go for indictments unless they have an excellent chance of getting a conviction. That's why Fitz got an indictment against Libby but not Rove. He probably could have gotten an indictment against Rove as well, but he probably didn't feel that he had the evidence to convict.

Nice summation of the impeachment pitfalls. But I think beginning with the immediate impeachment of the Attorney General is the wisest and most practical course. Bush is going to hold on to him as long as possible, so force his hand.

Apparently so does the Senate, hence the confidence vote on Gonzales. As I said, the Democratic House can vote to impeach whenever they want, but without the votes to convict in the Senate it is an empty gesture. Pelosi will have no problem with calling for the impeachment of Gonzales since there is no conflict of interest involved. Besides, it will be a good warmup for the main event and every so often the Democrats need to pick up some small crappy little Attorney General and throw it against the wall, just to show the Republicans they mean business.

Impeaching and Convicting Gonzo-Not that tough

It seems to me that many who state reluctance to impeach Gonzales equate the difficulty of the whole process - including the conviction in the Senate - with the difficulty of impeaching a president. It's not the same thing. Not even close.

Agreed, except that I'm not sure that anyone has raised any particular objection to impeaching Gonzales.

Apparently the Senate does too, hence the confidence vote on Gonzales. This should be seen as a feasibility study. The Democratic House can vote to impeach whenever they want, but without the votes to convict in the Senate it is an empty gesture. Pelosi will have no problem with calling for the impeachment of Gonzales since there is no conflict of interest involved. Besides, it will be a good warmup for the main event and every so often the Democrats need to pick up some small crappy little Attorney General and throw it against the wall, just to show the Republicans they mean business.