When the House of Representatives voted to send Dennis Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment against George W. Bush to the Judiciary Committee yesterday, it was understood that the vote in reality killed the bill. And it is understandable why the House will not actually take up the Articles no matter how legitimate the case against Bush may be. First, they do not want to distract from the presidential election and redefine the debate when it already favors the Democrats. Second, if successful, then Cheney is President. If you impeached both Bush and Cheney and made Pelosi President, then it would look like a powergrab by the Democrats. However, having the Judiciary Committee hold the hearings might at least document the criminality of the Bush Administration in a coherent manner. In that light, how legitimate are the actual charges in the 35 count, 58 page Articles that Kucinich had read twice on the House floor?

The first place to look is Kucinich's Articles as introduced. They are an interesting read. After starting off with the short definition of each count, Kucinich goes into detail about each charge. There seem to be a few categories of counts in the Articles: Charges concerning misleading the public, Charges concerning the invasion and execution of the War in Iraq, Charges concerning detention and torture, Charges about rigging elections, and then general incompetence. In terms of meeting the "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" as set out in the Constitution, I doubt most of the counts could withstand that standard. But there are some that can:

Article XIV
Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Article XVIII
Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy.

Article XIX
Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture.

Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment.

Article XXV
Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens.

Many of these counts, according to the Articles, are about Bush's violation of the Constitutional demand in Article II Section 3 for the President "to take care that the Laws be faithfully executed." In these Articles cited above, he seems to have the strongest case.

On the House floor Kucinich took over 4 hours to read his entire document, and then the Clerk read the whole thing again on the floor the following night. Kucinich does present some compelling arguments and evidence. Look at the details he discusses regarding Article XIX regarding extraordinary rendition:

The president has publicly admitted that since the 9-11 attacks in 2001, the US has been kidnapping and transporting against the will of the subject (renditioning) in its so-called "war" on terror—even people captured by US personnel in friendly nations like Sweden, Germany, Macedonia and Italy—and ferrying them to places like Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan, and to prisons operated in Eastern European countries, African Countries and Middle Eastern countries where security forces are known to practice torture.

These people are captured and held indefinitely, without any charges being filed, and are held without being identified to the Red Cross, or to their families. Many are clearly innocent, and several cases, including one in Canada and one in Germany, have demonstrably been shown subsequently to have been in error, because of a similarity of names or because of misinformation provided to US authorities.

Such a policy is in clear violation of US and International Law, and has placed the United States in the position of a pariah state. The CIA has no law enforcement authority, and cannot legally arrest or detain anyone. The program of "extraordinary rendition" authorized by the president is the substantial equivalent of the policies of "disappearing" people, practices widely practiced and universally condemned in the military dictatorships of Latin America during the late 20th Century.

The administration has claimed that prior administrations have practiced extraordinary rendition, but, while this is technically true, earlier renditions were used only to capture people with outstanding arrest warrants or convictions who were outside in order to deliver them to stand trial or serve their sentences in the US.

Kucinich has details such as this for each count.

Yes, I am Liberal. In fact, I’m pretty Liberal by most standards. I’m not too far left to be considered “weird,” yet not too moderate to be considered “Clinton.”

But I, yes me, am against impeaching President Bush. Here’s why:

First, because most of the charges people have suggested Congress bring against the President would be difficult to prove. And second, because it is to the Democrats' political advantage to keep Bush around.

The Pitfalls of Too Much Strategizing

Liberal bloggers' favorite subjects tend to be Democratic political strategy and Republican failures. And given that exposing and publicizing Republican blunders is often a tactic for boosting Democrats' popularity, this too falls mostly under the umbrella of Democratic strategizing.

The blogosphere's influence is growing in ways that are obvious to almost everyone. But the liberal blogosphere hasn't yet truly delivered on its promise to promote "people-powered politics." The blogosphere has, to some extent, given ordinary people a medium for helping to inform the strategy the Democratic Party uses. It has possibly given ordinary people a way to hold the Democratic Party more accountable. But it has not yet given ordinary people a way to express what they want Democrats to do if - and when - the dust settles.

The results are in for last week's poll question: Alberto Gonzalez has recently come under fire for the role he played in the firing of several US Attorney Generals. What is the appropriate course of action from members of our legislature?

• 71% of voters wanted Gonzales subpoenaed
• 24% wanted Gonzales to resign
• 5% voted to allow Bush to decide

Clearly, The Seminal readers feel Gonzales needs to be held accountable for his actions.

Please vote in this week's poll in our sidebar and tell us who you would like to see impeached: Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Rove, or nobody.

Which is of greater relevance to the Presidency, sexual relations or war? Both of our last two Presidents deliberately lied to the American people. One of them was impeached for it, the other was not. Below I outline the circumstances surrounding the impeachment of Bill Clinton and follow that with the justifications of the movement to impeach George W. Bush.

The possibility of impeachment has been coming up more and more in reputable political conversations. Prominent congressman have called for it, popular TV personalities have screamed it, and the buzz in the blogosphere has been steadily growing, all calling for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

On that note, it's time for some education. What exactly does the Constitution say about impeachment? Who can Congress impeach? What is the procedure for the proceedings? How has impeachment worked throughout US history?

Our April issue on impeachment has been released! Check out all the articles in the issue in the impeachment category.

We will be posting one article per day, so check back for updates and please leave a comment with your thoughts, reactions, and concerns.

The Senate has voted to withdraw troops by August 31, 2008 in spite of vows from the president to veto any such paper that managed to reach his desk. The 2/3 we would need to override such a veto does not look likely at this point, but all is not lost. There is another avenue opened up by this historic vote, the sweetest taboo; impeachment.

While the mere threat of impeachment may be sufficient in forcing Bush to heed the will of the people and the legislative branch, that seems to be as far as we can hope. If a 2/3 vote needed to override his veto is unlikely, it stands to reason a 2/3 vote for impeachment is also out of reach. This pessimism, however, is limited in the factors it weighs. It cannot take into account the crimes that will surface via the thorough investigations required for the Inquiry of Impeachment Resolution. Before we get ahead of ourselves, however, we need to focus on the steps necessary for the Inquiry to manifest itself.