Many Options To Challenge Presidential Abuse of Power

Discussion of Rob Kall Article.

* * *

Rob Kall in “Pelosi and Conyers—Smarter Than Impeachment” proposes and interesting idea: What if the President and Vice President were removed from office without impeachment.

Kall's scenario assumes:

A. Prosecutors in Congress would go after lower level echelon Executive Branch personnel, inducing them to turn on Bush and Cheney;

B. A mounting pile of evidence would induce Cheney to resign than face charges; and

C. A DNC-Controlled Congress would delay approving a Vice Presidential replacement until GOP Senators confronted the President asking him to resign.

Kall’s proposal deserves discussion.

* * *

Summary Points

It is not reasonable to preseume the GOP will do something the DNC is not willing to do:

1. Responsivenss

The DNC refuses to respond on impeachment; there is no reason to believe the GOP Senators will respond more easily.

2. National Interests

DNC leadership, out of "interests of the country," are saying "no" to impeachment; no reason to believe the GOP, out of imposed interests, will say "yes." The GOP views their defiance of the law as being in the national interests.

* * *

Congressional inaction does not mean that there are no options, only that Congress refuses to do what it could do. The failure to assert power, when that power is lawfully delegated is instructive. Leaders who, as a minority, whine that they could do things differently if they had power, but refuse to use that power when they have been elected into positions to assert power, have diminished credibility.

Summary Links

These are links you may wish to keep open, refer, or keep in the back of your mind as you read the material below.

RefThere are multiple options to lawfully target a President for crimnal conduct. The States have options outside Congress.

Ref The DNC appears to have well embraced the Bush Defeat doctrine.

Ref Members of Congress who are attorneys, but refuse to assert all lawful options to protect the Constution can be found in violation of 5 USC 3331 and disbarred.

Ref Members of Congres, aware of illegal activity, but who have refused to assert all lawful options to end that illegal activity, could be adjudicated to be complicit with illegal activity including war crimes.

Ref The missing Title 28 and Title 50 Exception reports do not appear to have been forcefully challenged as the DNC Ranking Members had the duty to do.

Ref There are specific statutes which gave Ranking members of the Committees options to document and report their concerns with alleged war crimes to the Inspector Generals and US Attorneys. MEmbers of Congress do not appear to have exhausted all lawful options, as they are required, to show they faithfully discharged their oath of office.

Ref The Iran-Contra affair was fair warning of what the NeoCons were capable of doing, and may continue to do unless the DNC, as a lawful faction, forcefully asserts all legal options, as the Framers Intended.

Ref Revisionist NeoCons remain in defiance of the law, and show no inclination to voluntarily cooperate with oversight, fact finding.

Ref The Foley Ethics Investigation, a bipartisan approach, shows the extent the RNC, despite losing the 2006 election, will not fully assert the law, nor assent to oversight, accountability for alleged negligence in performin the statutory duties.

* * *

Details

Kall's scenario warrants discussion and merits serious consideration.

It is not reasonable to presume the GOP will do what the DNC refuses to do: Provide leadership, confront the President, present an ultimatum, and force the President to react. The same magical forces that might inspire the GOP leadership to react are not credibly accounted for.

___ Why will magical forces that might confront the GOP not also confront the DNC?

___ What is Kall’s reasoning to suggest that only the GOP will respond while the DNC leadership is above challenge?

___ What is preventing the DNC leadership from doing what the Democrats are hoping the GOP will do?

___ How does Kall explain a response by the GOP, but no response by the DNC?

___ Why will the desire for accountability only nudge the GOP leadership but not the DNC leadership?

___ What is ensuring only the GOP leadership will be concerned with political risks of inaction, but this concern is apparently lost on the DNC leadership?

___ How can the DNC leadership argue it is for change when it is for inaction?

___ How can the DNC leadership argue it is for modernized ethics, when accountability is presumed on some not all?

___ Why is Kall implicitly arguing that change will occur despite the imbalanced applicable to the political parties?

___ How can anyone in the DNC suggest they are for change when the DNC is still responding to, not aggressively disciplining, the GOP inaction?


Kall’s approach implicitly assumes the DNC inaction on impeachment would act as a catalyst for the GOP leadership to confront the President. Kall fails to explain the contrast -- why the DNC leadership, which cannot be motivated to impeach, will refuse to respond; while the GOP leadership, which has otherwise not responded, will do what the DNC refuses to do: Respond to the public. Kall fails to explain why the GOP will reverse course when there are no consequences for moving in any illegal direction.

Contrary to Kall’s assertion, it is not in the GOP vocabulary to believe they have no choice. The GOP views itself as having infinite options, most of them having little to do with following the law. Where the law and prosecutors will not cooperate, the GOP is willing to rewrite history and reality.

The Constitution prohibits pardons in impeachment cases. Taking impeachment off the table incorrectly suggests to witnesses they might get a Presidential pardon for remaining silent or refusing to cooperate with Congress. Kall’s strategy hinges on a flawed assumption – That witnesses appearing before Congress are not governed by attorney-client privilege and they will openly reveal client information. Attorneys have professional obligations and, contrary to Kall's assertion, are in no legal position to neither reveal anything nor violate client confidences.

Kall suggests the scenario could be concluded by November without explaining the basis for his estimate. If GOP stonewalling proves effective, his forecast is meaningless regardless the convenience or desirability of the resolution. Conversely, the GOP refusals to respond by specific dates could make the DNC, not the Republicans, more desperate – hardly the sign a majority party is in charge of anything.

If Cheney and Bush are forced out of office before there are any replacements Pelosi, third in line for the Presidency, would become President. However, Kall incorrectly assumes Pelosi is not indicted for alleged violations of her oath of office leaving the Presidency to someone else.

* * *

Kall's success-oriented scenario does not include options:

___ What happens if the GOP does not cooperate and refuses to confront the President?

___ What would change that what induce the GOP to do what they’re refused to do: Follow and enforce the law?

___ What is the deadline to transition to a backup option?

___ What happens if, in the wake of the piles of evidence, the argument becomes, “This is such a mess, the country can’t face these issues, let’s do nothing”?

Congressional action does not hinge on what the Nixon or Clinton Congresses have done. All options, including Kall’s need to stay on the table. Only when the President and Vice President are confronted on all fronts, with credible threats of litigation and removal, might the GOP respond.

However, the GOP is not responsive. The record does not suggest the GOP Senators will view national interests in terms favorable to the DNC. There is little to suggest a future event, regardless the speculative results, might prompt the GOP to put their loyalty to the Constitution before the President. What Kall and others may want is not consistent with what the GOP and NeoCons want. The RNC, despite the November 2006 election, are not willing to cooperate with their destruction, but rewrite history to justify inaction on Presidential accountability and support additional illegal activity.

Kall’s approach does not discuss the alleged DNC complicity with illegal activity. Bush and Cheney have been enabled. Deep probing by Congress could reveal things the DNC does not want the public to know:

___ To what extent were ranking Members on the Committees reckless in not following up on Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports;

___ Once illegal activity is known, why is there scant evidence DNC Members of Congress documented their concerns with the Inspector Generals and US Attorneys; and

___ How many DNC members of Congress might be indicted for failing to fully assert their oath to investigate, prevent, document, and do their moral best to review evidence of Geneva violations, war crimes, and violations of the Constitution?

It is a separate matter whether the President did or did not obstruct investigations.

* * *

Kall raised a number of questions suggesting he is not aware of the non-Congressional efforts to impose consequences on the President. Kall asked, “Which Bush appointees will be the fist to be indicted, charged and incarcerated.” War crimes prosecutors in Europe independent of Congress are reviewing the legal issues and some appointees have already been charged in the draft indictments.

Kall’s approach should be embraced as one of many options to protect the Constitution. The danger is to presume the DNC leadership is above doing what the GOP has done: Engage in sophistry for political agendas. It is inconsistent to suggest some in the GOP might oppose the President, but similar DNC opposition to Pelosi and Conyers is not acceptable. If the DNC cannot argue, in the wake of likely GOP non-cooperation, that the DNC should compromise on its oath.

Kall’s scenario is narrow, optimistic, novel, but fails to consider the backup plans, timelines or other tasks which must be started now to ensure the President faces a credible threat of prosecution from all directions. The threat of litigation and legal consequences must be credible, not one the GOP will continue to ignore. It is incorrect for Kall to assume a single approach can independently inspire the GOP to do what it will not do: Assert the rule of law on the President.

The way forward is to keep all options on the table, and remind the DNC Leadership We the People are the source of all power and sovereign. DNC Presidential aspirations are secondary to their oath of office to protect the Constitution. Failing to confront the Executive and his staff continues to send the incorrect message that the GOP abuses can be rewarded. They must be lawfully contained and destroyed to ensure this abuse does not recur. The Ghosts of Watergate and Iran-Contra need to be lawfully but to rest, not permitted to rattle their chains. Kall is naïve to believe the GOP will give up their agenda; the DNC cannot be motivated to listen to the voters, there’s no reason the GOP will listen to the DNC. Something new is needed.

All Members of Congress can be prosecuted for not fully asserting their oath. A transition of power must be based on prudent action and arguments, not sophistry shared between the GOP and DNC. Trust comes from results, not promises.

* * *

The way forward is to recall the principles in the Constitution and highlight the defects of Kall’s approach. The elections are held every two years. This does not mean that the deadline for accountability is two years; only that the deadline for inaction can have consequences for the DNC in all future elections. Fact finding will not have only negative consequences for the GOP. The GOP, once it sees the DNC is reluctant to investigate all things, will have little catalyst to do what the DNC refuses to do: Fully cooperate.

Disillusioned GOP and DNC Members in conjunction with non-voters do have reason for hope: The choice is not between the DNC and GOP. A third party can be created on the back of the rising opposition to the DNC position on impeachment.

* * *

Kall implicitly argues for a double standard: Those speculative outcomes, contrary to the GOP are "permissible"; while speculative consequences on the DNC are "rebuked" with charges of “berating” the DNC leadership. Should they be so lucky. There are possibly severe legal consequences for alleged malfeasance on issues of war crimes and Geneva violations, especially when ranking members were in a position to do something but apparently refused or did not exhaust all their legal options.

Kall’s speculation must be backed by specific plans, concrete results, and lawful options. The way forward cannot hinge on whether the GOP Senators do or do not cooperate with their destruction; but whether the DNC leadership is willing to confront the issues the GOP continues to recast. It is absurd for the DNC to delegate to the GOP whether Kall’s scenario succeeds. This is analogous to the failed approach in Iraq – US war plans hinged on whether the Iraqis threw roses, failing to consider they would hurl bombs.

___ What happens if a third party emerges, and the DNC loses the mandate to compel public confidence?

___ Despite speculative changes, what if citizen view the DNC and GOP as essentially the same – putting political ambition ahead of their Constitutional mandates?

___ How will the DNC leadership credibly defend their inaction if the public changes its focus from holding the President accountable, to holding all US government officials, including Members of Congress, accountable?

___ What does Kall and the DNC leadership plan to do to contain the voter backlash for inaction on impeachment?

* * *

Kall assumes the GOP will cooperate with the DNC indirect approach, but fails to account for a possible GOP effort to shift the focus back to the DNC.

___ What if the GOP Senators are mobilized to blame the DNC leadership?

___ What if the GOP Senators are not persuaded that anything can be done, but hope to target the DNC leadership?

___ What happens if Kall’s arguments, implicitly used to insulate Conyers and Pelosi from public rebuke, are not employed by the GOP to dissuade action against the President?

___ Why would the GOP suddenly do what they refuse to confront: Accept defeat, admit the NeoCon agenda has failed?

___ How can anyone argue that inaction in re Conyers and Pelosi is warranted, while arguing for the opposite in re the President?

___ How can the DNC credibly employ wishful thinking to [a] avoid DNC rebuke with inaction; but [ b] mobilize GOP action?

___ If Kall succeeds in silencing the opposition to Conyers and Pelosi, why would these gagged masses confront a determined GOP?

Blaming the voters is absurd. Either the DNC leadership will assert its power in Congress, or it will not. IT cannot hope to manipulate some voters to inspire the GOP leadership to do something; but ignore the possibility that the effort might fail, get turned on its head, and betrayed.

___ Is the DNC prepared to recognize when the GOP is not cooperating?

___ If the GOP does not cooperate by a specific date, does the DNC plan to exercise the impeachment option?

Kall fails to demonstrate how the DNC using the GOP will produce a result contrary to the GOP interests. The GOP doesn’t work this way. A speculative desire to avoid a negative outcome is not unique to the GOP nor persuasive. Just as Kall hopes to immunize Pelosi and Conyers from attack, so too are the GOP hoping to insulate the President. The DNC will not force an incapacitated DNC Senator to resign; nor should Kall presume the GOP will force the President to resign. GOP cooperating with their destruction is not on the table, and need not be, with impeachment removed and pardons available. Even DNC control of both Chambers of Congress has not inspired the President to change course in Iraq, only change the scent of the cess pool. It’s still a cess pool, with the DNC asking, not dictating:

___ How many more troops do you want, Mr. President?

___ How much more money do you want for your illegal occupation, Mr. President?

* * *

The Founders intended for factions to clash. Kall does the opposite and recasts the clash between factions as a clash within factions, hardly a check on power. The GOP is not convinced anything is inevitable, especially when, as a minority party, they can convince the majority not to assert power.

The GOP has no reason to change. There is no deadline to confront a new reality. The GOP, as a minority party, can rewrite reality, but the DNC does nothing but play nice. That enables more GOP abuse, and inspires the GOP to believe they shall prevail.

Kall’s approach asks that we reward DNC inaction on leadership; and that we must wait for the GOP leaders to do what the DNC leadership refuses. Congress gave the President the tools to confront Saddam, but refuses to use all legal tools to confront the President.

___ Why did the DNC give the President the tools to confront Saddam, but will not use all tools to confront the President?

___ Why did the DNC agree with the President to keep all options on the table when confronting Saddam, but the DNC will not agree to keep all options on the table when confronting the President?

* * *

The Constitution rewards reality while weak evidence is rebuffed. To understand reality, factions had to clash in the courtroom. The best arguments, in theory, rise to the top. Prudent policy is not the same as desirable policy. As with Iraq, the DNC is arguing for a desirable policy without an effectively implementation strategy.

Presidential removal decisions are Darwinian by design. If the DNC can make the case the President should be removed, the DNC will have, in theory, gone through the needed internal debate to force the best and brightest to the top. Once the DNC delegates to the GOP the responsibility to act, the DNC will avoid the needed internal debate to demonstrate the DNC can effectively govern. Perhaps some fear the elected DNC leaders are not capable of leading an impeachment; the question should be turned on its head – until the DNC leadership effectively demonstrates it can wage a simple impeachment, there’s no reason to have confidence the DNC can effectively manage a war, oversee the President, or do something complicated like running the country. If the DNC cannot face a single man, they cannot credibly have anyone believe they are competent to face the world.

Taking impeachment off the table is more of what we saw on the eve of the Iraq invasion – delegating to someone else the responsibility to do something, without fully participating in the shared responsibility to ensure the options employed were lawful, prudent, or successful. There is something to be said of the recurring DNC habit of delegating responsibility for action.

___ When will the DNC take responsibility for what it has been delegating?

___ After the DNC delegated oversight of the President to the GOP, what did the DNC never learn that it continues to fail to do?

___ What lessons has the DNC failed to explore in terms of what the DNC failed to do prior to the Iraq invasion?

___ Which lessons, which the DNC has not taken the time to understand -- in re Presidential oversight, Iraq, and others issues -- are proving difficult to put into effect on terms of Presidential removal?

The DNC has avoided some issues. This inaction, and failure to confront these issues internally, continue to plague the DNC leadership and explains why the DNC leadership wants someone else to confront the President. Delegating responsibility to the GOP is not leadership. The DNC isn’t leading the effort to create momentum to remove the President; they’re hoping the momentum will appear on its own. The momentum is turning away from the DNC leadership. Hoping the President is removed is different than actively using all legal options to achieve that result. When any options are prematurely removed, the DNC communities it is willing to compromise on its oath to avoid facing its bad habit of compromise and ineffectual delegation.

* * *

Kall misstates the Constitution on issues of impeachment and post-Presidential consequences. Kall incorrectly argues the President might be punished by Congressional prosecutions. Congress cannot make new law retroactively punishing the President. The Constitution only allows for Congress to remove the President. Subsequent punishment is up to the Courts, outside the scope of Congressional power. Taking impeachment off the table removes one option Congress can lawfully use to punish the President. Congress has not shown an inclination to present unfavorable budgets; nor craft budgets that will survive a Presidential veto.

The DNC failure to confront the President on Iraq is noteworthy. What the DNC fails to do with the President it cannot credibly have anyone believe it is capable of doing as Congressional leadership. Desired results depend on plans and adjustments, not desire alone. Taking any option of the table is not part of a sound plan, but a flawed strategy. The DNC has well studied the Bush Defeat doctrine. The failed DNC leaders cannot rely on failed GOP leaders to cooperate. We the People can compel competence.

* * *

Consider the entrenched GOP thinking. Cheney and Rumsfeld have been in and out of government since the Nixon-era. Kall cannot explain why, despite having been allegedly complicit with war crimes, the GOP executive staff will change based on DNC wishes. They’ve committed war crimes; DNC desires are irrelevant.

We the People have spoken. Our wishes have been expressed in the laws prohibiting the well documented war crimes. Hoping the President is removed from office is different than using all resources --exclusively within the DNC power and control -- to achieve that outcome. Yet, the DNC is absurdly relying on options outside its control, diminishing the weight of the legal threat and the chances the President or the GOP might respond, much less cooperate.

* * *

Kall implicitly assumes a new mandate will appear, yet the voters have spoken. There is on reason to believe the GOP will accept another mandate to do the right thing. The GOP views its resistance to the DNC has the appropriate clash of factions; the DNC error is to fail to reciprocate as the Framers intended. Without a clash, there is no catalyst; without a change, there is more of the same: Inaction.

As with Iraq, the GOP views the right thing as debatable, even if it means selectively ignoring the Constitution. Their selective focus has become a habit, and the DNC leadership’s response has been to selectively pretend this is not a self-evidently impeachable offense. Either the DNC is bluffing and being misleading, raising questions about the veracity of attorney statements in public; or the DNC is serious. Either way, they are not fit for leadership as a majority, nor as a credible minority party in opposition.

___ What is Kall’s plan after he learns the GOP has covered-up war crimes evidence, but refuses to cooperate with their promise to change?

Kall has no plan, only a hope. The backup option is impeachment and remains on the table.

* * *

The DNC Congress has the power to call the GOP rebellion against the Constitution what it is – illegal, warranting suspension of the writ. That option is inappropriately off the table. Kall fails to consider the legal calendar, full of delays. Impeachment would expedite the process, removing the lengthy legal motions from the picture. The focus would turn to the Senate: Whether they did or did not convict the President for self-evident crimes. The DNC leadership should understand their reluctance to force the GOP Senators to do something it cannot avoid – making a record of their stand on the President’s crimes during trial.

___ Why is the DNC fearing for forcing the GOP to go on the record their position on the President’s illegal activity?

___ Is the DNC afraid of making the GOP do something that will contradict the President?

___ Why not compel the GOP Senators to visibly, publicly account on the record whether they are or are not willing to oppose what is illegal?

___ Why is the DNC arguing the President can only be impeached once?

___ If Kall’s expected evidence pile is large, why not impeach the President four times – each on different charges; giving the GOP Senators four grueling trials to ensure, with the voters eager to understand why the GOP Senators refused to act?

Political parties survive when they fight and prevail, not when they use excuses to play nice with those who have almost destroyed the Constitutional framework. Playing nice is not a change. It failed on issues of war crimes, Iraq, and prisoner abuses. The DNC has not changed; We the People have.

___ Where are the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports?

___ Where is the evidence from the Minority and Ranking Members of the Committees, once they knew of the illegal activity, that they timeline documented their questions about the gaps in the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports?

Kall’s hoped-for piles of evidence may be trash without a credible threat of impeachment; if there are impeachment proceedings, there is no prospect of a pardon and no shield for likely misleading, unresponsive witness testimony.

___ When will the DNC openly document their concerns to the US Attorney?

___ What is the DNC plan if the President openly obstructs the Congressional inquiry?

___ Is Congress willing to embrace a fictional threat from Iran, rely on a mistranslation about Israel’s future to avoid a needed confrontation?

Taking impeachment off the table assents to Presidential obstruction, and is hardly an assertion of Congressional power. The GOP has lost support, but has not changed. We the People expect the DNC to assert power, not remain complicity with the same.

___ When will the DNC keep all options on the table to compel the President to comply with the laws of war and minimal standards of governance we the People reasonably expect?

___ Why is the DNC arguing that self-evident maladministration cannot be punished with impeachment?

Kall cannot credibly keep faith in a dream disconnected from action, relying only on hope. We the People notice.

* * *

The Founders and Kall live in different legal universes. The Founders argued for prudence and confrontation to generate better outcomes. Kall implicitly argues to avoid confronting the DNC leadership, yet we’ll have a desired outcome. The GOP and DNC do not share common ground on the desired outcome – they are political opponents with different interests. Taking impeachment off the table asks the DNC to fight the defeated GOP without an important legal tool. If the GOP is permitted to survive, it will return, emboldened, as have the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents. Until the GOP is lawfully destroyed, it will remain an eternal threat to the US Constitution, forever pointing to new excuses to justify barbarity, non-sense, and gross recklessness. Accountability means compelling the GOP to accept they remain incompetent.

Blindly retaining faith in promises from people without credibility is what failed in the GOP and now the DNC. The rule of law, not the promises of Pelosi or Conyers, are the only things We the People can rely on. Avoiding a confrontation will not bring it about; arguing otherwise is not leadership, but sophistry, common to the GOP and DNC leadership. It need not continue under new leadership with a competing third party. Factions clash, they do not cower, and they cannot remain complicit with impeachable offenses.

* * *

The 2006 election was a mandate to leadership: Go to Congress, use the bully pulpit, and mobilize the nation for accountability. Yet, despite controlling both chambers, the DNC leaves it to a loosely organized group of private citizens – who have already sent a message to provide leadership – to provide the leadership to Congress. This is absurd.

Kall asks us to accept a new name for a dream. Arguing “out” is not the same as a “lawful conviction in the Senate.” Indeed, the President might resign to avoid a conviction; but that resignation is more likely only when impeachment, and the threat of a conviction remain on the table. Kall cannot credibly argue the outcome is more likely when he wants less pressure on the unresponsive DNC, and more pressure on the immovable GOP. The GOP may have been defeated, but they have not ended their defiance.

Desirable outcomes will not be more achievable4 by changing their name. Just as “escalation” cannot be disguised as “surge,” “accountability and impeachment” cannot be realized by renaming it “out.”

Change means using the catalyst to compel change. Conyers and Pelosi cannot be immune to any pressure. If the DNC is insulated, as Kall implicitly suggests they should be, there is no prospect of change. Gathering more information about self-evident impeachable offenses is doing more what gave us what we have: Removing the impeachment option.

We don’t need more evidence. We need leaders in a third party who are going to call this non-sense what it is: Congress is lazy, complicity, and not interested in compelling change. Kall can dream all day. There has been no accountability on Congress for the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports. Kall appears to be reluctant to compel Members of Congress to dig under the DNC stones buried in the GOP cess pool.

___ Why should We the People have confidence in leaders who refuse to go on the record – with an impeachment vote – as to whether they are for or against charging or convicting a President with war crimes, illegal activity, maladministration, and violations of his oath of office?

___ Does the DNC comprehend that, by refusing to impeach, it effectively raises the bar on what an “acceptable” impeachable offense is, from simply war crimes, to something worse than war crimes?

Accountability across the board means compelling the DNC leadership – including Conyers and Pelosi – to explain why they are not willing to do what they demand of the GOP: An explanation for their action or inaction.

___ Why is anyone expecting the GOP to do something – be accountable to We the People and confront the President – when the DNC supports are not willing to have the same applied to the DNC leadership: Accountability and confrontation?

There is no notion of “clash of factions” in Kall’s scenario, only an internal power struggle. Despite defeat, the GOP has not collapsed; despite impeachable offenses, the DNC refuses to lawfully destroy what has haunted America’s political landscape since the Nixon Era: The perverse abuse of power by an Imperial President.

The DNC leaders must provide an explanation why We the People should believe they are better positioned to do what they refuse to do – provide the leadership from Congress, not make excuse to force We the People to lead. We delegated power to permit others to focus on leadership; if we have to provide the leadership, then we should revoke the powers we have delegated.

Changing the name of this exercise doesn’t make the results different, but sends a clear message: Things have not changed. The DNC is not in a better position when it renames impeachment “out,” while expecting We the People to put the Pressure on the GOP Senate. The reasons for elections are to inject leaders into the Well of the House to act as our champions, not shaking in the corner like an untested knight, wary of saddling a horse. The DNC could put pressure on the GOP Senate with multiple impeachments. Eventually, the public will understand the GOP Senators are not fit for leadership positions, and be replaced by those marginally more interested in the rule of law.

___ Why isn’t the DNC leadership in the House willing to use the power of impeachment to force the GOP Senators – after the trial phase -- to respond, react, and explain themselves multiple times for what they did or did not do?

___ Does it not enter the mind of anyone in the DNC leadership that the GOP Senators, if they refuse to convict, will be hounded between now and 2008 for their inaction?

Kall says there are piles of evidence. Then let the Senate refuse to do what it should in the face of the “obvious,” and let we the People rebuke the Senators who refuse to face reality.

It is absurd We the People have to do what the DNC leadership, under our Constitution, was sent to positions of leadership to do: Impeach, force multiple trials, and grind the GOP Senators into capitulation: “Yes, we didn’t do our jobs and agree to punish the President.” That is accountability, not vengeance: Force the GOP into a no-win situation by throwing these issues into the Well of the Senate. There is no need for endless investigations: The evidence is there, available; let the Senate make excuses not to do what should be done. The faster the GOP Senate is discredited, the faster the DNC can be assured of success in 2008. The DNC leadership is foolish in making the excuses and not forcing the Senate to confront the issue.

The Framers intended the Constitution to force accountability within Government – checks and balances. The Framers would be appalled – the DNC is making We the People put pressure on the GOP Senators. The devised constitutional clash, inherent with the trial phase of the impeachment process, is being cast to the winds as if it were a spelling error. This DNC approach is an arbitrary abuse of power: Refusing to do what they know should be done – forcing a clash. Arguing, “We can’t afford a confrontation,” is antithetical to our adversarial system of governance, and the intended clash of factions to check power. Keeping impeachment off the table illegally assents to an imbalanced, illegal use of power. Playing it safe is not a clash, but capitulation by the majority party to the minority’s abuse – the definition of tyranny.

It is an abuse of power when the DNC leaders principally discuss what they could do if they had power, but refuse to act when they have that power.

___ Who in America has a clear sign of when the standards will or will not be enforced?

Where there is no answer, there is no leadership, no governance, nor legitimacy. The answer is written law, the source of government legitimacy. Casting the legal options to put into effect the Framer’s intent ignores what is written, deferring to what is not written – a speculative desire, without a plan, and no credible basis for belief. The DNC leadership has learned the wrong lessons of the failed Iraq campaign: Dubious plans must be challenged; otherwise they are doomed to fail.

Asserting ones oath means agreeing to do what one is not inclined to do: That which is difficult. The oath binds us to agree to do things we would not voluntarily do: Asserting the rule of law against tyrants. By refusing to keep all options on the table, Kall and others are rewarding the DNC leaders for imprudent planning. Yet, by refusing to confront the issues whether they are small let this mess get out of control; now the apologists want to argue, as the GOP staffers have done, that the mess is so large nothing can be done, except hope that the enemy cooperates. This thinking is behind the resurgence of the Taliban, the supposed enemy.

* * *

All legal options must be available, especially when confronting a tyrant who refuses to accept defeat. The DNC leadership and Kall cannot credibly argue that all legal options should not be used; or that something magical might happen. Despite the reasonable time for a miracle to happen 2001-2006, we see no miracle; waiting another month or year is not going to make the miracle occur. It will give us more of what we have: Excuses for inaction.

We the People sent a message: Change. Some may believe Kall’s ruse as a sign of competence, but the abuse continues – the arbitrary use and non-use of power against a competing faction that shows not inclination to cooperate with its oath, the rule of law, or its Constitutional mandate: Ensure we are provided a Republic, including an enforcement mechanism of the laws.

Some might argue that the enemy is crafty and that this war may last generations. Indeed, when recklessly managed by lazy DNC leaders, what might have been a quick victory is sure to stretch for eons. The DNC leadership fails to comprehend the larger problem: The enemy is perceived to be the DNC; and the post 2001-era of waning world support continues to undermine US citizen confidence in the American government and the US Constitution. Former loyal citizens have turned into fierce political opponents; where Congress refuses to enforce the law, there is no demonstrated respect for the Republican form of governance. The DNC leaders cannot compel Americans to remain in America when there are other options in governance. The choice is not between the GOP or DNC; nor is it between the Taliban and America; the choice is between prudence and recklessness. There are options. New Constitutions, governance, and leaders can be nurtured. The DNC, with its inaction, may be sewing the seeds of its destruction, and America may see a new third party, not to mention a competing system of governance that directly confronts the failed US government.

* * *

If the DNC and GOP jointly agree – through inaction, silent consent, or active cooperation – to not assert all legal options, there’s little in the way of a third party forming from the growing opposition to the alleged DNC malfeasance. The GOP and DNC are not immune to credible, real, and powerful challenges in future elections. Just as the memory of the Revolutionary War has been seared into the minds of Americans, so too does this betrayal of public confidence remind Americans that tyranny requires two things: An unchallenged tyrant; and a group of enablers who refuse to fully assert all lawful options to challenge that tyranny.

The present conditions are no longer acceptable. The time for demands has passed. American leaders must lead, or the flood of Americans attempting to flee this absurdity will grow. America cannot lawfully hound those who refuse to remain complicit with the tyranny or the enabling forces. Once the American government chooses to expand illegal warfare, and illegally target those who refuse to cooperate, no prior loyalty or allegiance can be assured; nor can any American credibly threaten anyone with a potential loss of anything – You will have effectively made your threat meaningless, and the needed catalyst for other nations to lawfully wage war against America, regardless your finite nuclear weapons. America has no lawful power to deprive others from creating a deterrent to the ultimate abuse of American arrogance: Nuclear weapons.

* * *

America is not facing a new world in 2006. This world was long discussed – a multi-polar world with non-state actors. The problem is that the American leaders, including the toads in the think tanks, have failed to devise an approach to governance that will protect the Constitution, and advance American interests.

The Berlin wall tumbled almost a generation ago. Youth, not born in 1989, are soon entering the voting booths. America’s leaders have failed. These problems are not new; what’s new are the excuses for the failure. Yet, the Founders warned us – when incompetence is high, and maladministration deep, that leadership must be challenged or it will be the tyranny. America will survive only if you are willing to work to keep it.

Kall and others need only look at the citizens working the impeachment effort to see there is a third way, outside the GOP and DNC, that is gaining confidence, strength, support, and power. Congress has no power to prevent the states from acting, prosecution a sitting president, or lawfully disbarring Members of Congress who defy their attorney standards of conduct. Non-voters understand there is hope and an option.

Nothing Kall or the DNC leaders have offered suggest the GOP is going to respond to a new wakeup call; nor do they sense they have a new catalyst to change. Kall doesn’t offer a stunning probe or a new electronic shock for the GOP to lawfully endure.

___ Where is the magic wakeup call that will get the GOP to do what the DNC refuses?

___ Why should the GOP cooperate with its destruction?

___ What is going to motivate the GOP to capitulate?

One answer: We the People, employing all lawful options, to assert the rule of law against all US government officials. They have jointly defied their oath, provided excuses for inaction, and have failed to fully do what they took an oath to do: Assert the rule of law to ensure our Republican form of government is preserved, and fully defended. No one can argue that taking impeachment off the table is anything but a denial of the needed enforcement mechanism against the President and Executive officials. IT does the opposite: It effectively rubber stamps the lack of enforcement, and ensures the GOP does not have to cooperate, even as it limps as a minority party.

* * *

Kall’s essay is instructive and thought provoking; and a valuable piece of writing to seriously consider and use as a needed spark for open debate. His ideas and writing deserve public examination:

___ How far are Americans willing to go to assert the rule of law?

___ What is to be done when the leadership refuses to do what they’ve been elected to do?

___ Why are We the People required to do the work of Congressional leadership – mobilize public support against the GOP Senate?

The Senate may be a hurdle to removal, but it is not immune to public oversight, debate, scrutiny, or accountability. We the People are well positioned to make adverse inferences inter alia, the extent to which:

___ The DNC and GOP are or are not serious about changing and brining accountability;

___ The DNC and GOP will or will not put their oath before their legislative agenda; and

___ The DNC and GOP will or will not lawfully assert power to ensure the Constitutional system is preserved.

Elections are every two years. The DNC is not immune to folly. The voters are not fooled. The truth has surfaced. We the People can make adverse inferences why the DNC does or does not want to fully examine the evidence; and what role the DNC did or did not play in fully asserting its oath to ensure the Supreme Law is preserved, protected, and defended, even against domestic enemies.

Congress has been given ample wakeup calls. The double standards are not acceptable. The GOP non-sense has run its reasonable course. The DNC is incorrect in embracing the GOP non-sense. The DNC must challenge this non-sense, not employ it to support more nonsense.

Kall’s desire for an outcome, without a credible plan nor supporting options to overcome the GOP resistance, should be taken for what it is: A viable option that remains on the table with the impeachment.

Kall asks that the GOP awaken and confront the President. The DNC membership should do the same to the DNC leadership – confront them, and make it clear their tenuous grasp on power is not a permanent state of affairs, but there can be lawful, severe consequences if they fail to do what they should do: Assert all options to protect the Constitution. Unless the DNC leaders keeps impeachment on the table, the anticipated loss of public confidence should not be a surprise.

* * *

The options for accountability are many. The President is not above the law. The State prosecutors have the discretion to do what the Congress refuses – charge the President with a crime. War crimes prosecutors can act. Indictments have been written. The GOP leadership knows it faces a formidable foe, if permitted to work – the legal system. The GOP does not plan to be defeated. Congress can expedite the wakeup call be keeping impeachment on the table, having multiple impeachments, and forcing the GOP Senate to go on the record why they will or will not hold an alleged war criminal accountable for war crimes and maladministration.

Some suggest the DNC excuses for inaction cannot match the absurdity of the GOP faith in a failed NeoCon Agenda. The GOP is rewriting history to induce Americans to believe military force was never used to effect change; and that the NeoCon agenda was not linked with flawed plans.

The error is to fail to see the NeoCon resilience despite defeat. It is an error to embrace a fiction of a change, when the reality is the same: Defiance of reality and the rule of law.

The DNC error is to believe We the People will pressure the GOP Senate and do the work of the DNC leadership. We the People may have to do this, but it is not because of DNC leadership and inspiration, but because of their failure. Anything in Kall’s magic scenario, absent impeachment, can be applied to either the GOP or DNC leadership. There are four interwoven questions:


___ 1. What is the DNC leadership’s plan if, as Kall suggests, people might confront leadership;

___ 2. During this confrontation with national leadership, what if the DNC leadership, not just the President, is forced to step aside;

___ 3. What reasons might the DNC leadership offer to say this outcome is not possible; and

___ 4. Why is there any reason to believe the GOP leadership will not devise similar reasons as the DNC leaders might offer to insulate themselves from this outcome?

There are three options:

1. Impeachment;

2. A New Constitution; and/or

3. Sustained, lawful combat by foreign fighters against US government officials engaged in, complicit with, and refusing to end illegal warfare.

Congress chooses to be defeated in the third option; hopes to avoid confronting the first; and may lawfully be forced to assent to the second.

We the People are the sovereign and are the source of all power. Kall hopes for a miracle. We the People have work to do. The DNC and GOP leadership must decide whether they want to remain relevant, obstructionist, or lawfully destroyed.

They wished this.