Coincidence? Or has someone finally figured out that the claim of executive privilege is at its least plausible in the context of impeachment?
None of the arguments against actually taking an impeachment resolution to a vote — even if it passed, the Senate would clearly acquit, and even if the Senate convicted, we’d just wind up with President Cheney instead. (Or maybe President McCain instead: Bush and Cheney are impeached together, Cheney resigns “for the good of the country” and Bush nominates McCain for VP. The Senate confirms. Bush resigns or is convicted. McCain gets to run as the incumbent) — applies to holding hearings. Anything that pushes Republican corruption to the front pages between now and election day is good news.
*Footnote How completely in the tank for the Republicans is the AP? A subpoena isn’t issued, and a Congressional investigation isn’t conducted, by “Congressional Democrats,” as the story says not once but three times. A subpoena voted by a Congressional committee has exactly the same legal standing as a subpoena issued by a judge. The story makes it sound as if Rove is engaged in partisan warfare rather than defiance of the law.