Yes, framing impeachment would be difficult.
Not impossible.
Only how long will America continue to swallow when ordered, only to witness a spiralling mass of so much corruption?
Was he also 'stupid' and 'oblivious" to the massive amounts of missing money in Iraq?
Can he be impeached for hanging around such accused and alledged criminals as Halliburton, Raetheon, Bectel? Does that qualify for aiding and abetting?
Does the buck stop there, at his desk. Nixon was wily and competent at evasion, Bush is woolly and cares not that his foot is being chewed on by himself. He seems to suggest he is absolved beforehand, by a bigger hand.
Nixon was impeached for what, erasing tapes, while Clinton for fibbing on initial inquiry if he fed Monica in the Biblical sense. Neither of those were established concrete proof beforehand.
Impeachment seems to be a process, which developes upon consecrated inquiry, and does not have to be locked tight before out of the gate.
We have seen through Watergate, through Starr, through Spitzer, through Fitz et al, that it grows thorns and traps as it goes.
But you have to get them there first.
The Democrats have just begun to open investigations.
I think there will be ample material to assemble impeachment credibility.
And, above all, I meant impeachment was the sound thing to do, for the sake of healing in this now-divided nation, and not that it would. I said Pelosi took it off the table. I didn't hear Pelosi argue in the paucity of legal credibility, like you. I can't google it, but I believe Pelosi took it off the table because of fall out, not from lack of legal bullets. It would have taken her longer to determine that, and she acted immediately, and preemptorilly. She should explain this herself.
