Joe Gandelman comments on Howard Fineman’s piece, Spying, the Constitution — and the ‘I-word’.

Gandelman provides a a nice write up, and comes to the following conclusion:

at THIS point, impeachment seems a stretch.

The reasons are multifold. First, the legality of Bush’s action still isn’t totally proven or disproven but remains under fierce debate. People also forget that Richard Nixon didn’t face the hearings until there was a smoking gun, until top GOP bigwigs began breaking from the White House — and until the controversy itself reached critical mass clearly reflected in media coverage, Congressional opinion and opinion polls. The warrant-less wiretaps controversy has not reached that stage. It is a huge controversy — but not yet on that level.

I concur. While I expect that there will be increased discussion in some quarters of impeachment, I just don’t see it as actually happening (not by a long shot).

Here’s why:

a) The jump to even discussing impeachment is an artifact of two factors: 1) a substantial amount of antagonism towards this President on the part of members of the opposition and 2) a smouldering desire to get revenge for what happened to Clinton. This is important because it means that the actual catalyst for the “i-word” talk isn’t really the NSA business, but rather a great deal of political baggage that the NSA situation allows to be unpacked. Hence, it might be possible to motivate many on the left, but there is a longer way to go for those needed on the right to actually get an impeachment process going.

b) As Gandelman notes, the illegality of the actions are far from clear. I have made it clear that I am not happy with the current situation, and I do believe that this administration is reaching too far in name of security. Still, I am far from convinced that we have clear illegality here.

c) There are the pure politics to consider: the GOP control the House and the likelihood is that they will retain control of the House in the November elections. Unless something truly shocking emerges, I don’t see a Republican-controlled House impeaching this president barring a substantial change of the facts.

d) Plus, one cannot dismiss that all of this is about terrorism and security. Being able to impeach a President who will make the argument that he was just trying to protect the nation with his actions will be quite difficult. Again, the fact set can change, but please.

Also, the Nixon comparisons (why does everything have to have an historical analogue?) is problematic because Nixon’s shenanigans were oriented towards personal political gain, while what Bush has done has been for policy/national security reasons. Even if one believes that what Bush did was wrong, politically this difference matters greatly.

Still, 2024 will be interesting to watch, as I do think that many who are technically in the President’s camp are having an increasingly difficult time supporting the administration in all its actions. How that plays out will be interesting to watch.