How Prescient

The I word, which I had put in a drawer and filed away, starting coming back up today solely by virtue of the President's obstinate refusal to accede to imminent subpoenas and turn over documents. That's prescisely the crime, as Atrios notes, on which one of Nixon's impeachment articles hung:

Article 3

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.

And, much like the Nixon years, there is a gap in reporting the documents to Congress, from between mid-November and early December, which is right when the prosecutors were fired.

Gonzales looks to be gone, and if he doesn't step down he could be impeached and even Republicans would back it. But this is a whole other problem now. The President is asserting executive privilege and steeling for a fight for no other reason than his own pigheadedness:

This mini-press conference was the most Nixonian performance of Bush's presidency, and his robotic repetition of the word "reasonable" to characterize his proposal to let Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and others be interviewed in a shady lagoon (not under oath, no transcripts made) could only remind Watergate buffs of the phrase "modified limited hangout". That's what's so strange about this percolatiing scandal. Instead of defusing it, dousing it, sedating it, Bush & co. have amped it up to a mini-Watergate decibel level of confrontation and document spew, complete with a former Watergate cast member. When Dick Cheney famously told Pat Leahy to go fuck himself, he and the rest of the administration clearly never anticipated the day when Leahy would return to powerful chairmanship; I think they internalized Karl Rove's visionary scheme of a permanent Republican majority and thought the future was in the bag. Now they're holding the bag and it's leaking all over their laps.

What's really at stake here is the whole theory underpinning the Bush, and really the Cheney, theory of government. It's true that this is a major lose-lose for the White House:

1. Karl Rove under oath: a dream come true. Enough said about that.

2. Karl Rove testifies in private, not under oath: public assumes that Rove can't possibly testify under oath without lying and/or incriminating himself. Implication: Rove and Bush have done something wrong.

3. Resist subpoena, claim executive privilege (i.e., no testimony of any kind): public assumes Bush and Rove have something to hide. Leahy's brings resolution citing Rove for contempt of congress. Resolution passes. Congress asks U.S. Attorney (ironic, yes) to bring charges.

--U.S. Attorney does not bring charges: public is reminded that U.S. Attorney was appointed by Bush. We know eight have been fired for not going after Democrats. Is this one of the ones who survived, i.e., a Bush guy? Did he/she not indict for political reasons?

--U.S. Attorney brings charges: litigate. Bush morphs into Nixon. Bush tries to run out the clock until January 2009. While he does, he gets nothing.

But that's not the point. This is about asserting the extreme, royalistic view of unitary executive power that has characterized this Administration from Day One. If Bush gives this up, he gives up every power he's ever asserted. He's painted himself into a corner and has nowhere else to go.

And this time, it's the President who is pushing the country toward impeachment, nobody else.

UPDATE: Kagro X has more, making a similar point that Bush has bet the ranch on this, but also explaining how they can wiggle out of a contempt of Congress...

In its investigative capacity, Congress has adopted for itself the use of a subpoena power that's roughly analogous to that more commonly seen in the judicial and law enforcement system, in which government prosecutors (employees of the executive branch) leverage the power of the judicial branch (in the form of its ability to sentence those brought before it for contempt, should they defy the subpoenas) to ensure compliance with the demands made.

But Congress is not the executive branch. Nor is it the judicial. Its independent enforcement powers are limited to only the most obscure and archaic procedure -- "inherent contempt" -- which hasn't been exercised since 1935, and with good reason: this procedure itself requires a trial before Congress. Not a particularly helpful substitute when you're trying to avoid a trial before Congress [read: impeachment] in the first place.

Instead, Congress depends for its enforcement powers on the executive branch. If you defy a Congressional subpoena, you face the possibility of charges of contempt of Congress, pursuant to the adoption of articles by whichever house is charging you. But those charges are not self-executing. In other words, they're a request that charges be brought. In order to be effective, those charges still have to be prosecuted in court, and that's up to the discretion of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. He's an employee of the "unitary executive," of course, and reports to the Attorney General [...]

That's some game, eh? Enforcement of the contempt power falls to the U.S. Attorneys -- the political strong-arming and contamination of which brought us to this crisis in the first place. Heck, you'd almost think they... planned it.