Is Bush Trying To Provoke Impeachment?

I read somebody on the blogs today who wrote that Bush may actually be daring the Democrats to begin impeachment hearings, either to get the "impeachment bounce" in the polls that Bill Clinton got, or to start a rallying cry among the conservative base that "the Democrats will stop at nothing to gain power" so that they'll come back to the fold in 2008, or because he knows there'll never be 67 Senators willing to remove him from office, or just to derail the Dems' domestic initiatives. That would be one of the more earnestly Machiavellian schemes ever concocted, but when you look at today's evidence, you really have to wonder.

Today the President ordered a former staff member to rebuke a Congressional subpoena and not testify in an investigation. Advising someone to assert executive privilege is one thing; this is quite another. For one, it's illegal:

It's not just worse, it's a felony under federal criminal law. See for yourself.

18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505 : ... Whoever corruptly ... influences, obstructs, or impedes ... the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress ... [s]hall be fined under this title, [or] imprisoned not more than 5 years ... or both.

18 U.S.C. Sec. 1515(b): As used in section 1505, the term "corruptly" means acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including ... withholding, [or] concealing ... information.

The President is obstructing a legitimate investigation here. And that's not all, he's having Fredo and the Justice Department write memos saying that they can completely ignore Congress:

In a broadly worded legal opinion, the Justice Department has concluded that President Bush's former top lawyer, and possibly other senior White House officials, can ignore subpoenas from Congress to testify about the U.S. attorneys affair.

The three-page opinion raises questions about whether the Justice Department would prosecute senior administration officials if Congress voted to hold them in contempt for not cooperating with the investigation into the firing last year of eight top prosecutors [...]

Under the law, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia decides whether to pursue contempt of Congress cases. While that official can exercise independent judgment, some legal experts said it might be hard to ignore the opinion from the legal counsel office, whose decisions are often viewed as controlling throughout the federal government.

Others said that, as an alternative, lawmakers might seek the appointment of an independent special counsel to investigate any contempt charges.

Do so. Today. What the President and his aides are saying here is that Congress doesn't exist. So strongly worded letters aren't going to cut it, Reps. Conyers and Sanchez:

"We are aware of absolutely no court decision that supports the notion that a former White House official has the option of refusing to even appear in response to a Congressional subpoena," Conyers and Sanchez wrote to George Manning, Miers' lawyer. "A refusal to appear ... could subject Ms. Miers to contempt proceedings." [...]

Some legal experts said they disagreed with the sweeping privilege that the administration was claiming.

"The privilege does not entitle you to refuse to appear. The privilege entitles you to refuse to answer questions when you appear if those questions call for privileged information," said Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics professor at New York University law school. "No one can claim the privilege entitles you to ignore the body that subpoenas you."

Now, looking back at the events of today, coupled with the Libby commutation, and it's clear that Bush is giving the finger to Congress on an almost hourly basis. Like I said, it would be absolutely Machiavellian to provoke impeachment, but Karl Rove is the one in charge of the political optics, and he's bugged his own office before. Planting the "ruthlessly partisan" label on the Democrats, and digging up all kinds of "we swear we won't impeach" quotes, would be delicious business for him. In the meantime, Fourthbranch gets to run the show unimpeded.

Now it could just be that Bush is holding fast to the position of "if the President does it, then it's not illegal." And I believe in restoring the law and using whatever means necessary to do it. But I really do think people have to take a look at this. One thing that the Democrats have shown that they can do is walk into a trap. Is one being set?