All I want for Christmas is...

Hint: It starts with an “i”...

This is starting to get interesting.

In the litany of grievances I have against this so-called “president” (and let me tell you, they stretch to the infinite horizon, where space twists and bends back on itself to form a Möbius strip of disgust), the fact of him ordering secret, unwarranted wiretaps of Americans ranks somewhere in the middle — slightly worse than his My Pet Goat moment or his Shiavo intervention, but not nearly so bad as his vile mocking of a condemned woman or his endless and unforgivable stream of lies about Iraq (no link necessary on that one, I trust).

But this latest swell to rise out of W's perfect storm of arrogance, incompetence, and corruption is noteworthy, because this time he isn't shrouding himself in empty rhetoric or false jingoism or theocratic platitudes. For once, he doesn't even seem to be lying. No, this time it's pretty clear that he boldly, deliberately, knowingly broke federal law — constitutional law — and he's practically bragging about it. He's promising that he'll keep doing it. And he's saying that he can do it because he's the president, and his “emergency powers” outweigh the constitutional rights of the people — and the very constitution — he's sworn to protect (sound familiar?).

Ver-y in-ter-est-ing. Particularly so because this man is supposed to be conservative. That's “conservative” as in small government, limited federal powers, every man for himself, and “from my cold, dead hands.” And last I heard, the whole big-brother-listening-in thing doesn't play well in places like Wyoming, Montana, and, oh, Texas?

The “strict constructionists” of the Scalia ilk are going to have a hard time swallowing this one. This illuminating article on Salon quotes law professor Jonathan Turley:

“The fact is, the federal law is perfectly clear,” Turley says. “At the heart of this operation was a federal crime. The president has already conceded that he personally ordered that crime and renewed that order at least 30 times. This would clearly satisfy the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors for the purpose of an impeachment.”

Turley is no Democratic partisan; he testified to Congress in favor of Bill Clinton's impeachment. “Many of my Republican friends joined in that hearing and insisted that this was a matter of defending the rule of law, and had nothing to do with political antagonism,” he says. “I'm surprised that many of those same voices are silent. The crime in this case was a knowing and premeditated act. This operation violated not just the federal statute but the United States Constitution. For Republicans to suggest that this is not a legitimate question of federal crimes makes a mockery of their position during the Clinton period. For Republicans, this is the ultimate test of principle.”

Of course, that may be exactly the problem. While noted experts — including a few Republicans — are saying Bush should be impeached, few think he will be. It's not clear that the political will exists to hold the president to account. “We have finally reached the constitutional Rubicon,” Turley says. “If Congress cannot stand firm against the open violation of federal law by the president, then we have truly become an autocracy.”

Indeed. The possibility of impeachment by a rabidly Republican congress seems unlikely. But, this is by and large the same congress that laughably impeached another president over a marital infidelity only 7 years ago. Keep your eyes open for itchy noses and sweaty palms.

And Merrry Christmas.