Short Version:
Rep. John Conyers: We're slowly building a comprehensive case. We'll be able to implement it when Democrats control congress and can form a Select Committee. First charges will be on the false case for Iraq.
Michael Ratner: Comprehensive is good, but we have a prima facie "slam dunk" (twitters all around) on 3 other charges:
1) Domestic surveillance in violation of FISA
2) Torture in violation of the Anti-Torture Act
3) What was the third charge? Maybe it was disclosing identity of NOC operative. Answers here:
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/ccr/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2702
Also, articles based on secret Cambodia bombing actually didn't make it out of committee when Nixon was impeached. Foreign affairs may be tougher than the "slam dunk" articles outlined above.
Liz Holtzmann: Recent disclosure of concealing White House emails relating to the Plame investigation point to a clear charge of Obstruction of Justice. Nearly identical to the first thing Nixon was succesfully indicted on.
Also, with Conyers: This is doable. Think how far off the reservation MLK was when he announced comprehensive coordinated civil rights movement. How much support Nixon had when impeachment was initiated against him.
John Dean: Impeachment is technically viable and laudable. Not sure its politically plausible. Facetiously pointed out that the remedy of a Cheney presidency may be worse than the illness. Also made interesting point that (he was there) Nixon was ready and willing to fight to the bitter end. He only abandoned the effort when his staff stopped supporting. This happened after some lower-lever indictments and on the eve of congressional efforts urging him to step down.
Me: Perhaps a Rove/Cheney indictment could trigger something similar in this case.
Lewis Lapham: Impeachment is a good remedy instituted by the authors of the constitution. It provides a constitutional means to protect the Republic from extra-constitutional activities. It should be used more often.
Q&A: after being implored several times by the moderator, panelists and audience, questioners insisted on pontificating rather than presenting questions to the extraordinarily qualified panel.