Let's say Pelosi and the House actually do impeach Bush...

[WilliamPitt]

The impeachment procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached." Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings.

In order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring them from holding future federal office (either elected or appointed). Despite a conviction by the Senate, the defendant remains liable to criminal prosecution. It is possible to impeach someone even after the accused has vacated their office in order to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of their prior office (such as a pension). If a two-thirds majority of the senators present does not vote "Guilty" on one or more of the charges, the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_States

...but fail to get the needed 67 Senate votes for conviction and removal.

What would this actually accomplish?

What other issues are worthy of being ignored during this long process?

Discuss.

[LynneSin]

1. STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT

You're making way too much sense and some folks head might explode

[Blue_Roses]

167. lol

:rofl:

[orleans]

2. first maybe congress should poll this and check the temperature

of the country

i'm looking at that msnbc poll and 88% of respondents are calling for impeachment.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904

[NYCGirl]

12. Online polls are highly unscientific. NT

[Zywiec]

16. Not to mention the poll is from 2005.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x939555#939662

[jgraz]

26. Exactly. And pro-impeachment sentiment has certainly waned in the past 18 months

:eyes:

[GOTV]

157. How do you know it hasn't? Here is a poll from this month

Would you favour or oppose the impeachment by Congress of U.S. president George W. Bush and vice-president Dick Cheney?

Favour 39%
Oppose 55%
Undecided 6%

Source: InsiderAdvantage
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 621 registered American voters, conducted on Apr. 30 and May 1, 2007. Margin of error is 4 per cent.


http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/15689

[orleans]

127. if it's an "old" poll how are people still voting in it? n/t

[Zywiec]

138. New York Times Endorses Ned Lamont

Just as timely as this poll. They discuss it here on democrats.com last year. Apparently MSNBC never took it down.

http://www.democrats.com/node/9581

I mean, constantly clicking on a meaningless poll must be better than banging your head against the wall.

[orleans]

175. what do you mean constantly clicking?

when i went on the link i was getting the results on the poll but was not allowed to vote because i already voted.

but there were a ton of people here saying they were voting.

now, what are you talking about?

[wryter2000]

42. That would work if the people got to vote on removal

I'm afraid John Cornyn, Ted Stevens, and John McCain have votes in the Senate. You and I don't.

[coalition_unwilling]

3. You ignore a preparatory step - the Resolution of Inquiry in

the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives means plenty of hearings, a la Watergate. Those hearings would either lead to articles of impeachment or not, depending on the vote out of committee forwarded to the full house.

The objective is not necessarily conviction and removal per se but rather a full-throated transparent investigation. Then the American people will decide.

[Zodiak]

44. Yes....I agree

the resolution of inquiry is often not considered in this debate, and the result of such findings would be rather interesting. My guess is a total stonewall by this admiistration and then a Constiutional crisis.

This country very deperately needs a Constiutional crisis. And no, I'm not being sarcastic. A broken machine must sound an alarm to be fixed.

[wryter2000]

47. That's a good point

Certainly, impeachment would mean a lengthy investigation.

However, I think that purpose is better served by multiple investigations on various issues rather than one big investigation.

Say, for example, articles of impeachment included warrantless spying, firing the US attorneys, and the lies that got us into Iraq. That leaves uninvestigated abuses by Halliburton, the failure to protect and help the people of New Orleans, the failure to stop 9/11, etc.

Also, with multiple investigations in both houses, they have to fight on multiple fronts.

[eridani]

133. How in fucking HELL are the Dems supposed to be conducting investigations?

Gonzo and Monica flip them the bird, Condi and the Psychopath in Chief have ignored every subpoena so far. Is there some way around this other than impeachment?

[wryter2000]

140. And they'd magically tell the truth if it were an impeachment investigation? n/t

n/t

[GOTV]

160. Well, impeachment seems to have magical powers to hear people around here invoke it....

... apparently it has the power to stop the president's evil plans no matter what happens after impeachment is voted on.

[eridani]

177. What do you suggest as an appropriate response?

Continuing to let them ignore subpoenas is not one of them, IMO.

[kenny blankenship]

156. "Gonzo and Monica flip them the bird, Condi and the Psychopath in Chief have ignored every subpoena"

And that in itself is the pattern of "misdemeanor" in office, which together with "high crimes" of state which require no further proof, such as the campaign of lies that launched the illegal invasion of Iraq -AND- the warrantless wiretap program, that would be enough to impeach and convict George W. Bush. (Next stop: The Hague)

[blm]

65. Exactly - Who will tell the people? Who will chronicle the actual historic record

of the wrongdoings and crimes of office?

The cost of looking the other way and ignoring serious crimes of office is TOO GREAT. There would have been no GOP takeover of Congress in 95, no impeachment of Clinton, no Bush2, no 9-11 and no Iraq war if truth was a priority in 93 when Dems held the WH and Congress.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html

[Atman]

4. It would show that our legislators are willing to uphold the Constitution

and it would march the war criminals before the people. Conviction/removal from office isn't the only end goal.

.

[lyonn]

41. That is the other consideration with an impeachment hearing

By allowing george to get by with destroying many basics of the Constitution and Geneva Convention, attacking a country that was not an immenient threat to the U.S.. The U.N. inspectors were still in the process of searching for WMD's when george told them to leave as he was preparing to attack. He was afraid they wouldn't find anything and he had a jillion troops setting all around Iraq waiting to strike. The world knew this and we will be years and maybe never repairing the damage george has done.

George is doing enough damage daily that we can feel quite confident the repubs are going down big time. Are we afraid that we will turn people against the Dems with an impeachment proceeding? It is a consideration. I want pay back for the soldiers that have been killed and maimed. I want the evidence laid out there for all to see. Clinton couldn't use executive privelege. George could use the secret itel issue maybe to hide stuff.

How would the media handle it? That is a biggie.

[GOTV]

161. Why do we need to "Show" anything?

> and it would march the war criminals before the people.

How? They don't obey subpoenas.

[jgraz]

5. Good point. We should only fight for things we're guaranteed of winning

We should probably stop asking questions about Gonzales, too. After all, if * won't fire him, what are we really accomplishing?

[helderheid]

13. Agreed. Fuck it all.

[LeftCoast]

20. So impeach because you can't think of anything better to do?

:shrug:

[LeftCoast]

27. Mispost

oops

[helderheid]

Yea, that is exactly what I'm saying.

At the very least, impeachment hearings would slow them down.

http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=9672446

ction Alert
Take Action Impeach Cheney First!
Ask your Rep, to support H.Res. 333

On Tuesday April 24, Rep. Dennis Kucinich acted. Late in the afternoon, Kucinich filed Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Richard Cheney citing three reasons:

*
Manipulating intelligence about weapons of mass destruction that misled us into war with Iraq,
*
Manipulating intelligence about Al Queda’s connections to Iraq, which contributed to leading us into the war in Iraq,
*
Openly threatening aggression against Iran, and in so doing undermining our national security.


This is not about politics or the next election, it is about wrongdoing at the highest level of our government and it should be punished -- beginning with Vice President Cheney. No one is above the law. Now is the time to act. Tell your Congress member to support H. Res. 333.

Read the Articles of Impeachment and supporting documents:
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int3.pdf

Subject: Impeach Cheney First!
Editable text:
(edit or add your own text - 8512 characters left)
I ask you to uphold your duty to protect the Constitution by co-sponsoring H. Res. 333, Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Richard Cheney for:

1. purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests,
2. purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests,
3. openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States.

Read the Articles here: http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int3.pdf

Please put the rule of law above all else and do the right thing. This is not about politics, but policies that have led to the most catastrophic foreign policy mistake in our history. We need allies in the world to help us in Iraq and elsewhere. Let’s show them that we respect the rule of law by holding Vice President Cheney accountable for his actions. Please co-sponsor H. Res. 333.

[LeftCoast]

34. Investigations will slow them down

A failed impeachment will let them get away with it all.

[helderheid]

37. And no impeachment will also let them get away with it all.

[LeftCoast]

45. Investigate. Build case. Impeach. Win conviction.

We're still in the investigation phase. I'm sorry it's not happening fast enough for you. This isn't some 1 hour long episode of Matlock. In the real world things take time. The Democrats have had about four months. That's all. Can you point to me one major investigation that went to trial after only four months? Look how long Fitzgerald took - but he got his conviction.

[helderheid]

60. We're on the same page. n/t

[rosesaylavee]

86. I thought this was a special two-part episode of Matlock

and we were just coming into the final chase scene? Damn. Looks like its to-be-continued next season.

But seriously, I agree with you that investigations are necessary - but I think there is enough evidence to impeach/indict on at least lying to take us to war.

[GOTV]

164. False choice - and a silly one at that n/t

[snappyturtle]

112. Number one: I don't think impeachment would fail.

Number two: Proceeding with impeachment shows the global community we're willing to play nice and take the bully off the world playground. We need to do this.

[GOTV]

165. Because we've been so successful passing less devisive issues like war funding? n/t

[jgraz]

35. Impeachment might be the best thing Congress could do

If they didn't approach it like a bunch of snivelling cowards. This congress? Maybe they should just stick to caving in to * on the war.

[GOTV]

163. They need not cooperate with the hearings and so how will it slow them down?...

... and more specifically how will it slow them down more than non-impeachment hearings?

Is this more of the magical powers of impeachment?

[Individualist]

49. The can't win, won't fight excuse is disgusting

in light of all the crimes the cabal has committed.

[GOTV]

166. I agree. That's probably why no one is making that excuse. n/t

[Forkboy]

95. And there you go.

We're in a party of cowards...and they have cheerleaders.

[GOTV]

162. Close. We should avoid doing things guaranteed to fail. See the difference? n/t

[Rosemary2205]

6. DU and the press will slaughter the Dems

If they impeach and fail to convinct we'll not only see the press roasting the Dems on a spit but I suspect a certain core of DU will be screaming bloody murder against the Dem senate leadership for not getting enough votes in the Senate.


Considering the bitching about Pelosi around here started before she even took office -- I can't imagine what they'll do if the Dems go for an impeachment and fail.

[Hekate]

28. I must glumly agree. I'd need to take a long vacation from DU until the hysteria died down.

OTOH, after the Comey testimony I just sort of overflowed with disgust and left messages at the offices of Reid, Feinstein, and my Rep. (couldn't get through to Pelosi's office). "For the love of God, when are you going to impeach these people? Starting with Cheney?"

Our Dems have SO MUCH damage to undo, but the country also desperately needs full and transparent investigations and prosecutions of the crimes of the Bush administration. It's a case of so much to do, so little time. The Dems in Congress have to prioritize like mad, and you just know the Bushites will end up getting away with a lot, no matter what.

Hekate

[Hekate]

29. I must glumly agree. I'd need to take a long vacation from DU until the hysteria died down.

OTOH, after the Comey testimony I just sort of overflowed with disgust and left messages at the offices of Reid, Feinstein, and my Rep. (couldn't get through to Pelosi's office). "For the love of God, when are you going to impeach these people? Starting with Cheney?"

Our Dems have SO MUCH damage to undo, but the country also desperately needs full and transparent investigations and prosecutions of the crimes of the Bush administration. It's a case of so much to do, so little time. The Dems in Congress have to prioritize like mad, and you just know the Bushites will end up getting away with a lot, no matter what.

Hekate

[oregonjen]

7. Will, it's not only impeachment that we want

We want out of Iraq. Where's the timetable?

[jgraz]

67. Timetables? What would that accomplish?

Better to cave in now before it hurts our chances in 2008.

[oregonjen]

72. Exactly

We want to know that we will be out of Iraq not occupying, killing, being killed or maimed any longer. Now is even better.

[Telly Savalas]

109. It's not only timetables that we want.

Where's the health care policy?

Where's the energy policy?

Education?

Progressive taxes to eliminate the budget deficit?

Poverty?

Just because they don't have a veto-proof majority, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be trying to advance some sort of an agenda.

[tularetom]

8. It's not just the failure to impeach

I believe it would be largely symbolic - conviction is probably not a possibility.

But there are a lot of other matters where the Democrats have fallen down on the job.

Caving in on the Iraq funding bill, failing to drag Gonzales back into committee, not issuing a subpoena to rove after he thumbs his nose at them, etc etc.

It's a cumulative impression a lot of us are getting that the Dems lack the fortitude to hold these assholes to account.

Unfortunately perception can easily become reality and the more citizens who think the Democrats are the party of cowards and wimps, the more difficult it will be to shake that perception.

[EFerrari]

9. Justice is not like riding a bike. Use it or lose it.

And you know that, you. :)

And, are we all channeling Miss Cleo that we can predict the votes? Kreskin -- is that you?

[Joe Fields]

10. Will, I do hope you are playing "devil's advocate" here.

If not, I cannot believe you would ask such a question. Are we to ignore the rule of law, and admit that our leaders need not comply with the constitution?

It is imperitive that we clean the muck out of the sewer, before we lay more pipe. I don't care what gets ignored, if we are truly interested in preserving this democracy by holding our leaders to the standards we have set as a nation, and so love to champion for the world to see. Our government SHOULD come to a standstill, until we have gone through the impeachment process, win, or lose. Nothing else is as important, by comparison.

[DancingBear]

11. Ah, the "conventional wisdom status quo" argument

I'm surprised it took this long to dredge it up.

I do believe, though, that its shelf life has expired.

Why, let's focus instead on increasing the minimum wage, or working to make sure we elect an even greater number of corporate shills NEXT election cycle!

If ANYONE is still buying this shit step up and make a bid on the bridge...

[BlooInBloo]

14. You fight the fights that are worth fighting, not just the fights you think you can win. Cowards.

[TahitiNut]

82. For once, we agree.

:thumbsup:

[BlooInBloo]

146. Aight - now I *know* you're making shit up! :)

[calimary]

141. Here, here. AND Hear, hear.

Okay then, according to your argument, we should just move on then.

FINE.

Let them get away with it. Let them waltz off into the sunset, smirking, about how much shit they pulled and nobody held them accountable for ANY of it because we were afraid we might not have enough votes or that we'd get some bad publicity or that somebody on Pox Noise might say something icky about us!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

I have two words in immediate response: FUCK THAT.

If that's okay with us to do, then it better be okay with everybody here who agrees - that they allow bush/cheney to leave a HUGE footprint behind across the face of our Constitution and EVERYONE who believes in it, across the face of THE LAW and everybody who believes in THAT. You will have verified that it's okay to lie.
It's okay to commit perjury.
It's okay to wiretap people illegally.
It's okay to send more than three thousand of our finest to their deaths ON A LIE.
It's okay to exploit the worst attack ever on American soil and hold us hostage to our fears for your own personal or financial gain.
It's okay to commit treason.
It's okay to irreparably compromise our national security and WMD-tracking networks painstakingly built up over decades - endangering the lives of everyone involved in those networks.
It's okay to ruin our reputation in the community of nations.
It's okay that nobody's going to trust us or want to take our word for it without question.
It's okay to torture. Means to an end, y'know.
It's okay to shit on the moral high ground.
It's okay to set the example that crime really does pay and if you're rich or well-connected enough, you'll always get away with it.
It's okay to deny longtime basic rights to certain people just because you feel like it or because you don't like them.
It's okay to throw out habeas corpus - simply because you think it's in the way.
It's okay to promote general anarchy and lawlessness because it's good for bidness.
It's okay to hide behind closed doors when you're purportedly doing the people's business, on their nickel, and in their name - even though YOU and your pals are the exclusive beneficiaries.
It's okay to game the system any which-a-way you want, because you can just sign this little fine-print statement along with the "law" you just signed also - you know, the one that applies to everybody else except you, mainly because you said so.
It's okay to violate the separation of church and state as decreed from the beginning of this country - in the beginning was the word - to guarantee freedom for - AND FROM - religion, and then to pervert the very Word of The Lord because you gather more followers if you can fool them into thinking you're somehow anointed by God.
It's okay to abuse the power granted to you by our Founders and the word of the voters.
It's okay to pervert the very word those voters tried to grant, in the first place.
It's okay to swear an oath and then shit on it because it's just not expedient.
It's okay for a chief executive who swore on the Bible in front of millions of witnesses to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States to commit high crimes and misdemeanors and waltz away unscathed.

What a splendid template that leaves for the future! What a capital example for others to follow!

Hey, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights make great doormats, don't they? Especially coming in from the MUD ROOM!!!

By shying away from pressing for IMPEACHMENT, you ARE INDEED agreeing to those things and many more, and signing off on them. You're okay with future generations of power-abusers and would-be dictators to point to this era and say "WELL???? THEY did it and you didn't bat an eye! Didn't lift a finger to stop them. It must not have been so illegal after all then, 'eh? If it was that bad, you woulda stopped 'em. So shut the fuck up, get outta our way and go fuck yourself!!! With a cherry on top!!!!

YOU may be okay with this. YOU may be okay with letting this slide because there are other "more important" things to discuss instead. I BEG YOUR PARDON????? WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THIS??????? WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN STANDING UP FOR OUR PREVIOUSLY-REVERED SYSTEM OF LAWS AND JUSTICE?????? WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT THAN RECONFIRMING, as it seems must be done every other generation or so, THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW?????????????

Tellya what: you try some of this out, applying this to your own case the next time you're facing a cop or a judge. See how well it works for ya.

THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES FOR ILLEGAL ACTIONS.

And I for one REFUSE to sign off on ANY of that. I don't want what's left of my good name as a law-abiding American citizen to be besmirched that way. The bushies have already done enough to damage it, as is. And I don't care if there's only ONE vote in the House and/or Senate. I DON'T CARE.

Because this is simply the correct, lawful, moral, and ethical thing to do - to hold our leaders to account when they commit grievous wrongs against the state, its laws, and its citizens. It's simply something we HAVE to do. I WILL NOT look the Founders in the eye if I'm lucky enough to meet them in the Hereafter and tell them I FAILED to do my part to protect what they shed blood and risked their lives to establish. I WILL NOT face them with the sin on my soul of admitting I sat back and gave up because I thought we might not have the votes, because it just seemed like it was gonna be too hard, or not expedient, or would get me some flack from that limbaugh FUCKER. I JUST WON'T DO THAT.

If we lose, we lose, but I don't want to lose without even having tried. Because THIS, ABOVE ALL, is worth trying for.

I'm not afraid to try to be like that one guy who stood in front of all the ferocious-looking Chinese tanks and blocked their path. I'm not afraid to try to emulate some of the members of a ragtag rebel group that wanted to break off from that other King George to form a separate, sovereign nation (a nation of LAWS, btw). They probably knew they might not have the votes, either. Did that stop them? Are we to betray that historic effort, that gift to human history, merely because WE think WE might not have the votes? (And don't you think, also, that this is EXACTLY what the bushies and their pals are hoping, expecting, and counting on us to do? And you wanna hand them THIS un-earned win also???????) Thanks, but NO thanks.

You've heard of daring to dream the "impossible dream." Well, I DO. Go ahead and laugh or smirk at me, but I DO. This just HAS TO BE DONE, OR AT LEAST ATTEMPTED. Our leaders throughout history NEED TO BE REMINDED that THEY, TOO, are held to account, and that THEY, TOO, are NOT ABOVE THE LAW!!! NO MATTER HOW BIG OR POWERFUL OR RICH THEY THINK THEY ARE OR OUGHT TO BE.

And you know something else? I'm not so sure this IS an IMPOSSIBLE dream, after all. But we won't know that if we decide not to try, will we?

[GOTV]

169. Fights worth fighting are ones you have a hope of winning. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

170. Only to a certain sort of person.

[GOTV]

172. A person who is not a fool with dreams of martyrdom...

... especially when there are needed fights that can be won.

[EFerrari]

15. Oops, forgot this

[LSK]

17. no fucking way you can get 67 votes out of the Senate

Even if Bush killed a baby on live TV.

Not with these Republicans in the Senate.

And then the failed impeachment would make many of us suicidal.

Do we want that?

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. I know the conventional view

I'll add the other line, but any party who attempts this pays at the polls (never mind that it was a bumper crop of dems in 1976)

If they don't they'll face backlash

Hell at this point, I'm starting to see the real possibility of third parties....

Ah yes, back to the future with you, to the 1880s, which si the only thing that forced the dems down a progressive road...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. What will it accomplish?

Hopefully the senators who voted against impeachment will be run out of office by mobs of angry voters.

[ccpup]

21. WilliamPitt

you're a sane, intelligent man who's fully aware of the political process and how the machinery (fortunately or unfortunately) tends to work and I greatly enjoy reading your thoughts and opinions. Much of what you said makes complete sense, but will, sadly, be lost on those who, much like children, are stomping their feet and demanding what they want how they want it ... NOW! NOW! NOW! NOW! NOW! NOW!!!!!!!

They all have good points, naturally, and the presence of the crimes committed isn't debatable. But the political reality is something else entirely. And the Dems just don't have that on their side, right now.

And to those who think we should Impeach just to march the criminals in front of everyone is ... well, I don't even know what to say to that. Impeach but not convict? Make bush a martyr and victim of the "partisan political process" and see his approval numbers skyrocket? Embolden the repugs to play the victim and almost guarantee a repug majority for the next few election cycles? See them pass even more hurtful, fascist legislation?

At least DUers would have something to complain about then, right?

[jgraz]

32. Gee, Will, looks like you've got a fan

Give it up ccpup. Don't you read Amazon? He's gay AND he's sleeping with Cindy Sheehan.

[EFerrari]

38. Not again!

:rofl:

[treestar]

113. Is that more or less what happened to Clinton?

Though it didn't hurt the SOBs in the next election. They got enough votes in 2000 at least to steal or pull off the selection. They couldn't have done that with a Gore Landslide. And they maintained their majority in Congress.

But Clinton got more popular.

The effect would seemingly be similar to what they got out of impeaching Clinton without convicting him. Though they will add the whine about the "war president" being "harassed" in "time of war."

[AndyA]

22. The real issue here is not if they try to impeach and lose, or impeach but don't convict.

The real issue is what happens if they don't?

What message does this send to future leaders? It tells them that it's OK to ignore the law of the land. They can strip us of our rights and liberties, and no one will do anything about it. They can decimate the Constitution, and there won't be anybody standing in their way.

Don't forget, there may be someone much, much worse than George Bush out there, being prepared to do just this as we speak. It might come decades down the road, but this moment in time - right now - will set the precedent.

And if that happens, the game is over folks. Truly. America will cease to exist.

THAT is the reason Congress must impeach. If they fail, so be it. But to ignore what has been going on under the pretense of "not enough time" or "not enough votes" or "too many other issues to deal with" is completely unacceptable.

[k8conant]

23. Impeach 1st. Then in the Senate keep away 50 of the Senators and then

34 Senate votes are needed for conviction and removal. Heck if there're 60 there only 40 votes are needed.

[BuyingThyme]

24. I wonder why they even bothered to require a trial.

Weird.

[Junkdrawer]

25. Before the Sam Ervin hearings, NO ONE would have guessed...

that Nixon would have been forced to resign.

The general public doesn't know what we know already. And imagine what impeachment hearings could uncover.

[lyonn]

63. That is what some of us think will happen if impeachment occurs

I voted for Nixon, ugh, I bought the bs that he would get us out of Viet Nam with honor, but by the time the hearings started I had doubts about our president and was glad to finally see him go. He lied!

George's sins are real. Clinton's were obviously minor and had nothing to do with the security of the country, etc.

It looks like there will be no impeachment proceeding. Everything seems to be sliding by in Congress waiting for another day to do the right thing. Our candidates are busy campaigning.

[onenote]

122. Sam Ervin's hearings weren't impeachment hearings

Thanks for proving the point many of have been making. The Nixon impeachment effort didn't start with an attempt to impeach him. It started with a Senate Select Committee investigating the Watergate break-in and related matters. It wasn't an impeachment inquiry at all...indeed, having started in the Senate, it couldn't be. It was the revelation of certain matters during those hearings, along with incredibly stupid moves by Nixon (most notably the Saturday Night Massacre) that led to the House starting an impeachment inquiry.

The point is that investigations, independent of any proclaimed goal of impeachment, are the only way to build towards impeachment.

[LynneSin]

30. Personally, I think there is a reason Pelosi & Reid aren't quite pushing impeachment

We all know we need the 67 senators to get Bush out of office and I know we have the support in the house. What we need is the frenzy from the public who can push the media all on the impeachment bandwagon. When republicans start feeling that noose around their necks they'll abandon Bush in order to save their collective hides.

And we are in the prelimary rounds of impeachment - why else do we have almost every committee in both the house & senate hosting investigations into the many many crimes of the Bush Regime. These investigations are all the preliminary work for what could be removal of Bush from office

[Buck Rabbit]

48. What makes you think there is anywhere near enough votes in the House?

With the number of Blue Dog, DLC and other conservative Dems that make up our slim majority I doubt Pilosi has 190 firm votes if she tried it.

Falling short in the House in an attempted impeachment attempt would be trumpeted by the GOP as "Bi-Partisan Vindication" of the legality of whichever of Bush's many abuses are included in the indictment.

Pissin' in the wind is a warm feeling for only a short while.

[G_Leo_Criley]

53. well said ...

LynneSin. I agree with you.
"These investigations are all the preliminary work for what could be removal of Bush from office"

glc

[LeftCoast]

31. No conviction would equal exoneration for Bush

Let's see where the various investigations take us. They may very well lead to impeachment, but put the cart before the horse and you just guarantee Bushco gets away with it all.

[liberalnurse]

33. Thanks for the realistic post....

I believe Congress works in slow, slow, slow motion....maybe in a time warp event. They look and contemplate all the good issues but they behave in a constipated fashion. Lots of chatter.....little action. Just like at "The Office" where you have lots of gossip, trash talk about the boss and behind your co-worker's back but when it comes to confronting the boss or company, starting a Union....everyone is a No-Show. Why would Congress be much different?

Now that I'm on a roll, don't believe for one minute that the Congress will address the Iraqi War with a withdrawal or provide benchmarks..... Go look at every Presidential Candidate.....The Iraqi War is a lead issue! The campaign frame work has been established. This will trickle down to Congressional Candidates for their talking points.

Impeachment is indicated but not politically reasonable or affordable. They are looking at 08.....thats the way I see it.

[DinahMoeHum]

39. ". . .they're looking at '08. . .". Well, the longer Bush and Cheney are around,

the better the chances the Republican pigs will be annihilated in the 2008 elections.

:kick:

[jgraz]

51. How many lives is that election victory worth?

Is it worth another 500 or 1000 dead American GIs? How about another Katrina-level catastrophe?

Before you answer, consider the fact that all the Dems really need to do to guarantee a sweep in 2008 is to go after the voting machines and GOP election fraud (another issue on which they have, so far, demonstrated zero fortitude).

[DinahMoeHum]

142. Well, you know the saying about the wheels grinding exceedingly

albeit slowly.
and let's consider that the 2006 elections just about destroyed the Ohio GOP and the GOPs in the New England states.

Yes, it's worth what you just said.
The 2008 elections, if we play it right, will make the 2006 "thumpin'" look like a lawn party.

:evilfrown:

[jgraz]

148. Before I respond, I want to make sure I understand you

Are you really saying that another 500 to 1000 dead American soldiers is worth it if the Dems win in 2008? Forgive me if you're being sarcastic and I just missed it.

[DinahMoeHum]

150. Jgraz, I'm sorry, we can't do anything about losing another

500 or 1000 troops before the 2008 elections. Bush wants his occupation of Iraq, and by God, he's got it. There's no fucking way he'll ever leave. You don't build 14 permanent bases and a supersized embassy just for the hell of it.

All the worse for him and the GOP in 2008. They've got their pricks in a cleft stick, and come 2008, God willing, the GOP will be nothing but a smoking heap in the shitcan of history.

And we're gonna get that goal by any and all means necessary. There may be some measures taken that are not fit to be mentioned here and now.

:evilfrown:

[jgraz]

152. Wow...ask the future 500-1000 dead troops if they agree with you

If that's what the Democratics are about, I want no part of it.

[DinahMoeHum]

168. Did I say I like this scenario? No, I did not. So don't put words in my mouth.

And you just got on my Ignore list.

Buh-bye.

:nuke:

[jgraz]

171. Like it? No. You're just pointing out the up-side

The statement that there is nothing we can do about it is DLC spin. What you really mean is there's nothing the Dems can do about it that won't threaten their cushy seats.

Forgive me if your drooling over 2008 electoral potentialities made me think you don't care about the troops. I'm sure you'll be working hard to wipe all that blood off on the republicans.

[G_Leo_Criley]

36. k and 5th r

Thank you.

:kick:

glc

[terip64]

40. There are so many issues more worthy of our attention it is hard to know where to begin...n/t

edited to make sense. It helps. I think.

[EFerrari]

43. But it's just stupid not to hold this threat over Junior's head. n/t

[Annces]

46. We need to sting their asses

to teach a lesson.

http://imgred.com/

[Nightjock]

50. Yeah?.....So?....

"Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings."


Let the people who don't normally see and hear the evidence find out through the trial-- and they wake up. The cry gets louder for removing bush. The republicans will have to switch their votes or face the consequences!

[Phredicles]

52. What would impeachment accomplish? Rather let's ask,

WHAT THE FUCK HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED SO FAR WITHOUT IMPEACHMENT?

I mean, you can talk all you want about "other issues", but what the fucking hell has this congress accomplished so far on any of these other issues apart from non-binding resolutions and a spectacular cave-in before taking a nice, long vacation?

[lyonn]

70. Clearly spoken, Thanks. nt

[mopinko]

54. nothing that we "accomplish" under these criminals

will be anything to be proud of. only fetid muck will pass through this congress. these spineless weenies are not doing any of the things we sent them to do, with the possible exception of the investigations that are happening. but no one seems to be inclined to act on what is now in full public view.
so, what is to lose? nothing.

[Maven]

55. Politics is also about consensus-building and perception

Right now the perception is that impeachment is on the "fringe" because that's where our leadership has placed it. Making removal of Bush from office a priority would alter the narrative immeasurably. The perception of impeachment would change and its prospects for success along with it.

Getting somewhere on impeachment would also mean Dems would have to "name names" and hound every Senator who would rubber-stamp Bush's crimes daily in the press. As someone else on this thread pointed out, even if Dems were unable to convict those Senators would lose bigtime in the next election. Let them go on record in support of Bush.

I am sick and tired of self-proclaimed "realists" looking at a snapshot of how things stand today and telling us that's how things would be tomorrow if a real effort were made to remove Bush and Cheney from office. The truth is, ALL politicians pay attention to which way the wind is blowing, even those who vote on "steadfast principle." There's no way to judge how they'd react if the Democratic leadership shifted the current.

"What other issues are worthy of being ignored during this long process?"

You mean like our newly timeline-free Iraq spending bill? What other issues are likely to be addressed as long as this psychotic man-child wields veto power?

[Kelly Rupert]

56. See, WP, you need to realize that DU is only a form of entertainment.

People come here to get an outrage fix. They don't actually think through the consequences of their proposals. DUers by and large are not policy wonks; otherwise they'd be somewhere else. Mostly, they just want to stand in virtual solidarity against the bad guys, feeling a rush of camaraderie with each post of assent, righteously posting a "K&R" read only by those who wholeheartedly agree.

I admire your attempts to bring reason into the debate. I wonder why you think it'll have any effect whatsoever. People don't propose impeachment because they really think it's going to happen. They propose impeachment because it's fun to.

If anyone actually bothers reading it, I assume I'll get a condescending reply or two. Ah well. Price you get for speaking truth to powerlessness.

[Maven]

57. "truth to powerlessness"

If we all listened to drivel like this, the "powerless" would get nowhere.

Impeachment is not merely about an "outrage fix." In fact, it can be approached quite pragmatically, and, as I pointed out upthread, so-called "realist" sentiments like those in the OP rest on a faulty set of assumptions. Frankly, everyone who posts here regularly--everyone who has gotten a feel for the news cycle--should know better.

Moreover, do you really think this is about votes? Do you think that if we had a few more votes in the Senate, the Dems would have started the impeachment process? Please. This is not about getting votes. This is about entrenchment, fear and insider status.

[Kelly Rupert]

91. If we had the votes in the Senate,

I highly doubt that the Democrats would initiate impeachment. Bush has a year and a half left in office; I'd rather the Democrats work on getting a decent healthcare system than on giving Bush a six-month-early sendoff.

[Maven]

92. Oh, OK.

Well, good luck getting that shiny new healthcare system past a veto.

[Kelly Rupert]

97. Which would then be signed into law by

President Obama/Clinton/Richardson/Edwards/Gore in January 2009, six months after Bush vetoes it. Just because he's throwing a fit for the next year and a half doesn't mean we can't get work done.

[Maven]

103. Right, because

A) A Dem win in '08 is a certainty at this point (amazing that after everything that's happened, I can't even say that without sarcasm, isn't it); and

B) People just love the job our party is doing in Congress right now. Oh, wait--only about 37% do. Some polls have Congress's approval lower than Bush's. I wonder which way their numbers will go now that news of their surrender on the war funding bill is out?

That's not to mention the fact that your post essentially implies that Democrats' only job at this point is to keep their seats warm for 18 months and wish upon a star they don't lose them. Which is apparently what they're doing.

[EFerrari]

62. What crap.

[jgraz]

75. If it's ok with you, I'll skip the condescension and go right to pissed off

You can take your superior, cynical bullshit and shove it right up your ass. I didn't dedicate 100s of hours and 1000s of dollars to elect a bunch of spineless pro-choice republicans.

It's about time the real Democrats (i.e. the mainstream) start asking you "policy wonks" to get the fuck out and start your own party. Are you not interested in real leadership? Is this just a fucking game to you?

Maybe for you, dead GIs and a raped constitution are just "policy" issues -- something to be put on a campaign poster. For some of us, it's actual real life with real consequences.

So go on and post your eyeroll smileys and tell yourself you're soooo much more mature and reasonable than the rest of us. Then get the fuck out of our way while we actually work to make a difference.

[Kelly Rupert]

89. And explain what difference posting on DU makes?

And how I'm in your way? Politics isn't a game; no. It has severe consequences. And posting about how you're going to impeach Bush and save the world isn't helping matters; it's ignoring actual problems in favor of self-congratulatory slacktivism.

Spending hours working on campaigns? Yes. Writing letters? Less useful, but sure. Writing letters to editors? Go for it. March? If it floats your boat? Posting on DU? Can't hurt anything, but if you think you're changing the world, you're fooling yourself.

Tell yourself that writing angry open letters to Ms. Pelosi on DU will change her mind. Go for it. It won't change the fact that it won't. Posting on DU doesn't change the world. Posting on DU is done for fun.

[jgraz]

96. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out

If that's really how you feel, then please, please go do something else -- something you feel is worthwhile. Cuz you know what's worse than posting angry, hopeful missives on a progressive board? Posting superior, condescending crap when you've already admitted you think it's useless. That's just plain pathetic.

[Kelly Rupert]

101. Apparently discussing politics on a politics discussion board

is not enough. One must engage in changing the world as well. Discussion is for superior, condescending losers. This is an online activism board only.

I like DU by and large. I like discussing politics on DU. I don't think that online activism is helpful, because I think that it's indeed more driven by how it makes you feel, as you suggest, than what it will actually accomplish.

[jgraz]

105. I honestly don't understand what the hell you're talking about at this point

You jump on this thread, take a huge dump on most of the DU posters, and then pretend you have a real point. Take a read through your first post and explain what you were trying to accomplish there (besides trolling for pissed-off responses).

You say this is an online activism board only, then you say that online activism is not useful. While I disagree with both of those statements, I have to ask again: what are you trying to communicate in this thread? What result do you hope to effect through these posts?

[mopinko]

79. so, why are you here?

just to piss on the parade from your balcony?

[Kelly Rupert]

87. Same reason you are.

Entertainment. I like to talk politics. I just don't get my jollies by pretending that talking politics on DU changes the world.

[Forkboy]

98. A lot of people are actively involved.

And while there is plenty of entertainment here there's a lot of dedicated people involved at all levels trying to get shit done.DU is a great place for networking with others,for planning things that can be done.

Sorry all you get from it is entertainment.

[Kelly Rupert]

102. Networking and finding meetup times/places is great.

That's useful. That's activism. That changes things.

Saying "PELOSI IMPEACH BUSH NOW!" is not. That is slacktivism. And it's done for entertainment.

Sorry you can't see a difference.

[Forkboy]

106. I can see the difference.

Yet you said it's only entertainment.I showed there are ways it isn't.

And maybe,just maybe,the people saying this are actually pissed and aren't saying it to amuse but because they feel strongly about it.

Just a thought :shrug:

[mopinko]

104. not why i am here.

i do real political work in the real world. i get information (ammunition) here, and act upon it. i network, and hook up with others who do the same. many people here do actually walk the walk. fortunately, most are smart enough to bring along an umbrella.

[Forkboy]

100. "I assume I'll get a condescending reply or two"

You get what you give.Your post is condescending.Like a Repub though,it's ok when YOU do it. :eyes:

[nam78_two]

153. I know

The post basically reads "Oh look at all these immature, impractical losers-they just come here to let off steam and yak with their fellow losers etc etc." About as condescending as one can get. A real opening for a discussion among equals in the OP's mind apparently :eyes:.

[Gregorian]

58. I believe it does many things. The alternative does more harm than none.

But first, I think NOT impeaching is not an option, for a few reasons which are all obvious.

Impeaching opens investigations. Even if the Hague is a pipe dream, it absolutely won't happen without impeachment. And impeachment, unless I'm incorrect (which is very possible), precludes pardons.

To me, not impeaching is not an option.

[Usrename]

59. Yeah, right, it was also WRONG to try and convict OJ Simpson.

Some criminals should just be left alone to continue their criminal activity.

Idiot.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

61. Besides Giving The Other Side Every Bit Of Ammo They Need To Win; Not Much.

Unfortunately, some would rather lose on principal than win on strategy. I have no problem with winning on strategy, especially when so much is at stake and losing is simply unacceptable.

[Disturbed]

68. Would Rethugs in the Senate ignore the evidence of Crimes?

Have Busholini and Cheney committed crimes, actual Felonies? If solid evidence of crimes were presented could the majority of Senate Rethugs ignore the solid evidence?

[onenote]

123. the same folks that voted to sustain chimpy's veto even though the public supports a timetable?

What do you think?

[mmonk]

64. Better yet, what is getting accomplished by the ignoring

of the violations? So far, I see more troops going into Iraq, not less. I still see military tribunals, geneva violations, new free trade deals, new bankruptcy laws, a politicized justice department that violates laws and constitutional restraints, etc.

[StefanX]

66. What would this "actually" accomplish?

One of two things. Either:

You get all the Repuke Senators on-record that they support crime and torture and genocide and oppose the Constitution, the Magna Carta and habeas corpus -- which is going to hurt them locally next time they have to run.

or:

Some of the Repukes realize it's better to side with 88% of the country and get rid of Bush and Cheney.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x939196
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x935464

Either way, WE WIN -- by going on the record as supporting law-and-order and freedom and the Constitution, and possibly getting rid of two sleazy oil-hustler/war-profiteer/torturer/wanna-e dictators who DON'T.

Next question?

[KansDem]

77. Good points!

I, for one, am getting a little tired of this "We can't impeach until the Senate agrees to remove Bush from office after the House votes to impeach him" mantra of late.

No doubt these same people will be advocating a Senate strategy of "wait until the House agrees to wait until after the Senate agrees to wait until the House impeaches him," followed by a House strategy of "wait until the Senate agrees to wait until after the House agrees to wait until the Senate agrees to wait until the House impeaches him," and so on...

:grr:

[StefanX]

80. Exactly

You don't put criminals on-trial only AFTER you know the judge and/or jury are going to convict.

You indict ( = impeach here) and you present evidence at trial, and you do your best to convict ( = remove from office here).

You don't go into it knowing how the judge and jury (here, the Senate) are going to decide.

But you do your best to punish the criminals.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

129. delete -- wrong thread area

[NuttyFluffers]

124. this is the correct answer. thank you

the truth is often simple. note the length difference in the topic and your reply. all contingencies covered and solved in far shorter time than it takes to convolute into a loss this guaranteed win/win catch-22 against republican criminals. sometimes people like to overthink themselves into failure. note that this problem of overthinking, convoluted defensiveness is not smothering republican criminals right now.

[BlackVelvet04]

69. I keep seeing all these posts about impeachment.....

IT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

[mmonk]

74. And as an American I find that unacceptable.

I will not accept it. I will work my tail off to defeat republicans and democratic friends of republicans.

[earth mom]

71. Yeah, why even try to abide by the Constitution?

Who gives a damn anyway?! It's just a piece a paper, isn't that what the rethuglicans say? So let the bastards get away with their crimes against this country and humanity because they'll never be convicted anyway. :sarcasm:

Wonder what would happen if that attitude applied to all the crimes in this country, hmm? :eyes:

Post like yours are what's wrong with this country at it's very rotten core. :puke:

[derby378]

73. History will not look kindly on the Democrats if they do nothing

It's becoming more and more likely that Bush is going to get away with his crimes. Every day that passes without impeachment being sought adds to that likelihood.

[ComerPerro]

76. exactly. So many people here seem to think we have anything close to a 2/3 vote.

[KansDem]

85. No, but many of us here think the evidence is so strong that there'll be a 2/3 vote...

BushCo has committed so many crimes, I'd be hard pressed to imagine how any senator could still vote to not remove him from office after a House impeachment that lays out all the evidence.

[ComerPerro]

94. Repigs are so ethical and honest that they will vote based on evidence, not party line?

[dogday]

78. And what is it they can accomplish?

What issues are being ignored? Iraq is the number 1 issue, and the cost of gas, health care, which I have not heard a word about....

Where are these issues you speak of?

[TahitiNut]

81. What does this add to what's been "discussed" so many times already?

This has been answered many, many times. :puke:

There's very little evidence I've seen that the Feet-Of-Clay Prognosticators with Crystal Balls read, let alone comprehend, the answers.

[Vinca]

83. It would offer a line in a history book 100 years from now and

would give an indication of what was really going on during this miserable time in history. My worst fear is that the passage of time will somehow rehabilitate King George . . . just as it's done for Ronald "Ketchup Is a Vegetable" Reagan. That said, impeachment is too good . . . too easy . . . for this bunch. They should learn about rendition up close and personal and be spirited off to the Hague for war crimes trials.

[Swamp Rat]

84. I'd rather concentrate on the 'articles of impeachment now', and sort out your questions afterward.

In other words, let's cross that bridge together when the time comes. We'll bring down the Bushler Empire from within, little by little.

In the meantime we can work on getting our reps to pass the articles of impeachement. What do we have to lose by doing this?

[IChing]

88. "What do we have to lose by doing this?"

Will seems to think an election.....but I tell you if we don't we will lose our democracy, rule of law and constitutional legitimacy that formed this nation if it isn't lost already.

[Swamp Rat]

90. "if we don't we will lose our democracy"

Exactly.

If we don't impeach and convict, the rest of the world will see that the USA does NOT respect the Rule of Law.

We the People will pay severe consequences in the future.

[OxQQme]

110. Here's a 'series' question

Do y'all feel like we, collectively, are writing the first draft for a future stage in which the actors follow a particular script? Jews, Arabs, Chinese, lesbian/gay, atheists, fundamentals, etc.; all are equal, just no repugs allowed on the stage?
Or, are we kidding ourselves thinking that out of the brazillion people in this country, our voice is more important?
Me, I'd be pleased to have them criminals marched off the gangplank, all networks cameras rolling for the world to see them take their last steps. Or maybe a gallows in Baghdad.
Yuppers, that's how I'd like the future.

Or, do our 'elected' reps and senators follow a script that's been written by a more powerful force?

I've cached a ton of aluminum foil and am using it up at a horrendous rate.

[wiggs]

93. Might start to convince me that there is a true opposition party interested

in oversight, preservation of the constitution, government transparency, welfare of the people, fair foreign policy, corporate restraint, civil rights, environment, education, science, election reform, limits on signing statements, etc..

These are things this administration opposes. I'm not not how many dc dems really support all of them. Most clearly support some, but not to the extent of jeopardizing the others. My regrettable point of view has been earned by observing six years of dem compliance, passivity, caution, and complicity in any number of policy areas.

[Morgana LaFey]

99. Do you have any idea how many Americans want impeachment?

I suspect not.

These numbers may not be particularly new, but I can guarantee you this: Bush's popularity hasn't gone UP since then, nor have these issues been satisfactorily resolved in the public's mind:

Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2666087
and: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2666087#2667580
and:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2985169


New Zogby Poll: 52% of Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x368423


If the people make enough noise, you goddamned bet there'd be 67 votes in the Senate. If the people were to make ENOUGH noise, there'd be 100 votes in the Senate.

[Jack Rabbit]

107. That is a chance I am willing to take to remove Bush and Cheney

Note, it won't accomplish anything to remove only one of them. We don't really want impeachment. We want regime change.

A flaw in your premise, Will, is that something can be accomplished with the present regime remaining in power. Bush (and Cheney) have no respect to constitutional checks and balances. Impeachment and removal is the only thing either of them would respect. Even a vote of no confidence in Gonzales would most likely be met with a presumptive presidential bird flipping from our presumptive president.

The actual vote to impeach in the House would be preceded by a series of investigations that will reveal, with solid irrefutable facts, the extent of the crimes of the Bush regime. I should not take too much digging to put beyond dispute the charges of manipulating intelligence, outing a covert agent, the involvement of Bush in the attorney firings, the illegality of the NSA wiretap program, willful and callous neglect of preparedness of a category five storm in New Orleans prior to Hurricane Katrina and the relief and rescue missions afterward, willful neglect of veterans hospitals charged with caring for the wounded returning from theaters of war and the willful violation of international treaties of which the US is a party concerning the handling and treatment of combat detainees, especially pertaining to the practice of torture.

It is certain that some Republicans (and possibly Senator Lieberman) will never vote to impeach or remove Bush for any reason. What we need is about one-third of the Republicans, perhaps a little more to insure conviction in the Senate. That is as it should be. It is supposed to be difficult to impeach the president. It should only be done when one such as Bush so richly deserves it.

[EndElectoral]

108. Forget impeachment...they don't have the guts to keep timelines....

[mmonk]

111. I'll speak frankly. It still boggles my mind that we are discussing

whether our party should follow the foundational constructs of our constitutional democracy or not. It's not a liberal or conservative position nor a radical one to follow the constitution.

[nosmokes]

114. If we don't impeach bush, then no one should ever be impeached. just

remove the entire impeachment clause and every reference to it from the constitution, because if bush doesn't qualify then we have absolutely no need of any such tool. and if bush does deserve impeachment but like cheney and viet-nam we have other priorities, then it would surely be a capricous use of impeachment if anyone else were to ever be impeached.

me, i don't buy the argument that other business would have to grind to a halt while impeachment proceedings went forth. but even if it did, what have we lost? another sell out on a free trade deal? another nothing happening on iraq? another no labels for GMOs? no imports of drugs? more sellouts on the farm bill? it's not as if this congress is doing anything to make liberals stand up and cheer.

[Toots]

115. In order to convict a person of a crime you need unanimous consent from a jury

Not two thirds but unanimous. Do people say before the trial even starts that the votes are not there? They wait until the evidence is presented. If after evidence of wrong doing is presented people still don't find enough to convict then the defendant walks. Let's wait until the evidence is presented. If it is and it is overwhelming that crimes have been committed and the Constitution has been subverted and the Republicans still refuse to convict then the Democrats campaign armories will be filled to capacity..

[Gregorian]

116. It would slow Bush down.

At the very least, it would tie his hands. That's a good enough reason for me. Stop the asshole from doing more damage. Pardon my French.

[mopinko]

117. A FAILED IMPEACHMENT OPENS DOOR TO HAGUE

afaik- trial at the hague requires that justice is not forthcoming from existing mechanisms in the person's own country. if bush/cheney/rummy/gonzo/condi/etc are impeached but not convicted, this is the prerequisite for action by the international court.

[Gregorian]

118. And just what if we do have 2/3's of Senate votes in 2009?

Impeachment is not confined to the duration of one's term.

What if Bush, et al. are convicted by the new Senate in the next election?


AND ALSO impeachment keeps these criminals from holding office again.

[tavalon]

119. I guess this is a fair question

Given that this current crop of political wastoids appears unable to multitask.

Fair question though it may be, it is also a red herring.

YOu want popcorn with that?:popcorn:

[Hailtothechimp]

120. So what is actually being accomplished right now???

Immigration? No.

Katrina cleanup? No.

Health care? No.

So give me ssomething good that IS going on that we would lose if impeachment proceedings began.

[onenote]

121. Logic on the impeachment issue.

Waiting for someone to accuse Pitt of wanting more soldiers to die.

[Voltaire]

125. If I am not mistaken

The Impeachment clauses in the Constitution were not placed there only to be used when the polls were right or when you have the votes in the Senate to convict or any of that shit. Its says High Crimes And Misdemeanors. You could, as they say, look it up.

And there are plenty of High Crimes and Plenty of Misdeameanors.

Everyone here, I think, is aware of how politics is practiced in this sorry excuse of a country. The Constitution demands that this cabal be impeached and that the Congress do the will of the people and impeach every goddamned one of these treasonous bastards. No matter what the professional politicians say and no matter what the pundits say and no matter what the votes are in the Mother Fucking Senate.

Pragmatists in the past few years really make me laugh. Its fucking moderation and pragmatism that got us here. Why are we dicking around with a known fucking lawbreaker and his crew? Why are we not surrounding the White House and demanding his slimy ass gets dragged out of there!!???

The Congress is not going to do a fucking thing we want unless we show them that we will knock their political blocks off if they don't. I personally do not want to hear about a fucking presidential race or anything else until impeachment is front and center. Nothing else is worth debating in Washington or anywhere else. The only way that Bush will end his illegal invasion and occupation is to bring charges against him. And if he ignores the subpoenas, then you send the marshalls and drag his mangy ass out.

Talk? Compromise? Pragmatism? Tell you what, I got a better idea, wake me when the whole fucking thing is over. It won't be long now!

[earth mom]

126. The BEST post on this thread by far!

:applause:

I especially like this part:

The Constitution demands that this cabal be impeached and that the Congress do the will of the people and impeach every goddamned one of these treasonous bastards. No matter what the professional politicians say and no matter what the pundits say and no matter what the votes are in the Mother Fucking Senate.

[Amonester]

131. And the truth is, if Congress know these treasonous thieves did...

commit just ONE crime (cough... cough...) and still refuse, for whatever reason, to proceed with the letter of the law, which amounts to, in their case, begin the process of impeachment in the House, then their refusal to proceed would make them all accomplices of the crime(s) that were committed, and apparently, many here seem to still be unaware of this "unconvenient" fact...

Perhaps, it would make them accomplices too, even in spirit... And that wouldn't be sweet, really. :crazy:

[WA98296]

132. Voltaire, your response is so totally, exactly, and perfectly RIGHT ON!

[chknltl]

135. Thank You

I agree with others before me Voltaire, this is the best post on this ridiculous debate I have seen, not only in this thread but in a great many other threads on this topic as well!

[wiggs]

147. Thank you. nt

[Raine]

128. A voice of reason

here...finally. Thanks WP! :thumbsup:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

130. When will everything be just right for me?

I'll just let my government run roughshod over me and continue to wring my hands... woe is me.

[eridani]

134. Other issues? Like what? Using the Justice Department to spy on Americans and suppress votes?

Yeah, right. Did you happen to notice that Bush and minions have ignored EVERY SINGLE GODDAM SUBPOENA so far? Now what?

[radfringe]

136. so what will it take?

What is it going to take to impeach bush/cheney?

For the most part it is generally agreed there is more than enough evidence circulating to warrant impeachment. MSNBC had an on-line poll - 88% said bush/cheney are worthy of impeachment.

yet, the other side of the argument is that there are not enough votes and impeaching now would just make the Dems look foolish.

by not holding bush/cheney accountable is giving them permission to continue and sets a precedent for future presidents to also abuse and twist the system to their own priorities.

so what's it going to take to get the votes? Where's the tipping point? what will be the last straw? How much more crap will be dumped on us before we say enough?

[Nunyabiz]

137. What Impeachment would show is that the

Democrats have a spine and a single ball among them.
It will show that at least half the country and half the Congress think the resident of the USA is a Treasonous war criminal that should be fired.
This country will crumble unless we impeach this never elected fascist.
Impeachment proceedings will bring into the open all the Impeachable offenses and there are many, it will also effectively kill the rethuglican party showing that they are complicit in the criminal acts of this administration.

You need to get a grip on reality.

[sheerjoy]

144. Ooo that all sounds so great

please, please... let's do it!!!

[GeorgeGist]

139. Another OJ ...

would be worth something in the court of world opinion. I assume you're not a fan.

[sheerjoy]

143. The whole procedure

would give ME such immense pleasure.

[Cleita]

145. Forget impeachment. There are so many crimes under RICO

and war crimes to try them for, American patriots need to find a prosecuting government attorney willing to bring charges against them. They also need to find a sovereign government willing to bring charges against them at the Hague for war crimes.

What if there was another Constitutional Congress and Al Gore declared as the rightful President in exile because of a rogue element taking over the Executive Office of the Federal Government by fraud? Then that government, if recognized by other sovereign nations, could go to the Hague and demand that the Bush administration be arrested and tried for war crimes.

Surely, lawyers out there. There's got to be a way.

:shrug:

[spanone]

149. I, for one, would love to say that.

if only it were true.

[underpants]

151. Take a Friday afternoon and impeach him ..er them

So they officially in the history books have been impeached.

[GOTV]

154. Impeachment without conviction does accomplish something - but it's not something we want....

... It vindicates the actions of the Bush admin. It's a green light for everything they were charged with. It lowers the bar for future presidential behavior. It says he was right and we were wrong. It's a pie in our faces courtesy of the GOP.

[Ganja Ninja]

155. Let me ask you a question Will.

What do you think would happen to the Republican's chances in the 2008 election if Bush were impeached?

My guess is their chances would go up as impeachment would rile up their base. So is this the real reason the Dem's are holding back? Are they more afraid of getting the votes in the Senate then they are of not getting them?

[EFerrari]

158. Their base doesn't have the votes to elect them. Which is why

they've had to resort to stealing elections.

Let them get riled up as four freepers and twelve port-a-potties. WE have the majority.

[BuyingThyme]

159. Now that Iraq is off the table, there's plenty of room for impeachment.

[chaska]

173. In case someone else hasn't already said it, Republicans would be relieved to be rid...

of Bush/Cheney. The ones running in '08 anyway. What with the way momentum is building already, imagine them trying to resist the tide if (no, when) we actually start the process.

Only 67? No problem.

[Zhade]

174. Why do you predicate this question on a BULLSHIT false dichotomy?

As if things would have to be ignored to hold criminals accountable.

You know better than to bring that kind of nonsense.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

176. Showing the world at least half of the US is HONORABLE?

:shrug:

[porphyrian]

178. What makes you think impeachment proceedings would prevent other worthy issues from being heard?

And what makes you so certain that, after the lengthy process ends in a vote, that we won't have a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate? What I really want to know is why so many people are so comfortable using the possibility of failure as an excuse not to do the right thing.