For DUers opposed to IMPEACHMENT ASAP - a question for you.

[RiverStone]

As a recent covert to the "impeach ASAP" camp (per my journal), I am very empathetic to both sides of the view. For those of you against impeachment ASAP - a hypothetical question:


Is there an act of war, legislation, or behavior by Bush/Cheney (either overt or found on discovery) that would push you to the point where you might change your mind and say, "that's it, we must at least put impeachment on the table ASAP."


This is genuinely asked without sarcasm and to seek greater clarity. I recently reached a point where I believe the insane actions of our president, and his criminal disregard for the will of the people, necessitates action which trumps our legislative mandates. That action is impeachment ASAP. This does not negate our legislative goals in any way; it is simply a matter of what takes greater precedent at the moment. IMHO, saving lives does.

In the end, we ALL seek regime change. Ideally, we could move forward both with legislative changes (raise min wage, decrease war funding, restore habeas corpus) AND launch a formal impeachment inquiry in the House for a vote. I'm grateful that where ever one sits on the impeachment debate here at DU or in our party; that our big BLUE tent is big enough to hold (and debate) divergent views!


:kick: :grouphug:

[Lucky Luciano]

1. A smoking gun so powerful that repubs will look outrageously

bad for opposing the impeachment. We need a 2/3 majority - not gonna happen. However, if the evidence got rolled onto the table in a public spectacle like it did for Nixon, then even his party could not support him without guaranteeing further electoral losses. We need that first.

He fully deserves to be impeached, imprisoned, and have imposed the harshest possible penalty for high treason....

[Fridays Child]

3. Is it 2/3 to impeach and 2/3 to remove?

[ddbaj]

7. To remove. Simple majority to impeach. n/t

[Selatius]

8. No, simple majority in House to impeach, 2/3rds to remove in Senate

The Senate will likely be where impeachment fails. Not enough votes if we assume a strict party-line result.

[Fridays Child]

11. Thanks. That's what I thought.

I think people, sometimes, confuse impeachment and removal.

[The Count]

9. Like, say...16 words in SOTU? Linking OBL&Saddam in IWR?

Lying about wiretapping? Signature statements putting him above the law?
What kins od NEW smoking guns are we waiting for, really?

[Lucky Luciano]

12. The kind that would make repub senators vote to remove.

[The Count]

17. At this point the War is everyone's problem. Even GOP-ers'!

They might not have given a damn when they thought they keep the power regardless, but now they are finding a 'conscience"
Besides, we don't even need their votes. Little Boots will fold and resign way before it reached Senate.

[Lucky Luciano]

18. Ya think eh would suddenly be the type to back down?

I am sure we will see him 'stay the course' so to speak. I am concerned that if the senate does not vote to remove, then it may be seen as a vindication preventing further due process against him criminally.

[The Count]

25. He almost resigned in 2001, after losing Senate. 911 saved him

When it gets personal, Little Boots has less backbone than Nixon. Much, much less.

[ddbaj]

2. Only one thing would make me support impeachment:

If we have 66 votes in the Senate to REMOVE.

I support investigating and providing oversight, like the legislative branch should but neglected to do so under the GOP. If we find something that gets us 66 removal votes in the Senate, I am 100% pro-impeachment.

Right now I doubt we'd even get 100% of the dems to vote for removal.

[RiverStone]

10. The act alone of introducing impeachment holds meaning

I understand the argument that folks want to be "assured" of a victory (i.e. the 66 votes); BUT, even if victory is not assured, does not the very act itself of introducing it in the House for debate hold HUGE meaning? We may not win the first time, though a historian may read that some DEMS (and maybe even a rethug or two) at least tried to acknowledge the war crimes and trampling of our constitutional freedoms. Tried to stop the insanity!

Sometimes it makes sense to move forward, even if you think you may lose....if the cause is great enough.

[MrCoffee]

21. i disagree...

the very act of introducing Articles in the House is partisan. so is impeachment proceedings, and so is a trial in the Senate. it's a political process, and it's not to be entered into lightly. there's a huge amount of political capital that would have to be spent to impeach.

[omega minimo]

14. this is where the naysayer logic totally breaks down

Investigation and oversight and "finding something" (or re-"finding something" since a good bit's already been "found") leads to counting the votes. AFTER -- not BEFORE-- the process.


Stategery sucks and I don't know where people get this bullshit idea they can predict negative outcomes and decide not to act.............................

[MrCoffee]

22. here's what I don't get...

what makes you think Senate Republicans would not spin and wiggle and connive and obfuscate and derail conviction proceedings?

what gives you such confidence that the Republican party would do the right thing? the MCA shot that notion right between the eyes.

[Tarc]

4. Depends on how soon is this ASAP

If it is the current resolution by McKinney, the Representative heading out the door, then no, there is nothing I'd do to support that frivolous one.

Once the Democratic party gets in and the investigations get rolling, it is likely only a short matter of time for something solid to come out. I'd like to see conclusive proof that Bush and crew altered, distorted and cherry-picked the Iraq intel to portray Iraq in far more dire terms than it really was.

Once that's out, then impeach away.

[ddbaj]

6. that's the thing.

A lot of us who're saying we shouldn't lead off with impeachment are simply saying we should investigate first. If the stuff is there, removal will happen naturally. Either the people will pressure congress into impeachment/removal or before they can do it he quits.

So I don't get why people oppose our way of thinking. Would you rather impeach without the 66 votes for removal? I'd rather remove.

[omega minimo]

13. Start with www.afterdowningstreet.org and john conyers' site or google

"I'd like to see conclusive proof that Bush and crew altered, distorted and cherry-picked the Iraq intel to portray Iraq in far more dire terms than it really was."

[SeaBob]

5. impeachment

I very much would like to see Bush & Cheney Impeached. My only reason for thinking it wont happen is because of how slow congress drags its feet. I think he needs to be impeached more than some guy who got a blow job

[On the Road]

15. There are ABSOLUTELY Things Bush Could Do

which would make me favor impeachment. Invade or bomb Iran in defiance of the UN and Congressional resolutions, for one. Any other action that attempts to usurp the power of the Supreme Court or Congress, for another. And Bush needs to know that he's on a short leash.

I believe impeachment is best used against presidents who defy the separation of powers or refuse to fulfill their constituitonal obligations. That's why both the Johnson and the threatened Nixon impeachment were good ideas.

It's also very important to have sufficient support, not just 2/3 in the Senate, but 2/3 in the general population and preferably among "opinion makers." Seems impossible, but then so did 2/3 opposition to the Iraq War a couple of years ago.

The tide is turning Bush. Bush's opposition is growing to include the type of establishment figures on the Iraq Commission, who surely cannot be pleased with his casual dismissal of their hard work. Bush is on the way to being an embarrassment by the time he leaves office.

Unless there is a critical mass, impeachment will return the country to a 50-50 partisan stalement. Republicans will suddenly jump to Bush's defense. Failure to remove from office will be interpreted as vindication. Impeachment will dominate the news, take attemtion away from all the most pressing issues,and prevent Congress from compiling the kind of record of achievement that will set up a Democratic victory in 2008.

The alternative, letting Bush serve out the rest of his term and dealing with the mess he has made, is more likely to lead to a long-term Democratic majority.

[RiverStone]

16. Give Bush the chance - he will screw things up even worse - no doubt!

Thanks ribofunk for the thoughtful response. Glad to know there IS a line BushCo could cross which would sway your perspective on the impeachment question.

I appreciate your logic on wanting an assured victory with 2/3.

I'll just add that my shift on the subject meant that even if victory was not a guarantee (i.e. counting before the vote); that some causes are worth the effort even if you think you may lose (the first time anyway). Impeachment is worth the climb.

Bush may yet "upsurp" the power of Congress. Cowboy diplomacy gone mad...I would not be surprised.

[onenote]

19. of course

I've always stated that if investigations produce a "smoking gun" that leads to a broad, bipartisan call for impeachment, it should be moved to the top of the agenda. (I should add that, in terms of new actions, I don't believe any "legislation" could warrant a call for impeachment in and of itself; rather, it would have to be some extra-legal or illegal behavior. Merely proposing legislation, even legislation that would be found unconstitutional if enacted and then challenged in court, doesn't merit impeachment).

[MrCoffee]

20. 66 locked votes to convict in the Senate would do it

i'm all for impeachment once we get those votes in the bank. i must be more cynical than most, because i don't think for a second that Senate Republicans would vote to convict without a gun to their heads. at this point, i don't see that gun.

in my mind, impeachment without conviction = exoneration by spin. that is a totally unacceptable outcome.

[porphyrian]

23. Investigations ARE going to happen and are happening now.

You weren't addressing me with your question, because I absolutely believe impeachment at this point is imperative, both morally, and to preserve the integrity of our Constitution and nation. However, I agree with your conclusions, and I believe strongly that the call of impeachment will increase exponentially with the release of the results of the investigations to the general public over the next year. Some of the loudest voices will be their former cheerleaders once they realize that they have been betrayed.

[RiverStone]

24. Well said! And I hope your right.

Does the tail no longer wag the dog? With the DEMS in control of Congress, I think not. Though will the "release of information to the general public" be true? I hope our oversight will ensure that. No more spin control on * crimes and lies.