There is no longer any possible argument against Impeachment

[ThomWV]

The insult to the nation has gone too far. This is lawlessness and pillage. This is enslavement, this is the highest treachery. This is the dismemberment of our Constitution, this is the packing of the final court. This is unacceptable and there is no recourse but Impeachment. There can be no immunities, there can be no pardons. If the Government has to stop completely to accomplish it then so be it. No one can argue that impeachment is off the table - no one.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. I'm right behind you!

[TooBigaTent]

2. Bbbbbbuuttt, it'll hurt the feelings of our new friends in BO's Unity Party. And that

could make them mad. Mustn't have that happen.

[ClassWarrior]

10. Bite me.

NGU.

[lligrd]

3. I Don't See How We Can Ever Heal Without It nt

[jgraz]

4. There never has been any argument against it

Aside from the cowardice and complicity of the Democrats.

[Sean Stuart]

30. That's it. Somewhere along the line, upholding the Constitution became inconvenient

for the Democrats in Congress. There is no sense of duty - only political calculation.

[ixion]

5. there has never been such an argument

these criminals have been on the rampage since day one.

[Dhalgren]

6. Too many Democrats in Congress agree with Clinton and Obama,

There are no impeachable offenses that they see. Whichever Democrat gets the Presidency, they will honor and support Bush. He will not be pursued in any way - except as a good will ambassador for whoever the President is. These people are all in this thing together. What will it take to make everyone see the truth. Democrats and Republicans are on the same side...

[femrap]

7. I wore my Impeach W and Cheney

button today to a 'Meet the Dem Congressional Candidates.' A couple of people said there wasn't the time...stupid excuse. We'll just put it on the 'fast track.'

Most felt like I did...or I convinced them.

Throughout our history, the party that has brought Impeachment has always won the next Presidential Election! I believe Americans do appreciate a party standing up for its principle even if they don't agree...as with Gore/Bush race of '00.

Betty Sutton, Dem on the Judiciary Committee, said that 'the rumor' is Impeachment would take place between Nov. 5 and Jan. 20...because there is nothing else to do then.

[gordianot]

8. At some point you have to draw a line.

I do not accept a Unitary Executive and trashing the Constitution from Republicans. The same goes for Democrats even if I agree with their policies when they return to office.

By refusing to impeach or investigate the Democratic Congress is also violating their oath.

[Angry Mollusk]

9. Had Bush lied about getting a blowjob, would he have been impeached?

I lived in Australia for 6 months, and my Aussie friends asked me:

"how is you Americans could impeach a president for lying about a blowjob, but can't impeach one for lying about reasons for war'?


I still don't know....The Democrats need to fight back- Im sick of this 'turning the other cheek bs- the Republicans hit us, we need to hit back twice as hard. If Bush is allowed to walk away scott free, it will be a travesty of justice...
WHY couldn't we have gone after Bush with the same intensity the Republicans used to go after Clinton? And Clinton's impeachment was pure bullshit, wheras Bush truly deserves impeachment.

[John Kerry VonErich]

11. Except one

Time, I don't think there is enough time anymore. With goin from committee to committee, it'll be 2009 by then.

[Senator]

12. That's the weakest of the many lame excuses...

...as there is no "investigation" required. The regime admits and "defends" their actions under monarchical, "unitary" executive power-grab theory (i.e., Rule By Signing Statement).

There is no "smoking gun" to look for. Everything is already part of the public record. All that is left is an up or down vote on torture and illegal spying.

It should take weeks, not months. And the most likely result of "probable conviction" -- staggered resignations and installation of Congressionally-approved caretaker President Danforth or Warner -- could be handled in a day.

---

[KharmaTrain]

15. So Impeachment Should Be Based On Allegations Not Real Crimes?

I just want to be sure here. If we're gonna have a political lynching, then let's be just like the GOOP...trump up charges and impeach cause they can.

Yes, there are lots of investigations needed here...many currently stonewalled behind "Executive Privilidge" that prevent the evidence to come forth that will give the smoking gun, expose not just one or two figureheads, but the entire criminal enterprise and put forth compelling evidence not only for political prosecutions, but REAL CRIMINAL ones.

Any indictment handed down before 1-20-09 will be met with a pardon...and the job now is to prevent this regime from immunizing itself from its crimes after its removed. A rushed impeachment lets a lot of the real criminals get away and doesn't address the real crimes committed. Sadly, those changes can't happen until we have a functioning Justice Department and a House AND Senate that will indict AND CONVICT. Anything less vindicates this regime and its crimes...

[hootinholler]

22. THe hearing on impeachment are required...

There is no executive privilege in cases of impeachment. There is no pardon power in cases of impeachment.

If we are ever to regain the reigns impeachment is imperative, even if it's after 1.20.09.

-Hoot

[Usrename]

27. They ADMIT to the crimes!

There is also testimony, already on the record, that they are criminals. They admit to it. No one is even denying it any longer.

What is your problem? Do you think that waterboarding people in order to obtain evidence is legal?

Do you know that this crime, that they have admitted to, is punishable by death under our laws?

:wtf:

Lynching?

How about giving this one a try for me. Can you think of a single serious crime that these guys are not guilty of.

[Senator]

29. Well, Yes. That Is What The Word Means. -- Allegation/Accusation

Impeachment is simply formal accusation. That is all the House is responsible for. The Senate decides if an accusation is supported and requires removal from office. These are based on "high crimes and misdemeanors" -- which are abuses of office and/or of the public trust and not simply criminal acts governed by statute (though such acts may well qualify for both categories).

The notion of crimes (let alone "real crimes") need not enter into it. You seem to have political process (like impeachment) erroneously conflated with criminal process (which includes indictments/pardons). Impeachment (failed, "rushed," or other) has no legal effect on any future criminal proceeding.

Failure to impeach however, makes such proceedings far less likely as a political/practical matter in that Congress appears to have approved of the violations by its failure to object to them.

In any case, impeachment is still our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

---

[John Kerry VonErich]

20. Have to say you are wrong on this one.

Too much burocracy, thats the time killer.

[Senator]

24. There is no bureaucracy

Articles of impeachment may simply be proposed and voted upon. The Kucinich articles on cheney were sent to Judiciary, which could have approved them that same day. But even that is not required. There are no "rules."

The Clinton farce took less than 3 months total. And that was with the holiday break, time to question fact witnesses, and many "off" days. As I said, weeks may be necessary -- not months.

It could easily be over before the conventions.

---

[mmonk]

13. There never has been a legitimate argument against impeachment

of this administration.

[lonestarnot]

14. What is different today? Yestereday appeared to be the same?

[ThomWV]

18. Siegleman

[madokie]

16. You got my vote

[Kitty Herder]

17. There never was a legitimate argument against impeachment.

I don't know what the congress is thinking. I really, really don't.

[fascisthunter]

25. .

[Winterblues]

19. You think Democrats in Congress give a rat's patootie what you think.

Congress is one big crime syndicate with both parties as participants. They need that Corporate money to keep flowing...They know you aren't going to vote for a Republican..

[leftofthedial]

21. yawwwwn . . .

all this was true even before the "democratic" leadership took impeachment off the table before the 2006 "elections."

There are other priorities, which include, umm, well, let's see . . . WTF! you're telling me they haven't done one damned thing?!?! . . . oh, yeah, they made Roger Clemens lie before congress about being a juicehead.


Impeachment ain't gonna happen. It is ESSENTIAL to restore even the appearance of law and order in this country, but it AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. The real owners don't want it. The bush cabal will get away scot-free and will pardon any of their flunkies who could testify against them.

[The Stranger]

23. Ah, but the Nancy Disaster is covering for the Administration's crimes.

Meanwhile, DUers are launching witch hunts to ban anyone who says anything positive about (or who fails to condemn with sufficient visciousness and persuasiveness) that awful fascist, Ralph Nader.

:sarcasm:

[fascisthunter]

26. .

[spanone]

28. there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for it being 'off the table' NONE

[tomp]

31. no support for impeachment/accountability of bush, inc....

...no vote. only a candidate who actively supports impeachment or makes bush, inc. accountabilty a major priority will get my vote. this is not negotiable.

accountability is the only salvation for america. the rest is window dressing.

and i will say boldly, once again, if you don't get this, you don't get nothin'.