Reply #31: {must investigate} = {don't have a case} = {nullify powerful case we HAVE}

[pat_k]

Bush and Cheney have usurped our will, committed war crimes, and violated our law in plain sight. The public record is clear. An irrefutable case for impeachment is easy to convey -- in fact Feingold did a fine job of covering one of the http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2749557&mesg_id=2759379">top three charges in the context of his censure resolution.

When Members of the House buy the notion that they need to investigate before introducing articles, they don't strengthen the case for impeachment, they weaken it by introducing unnecessary doubt ("If the case is so simple, why haven't we seen articles of impeachment yet? They're just fishing -- probably don't have anything")

Hearings to present the case and nail down the strongest charges can be appropriate long as members

• publicly accuse by drafting and introducing articles ASAP;
• are crystal clear about the truth -- i.e., that there are multiple impeachable high crimes; that these crimes were committed in plain sight; that we know all we need to know.

Of course there will be reactionaries who reject reality, but digging up and shoveling more "reality" and facts at them will have no effect.

Once the leadership makes specific accusations and declares their intent to impeach, we'll soon find out how many Republicans are actually willing to defend the indefensible. It may be fewer than we can imagine. For example, Bush's abuse of signing statements to nullify McCain's anti-torture amendment (the overwhelming will of the people) in order to keep torture "on the table" is not something that many would happily defend. Warner, Graham, McCain, and Collins (may have been others I'm not recalling) came out against the "War Criminals Protection Act." The "compromise" they got was not much of one, it just shifted the responsibility for actually approving torture to Bush (as opposed to approving it themselves and becoming War Criminals). Specter dismissed the WH defense of the criminal surveillance program as absurd. There are some other "rational" Republicans (Snowe, Hagel, and Lugar).

Republicans will have a choice. Defend the indefensible or "get it over with" ASAP by pressuring Bush and Cheney to take the resignation "http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/12">exit strategy." Given the public's growing dismay at the arrogant, irresponsible, and autocratic Bush-Cheney White House, Republicans may be more than happy to be rid of them.

Whatever the expected outcome, to fail to accuse is tantamount to exoneration. For Members of the House, the choice is clear: Duty or Complicity. They are not the judges and their decision to bring charges cannot be based on what they believe will happen in the Senate. It may never even get to the Senate.