Which is most possible and which would you prefer-Censure or Impeachment?

[FrenchieCat]

Poll question: Which is most possible and which would you prefer-Censure or Impeachment?

There has been talk of both the Censure and the Impeachment of Bush by many in the Liberal community. Of course, Sen. Feingold brought up the point of Censure (although I don't think this is severe enough myself, nor feasible under the current circumstances), and there was an Impeachment Panel this week on C-Span led by Amy Goodman plus the Vanity Fair Impeachment cover a few weeks ago.

One thing is clear in my mind; BUSH did break the FISA 1978 law, as he clearly admitted so. Of course, there is also the issue of the President lying us into a war (Conyers has done most of the legwork on this one).

My question is which of the remedies offered would you prefer? which one is feasible? which one fits the crime with a punishment adequate based on the deeds?

Edited to add....folks have been very outspoken about these two issues on these boards....so I hope that they will also participate in this poll and leave their comments as to why they are voting as they are.
Thank you!

[FrenchieCat]

1. I voted to start hearing on impeachment after we take back the house.....

and this is why:

Personally, I prefer that we allow the Republican voters to stew in their own corrupted party juices and for Democrats not to call for anything until after election results.

My reasons are simple; Whatever we could do now, we can do after the election even if we lose (Which I'm getting hopeful we won't if we play it right), and expect the exact same results.

However, if we win the elections (especially in the house), we would then have the power to propose something more significant and punitive than Censure....like say, uhm...Impeachment.

What I don't want to do now, before the elections, is to give Republicans a reason to rally round their President, and possibly come out to vote in droves to save him....with them understanding that if the House and/or the Senate turn Democratic, their President will be at peril. I much prefer that they remain disappointed at some of the Republican party's latest shanidigans (like the Dubai Port Deal, the Abramoff scandal, the ongoing mess called the Iraq War, and Delay saying bu-buy) and that they opt to either stay home election day....or actually vote "D" while in the privacy of their voting booth.

PS. I think that NOT calling for some action to hold him accountable is unacceptable, but yet I don't think that we can get any real satisfaction currently (the censure measure seem more than dead at this point, IMO) due to the make up of the congress and the way the media has the bad habit of slanting things in favor of their masters; the Republicans.

[Capn Sunshine]

9. I'm with you , because you're so practical

And I've always like that about you.

But I'm still backing Russ Feingold to take his resolution as far as he can, for the same reason: it keeps the issue before the public; which can only do good.

The republicans are twisting in the wind and it's kind of nice to watch the implosion.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. Mostly I care about getting back the house. Censure requires a

50% plus one vote majority in both houses. In order to sustain impeachment and remove bush requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate.

However, neither censure or impeachment, much less a thorough investigation is possible until we win back the house at a bare minimum.

[FrenchieCat]

3. As stated above...I am in agreement. And even if we only win back

the house, if they started "fair" hearings, the media would certainly be pressured in reporting on them....and therefore putting pressure on the Senate...who would have to deal with "real" evidence (unlike the joke reasons in the Clinton trial) and if that was the case, it would be very hard for them to justify a "not Guilty" vote, in particular on the NSA Spying/FISA Court 1978 law violation.

I want this to happen sooooo badly, I can literally "taste" it!

[rumpel]

4. I say push for impeachment now

By the time the elections are here, the House & Senate would have already changed the laws to legalize, after the fact btw, all of the impeachable offenses.
And who says we win in 2006, when the voting system is screwed up. Do we have so much confidence?
I'd say put pressure on your representatives now or it is business as usual: all under the rug.

[FrenchieCat]

7. So you don't think that pushing for impeachment now, if reported

in the way it certainly will by the media.....slanted to make Dems look radically bad would affect the elections? Do you think that the voters on the fence....might just decide that impeachment is just too radical and somehow want to protect the "wartime" Prez?

[John Q. Citizen]

16. My belief is that the people should demand the Repos impeach, now,

instead of leaving it up to the politicians of either party.

Perhaps the Repos will call the voters stupid for our views, but at least we the people aren't up for election and if my Repo Rep wants to run against me and a sizable portion of the people of my state I say let them.

We need to be out and about and very vocal.

[ProudDad]

5. The impeachment investigation

would produce mounds of evidence for a criminal prosocution of bush, et al, after they leave office...preferably at the Hague...

They'd be smart not to leave the country after they leave office.

On edit: Remember Pinochet!!!

[AtomicKitten]

6. take back the House - investigations begin - then impeachment

[blm]

21. This is the most doable plan, imo.

.

[Hidden Stillness]

8. First Things First--Let Us Learn What is Going On Here, With a Grand Jury

If we get the House back--and the Chairs of several Committees that would have had appropriate jurisdiction--then of course we can start impeachment proceedings on the horrible little drunk immediately, and have it all come out, and get rid of that bastard Cheney at the same time. Until then, though, I think we should be calling for a Grand Jury investigation of several things that many Americans want explained anyway: from Plame and the threat to the lives of the undercover CIA agents connected with her, to the Iraq war and its false pretenses, to the backroom deals with corporate lobbyists that gave us the "Medicare" (commercial insurance and pharmaceutical industries) prescription disaster, and the unconscionable, record-breaking gas and oil price-gouging and profit-making.

Calling for a Grand Jury makes it sound like you know something and want it revealed, and I think is harder to pretend it is "grandstanding" or "partisan," because you are not exactly calling for punitive measures, you are calling for an investigation of something and for the facts to come out; it is a low key first step. The investigation provides its own interest, the way the Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald was so instantly popular, as the Libby, Rove, etc., cases picked up. To call for a Grand Jury indicates that you want answers to something, and are not just posturing or exploiting an advantage. Notice that it was the Texas Prosecutor's revelation of facts, and assembling of a case, that brought the bastard DeLay down. There is nothing like proof to turn people against these criminals.

A Grand Jury would reveal creepy details, for example, the Bush Administration's spying on ordinary Americans as they lived their lives--League of Women Voters meetings, Quaker meetings in Pennsylvania, Florida, etc., anti-war marches infiltrated and spied-on, the attempts to get records of every Google search that millions of people have done over a many-months period, etc., etc. As creepy as Nixon. Let the results of a Grand Jury investigation come out--just searching for answers--and impeachment will take care of itself. Things will leak out. For those who believe that a Grand Jury investigation, by law, is supposed to remain secret, remember that creep Kenneth Starr, who wasted $70 million I think it was, on a morphing Clinton attack, who then kept revealing things to the media, and suffered no consequences at all. So much for law.

To call for a Grand Jury investigation is harder to attack because it makes you wonder who would object to things being understood and corrected. It is a way to make a giant step, while indicating that you do not pretend to predetermine where or how it will end. Of course, with this Administration's secretive life of crime and collusion, we all know where it will end. I think this is a powerful thing we could actually do, not having control of the Houses of Congress (yet). The other two, I think we could not (yet).

[FrenchieCat]

10. Thanks! Very informative post!

So who can call for a Grand Jury Investigation?

[Hidden Stillness]

14. Good Question

I have been doing a little searching around for some real information on this, and the only thing I have found is that Federal Prosecutors or a Special Prosecutor calls for a Grand Jury; of course there has to be some original reason for them to be involved at first. I think the Judicial Committee in the Senate can--I think they were the ones who convened the Sept. 11th Grand Jury for the original Joint House and Senate Subcommittee investigation (the one Sen. Bob Graham of Florida was on). I also know that sometimes, in States, citizens themselves can call for a Grand Jury investigation, as at the Rocky Flats Nuclear Plant, Denver, Colo.

I'm not sure who could get this thing rolling here. I know that after this crook Hastert killed the Ethics Committee in Congress, Democrats tried to put forward a new rule that anyone could bring an ethics complaint, not just members of Congress--citizens, ethics watchdog groups, etc. I don't think Federal level Grand Juries are like that though. Interesting question--you don't just call for one from the floor of the House or Senate.

[smoochpooch]

11. Right now just getting people to understand

that he did break the law is important. I don't think the average citizen really understands the issue of FISA or how the President ignored it, but if they keep hearing that "he broke the law", eventually it should gain some resonance with the public.

[FrenchieCat]

12. But do you think that the media will allow the American people to

understand this? Cause it looks like it's been swept under the rug to me....I mean the Censure proposal and why it might be necessary.

And the entire time it was discussed, seemed like it wasn't a discussion of the substance for the reason of a Censure proposal...but rather the fact that someone had called for it. The hearings came and went....and were barely covered on the Networks. :shrug:

[smoochpooch]

13. Good point, it took

Libby's indictment to get people (and the media) to pay attention to that one. That's the liberal media for ya!

[Chemical Bill]

15. No death by firing squad option? n/t

[Sugarcoated]

17. It looks to me like putting censure out there

put the Repubs on the defensive, put the issue out there. I think it's gotten through. And I don't believe the Mehlman posturing that this is "manna" for the party. I think the Bush faithful may be stoked - but they know the implications of a Dem majority anyway. Bush has lost cred and it's almost impossible to turn people around once they've decided you're an incompetent liar. And though I think the censure proposal was a great move for Feingold politically, I think, regardless of the Dems who didn't rally around it, the fact that a Dem had the ca-hones to stand up makes them all look stronger. I believe, judging from the net reaction to call to censure Bush, people are thirsting for a Democrat to do something to hold him accountable. And there's something to be said for charging up our base. I think we desperatly needed this shot in the arm.

My 2 rubles.

[paulk]

18. take back the House

get subpoena power

drag this whole mess out in public

let the public decide if impeachment is warranted -

Impeachment should be on the table, but we can't go forward without overwhelming public support for it. To do that we have to make the case, the only way to make the case is to control at least the House. To get it through the Senate we would still need Republican support (two thirds majority!) - the only way Republicans would back it is if they see it costing them the 2008 elections. Even then they would probably push Bush to resign first -

[greendog]

19. Impeachment...but wait till mid '08

Let's win back Congress in '06; then, every 4 or 5 months we can vote to censure the little bastard for one thing or another.

In the middle of the '08 election season, with our nominee chosen, we can impeach the monkey-boy and frog-march his disgraced ass to the Hague for war crimes trials. Then, Nancy Pelosi can care-take our government for a few months till we elect the President of our choice. Without the pressure to run for re-election for POTUS she'd be free to retake her congressional seat and resume her duties as House Speaker.

The last thing we want is a "President Pelosi" after 1 1/2 years running for re-election. 1 1/2 years isn't enough time for ANYONE to get things turned around before the next election. The Republican Press would start the smear campaign immediately.

We need to use the primary process to select our nominee. We'll probably get a stronger candidate this way. We have a "chance", this time, to get someone great.

[serryjw]

20. "Hang Them at THE HAGUE!"

n/t

[sendero]

22. One has..

... nothing do to with the other.

[guidod]

23. What's with this impeachment shit?

Do you really want Cheney to be President?