How long would it take to impeach Bush? 6 months, a year? I think this is why some people just

[patricia92243]

don't want to mess with impeaching Bush - by the time the impeachment actually took place, his term would be all but over anyhow.

I AM NOT talking about the justice of it- we all know his crimes.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. He's also the lamest duck in the history of the U.S. Presidency.

There's no point to it. All you'd do is remove the albatross of Bush from around their next nominee's neck.

[Bitwit1234]

2. The thing is...if they impeach him

not only could they remove him from office for whatever period was left, THEY COULD JAIL HIM. And if they had the goods on him that would be the best damn thing to do..................

[havocmom]

11. That could still happen even after scheduled end of his term

The Hague and US courts still have some bones to pick with bush/cheney.

One advantage of waiting until they are out of office via the usual means would be they wouldn't have their own appointed successor in position to pardon.

[Larry Allen]

43. There is no reason to wait.

A pardon would facilitate, not hinder a trial at the Hague.

[ClassWarrior]

3. Weeks not months. We don't need to stall to make up evidence...

...like the Rape-Publicans did when they attempted their coup on the Clinton Presidency.

NGU.

[calimary]

37. Except if we sought to introduce ALL the evidence. Then, it truly would

take years. These people are SO criminal.

IMPEACHMENT - NOW!!! And NGU (especially about IMPEACHMENT)!!!

[Larry Allen]

41. Conyers has done much of the work.

So it wouldn't have to take any time at all. The process is only limited by the time it takes for the American people to get accustomed to the idea, which might not be that long either.

Now if you want to COMPREHENSIVE and include ALL of the crimes, that is a different story. Perhaps the process could be streamlined by sending up, say, five new articles per week for the next ten to twenty weeks.

[raccoon]

4. If we don't impeach Bush, what in Hades would a President have

to do to be impeached?

[Duer 157099]

28. Be a Democrat

that would do it

[Hippo_Tron]

30. Get a blowjob

[napi21]

5. That would all depend on what charges were chosen to be

used in a bill of impeachment and how obviously provable they were. It didn't takea LONG TIME to bring Nixon down after the tapes were discovered & obtained. It took YEARS for the Pubs to finally find SOMETHING they could get on Clinton!

BTW I think you're right about many people thinking it would take too long to get Shrub.

[tk2kewl]

6. just throw him in jail as an enemy combatant and we'll get to him after we fix his mess

[MrModerate]

7. Spending political capital to squash a bedbug . . .

Seems to offer a low return on investment.

If justice were free, Schimpanski would have been sent in shackles to the Hague years ago. As it is, Dems and the loyal opposition need to spend their time trying to fix some of the damage he and his cronies have caused, taking advantage of his weakened state.

Maybe we can prosecute later, once he's a private citizen. I'd be happy to contribute to an Extraordinary Rendition fund.

[Warpy]

8. Right now, that's about what it would take, and with no hope

of a successful conviction by the Senate.

There are three things that would make the process blazingly fast, though, and all are unthinkable:

First, he OKs the use of "tactical" nuclear bombs on Iran. Or he orders massive bombing of cities followed by a ground war. Both would be proof positive that he and Cheney are absolutely, positively insane and would need to go as quickly as possible.

Second, Congressional investigations start turning too many sacred rocks over, the inner circle panics, and Stupid attempts to issue an EO dissolving Congress and instituting martial law. You can bet those old boys would act fast on that one.

Third, and much more likely, he just vetoes any and all legislation coming out of Congress simply because Democrats wrote most of it, bringing the business of the country to a dead halt. With no rhyme or reason to the vetoes except a loathing of Democrats, he'd be proven batshit crazy and he'd just have to go.

There may be other possibilities that might light a fire under Congress's collective, overfed arses, but the above are the most plausible, IMO. Otherwise, Congress will just be content to try to act as a set of brakes on a runaway administration guided by madmen, knowing there's only a year and 11 months left of it.

Good luck to them and the Red Sox.

[doublethink]

9. Actually articles of Impeachment could be drawn up ....

acted upon and marched to the White House before the week was out. The only thing missing in this scenario is 'the will' of both Dems and Repubs in the House and Senate. It is possible though. A week. Peace. :)

[rubberducky]

10. would legal options be possible after bush & cheney leave office?

It seems so important that all of thier lies and crimes against "We the people" be brought out. I think that for history`s sake and to show the rest of the world that the American people do not approve of the "Republicans Gone Wild " in this administration.

[jobycom]

12. Eight months, and IF we succeeded, we'd have President Cheney

Then we could spend another six to eight months impeaching him. Maybe less if we could use the same evidence we collected on Bush (part of the time would be spent actually collecting evidence, since we can't impeach him just because he's a really evil jerk).

Then once we impeach Cheney, hopefully a year from now, we would have whatever VP Cheney chose, until the election. And then our candidate in 08 would face an incumbent, and one who may have earned brownie points with voters by "pulling the nation together in a time of crisis," aka Ford.

All the while we'd get nothing done. The Republicans might thank us for it.

All that said, I'd still like to see them try. At least investigate the big issues (lies about Iraq, Plame, Cheney's energy committee--the obvious "treason and bribery" charges). Even if a three month investigation showed too little evidence to impeach him on, we'd still have the evidence collected for when he left office, for any criminal cases. Plus, his actions should go down in history, if for no other reason than to remind our citizens that such evil does exist, and even in our country.

[Larry Allen]

42. No way would we have Cheney.

He could never survive an impeachment inquiry against Bush. I have no problem with impeaching Cheney concurrently. But we should not concern ourselves to much about how this house of cards might fall.

[demnan]

13. Here is why we should

If you are a soldier coming home from Iraq and you've lose your legs, what is a year and 18 months of work to you?

Wouldn't it be worth it for this soldier to have some justice? To know that we care enough about his welfare that we will impeach the President for sending him to an illegal war based on falsified intelligence?

Are you going to face that soldier and tell him, oh its too much trouble, and Bush will be out of office anyway?

[durtee librul]

29. Demnan

That is an absolutely FABULOUS answer and one, if you don't mind, I may just ask fatass Debbie Stabenow at one of her so called town meetings?

[Dhalgren]

14. It would send the appropriate signal to the rest of the world that sane adults

are back in charge - real Americans who love their Constitution and want to live in harmony with the rest of the people on earth. It would tell future idiots elected or selected that we are not as stupid and weak-kneed as most politicians seem to think. It is not a matter of politics, it is a matter doing what is right and just and fair. This man and his gang of thugs and cronies have murdered, robbed, raped, and burned not only this country's people, but people all over the globe. We have to stand up and tell the world that we were not a part of this and we understand the difference between right and wrong. If our political system does not allow us to make just, equitable, moral decisions when they are of the most importance, then we need to scrap it and find another...

[leftofthedial]

15. it has nothing to do with that

and everything to do with the Democrats who are running for office in 2008.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. Small points on impeachment...

Articles have been drawn up and re sitting in the bottom drawers of every Congresscritter's desk. They were first written by Francis Boyle, a radical University of Michigan law professor, and probably updated since.

The public part can happen pretty fast, for Congress-- look at Nixon's impeachment.

But, if we impeach Shrub, we get Cheney. As with Nixon replacing Agnew with Ford, we'd really have to first replace Cheney, but Cheney doens't have the handy obvious corruption past that Agnew had. If we manage to impeach them both, hard enough under any circumstances, Pelosi becomes President.

Now, I have nothing against Pelosi as President, but powerful and rabid forces will come to play to insure that that won't happen. I don't know that Pelosi even wants to be President.

And, there's no guarantee that the Senate would convict without serious Republican support for getting rid of the trash, as with Nixon.

Add to that the idea that the new House is trying to act like the adults coming back home after the kids had a wild party and burned the house down, and the diversion of an impeachment in the midst of everything else they're trying to do.

Add further, he tumult of a new administration in the midst of everything going on now, and no one really has the stomach for it. Besides Shrub's own problems, every executive department has been loaded with hacks and flunkies, and it will take a real housecleaning to get them all out-- not the sort of thing that would happen with an interim administration. Gonna have to wait till the next election.

So, we've already been stuck with these assholes for 6 years now and for the next two, just try to corral them and maybe, just maybe impeach when things like war, the economy, foreign relations, and everything else they broke look like they're on the way to being fixed.

Meanwhile, hold the hearings we've been missing for 6 years and continue to expose the fuckers for what they are, cleaning up what can be cleaned up for now.

[meldroc]

17. A couple points in favor of impeachment.

"But if Bush is removed from power, Cheney would be President!"

First, you don't have to impeach just Bush. I can easily see Congress drawing up dual articles of impeachment for Bush and Cheney, and trying them nearly simultaneously. Do impeachment correctly and we end up with President Pelosi. If there's enough evidence to remove Bush from office, there's certainly enough to remove Cheney at the same time. Also, isn't Cheney already effectively President anyways? You couldn't possibly make things worse by making it official.

"But impeachment would take too long! By the time it happens, Bush and Cheney will be leaving office anyways!"

Second, the most powerful and desirable effect of an impeachment wouldn't be the mere removal of sons-of-bitches from office. Certainly that's a useful and necessary effect, but far more powerful and long-lasting is precedent. In other words, by performing an impeachment and conviction, we set the precedent that the President is not a dictator, that he does not have unlimited power, and he is not above the law. That precedent will work its magic, checking the behavior of future Presidents for decades, maybe even centuries.

The precedent set by impeaching and removing an out-of-control president is priceless, even if it happens on January 8th, 2009.

[AshevilleGuy]

18. But can we impeach both at once?

As much as I would LOVE to see this, I have heard from political 'pros' who should know, that there is some problem arising in the war powers act that disallows it. The idea is that if both prez and VP are under impeachment there is no one with clear power to act in the event of a war. This might be in error, but it does sound like one of those arcane 'inside baseball' things that we ordinary citizens are not privy to.

[meldroc]

19. Another strategy: Impeach Cheney first.

Impeach Cheney, or at least force him to resign, and the next step is that President Bush nominates a replacement VP. Then that nominee must be confirmed by both houses of Congress, which means that neo-cons, fundies and fascists don't stand a chance. Bush will end up with a VP who's moderate, or at least relatively harmless. Then we impeach Bush.

[AshevilleGuy]

22. I like that better

But there is a devil in the details: whomever we impeach first (assuming we can get 67 votes to convict) there would be a new VP nominee. I can remember in 1973/74 when Agnew resigned, the Senate readily confirmed Gerald Ford as VP, even though they KNEW that Nixon would be gone soon. There was no talk of stonewalling him so the Dem Speaker could take over. And back then we had a large Dem majority!

I am fearful that whomever bush or cheney sent up for confirmation would pass; I don't trust our one-member majority to get its act together. If it's some RW nutjob, then we have him to deal with for years. If it's some moderate who is popular, then they have an automatic nominee for 2008.

This whole thing could be engineered to put Nancy Pelosi in the WH, but I suspect there are many top Dem power players who would be inconvenienced by that.

[MonkeyFunk]

23. you can try

but I think it's impossible to 17 Republican votes in the Senate to remove ONE of them. To think 17 will vote to install a Democratic President is lunacy.

[AshevilleGuy]

24. I know.

There are two schools of thought here:

1) Regardless of the outcome impeachment needs to begin, to show the world and GWB that the war was wrong and he needs to pay some price; and

2) Impeachment would be futile, a waste of time and would piss off the voters because nothing would appear to be getting done.

I see merit in both arguments. What I am wondering is, as the results of the Escalation become more clear will the public come down on the side of number one above? And then, the logistical problems of impeaching TWO criminals set in. :shrug:

[pat_k]

26. It's pathology (impeachophobia) that's the problem, not "logistics"

Impeachment isn't a criminal prosecution. It's a political process designed to be simple, swift, and certain.¹

Tragically for the nation, Bush and Cheney have been attacking the Constitution and abusing power so blatantly and on so many fronts, making a case for impeachment is like falling off a log.

The problem is not in logistics, it's pathology -- i.e., the leadership's impeachophobia. Once cured of that, they just need to pick a charge and make the case. To name just a few of the most salient charges the House could impeach them on:

• Their CIA-run secret² prisons overseas, where abductees are held incommunicado and tortured; OR


• Publicly declaring themselves outlaws with their fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive that is not bound by the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Code, or international law; OR


• Years of war crimes committed at Guantanamo -- crimes confirmed with the Supreme Court's Hamdan ruling that the Geneva conventions applied;³ OR


• Abusing signing statements to nullify our laws and violate the principle of consent (the sole moral principle on which the Constitution, and therefore the nation, rests); OR


• Rendering themselves incapable of defending us -- i.e., they can't motivate action because the world community and the American public have learned not to trust a word they say anymore; OR


• Terrorizing the nation with the most monumental bomb threat in history -- "mushroom clouds over our cities in 45 minutes"; OR


• Willfully violating FISA.

The Congressional leadership just needs to pick one, make the case, and vote out the articles.

Force Senators to go on the record as defenders of torture, or spying, or lies, or . . .

If the Senate fails to convict on what they vote out, they pick another and vote those out. Bush and Cheney have provided such a cornucopia of horrors, they could keep voting out new articles for as long as it takes to drive them to resign or get a conviction. If their term of office ends, the 111th Congress could impeach "in absentia."
_____________________________________________

1. http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5402">The People v. Richard Cheney, GQ, March 2007
   
   

   When the Founding Fathers crafted the U.S. Constitution, they wanted to be sure that the president, vice president, and other ranking officials could be evicted more easily than the British monarchy. To ensure that the process would be swift and certain, they made it simple: Only two conditions must be met. First, a majority of the House of Representatives must agree on a set of charges; then, two-thirds of the Senate must agree to convict. After that, there is no legal wrangling, no appeal to a higher authority, no reversal on technical grounds. There is not even a limit on what the charges may be. As the Constitution describes it, the cause may be "“treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors," but even these were left deliberately vague;. . .



2. Abductees may be held in secret, but the existence fo the prisons and what goes on in them is no secret.
   
   http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6360817.stm">EU endorses damning report on CIA, BBC 2-Feb-07
   
   REPORT on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/tempcom/tdip/pe382246.pdf">Final Report, 26-Feb-07)


3. "We thought we were above the law" doesn't fly. There's no "unringing" the bell. War Crimes are subject to the penalty of death to deter parties to armed conflict from going anywhere near "the line" -- much less attempt to "push the envelope."

[AshevilleGuy]

27. I was referring to, which one to impeach first,

and then dealing with the resulting VP nominee. I don't doubt that there is more than enough to convict both of them, but are there 17 repooks who would do it? Yes, there is a strong case of impeachaphobia running throughout. I do not expect to ever see it happen.

[pat_k]

32. Impeach only Cheney and the underlying message is "Bush's acts are ok". . .

. . .but if they can't bring themselves to go after both at once, "Cheney first" is fine by me. At least they'd be breaking the "impeachment" ice -- and may find out how outraged people are, and how quickly it can go. The think about failing to accuse is that they also fail to give voice to outrage, and the outrage turns to hopelessness and silent frustration.

It is impossible to know in advance which Members of the Senate will be willing to defend the indefensible until they are forced to declare themselves. And far more of them than anyone can image may scramble to escape "going on the record" for torture by pressuring Bush and Cheney out.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if the Senate fails to convict, it is the act of accusation that breaks the bonds of complicity (Members of the House) or voting for removal (Senators) that breaks the bond of complicity.

The oath is an individual oath, their judgment a personal judgment. It doesn't matter if a particular Member stands alone or with a legion, the choice is a simple. Duty or Complicity. The right side of history or the wrong side of history.

[AshevilleGuy]

35. It will only be in the House -

the Senate can't even debate Iraq. Can you imagine Harry Reid having to try Cheney or bush in the Senate?? He would be in fetal position under his desk, sobbing, "Let me alone, go away!".

As I said, I do not believe they can impeach both at once. See my post above.

[pat_k]

38. The Iraq resolution was easy to oppose. . .

. . . becoming an accomplice in War Crimes, not so much.

I find it mystifying that so many Dems are so happy to cry "hopeless" on so many things, and then turn around and berate the public for being apathic, when they are the ones who alienate so many by crushing hope.

I don't mean to single you out. You are just echoing the irrational rationalizations that have pervaded the beltway for years -- decades.

The Republicans bent over backwards in their attempt to escape becoming war criminals by forcing the "compromise" in the War Criminals Protection Act of 2006 -- a "compromise" that did nothing but remove the definitions of torture from the bill and hand the job over to the whims of the "the decider." Of course, their attempt to wash their hands of it is still a violation of Geneva -- which requires nations that are party to the treaty to enact laws that enforce it.

Don't be so sure that they'll be willing to jump in bed with the War Criminals and vote against removal.

The bottom line is that there is nothing to stop the House but their irrational fears. They can certainly impeach both. It is up to us to do our best to see that they do.

We keep hammering and we can shift the balance -- make them more afraid of the reality of us than their mythical backlash beast.

And, as for the Senate, Reid can hide under his desk, but when articles come their way, the Senate has no choice. They must vote. They must side with the War Criminals, or side with the People's Government and the Constitution.

It is simple. Failure to act, win or lose, is an unforgivable betrayal. That is the reality, and that is how they will be seen. We are only doing what we can to save themselves from themselves. Saying "impossible" is just one of the many rationalizations for staying on the sidelines in the fight. I will continue to challenge it. It is not grounded in reality. The reality is that we cannot know how events will unfold until they are behind us.

[rinsd]

33. Yeah but that falls into the partisan trap

Its actually better, from a politically strategic standpoint, to have Cheney there.

There's a slim chance you could actually peel a few Republican senators off to get your 2/3 for conviction (well it will take more than a few, quite a few actually and that chance is about as slim as it gets) but I think you would sooner see hell freeze over than for the GOP to vote to impeach, convict & remove both Bush & Cheney to hand the White House to Democrats.

[midnight]

20. The crimes of spying on US citizens, illegal start of a war, torture

have clearly been identified as crimes. Can't we just get an up or down vote to end this regime?

[Norquist Nemesis]

21. Well, let's use the Cons' "What message does this send

to our children?" I don't care if the process would drag on for 5 years! Bushetals have consistently ran things with a "Well, we're not doing that now" strategy.

The next time a thief gets questioned, he just has to say "You don't see me robbing anything now, do you?" Or a murderer can say, "I haven't killed anyone today." It's BS: Bushit Strategery.

[pat_k]

25. It could be done in a week.

The only thing stopping them is their impeachophobia.

This ain't Watergate where there was a cover-up to uncover.

Bush and Cheney are committing their crimes in plain sight because breaking the Constitution their prime directive. Every Un-American and Unconstitutional power they claim and use unchallenged is a "win" in their fascist game.

The House leadership could move right now, draft articles on whatever charges they can get consensus on the fastest, hold hearings, and send the resolution to the floor in a week -- or even less.

If Senate fails to convict on the first set. Bush and Cheney have subverted the Constituiton and abused power on so many fronts that the could easily vote out a new set of articles every week.

When they finally get the impeachment ball rolling, they'll finally be giving the public a meaningful outlet for their outrage. That outrage could drive events so fast Bush and Cheney could be gone before the DC Dems know what hit them.

[Major Hogwash]

31. Now that the Democrats have seen all the secret paperwork, maybe just a few months.

The Republicans hid so much for so long, it will probably take more than 2 or 3 months to sift through all of it.

That would be my guess.

[pat_k]

34. No sifting required. Every time they invoke unitary authoritarian power they confess. . .

. . to violating the Constitution.

They are breaking the Constitution in plain sight. That is their intent. Grab Unconstitutional power, do it willfully and publicly, and challenge Congress "We've just erased more of the Constitution. Stop us if you dare."

They are betting on the cowardice of the Democrats.

Every day that the opposition refuses to impeach, they legitimize the Un-American and Unconstitutional acts -- horrific acts. Abductees held in secret and tortured in CIA-run prisons oversees. Willful violation of Geneva at Guantanamo because they say so, and because no one is stopping them. Forcing through the War Criminals Protection Act declaring all U.S. Officials immune to prosecution for War Crimes in any Court within the U.S. or it's territories (another confession to committing those crimes, else why do they require immunity?).

The ONLY possible way to stop them is to impeach them. It could be done in a week. They wrote the case against them themselves.

[rhett o rick]

36. coup d'état would be faster. I m just sayin' nm

[Lone_Wolf]

39. Probably true...

but still, he is a slam dunk case for impeachment if there ever was one. I still think impeachment and then trying him and his gang for war crimes are the just thing to do.

[pat_k]

40. Yep. Bush and Cheney wrote the case themselves. (more in Post 34) - nt