WHAT??!!! MORE DUers say "shouldn't impeach" than the Newsweek Poll?!!

[pat_k]

10:46 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2458106">DemocratSinceBirth's Poll

45% of DU'ers agree with Pelosi's "shouldn't impeach" declaration

The Newsweek poll reported yesterday found that
only 44% of the Americans electorate agreed with "shouldn't impeach."

Unbelievable.

Mind-Boggling.

DUer's "beat" the NATION in "shouldn't impeach" percentage!!??!

I feel ill.

Say it ain't so!!

Please tell me the poll has been freeped.

I don't think I can take it if the folks here are so ready to leave the massive power of the American Presidency in the hands of Bush and Cheney -- Un-American authoritarians who have occupied the executive branch and are destroying the fabric of our nation to amass Unconstitutional power and wield it in the service of their tiny faction.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-21-2006/0004456423&EDATE=">Press release and detailed results of Newsweek Poll

[bullimiami]

1. as of right now 54% of us say IMPEACH. still surprisingly low.

[No Exit]

72. SHHH!!! We just don't want the wingnut sheep to stampede!

C'mon, everyone, we all know that in our hearts, we would love nothing more than to see Junior and Deadeye Dick led away in handcuffs... but we don't wanna get too into the Impeachment talk until after the election--might scare off some of our more timid voters!

One things's for sure: If ever anyone in congress were to start, or try to start, impeachment proceedings, I guarantee the meme for EVERY damn cable news channel, for the next frikkin' MONTH afterward, would be, "Are Americans up for yet another impeachment... are Americans weary of impeachment after the Clinton impeachment... yada yada..."

[pat_k]

124. After the number of times we've seen DC "Conventional Wisdom".. .

. . proven wrong. I can't help but wonder why the "Impeachment will make voters run away" has been so widely adopted.

I also am suspicious of any assertion that has it's origins with folk like Paul Weyrich and Karl Rove.

More thoughts on this. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2462961

And a sort of "catch all" response to various objections:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2459400

[elehhhhna]

135. Fair is fair. Bush didn't tell US he was going to shred the Constitution

when he was running. Why tell him what's in store?

[Trajan]

2. DUers are SO bad ....

When they dont fit into your tidy little box ....

Damn them ....

Damn them all to hell ....

:sarcasm:

[ronnykmarshall]

40. You can say that again.

:toast:

[DFLer4edu]

137. Back in the Box, Back in the Box!

[skids]

3. It's the concern trolls.

DUers are subject to the unrelenting propaganda of concern trolls who seek to convince them that their crazy 9-11 conspiracy nut, vegetarian PETA radical, militant atheist, code-pink wing is "an embarassment" and "turns people off" etc etc etc blah blah blah.

[LostinVA]

17. Yup

[pat_k]

30. Some of our "strengths" are also our downfall -- need some new habits

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2302569

[derby378]

4. I'm all for impeachment

If Pelosi won't support impeachment - I'm sorry, fellow DUers, but we'd better start looking for another Speaker.

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. I agree!

[TahitiNut]

19. IMHO, a failure to pursue impeachment is, itself, an impeachable offense

There can be no more compelling goal of a law-abiding nation than to prosecute and imprison war criminals. This corrupt regime has committed crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against the Constitution. These are not mere technicalities or inconveniences. Without the pursuit of justice, no government can be regarded as legitimate. Failure to imprison these despicable criminals is a dishonor to free people everywhere. We are an outlaw nation.

[pat_k]

31. Hmmmm. . .

When we vested the power to impeach in Congress and Congress alone, we gave them -- in essence ourselves --- far more power than the other branches (contrary to what the fascists would have us believe, the "balance of power" is not equally shared. We put a big fat thumb on the scale).

We gave the power to accuse to the House because they are the body closest to us -- and so are presumably most able to enforce the intent of our law through impeachment when our principles and institutions are under attack from within. We gave them such short terms to keep them accountable to us.

We may not be able to impeach them. (It requires the House as a body to expel a member. If we had enough to expel for failing to impeach, we would have enough to impeach.)

But there are other things we can do. For example:

• Start recruiting strong candidates for primary challenges as soon as we recover from the election before us. Make it it crystal clear that we will make sure they face a well-funded challenger in 2008 if they don't shake off the beltway idiocy and take up the fight to impeach.


• Lobby the strongest and most principled of the bunch to bring a resolution of censure against their colleagues for failing to uphold their oath by publicly accusing and calling for impeachment. The threat of a formal "shame on you" could be an effective motivator for some. Lobbying for such a "novel" thing could generate conversation inside the beltway, and thus provide an avenue through which we can inject some sanity even if we can't get anyone to do it.

[demnan]

5. You've got it backwards

The No votes were those in favor of impeachment in that poll.

[pat_k]

37. 45% = percent of "Yes" votes at the time noted. . .

[onenote]

6. why don't you set up a DU poll that asks the same questions

Not truly a comparison when the polls ask different questions.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

14. Pointless anyway.

Any DU poll will by definition be completely unscientific, and therefore completely useless.

[pat_k]

34. Self-selected certainly, but still expected to see a lot more energy on the . .

. . side of impeachment on DU .

[babylonsister]

7. Impeach! Indict! Then go directly to jail! nt

[hootinholler]

23. Room them with Bubba! n/t

[pat_k]

125. . . .(with a little detour to the Hague on the way to prison)

War Crimes are "above our pay grade."

Handing them over to the Hague needs to be in there somewhere. I figure after prosecution here since conviction in our courts could demoralize/lessen the opposition to handing them over. (Rallying to the defense of convicted criminals will an unappealing proposition for some of those folks.)

[elehhhhna]

136. Nah-- the Hague can only issue a life sentence.

The sentence here, for high crimes & misdemeanors, and treason, is hanging.

The law is the law. Let's shop the best venue, huh? It's the American way!

[pat_k]

138. . . . a stop on the way to the gallows then. . .

. . .i view turning them over to the Hague as part of redeeming ourselves in the eyes of the world.

We must give the world an opportunity to expose and judge their international crimes for themselves, through the court established for that purpose.

[elehhhhna]

140. okay, honestly now -- me too. The DP is harsh and the cells at Den Hague

are very dungeounesque.

[bryant69]

8. Well DUers are generally more politically savvy

than the general public. Support for Speaker Pelosi, I would suggest, is more to do with the political considerations involved, than a desire to not see Bush impeached. I rather think that if you stripped out the political concerns, the vast majority of DUers would support impeachment.

That gives me an idea.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[pat_k]

35. Precisely! -- "We have met the enemy, and he is us! "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2302569">Reality-Based Community: Do Our Strengths = Our Downfall??

[Xipe Totec]

9. This is totally unscientific, but

judging by a survey of one person (me), 100% of the sample population agrees that we should impeach the Son of a Bush.

[pat_k]

38. Now that's a percent I like!!

[bowens43]

10. You completely misunderstood the results of the DU poll.

Read the question again. The question wasn't should he be impeached it was 'Do You Think Nancy Pelosi Is Correct About Opposing Impeachment For Bu$h'.

Absolutely. If she were to speak out in favor of impeachment now it would hurt us a LOT in the november elections. She knows what she's doing far better then the knee-jerk 'call for impeachment now' crowd.

It's stupid to talk about impeachment until we have the votes in the house to do it.

[mmonk]

25. Then why make the statement it's off the table?

[BelgianMadCow]

56. I voted no in the poll, but maybe to disarm repubs

so as to totally take the topic off the table FOR NOW, they can't whine "look at the dems, they want to impeach the president, it's all a political blame game" bleh bleh.

Just thinking out loud.

Personally, I'm more in favor of speaking up loudly and unanimously by the dems. I can dream, right.

[pat_k]

64. We have every reason to believe that "Dems are determined to

. . rescue our constitutional democracy" would be a political winner.

The Boat has sailed, but had they run on impeachment, accused Bush of his crimes in strong and clear terms, and showed they were willing to take the hard and risky steps demanded, could have pulled in a significant percentage of the folks who have been sitting out election after election -- who have given up on "them" to do anything real.

The seething anger at Bush in the electorate is LOOKING for an outlet.

The dynamics would be completely different.

It is too late to run on impeachment, but impeaching remains a moral imperative.

We ALREADY have 51% who want Impeachment to be a priority! -- Amazing number when you consider the fact that the electorate has been being bombarded with anti-impeachment propaganda from Dems and Repubs.

[pat_k]

41. Agreement with her pledge not to impeach = "Should not impeach"

What is "Stupid" about accusing criminals of their crimes?

What is "Smart" about failing to accuse criminals of their crimes, a failure that empowers the criminals and gives them cover?

[BelgianMadCow]

57. Disagree with your reading

I actually think DU is not nearly as divided as that poll suggests.

[RaleighNCDUer]

76. not necessarily. Support for her statement (not pledge) can =

let's wait until after the elections and we have the power to do something about it.

Which is my position; if we start impeachment proceedings but fail to get a conviction, WE LOSE. They will claim it as vindication and claim he is exonerated by the process. This is too big a fish to let it slip off the hook. It would be the height of incompetence to start it knowing we don't have the oomph of finish it.

After the elections, and after a few more repub resignations, we may have the strength to see impeachment through. Then, we can revisit Pelosi's declaration.

[pat_k]

91. What part of "off the table" implies "intend to impeach when we win"

By pledging not to impeach, they are exonerating him -- so you needn't worry about that. Already done.

The ONLY way to undo it is to take that pledge off the table.

As long as they refuse to say "This man needs to be impeached" they cannot accuse Bush and Cheney of subverting the Constitution. (Because if they said Bush's actions violated the constitution, they'd have to impeach, so every member of the House had better buy a muzzle and keep mum on anything like that.)

And because they won't accuse, Bush gets to say "I'm not doin' nothin' wrong! -- If I were, the Dems would be impeaching me!"

We expect members of our armed services to risk life and limb to fulfill their oath. The risk that the "opposition" will call you names, or that you will be snubbed at the next cocktail party pales by comparison. But members of Congress take the same oath. Why should we expect less from them than we do the men and women of our armed services? Why should they expect less of themselves?

The duty before each and every one of them is so simple. All a member of Congresss needs to do to fulfill thier oath is to STOP GIVING BUSH AND CHENEY COVER by publicly accusing them of their crimes and saying "These crimes demand impeachment and I call on my colleagues to join me in taking up the fight to rescue the Constitution."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2459400

[longship]

11. Uhhhh!

Supporting Pelosi's statement is *NOT* the same thing as not supporting impeachment.

I.E., I support Pelosi's statement.
I *also* support impeachment.

The reason for this apparent disconnect is the fact that if Pelosi had answered the impeachment questions with anything indicating impeachment was possible, the Repugnicans would use that against Democrats until November 7th.

Also, you cannot talk about impeachment until people have been interrogated under oath and evidence is gathered. It's about respecting the necessary legal process.

[pat_k]

51. "the Repugnicans would use that

. . .against Democrats until November 7th."

Perhaps a case can be made that the benefits of taking up the fight for impeachment are outweighed by the risks of doing so, but I have yet to hear one that holds up. I have found that a lot of people on "our side" -- and you may or may not be one of them -- have given little or no thought to the benefits of action. They've just sort of "soaked up" the conventional wisdom that "something very bad' will happen if Dems stand up for X. (Where has been Alito filibuster, January 6th, Impeachment, War Criminals Protection Act. . . the list is tragically long and getting longer all the time).

WRT impeachment, I took a shot at outline some benefits a couple years ago. If you are interested see On the Eve of Battle: Unfounded Fears and Realistic Rewards in http://january6th.org/impeachment-clobber-rationalizations.html">this doc

Not only are there numerous potential benefits of taking up the fight, there are enormous risks connected to failing to demand impeachment. (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html"> Hey, Democrats, the Truth Matters!; http://www.davidswanson.org/?q=node/621 ">The Genius of Impeachment)

And there are some guaranteed negative consequences associated with Rep. Pelosi's pledge. (Below)

-----------------------------------

I do not see how "I support her pledge not to impeach" can be reconciled with "I support impeachment." Perhaps there is a way, but since voters are not sworn to defend the Constitution there is no need for a voter to reconcile the assertions.

But Rep. Pelosi is sworn to defend the Constitution. Just as there is no "little bit pregnant," when duty demands action, you act. If you do not act, you are derelict. "I'll do my duty a little bit." or "I'll do my duty later when it is safe" is dereliction.

Members of Congress can't expect Americans to believe they are committed to defending the treasured principles we established in our constitution if they refuse to stand up for those principles because they believe-- rightly or wrongly -- that standing up is "too risky."

They can't expect Americans to believe they are committed to defending our Constitution if they allow partisan consideration keep them on the sidelines, watching as the destroyers they are sworn to fight advance.

We expect members of our armed services to risk life and limb to fulfill their oath. The risk that the "opposition" will call you names, or that you will be snubbed at the next cocktail party pales by comparison. But members of Congress take the same oath. Why should we expect less from them than we do the men and women of our armed services? Why should they expect less of themselves?



--------- Guaranteed negative consequences of "taking the pledge" not to pursue impeachment -----------

By pledging not to impeach, Rep. Pelosi has created a horrible trap for the Democratic members of Congress.

If they betray the pledge and impeach -- as they must to fulfill their Congressional oath -- they confirm the perception that Democrats are weak, unprincipled hypocrites/"moral relativists", who are only willing to stand up for 'principle' when it is safe.

If they fail to take up the fight to impeach Bush and Cheney, they are betraying their Congressional oath -- and betraying the nation.

The perception of Democrats as weak is the BIGGEST problem the party faces, and with her pledge, she has guaranteed that whatever they do, they will compound the problem.(When they could have proven the image wrong by standing and fighting.)


If Rep. Pelosi intends to take up the fight for impeachment and has made a false pledge to escape feared consequences, then she subscribes to the Un-American belief that the "the ends justify the means" and cannot be trusted.

One thing is certain. As this wrong-headed pledge remains in place, they are "damned if they do and damned if they don't". If they publicly accuse Bush of his crimes and then follow up with "Don't worry, we're not going to impeach anybody!" they sound like morally-confused wimps. If they do not accuse, they become accessories after the fact because their failure to accuse enables and empowers the fascists.

[bluestateguy]

12. It's just not a productive use of time

Even a Democratic Congress could not put together the votes for it: too many DLCers who would ruin it, and you need 2/3 in the Senate. That would take a minimum of 15 Republicans to vote to convict, even in a 52-48 Democratic Senate (our best case scenario). No way that will happen. Impeachment would also take close to a year to wend its way through the Congress (hearings, drawing up charges, more hearings, committee votes, full House deliberations and then a trial in the Senate). Next thing you know, it's time for New Hampshire and Iowa and the 2008 campaign. And then let's say we succeed: John Kerry doesn't become president; we get Cheney, who would be worse. Want to impeach him too? Then it would all take twice as long.

[pat_k]

28. Failure to accuse = Exoneration = "Accessory After the Fact" War Criminal

Her "Pledge" = Cover for the Fascists

She is bending over backwards to give the Fascists an unassailable argument -- i.e., "If we were destroying the Constitution, members of Congress who are sworn to defend it would be calling for our impeachment and removal. Rather than calling for impeachment, they are pledging NOT to impeach. With their pledge, we are exonerated of all charges coming from the 'Looney left.'"

Members of Congress have a sworn duty to defend the Constitution. Impeachment is the weapon we gave them to fulfill their oath. They can take up the fight to impeach and remove, or betray their oath.

The oath is an INDIVIDUAL oath. Each member must choose. Accuse or be complicit.

They are chosing to be on the right side of history or the wrong side

. . .So far, they have chosen the Wrong Side.

Win or Losse. It doesn't matter. It is a member's commitment to the fight that matters.

The nation is still paying the price for the "compromise" on enslaving our fellow human beings at our founding. Those who fought against that "compromise" were on the right side of history. The "winners" were on the wrong side. Undoubtedly many of those who failed to take up the fight rationalized their failure with self-fulfilling predictions of failure.

We face a turning point no less dire.

Even if they are "OK" with betraying their oath, doing so is a political loser

As Nichols makes clear (see http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/14567">excerpts on David Swanson's blog, the risk of failing to fight for impeachment is greater than any risk of taking it up.

Despite the 100% anti-impeachment propaganda being beaten into the national psyche by the beltway establishment, they have gooten ONLY 44% of the electorate to say "shouldn't impeach"

In this climate, it is lunacy look at those numbers and fail to recognize that you are looking at a FLOOR. If our so-called leaders opened a mouth and told the truth, the 51% who say "impeachment is a priority" would become 65% percent overnight. (A majority of the current "don't impeach Dems" would move; at least half of the independents would, and we would pick up about 5% of the white male Republicans who revel in accusation and punishment. (They are PISSED at Bush and will welcome an outlet for their anger.)

And the numbers can only move one way. The prima fascia case against Bush, Cheney, et al is VERY easy to make (in fact, Feingold already made the central case in the =context of Censure).

Accusation -- whether or not it is based in reality -- is so effective because it forces the defender onto the accusers "turf." ("I am not a crook" = "Nixon might be a crook?" = "Don't think of an elephant")

An as long as Democratic leaders accuse them in strong and clear language (no more hiding truth in euphemism), debates about the charges will be the nightly fare on every news-entertainment show. Debates about:

• Whether or not unitary authoritarian executive nullifies the Constitution;
• Whether or not Bush and Cheney confess to high crimes every time they invoke the "unitary" fig leaf;
• Whether or not Bush and Co abused power to terrorize the nation in a criminal war of aggression;
• Whether or not forcing through the War Criminals Protection Act demonstrates consciousness of guilt.

No Republican will tolerate the day-in and day-out debates about Bush admin criminality for long. When the threat of impeachment becomes a reality, Repubs could try to force Bush and Cheney to resign within a week.

They must snap out of their morally reprehensible and politically suicidal appeasement

They seem incapable of saving themselves from themselves. To redeem the soul of the nation, we need to keep pushing to snap them out of it -- and to wake up our fellow anti-fascists to the moral imperatives.

Impeachment IS Our Positive Agenda!

http://www.january6th.org/du-post-hope.html

[LoZoccolo]

52. See you after election day.

[malaise]

15. Impeachment is too good for Bush

To the Hague for war crimes.

[pat_k]

29. (1) "take the keys" via iimpeachment (2) To the Hague. . .(3) Face. .

. . .judgement in our own courts.

Impeachment is defensive. The power to impeach is the weapon we gave members of Congress to fulfill their oath to defend the Constitution from attacks from within the halls of power.

The first duty is to stop the destruction by taking the massive power of the American presidency out of the hands of the destroyers.

After we have rescued the Constitution from their abuses, the moral imperative is to investigate and prosecute (at the Hague and in our own courts).

[originalpckelly]

16. The only valid reason to impeach a President...

the reason the impeachment process exists, is to protect our constitution.

It is why impeachment does not carry a jail sentence. It is simply the process of removing a President from office to minimize harm when it appears they have done harm by abusing their powers.

If the Democrats get the House and have the ability to impeach (or at least present to the Senate, articles of impeachment) the ability of the President to do harm to the government is gone.

At that time impeachment will become a political remedy, not a remedy of serious harm.

[pat_k]

58. Stunning assertion. . .

The notion that the "danger will be no more" if we have a Democratic Congress is. . . beyond words.

I don't know where to start.

Assuming you are serious. . .

Every single day they are in power -- no matter HOW big the Democratic majorities on Congress may be-- is another day of devastating subservience to unchallenged usurpers.

Some bits from other posts

---------------------------------------
Treason is defined as "Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign." In the United States, it is the collective will of the people that is sovereign. Bush and Cheney are leading a conspiracy to violate our collective will. Their actions constitute treason against our constitutional democracy.

Bush and Cheney have made it crystal clear that nothing short of Impeachment will put an end to their treasonous exercise of unrestrained power.

---------------------------------
Our common contract, the Constitution, is in breach. It has been nullified by Bush and Cheney, the Un-American authoritarians who have occupied the executive branch and are destroying the fabric of our nation to amass Unconstitutional power and wield it in the service of their tiny faction.

Voting this or that party into power in Congress does absolutely nothing to reassert the terms of our common contract.

We must confront the truth of what has happened head on. To pretend it is all just "politics as usual" -- no extraordinary actioin required -- is to deny reality.

There is only ONE way to confront the hard truths and re-assert our sovereignty: Impeach and remove EVERY adherent of the fascist fantasy of a "unitary authoritarian executive" (Starting with Bush and Cheney of course).

Power in the hands of ANY official who rejects American-Principle in favor of Fascist-Principle is an intolerable threat.

------------------------
When the rogue regime seized the power of the American presidency on January 6th, 2001, the people of other nations discovered they could no longer appeal to good will of the American people because we surrendered the sovereignty of We the People.

As long as we leave governing power in the hands of men who are a law onto themselves, options that would be available to a legitimate American President will remain closed to us. The ONLY way to re-open the doors of possibility that are closed to the fascist war criminals is to restore legitimate leadership in the White House.


----------------------

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. Polls don't give nuance.

Why impeach, if it only means that Cheney will be in charge? He's been the one in charge since the beginning.

Better to use a democratic congress to stop the thugs in their tracks, then after '08 bring criminal indictments against Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice. Make a clean sweep of the neo-con leadership so the repuplicans can go back to being their loveable troglodyte selves without their influence.

Incidently, I'd like to see impeachment against those members of the supreme court that put * in power in the first place, and removal of any justices put in place by him as being illegally put on the bench by a usurper. The SC decision was wrong, and they knew it was wrong because they specifically said the judgement was not to be used as precedent.

[hedgehog]

55. Bravo - that's who we should be impeaching.

Start with Scalia for no recusing himself in cases where he had a conflict of interest. Maybe move along to those who grabbed jurisdiction in the Florida re-count.

[pat_k]

61. Every single adherent of the fascist fantasy of Bush as unitary

. . authoritarian exective poses an intolerable threat.

We start with Bush and Cheney. . . and then head down the line: Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Alito, Addington, . . .the list is very, very, long.

"Using the Congress" to do anyting other then impeach just supports pretense that everything is "politics as usual." We cannot move forward with honest if we don't confront the horrible truth of what has happened to the nation head on. Impeachment is the only way.

[RaleighNCDUer]

70. I don't disagree about the threat, but initiating impeachment

without the power to follow through will only strengthen their hand. And even the most optimistic projections do not show us winning enough of a majority to convict on an impeachment. They will spin and spin and decry the obstructionist dem tactics and the partisan politics, and at the same time blame the dems for everything that goes wrong in iraq and the economy and korea and iran and in doing so rally their base and even convince some of the fence sitters. Then, when they steal the next election it will be because the dems were wasting the country's time and energy on impeachments instead of taking care of business.

OTOH, if we hold off on impeachments we can investigate 9/11, Abramof, Diebold, Haliburton, the myriad of repub corruptions of the system. Get convictions on enough of the criminals to fundamentally shift congress, and THEN, when we have a sizeable enough majority and enough of the blackmailers and bullies of the repubs are out of play, then we can impeach the SC criminals and restore our constitution as the law of the land.

[pat_k]

119. By pledging not to impeach, they exonerate and strengthen. . .

. . .the fascists -- so you needn't worry about that. Already done. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2464934">More in this post

[Turbineguy]

20. Actually, there are things I prefer

over impeachment. But to state them would result in a moderator deleting my post.

[pat_k]

126. As proposed in reply #71

Perhaps we should be lobbying for some of those extremes measures -- fool them into going for impeachment as a "moderate" action.

:evilgrin:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2468328:evilgrin:

[FightingIrish]

21. Pelosi's statement is kind of like a DA saying that he won't

prosecute murderers. While impeachment is too often a political tool, it is the appropriate and necessary legal remedy for a president and vice president who have committed the crimes these two have. It's tough politically for Pelosi to say that she will take an action that will make her president. Let's wait and see what the rhetoric is after the election.

[RaleighNCDUer]

79. Ouch. That is a very good point. We can't impeach * without

also impeaching Cheney, because the charges are the same against them both. If the Dems take congress, that leaves Pelosi next in line, and she would take the white house through the process of impeachment. That would STINK of a political, and literal, coup no matter how legitimate the intent. And it's not just Pelosi - it's whoever is in that seat. I wonder if anyone even considered this scenario when the line of succession was revised a few years ago (when was that, exactly?).

[pat_k]

95. Which is why they should have taken up the fight and . . .

. . .run on impeachment and given the Republicans the choice: President Hastert now or President Pelosi in 2007.

It is water under the bridge, but the magnitude of that mistake (failure to run on impeachment) is going to haunt them.

Her idiotic pledge is going to haunt them.

But having to suffer the consequences of their own stupidity does not excuse them from their oath.

They must still rescue the Constitution, and impeachment is the ONLY weapon they have that can do it.

[pat_k]

127. To prove this is NOT a "partisan coup" they simply. . .

. . .point out that Bush and Cheney can choose to keep the Presidency Republican. It's as easy as 1, 2, 3:

1. Cheney resigns, Bush nominates new VP.
   
   The VP must be confirmed by both the House and Senate. Since we elected these folks, if they object to a nominee, that objection reflects our will.


2. Bush resigns, new VP is sworn in as President.


3. New President nominates a VP.
   
   Once again, the VP he/she nominates must be confirmed by both the House and Senate, and therefore meets with our approval (through the people who represent us).

The Democratic members of the Congress fighting for impeachment need to sincerely express their fervent hope that Bush and Cheney do this (and they need to actually BE sincere, so they had better give the moral principles long hard thought).

They need to be clear that they actually want things to play out this way because they do not want the nation to have ANY Question about whether or not their motivation is partisan. If they are clear with themselves, they will be clear with the nation.

Of course, if Bush and Cheney choose to be removed by force, then the succession We the People have established in the 25th amendment will govern, and the Democratic Speaker will take the office of the Presidency. Since this succession is in accordance with the laws we established, it is also a reflection of our will.

Pointing out the choices that are available to the criminals in the WH is also a way to speed up the whole process. It shifts the accusations that "they are subjecting the nation to a long painful process" to Bush and Cheney.

When they decide to just "do the right thing" things are always far simpler" than the insiders with all their partisan machinations and "strategery" can imagine.

[RaleighNCDUer]

130. I like that scenario. but this time around the new VP CANNOT

pull a Ford and issue a pre-emptive pardon to * for any crimes he may or may not have committed. in '74, we thought just getting Nixon out was sufficient, and look what happened since.

I will be very, very disappointed if Bush/Cheney never see the inside of a prison cell.

[pat_k]

134. We can hope members of the House and Senate wouldn't confirm. . .

. . .and do what we can to make sure they question the person nominee about their intentions during the confirmation hearings.

But even if the new Pres. pardons for all indicitable crimes, he/she cannot pardon their war crimes.

They must face judgement at the Hague.

[pat_k]

129. Pelosi can prove their move to impeach is not a "partisan coup" . . .

. . .The solution is very simple.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2469259

[savemefromdumbya]

22. possibly a dunking stool that they used for witches?

I think Dems have a lot to sort out after Nov 7 with increasing homeland security, sorting out the mess in Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, booting out people like Rumsfeld, Rice and the Iran Contra gang from key positions in this country, basically cleansing the government. THEN we can see about impeachment.

[pat_k]

65. You can't "clean" a burning house.

We need to put out the fire first.

Impeachment is our positive agenda on EVERY level.

http://january6th.org/du-post-hope.html

[meegbear]

24. OMG! We've been freeped!

[still_one]

26. Perhaps it would be more productive if we concentrate on winning

rather than what we may or may not do if we win

[MyNameGoesHere]

27. i will settle for

impeachment, but my honest wish is to have them strung up like they did the nazis in Nuremburg.

[pat_k]

68. Oh Yes. Impeachment (defensive action) then off to the Hague to

face justice.

The War Crimes are "above our pay grade"

[bobbolink]

32. Yup, discouraging that so few actually care about democracy

and our tattered constitution.

Clearly, we're going to have to lose a lot more before it becomes important enough.

:cry:

[Shakespeare]

33. I am utterly amazed that so many here don't get Pelosi's statement.

It's supremely unwise for Pelosi to say she wants to impeach Bush, because such a statement is completely premature. You can't impeach until there's on-the-record evidence, and until we have control of the house--bringing with it subpeona power and the ability to hold hearings--we do not have that evidence. Could we probably GET that evidence? Oh, yeah--and we all know that. But we can't impeach yet. Ergo, it's pointless and premature to even talk about impeachment until an investigation commences.

:banghead:

[Lochloosa]

36. Completely Agree....

Let John Conyers have his investigation, then IMPEACH THE WHOLE F******* LOT.

[pat_k]

43. Tragically, Conyers is echoing the "company line". . .

He has said it in a couple different ways in recent day, but the gist is "We have better things to do. Won't be pursing impeachment."

[Vidar]

111. I still pin my hopes on him.

[pat_k]

114. Me too!

[sandnsea]

39. Apparently 45% do

And also understand that 72% of the country does not think impeachment is a high priority which means they've got no stomach for it so it would be stupid for Pelosi to make a campaign issue of it. As you say, once we get some evidence, that may change, but impeachment is not where the country is right now, especially when there are serious problems to fix.

[pat_k]

45. "lower priority" = "no stomach for it?" ??

Despite the 100% anti-impeachment propaganda being beaten into the national psyche by the beltway establishment, they have gooten ONLY 44% of the electorate to say "shouldn't impeach"

That is a floor.

The dismay and seething anger is all around us. But our "leaders" have failed to give voice to the outrage -- and with their "won't impeach pledges" they are effectively saying "Nothing to see here!!"

When outrage is given no voice in the public square, people tend to keep it to themselves, believing they are alone.

When no one gives voice to outrage, the floodgates remain closed. But when a public figure speaks out and taps into the energy, whoosh!

I saw a microcosm of this after the theft of the 2004 Presidential election. I was on a Democracy for America conference call. From the back and forth, it sounded like there were maybe 5 or 10 people on the line as they talked about this or that agenda item and possible things to focus on as we "learned lessons" and "moved forward." There was little energy.

As the moderator neared the end of the agenda someone piped up "What about Ohio? What about the stolen election? What does Burlington plan to do about that?" Suddenly there was a chorus. Dozens talking at once. It was unbelievable. It sounded like there were about a hundred people on the line -- people who had been "strangely silent."

If no one had given voice to the anger, no one on that call would have thought that anyone else cared -- they would have withdrawn in silence. And the "leaders" would have been able to tell themselves the stolen election just isn't something that people are interested in. They would have walked away from the call believing everyone else was on board with their "let's move on" agenda, which was the opposite of the truth. In fact, the mother lode of energy was with the "It Ain't Over 'Til it's Over!" people.

We see this over and over again in ways large and small.

The unprecedented and amazing response to Keith Olbermann's first "Special Comment" is one such event. When he gave voice to the outrage, outraged Americans came out of the woodwork in numbers that so shocked the programmers they realized the segment was such a powerful activator they replayed it several times, not just in response to demand, but to boost ratings.

Whenever our leaders touch on the theft of Florida or Ohio in public appearances, whenever they tip toe anywhere near a call for impeachment, the audience bursts out in cheers and applause -- usually the loudest and longest of the event. Leaving that kind of energy untapped is political insanity.

There is enormous public support for impeachment. We can see it in the anger at Bush. We can see it in our Republican acquaintances who think Bush "needs a good spanking." We can see it in the polls (even with no leader out there making the case; even before Katrina, a majority of Americans said "If he lied, he should be impeached." Well, now a majority think he lied to coerce the nation into war.)

Until members of Congress who are sworn to defend the Constitution speak the truth, accuse Bush and Cheney of their crimes, and take up the fight for impeachment and removal countless Americans will continue to seethe in frustration and silence, believing they are alone in a world gone mad.

As long as members of Congress fail to give our outrage a voice they can continue to believe the

If our so-called leaders stood up for impeachment the 51% who say "impeachment is a priority" would become 65% percent overnight. A majority of the current "don't impeach Dems" would move -- they are they because the "leadership" is saying "don't impeach"; at least half of the independents would move too (and probably more, these days indpendent are looking more and more like the Dems in polls), and we would pick up about 5% of the white male Republicans who revel in accusation and punishment. (They are PISSED at Bush and will welcome an outlet for their anger.)

[sandnsea]

46. Lieberman is winning Connecticut

And that sums it up in a nutshell. The country has not leapt to the far left agenda.

[pat_k]

67. Nothing to do with partisanship. . .

Prosecuting War Criminals is not a "partisan" act.

Rescuing the Constituton is not a "partisan" act.

Democrats have an opportunity to rise above partisanship -- and to do it EFFECTIVELY.

The antidote to "partisanship" is confronting truth and reality head on and taking the actions demanded by the facts.

The only way any elected official or candidate can prove commitment to our founding principles over party is to fight for those principles regardless of partisan concerns. (Like fears that "they" will call you names.)

Instead of recognizing this and actually rising above partisanship by fighting for core principles, the so-called Democratic strategists think the antidote can be found in cynically "going along to get along" and saying they seek "bipartisanship", which people across the spectrum assume is insincere (as demonstrated the assertion that Pelosi is just mouthing what the right wants to hear to mollify them -- something I have heard repeatedly from folks on our side.)

Nothing could be more wrong-headed than attempting to "rise above" partisanship by playing more partisan games.

[sandnsea]

74. Yeah, fix the problems

End the war, restore habeas corpus, repeal torture law, replace the Patriot Act, fix the budget. That's the antidote to partisanship that the country is seeking.

[pat_k]

78. How do they plan to do that under Bush as unitary authoritarian executive. .

. . .with their shiny new non-veto proof majority?

Exactly what is it they are gaining by refusing to accuse Bush of his crimes? Exactly what are they gaining by refusing to tell the truth?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2458812#2459400

[sandnsea]

81. Where do you get not telling the truth?

Let Bush go against the Congress the people elected, let the people see what unitary executive really means, let them hear the truth for a change... then let the people demand Bush be thrown out. Nobody said not to tell the truth. When the people see the truth of our situation, even with a Dem Congress, then the people will decide what to do about it.

[pat_k]

97. So, they can say

"Bush as unitary authoritarian executive nullifies the principle of consent --
the SOLE moral principle on which the Constitution, and therefore the nation, was founded."

and then say

"But don't worry!!! We aren't going to impeach anyone!!"

and not sound like morons?

A few of them have tried to do it -- tell the truth and then say "no way" to impeachment. Needless to say, they sounded like morally-confused idiots.

Until they are willing to do what the truth demands of them -- impeach -- we will not be hearing any more truth about his administration out of them.

We have been living with their charade for years. Feingold is the ONLY one who stood up and said "Guilty of Nullifying the Constitution" in his Censure motion and they ran from him like frightened rabbits.

I've had it.

It is going to take me awhile to get over the insanity of her "pledge" and get back to the business of lobbying these people. Right now I would probably just spit on the poor woman.

[pat_k]

42. It's a prima fascia case.

Every time Bush and Cheney publicly hide behind the fascist fig leaf of Bush as unitary authoritarian executive, they declare themselves intolerable enemies of our constitutional democracy.

Feingold has made the central case in his censure resolution (which is in effect an accusation and conclusion of guilt)

As Feingold recognized, "unitary authoritarian executive" is all we need. Every time they invoke this Unconstitutional and Un-American fantasy it is to give themselves cover for their nullification of a new Article of our Constitution or for their violation of a new Federal law.

But, if you want to pile on, the Supreme Court found them to be War Criminals when they rules that the military commissions violated Geneva. There is no escaping the fact they were committing War Crimes for three years before the Hamdan ruling.

And then we have the War Criminals Protection Act -- this act in and of itself proves their intent to commit war crimes with malice aforethought. (See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2432091">this post)

And, if you want to pile on even more you can consult one of the many draft articles and compilations.

Bottom line: Bush is legendary for his unprecedented abuses of power. No investigation need.

[Shakespeare]

44. You honestly think he can be impeached with no investigation?

You cannot impeach a sitting president on alleged "prima facia" evidence. You're living in a dream world.

And, more important, we NEED to have the investigation. We need formal congressional hearings. Then, we can impeach him. Anybody can draft articles of impeachment, but until you have evidence entered into the congressional record, those articles are pointless and without any manner of validation. Doing it any other way is putting the cart before the horse, and Pelosi knows this full well.

[pat_k]

47. Step 1: Open a mouth, tell the truth, and accuse Bush and Cheney. .

Step 2. Call on your colleagues to do the same. Make the case for impeachment in public forums.

Step 3. Might need hearings, might not. Depends on how events unfold -- something we cannot know until the events are behind us.

In other words, all a member of Congresss needs to do to fulfill thier oath is to STOP GIVING BUSH AND CHENEY COVER by publicly accusing them of their crimes and saying "These crimes demand impeachment and I call on my colleagues to join me in taking up the fight to rescue the Constitution."

Accusation -- whether or not it is based in reality -- is so effective because it forces the defender onto the accusers "turf." ("I am not a crook" = "Nixon might be a crook?" It's akin to saying "Don't think of an elephant" -- which is a very effective way to get someone thinking of an elephant )

An as long as Democratic leaders accuse them in strong and clear language (no more hiding truth in euphemism), debates about the charges will be the nightly fare on every news-entertainment show. Debates about:

• Whether or not unitary authoritarian executive nullifies the Constitution;
• Whether or not Bush and Cheney confess to high crimes every time they invoke the "unitary" fig leaf;
• Whether or not Bush and Co terrorized the nation with threats of "Mushroom Clouds over our cities. . ." to coerce us into their criminal war of aggression;
• Whether or not forcing through the War Criminals Protection Act demonstrates consciousness of guilt.

No Republican will tolerate day-in and day-out debates about Bush admin criminality for long. When the threat of impeachment becomes a reality, Repubs could try to force Bush and Cheney to resign within a week.

As I said, the events will unfold as they unfold. There are nearly infinite possibililty as each juncture. Each member can only be responsible for their own actions.

The choice they face is simple: Duty or Complicity. Nancy Pelosi has chosen complicity. She can choose duty at any time by confessing her error, accusing Bush and Cheney of their crimes and . . .

If you are interested in a more detailed "case" see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2459400">Post #28

[Shakespeare]

50. "Might need hearings"

No, not "might." Have to have. Everything else until then is just an empty gesture. And if we can win the house back, I believe we will. Pelosi has shown no sign--AT ALL--of complicity. She's simply not getting ahead of herself, which is the ONLY smart thing to do in the leadup to the elections. After Nov. 7, all bets are off. She has no "error" to confess, only a role to assume once she's speaker.

And why on earth are you presuming I'm not up to speed on my facts regarding the case against the BFEE? :eyes:

[pat_k]

66. The Repubs could beat us to the punch. . .

. . .and force Bush and Cheney to resign before the Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership even gets started. (Don't underestimate the anger of reactionaries -- they revel in accusation and punishment and are getting angrier at Bush by the day.)

Of course, you are right. Hearings of all sorts would be part and parcel of "recruiting colleagues" but my point is that we DO NOT know how things will unfold -- the standard predictions and "conventional wisdom" are wrong far more often than they are right.

The process could be long, or it could happen with lightening speed.

But it will not happen if our leaders keep refusing to publiclly accuse Bush and Cheney of their crimes.

And. as I said in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2462961">this post

. . .Perhaps a case can be made that the benefits of taking up the fight for impeachment are outweighed by the risks of doing so, but I have yet to hear one that holds up. I have found that a lot of people on "our side" -- and you may or may not be one of them -- have given little or no thought to the benefits of action. They've just sort of "soaked up" the conventional wisdom that "something very bad' will happen if Dems stand up for X. (Where has been Alito filibuster, January 6th, Impeachment, War Criminals Protection Act. . . the list is tragically long and getting longer all the time). . . http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2462961">More

[RaleighNCDUer]

73. You've got something there. Back in '74, when all this was getting

started, Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment, leaving a cadre of future criminals with their careers intact - people like Cheney and Rumsfeld, and their compatriots and followers who progressed on through the Reagan years to bring us here. With Iran/Contra, a very few were brought up on charges, to be pardoned later because we let impeachment slide.

We need both. Investigation, criminal charges, and then impeachment of the administration that encouraged the criminal behavior to prevent them coming back again in another 12 years.

[pat_k]

87. Yup! Impeach to take away their power to harm, then criminal prosecutions. . .

Resignation can't be a get out of jail free card. There are NO get out of jail free cards for these folks. You cannot "heal" the nation if you bypass justice.

And the process of impeaching Bush and Cheney should make it crystal clear to the nation that EVERY official who subscribes to the fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive poses an intolerable threat -- and so we must impeach and remove Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Alito, Addington . . so many others.

After impeachment, both criminal prosecution and Congressional investigation must go forward, but getting them the heck out ASAP is job one.

[Shakespeare]

96. You don't get it.

It IS NOT POSSIBLE to impeach without hearings. This isn't something conjecture or strategizing--it simply cannot be done without hearings.

[pat_k]

98. But they can RESIGN without hearings

[Shakespeare]

101. You honestly think this regime will do that?

Not bloody likely. You forget their post-Nixon psychology, where they see his resignation as an enormous mistake, Rove foremost among them. They won't resign.

[pat_k]

102. The outcome is as possible -- if not more possible, than any other. . .

The prima fascia case against Bush, Cheney, et al is VERY easy to make (in fact, Feingold already made the central case in the context of Censure).

Accusation -- whether or not it is based in reality -- is so effective because it forces the defender onto the accusers "turf." "I am not a crook" = "Nixon might be a crook?" (akin to "Don't think of an elephant")

An as long as Democratic leaders accuse them in strong and clear language (no more hiding truth in euphemism) debates about the charges will be the nightly fare on every news-entertainment show. Debates about:

• Whether or not unitary authoritarian executive nullifies the Constitution;
• Whether or not Bush and Cheney confess to high crimes every time they invoke the "unitary" fig leaf;
• Whether or not Bush and Co abused power to terrorize the nation in a criminal war of aggression;
• Whether or not forcing through the War Criminals Protection Act demonstrates consciousness of guilt.

No Republican will tolerate the day-in and day-out debates about Bush admin criminality for long. When the threat of impeachment becomes a reality, Repubs could try to force Bush and Cheney to resign within a week.

[pat_k]

103. <deleted>

[Shakespeare]

105. I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you're talking about.

First, you're misspelling it. It's prima facie. Second, you're completely misapplying it, and likely confusing it with res ipsa loquitur. You throw around the term rather blithely, and every time you do so, you demonstrate further that you really have no idea what it means.

And regardless, there is no way, EVER, an impeachment trial would or could be commenced solely on what you suggest. Nor should it.

I would hope you aren't serious when you say "Accusation -- whether or not it is based in reality -- is so effective because it forces the defender onto the accusers 'turf.'" After the obscene misuse of impeachment we went through in 1998, we have a responsibility to pursue it correctly and ethically, or we render what's left of the constitution no more useful than a scrap of toilet paper.

As for the question of whether they'd resign rather than face hearings--I reiterate my previous statement. Never forget where Karl Rove learned his game. And his entire gang thinks Nixon erred by resigning; they won't make what THEY perceive as a mistake like that again.

[pat_k]

112. Of course I am "serious" when I describe the power of accusation. . .

. . .As we have witnessed countless times, false accusations "stick." All too often folks on "our side" are put on the defensive by false accusation. Democrats tend to be lousy at getting off the accusers turf.

The power of an accusation that is true is of course far greater than one that is false, but nevertheless, accusation in and of itself is a powerful weapon that anti-fascists seem strangely reluctant to use -- a self-destructive tendency when they have reality and truth on their side (as we do in the case of the treasonous bunch occupying the WH).

Thanks for the spelling correction. i have always been a horrendous speller and rely on spell checkers rescue me. Unfortunately, in the case of prima facie spell check led me astray.

Prima facie is more commonly used in philosophical, legal, or common discourse to describe a case that stands "on its face" (at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it -- i.e., sufficient to prove a proposition or fact). Res ipsa loquitur "the thing speaks for itself" is less familiar to most people because its use is generally limited to tort law -- as a less familiar term, I don't find it as useful in general discussion.

From http://dictionary.law.com/

prima facie
: (pry-mah fay-shah) adj. Latin for "at first look," or "on its face," referring to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution in which the evidence before trial is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence presented at trial. A prima facie case presented to a Grand Jury by the prosecution will result in an indictment. Example: in a charge of bad check writing, evidence of a half dozen checks written on a non-existent bank account makes it a prima facie case. However, proof that the bank had misprinted the account number on the checks might disprove the prosecution's apparent "open and shut" case.
See also: prima facie case

res ipsa loquitur
(rayz ip-sah loh-quit-her) n. Latin for "the thing speaks for itself," a doctrine of law that one is presumed to be negligent if he/she/it had exclusive control of whatever caused the injury even though there is no specific evidence of an act of negligence, and without negligence the accident would not have happened. Examples: a) a load of bricks on the roof of a building being constructed by Highrise Construction Co. falls and injures Paul Pedestrian below, and Highrise is liable for Pedestrian's injury even though no one saw the load fall. b) While under anesthetic, Isabel Patient's nerve in her arm is damaged although it was not part of the surgical procedure, and she is unaware of which of a dozen medical people in the room caused the damage. Under res ipsa loquitur all those connected with the operation are liable for negligence. Lawyers often shorten the doctrine to "res ips," and find it a handy shorthand for a complex doctrine.
See also: negligence

[Shakespeare]

121. Cutting and pasting a dictionary definition doesn't mean you understand.

I work in law. Have for over a decade, and I'm very, very well acquainted with the term. And it still seems apparent to me that you don't really know the meaning and application of the term (it is widely misunderstood and horribly over- and misused). You seem steadfast in your belief that we can simply point fingers and achieve impeachment. We can't. And we shouldn't. And until you understand why, it's futile to discuss the topic with you further.

But please, continue to go about your day feeling misplaced moral outrage over Pelosi's statement.

[pat_k]

122. Impeachment is a Political, not a Legal process

We vested the power to Impeach in Congress to ensure it is We the People, through our elected representatives, who determine whether or not a President is subverting or violating the intent of our common contract (our Constitution).

Had we intended the power to impeach to be a mechanism to enforce the letter of the law we would have vested it in the judiciary.

We did not.

It is ordinary men and women, not lawyers, who ultimately determine what constitutes intolerable subversion of the principles and institutions we established in our Constitution.

The notion that the 1973 war powers act empowers the President of the United States to ignore our laws must be rejected on principle -- American principle v. Fascist principle. It is lunacy to think the Constitution for the United States of America gives (or even might give) the Presidency the power to flagrantly violate the collective will of the people codified in the acts and resolutions passed by our Congress.

You do not need an expert to weigh in. You don't need a law degree, or even a high school degree, to know that absolute power like that is NEVER freely given to a leader; it is only taken by deception or force.

The fascists in the WH invoke legalisms and declarations of "complexity" to obscure the simple truth. This is not the first time that fascists have used this tactic; it will not be the last.

The law is intended to serve our will, not thwart it, Too many Americans have been deceived into believing that they are helpless in the face of legal authority. Even when we are in complete agreement that the INTENT of our law is being overruled by legalisms and cynical misuse of the courts, we have submitted to authorities who tell us, "the law is the law." The spread of this fascist view of the law has had devastating consequences.

Like the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, sometimes the "authorities" and "sophisticated" are taken in far more easily than the naive. If we are to preserve our constitutional democracy, ordinary Americans must trust their own judgment and reject the sham.

Impeachable offenses and abuses of power are ours to define within the political process.

In his censure resolution, Feingold makes one of the many "open and shut" cases that can be made against Bush. Although he doesn't make it the same case can be made against Cheney as co-conspirator. Unlike articles of impeachment, Feingold's censure resolution contains both accusation and verdict. As Senator he can't bring articles, but he has made public statements that the violations are in his judgment impeachable.

Feingold has made his judgment. Each and every member must make a similar judgment, but the burden is currently on the members of the House--the people we empowered to bring articles of impeachment. To fulfill their oath, they must make a moral decision grounded in the intent, not the letter, of the law; a decision that upholds the principle of consent

-------------------
Given that my use of the term "prima facie" meets the legal definition I pasted and is also being used to mean precisely the same thing as it means in philosophical discussion, it is the ideal term to use in this context.

If it has a narrower meaning in specific areas of the law, I would think that those familiar with the narrower use would also be familiar with the more common meaning. Since the meaning is expressed by the context ("we know all we need to know") people who don't know the term at all are unlikely misunderstand what I wrote.

[Shakespeare]

128. No, you don't know what you're talking about.

Impeachment is both a legal and political process, and you're still misusing the term (or misunderstanding it, to be more precise).

You are incapable of understanding why your position is unworkable. It's like trying to tell a five-year-old that the sky is blue, and in response he just says "Orange!" over and over. I give up.

[pat_k]

131. It is up to the people who hear/read the arguments to judge the validity..

The arguments I make draw on the thinking of many people who are widely considered to be very perceptive and knowledgeable -- including folks in the legal profession.

The arguments are clarified, simplified, or expanded as others offer new information, alternative views, and counter-arguments grounded in logic, moral principle, and factual evidence. I don't find assertions that "you're wrong" very helpful when they are not backed by such counter-arguments.

As the arguments have evolved over the years, I have received enough affirmation from countless others that I am confident in the value and validity.

Your contribution -- correcting my assinine spelling mistake is much appreciated.

[Shakespeare]

132. You've been affirmed? No, not that I've seen.

But you keep telling yourself that.

And you are completely CLOSED to any argument other than your own; I can't even get past the most rudimentary aspects of debate with you because of that. It's like arguing with an insane person or a child.

I've already explained why you're wrong, and your response has been, in so many words, "nuh-uh!" You refuse to look at what IS actually involved in the act of impeachment, at which point we might be able to mete out points one by one. As that is not possible with you, I am moving on.

[pat_k]

133. If you have made specific counter-arguments . . .

backed by factual evidence, logic, and moral principle that are directed at specific arguments I make, please direct me to them. I must have missed them in the volume of posts on this thread.

[Shakespeare]

139. Yes, I've made them. YOU go find them.

YOUR arguments are lacking in logic and evidence, and you seem to think your own sense of moral principle is the only defense you need to sustain your argument. Not so.

You believe that impeachment can be stated as an end, as a goal, without first going through the process of hearings. You insist that draft articles of impeachment that people like Ramsey Clark (whom I like and admire) have validity without those hearings. You completely and fundamentally DO NOT UNDERSTAND the principle of impeachment, and the process involved in getting to the point where articles can be drawn up and voted upon. That you do not see the flaw in suggesting that any of our representatives can just stand up and say "we plan to impeach Bush" demonstrates a woeful lack of knowledge on your part. One more time: it does not work that way. Nor should it. A "prima facie" case is irrelevant, and cannot apply here. What you refer to (inaccurately) as prima facie evidence CAN be used to call for hearings, and we go from there (much like a prosecutor uses such evidence to get an indictment from a grand jury; that's only the beginning). You're trying to go from point A to point Z, and skip all the points inbetween. One more time again, It does not work that way.

Until you can grasp that, there is no point in debating you at all. You will continue to feel morally justified in what you believe, but your belief is nothing but fantasy. Go take a poli sci class or read a book--anything to help yourself understand--and then we'll talk. Until then, any further discussion with you is absurd.

[pat_k]

142. <deleted>

[pat_k]

143. Point-by-point reply

YOUR arguments are lacking in logic and evidence, and you seem to think your own sense of moral principle is the only defense you need to sustain your argument. Not so.

For me to address this, please describe the arguments are you referring to.

You believe that impeachment can be stated as an end, as a goal.. .

Please clarify what you mean by "stated as an end." Perhaps it would be helpful if you provided a specific quote that illustrates and describe your objection.

. . without first going through the process of hearings.

Correct. Hearings are most likely to be part of the process, but the goal of removal from office could be achieved without them as described below.

You insist that draft articles of impeachment that people like Ramsey Clark (whom I like and admire) have validity without those hearings.

In this thread, the only accusation I referred to is the one Feingold made in his censure resolution. In other threads I have cited those put forth by the Center for Constitutional Rights. I have also cited evidence presented in Hoodwinked by John Prados (a National Security Archives Research Fellow at GWU).

The "out and shut" case that I describe is expressed in the terms that one would use in a public statement. These are summary charges of a valid case that members of Congress could structure into specific Articles that are as simple or as complex and detailed as they deem necessary.

I have never cited or even read Ramsey Clark's.

You completely and fundamentally DO NOT UNDERSTAND the principle of impeachment, and the process involved in getting to the point where articles can be drawn up and voted upon. That you do not see the flaw in suggesting that any of our representatives can just stand up and say "we plan to impeach Bush" demonstrates a woeful lack of knowledge on your part.

I have never provided an example in which a member would say "We plan to impeach Bush."

The most frequent example I use goes something like this:

1. Accuse, e.g., "Bush and Cheney are subverting the Constitution by doing X";
2. Describe action required to remove the threat and declare intent, e.g., "To rescue the Constitution, I am taking up the fight to see them impeached and removed from office";
3. Effort to enlist support, e.g., "I call on my colleagues to join me."

Feingold stood up and unequivocally communicated the simple truth -- Bush is violating the Constitution (accused). Feingold called on Bush to acknowledge this and bring his criminal surveillance program within the law (described action to remove the threat available to him as a Senator). To that end he introduced his censure resolution and called on his colleagues to support it (declared intent, carried it out by introducing the resolution, and called on his colleagues to join him).

There are many ways that a member of the House can similarly call on their colleagues to take up the fight for impeachment and to cite grounds. Feingold's are sufficient. There are additional legitimate accusations, particularly since the Hamdan ruling.

They all have mouths. A member can make public statements. A member can introduce a resolution recommending Articles. A member could introduce a resolution calling on the President to resign if they choose. When I say "stand up and ask their colleagues to take up the fight", these are the types of actions I am referring to.

One more time: it does not work that way.

For me to address this, please cite an action in my posts that is outside the realm of possibility.

Nor should it. A "prima facie" case is irrelevant, and cannot apply here. What you refer to (inaccurately) as prima facie evidence . . .

Impeachment is a political process in that the steps to drafting articles and the nature and content of the Articles is up the House -- and the public their represent -- to define through political processes. They could make precisely the type of case I have described as part of that process.

The validity of the case I outline is not affected by the accuracy or inaccuracy of the label. It has no bearing on my arguments if a "prima facie" case as you define it "does not apply here," but for informational purposes, please provide your definition of "prima facie" and why it would not apply.

. . .CAN be used to call for hearings, and we go from there (much like a prosecutor uses such evidence to get an indictment from a grand jury; that's only the beginning). Until you can grasp that, there is no point in debating you at all.

If the case I offer "CAN be used to call for hearings" then we are in agreement. Please clarify your objection.

With regard to what constitutes "a beginning," to have any sort of meaningful discussion, basic assumptions need to be established.

Here are my assumptions.

1. "The process" has a goal: Removal from office is the endpoint of the process.


2. There is no fixed set of steps to achieving the goal.


3. "The process" currently underway has already begun in the "court of public opinion."


4. There are various ways "the process" can be advanced by citizens or members of Congress. For example, a public statement from a member of Congress in and of itself can advance the process.

It follows from the above assumptions that the political processes of gaining support in the public and within Congress can play out in infinite different ways.

You point out that Articles of Impeachment are roughly equivalent to an indictment so I'll go with that comparison to illustrate how these assumptions apply.

1. When violations of criminal code have been committed the goal is to sentence.


2. There is no fixed set of steps to that goal. For example, even before a formal investigation starts, the threat of investigation alone can result in a confession that leads to a sentence or the act of convening a grand jury can be enough to force a deal for a sentence.


3. All the steps from investigation, indictment, trial, verdict, to sentence may be necessary, but the suspect has choices and can jump to the end at any point. It is impossible to know in advance how far you will need to go. There are always unknowns and surprises. For example, there may be consequences the suspect is desperate to avoid that nobody but the suspect is aware of.

Like the process from accusation to sentence in criminal law, there are many different paths that can lead to the goal of impeachment (i.e., removal). It is impossible to know in advance how far the process will need go. It could be ended at any time if they "confess" by resigning.

For example, relentless debate about whether or not their crimes are crimes "out here" could do it. Or it could take months of hearings. A "deal" could be made like the one described in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2458812#2469259">post #127.

There are parts of the process that must conform to Constitutional dictates and Congressional rules, but those parts do not define the entirety of "the process" and may or may not be necessary to achieve the goal.

This brings me to my most basic assumption: no human is omniscient; no human can predict how things will unfold at each juncture; no human can predict every step, every reaction.

You will continue to feel morally justified in what you believe, but your belief is nothing but fantasy.

None of my responses in the post to this point invoke moral justification. For me to address your assertion, you will need to identify the actions or possibilities I have described in previous posts that you classify as "fantasy."

To turn attention to the moral principles I do assert in previous posts, the most basic is a straightforward one. I state it in various ways but it is essentially: "When we have a duty to act, we must act, or be derelict in that duty."

With regard the duties that members of Congress are charged with, here is a point-by-point breakdown. I have numbered the points to facilitate discussion by making it easier to identify the points you (or any other reader of this post) may take issue with.

1. When they took the Congressional oath members of Congress took upon themselves the duty to defend the Constitution -- i.e., the duty to defend against external threats and the duty to defend against threats from within, which includes defending against criminal activities or abuses of power by officials in the judiciary or executive branch that threaten the Constitution. To carry out this latter duty, they must be "on the look out" for such threats.


2. When members of congress become aware of charges that a civil official poses a threat to the Constitution, they have a duty to act to determine whether or not the threat is real and warrants defensive action. (i.e., If they do not pass judgment on the threat and the Constitution is in fact being subverted, they are failing in their duty to defend it).


3. The oath is an individual oath, the duty an individual duty.


4. Although the duty to pass judgment on potential threats is an individual duty, an individual member may or may not be directly involved in carrying it out. The only thing that matters is that the duty to pass judgment on the potential threat and take defensive action is fulfilled. If Congressional action is being taken (e.g., the duty delegated to a committee), members still have a personal duty -- they must decide if they are satisfied with the conclusions and actions being taken. If they are not satisfied, they must determine what to do about it.


5. If the duty is not being carried out by Congress as a body, it falls to the individual. Whether they are judging the threat for themselves, or determining whether or not to accept the judgments of others, each member must make a personal decision based on the information at hand and their understanding of the intent of the law.


6. The duty to be "on the look out" for threats and pass judgment on them can be broken down in the following components. The components apply whether they are being carried out by Congress as a body, by a group of members, of by an individual member.
   
   
   • Accusation -- Specific charges that a public official is violating their oath of office, subverting the Constitution, or abusing the power of their office for personal gain that is destructive to the public interest. Such charges can be conveyed to members of Congress by a variety of sources, for example whistleblowers, watchdog organizations, or ordinary citizens.
   
   
   • Investigation -- identifying what members of Congress need to judge the charges and taking steps to obtain the information. If a member knows all they need to know, they need to move forward. If colleagues need more, a member should not refrain from making their own conclusions public. They advance the process by telling the truth as they see it.
   
   
   • Evaluation-- considering the evidence and the arguments.
   
   
   • Conclusion -- Judge the threat/subversion/abuse to be real or baseless. Identify the arguments and evidence the judgment is based on. If the threat is real define the action that will eliminate the threat. (e.g., removal from office).
   
   
   • Communication -- Reporting the conclusion via public statement, report, resolution, or some other mechanism.


7. If the threat is judged to be baseless, the duty is fulfilled. If removal from office or some other Congressional action is required to eliminate the threat, their duty includes:
   
   
   • Assessment -- Determine current levels of support (or lack thereof) for initiating the necessary Congressional action (e.g., impeachment inquiry). Define intermediate goals and possible means by which the goals can be accomplished. The goals will be situation dependent but could involve making the case to the public, public and media events and appearances, efforts to enlist the support of fellow members, efforts to enlist the public and outside organizations in lobbying efforts, and so on.
     
     The next steps taken to advance toward the ultimate goal come out of the assessment. As long the process is moving toward the end point required to eliminate the threat to the constitution, members are doing their duty.

The situation today with regard to the serious charges that Bush and Cheney are usurping Unconstitutional power and are abusing the power of their office to violate federal statutes and international law:

1. Specific cases and arguments have been developed and presented to members of Congress by a variety of public interest organizations and individuals.


2. The Congressional duty to judge whether or not the charges of abuse and criminal violation of the constitution pose a danger to the Constitution that requires the defensive action of removing them from office is not being carried out.
   
   The current status of members with regard to their Congressional duty:
   
   
   • Many of the Republican members have made their judgment and have made public statements dismissing the charges as illegitimate. Few have reported the basis of their conclusion -- valid or otherwise.
     
     Although they have failed to support their conclusions with evidence and law, if they made an honest, personal judgment, based on their best understanding of the law and the available evidence, they are done. If they honestly believe the Constitution isn't under attack no further action is required of them unless something causes them to question their judgment (e.g., public pressure).
   
   
   • Conyers and the members who joined him in his efforts have been taking visible steps to carry out their duty. They initiated investigations, evaluated the available information, reported their conclusions, recommended next steps, and introduced resolutions to acquire additional information from the WH and initiate further investigation.
     
     Recently Rep. Conyers stepped away from his duty when he echoed the "company line" (have better things to do). The duty to defend the Constitution cannot be fulfilled if the mechanism by which a threat would be eliminated is "off the table." He is currently derelict in his duty and will be until he makes it clear that he (1) intends to carry out his duty to pass judgment on the charges and (2) intends to take steps to see that Articles of Impeachment are drafted and presented to the Senate if he concludes that removal from office is necessary to remove the threat.
   
   
   • A vast majority of the Democratic caucus are taking no visible steps to fulfill their duty to judge the charges against Bush and Cheney. They have made vague and inconclusive statements regarding the charges and have failed to commit to the steps required to come to a conclusion. These members are currently derelict in their duty.
   
   
   • Nancy Pelosi and others have made an unequivocal "Impeachment is off the table" pledge. With that pledge, they are declaring their intention NOT to act. Until she makes a new declaration we must assume she means what she said and has no intention of taking any visible steps to either determine the validity of the charges or remove Bush and Cheney from office. At least for the moment, she has chosen dereliction of duty.

[pat_k]

120. opps -- "Prima facie" (not fascia)

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1598&bold=">prima facie
: (pry-mah fay-shah) adj. Latin for "at first look," or "on its face," referring to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution in which the evidence before trial is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence presented at trial. A prima facie case presented to a Grand Jury by the prosecution will result in an indictment. Example: in a charge of bad check writing, evidence of a half dozen checks written on a non-existent bank account makes it a prima facie case. However, proof that the bank had misprinted the account number on the checks might disprove the prosecution's apparent "open and shut" case.
See also: prima facie case

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

48. I concur. He should NOT be impeached.

He should be dragged out of the Oval Office in handcuffs and charged with high treason.

The "Impeach Bush" bumpersticker on the back of my car notwithstanding... :evilgrin:

[cally]

49. I'm one of them

I think the Dems don't have time to impeach Bush and still address all the criical issues. I think it would be a distraction from governing. If we had won the House and Senate in 2004, I would view it differently. I'm also very concerned that if we impeach * right after the Clinton impeachment it will look like retribution. I don't think we can maintain our country if it's seen as normal for an opposition party to pursue impeachment. I agree with Pelosi.

[pat_k]

83. Question below applies here too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2464275

[Raine]

110. That's exactly

the way I feel too.

[pat_k]

115. What exactly do they gain . . .

. . .by refusing to accuse Bush of his crimes and refusing to speak the truth?

The duty before each and every one of them is so simple. All a member of Congresss needs to do to fulfill thier oath is to STOP GIVING BUSH AND CHENEY COVER -- they do it by publicly accusing them of their crimes and saying "These crimes demand impeachment and I call on my colleagues to join me in taking up the fight to rescue the Constitution."

Truth matters.

See also reply #97

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2465159

[Imagevision]

53. If Dems win house & senate? is there enough votes to impeach? (60)

impeachment? talk is cheap, facts can kick you in the ass.

[pat_k]

84. And if they don't have 60, they must refuse to accuse . . .

. . .Bush and Cheney of their crimes and refuse to tell the truth?

The thing is, they can't tell the truth if they aren't willing to do what truth demands of them.

We ALWAYS pay a price when we try to move forward on lies.

They can't expect Americans to believe they are committed to defending our Constitution if they allow partisan considerations keep them on the sidelines, watching as the destroyers they are sworn to fight advance.

We expect members of our armed services to risk life and limb to fulfill their oath. The risk that the "opposition" will call you names, or that you will be snubbed at the next cocktail party pales by comparison. But members of Congress take the same oath. Why should we expect less from them than we do the men and women of our armed services? Why should they expect less of themselves?

The duty before each and every one of them is so simple. All a member of Congresss needs to do to fulfill thier oath is to STOP GIVING BUSH AND CHENEY COVER by publicly accusing them of their crimes and saying "These crimes demand impeachment and I call on my colleagues to join me in taking up the fight to rescue the Constitution."

[morgan2]

54. impeachment should never be a campaign issue

But should be first thing on the agenda after the election.

[pat_k]

89. Of course it should. . .

Even Craig Crawford, about as beltway as beltway can get, understood the risks they'd face if they didn't run on impeachment -- and saw some of the benefits of doing so.

They have laid themselves a great trap by failing to run on impeachment.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2576001

[Buzz Clik]

59. Just shows that a significant fraction of DUers think rather than react.

Why waste two full years of a slim majority in Congress fighting with the GOP over impeachment? Is that the number one item on the agenda? When Clinton was getting his butt reamed, absolutely nothing else happened in Congress, and Clinton's polls steadily climbed.

If the Dems take up impeachment it will show that we're exactly as stupid and hateful as they are.

Pelosi is exactly correct.

[pat_k]

82. What exactly do they gain by refusing to accuse Bush. . .

. . of his crimes and refusing to speak the truth?

The duty before each and every one of them is so simple. All a member of Congresss needs to do to fulfill thier oath is to STOP GIVING BUSH AND CHENEY COVER -- they do it by publicly accusing them of their crimes and saying "These crimes demand impeachment and I call on my colleagues to join me in taking up the fight to rescue the Constitution."

Truth matters.

Perhaps someday I'll figure out why so many of "us" are so tolerant of their (Reps and Sens) refusal to simply open a mouth, accuse, and be willing to take the action demanded by the charges

[Buzz Clik]

86. There's much to be accomplished beyond wasting two years on impeachment

And what will we gain? Even if the impeachment were to be muscled through the House, the prospect of getting the conviction in the Senate is zero. So, just to satisfy those frothing at the mouth, we waste an amazing opportunity.

Perhaps someday I'll figure out why so many of "us" are so tolerant...

Oh, I love that divisiveness. "Us"? Let me guess -- I'm either with you or against you. Right, George?

[pat_k]

88. So, because they refuse to impeach. . .

. . they cannot accuse Bush and Cheney of subverting the Constitution. (Because if they said Bush's actions violated the constitution, they'd have to impeach, so every member of the House had better buy a muzzle and keep mum on anything like that.)

And because they won't accuse, Bush gets to say "I'm not doin' nothin' wrong! -- If I were, the Dems would be impeaching me!"

Tell me again, why are they keeping up this charade? To effect "repairs"? With a non-veto proof majority?

Bush and Cheney routinely violate our laws, they refuse to execute and enforce them, and they are dismantling the institutions that serve the people. Passing more laws for Bush and Cheney to nullify with signing statements, ignore, or actively undermine doesn't strike me as a very gratifying endeavor.

They are promising to renovate a burning house. It doesn't make sense.

What "Positive Agenda" could possibly offset the pain and destruction that will be sown every day that the massive power of the American Presidency remains in the hands of lawless, ruthless, ideologues drunk with the unconstitutional power they have grabbed?

What "positive agenda" can we be proud of when we remain a War Criminal nation?

Impeachment IS Our Positive Agenda.

[Buzz Clik]

92. Cool. Make impeachment an agenda item, and remain in the minority.

Anything for revenge.

[pat_k]

94. Or fail to and watch Jeb win in a landslide. . .

. . just like Poppi did when the Dems refused to impeach Reagan et al.

It is NEVER good politics to be complicit in crime.

http://www.davidswanson.org/?q=node/621

"When the congressional Democrats failed to pursue impeachment as the necessary response to the Iran-Contra revelations of rampant illegality in the Reagan White House – rejecting the advice of Henry B. Gonzalez, the wily Texas congressman who alone introduced the appropriate articles in 1987 – they thought they were positioning the party for victory in the coming presidential election. Instead, Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush, having recovered from the gentle slap on the wrist he received from Congress for his own involvement in the scandal, was elected to the presidency in 1988 by a landslide, and expected Democratic advances in Congress failed to materialize.

"Pulling punches in a political battle usually results in a knockout, with the party that holds back collapsing to the mat and struggling, often for a very long time, to finally get up again. And the Democratic Party of the George Herbert Walker Bush years, with its inexplicable penchant for pulling punches, runs the very real risk of being flattened not once but repeatedly if it fails to confront the issue of rampant wrongdoing on the part of the Bush administration."

[Harper_is_Bush]

60. Why would you want him impeached?

Keep him until the end. It will be a sobering reminder for voters right up to '08.

[pat_k]

80. Would prefer not to be complicit with the pain and suffering. . .

. . .he inflicts on the nation, our children, people across the planet, their children. . . between now and then.

[Harper_is_Bush]

106. How would he manage that?

[pat_k]

117. I'm not sure if you are kidding or not,

. . .but my reply to originalpckelly describes just a couple of the many, many ways their lawlessness harms.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2458812#2463287

[LeftCoast]

62. Maybe its me, but shouldn't we worry about WINNING first?

:shrug:

[pat_k]

77. Her intolerable "pledge" cannot be ignored. . .

. . .we will work for our candidates, but we must also be prepared to confront them -- and we need to make EVERY EFFORT to save them from themselves.

Pelosi's "Pledge" has created a Horrible trap for Democratic members of the House. We can help them see it and get out of it.

If they betray the pledge and impeach -- as they must to fulfill their Congressional oath -- they confirm the perception that Democrats are weak, unprincipled hypocrites/"moral relativists", who are only willing to stand up for 'principle' when it is safe.

If they fail to take up the fight to impeach Bush and Cheney, they are betraying their Congressional oath -- and betraying the nation.

The perception of Democrats as weak is the BIGGEST problem the party faces, and with her pledge, she has guaranteed that whatever they do, they will compound the problem.(When they could have proven the image wrong by standing and fighting.)

If Rep. Pelosi intends to take up the fight for impeachment and has made a false pledge to escape feared consequences, then she subscribes to the Un-American belief that the "the ends justify the means" and cannot be trusted.

One thing is certain. As this wrong-headed pledge remains in place, they are "damned if they do and damned if they don't". If they publicly accuse Bush of his crimes and then follow up with "Don't worry, we're not going to impeach anybody!" they sound like morally-confused wimps. If they do not accuse, they become accessories after the fact because their failure to accuse enables and empowers the fascists.

[Guaranteed]

63. It's the difference between blind hatred and keen hatred.

The second we get a sliver of power back is not the time to try to knock down the whole Repuke machine- by, I should note, getting rid of the single pawn they've put in the #1 spot.

Pre. Mature. Ejaculation.

Think. Think about what we actually need to accomplish here. Keep our eyes on the ball.

[pat_k]

75. Nothin' to do with hatred. Partisanship. "Strategery"

. . .majority or minority status, or any other rationalization for inaction.

Every member of Congress is sworn to defend the Constitution. Just as there is no "little bit pregnant," when duty demands action, you act. If you do not act, you are derelict. "I'll do my duty a little bit" is dereliction. "I'll do my duty later when it is safe" is dereliction.

Members of Congress can't expect Americans to believe they are committed to defending the treasured principles we established in our constitution if they refuse to stand up for those principles because they believe-- rightly or wrongly -- that standing up is "too risky."

They can't expect Americans to believe they are committed to defending our Constitution if they allow partisan consideration keep them on the sidelines, watching as the destroyers they are sworn to fight advance.

We expect members of our armed services to risk life and limb to fulfill their oath. The risk that the "opposition" will call you names, or that you will be snubbed at the next cocktail party pales by comparison. But members of Congress take the same oath. Why should we expect less from them than we do the men and women of our armed services? Why should they expect less of themselves?

The duty before each and every one of them is so simple. All a member of Congresss needs to do to fulfill thier oath is to STOP GIVING BUSH AND CHENEY COVER by publicly accusing them of their crimes and saying "These crimes demand impeachment and I call on my colleagues to join me in taking up the fight to rescue the Constitution."

Truth matters.

Perhaps someday I'll figure out why so many of "us" are so tolerant of their (Reps and Sens) refusal to simply open a mouth, accuse, and be willing to take the action demanded by the charges

[Jcrowley]

90. That's right

K&R

[Guaranteed]

108. It's because actually protecting the Constitution

requires much more than throwing Bush out of office.

Impeaching Bush will not solve our problems. I realize that many are desperately seeking out the animal satisfaction of seeing Bush in handcuffs. You rationalize that somehow that will solve all our problems so that it makes sense to you, but you need to look deeper, past that visceral need for blood.

It most definitely IS about partisanship for many here, and it's our country that is going to pay for it. You want to ruin everything the second you get the chance instead of taking it slow, and taking back everything in 2008. It's selfish and immature.

Oh, and by the way, I was and still am a strong-willed, quite "spineful" Howard Dean supporter. I know DLC bullshit. This ain't it.

What I'm trying to tell you is what is RIGHT FOR OUR COUNTRY. You want to save the Constitution? Listen to me, and settle down.

[pat_k]

113. And we do this by LEAVING him in office how?

How does the nation confront the truth when our leaders choose to keep up a charade to avoid doing thier duty?

for clarification of what I mean by "charade" see reply #97 at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2465159

[NotGivingUp]

69. i'm not supporting ANYONE who does NOT support

impeachment. if the democrats take over and don't impeach, my plans are to leave this country. i will know that it's just all a bunch of bullshit and i'm totally sick of it. this country needs a TOTAL overhaul. a few bandaids just ain't gonna fix it.

[pat_k]

85. We can snap them out of it. . .

. . .just need to find a big enough cluestick!

[Lilith Velkor]

71. George W Bush deserves to be impaled on the fucking Capitol Dome

...but I suppose I'd settle for mere impeachment.

[pat_k]

123. Perhaps we should lobby for "impalement" -- then impeachment would be . . .

. . the "conservative" thing to do. Given their penchant for jumping on "half-measures" might fool them into jumping on board.

[Lilith Velkor]

141. Now yer talkin'!

:thumbsup:

[MiniMe]

93. Oversight and hearings must come first

The dems have to build a case, and get the American public overwhelmingly behind them. However, they can now subpeona them, and force them to testify. The other thing is that impeachment will totally plug up the congress. They need to fix things first.

[pat_k]

99. No. Their first duty is to STOP the harm . . .

. . by taking up the fight to remove from office.

Impeachment is the weapon we gave Congress to defend the Constitution against attacks from within the halls of power.

Like a cop pulling over a drunk driver to protect the public from harm, the first duty is to get the car off the road and "take the keys" (i.e., take away the power to do harm).

The police wouldn't be much use to us if they followed Madam Pelosi's example (i.e., They wouldn't get any drunks off the road if they kept their distance and said "Gee, we'd better pretend we AREN'T pulling him over! No sirens now!")

Tragically, when it comes to rescuing our Consitituion, Madam Pelosi isn't much use to us.

What part of "Drunk with Power" don't our so-called leaders understand?

[MiniMe]

109. You can't impeach without solid evidence

And hearings are the only way to gather that evidence. You can be charged on suspicion, but you can't be convicted without a trial. To do anything less would be un-american.

[pat_k]

116. Step 1: Open a mouth, tell the truth, and accuse Bush and Cheney

. . .of their crimes. Call for impeachment.

They are refusing to speak the truth because they are unwilling to take up impeachment. . .http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2465159">More on this

It is s prima facie case. . . http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2458812&mesg_id=2461679">More on this

[Warren DeMontague]

100. Depends on how the question is phrased.

What most of DU said is, we shouldn't make impeaching the President THE issue we run on as we approach the election.

I understand and agree with that, and I'm "Impeachdubya", for fuck's sake.

[pat_k]

104. Her "pledge" mandadates a few changes to the Congressional oath

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and be derelict in my duty to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear foreswear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will fail to take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully negligently and faithlessly discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

[lonestarnot]

107. Is this for real? If so we've been invaded by repukes.

[pat_k]

118. I sure hope so! (oddly)

. . It is just too painful to believe that 40% - 50% (currently at 42%) of DUers of think impeachment should be off the table.

too painful.