"If the impeachment provision in the Constitution. . ." --Barbara Jordan

[pat_k]

If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States
will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th-century
Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th-century paper shredder.
-- Barbara Jordan

The Honorable Barbara Jordan
25 July 1974, House Judiciary Committee
(http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barbarajordanjudiciarystatement.htm">transcript and audio)

. . .
Earlier today, we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States: "We, the people." It's a very eloquent beginning. But when that document was completed on the seventeenth of September in 1787, I was not included in that "We, the people." I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation, and court decision, I have finally been included in "We, the people."

Today I am an inquisitor. An hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution.

"Who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves?" "The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men."¹ And that's what we're talking about. In other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

It is wrong, I suggest, it is a misreading of the Constitution for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the President should be removed from office. The Constitution doesn't say that. The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of the body of the legislature against and upon the encroachments of the executive. The division between the two branches of the legislature, the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and to the other the right to judge, the framers of this Constitution were very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judgers -- and the judges the same person.

We know the nature of impeachment. We've been talking about it awhile now. It is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to "bridle" the executive if he engages in excesses. "It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men."² The framers confided in the Congress the power if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with power and grown tyrannical, and preservation of the independence of the executive. . .

This morning, in a discussion of the evidence, we were told that the evidence which purports to support the allegations of misuse of the CIA by the President is thin. We're told that that evidence is insufficient. What that recital of the evidence this morning did not include is what the President did know on June the 23rd, 1972.

The President did know that it was Republican money, that it was money from the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, which was found in the possession of one of the burglars arrested on June the 17th. What the President did know on the 23rd of June was the prior activities of E. Howard Hunt, which included his participation in the break-in of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, which included Howard Hunt's participation in the Dita Beard ITT affair, which included Howard Hunt's fabrication of cables designed to discredit the Kennedy Administration.

We were further cautioned today that perhaps these proceedings ought to be delayed because certainly there would be new evidence forthcoming from the President of the United States. There has not even been an obfuscated indication that this committee would receive any additional materials from the President. The committee subpoena is outstanding, and if the President wants to supply that material, the committee sits here. The fact is that on yesterday, the American people waited with great anxiety for eight hours, not knowing whether their President would obey an order of the Supreme Court of the United States. . .

Justice Story: "Impeachment is intended for occasional and extraordinary cases where a superior power acting for the whole people is put into operation to protect their rights and rescue their liberties from violations." . . .

The Carolina ratification convention impeachment criteria: those are impeachable "who behave amiss or betray their public trust." . . .

James Madison again at the Constitutional Convention: "A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution." . . .

If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th-century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th-century paper shredder. . .

"swollen with power and grown tyrannical"

The executive branch under the rule of Bush and Cheney has "swollen with power and grown tyrannical." Congress has been derelict in their duty to stand against the subversion.

Unlike the Nixon administration's actions in Watergate, where "cover up" was the hallmark, Bush and Cheney are usurping our will and violating our Constitution in plain sight. Phrases like "encroachments of the executive" or "betray their public trust" fail to capture their blatant and aggressive appropriation of Unconstitutional power.

On the question of the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, we are long past the need for investigation.

We have our evidence. The case for impeachment is http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/10">complete.

It is time to formally accuse (introduce articles). Calls for hearings to present the evidence are appropriate. Calls for more evidence and investigation are nothing but an attempt to escape the unavoidable truth.

Refusing to accuse at this point says one thing: "What we know now is not enough to impeach."

Refusing to accuse effectively nullifies the powerful and simple case we have.

Refusing to accuse is tantamount to exoneration.

If exoneration is their intention, Members of the House should do it honestly and tell us why the nation should not call Bush and Cheney into account for. . .

• War crimes committed at Gitmo under color of law at the direction of the White House. (At least three years of operations that our own Supreme Court declared to be violations of Geneva and our own law)
• Terrorizing us with threats of "Mushroom Clouds over our cities in 45 minutes." (No amount of "stretching" can support the notion that Iraq was capable of dropping a nuclear bomb anywhere within the United States -- not in 45 minutes; not in a year; not in 5 years)
• Their criminal domestic surveillance program, for which they make the laughable and Unconstitutional claim that unitary authoritarian power gives them a "get out of jail free" card.

[mike_c]

1. proudly kicking and recommending-- we must get these criminals...

...out of high American office. We are a nation involved in crimes against humanity, led by a war criminal. This is America's shame.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

47. More power to you if you can convince 16 Republican Senators cause that's what it will take.

[GOTV]

49. Probably 17...

... because I doubt Lieberman will vote to convict.

[magellan]

2. Thank you

K&R

[kineneb]

3. Barbara Jordan

gad, I still remember her during Watergate. Where are the orators like her today?

Visualize Impeachment!
(my bumper sticker)

[pat_k]

11. Of the "Top 100" her '76 DNC Keynote ranks 5th (this one is 13th)

Amazing Woman. Just the echo of her voice in my mind and the memory of her powerful presence is spine-tingling.

The ranks are from the site I found her speech on --http://www.americanrhetoric.com/top100speechesall.html

Seems like a great place to go to get a charge of inspiration.

[glitch]

21. K & R wow what a cool site. Thanks for posting nt.

[TahitiNut]

33. She is one of my ALL-TIME heroes! Amazing, incredible, awesome human being!

I adored her! This country was blessed to have her.

[flamin lib]

4. K&R

[pberq]

5. Kick & Nominated

[grizmaster]

6. words of power and wisdom

We must defend our Constitution or render it irrelevant

[Disturbed]

40. Rep, Jordan speaks truth to power.

Impeachment of Bush/Cheney should take no more than a few months. The case is made. America must Impeach them according to the US Constitution.

[calimary]

7. Now there was a magnificent woman.

Uber-magnificent.

Dearest Barbara Jordan - how we need her today. One of the most powerful orators I have ever heard. I still remember her stirring speeches on that committee - how they gave me goosebumps. GAWD she was wonderful. She could singlehandedly have rehabilitated the entire state of Texas after george, if she were still alive and kicking.

[pat_k]

12. Spine-tingling. . .

. . .Her 1976 DNC Keynote is worth a listen too.

I've been poking around the site I found her speech on. Seems like a great place to go to get a charge of inspiration.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/top100speechesall.html

[bonito]

8. Recommended

[Gregorian]

9. Senator's journal is amazing.

I didn't realize that we were already this far down the road to impeachment. It's academic. They've already violated laws.

This is getting exciting.

Thanks. I actually don't remember Barbara Jordan from the Watergate hearings. That was a while ago.

[pat_k]

13. Can listen to an mp2 on americanrhetoric.com. . .

. . .Her 1976 DNC Keynote is wonderful too.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/top100speechesall.html

-------------------------------
Re: Impeachment

Pass the flame of reality along!

The reality is stark. The failure of our so-called leaders to recognoze their duty is hard to fathom, but every person we bring onto the "impeach now" bus improves our chances of waking them up and injecting some reality into their http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/8">insular world of the beltway.

[Gregorian]

17. Great website!

Thank you. I'm listening now. How inspiring.

[rman]

10. Bush is the reason why the founders invented impeachment

I think our powder is quite dry enough right now.

[BlackVelvet04]

14. I've done a lot of thinking about the whole impeachment issue and

have come to the decision that in spite of the damage an impeachment process could do to the Democratic party, in spite of the upheaval to the country, in spite of the screams of partisanship, the constitution of the United States MUST be defended and preserved. It has served us well for over 200 years and it is more important than any one person, any one party or any persecution suffered to preserve it.

[puebloknot]

16. Right to the point! Well said! nt

[pat_k]

26. Leaving the world of calculation for one of infinite possibility

When Duty Calls

When principle demands action, we act or betray principle. Outcome expectations, positive or negative, are rationalizations that have no place in the decision to act. When this reality sinks in, we cross the threshold from the world of calculation to the world of possibility.

We need to remind ourselves that we take oaths and commit to do tough things in advance for a reason. Oaths are an expression of our determination act in accordance with our values no matter how difficult the circumstances. If we expected it to be a cakewalk for members of Congress to defend the Constitution, we wouldn't require them to take the Congressional oath.

While outcome expectations can't deter us duty calls, a realistic assessment of the risks and rewards of both action and inaction can make it easier to do what we must.

It's not all doom and gloom -- far from it!

In current crisis, contrary to the predictions of http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/8">doom and gloom coming from the beltway bubble, there are compelling reasons to believe that Impeachment is not just the right thing do; it is the winning thing to do.

Unfounded Fears

One of the perennial Democratic fears is the fear of what "they" will say. When you stop trying to avoid and escape the "bad things they'll say" and just do what you need to do, you are suddenly able to think about how to deal with what comes your way -- something that is impossible if all your energy is wrapped up in avoidance.

The feared "bad things they'll say" in the fight for impeachment include labeling it "revenge" or "a partisan coup" or a threat to the fabric of the nation ("tearing the nation apart"). Getting drawn into denying and defending puts you on the "accusers" turf, but once you start looking, there are always ways to deflect accusations or turn them around on the accusers. For example, see http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/12">Turning accusations of "partisan coup" against them is simple. . .

WRT impeachment, the fear of public backlash is inexplicable. Currently, even with 100% anti-impeachment propaganda coming from the establishment -- both Democratic and Republican -- Newsweek found that a majority want impeachment to be a priority in the new Congress, and only 44% said "Should not impeach" (and that includes Democrats who have fallen in line with Pelosi's "off the table" edict). There is a solid floor of support for impeachment and the numbers can only go one way. It is hard to imagine where the assumed "backlash" is supposed to come from.

Despite the "conventional wisdom" that impeachment would be long drawn out process, things could actually unfold at lightening speed. Bush is an albatross that Republicans may be more than happy to rid themselves of. Republicans may be VERY motivated to pressure Bush and Cheney to take the resignation "http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/12">exit strategy."

There is just so much that is indefensible. For example, Bush's abuse of signing statements to nullify McCain's anti-torture amendment (the overwhelming will of the people) in order to keep torture "on the table" will be tough for them to defend. Warner, Graham, McCain, and Collins (may have been others I'm not recalling) came out against the "War Criminals Protection Act." The "compromise" they got was not much of one, it just shifted the responsibility for actually approving torture to Bush (as opposed to approving it themselves and becoming War Criminals). Specter dismissed the WH defense of the criminal surveillance program as absurd. There are some other "rational" Republicans (Snowe, Hagel, and Lugar).

There may simply be too few who are willing to defend the indefensible to save Bush and Cheney.

Realistic Rewards

With great crises come great opportunities. The biggest problem the Democratic Party has is the perception that Democrats are weak and unprincipled. It is hard to imagine a more effective way that Democrats can prove they are the party of strength and principle than to stand and fight for the Constitution.

What better time than now, when the principle of consent and the dictates of our Constitution are so desperately in need of a champion?

Another complaint about the Democratic Party is that it has been so tactical and programmatic that voters don't know what they stand for. The Party establishment gives lip serve to the need to "define the Party." They talk about needing a "message." But when confronted with a crisis in which they could actually stand and fight for the unifying principles and aspirations of our Constitution (and thus define what they stand for) they appear to be doing everything in their power to escape.

The Nov. 7th "wave" demonstrated the power of the public's growing dismay at the arrogant, irresponsible, and autocratic Bush Cheney White House. But the election could only give voters an indirect means of venting their anger, and as such, it did not fully tap into the anger or bring it into focus.

If they have the courage to stand up and make their case for impeachment, Democratic leaders would provide a voice and a focus that could energize voters across the political spectrum.

Democratic leaders may never have a greater opportunity to engage and inspire the public.

The Bottom Line

Of course, whether they can see the reasons for optimism or continue to wallow in pessimism, members of Congress have an inescapable choice: Duty or Complicity.

[GOTV]

57. How will Impeachment without conviction protect anything?

... no one seems to be able to explain that part.

I wonder sometimes if we all understand what impeachment means. So many people seem to think impeachment carries some magical power to right wrongs or protect us from future wrongs.

And I say "magical" because no one explains the process by which impeachment alone accomplishes these goals.

And I say impeachment "alone" because so many of us seemed unconcerned with the possibility of conviction which actually has a consequence, actually does change things, unlike impeachment alone.

[pat_k]

74. We all have a choice: the right side of history or the wrong side. Win or lose.

Nothing "magic" about it. It's called standing and fighting to defend the principles and institutions we established in the Constitution -- something that Members of Congress are sworn to do.

The Congressional oath to uphold the Constitution is not an oath to win -- it is an oath to fight -- to "support and defend."

The power to impeach is the weapon we gave them to fulfill that oath when the threat comes from within the halls of power.

If they do not accuse -- publicly and formally by introducing articles of impeachment -- they are handing the WH an unassailable argument. (Tony Snow: "If the actions of this President and Vice President violated the Constitution in any way, Members of Congress, who are sworn to defend the Constitution, would be pursing impeachment. Not only are they NOT pursuing impeachment (not one member has introduced articles)they have taken it off the table. Those charges coming from the nuts on the left are nuts.")

Their oath is an individual oath; their duty an individual duty. Each and every member has a choice. Keep impeachment "off limits" and give the War Criminals in the WH cover or stand up, accuse them of http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/10">their crimes, and call on their colleagues to take up the fight.

At such critical junctures, we all have a choice: the right side of history or the wrong side. Win or lose.

History is a harsh judge. When we look back at the times that evil has won, the "winners" disgust us and we hold the ones who stood on the sidelines because they believed "We can't win this one so we'd better shut up" in contempt.

As Barbara Jordan reminds us, when the Constitution was completed on the seventeenth of September in 1787, she was not included in that "We, the people."

How could that happen when so many who participated in the creation of that document claimed to oppose slavery on principle? It happened because they choose to betray their principles and give up the fight -- and so they became complicit in the morally indefensible "compromise" that allowed our fellow human beings to be enslaved in the United States. Undoubtedly many believed they "couldn't win" if they drew a line in the sand and so did not draw the line.

We may never stop paying the price for that horrific compromise.

In more recent history, we have called on our so-called "leaders" to stand and fight for the principles they claim to be committed to. Over and over we have watched in horror and dismay as they fail us. There are so many heartbreaking examples, like. . .

• Failing to take up the articles of impeachment against Reagan that http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE0DB1638F935A35750C0A961948260&sec=&pagewanted=print">Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez introduced in March 1987 because the Democratic leadership had convinced themselves that conciliation would pave the way to victory in 1988;[/li>
  
• Submitting to the treasonous Bush v. Gore edict, instead of denouncing it and putting the decision to throw out the unlawful Florida electors in the hands of Congress, where it belonged;


• Failing to fight tooth and nail against Bush's Authorization to Military Force.
  
  ". . .the abdication by Congress of its constitutional power to declare war is a dangerous step toward a government in which one man holds in his hands the power to use the world's most powerful military force in whatever manner he chooses, whenever and wherever he perceives a threat against national security. and refused to abdicate their power to drawn a line in the sand and fought tooth and nail against Bush's Authorization to Use Military Force."
  --Senator Byrd


• Failing to join Rep. Tubbs Jones and Sen. Boxer in rejecting the unlawful Ohio electors on January 6th, 2005.


• Sending Alito, a key promoter of the fascist fantasy of unlimited ("unitary") authoritarian power, to the Supreme Court by voting to close debate because they feared being called "obstructionists," and then having the nerve to claim "opposition" by voting against him on the floor;


• Failing to fight tooth and nail against the War Criminals Protection Act of 2006;

Of all the rationalizations for inaction they invoke, some form of "Can't win; so don't fight" is perhaps the most insidious. Failing to fight because "it's futile" is a self-defeating prophesy. The things worth fighting for can never happen if nobody takes up the fight.

We can't know the road not taken, but we can see where their failures have taken us. Over and over, we have seen consequences far more dire than the worst they feared would result if they had acted. The price we are paying is higher than we could have imagined when they failed us in 2000 or when they failed us in 2002 or when they failed us in 2005. If they fail to impeach, even if it is the charge of the light brigade, the price could be unimaginable.

[GOTV]

83. "Standing and fighting for principles" is not the same as impeachment

Although you claim, without evidence, that it is.

Taking an action that does not get us to our goals is useless.

And in all your words you have, like all those before you, failed to enumerate the steps by which impeachment without conviction will bring about the goals we can all agree on.

I understand you want to fire your guns, that that would feel good, that it would feel like you're accomplishing something. But feeling like you're doing something is not the same as doing something.

Here, I'll start you off...

Once we impeach without 67 Senators willing to convict the next thing that will happen is ... YOU FILL IN THIS PART ... which will result in Bush and Cheney being removed from office and put in jail.

Can any of you complete this statement?

[pat_k]

86. The principle of consent does not constitute "principle"?

We take oaths to do tough things in advance for a reason. An oath is a reflection of our commitment to act in accordance with our values -- our principles.

Impeachment is the weapon we gave members of Congress to fulfill their oath when the threat comes from within the halls of power.

If using the weapon we gave them to defend the principles and institutions we established in our Constitution, as Members of Congress have sworn to do, doesn't constitute "standing and fighting for principle" I can't imagine what would.

Of all the rationalizations for inaction, some form of "Can't win, so don't fight" (e.g., pronouncements that we "can't achieve our goals" so we shouldn't bother trying) is perhaps the most insidious. Events cannot be known until they are behind us. Unless one believes in their own omniscience, pronouncements that we "can't win" have no basis in reality.

Failing to fight because "it's futile" is a self-defeating prophesy. The things worth fighting for will never happen if nobody takes up the fight.

Fortunately for the nation, the question for Members of Congress is not "will we win?" The Congressional oath to uphold the Constitution is not an oath to win -- it is an oath to fight -- to "support and defend."

[GOTV]

92. Impeachment is a weapon, I agree - and Bush is presently out of range

But you want to fire your gun anyway!

At best that's childish. At worst, you've given away our position, or fired our one bullet, which would be stupid.

Or would you be for impeaching over and over again for two years?

"Failing to fight because 'it's futile' is a self-defeating prophesy."

Ah-ha, you haven't bothered to consider what I've said either. Because I never said that!

[pat_k]

96. The duty of the House is to accuse --- to impeach. Well within range.

Their oath is an individual oath, their duty an individual duty. Even if no other member of the House joins them, each Member is obligated by oath to stand up, accuse, introduce draft articles, and call on their colleagues to join them.

Anything less is dereliction of duty and complicity.

As I have said before, "Can't win, so don't fight" is perhaps the most insidious and destructive of all the rationalizations for dereliction of duty.

If you told people who are fighting to eradicate AIDS or poverty or hunger that "it won't happen, so shut up" I can't imagine you would expect -- or even want -- any of them to listen to you.

A prosecutor who refused to charge a lynch mob with murder because he believed that an all white jury would acquit would be beneath contempt.

A soldier who disobeys an order because they believe the battle is lost would be court-martialed.

[cascadiance]

103. I think everyone knows that the House probably can "impeach"...

The key is what is done after that? If we rush to impeach him in the House and we don't have an adequate case assembled for the Senate to convict him with, all we have is an empty political gesture that hasn't been thought through.

The key time is that the goal is when the impeachment is done, that is when the REAL battle begins to convict. That is what will require strategy and planning if we want to have something happen there. Some will say that we can never win in the Senate, so why bother worrying about it and just do the impeachment in the House as a good "gesture". I say that I don't think it is a done deal that it will fail in the Senate. I DO think that with the right evidence, we can have the votes to convict Bush in the Senate. It was done with Nixon that forced him to resign. I think it can be done again this time too.

[pat_k]

107. The case for impeachment is simple, clear, convincing, and complete.

They have usurped our will, terrorized us into war with the most colossal bomb threat in history (mushroom clouds over out cities in 45 minutes), committed war crimes (so ruled the stacked Supreme Court), and broken our laws ("unitary" fig leaf for their criminal domestic surveillance program is laughable -- even Specter scoffed).

The case for impeachment is simple, clear, convincing, and complete. There is no excuse for delay. If you doubt this, see http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/10">this journal entry.

[cascadiance]

108. That article doesn't apply to me. I'm NOT advocating inaction on impeachment...

I don't think there are many here that are saying we shouldn't pursue impeachment. I think we are talking about doing it correctly and stacking the deck for us to ensure the best chance of conviction, which has NEVER been done before in the history of our country. We shouldn't treat the notion of whether we have a "complete case" lightly. We need to make sure that it's there, and as expeditiously as possible.

What you are basically saying is that all of the whistleblowers that have been silenced by our courts through record usage of the "State Secrets" privilege and other areas such as 9/11 don't matter. That we have sufficient evidence to try, impeach, and convict him with a 50/50 congress and put all of these criminal goons in jail for the rest of their life with what we have now. I'm sorry, but I don't think that that evidence is in front of us yet. I have little doubt that it can't be obtained, but I want to make sure we get it. If you say that this doesn't matter, I don't think you understand what motivates the rest of us. I want these people in prison! Period!

If you only tried John Wayne Gacy for one murder he committed (because we had all of the evidence for that one murder) and he didn't get a life or death sentence as a result, don't you think that the families of many other victims would feel shortchanged, especially if he got off without the full punishment he deserved. Just because one has the evidence to take one to trial for less than the total criminal acts that the person has committed, doesn't mean that you rush to go after that one crime (because you are "obligated" to do so then), without looking at the big picture and how that crime fits in with everything else.

Especially when there are potential larger conspiracies that haven't been adequately explained with 9/11, Valerie Plame incident, Hookergate, etc. where we should not only put away Bush and Cheney, but other criminals too that I DON'T want recycled through our political system again.

[pat_k]

113. You are are opposing impeachment on the clear, compelling, and complete case we have.

It is long past time for impeachment hearings focused on presenting the compelling case we have.

You are rationalizing a delay that undermines that case.

Every day that they fail to accuse and move to hold impeachment hearings is a statement that they do not yet have a case for impeachment. That is a lie.

Every day that they delay is another day that a events (war on iran, syria, another 811) may happen that will make it FAR harder to initiate impeachment hearings.

In a previous discussion of the pro- and anti- camps (link below) I defined the opposing "groups" and discussed the irreconcilable differenes. You meet the definition of the "anti-impeachment" group. (I used the labels used in the OP. "Anti-impeachment" was less cumbersome than "keep specific accusations and our intent to impeach a secret for an unspecified period of time")

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2749557&mesg_id=2756313

[cascadiance]

115. Please don't call me anti-impeachment...

I'd like to stay civil. Because I REALLY do want impeachment. We just have different assessments of how "ready" we are yet for it, and how much risk we're willing to accept before we start "going for it". You might be right that there's enough evidence now, but I think someone close to the case and who knows how the various senators think needs to make this assessment, because ultimately it is the power of persuasion of 67 Senators that will make the difference between success and failure. I'm not convinced yet that those 67 like minded senators exist yet. I don't want to call you "pro-impeachment copout" either, because I don't think that's your motivation either, even though there are probably some out there who might be as sure as you are that you do have a case might feel equally sure that an attempt to try and impeach now without more work is doomed to failure too.

I think you and I can both say that we agree in that we both want to find the best and most expeditious way of getting these guys out of the presidency and in prison if possible. Ultimately neither of us will be making that decision as to when the impeachment will happen, though I think both you and I will be pounding on congress critters' doors and emails if it doesn't happen quickly enough for us or if we perceive they are "wussing out"...

We're in the same camp man!

[pat_k]

117. I do not challenge your desire for impeachment, only the rationalizations you invoke

to justify the leadership's refusal to "go public," accuse, and declare their intent to impeach.

The use of "anti-impeachment" in my post is qualified by the definitions http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2749557&mesg_id=2756313">I referenced.

I aim for accuracy, not name calling, which is why I provided the definition of "anti-impeachment" in context of this dialog. I also explained the reason why I used the label in the referenced post (to be consistent with the OPs usage of it. Had the OP labeled the opposing camps on DU the fizbots and the dohickeys, I would have used those terms.).

If I have misinterpreted your position and the definition does not apply to you, please specify.

Ultimately neither of us will be making that decision as to when the impeachment will happen,

What the Members of Congress in whom we vested the power to impeach "ultimately" do is irrelevant. We are only responsible for our own actions, not for the choices others make in response. We are not excused from doing what we believe is right because we do not know if others will join us.

My choice is to do what I can to motivate Members of Congress to speak the truth NOW and to take the actions that are demanded by the truth.

. . .though I think both you and I will be pounding on congress critters' doors and emails if it doesn't happen quickly enough for us or if we perceive they are "wussing out"..."

They have already "wussed out." I am already acting. Because the ubiquitous rationalizations excusing their dereliction of duty constitute a barrier to action, my focus is on challenging those rationalizations.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/20/60minutes/printable2111089.shtml">Speaker-elect Pelosi 10/22/06
. . .She has pledged that as Speaker she would give the Republicans rights they’ve denied the Democrats, like allowing them to introduce amendments to bills. But she may have trouble reining in the Democrats’ appetite for revenge. There’s already talk of multiple investigations and impeachment of the president.

"No, impeachment is off the table," she says.

"And that's a pledge?" Stahl asks.

"Well, it's a pledge in the – yes, I mean, it's a pledge. Of course it is. It is a waste of time," she replies.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1116/p11s01-usmb.html">Sen. Reid 11/16/06
"One of the things that we were able to cut off pretty quickly is the 'impeach Bush' program," said Reid, referring to some Democratic activists who have that goal. "That was because of two words: Dick Cheney," he joked.

Pelosi didn't just wimp out, when she took impeachment -- the weapon we gave them to defend against threats from within -- "off the table," she declared her intent to be derelict in her duty to "support and defend." As the future Speaker, she did it on behalf of the entire 110th Congress.

[cascadiance]

118. I think we need to separate what we want and what should and could happen...

I don't accept that I'm anti-impeachment. I certainly don't fit your first two paragraphs in the "anti-impeachment" camp. I also don't accept the "off the table" language either. I've already said that. Do you go after Al Capone tax evasion charges and stop everything else that you might be investigating him for just because you are "duty bound" to go after him for that, even if it meant sacrificing charging and convicting him with many more severe crimes later? I grant you that they charged him initially that way and locked him up that way, even if they couldn't get the other charges to stick, but I guarantee you they didn't stop investigating him just after they felt they could get him for tax evasion.

And in talking about impeachment, we shouldn't be sending it to the Senate until we can actually have a good chance at convicting Bush and Cheney. That's my measurement. I might fit your third paragraph of your definition of anti-impeachment, but I think a better phrase for me instead of "must investigate first" would be "to finish investigations that have been muzzled first when the Democrats take control." You could actually say that item #3 of your pro-impeachment piece could include "doing investigations" as a part of "do whatever they can to see that Bush and Cheney are removed from office via resignation or impeachment". Perhaps in theirs and my mind, further investigations are necessary to complete this goal. I think we are parsing words. I think what I said in the last sentence you quoted me here on was in effect the same thing that item #3 of pro-impeachment says. We do want the same thing.

I think it's all about commitment. You and I both want their commitment. So far, they've been slow to give it and some indicate they might try to get in the way of impeachment rather than "reserve their judgement". The latter group I will attack with you. Those that are "reserving their judgement", I want to get creative how to pragmatically get them on board. If we have enough of those folks on board, I think we can do this thing. If enough of them are on board, those that might try and get in the way at that point will start to see that getting in the way might be "career limiting" for them if they are seen to be in a small minority out of favor of the public, even if it is what their corporate masters want them to do.

In short, I feel it best to tackle the problem in two stages. First, along with those that are dedicated and have spoken in support of impeachment, to get together and formalize the evidence gathering so it meets all of the legal requirements, etc. that are needed. If there are areas that still need to be researched to build a stronger case, then do so. Then get those that feel they have to have a "good excuse" of newer evidence being brought on board to the impeachment bandwagon to do so, and collectively with them on board then surround those that are the intractable types beholden to other agendas like the DLC's so that they feel surrounded and therefore more vulnerable if they don't ascede to joining in themselves. They won't join with us any other way unless they see that the numbers aren't in their favor.

I want to get this impeachment to stick and get these criminals convicted. In my book that makes me pro-impeachment. As a pro-impeachment person, I WANT to do whatever is possible to get these guys out of office and in prison preferably. But what also CAN be done with those in power and what SHOULD be done based on the evidence gathered and assembled are what will also affect how we proceed too. Hopefully we can push it towards what we WANT to happen.

[pat_k]

119. Who said anything about "stop everything else that you might be investigating"?

Re: "I certainly don't fit your first two paragraphs in the "anti-impeachment" camp.

The definition is introduced with the phrase "one or more of the following" -- i.e., only one of the five items need apply to qualify.

Re: "stop everything else that you might be investigating"

Congress has a duty to investigate and determine the damage done and root out co-conspirators. I have said this many, many times.

A variety of Congressional investigations in parallel with and following impeachment hearings are assumed.

Members who are prepared to open their mouths and accuse Bush and Cheney of their crimes have staffs that are more than capable of preparing a resolution enumerating articles. That is a first, not a last step. If the committee assigned the resolution takes it up, it can also be assumed that they would hold hearings to present supporting testimony, documents, and so on. There really doesn't need to be much. The case is INCREDIBLY simple -- which makes it all the more powerful.

If members on other committees conducting investigations uncover things they want to add to the articles they can introduce a resolution to add them. The judiciary committee or select committee or whatever committee that has been assigned jurisdiction over the resolution (or resolutions) enumerating articles would undoubtedly consider anything submitted by other committees. Impeachment hearings are where they "get together and formalize the evidence gathering." Getting the consensus required to vote finalized articles out of committee will require what it requires. You start with the case you have and go from there.

ALL I'm asking of each and every Member of the House (Republicans included) is to OPEN THEIR MOUTHS -- break the silence. The public has made accusations against Bush and Cheney. What are they doing about it?

If they believe the accusations are valid, open their mouth and join in the accusation. Declare their intent with regard to impeachment.

If they believe there is insufficient basis for the accusations, open their mouth and tell us what is missing, explicitly.

If they believe the accusations are bogus, open their mouth and tell us their reasons for dismissing them.

We can challenge what they have to say, but they have to say it first.

Their oath is an individual oath; their duty an individual duty. Each and every member has an INDEPENDENT responsibility to act. Any member that believes the Constitution is under attack has a duty to call us to arms -- to declare their intent to impeach, make the case, and call for support.

It does not matter what their colleagues are doing.

Silence is complicity.

Their unwillingness to say the I-word is silencing them. They cannot tell the truth because the truth demands action. They will not speak the truth until they are willing to say the I-word.

When the accusations are spoken, their duty to impeach is inescapable. Any member who publicly accuses Bush and Cheney will be asked "What are you going to do about it?" If the answer is "nothing, impeachment is off the table," they'll sound like morally confused morons. If they don't want to sound like idiots, they had better accuse and declare their intent to impeach at the same time.

Any proposed plan or process or strategy that does not challenge each and every member to "go public" and break their silence is unacceptable.

We lobby them individually. Our demand is simple. Open your mouth. Now.

[312MIB]

120. Any Impeachment that is not bi-partisan will be met with a large

backlash from the electorate.

Speaker-designate Pelosi has said it's off the table. I take her at her word until she proves otherwise. Why do you think she reached that decision?

[puebloknot]

15. K&R to Powers of 10!

"We were further cautioned today that perhaps these proceedings ought to be delayed because certainly there would be new evidence forthcoming from the President of the United States."
~~~Barbara Jordan

We're hearing this one right now. "We have to investigate because that procedure could turn up additional information."

Thank you for sharing your research on impeachment. We have to rein in any tendencies in the new House to effectively look the other way through long, drawn out investigations which purport to gather evidence now lacking for impeachment.

Gitmo alone is enough to impeach, and research for precedent has already been done. Is our own Supreme Court not a reliable enough witness?

[GOTV]

58. Jaywalking is enough to impeach, when you control the House....

... conviction probably will take more.

Is gitmo enough for conviction? Maybe, but not right now. A Senator need not consider a single page, a single word, of your evidence before deciding to convict or not.

By the way, you claim that we're hearing "We have to investigate because that procedure could turn up additional information." While I won't dispute that's what you're hearing, I do doubt that anyone is saying that. Can you provide a link? I've not heard anyone make that argument and if someone does, I will join you in arguing against them.

I do hear people saying that we need to investigate because we do not have enough public support to convince 67 Senators to convict. I do hear that argument. Could you be misconstruing this reasonable argument for the unreasonable argument you've attributed to others?

[puebloknot]

66. You think...

...a tree is falling in the forest and I'm the only one hearing the sound, eh what?

[GOTV]

84. Yes, I do think that in fact.

I've not heard a single person make the argument you are hearing.

The argument you attribute to others is ridiculous because it sets up an endless cycle. We can never stop investigating and move on because there's always the possibility that another investigation might bring up a new piece of information.

However, we do not have enough info to convince 67 Senators to convict. With real investigations, with teeth, we may be able to convince 67 Senators to convict. Once we do, it doesn't matter what new information might be available. Once we have that, the time to investigate is over and the time to impeach is here.

[Independent_Liberal]

18. Barbara Jordan=Cynthia McKinney

I believe McKinney is this generation's Barbara Jordan.

[petgoat]

20. McKinney is a hero. Note she's appearing 12/4 in DC at an

event entitled "Why Everything the Bush Administration is Doing Is STILL Intolerable
and Must Be Stopped"


http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3466&Itemid=223

[Vinca]

42. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Barbara Jordan will never be "this generation's" anyone. She was the most brilliant and eloquent woman who has ever served. The world is far worse since she's been gone.

[rman]

82. selfdelete

[mom cat]

19. Send this to all your senators, and a special copy to Feingold.

[cascadiance]

22. My only desire to wait to accuse is to get a COMPLETE investigation!

I want to have enough evidence by more complete investigations so that the Senate has no choice but to convict. I want an airtight case coming from the House! That would be worth the extra time it takes to do some extra investigations.

But the time to get those complete investigations going is NOW!

[Senator]

24. There's nothing to "investigate"

There really is nothing to "investigate" when it comes to Geneva violations and illegal spying. The regime admits and "defends" these clearly impeachable offenses -- in direct contradiction to rulings by the USSC and the FISA court. An emperor doesn't get more naked than this.

The "investigations" question is whether to hold "impeachment hearings" or "open-ended fact-finding hearings" on specific matters (that may or may not lead to impeachment charges).

Doing the former (while not even "required") could well be helpful to bringing more of the public (already a majority) and even Republicans back into the reality-based community where impeachment is imperative to defend the Constitution and begin to Redeem Our National Soul.

Doing the latter displays weakness and sends the message that there is some uncertainty about the ongoing reality that is staring us in the face. That is why the "off the table" comment is so damaging. It is a self-defeating prophesy regardless of whether or not there's some "strategery" behind it. If you don't broach the accusation, you garner zero attention or moral support for the activity.

The public is already way ahead of the LieberDems on this:


Only 44% oppose because outside the beltway they're not being totally gaslighted by the DC/Euphemedia Wurlitzer. And 1/4 of that "opposition" are Dems following their craven "leadership." The public already knows that the never-elected, never-legitimate regime is the biggest obstacle to improvement in any situation, foreign or domestic.

Impeachment IS our positive agenda.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

===

[cascadiance]

27. I want a two thirds vote in the Senate to put both of them out of office!

I feel that there's sufficient evidence too to impeach the bastard now too! But the important votes are two thirds of the Senate, and by extension their constituency (or at least a third of them, and larger chunk of that Republicans) that are up for re-election in 2008. I want ALL of them to feel like they have no choice but to convict him, much as they might not strategically want to do so. I might be convinced, but I want a storyline that ALL but the real idiots can be convinced with!

Though we may feel that this is far more than the blow job evidence we've had that got Clinton "accused", and I'm certainly in agreement with there being more already assembled, I think we need to NAIL down the coffin properly to make sure that these bastards don't find a way to weasel out. If that takes a month or two more of finishing up investigations, with subpoenas for testimonies that weren't allowed (like Sibel Edmonds, Russell Tice, etc.), I'm willing to wait for that. As some here have indicated, I might also enjoy watching them squirm a little longer anyway!

One of the first priorities that the new congress should have a REAL whistleblower protection bill passed, that doesn't exempt security whistleblowers from it's protections like some of the earlier Republican bills which were all for show and not for substance. Then we'll be able to gather and assemble this evidence properly.

[pat_k]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[cascadiance]

44. If we can continue to investigate to add to our case, by all means file articles of impeachment!

I just want to make sure that we have ALL of the important facts in front of us, and not be limited as to what we can go after once we've filed articles to impeach. It not only is important to get rid of these bastards (which we'll need a strong case to do so with 26 Republicans and ALL of our Democrats/independents), but it is also important that all of the wrongdoing be out visible to the public to see and not be allowed to continue to sit in secrecy from us. It's about not just getting rid of the bad apples, but exposing the whole path of wrongdoing to make sure it never happens again.

I'm half way through Lindorff and Olshanky's book and I do believe that there's already a strong case too. Just need to make sure that all of the i's are dotted, etc.

[GOTV]

55. {Powerful case} - {67 Senators who agree} = {it doesn't matter}

When your case has the power to convince 67 Senators to support conviction, then and only then, is it powerful enough.

Otherwise all your facts and evidence is useless. There's no appeal and the Senators can use any basis they wish, including their own political calculation, to decide on their vote for conviction. They need not even consider your facts or your case.

[pat_k]

60. {Failure to accuse} = {Exoneration} = {"Accessory After the Fact" War Criminal}

Five points for your consideration:

1. http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">Newsweek found that 51% of the nation wants impeachment to be a priority in the 110th Congress.
   
   Even with 100% anti-impeachment propaganda coming fast and furious from both the Republican and Democratic establishment, only 44% say the new Congress "Shouldn't impeach."
   
   These kind of numbers when no leader has has the courage to be a champion of the people -- no leader giving voice to the outrage at what Bush has done to this country and actually DOING something about it by fighting for impeachment. In fact, we have an "anti-champion" in Speaker-elect Pelosi. Instead of giving voice to the outrage she is doing everything in her power to suppress it -- political insanity.



2. Numerous charges against Bush and Cheney are well known to the public. Elected bodies, good government organizations, and countless individual citizens have examined the evidence and judged the case for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney to be overwhelming. The charges are not going to magically "disappear."
   
   Every day that they do nothing they betray their oath and demonstrate contempt for the concerned citizens who are calling on them to act.
   
   Every day that they do nothing effectively exonerates Bush and Cheney. If exoneration is their intent, then they should do it honestly by telling the nation why they don't think the abuses that are obvious to a majority of Americans are abuses.



3. If it gets to the Senate, a verdict of guilty is as likely as not, but it may never get there. Republicans will have a choice. Defend the indefensible or "get it over with" ASAP by pressuring Bush and Cheney to take the resignation "http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/12">exit strategy." Given the public's growing dismay at the arrogant, irresponsible, and autocratic Bush-Cheney White House, Republicans may be more than happy to be rid of them.
   
   It is impossible to know how many Republicans will be willing to defend the indefensible until the leadership makes specific accusations and declares their intent to impeach. There may be far fewer than we can imagine. For example, Bush's abuse of signing statements to nullify McCain's anti-torture amendment (the overwhelming will of the people) in order to keep torture "on the table" is not something that many would happily defend. Warner, Graham, McCain, and Collins (may have been others I'm not recalling) came out against the "War Criminals Protection Act." The "compromise" they got was not much of one, it just shifted the responsibility for actually approving torture to Bush (as opposed to approving it themselves and becoming War Criminals). Specter dismissed the WH defense of the criminal surveillance program as absurd. There are some other "rational" Republicans (Snowe, Hagel, and Lugar).



4. With great crises come great opportunities. The biggest problem Democrats have is the perception that they are weak and unprincipled. It is hard to imagine a more effective way that Democrats can prove they are the party of strength and principle than to stand and fight for the Constitution, come what may. If there were no risk, they would no be demonstrating courage or principle. It is taking up a fight in the face of risk that Americans respect.
   
   What better time than now, when the principle of consent and the dictates of our Constitution are so desperately in need of a champion?
   
   Another complaint about Democrats is that they have been so tactical and programmatic that voters don't know what they stand for. The Party establishment gives lip serve to the need to "define the Party." They talk about needing a "message." But when confronted with a crisis in which they could actually stand and fight for the unifying principles and aspirations of our Constitution (and thus define what they stand for) they appear to be doing everything in their power to escape.


5. As the Honorable Barbara Jordan pointed out, Members of the House are not the judges and their decision to bring charges cannot be based on what they believe will happen in the Senate.
   
   It may never even get to the Senate.
   
   Whatever the expected outcome or political implications, for Members of the House, the choice is clear: Duty or Complicity.

[GOTV]

85. {impeachment} - {conviction} = {exoneration} also

Therefore {impeachment}-{conviction} = {failure to accuse}

On your points:

1 - People don't convict, Senators do. 51% popular support will not get 67 Senators to support. 51% + margin of error means that there still may be only minority support for impeachment. You and I know that - the Senators know that.

2 - "Every day that they do nothing effectively exonerates Bush and Cheney." How? As someone who was against the Clinton impeachment, I'm still kind of glad it happened. I have an air-tight, in your face response to all those that trash him as disgracing the presidency or not having been fit to be a president. The GOP tried to make that claim and lost. He was acquitted of all the charges against him. We're right, you're wrong, it's been shown.

It leaves them sputtering for complex rationalizations. Had they not impeached him it would be their speculation against my speculation.

So I think impeachment without conviction is more exoneration than failing to impeach.

3 - Wrong. You need 67 Senators to convict, we have 51 and Lieberman doesn't count. So you're just wrong. Conviction is not as likely as not. In fact conviction is unlikely.

4 - I can imagine a better way to counter the impression that Dems are "weak and unprincipled" - go forward with the agenda we campaigned on. How can you actually suggest that it would look better, stronger and more principled, to, now that were elected, to run off and do something we specifically said was "off the table"?

I'd like to hear how you think the "Dems are weak and unprincipled" crowd will suddenly change their minds when they see up play bait and switch on them.

5 - Well I disagree. It's foolish to impeach now and lose when we may be able to impeach later and win.

So, you've had several serious errors in your points. Maybe you'd be willing to reconsider.

[pat_k]

88. So, you think police should not pursue and arrest unless they are certain. . .

. . .prosecutors will get a conviction?

Prosecutors in the South shouldn't have bothered charging lynch mobs with murder if they believed an all white jury would acquit?

A lynch mob is "more exonerated" if a white jury fails to convict than if no charges had been brought at all? (Since those all white juries are now viewed with disgust, it seems to me the "more exonerated" notion would be a tough one to defend.)

And, what about the fact that bringing charges may lead to a "deal" rather than a trial? In the case of Bush and Cheney, they may choose to keep the WH in Republican hands by taking the resignation "exit strategy" than to risk trial in the Senate. (Even if the Democratic stratergists don't "get it," you can bet the White House realizes that, when push comes to shove, there is no way to predict how many Senators will find they just can't stomach defending the indefensible to save a President and VP that the electorate has unequivocally rejected.)

From Barbara Jordan's address in OP:

. . .
It is wrong, I suggest, it is a misreading of the Constitution for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the President should be removed from office. The Constitution doesn't say that. The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of the body of the legislature against and upon the encroachments of the executive. The division between the two branches of the legislature, the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and to the other the right to judge, the framers of this Constitution were very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judgers -- and the judges the same person. . .

[GOTV]

93. Police, like everyone, should not use methods expected to fail - yes.

A policeman should not continue to fire his gun at a suspect who is already out of range. They shouldn't continue to interrogate a suspect that has died. They shouldn't pursue a criminal who's already been acquitted of the crime even though the person might be really guilty since conviction is now impossible.

And you should not expect him to.

With police though, there is a higher authority. There are many levels of oversight if a policeman fails in his job.

With impeachment, the only person that can hold the Senators to account is the voters and the voters won't get a crack at that until Bush leaves office anyway. So there is no time to wait for the people to take action.

The Senators will respond now if they feel that the voters WILL punish them in 2 years

"And, what about the fact that bringing charges may lead to a "deal" rather than a trial?"

That's an interesting idea. But given that Rove knows as much about the make up of the Senate as we do, and so knows that conviction (as things stand today) is extremely unlikely, I think the possibility of a deal is also very small.

But I would be happy with Bush/Cheney voluntarily leaving office.

[pat_k]

94. When police successfully apprehend, their duty is done. If the House successfully impeaches. . .

. . so too is theirs.

If a cop failed to pursue and apprehend a public menace (e.g., a drunk driver who is all over the road) because they think the judges are biased and won't convict, that cop would be betraying his/her oath.

We have charged each body of Congress with specific duties. The duty of the House is to accuse when a civil official is abusing their power to subvert the Constitution or for personal gain. The House is currently standing mute as the White House becomes "swollen with power and grow(s) tyrannical." They are betraying their oath. There is no rationalization that can make that betrayal "go away."

When duty demands action, outcome expectations do not enter into the decision to act. That's the bottom line.

But, a realistic assessement of the risks and potential rewards of action and inaction (all four quadrants, not just the risks of action, which has been the sole focus of the "strategists" on the question of impeachment) can make it easier to do what duty demands.

I have covered the rewards of action and the risks of inaction in other posts on this thread and http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k">my journal entries.

As far as predicting how events will unfold after the House leadership recognizes their duty and gets serious about impeachment, we have as much reason to be pessimistic as optimistic.

Republicans are not patient or tolerant creatures. They have no qualms about tossing others overboard. An long as Democratic leaders accuse Bush and Cheney in strong and clear language (no more hiding truth in euphemism), Republicans may not be able to take the 24 x 7 coverage and debates that impeachment hearings would generate for long -- debates about how they terrorized us into war with threats of Mushroom Clouds in 45 minutes (the most colassal bomb threat in history); War Crimes, torture, the memos that demonstrate their consciousness of guilt, the Un-American and Unconstitutional power they grabbed under the fig leaf of Bush as unitary authoritarian executive, folks like U.S. Navy Gen. Counsel http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=503566">Alberto Mora out there in the mainstream. . .

Once the leadership makes specific accusations and declares their intent to impeach, we'll soon find out how many Republicans are actually willing to defend the indefensible. It may be fewer than we can imagine. They certainly haven't been willing to do it to date. The only "defense" they invoke is "Evil Dems are attacking the President in a time of war." When specific charges are on the table, that "defense" isn't going to cut it.

Bush's abuse of signing statements to nullify McCain's anti-torture amendment (the overwhelming will of the people) in order to keep torture "on the table" is not something that many would happily defend. Warner, Graham, McCain, and Collins (may have been others I'm not recalling) came out against the "War Criminals Protection Act." The "compromise" they got was not much of one, it just shifted the responsibility for actually approving torture to Bush (as opposed to approving it themselves and becoming War Criminals). Specter dismissed the WH defense of the criminal surveillance program as absurd. There are some other "rational" Republicans (Snowe, Hagel, and Lugar).

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

[Senator]

39. And while waiting until you're "ready now"...

... how much more torture must the detainees endure?

How many more millions around the world develop permanent hatred of America and Americans -- now that they are able to come to the quite rational conclusion that we are all (thanks to LieberDem inaction after StopBush election results) now complicit with, or impotent to stop, the ongoing war crimes?

What happens if a Worse-Than-9/11 event occurs here in the meantime?

Or if they decide to "squirm over" and nuke Tehran? Or Pyongyang?

Do you put anything past them in an effort to distract the American People from Dem attempts to "educate" them with a public display of i-dotting and t-crossing?

Isn't literally anything imaginable? Aren't you just asking us to "trust them not to" for a while longer?

I don't think we can risk it.

--

[cascadiance]

43. I don't want to wait either...

I just want to ensure that we are armed with complete evidence (ala something like the Watergate Tapes) so that the Rove gang can't find some way to waffle out of it with our court system that's all too eager to use things like State Secrets Privilege or graymail defenses to allow a-holes like these to weasel out of it.

I'm not advocating holding back at all. I want HEAVY and expedited investigations as soon as possible to get this to happen as soon as possible. I just don't want to go in prematurely and have it shut down on us. I want RESULTS and these guys ready for prison or the Hague or something similar, not getting off on some technicality.

I think the fact that we still can get more evidence to solidify an already strong case doesn't make us sound like "whiners" to want to impeach without a case. I think it speaks for many years of how our system has shut down the many avenues of investigation and oversight that our Republican controlled congress should have taken earlier, which would have contributed to the growing mound of evidence already out there that's been accumulated despite the efforts to shut it down. It makes us sound like we are a party that wants to thoroughly expose all of the messes that have been foisted on us. It's not just a matter of getting these guys in prison. It's exposing all of the wrongdoing to the public so that it doesn't ever happen again! Americans deserve no less!

If we get an investigation going and the president tries to shut it down (like Nixon did when he tried firing Cox, etc.) that will be the best way to get the country behind the Democrats in getting RID of these bastards, not just putting on a "show" like the Republicans were doing with Clinton.

[Senator]

45. You are waiting for Godot (and perhaps Waterloo)

I've already said there are no "unknowns" regarding the Geneva violations and the illegal spying.

The country is already behind "getting RID of these bastards."

The reality is already at what the "dry powder" folks are "wishing" it to be.

All that remains is to pull the trigger. If the DCDems fail to do so, they'll rightly (and permanently) be perceived to be too weak to fight for our nation or to stand up to special interests.

It may already be too late, as the "off the table" comment was a slap in the face to a cautiously-hopeful electorate and a finally-energized Dem Party base.

If they don't "get it" that this was about "get bush" and not about "get your lame wish list filled" it will be their/our Waterloo.

---

[GOTV]

52. Not even 67% of the country is for Imp, how will you get 67 Senators?

and if you don't have 67 Senators, you have nothing but right on your side.
And when you have right on your side, another $3.00 gets you a latte.

[Senator]

80. The Senators will "get" themselves...

...or become willfully complicit with war crimes.

But what they choose to do is irrelevant to the duty to defend the Constitution by making the accusation (impeaching).

This notion of only fighting battles you are certain to win is one of the more peculiar Rationalizations for Inaction.

---

[GOTV]

89. Impeachment defends nothing, only conviction does any good.

"This notion of only fighting battles you are certain to win"

Well, that's a sloppy and wrong headed, though common, characterization of my position.

Maybe understanding the opposing position would result in more fruitful conversation.

Who said anything about not fighting the battle? I didn't. Who said I thought my plan is sure to win? I didn't. I want to fight a battle that we might lose. I won't fight a battle that I'm certain to lose. No sane person would.

You want to fight the battle stupid and lose for sure? You want to play martyr? Failing does not defend the constitution. You want to attack without planning how to win? Did you help plan the Iraq invasion?

[Senator]

98. Yes, you've said -- "only conviction" for you

But there's nothing insane about fighting battles you might lose. It's usually necessary to win a war.

And no, I didn't plan the Iraq invasion. No one did.

--

[GOTV]

99. Likewise none of you are planning properly for impeachment

you're all guns a blazin and you will fail, as we have in Iraq, because you cannot wait to plan and build the necessary infrastructure to help ensure success.

As much patriotic clap trap and lack of respect for practical necessity as I saw in the run up to the Iraq war I'm seeing all over again in the push for impeachment.

Of course we should fight to protect the constitution but when there's a way that probably won't work (impeaching right now), and a way that has a chance (Getting 67 Senators on board 1st) why you need to take the path of failure is beyond me.

[Senator]

104. Then please do post the "Proper Plan"

In a new thread, so it can be voted up.

Be sure to include in any call for investigation what you hope to "find out" that we don't already know. And whether or not the Dem "leadership" should continue to say it's "off the table."

Also, the mechanism you recommend for "Getting 67 Senators on board 1st" should be included. And how your method will be more effective than simply putting them on the spot to support or oppose the ongoing war crimes of the regime in a Senate trial.

A concrete description of the "practical necessity" you claim we are disrepecting would be a "practical necessity" to comparing the two plans.

--

[cascadiance]

106. Ok, I'm not privvy to all info that congress critters have, but here's a start...

The following things could be done to help build a better case now:

1) Pass a new whistleblower protection bill that protects security whistleblowers as well as others. This has been missing from all of the whistleblower bills that have gone through the Republican lead congress in stealth mode. Making sure such language that protects security whistleblowers is NOW in place, and is made public, so that Republicans won't dare vote it down and also put pressure on Bush to not veto it.

2) Subpoena many of these whistleblowers that haven't given their full story to congress because we've not been in control of committees. When you have people like Sibel Edmonds, Russell Tice, Bunatine Greenhouse, Janice Karpinski, Colleen Rowley, Indira Singh (the list goes on), being silenced by methods such as State Secrets Privilege in the courts, and lack of votes in congress, and threats of jail from the executive if they don't speak through the proper channels, these people can now be heard. I think there are a LOT of dots to connect to make more solid cases in the huge list of wrongdoings this administration has done that need to be flushed out for us to see.

3) Once we have long lists of official testimonies that can be shown clear cases of lawbreaking and wrongdoing that most will agree on, take private polls of senators in the Senate to see where they stand. Find out what their concerns are if they are forced to vote on this. There might need to be some horsetrading done as usually is the case in Washington. Don't sacrifice anything big, but I don't think there can be anything much bigger than the goal of getting these guys out of office.

4) Once we feel we have the votes, then do the articles of impeachment formally and vote on them in the House.

What folks like Barbara Olshansky and David Lindorff have done in putting out publications making use of available information to make a case has been very well done and is very useful as a starting point, but I bet if you talked to them, they'd say the same thing and get all of the evidence together QUICKLY while you now have the power to build a powerful case. You can't always convict on relying solely on circumstantial evidence. Let's get the hard stuff now. Don't just march in like a bull going into in a china shop because you're hungry for results before you are ready.

Ultimately, we want the same thing. I just don't feel like we'll be best served by rushing it. That doesn't make me want to enable anyone trying to avoid doing impeachment. Like I've said over and over again, I'm VERY much interested in pursuing impeachment. I just think you need to maximize what you have before you move forward. You don't get a second chance at it. Doing it now might give some of us emotional relief, but it won't solve things.

[Senator]

109. I see

Well first, David and Barbara would not agree. They already think they have a case for impeachment. Which is why their book is titled "The Case for Impeachment."

The only other factual error I see in your plan is the notion that General Karpinski is remaining silent for a lack of a better whistleblower law. She is already testifying as to war crimes in Germany. As for the others, who may or may not be relevant to impeachable offenses, Congress has full power to immunize them and hear their testimony in secret session. No law is necessary.

But I still think simply using the crimes they have already admitted to (and have been ruled on by federal courts) as a basis for impeachment would be faster and more successful than waiting to see if Indira Singh's allegations pan out.

Your mileage may vary.

--

[cascadiance]

110. Congress having power is EXACTLY my point!...

As for the others, who may or may not be relevant to impeachable offenses, Congress has full power to immunize them and hear their testimony in secret session. No law is necessary.

Without the Democrats in control in the past, we HAVEN'T heard these people yet. That's what I want to hear first to get the full extent, and therefore maximize the chance of getting conviction and maximize the punishment and the numbers of those being punished too. This isn't just Bush and Cheney. It is a whole conspiracy that needs to be brought down. We need to assemble as much evidence as we can to get rid of all of them!

For others that have been "silenced" because they are "State Secrets" silenced like Sibel Edmonds, Russell Tice, etc. since they have been singled out to not have whistleblower protection by previous legislation, haven't been able to tell us yet what they know. There's a REASON why the Republicans excluded them from protection, and I believe that is because they know things that will put the screws in those in this conspiracy. We need to get them out in the open.

In "Case for Impeachment" on page 9, they quote John Dean as follows:

"Impeachment is the most serious constitutional charge you can make against a federal official," he says, "and only an irresponsible judiciary committee would take up charges that could not be proven in a Senate trial. Only an irresponsible House of Representatives would pass a bill of impeachment that could not succeed in the Senate." For precisely that reason, Dean considers, the Cilnton impeachment to have been improper and irresponsible.

Looking for more points of the authors' opinions themselves, but I'll need more time to do that later. With my earlier comment on Chief Justice Roberts presiding, I think it's important to note the following section on page 47:

At the trial, the Senate sits as a jury with the chief justice presiding, ruling on all questions of evidence. Unlike the situation in a normal court of law, however, the Senate can reverse a ruling made by the presiding officer by a majority vote.

This makes it essential that ALL Democrats be on board with the proper strategy before bringing it to the Senate to have this majority (including keeping our Joe Lieberman happy, who will be heavily powerful in this instance). Otherwise, Roberts I'm sure will play all sorts of games to prevent this trial from happening or putting out any sort of constructive presentations of evidence. We need to be WELL prepared before we take this to the Senate.

[Senator]

116. Again, this is looking for "proof"...

...when we already have "admission."

Here's a more relevant quote from John Dean:

After the revelation that George W. Bush authorised NSA wiretaps without warrants, Dean asserted that President Bush is "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense".

As for the rest, it's not just "fearing fear itself" -- it's seeking out fear to fear.

There really are no ducks to get in a row, no unknowns to investigate, and nothing to fear.

---

[cascadiance]

102. Yes, I don't think there's many here that don't want to fight the battle. I do!

The question is when. If you have an army that's anxious to take on a big battle with a very superior army over the hill and get them out of their land, and they know that they've not been able to do it for many months without both additional troops and adequate supplies to do so. Now they may have just got joined by troops that give them a superior edge in numbers, but they still might not have adequate supplies yet to get the job done. If they know now that a supply train is coming to them in a week or so, why should they go attack that army now. Shouldn't they wait until the supply train gets there and then they will have the ultimate advantage to launch an attack?

You don't jump at the first change of the equation. You wait until you get your ducks lined up that you know you can get lined up. Now if they get their supplies in, and they have a "maximal" configuration then, they still might lose the battle, but that still would be the time to fight it. I have no problem with that. If we get our ducks lined up, we still might go down and not convict Bush, but I do like having fought the battle too. But I also like fighting the battle with the goal of getting a conviction, not just for fighting's sake. I want to maximize my potential for getting that conviction before I fight the battle. Fighting the battle in that way over time will win over the people and maybe ultimately the country.

I won't back off if I feel it still might not be won then, but I don't want to go in with a half-baked effort. The people of this country are owed that sort of strategy. We've seen too much what has happened in the past when we've compromised and allowed criminals to go free. They come back and haunt us again (Ollie North, Elliot Abrahams, Robert Gates, John Negroponte, etc.). This time around we must not compromise. Those who have committed wrongdoing must be put out of the political process permanently. That is what will restore confidence in the electorate with our government (and other countries as well having faith in partnering with us).

We have to do this right! If that means patience, I'm up for that. On the other hand, if I see ANY what I perceive as foot dragging and NOT wanting to fight this battle eventually, I'll be there right with you on the congress doorsteps demanding action! I've had my "Impeach Bush" sticker on my car since Katrina, and don't plan to take it off any time soon. I'll probably be adding a "Pelosi 2007" sticker soon.

[Senator]

105. See my post #104 above

While this response is more verbose and less argumentative than the one I replied to, it contains the same dearth of content.

Rhetorical exhortations for "patience" in order that the endeavor be done "the right way," is a far cry from explaining what the patient are waiting for and what the mechanisms of this preferable process will be -- and how it will be more successful.

And as I also suggested above, a new thread for your detailed alternative would be helpful.

--

[puebloknot]

67. ...slap in the face...

Well said. Some people are waiting breathlessly for Pelosi to announce, come January, that she didn't really mean it, that it was just a ploy to get Dems elected, and NOW we're going to see justice done. (My, how ethical, and how confidence inspiring to Dems and decent Repubs, alike.)

And some people are holding their collective breath to hear John Conyers say: "I was only kidding back in '06 when I said the people have spoken and my work is done." They can't wait to see him paste on a big grin and start those hearings they've been expecting!

This is a last stand for Democrats. If they fail to show real leadership now, and let these crimes pass into the night in a wet dream of harmonious bipartisanship, I fear we have met our Waterloo.

This issue of holding Bush, et al. accountable may be the defining issue over whether loyal Democrats will be able to find it in themselves to support a party that has sold out come 2008!

[Independent_Liberal]

59. You know your shit calipendence...

BTW, remember that little scenario I showed you a while back. You gave me some suggestions as to what to add (for investigations). I added them in. I wanted you to have a look.

Items #1-5 have already happened. I predicted a few of them beforehand. A few I added after they happened. #6-23 is what I think might still be to come.

IRAQ, PLAME, ABRAMOFF, BIG OIL, DOJ, FBI, CIA, DIA, DOD, CENTCOM, NORAD, NSC, NSA, FAA, ETC.
All Roads Lead To
9/11 COMMISSION COVER-UP

Endgame: The Perfect Storm
What sets it off?

1. Some interesting things start to come to light at the William Jefferson Capitol Hill FBI raid hearings. A few whistleblowers step forward at the open and closed door House and Senate subcommittee hearings on NSA domestic spying and the Pentagon’s 9/11 “Able Danger” program and more interesting info is revealed. More damaging info is revealed at the House and Senate Katrina hearings.
2. Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald manages to obtain info from White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in the CIA Leak investigation. This is related to missing emails from Cheney’s office and White House documents requested by Federal Judge Reggie Walton. Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage provides some information to Fitzgerald on Robert Novak and the leak.
3. The Democrats win back Congress and the majority of the Governorships in the November 2006 midterm elections. They get a solid majority in the House and a narrow majority in the Senate.
4. Rumsfeld resigns after the election.
5. Bush chooses Robert Gates from James Baker’s Iraq Study Group to replace Rumsfeld.
6. After Bob Ney’s guilty plea, the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Criminal Division, Federal Prosecutors and Senate Investigators get some cooperation in the Abramoff case and the “Duke” Cunningham bribery case. A GOP security aide comes forward with evidence relating to New Hampshire phone jamming at a court testimony. Jack gives up all the information he has on everything including defrauded Indian tribes, gaming casinos, lobbying firms, Greenberg Traurig, illegal campaign contributions sent to GOP Congress people, foreign influence peddling, illegal arms trafficking, the American Turkish Council, Denny Hastert’s ties to Turkish spies and his shady housing deals, the SunCruz investigation, Guam, the support of forced abortion and sex slavery in the Marianas, Adam Kidan, Michael Scanlon, Tony Rudy, Neil Volz, David Safavian, Grover Norquist, John Colyandro, Jim Ellis, Tom DeLay’s misuse of the FAA and the DHS, his trips to Russia and the people who turned up dead in his district, DeLay’s ARMPAC, Ney’s golf outings in Scotland, his ties to Iran and use of secret government wiretapping operations, Americans for Tax Reform fraud, Carl Gutierrez, Felix Camacho, Froilan Tenorio, Haley Barbour, Ernie Fletcher and the Merit system scandal, Bob Taft, Tom Noe and Coingate, Ken Blackwell’s stocks in Halliburton, Leandro Aragoncillo and Philippine spy espionage, mobsters and Kidan’s link to a Sicilian mafia figure, the Gus Boulis murder case, New Hampshire phone jamming, stolen computers from the Ohio Democratic Headquarters, terrorists at casinos, 9/11 and Mohammad Atta, the Royal Sons LLC plane from Florida with 5.5 tons of cocaine that was raided by the FBI, Saudi money, Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling and Enron, Eric Cantor and AIPAC lobbyists, John Sweeney and Wal-Mart PAC, Charles Taylor and the Russian bank, Tyco, Enron power plant deals, heroin trafficking, money laundering, GOP prostitution rings and pedophiles with ties to Jeff Gannon, child prostitution and sex predator operations in the Marianas, Gale Norton’s Interior Department, J. Steven Griles, Roger Stilwell, Wally O’Dell and Diebold, HAVA, Homeland Security rackets, Ralph Reed, etc. Randy gives up all info on Porter Goss, Kyle Foggo, Brent Wilkes, Mitchell Wade, MZM, Inc., ADCS, Inc., Archer Logistics, Group W advisors, defense contractors, creation of phony defense companies to get $700,000,000 through earmarks for GOP TV ads, the Wilkes-funded prostitution ring involving Homeland Security Contractor Shirlington Limousine and Transportation Services and hooker and poker parties at the Watergate Hotel. Terrence Gasper rats out a few players in Coingate and Randy, Noe and Ney reveal all their secret Shell Companies who bilked millions while aiding Abramoff/Marianas Islands/Indian Gaming/Rumsfeld’s Pentagon and it’s also revealed that some Republican Congresspersons and Senators had sex while housed in Abramoff's Safe Houses and it wasn't the kind of sex the Dobson's like to talk about. The 60 House Appropriations Committee Investigators who were fired from the investigative staff by Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis in the Hastert/Bid-Rigging/Contractors/Appropriations cover-up go to the DOJ. They blow the whistle on several Republican leaders in the House, Senate and Executive Branch. All this doo doo hits the fan and Hastert, Sweeney, Cantor, John Doolittle, Dana Rohrabacher, Richard Pombo, Roy Blunt, Louis Gohmert, Rick Renzi, J.D. Hayworth, Tom Feeney, Conrad Burns, Virgil Goode, Duncan Hunter, Katherine Harris, Brian Bilbray, etc. are all indicted as well as their staff members (Wilkes is later indicted himself). Also, Austin, Texas District Attorney Ronnie Earle indicts John Cornyn on charges relating to Abramoff-DeLay money, the SEC charges Bill Frist for his insider trading and Tom Reynolds, John Shimkus, Kirk Fordham, Scott Palmer, Rodney Alexander, John Boehner, Jim Kolbe, Ken Calvert, etc. get into some legal trouble in the FBI and House Ethics Committee investigations into the Mark Foley Congressional page sex scandal.
7. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley is indicted by Fitzgerald for perjury and obstruction of justice and former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith is brought up on espionage charges in the AIPAC case and the forged Niger documents background comes to light from Italian Intelligence. Richard Perle gets implicated in AIPAC as well.
8. Fitzgerald indicts Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for obstruction of justice and Rove is later indicted in the Abramoff investigation (this is related to visits to the White House by Jack and secret meetings set up by Norquist). The number of times Gannon visited the White House later becomes a major news story.
9. Bird flu and other scare viruses prove to be wrong, numbers of illegals in US turn out not to be huge amounts of Mexicans but folks from other countries who've come in under radar, a bunch of info comes to light about massive stock manipulation, hedges and other funds come under scrutiny for bilking average investors and Abu Ghraib pictures that weren’t released come out. The investigations by the DOJ and SEC into Halliburton begin to bear fruit. Several Halliburton whistleblowers give up info on bid rigging, Nigerian bribes, Iraq contractors, Cheney’s Energy Task Force and oil execs cooking the books, Joe Allbaugh, the selling of nuclear reactors to Iran, Middle East pipeline deals and several Republicans with ties to Halliburton lobbyists. Lockheed Martin gets thrown under the bus as well.
10. An Independent Commission to investigate the NSA wiretaps is set up. NSA staffer Russell Tice gives testimony before the Commission. Shortly after, the citizens’ appointed special grand jury to investigate torture allegations is set up.
11. Edmonds v. DOJ – FBI translator Sibel Edmonds takes her case with the DOJ on FBI cover-ups and "States Secret Privileges" to one of the Federal Courts. At the same time, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer gets an independent grand jury investigation into the 9/11 events in New York City going. Some family members are alleging a government cover-up. An Independent Prosecutor is appointed to investigate the World Trade Center EPA case, insurance fraud and other unsolved crimes related to the events.
12. Happy New Year. January 2007, 110th Congress, 1st Session – The new Congress is sworn in (with Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader, Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Conyers as House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Henry Waxman as House Government Reform Committee Chairman and Louise Slaughter as House Rules Committee Chairwoman).
13. Cheney’s former Chief of Staff I. Lewis Libby is convicted and he implicates Cheney. A bunch of info comes to light about Plame, Halliburton no-bid contracts and Iraq corruption, Iraq contractors scum with “Bag Operations” that netted millions to Neocons, AIPAC, the Energy Task Force and secret energy meetings, Aspen’s Turning and Mexico influence peddling. Cheney is indicted by Fitzgerald for treason, conspiracy, espionage, fraud, grand larceny and tax evasion. Calls are made for his resignation and his head on a silver platter. Cheney resigns. He claims he’s leaving because of health problems.
14. Congress forces Bush to appoint John McCain as Vice President. Both houses of Congress vote overwhelmingly to confirm Vice President McCain.
15. Conyers sets up a House Select Fact Finding Committee to investigate everything (Downing Street Memos, Plame, White House Iraq Group, Iran-Syria Operations Group, Nigerian bribes, AIPAC/Larry Franklin/Steven Rosen/Keith Weissman/Michael Ledeen/Manucher Ghorbanifar, Niger/Yellowcake forgeries, depleted uranium, Patriot Act and IRS abuses, Dubai Ports deals, mining disasters, Edmonds FBI whistleblower case, Aragoncillo, leaks of classified information and security breaches, NSA, Gannon, Abramoff, Greenberg Traurig, Marsh & Kroll Management, Cunningham/Wilkes/MZM/Hookergate, Alfonso Jackson and HUD contracts, financial improprieties involving former FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford, Enron, Halliburton-Kellogg Brown & Root, The Carlyle Group, Harken Energy, Bechtel, WorldCom, election fraud, Coingate, torture of prisoners, FEMA’s Katrina response, Pat Tillman’s death, missing billions from Iraq, Pentagon psyops units and secret government propaganda operations in the Office of Special Plans, the firing of Abramoff Prosecutor Frederick A. Black, etc.). Hearings begin and subpoenas are issued. Susan Ralston, Bernadette Noe, Robert Mueller, George Tenet, Andy Card, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Dan Bartlett, David Addington, Mary Matalin, John Hannah, Ken Mehlman, Gen. Jeffrey Miller, Gen. Richard Myers, Gen. Tommy Franks, etc. are amongst the people subpoenaed. Several whistleblowers from the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, FAA, NSC, State Department and Pentagon step forward to testify. The public hearings are broadcast on television 24/7. Analyses from the 9/11 Commission, the Robb-Silberman Commission and the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction come under review as well as different reports from the DOJ Inspector General’s office. A few Independent Counsels show Congress their findings from grand jury investigations and Justice Department Prosecutors Nathaniel Edmonds and Peter Zeidenberg come forward with info on Safavian and the General Services Administration. Several insiders from AT&T, Bell South and Verizon are forced to release info on phone records and data collected by the NSA. Waxman opens an investigation into Halliburton war profiteering and examines reports from the GAO and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell opens an investigation into the Energy Task Force. Other big House investigations: Cover-ups of pre-9/11 intelligence, 9/11 Commission cover-ups, 9/11 Commission members with ties to oil companies and lobbyists, Larry Silverstein, Paul Bremer, key witnesses left out of the official 9/11 Report, the identification of Atta by “Able Danger,” Christine Todd Whitman and the EPA, 9/11 related corruption in government offices, cover-ups involving Congress people, Federal Judges and DOJ personnel, drug trafficking and money laundering, illegal weapon sales, pre-9/11 insider trading, manipulation of pre-9/11 FBI intercepts, corruption surrounding Supreme Court Justices, Pentagon tapes, NORAD tapes, FBI wiretap translations, the DeLay-Abramoff-SunCruz-Boulis-Mob-Atta connections, destruction of 9/11 FAA tapes, Melek Can Dickerson and the American Turkish Council, Pakistan-ISI connections, Hastert-Abramoff-Livingston Group-Brewster Jennings-MIC Inc.-ATC-ATAA-AIPAC-Feith-Perle connections, penetration of the FBI, AIG, Bank of America, Citigroup, John O’Neill’s murder, Enron Afghani pipeline deals, the death of Enron executive Cliff Baxter and Arthur Anderson’s destruction of Enron documents. After it’s revealed that the 9/11 Commission was a fraud and that the 9/11 Commission Report was filled with distortions, this causes a public outrage and a demand for all Commissioners and Counsels to the Commission to testify under oath before all the House Committees and Subcommittees on Government Reform, Judiciary, Intelligence, National Security and Oversight and Investigations and forces a complete overhaul of the Commission and the installment of a new independent investigation as was wanted by the Jersey girls.
16. The investigation into Senator Paul Wellstone’s 2002 plane crash death is reopened.
17. The Senate sets up an Investigative Committee to investigate Iraq intelligence, Phase II, Plame, NSA, 9/11 oddities, Pat Roberts/Richard Shelby intelligence leak cover-ups, Laura Ingraham’s involvement in campaign phone jamming, Energy Commission cover-ups and other corruption, waste, fraud and abuse and an Independent Prosecutor is appointed. Senate hearings begin and Sibel Edmonds, Richard Grove, Indira Sangh, Russell Tice, Richard Clarke, Coleen Rowley, James Comey, Bunny Greenhouse and Lawrence Wilkerson all step forward as witnesses. Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern and Joseph Wilson make appearances before the hearings and Wilson provides information to the Office of the Independent Counsel. Patrick Leahy chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings and Ted Kennedy chairs the Special Select Committee. The Office of Abramoff Special Prosecution Force brings evidence before the Senate. A few other things that get looked into by the Senate include: 1. The cover-up of the cost of the Medicare Bill that the administration asked certain individuals to hide before Congress. 2. John Negroponte's involvement with the School of the Americas and the death squads in South America. This also ropes in Henry Kissinger as well. Michael Hayden, Gonzales, etc. get implicated in this investigation too, when it expands into Abu Ghraib abuses, along with more damning info on what went on in NSA. Porter Goss, Denny Hastert and others testify against these folks, since that power play that Gonzales, Negroponte, etc. engineered to claim the right to searching Congressional offices got folks like Hastert upset. As a result, the School of the Americas will be shut down. 3. Involvement of ChoicePoint in various efforts in orchestrating election fraud in Florida, Ohio, and other places here and their involvement in election fraud in Mexico that helps Obrador force a new election and dismiss the current corrupted results. 4. Securities fraud committed by Diebold and other electronic voting machine companies. Several whistleblowers testify against the CEOs of the companies. SEC investigators come forward with their findings. Diebold’s ties to Abramoff, Ney, Indian tribes, laundered casino money, the Scotland golf junket, Distafano, Roy Coffee and Greenberg Traurig come under scrutiny in this investigation.
18. As a part of Edmonds and other whistleblowers coming forward on the AIPAC, Plame, and other investigations, this forces a reopening of the investigation of David Kelly’s death (British documents show that it was murder), Judith Miller's complete knowledge of that event, and a complete investigation into whether Brewster Jennings was close to exposing a plot to plant WMD's in northern Iraq that might have happened had Brewster Jennings not been shut down by the Plamegate affair. The House and Senate do joint inquiries into: 1. What pressure BushCo had on trying to accelerate the public airing of the latest terrorist plot before British Intelligence wanted to expose it, thereby losing the opportunity to arrest and contain more folks that were involved in that conspiracy. Related to this, it is looked into who in the Bush administration, and for what reasons, might have leaked A.Q. Khan's name out prematurely, which might have lead to some escaping to further carry out the London subway bombing raids later. 2. What sort of data mining that Bushco wanted to do through Google, Yahoo, AT&T, etc. over and above the NSA wiretaps. It is looked into whether Google or other search engines were asked to have their search hits manipulated at certain times to censor information on sensitive events, etc. too. (I personally suspect that Google was asked to censor certain hits like those having to do with Sibel Edmonds at the time that Larry Franklin was arrested when the AIPAC spy scandal became exposed publicly.)
19. United States v. Bush – One of the whistleblower cases goes to the Supreme Court. One of the conservative justices breaks ranks and sides with the liberals on the matter. It is ruled that Bush must turn over documents on FBI cover-ups from the DOJ Inspector General’s office based on allegations by Edmonds and others. Bush refuses to comply. The Senate holds a censure vote.
20. Congress motions to impeach Bush. Impeachment proceedings and hearings begin. The House Judiciary Committee begins voting on articles of impeachment. 14 articles are voted out of the Committee including 1. Lying to Congress 2. Abuse of Power 3. Obstruction of Justice, Perjury and Contempt of Congress 4. Disclosing Classified Information 5. Criminal Negligence 6. Bribery, Fraud, Theft and Embezzlement 7. War Crimes 8. Endangering the Security of the Nation 9. Conspiracy 10. Defrauding the Government 11. Negligent Homicide and Reckless Endangerment 12. Biological Weapons 13. Military Action Without Approval from Congress 14. Conspiracy to Commit Fraud Against the People.
21. A small delegation of Congressional Republicans led by Dick Lugar and Trent Lott go up to the White House and urge Bush to resign. They make it clear to him that he’s lost all support from the public and his base and that impeachment, conviction and removal from office is inevitable.
22. Bush resigns to avoid impeachment and get a pardon. He fakes an illness.
23. McCain is sworn in as President. He appoints George Pataki as his Vice President. Both houses of Congress vote to confirm Pataki. McCain accepts the resignations of all the Bush cabinet members and senior White House staff. And of course, McCain is Jerry Ford until January 2009.

[GOTV]

51. It doesn't matter if Bush drinks the blood of babies on TV ...

... unless there are 67 Senators willing to convict him for it.

When we can name 67 Senators who would vote to convict, then it is time for impeachment.

[cascadiance]

62. The following Republicans are up for re-election in 2008...

There are probably other Republicans in different election cycles that would also vote for impeachment if given the right evidence (perhaps folks like Olympia Snowe, etc.). But we need to target at least 16 of these folks to get them scared of their re-election prospects if they don't vote to impeach if given the right evidence to do so:

Ones we should target right away:
Norm Coleman (Minnesota) - Al Franken's licking his chops I think.
Susan Collins (Maine) - Moderate Republicans are very threatened these days.
Gordon Smith (Oregon) - Oregon's becoming quite a blue state now.
John Sununu (New Hampshire) - New Hampshire's becoming quite a blue state now.
Pete Domenici (New Mexico) - Another battleground state.

Gotta think about which of the rest we might try to get nervous:
Wayne Allard (Colorado) - Might retire though
Thad Cochran (Mississippi) - Might retire though
Chuck Hagel (Nebraska) - Might retire, but also might be running for president too.
John Warner (Virginia) - Might retire, but also might be concerned about what happened to his buddy last election
Lamar Alexander (Tennessee)
Saxby Chambliss (Georgia)
John Cornyn (Texas)
Larry Craig (Idaho)
Elizabeth Dole (North Carolina)
Michael Enzi (Wyoming)
Lindsey Graham (South Carolina)
Jim Inhofe (Oklahoma)
Mitch McConnell (Kentucky)
Pat Roberts (Kansas)
Jeff Sessions (Alabama)
Ted Stevens (Alaska)

[Independent_Liberal]

71. Roberts will probably go down in the Plame/Niger/Yellowcake/WMD/Intelligence Leak cover-up.

John Cornyn is going down for sure in the Abramoff scandal. McConnell is a former BCCI cover-up artist and his wife Elaine Chao is Labor Secretary. Dole is under suspicion for that IRS/Senate campaign scam and I think she also received money from MZM. Inhofe and Stevens both have ties to big oil and they both received money from Abramoff. Perhaps if any of these guys are indicted, they can step down or we can expel them. It would work to our advantage if any of them are from states with Democratic governors. We can also give them a plea agreement to rat out some folks for us in the investigations and tell them if they want to get re-elected in 2008 and avoid jail time, they can vote with us on the impeachment. A few we should definitely target include Specter, Collins, Hagel, Lugar, Graham, Warner, Craig, Sununu, Domenici, Lott, Snowe, Brownback, Smith, Enzi, Coleman, etc. I think you'd agree on that.

[GOTV]

81. Exactly, and how do their constituents feel about impeachment?

Has anyone polled individual states?

The national polling puts lukewarm support for impeachment at barely a majority. Many states could have majorities against impeachment.

[puebloknot]

65. It's time for impeachment as soon...

...as the new Congress is seated.

It creates a record of the administration's malfeasance. We do not fail to accuse (paraphrasing Jordan here) because we feel in advance we may not get a conviction. It shows the country and the world that the Democrats are going to follow the rule of law.

I realize that this may all be wishful thinking, in terms of the Dems showing some spine. I'm holding in abeyance any further cynicism until the first 100 hours tell us what we are facing.

[cascadiance]

68. For me I completely agree SOME attempt at impeachment needs to happen!

It's more about when! I don't want just a gesture.

A gesture is important and that was what Senator Feingold tried to have happen with his attempt to do a bill to censure the president. That would have been good if more Democrats got behind it to show that our party isn't going to stand idley by and allow this sort of thing going on without something on the record to register their objection. Then though, it was an impossible thing to think about doing any sort of REAL impeachment.

Now it's different. We CAN do a real impeachment with the right evidence of wrongdoing before the American people. As I noted before, something analagous to the Watergate Tapes evidence against Nixon needs to be found and put in the record. As soon as that is found, THEN is the time to do impeachment proceedings. I'm not sure we are there yet, but I have A LOT of confidence that we can find such evidence shortly if Henry Waxman is allowed to subpoena people full speed ahead and get things firmly on the record, not just conjectures and connections of evidence that might have legal loopholes that the Rove gang can find to screw things up with.

Keep in mind also that if and when an impeachment trial goes to the senate, not only do we need a 2/3rds vote, but we also have Roberts presiding over that trial too. I don't know how much he can "get in the way" procedurally to help Bush out, but you know that if it's within his power, he will do so. I'm sure that was one of the qualifications that Bush was looking for in getting in his own nomination for chief justice as he probably knew then that this might be a likely possibility in his future.

While we're trying to accelerate the evidence harvesting efforts, we should simultaneously start looking at which Republicans we can convert to vote for impeachment with what we have now. Make sure that they all read accounts like Dave Lindorf and Barbara Olshanky's book, etc. to ensure that they know what's been assembled so far.

Jumping to impeachment too soon won't accomplish much, and might make voters upset in 2008 if it doesn't go through if it is seen just as a "partisan politics" exercise, which Rove and gang surely will try to paint it as such if we don't have good overwhelming evidence in place when we go for it.

I don't want it stalled either. I have a lot of confidence in folks like Waxman and Conyers to move quickly and effectively on this, if they don't have anyone trying to block them doing so. We need to make sure that the way is cleared for them to do their work by the rest of the Dems.

[puebloknot]

77. Justice delayed is justice denied!

If the Dems are worried about upsetting voters in 2008, they may want to give heavy thought to the degree to which they will alienate their own Dem base if they backpedal on using the subpoena power we've all been longing for!

[GOTV]

91. Well , no Justice today - so it's denied then?, or will you wait another day?

These platitudes sound good.
They aren't helpful though.

What future desecration of the constitution will impeachment without conviction prevent?

Impeachment with conviction will prevent any further desecration from this Presidient.

What will your plan actually do? I mean aside for allowing for photo ops and sound bites.

[puebloknot]

111. Ignoring your sarcasm for a moment...

..."impeachment without conviction" is rather a platitude in itself.

Impeachment is a constitutional process unto itself. It is the process of indicting, not convicting, public officials. Once the indictment is handed down, it is the duty of the Senate to hold a trial and convict...or not (as in the case of Clinton).

Not to make the public record of the Bush administration's offenses against the Constitution through impeachment is a dereliction of duty on the part of our Representatives in the House. Not to make the demand for impeachment on the part of We the People is our own dereliction.

Calling for impeachment *now* is like calling for ending the war in Iraq *now*! It does not suggest mental impairment on the part of those who are bringing pressure to bear *now* on our newly-empowered Democrats in Congress. Two neurons firing are enough to appreciate that nothing gets done without pressure from The People!

I have posted numerous messages in the impeachment debate that has been "raging" here, making it clear that demanding impeachment *today* does not imply that it can be done before the Congress is seated in January, nor can it be done before investigations take place. Left out of your argument is the *fact* that investigations have already produced mountains of evidence of impeachable offenses. It remains to go through the legal proceedings to put that evidence to use in an impeachment process.

I've just recommended this fantastic post by H20 Man on this topic. If you haven't read it already, I'm sure you'll want to!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2832600

[earth mom]

23. Bravo!

:applause:

It's as simple as this: You are either FOR the Constitution or you are NOT.

You would think more people on a site called "democraticundergound" would understand what the Constitution is all about. Obviously the naysayers haven't a clue. Either that or they want to shred it just as *Co and the rethuglicans do! :puke:

[Zhade]

38. Indeed. There are a lot of cowards here.

NT!

[GOTV]

53. So simple even Bush could sell it....

... You're either with us or you're with the terrorists.

You're either for the constitution or you're not.

Such constructions are always true, and so helpful! Thanks!

[bobthedrummer]

123. Yep.

:thumbsup:

[emald]

25. goddamned right put these criminals in prison

and show the world that this aberation in the US will not be allowed to stain the world with it's lust for riches and power. I would love to see both chinney and bushit under court order, loudly proclaiming their own innocence, shackled and led off to a deep dark pit where they belong. Greed, godamnit. Greed, lust for power and a weak minded idiot all have combined to create an embarassment that causes me to hang my head in shame at what my country has become. Fuckers have a lot of explaining to try. I hold out little hope that any of their ilk will pay, only the poor seem to have the wherewithall to become cannon fodder and prison filler for profit.

[Independent_Liberal]

28. A little something for the "Impeach Cheney first" crowd (I'm in this group too)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

Nixon's first vice president, Spiro Agnew, asked the House to impeach him in an effort to forestall indictment and prison on charges of tax evasion and money laundering. House Speaker Carl Albert refused, and Agnew resigned as part of a plea bargain on 10 October 1973.

[pat_k]

48. Bush and Cheney are a package -- you can't charge one w/o the other. . .

. . .They colluded in the same crimes. Bringing articles against Cheney w/o charging Bush is tantamount to exonerating Bush.

Charge both and make the desired outcome crystal clear to the public -- i.e., that Bush and Cheney take the resignation "http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/12">exit strategy" in order to keep the White House in Republican hands. Democratic members fighting for impeachment need to be clear that they 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.

When the leadership gets serious about impeachment, Bush and Cheney could be out faster than we can imagine. From http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2811631&mesg_id=2815352">Post #31

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

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

[ninkasi]

29. She was one of the greats

I was born and raised in Houston, and still live just north of there. She was absolutely amazing, a completely spellbinding speaker. I wish we had her with us still.

[omega minimo]

30. I can hear her voice! What an inspiration she was/is. The point she makes here is why it seems that

those viewing impeachment as "payback" and arguing against it strategerically don't understand the process.



From the CA Dem Conv. Progressive Caucus Impeachment Forum:

California Assemblyman Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood) introduced amendments to California Assembly Joint Resolution 39, calling for state initiated impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney.

He watched an interview with one of the weapons inspectors, who said that Saddam had outdated weapons-- BEFORE Bush took the country to war. He said that a couple of years ago it was clear to him that this president deserved to be impeached.

“Only a couple weeks ago did it occur to me that I was the one that was going to have to do it.”

He said that Bush was on record before he was president, saying that he intended to start a war, finish it quick and easy, as a means to a successful presidency.

“That is heart of impeachment.” This administration is “violating the constitution with impunity.” Assemblyman Koretz calls for impeaching both Bush and Cheney.

His additional reasons for impeachment are Bush federalizing the national guard and implementing “a phony war that destabilized the Iraq and possibly destabilized the region.”

Shayana Kadidal is staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York City. He is counsel in the Center’s pending challenge to the NSA’s warrantless surveillance program.

Mr. Kadidal's additions to the list of impeachable offenses were the Bush administration's assault on the separation of powers and their efforts at Total Information Awareness datamining, as well as giving false information to the Senate (quoting Founder James Ardell on impeachment), lying to commit a war of aggression and violating the oath of office.

Oh-- AND PLAMEGATE.

Mr. Kadidal suggests that since this illegal war and the illegal wiretapping are tied up with national security, people need to be encouraged to recognize that there has been “no net benefit” in terms of security. The administration is “not making us more secure, they are making us less secure.”

Elisabeth De La Vega is a former federal prosecutor with more than 20 years experience. She pointed out Bush appointed 30-40 staff who were on record as wanting to attack Iraq. Before 9-11 their focus was attacking Iraq. On 9-11, their focus was “how to use this to attack Iraq.”

There is an ongoing “conspiracy to defraud the nation to prosecute this war” and an “overwhelming case” for impeachment. Ms. De La Vega called it “RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE THE TRUTH AND THAT’S FRAUD.”

She advised that we “have the courage to talk to people that don’t agree with you. Be sincere, not histrionic. People are persuaded by sincerity.” People talking to each other about this in “committees of correspondence” can reach a tipping point, a geometric progression of awareness and action.



Full post in my journal. Video of forum @ www.afterdowningstreet.org

[pat_k]

35. . . .a geometric progression of awareness and action . .

The virtuous cycle is growing. Even with 100% anti-impeachment propaganda from both Repubs and Dems (impeachment is off the table, disruptive, terrible, doom for Dems and so on) http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">Newsweek found that a majority want impeachment to be a priority in the new Congress and only 44% say "shouldn't impeach (and 7% of that 44% are Dems who would jump on the impeachment bus if Democratic leaders changed their "off the table" tune.)

When we think about talking to people who don't agree with us, we usually think of the folks on "the other side." When it comes to impeachment, it is the folks on "our side" we need to challenge -- those who have internalized the rationalizations and insupportable assumptions (e.g., that impeachment would spell certain doom for Dems) that "opinion makers" and so-called Democratic "strategists" are promoting.

When you hear "I'd love to see Bush and Cheney impeached, but. . . " half the battle is won. All that remains is to refuting the "buts." (Sometimes easier said than done. Entries in http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k">my journal provide ammunition that may come in handy.)

[omega minimo]

50. Nice work pat_k. Here's one for the "strategerists" and spoiled cynics

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2815336&mesg_id=2815336

[pat_k]

70. Thank you -- you're "Impeace" post is powerful. . .

. . .I'm sorry I somehow missed your reply until now. I don't know why it didn't get more attention, but that's how it goes sometimes. Perhaps repost later in the week.

[omega minimo]

87. too "challenging"

:eyes: :hi:

[puebloknot]

112. A great many of those on "our side"...

...are waiting until January, when Ms. Pelosi and Congressman Conyers smile and say they didn't really mean it about impeachment being off the table. "It can always be put *back* on the table"! So say our own.

What a cynical tactic that would be, if true, and not calculated (yes, there's a *lot* of calculating going on with the Dems) to earn the trust and respect of either Dems or Repubs.

I'm being called "Sally Sunshine," and "ridiculous" for my stance that impeachment must be done as the first order of business in the new year, and that enough evidence already exists to do it, poste haste! (And so, I imagine, are you.) I yield to Mr. Gandhi on that matter:

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win."

[BikeWriter]

32. Barbara Jordan rocked! She was a great Lady!

[XOKCowboy]

34. Barbara Jordan was a remarkable woman

Please note the date of that speech. 1974! She was a black woman standing up to the president of the United Stages when she gave that speech. It was unheard of but not ONE of the highly distinguished white politicians of the time oould match her intellect or compassion.

I wish she was here now.

[BikeWriter]

36. Were she here now I'd vote for her for President in a minute!

[malaise]

37. K & R

What a woman!

[Alamom]

41. She was one of a kind & I miss seeing & hearing her speak

I will continue to hope to see more women (and men), those one of a kind types, with her intelligence, courage, love of the law and love of country.


Maybe they will "show up" soon...... NOW would be a good time.




May Ms Jordan Rest In Peace.

[followthemoney]

46. Somebody quick! Pull the the plug on Bush's paper shreder!

[porphyrian]

54. Our representatives will do what we tell them to do. If that's impeachment, they will impeach.

Most of the people we just elected aren't even in office yet. Keep the pressure on, but be aware that this is a process in progress that can't happen before January.

[GOTV]

56. That's right. So the path to removal from office begins with the people...

... Impeachment is just a formality on the path from public insistence on removal from office to conviction.

[pat_k]

61. The burden is on them. They took an oath.

When we elect Members of Congress, we are asking them to serve as our voice and are delegating power and responsibility to use their best judgment to serve the common good. We when it comes to defending the Constitution, the Congressional oath puts the burden on them.

We take oaths and commit to do tough things in advance for a reason. An oath is an expression of our determination act in accordance with our values no matter how difficult the circumstances. If we expected it to be a cakewalk for members of Congress to defend the Constitution, we wouldn't require them to take the Congressional oath.

For your consideration (although there is some overlap with the general points in reply to you above, these points are specific to their duty):

1. When the Constitution is under attack, Members of Congress are sworn to defend it. The question before members in the current crisis is this: "Are Bush and Cheney an intolerable threat to the Constitution?"


2. Numerous charges against Bush and Cheney are well known to the public. Elected bodies, good government organizations, and countless individual citizens have examined the evidence and judged Bush and Cheney to be an intolerable threat to our constitutional democracy.


3. When charges that officials are abusing their power to subvert the Constitution are brought to their attention, Members of Congress have a duty to judge the charges -- to either dismiss the charges as baseless or take defensive action to remove the threat. They bear responsibility for damage done each day that they unnecessarily put off their duty to judge.
   
   The limbo of "I don't know" is not an escape. Vague claims to "need more information" are no better than the limbo of "I don't know." If they believe they need something more to make a judgment, they must actively seek it. If they are unable to get what they need, they must render judgment on the information at hand.


4. Members of Congress are aware of the most common charges against Bush and Cheney, the evidence cited, and the conclusions.


5. Everything necessary to make an irrefutable case for impeachment is available in the public record as described in http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/10">this journal entry. Any one of the crimes described is all that is needed to conclude that Bush and Cheney are an intolerable threat to the Constitution.


6. When the Constitution is threatened, their Congressional oath calls for Congressional action. For example, formally calling on the House to take up impeachment by introducing Articles of Impeachment for consideration.


7. Their oath is an individual oath. Their duty an individual duty. The failure of their colleagues to act cannot excuse their own failure.

[porphyrian]

69. I believe that's true as well. - n/t

[GOTV]

90. Oaths are irrelevant to what will actually happen...

... and I think we should concern ourselves with what will actually happen.

We all know what the SHOULD do. Pay attention to what the WILL do.

Unless you want to see continued soiling of the constitution.

All your points are wishes about what should be. Do you want to ACTUALLY save the constitution or do you want to dot 'i's and cross 't's?

If you want to actually save the constitution, one way is to do what's necessary to get 67 Senators to convict.

And again, like everyone else here, you've not shown how impeachment without conviction will prevent Bush or future presidents from doing anything they were going to do anyway.

[pat_k]

97. No. We should remember WHY we take oaths.

We take oaths to do difficult things in advance, win or lose, come what may, for a reason -- so that when the time comes, we Just Do It.

If we thought defending the Constitution would be a cake walk that carries no risk, we wouldn't call on members of Congress to swear to do it.

Analysis of risks and potential rewards, and how we might minimize the former and maximize the latter, is required to do what we must effectively, but when duty demands action, outcome expectations don't play into the decision to act. We act or betray our oath. There is no middle ground, no way to finesse.

[GOTV]

100. What one SHOULD do and what one WILL do are different - and only 1 of those are relevant

And you are not the judge of when they are in violation of their oath. They and their constituents are the judge of this. They may not agree.

"outcome expectations don't play into the decision to act."

That's just stupid.

[pat_k]

101. No. The duty we have charged them with is what we demand. What they ARE doing is betraying, , ,

. . .the nation.

[longship]

63. You conveniently missed her tag line in this speech.

I notice that you did not bother quoting what Jordan said at the very end of her speech.

Has the President committed offenses, and planned, and directed, and acquiesced in a course of conduct which the Constitution will not tolerate? That's the question. We know that. We know the question. We should now forthwith proceed to answer the question. It is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision.

Even after 18 months of investigations and a whole two years after the Watergate break-in, Representative Jordan realized very clearly the seriousness of impeachment of a President. She understood, unlike many people here, that the call for impeachment must come from the people, not Congress, and that clear and open investigation and deliberation must occur prior to treading down that path.

There's no way one can place this speech in today's context. There has been not a single substantive Congressional investigation into the dealings of ChimpCo. The public's support for impeachment, no matter how much in the majority, is soft and dependent on first having investigations. There is no way Congress can impeach without first conducting investigations and without hard public support for the action.

As there is less than two years until the next Presidential election, there just may not be enough time to get it done.

Note that I am not saying we should not call for impeachment. I am only saying that unless something happens to change the dynamics it is not likely to occur.

There are two ways to shake things up. First, ChimpCo could do something flagrant to turn the tide. Nixon did that on 20 Oct 1973 when he fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. Second, investigations may reveal certain facts that would turn the public against ChimpCo. Of the two, I would much prefer the latter. However, there is likely not sufficient time for that tree to bear fruit.

I am truly horrified of the possibilities of the first case. A Constitutional crisis is not a good way for things to go down. I would rather we keep the executive in a box until they go out of power in Jan, 2009. Then, we can indict and prosecute to our hearts' delight. We can even impeach them after the fact.

[pat_k]

64. Excluded because it doesn't apply now, as I point out in the the section that follows the excerpts.

Nothing "conveniently" about it. I intentionally excluded the final paragraph because it is not applicable to the crisis we face, as I point out in the section of the post that follows the excerpt.

[longship]

75. Doesn't apply?

The Jordan quote I cite only applies to the careful deliberation and investigations which are required before taking on such a serious business as impeaching a President. You ignored it not because it doesn't apply, but because some people here want Dems to jump the shark and start impeachment inquiries before any investigations are begun.

Sorry, pat_k, that just ain't gonna happen. And the crisis in 1974 was very serious. We had a President who deliberately caused the most serious Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. He suborned any number of serious crimes. There were plenty of worries about his emotional stability and his ability to continue governing.

I know that Chimp is just as bad, maybe even worse. However, there will be no impeachment inquiries until there are investigations, nor should there be. The people will not support it. Not yet.

Hang in there, pat_k. I am convinced that it will happen, and happen quickly. I'd put good money on Bush being either removed or resigned by the end of next year. Things are going to move quickly in January. Revelations will shock the people. It will happen. But we have to let it happen "organically" (as some have said). Please keep the faith. The world has changed.

[pat_k]

76. You're assertions are orthogonal to the points that I, and others, have made. . .

It might be helpful to take the points one at a time.

First, do you despute the fact that everything needed to make an irrefutable case for impeachment is available in the public record? Specifically, do you dispute the points made in http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/10">this journal entry?

[longship]

78. No disputes there at all.

I see it, and you see it. Many others see it. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the US public does *not* see it. They are not political junkies like we are. Pshaw! Regrettably, reality doesn't align with our collective wishes.

But not to worry. Having all this stuff in the public record does make the job a lot easier. All we need is some key hearings and a special prosecutor to empanel a grand jury. That puts the public record "on the record", so to say. The Congressional hearings will put the public record on official basis while the Special Prosecutor will have power to indict. We'll maybe see some key players going down.

As I've opined in other threads, Bush support is not only low, it's also very soft. Repukes are jumping ship. They know how badly they lost in November in spite of their electoral games. They also know that the Dems aren't going to suffer any shenanigans. When revelations come out that begin to turn public opinion further, the Republicans will have to admit to themselves what a outright disaster he's left their party and this country in. That's when the fun will start.

I say Chimp is gone by the end of 2007 and anybody who supports him to the end will be gone in 2008.

The only question is, who will be next in line? I'd put money that it won't be Cheney.

[pat_k]

79. If they don't trust the public with the truth and accuse Bush and Cheney . . .

. . .they are emulating Bush and Cheney.

http://bbsnews.net/article.php/200611281333124">Democrats Shy Away from Bush Impeachment Duty
BBSNews 2006-11-28 -- By W. David Jenkins III

. . .The Democrats stand on the brink of making the same mistake that Bush and the Republicans have made these last years; that the American people just don't get it. That somehow, things are "too complex" for average Americans to understand whether it be Iraq or torture or domestic spying or impeachment, hence we are expected to just trust them because they know what they're doing. This mindset in DeeCeeVille begs the question, "Do any of these dopes know what a newspaper is? Have they fired up their computers lately?". . .

[Imagevision]

72. Somewhere's along the way Bush must be impeached, amerika would suck if not!!

[AntiFascist]

73. K wish I could R! n/t

[Jcrowley]

95. Almost missed this

bump

[Manifestor_of_Light]

114. She was an amazing speaker--there will never be another one like her

This was not long after she died in 1996.

My business partner & I put together a Barbara Jordan documentary on CD-ROM that we wanted to distribute to schoolchildren, and to raise money for a Community Center in her name in her old church's neighborhood (Commonly called Freedmens' Town or Fourth Ward--West Dallas). I know I spent a week putting together the business plan. I don't even remember how long it took my partner to crunch the video, get permissions from the local TV stations, etc.

The archivist at TSU was most uncooperative. Barbara Jordan's personal papers had not even been catalogued properly. They just had rows of boxes of "Miscellaneous".

We went to the minister of Barbara's church, hoping that some of her values had stuck around after she passed away. We couldn't get any money out of him to manufacture the CD-ROM in large quantities. He wanted all the money for himself. We wanted to get paid something and do good for the community as well. The black kids in her neighborhood (Fifth Ward-Lyons Avenue) and all over town need to know that they can get out of the 'hood, study hard, and be somebody. I couldn't think of a worthier cause in Houston.

It didn't happen. Thanks a lot, Good Hope. :sarcasm:

[pat_k]

122. Perhaps the time is ripe to revive the effort? With DUers as a resource for seed money. . .

. . .The rise of the Netroots provides new avenues.

If the pieces developed are out of reach, perhaps a proposal for such an effort could be passed along to Richard Dryfuss's http://www.abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Voices/story?id=2696871&page=1">initiative to develop a national civic ciriculum?

You never know where such dedication and efforts like your's then can ultimate lead to.

[bobthedrummer]

121. KICK.

:dem: