How do you expect impeachment and conviction to happen?

[cynatnite]

I totally understand and support impeachment, but how is it possible today?

Here is what has to happen:

Impeachment resolutions made by members of the House of Representatives are turned over to the House Judiciary Committee which decides whether the resolution and its allegations of wrongdoing by the President merits a referral to the full House for a vote on launching a formal impeachment inquiry.

The entire House of Representatives votes for or against a formal impeachment inquiry, needing only a simple majority (a single vote) for approval.

If approved, the House Judiciary Committee conducts an investigation to determine (similar to a grand jury) if there is enough evidence to warrant articles of impeachment (indictments) against the President. The Committee then drafts articles of impeachment pertaining to specific charges supported by the evidence. The Committee votes on each article of impeachment, deciding whether to refer each article to the full House for a vote.

If the House Judiciary Committee refers one or more articles of impeachment, the entire House of Representatives votes on whether the article(s) merit a trial in the Senate, needing only a simple majority for approval.

If the full House approves at least one article of impeachment, the President is technically impeached and the matter is referred to the U.S. Senate. The House then appoints members of Congress to act as managers (prosecutors).

The trial of the President is held in the Senate with the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court presiding. The President can be represented by anyone he chooses. He may appear personally or leave his defense in the hands of his lawyers.

The entire Senate may conduct the trial or it or it may be delegated to a special committee which would report all the evidence to the full Senate.
The actual trial is conducted in a courtroom-like proceeding including examination and cross-examination of witnesses. During questioning, Senators remain silent, directing all questions in writing to the Chief Justice.

After hearing all of the evidence and closing arguments, the Senate deliberates behind closed doors then votes in open session on whether to convict or acquit the President. The vote to convict must be by a two thirds majority, or 67 Senators.

If this occurs, the President is removed from office and is succeeded by the Vice President. The Senate's verdict is final and there is no right of appeal.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/index.html

The Dems just barely have a majority in the senate. The likely hood of gaining the necessary votes seem really unlikely, IMO, because a repuke will break from the president on the war before he'll vote to impeach. The Dems need a larger majority in order to make impeachment happen.

Knowing this, how do you think impeachment and then conviction can happen?

[ComerPerro]

1. for most of the "impeach now or else" group, its all about empty rhetoric,

and not actual understanding of the political process.

[cynatnite]

8. agreed n/t

[EFerrari]

16. What an incredibly naive thing to say about so many people who

are putting time and money and work into such an important goal. Into holding this criminal government accountable. Empty rhetoric? What part of "commitment" is illegible to you?

But, as a member of the 101st Keyboard, I'm sure your understanding of the Constitution and of political practice is much more profound than ours. Good luck with that.

[ComerPerro]

20. I'd say your best move was burning bridges and attacking all your allies

that was smart and classy.

Nothing like calling Congressional Dems pathetic cowards and traitors to get them to do what you want.

Its all I've seen impeach or else people do, actually. Ironic that you attack me for being a 101st Keyboardist, since it is people like you that are the armchair activist.

Your idea of "commitment" involves slandering political allies and occasionally writing an angry email, or calling up the office and tearing a 22 year old intern a new asshole.

Sure, it doesn't accomplish anything at all, but at least it helps you feel like a bigshot.

[libnnc]

50. When are you gonna put down your joystick and run for office?

Are you willing to run for a position in local government? Throw your hat into the ring and try to get elected?

:shrug:

[ComerPerro]

51. I am not the one who pretends to be getting things done

[libnnc]

52. What?

What have you done? Do you vote? Have you protested? It is your right to do that, you know.

[ComerPerro]

54. I do vote, and protests like many here stage accomplish nothing

[libnnc]

55. I'm one of those pesky people who is seeking a graduate degree

...U.S History

...And for the past few years, I've been up to my eyeballs in books and primary sources that counter your statement.

[ComerPerro]

56. Well, to my credit, I haven't been here much these past few weeks

I must have missed the part where we impeached Bush, took over the White House, legalized and protected gay marriage everywhere in the US, ended the Iraq War, stopped raping the environment in favor of alternative fuels, and ended the Iraq war. Did that all happen in the same week?

[libnnc]

60. You just stated that protest accomplishes nothing.

I stated that, historically speaking, you're incorrect.

Your response makes no sense.

[ComerPerro]

62. well, we've been actively protesting for all of these things for years now

so, obviously, if protesting is so effective, as you assert, then naturally we must have reached all of these landmarks.

Or maybe your study is sloppy, and rather than finding any actual causality, you are just seeing coincidence. You know, sort of like "Protestors wanted to end the Vietnam war, and it ended (several years and thousands of deaths later)".

It is like when Republicans argue that tax cuts work because of slight recoveries in the market five years after the tax cuts were enacted. There is no causality, only coincidence.

[libnnc]

65. It was the protests -- the constant public pressure

coupled with the loss of support from the media (Walter Cronkite) that did a great deal to end the war in Vietnam.

[ComerPerro]

66. coincidental. It was just one of many factors. People had been protesting for years

So you're saying that protesting is an effective tool, it just takes years and years to work?

[libnnc]

71. Sometimes it does take years and years to work

And it is even MORE difficult now because of the media.

Case in point: I've been reading "Gay Power" by David Eisenbach -- the story of the Gay rights movement in the US. Most folks associate the beginning of the movement with the Stonewall Riots (NYC 1969). It goes back much earlier. In 1962, a gay fellow named David Wicker heard a radio discussion about homosexuality that basically regurgitated the "gays are mentally ill" meme that had begun in the professional medical and mental health community. He got steamed and wanted to counter that argument. Guess what? HE DID. Because the "Fairness Doctrine" was still the law of the land, he was able to confront the radio show producer and station owners into giving him EQUAL TIME to present his side of the issue.

For the FIRST TIME a positive discussion on homosexuality was aired on the radio. This was 1962!! Now, the only reason that was possible was because of the "Fairness Doctrine". Wicker was given equal time because the law (and he) demanded that he have it.

Just like the Gay rights movement was a long haul, so are many other human rights movement. Nothing happens quickly. Constant pressure, constant confrontation and debate. It works. If it didn't, I'd be in jail for being a lesbian and my partner of 15 years wouldn't have a job as an employee of the Federal Government.

Nothing happens overnight. Pressure is good.

[ComerPerro]

72. Ok, so I'll say it is effective, but is not the catch-all quick fix many here seem to see it as

[ellisonz]

76. Meh.

As one of those pesky people seeking an undergraduate degree in history with an emphasis on modern diplomacy (including dedicated Vietnam courses), I never really found that argument convincing in light of the reality that power-elites are the one's who actually shape and inform the policy decision and that the rest of us are really just barking up the tree for the most part. The only way the succeed is through elections, and as we all know we don't exactly have a democratic election process. If one wanted to point to a specific cause or person that ensured the war would end it would have to be William Fulbright's hearings and The Arrogance of Power both of which ensured that the power-elite centered on Capitol Hill would not roll over in the face of the Executive Branch on the matter of Vietnam.

The problem with the current situation is that despite two election cycles and "the loss of support from the media" the American Left is still ineffective at getting Republican Senators to roll over. This precludes the power-elite from fully opposing the war because the reality is that even if 70% disapprove of the pResident's handling of the war, only 34% from a CBS/NYT poll conducted from 7/9-7/19 believe all US troops should be withdrawn, with 29% supporting an unspecified decrease. I believe that is a principled polling cleavage and that no further shift will occur and that US engagement will not subside unless a Democratic president is elected and even then it will be a gradual drawdown stretching over much of that President's first term. Welcome to the Quagmire.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

[libnnc]

77. I never said that public discontent was "the" reason

I said it was one of the reasons. If Nixon didn't care about the public opinion on the war, then why did he promise to get out of Vietnam in the '68 election? It wasn't all for naught.

[ellisonz]

81. And then what did he do?

He expanded the war and it took the increasing influence of Henry Kissinger to get him to move towards withdrawl. He promised, but by 1972, he still hadn't delivered. It wasn't all for naught, but it's not what it's been made up to be. I think also need to give the NLF/North Vietnamese some credit too for maintaining a strong resistance even after Tet. Maybe Nixon understood campaigns and power politics even if he was an asshole.

[libnnc]

82. My point was, if he didn't feel the heat from the protests,

why did he make the empty promise in the first place?

[ellisonz]

85. Tricky Dick?

Nixon? Nixon didn't say that for the antiwar movement, he said it because it sounded good to "the silent majority" and with his rapsheet he needed to not look batshit insane. Genuine respect for public opinion? Sure he recognized it, but not enough to "really do something about it" i.e. withdraw the military and cease aid and air support to Saigon. Actions do speak louder than words. Moreover, if you've read much about the relationship between Nixon and Kissinger you'd realize that Nixon would have probably stalled much longer on concluding a treaty and reducing troop levels without Kissinger, bless his rotted soul.


"Nixon is a shifty-eyed goddamn liar....He's one of the few in the history of this country to run for high office talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time and lying out of both sides."

-Harry S. Truman

[libnnc]

86. Jesus god almighty it is 4:30 am here...I'm not making myself clear

Nixon was a lying bastard. If the opinions of unwashed, protesting masses were so insignificant to him then why did he try to play the peace card? The actions of the unwashed protesting masses weren't a waste of time. He lied yes and escalated the war...but he didn't ignore the peace movement...they concerned him enough to want to try to infiltrate them later on.

I'm done.

Bye

[ellisonz]

87. Good night.

You're making yourself clear and we just have a disagreement about Nixon's motive. He played the peace card because he didn't want to be another Goldwater. Better to wash and then go to Capitol Hill, that's where war's start and that's where they end. Even Kerry cleaned up, and do you know who's hearing he's famous for speaking at? Fulbright's. Along with sabotaging the opposition party...

It's just DU. Don't take it too seriously. Get some sleep. I'm on Hawai'i time.

[Breeze54]

18. You're just sooooo much smarter than everyone else, aren't you?

:sarcasm:

[ComerPerro]

48. nope, just cynical and able to recognize basic patterns and trends

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. I am glad I am in good company

includng most Constutional lawyers and most COnstitutional Historians.

Perhaps you should look into their reasons, and it does not matter if they are right, left or center

They can be summarized into... love of that document it seems you are willing to throw away for political expediency

[ComerPerro]

73. It is my respect for the constitution that compells me oppose impeachment

mainly, the only way we can get rid of Bush is by impeachment as perscribed within the Constitution. Given those restraints, we will not manage to remove him from office. Its sad, but true.

[BushOut06]

2. You just answered your own question!

To impeach, you merely need a majority in the House. We have the votes to impeach. Where we don't have the votes is in the Senate, but that is for an actual conviction.

Bill Clinton was impeached for merely lying about a fucking blowjob. If we're unwilling to do the same to Bush & Cheney for what they have done - even if we can't get a conviction - what kind of message does that send? Are we going to settle for a lousy fucking censure?

Years from now, when kids are reading in their history books, do you want them to learn that the only two presidents to ever be impeached were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton?

[cynatnite]

3. But what purpose does it serve if bush remains in office?

We can impeach, but the war will still continue, the lies, the criminal activity and so on. What good is it except to consider it a badge of honor as Clinton does with his?

[ComerPerro]

28. how can you be sure history will even mention Bush's impeachment?

[libnnc]

53. How can you be sure history won't?

[ComerPerro]

57. have you ever seen how history books protray Reagan and Nixon? Quite well...

[libnnc]

61. Um...ever heard of Michael Kazin or Howard Zinn?

They're pretty tough on both.

Edit to add: I don't know what kind of history books you read, but the ones that are on my shelf (that are published by university presses) don't look too rosy on either of those administrations.

[ComerPerro]

63. Zinn was taught as one source in an AP history class I took in HS, yes, but

for every classroom that uses Zinn, there are probably ten that use corporate nonsense that attempts to gloss over repig crimes and diminish and defame Zinn.

[libnnc]

67. Even more reason to embrace public dissent

Speaking truth to power is never, ever a bad idea. Remember it was Zinn himself who protested (and was arrested). Read his memoir "You Can't Be Neutral On A Moving Train." Read what he says about protest and the voice of the people.

I think I'll read it again too. DU brings me down sometimes and I forget what really matters.

[ComerPerro]

68. unfortunately, it is his history of activism that has caused many to criticize his methods

He has done great work, granted, no one can honestly deny that. And he offers perspectives on histroy that we might not otherwise have.

But one attack I heard, even in the HS class I mentioned (from the teacher), on Zinn's methods that I hear repeated often is that he judges past actions through modern context. You know, things like "He shouldn't judge people for having slaves, it was a norm of those times".

So, yes, there will be people like him, and first-hand accounts of people who actually remember. But I believe the prevailing opinion will reflect that which will be written and published by corporations and right wingers.

[libnnc]

74. Folks who judge him like that

shouldn't be teaching in my opinion.

But it is true, some even moderate historians, paint Zinn as a polemic figure whose historical lens is too modern.

My point is...I guess...there are really crappy HS texts that are watered down. And there are even crappier HS teachers who are lunk heads (I had one too...a football coach who used to tell us of his fantasies of being a plantation owner, sipping mint juleps and counting his slaves -- no shit)

Historians...I mean "real" ones who head university history departments, ones that publish in historical journals and have done the groundbreaking work in the field...like Winthrop Jordan, Eric Foner, Gary Nash, Ruth Rosen, Eugene Genovese, Nancy Cott...aw hell I should PM you my reading list...what I'm try to say is...DON'T DESPAIR.

There are historians -- famous ones, who have and will guard the progressive legacy.

The others are just chumps.

[ComerPerro]

75. reminds me of something I saw on TDS when Cheney claimed he wasn't part of the Exec branch

They showed Tony Snow's replacement taking questions, and she comes up with some bullshit like "It is an intersting question that historians and Constitutional scholars will be debating for years to come".

Then Jon Stewart showed clips of like four or five interviews with respected scholars and historians, and there was literally no debate. All stated quite directly that it was complete bullshit.

LOL

[ellisonz]

78. The New American Empire.

Here are six historians who would most likely approach the question of not only why we don't have 67 senatorial votes in a different way and reach the same conclusion that this may eventually end in favor of the "liberals," but by a rather different path, and it is by no means quick, short, or easy. Civil rights and the concept of justice in America and its affairs may have progressed, but not enough to stop the imperial machine.

Here goes: William Appleman Williams, Ernest May, Walter LaFeber, Thomas Schoonover, Mike Davis, and for good measure Immanuel Wallerstein. The likelihood of the American state just up and abandoning a country it's invaded and views as strategically vital is not very high, and if does occur it will be long, slow, and extremely destructive, and mostly dictated by the course of events. If the GOP somehow wins in 2008 (see Hillary Clinton nomination), we will still be in Iraq in 2015 with at least 100,000 soldiers.

The mark of the modern world is the imagination of its profiteers and the counter-assertiveness of the oppressed. Exploitation and the refusal to accept exploitation as either inevitable or just constitute the continuing antinomy of the modern era, joined together in a dialectic which has far from reached its climax in the twentieth century."
Source: The Modern World-System, vol. I, p 233, via wikipedia.

Better expansive and still a chump than ground breaking and mole-like.

Damn realists!

[libnnc]

83. That's all wonderful but my post wasn't about Iraq

it was about protest and public dissent. And the question posed to me had to do with how historians would view our protests now.

[ellisonz]

84. They'd question its' efficacy...

Street protest didn't stop the war and it won't end it. The fact is that the majority of people are pissed off about the war because it's dragged on so long and because it's cost, both human and fiscal, has reached significant heights. Not because of some anti-war protest.

[AndyA]

4. If the House impeached Bush, I wonder if it would ever get to the Senate.

I think he'd resign to save what little face he had left at that point. Bush has never had to work very hard to get what he wanted in life, and when things got difficult, he's walked away from it.

He has always done this. It is his history.

I just can't see him sticking with it if it ever came to this. What has he ever done in his life that would indicate he would?

[ClassWarrior]

5. If it fails, we'll have a heapin' helpin' of Senators on record supporting...

...the criminal, treasonous actions of this Adminstration** that will have come to the attention of the broader public through the process.

As for how do I expect IMPEACHMENT to happen? Constitutionally. ~bah-dah-bing!~

NGU.

[stillcool]

6. If the solution is inherent in the problem...

than impeachment does nothing. Everything stays exactly the same, but with a more visually disturbing figurehead.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Congress Defunds The War

Bush pulls the money from elsewhere.

Impeachment proceeds.

[Individualist]

9. It can happen as outlined in your OP and in post #2

Your question was "...how do you think impeachment can happen", not "how do you think conviction can happen".

[cynatnite]

11. Edited the post to reflect that...

Even if it's just impeachment, I'm of the belief that even if it did happen, nothing would change.

Thanks.

[mmonk]

10. It is folly to predict the outcome in the senate.

It is certainly no reason to abandon impeachment. The facts that would be revealed in an impeachment hearing would be hard to ignore or twist anymore by the media or politicians.

[BushOut06]

12. Agreed - Rethugs could decide to convict to save their own skin

That way they can go back home and claim they had nothing to do with him.

[cynatnite]

14. I don't agree...

They'll break from him on the war before they'd go along with impeachment or conviction. Their base would be going frothing at the mouth insane.

[ComerPerro]

21. no kidding, they rather have Bush or Cheney than Pelosi

[mmonk]

30. Without a positive vote on an article, you can't make that claim.

Look at what happened when it became apparent that Nixon would be impeached in the House. Conversely, a lot of people think investigations are going to take of this problem without impeachment. To that, I give you Iran/Contra as our historic example. Either way, my freedom isn't for sale so some politician can fulfill their personal dream or hide guilty friends.

[cynatnite]

31. Just my opinion only...

A few have broken away from him on the Iraq war, but still aren't putting their votes where their mouths are. IMO, it's a sign that tells me it'd be much harder with impeachment and conviction.

[mmonk]

35. So some break from him on the war. Then what?

Until they decide to de-authorize it or defund it, it won't matter. And impeachment is not about the war per se except only that it was engaged in on false pretenses (which it in itself is an impeachable offense). It's about re-establishing the rule of law, checks and balances, our constitutional guarantees committed to us in the form of the Bill of Rights, and much more. Without that, we have an elective dictatorship where those that get elected can make up the rules.

[cynatnite]

41. I'm not disagreeing with you...

I totally agree. The war should be defunded. It's the only way it might end. I've heard bush has a way around that, too, but I'm not sure exactly how it would work.

But the fact of the matter is that impeaching and convicting won't happen with the type of makeup we've got in congress. Two thirds vote in the senate isn't possible because the repukes put party above rule of law and country.

[cynatnite]

13. Oh, sure...just like they did in the Clinton impeachment...

That impeachment proved that it would be business as usual. Clinton went on about his job during that fiasco.

Even though the stakes are much higher with an occupation of Iraq and the rest of the crimes the bush administration commits, I don't think this would end much differently. Repukes won't vote for impeachment let alone convict bush or cheney of anything.

They'd be spinning so hard during a debate on it that their heads would fly off and a lot of corporate media would comply.

[BushOut06]

19. You're right - let's just do nothing at all then - don't even try

I'm so sick and fucking tired of this whole defeatist attitude. You know what? Maybe we should just go ahead and give in to every single one of Bush's demands while we're at it, since we don't have enough votes to override his veto. Give him all the damned money he wants to continue this war. Hell, why not renew the Patriot Act? Bet they would love that.

[cynatnite]

22. Since when is it defeatist to look at reality?

I read the procedure, looked at the makeup of the house and senate and I still can't see how it can happen.

How do you expect to get sixteen republican senators to vote to convict george bush? It takes two thirds and those votes are not there. If they were there I think we'd be hearing a completely different tune from most of the dems.

[BushOut06]

24. The reality is that we can't override any veto either - so give them what they want

I mean I'm just being realistic, aren't I? Why even try with all these motions that we already know aren't going anywhere?

[LSK]

69. did you watch the Senate all night session a week ago???

It is folly to think there are 67 votes out there.

[EFerrari]

15. You're right. Guys, we have to shut up, go home and go shopping. nt

[brentspeak]

34. Way to address the points of the OP, and form a constructive counter-argument

:sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

39. You bet. n/t

[Breeze54]

17. We keep hounding them until they do the right thing, that's how!!

This is the fight of your lives!!!!

[leftofthedial]

23. conviction is NOT the point

[Toucano]

36. Then what is?

[leftofthedial]

49. the process, the investigations, the trial

the evidence, the testimony of witnesses, the repukes being forced to go on record

[Toucano]

88. I appreciate all of that, but

the public wants ACTION and RESULTS from congress.

The low opinion of congress that people have on both sides of the aisle is due to their INEFFECTIVENESS.

I don't think it serves anyone to spend tons of money on investigations, witnesses, and testimony that produce no results, and I don't think that's what Americans want.

The purpose of impeachment is REMOVAL from office before he can do any more harm. If we can't get that, then don't bother.

We can get the investigations, witnesses, and testimony AND convictions much more easily with a new administration and a new justice department.

Just my opinion, of course.

[LSK]

70. they are GUILTY! how can it NOT be the point????

[libnnc]

25. Guess what?

The louder and nastier the anti-impeach folks get...The louder WE get.

Ain't it great how that works like that there?

Pressure. Constant pressure.

The more you hate it, the worse it gets.

[cynatnite]

26. anti-impeach?

Is that what I am for looking at the procedure and the makeup of congress? :shrug:

[libnnc]

27. Would you prefer "naysayer"?

I think it's kinda important to react to an administration that holds itself above the law.

Doing nothing sets a dangerous precedent.

[cynatnite]

29. Hmm...I guess it's my imagination when I see hearings and all that...

you know...subpoenas, contempt of congress and all that oversight. It must've been in my head and I didn't really see Valerie Plame testify before congress.

[libnnc]

32. I've seen the hearings too...

and I've also seen Plame's civil case dismissed, Harriet Meirs' empty chair, Gonzo thumb his nose at the whole shooting works...

Hearings are great. Hearings are proper and important...but this bunch IGNORES THEM.

[cynatnite]

38. And they've been further isolated as a result...

but it seems to me that because congress isn't moving exactly the way many here at DU likes, they're called names and thrashed regularly. Impeachment and conviction is not a realistic goal given the makeup of congress. Perhaps impeaching is possible in the house, but as Clinton has shown, impeachment can be a very weak tool.

Because of what the repukes did to Clinton and how he responded to them, the power of impeachment was weakened, IMO. Not because of Clinton, but because of the repukes. Impeachment is now an impotent tool, IMO. Pardon the pun :)

[libnnc]

43. I don't agree. At all, Never will.

Too pissed off to care either fucking way at the moment.

The whole lot of them can go straight to hell.

Tired of seeing the death tolls, tired of hearing the lies and the smirky, snarky retorts, tired of seeing the pain everywhere, tired of the nuance and the watered down triangulated logic, tired of elected officials pissing on the Constitution.

You wait out the clock and hope that your candidate wins to fix the mess left behind.

And hope that the next bunch doesn't use the legacy of the last bunch to justify their actions in the future.

Precedent. That's the one word that echoes in my mind.




Precedent.

Precedent.

Precedent.

[cynatnite]

45. Whatever Dem takes the WH in '08 will be cleaning up the mess...

no matter what happens. bush is flipping the bird to congress and the American people. He's biding his time until he gets out and then he's handing the entire mess over to whoever gets elected. He doesn't care.

In the eyes of the repukes...precedence, rule of law and country be damned.

[libnnc]

46. So we just take it and hope that

leaders in the future abide by the law -- what's left of it?

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. They also took it in '88 didn't they?

so did I sleep walk through the Dukakis Presidency?

The we will take the house in '88 was also the mantra back then

[MonkeyFunk]

42. Yes

I keep asking the same question as your OP, and nobody can answer it. The best they can do is have some weird faith that if you just present the evidence, the Republicans will turn on Bush.

But raising the question gets them very angry, and they call me all sorts of names.

[brentspeak]

40. Let's get this straight: the OP politely posts a reasoned argument

on why she thinks a successful impeachment just isn't possible, and your response, your counter-argument is: "We'll throw poo at anyone who disagrees with us!!!!"

:eyes:

[libnnc]

44. I don't agree with you.

On anything.

Never will.

[Lint Head]

33. The reasons were there 3 years ago to impeach.

The politicians knew that eventually time would run out and they could use the excuse that there is not enough time to impeach
the damn criminals that have taken over our precious country. :dem:

[porphyrian]

37. Those are two questions and you've answered them both.

However, you make the same mistake as many thick-headed people here by thinking we can't or shouldn't begin the first if we can't predict we'll win the second, and that assumes too much.

[mmonk]

47. In my opinion, all this means is that bush/Cheney

have support among some House democrats in some form. The victory in November is just a holding pattern for our democracy with the outcome for the future being up to events and actions of others as well as to what happens until then. We are riders with no say.

[InkAddict]

64. The thing is....

how can we accept leaders who will not follow the rule of law to answer lawful supoenas?

How can we accept non-accountability for seems to be obvious criminal intent to conspiratorily over-throw the WE-THE-PEOPLE election process?

How can we accept non-accountability for willfull lying and manipulation of facts before the body of the CONGRESS and the People at our very own great cost and blood sacrifice?

How can be accept a BAIT and SWITCH scam at the highest level of our Nation? Where is OBL and why are we cutting deals that continue to shield him from apprehension and accountability?

How can we accept the treasonous outing of our covert intelligence community, for spite?

By impeaching, our Unitary Executive, cannot claim priviledge to hide the truth and must stand with those he's chosen to be accountable for that selected God-provided superior decision-making skills. I'm tired of their GUT feelings...I want facts, and I don't care how long or what else gets accomplished in order to ferret out THE TRUTH! I've had ENOUGH!

[Drum]

79. In short: not like this. nt

[philosophie_en_rose]

80. Leprechauns riding unicorns and sprinkling pixie dust.

:hi:

[Lerkfish]

89. as I stated in another thread:

I do not believe success of impeachment is the only litmus for pursuing it. The very reasons you state for why you think it will not succeed are exactly the reasons why it should be pursued: because the president is acting above the law with impugnity. Is it right to say that once he has grabbe absolute power illegally, we should not try to stop him? In other words, the very nature of the crime protects the criminal?

I believe there is a sworn duty to impeach if impeachable offenses have occurred. No ifs, ands or buts. Its a SWORN duty to uphold the constitution.

Just as I would not consider a prosecutor right to not bring rapists to trial because conviction percentages are traditionally low...I think a good prosecutor worries about whether a crime has been committed and his DUTY to prosecute that crime. Sure, a rape trial has a low chance of conviction, but rapists never brought to trial are automatically not convicted, 100%, and additionally, they are simply emboldened to continue raping victims.

[Lerkfish]

90. here's a guarantee: if we do NOT pursue impeachment, it will not pass the house

100% guarantee of failure.

If you are so concerned with failure, why avocate the only course that guarantees it?

:)

[mdmc]

91. I think that Americans respect courage

You fight the fights that need fighting, not just the fights that you can win.

We chIMPEACH. The motion fails. The war goes on.

But at least America knows that we did our best.

Then, perhaps, the 50% of nonvoting Americans might have something to draw them in to the process. They won't have to wait for another whig moment in history (where the dem or gop party is replaced by say, the anti-corporate party or the constitution party).

Give them a reason to vote, and perhaps they will.

Same old , same old, is boring.

[warren pease]

92. The numbers seem to be going the right direction, though...

Latest polls show only about 25 percent of the public approves of how Bush is handling his job, and more than 80 percent disapprove of how he's handling economic issues.

The ARG poll from earlier this month says 45 percent want to impeach Bush and 54 percent want Cheney gone.

So how do these numbers translate into gaining senate votes for conviction on impeachment charges? I think (maybe hope's a better word) that, when the House hearings reveal the extent of BushCo's unprecedented criminality on national TV every single day for maybe two or three weeks, people who never considered calling their representatives will quickly have both their senators on speed-dial and will demand that they either get rid of these swine or prepare to lose overwhelmingly the next time they stand for office.

Obviously, this won't happen in the reddest of the red states, but I think it can and would happen in enough states to make a difference.

It's also possible that some GOP senators don't know the extent of BushCo's corruption and, when faced with sworn testimony detailing what's been going on for the past six + years, will actually discover a conscience hidden under the wads of corporate campaign money and phony born-again jesus groupieism. I realize that's asking a lot from these soulless pimps for the ruling class, but I could imagine maybe three or four conversions over the course of the investigations and impeachment trial.

And deciding not to impeach guarantees, paraphrasing lerkfish, a 100 percent chance of failure to get rid of BushCo. They will remain in power, emboldened to create more and bloodier hells on earth -- and maybe here as well as in the Middle East, if the The Commander Guy gets to deal with dissidents his own special way.


wp

On edit: tpyos