Let's Debunk Some Myths Regarding Impeachment

[Jcrowley]

When they say "We need to work with the Republicans to pass legislation. Impeachment would be divisive."

- Bush's actions undermine our entire system of government. That must be fixed before we get back to the daily business of governing.

- If Bush is not impeached for his actions then this will set a precedent that allows future Presidents to start wars at will, torture prisoners, wiretap citizens without warrants and suspend habeas corpus. We must act now to prevent that from happening again in the future.

- Members of Congress take an Oath of Office promising that they will defend the Constitution from "enemies both foreign and domestic". This is their primary duty. When the Constitution is safe then they have the luxury to attend to other matters.

- Impeachment will only involve parts of Congress for a short time. Clinton's impeachment only took about four months. The actual trial in the Senate only took two months. Other business can take place in parallel.


When they say "It is political suicide to call for impeachment."

- More than 70% of democrats and a majority of all Americans favor impeachment. 88% of Democrats in Pennsylvania favor impeachment. It may be political suicide to be on the wrong side of this issue. AmResGrp, Zogby

- Legislators take an oath to protect the Constitution so it is their duty to protect it from Bush's crimes by calling for impeachment regardless of the political consequences.

- Democrats won in a landslide in the election after drafting Articles of Impeachment against Nixon. (Nixon resigned before he could be officially impeached.)

- Republicans lost in the election after impeaching Clinton, not because people opposed impeachment in general but because they opposed impeachment over a personal matter.

When they ask "Why bother with impeachment when we need a 2/3 majority in the Senate to convict?"

- To convict Bush we only need 16 Republican Senators in addition to all the Democrats. It is quite possible that we will get them.

- After investigations and the trial, it will be obvious to everyone that Bush is guilty of serious crimes. At that point, many Republicans will feel compelled to vote for a guilty verdict.

- Many Republican politicians oppose Bush because they feel he is hurting them politically. Many Republican voters are calling for impeachment. If Senators want to get reelected they may have to vote Bush guilty.

- Bush committed crimes and it is our duty to oppose those crimes and defend the Constitution regardless of our chance of success

- If we can force a debate on impeachment then it will expose Bush's crimes even if he is not convicted.

- It is better to fight for justice and lose then to accept injustice.

When they ask "But won't we just end up with Cheney as President and he is worse than Bush?"

- Cheney would be included in Articles of Impeachment and model state resolution.

- An investigation into possible grounds for impeachment serves an educational and political purpose, whether or not we get to impeachment. We shine a light on the misdeeds of the administration and its supporters in Congress, and we help to build an opposition.

- It would be virtually impossible to investigate Bush or Cheney without incriminating the other one.

- Cheney is already running the show now backstage. In the unlikely event that he ended up President, we'd be better off with him up front as a walking advertisement for the opposition.

When they say "We (Congress) do not have a mandate from the public."

- The victory for the Democrats in November of 2006 was widely seen as a vote against Bush and against the Iraq war. Exit polls confirmed this.

- Congress does not need a "mandate" to defend the Constitution. They already took an Oath of Office promising to do that.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Impeach.

Now.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

2. K & R -- Impeachment IS possible and we must demand it.

[Benhurst]

3. Thanks. Recommended #6

[Jcrowley]

9. All that is being echoed

by the Dem party leadership regarding impeachment is BS. The same talking points are circulating and they are laughably, transparently bogus. It doesn't even take that much to strip away the lies.

George Bush and Dick Cheney (others as well) would fall like tumbling dominoes as the investigations and hearings moved forward. As the hearings proceeded the public outcry would override any other perceived concerns of the political class. We would even see the disgusting media get on board as the criminality of the Bushies was revealed day after day after day through impeachment hearings.

[LeahMira]

74. Most important, though...

... It is better to fight for justice and lose then to accept injustice.

I really like that point of yours. I don't think we would lose, but we can't be afraid to do what is right just because we might lose.

[ClassWarrior]

4. R #10

NGU.

[Poiuyt]

5. Debunking of Arguments Against Bush/Cheney Impeachment by Impeachment Organizations

DUer Time For Change had a great post a few months ago. This is a great read:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Time%20for%20change/144

[elocs]

6. Because you call them "myths" does not make it so, except in your opinion.

Impeachment Now should not be a litmus test as to what makes a good Democrat because many good Democrats disagree with your assessments. My own Senator Feingold is one of them. You are welcome to your opinion and I encourage you to pursue it as best you can, but please be respectful of those who disagree with you for we are no less good Democrats.

[Jcrowley]

10. Impeachable offenses

It is really simple.

Answer this one question: In your view did George W. Bush and Dick Cheney commit impeachable offenses?

[elocs]

11. Answer from Senator Feingold:

http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2006/11/21/news/02feingold21.txt

“I don’t support impeachment, and I don’t support impeachment hearings, even though I think the president has probably committed an impeachable offense,” Feingold said in response to a question from Al Schulz of La Crosse.

“We are not required to impeach the president simply because he’s committed an impeachable offense, which I think he did with the illegal wiretapping. We have to decide whether it’s in the best interest of the country to go through that process.”

I agree with Senator Feingold. You are welcome to your own opinion because there is not unanimous consensus on this issue.

[Jcrowley]

14. Feingold got it wrong here

He swore an oath on the Constitution.

Here it is:

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

If he is not protecting the Constitution then he is shirking his sworn duty.

You also must admit it takes a fair amount of political jujitsu to use this sort of DoubleSpeak though it seems to be the lingua franca in the upper reaches of the political machinery:

“I don’t support impeachment, and I don’t support impeachment hearings, even though I think the president has probably committed an impeachable offense.”

Doesn't matter who says that it is simply turning reality on it's head. After someone says something like that, or defends it, don't they just shake their head and say "Did I just say that?" It defies all logic.

[elocs]

17. Because you know more than Senator Feingold. Again, your opinion.

Send him an email. I'm sure your convincing arguments will show him the errors of his way.

[wtmusic]

19. What's to know?

That Feingold is breaking his oath is a fact. No opinion required.

Whether it is wise for him to do so is a matter for opinion.

[elocs]

29. I'll stick with Feingold. But then, only the Impeachment Now crowd knows it all.

If you don't get your way are you going to pout, point fingers, get self righteous, or form a 3rd party? After all, your way is the only right way and you condemn anyone who does not agree. Make a lot of converts that way? Ah, but then you don't need converts since you have the moral high ground and you apparently don't need 67 votes to convict in the Senate since simply being right is enough. Yeah, I'm sure that tearing down a respected senator such as Feingold will win you a lot of points.

[tomp]

31. excuse me, but why does feingold think impeachment...

...will hurt america? considering the oath of office and the obvious high crimes of bush/cheney, i think the burden of convincing others falls on feingold. he's got to have one helluva reason to oppose impeachment. i for one would like to hear it.

[elocs]

32. Perhaps because he can count and he knows there are not 67 votes to convict in the Senate.

Impeachment may be all that matters to you and the Impeachment Now crowd, but I am sure that Senator Feingold, like many others of us would like to see at least a chance of conviction. Otherwise Bush walks and gets to make political hay out of a very important and serious process. The time may come, and come soon, when 67 votes is a possibility, but not yet. I have yet to see anybody who wants impeachment right now explain where those votes will come from at this time. They just take it on faith that they will magically appear once the process starts. At this time I prefer Feingold's and Pelosi's math.

[tomp]

43. i asked for the reason HE gives...

...for how this would hurt america. you seem to be giving your opinion not his. can you quote him or refer somewhere for his statement on how exactly impeachment would hurt america?

[tavalon]

50. His political expediency certainly doesn't give me faith that he is "right"

[elocs]

56. Right, and it was politically expedient when his was the only vote against the Patriot Act.

Again, the implications by the Impeachment Now crowd that those who do don support their efforts are somehow not good Democrats, that only they have the corner on that. Well I believe that Senator Feingold, who actually has had to sit in judgment during an impeachment trial is both "right" and "correct" in his view toward impeachment as things now stand.

[tavalon]

77. They probably are good Democrats

But not so good patriots, IMO.

[elocs]

82. Right, Senator Feingold is not a good patriot.

Especially when he stood up alone in the Senate against the Republicans and his fellow Democrats to be the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act because of constitutional issues. Senator Feingold is not only a good Democrat, he is one of our best patriots and I am fortunate and proud to have him as my U.S. senator.

[GOTV]

61. They never do explain it. It's a "faith-based" impeachment process....

They say things like "After investigations and the trial, it will be obvious to everyone that Bush is guilty of serious crimes."

Sure it will. Just like that. Q.E.D.

In the midst of the impeachment media frenzy... THAT'S when the message will REALLY be able to get out to the people in a way that they will accept.

We can't hardly get republicans to vote for mild guidelines to end the Iraq war, but impeachment they'll vote for.

They're like that guy with the strange musical taste that has absolute confidence that if you sat down and really listened to his favorite indie band, and saw the earnest look in his eyes, you'd love them as well.

Maybe, instead of posting these endless "impeachment now" posts they should be lobbying their Senators and posting which of their Senators they've won over. That might actually deliver results though...

[elocs]

65. A "faith based" impeachment process is what it seems to be.

Impeachment is what is all important to them. Simply that you do it, not that you get a conviction in the Senate. Articles of impeachment itself is not the slam dunk that many think it will be. It's kind of like in basketball where you set up a shot to get the best chance of scoring. The Impeachment Now crowd wants to take the shot now because taking the shot seems to be the most important thing, not making the shot. The hearings and investigations are setting up the shot, but they just can't wait.

No matter how you try and slice and dice it or just go by faith that it will happen there will be 67 votes needed to convict in the Senate and there are not enough Democrats to do that without the help from a good number of Republican Senators. The same Republican Senators who regularly get trashed here, but come a vote to convict on impeachment they are suddenly expected to do the righteous and noble thing for their country.

When there was no chance of conviction, was the Clinton impeachment and trial a good thing for this country? If Bush get impeached, deservedly so, when there is no chance of conviction in the Senate, will that be a good thing for the country? Or is the impeachment process simply a means of trying to get a pound of flesh from Bushco in revenge?

[Moochy]

69. Straw Man I just can't quit you!

"Or is the impeachment process simply a means of trying to get a pound of flesh from Bushco in revenge?"



Impeachment is the constitutional solution to the problem of a criminal presidency. Plenty of evidence is out there to start the trials.

Your comparison of the Clinton impeachment is ridiclous and dishonest, that spectacle was "bad for the country" because it was a witch hunt.

[GOTV]

72. Impeachment is not a solution at all. Just like buying aspirin does not cure a headache

The solution to a criminal presidency is removal from office.
Impeachment does not do that.
Only conviction in the Senate does that.

Do your Senators support impeachment? What did they say when you called?

[Moochy]

80. Of course they don't

Senators are the Optimates, The Best People. And as the Best and the Brightest of this now blighted country, they accede to the status quo, which is highly against impeachment. The media is owned by big business whose interest align with those who wish to have their role in the run up to war in Iraq kept off the front pages.

Does that mean that it is not the correct course to take? In my judgment, no. The correctness of Impeachment AND (thank you for reminding me) CONVICTION IN THE SENATE, is independent of the considerations of the elite politicians who tell us that Impeachment and removal from office would be "bad for the country" I have yet to see anyone make that case convincingly.

[GOTV]

84. Personally, I don't know if impeachment would be bad for the country now....

... But I do believe an impeachment which results in acquittal is WORSE than no impeachment. We can never be entirely sure of what the Senate will do but, I see no reason to assume the Senate would convict if it had to choose today. So I think SOMETHING has to happen to change the Senate's mind and the only something I can think of that has a chance of success is overwhelming public support for impeachment, which I don't see right now.

Maybe by mid summer.

[Moochy]

85. Thank you for the response

This is a thoughtful and reasoned post and I can see how an acquittal could be a very bad thing. Public support of impeachment is increasing. I think you are right about mid-summer as well.

:patriot:

[snappyturtle]

102. Dear Moochy--I, too, have not seen a convincing

case that impeachment would be harmful to the country. On the other hand, I can see impeachment improving the political behavior of present day and future congresscritters and presidential candidates to say nothing of the boost we'd get in global approval!

[Jcrowley]

93. Inexcusable

It is inexcusable on the part of either party to be placing perceived political concerns ahead of protecting our democracy from a President and Vice-President that routinely violate the law.

Political calculations are the least of the factors to consider. Principles of the Constitution and principles of lawfulness and accountability MUST be primary. There comes a time when lawmakers have to be true to their oaths of office and reject political considerations. The Bush junta have made this crystal clear in their thuggishly partisan view of our government. Partisanship must yield to those higher principles and values or the politician is unfit for public office. This needs to be understood as a dereliction of duty. Nancy Pelosi in her dismissal of impeachment is teetering in that direction- the direction of NOT doing her Sworn duty because of party politics. THIS MUST STOP.

When an impeachment initiative is little more than a manifestation of inside-the-Beltway partisanship, as was the case with the Clinton impeachment of the late ’90s, its proponents invite an appropriate rebuke from the citizenry. But when proposals for impeachment are grounded in popular concern for the republic in general and the application of the rule of law in particular—as are moves to sanction Bush and Cheney for illegal war making and wiretapping—the process will begin at the grassroots and grow until it cannot be denied by Washington.

[GOTV]

122. Your argument for rushing in blindfolded is weak.

> Political calculations are the least of the factors to consider.

Only if success is not your goal. An acquitted administration is a more dangerous administration, not to mention a bad precedent.

[Jcrowley]

126. Noone is talking

about rushing in and where you come in with the blindfold is pretty bizarre.

Impeachment can't be rushed even if folks wanted that.

I'd say a full reading of how the process evolves is in need here. Talk about being blind to the workings of impeachment.

[Zhade]

114. It's not a solution, it's a Constitutional requirement.

Do you support the rule of law?

[GOTV]

120. You are confused, it is NOT a requirement.

Nowhere does the law require impeachment, least of all the constitution.

[elocs]

78. Right, because only the Impeachment Now crowd knows what is best for the country.

Please list all of the members of Congress, the representatives and senators, who are currently supporting your efforts of impeaching right now or is that classified information. Please spend as much time convincing your representative to support impeachment now as you do attacking those of us here who do not share your view.
Please enlighten those of us who do not share your view of impeachment now as to where those 67 votes to convict in the Senate will come from, or is that not important?
An impeachment process with no chance of conviction, just like the impeachment process of Clinton, is not good for the country. I want Bush impeached AND convicted and I am willing to wait for it. When I was a child I wanted what I wanted and I wanted it now. I am no longer a child.

[Moochy]

81. Willing to wait

Good thing you are not on active duty in Iraq!

Nice veiled insult too. I guess daddy knows best and the "Impeachment Now Crowd" are all petulant little children. Anyone else notice the framing?

[drm604]

103. Oh Yeah. The framing is obvious.

Some people appear to be attempting to shift the conversation away from impeachment and toward the question of whether or not the so-called "Impeachment Now Crowd" thinks that only they "know what is best for the country". The hope is that they'll switch to defending themselves rather than arguing for their viewpoint.

This kind of rhetoric really sets my teeth on edge. Having an opinion and speaking in support of that opinion is not the same as thinking that only you know what is best. At worst, even if it is the same, then your opponent is guilty of exactly the same thing. Apparently eloc thinks that only he knows what is best for the country!

[GOTV]

71. I like the basketball analogy....

... I've tried a gun analogy before. Impeachment is a gun with one bullet. Right now the Bush admin is out of range of our gun. First, the impeachment now group insists Bush is actually in range, which is just a matter of disagreement, but second, and more disturbing, is they insist that even if Bush is currently out of range, we should fire the gun anyway. Actually, it's not just that we should, it's that we are morally obligated to fire our gun at the distant target and let our one bullet land in the dirt or else WE are guilty of the Bush admin's crimes. We are morally deficient because we did not impotently fire our gun in the air.

They do not see any value of holding our fire until we see the whites of their eyes so to speak.

I realize that the Bush admin may never be in range of our biggest weapon. If that's the case, so be it. Blame will partly fall on those who made impeachment the goal and not removal from office.

[elocs]

73. The gun analogy is good too. It does seem as though impeachment is more important than conviction.

What I dislike is the bullying of the Impeachment Now crowd. They have the attitude that only THEY have the moral high ground and that those who disagree with them are somehow simply not good Democrats. Only THEY know what is right and best for the country and those who disagree are stupid or naive. If they put as much energy in convincing members of Congress to support their goals they might get somewhere, but it is easier to simply attack other Democrats.

[Moochy]

76. "Impeachment Now Crowd"

You poor victim of bullying. :eyes:

[elocs]

79. Ignore

[wtmusic]

33. Touchy, are we?

You're the one who's talking about pouting, condemning, moral high ground, tearing down, ad nauseum.

Just because Feingold is a respected senator is he always right? Sounds like idol worship to me.

[Moochy]

68. Thanks for explaining the deference

Notice the poster above who opposes Impeachment, because of the inherent goodness and infallibility of Russ Feingold, have labeled those in favor "The Impeachment Now Crowd" My what a nice little divisive label for fellow democrats.

[NovaNardis]

51. If Feingold believes, in his heart, that Bush has committed impeachable offenses

And he doesn't move on impeachment, then he shows he doesn't care about his obligation to the Constitution.

I am not a member of the "Impeachment Now" crowd. I didn't walk into the polling booth in November with impeachment on my mind. But I see it making more and more sense every time I see an argument. If Feingold believes Bush has committed impeachment worthy offenses, he may not be legally bound to impeach the president but he is duty bound.

I used to like Senator Feingold, a lot. This is one big knock against him, for me.

[GOTV]

58. It is not a fact that he is breaking his oath...

... He is not obligated by duty to take any particular action. He is obligated to defend the constitution. He is obligated to take only those actions which he believes will defend the constitution. If he believes that an impeachment will fail to protect the constitution for any reason, it cannot be said that he is breaking his oath by not supporting impeachment.

Similarly a person might be convinced that some pagan ritual could defend the constitution and declare is a "fact" that Feingold is derelict in his duty by not performing that ritual.

Sound silly? No more silly that insisting that Feingold's view of his duty and obligations are less relevant that your own.

I don't think that it's clear either impeachment, or pagan rituals, will protect the constitution at this time.

[wtmusic]

123. So wrong.

A Senator's personal opinion is irrelevant just as mine is, or just as yours is when it comes to interpretation of the law.

By your definition, if Feingold thought hopping up and down on a pogo stick defended the Constitution, he is faithfully performing his duty by the American people. :crazy:

In any case, Feingold has hung himself by admitting that GWB has committed impeachable offenses. You can't have it both ways.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

92. No, Feingold Is Not Breaking His Oath And That Is Not A Fact. To Say So Is Amazingly Misguided And

false.

I'm amazed that there are still those here who think that their oath to office entails an enforceable requirement to impeach. Utterly absurd to anyone with any real level of understanding.

[wtmusic]

124. Thank You For Your Opinion

Does Someone With A Real Level of Understanding Like You Have Anything to Back It Up?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

125. It's Not An Opinion. It's An Established Fact.

Just because you want to interpret the oath of office into something that it isn't, doesn't all of a sudden demote an established fact back into an opinion that is open to debate.

The oath of office is to uphold the constitution. There are many avenues to do such and even what ways they choose to do so are up for interpretation. But NOWHERE, ANYWHERE, will you find a clause stating that impeachment is mandatory under certain conditions. You won't find that ANYWHERE.

So you can preach to the masses till you're blue in the face that Russ is somehow breaking his oath of office by not impeaching but you'd still be wrong and misinterpreting basic fact.

Impeachment is a political process up for consideration by politicians at their discretion. It is always up to their discretion, as is how they choose to uphold their oath of office. But until you can point to any clause that states that under certain circumstances impeachment MUST be carried out, under which terms then the ignoring of such would in fact be a violation of the oath, then you have absolutely no leg to stand on in attempting to demote a fact back into an opinion. Sorry bub.

[wtmusic]

127. Yours is no more fact than mine

"So you can preach to the masses till you're blue in the face that Russ is somehow breaking his oath of office by not impeaching but you'd still be wrong and misinterpreting basic fact."

"You can preach to the masses till you're blue in the face that Russ is not breaking his oath of office by not impeaching but you'd still be wrong and misinterpreting basic fact."

See the difference? I didn't think so. There isn't any. Just because you consider your opinions "basic facts" doesn't mean anyone else does.

What is a basic fact, anyway? :shrug:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

128. Actually, It Is. Clear Fact. That's Why No Matter How Many Replies You Give Stating Otherwise,

it will still remain a fact. No opinion, no matter how passionate, can rise to the level necessary to override fact even with obsessive repetition. Just because you say it isn't fact doesn't change the reality that it is. Just because you say that what you're saying is fact doesn't make it so either. Just because you say you can call yours fact just like I can call mine fact, doesn't make your comparison legitimate.

The fact I speak does not require your validation in order to remain as fact. You can dispute it all night with a brazillion replies stating otherwise if you'd like, but there still will be no dent in the fact's armor. A fact remains fact outside of all influences. No matter whether you or how many others attempt to dispute it with opinion, the fact remains in the realm of reality for all those with true perception and objectivity to retrieve for sake of awareness. If you choose to do so or not is up to you.

But if someone says 2+2 = 4 under standard mathematical guidelines is a fact, and someone else says that no, 2+2= 15 under standard mathematical guidelines is actually the fact, and that they have as much right to call theirs fact as the other did, wouldn't person 1 still be speaking fact and person 2 still be speaking ignorant opinion? See how that works? :hi:

[wtmusic]

130. Fine. You haven't provided one iota of "standard guidelines" to support

your opinion. That makes us dead even.

It's very amusing that without a shred of evidence you regard your opinion as fact and mine as perception. Nice little universe you got there. If my 2 + 2 = 15, yours is 23. See how that works?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

131. Futility. n/t

[wtmusic]

133. Agreed. nt

[wtmusic]

132. delete

[tavalon]

49. In this situation, yes, we do know more than Senator Feingold

He is a great Senator but on this, he is wrong.

[wtmusic]

18. Policemen also swear to uphold the law

yet in reality rarely do so.

That said, the scale of the crimes committed and the far-reaching consequences would be equivalent to a cop looking the other way after witnessing a murder. So I agree--this is disappointing.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

91. Protecting The Constitution DOES NOT Equal A Legal Obligation To Impeach.

That holds true no matter how much you don't want it to.... Sorry.

[Jcrowley]

110. Impeachment jump starts everything

All the nay-sayers here who think Impeachment is impossible:

1. Important to try anyway. We gain nothing by surrendering. We gain everything by trying, even if we don't get the results. They all have to go, they all have crimes committed to remove them from office. It's a package deal, so don't worry about it.

2. Lots of Republicans are coming around towards impeachment. This may not be reflected through their elected officials, but in the grassroots, netroots, etc. there is growing support. So don't assume it's entirely impossible.

3. There are lots of ways to think outside the box to remove and deter this crew of crooks. Cities, states, state legislatures passing impeachment provisions, grand jury investigations/indictments, etc. Too many of you fall into the trap we see left of center of "we can't do that, it's never been done".

4. It's either remove this bunch or our country will be turned into a dictatorship. I may be inclined to agree that we're already there, but in fact there's still plenty of democratic mechanisms to use that are still standing. So don't stand still, use them! Think outside the box. It will drive these moron crooks nuts. And the more dictatorial they act, the more popular support they lose, including among Republicans.

5. In the long term, this is winnable. In the short term who knows. But we must try, and that starts with Impeachment.

[Zhade]

115. Uh, yes, it does, when high crimes have been committed.

Is it that you don't believe this administration has done that?

[sellitman]

22. I wanted to vote for Feingold for President but....

On this he is wrong.

So wrong I can't begin to explain.

[elocs]

30. In my opinion, he is right. But opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. Me too. n/t

[WillyT]

113. Dude... Did You Really Write This ???

"I am a lifelong Democrat and a Liberal who cast my first presidential vote for George McGovern in 1972. Just because I may disagree with you or the majority of posters here at DU does not make me any less of a Democrat. Having said that, I will report anybody who accuses me of being a Freeper, RWer, or Republican. Count on it. Whenever anybody resorts to that sort of name calling they have already lost the argument."

And if you did, why did you?

Doesn't sound very Liberal to me.

:wtf:

[Senator]

39. Feingold's Being Both Arrogant and Non-Sensical

Perhaps it's just me that can't make sense of it, but I'd sure like to hear his reasoned explanation of how leaving a criminal as the nation's chief magistrate is "in the best interest of the country."

But he seems also to have arrogated to himself the role of the Members of the House in deciding whether or not charges should be brought. His role as a Senator is to sit in judgement of such charges, if and when they are transmitted, not to lobby against them being brought.

It is at this point -- during the Senate trial -- that he can apply his bizarre notion of condoning presidential criminality, in violation of his oath to protect and defend the Constitution from just this sort of usurpation of power.

--

[annabanana]

86. (Since when is "unanimity" required?). . .n/t

[Connonym]

96. I'm disappointed in Feingold on this matter

His answer to letters requesting impeachment are always a reiteration of what is in the above-linked article. Since Feingold made that statement in 11/06 things have changed. More wrongdoings have come to light, more soldiers have died, the president and his entire posse of bozos have thumbed their nose at congress and the American people. I think Feingold needs to reevaluate his position.

I'm just about out of faith in America. The things I thought made us amazing have become grotesque shadows without meaning. It's probably too late to turn things around anyway.

[Zhade]

112. You either support the Constitutional requirments of the rule of law, or you don't.

It's that simple.

[magellan]

7. Nothing would be more justified than impeachment

If the Senate fails to convict, so be it. But let's have the process already.

[snappyturtle]

100. Yes!!! And it will go down in history that some Americans

thought the the times called for impeachment and I think history will prove this to be correct.

[Jcrowley]

104. That point is important

If we can force a debate on impeachment then it will expose Bush's crimes even if he is not convicted.
If we can force a roll call vote and some Republicans vote with Bush then we will have them on record as being on the wrong side of history. It is better to fight for justice and lose then to accept injustice.

[snappyturtle]

108. Thank you. I too, think it's important to try......

To not try impeachment is to be compliant with the administration! Horrors!

[stevedeshazer]

8. DEMAND IMPEACHMENT NOW

Thanks, Jcrowley.

That is all.

[mudesi]

12. Kick. Call your representatives NOW. (nm)

[madville]

13. President Pelosi, just don't see that happening

Does anyone honestly believe the Repugs in the Senate are going to hand the white house to Nancy Pelosi ? Talk about political suicider on their part, the freepers would have their heads for something like that.

[nam78_two]

15. K&R.nt

[Mendocino]

16. Impeachment, then trial for war crimes.

The foremost under the Nuremberg Principles: commencing a war of aggression.

[EstimatedProphet]

20. I support impeachment, BUT...

I support it happening in the right way, so that it is transparent and watertight. What that means is that we cannot rush into it. We have to have an OPEN, PUBLIC case first. And although, people think we have one, we don't yet. What we have is admission by Bush that he has done things which we consider impeachable offenses. The problem is, there's a lot of people that don't believe the offenses are impeachable, or even offenses. the argument will then turn into whether wiretapping, lying us into a war, all the civil rights violations, etc. are actually unconstitutional. We know they are, but the Congress Replibliscum will argue that they aren't, and we aren't going to win until we can prove they are. That's what's holding our guys back IMO, not actually trying to avoid impeachment. I personally think the congressional investigations are an integral part of the process, and I have the feeling that we are going to see a point come up where an investigation "reveals" an impeachable offense. I agree with you that what we can do to move things along is just what you said in this thread - we can start getting in touch with our representatives and tell them that impeachment has to go forward. If we do that, often enough and in enough numbers, our representatives will listen.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Rush into it? How many more have to die first?

If we wait much longer we will be discussing why impeachment was not started while Dumbfuck was still in office.

[EstimatedProphet]

41. Do you want it to work?

If we rush into it, it will fail. It will be seen as a strictly political maneuver. The Repubs are just waiting to say that.

Rushed impeachment, failed impeachment. I want an impeachment, but I want it to work. There won't be a second chance.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. About that mandate.

The effrontery of the administration alone demands moving forward with impeachment. Bush just this week announced that the vote last november was in fact a mandate for his escalation of the war, that the people voted for change and he has delivered by doing exactly the same thing he was doing before the election, just with 30,000-50,000 more troops.

Speaker Pelosi took impeachment off the table. Perhaps she had a point. She and Reid have moved forward with their IWR and tomorrow it will be on Dumbfuck's desk. If he vetoes that bill, as he has threatened, if he slaps the citizens of the republic in the face with his transparent bullshit that we voted for more war, Pelosi and Reid really have no choice but to put impeachment right back on the table. They will have played their game as far as it can go. They will have taken the high road of reason, cooperation, and compromise, of acting within the normal processes to effect the required change, as far as it can go. Perhaps they were right to have done so, to have exercised all of the available options short of impeachment first. However the war has to be stopped. We are still a republic. We the people are still sovereign and our representatives must act in our name and do the right thing.

Impeachment must be put back on the table if Bush vetoes the Iraq funding bill.

[bananarepublican]

35. Don't forget about all that political capital Bush has! n/t

[lonestarnot]

23. Now see how easy that is folks. What in the hell is the problem?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

24. This piece, published about a year ago...

written by Bill C. Davis addresses the impeachment question as well as any I've read since:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0502-28.htm

[Jcrowley]

26. That's powerful

Thanks for that.

That will get passed around.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

27. Quite welcome -- thank you for the consistently high quality threads.

[ClayZ]

28. Impeach! K and R

[Kablooie]

34. Since Nancy Pelosi is next in line for president she can't start the impeachment...

because she would be accused of manipulating things to become the first female president.
It's got to be someone else who gets the ball rolling. Once it's well on it's way Pelosi will probably join in.

[Norrin Radd]

36. k+r

[orleans]

37. YEAH! n/t

[earth mom]

38. K & R!

:kick:

[lazyriver]

40. Impeach both of them. I used to think differently but

have seen the light. I used to believe in the argument that impeachment would be divisive and we could get more legislative work done if impeachment was a threat but not actually carried out. But it's become painfully clear that Bush is going to veto any significant bills sent his way and he has just enough Republican support to sustain those vetoes. So what does that mean? Nothing we want done will get done without impeachment. We control Congress but not by enough to beat Bush's veto. Therefore, the primary impediment to progressive legislation is Bush and removing him means the hard work of undoing his disastrous policies begins a year and half earlier than if we let him ride out his term.

If impeachment investigations begin and Bush/Cheney start bleeding into the water as we all know they will when they start losing their memories before Congress(think of how Gonzo looked under oath), the Republican sharks (any of them up for reelection in 2008) will start circling for the kill. They will want distance from the administration and we can provide them with an opportunity to do so.

Impeach Bush & Cheney and do it now.

[truckin]

42. This is the most important point that you make:

- If Bush is not impeached for his actions then this will set a precedent that allows future Presidents to start wars at will, torture prisoners, wiretap citizens without warrants and suspend habeas corpus. We must act now to prevent that from happening again in the future.

If we allow this administration to get away with this we will set a very dangerous precedent and this nation will likely slide down a slippery slope toward unchecked power for the executive branch and less freedom for the rest of us.

[ddbaj]

46. Precedent?

Nixon was impeached and Bush still used warrantless wiretaps. Impeachment has no bearing on future behavior.

[truckin]

62. I strongly disagree. If you let Bush get away with all that he has

done, you will encourage other corrupt politicians or religious fanatics to take things a step further. Even if he is not thrown out of office due to lack of votes in the Senate, impeachment proceedings should take place in the house and let's see what happens to the political careers of those who vote against impeachment.

[Zhade]

116. Sigh. Nixon was not impeached.

Boy, some of you anti-rule of law people need to learn your history.

Nixon resigned before there was a chance to impeach him.

[Jcrowley]

117. Nixon resigned

Impeachments of Federal Officials
Source: Congressional Directory

The procedure for the impeachment of federal officials is detailed in Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution. The Senate has sat as a court of impeachment in the following cases:

* William Blount, senator from Tennessee; charges dismissed for want of jurisdiction, Jan. 14, 1799.
* John Pickering, judge of the U.S. District Court for New Hampshire; removed from office March 12, 1804.
* Samuel Chase, associate justice of the Supreme Court; acquitted March 1, 1805.
* James H. Peck, judge of the U.S. District Court for Missouri; acquitted Jan. 31, 1831.
* West H. Humphreys, judge of the U.S. District Court for the middle, eastern, and western districts of Tennessee; removed from office June 26, 1862.
* Andrew Johnson, president of the United States; acquitted May 26, 1868.
* William W. Belknap, secretary of war; acquitted Aug. 1, 1876.
* Charles Swayne, judge of the U.S. District Court for the northern district of Florida; acquitted Feb. 27, 1905.
* Robert W. Archbald, associate judge, U.S. Commerce Court; removed Jan. 13, 1913.
* George W. English, judge of the U.S. District Court for eastern district of Illinois; resigned Nov. 4, 1926; proceedings dismissed.
* Harold Louderback, judge of the U.S. District Court for the northern district of California; acquitted May 24, 1933.
* Halsted L. Ritter, judge of the U.S. District Court for the southern district of Florida; removed from office April 17, 1936.
* Harry E. Claiborne, judge of the U.S. District Court for the district of Nevada; removed from office Oct. 9, 1986.
* Alcee L. Hastings, judge of the U.S. District Court for the southern district of Florida; removed from office Oct. 20, 1988.
* Walter L. Nixon, judge of the U.S. District Court for Mississippi; removed from office Nov. 3, 1989.
* William J. Clinton, president of the United States; acquitted Feb. 12, 1999.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0194049.html

Not included in this list are the office holders who have resigned rather than face impeachment, most notably, President Richard M. Nixon.

[ddbaj]

44. With respect, you make a giant leap of logic.

HOW exactly are we getting all democrats + 16 repubs in the senate to vote for removal? I dare anyone to list me 16 potential republicans who would switch. Keep in mind, most repubs are either in safe seats or not up for re-election, so the "investigations would force them to switch" argument cannot be used as a blanket, only where it actually applies. Seriously, list me 16.

I also point out, in reality it is probably closer to 20 as I suspect a few non-GOP would be against removal no matter what, Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson come to mind, maybe a few other red-state dems.

[skygazer]

48. Everybody talks about impeachment as if you have to win

Simply bringing someone up on articles of impeachment is an extremely powerful thing. The threat of it caused Richard Nixon to resign - he was not forced to leave office by being impeached. It's amazing how many people don't know that.

To expose these people's crimes in this most serious method is to undermine all remaining respect and credibility they have and the repercussions are likely to spread out to encompass a vast number of people who are not named in the articles. It would have far more force than any other kind of hearing, far more force than anything the media could put out, more force than protest.

You don't have to win. You don't have to force them out of office. But personally, I think it's our duties as citizens to insist that they be confronted and held accountable for their crimes, whether it results in their removal from office or not.

[EstimatedProphet]

70. Nixon resigned because he knew he couldn't win

The Repubs convinced him to resign, in order to not take the party down with him. He didn't resign because he was embarrassed of the impeachment charges.

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. Start wars at will?

Like it or not, Congress gave him authority to start both of the wars we are now involved in.

[Grandrose]

55. Correct me if I am wrong, but

Viet Nam was started for the supposedly right reasons and look where that got us?
Using old sayings: two wrongs do not make it right or the tried and true, should we learn from our mistakes?
Unlike the Clinton impeachment, we really, really have some big time crimes and misdemeanors! If anybody deserves the stigma...this cabal wins hand down.:eyes:

[erpowers]

47. Forget Cheney

The real problem with impeachment is that someone other than Cheney could become president. I think all of the supporters of impeachment should look at Gerald Ford. Ford was not the elected Vice President when he became president. Bush and Cheney could do the same thing Nixon and his Vice President did. Maybe Cheney has too much of a ego, but it is possible that he would resign from his post as Vice President in order to assure that another Republican would be in line to attain the Presidency instead of Nancy Pelosi. Bush and Cheney could easily put up McCain or some other Republican who is seen as moderate. In addition, it is possible that if the president has to come from congress the Bush team could convince someone from Condi Rice's state to resign and then convince the governor, if he/she is a Republican to select Rice to full the spot. If that does happen Rice could be selected as Vice President. When Bush is impeached Rice moves into the spot. I think that would be one of the last things the Democrats would want. At this point the Republicans are weak and depressed. The last thing they need is for a other Republican who is not as deep into scandal to be appointed President.


At this point I would not mind seeing Bush and Cheney impeached, but I think they might do all that is in their power to stop Nancy Pelosi from assending to the Presidency. That is the last thing they want. If Pelosi become President, leads the Democrats, and fixes the war situation that puts Pelosi in a good position to win reelection. The Republicans will then be screwed. I think they might be willing to resign and appoint people just to keep Pelosi from becoming President.

I may be wrong about someone other than Cheney becoming president, but I contend Democrats need to think about how to conduct this impeachment. I do not think it will be as cut and dry as some people may think. I think they need to think about how they would actually get Pelosi into the Oval Office.

[Kurovski]

52. K&R. Thank you, Jcrowley

for this well-organized post.

[saracat]

53. " To convict Bush we only need 16 Republican Senators in addition to all the Democrats.

It is quite possible that we will get them." Right. Dream on. In what universe do you think we will get them? And I guarantee they will NEVER vote to convict Bush of anything. Some do not care for Bush but they will NOT vote against partisan interests. I would like to see you name the 16 that you thin would vote to impeach.
It was the Republicans who impeached Nixon and we no longer have that kind of GOP . Sorry , not gonna happen.This is too little ,too late. They are going to be gone soon anyway.It is delusional to think the GOP would take action this late in Bushco's term.

[Kurovski]

60. I guess it would depend on what their voting constituents want.

If they want to be re-elected they may vote to impeach if the voters in their district see a case for it, and demand it.

[onenote]

63. I'm afraid you are right

Even if there are impeachment hearings, I doubt that the repubs will break ranks in sufficient numbers. Take a look at the vote on the Iraq funding bill. If all but two repubs feel compelled to oppose setting a withdrawal date, you can probably safely bet that they aren't abandoning chimpy in an impeachment fight any time soon.

The fact is that the reason the party leadership doesn't pursue impeachment is that they can count, not just in the Senate, but in the House. All it may take to defeat articles of impeachment would be the defection of 16 House Democrats, and there are more than that many blue dog and moderate/conservative Democrats from districts that lean as much red as blue. These folks don't want to have to vote on impeachment and the leadership knows how important it is to protect these seats.

Sure, there are places in the country where a majority support impeachment. But that support is not evenly distributed and there are places where impeachment is strongly opposed. Unless and until there is more bipartisan interest -- both among the public and elected officials, the Democratic Party leadership (wisely in my opinion) will maintain a low profile on impeachment, while pursuing investigations, hearings etc. unrelated to impeachment, but designed to reveal to the country more fully the extent to which this administration, with the support and acquiescence of Congressional Republicans, has abused its power, thereby setting the stage for voters to punish the repubs at the polls in 2008.

[Mr. Ected]

54. Who Cares What the People Want? The Media Doesn't Want Impeachment

All the dissembling about impeachment not being in the Democrats best interest comes from Republicans and their puppets in the MSM.

I used to think the media was fed by bloodlust. I've changed my thinking.

The media is a tool of corporate America. Selling papers doesn't pay the bills.

Buying our Government does.

[Dawgs]

75. Exactly.

If the Democrats tried to impeach Bush the media would destroy them - much different than what we saw during the Clinton impeachment. This is a fact that many in the "Impeach Now" seem to ignore. It seems that all they care about is taking down Bush; and hiding behind 'Rule of Law' and 'the Constitutional oath'. They never discuss how it what it might mean for the future (good or bad).

[femrap]

57. K & R

Impeach, Indict, Imprison

[Just-plain-Kathy]

59. If we don't impeach and convict...we're just as bad as them. We have to stand up for America.

[FogerRox]

64. If the day comes when there are 16 or 17 Republicans

in the senate, ready to vote for removal from office.

We would see the House move ..... quickly.

It would be done quickly.

The ability to get votes in Senate to remove is crucial, pivotal. I would think if a number of Republican Senators, along with Harry Reid, walked over to Pelosi's office and told her

There are enough votes in the Senate to remove....

Impeachment is off the table, until we set the table.

Thats what I call "setting the table". When we set the table we must have republicans sitting down with us....The odds of seeing things move in the House go up exponentially, when republicans sit at the table with us.

[autorank]

66. VERY HIGHLY Recommended!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for this. Excellent.

Impeachment is what the legislature does. If they refuse to act, it's a disgrace. We have an illegal war, Katrina, stolen elections, etc.

What does it take.

Well, we have a world eco-crisis of an existential kind. How about:

IGNORING A PROBLEM THAT CAN END THE HUMAN RACE, ACTUALLY, MAKING THAT PROBLEM WORSE!!!

Great post.

[2tr4nqued]

67. George Bush lied my country into war

and now he needs to pay.

I understand why Republicans are trying to help Bush get away with lying America into war, but why are so many Democrats trying to help him get away with what he did to America? And this question goes triple for Democrats running for president. No one should be considered for president who isn't trying to bring consequences to bear on the people who lied America into war.

[humbled_opinion]

83. I'll Say This Much

If the Democrats don't build a Consensus on this soon it will be moot. The timeline in fact is 02NOV08 that is when we have POTUS ELECT. So it gives us about 18 months it will take at least 6 months to build the consensus as Iraq continues to deteriorate. Of course Bushco will go kicking and screaming claiming executive privelidge in hearings etc. So an investigation may drag out for a year or more. If there is Hard evidence that implicates him in a crime then the Democrats have the duty and responsibility to bring it out in front of the American People now. Investigating to put the info together will take more than a year. Monica only came out during the Whitewater investigation which took years...to conduct... Once the Rethugs had Clinton on the lie about sex thats when the clocked ticked to impeachment... Its that hard evidence thing. Anyway my 2 cents it may already be too late.

[Disturbed]

87. GW Bush- High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

GW Bush- High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

1. "A Crime Against Peace." Initiating a war of aggression against a nation that posed no immediate threat to the U.S.--a war that has needlessly killed 2550 Americans and maimed and damaged over 20,000 more, while killing over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children, is the number one war crime according to the Nuremberg Charter, a document which was largely drawn up by American lawyers after World War II.

2. Lying and organizing a conspiracy to trick the American people and the U.S. Congress into approving an unnecessary and illegal war. This is defined as "A Conspiracy to Commit a Crime Against Peace" in the Nuremberg Charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory.

3. Approving and encouraging, in violation of U.S. and international law, the use of torture, kidnapping and rendering of prisoners of war captured in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the course of the so-called War on Terror. Note that the Hamdan decision actually declares Bush to have violated the Third Geneva Convention on Treatment of Prisoners of War, which means the justices are in effect calling the president a war criminal. Under U.S. and international law, if prisoners have died because of such a violation--and many have died in illegal US captivity because of torture authorized by this president--the penalty is death (a point made to the president in a warning memo written by his then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, the text of which is published in full in the appendix of our book).

4. Illegally stripping the right of citizenship and the protections of the Constitution from American citizens, denying them the fundamental right to have their cases heard in a court, to hear the charges against them, to be judged in a public court by a jury of their peers, and to have access to a lawyer.

5. Authorizing the spying on American citizens and their communications by the National Security Agency and other U.S. police and intelligence agencies, in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

6. Obstructing investigation into and covering up knowledge of the deliberate exposing of the identity of a U.S. CIA undercover operative, and possibly conspiring in that initial outing itself.

7. Obstructing the investigation into the 9-11 attacks and lying to investigators from the Congress and the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission--actions that come perilously close to treason. (Former Florida Senator Bob Graham, who headed the Senate Intelligence Committee until his retirement at the end of 2002, has called this the president's most impeachable crime.)

8. Violating the due process and other constitutional rights of thousands of citizens and legal residents by rounding them up and disappearing or deporting them without hearings.

9. Abuse of power, undermining of the Constitution and violating the presidential oath of office by deliberately refusing to administer over 750 acts duly passed into law by the Congress--actions with if left unchallenged would make the Congress a vestigial body, and the president a dictator.

10. Criminal negligence in failing to provide American troops with adequate armor before sending them into a war of choice, criminal negligence in going to war against a weak, third-world nation without any planning for post war occupation and reconstruction, criminal negligence in failing to respond to a known and growing crisis in the storm-blasted city of New Orleans, and criminal negligence in failing to act, and in fact in actively obstructing efforts by other countries and American state governments, to deal with the looming crisis of global warming.


The Democrats’ Impeachment Road Map

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVjM2M2N2U3ZjJlNTRiZmYzZjJkYzJiN2RlZGQyYjY=

[humbled_opinion]

99. I concur with your points however,

Most of what you wrote is subjective and emotional. Some requires the mind to reason and reach outside of what the known facts are (by that I mean what has been proven) not supposition. i.e., 1. The Congress approved the IWR which allowed him to undertake his war of agression. 2. Lying is subjective and cannot be proven no one admitted to lying and no one has been investigated for lying. Its the same with the rest of it yes he admitted to breaking the FISA law but no one is prosecuting him for it... Again I too would like to see someone take the lead like John Conyers tried to do and show America what is really going on but none of your points has been proven in a court of law nor have been investigated with the outcome published as such.

Therefore each of your reasons is but an investigative begining.. Thats why this is moot because the Democrats will not investigate any of the abuses of power and if they eventually do start it will be too late to really matter.

[rasputin1952]

88. The first thing the R's would say is, "this is just payback for ...

impeaching Clinton".

What the GOP did to Clinton was abhorrant, and there were never enough votes in the Senate to remove him from office. This is one of the reasons that the process was a sham. W/O the votes to remove bush/cheney we would be adding to the sham that Clinton went through.

It is imperative to have the votes, in place, to remove these two buffoons, otherwise impeachment is a study in futility. Sure, impeaching them would make us all feel better, but there must be a conviction in the Senate to make the system work as designed. Once, (if), they are forced out of office, the Constitution allows for criminal proceedings too move forward against tehm under the Laws of the US.

Impeachment is a political tool, used to set up removal from office for whatever the House decides is the "crime" or reason. There are plenty of things I think bush/cheney should be impeached and tried for, but w/o that Senate vote for conviction, the issue is moot.

[Jcrowley]

97. Impeachment is a process

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

Impeachment is the direct constitutional means for removing a President, Vice President or other civil officers of the United States who have acted or threatened acts that are serious offenses against the Constitution, its system of government, or the rule of law, or that are conventional crimes of such a serious nature that they would injure the Presidency if there was no removal.

The power of impeachment is a vital part of the Constitution. It was among the proposals first presented to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Its terms were debated repeatedly and remained prominently in the text from the first drafts of the Constitution to the final document. Impeachment is more fully and carefully detailed in substance and procedure than any other power delegated to the Congress by the Constitution.

The direct means provided in the Constitution for preventing and correcting abuse of executive power was impeachment. The debates on impeachment focused "...principally on its applicability to the President."

Members of Congress take an Oath of Office promising that they will defend the Constitution from "enemies both foreign and domestic". This is their primary duty. When the Constitution is safe then they have the luxury to attend to other matters.

Is it not “politically feasible” simply because they repeat this to the beat of the media’s drum?

The truth is that numerous national polls have found strong support for impeachment. Polls by Ipsos, Zogby, and American Research Group have found support between 43% and 53% overall. And for impeachment to have anything close to majority support despite opposition by both political parties and almost no positive coverage in the media is remarkable.

We are also being told that there will be political fallout as there was after the Clinton impeachment. This too is a lie.

After Clinton was impeached, the Republicans who supported impeachment lost ground it's true. But Clinton's impeachment was about a highly personal matter, and impeachment of Clinton (a popular President) did not have popular support.

Nixon is the better example. In fact the Clinton comparison does not even merit consideration it is so transparently erroneous. Nixon, on the other hand, committed serious crimes and abused his power as President. After impeachment proceedings against Nixon resulted in his resignation, Democrats won in a landslide. The charges against Bush (the least popular President in history) are more similar to those against Nixon but even more serious.

Democrats won in a landslide in the election after drafting Articles of Impeachment against Nixon.

Impeachment is a process as much as it is a trial. And who knows what will happen once that process begins? More criminal activity will come out and more evidence on known crimes. Members of Congress will be on a hot seat in many ways. So the argument that there are not enough votes in Congress is bogus.

Nancy Pelosi and her compatriots may say that impeachment is off the table now. But, soon enough, if the people lead congressional Democrats will again learn that impeachment is back on the table.

It is not a "political tool" it is the primary protective device against the Imperial Presidency.

[rasputin1952]

105. First, let me state I am not against impeaching bush/cheney...

however, the 67 votes in the Senate to convict and remove them MUST be a part of the equation.

What was learned from the Clinton impeachment, is that while charges can be brought by Articles of Impeachment, a 2/3 majority of Senators have to find them guilty as charged in order to remove them.

Congress can do a lot right now by investigating this administration and finding more ironclad proof. The charges have to stick and guarantee his conviction. I beleive he has done horrid things to the Constitution and out nation, but I am not a Senator...:(

[Jcrowley]

107. What I think

is that there is a high probability that Bush and Cheney would be forced to resign if proceedings got under way OR if they refused to resign the proceedings would indeed lead to impeachment and the votes would be there as many Repubs would not wish to "damage the party" as the long list of horrors were repeated to a national audience day after day.

The first scenario is the more likely I suggest.

However none of these arguments are of real concern. Noone knows. All of our speculation is just that. What is known is that it is the duty of our Reps to protect the Constitution. What is known is that the Bush administration has endangered and ignored the Constitution beyond all possible comparisons. This is ongoing. So yes it is not only imperative but the sworn duty of Reps to begin investigations. Where it leads is open for speculation.

I think it would open a Pandora's box the likes of which this country has not seen in a long time.

[rasputin1952]

118. I can see cheney leaving for "health reasons", and if that

happens, a'la Agnew, the fix is in for the R's to get rid of this clown. The big problem that the R's see now, is that if bush/cheney were convicted, Pelosi would become president. They have to get a moderate in as VP, someone like Ford who was a poor president, but his credentials were impeccable.

I'm willing to wait a bit and see what happens, Congress can neuter bush, if they have the spine.

[humbled_opinion]

101. There is a huge difference between lying about a BJ which go no one killed

and lying about WMD which got thousands killed.

[rasputin1952]

106. I concur...and the R's really blew it w/the impeachment of

Clinton.

I just want to make sure that the Articles of Impeachment are ironclad, and a conviction is assured.

Regardless of what the polls say, it is up to the Senate to convict, and that is the crux of the situation.

[rosesaylavee]

89. My hope is that with the many many

investigations going forward right now and after the many many revelations of corruption and misconduct on the part of *co are spread far and wide, there will only be a rising call for impeachment (and conviction) from the American People.

That is how it will get back on the table and that is how we will get more than 67 Senators to vote for it.

I think this is Pelosi's and Reid's plan at the moment. This may only benefit the DEMs in 2008 if they appear to be reluctant to bring this to the people. Of course, I have no proof of this - but if I were in their shoes, this is what I would do.

[Herman74]

90. Impeachment = CENSURE, and, indeed, is the most powerful...

...form of censure of Bush & Cheney that we have available. A censure resolution itself doesn't even begin to measure up. (Although a censure resolution is still better than nothing at all). Whether or not impeachment ultimately leads to conviction, impeachment is, as jcrowley notes, the proper precedent for future generations to follow, and tells the rest of the world that we heartily condemn Bush's wrongdoings.

[Wapsie B]

94. That's going to be a litmus test for whoever wants my vote next year.

I want someone who has the stones to stand up and say enough's enough and demand impeachment.

[In Truth We Trust]

95. IMPEACH NOW! Let there be justice and rule of law! Or fascism forever.

[snappyturtle]

98. K&R I only got to your first reason for

impeachment when I K&R'd it! That is usually not the case. NOW I'll go back and read all the "delicious" reasons! Thanks for posting this....I just 'know' it's going to be one I'll bookmark and probably print 'til I get these talking points in my mind like the alphabet!

[chknltl]

109. YES to IMPEACHMENT!

I am at a point where I feel if it is good for the bfee it is bad for America. I accept NOTHING the bfee claims is good for America on face value, as a matter of fact I suspect those claims as half-truths and outright lies! So if any of my fellow DUers argue in favor of the bfee or re-spouts the bfee's party lies, then I no longer trust them either. The anti-impeachers are making the bfee VERY happy here. Thanks a fucking lot my "fellow" DUers. Thanks for attempting to slow down the will of the people. Would you prefer we IMPEACH NOW crowd shut up and go away? ADMIT IT! You want us to shut up don't ya! Ask yourself this, "What would kkkkarl rove post here if he was a ghost in the DU?" "Would dick cheney want WE THE PEOPLE to forget about all this impeachment malarkey?" Well guess what: I choose NOT to support those bastards' wishes...you do what you want.

Thank you for a well thought out and important post here Jcrowley

btw: Here is a link to vote on to support Dennis Kucinich's bill to open impeachment proceedings against dick cheney: http://www.usalone.com/cheney_impeachment.php

When I voted there earlier, there were 23,067 votes registered with an astonishing 99.32% voting FOR the bill. Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it ANTI-IMPEACHERS!

[Zhade]

111. "Congress does not need a "mandate" to defend the Constitution. They already took an Oath of Office"

Indeed.

Anyone not willing to allow the impeachment process is, quite simply, allowing criminals to walk and our leaders to break their sacred oaths.

There is no getting around those facts.

[Jcrowley]

119. Kicking

[madokie]

121. I'll give this a kick too

either we impeach or we don't have the government that our constitution says we do, its simple as that to me. We can't have both

[porphyrian]

129. I'll kick this for the people who don't know better yet. - n/t

[Jcrowley]

134. For review

[Kurovski]

135. Kick. (nt)

[WiseButAngrySara]

136. Kick for the tombstoning of Jcrowley. What the reason? ....n/t

[bigtree]

138. heh

I'll kick for the tombstoning

[WiseButAngrySara]

139. Are you serious? Why? ....n/t

[mdmc]

140. kick

:hi:

[WiseButAngrySara]

137. Another kick. ....n/t

[mdmc]

141. kick

:hi: