Pelosi and Conyers-- Smarter than Impeachment

[babylonsister]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rob_kall_061225_pelosi_and_conyers__.htm

December 25, 2006 at 08:31:32

Pelosi and Conyers-- Smarter than Impeachment

by Rob Kall

A lot of people are angy with Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers because they say impeachment is not on the table. I say "thank goodness."

You see, I'm in a hurry. I want to see the big cleanup in Washington happen much faster-- including showing Cheney and Bush the door, and maybe, the prison yard. Pelosi and Conyers are doing things exactly right and they have a better chance of my goal-- removal of Bush and Cheney from office-- than if they were going the impeachment route.

Pelosi has already stated that it is her constitutional responsibility to investigate. I am certain that within days of the opening of the new congress, Conyers, Waxman and others will begin holding hearings. They will begin investigating some of the most obvious problems and questions and they will happily go where those investigations lead them.

They will be using prosecutors on their investigative teams. One of the most effective ways prosecutors work is to interrogate and "nail" smaller, lower level perpetrators who then "roll over" to inform on higher ups. This is what will be happening all over Washington.

The sweet thing about congressional hearings is that there are no lawyer-client confidentiality priveleges. Yep. The lawyers have to squeal like stuck pigs or face contempt of congress charges-- which they are not very likely to do.

The rolling over will quickly reach the upper echelons of power. The evidence and testimony will build.

more...

[williesgirl]

1. You echoed my thoughts - recommended

[theoldman]

2. I agree with them.

Impeachment sucks the energy out of congress. Better to kill them one small cut at a time.

[formercia]

55. and it makes for better entertainment

New TV show:

What's my crime.

[BigBearJohn]

3. You make some good points.

[Kahuna]

4. Once they get the ball rolling and the repukes see the writing on the wall,

they (pubs) should be anxious to take out bushco to save the party. And if the Dems are smart they will let the pubs do their usually loud talking and grandstanding so that the indictment against bush and the republican party is coming from their own peers. That way it will stick in the public record for years to come and make the pubs a permanent minority for generations.

[RestoreGore]

41. They start investigations and he attacks Iran

Then pulls out all of the other cards they handed him with the Kinglike power they handed to him. What do you think would then take precedence?

[stillcool]

5. I understand the reasoning..

but I do not trust congress to do the right thing. The way they tossed out 'no impeachment' right out of the gate, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Quietly conducting investigations translates to me as same old, same old. As in 9/11 Commission, Iran/Contra, Warren Commission, etc., The continuous ploy to shape perception by throwing out a bone here and there has sucked me in for the last time (I think). Talk is cheap, seeing is believing... and I'm tired of getting played.

[Time for change]

19. Yes, that's how I feel about it

Investigate, fine.

But why do they have to say before they even start their investigations that "impeachment is off the table"?

That could be either for political purposes or because, as you say, they really don't want to pursue impeachment, regardless of what turns up.

But we don't have to "investigate" to know that impeachable offenses have been committed by Bush. Conyers has already pretty much laid that out in his great report, "The Constitution in Crisis". Why not just say up front that they are pursuing those issues in an attempt to lay grounds for impeachment? I think that they just might find that there's a lot more support for it than they think -- especially after they start coming out with their reports.

[anitar1]

28. I am of the same mind, StillCool, My faith in Congress is

almost non-existent. Never again will I believe any talk. When I see it actually happen, I will believe. But I still believe a lot of deal making will go on behind the scenes.There are some in the Dems who are anxious to board the old gravy train.

[seashorelady]

31. Let's just give them a chance.

Very good points in this diary. Nancy is strong and smart, hoping that she will wield her power in an effective way.

[Joe Chi Minh]

58. For crying out loud, they've just now got the power to investigate!!!!!

How the hell could they have continually played you? Is Conyers DLC? A Bush collaborator? Anything but, is the impression I got.

[stillcool]

68. How have I continually been played?.

the 9/11 Commission, the Help America Vote Act..actually, I can not think of any 'investigation', 'commission', or 'fact-finding committee'......whose end product was a manipulation of the truth in order to provide a plausible conclusion, that in effect closed the door to any more investigation. Why would I have any confidence at all, that this congress will be different? Did I miss something? Did the big money opt out of pursuing their own interests? I like John Conyers...I like Ted Kennedy. They know far more than I about the machinations of this government...and yet...here we are. I'm happy for you that your impression is a hopeful one. Pardon me, for not taking the bait.

[ManWroteTheBible]

75. those were "bipartisan" in name only...

Now Conyers can have hearings where they belong... out in the open, not in a congressional basement...
Give 'em time.

[Joe Chi Minh]

77. The only thing that you missed was that they were Neocon-sponsored

investigations, and that the Democrats were powerless to keep them or the investigations honest.

On the normal human level, we could have cried out, "Hey! that's not right! what about... etc., etc." But unfortunately that is not how government works. Even if it did, it would have been futile against a group of desperadoes such as the neocons, who consider bipartisanship akin to date-rape, and placed their own officials in charge of the putative investigations.

Now, however, the Democrats are in the box seat, and to my mind, they have given every indication that you will see a return to law and order, accountability and penal sanctions at the highest levels of government and business. Hence my bafflement at these cries of disbelief that are going on here.

Don't you believe that this last election has changed ANYTHING? Are you even unaware of the preponderance of progressive Democrats who have been voted to power?

[stillcool]

80. Am I unaware?.

aren't you sweet. I disagree with your insistence that for the last 60 years the democrats have been powerless.

[Joe Chi Minh]

82. Never sweet to neocons. Don't you realise how transparent you are...

....conflating the Democratic right-wing with the Democratic progressives. I mean how clumsy is that?

[stillcool]

86. Sticks and stones...

I have only stated my opinion...no need for you to pigeon hole me into a neat little category to throw darts at. You have no idea who I am, what I believe, or what life events have affected my perceptions. Sell your nasty to someone else.

[Joe Chi Minh]

96. Sweet? Nasty? What next...? Bland?

People in glass houses... You think it's not nasty to pillory people like Conyers, Pelosi, Kerry, Dean, Kuchinich, before they've had a chance to do anything?

"You have no idea who I am, what I believe, or what life events have affected my perceptions."

I can see what you've written. But I'm fine with a truce. I don't like unpleasantness, even responding to someone else's.

[Mist]

6. Yes, absolutely--get those investigations going. There are a lot of crimes

that need investigating. Impeachment isn't feasible now--there needs to be overwhelming public support. (I know there wasn't overwhelming public support for Clinton's impeachment, but there was overwhelming Rethug support in the House.) The investigations will bring home like nothing else the criminal activity of the last six years, and will wake up those citizens who haven't been paying attention.

[gordianot]

7. Investigate, there is a lot more we need to know.

Removal may well be and become voluntary, in much the same way Nixon finally left.

[snappyturtle]

59. Thank you. n/t

[Pachamama]

8. Okay...I'll take investigations leading to indictment over Impeachment!

All I know is call it what you want, an intervention etc., but something, something has to be done to expose these crooks and let the whole world see what criminals they are and make those that still haven't gotten it that the Bush Administration is anything but "patriotic" and if anything, treasonous.

[PsN2Wind]

9. Probably right

that investigations in the public arena and airing all of this administration, and its enablers, dirty laundry will have a much quicker effect.

[w4rma]

10. Perfect. (nt)

[The River]

11. Another OpEdNews Piece From 2 Weeks Ago

that covered another interesting angle; revenge.
The author thinks that *bush, like Pinochet who recently died,
should live in constant anxiety of law suits and criminal trials.



"There will NOT be enough GOPers to vote in either House of Congress for impeachment or conviction.

It just WON'T happen. The Demo majority is VERY slim and the Demos should work for passage of EFFECTIVE laws and REPEAL of the Junta's proclamations in order that a REAL difference can be shown in people's lives and pocketbooks.

AFTER Bu$h is back in civilian life--again SHOULD he not declare martial law and totally, officially, suspend the Constitution--he will not have nearly the resources and PROTECTION of the Praetorian Guard, dba Secret Service, or the Dept. of Justice, aka, Attny-General Gonzales, to insulate him from civil and criminal charges.

Only when he is OUT of office can his sorry ass be hounded in to the ground, even past death, just as Pinochet, who recently died, was hounded for HIS war crimes against humanity. I want Bu$h's miserable consciousness in constant dread and apprehension of what might be waiting on the other side of any door, mental or physical, he might open. I want his numbered Crawford brush-clearing days to fill him with as much nervousness as a root-canal, day after day. After all, Bu$h is relatively young, just over 60, and with the excellent Federal tax-payer health care he will receive, we can expect him to live at least another 20 years with his sentience intact."

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_james_ni_061211_just_as_pinochet_2c_wh.htm

[rambler_american]

95. Bullsh*t

I want the sonsabitches in orange jump suits for the rest of their sorry lives. I'm not interested in their worrying whether or not that may happen.
JAIL to the chief! :mad:

[mzmolly]

12. "Impeachment did not bring down Nixon. Hearings and investigations did."

Bottom line-- I am quite comfortable that impeachment is off the table. Impeachment did not bring down Nixon. Hearings and investigations did. I am fine with all the people advocating for hearings. Their pressure will motivate the Conyers and Waxmans in congress to do their investigations, knowing they are on the same page as the griping impeachment advocates. I am confident that Pelosi, Conyers, Waxman and enough other members of congress want Bush out as much as we do. They just know that there's a better way and their executing that strategy.

So, if you've been castigating and berating Pelosi and Conyers, don't get hung up on the "I" word. It's the "O" word that's important and what we really want anyway. No, not orgasm. That will come afterward. THe "O" stands for OUT. We want them out and there is no doubt in my mind that Pelosi and Conyers have every plan to do what it takes to help the Republicans figure out that they have no choice but to force both Bush AND Cheney out. Come January 2008 there's a great chance we will be dealing with the "C" and "A" words-- cleanup and appointments. These will be exciting times.

I like the way Mr. Kall thinks. ;)

[Senator]

25. Well, that statement is just false

Articles of impeachment were voted out of committee, with GOP support.

After that, Nixon opted to resign rather than face full impeachment charges and trial.

Impeachment brought down Nixon.

Only Impeachment ... has such power.

--

[Bernardo de La Paz]

29. Statement correct. Nixon wouldn't have resigned without the hearings. Impeachment was next step.

Hearings first. Roll up the corrupt organization. Republicans think that the public can't get any more disgusted with them than they already are. They have another think coming.

[mzmolly]

46. Exactly!

:hi:

[mzmolly]

45. He resigned after investigations and hearings.

So, it's not false. Nixon stepped down, he did so because he was found out by the American people.

[Seabiscuit]

64. Those who believe this apparently weren't around in 1973-74.

After the Senate Watergate Hearings in the summer of 1973, Nixon fired the Special Prosecutor, Archibald Cox, in near Hallowe'en in October, 1973. Rather than obey Nixon's order to personally fire Cox, Attorney General Elliot Richardson resigned, followed by the resignation of Deputy Attorney General William Ruckershouse. Robert Bork, the Solicter General, then stepped into Richardson's shoes and fired Cox for Nixon. It was known as the "Saturday Night Massacre" in the press.

That set off massive marches on Washington and tons of mail to Congress demanding impeachment. The House Judiciary Committee responded by initiating Impeachment proceedings and indicted Nixon by early next summer on 3 Articles of Impeachment. Trial in the Senate was inevitable and looming, and Nixon learned that his support in the Senate had evaporated, and indeed he lost even his staunchest supporter, Senator James Baker, when the Supreme Court ruled against Nixon's claim of executive privilege in U.S. vs. Nixon, ordering him to turn over numerous tape recordings to Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski, one of which became known as the "smoking gun", as it disclosed Nixon telling Haldeman to order the CIA to interfere with and obstruct the FBI's investigation of the Watergate burglary.

Only when leading Senators such as Barry Goldwater met privately with Nixon and told him in no uncertain terms that he faced certain conviction by the Senate on the Articles of Impeachment and would then not only face removal from office and prosecution by Jaworski on criminal charges, but also lose his pension, did Nixon finally resign.

Impeachment brought Nixon down, not just the investigations that led to it.

And only Impeachment can forcibly remove a President or Vice President from office. Cheney and Bush have so much money and they've made so many of their business cronies so rich, they, unlike Nixon, don't have to worry about losing a pension.

[mzmolly]

70. "After the Senate Watergate Hearings..."

Key statement.

And only Impeachment can forcibly remove a President or Vice President from office.

True, and a President and VP can also remove themselves via resignation.

[Seabiscuit]

73. What makes you think Bush and Cheney will resign over a little public embarassment

brought on by mere investigations??? That would suggest that they have some modicum of decency left, or that they had a social conscience, or were capable of feeling deep shame. Neither has ever demostrated such human capacities.

The key statement in my post is not "after the Senate Watergate Hearings."

The key statement is that Nixon faced certain conviction in the Senate on the Articles of Impeachment.

[mzmolly]

83. I'm not certain that they will resign, however if they don't we'll have another

avenue to pursue, won't we. Once the Bushista's dirty laundry is aired along with the fact that Republicans haven't done their job on oversight, we'll have a lot more to look forward to than just Bush leaving office. We'll have political power for years to come.

[Seabiscuit]

89. That is the most important concern: where will we be in 2008 and beyond?

We can wish for everything, but until we have a bipartisan supermajority in the Senate, Impeachment won't get rid of them.

I'm all for investigations, but they alone won't cause Bush/Cheney to step down. And Articles of Impeachment followed by acquittal in the Senate will just sour the public on what the MSM will trumpet as "partisan Democrats".

We may be better off in the end simply presenting the public with the evidence produced by investigations against this administration and the Republicans in Congress, and letting Bush and Cheney stew in their own slime in the White House for another 2 years, under increasing public scrutiny.

We have to be very careful and very wise as we move forward.

[mzmolly]

92. The most important concern is the American people

who Democrats now represent. We can "kill two birds with one stone."

We may be better off in the end simply presenting the public with the evidence produced by investigations against this administration and the Republicans in Congress, and letting Bush and Cheney stew in their own slime in the White House for another 2 years, under increasing public scrutiny.

We have to be very careful and very wise as we move forward.

I agree.

[DaveT]

13. "Off the table" is metaphor and exceptionally vague at that.

I have been disappointed by all the hysteria concerning Pelosi's representation about the possiblitiy of impeachment in the incoming Congress. I take her to mean that the Democratic leadership will not start the new year by advocating a bill of impeachment -- which would be both horrible Constitutional politics and doomed to fail.

In the first place, there is no consensus yet as to what should be on the bill and what should not. Signing statements? Katrina? Electronic eavesdropping without court order? Misusing intelligence? LIHOP? Lying to the People? It requires actual legislative deliberation to formulate a Bill of Impeachment -- evidence has to be gathered and weighed; Constitutional doctrines and legal precedent need to assessed and formulated; possible defenses need to be considered, analyzed and resolved; all leading to a coherent and concise statement of what particular presidential conduct consists of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. During Watergate, the process itself took well over a year, and never made it to the floor of the House before Nixon resigned.

In the second place, if the Democratic leadership opened the new Congress by stating that we need to impeach and convict Bush without doing the work described above, they'd get laughed off the stage of politics. There would NOT even be 218 votes for such a weird proposition -- if I were a newly elected Democratic Member of Congress, I would not vote AYE on unspecified charges. This would set a horrible Constitutional precedent, escalating the idiotic war against deliberate government that the House GOP started by impeaching Clinton in 1998.

So, instead of dooming impeachment to utter and humiliating failure -- and making it look like a Kangeroo Court -- Pelosi cut loose with the empty metaphor of "taking it off the table." What table is she talking about? There is no "table" in the Constitution -- only in the shallow minds of the hacks who produce, direct and perform that 24 Hour News Cycle.

Once again, during Watergate, the "news" business was saying that impeachment had "run out of momentum" by the summer of 1974. Everybody who looked at impeachment as a primarily political process got it wrong; those who regarded it as a legal story accurately saw that there was only one place for the impeachment inquiry to end -- with the defenestration of Tricky Dick.

I understand and share the impatience of everybody who is watching with horror as the body count continues to mount; as the madmen still in power plot their desperate "surge" into Iraq and an even more desperate invasion of Iran. All I can say in response is that we live in a Representative Democracy, and "we" do not have control of even the Congress. No one does, now. Finally, thank God. The Bush/DeLay machine on Capitol Hill has been smashed to pieces with many of its key players already in stir or on the way there.

If "we" are to build public support for "our" way of thinking, we have to forego the temptation to use their party line voting discipline to get "our" way. Instead, we need for the new Congres to do its job. And do it the right way.

The facts will speak for themselves.

[Andrea]

42. Well put and exactly right.

I have been so frustrated of late getting my friends to see this process for what it is. I will direct them to your post. I keep telling them there is no reason to pursue impeachment and it would be premature. If Congress just performs the required oversight, impeachment becomes inevitable. Then, the more rational Rs will prevail and Bush will have his "Goldwater Moment" a la Nixon. It IS a legal process, not a political one, as you say. That is how the founding fathers intended.

Thank you for taking the time to write this well-reasoned post.

[havocmom]

97. DaveT, it would be great if you had a DU journal you could post that to

so we could keep it handy for 'splaining the issue to people. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[DaveT]

106. Done.

Thanks for the kind assessment of this post.

[badgerpup]

14. K & R...oh, man, this guy is good.

I like the way he's laid things out.
"So mote it be!"
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:


:kick:

[CountessMZaleska]

15. this is hogwash

Pelosi and Conyers are just trying to keep their base happy by launching useless investigations, and I can tell from reading this thread that it's working. Plus everyone knows Bush will pardon everyone in his administration anyway, including himself, in case these investigations do lead somewhere. And that someone might think that Cheney will resign, by any stretch of the imagination, is laughable at best.

If Pelosi and the Democrats were really serious about stopping Bush, they would cut funds to the war in Iraq. But they won't, they will even give him more money to start another war, in Iran. Criminals, both parties.

[DaveT]

16. Criminals in both parties?

OK, the same core of cretins finance both parties and they pay good money for a reason. I'll take it as rhetorically plausible that this means that they are all a bunch of crooks. The leaders of both parties damn sure do have a lot of blood on their hands.

My questions to you are simple. What country is not run by criminals? And how to we go about recreating its political hygiene here in the USA?

[CountessMZaleska]

18. you answered your own questions

in the first paragraph.

History teaches us how to get rid of dictatorships. Do some research.

[DaveT]

20. That's it? I'm lazy

if I don't know how to create an entirely new government for a country of 300 million people.

Lazy and ignorant of history as I am, I think I'll muddle along as a Democrat.

I was sincere in hoping to get some inkling of what an alternative political strategy would look like. I guess it goes along with the laziness.



edited to add on re-reading. No I did not answer my own questions.

[rman]

39. Look around you - people are working on

creating a new government and an alternative political strategy.

This is how it's done.

[babylonsister]

30. Useless investigations? Gimme a break. We've been kept in the

dark since this admin took office. We've been lied to repeatedly. I think investigations will be the downfall of this bunch of crooks in office.

[POAS]

32. I agree, it is a simple logical progression

1. A crime is committed.
2. The crime is discovered.
3. The crime is investigated.
4. The results of the investigation are presented to a prosecutor (read: House)
5. The Prosecutor (House) weighs the evidence and decides if charges are brought (Impeachment).
6. A trial is held and a jury (Senators) brings a verdict, guilty or not guilty.
7. Punishment (removal from office).

We are now at stage 2. To many the crime(s) are self evident but what exactly were those crimes and committed by whom and when were they committed. The investigation is to fill in those gaps so that a coherant body of evidence is presented to the prosecutors which is so compelling that they cannot ignore it.

WIthout the investigatory phase any prosecution would amount to little more than a kangaroo court unworthy of the depth of criminality involved here.

[RestoreGore]

40. And what if these "investigations" don't lead to impeachment?

What if they are given a deal, or intimidated? You mean to tell me that after all that has happened and all the lies that have been revealed, this is the best we can do? Well, if they are so much into investigations now, I surely hope 9.11 is part of them.

[POAS]

57. Show me a breakdown of

how to get an impeachment (a bringing of charges based on specific evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors") without an investigation. Allegations aren't sufficient. If they were I guarantee Clinton would have been impeached over Whitewater and not over a stained blue dress.

I completely agree that allegations about 9/11 need to be looked at as part of any investigation. There may not be sufficient evidence of a conspiracy but I'd bet my eyeteeth that they will at least find incompetence.

[RestoreGore]

81. Quote where Pelosi said this would lead to impeachment

What I'm stating is, it better not just be a way for them to buy time as in TAKING UP THESE NEXT TWO YEARS WITH IT to have an excuse for not being able to get any bills passed. They better have something more than this behind their words. I'm not accepting anything less.

[POAS]

91. Interesting trick

answering a question with a question. If you have a way to get to impeachment without facts derived from an investigation tell me how it is done. We know you don't have an answer which is why you challenged me to show evidence of Pelosi's intentions.

Don't bother replying if all you want to do is play gotcha. IF you have a way to go directly to impeachment without without an investigation then state it. Otherwise I won't bother continuing a fruitless exercise.

[mirandapriestly]

79. Yes, so many democrats were willing to accept the phony "war on terror"

and to accept the blatantly phony 9-11 Commission as well as NIST and FEMA cover-ups of 9-11 does leave me skeptical of their intentions on these investigations, but maybe their behavior has been political survival and that will change when they officially take over. I doubt it , though,

[RestoreGore]

38. If you have been kept in the dark...

How can you say you have been lied to?

[babylonsister]

43. Think Sen. Roberts and the reason why Reid closed the Senate down.

Think of the papers requested of the intelligence committee to explain the run-up to this war. Also consider that, to this day, all the papers requested have not been shared. I know we've been lied to, information has been withheld from the American people and the Senate, and I think the 110th needs to get to the bottom of it. What was so damaging in those papers that even members of the committee were denied access?
And that's only one instance. There really is way too little time to get to the bottom of this admin and everything they've done wrong, not to mention illegally.

[CountessMZaleska]

100. no, we haven't been kept

in the dark at all, Democrats have always known exactly what was going on. And they rubber-stamped it all.

They will NOT cut funds to Bush's war. In fact they will give him more money to invade Iran. These investigations are a farce, designed to keep the bases happily fooled. Bush won't be prosecuted and no one in his administration will go to jail.

[CountessMZaleska]

101. no

Democrats haven't been kept in the dark at all, they have always known exactly what was going on. And they rubber-stamped it all.

They will NOT cut funds to Bush's war. In fact they will give him more money to invade Iran. These investigations are a farce, designed to keep the bases happily fooled. Bush won't be prosecuted and no one in his administration will go to jail.

[Laurab]

47. I doubt the investigations will be "useless"

This administration has done SO many illegal things that the problem would be deciding where to start. Once investigations are started, they'll be tripping over all the illegal/unethical things. I think Cheney WILL resign, possibly even before investigations, and not neccessarily by choice.

Time will tell, but I believe you're very wrong.

[CountessMZaleska]

102. no I haven't been wrong

about Democrats' behavior so far. Democrats haven't been kept in the dark at all and they have always known exactly what was going on. They rubber-stamped it all.

They will NOT cut funds to Bush's war. In fact they will give him more money to invade Iran. These investigations are a farce, designed to keep the bases happily fooled. Bush won't be prosecuted and no one in his administration will go to jail.

[D23MIURG23]

52. Yeah, the "self pardon" works great... just ask Nixon.

[CountessMZaleska]

103. Bush is not above

pardoning himself.

[Joe Chi Minh]

60. It's you who are living in a fantasy world, and Disneyland would pale

in comparison. Get real. "Useless investigations"!!! I have heard some crazy stuff on here, but nothing to compare with your post.

[CountessMZaleska]

104. useless indeed

the only thing that would stop Bush is cutting funds for his illegal wars but Bush's poodles Reid and Pelosi won't do that.

Investigations won't stop Bush, he will pardon everyone. His entire administration is LAUGHING OUT LOUD at the innocence of people like you.

[Joe Chi Minh]

107. We'll see. What makes you think that "carte blanche" pardon rights

are set in stone, though? That they'd never be revised? Or limited in terms of the degree of criminality involved?

As regards quitting Iraq immediately, the very sad reality is that there is only so much "face" an imperial superpower will be prepared to lose until they are forced to. You must have missed the thread the other day in which it was stated that the reality of the cessation of the war in Vietnam is that it wasn't due even to public opinion, never mind to a couple of politicians, however eminent, but was due to the fact that the soldiers simply refused to continue fighting.

There was a reference to "fragging" by US troops in Iraq in Woodward's book, "State of Denial" - and that was quite early in the war there!

[HooptieWagon]

17. OK, I can go along with no Impeachment

for * and DUCK!, they'll only be in public office for a couple more years anyway. But, let the investigations go on, and lets make sure the small fry can't hold Govt positions again... so we don't have a problem again like the Reagan-era Iran-Contra criminals coming back to haunt us in the * administration. Need to make sure Rice, Hadley, etc don't come back to fuck our country at a future time.

[philly_bob]

21. Start with investigating Cheney's 2001 private oil industry meetings

I think that's most likely to lead to brain-curdling scandals that will get >50% of Americans to favor impeachment.

Second choice may be Intelligence Committee investigation on manipulation of pre-Iraq war intelligence.

[Vincardog]

22. Open complete hearings of all the illegal immoral il advised activities of the corrupt cabal will

lead the public to demand the impeachment and removal of the Crime family.

The process will expose the NeoConvincts as the corrupt fraud they are.

The whole flat earth concept and free trade myth of unrestricted uncontrolled Capitolism should be buried with the BCF.

[emlev]

23. A site where answers to some of Rob Kall's questions are brewing:

Who are some of the leaders on the left who will fill the hundreds of spots that will open when the Pelosi purge begins-- when Nancy starts accepting resignations from hundreds of political appointees of cabinet, department head and other key jobs?

What role will the internet and the Blogosphere play in these decisions?

Backbone Cabinet: A Progressive Cabinet Roster

Check this site out. It's very cool. Nominate and vote for the people you want to see in the Cabinet!

[chknltl]

99. GREAT LINK thanks...

I had to chuckle over one of the names on the Drug Czar list: Bill Mahar and Lou Dobbs was on another list.....Secretery of Commerce I think.
c

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

24. Yeah but

it's hard to hold investigations when nukes are being tossed into Iran.

[Senator]

26. Just More Rationalizing

With a total leadership vacuum, it's no wonder there's so much Rationalizing for Inaction.

But there's no cargo plane coming. There's no super-secret strategery afoot.

And there's no way the regime is going to do anything but chuckle at all the imagined pressures that are supposedly coming down this proposed garden path.

Unless the DC Dems return to the reality-based community and see these war criminals for what they are -- and see that they are about to become culpably complicit with their crimes -- nothing will happen.

The oldest GOP joke in DC will continue to draw laughter: "Gosh, for a minute there I thought they might actually DO something."

Only Impeachment ... can slap the grins off their faces.

--

[chaz4jazz]

33. Impeachment is nothing more than a "trial" by Congress

ANd we all know and so should you that before prosecutors take a case to trial they must be sure they have enough evidence of a crime to be able to prove their case in front of a judge and jury. I would like you to explain to me just how you see an impeachment hearing of Bush and Cheney unfolding in your mind's eye. We all are damn sure they have committed criminal acts against the United States Constitution and other acts worthy of impeachment and dismissal but how do we "prove" these acts without gathering evidence? Will the Justice Department resources fall in line to assist a hostile congress in gathering the necessary evidence to prove these acts? Will they be able to question the necessary witnesses and defendants to collect the proof needed for conviction?

I don't think so. I believe, and I've stated this in earlier threads (where I was lambasted) that any self-serving call for impeachment by Speaker Pelosi would be seem as just that, a naked grab for power (she becomes the POTUS when Bush and Cheney are dismissed or resign).

Hearings, as stated above, will bring in the perpetrators, one by one, and will climb the ladder of culpability until impeachment will be seen by all (including Pelosi "Oh, now I can't keep it off the table") as the next step if the BushCo leaders don't quit upon exposure of the evidence.

Screaming "Impeach" gets you less in the long run and allows the cabal members to slink off to collect themselves for another push. Expose them all. Toss them all into the garbage heap of history once and for all.

Chaz

[RestoreGore]

37. Tell that to the Founding Fathers

Who didn't have lobbyists and corporate sponsors to answer to.

[Andrea]

44. You are right - I wish others would see

It would be incredibly stupid for Pelosi or Conyers or any others to state their goal as impeachment. It would marginalize us and it's not necessary. Their intent is simply to do what is required of them by the constitution and that is all that is needed to remove Bushco from office. When the time is right, it will be clear, as you say: "Oh, now I CAN'T keep it off the table."

The investigations need to be completed. We need to do everything legally. We want the "Rule of Law, Not of Man". We can't lower ourselves to their level. We will uphold the standards of the constitution.

Just because they are saying "impeachment is off the table" does not in any way mean that they don't want it or it won't occur. It is politically necessary for them to say this and it will have no effect on the ultimate outcome, as long as the hearings are held.

[RestoreGore]

53. Being An American is Stupid?

Are you calling people who want the Constitution adhered to stupid? I will say this: Should these "investigations" NOT lead to impeachment, then I will make sure to do all in my power as an American to see all those in Congress on both sides who betrayed the people and our Constitution voted out of office.

[Andrea]

105. Of course that's not what I'm saying.

Read my post before you respond to it. I said it would be stupid for them to state that as their intention. Their intention is to do what is right and adhere to the requirements of the constitution.

I've had this experience with you before. You put words in my mouth in order to foment a disagreement. It won't work again.

[Senator]

65. No, not a trial -- merely an accusation

The "trial" part comes after, in the Senate. And it is not a legal trial, rather a political process. If you are "damn sure" about their acts, so should the Senators be. That is all that is necessary. There is nothing "legal" about it -- no evidence rules, no witnesses required, the Senate need not even allow a public "defense." They make the rules.

And as I said, nothing need be "proven," because they admit to violating Geneva article 3. They simply call it "quaint" and claim they're just "redifining" it. Aside from this being a desacration of that "greatest generation" who fought and died for the "never again" protections that Geneva provides, it's also just rhetorical BS. The situation on spying is similar.

No one needs to "fall in line" or question any witnesses. There is no ladder to climb. Nothing to be exposed.

All that is required is for our "leaders" to stand up and say: "We cannot join you in being responsible for war crimes" -- as Warner, McCain, and Graham did when they tried to make them complicit with the "War Criminals Protection Act" -- the tribunal-tinkering law. And sadly, they do become culpably complicit on Jan. 3rd if they fail to act.

And it is also not a "power grab." Once the will to defend the Constitution and the American People with impeachment is voiced, the regime can choose to keep the GOP in charge by appointing a Congress-approved vice president to take over when the bushkid resigns. Just like Nixon. There would be no objection.

And FWIW, "Screaming Impeach" is really the only way to get any action at all.

--

[mzmolly]

49. Doesn't sound like the "regime" is "chuckling" to me?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2979398

[Senator]

63. Because you're hearing spin, not substance

The story you linked says that more Republican lawyers are going to use more taxpayer money to become the future Ken Starrs, Ted Olsons, and John Yoos.

They probably held a raffle at the Federalist Society Holiday Party to determine who gets this career windfall.

--

[mzmolly]

69. Indeed I am hearing spin,

but it's not coming from where you claim it is.

[D23MIURG23]

51. Investigation is not inaction.

Every criminal trial starts with investigation, and Impeachment is exactly that... a criminal trial by congress. Starting the trial before the evidence is in would be putting the cart before the horse.

[RestoreGore]

54. You don't count this war in Iraq as EVIDENCE?

Just what "evidence" are you talking about? There is already a multitude of evidence to prove malfeasance, fraud, war crimes, torture, warrantless wiretapping, abrogation of Constitutional freedoms, misusing the office, obstruction of justice, and a host of other crimes. So many also claimed he stole Ohio in 2004. So where is the proof then? It's obvious it is here, so how long could it take to bring it out? Or are some Democrats in Congress simply too afraid to start anything that will actually lead to impeachment as it will shine the light on them as well for allowing him to have this war in Iraq in the first place? I suppose impeaching someone for those abuses that you actually gave him the power to use in those abuses does make you somehwat of an accomplice.

[mzmolly]

61. It's not a matter of what WE think.

It's a matter of proving the case to the majority of Americans.

Or are some Democrats in Congress simply too afraid to start anything that will actually lead to impeachment as it will shine the light on them as well for allowing him to have this war in Iraq in the first place?

What is the crime then? I thought part of the case for impeachment was that "Bush lied." Either Democrats were lied to or not. And, given that it's obvious they were mislead, it's not correct to say they "allowed" jack. Almost 140 Democrats voted against the war - in spite of being lied to.


:hi:

[RestoreGore]

84. Democrats were misled?

Then maybe they aren't fit to lead, because my Senators voted against the war in Iraq. This "they were misled" copout is just that to me, a copout. There is such a thing as principles and also knowing international law, the UN Charter, the Constitution, and the history of the Bush family. Misled my eye. And it sure as hell does matter what WE think. This is OUR government, and I'm sick and tired of ceding it to POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY over the CONSTITUTION.

[mzmolly]

87. Yes, they were mislead.

Your Senators voted against the war, and so did my Senators. One of my Senators was Paul Wellstone, who's name may ring a bell?

I was also opposed to the war from the beginning, but I can sympathize with Democrats who believed what they were told when Colin Powell went before the UN to declare the dangers of Saddam Hussein.

And, speaking of international law, Bush claimed that he had authority for war with Iraq under previous UN declarations. He stated that going to the house for authority was just a formality to him. He was going to war, regardless. However, as I said nearly 140 Democrats voted against the war, for various "stated" reasons.

Also, my "we" statement is obviously about the "lefties" here at DU. "We the people" is another matter, one that will be addressed via investigations.

Lastly WE can have political expediency and honor our constitution.

[RestoreGore]

94. So weren't Republicans who voted for the war misled as well then?

Like I believe that? And I don't give a fart in space what Bush said. Bush isn't the EMPEROR OF THE WORLD. Senators SHOULD KNOW. Sorry, I accept no excuses, and I will accept no other outcome from their "investigations" other than impeachment of these criminals. That WILL be honoring the Constitution.

[mzmolly]

98. Sure, but there were far more and they refused to have any oversight.

I think there were two Republicans total and 139 Democrats who said "no" on the authorization since you mentioned it.

[Senator]

62. That's exactly what it is

(Welcome to DU)

And no, impeachment is not a criminal trial. It is a political accusation -- followed by a Senate political trial. Nothing criminal or even legal about it.

But even if it were, the acts of violating Geneva and illegal spying are already "stipulated to" by the accused. They merely claim these acts to be lawful and non-impeachable (under Urinary Authoritarian Executive Theory**). Even though the USSC in Hamdan has already ruled on the war crimes and the FISA court already ruled on spying without a warrant.

The cart and the horse are already hooked up properly -- waiting to be driven to put out the fire.

Investigating "other matters" at this point is like stopping to paint the barn.

And since doing so allows the torture to continue, it is in itself a war crime.

--
**Based on the newly-discovered, "inherent" (i.e., faith-based) Constitutional Authority for an appointed ruler (as opposed to elected leader) to piss down the back of the American People and tell them it's raining.

==

[mzmolly]

85. Formally investigating/humiliating this administration will not only demonstrate

widely that the Bush cabal has committed many crimes, but it will also bring to light the lack of oversight on the part of the entire Republican Party. This scandal goes beyond Bush and Cheney and Republicans should pay for decades to come, if not become obsolete as a political party.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[autorank]

27. I think Rob is onto something. At the same time, there needs to

be a vehicle to get rid of the crooks. Hard hitting, well planned and coordinated investigations are
a precursor to impeachment. It sounds like Rob thinks they're playing poker. I believe that Waxman and Conyers would be very good poker players. Lets hope they all cooperate and work together. That would be reat. Cheney and Bush have to go and go soon.

[4dsc]

34. Sweet article...

Great analogy of things to come!! I hope all the freeper lurkers are livid today!!

[RestoreGore]

35. Impeachment Is Their Constitutional Duty

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1215-02.htm

And the only reason anyone would write otherwise is because they are concerned once again about losing votes over doing what is morally right for the security of this country. Political expediency has already been the death knell for this Democracy. These criminals must be REMOVED FROM OFFICE before the next two years are out. Unless of course, the criminals on the other side of the aisle who have placated him all these last six years also intend to use an attack on Iran as fodder to get votes like they did Iraq.

How much MORE innocent blood will they allow to be spilled in the next two LONG years before they see how they enable these crooks with their "investigations?" Will these "investigations" strip Bush of the executive powers he had handed to him on a silver platter? Will they repeal the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act? Will they keep him for initiaring a nuclear war? THIS ISN'T ABOUT PELOSI AND CONYERS. This is about saving our country from a mad man.

Did investigations put the CIA leaker into prison? What of them? No, it is the PEOPLE who will call for impeachment of those whose crimes and misdemeanors have sucked the very soul out of this nation, and those elected (whatever that means anymore in this voting machine age) to REPRESENT those people will then do what in return? IGNORE THEM? It is not the option of those who WORK FOR US to tell US what they are going to do. It is their duty to do WHAT WE WANT. I think those who now tell us what they are going to do to save their own political skins over doing what is Constitutionally and morally imperative need to understand that they too can be voted out by those same people.

[formercia]

36. They throws a tar baby to catch ole 'brer Rabbit.

Zip-a-dee-doo-dah

Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay
My, oh my what a wonderful day!
Plenty of sunshine heading my way
Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay

Mister Bluebird on my shoulder
It's the truth, it's actch'll
Ev'rything is satisfactch'll
Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay
Wonderful feeling, wonderful day!

http://home.nycap.rr.com/cyclone/disney/sots/lyrics.htm

[D23MIURG23]

48. Exactly the approach I would like to see.

I hope it pans out well.

[LynneSin]

50. I've been saying the same exact thing for a few months now!!

You can't have an impeachment until you have an investigation. And if you start screaming impeachment, the media will hound us to death and do everything in their power to turn the voters against an idea of impeachment.

You do a thorough investigation not only will the voters be screaming impeachment but so will moderate republicans

[jaksavage]

56. Impeachment Poker

Wouldn't the MSM love to spend the next two years wallowing in punditry speculating about the outcome of a public declaration of Impeachment. It would be their favorite topic updates on the hour. Gag.

Speaker Pelosi is playing her cards in an admirable manner so far, keeping the speculators off balance. Play on Nancy, your hand is full of aces.

[Senator]

66. Pelosi folded before the flop -- from the big blind

And welcome to DU.

--

[Twist_U_Up]

67. Naaa ,Im sure they want to live

anthrax ring a bell ?

[ooglymoogly]

71. these are three very smart people

and i respect their opinions but unless they know something i do not (hugely probable) there is a bottomless patch of quicksand, an achilles heal, a sword of damocles hanging over our heads and it is fema and their incredible powers newly strengthened under * to declare marshal law. after * and the rubber stamp fine tuning, on the flimsiest pretense, with a stroke of a pen from dictator in chief. does anyone here believe this gangster is not capable of this? the only thing that stands in his way is articles of impeachment which immediately limits his power.

snip... The Marshall Law Government...snip

full page http://www.wealth4freedom.com/FEMA.html


snip...Here are just a few Executive Orders associated with FEMA that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:


EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food rources and farms.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation. General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA's Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he saw FEMA's role as a "new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis."
FEMA's powers were consolidated by President Carter to incorporate:


the National Security Act of 1947, which allows for the strategic relocation of industries, services, government and other essential economic activities, and to rationalize the requirements for manpower, resources and production facilities;

the 1950 Defense Production Act, which gives the President sweeping powers over all aspects of the economy;

the Act of August 29, 1916, which authorizes the Secretary of the Army, in time of war, to take possession of any transportation system for transporting troops, material, or any other purpose related to the emergency; and

the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which enables the President to seize the property of a foreign country or national.
These powers were transferred to FEMA in a sweeping consolidation in 1979...snip

hitler would be proud

[madrchsod]

72. i can see the whole house of cards collapsing if fitzgerald

can scare the shit out of people with the libby trial. i watched fitzgerald start with the "little people" and work his way up to the governor of the state of illinios. there is going to be a lot of people ready to roll over if things start collapsing around them. get your drinks and snacks ready because it`s going to be quite a show

[Seabiscuit]

74. At the pace Fitz is moving, he won't get to Bush/Cheney until after they're

dead and gone.

[madrchsod]

76. trial starts in late january or early feb.

he`s been busy here in northern Illinois busting the crap out of the bad guys

[Tekla West]

78. I keep hoping there is a YET at the end of that statement.

after all, its not just about removing them from office, its about keeping them out forever.

Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party, (defendant), convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

[ThirdChoice]

88. Impeachment?

I am just afraid that after 8 years of the Whitewater Investigations, and 80 million dollars later...Clinton was impeached. It would appear to many to be "getting them back". It would waste time, attention, resources etc. that would be better off put to saving the environment, finding good, Progressive future leaders and promoting them, raising the minimum wage, undoing the lobbyist/bribery corruption that has permeated Washington, etc.

Bush and Cheney are gone in two years. They've already done about the most damage they could do.

We need to start cleaning up the mess they will leave behind.

[babylonsister]

90. "They've already done about the most damage they could do." I wish

I shared your optimism, but I don't. I think many more body bags will be needed before it's over.
And welcome to DU, ThirdChoice.

[POAS]

93. If they are in the process of

ducking and covering maybe they will be too preoccupied to do too much more damage.

I just wish I believed my own words. You know what they say about a cornered animal.

[katty]

108. bring it on!