Do Democrats have enough votes in the Senate to Impeach and Convict Bush and Cheney?

[Bobbieo]

Two thirds of the Senate necessary toImpeach and Convict comes to 66 and two thirds or 67 votes out of 100 votes in our favor. Do we have enough Republican votes to clinch the deal?

I think before we start any impeachment procedures, we should figure out if there are enough Republicans willing to allow Nancy Pelosi to become President of the United States.

Defeat is a very bitter pill to swallow which would have a lasting effect on the outcome of the ’08 elections.

[tritsofme]

1. The real question is if there are enough votes in the House.

Which I doubt, when as recently as last year 50-60 members defected over things like CAFTA and the Bankruptcy bill.

[Selatius]

2. You only need a simple majority in the House to introduce Articles of Impeachment.

You need 2/3rds of the US Senate to convict. The House is not the problem. The problem is the Senate, and the bigger problem above all is gathering the evidence through formal congressional probes, which haven't started yet.

[tritsofme]

4. What makes you think that a simple majority is there?

Lots of Democrats represent districts that went for Bush in 2004 and will likely go GOP again in 2008, especially many in the 110th's freshman class.

Impeaching Bush might not be high on their priority list if they are looking to get reelected.

[Selatius]

6. I'm going by strict party-line vote as the assumption.

It is a fact that you need a simple majority to introduce Articles of Impeachment. That is beyond contestation. What isn't is, as you say, the issue of having enough votes to introduce Articles. If we did strict party line vote, we would likely lose Democrats, but we won twice the number of seats needed to gain just a bare majority. If we shaved off half the Democrats who won, we'd come out 50 percent or 51 percent. Most of the House seats are in more blue leaning states anyway as per census.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. Yes, there is a process to be followed

and the Dems can use the time to court the few reasonable Republicans left in the Senate-I think people like Snowe have been scared enough by the 2006 election to decide bipartisanship is definately in order. When the investigations start, and the stink begins to rise, you'll see more and more Republicans realizing if they don't do something about Bush, their chances for the Presidency, and perhaps many seats in Congress, are in jeopardy.

[Sherman A1]

15. It's always about the process

and the rule of law. Impeached or not Impeached (and I would prefer the former). It's about the investigations, the oversight and bringing the Executive Branch back into line with the Constitution. It really is about re-establishing the Congress as a coequal branch of government. I am hoping for Impeachment and conviction by the Senate, but if not, Mr. Bush is still going to have a much tougher final two years.

[Bobbieo]

3. That is very true but think there may be!

[EST]

7. I doubt there are enough votes at this time.

However, after he gets another thousand troops killed, provokes a few attacks on the US, and creates another round of outrage due to his ignorant, immature miscalculations-KKKarl Rove's in mufti-there will probably be far more than enough.

The one bright light in all this muck is that he's such an uneducated stubborn asshat he will, almost singlehandedly, deliver the reins of power into the hands of the dems for at least the next quarter century.

[indepat]

8. As unlikely as the sun not rising in the east

[brazos121200]

9. I don't think impeaching the president without

getting a conviction in the Sebate would hurt Democratic chances for victory in '08. The Repubs impeached Pres. Clinton in 1998 without getting a conviction in the Senate and they did allright in 2000, didn't win but came close. During the impeachment Clinton's approval rating was in the 80's, now Pres. Bush's approval ratings are less than half that. I believe the investigations will turn up much to impeach the pres. and Cheyney over. Quite a few house Repubs would probably vote for impeachment if the evidence of malfeasance is overwhelming. An impeachment would be a blot on Bush's legacy whether or not he's convicted, most Americans think of impeachment AS a conviction.

[onenote]

10. The repubs lost seats in Congress after the impeachment effort

in 1998, the repubs lost a dozen seats in the House (despite the supposed six year 'itch' concept that suggests that the party of an incumbent president will lose ground in the sixth year of his presidency). In 2000, the repubs lost a couple more seats in the House and four seats in the Senate.

[brazos121200]

16. The Dems picked up four seats in the Senate in 2000 mainly

because six years proviously, in the Repub sweep of 1994, the Repubs picked up 9 seats. This was just a partial swing back to the Dems of some marginal seats the Repubs won in '94 wjen the six year terms were up in 2000. In '98, when the Repubs picked up the dozen seats in the house, the impeachment of Clinton hadn't even happened yet, Clinton was impeached on December 19th of that year, more than a month after the election.

[onenote]

23. the house authorized the impeachment inquiry before the 98 elections

in october 1998, to be exact...the impeachment effort was definitely on the radar screen in the November elections and it hurt the repubs without question.

[badgerpup]

11. "We gotta give him a fair trial before we hang him."

The investigations must put the evidence out where EVERYONE can see it. This means the FAUX audience, the people who don't know where Afghanistan is, but can tell you the last eight winners on American idol, NASCAR dads, Security moms, and even O'Lielly fans. (I hold out no hope for the dittoheads...I'm optimistic, not stupid.)

The evidence must be seen, open and transparent by EVERYONE, so that when Bush is found guilty, he won't be seen as a martyr but for what he is- guilty as charged.

This is how we do things...at least how we used to do things when we were America instead of Amerikkka.

Although I will admit that the thought of declaring him an enemy combatant because of high treason...
and then applying his very own statutes has a certain charm...

[AndyTiedye]

12. Not Yet. Investgate Until We Do

There never were articles of impeachment introduced against Nixon.
Nixon resigned as soon as it became clear that he would be impeached if he didn't.

Investigate.
Issue Subpoenas.
Eventually the stench will become unbearable.

[coalition_unwilling]

13. Maybe not right at the moment, but once the investigations begin . . .

In 1973, there probably were not a majority of Senators willing to convict Nixon. It was the investigations that turned Senate opinion decisively against Nixon.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Almost certainly not.

However as the adminstration is almost certainly guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and perhaps treason, it really is an obligation for the house to investigate exactly what has happened since PNAC issued its famous document, towers fell down, and a war of aggression was initiated against Iraq. Having conducted such an investigation, and after considering what has been learned, the obligation (assuming that credible evidence is uncovered regarding high crimes and misdemeanors) would be to conduct an impeachment and force the matter to a vote. This is not a game, and it is not about winning or losing, it is about the future of our constitutional republic, and whether we have the courage to keep it.

[TahitiNut]

17. I don't believe that any Senator should ethically take a stance on that.

They're supposed to act as a jury, without preconceptions or bias. The House of Representatives is obliged to present a case that shows the pResident committed treason, bribery, and/or hi crimes and misdemeanors. If the House regards the conduct sufficiently egregious to impeach, the Senate should only be determining whether the FACTS prove the commission of the offenses and NOT whether those FACTS warrant impeachment. If the Senate, as s jury, determines by a 2/3 vote that the facts support the allegations that the acts were committed, they have a sworn DUTY to return a finding of guilt and remove the pResident from office.

To summarize ...
(1) It's the House that decides whether the actions, if committed, warrant impeachment and removal from office.
(2) It's the Senate that decides whether the facts indicate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the acts were indeed committed.

That's how it SHOULD be. As with ANY jury, prejudice is unethical.

[Hippo_Tron]

18. Okay, but was a white jury in the deep south going to convict the guys who murdered Emmett Till?

We have to ask ourselves if we can even get a jury that's unbiased out of the US Senate.

[TahitiNut]

19. Atticus Finch didn't stop doing his job.

:shrug: If he did, he'd be complicit in the corruption.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. True, but sadly that's fiction

It is valid to consider whether this would be a fair trial or not. However, I'm not saying that should be the only grounds for deciding whether or not to impeach.

[Lone_Wolf]

21. The Hague is more fitting

Since their crimes span across the globe, I'd much rather they go to The Hague for Crimes Against Humanity. They might even have a better chance of being found guilty there.

[Jack Rabbit]

22. Right now, no.

That's why we need to hold those pesky investigations first. If I were a Republican and the Democrats said "We're going to impeach the President and we don't need a shread of evidence," I wouldn't support it. Having said that, I won't blame any Republican who doesn't.

Ah, but it all on the record and no Republican who wants to be considered for re-election will think about voting for acquital.

We know what the investigations are going to show: that Bush, Cheney and their aides all knew that intelligence about Iraq did not support the conclusions they said it did; that they are torturing detainees and using false statements extracted under torture as "evidence" to prove whatever they want; that Mr. Cheney has used this war to fatten his retirement fund at Halliburton while he knows the justifications for it were fabricated.

Now get on with it, congresscritters.