Predictions For Memorial Day Week---No Recess, Impeachment!

[Demeter]

I predict that Congress will stay in session through the summer to impeach Bush and Co for the USA and NSA crimes. The tippng point has been reached, the cover has been blown, and there are too many live witnesses to make them all disappear, and not enough time and money to buy them all off.

Nancy Pelosi is just going to have to do the right thing.

[William769]

1. I don't see that happening.

But this is one time I would love to be wrong!

[EV_Ares]

2. Hope U are right but I don't see it occurring either. I know I am

getting tired of the Dems threats and I am ready for them to actually take action against this regime. Kucinich is the only one that seems to follow up on his threats and he is not just words but action.

Whatever, still hope you are right.

Bush, Cheney & Gonzo all need to be impeached.

[Clark2008]

3. I want to predict that my baby will be born that week.

I'd rather she be born this weekend so I can be drugged up for a couple of days and get some rest (I'm to the point that I can't get comfortable to get any sleep and I know, after I get home, sleep will be fleeting once again).

Sorry - way OT, but I'm on maternity leave because of some minor complications and it's all I can think about. :)

[Demeter]

9. Best Wishes, Dearie

Been there, done that, got the stretch marks. The last weeks are the hardest. My last had the good sense to be born between heat waves (the best thing she's ever done for me).

[onenote]

4. I predict you your prediction won't come to pass

[Independent_Liberal]

5. I predict you'll be wrong.

I predict this will happen:

1. Cheney is indicted for fraud, conspiracy, espionage, extortion, bribery, and tax evasion and is forced to resign.

2. Congress forces Bush to appoint McCain as VP.

3. The Plame, AIPAC, Abramoff, and Cunningham grand juries return indictments against Rove, Gonzales, Feith, Perle, Mehlman, Norton, Griles, Hastert, Doolittle, Renzi, etc. resulting in a shitload of resignations.

4. Impeachment proceedings begin.

5. A small delegation of GOP Senators urge Bush to resign.

6. Bush resigns to avoid impeachment and get a pardon. He fakes an illness.

7. McCain is sworn in as President. He appoints Colin Powell as his VP. The two of them are caretakers until January 2009.

There you go. My prediction.

I know people around here are going to continue to be cynical and pessimistic no matter what. That's right. Keep fighting it defeatists. You don't want anything good to happen. I know you'd rather live in misery and do nothing. That's why I'm going to ram it down your throats when my prediction comes true. Ha! :)

[sellitman]

6. Ram away.

I'd love to see it but I won't hold my breath.

[Independent_Liberal]

13. Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.

I always like to inject a little bit of humor into these threads. It's really all I can do. I do my best to lift people's spirits up.

[Demeter]

7. I'm Hoping Pelosi Gets the Caretaker Slot

Hillary would like that--her boy Raum Emmanuel would become Speaker. The trick is to take bush and cheney out together.

No way Bush walks--unless it's right into the Hague ICC.

[onenote]

11. You say defeatist, I say realist

Its only two weeks away, so we won't have to wait long to find out who is right. :)

[Independent_Liberal]

12. Well, I predict something's going to happen no matter what.

Yes, I'm all for being realistic. Nothing wrong with that. I will say this though, we live in strange times.

:)

[dsa]

15. "and monkey's might fly out of my butt"

[Demeter]

8. When Monica Begins To Testify--It's Game Over!

Add in Ashcroft and wife, Comey, and whoever else they can convince to spill it, and not only the fat lady but the whole damn finale sings.

Just don't anyone forget to clean out the vipers in the Supreme Court and lower.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

14. Wouldn't it be just desserts if bush were to go down because of a Monica?

heh, heh...just sayin'...:)

[pat_k]

10. If they actually start listening to themselves, you'll be right.

They sound like fools when they describe intolerable violations of our Constitution, and then declare their intent to tolerate the intolerable by refusing to impeach. They will continue to sound like blathering idiots as long as they stick to the "impeachment can't/won't/shouldn't happen" line.

If they actually start listening to themselves, it should become clear that they need to either

• accuse Bush and Cheney in strong terms and get serious about impeaching them, or
• shut up about the intolerable violations (lie by ommission) so they don't get asked "What are you gonna do about it?"

The exchange between Matthews and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI, intelligence committee, judiciary) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18720653/">last night is good example (excerpts w/comment below). Sen. Whitehouse is no fool, but he sure sounded like one. In this exchange, the subject is Gonzales, but we've heard similar exchanges on the subject of Bush and Cheney -- i.e., descriptions of intolerable behavior followed by declarations that instead of impeaching they intend to "keep the pressure on" and "investigate."

WHITEHOUSE: Well, you know, I think, once again, it makes his continued tenure as attorney general hopeless from any objective perspective. . . . if you‘re interested in the fair administration of justice and if you‘re interested in the wellbeing of the Justice Department, this kind of thing is lethal.. . .

So Sen. Whitehouse, you believe that Gonzales' actions are "lethal" to the Department of Justice? That he is killing the institution we created

"To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans."
-- DOJ mission statement

Doesn't this call for emergency action? What are you doing to defuse this ticking bomb at the heart of our constitutional democracy?

MATTHEWS: . . . Karl Rove apparently had a number of e-mails back and forth with regard to the Justice Department decision to fire those U.S. attorneys. Do we know if those e-mails exist? And two, do you know if you‘re ever going to get them?

WHITEHOUSE: . . .Obviously, I hope that we recover as many as possible because I think it‘s a critical part of this puzzle. . . the problem is that if you go the subpoena route and then you pursue it into court to pursue the contempt of the subpoena, by the time the delays and the lawyers and everything have taken place, they‘re getting pretty close to the end of President Bush‘s term. So he may be able to just brass this one out. . .

So, while Gonzales kills the institution that ensures "fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans," you're going to "hope" for a response to this supeana (or others that your committee issues), but expect that the Bush administration may be able to "brass it out" until they leave office on January 20th, 2008 (i.e., 90 weeks of "lethal" behavior?)

MATTHEWS: Well, there‘s no way you get it back if the president says he wants to keep it in the hands of his friend, Alberto Gonzales, is there? There‘s no constitutional means to remove this man, I guess unless you impeach him.

WHITEHOUSE: That I think is the only legal means. But I think if we continue to put the pressure on, it may get to the point where even if the president‘s highest purpose is to get his administration out of Washington without further indictment, it‘s still not worth it to carry the weight of Attorney General Gonzales and his incompetent and very unprincipled administration of the Department of Justice.

So, instead of impeaching, you're going to "put the pressure on" and hope Bush will relent and dump Gonzales?

What kind of "pressure"? Something like the "pressure" of exposing CIA torture prisons overseas? Like the "pressure" of exposing their criminal survellence program? Like the "pressure" of being a national and international pariah? Like the "pressure" of passing McCain's anti-torture amendment, which Bush nullified with a signing statement, an act that Congress meekly accepted?

MATTHEWS: You mention the weight. Do you have enough weight to impeach and convict him and remove him from office?

WHITEHOUSE: You know, after the run that the Republicans took at President Clinton, I think there‘s a real bad odor in the public‘s mind about that. It is the one device that is at our disposal. It‘s been used in the past, for secretaries of war back in the Civil War. But I think right now, everybody‘s focus is on really trying to get to the bottom of this and find out for once and for all what happened.

So, because the impeachment of a popular president on a trivial and personal matter that was of no consequence to the fabric of our constitutional democracy left a "real bad odor in the public‘s mind" you aren't moving to impeach a man whose behavior is "lethal" to an institution that our constitutional democracy cannot survive without?

Instead of impeaching, "everybody‘s focus is on really trying to get to the bottom of this"?

You concede that the White House can thwart efforts to "get to the bottom of this" by "brassing it out," but if Congress does manage to "find out for once and for all what happened" what have you accomplished? What do you expect to come of all this "really trying"?

You've asserted your belief that the actions you know about are "lethal" to the department. If you aren't willing to respond to this emergency by taking up impeachment -- the most powerful weapon in the Congressional arsenal -- what do you plan to do when, and if, you "get to the bottom" of this?